homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Kerygmania: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time. (Page 35)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Kerygmania: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time.
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What would that link look like, do you think?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm thinking in particular of John 3:18:

quote:
16. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17. "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18. "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
It makes no sense for God to give His only-begotten Son out of love and a desire to save the world, and then constrain the effect based on a belief in a literal name. (What does believing in a literal name mean, anyway?) It makes somewhat more sense to constrain it based on a belief in the Son who bears the name, but it makes a lot of sense (to me) that the effected salvation would be inherent in a belief in the Divine qualities the Son embodies. It also makes a lot sense to interpret the last part of the quoted passage as saying that anyone who does not believe in those qualities (e.g. love, compassion, righteousness, mercy) judges themselves rather than being judged by someone else.

Basically, it seems to me that a belief in a literal Divine name would be an intellectual belief only, but that a belief in Divine qualities involves one's intellect, one's will, and one's life.

--------------------
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      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I guess as well that the theme of authority would play a part; Jesus' 'name' being a synonym for authority. There are passages such as:
quote:
Matt. 7:22
“On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many miracles in your name?’”

Mark 16:17
And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will expel demons, they will speak in new tongues...

Lk. 24:47
...repentance and the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem

Phil 2:10
...at the name of Jesus every knee should bow


Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, it's easy to see how references to Jesus' name would include the concept of his authority. Modern usage still includes that link and my guess is that it was probably far stronger a couple of millennia ago.

I'm really hoping someone can briefly outline any scholarly arguments there might be against (or for) the validity of interpreting NT references to Jesus' name as references to the qualities he embodies. I'm not even sure if it's a new or old idea, or how mainstream it may or may not be. It appeals to me, but I'd like to know how firm a footing I have when I adopt that viewpoint.

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
With regard to authority, speaking in the name of the ultimate authority you recognise gives some sort of power to writer, reader, and anyone who quotes him. Every - or nearly every - sura of the Koran begins "In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate..."

[ 30. October 2014, 15:12: Message edited by: pimple ]

Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I'm really hoping someone can briefly outline any scholarly arguments there might be against (or for) the validity of interpreting NT references to Jesus' name as references to the qualities he embodies.

Looks as though the Qu'ran is the place to go!

I don't know if anyone has studied and published work in this area. Much has been written from certain groups in Christianity on the names of God – listing the titles given to God in the Old Testament and seeking to apply attributes on the basis of those titles, but I don't think that is what you are after. Rather than the title pointing to a quality, you need evidence of the actual word 'name' pointing to a quality.

An interesting artefact was studied and the results published in 1991* - a curse bowl, containing script in Babylonian Aramaic that constitutes a curse against a certain individual. The writing concludes with a reference to God (Yahweh) and Jesus: “In (or by) the name of I-am-that-I-am [yhwh sb’wt] and by the name of Jesus, who conquered the height and the depth by his cross, and by the name of his exalted father, and by the name of the holy spirits for ever and eternity. Amen amen selah.”

Here it appears that the name was considered authority enough to invoke a curse. The dating and context of this particular bowl is not known (it was acquired at an auction), so it's a bit speculative to say that John, or any other biblical writer, had the same understanding of the name, though invoking it (the trinity in this bowl's case) seems to be to invoke power enough to secure the validity and effectiveness of a commission.

* Levene, Dan, '"... and by the name of Jesus ..." An Unpublished Magic Bowl in Jewish Aramaic' in Jewish Studies Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4 (1999), pp. 283-308, Published by: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG

[Edit - added publication reference]

[ 01. November 2014, 16:06: Message edited by: Nigel M ]

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Very interesting - thanks.

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Where were we? I think

quote:
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sin. But now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. It was to fulfil the word that is written in their law, "They hated me without cause".
[John 15.22-25]

But there must have been many in the land who neither heard nor saw Jesus directly. Therefore, it only makes sense for John to quote it if he appeals to his own authority, and those of (accredited) witnesses, who have seen and heard him. The inference is that those who hate me (John/Peter/a modern priest, bishop, believer) hate Jesus, and those who hate Jesus hate God.

It doesn't actually work, does it? Popes sire bastards, priests bugger choirboys, drunken christian soldiers smash their wives' faces in...

Of course. Not all of them. Not many of them. Only a few. Or, over time, a few hundred, a few thousand. Because being Christians doesn't make them any less human than anybody else.

But because it doesn't always work doesn't mean we can stop trying - Christians and non-Christians alike.

--------------------
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      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wonder whether Jesus is speaking about consciousness of sin. We might follow the instruction of someone else in good faith, especially if they're leaders in the church / temple etc. Jesus made it clear that some scribes and Pharisees were leading others astray. If they refused to take notice of the words of Jesus, that was no excuse. They had heard him, therefore they were guilty.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes. Please don't take me as seriously as I take myself! Two glasses of red wine and I see, or imagine I see, all sorts of horrors quite clearly, while totally losing sight of the delete button. A depressingly unoriginal sin. Thanks for getting us back on track.

