|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time.
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I've been interested in the way John uses the word 'glory' (doxa) throughout his gospel. It's a significant word used to translate the Hebrew kabod in the Jewish writings and although often refers to the worship or praise given to God, it can also be used as a stand-in term for God's actual presence, in the way that “God's glory filled the temple” is another way of saying “God resided in the temple.”
John appears to use it with both senses. It can refer to the praise given to individuals (e.g., Jesus rejects the notion that he is looking for men's praise in 5:41-44), and it can also refer to seeing God (e.g., Jesus said that if you believe, you would see the glory of God – 11:40).
So when John set out his main themes in his introduction and made the point that he and others had seen The Word's glory (1:14) when it resided among them, I wonder if he always intended his hearers to understand that just as they saw God in and through Jesus (i.e. face to face), so the world should see God through Jesus' followers. At the moment in these early verses of chapter 14 he has simply repeated the point that the disciples could see God in Jesus (Who has seen me has seen the father – 14:9), but he's going to make the consequent link later about the world seeing God through the community of believers.
If this is the case, then perhaps Jesus' continued presence (and therefore God's continued presence) in the world will be guaranteed by virtue of the upcoming spirit-in-the-disciples, which will be God's glory in the community.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Here comes part of that guarantee: quote:
John 14.13-1713I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If in my name you ask me* for anything, I will do it.
The Promise of the Holy Spirit15 ‘If you love me, you will keep* my commandments. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate,* to be with you for ever. 17This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in* you.
It puts a great deal of trust in those Jesus leaves behind (including Judas? - John will have to answer that, and I'm sure he will. I can see, now, why there had to be only one apostate).
--------------------
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
Haven't enough time lieft to sort that out. sorry. Cutting and pasting Oremus doesn't indicate where the subject heading are. Will be more careful in future.
--------------------
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
I assume “in my name” here is equivalent to saying “with my authority” rather than applying a verbal formula that by simple virtue of its usage (in English?!) guarantees delivery. I'm probably not the only who has heard the idea taught that so long as you (simply) ask for anything whatsoever in Jesus' name (i.e. make sure you park the word 'Jesus' in the prayer), Jesus will give it to you.
Of course moving the reference to the question of authority doesn't remove the question, How do I know I'm asking for something with Jesus' authority? How do I ensure I have that authority from Jesus in the first place before making the request?
John's answer appears to be that the Father resides in the person and works through him or her. The person has to be loyal to Jesus (“if you love me...”) - that also appears to be a precondition for effective and affective prayer. John, however, doesn’t go into the detailed process for ensuring that the classic paper clip can be moved across the table by prayer alone!
And commandments. What commandments? To what is our John referring here?
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I can see, now, why there had to be only one apostate).
Do tell! Why?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Hmm. Those commandments slipped under my radar.
Why only one apostate? Because it's about as much as we can swallow if Jesus is talking about not losing any of his followers (and even one is a problem for John, I think - because it undercuts Jesus' divine power). But I think the problem is only one for John and not for Jesus.
I would not be surprised if there were others. In fact, I'd be very surprised if there were not others. It's just too glib to think of all the disciples as goodies except Judas, the devil, and I think Jesus prbably knew better than they did themselves, the limits of his followers' faith.
[ 13. June 2014, 17:19: 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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Yes, I see how the more than one traitor in the camp could convolute the plot beyond comprehension! I wonder if John included detail about Judas because he had in mind similar more contemporary 'traitors' in the camp?
In fact, I wonder what John's stance would have been towards those who, while not being traitors in the Judas category, nevertheless just slipped away and stopped being in the light. He refers to this happening during Jesus' ministry (6:66) when many disciples turned back and stopped following Jesus. The issue seems to have been Jesus as the route to eternal life (his blood and flesh, not the manna in the wilderness). In 6:64 John notes that Jesus had known who of his followers would not believe and would 'betray' him. That sounds as though John considered all who fell away to be traitors.
On the commandments bit, given one of John's themes being Jesus versus Moses as the route to life, there could be another link here. God gave commandments through Moses, so there would have to be a similar balancing activity here: God gives commandments in and through Jesus. Could that be a reference to Torah, or to another set of commandments, a new and better 'Torah'? Hmmm.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I assume “in my name” here is equivalent to saying “with my authority” rather than applying a verbal formula that by simple virtue of its usage (in English?!) guarantees delivery. I'm probably not the only who has heard the idea taught that so long as you (simply) ask for anything whatsoever in Jesus' name (i.e. make sure you park the word 'Jesus' in the prayer), Jesus will give it to you.
Of course moving the reference to the question of authority doesn't remove the question, How do I know I'm asking for something with Jesus' authority? How do I ensure I have that authority from Jesus in the first place before making the request?
John's answer appears to be that the Father resides in the person and works through him or her. The person has to be loyal to Jesus (“if you love me...”) - that also appears to be a precondition for effective and affective prayer. John, however, doesn’t go into the detailed process for ensuring that the classic paper clip can be moved across the table by prayer alone!
And commandments. What commandments? To what is our John referring here?
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I can see, now, why there had to be only one apostate).
Do tell! Why?
The commandments--well, I take the passage to answer that question itself, here:
quote:
“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another. (John 15:12-17)
This would make the commandments = love one another, and bear the lasting fruit of love. Which is both an old and a new commandment, because while he's saying it here very clearly as a sort of "last words" before dying, it has been the theme of his whole ministry.
The "ask in my name" stuff--
That confuses me, too. I'm sure it means "over my signature, in my delegated authority"--so we can probably extrapolate enough to say that if we ask for anything Jesus himself would NOT sign off on, we are wasting our breath and will get nothing but a no. (so no pink Cadillacs, etc.) Since the promise is crammed into the context of instructions on what to do as the Christian movement goes forward, after Jesus' visible presence has been removed, I think it is fair to suppose he is referring to prayers made for the sake of the mission--that is, prayers that are made by people who are out and about Jesus' mission, and who run into situations where they need divine help to accomplish it. In other words, "Lord, we need some help with this ministry challenge here" but not necessarily "Lord, give me a baby/spouse/job/other personal need". We can certainly still pray for those things, but the promise here may not apply, if my reasoning is correct. And in fact, that is what we see in Jesus' own ministry--the miracles he does are always done for the sake of others, never his own personal needs (stone into bread and all that). And his miracles serve to advance Jesus' mission, rather than just being great glowing pictures of WTF. So the closer our requests get to that pattern--being for the service of God's mission and our neighbor, and being things that Jesus himself would sign off on if visibly present--the more likely it is that this promise applies, and therefore that God will give what is asked.
As for the one apostate business--
I think Jesus is referring specifically to the twelve when he says that stuff about "all but the son of perdition." Obviously there were plenty of ordinary followers who dropped away along the path, but in that part of the John 17 prayer, the focus is very clearly upon the twelve, who are about to become the seed for the missionary Christian movement.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jammy Dodger
Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872
|
Posted
Totally agree on the commandment Lamb Chopped. I was going to quote John 13:34 quote:
“I give you a new commandment – to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. NET Bible
This seems to me to be the main thrust of what Jesus is trying to get over - love one another. Everything else revolves around that.
On the "in my name" thing I struggle with this too. Self-evidently all of our prayers that we pray saying "in Jesus' name" or similar are not answered (at least not in the positive).
Yet I have seen answered prayer in all sorts of ways over and over again. For me it is not just the delegated authority thing (though agree with that - close correlation with the great commission in Matthew, All authority is given me therefore go...)
But names in the Bible often seem closely connected to character. Therefore asking for something in Jesus name is asking for something that would be consistent with his character (and therefore by extension from this passage, the Father).
Ultimately though, for me, it always boils down to:
Your kingdom come, your will be done....
Ultimately it is about aligning our will to God's not the other way around......
--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek
Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I had a ponder. I wondered if John used that word 'commandment' (entole = ἐντολή) in a way that could imply a side reference to the Law, Torah, but it's difficult to say. He uses entole about 7 times in the gospel in various ways. So I’m not sure if someone hearing John's work for the first time back then would have made the association when the reader got to 13:34. I'll park that aside and pick up the next query. Jesus had given this new commandment to the remaining disciples once Judas had left into the night. Why just to the loyal disciples? JD pointed out back when we were looking at 13:34 that there was a resonance with Matt. 22:37-40 and the “Love your God / love your neighbour” being a neat summary of Torah. There it was public, here in John it is private. The neighbour is the leadership team of the (re-)new(ed) faithful community.
It seems to mirror what John says in his letters, too (LC quoted one such passage back at 13:34) about those in the light.
It was interesting if only from the point of view of who John was aiming his gospel at.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I was about to post up the next verse when I realised we hadn't yet considered something rather important in the current passage: the Spirit.
