|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time.
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Sorry, but there seems to be something like a bit of corporate autism going on here. The idea that Jesus meant by "I am going to the Father" that he was going to be crucified, resurrected from the dead and returned for a brief while to the disciples as the Risen Son, before returning once more to the Father, though without entirely abandoning them.....
may or may not be true. Let's suppose that it is. There is a vast gulf between what we (or you - the church) know with hindsight to be true, and the perceptions of people on the ground at the time - that is, Jesus' contemporaries, not John the evangelist's. I think I go with LC's first conjecture - that they were confused, as well as comforted. But to suggested that they - the disciples, back then - were comforted by a complete knowledge of what was to come just stretches my credulity to breaking point.
Basically, I think that present-day Christians are concerned primarily with their own need for comfort, with a very limited capacity for appreciating that of others, then or now.
(Will he never stop grousing...?)
--------------------
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 don't think anybody was suggesting that the disciples then and there had it all figured out. Jesus, yes; disciples, no. But Jesus had a habit of saying things that would only make full sense long afterward. Very annoying it must have been sometimes, I think, but no doubt they got used to 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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Basically, I think that present-day Christians are concerned primarily with their own need for comfort, with a very limited capacity for appreciating that of others, then or now.
That is indeed a big hurdle for readers of the bible (ditto all texts): to put oneself in the shoes of the original author/audience so as the more fully understand what was being said. It's one of the right questions to ask - What would the followers of Jesus have understood by the phrase "I am going to the Father"? A parallel question is the same one in respect of John's audience. Would they have understood the same thing as those in that nighttime before the arrest?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
It's so difficult to know exactly the circumstances of John's audience. So much can happen in a generation or two, even in times when the pace of ordinary life seems slow compared to our own.
John 14.29-31
And now I have told you this before it occurs, so that when it does occur, you may believe. I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me; but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us be on our way.
That last sentence really does sound as though the words were taken in shorthand by some unknown scribe. Thinking back to the situation in Jesus' lifetime, where are they about to go?
And back to John's time again. There must have been a great deal of anxiety about lost friends, I think - So much of this last discourse continues to give comfort in the context of funerals today.
Then suddenly, we're on our way - but get nowhere, because we are plunged straight into another discourse, on the true vine.
--------------------
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
They're on their way outside the city walls, across Kidron, to Gethsemane. The vine etc. I take to be what he said while they were walking.
--------------------
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 to be picky but I don't think John mentions Gethsemane. However, it may be a reasonable assumption. John's description of what happens there is - ah, perhaps we'd better wait. Another couple of discourses and many repetitions on the theme of Jesus going to the Father, first. But people might want a rest before starting on the true vine discourse?
--------------------
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:
'I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine-grower. He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit.
You have already been cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me.
[John 15.1-4]
There's a great deal of 'meat' in this. As a gardener I find myself biting my tongue. And "You have already been cleansed" seems to hark back to the foot-washing. What's it got to do with viticulture?
I expect there are allusions here to the purification metaphors in the old testament, the corn being winnowed, the molten gold being purified. Can someone simplify it for me? Or would that be totally the wrong approach?
--------------------
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
The same word katharo can be translated either as "to cleanse" or "to prune." He's playing on words.
--------------------
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
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The same word katharo can be translated either as "to cleanse" or "to prune." He's playing on words.
I'd never really thought about this before, but really, at its heart, the word means "to cleanse." It gets used in Greek as a technical term for pruning, but that's an extension of the basic meaning. It's not really a pun, where a word is ambiguous between two meanings and the word-play takes advantage of this. It's more that pruning is understood in Greek as the vinicultural equivalent of cleansing in most other spheres.
We have to use a different word in English, but really Jesus is just talking about cleansing in different contexts, including viniculture where 'cleansing' happens not to involve water but scissors.
Does that make sense?
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
So it is an extension of the foot-washing metaphor. The physical cleansing of the disciples by washing their feet is also a symbol of his having cleansed - or purified - them spiritually, so that they can continue the work (bear fruit in the vine metaphor) given to Jesus by his Father.
