|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time.
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I think it's Jesus who is in the world of Psalm 22, and I'm not at all sure that John is comfortable with it. (That's not a criticism, LC - I think John is so determined to give his readers/hearers a message of unadulterated hope, that he plays down the humiliation of Jesus. He reports the attempts at humiliation in great detail, but Jesus is shown very much "bloody but unbowed".)
quote:
38 After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus but a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission; so he came and removed his body. 39 Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. 40 They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no-one had ever been laid. 42 And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation, and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
"according to the burial custom of the Jews..."
--------------------
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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Another interesting (and yet subtle) contrast with the Synoptics. John makes it clear that Joseph and Nicodemus anoint Jesus' body in accordance with Jewish burial customs. But Mark and Luke specifically report that Mary and the other women were going to the tomb with the spices in order to do the ritual anointing.
(Interestingly, Matthew doesn't say anything about the women preparing spices.)
So who anointed the body? And if (as I tend to prefer) it was the women, why does John got out of his way to remove that from them? What other reason is there for Mary to go to the tomb so early that morning?
(I might be wrong here, but I thought that anointing the body for burial was typically the responsibility of women. Regardless of whether John is "factual" here or not, is it not unusual/significant for men to be taking on this task?)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
We hear a lot about the women, not so much about the two men who take the body down, carefully prepare it, and lay it in the tomb which has never been used before. The tenderness here contrasts with the brutality until now.
I like the symbolism of the burial in the garden, from which the new life will emerge....
Cross- posted.
[ 04. April 2015, 19:38: Message edited by: Raptor Eye ]
--------------------
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
I've been thinking about Nicodemus and all that Myrrh and aloes. 100 pounds! With Jesus' own body-weight - no doubt much wasted, that would have taken some lifting. As to the anointing, I'm not sure John meant us to think the men did it. Think about it - the body was taken down as a matter of some urgency, and Jewish days begin in the evening, not the morning. So there would hardly have been time to prepare and embalm the body. Since the tomb was close by, Jesus was probably wrapped (with decent haste) together with the spices and carried to the tomb and left there for the ministrations of the women after the festival.
--------------------
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
Though John did say the proper burial rites were carried out - I forgot that.
Just a note about Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea - the secret disciples of Jesus (and two more candidates for the title of The Beloved Disciple). There is a strand of Christianity which regards "secret" discipleship as unworthy of the name of discipleship at all. Those who didn't support him openly - or don't now, are regarded as beneath contempt. I quote the last words of a sermon I heard once, verbatim:
"When all is said and done, what did Joseph do, but bury his Lord?"
I should have stood up then, and said to his face, "And what do you do, but sneer and denigrate those whose feet you are not worthy to wash?" Well, it's easy with hindsight, isn't it?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I've been thinking about Nicodemus and all that Myrrh and aloes. 100 pounds! With Jesus' own body-weight - no doubt much wasted, that would have taken some lifting. As to the anointing, I'm not sure John meant us to think the men did it. Think about it - the body was taken down as a matter of some urgency, and Jewish days begin in the evening, not the morning. So there would hardly have been time to prepare and embalm the body. Since the tomb was close by, Jesus was probably wrapped (with decent haste) together with the spices and carried to the tomb and left there for the ministrations of the women after the festival.
I agree completely that the timescales concerned argue against the proper preparations for burial. Although John is very vague about the time of the death of Jesus, the other gospels place it very firmly at 3pm. There is no doubt that the body would have remained on the cross for some time after death. Sunset at that time of the year in Jerusalem would be about 7pm. So the body would have been taken down from the cross and hastily placed into the tomb before 7pm - the start of the Sabbath.
So we come back to the unlikely nature of Jesus being properly anointed before being placed in the tomb. Let us not forget that the anointing was only part of the activity. There would have been special prayers included as well. Does anyone know how long a "normal" preparation for burial would take?
