|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time.
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Both are equally good to me. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
I wonder whether what John is doing here is working through the OT categories and claiming Jesus as their fulfillment.
He starts with the Word, Light, Life from the creation account, moves onto Moses, passover etc etc?
That's an interesting thought. There's no doubt that the Gospel means to start that way, and I think you may be onto something here.
Moses, though, and Passover?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Moses, though, and Passover?
Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.
Also Orthodox hymnography for "Easter" (i.e. Pascha, i.e. Passover) is replete with equating Jesus with Passover.
And Moses himself said God would send a prophet like unto himself, and exhorted the people to listen to him when he finally arrove.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Moses, though, and Passover?
Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.
Also Orthodox hymnography for "Easter" (i.e. Pascha, i.e. Passover) is replete with equating Jesus with Passover.
And Moses himself said God would send a prophet like unto himself, and exhorted the people to listen to him when he finally arrove.
But I thought Anselm was talking about John when he referred to Moses, not Paul?
ETA: Maybe he means later in John's Gospel. There is a section that relates allegorically to Passover.
[ 09. June 2006, 00:35: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Maybe John's introduction of the rite of baptism continues the OT parallel with Moses' crossing of the Red Sea ?
Baptism seems to be a clear departure from OT rituals, but is clearly linked to the foundational principles of Mosaic law ie repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaxChristi
Shipmate
# 11493
|
Posted
Jesus as the "Prophet Like Moses" is surely an important theme in John, but I don't see how the Red Sea crossing is related to the baptizing of Jesus. At this point, it is still clearly a baptism for repentance (not unMosaic, but not very "Exodus" either, is it?) and seems to be an indication of just how closely linked John's community was to the community of the Baptist.
I think it's significant that John is the only gospel in which we are told that Jesus actually baptized. It seems to have been a point of contention between John's community and other follwers of Jesus. Remember the passage in Acts where Paul goes to Ephesus (the home of the Johannine community) and discovers that they do not know the baptism of the Holy Spirit, only the baptism of John? Paul is shown to introduce the baptism of the Holy Spirit to this community, thereby (I believe) healing a rift that Luke thought it important to heal.
(Now, I think that John's community would have disagreed that they did not know the baptism of the Spirit, but Luke's agenda seems to have been the demonstration of unity through the gift of the Same Spirit...)
Anyhow, I think this reference to Baptism has more to do with group identity than the Mosaic comparisons in John. (But, as has been pointed out above, John often speaks on more than one level at a time....)
Pax
--------------------
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)
Posts: 125 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Pax:
quote:
I don't see how the Red Sea crossing is related to the baptizing of Jesus. At this point, it is still clearly a baptism for repentance (not unMosaic, but not very "Exodus" either, is it?)
I mean the rite of baptism, to which Jesus Himself submitted, attested to it's significance in the journey of faith towards God - albeit there is little or no indication of previous practice in the inter-testamental period. The conflated Johns are making a very significant theological statement of a new beginning for the Word - which had always been present, nonetheless.
Although I wouldn't push the analogy too far, passing through water is an oft repeated theme of deliverance and new beginnings in the OT...the Flood, Red Sea and Jordan crossings, Jonah etc. Also in the prophetic link between Israel,the Messiah and salvation in Isaiah 43
quote:
1 But now, this is what the LORD says—
he who created you, O Jacob,
he who formed you, O Israel:
"Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have summoned you by name; you are mine.
2 When you pass through the waters,
I will be with you;
and when you pass through the rivers,
they will not sweep over you.
When you walk through the fire,
you will not be burned;
the flames will not set you ablaze.
3 For I am the LORD, your God,
the Holy One of Israel, your Savior;
In this context, John's baptism in the waters of the Jordan signifies the same separation that historical Israel underwent in the Exodus - to me anyway.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
I wonder whether what John is doing here is working through the OT categories and claiming Jesus as their fulfillment.
He starts with the Word, Light, Life from the creation account, moves onto Moses, passover etc etc?