And the example of service he gives to them in the former example is a sort of add-on freebie and not the main point?
They were fishermen mostly, not vine-growers. I wonder what they made of it all? It makes no sense to a reasonable modern person now to think of "false vines" as opposed to the true vine. The poor bloody vine is only as good as the gardener. But in Jesus' day all creation seems to have had some sort of soul, so that when Jesus curses an unproductive fig tree and it dies, the wise heads of the faithful nod in approval.
We are still light-years away though (possibly) in understanding how little control over our instinctive and intuitive thoughts and actions are. This good boy/bad boy simplification just won't wash any more, but we still cling to it. Saves us the trouble of thinking...
--------------------
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:
So it is an extension of the foot-washing metaphor. The physical cleansing of the disciples by washing their feet is also a symbol of his having cleansed - or purified - them spiritually, so that they can continue the work (bear fruit in the vine metaphor) given to Jesus by his Father.
And the example of service he gives to them in the former example is a sort of add-on freebie and not the main point?
No, I think it's an example of forgiveness--an acted out parable. He says to Peter, "you folks have already had a bath and need only to have your feet washed--except for one", which makes sense if the bath = one-time baptism and the footwashing = the everyday repentance and forgiveness of daily sins. In that case, the footwashing is something where we should "do as I have done to you"--that is, forgive one another. That way the whole community stays clean, healthy, and fruitful.
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
They were fishermen mostly, not vine-growers. I wonder what they made of it all? It makes no sense to a reasonable modern person now to think of "false vines" as opposed to the true vine. The poor bloody vine is only as good as the gardener. But in Jesus' day all creation seems to have had some sort of soul, so that when Jesus curses an unproductive fig tree and it dies, the wise heads of the faithful nod in approval.
You'll notice the passage isn't about true vs. false vines, but rather about fruitful vs. fruitless vine branches. False vines aren't even mentioned. You can say they're implied, but you could just as easily say that "true vine" is another way of saying "the spiritual reality that natural vines mirror, just as the sun and moon are mirrors of God's true eternal light."
[ 06. September 2014, 01:40: 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
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You'll notice the passage isn't about true vs. false vines, but rather about fruitful vs. fruitless vine branches. False vines aren't even mentioned. You can say they're implied, but you could just as easily say that "true vine" is another way of saying "the spiritual reality that natural vines mirror, just as the sun and moon are mirrors of God's true eternal light."
I'd be inclined to go this way. There are good shepherds and bad shepherds in John, but there's only really one vine in this symbolic universe, and it's true, ie. reliable. The question is how deeply we're rooted in it (to mix the metaphor a little!)
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Thanks for your help. I must say my post came out somewhat unedited (euphemism alert!)
--------------------
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
Could some kind person please put up John 15.5-7
(MY fumbled link to Ortemus - AND the attempted edit - failed miserably) and answer the following question for me:
How do Christians know when they are abiding in Jesus?
--------------------
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
John 15:5-7
quote:
I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
I suppose the facile answer to pimple's question would have something to do with bearing fruit, but that seems to easy and too short-term. ("Look! Results! Jesus is with me!") Whereas "abiding" seems to be a long-term thing, at least to me.
[ 15. September 2014, 15:10: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I think I put the cart before the horse again!
1. How would the disciples have known they were or were not abiding in Jesus. What, specifically, was Jesus demanding they should do or not do?
2. How would John recognise, publicly and/or privately, those of his readers who were abiding in Jesus?
3. Did anyone then, and does anyone now, have the authority to judge who may or may not be abiding in Jesus?
--------------------
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
Cracking questions - covers the three aspects of biblical interpretation: validation of the original sense, the authorial intent in the work aimed at an audience, and application for today.
Right. That's my insight on this.
Actually I need to get closer to the weekend to get a fuller response. Two days of tea in a week is nowhere near enough.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
1. How would the disciples have known they were or were not abiding in Jesus. What, specifically, was Jesus demanding they should do or not do?