So what point is John making here? And what is the significance (if any) of the 100lbs of spices? Was that a usual amount? My suspicion is that this is far too much. Does this also hint (like Mary's pound of nard) at the extravagance of the devotion to Jesus?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
If it were an Egyptian-style of burial (which Lazarus seems to have had, wrapped so tightly in strips of linen that Jesus had to tell them to let him loose) then a hundred pounds of spices/ointment might not have been very much out of the way. Jewish custom would not have gone for the full mummification, but it may well have been a hybrid -- wrapping the deceased in strips of linen and working the spices/myrrh in as you go.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I've been reflecting on Joseph and Nicodemus and the 100 pounds of spices. I've come up with two possible meanings, although they are rather different.
a) Joseph and Nicodemus are "hidden" disciples, At no point do they declare faith in Jesus. And yet they, like Mary, go to great lengths of devotion to anoint Jesus' body, whilst the "real" disciples are nowhere to be seen.
b) The second meaning also starts from their status as "hidden" disciples, and brings in the way that one of the ongoing themes of John's gospel is how people believe and grow in their believing. Joseph and Nicodemus show great devotion to Jesus, but no faith. They anoint his body for burial, rather than prepare it for the resurrection, We never hear of them again in the gospel - they are not part of any of the resurrection accounts. (Indeed, we don't hear from them again in any part of the New Testament.) They reveal a "failed" form of discipleship - whereas the disciples come a deeper, fulfilled faith.
Does any of this make sense?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Welcome to the thread, Brenda!
quote:
Early on the first day of the wee, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." 3 Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in. and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples returned to their houses.
[John 20.1-10]
Happy Easter, everyone!
--------------------
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 Oscar the Grouch:
I've been reflecting on Joseph and Nicodemus and the 100 pounds of spices. I've come up with two possible meanings, although they are rather different.
a) Joseph and Nicodemus are "hidden" disciples, At no point do they declare faith in Jesus. And yet they, like Mary, go to great lengths of devotion to anoint Jesus' body, whilst the "real" disciples are nowhere to be seen.
b) The second meaning also starts from their status as "hidden" disciples, and brings in the way that one of the ongoing themes of John's gospel is how people believe and grow in their believing. Joseph and Nicodemus show great devotion to Jesus, but no faith. They anoint his body for burial, rather than prepare it for the resurrection, We never hear of them again in the gospel - they are not part of any of the resurrection accounts. (Indeed, we don't hear from them again in any part of the New Testament.) They reveal a "failed" form of discipleship - whereas the disciples come a deeper, fulfilled faith.
Does any of this make sense?
Yes, I think so. But we have just read that the Beloved Disciple was a non-believer too, until he saw the empty tomb - and neither he nor Peter had understood the resurrection prophecies. It is tempting to wonder if either of them would have had the opportunity, or whether there would have been any church at all, without the intervention of Nicodemus and Joseph.
On the other hand, Paul was preaching "Christ, and Him crucified", some time before the gospel writers with their greater emphasis on a bodily resurrection, and none of his converts would have had the benefit of seeing an empty tomb, much less a physical appearance.
But in between - between the empty tomb and the written gospels, we have Paul's account of an appearance to 500 people at one go. They were strange and wonderful times...
--------------------
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
Happy Easter pimple, and everyone.
I think that it was important that Jesus revealed himself to so many people in different ways after the resurrection. His appearance to Paul was not the same as his appearance to Mary and to the disciples, his bodily form was one which could take in food and yet walk through walls, he was a physical Jesus but not in the physical form people recognised as Jesus until he showed them the wounds or spoke......
It reminds me of angels who were often revealed in human form but who were suddenly not there. Jesus must be seen to have a heavenly form, not a ghostly form and not the form of a mortal, so that people would be convinced that he really was and is risen from the dead, the Messiah.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I have of course run ahead......
Here, the beloved disciple takes in the scene and the penny drops: Jesus has risen on the third day, as he said he would. This doesn't necessarily mean that he was a nonbeliever before, he may have already accepted Jesus as the Messiah.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Was the idea of resurrection linked together with the idea of the Messiah in Judaism at that time?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; 12 and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. 13 They said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." 14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." 16 Jesus said to her, "Mary!"
[John 20.11-16a]
--------------------
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
[Internet connections intermittent]
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Was the idea of resurrection linked together with the idea of the Messiah in Judaism at that time?
Moo
I had a flick through N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God to see what his research came up with. He couldn't find any reference in Judaism up to the time of Jesus to a messiah doing the sort of things Jesus did, let along being crucified and resurrected. Wright is keen to emphasise the point throughout his works that early Christianity was thoroughly messianic, so it opens up the question: Where did those early followers of Christ get the idea from of amalgamating 'messiah' with 'resurrection'?