--------------------
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      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Where were we? I think

quote:
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sin. But now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. It was to fulfil the word that is written in their law, "They hated me without cause".
[John 15.22-25]


I didn't see any of that (not sure I understood) at all. What I saw was basically this (LC's expanded version):

quote:
"If I had not come [as God incarnate walking the earth as a man] and spoken to them [a man speaking to men face to face, rather than in a remote way like inspiring a text or sending an angel with a message], they would not have sin [= that is, I would not judge them guilty of sin, I would not blame them]; but now they have no excuse for their sin [because, frankly, I've bent over backwards to win them back, I've done everything I can think of now, and there's nothing else I can do, no matter how hard I try]. Whoever hates me hates my Father also [because we are one, and there's no getting over it. They've seen me, they've seen the Father. They've hated me, well...]. If I had not done among them the works [=miracles clearly derived from God's power] that no one else did, they would not have sin [= I wouldn't blame them even though I talked to them as God face to face! But heck, I even did miracles so they'd know who I am!]. But now they have seen and [still, in spite of everything I tried,] hated both me and my Father. [What a pity, but it's not unexpected. After all, we knew they were going to be that way from the beginning.] It was to fulfil the word that is written in their law, "They hated me without cause". [Still, I had to try, didn't I?]
[John 15.22-25]

One note: I don't think at all that Jesus is saying he talked to everybody individually, did miracles in front of everybody individually, etc. What he's saying is that he MET the criteria so many people have for believing in God. "If God came down from heaven right in front of me, I would believe." "If God did a miracle so I could see it, I would believe." Jesus is calling bullshit here. He did do all of those things, and faith was not the result for the vast majority.

--------------------
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      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Points taken. The criteria required by modern sceptics are more various and more involved - but that's too big a tangent for here, I think.

quote:
"When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. You also are to testify because you have been with me from the beginning."
[John 15.26-27]

This was always one of my favourite Johanine verses, the promise of TRUTH available to all honest believers, straight from he horse's mouth, so to speak. Of course I no longer read it quite so naively. Could a proper theologian enlarge on who the Advocate was/is, how (s)he is seen now, and whether this helps us with the thorny old problem of the Trinity?

--------------------
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      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Points taken. The criteria required by modern sceptics are more various and more involved - but that's too big a tangent for here, I think.

quote:
"When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. You also are to testify because you have been with me from the beginning."
[John 15.26-27]

This was always one of my favourite Johanine verses, the promise of TRUTH available to all honest believers, straight from he horse's mouth, so to speak. Of course I no longer read it quite so naively. Could a proper theologian enlarge on who the Advocate was/is, how (s)he is seen now, and whether this helps us with the thorny old problem of the Trinity?

Will you accept an improper theologian?
[Biased]

I am no doubt naïve; but I read it this way:

quote:
"When the Advocate [=Holy Spirit] comes [=at Pentecost], whom I will send to you from the Father, [that is,] the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify [to you and all who are willing to listen] on my behalf. You also are to testify [to the world] because you have been with me from the beginning [and therefore you are my eyewitnesses]."
[John 15.26-27]

I do believe that if you really want to know, in the end, you will. "If you would know of the teaching, do the will of the Father." But I must admit that for me personally, even as a Christian there are plenty of times when I am half-consciously or unconsciously squinching my eyes shut and saying "La la la, I can't hear you!" to God--because some part of me senses that the moment I shut up and listen, I'm going to hear something I don't want to hear.

And then I'll have to act on it. Brrrrrrr.

--------------------
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      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Advocate: another one of John's idiolectsyncraticneologisms (there, I've just made up my own new word!).

Although the Greek word (parakletos = παράκλητος) is rare in the bible and absent in LXX in that form, it does carry the sense of someone who speaks for another even if the term doesn't quite carry the technical sense of a legal court advocate. Is this, then, a “truthful spirit” (John 14:16) that speaks on behalf of God as Jesus did, correctly interpreting his message and combating those who misinterpreted that message? John's usage suggests he intended something more than a 'comforter' as some English versions put it.

The nearest Greek equivalent to this word in the LXX is in Job, used of the 'friends' who come to converse with Job. In the LXX they are described by him as parakletores (= παρακλήτορες), a word which translates a Hebrew verbal participle of naham (= נחם) and which can mean 'comforter', so the early English translators may well have transferred that meaning into John from Job. In John's sense, though, it looks less like a comforter called alongside and more like a force that carries the disciple along with it as it confronts falsehood.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why "it" and not "he"?

--------------------
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      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To back away from preconceptions imposed by hundreds of years of thought on this subject; sometimes it helps to do this so that the text can be viewed on its own terms again. Gender could cloud the issue here! In this verse (15:26) John relies on a title with a definite article (the paraclete), which he then clarifies by use of another definite clause (the truthful spirit) and follows up with a reference to an emphatic “that one” rather than “he” (or “she”). It appears John wants to focus on a function rather than a person here. That seems interesting to me.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And if the comforting, helpful truth has anything to do with Wisdom - well that was always "her" wasn't it? [Devil]

--------------------
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      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wasn't trying to dig up the old his/her fight again; just wondering about the impersonal pronoun.

--------------------
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      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John 16.1-4
16‘I have said these things to you to keep you from stumbling. 2They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God. 3And they will do this because they have not known the Father or me. 4But I have said these things to you so that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you about them.

And you'll be able to say "we told you so..."? Well no, not those of you who are dead, obviously.

[ 13. November 2014, 09:21: 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      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John 16.1-4
16‘I have said these things to you to keep you from stumbling. 2They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God. 3And they will do this because they have not known the Father or me. 4But I have said these things to you so that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you about them.

And you'll be able to say "we told you so..."? Well no, not those of you who are dead, obviously.
Why so negative? "When their hour comes," that is, "when all these things happen to you that I've just been describing," you'll be able to say, "Ah yes, I remember Jesus told us this would happen. No need to freak out, God is still in control even though it looks like everything's going to hell in a handbasket right now. But he knew, he warned us, he told us the truth--and so we can trust him when he tells us it won't last forever and things will get better, too."

It's the same principle as why doctors and nurses warn you "Now this is going to hurt a bit." They don't want the suffering to take you by surprise. They don't want you to panic and assume things are spinning out of control.

This happened to me when they put the chest drain in last spring to deal with my collapsed lung. "Now this is going to hurt," they said, "I'm sorry, but it won't take very long, just trust us." And when the pain came and I was yelling SHIT shit shit shit shit, I was at least not trying to surge off the table or punch somebody out. I had been warned.