It's not a direct link in the Gospels, but I would think it's a fairly straight-forward indirect link to Jesus' statements that loving him means following his commands.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
* post * n the knowledge that there * s a R * SK assoc * ated with what * say at th * s time of year, when a pre-Hallowe'en sp * r * t stalks the n * ght on the Sh * p
quote:
Crap spouted by pimple:
1. How would the disciples have known they were or were not abiding in Jesus. What, [* ]specifically[/* ], was Jesus demanding they should do or not do?
2. How would John recognise, publicly and/or privately, those of his readers who were abiding in Jesus?
3. Did anyone then, and does anyone now, have the authority to judge who may or may not be abiding in Jesus?
Number [1] is the hardest one to answer, given the post-Enlightenment notions of how texts were put together. There's that suspicion about any claim to make a historical link between what's in the text and what was in the historic event the text purports to represent. The issue is whether any text from the past can be taken seriously as a source of historical information. John's gospel is quite overt in stating that it has a reason and purpose for its existence, which causes some to back away from treating it as in any sense historical. Still, one does have faith in the oral and community tradition theory, that when someone like John takes material and presents it in public this way, he puts it up for scrutiny to be tested by those who were witnesses and who could besmirch what he wrote if they thought he was taking liberties with history. John seems to have survived the cull of public scrutiny.
So We (royal 'we') are more confident in saying that at some point Jesus told his immediate followers that the test of loyalty was their life in obedience to their master – an abiding.
John, in his turn, is quite taken by this theme of abiding (remaining, residing...). It pops up all over the place in his work. He seems to want to have his hearers obey on a regular basis – a lifestyle that is best described by saying it is like someone living permanently at an address. He extends the picture language by using another metaphor, that of the vine. So a loyal believer is like one who lives at a permanent address, which in turn is like being a branch attached to the main vine stalk. You can tell who's living the life by virtue of their being like the stalk, or having a personalised home. Their lifestyle, speech, and so on all feel alike. There is no mask, or sense of detachment, to what they say and do – to who they are.
There is something else, though, in John; he is working up to something in this passage and is spending some time on this before he gets there.
As to the judging aspect – the high-level answer would probably be that God does the judging. A lower-level answer would be that Jesus has been authorised by God to judge as well. An even deeper-level answer would also have to take account of those hints in the NT that the believers have also been authorised to judge.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
There is certainly a big point coming:
quote:
8 My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become [or 'be'] my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. 11 I have said these things to you that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.
[John 15.8-11]
I think we can pause here. He knows that he will very soon be dead, and the talk is all of joy!
--------------------
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
Yes. His own joy. Great point.
I think it's because the great rescue will soon be complete. The people he loves will be forever safe, forever blessed, forever his. Which makes the death worthwhile.
--------------------
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:
I think I put the cart before the horse again!
1. How would the disciples have known they were or were not abiding in Jesus. What, specifically, was Jesus demanding they should do or not do?
2. How would John recognise, publicly and/or privately, those of his readers who were abiding in Jesus?
3. Did anyone then, and does anyone now, have the authority to judge who may or may not be abiding in Jesus?
I'm going to try to take a whack at this, though it's probably unwise as my brain is fuzzy from headache etc.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
First, question 2. How would John recognize who was or was not abiding in Jesus--I think the answer here is that he wouldn't, not with 100% accuracy. A newly cut branch looks just fine for a while--a short while, granted, but then who's to know exactly when the cut came? As long as it's still hanging there supported by the rest of the branches, you could walk right past it and never notice the cut connection--until it wilts.
I suspect a newly-cut off Christian would be much the same--the wilt would not be apparent right away, it would take a while. And so John would wisely refrain from judgement.
--------------------
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
Now question 3--
quote:
3. Did anyone then, and does anyone now, have the authority to judge who may or may not be abiding in Jesus?
The answer is yes. Jesus has this authority, and he has clearly delegated it (for certain values of "delegated") to the church. Meaning the church as an assembly or group, not as a single individual, no matter what his office. Matthew 18 lays out the procedure.