Probably the only coherent answer is that they got it from Jesus. He pulled the teaching on the suffering servant from the Jewish scriptures (the gospels make that point), so it would be interesting to see where this became allied to teachings on the messiah.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
One to ponder on, and I'm sure we'll come back to it. Meanwhile:
quote:
16 Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned to him and said in Hebrew [i.e. Aramaic], "Rabbouni!" (which means Teacher). "Jesus said to her, "Do not hold on to me, because I have nor yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, "I am ascending to my Father, and your Father, to my God and your God." 18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord!"; and she told them that he had said these things to her.
It's hardly surprising that people react in strange and different ways to the sight and sound of someone they "know" is dead. It was often a mixture of horror and fear at the outset, in spite of Jesus' efforts to calm them. Peter and the Beloved Disciple, having seen the grave clothes in the empty tomb, go home - each to his own apparently. No mention of their telling the other disciples. Mary Magdalene is given a message for Jesus' brothers (is the inference here that his sisters might get hysterical?) but she goes instead to the disciples. Probably a wise move. And many interpretations have been given to "Noli me tangere!" - Don't touch/cling to/hold on to me the Latin Bible. Do we have the Aramaic equivalent anywhere?
Does Jesus know that he died on the cross? He finds himself now a whole man, eating, speaking, walking - did the Romans botch it. He has already told the disciples (before the crucifixion) that he is going to his Father - wasn't that a common euphemism for dying? But now he is sending back a message that this hasn't yet happened. But it is still going to happen. That's the rational explanation for his words, the interpretation that is not permitted to be true.
It won't be long before he appears in the eyes of all his followers with a glowing halo, floating six inches off the ground he tries so hard to keep their feet on.
But the traditional Christian Easter message has a lot going for it, and the fact that I can't "see" it is not really important. I could never get those clever pictures where one moment you're looking at a field of buttercups and the next a galloping white horse appears. Now you see it, now you don't, and people can feel very miffed when they can't - I know I did. God did not give us all the same eyes or the same brains - thank goodness.
--------------------
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
Look. I am drunk. Very drunk. So I ought not to be posting at all. I have just been compiling a few notes on the betrayal. The betrayal of the beloved disciple. Deliberately ambiguous, that title.
I think perhaps that I am scared. Not of ridicule. Not of dogshit through my letter box, or death threats on"the media" (Who am I kidding? who's READING THIs ANYWAY? wE HAVE THOUSANDSOPF SHIPPIES , BUT WHERE ARE TYEY?
Nigel/ Lamb chopped. Raptor's Eye. Forgive me.I am sentty-eight, and in reasonably
fine fettle for someone who has had his guts radically rearraged recently
Whew! I have trouble ,mamaging thid momster even when I'm sober.
Previoedw ppost? yOU;VEG OT TO BE BLOODY JI9KING.
tHIS ISN'T ,MEANT to be funny.
--------------------
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
Normally I have to wait for the odd weekend before I can get into Ship posting, which is why responses from me tend to be interspersed with hiatus (hiatuses? hiatusii??). When I joined the Ship it became clear to me that I wouldn't have time to engage across other boards; I would see an interesting new thread start up in, say, Purgatory of a morning before heading off into the brave new world, then 12 hours later I would look again at the thread only to find it had gone to 6 pages, Purgatory being more like a conversation whereas Kerygmania is more like an email exchange.
I'm also hoping we can retrace steps over the material John wrote about the run up to Easter, including the whole betrayal thing. He crowded the stage with quite a lot of stuff covering a short period of historical time; I suspect there's reams of meat in there. Where to start??!!!!
Hiatus follows...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Where to begin? Chapter 13 is one option; it has a neat temporal header to set it off from what goes before (“Just before the Passover feast...”) and Jesus is now alone with his inner circle – his own. It is also from this chapter on that we have references to that “beloved disciple” in John, six times (three to date on this thread - 13:23, 19:26, 20:2). In relation to this last bit, we also have a rush of references to Judas from chapter 13 onwards (not exclusively, but mostly so), which raises the interesting question in respect of John's intention: Did he intend his audience to play Judas off against the unnamed disciple? John does become a bit repetitive about the two of them – Judas-and-just-in-case-you-forgot-he's-the-betrayer, and He-who-is-not-named-but-was-really-really-close-to-Jesus. Is it a case of The Rejecter versus The Loyal One as a picture of the simple choice faced by humanity: to be in Jesus or to be out?