That's an interesting thought. There's no doubt that the Gospel means to start that way, and I think you may be onto something here.
Moses, though, and Passover?
I haven't had much of a chance to follow this thought up with an actual look at the passage, but I was thinking of the reference in v.17 with regards to Moses and v.29 in reference to the Passover.
With regard to baptism, 1 Cor 9 suggests an understanding in the early church connecting baptism and the crossing of the Red Sea - in John's gospel though, and for the baptism of John generally, I suspect it may be more of a reference to the crossing of the Jordan into the Promised Land. Note that John the Gospeler emphasises the Jordan as the place of John the Baptist's work. I would hazard this is a Second Exodus - End of Exile theme.
Though this is all a bit ahead of the present verses.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
quote:
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
This verse is so poignant. "The God who hung the stars hangs now dying on the tree" - or something like that. (Does anybody know that thing? I can't remember how it goes.)
It's really such a huge idea, isn't it? That the Creator of the Universe would come walk among us, unrecognized?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaxChristi
Shipmate
# 11493
|
Posted
I have thought for some time that this reference is not to Jesus, but to Wisdom, who goes unrecognized in Proverbs 1...
Pax
--------------------
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)
Posts: 125 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(Sorry, I should have said Stop.
So there it is, and I will post the next verse when it's time. It's easy to forget the system.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's really such a huge idea, isn't it? That the Creator of the Universe would come walk among us, unrecognized?
It really is. This was God, and we not only didn't recognize Him, we actively rejected Him.
I would say, though, that realizing how we reject our Creator is a significant part of how He brought "the light."
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's really such a huge idea, isn't it? That the Creator of the Universe would come walk among us, unrecognized?
It really is. This was God, and we not only didn't recognize Him, we actively rejected Him.
I would say, though, that realizing how we reject our Creator is a significant part of how He brought "the light."
The Greeks (and I'm sure others) had this idea, too: that the gods would come to earth in disguise and human beings wouldn't know who they were.
But this is different, because this time God comes to live and die as a human being. That's what gives this story its amazing, shocking twist.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes, Zeus or Apollo were never in a poopy diaper. Nor were they nailed to a cross or equivalent.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
What does John understand by "world"?
All creation? all humanity? world powers?
Because it seems that at various times in the gospel people DO recognise him. John the Baptist for example, evil spirits, creation itself obeys his commands when he feeds 5000, stills the storm - or is the point that it is revealed to them? [I just noticed v.12]
Is Israel, in it's failure as a nation to recognise it's messiah, representing all humanity, so that when Israel fails to recognise the creator among them, one could say that "the world" failed to recognise Jesus? Is the next verse an epexegetical comment on this verse?
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Is Israel, in it's failure as a nation to recognise it's messiah, representing all humanity, so that when Israel fails to recognise the creator among them, one could say that "the world" failed to recognise Jesus? Is the next verse an epexegetical comment on this verse?
My view is that in one sense Israel represents all of humanity, and therefore the whole world. In a more particular sense, though, Israel is God's "own" - meaning "His church" or those who have His Word.
They stand for the ones who have the invitation to the wedding feast. If anyone responded to the call it should have been them.
In that sense the gospels, and Jesus, assign them "blame" for their apostacy and rejection of "the Son of the owner of the vineyard" when He came.
But as a representative of "the whole world" Israel is neither more or less culpable than anyone else. They just happened to be the ones who received the invitation. We all collectively did this thing - and each of us tends to do it even now. The message is that we all need to recognize our tendency to ignore and reject our Creator, and change our ways.
I think that it is often the case in Scripture that "the world" or "the earth" stands for "the church," meaning those who have "His Word" - as opposed to "the nations" or "the gentiles," who are those who do not.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Anselm:
quote:
Is the next verse an epexegetical comment on this verse?
It must be. Along with the rest of that paragraph. Otherwise an anti-Israel note is introduced - which is definitely not the writer's intent.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
Spiritual Israel have always been the apple of God's eye and of His own gracious choosing.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Since we're moving along anyway, I'll post the next verse:
quote:
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
Spiritual Israel have always been the apple of God's eye and of His own gracious choosing.