There's so much that could be explored about the Spirit theme in John. In a sense we are only just embarking on the key passages here, but John had already signalled something about the Spirit back in 7:39 when Jesus used the metaphor of water to explain the Spirit's role in life and John noted that “Jesus said this about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were going to receive, for the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
John had also made the point that although this Spirit was yet to come, it had already appeared in the person of Jesus. In 1:32 John the Baptist said that he had seen the Spirit descend on Jesus – and stay there.
Potentially interesting point about how the Spirit is an essential prerequisite for successful mission. Jesus' ministry did not begin without it and the disciples seemed somewhat at sea about their mission before they received the Spirit.
John (gospel author) also links the idea of not receiving the Spirit with that of not receiving Jesus. Here in 14:17 he says that the world, defined as that which (including those who) cannot see and recognise the Spirit, will not receive the same. Back in 1:10 John introduced that idea that the world could not recognise Jesus. So John seems to be gearing up his audience to note that the closeness between God and Jesus had a match with the Spirit.
I was snared by a question around 14:15-16.
quote:
“If you love me, you will obey my commandments. Then I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate...”
This is phrased as a conditional. If you should love me...then I will...” That's interesting. It suggests that a disciple had first to obey the commandments and that this was a pass/fail requirement for receiving the Spirit. Obey my rules, then and only then will I send you the Spirit.
Seems counter-intuitive to Christianity, where the point is more often made that we blessed Christians, poor and miserable sinners that we are, desperately need the Spirit's help before we can even hope to love that witch who occupies pew number 14b each Sunday. What hope had the disciples to obey the commandments under their own steam, especially as Jesus was about to leave them, without God's help? Not even Israel could fulfil the Torah! Why would the disciples need a Spirit if they could, in fact, fulfil the essence of Torah?
Perhaps this is about John's emphases on the Spirit as a(nother) Paraclete (= παράκλητος), not a term that made an appearance to date in John's work. But if so, what is it about? Is it linked to John's use of the 'truth' word (here, the Spirit of truth - aletheia = ἀλήθεια)? A Spirit that reveals things (a-letheia as a disclosing, uncovering), an interpreter? This would then refer to the giving of the Spirit as a speaker of interpretations, one who provides the correct interpretation of scripture and God's message. What the disciples received later, in other words, was the mouth of God, as it were, in opening up what God had told his people in past times.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Quick note--the conditional is all in verse 15, "If you love me... you will keep/treasure my commandments." The "then" in verse 16 (Then I will ask the Father...) is a mistranslation in my opinion--the Greek is κἀγὼ, which is a run-together contraction of kai and ego, meaning "And I". While you COULD render it "then," you'd only choose to do so if you already had the preconceived idea that there was a cause-and-effect thing going on here. Otherwise you'd just use "And," which is the default translation. IMHO this is what the translator SHOULD have done.
Also, on that conditional--there is an "if" but not an explicit "then" in the Greek. The second verb is a future tense indicative τηρήσετε, meaning "to keep or treasure." It is not an imperative. So you could translate this conditional equally well as a mere statement of observable fact, similar to "if the dog is barking, there will be someone at the door": "If you love me, you will keep/treasure my commandments." In other words, it doesn't have to imply any coercion or "do-this-or-else" attitude. It could equally well be a bare prediction or statement of what always happens. If X, then Y.
Both of these readings would change the interpretation pretty dramatically. Instead of a "Keep my commandments, or else I will know you don't love me and I won't send the Spirit either," you get a much more gracious "If[almost 'because'] you love me, you will treasure and keep my commandments. Oh, and one more good thing--I will ask the Father, and he will send the Spirit..."
But as so often, the presuppositions you [general you] bring to the text will affect the way you translate it.
ETA: for more scholarly stuff on this, see http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4232/is-the-statement-about-love-and-obedience-in-john-1415-an-imperative-or- an-indi. Sorry,can't do URL links here.
[ 22. June 2014, 17:06: 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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Thanks LC – useful stuff. What draws me to query what John is up to is his use of the language here. Although the conditional starts in v.15, the kago flows as part of it. It would have been understandable if John had drawn a nice full-stop equivalent after v.15: “Should you love me you will keep my commandments. In addition, I will...” That kago rather spoils things with its sequencing; I would have expected John might have used something less connected, as it were, if he didn't really intend to do that, perhaps use de instead?
I think it's right to take the τηρέω verb in the indicative state in v.15, rather than the imperative. That matches the usage elsewhere of eav + subjunctive verb + indicative verb, such as in Matt. 9:21 (“If only I could touch his garment, I will be healed”). There is this cause-effect here: If one could just do 'A', then 'B' will follow. With John it does rather read as If 'A', then 'B' and 'C' will follow. I know it doesn't sound right.
I'll have a check on how John uses kago elsewhere when I get a moment; he is quite a heavy user of it so there's a decent chance we should get a feel for his idiosyncrasy.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I take John's (Jesus') use of initial kai (or κἀγὼ) to be a Hebraism--just a carryover into his second language, Greek, of the ubiquitous "And" that starts off what, 70 percent or so of the sentences in the Old Testament? Some huge amount, anyway.
And if that's correct, we can't put very much weight on it in terms of meaning. The Hebrew initial "and" has grammatical purposes, but in terms of the sentence's meaning it's virtually a stutter. Similar to "like" when I was growing up. "So I was like, don't go there, and she was like, why not? and like, she wouldn't listen..."
--------------------
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
Probably wider than just Hebrew - in Arabic it was/is considered good style to start a sentence with "Wa" - and - and unmannerly not to.
--------------------
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
I suspect the Hebrew background of the narrative sequence, using the conjunction waw + verb (called the waw-conversive or waw-consecutive) and translating into Greek with the conjunction kai, might increase our problem, because the use of the Hebrew conjunction to indicate a temporal sequence of actions would mean that kai here in John is being used to link a series of actions that occur in a narrative sequence.
So just as in English we might set out a sequence of events that occur one after another – Mary woke up, she got up, she washed, she dressed, she ate her breakfast, she caught the train...etc., - and in Hebrew this would have been presented as a temporal sequence with each verb prefixed by the waw conjunction, so in John 14 this would be: If you...then you...and then I will ask the father, and then he will give... The implication would be that the giving of the Spirit cannot occur until Jesus asks, and Jesus cannot ask until the previous activity has completed (i.e., the disciple is obedient). That would be the sequence of temporal events in a narrative.
As far as the conditional element goes, I can see it makes sense to limit it to v.15. I like the idea that there's an element of statable fact about things, that if a disciple is loyal to God, then he or she will already be motivated (or empowered, or will desire) to be loyal to one's community. It's as though Jesus was saying to his disciples, “You won't to worry about your ability to fulfil those commandments; your desire to be loyal to me and to God will mean that you find yourself motivated to do so.”
Given that, then we are left with this residual issue of the kai + pronoun [ego] in v.16. I did a check on the uses of kago (= καγὼ) in John' gospel. There are 76 occurrences.
An example of the common use of [kago] in the sequential sense can be found in 6:44, where Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I [kago] will raise him up at the last day.” First one, then afterward the other.
However there are instances where John uses [kago] with different senses. For example, in 1:31 John the Baptist says “This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’ I [kago] did not recognize him...” This one is interesting, because the sense is less a sequential conjunction and more an adversative - “Surprisingly, I didn't recognise him.”
The same effect is found in 1:32-3. “I saw the Spirit descending like a dove... And I [kago] did not recognize him...
In the next verse (1:34) we have the term being used as a conclusion: “I [kago] have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God.” This seems less temporally sequential and more logical, the final point being made on the basis of points made earlier.
5:15 provides another usage – Jesus speaking: “My Father is working until now, and I [kago] too am working.” The sense here is of 'So, too, I...' where the first clause is supplemented by the second: 'firstly this, and also this'.
10:15 provides yet another sense. Jesus says, “Just as the Father knows me and I [kago] know the Father...” and the sense here is 'as one, so also the other (at the same time).' Slightly different to the last sense in that there doesn't seem to be a progression here, the two clauses are complementary without development.
So we have a variety of sense in which John uses that term. Normally that would be a cause for doom and gloom, but here it's good news! It means that we can't really conclude that John had in mind a consecutive action in 14:16. It could have been intended as complementary, non-chronological, or logical.
And another thing(!). Another Advocate. A lot has been written about this as a term to describe the Spirit. What do people think about it? It could tie in nicely with John's description of Jesus as 'Word' (logos) – both terms imply a message; Jesus and the Spirit as speakers in some sense. But then John uses the term parakletos (= παράκλητος) instead of “another Word.” He does use the term of Jesus in one of his letters (1 John 2:1), “If anyone sins we have a paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous One”, which might suggest John intended the comparison to be drawn in his gospel between parakletos and logos.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Onwards...
quote:
John 14:18-19 NET Bible
I will not abandon you as orphans, I will come to you. In a little while the world will not see me any longer, but you will see me; because I live, you will live too.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Sometimes I think I know this truth, that I see Jesus and I live,
But it is a slippery truth, only true if I am in the right frame of mind: true in the moment, but not when the moment is talked about. A deep truth that can be experienced, but not reduced to propositions.
Perhaps a lot of John is like that; and why it called the spiritual gospel, though I think the others are also spiritual.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Yup. What the last two said. All the gospels are self-admitted propaganda. But there do seem to be times when God (if there is a God!) just cuts through all the pathetic human inadequacy to speak for Himself. In today's world we need all the eyes-wide comfort and hope we can get.
--------------------
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
It's very fitting for the enclosed room, with the darkness shut out for a while - safe and sound. Reminds me of a father reading a night-time story to the kid before he falls asleep.
The night will hold no terrors for you, me lad.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Continuing:
"In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.." [John 14.18-20]
Have we discussed this already? I'm struggling with a new machine.
--------------------
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
We hadn't done verse 20 yet, which is a tricky triangle to get one's head around: I in Father, You in me, I in You. Ripe for Greek philosophical speculation, that! I wonder if that is how John or his early audience approached it, though...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
In R.E.Brown's Introduction (Ed. F.J. Maloney), Georg Richter is cited as regarding v.14.20 as one of several examples of an early re-working of the gospel by one part of the Johanine community who were developing a "Son-of-God Christology" (which was not universally adopted at the time. Brown elsewhere talks about Wisdom literature in the context of Christians "inhabiting" Jesus - or the other way round.
Google grundschrift if you haven't got indigestion already...
--------------------
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 having a hard time approaching that verse other than experientially. I don't understand Greek philosophy or the German stuff, my brain doesn't work that way... but "I in you and you in me and I in my Father"--well, that just works for me. It gives me a sense of both family closeness and of utter safety--nobody is going to get to me without literally going through Jesus. It's an image of nested circles, or even of pregnancy and the warm safety of that enclosure of love. That comforts me. It reminds me that I am never alone.
--------------------
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:
"They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them."
[John 14.21]
Well, I think I want to take issue with that. I can vouch personally for the fact of Jesus revealing himself to those who love him. But I refute unequivocally any idea that this happened (in my case) as a result of any moral rectitude on my part. John (not Jesus!) is way off here.
[ 08. August 2014, 16:38: 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
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
"They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them."
[John 14.21]
Well, I think I want to take issue with that. I can vouch personally for the fact of Jesus revealing himself to those who love him. But I refute unequivocally any idea that this happened (in my case) as a result of any moral rectitude on my part. John (not Jesus!) is way off here.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Are you sure that you've understood him correctly?
"They who have my commandments and keep them [Greek: treasure them, cherish them] are those who love me." Well, yes. If you love someone, it is reasonable to expect that his commands (wishes, desires, preferences) will be dear to you. I don't feed my husband mustard, and I pretty much refrain from makeup because my little guy objects to it. My husband urgently desires (commands, if this weren't the U.S. in the 21st century) that I get my job applications done this week. These things I do out of love, not fear or coercion. Jesus' commands (including the one about believing in him, and about loving my neighbor!) are similar. They are not burdensome because they are done for love. Never perfectly, but then that's not a requirement, is it? The cross has done away with that notion.
And in fact, obedience to Christ is pretty much our only useful way of expressing our love for him. I mean, it's a case of putting our money where our mouth is, right? Any number of people have claimed to love me; but it's the ones who clean up after me when I'm sick who really love me. The rest? words, words, words.
"and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them." I don't think you had a problem with this bit, but I'll just say that this is the good news--our love is requited, nobody's going to be left to languish and sigh while the Beloved finds someone else. Our love story has a happy ending, and we have his promise on that.
(ever notice how Jesus promises us rewards that nobody else would want EXCEPT someone who loved him? "I will love them and reveal myself to them... they will be loved by my Father." I can think of any number of people who would not consider this a reward at all--rather a bore, or even a threat. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) But to those who love him, he's basically saying, "You'll get what you want, never fear.")
--------------------
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
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
I understand this in light of 1 John 2 quote:
Now by this we may be sure that we know him, if we obey his commandments. Whoever says, ‘I have come to know him’, but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist; but whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says, ‘I abide in him’, ought to walk just as he walked.
Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word that you have heard. Yet I am writing you a new commandment that is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. Whoever says, ‘I am in the light’, while hating a brother or sister, is still in the darkness. Whoever loves a brother or sister* lives in the light, and in such a person* there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates another believer is in the darkness, walks in the darkness, and does not know the way to go, because the darkness has brought on blindness.
It is not moral rectitude but loving our brothers and sisters that is commanded. Or is it a "commandment" since how can love be commanded? Being and acting lovingly can be done, so in some circumstances this may be all that can be hoped.
Of course, in other places in scripture we are are commanded to love our enemies and those who do evil to us, not just our fellow Christians.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I suppose this covers an issue that John and his audience faced: How does one know who is a loyal member of the Christian community?
Answer (on a parchment or two by John): The one who holds and keeps guard of Jesus' commandments is the one demonstrating loyalty to God.
There may be more here than just following the rules. Having and holding the commandments could also mean studying, interpreting, copying, disseminating... and even in the face of argument and persecution. It would then be about living the life and teaching others to live it too, unto death.
Such a one will be looked after by the Father, says John, and will also be subject to Jesus' revelation. That's interesting. I assume that this refers to the appearance of Jesus in person to the one showing loyalty – presumably an initial reference to the appearances to the disciples “in that day” (verse 20) after the resurrection, but surely John would also want to say that the appearance would happen to anyone showing loyalty.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Latchkey Kid says that it is not moral rectitude but loving our brothers and sisters that is commanded.
I think that in this context it is loving our fellow believers that is commanded, and what is important is what we believe as much as what we say or do. There is quite a large body of Christian believers who, I think, would be reluctant to regard many liberal Christians as authentic believers. It sounds to me like a backs-against-the-wall job, and not only is moral rectitude demanded (by the believers) but a particular set of moral attitudes which not all Christians (same sex couples, for instance) may want to espouse ( and 'espouse is a very apt word here, isn't 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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
[Shakes head dizzily]
I think you're heading down a rabbit hole (or a dead horse hole, if there such a thing)
Jesus commands us to love our neighbors (including our enemies), which is clearly a matter of action, words, and attitude. The warm fuzzy feelings may or may not exist, but that's okay. They are not the heart of it. One can love without liking someone. And their moral rectitude or lack of it has nothing to do with our requirement to love them. Nor do their opinions or behavior.
He also commands us to believe in him ("What should we be doing, to doing the work that God commands?" the crowd asked. Jesus replied, "This is what God commands: that you believe on the one he has sent.")
None of this is possible without the Holy Spirit living in us. But all of it IS possible with 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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Fine. Points taken. Feel free to ignore my little white scut disappearing down the hole and carry on!
--------------------
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
Little white rabbit tail. See my address below!
--------------------
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Little white rabbit tail.
Which is especially conspicuous when the rabbit is hightailing it away.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Bouncing back:
quote:
Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, ‘Lord, how is it that you will reveal yourself to us, and not to the world?’ Jesus answered him, ‘Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me.
[John14.22-24]
Is this the first time we encounter "Judas (not Iscariot)"? And is the disclaimer in parenthesis in the original source? I doubt if we can know, for sure. But what is most likely? There are loads of Simons in the bible, but AFAIK, none of them is referred to as "Simon (not Peter)".
--------------------
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
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
I don't know if Greek had such a thing as a parenthesis, but, intrigued by your question, pimple, I played around with the Oremus Bible's search function. It seems that when the name Judas is used, the writer makes it clear as to whether it's Judas the betrayer or not. It makes sense to me that the name Judas would have been so "loaded" that a writer would take pains to relieve other Judases of that association.
However, looking into the use of Simon/Peter, there's a similar effort by the John writer.
References to Simon. These tend to differentiate between Simon Peter and Simon Iscariot, Judas the betrayer's father. (Interesting linkage there.)
References to Peter will typically name him as Simon Peter or name him in conjunction with his brother Andrew. If it isn't specified in the verse itself, there will have been a reference to it a few verses before, so the reader is well aware from the context.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
No, no parentheses in ancient Greek, though the text would still be there. But as Mamacita shows so well, there is a common practice of distinguishing two people with the same name--either by their relatives (son of whoever) or their home village or their political association (Simon the Zealot). By the way, I'm pretty sure that is who the writers are trying to keep readers from confusing Simon Peter with--there were two Simons among the apostles, as well as two Johns and two Judases. I don't think Simon Iscariot comes into the picture at all--he may well have been dead by this time. But Simon the Zealot was alive and in the same circle, a real candidate for confusion.