Though I'll say God is a bit more straightforward than most doctors I have known ("some discomfort" bah).

--------------------
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      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah! I misread "When their hour comes" for "When they get their cum-uppance". Thank you for the correction.

--------------------
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      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting question: To whom does that pronoun refer? It looks as though John's use of “they” (often by use of the third person plural in verbs) in the passage refers all the way back to 15:18 and the reference to “the world”. John refers to the world six times in verses 18 and 19, then it's “they” from then on in. It does rather look as though the 'they' in 16:1-4 goes back to that world reference.

If that's the case, then the “their hour” would refer to those doing the persecuting. Presumably that 'hour' refers back the mention of 'hour' in 16:2 – a time is coming when the world's representatives will even kill you...and when that happens you'll remember what I said about them.

Something else rather interesting in here: doing something in the earnest belief that one is actually doing what God wants (“...those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God”). I suspect there are members a-plenty on the Ship who have been at the sharp end of a kicking by those with authority in the Christian community and for whom this saying resonates. Questions surface immediately, of course: Which party is in the right and how can you tell? We know Jesus is the good chap in the confrontation with those with religious authority in his day, but how would the average person in the Temple courts have known that? How should Christians deal with instances of this kicking – do as Jesus did and engage in a 'in-your-face' challenge (a la Stephen in Acts) even though that kind of rocking the boat can lead to expulsion if not from the church then at least from the inner clique?

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, I just traced "their" to the nearest plural antecedent ("things") and thus my interpretation. But if it refers to "those guys who are opposed to me" (the world, the flesh & the devil) then we still can't take it to mean "when they get their comeuppance," because "their hour" in Johannine language means "the hour of their power." Cf. "Now is your hour, and the power of darkness," said by Jesus to those who were arresting him.

I'm guessing the Greek won't differentiate for us, though I'm too bushed to check right now. Anyway, in either case "their hour" has no snarkiness about it. Which is good, because it's really uncharacteristic of Jesus to promote schadenfreude!


quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:


Something else rather interesting in here: doing something in the earnest belief that one is actually doing what God wants (“...those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God”). I suspect there are members a-plenty on the Ship who have been at the sharp end of a kicking by those with authority in the Christian community and for whom this saying resonates. Questions surface immediately, of course: Which party is in the right and how can you tell? We know Jesus is the good chap in the confrontation with those with religious authority in his day, but how would the average person in the Temple courts have known that? How should Christians deal with instances of this kicking – do as Jesus did and engage in a 'in-your-face' challenge (a la Stephen in Acts) even though that kind of rocking the boat can lead to expulsion if not from the church then at least from the inner clique?

There are, of course; and this would probably make a great separate thread. My guess is that you have to play it by ear. If there's any chance of persuading those who are kicking you that they've mistaken God's will, I suppose you have to try. But if that's clearly a lost cause, then use the forum they've given you to do whatever good you can--even if that means being "in your face" to them. Stephen's speech, for instance, did not persuade any of his persecutors AFAIK; but it seems to have had a powerful effect on a minor onlooker and approver, Saul of Tarsus.

So if they're stoning you, and you can't persuade them, you might look around for the people on the edge of the crowd you might yet do some good to--before the rocks take you out.

--------------------
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      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
NRSV now inserts the title of a new theme half way through verse four: The Work of the Spirit.
quote:
"...I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you [understood = to help you personally] 5 But now I am going to him who sent me [?understood = I am going to die];
Yet none of you asks me 'Where are you going?' [because the inference is fairly obvious?] 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts. 7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth; it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. [But who would not have preferred by far the continued presence of Jesus himself?] 8 And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment:

[John 16.4b-8]

I've stopped here because the last three points in this passage leave me utterly flummoxed, and I'd like somebody else to put them up and make sense of them for me - after we've finished with the above, of course.

--------------------
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      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm going to chop off the last bit you had in your passage ('cause it leads into something else that confuses the heck out of me, and I'd love it if we could get some concentrated light on it together afterward) and use the ESV below.


quote:
“I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. 5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
This is how I read it, rightly or wrongly (most likely, naively (is that a word?)).

"I did not say [all these terrible, scary] things [about people persecuting you in the future] to you from the beginning, because I was with you [and therefore I took he brunt of it on myself, esp. on the cross. But from now on you'll be facing the brunt of it without my physical presence, and you need to be prepared.]

"But now I am going to him who sent me [that is, to God the Father], and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’" [which is strictly speaking, not true, because they've just asked that question at the beginning of this discourse. But I take Jesus to mean here "None of you is taking an interest in the destination where I'm going and what that will mean for me and you--the fact that I'm going to the right hand of the Father, the place of all authority and power. All you can think about is how sad you'll be when I'm gone."] 6 "But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart."

7 "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you."
Here Jesus tries to refocus them on the REASONS for his leaving, the benefits that will come to them as a result of it--and the one he focuses on right here is the coming of the Holy Spirit. Jesus appears to consider the Spirit's indwelling presence in the disciples a much better bargain for them than Jesus' own physical presence; and I hate to say it, but he's probably right. In his physical, visible presence, Jesus can only be in one place at one time, and the number of people he can teach/protect/care for is limited. You can only shout so loud.

But the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit--he can do all that stuff and more because he's not physically limited as Jesus Christ-on-earth was. He can indwell and teach, strengthen, protect all the disciples at once--and continues to do so even today, when we're up to what? a billion of us alive at once?

My reading is perhaps childish; but I think the overall tone of these chapters is childish in that Jesus is talking to his disciples in the same way you speak to beloved children before you must leave to do something scary and dangerous--in much the same way I spoke to my son before going into the hospital for surgery, which totally freaks.him.out. Lots of repetition, lots of comfort, lots of focus on the coming benefits... He's doing his best to get them ready for the crushing events to come.