Incidentally, this isn't intended necessarily to stop the onward march through John; it's just me going back over the scenery.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
That's an interesting possibility - I had never thought of the two being linked in any way.
If, as I believe (conjecture alert!) the final redactor of the fourth gospel did not himself know who he-who-Jesus-was-very-close-to was, then he would be aware of the temptations of his readers to jump to the wrong conclusions (whenever he thought that possible, he'd explain - he said/did that because...)
And the most awkward conclusion/conjecture likely would be that the "Beloved Disciple" - who is never described in that way without the addition of his attachment to Jesus - might have blotted his copy-book in some way.
After all, he-who-may-not-be-named is either too holy (i.e. God) to be named, or too heinous. The standard anathema, I expect, would include a ban on speaking to, responding to, or even mentioning
the heretic/apostate/betrayer.
So John is at pains to keep his audience aware that he-whom-Jesus-loved should not be confused with he-who-betrayed-Jesus. Not because he has any knowledge of the matter, but simply to pre-empt idle gossip which would muddy the waters.
Maybe.
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
The pimple household is in chaos, but I've found a dog-eared KJV. The resurrection appearances continue:
quote:
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20 And when he had so said, he shewed them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
[John 20.19-20]
Here the disciples are glad to meet the risen Christ. In the next chapter we shall discover that the disciples at the "picnic" were terrified - scared even to ask who he was. Just sayin'.
--------------------
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
|
|
Meike
Shipmate
# 3006
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Here the disciples are glad to meet the risen Christ. In the next chapter we shall discover that the disciples at the "picnic" were terrified - scared even to ask who he was. Just sayin'.
Huh?!
In my annotated Bible, chapter 21 is an appendix to John, with a commentary that the picnic may have happened before chapter 20, and was possibly the first appearance, in chronological order.
But then, Thomas was present at the picnic, so why does he doubt in the previous passage?
I’m officially confused.
--------------------
“A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 250 | From: I like this place | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Yes, the (possibly) altered chronology partly explains the problem. Another possibility is that the disciples' joy in chapter 20 is the aspect John wishes to promote, at a time when his own community feels under threat (not necessarily from the Jews). Then he's given another (witnessed) account - in writing which he cannot leave out, and it would be untrue to his source to change a single word of it. Oral tradition can be very precise too, but there's something about chapter 21 - well, perhaps we'd better wait until we get there!
The other thing, of course, is that with a number of different sightings at different times, the evangelist has to put them in some sort of order, and we need not assume that precise chronological accuracy is uppermost in his mind.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Thought occurred on the burial (back in 19:38ff) and the bit...
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
"according to the burial custom of the Jews..."
I assume that the vast majority of people did not have the means to be buried is such style, with well worked spices and a dugout rock tomb. Also, commentators usually deal with John's use of the word "Jews" in the gospel to say that John uses it in different ways in different places. I'm not so sure. I think he means to refer to the Jerusalem authorities when he uses that term, those Jews who were trained in the theologies and politics of the capital city and who had misinterpreted God's message in the scriptures.
This would mean that John was still referring to those powers in the burial passage. Jesus was buried in a tomb that had been assigned to one of the leaders, in the style (or custom) associated with those leaders. Even in death, Jesus was pinching their space.
That was then. Back the literary present...
quote:
John 20:21-23
So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. Just as the Father has sent me, I also send you.” And after he said this, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained.”
Commissioning, empowering/authorising, and the strange case of - what? Bringing people back into God's family and shutting out others? Does John here map onto the synoptic gospels quotes from Jesus about forgiving and rejecting?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
By receiving the Holy Spirit, the disciples would be able to fully serve God, so that if the Holy Spirit guided them to, they could declare someone's sins forgiven, or not. They would live in the kingdom of God while living on earth, whole in spirit, mind and body.
It doesn't give anyone the right to forgive or retain sins by their own will, as no one has authority over God.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
What would be the point John as author was trying to get across to his audience here? When reading verse 23 a parallel certainly popped into my mind – most closely in Matthew:
Matt 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind [verb δέω] on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release [verb λύω] on earth will have been released in heaven.”