--------------------
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
And Judas (not Iscariot) would according to tradition be Thaddeus? There must be some rationale for this - or is it conjecture?
I quite understand the need to distance the good Judas from the bad one, but isn't there a less negative way of doing it - like, for instance, naming the good Judas's father?
I cannot help wondering if "not Iscariot" might be an edit, of the original story, written with hindsight. After all, Judas who was Iscariot was a bona fide apostle right up to the time of Jesus' arrest.
[ 17. August 2014, 21:01: 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
That's not at all clear - what I mean is that many of the stories of Jesus' sayings and doings must have pre-dated the writing of the gospels, 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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Sorry – I was still down the hole with Alice. I was wondering in that wonder land whether to EAT ME or DRINK ME. I'm assuming that John took material from Jesus' teachings that best suited the purpose he had in writing – the issue or issues that he really, really wanted to tackle. What he needed was to get through that keyhole (the issue) as much of his material as he could squeeze.
Can't remember now if it was EAT ME or DRINK ME that made Alice shrink, but I think John is crowding his stage here with as much as he hopes his audience can consume, and that this means we are at a nub in his argument. You'll know who the Real Followers of Jesus are by their behaviour. Such a person will be so tied up in loyalty to Jesus and God that it will be hard to distinguish one from the other: God-Jesus-Spirit-Believer.
It's a good question (to reappear above ground again) why John chooses to “not-Iscariot” this Judas. Usually the identifier is indeed by origin, name of father or tribe or region. Mr J. Iscariot seems to have got under John's skin to some great extent. It almost feels as though John was burned by Judas' behaviour.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Yes. But gracious, I should complain! Sometimes I think my own hang-ups far outweigh John's. The discourses get more and more repetitive and more and more - what? Effective, I think. He's channelling Jesus, and you don't actually have to be an apostle or an Evangelist to do that. Let the good guy do his work, pimple, and stop whingeing about his human fallibility!
--------------------
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
Okay, feeling like Captain Obvious here. Surely, if he does have a beef with Judas, it is humanly understandable?
Still, be that as it may, I see nothing in the mere identification (Judas, the one who betrayed him) to force us into that idea. The fact is, whether you have emotions about the act or not, Judas Iscariot IS the guy who betrayed Jesus, and will forever be best known for that fact. People tend to identify others by their best known quality. Thus you get some ID'd by more well-known relatives, some by village, some by occupation--and some by action. Abraham Lincoln was many things, but his most obvious quality is that of having been president. Therefore anyone looking for a quick way to distinguish which Lincoln he's talking about will likely say, "You know, the president." And that includes people who are still refighting the Civil War and loathe and despise the man. Similarly, John W. Booth will always carry the tag "the guy who shot Lincoln." That tells you nothing about whether the speaker approves of Booth's action or not. It simply identifies his most famous characteristic.
--------------------
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
Sorry, but you've totally missed my (badly put?) point. John was quoting a remark, not by Judas Iscariot, but by the "good" Judas. Are you saying that the one thing he was famous for was not being Iscariot?
--------------------
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 sorry to say this, but yes, it probably was. Think for a moment: Suppose your name was Leonardo da Vinci but you were NOT the artist/inventor, although you lived at roughly the same time. How do you think people would describe you in, say, letters to people who had never met you personally?
Yep. "Yesterday I ran into Leonardo da Vinci--no, not that one, another guy--and ..."
It's really annoying to be constantly defined as NOT the more famous person of your name; but it's almost impossible to stop other people from doing it, because it's the most salient point in most people's minds. John was simply doing what people do all the time.
--------------------
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
Onwards and upwards?
John 14.25-28
‘I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid. You heard me say to you, “I am going away, and I am coming to you.” If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I.
--------------------
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
What would the disciples have understood by the expression "I am going to the Father" ?
--------------------
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 they would have been confused. But maybe more to the point, what DID Jesus mean by "going to the Father"? Is this a simple reference to his death, or to the whole death/resurrection/ascension complex? I tend to think the latter.
--------------------
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
If it had simply been to death on the Cross, there would not have been any glory. The glory comes from the resurrection and ascension. The words were to comfort as well as inform.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
