|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time.
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I don't think you can use sayings selected by the synoptic writers to confirm your understanding of Jesus' saying and actions in John. They just don't harmonize. And the nonsense with the ointment is a very obvious exercise in character assassination. Earlier accounts don't point the finger at Judas, do they? Once a scapegoat is established, people with axes to grind and unresolved stuff on their consciences can heap all manner of **** on them, with complete impunity.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I don't think you can use sayings selected by the synoptic writers to confirm your understanding of Jesus' saying and actions in John. They just don't harmonize. And the nonsense with the ointment is a very obvious exercise in character assassination. Earlier accounts don't point the finger at Judas, do they? Once a scapegoat is established, people with axes to grind and unresolved stuff on their consciences can heap all manner of **** on them, with complete impunity.
Well, you say so. My experience as a reader is that they harmonize very well. And character assassination, seriously? Where precisely in the earliest church do you see anybody heaping nasty shit on Judas? What I see (in Paul, Acts, etc.) is an awed, frightened silence--and when they can't avoid mentioning him, they very carefully tiptoe around it ("He went to his own place," not "that motherfucking son of a bitch done killed our Jesus and we gonna see him FRY in hell!").
Really, my general impression is they were all thinking, "There but for the grace of God go I."
But I suspect this could all spin into a tangent quite easily.
Back to your main point. AFAIK, nobody made a rule on this thread that we couldn't use the Synoptics to understand what's going on in John. It has certainly been the historic practice of the Christian Church. I am of course aware that I am in a minority here for holding to this, but that ought to make me a piece of rare and refreshing fruit to y'all (bananas, maybe, but still).
--------------------
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. Something's happened to my reply - hit the wrong key.
--------------------
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
Wasn't worth saying twice anyway. You're probably right, LC.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Back to your main point. AFAIK, nobody made a rule on this thread that we couldn't use the Synoptics to understand what's going on in John. It has certainly been the historic practice of the Christian Church. I am of course aware that I am in a minority here for holding to this, but that ought to make me a piece of rare and refreshing fruit to y'all (bananas, maybe, but still).
There certainly is not any such rule on this thread, speaking from a Hostly perspective.
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Who said there was? I was attempting to point out an unworkable approach - as I saw it - not a rule. LC took me too literally I think, but it's not a point I wish to defend to the death anyway. Can we just get on with it - the thread I mean? ( This is not meant to be in any way critical of a hostly comment - just a clarification which really ought not to have been necessary.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I didn't really think you meant that that was a hard-and-fast rule on this thread or anywhere else, and I didn't mean that as a serious Hostly call (which is why I didn't sign it with the Host signature). However, the conversation did make me curious enough to go back and check out the early posts on this thread (which started long before my tenure as a Kerygmania Host) to see if there had initially been any suggestions made about confining the conversation to John itself and whether or not it was appropriate to bring in the synoptics. So, it was more a matter of satisfying my own idle curiosity about whether any such parameters had ever been set around the discussion.
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Good. We're all friends then. That's comforting. So is this:
quote:
His disciples said, "Yes, now you are speaking plainly, not in any figure of speech!Now we know that you know all things, and do not need to have anyone question you; by this we believe that you have come from God."
[John16.29-30]
I don't understand what Jesus has just said that is plainer than what he has said before, or even what figures of speech he had previously used - it's a semantic problem that doesn't interest me greatly. But all of a sudden his listeners "get it" and realise that they don't have to ask any more questions - they can just leave everything to him and they'll be fine. It's a beautiful moment - savour it - because Jesus is about to scotch any misapprehensions of that sort!
--------------------
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
There is indeed something remarkable about John's preferred use of language. It's not as though Jesus has been entirely opaque during his mission; his opponents seem to have understood what he was saying – or at least the insulting bits!
One thing that John seems to be getting at is this business of 'asking'. A day is coming when the disciples will not ask Jesus anything, but rather will ask the Father directly on the authority of Jesus (16:23). This fact has been presented in a figure of speech – a dark saying, akin to treading a parallel route to the main path, and which is not as easy to tread (paroimia = παροιμία) – but is now being explained openly and boldly. So perhaps what the disciples are getting – and presumably what John wants his audience to get – is that the focus of attention should be on the Father and not stop at Jesus. There is no need for the disciples to go through Jesus every time they want to ask of the Father – Jesus does not intend to be an intercessor for this. The disciples can go direct to the Father to ask.
Ask what?
I think what John is on about here is not “Ask anything in my name including a new house, car, healing from the common cold, etc.”, but “Ask for explanations / interpretations from the Father.” When there's a need for discernment, get thee to the Father, mate. That seems to be a unique theme in Jesus' teaching and one that validates his ministry. He didn't set himself up as the be-all and end-all. Rather the truthfulness of his claim that he came from God is that he points the way to God, not to himself. Hence the verse 30 burst from the disciples.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
31 Jesus answered them, "Do you now believe? 32 The hours is coming, indeed it has come [?], when you will be scattered, each one to his home,and you will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone because the Father is with me. 33 I have said this to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you face persecution, but take courage; I have conquered the world!
[John 16. 30-33]
--------------------
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
Can't quite relate "I have conquered the world" with current news - but that's been the case for Jews - and many others -for centuries.
Don't let it spoil your - or your children's -Christmas. Peace and goodwill must always be a serious aim, even when it feels like a forlorn hope.
[ 18. December 2014, 15:29: 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
... and I would say that a conquered world is not necessarily a "okay, gotcha, it's time to stop fighting and be peaceful now" world. I mean, how long did it take after D-Day before the peace papers were signed? There comes a point in any war when the outcome is clear to everybody participating, but there's still plenty of turmoil and even dying ahead before it's done, dusted and in the history books. I think we're in that stage now.
--------------------
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
Not quite clear what you mean by that LC. How long have we been in that stage?
--------------------
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
This is another point of interest – the tension between the apparently emphatic statements such as “There! I've done it! I've conquered the enemy!” and the “Hang on a mo; I'm being duffed up here and my boss hasn't come to help me!”
It's common in the Psalms, where some present everything as at peace - God is in his heaven and all's right with the world - and others offering distinct complaints about the state of things. So its certainly possible to draw a biblical theology out based on the 'Already and not yet' theme.
Still – while that's fine – it can risk a withdrawal into an abstract spiritualism that doesn't become the bible. It's all too easy to say that God has conquered the spiritual domain, but that the battle continues in the physical. That smacks of certain Greek philosophical assumptions, but also of defeat in the face of materialism.
It's a good question to ask what John's readers (and indeed John) would have understood by Jesus' statement that he had conquered (perfect tense – completed action, not ongoing) the world. Would it have been understood purely in a spiritual sense, or was there a political, outward-facing, aspect?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Not quite clear what you mean by that LC. How long have we been in that stage?
Roughly two thousand years so far.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
That's what I was afraid of.
--------------------
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
Could be worse. At least this way we know somebody's got it under control. Even if it isn't us.
--------------------
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
Another thought – John records Jesus as saying that he (Jesus) had already conquered the world before the crucifixion and resurrection. Something had happened that had already resulted in complete victory. Was it during Jesus' earthly mission up to this point? If so, what? For example, was it the mere fact that the disciples had now 'got it'? Was that the factor that caused Jesus to tell them that, thankfully, because they had finally understood what he had been going on about, Jesus' battle with 'the world' had been won. The world had now failed to master him (Jn. 1:6-10).
I think John was making a point along these lines, and perhaps a bit wider. Jesus' had been engaged in a struggle for God's Word (in the sense of interpreting the biblical texts correctly). This was the battle in which the darkness had been trying to master the light. Jesus probably realised that the path he was treading would culminate in his demise before he could publish a 6-volume tomic series on Systematic Theology, so he needed a group of followers to carry on his mission. Only when they understood the mission Jesus was engaged in could he say that his work was done. He could also encourage his followers with the thought that they would not be alone as they continued the fight against the dark world outside. They would be teaching the same message Jesus taught and would, therefore, be teaching in the power of the same Spirit.
It would then mean that this victory is continuously being realised as Christians tackle today's bad or ugly interpretations, whether religious or otherwise.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Interesting. I take the perfect tense in "I have overcome the world" a bit differently--I think he's referring to the cross, and using the perfect tense right now because a) he's going to be too busy (suffering/dying/dead) to say much about it at the precise moment, and b) because it's so absolutely truly going to be happen, he might as well announce it in a past tense.
The a) explanation holds true for "It is finished" (Greek perfect tetelestai) which he said from the cross probably a couple of minutes ahead of the time it actually was finished, which I take to be the moment of his death. And there's a practical reason for saying it early, of course. Can't talk when you're dead! So this earlier perfect tense "I have overcome the world" is in my opinion an earlier example of the same thing.
The b) explanation explains a few passages in Paul, where he gives lists, and the last item is clearly still in the future (e.g. Romans 8:30, "And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.") To Paul the matter is so sure you might as well go ahead and say it in a past tense.
On a much more mundane level, you can hear ordinary people doing the same sort of time shifting whenever they are playing a team sport with their friends and announce to the group, "I've got this" as they scurry in to catch the ball or whatever. Technically they haven't "got this" until after the ball is caught; but the remark is made early for practical reasons of planning and busyness, and because they are certain it will come to pass.
[ 21. December 2014, 13:35: 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
It could do that - looking at life through proleptic eyes!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Ingenious isn't (quite) the word for it.
LC, do you ever not have a ready answer for your little ones?
If that's too personal, forget I said it ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
But you sometimes seem to me to be more worried than you need to be. A strong faith can shoulder (apparent) awkward inconsistencies and I'll not trust a person who can never say "I don't know" or "I don't understand".
--------------------
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 say "I don't know" all the time.
This is LL posting: Uhhh... What she said...
LC again: I think he's agreeing with me in teenage-speak. Anyway...
It's hard to read people over the internet. If I seem to have a lot of ingenious answers, and pop up with them at the drop of a hat, it's not because I am worried or trying to be a know-it-all. It's simply because I'm a geek. A completely nerdy geek, of the type that wears Spock ears to conventions and recognizes the caffeine molecule on a T-shirt a block away. The kind that writes "butyl mercaptan" on a particularly bad piece of writing.
And unfortunately my geekery is at its height (depth?) with the Scriptures. I read commentaries for fun, and I learned Greek and Hebrew mainly because I wanted to (a couple other reasons but the real one is geekish pleasure). I'm sorry. I try not to be too much of a pain.
ETA: As for my faith, it is what it is. I don't suppose I can judge how strong or weak it is with any kind of accuracy, and there's certainly no reason why you need to be impressed by it. I'm not.
[ 21. December 2014, 20:57: 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
I still find this way of working through John quite helpful – the slow but steady approach forces a focus on things that would probably otherwise slip under the radar. Some things on our radar are not even picked up in commentaries, which gives me pause to think that even though we've gone through John this way, we've still probably only scratched a few inches below the surface (inch = about one hin's worth of a cubit).
So once we've reached the end of John, shall we start up a thread to do John one verse at a time?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I say "I don't know" all the time.
This is LL posting: Uhhh... What she said...
LC again: I think he's agreeing with me in teenage-speak. Anyway...
It's hard to read people over the internet. If I seem to have a lot of ingenious answers, and pop up with them at the drop of a hat, it's not because I am worried or trying to be a know-it-all. It's simply because I'm a geek. A completely nerdy geek, of the type that wears Spock ears to conventions and recognizes the caffeine molecule on a T-shirt a block away. The kind that writes "butyl mercaptan" on a particularly bad piece of writing.
And unfortunately my geekery is at its height (depth?) with the Scriptures. I read commentaries for fun, and I learned Greek and Hebrew mainly because I wanted to (a couple other reasons but the real one is geekish pleasure). I'm sorry. I try not to be too much of a pain.
ETA: As for my faith, it is what it is. I don't suppose I can judge how strong or weak it is with any kind of accuracy, and there's certainly no reason why you need to be impressed by it. I'm not.
What can I say? Thank you? Sorry? Yeek? Good to know take yourself less seriously than I do me
(sound of grammarians rushing to the toilet...)
Nigel has a point, didn't he? We all - aach, mustn't say that. I have more axes to grind than I have honing stones. So i's bloody marvellous that we can still "talk" through this strange and frustrating medium - almost as difficult as first-century Geek sometimes. I mean G - oh, I don't know...
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I still find this way of working through John quite helpful – the slow but steady approach forces a focus on things that would probably otherwise slip under the radar. Some things on our radar are not even picked up in commentaries, which gives me pause to think that even though we've gone through John this way, we've still probably only scratched a few inches below the surface (inch = about one hin's worth of a cubit).
So once we've reached the end of John, shall we start up a thread to do John one verse at a time?
Only if I can somehow dump my disbelief in supernatural miracles and pray for an extra twenty years! (You never know)
--------------------
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
Well, Happy New Chapter!
John 17:1-2
quote:
Jesus spoke these things, raised his eyes to the skies, and then said:
“Father! The hour has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son might glorify you, just in the same way as you have given him authority over all people so that to those you have given to him he can give eternal life.”
Unpacking the phraseology here – we've got another couple of those perfect tenses: The hour has come, ...those you have given him. Do they refer to activities that have been completed by the time Jesus was speaking, or an activity to be completed in the future?
I'm intrigued by the way John uses tenses here. He asks his Father to glorify him (presumably something he wants to happen that has not yet happened). Once this does happen, it opens the door to other activities that are dependent on it: Jesus in return glorying the Father, and apparently the giving of eternal life to other people.
There's a lot of stuff in these two verses. Does John use “hour” as a reference to a concept already existing in Judaism (and if so, what is implied)? What is the 'glorification' that Jesus refers to here? What authority? Is eternal life a universal thing, or does John move swiftly from “all people” to a limited range (those given to Jesus) with respect to eternal life? Does that reference to the father 'giving' people to Jesus imply God has chosen not to give some (and if so, what are the implications)?
I'm inclined to anchor these two verses in John's introduction in chapter 1 when it comes to answering these questions. Call me safe...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I think this mixture of tense has come up before, but I can't remember how the matter was resolved. It sounds to me "listening" to John that sometimes he makes "asides" in a very modern -sounding way - well modern being from Shakespeare onwards. One second he's talking as Jesus, the next he looks straight through the "fourth wall" to to comment e.g. Jesus; The time will come...
John: (indeed, has come already...)
But that's just the old drama queen fantasizing again, I expect!
[ 02. January 2015, 20:16: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think we had the perfect tense thingy within the last month. No resolution, though several theories.
Re the passage--in John Jesus always seems to use "the hour" to refer to the time of his death. It starts in John 2 ("My hour is not yet come") and IIRC, we get several similar statements and then finally this one, where the hour IS come.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
The next few verses, too, seem to be anchored in John's introduction:
quote:
And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. So now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed
[John 17.3-5]
I've never heard that read out in church, have you? It would be very, very difficult, to do it well and not have one's head turned by it. An uncompromising declaration of his unique authority, spoken like a really well-crafted eucharistic prayer, uplifting in all the best senses of the word.
But John's introduction, the climax of nearly every service of Nine Lessons and Carols at Christmas, is received in a spirit of wonder at the birth of Jesus and of hope for peace to all people of goodwill.
Here it is spoken Before the crucifixion, with that awesome fate hovering over them like a damocletian sword. Yet Jesus says his work is done - which means, I think, that in accordance with John's Christology, he has set everything in motion himself, already - including his death. Nothing that happens to him from now on will happen without his prior knowledge and - what's the word - setting in motion.
And all this is said that people later will remember that he said it. How much later?
What idea of the existence of a yet-to-be-incarnated being could the disciples have had?
There is also the possibility that the context of this discourse may have been shifted by the final redactor. Perhaps it was delivered post-resurrection. That would certainly make more sense. But when did John's gospel ever make that sort of sense? [Shakes old shaggy head glumly].
--------------------
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
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
It struck me that during the years that I have attended church, I have never heard any Christian ask God to glorify him or her. Perhaps because of the fear that it would be seen as 'not humble'. Hmm... So much for 'What Would Jesus Do' then. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
More to the point though, putting aside the difficulty of asking for glorification of oneself , I somehow come to the understanding (rightly or wrongly) that when Jesus asked the Father to glorify him in this passage in John, he probably meant it in the sense of God's vindication for the work that he had done in the face of the persecution and betrayal that was around him (as opposed to 'glorification' in the sense that manisfests itself in paintings of Jesus with a golden halo around his head or such like).
In the English translation that Pimple posted, Jesus seems to think that his work is already finished even though crucifixion has yet to happen. So I do wonder whether Jesus' understanding of his finished work, especially given his Jewish background, is the same as that which we later understand to be the finished work of Jesus - i.e. his crucifixion being the requirement for the redemption of the world.
As to Pimple's more scholarly questions on whether this is the result of redaction and what the disciple's understanding of what was said would have been, I will leave it to you scholars out there to answer. I will certainly read with interest.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I've never heard that read out in church, have you?
At my church, it was once the practice that the whole Farewell Discourse from John's gospel was read by candlelight at the end of our Maundy Thursday dinner, and then we would walk in silence into the church for Communion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I agree these verses are rooted in John's introduction – the definition of the term 'eternal life' is important for his work because, I guess, it assists in answering a key question that must have been fluttering around in early Christianity: Just who, exactly, are God's children?
Back in the introduction, John had noted that God's own people had not received God's Message / messenger (Jesus). Those who did receive him, however, had the right to become God's children.
That rings bells with the debates Paul had over who constituted the children of God (the letter to the Galatians is particularly taken up with this); it must have been a real bone of contention between the first of Jesus' followers and the Jewish authorities both nationally and locally in the synagogues. The Jews were supposed to be Abraham's children and therefore God's children. Now these upstarts had come along claiming that they were in fact the true children – implying that the right to be children did not in fact lie with those authorities.
Actually, I've been using the word 'right' here, but I think the better translation would be 'authority' (in John 1:12, exousia = ἐξουσία), which fits with the judicial / legal overtones in John's gospel and his language use. The implication is that whatever quasi-legal status God bestowed on Abraham's descendants applied to those who remained loyal to God and his authority. Only God had the authority to define his family, mere assertion (by Jewish authorities) had no authority at all. I can sense the battle being played out in the early years of Christianity between the two sides as they struggled for control, in effect, of the synagogue. I don't think the question had been resolved by the time John's gospel was written – the followers of “The Way” were still engaged in this debate with their opponents and had yet not left or been cast out to become the separate Christian movement. Hence the focus on this question in John the definition of life – loyalty to one true God and his representative, the messiah Jesus.
I think Pooks is right about the vindication aspect of 'glory' in verse 4; it relates to Jesus having remained loyal to his calling during his earthly ministry. He could now call on God to fulfil his side of the covenant bargain and return the favour. I suppose this is about already having the authority to be a child of God. Verse 5b is a howitzer of a statement to follow what went before: “Glorify...with the glory I had with you before the world was”. As in so many of Paul's letters, what used to be called 'high christology' is being passed off here with barely the bat of an eyelid.
So many questions! I don't think we got to the bottom of what 'glorify' means. Outside of biblical literature the word (doxazo =δοξάζω) has the sense of holding an opinion, or thinking about / imagining something. That doesn't quite resonate with the context in which it is used in the bible, though (I assume)! Vindication fits better – which could also involve a raising up or exalting.
And then there's the pre-existence thing going on. Fits with John's introduction again, which is nice. That must also have been important when John was getting this stuff down. Jesus pre-dates Moses and Abraham – yes that would be important when it came to status of authority. But before creation? Pre-dates Adam though I don't think John makes even a side-reference to him anywhere (does he)? So why was it important to state this pre-creation aspect? What issue could have been rolling around the hills that motivated John to expend chemicals on parchment in this way? My suspicion is that it links to the same question of the definition of God's children in some way.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
"I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. [A] 7 Now they know that everything you have given me is from you, for the words which you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me..."
[John 17.6-8]
It's probably difficult if not impossible to say much about this without the context of the verses that follow on, which sound very weird and modern - as though John were "channelling" Jesus (is that the right term?
[A] It's nice to see that John doesn't jump in with exceptions here - the prayer Jesus offers up seems to be on behalf of all the disciples.
[tangent] Thanks for your kind thoughts. I have a temporary reprieve until next week. Don't let this thread die![/tangent]
[ 02. February 2015, 21:23: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Fine thanks. Operation pending. Nothing life-threatening (I 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
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
(Getting all All-Saintsy here for a minute) pimple, I'm sure I can speak for all the Kerygmaniacs in saying I pray that it all goes well, and that you're quickly on the mend. And we will take good care of the John thread as we await your return.
--------------------
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
Much appreciated ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Quick thought on the cusp of another week...
I was interested here by the chronology of faith, as it were, that John focusses on: Jesus calls people to follow him as disciples; those that do follow, initially are OK about Jesus, but it takes time for them to realise that Jesus is only the channel – he passes on what God his Father has given him. So accepting Jesus is only part of the journey – it should end with a recognition that it all comes from God. That in turn can increase the disciples' opinion of Jesus yet further.
There's a sermon in there...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Let's have it, Nigel! Have plenty of time on my hands being homo intacto once more but needing to take things easy.
--------------------
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
Well, cutting through the hymns, prayers, readings, collection, notices, the dispatch of children to their appointed doom, the wheezing trip up the stairs to the pulpit, and back down to collect the forgotten notes, eventually I came to...
...the thought that evangelicalism in early Christianity may have followed the sequence John lays out. First, make known the person of Jesus and his authority; second explain the derivation of that authority as coming from the God that Israel knew about, third introduce that God to the audience as the owner of creation, then adjourn for tea (or the equivalent).
Gasp way back down pulpit stairs, back up to collect the forgotten order of service, closing hymn, prayer...
In some ways if not all, John has recorded Jesus doing the chapter 1 Introduction thing. By “I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world” (17:6) Jesus has done John 1:1-5 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it.” And by referring to “...they know that everything you have given me is from you, for the words which you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you” (17:7) we have 1:12 “...to all who have received him—those who believe in his name—he has given the right to become God’s children.”
And so on. I guess for many Christians the route is the same – introduction to God via Jesus. Which may leave open the question in John's audience's mind: So what happens to Jesus in the grand scheme of things if his aim was to point our eyes in the direction of his Father, God? Is what follows John's attempt to answer that question by a reference to Jesus having an intercessory role?
quote:
John 17:9
I am praying on behalf of them. I am not praying on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those you have given me, because they belong to you.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Certainly seems so. The next few verses are all of a piece: quote:
All mine are yours, and yours are mine; and I have been glorified in them [difficult to see how that works, exactly]. And now I am [effectively] no longer in the world, but they are in the world ,and I am coming to you. Holy Father [I haven't noticed that form of address before - no longer "abba"?0] protect them in your name that you have given me [?], so that they may be one, as we are one. While I was with them I protected them in your name that you have given me [?] I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost,[Gk: except the son of destruction] so that the scripture might be fulfilled...
[John 17.10-12]
Three long verses, all about keeping his followers safe (or most of them) when He goes to the Father. The betrayal is hinted at, but the betrayer is not named. Presumably Jesus also knew that Peter would deny him, but Peter is not predestined for Hell - perhaps because
He knew that Peter would repent and Judas would not. Only somewhere I seem to have read that Judas did while Peter's repentance is assumed by the church on account of his reinstatement (also presumed) in Chapter 21.
--------------------
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 “I have been glorified by/in them” could refer to Jesus being honoured by his disciples. Perhaps a result of their getting to grips with Jesus' message and role, they are now able to carry the mission further and so confirm (honour) Jesus. There may be nothing esoteric about what John is saying here. Perhaps.
“Holy Father” is a bit of an enigma in that the phrase used as an address to God appears just the once here in the NT. “Father” is used often by John to describe God, though, so perhaps this is his preferred recollection.
Just after that address, John throws out “...keep them safe in / by your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one.” Interesting connection between 'keeping safe' and its purpose – to promote unity. Is 'name' here being used to denote God's identity, authority, or power, or what?
“Son of destruction” - a rather extreme term. 'Destruction' and 'lost' in this verse are from the same word form and the phrase could read: “Not one of them was destroyed except the one destined for destruction...” It's the Greek term used to translate the Hebrew word associated with complete destruction without mercy. 'Lost' is a bit too weak in English, really. It does throw some light on the disciples' view of Judas' final outcome. Even if he show remorse over his act of betrayal, John at least was convinced that Judas was irrevocably damned.
The remorse bit is found in Matthew 27:13 - “When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.”
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Remorse and repentance are a wee bit different. Both include the change of mind and the judging of the previous action to be wrong and evil, but repentance has a forwarding-looking, almost hopeful element that simple remorse lacks.
"Do you wish to amend your sinful life?" is one of the standard questions in pastoral examination round here, aimed at repentance. Judas seems to have had no such wish or hope. As soon as he realized he wasn't going to be able to undo the deed itself, he put an end to his life altogether, suggesting total despair. Poor guy.
Note: None of this is intended to say that suicide is de facto despair, or that it sends someone straight to hell, or any of that nonsense. Every suicide is different. I'm just noticing the apparent difference between Judas' attitude and resulting actions and those of Peter, who was also burdened with grave sin and shame. I do wish Judas hadn't given up hope.
--------------------
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 Nigel M:
“Son of destruction” - a rather extreme term. 'Destruction' and 'lost' in this verse are from the same word form and the phrase could read: “Not one of them was destroyed except the one destined for destruction...” It's the Greek term used to translate the Hebrew word associated with complete destruction without mercy. 'Lost' is a bit too weak in English, really. It does throw some light on the disciples' view of Judas' final outcome. Even if he show remorse over his act of betrayal, John at least was convinced that Judas was irrevocably damned.
The remorse bit is found in Matthew 27:13 - “When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.”
Here's where I differ from you two--I don't think most or all of this is John's wording, John's concepts, John's choice of presentation. Particularly in this prayer, I think it is Jesus's, and John is reporting what he heard and recalls, with the help of the Holy Spirit, naturally. I can't help wondering whether the focus on John is becoming a way to get Jesus off the hook for unpleasant things he said or did. Not that anyone is doing this intentionally, but the concern does creep in. Forgive me.
As for "son of destruction"--I think Jesus was calling a spade a spade, as he always did, with those he loved most deeply as well (including his mother, Peter, and Martha, among others). I don't doubt that he loved Judas. But he saw where Judas' self-chosen trajectory was taking him, despite Jesus' efforts to head him off (various warnings, the footwashing, honoring Judas at the Passover supper, and so forth). "Son of destruction" is unfortunately apt. That is what he made of himself--what we all could be, God forbid.
It seems to me that the New Testament writers, and the apostles portrayed in Acts, are remarkably circumspect in what they say about Judas. There is a deep, fearful, decent silence drawn over what he did, with the sole exception of Peter's remarkably discreet reference in Acts 1 ("he left this ministry and went to his own place"). No tirades, no execration, no boasting by comparison. Judas doesn't even wind up as a sermon illustration.
I'm trying to learn from that example when I'm tempted to gossip about the really over-the-top villainy we sometimes see from people in our community. To remember that it could so easily be 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
If the bible is infallible, I can't really fault you, LC, though I think sometimes your analogies are a bit cute. The problem is that however reliable the Holy Spirit might be, we can never be sure that it doesn't tell us things
in spite of the evangelists, none of whom were gods.
--------------------
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
Confused. Is cute a good thing or a bad thing or ...? Never mind. As for the evangelists, nobody I know (including inerrantists) thinks that the gospel writers were infallible in themselves, or that they weren't just crappy as the rest of the human race in every other aspect of life bar the actual Gospel writing. The contention is that that one particular activity was closely supervised by the Holy Spirit in a way other areas of life are not.
But enough of this. We'll be in the pasture of Dead Horses soon!
--------------------
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
In John's case it looks as though Equus ferus caballus is alive and kicking still, because he is claiming some things about veracity. In his introduction he wants to convince his audience that there is a truth to be made aware of – this entity he calls the word that has a very close relationship with the God that his audience wants to know, the same entity that he calls the true light, who sets out claims that are to be believed if one wants eternal life with that God.
It's all very interesting, this question of how far an author can be trusted. Most of Christian history has focussed on divinity and only in the past couple of hundred years or so on humanity, when it comes to Jesus and also to the message recorded by the biblical authors. I think we may be entering a time when there is a recognised need to do something about balancing the equation more. We've been through the modern period when those emphasising divinity were criticised for taking too much for granted and not coming up with the goods when it came to evidence in support of claims relating to the divinity of Jesus and the Bible, now we are in a post-modern period when the same criticisms have been levelled at those emphasising the humanity of the same.
So when John says that Jesus (as word) was full of mercy (giving life) and truth (1:14-17), he is pointing to a theme he will develop and that might offer a model of a balance between divinity and humanity. There is a divine truth claim: that God had a message for the world about who he was and how he wanted his people to live, a claim that was in opposition to others available at the time. Then there is a human truth claim: that John (among others) was a reliable witness to the divine truth claim and could be trusted when he spoke about it. However, John (among others) on his own could have bellowed his human claim as much as he liked, but without effect, because he was just one human among many making human truth claims.
What was needed was an entity in the middle, a route by which the divine met the human. Enter Jesus. For his mission to be a success he had somehow to be the bridge between divine and human, only in that way could he make God (and his message) known. He had to be more than just another human truth claim. Hence the rather dramatic truth claims he makes and which John records in chapter 10 – Jesus being the divinely authorised route to life and all that 'he in him and him in he' stuff.
I tend to think that John's Gospel was itself alive and kicking by the time Paul was writing his letters. Both have similar theologies and christologies, both concerned with the same issues surrounding non-acceptance by Jewish communities. Whether the Gospel existed in the same written form we now have access to is another question, but I think the author had the themes already under his belt and was teaching them as par for the course by, say, AD 45-50. It puts the human truth claim back into the orbit of a witness who was significantly impressed by the divine truth claim.
There's a bunch more that could be explored here, and it's an area that has interested me for a few years, but where the hooves of the odd-toed ungulate mammal belonging to the taxonomic family Equidae hit the ground for me is that I want to take John's humanity seriously in order to understand his language, rhetoric, themes, etc. so as to better understand his intention, while keeping the balance with the divine message lying at the core. This could be a way of saying that the human author, with all his foibles, was sufficiently impressed by the divine/human sensation named Jesus that his senses were driven in a particular direction and expressed accordingly. The author's language and style is a vehicle, but driven in the service of the occupant message.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Well, to quote herself , that's me told then!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