Matt 18:18
“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind [verb δέω] on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release [verb λύω] on earth will have been released in heaven.”
John's version is -
John 20:23
“If you forgive [verb ἀφίημι] anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain [verb κρατέω] anyone’s sins, they are retained.”
The parallel is quite clear, as the style of the saying is quite similar in both sets, even though the verbs used are different. This difference in verbs may just be down to a difference in the author's preferred terminology – their personal verbal preference, or idiolect, in 'translating' to their audiences the same saying of Jesus. It may refer to different times in Jesus' ministry when Jesus said these things using different terms. Or it may refer to two completely different events and meanings.
While the style is similar, the contextual setting is different. Matthew's setting is before the resurrection (though may refer to a state beyond it), John's is afterwards – and immediately associated with the receipt of the Spirit and mission to the world.
John's use of 'Spirit' suggests it/he has a judging role. The Spirit teaches truth and does what Jesus did, engaging in countering wrong interpretations of God's message to the world. It/he generates a crisis point in people where a decision has to be made: to agree with the Spirit and turn to the truth, or to reject the Spirit and be rejected by God in turn.
That also gives the Christian a 'judging' role. The Christian would be at the least a conduit for God's judgement (if that Christian was engaging in the mission John talks about), or would even be the judge, acting on God's behalf as his image, by virtue of the message he or she brings to the world.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
"And after he said this, he breathed on them."
I'm sorry to be really mundane here, but what does that mean, exactly?
No. it's not obvious. I know of no ritual, Christian or otherwise, involving one person breathing on another. From how far? perhaps there was such a ritual - like a formal kiss, perhaps?
Some rituals introduced by Jesus - like the foot-washing, for instance - a normal act by a host or his servant, made more significant by the status of the washer , have been imitated by the clergy or even kings and princes,as a gesture of humility. But breathing on your guests/friends? It does sound rather odd.
--------------------
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
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
It only seems odd because we've lost contact with the underlying presumptions: Insufflation.
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I am almost as amazed at all that insufflation and exsufflation - in and out of Christendom - as I am at the depth of my own ignorance! Thank you for the link.
[ 18. April 2015, 21:39: 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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
"And after he said this, he breathed on them."
I'm sorry to be really mundane here, but what does that mean, exactly?
The Greek word for 'breathe', πνεω, pneo, has the same root as the word for 'spirit' πνευμα, pneuma.
Here is the full text of John 20:22 quote:
When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.
Moo
[ 18. April 2015, 23:18: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
What Moo said. And it harks back to Genesis, when God breathed life into human beings.
The breath thing is a pun found in both Greek and Hebrew, where the same word is used for breath and for spirit. As in, the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
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
Moo and Lamb Chopped, thank you both, too. But please take a look at that Insufflication -or whatever it's called - link. It was a real eye-opener, for me, to discover that priests, bishops, medicine-men and gurus and all actually blew - presumably into people's faces or even perhaps down their throats, both to chase out evil and to breathe in good (i.e. the Holy Spirit). And to think we up-tight Anglicans (some of us) even blush to shake hands during The Peace!
[ 19. April 2015, 09:41: 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
This is where I think we are:
quote:
24 But Thomas (who was called Didymus - The Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails, and my hand in his side, I will not believe."
[John 20.24-25]
Speaking as someone who has had extensive abdominal surgery recently, I cannot help finding this ludicrous. If he were able to put his hand in Jesus' side all it would prove would be that "Jesus" was a phantom. But we don't need to quibble here about the literal words of Thomas. Clearly, he doubted, and the gospel redactor, equally clearly not there at the time, over-eggs the pudding.
quote:
26 A week later the disciples were again in the house,and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here nad see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe." 28 Thomas answered hime, "My Lord and my God" 29 Jesus said to him,"Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe."
[John 20.26-29]
Well if Jesus can pass through walls, I suppose people can put their hands through his body - but we're still describing phantoms here, and I think John quite unnecessarily shoots himself in the foot - just as he does by his insistence earlier that only the Son of God could have turned water into wine or walked on water. He just doesn't credit his readers with enough nous to accept a strange and wonderful truth without a silly and self-contradictory "proof".
Anyone who relies for his/her faith in the resurrection on the fact of Thomas having handled the scars are in virtually the same position as "doubting Thomas" - they are insisting on some sort of physical proof by proxy.