[ 15. November 2014, 17:45: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No way is it childish, but aren't these discourses part of John's Passion narrative? If so, Jesus is comforting his disciples before the crucifixion. That's why I glossed the "because I was with you" bit meaning - as you so rightly said "I was taking the flak for you" - including the worry of how things might turn out in the (distant?) future - but now, he's going to the Father (some time soon) so you can't say he has already taken the brunt of their troubles on the cross already. Except in some weird metaphysical timeless way. Do you see my problem here?

[ 15. November 2014, 22:15: 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      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yeah, but I don't think we need to get into the weird timeless stuff to deal with this one. Speaking in a purely human sense, he's taken a lot of crap from the PPs (persecutin' people). He's been confronted, yelled at, heckled, not-quite-stoned (he made himself scarce), put on the national "Wanted" list, had his disciple corrupted into a betrayer, and is now facing arrest and death in less than 24 hours. What's more, he knows it--anyone would know it, given the social/political/emotional buildup during the past week, never mind month, and the decisive choice and exit of Judas from the dinner table. Takes no divine foreknowledge.

And Jesus knows that it isn't going to end with his own death--his disciples were quite right to hide behind locked doors, and to get their butts back to Galilee for a while. The PPs will be after them too--witness Jesus trying to guarantee their freedom at his arrest in Gethsemane ("If I am the one you are after, let these go"), which of course was not respected (see the little episode where they grab that poor kid and he runs away naked).

It takes no more than human foresight to know that the disciples are going to be alone facing persecution very soon now. And therefore he gives them these promises and comforts, ones that were unnecessary when he was still going to be around to take the brunt of it.

(Seems to have worked fairly well, too. At least, we don't see Peter chickening out after Pentecost the way he did this very night. Nor John, nor Stephen, nor any number of ordinary folk who met in the very courts of the temple to hear the apostles preach. Whatever Jesus said and did to prepare them for heavy weather, it seems to have worked.)

[ 15. November 2014, 22:35: 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      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Taking the opportunity to reflect back before we plough on.

John doesn't fail to surprise with his choice of words. His work kicks off with an enigma that the reader/hearer would want to understand – that logos (= “Word” or something like that) and in this current 'calm-before-the-storm' section he introduces the paracletos (= “advocate/counselor/helper” or something like that). I don't think these two words were randomly chosen by John; I think they mirror each other and go some way to defining each other, too. A study in itself, that – how they bounce off each other and how they overlap and fit with the content of John's work more generally.

Then back in 15:18ff Jesus talks about something that John reckoned was important enough to refer to in his introduction: the 'world' did not accept Jesus and this is why it is unlikely to accept his disciples (1:10f, “...the world did not recognise him...”). That must have been one of the issues John wanted to confront by pulling together in this work the material he had been using. There may also be another reason, linked to this one, reflected in 16:1. That's the reference to 'falling away' (skandalizo = σκανδαλίζω), which John uses only once elsewhere in his work – 6:61, when Jesus is aware that some of his disciples are struggling to accept Jesus' teaching and asks them, “Does this cause you to stumble / fall away?”

I couldn't help but plod back to chapter 10 – that peak in John's narrative – to see how that might impact here and there in the first part of the chapter 10 is the reference to sheep following the shepherd's voice, being called by name. This is repeated in 10:27-30 and linked to receiving eternal life (again, a link to the theme in chapter 1 for those who believe in his name being children of God?). A community that follows the 'Word', like sheep following the shepherd's voice, and which rejects other voices.

How does this all fit together? I'm thinking that John is writing at a point in time when the fledgling Jesus Association has reached the splitting point from mainstream Judaism. Those loyal to Jesus were being ejected from the synagogue community, in effect being disowned by their own people. Given the similarities between John and Paul's writings I don't think this has to be post AD 70, in fact I think we are on a par here with Paul's point of no return when he, too, was no longer accepted into synagogues. As with Saul/Paul's approval of Stephen's execution, so John is warning his hearers that judicial execution awaits some. John doesn’t have to focus much on encouraging his hearers to be followers of Jesus (that much seems to be a given), but he is keen to ensure that as they 'message' God's message, they maintain their opposition to the interpretations that were in vogue among the Jewish authorities and be the 'Word', empowered in this by the 'Advocate', arguing the case for God's message even though this means rejection in the name of God from their Jewish community. In this context perhaps 'falling away' refers to an unwillingness to be rejected and a choice to remain with the Jewish Association (synagogue).

I suppose John might also have had in mind the idea that Jesus' execution was a 'sign' of God's rejection, at least in the minds of the Jewish Association (cursed is the one hanging on the tree, sort of thing) and that John felt the need to offer 'signs' that Jesus was in fact God's appointed / anointed one. There's a real sense of a struggle going on in the Christian community to prove not just their innocence, but also the truth of the interpretation of God's law that Jesus had passed on to them.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How would the disciples have understood those references to the Paraclete when first confronted with them? Is/was it a term generally understood by Jews and Christians alike, or only Christians, or only some Christians - those heading, say, towards gnosticism?

--------------------
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      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's an interesting question, especially given that the term parakletos is unique to John. Presumably Jesus spoke to his disciples (and other Jews) in Aramaic and so did not use that Greek term (or logos for that matter), so John is either using something in translation, or he is bringing something new to the table. We don't have a history of usage for parakletos in the Greek version (LXX), so it's not easy to see where John was getting it from – or to what function he may have been referring - which could rule out the option that John was using something in translation.

The nearest approach probably is to track how the other gospel writers saw the Spirit’s function (on the assumption that parakletos in John does refer to the Holy Spirit - there was a theory at one point, wasn't there, that parakletos here could refer to John himself?). There we do have some common indications, e.g., assistance before one's accusers and a continuing presence. What we may have in John is a technique of introducing a term and then providing the definition later. So John's hearers may have heard the term as John was read to them, wondered “What does that mean?” and then had their tickle scratched later. Sneaky technique by John – tangle your audience by their toes before setting them right side up again.