[And yes, I'm relying on non-Johannine documents for this discussion. I believe with all my heart that Scripture interprets Scripture. Sue me. }]
Okay, let's go into "for certain values of "delegated." This does not mean "Anyone a church body condemns is going to hell, no appeals allowed." When someone delegates his authority, this does NOT mean that he thereby gives up any right to overrule his appointed delegate. If my employer asks me to review another employee and I do a crap job of it, my own boss can and will look at what I wrote, overrule it, and discipline me into the bargain. I have the authority to do things right, but not to impose my mistakes, accidental or deliberate, on anyone else. So with the church. If the church wrongly censures or excommunicates somebody, the Lord will certainly overrule that judgement. If it was done on purpose, the ones who misused their delegated authority will be up for judgement themselves.
Okay, now the "how" of judging whether someone is abiding in Jesus:
This is an authority to be used with fear and trembling and a great deal of consultation (witness Matthew 18) and when in doubt, refrained from. The purpose of this authority (we Lutherans call it the Office of the Keys) is to protect both the individual and the church as a body. Consider the case of a guy who is absolutely, glaringly, repeatedly, unrepentantly, breaking all ten of the Commandments to smithereens--not just once, but as a clear, ongoing, longstanding pattern of behavior. He beats his wife and kids. He steals from his job. He's having multiple affairs, some of them with underage girls. He lies like a dog about his best friends and betrays their confidence, destroying their marriages and their jobs. Etc. etc. etc...
And yet he goes to church on Sunday, he holds the position of elder (God knows how he got it, someone really screwed up there) and he advertises himself to the world as a Christian.
So now what? To let him continue in this way is to help him commit spiritual suicide. If you care about his wellbeing at all, you must warn him. More than that, you must do what lies in your power to turn him from this path. Not that very much lies in your power, after all--each individual soul makes its own choices--but you (as a group) have the delegated authority of the Keys, and in this case you clearly must use them or be guilty of negligence. Otherwise his blood will be on your hands.
You also have a responsibility to the body of Christ, the church. Should such a man be allowed to continue to puff himself off as a member in good standing of the body of Christ? What of the people he has under his care as an elder? What of the children who are watching his example? What of the wife he abuses, the sons and daughters he beats, the people he has betrayed? Should not their harm be taken seriously? Should you not prevent further harm insofar as you can?
Finally, you have a responsibility to the world. Such a man is a walking lie so long as he advertises himself to be a Christian. He will put innumerable people off the Christian faith by his hypocrisy, and if the church fails to discipline him, the church will be guilty of hypocrisy as well.
So it's got to be done? How? Short answer is Matthew 18. Which is a multi-step, group project aimed at bringing the person to repentance and restoration. It may not succeed, but as a church, you're going to give it every shot. Because unlike grape vine branches, a cut Christian branch can actually be restored and become fruitful again. But it takes people who care enough to try.
--------------------
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
Now question 1. (I can triple post, me!)
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
1. How would the disciples have known they were or were not abiding in Jesus. What, specifically, was Jesus demanding they should do or not do?
It's not a direct link in the Gospels, but I would think it's a fairly straight-forward indirect link to Jesus' statements that loving him means following his commands.
I agree with this, with the added stuff from upthread that "keeping my commands" in the Greek is perhaps better translated as "cherishing, treasuring" with the add-on note that naturally that's going to include trying to do them. But the main emphasis is not on some kind of bare order, but is more in tune with doing things because the person you love is made happy by that. Similar to "Dad would have wanted me to do things this way." The attitude of a child, not a slave.
Of course, none of us manages this perfectly, and maybe that's a good thing to keep in mind, as it keeps us humble and we don't take our "abidingness" in Jesus for granted. Someone who feels their weakness and is always wanting to draw closer is IMHO safer than the person who is so certain of himself that he never gives another thought in life to whether he actually is abiding in Jesus or not.