I believe there is some real historical basis for this story - but Jesus wouldn't have to walk through walls for the terrified disciples suddenly to find their Master standing among them.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
responding to a minor point--I too had major surgery and afterward they found they had to put in a chest drain (shudder!) while I was awake. It was pulled out ten days later, and I assure you, you could easily have put your hand (well, a couple fingers) in the hole where it had been. Took some stitches and heavy bandaging to close the wound up again.
I imagine a Roman spear would create a much larger wound.
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
I don't see anything in the narrative to suggest that Jesus walked through the walls, simply that he appeared to them I.e. materialised in the room. This would correlate with the Emmaus story in Luke. A common theme in the gospels seem to be that Jesus post resurrection was neither just a dead person reanimated, or simply a ghost. His being alive was more transformation than simply reanimation.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
responding to a minor point--I too had major surgery and afterward they found they had to put in a chest drain (shudder!) while I was awake. It was pulled out ten days later, and I assure you, you could easily have put your hand (well, a couple fingers) in the hole where it had been. Took some stitches and heavy bandaging to close the wound up again.
I imagine a Roman spear would create a much larger wound.
Hmm, that's a point. Poor you! Would the preparation of Jesus (crucified) for burial have involved any bandaging - well yes, that would be part of the embalming process, but would the wound have been stitched? If not - oh horrors!
--------------------
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 Jack o' the Green:
I don't see anything in the narrative to suggest that Jesus walked through the walls, simply that he appeared to them I.e. materialised in the room. This would correlate with the Emmaus story in Luke. A common theme in the gospels seem to be that Jesus post resurrection was neither just a dead person reanimated, or simply a ghost. His being alive was more transformation than simply reanimation.
Yes, I think that's how Paul saw the resurrection. I wonder what he would have thought about the gospel accounts?
For that matter, I wonder what Jesus would have thought about them! Too much inadequately-informed explanation, in my view, and too little wonder. But that's also true about how we understand- or fail to understand - the minds of the witnesses.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
...would the wound have been stitched?
I'm not sure they stitched wounds in those days. Even if they did it to the living, I can't see the point of doing it to the dead.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
It must have been a matter of interest to those hearing the gospel for the first time (or, for late developers like me, for the umpteenth time) to know just what Jesus looked like, immediately post-resurrection. Paul had to field a resurrection issue when he answered the questions “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” in 1 Corinthians 15:35-53. I wonder what John thought about it and whether his understanding matched that of Paul?
We don't have much to go on in John. Jesus didn't want Mary to touch him because he had not yet ascended to the Father (20:17), yet he was content for Thomas to touch him. Jesus 'was ascending' (present tense, active indicative – “I am ascending...”). He retained evidence of his wounds when he appeared to the disciples, though whether that was temporary as part of his intermediate state (between resurrection and completion of ascending) is not clear. Paul's view is more that the resurrection body is a perfection, which doesn't suggest that injuries and wounds would remain. Of course, we may be looking, as it were, at a different type of resurrection body when it comes to Jesus, but then again Paul was keen to model our resurrection experience on Jesus', so stand by to keep unsutured wounds!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
All the gospels are astonishingly light on the description that any modern reader would demand. It was simply not one of the conventions of writing at the time.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
I think I am right in saying that Jesus'statement to Mary is better translated as "Stop clinging to me." rather than simply "Don't touch me." and that it carries a sense that Mary needs to get used to Jesus not being physically present to her anymore. Mary's holding into Jesus carries a very different emotional connotation to Thomas' touching Jesus' wounds.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Yes, a sense of 'Don't hold me' fits nicely, though there is still the touch element. The rationale for not hanging on to Jesus is also interesting - he had not yet ascended. There is this intermediate state that doesn't seem to be implied anywhere else as applying to the rest of humanity.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
There is also the sense that Jesus considers his earthly ministry complete. However he understands his ascension to come - still being a standard enough human being to eat and drink - he knows that it must be necessary to hand over the reins to his followers.
The traditional Christian belief is that he does this formally in the next chapter at his his rather tense argument with Peter (Peter being the one who's tense, I mean).
There will probably be more assertions/denials that Chapter 21 is an afterthought. I think it's much more involved than that. Though additional material undoubtedly finds its way into the gospel as we know it now (some early versions don't have the story of the woman taken in adultery, for instance), I think there may have more than one late witness; also that the document containing the final resurrection appearance may have included other material which has been incorporated earlier in the gospel. In other words, there wasn't just one extra bit waved in the evangelist's face with "what about this, then?" and tacked on at the end.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I was reminded recently of a theory about John's signs where eight were accounted for – the last one being the resurrection – and how those signs tied in with the seven days of creation plus a first day of a new creation week. It sounds interesting and obviously links nicely to John's introduction and the “In the beginning...” theme. Whether John intentionally did this is another question, of course.
Thinking about it, here in chapter 20 John has kicked off with a time stamp: On the first day of the week, which places the resurrection in a new week. A new creation, possibly.
However, while the idea of the parallel with creation is nice, it's difficult to see how John's signs map to the themes in the creation days. The first seven signs in John are usually taken to be:
1] Changing water into wine
2] Healing the royal official's son in Capernaum
3] Healing the paralytic at Bethesda
4] Feeding the 5000
5] Jesus walking on water
6] Healing the man born blind
7] Raising of Lazarus
These don't look like what happened in the seven creation days. Still, I suppose Jesus' death cry, “It is finished” (19:30) could be a parallel to the sixth day – God saw that all was good, completed, perfected. So John could be bookending creation, rather than trying to find exact parallels for each day: “In the beginning … It is finished!” If so, then could the period from Jesus' death to resurrection be paralleled by Gen.3 – human rebellion (Fall)? Was John intentionally trying to make his audience think back to that rebellion as the threat to God's creative mission / Jesus' re-creative mission? Even here there is a problem, because John knows that Jesus is battling rebellion during his earthly mission - during the creation week, in effect, which again doesn't fit well with the tone of Gen 1, where all is good.
Anyway, there's God, just done with creation and putting his feet up to have a nice cup of tea, when the front door bangs open and in comes his kid, Jesus, back from college - “Hi Dad, I'm home!” and of course he has all his clothes washing to be done and – what's that? What on earth has he done with his hands????
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
That last bit was wicked ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) and is going to the Quotes File. I also imagine the laundry room scene: "Look at your clothes, Son! They're practically in shreds! I don't know why I bother buying you nice things...."
Anyway. I would tend to agree with your suggestion that quote:
John could be bookending creation, rather than trying to find exact parallels for each day
For sure, there are echoes of creation and light/dark themes weaving throughout John's gospel, which folks have come back to during the nine years (!!) that this thread has been running. So yes to the bookends, but I think if one pushes the Genesis structural analogy (or metaphor, I get the terms mixed up) too far it will break down sooner or later, and probably sooner.
Similarly, I too have read about the "eight signs" notion, and see it just as another echo rather than a deliberate structural device of the John writer. After all, John himself says in 20:30
quote:
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
(Not meaning to push us into the next verse prematurely - if folks still want to work through verse 29, have at it.)
--------------------
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
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe."
Which means a few billion people. Nice.
Leap-frogging verse 30, which looks like the original ending of at least one version of the book, we come to the picnic scene, the stranger on the shore whom none of the disciples recognise (at first).
quote:
After these things Jesus showed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias; and he showed himself in this way. 2 Gathered there together were Simon Peter, Thomas Didymus (The Twin), Nathaneal of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples.
[John 21.1-2]
Lots of interesting stuff here. [Conspiracy alert!] who were the other unnamed disciples? We learn later that the Beloved Disciple was one of the company - but that would only account for one of them. The other one in my view would have been the one who could write. End of conspiracy hint for this thread!]
So there are seven of them gathered together, and we are about to discover (for the first time?) that all of them are fishermen. And this bunch includes most of the main players.
But because they were fishermen (and not very good ones, by all accounts) that doesn't mean they were dumb. After all, Jesus at various times explains to them the prophesies which he sees as referring to himself, and it seems pretty clear at the outset of the gospel that they were not ignorant of the Torah - and they were expecting a Messiah. I think religious observance there and then must have been very widespread and they may well have had a better appreciation of education than some areas of the Christian church later on. Why are they all gathered by the seaside? Well, they're fishermen, stupid!
--------------------
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
Thinking about the end of chapter 20 -
quote:
20:30-31
Now although Jesus certainly did many other miraculous signs in the presence of the disciples, these are not recorded in this book. But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ [Messiah], the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Plenty of debates in the past about whether John was writing for the benefit of non-believers (that you come-to-believe – treating the verb 'believe' as an aorist subjunctive), or to believers (that you may-continue-to-believe – treating the verb as a present subjunctive). The debate seems to have settled in favour of the latter; John was writing to Christians. It does seem to fit better with what John says in his introduction: “...to all who received him he gave the right to become God's children; to those believing in his name.” He's writing that to those who have already believed.
This would support the idea that John had been facing an urgent problem in the Christian community – something akin to Paul's concerns with the churches he knew of. Something was threatening the belief and action was needed to mitigate the risk that people would disbelieve, for want of a better aorist subjunctive, with the outcome being loss of eternal life. The theme of 'life' keeps cropping up in John (36 times).
Then we get to pimple's cloak and dagger theme!
Chapter 21 is sometimes described as an Epilogue, a balance to what is called the Prologue. However it doesn’t really tie off the main themes in that Prologue, so I prefer to think of John's opening gambit as an Introduction and chapter 21 as something unrelated. There are links between this chapter and earlier bits, such as the writer's focus on a few named disciples (and one or two not named!), or that John is the only biblical writer to refer to the Sea of Galilee as 'Tiberius' (see chapter 6 for a couple of other references). It leaves an interesting question about authorship here. Whoever wrote chapter 21 must have had a good reason for doing so – another issue arising that needed to be addressed? If so, what issue?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Well the cloak-and-=dagger issue would be the reinstatement of the (reputation of) the Beloved Disciple! But that would not be an issue for the evangelist, only a desire for justice on the
part of the BD's friends. From the evangelist's point of view, this is not an "issue". He comes into possession of a set of stories which include those where the BD is involved, particularly at the crucifixion and resurrection.
These are just not another bunch of stories about "what Jesus did" which by this time would have been two a penny. For someone who wants to encourage or sustain belief in Jesus as Messiah, these are impossible to leave out. They are authenticated in a way that many of the ones in the synoptics - or even the early chapters of John, are not.
And here's the really neat bit for whoever wants to write the blockbuster: from the point of view of Bd's surviving friends, it's essential for the stories' acceptance that the BD's actual identity should remain secret.
Or- one of many alternatives - the material was passed on by some person or persons who themselves had no idea who the BD was.
Remember that the "Epilogue" was obviously collated when both Peter and the Beloved Disciple were dead. Peter being dead makes the material safe to produce, and the BD being dead means there can't be any come-back for him if somebody identifies him by name.
[ 02. May 2015, 16:01: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Something I should have added on the close of chapter 20 – a link back to what I think is a peak in John's work: chapter 10. John wraps the chapter up with that strong statement: “...so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”
John equates the term 'messiah' (Christ) with that of 'son of God'. I'm pretty sure that when John used these terms he was using them in the way they would have been understood by those with a Hebrew background in the ancient near east – to describe a function, not as a static title. But what was that function? That's a wide-ranging question, but I think John's focus was brought out in chapter 10, where he records the time when Jesus went toe-to-toe with the Jerusalem authorities. Up to this point John as played his audience with assorted signs and had them ask the question: Who is this Jesus? Then John brings his actors into the same play (10:22-42); the authorities ask, How long are you going to keep us in suspense?
The key bit in that passage is where Jesus answers the question about whether he was the messiah by referring to Psalm 82 to support the extraordinary statement that he and the father were one. The background is the worldview of covenant, and within that the concept of a divine council of gods (divine beings) who rule the nations under the one supreme God, El. It seems to me that the only likely interpretation of John's use of Ps. 82 here is because it meant that Jesus had been in God's divine council, was commissioned to carry out a mission by God, and was unique in that council. In effect Jesus did what the Jews had done by fusing the idea of a local national deity, Yahweh, with that of the supreme deity, El. The nations around about would have understood it if Israel had just stuck with a national god, separate from El. That would have been understood. To claim however that the national god was none other than El himself, well, that was just rude! It broke with convention and made people unhappy.
Now here is Jesus, claiming the same thing. If the divine council contained gods, then how much greater is the one whom El set apart as his very unique own and commissioned to carry out his most important mission?
Hmmm. I wonder how that plays out with the idea of a Beloved Disciple as the one charged with a mission from Jesus? And that thought might feed support for the line in conspiracies!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