I'm not sure how wide the term would have been understood across the Christian community. It rather fits my thought that John's gospel is an early work that terms like parakletos and logos could have been used somewhat as metaphors, but not requiring traction for the long run.

Until, that is, later Christians accorded them the status of titles and thus fossilised the metaphors.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Going back a bit, two of the synoptics made much of that word derived from skandalon(a stumbling-block or snare - you mentioned it here:

quote:
Then back in 15:18ff Jesus talks about something that John reckoned was important enough to refer to in his introduction: the 'world' did not accept Jesus and this is why it is unlikely to accept his disciples (1:10f, “...the world did not recognise him...”). That must have been one of the issues John wanted to confront by pulling together in this work the material he had been using. There may also be another reason, linked to this one, reflected in 16:1. That's the reference to 'falling away' (skandalizo = σκανδαλίζω), which John uses only once elsewhere in his work – 6:61, when Jesus is aware that some of his disciples are struggling to accept Jesus' teaching and asks them, “Does this cause you to stumble / fall away?”
It came in the passages about cutting your leg off or even casting out an eye 'if it scandalizes you = causes you to sin.' A problem passage for some people because it involved not just self-mutilation but cutting yourself off from the synagogue - and even in a metaphorical sense that's very harsh [See Matthew 18.8ff and Mark 9.43ff]

--------------------
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      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which was a tangent of little import, perhaps. Onwards and upwards?
quote:
And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

[John 16.8-14]Which promises have been kept? Or are being kept? Or will be kept? In the first two cases, if applicable, there must be many examples of how. Could shippies come up with one or two?

[ 21. November 2014, 17:05: 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      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Which was a tangent of little import, perhaps.

Frankly, I just didn't understand what you were talking about. Hoped someone wiser would chime in.
Sorry.

As for this passage, I'd like to figure out what it means first, before I even ask whether it's come true or whatever. It confuses the heck out of me.

quote:
And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.
The phrase "prove the world wrong about" is translated in other versions as "convict the world of" or even "convince the world of". I'm also finding "rebuke" and "reprove" or "judge." The Greek is ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον περὶ. I'm sticking the whole difficult passage below for future reference.

quote:
8 καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐκεῖνος ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον περὶ ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ περὶ κρίσεως· 9 περὶ ἁμαρτίας μέν, ὅτι οὐ πιστεύουσιν εἰς ἐμέ· 10 περὶ δικαιοσύνης δέ, ὅτι πρὸς τὸν [e]πατέρα ὑπάγω καὶ οὐκέτι θεωρεῖτέ με· 11 περὶ δὲ κρίσεως, ὅτι ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου κέκριται.
ἐλέγξει is the future form of ελέγχει, which is the word that is giving my brain conniptions. It's weird, because the Spirit is going to ἐλέγξει the world about three things, one of them definitely positive (righteousness) and the other two negative or possibly so (sin and judgement). I can't bend my brain around a concept that would work equally well for all three.

I did try to mess with the "because" in each phrase ("because they do not believe in me;... because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; ... because the ruler of this world has been condemned.")

I thought, maybe Jesus is saying something like this?


quote:
When he comes, the Spirit will convict the world about sin--the Spirit's doing that job because they wouldn't listen to me, didn't believe me, so now they have to deal with the Spirit; he will convict them about righteousness, because I'm going to the Father and won't be around to be the living example of righteousness for all eyes to see, so now that's the Spirit's job too; and last, he will convict them about judgement because.... because....
and that's where it all falls apart again.

Help.

--------------------
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      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Going back a bit, two of the synoptics made much of that word derived from skandalon...

Catching up again! That 'scandal' language in the bible is dramatic, somewhat extreme, and very tense. It's drawn from the Jewish scriptures, where the literal sense was of a baited snare or of being lured into a trap. It was also used metaphorically to connote something that leads to the destruction of a person. The route to that destruction is rebellion against God's rule (sin). So something attractive was being used to entice people away from the path they should follow and into a trap from which they could not escape until the gamekeeper came along and killed them. Some examples:
quote:
Ex. 10:7. Pharaoh's advisers advising Pharaoh on Moses' demand to let the Hebrews go out from Egypt:
“How long will this man be a snare (moqesh = מוֹקֵשׁ) to us? Release the people so that they may serve their God, Yahweh. Do you not know that Egypt is destroyed?”

Ex. 23:32f. God's warning to his people not to mingle with Canaan's inhabitants:
“You must make no covenant with them or with their gods. They must not live in your land, lest they make you sin against me, for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you.”

Isa. 8:12-15. God encourages Isaiah not to be swayed by conspiracy theorists:
“Do not say, ‘Conspiracy,’ every time these people say the word. Don’t be afraid of what scares them; don’t be terrified. You must recognize the authority of the Commander in Chief - Yahweh. He is the one you must respect; he is the one you must fear.

He will become a sanctuary,
but also a stone that makes a person trip
and a rock that makes one stumble to the two houses of Israel.
A trap and a snare to the residents of Jerusalem.

Many will stumble over the stone and the rock, and will fall and be seriously injured, and will be ensnared and captured.”

Amos 3:5f.
“Does a bird swoop down into a snare on the ground if there is no bait?
Does a trap spring up from the ground unless it has surely caught something?
If an alarm sounds in a city, do people not fear?
If disaster overtakes a city, is the Lord not responsible?”