--------------------
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
We are fast approaching the apex of the current chiasmos, after which all that has been said from the beginning of chapter 13 will be repeated in reverse order. It's formality takes nothing from its power to comfort and convince. The phrases are almost liturgical, as though Jesus were composing his own eucharistic prayer to the Father.
Reminds me of some of the rhythms of the old ASB (the anglican Alternative Service Book), much maligned in its heyday, and much missed by this old duffer.
--------------------
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
Thought occurred on that pruning/cleansing of the vine image and the judging role in the Christian community.
There seems to be a distinction between the function of removing unfruitful branches, and a separate function of destroying those branches. Verse 6 goes:
quote:
“If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown out like a branch, and dries up; and such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire, and are burned up.”
This may be pushing the picture language too far, but was Jesus saying that there is a role for Christians in casting out of the community any who do not match loyalty with actions, but that ultimate destruction remains God's prerogative? He is the one, in other words, who gathers up the dry branches that have already been cast out.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Simon Peter take note? Vis-ŕ-vis Ananias and Sapphira?
Or perhaps I'm totally wrong and Peter just pointed the finger, and God did the business - Peter being a better God-manipulator than Jonah?
Now there I go, being judgmental again. And me not even a bona-fide born-again...
A and S are perhaps not relevant to John's Gospel - but I reckon this snippet of John might be relevant to that nasty little piece of Christian history. And I won't let it go. Not yet.
[ 24. September 2014, 18:19: 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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Whatever floats your boat!
But as for shoving out the fruitless branches--
I think the beginning of this passage attributes the cutting bit to God the Father when it calls him the "vinedresser," which is basically the guy who does the pruning (harvesting and manuring too, I suppose). Still, the pruning is going to be the majority of what he does during the year as he keeps the vine in good shape. By analogy, then, any "cutting" of unfruitful Christian branches is ultimately the work of God the Father. He may, if he chooses, work through the local congregation; but he need not, and he can overrule them too.
--------------------
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
Which brings us deftly back on track. And I apologize for not giving links to my tangential outburst. Will try harder next time!
I must not blame Windows 8
I must not blame Windows 8
I must not...
--------------------
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:
'This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends, You are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father. You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. I am goving you these commands, so that you may love one another.'
[John 15.12-17]
This is powerful stuff. Powerful religion can be difficult to cope with. Or argue with. Or demand explanations of. So I will sit down, shut up and listen. And hope...
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
'This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends, You are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father. You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. I am goving you these commands, so that you may love one another.'
[John 15.12-17]
This is powerful stuff. Powerful religion can be difficult to cope with. Or argue with. Or demand explanations of. So I will sit down, shut up and listen. And hope...
Powerful stuff indeed, the very core of Christianity. Without love, forget it. Without love we're not doing what God wants of us. Without love, we can't bear the fruit that will last. Why would we grow in patience, in kindness, in gentleness? Why would we be faithful? God will give us everything we need to enable us to love one another, if we yearn for it and ask for it, which we will if we love and trust God and want to serve God's purposes, knowing that they're good.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
This is the one passage where I am tempted to tell Jesus he's wrong. "Greater love has no one, than that he lay down his life for his enemies," as Jesus should know! But maybe he was just being modest.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Or else He's counting even His enemies as friends, which is just the sort of thing He would do.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Yeah, yeah, he's just the kind of guy who'd wiggle out of things that way. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
No, seriously, I think you are right. But the counterstatement smacks me between the eyes every time I read it. Which is probably good for me.
--------------------
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
Indeed. Doesn't Jesus, in one of the synoptics, greet Judas as "friend" at the very moment of his betrayal?
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Indeed. Doesn't Jesus, in one of the synoptics, greet Judas as "friend" at the very moment of his betrayal?
Matt 26:50
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Yes, I think this little passage is the wallop that Jesus / John is leading up to, once the audience has finished hacking its way through the vines. The loyalty that Jesus is about to demonstrate is to die in furtherance of God's plan to restore people to their intended place as children of God (Jn. 1:12), and this carries implications for the loyalty of Jesus' followers. They too must be prepared to die willingly for their friends (if 'friends' in English does justice to the Greek – its antonym is 'slave' in this passage – if 'slave' does justice to the Greek!!!) and this in turn is a completion of joy (15:11). Love-joy-death; interesting triangle. Again, English probably doesn't do it justice.
This might also form the background to the upcoming denial and restoration episode with Peter. Not to mention him by name, of course.
Thinking a bit further on the 'friends' point: What does it do to the concept when we have one 'friend' commanding another? Perhaps we need to think more in terms of Jesus' intention to move his followers away from the slave (or trusted servant) status to something higher, but not quite egalitarian. It's still hierarchical in a sense. The master still commands and appoints.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
From love to hate in the twinkling of an eye:
quote:
"If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world - therefore the world hates you...
Them and us.
Will post chapter and verse in a minute.
--------------------
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
John 15.18-19
--------------------
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
What does John mean by 'hate' here? Or perhaps better: Does the English word 'hate' really cover off the meaning of the Greek word John used?
My preference is to go with the Hebrew background and say that the meaning is closer to 'not accepting' or 'not choosing' (an antonym of 'love' = choose to accept, along with the associated responsibilities of being committed to). Of course it's possible for someone who does not choose to accept something to slide along the spectrum towards something more akin to the meaning of 'hate' in English.
A sense of 'choosing not to accept' does seem to fit John's earlier note in his introduction that the Jesus' own did not receive him (1:11).
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Hostility and rejection were directed toward Jesus. I would combine these to bring meaning to the word 'hate' here. There remains hostility to and rejection of his teaching in a world which still doesn't advocate love for one another in the sense of seeing each other as family, and still doesn't recognise the poorest people as equal in value to the richest.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
What does John mean by 'hate' here? Or perhaps better: Does the English word 'hate' really cover off the meaning of the Greek word John used?
My preference is to go with the Hebrew background and say that the meaning is closer to 'not accepting' or 'not choosing' (an antonym of 'love' = choose to accept, along with the associated responsibilities of being committed to). Of course it's possible for someone who does not choose to accept something to slide along the spectrum towards something more akin to the meaning of 'hate' in English.
A sense of 'choosing not to accept' does seem to fit John's earlier note in his introduction that the Jesus' own did not receive him (1:11).
I rather like this approach for a translation that recontextualises the meaning for what many of us encounter today. I would go so far as to say that "finding irrelevant" is what many would say about our faith.
PS. There are some who hate, but more from what is called Post Traumatic Church Disorder, rather than hating Christ.
--------------------
'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
Yes, I think there is much in this passage which becomes unnecessarily alienating because of the various idiomatic variations in translation. I've heard the whole lot preached as though it were all literally understandable and written in modern English (or even worse, in "God's language" - that of KLJV!)
quote:
Remember the word that I said to you, "Servants are not greater than their master." If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also...
[John 15.20]
The rhetoric almost becomes absurd here. It seems to say "If they did what I told them to do, they will do what you tell them to do." So it's all about power then? Surely not!.
quote:
But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.
[John 15.21]
The paranoid innuendo in that phrase "they will do all these things to you" is typical of frightened modern cults or people who adhere to a very rigid set of beliefs and adopt a siege mentality when, for instance their racist or homophobic remarks are criticised or punished. Indeed, some of them find validation for their bigotry in the martyrdom they see themselved enduring.
But It's not, to my mind, what John's gospel, at heart, is about.
--------------------
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
Tertullian, I think, said that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church, or something like that. I used to sing about "the noble army of martyrs"
I don't think of them as noble any more - and not just because of the Islamist exremists.
Martyrdom is witnessing, isn't it? I can see the nobility in witnessing to simething good, but not in deliberately provoking something bad - discord or death - even one's own death, without good reason. Just sayin'!
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Yes, I think there is much in this passage which becomes unnecessarily alienating because of the various idiomatic variations in translation. I've heard the whole lot preached as though it were all literally understandable and written in modern English (or even worse, in "God's language" - that of KLJV!)
quote:
Remember the word that I said to you, "Servants are not greater than their master." If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also...
[John 15.20]
The rhetoric almost becomes absurd here. It seems to say "If they did what I told them to do, they will do what you tell them to do." So it's all about power then? Surely not!.
Actually, we're back to tireo, to "treasure, keep, heed" one's word. In this case it does not refer to obedience, but to hearing and believing the Gospel. If they had listened to Christ, they would have listened to the disciples also. Since they refused to listen to Christ, what surprise is there if they reject the disciples' message also?
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.
[John 15.21]
The paranoid innuendo in that phrase "they will do all these things to you" is typical of frightened modern cults or people who adhere to a very rigid set of beliefs and adopt a siege mentality when, for instance their racist or homophobic remarks are criticised or punished. Indeed, some of them find validation for their bigotry in the martyrdom they see themselved enduring.
But It's not, to my mind, what John's gospel, at heart, is about.
there's nothing paranoid about it. it's prophetic. Jesus knew very well (and needed no divine power to foresee) that these people whom he was sending out "as sheep among wolves" were going to get treated very, very badly. Early church history bears this out. Modern missionary experience also bears this out. There's something about Jesus' message that causes an allergic reaction in some people. The "offense of the cross," I think they call it. And I have met this offense in people I dearly love and know well (family members, yeah).
Here's a really stupid and minor but hurtful example (and no, this is not persecution, it doesn't rise to that level, but the same rejection dynamic is at work in miniature). My brother married a Jewish girl and converted, and they have two lovely children about my son's age. My son loves his cousins and wants to play with them any chance he gets. We went camping together over Shavuoth (Pentecost) and they held a Friday night ceremony and candlelighting to which we were invited. My young son asked a lot of fascinated questions ("what does the Hebrew mean? Why do you use candles?" etc.), was totally respectful, and asked what the connection was to Pentecost. We did our damndest to avoid offending my brother and sister-in-law, because family.
Next morning my brother decided to keep his daughter pretty much confined to the tent, so she could not play with LL before everyone went fishing. What was the problem? We found out later through the family grapevine. He was afraid that somehow, someway (How?) LL was going to convert her. Although the only discussion had been on Jewish topics of their own bringing up, and the name of Christ was never spoken.
Say what? cue headshaking all around. but my son lost a playmate as a result.
--------------------
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
Thanks - especially for the explanatory trans. and many commiserations. The fear of "poaching" is probably found in all religions. Decades ago, long before I met Mrs P, a girlfriend engaged in the well-meant but essentially naughty moral blackmail of quoting Paul to me - she had read that she should not be "unequally yoked with an unbeliever."
It was a blessing in disguise, as it turned out!
I think most people either love John's gospel or hate it - and I sometimes think that Jesus doesn't get a look in in the ensuing arguments.
Forgive me when I sound off - I am not antogonistic to either of them.
--------------------
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
The phrase “keeping [or obeying] my word” in v.20 reminds me of the 'hearing my voice and following me' theme in chapter 10 – that central peak of the Gospel where Jesus puts clear water between himself and the religious authorities. There must have been real issues for John's audience around authority and implications of following Jesus. The 'world' chooses its own route and has its own followers, but Jesus' followers have to follow a different route, like sheep following a different shepherd.
Interesting phrase in v.21: “they will do all these things [persecutions] to you on account of my name.” The impact of Jesus 'name' as the cause of trouble. Not sure how much to read into that. Does to simply refer to the actual name – Jesus, or Christ – as the recognised founder of the new movement (“Ah! She's one of those Jesus followers. Kill! Kill!), or more significantly as the representative of God, a powerful 'name'?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
In the Scriptures, God and his Name seem to be the same thing at times. There's certainly a really close identification there. And to do something in someone's name (i.e. to pray or ask) is to do it over their signature, or in their authority, sort of as a delegate. So the disciples are "little Christs" living under the real Christ. They share in both his suffering and his joy.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
