|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time.
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Both. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
No, I can use the fingers, just can't have the weight of the arm hanging free off the torn ligaments and bits. Therefore the sling. And lots of teasing at w*rk.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
LC I am melting with shame and admiration and trying hard not to laugh, Honest! Thanks for the long post, which was a great help. There oughter be box-of-chocolates smiley. Back tomorrow,
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
As I said, I've been getting mocked at work. Somehow the image of me hurting myself bellydancing is ... um... never mind. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) Or maybe it's just the image of me bellydancing at all!
Thanks for the virtual chocs, my favorite. I will now endeavor not to dislocate my jaw.
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
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?
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Messed up the code, sorry. I think John was tying himself in knots. But the message gets through, no?
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
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?
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.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
The next few verses are of a piece with the ones just gone. NRSV seems to find a natural break at the end of v.29 so here comes John 5:25-29
I am going away tomorrow for a few days so I hope that the biblical wizards will give this all they've got, and that I'll be considerably enlightened when I get back.
quote:
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.
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: quote:
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.
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: quote:
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.
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!
Boy am I looking forward to this holiday. Have fun!
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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!) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
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:
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 ...
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!
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
But the next one, not: quote:
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.
Because he is the Son of Man - not because he is the Son of God. Don't geddit.
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)
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
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.
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!
Boy am I looking forward to this holiday. Have fun!
AND a triple post, forgive me for being greedy. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) I am avoiding housework.
I don't think the Lord means to make a difference between the currently living and the currently dead as far as terms of life/salvation/etc. go. I mean, I think we all get judged/determined the same way, though in one verse he refers to it as "believing" and in another as "doing good." The two things come as a package or they don't come at all, as loads of places elsewhere make clear. Like that passage about a good tree producing good fruit. As somebody somewhere said, "Faith alone saves, but faith is never alone"--there are always good works growing out of it, you really can't help yourself, anymore than a pregnant woman can help getting bigger. It goes with the territory.
Of course this is going to spark a huge discussion about whether good works are possible to someone who does NOT believe in the Son of Man, and all sorts of people are going to get massively offended, and we'll probably wind up with a Hell thread on the subject, possibly with my name on it. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif) 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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
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:
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 ...
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!
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.
I have always understood the passage to mean that those who have been spiritually dead shall hear the Word and thereby become living. The idea that it simply refers to those who are physically dead seems too limiting.
[ 19. June 2011, 04:04: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
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.
The obvious question here is how the dead hear -is John talking about their (disembodied?) souls?
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.
The picture I get from this is that the Son's incarnation as a human was for the purpose of bringing God's word to "the dead" (i.e. sinners and the unrighteous) in way that would allow them to hear and repent. As a human, he could approach mankind and be approached, and his words were an invitation to life offered to everyone. How people hear him seems to depend (according to verse 29) on whether they have done good or evil. Those who have done good hear his voice as being that of the Son of God, so they believe and have life, while those who have done evil hear his voice as that of a [mere] human to be rejected and ignored, so they do not believe and remain dead. So I don't see these verses as indicating that anyone merits eternal life as a reward for good works, but rather that one's choices in life determines one's attitude to and belief about Christ's words.
Of course, I would think that since it fits with Swedenborgian doctrine.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
So we have one suggestion that Jesus's words are illustrated by the actual physical resurrection of Lazarus and others, and one that the death referred to is more of a spiritual thing and the unbelieving dead need not be regarded as coming out of real graves. And a certain level of consensus that we humans have separable souls. Is that straying into dead horse territory?
I don't wish to set any cats among pigeons here. Have I understood the above roughly correctly? And are there any other interpretations (orthodox or otherwise) of this passage (leaving aside total scepticism)?
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Um, well, the two are somewhat combinable. I mean, I do think the primary reference is to the general resurrection at the end of the world. But there's a secondary ref I think to the spiritually dead hearing the voice of Christ and living. And I suppose one could argue over which reference was primary and which secondary. (I've got it this way around because Jesus is using the future tense, and the spiritually dead thing seems to have been happening then already)
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Nothing to say for now, but somebody has to write reply number 666. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) OK fellas. you're safe now...
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
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.
Because he is the Son of Man - not because he is the Son of God. Don't geddit.
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.”)
Thus far John has used the 'son of man' phrase in association with a someone who had access to God's presence (1:51 = “...you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the son of man” and 3:13f = “No-one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came 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...”). The connotation with Daniel 7 seems reasonably clear.
quote:
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.