There's a lot more of that language use in the OT and it must have formed a powerful and present image in the minds of Jesus' contemporaries. Fear of being trapped by something alien, something superficially attractive, that would result in destruction at the hands of God. In no small part of explains the sincere desire of the Jewish authorities to investigate each and every teaching that sprang up, in case it turned out to be – from their understanding – a snare. They were empowered by God to root these snares out and keep the people on the right path. They felt that by engaging in verbal investigation with the potential trapper they could winkle out the trap – taking seriously the likes of Proverbs 12:13 - “The evil person is ensnared by the transgression of his speech, but the righteous person escapes out of trouble.”

And thus comes Jesus, offering a snare and requiring investigation to see if he would trip himself up by his words.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, thank you for all that, though I'm now a bit confused as to what Isaiah is getting at - Yahweh being both sanctuary and snare?

It all seems to be part of the idea that God is actually in charge of everything, good and evil - in other words, nobody pulls the wool over God's eyes - you you think you can outwit him but you're just falling into his trap - which he sets in front of the sanctuary to catch all the nasty people. Or something.

--------------------
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      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, I think that Isaiah bit is different from the rest because God, who should be safety, has become a "snare" to at least part of Israel--and the irony of that is precisely the point. Israel has become so messed up, spiritually speaking, that what should be life to them has become a trap. It's a testimony to their own hard-won perversity. No fault of God's.

And this is the passage I suspect is at the back of Jesus' "Have you never heard 'the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'? He who stumbles over it will be broken, but he on whom it falls will be crushed." Again, an image of God (here Jesus) becoming a snare, a scandal, a harmful thing to perverse people, rather than the blessing he rightfully is.

Or as somebody says somewhere else, "With the pure you show yourself pure,with the upright, you show yourself upright, with the crooked you show yourself ... shrewd/crooked(?)" With God, it's sometimes GIGO--if we put garbage in to the relationship, we'll get garbage back out.

Apologies for the rough quotes from memory with no citations--I'm being mugged by a three-year-old with a stuffed bear.

--------------------
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      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
...which probably leads neatly into the next bit (a stuffed bear is the advocate? No, hang on...). So the 'world' wants to ensnare the disciples as it tried to snare Jesus (or have him snare himself with his words). Now another advocate is coming to carry on the counter-ensnaring work. This seems to fit rather well with what John says the Spirit's work will be – a work of investigation, evidence gathering, case building, charge presenting, proof-of-wrongdoing-demonstrating...

That verb – elencho (= ἐλέγχω) – comes with that almost forensic sense, the court case where the evidence is presented. It's a bringing of someone to account. Perhaps, then, the three clauses relating to sin, righteousness, and judgement, should be read “in (the sense) that...” (with the particle hoti providing the link.
quote:
The advocate will present evidence sufficient to secure a conviction on an indictment containing three counts:

On the first count, that the world stands accused of treason (sin), in that (hoti) it did wilfully and with malice aforethought levy war against the sovereign God;

On the second count, that the world stands accused of acts contrary to God's justice, in that it did murder God's lawfully appointed representative; and

On the third count, that the world stands further accused of treason, in that it did adhere to the sovereign God's enemy who had been subject to sentence following conviction of crime.

Or in other words, that the world is indeed being mugged by a stuffed bear.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
15 All that the Father has is mine [!] For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 16 A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me.' 17 Then some of his disciples said to one another, 'What does he mean by saying to us, "A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me"; and "Because I am going to the Father"?' 18 They said, 'What does he mean by this "a little while"? We do not know what he is talking about [the pimples go back a long way...] 19 Jesus knew that they wanted to ask him, so he said to them, 'Are you discussing among yourselves what I meant when I said, "A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me"?
This is how stories are told in times when there is time to listen to them - at bedtimes, perhaps. This is how whole dialogues are remembered, and woe betide any parent who tries to alter a word of it! Compare and contrast this homely style with the learned commentaries written about it.
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes--well, this is a big part of the reason why John 13-17 is my favorite part of the Bible, and it's the bit I return to whenever I'm under extreme stress. It is VERY much like the kind of talking a parent does to a beloved child who is afraid. And it is easily memorizable, maybe on purpose, and maybe because that's the way you talk when you're comforting someone--in very, very simple language with clear content.

Which reminds me, I've got to go revisit this now that my friend's facing cancer again. [Tear] Back to grabbing Jesus around the ankles again, toddler style, and wailing into his skirts.

[ 25. November 2014, 16:51: 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      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Slipping in another question on the last section...

In 16:11 John records Jesus as referring to “the prince of this world” who now stands (or then stood) condemned.

The Who?

Commentaries move easily here to make the referent Satan. Well, OK.... John refers to Satan (or the satan) only the once directly in 12:37 when that character entered Judas. But is that the same for John as the “darkness” in 1:5 that could not master the light? Or the ruler of the world in 12:31 (“Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out”)?

Is this ruler (and / or the satan) the same character as the “devil” John refers to in 8:44 and 13:2?
quote:
8:44 (Jesus speaking)
“You people [i.e. the Jewish authorities] are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.”

13:2
The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, that he should betray Jesus.

These terms may all be substitutes for the same entity (whether metonymy or synonyms) in John's book, as references to Satan / the satan.

Or is John using the “ruler of the world” term to refer to something different? Rome, perhaps?

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, I take all of these references ("ruler of this world," "Satan," "prince f this world," etc. as referring to the devil. For me, it's a case of why not?

I can't see it being Rome, as John's concerns seem to be way more cosmic in scope than the Roman empire, however mighty. That reference to darkness, for instance. It is treated as a person, not a thing, and therefore I would have no trouble with someone who identified it with Satan. (I would also be happy with someone who just called it a personification--IMHO John doesn't rule out either interpretation.)

I don't see it as a problem unless someone has a priori ruled out the possibility of Jesus (and John) speaking of a real evil spiritual entity.