That's right. So it was a big disappointment - like finding a leafy fig tree with no fruit, or trying to get fruit from the vinedressers and having no luck, or inviting people to a feast and having them not come, or like entrusting a fortune to servants, who then do nothing with it.
So the true Israel is made up of those who don't act like that, but are faithful and true.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
It's also so poignant - the thought that God, taking on human flesh, was not received/recognized (generally speaking) by His own... I think it's one of those hints that Jesus can relate to us, in our sometimes-painful human experience.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
In my view, the entire political (small p ) structure of God's teaching is centred upon rejection and the overcoming thereof. Dispassionately speaking, Jesus would have died of a broken heart.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaxChristi
Shipmate
# 11493
|
Posted
I can't remember where I read it, but I thought that this verse referred more to the coming of and rejection of Wisdom prior to the incarnation. (As in Proverbs 1)
Pax
--------------------
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)
Posts: 125 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
In my view, the entire political (small p ) structure of God's teaching is centred upon rejection and the overcoming thereof. Dispassionately speaking, Jesus would have died of a broken heart.
Noelper, that says it very nicely. Jesus seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time complaining about this rejection - not just of Him, but of all prophets.
This really stood out in the 2003 film "The Gospel of John", a word-for-word version in which you realize that Jesus remonstrated against the religious authorities about this - seemingly unprovoked - almost from the beginning. We are so used to quoting the gentler and more inspiring parts that it is easy to overlook how prevalent this theme is right from the start.
quote:
Originally posted by Pax Christi:
I can't remember where I read it, but I thought that this verse referred more to the coming of and rejection of Wisdom prior to the incarnation. (As in Proverbs 1)
Pax, I think that's right. It seems like he is saying that God's people had continually rejected Him, so now He came into the world Himself, and they would reject Him again. Very much like the wicked vinedressers in Matthew 21.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Freddy
quote:
This really stood out in the 2003 film "The Gospel of John", a word-for-word version
They don't sell it ouitside the US. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
BTW I meant that rejection (and the salvic counter of 'Love your enemies') is the political message of both Old and New Testaments, culminating in the admission to the Kingdom of those who had formerly rejected the Creator and His Way - exemplified in the life and death Jesus.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
Freddy quote:
This really stood out in the 2003 film "The Gospel of John", a word-for-word version
They don't sell it ouitside the US.
Really? You can't buy things on Amazon?
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
BTW I meant that rejection (and the salvic counter of 'Love your enemies') is the political message of both Old and New Testaments, culminating in the admission to the Kingdom of those who had formerly rejected the Creator and His Way - exemplified in the life and death Jesus.
Hmmm. Could you explain that?
Is it that we humans rejected God, so Christ came to reverse that rejection, but we rejected Him too. Yet He succeeded anyway, causing us to reject our former rejection, mend our ways, and return to God. Is that what you mean?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
quote:
Is it that we humans rejected God, so Christ came to reverse that rejection, but we rejected Him too. Yet He succeeded anyway, causing us to reject our former rejection, mend our ways, and return to God. Is that what you mean?
Umm... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Yes ! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(Will check Amazon )
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaxChristi:
I can't remember where I read it, but I thought that this verse referred more to the coming of and rejection of Wisdom prior to the incarnation. (As in Proverbs 1)
Pax
But isn't Wisdom a "She"?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
TubaMirum
quote:
But isn't Wisdom a "She"?
Introducing a feminist note.... ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
The French used to have a disorder relating to ' Unrequited Love', for females incarcerated in nut-houses..... Hence Jesus was the original feminist, in more ways than one. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
TubaMirum
quote:
But isn't Wisdom a "She"?
Introducing a feminist note....
The French used to have a disorder relating to ' Unrequited Love', for females incarcerated in nut-houses..... Hence Jesus was the original feminist, in more ways than one.
Um....the verse says "He."