In both books this son of man accesses God, and in both the context is of a courtroom at judgment time.
It's strange, though, the juxtaposition between this popping-into-heaven-for-a-moment-earthly-type-figure and the functional-equivalent-of-the-Father-godly-type-figure. Or at least it must have sounded strange to the Jewish theologians and that could be why they were amazed to the point of harassment.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Thanks, Nigel. Would the ordinary man in the street in John's day have picked up the Daniel reference, I wonder. Not that it matters. The gospel addresses itself to a wide variety of readers snd hearers - sometimes giving us simple, but very emotionally charged pictures, at others "getting theological" and at others quite "difficult" poetry.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
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.
I've got a little hypothesis about the soul! It doesn't exist.
Well that needs explaining...
I think, from reading the thrust of the Jewish Scriptures, that the concept of 'soul' we western types are familiar with (heavily Platonic) was alien to the Jewish theologians who put together the Hebrew/Aramaic bible. They may have been aware of the version of 'soul' being worked up in some of the Greek states, but they worked with a different concept. Following on from that, as the NT is so heavily linked to those Jewish writings, I see that same Jewish understanding reflected in the Greek NT.
I know that some Jews wrote texts that attempted to work with Plato on his project (Philo being an example), but this interaction is found in the diaspora; it seems that Jerusalem theology remained steadfastly and biologically integrated, rather than dualistic.
This has led me to think that perhaps bible translators would be better off avoiding the use of the English word 'soul' and finding alternatives that don't fall so readily foul of western readers' ability to read Platonism into the bible at every available opportunity.
Of course none of this helps immediately to answer your question raised earlier:-
quote:
quote:
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.
The obvious question here is how the dead hear -is John talking about their (disembodied?) souls?
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.
John doesn't spell out what he thinks happens to believers (Jewish or Christian) who died. We probably have to go to Paul for something slightly more defined. However, if we strip out the Platonic overtones from John and assume his roots to be in the Jewish Scriptures, then possibly he assumed (and assumed his readers assumed) that when a faithful believer dies, he or she enters a state where the whole life - a form of body included - awaits something. Judgment? Vindication? Recreation? This bit is vague, but whatever it is, it doesn't read like an eternal ethereal godly spark sunning it on one of heaven's beaches, or even floating blissfully on clouds twanging harpishly. The state, whatever it is, seems best summed up in Paul's word: asleep. I think this is more than a mere euphemism for 'death.' To be consistent with Jewish thought on this subject, I suspect Paul genuinely thought of the dead as being asleep, awaiting the call to awake. This might underlie John's expression in v.25 - the dead will hear the voice...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Yes.
It was an age of self-proclaimed Messiahs, and that particular title and reference were very clearly Messianic. The average guy in the street would probably have just about as much familiarity with the Son of Man as your average American evangelical does with the words "Left Behind." The concept is "in the air," it's everywhere.
Though in this particular case of Jesus using it I think for once he's referencing the human connection as opposed to the divine Messianic one. From the way the argument unfolds, I mean.
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
The argument continues, under the curious subtitle (in NRSV) of Witnesses to Jesus:
[quote]"I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me..."[quote] [John 5:30]
So begins the development of his point, with a repetition of much that has been said in the previous dozen verses. It starts with self-justification. It will be Jesus at his most confrontational.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It is indeed. A major turning point in John, where those who follow Christ around need to get off the fence and decide whether they are only in it for the moment, or whether it's a case of "Lord, to whom shall we go? You [and no one else] have the words of eternal life."
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
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:
"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..."
[John5:31-33]
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... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
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:
"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..."
[John5:31-33]
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.
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.
But as for Jesus not aiming at converts--
I agree with you on that. I think what's happened here is he's turned the corner in his ministry, so to speak, and is now looking ahead to the cross. It's been relatively easy flying so far, for Jesus and for his followers; but things are about to come to a much sharper choice. The road is getting narrower, the tight gate is coming into sight. Time to decide if you're in it for the long haul or not. If I'm right, this chapter serves much the same purpose as Peter's confession of faith and Jesus' immediate reply about the cross. It's as if he said, "Okay, the introductory part of this course is over. Now we're getting to the tough stuff, and if you want to bail out, your withdrawal form must be filed with the registrar's office by Monday." At which point half the composition class disappears.
That's all I was trying to say.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I'm intrigued by Jesus' basic defence in this section: If my Dad does it, then I must do it (or am permitted to do it).
Now that seems quite in line with the thinking that emerges in the Jewish bible where created humans are authorised to act as God's image – his representative at all times, and where the Father-Son relationship reflects ancient near eastern covenant functions. It also seems to be in line with messianic and (some) Son of Man themes. I must be obedient to God.
Despite this overarching scheme, however, the question that sprang to my mind during this section was: Where did Jesus get the idea from that 'working' on the Sabbath was a legitimate act? Was it purely a new God-given authority or did it already lie in the Scriptures somewhere?
The question is informed partly by the Leviticus thread, where not so subtle injunctions are a-plenty concerning work on the Sabbath. The message to Israel as a people at Mt Sinai was that the Sabbath was a day of absolute rest, something holy/sacred and completely different to the nations round about. No work. Lev. 23:3 is a prime example:-
quote:
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.
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.
Some possible answers:-
[1] The Jews' concern was less over a healing than with the carrying of a mat (John 5:10), something that could be allocated to the realm of 'quibble.' However, Jesus did not deal with this issue, his response is about work generally. Further, the Jews in 5:16 were confrontational not about mats, but about 'these things,' which implies a number of Sabbath-breaking acts of which 5:1-9 was just one example.
[2] Jesus was distinguishing between healing acts and the more general 'work' prohibition. I.e., he was saying that God never intended healing to be considered a prohibited act for the Sabbath. However, he does very clearly say that the Father works on the Sabbath (John 5:17). There does not seem to be any wiggle room between this statement and the motivation for non-work on the Sabbath – that God ceased from work and therefore so should his people.
[3] Jesus was abrogating Sabbath. Strong stuff. To say this is to undermine the very words of the Torah and if that goes, it risks contradiction: God doesn't do what he says – he says “Don't work” but then works. Unless, of course, Jesus was using a technique recorded in other Gospels – that of referring back to pre-Sinai conditions to find principles that trump the rules given to Israel at Sinai (“It was not like that from the beginning”).
Option [3] might be the more consistent, where it not for the fact that Gen 2:2-3 makes very clear links between God's ceasing and making the day different:-
quote:
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.
Against this Jesus argues “My Father has been working right up to now...”
I know there were debates within Judaism about the nature of God's ceasing work in creation (Did he stop for one day or cease creative work from then on? If the latter, how was it that some people die on the Sabbath, an indication that God was at work? Also how would God sustain the world on a day-today basis if he was not working?). Perhaps what Jesus was doing was to distinguish between ceasing the work of initial creation, and the sustaining type of work, which included healing. It still rather jars with the theme of ceasing from work every seven days, though. I'm not sure whether John is here bringing to the forefront a growing divide between Jewish and Christian practices, or whether this was a reflection of Jesus' understanding of how God worked, based on the Scriptures. If the latter, where did he get it from?!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I think that pointing to the growing divide - possibly even within the church, is what Johm may well be doing (cheating here and reading on a bit!) Seems to me that here and in other places John branches out from his main theme of "Believe and be saved" and describes Jesus' words and actions not only for their own (historical) sake but for their relevance to his own troubled times. So, for instance, he alludes somewhere to Jesus' outburst against the Pharisees (I think) in the synoptics: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"
Which begs the question - didn't God send his Son to save the vipers?
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
P.S. Nigel, I appreciate your long point about the Sabbath, but I'm leaving it for someone with a bit more biblical nous (I mean a lot more nous generally) to engage with.
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
One step back, and two steps forward, so to speak. quote:
...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...
[John 5:33-34]
All the gospels mention the importance of John the Baptist as "the forerunner". And also the fact that Jesus of Nazareth superceded him. It is interesting that John (the evangelist) so long after the event, continues to press the point so forcefully. Were there still J.Bap supporters around in AD 90 or thereabouts?
The phrase "Not that I accept such human testimony" would sound incredibly arrogant in the mouth of anyone other than Jesus, and even then, if he doesn't accept it, why does he point it out?
I think it's probable a Semitism that doesn't translate. It doesn't mean that human testimony is useless (after all. for us, now, what else is there?) but rather that the other, supernatural testimony he is about to refer to, is infinitely more valid (the opening phrase of the American declaration of independence comes to mind...)
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There were certainly J-the-B believers scattered around even what, twenty-thirty years after his death? Because we get passages like Acts 18 and 19, which refer to Apollos, who knew only the message of John until Priscilla and Aquila filled him in on later events; and a group of believers as far afield as Ephesus (!) who had only yet received the baptism of John. So maybe so.
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
That's astonishing. To me. Somehow I got the impression that as soon as Jesus arrived on the scene, John - TB handed over the reins, so to speak, and that was that. Paul speaks of lots of divisions in the church, but I always thought they were between followers of Jesus. It all looks much more complicated now.
What was the essential difference between the two (apart from the small fact that Jesus was God(!) but even that was not universally accepted all at once, I guess)? John preached repentance, so it was all about the sinner's personal salvation. I think that Jesus' message was much broader. So broad that no one evangelist could "get it" all. And I still don't "get" John the evangelists's message entirely. At times it seems very simple, at others, too convoluted for words. I've been reading the early fathers of the church and I think it was Athanasius (among others) who said too much thinking means you're not trying hard enough, paradoxically.
[ 19. July 2011, 15:11: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think a lot of it can be accounted for by people who heard JtB's message but weren't in town (so to speak) to hear Jesus' later on. I mean, we're told "all Jerusalem" went out to hear JtB at the Jordan, and if it was near any of the pilgrim festival times, that would include quite a few out-of-towners and even out-of-countryers. That might explain the Ephesian group, then.
I suppose too there were people who stayed with John out of personal loyalty or because they weren't ready for the next step. It would be a bit of a shock after so much ascetism to start following a guy who goes to weddings and dinner parties.
[ 19. July 2011, 23:08: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Jesus continues to berate his accusers:
quote:
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.
[John5:35-38]
To whom is Jesus talking at [A]? Would JtB's followers have been so virulently opposed to Jesus - even if they hadn't yet switched their full allegiance to him? To what perticular testimony is Jesus referring at [B]?
At [C] it sounds at first like a truism - nobody has seen God. But Jesus point is that it is only his accusers who have not seen him - because of their lack of belief. Belief precedes sight. Blindness (in this context) is self-induced.
I'd really appreciate some help with this one!
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I'd really appreciate some help with this one!
Wouldn't we all.
I take it that the "you" (plural) who chose to rejoice for a while in John's light is the crowd in general. They followed John around for a while, and now they're following the next Big Thing, Jesus. I don't think he's referring either to the religious leaders (who would have had issues with John too, and certainly would not have rejoiced in his light!) or to JTB's own disciples, because "You chose for a while to rejoice" sounds too casual for the commitment they made to John. Hey, some of them stuck by him to the bitter end (his burial). So I'm pretty sure A is the casually interested crowd.
As for B, that may be a reference either to the whole Old Testament (rife with Messianic prophecies and typology, and certainly held by Jesus to be the very Word of God) or to the divine voice heard by some at Jesus' own baptism (coincidentally, at the hands of John the Baptist!). You know, "This is my beloved Son," etc. It is not clear whether that voice was understood by everyone in earshot--John certainly heard and understood, and Jesus of course. But the crowds, well... we have records of other occasions where the Father spoke and "some said it had thundered." And Paul's lot on the road to Damascus heard the voice but couldn't make out what was said. What made the difference seems to have been openness to faith, at least on the first occasion and maybe the second. The voice at the baptism may have been similar, and would explain C.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
C may perhaps also be Jesus referring to himself? "You (the devout hearers) don't recognise God when you see him standing in front of you!"
These few verses make for an interesting comparison with 1:6-18
quote:
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.
All that talk of John, testimony, light, representing God...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I'll poke forward with the stick, but happy for anyone to examine wasps from previous nests if they wish...
Having referred to testimony (or witness) from John the Baptist as a backup to his identity with God, Jesus turns to the prickly thorn of 'Scriptures' (the Writings):
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Yes, the whole passage from v30 on seems to be repeating the argument in Chapter 3. [The image of Jesus being lifted up like a snake on a stick is powerfullly poetic].
What disturbs me a bit about both passages is this. What is the bottom line? What is the essential message of the whole passage? Christians (and probably non-Christians too) all remember "God so loved the world..." but they seems to shy away from the context. Because Jesus (or John?) seems not to be offering salvation so much as explaining why some people have missed the boat. I can't imagine many people of any era responding positively to this sort of tirade.
I hope I've misread it.
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I hope a postscript helps here. Don't worry too much about my oversensitivity (or ignorance, however you like to see it!) The fact that John's gospel has been abused down the centuries by anti-semitic christians cannot be laid entirely to John's charge.
Modern-day christians, however, need to be aware of the sensitivities of all non-believers, of whatever background.
Nevertheless, the last thing I want to do is derail this thread or usev it as a washing-line for my own hang-ups. I really would appreciate more input from ordinary, orthodox christians.
On a thread like this, silence is not golden - it's threatening! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm just not sure I understand what you're after, sorry! So I'm shutting up mainly. Do you mean the bit where Jesus is castigating them for reading the Scriptures, claiming to be God's people, etc. but then not following through by coming to him? Because I can see how that would be offensive. But I think he intended to be.
As Jesus saw it, "The scriptures testify to me." Therefore anyone who was really reading and accepting the message of the Scriptures would come to him in faith. That these folks did not do so Jesus saw as evidence that they'd gone seriously wrong somewhere.
Is that what you meant?
Or were you after a discussion of how, precisely, "the scriptures testify to me"?
Yours fuzzily and sleepily, LC
--------------------
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
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
In an attempt to bolster your admirable courage and persistence, pimple, I can offer a few observations:
1) I was surprised to see that the verb translated "possess" in the beginning (verse 39) is the same verb that's translated "have" later (in verse 40). I don't see why the translation referenced would use two different English verbs. As a counter example, the NAS uses "have" for both verbs.
2) The phrase "scriptures that testify about me" brings to mind the road to Emmaus from Luke 24.
3) An important part of the essential message you ask about seems to me to be the idea that scriptures are not an end in themselves. Jesus seems to be saying that his audience has forgotten the original purpose for them to lead readers to life (or love of God as in verse 42) instead of them being life for readers.
What I don't understand is why such talk from Jesus (e.g. "I am the way, the truth, and the life) did not seem to his audience to be blasphemy. I'm sure I'm reading back into the text my post-conceived notions about Jesus being God, but I'd like to understand how his audience would have heard such claims.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Thanks for your help. I think they did regard it as blasphemy. But I need to get back to the text to find out exactly where we are again.
In general the passage seemed to me to start with Jesus defending himself against a charge of blasphemy - by working on the sabbath. But the work he does mainly on the sabbath id to perform healing miracles (which ought not to be agin the law - you were allowed to heave your neighbour's ox out of a (?)swamp on the sabbath.
But Jesus then seems to go on the attack (the best means of defence, so why not?) - saying that yes, he behaves as though he was God because he, and not his detractors, the guys fixated on sola scruiptura has seen God, and has come from God.
But they have not only failed to acknowledge this, but lack the ability to recognise it, because God is not in their hearts.
[All a lat-night paraphrase] I don't know why I shouls get so het up about this - it's just putting flesh, so to speak, on the earlier statement that he came to his own, and his own "received him not". It doesn't take Ph.D. to make that sound intransigently anti-semitic.
We'll get on to some happier bits in time.
[ 03. August 2011, 20:41: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Meh, it clear from elsewhere in John that SOME of his "own" (if you're defining that as the Jews) did receive him. And to muddle things further, he says "All those the Father gives me will come to me..." and "Other sheep I have, not of this fold..." so "his own" can be given a much greater range. No need to fuss about anti-semitism here, the charge can also be anti-humanity--or in a much narrower sense, anti-religious people.
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Or just anti those who didn't buy in to John's (new, higher?) christology? Perhaps his vision was wide, but his churchmanship narrow? Or perhaps I'm too greatly influenced by modern sectarianism. Either way, you're right, LC. No need to fuss. Back later.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Picking up on W Hyatt's query about blasphemy and the attitude taken by those labelled 'the Jews' in this chapter, and also on pimple's point that John's language seems pretty provocative, I re-read the chapters up to this point again, wondering what reaction would have been expected of a first reader/hearer. Tricky, I know; there's been plenty of debate on who the intended audience would have been. Still, taking a bit of editorial licence with a pinch of salt, I'm opting for a reasonably typical first century follower of Jesus, seeking to know God and his will, familiar to only a general extent with the geography and customs of Israel though not necessarily based there, a disciple on the way and relying on the information passed on to him/her by teachers with greater knowledge of Jesus. So, a middle-of-the-pew dweller.
Thus far John (the author, not the Baptist) has referred to Jews from Jerusalem (1:19, oi Ioudaioi ex Ierosolumon = οἱ Ἰουδαιοι ἐξ Ἱεροσολυμων), who must be in a position of authority because they are able to dispatch learned practitioners of the faith off to remote parts to test and debate with those who make faith claims. Nothing remarkable in this, I would think; 'testing the spirits' would be an essential requirement for any spiritual leader. This accounts, I think, for the emphasis on testimony (witness) in the Gospel and the crucial and telling questions put to John (the Baptist, not the author) by the examiners: “Who are you?...What do you say concerning yourself?” (1:22).
From the middle of the pew, having reached chapter 5, the only reference to 'Jews' that I will have read/heard up to this point is that of those who lead on defining orthodoxy in Jerusalem. In particular the references have been loaded with temple associations. Pharisees have been mentioned separately, but 'the Jews' are those from Jerusalem in 1:19 sending priests and Levites, those associated with ritual in 2:6 and 3:25, those holding feasts in Jerusalem (note “The Passover of the Jews” in 2:13, rather than just simply “The Passover”), those reacting angrily to Jesus' clearing of the temple in 2:15-20, those who insist that the only valid worship is that which take place in Jerusalem (4:20), and those who hold a particular feast in Jerusalem (5:1). My assumption as a reader, then, is that these 'Jews' John has been talking about are the religious leaders based in the temple in Jerusalem. These were the ones who carried the heavy burden of being the shepherds of the flock in the absence of a king, minders of God's people, protectors of the faith and truth. This would explain, I think, the significance of the reference to them focussing on the Scriptures in 5:39. The Temple would have been not just the place for sacrifice and worship, but also the library and central seminary for the copy, study and dissemination of those writings.
So when I get to 5:31 I have in mind these religious and political leaders who are asking of Jesus the “Who are you?...What do you say concerning yourself?” questions. Jesus' response is to bat away this first person focus with the “What's the point of being a witness to myself? That's not valid”(5:31). Instead he (or John the author) refers back to the Baptist's witness and then God's witness. It seems that the crux of the Jews' concern according to the author is whether there was a Messiah in town. I get this from the Baptist's response to the questions in 1:19ff. He responds first of all with a reference to this Messiah figure. Cheating a bit as a reader, I know, but later on at Jesus' trial the issue for the Jews was that Jesus was making himself out to be God's anointed (his Son – the messiah figure).
If this is a valid reading, then 5:16-18 is all about who could legislate on belief and practice in Israel. The 'Jews' were the kings-in-absence for Israel: the ruling elite, teachers and guardians of lifestyles. Any claimant to the position of an anointed one was a direct challenge to leadership – a new king (kings were anointed). The Baptist had removed himself from that scene by denying he was a messiah. Jesus, on the other hand, was making indirect claims on the basis of what he did and taught. The issue, then, about blasphemy may not have arisen quite so directly in John's Gospel at this stage. The real issue may have been more about politics; Jesus had to be harassed by the Temple Jewish leaders with a view to being killed (5:16-18) because he was making himself a higher authority than those leaders. This is how I would understand the connotation of the phrase in 5:18 usually translated “...making himself equal with God.” The leaders were only shepherds.
Moving on to the language used in the Gospel, I suspect that the first reader/hearer would be well aware of the nature of debate and dialogue appropriate to the time. What we, in our less enlightened time, might regard as barbed and worthy of an apology if uttered on the Ship or in church (and I am surprised at the number of times I see righteous indignation in both fora at someone's use of rhetorical language, when said language use may be a cultural thing) may not have raised an eyebrow in context. Open debate was the norm, using whatever rhetorical devices were culturally acceptable. We are reading a series of debates in John – we have to imagine the accompanying gesticulations. The first reader may well have been caught up in the flow: “Aha! Yes! Good point! How do you answer that, eh?”
Probably helps to picture the give and take in John's record as taking place more in an Afghan market town than Plato's Academy. Or even more than taking place in a pulpit (unless in a church where the middle-of-the-pew are able to leap up and bellow "Amen! What answer is there to that!!!").
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Ah yes, robust debate in the Middle East even now is hardly the stuff Mrs. Speaker would condone! And sometimes what seems like "You're talking rubbish man!" is in fact taken by the recipient as no more intense than "No, you still haven't got the point, old chap".
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Just to clarify that last point. I'm not suggesting John put ideas into Jesus' head (even though every dramatist puts words into the "actors" mouths), but that John's choice of Jesus' sayings/actions was probably influenced by contemporary concerns.
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Taking Nigel's point about rhetoric makes the next few verses more digestible!
quote:
"....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."
[John 5:41-43]
Which, one might think, is a reasonable response from a sensible human being! But Jesus demands something more than a reasonable response. Or something different.
[ 06. August 2011, 04:20: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
"I know that you do not have the love of God in you."
"You are not far from the kingdom of heaven."
Words from the same mouth. Or are they? (I hear what you're saying Nigel, honestly! But honestly!)
[ 07. August 2011, 12:19: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