And to rule out such a thing a priori is IMHO to distort the clearest meaning of the text, and also to fail to take into account the social and cultural milieu of the Gospel. John and his contemporaries would have had no trouble with such a concept--it was all over the place. It is our modern more materialist cultures that have trouble with it, and wish to reject 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
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But in what sense does the Devil/Satan rule in John's world. I knew a cleric once who was fond of telling us that Christians were in the world but not of it. He was himself not what I would describe as "other-worldly".

Does John - or do the gospels as a whole - claim that the world was literally in the thrall of evil until the death and resurrection of Jesus?

If so, wouldn't that beg the question of God the Father's historical responsibility? Did he sacrifice his only son to atone for his own impotence/incompetence/
indifference?

--------------------
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      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
But in what sense does the Devil/Satan rule in John's world. I knew a cleric once who was fond of telling us that Christians were in the world but not of it. He was himself not what I would describe as "other-worldly".

Does John - or do the gospels as a whole - claim that the world was literally in the thrall of evil until the death and resurrection of Jesus?

If so, wouldn't that beg the question of God the Father's historical responsibility? Did he sacrifice his only son to atone for his own impotence/incompetence/
indifference?

As an arch-rebel "rules" a usurped territory. In other words, by sheer terrorism and nastiness, and on a temporary and non-authorized basis. It's no reflection on the rightful King--anyone can be rebelled against, as long as free will is part of the equation. What matters is that God took steps to set it right. And mercifully arranged it so that the worst of the suffering would fall on himself.

--------------------
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      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
But in what sense does the Devil/Satan rule in John's world.

That is one of the crucial questions here and I think LC is right about this being understood by John's audience in the context of rebellion. That opens up new vistas on John – and perhaps not just on him, but also on how the first Christian community saw its place in the grand scheme of things.

John is quite clear about Jesus' engagement with the Jewish authorities (the “rulers” - he used the same term as that used in “ruler of this world”), but less clear about the function or role of the world ruler. I assume this is because that function was already well known and didn't need foregrounding. It is an itch of a question: How did John understand the place of that ruler and of the ruler's relationship to the other rulers Jesus encountered?

John doesn't include a particular parable common to the other gospels that might throw some light on how that context was viewed. It's worth quoting in full here, this version from Luke 20:9-19 (NET version – also in Mark 12:1-12 & Matt. 21:33-46):
quote:
Then he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and went on a journey for a long time. When harvest time came, he sent a slave to the tenants so that they would give him his portion of the crop. However, the tenants beat his slave and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent another slave. They beat this one too, treated him outrageously, and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent still a third. They even wounded this one, and threw him out.

Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my one dear son; perhaps they will respect him.’ But when the tenants saw him, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir; let’s kill him so the inheritance will be ours!’ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never happen!” But Jesus looked straight at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’? Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and the one on whom it falls will be crushed.”

Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest him that very hour, because they realized he had told this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.

This parable seems quite clear – the immediate referent of 'tenants' is what John would have termed the Jewish authorities (or 'Jews' in his language). Two things occurred to me:

[1] Although John doesn't use this parable, he does record Jesus' view of his opponents in 8:44 - “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire....” The relationship Jesus had to his father (I and the Father are one – Jn. 10:30) mirrored that of the rulers to their father. We have two opposing sets of relationships. I suspect John would – along with his Christian contemporaries – have seen the Christian mission as being one of opposing the incorrect interpretations that were pulling people astray (what 8:44 calls 'lies') and in the process of taking on the father of these lies.

[2] Jesus saw his mission as a commission from his father to complete an activity: as rightful ruler of the world and entitled to recognition and service (a portion of the harvest). God had been engaging with his people along the lines expected within a covenant relationship, but had been rejected, on the basis that his messengers, the prophets, had been rejected.

Why send Jesus? I don't see any of the later theological niceties around the topics of atonement or whatever, but rather God's expectation that his wayward people would surely not take this rebellion so far as to reject his anticipated anointed and appointed son. God isn't set up in the parable as someone out to complete a ritual, or to complete a victorious campaign, but rather as one who was still trying to maintain the covenant relationship with his people, perhaps even hoping against hope that the people would come to their senses before they went too far.

There's still the question worth looking at around whether the ruler of this world had been defeated in John's view or was still in charge. Still, for now this seems to me to be how the early Christians saw things. Perhaps there is a lesson there for Christians now!

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On that question of the power of the world's ruler, I dipped back on the thread to John 12:31 to find the answer – and discovered that we all had cleverly ignored the issue. Sneaky, eh?

So, when was the Ruler of This World thrown out? 12:31 reads:
quote:
”Now is the judgement of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.”
Two tenses there: judgement NOW (bellow: When do we want it?), but being thrown out as a process beginning NOW but not being complete until some indefinable point in the future.

1 John 5:18f says:
quote:
We know that everyone fathered by God does not sin, but God protects the one he has fathered, and the evil one cannot touch him. We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
That suggests John was not being too idealistic in his view of contemporary events. The Christian community is protected, but everyone else is still (post-Jesus' resurrection) established under the Ruler's power.

If the tenant parable in the synoptics referred to above applies to that Ruler in addition to the Jewish rulers, then it implies that God will come to defeat and throw out the ruler(s). This sounds like a different event to Jesus' death / resurrection / ascension. John could well have accepted that there was a 'Now but not yet' aspect to cosmic time, in line with his other Christian contemporaries that acquired acceptance into what became the Christian canon.

That also simply pushes out the question of exactly when the throwing out will occur to another verse. Possibly in another book.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
"...20 Very truly, I tell you, you will weep and mourn, but the world will rejoice; you will have pain, but your pain will turn to joy. 21 When a woman is in labour, she has pain, because her hour has come. But when her child is born, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy of having brought a human being into the world. 22 So you have pain now; but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no-one will take your joy from you.
[John 16.20-22]Jesus (and John) were men of their time. Neither would have heard of post-natal depression, cruelly exacerbated by the expectations put on all mothers by blissfully ignorant men.