Wisdom, as far as I know, is a "She" in the Hebrew Bible. This is "introducting a linguistic note."
Sheesh. Talk about
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
[QB] Freddy
[QUOTE]
This really stood out in the 2003 film "The Gospel of John", a word-for-word version
They don't sell it ouitside the US.
/tangent/
I'll swap you one for a copy of Manchester Passion, which you bloody well can't get INSIDE the U.S.
/end tangent/
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaxChristi
Shipmate
# 11493
|
Posted
QUOTE]But isn't Wisdom a "She"? [/QUOTE] In the Hebrew Bible, yes, but in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is very much the incarnation of Wisdom. The identification of the two is so thorough that John can say "he" of Wisdom, because it was the Word/Jesus who was rejected in Her.
Pax
--------------------
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)
Posts: 125 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Pax
quote:
The identification of the two is so thorough that John can say "he" of Wisdom, because it was the Word/Jesus who was rejected in Her.
I concur.
Could we agree to note that Jesus was far less anti-women than His Apostle Paul and subsequent Church leaders ? Which implies that His completeness in terms of representing the world, was absolute.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaxChristi
Shipmate
# 11493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
Could we agree to note that Jesus was far less anti-women than His Apostle Paul and subsequent Church leaders ?
//tangent alert//
This belongs on a new thread, but I think I can demonstrate that Paul was in fact, quite pro-women. Not the monster the "subsequent Church leaders" made him into. Would that be a worthwhile thread?
//end of tangent alert//
Pax
--------------------
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (I Corinthians 2:2)
Posts: 125 | From: NY | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaxChristi:
This belongs on a new thread, but I think I can demonstrate that Paul was in fact, quite pro-women. Not the monster the "subsequent Church leaders" made him into. Would that be a worthwhile thread?
That would be a very worthwhile thread. Go for it.
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 TubaMirum:
But this is different, because this time God comes to live and die as a human being. That's what gives this story its amazing, shocking twist.
Actually, there is nothing unique in that. Many ancient Mediterranean gods (handsome young men, especially) died and then resurrected from the dead.
[It's like the "son of God" thing. I heard it was not uncommon in Judea at that time for people to claim they were a "son of God". This does not mean anything.]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Pax
quote:
This belongs on a new thread, but I think I can demonstrate that Paul was in fact, quite pro-women. Not the monster the "subsequent Church leaders" made him into. Would that be a worthwhile thread?
That would be enormously helpful to someone who has long puzzled over some of Paul's teachings - most especially because they flatly contradict the example set by Jesus.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
universalist
Shipmate
# 10318
|
Posted
Someone earlier in this thread mentioned Israel's "rejection" of God. Possibly, Israel (like many of us today) was rejecting wrong and slanderous images of God, presented by its religious leaders, and as presented by some of ours in the Church today. Such "rejection" would only be an honest thing...
Posts: 66 | From: portland oregon | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaxChristi:
I can't remember where I read it, but I thought that this verse referred more to the coming of and rejection of Wisdom prior to the incarnation. (As in Proverbs 1)
I can't see how this can be about the pre-incarnate wisdom. There has been no mention of wisdom so far, and indeed, I don't think John develops the theme of wisdom at all.
Also, when taken in context with the following verse quote:
(ESV)
[11]He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. [12] But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.
ISTM to more likely refer to the work of the incarnate Jesus that we see in the gospel.
Lastly, in Proverbs, Wisdom was created by God, whereas here in John the Word was co-eternal with God.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
What Anselm Said. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I think Proverbs 8 makes it fairly clear that Wisdom is the first part of creation, whereas Jesus is Creator (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit; creation is attributed to the full Godhead). And yes, both Wisdom and Folly are presented in the feminine.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Well, in the times Proverbs were written, I doubt if people could actually use the word "begotten of" instead of "created by". I think it's just an awkward word, not to be taken literaly. The author might want to say what Christ meant when he said "my Father is greater than I", but he couldn't find quite the right word.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
Someone earlier in this thread mentioned Israel's "rejection" of God. Possibly, Israel (like many of us today) was rejecting wrong and slanderous images of God, presented by its religious leaders, and as presented by some of ours in the Church today. Such "rejection" would only be an honest thing...
Yes, universalist, if that's what was going on. I'm not sure that this was the way that Jesus saw it:
quote:
Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
Jesus seems to blame the people for rejecting a loving God.
This is also the testimony of Moses:
quote:
Deuteronomy 9:7 Do not forget how you provoked the LORD your God to wrath in the wilderness. From the day that you departed from the land of Egypt until you came to this place, you have been rebellious against the LORD.
It is repeated in the historic period:
quote:
Judges 2:17 Yet they would not listen to their judges, but they played the harlot with other gods, and bowed down to them. They turned quickly from the way in which their fathers walked, in obeying the commandments of the LORD; they did not do so.
The early prophets dwelt on this theme:
quote:
Isaiah 65:2 I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people,
Who walk in a way that is not good,
According to their own thoughts;
As did the latter prophets:
quote:
Malachi 2:11 Judah has dealt treacherously,
And an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem
I guess it could be true that Israel and Judah only rebelled against the wrong and slanderous images of God that they were presented with. This doesn't seem to be the slant that most of the texts give it.
When John talks about the rejection of the light he seems to be coming from the same place that Jesus came from when He said:
quote:
Matthew 23:34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city,
So in saying "His own did not receive Him" it seems consistent to say that John is speaking of Jesus' rejection as well as alluding to a pattern that stretches back into history.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Freddy
quote:
I guess it could be true that Israel and Judah only rebelled against the wrong and slanderous images of God that they were presented with. This doesn't seem to be the slant that most of the texts give it.
Dating from the Golden Calf experience to the treatment meted out by the Pharisees and Saducees, the parable of the tenants and Jesus's denunciation of blind leaders, suggest to me that He perceived the religious leaders as primary source of apostasy. This is also borne out by the fact that few, if any, of the prophets were priests.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Because Jesus bears the same Name as God, Whose Nature / Being is :-
quote:
"The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."
As it always has been and always will be.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Why do you think John specifies believing in his name, why not just believing in Jesus? How do you believe in a name?
It's interesting, because the idea of believing in Jesus' name seems to be limited to John and 1 John. The link noelper makes with the name of God is supported by John 17:11f where God's name and Jesus' name are linked and perhaps the name sums up the being, along the lines of the use of "I Am" in 8:58.
Another interesting point is that 'glory' is mentioned in the same context as the 'name' in those passages. Perhaps the link here is that just as 'glory' was a way of describing God's presence on earth, so also with 'name': Jesus represented God on earth and in so doing he was the proper image of God. So, maybe John is saying that receiving Jesus (i.e. believing in his name) is to adopt the proper image of God, becoming children and looking like the daddy.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
The identification of Jesus with God's Name and His Glory was previously stated:
quote:
Isaiah 42.8:
I am the Lord, that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to idols.
This reading of the Name, defines the parameters of Jesus' instruction about prayer.
quote:
John 14: 13-14
And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 4You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
That is, unless we call upon compassion, slowness to anger, love, fidelity, forgiveness or deferred judgement ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) our prayers will not be answered.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
It's also interesting that John uses the word τεκνα rather than υιοι which I was expecting.
Ie - John avoids using the Old Testament title of "Sons of God" to use a more generic "children of God".
Any thoughts as to why John may have done this? How is the phrase "Children of God" used in the rest of the gospel?
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Just a quick note/question continuing on the "Name" theme.
"Names" seem to be really, really important, especially in the Hebrew Bible. Names by themselves seem to signify a great deal. And - most importantly - when a person becomes "adopted by God" (and this is my own phrase), they often get a new name. Abram and Sarai become Abraham and Sarah. Jacob becomes Israel. (I know there are others, but I can't think of them right now.) The change of name signifies a change in orientation in some way
Is this somehow tied in here?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