But those, I hope, are the exceptions, and the men here mean well enough, and succeed, long after their deaths, in giving great comfort to the afflicted, ignorant men and suffering women alike

[ 01. December 2014, 21:25: 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      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Eek!]

No, seriously, I think we can give John (and Jesus!) a pass on this one. I think Jesus is referencing the fact that it's normally hard or impossible to remember physical pain once it's over--particularly if the outcome is joyful. I can think of just two pains I could remember in their fullness after they passed--one was a dislocated shoulder, and the other (oddly enough) was labor. (Sorry, Lord! [Biased] )

Still, the memory even of those pains fades after a while. Witness the fact that the human race manages to continue. If every woman retained full and vivid memory of labor for a lifetime, we'd see a lot more one-child families (and probably a lot of Bobbetized husbands [Big Grin] ).

[ 01. December 2014, 23:53: 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      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I must admit that when I read this longer section from v,12 onwards I do wonder why John chose to focus on the 'going away' theme rather than the preceding bit where tightly packed together is Father, Spirit, and Jesus. Jesus is glorified (honoured? vindicated?) by the Spirit / Advocate's speaking the truth to the disciples. The advocate gets that truth from Jesus who, it seems, gets it from the father. “It's the father's,” says Jesus, “and it's mine,” he goes on, “and it's the Spirit's who takes it from me.”

Fertile ground, of course, for keeping theologians off the streets for some centuries. But – to slip effortlessly into anachronism mode – if I was there as the chap just to the left of Jesus in the fetching green outfit in Leonardo's Last Supper*, my “I haven’t a clue what he's on about” would occur right after verse 15. I wouldn't have waited for verse 16 and what seems to be a separate theme (Jesus going away). I'd want to know if something had been slipped into the product from the Judean vineyards (which the chap just to the left of Jesus plainly is goggling at and shying away from) that had caused Jesus' remarkable take on divine metaphysics. I'd also want to pull my bible out of a handy fold in the tunic to see if it was all kosher.

So I suspect the whole Father-Son-Spirit thing was not an issue for his audience when he was writing. He felt the need to address Jesus' absence instead and dwell on it with that birthing metaphor. Still, I often wonder if John had a well-thought out history underlying this Father-Son-Spirit theme that was already embedded into Christian understanding.

Incidentally, how does that metaphor work in the context of Jesus going away and coming back? Is the point simply about the pain and joy, or was the choice of child-birthing more significant? If it was, to what does the birthing actually refer?


* Tried to link to it, but Ship doesn't seem to be accepting URL links at the moment

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Continuing:

quote:
"...23 On that day you will ask nothing of me.* Very truly, I tell you, if you ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.* 24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. 25 I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures, but will tell you plainly of the Father. 26 On that day you will ask in my name. I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; 27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.* 28 I came from the Father and have come into the world; again, I am leaving the world and am going to the Father."
[John 16.23-28]

I have copied out this from Oremus, including three asterisks which I presume indicate that there are footnotes, but I can't find any.

"Figures of speech" sounds both strangely modern and strangely academic - as though some at least of the disciples were grammarians!

I think I am beginning to "get" the point of all this "going to the Father" business. Jesus must know that he is going to die. But he probably knows that the bald fact would spook his followers. They need encouragement.

Verse 28 seems to be saying "I'm leaving the world and going back to the Father in the same mysterious way that I came into the world from the Father...

Which may sound obvious to Christians soaked in the traditional beliefs of the church. But it leads me to think on. Was he, in fact, expecting to die in the way he did, or was he, in his incarnate mind, expecting to be miraculously lifted off the earth? And how and when did he come to know that he had not been born in the normal human way? That he was a gift of God?

--------------------
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      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I haven't a clue when he found out about the nativity stuff, though in my obviously limited experience "how you were born" (with occasional adaptations) is a favorite bedtime story for little ones. (don't tell them about the 48 hour labor)

But yeah, I'm certain he knew he was going to die, and the basic outlines of it--betrayed, crucified, etc.) Not only is it there in OT prophecy, but it's clearly shaping that way with regards to the social atmosphere he walked through--the rising enmity of the Jewish religious authorities, the disaffection of Judas (which apparently became overt after the ointment incident), the well-known fact that pretenders to the throne who were not Roman citizens tended to wind up nailed to a cross. It really didn't take supernatural powers to see it coming at all, and truly, I think even the disciples in their incredible cluelessness were beginning to see it too--and would have done so much more clearly if they hadn't been dazzled by their dreams of an earthly kingdom. Heck, even the men-in-the-streets were watching the train-wreck unfold:

quote:
55 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, many went up from the country to Jerusalem for their ceremonial cleansing before the Passover. 56 They kept looking for Jesus, and as they stood in the temple courts they asked one another, “What do you think? Isn’t he coming to the festival at all?” 57 But the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that anyone who found out where Jesus was should report it so that they might arrest him.


I don't think Jesus was letting the disciples down gently, either. The time for that was long since past. This is the same man who said things like "take up your cross and follow me" and "the Son of Man will be betrayed, handed over to his enemies, and killed. On the third day he will rise." There was also all that scary apocalyptic teaching we see in places like Matthew 24 etc., none of it pulling any punches.

come to think of it, He seems to have started in telling them about his death right after Peter's confession (Matthew 16 and parallel passages):

quote:
5 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, ...."

21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

It's almost as if Jesus had two things he wanted to drive into their thick heads: 1) who he was, and 2) what he was going to do. Once they had 1) correct, he moved on immediately to 2). Which they really didn't grasp hardly at all until it happened.

--------------------
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools