|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time.
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
It's also interesting that John uses the word τεκνα rather than υιοι which I was expecting.
Ie - John avoids using the Old Testament title of "Sons of God" to use a more generic "children of God".
Any thoughts as to why John may have done this? How is the phrase "Children of God" used in the rest of the gospel?
The use of ‘son’ language in John does seem to be limited to Jesus (though I note that the compilers of the KJV translate ‘τεκνα’ in v.12 as ‘sons’ – bless ‘em!).
Although Paul can use the phrase ‘children of God’ (Rom. 8:16f, 21 9:8; 9:8), he also speaks quite freely of Christians as ‘sons of God’ (Rom. 8:14, 19; Gal. 3:26). Perhaps he used that latter phrase deliberately as a springboard to encourage his readers to be conformed to the image of God; i.e., just as Jesus was God’s Son during his earthly life, so we now (also as sons) are to imitate him (c.f. Rom. 8:29). Could both phrases are near synonyms for Paul?
So why was John so reluctant to use the same phrase? Could it be that he was concerned to avoid the possibility that his readers might interpret him to say human believers are pre-existent? In other words, just because Jesus was God’s Son and was pre-existent (verse 14 looming on the horizon), it does not follow that we – his followers – were also pre-existent. This may be John’s way of steering around gnostic ‘primal man’ theories. It might also explain his use of μονογενηs in relation to Jesus (v.18 and 3:16) and the qualification of γενναω in respect of humans (v.13 and 3:3).
Nigel
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Anselm
quote:
Any thoughts as to why John may have done this? How is the phrase "Children of God" used in the rest of the gospel?
Surely has something to do with the fact that the KJV refers to the 'children of Israel' on 27 pages-worth of Bible Gateway references ? As compared with zero in the NIV....Ummm....doesn't it ? ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
John only uses the phrase "Children of God" in one other place, in
11:52 in the context of Caiaphas' prophecy that Jesus must die for the nation. The same word for "children" is used in 8:39 in the phrase "children of Abraham".
Perhaps "Sons of God" suggests national Israel and so John uses the term "Children of God" so as to suggests the wider, gentile gathering that will be included by the ministry of Jesus. Though John doesn't use the phrase 'sons of God' at all, reserving υιος for refering to Jesus as the 'Son of God' - a messianic title.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Earlier in the thread (under v.9) infinite_monkey asked whether the phrase, “the true light that gives light to EVERY man...” supported the theory of universalism.
Does the verse we have reached (v.12) counter that, at least as far as John in concerned? In other words, only those who receive Jesus are covered by salvation. Or is ‘salvation’ too much to read into the phrase “the authority to become children of God”?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Does the verse we have reached (v.12) counter that, at least as far as John in concerned? In other words, only those who receive Jesus are covered by salvation.
That's how I read it. Or at least that those who would receive Jesus if given the opportunity. Or that those who receive the light, wherever they may live, and live in a way that is consistent with what Jesus taught, are saved.
I think that it is true that this light is given to every person in a sense, whether Christian or not. Everyone is exposed in some way or other to God's truth. Almost everyone on earth is exposed to some kind of notion that there is a God, and that they should do good and avoid evil.
"The true light that gives light to EVERY man...” also expresses the idea, I think, that someday everyone will benefit from the truth brought into the world at the Incarnation.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Nigel M
quote:
Does the verse we have reached (v.12) counter that, at least as far as John in concerned? In other words, only those who receive Jesus are covered by salvation. Or is ‘salvation’ too much to read into the phrase “the authority to become children of God”?
No.
It makes partly concrete the mystical / mysterious process (demonstrated by verbalised inability to comprehend the phrase 'children of God') by which we are transformed from creatures who love the darkness, into ummm ... some other kind of spiritual being.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
The phrase to "believe in his name" comes up a few more times in John so I will consider it further as it comes up later.
Happy for the discussion to continue on.
Not sure where the "stop" is with others, but the next verse is very close to the present one anyway so someone can always re-stop it.
quote:
12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
Any thoughts about if there is a difference between the three negated options? quote:
children born not of natural descent,
nor of human decision
or a husband's will
They seem awfully similar.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Anselm, that's what I think too.
The reference seems to be about the re-birth that Jesus discusses with Nicodemus in chapter 3:
quote:
John 3.3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
I understand this to mean that accepting and living by the light that Jesus came into the world to bring causes a re-birth to happen inside of a person.
The nature of this re-birth is that what a person understands, believes, and practices forms a new will inside of him or her, replacing the old will that is born of "natural descent, of human decision, and of a husband's will." The person is then gradually re-born, a new birth brought about by God.
I think that this is the birth from God that this verse 13 refers to. I'd be interested if others have this same impression.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Any thoughts about if there is a difference between the three negated options? quote:
children born not of natural descent,
nor of human decision
or a husband's will
They seem awfully similar.
Anslem,
I suspect John is trying to ram a point home here by repetition; a bit of drama to ensure his readers would understand he was talking about a creative act by God that links our new heritage to Him. I agree with Freddy that John uses chapter 3 to spell this out further - same verb to denote this 'birth' analogy (γενναω) and link to God (via spirit in chapter 3).
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The person is then gradually re-born, a new birth brought about by God.
That's a new interpretation on me, Freddy! My church upbringing taught the line that this was all about the one-off event of salvation at the beginning of the Christian life. So, I've had another look at the text in chapter 3.
Accepting that the Christian life is certainly one of growth and devleopment, I hesitate a bit about drawing on John 3 for it. My only concern is that birth is being presented somewhat as a one-off event: John 3:3 uses an aorist subjunctive form of the verb used for 'bringing forth' or 'being born'; which rather implies a singular activity rather than a process. Similarly, in verse 5 "enter the kingdom..." implies a one-off event of entering, rather than a process.
Having said that, it's clear from other passages in the Bible that we should grow once in the kingdom and children have to move off the milk and on to food.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The person is then gradually re-born, a new birth brought about by God.
That's a new interpretation on me, Freddy! My church upbringing taught the line that this was all about the one-off event of salvation at the beginning of the Christian life. So, I've had another look at the text in chapter 3.
Accepting that the Christian life is certainly one of growth and devleopment, I hesitate a bit about drawing on John 3 for it. My only concern is that birth is being presented somewhat as a one-off event: John 3:3 uses an aorist subjunctive form of the verb used for 'bringing forth' or 'being born'; which rather implies a singular activity rather than a process. Similarly, in verse 5 "enter the kingdom..." implies a one-off event of entering, rather than a process.
Yes, maybe what I said is not the traditional interpretation. I may be wrong about it.
My thought, though, is that the light that Jesus came to bring is not something that makes instantaneous changes. The world has not become instantly better. He sent the disciples out and commissioned them to spread that light everywhere, which takes time.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
( ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) At risk of incurring another diatribe from SteveTom )
The physical manifestation of the spiritual truth of verse 13 lies in the fact that, following the act of conception, the process of gestation and growth is entirely internal to a foetus.
Every single cell divsion, the consequent growth into a fully formed child, and thence into an adult, occurs entirely independently of parents AND child. Nonetheless, each discrete division represents a complete and viable whole.
This awesome handiwork remains invisible - to the extent that we might not recognise it, unless revealed in the Light of the Word of Life.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Hosting
noelper, please will you stop making personal comments. If Steve Tom had written a diatribe (thunderous verbal attack) he would have been picked up on it by a host, he did not. Personal issues are dealt with in Hell, this is the second time I have pointed this out to you recently.
Would you also please curtail your use of emoticons, you use them a lot more than anyone else in Kerygmania and often you use them in a negative manner, toward other shipmates.
Pyx_e, Kerygmania Host
Hosting
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Okay by me.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Thinking a bit further on the link between these verses (1:12f) and John 3; is it possible that John saw a connection between being 'children of God' and 'seeing the Kingdom'?
The connection - if it exists - could come from the following:
'Receiving him' leading to 'becoming children of God' (1:12); matched with 'Being born from above/again' leading to 'seeing the Kingdom' (3:3).
If the link holds, then perhaps having authority to be God's children carries with it the power to see his Kingdom at work?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Any thoughts about if there is a difference between the three negated options? quote:
children born not of natural descent,
nor of human decision
or a husband's will
They seem awfully similar.
Could it be that this is covering (in reverse order listed); - legitimate heirs
- adopted heirs and
- illegitimate children
Just a thought.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Could it be that this is covering (in reverse order listed); - legitimate heirs
- adopted heirs and
- illegitimate children
Anselm,
Is that from relating the three clauses to the "those believing in his name" phrase, rather than " become children of God"? If the former, it would mean that God's call covers all types of people, not being concerned about their status, which is the way you read it, I gather? The alternative reading (which I had assumed) is that those who become children of God by believing in the Word do so not by the human way of birth. In other words, referring to the process, not the recipients. Your reading could work from the Greek order of clauses, which places "those believing in his name" just before verse 13.
A quick check of a few English translations shows uncertainty over where to put the 'believing' phrase in v 12: NIV, NET Bible and NRSV move it to earlier in the verse, whereas KJV, NASB and World English Bible retain the Greek order. The NIV translators make it clear where their preferences lie: they repeat the word 'children' at the beginning of v.13.
The Jerusalem Bible offers a third option - the translators apply the clauses in v 13 to the Word, i.e., Jesus was not born of natural descent... This translation seems unconvincing to me, though: the particle 'those' at the beginning of v.13 is plural, not singular (so also with 'born' at the end of the verse). In addition if Jesus/Word was the intended referent, it would imply that God brought forth Jesus at a specific point in time; a conclusion that was ruled out in the later church debates.
It seems that - unless anyone can assist further - this is one of those passages that could be taken in more then one way (and was that perhaps John's intent?).
Nigel
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Is that from relating the three clauses to the "those believing in his name" phrase, rather than "become children of God"? If the former, it would mean that God's call covers all types of people, not being concerned about their status, which is the way you read it, I gather?
No, I read it as talking about the unique process of becoming a child of God as opposed to the three known ways that one became a part of a family in the ancient world.
Applied to the Old Covenant, it may be distinguishing the New Covenant "faith in Jesus" from the "descendants of Abraham according to the flesh", "converts to Judaism" and ..."Samaritans"? (not sure who may have been considered 'illigitimate' members of the Old Covt.)
As I say - I haven't really worked it through. It was just a thought off the top of my head (a place from which I often fly kites)
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
And how will we know which way the wind blows if we don't fly kites?
Perhaps the three classes would have been the children of Abraham, the Gentile God-fearers and the rest - the wicked blown away like chaff!
I suspect the answer, if not in the wind, probably lies in the rest of John's gospel somewhere; he seems to use the Prologue as a springboard for his main themes. The nearest I can see from a quick flick through occurs in 8:31-47 where children of God, Abraham and the devil are mentioned.
[ 27. June 2006, 21:09: Message edited by: Nigel M ]
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
I guess we have already been discussing this. Let me add that by "birth" here I understand a person being "made new" by God in a miraculous way.
A "new" person is called that because they have a new will given to them by God. The idea is according to what God said to Noah:
quote:
Genesis 8.21 Then the LORD said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.
22 “While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Winter and summer,
And day and night
Shall not cease.”
That is, our native will prompts us to be self-centered and materialistic. But God does not curse or destroy us because of our natural desires. Instead He leads our internal states through alternations, which are like seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night.
My understanding is that this means that sometimes we have love for others, sometimes only for ourselves, sometimes we are enlightened, other times we are in darkness, sometimes we are planting seeds in our life, other times we are receiving the benefits of their harvest. These alternations make it possible for us to progress and to choose our direction in life.
So the native will is not altruistic, but a person can learn to become altruistic. This is a new will that is given to us by God. This is "re-birth" because we are what we love, and our loves and desires are our essential being.
This is how I understand the idea that "as many as received Him" are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
[ 29. June 2006, 10:57: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I think we may have exhausted verses 12 & 13 now. I'm not too sure who should be moving things along, so I will - though if anyone has anything else to add to the earlier verses, I'm sure we can accommodate!
quote:
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Stop
This is a cracker of a verse; there’s so much in it and so much has been said about it. Questions abound:
Can this verse rightly be taken as support for the Incarnation?
“...lived for a while...”: is there a play on words here by John? The verb for live (NIV) - σκηνοω - sounds close to ‘shekinah’ – God’s glory dwelling/pitching a tent among his people (John immediately goes on to say this glory has now been seen).
What is the ‘glory’ referred to here by John?
Why did John use the phrase, “the one and only”? What did he mean by it?
Is there a link to the exodus theme, with the Word associated with a second exodus?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pearl B4 Swine
Ship's Oyster-Shucker
# 11451
|
Posted
No theology to offer; just wanted to say that the phrase "the world's Redeemer first revealed His sacred face..." reduces me to tears on Christmas Eve - as you all know, from the hymn 'Of the Father's Love Begotten'. I don't see how John can't be telling of the Incarnation here.
--------------------
Oinkster
"I do a good job and I know how to do this stuff" D. Trump (speaking of the POTUS job)
Posts: 3622 | From: The Keystone State | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "
"He was before me" surely connects to
quote:
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Is it John recognizing His divinity, or just that He will fulfill the prophecies?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
It certainly seems to be a statement about Jesus' pre-existence, repeated in v.30. The claim is that priority in time = priority in status, so even though Jesus was born after John he actually came before him. This line of argument (temporal priority) was popular: Paul makes use of it in his claim that faith outranks law, because Abraham's faith was recognised by God earlier in time than circumcision.
And as 8:58 points out, Jesus pre-dates Abraham!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Not sure who is down to move this on, but given the time lapse since last post, here goes:
quote:
16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
Stop
Who do you think John means by "we"?
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Stop
Who do you think John means by "we"?
Don't know Greek so may be out of my league. Hope it's OK to jump in. If there is a 'new exodus' theme here, The 'we' must refer to all who benefit from the 'tabernacling'or dwelling among us of v14. In the exodus the Israelites benefited from having God in their midst. It the new covenant, believers in the Christ have a parallel blessing to that available under Moses.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Who do you think John means by "we"?
In a general sense I think that he means all of humanity, since Jesus saved the human race from destruction.
In a particular sense he means those who know, love and obey Jesus, since they benefit most from His grace. The more they know love and obey Him, the more they benefit.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
Regarding "the fullness of his grace"
Who is the "he" - God or Jesus?
Is the 'fullness of grace' the Word-become-flesh & the revelation of God's glory, or is it that we can be called Children of God, or...?
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Regarding "the fullness of his grace"
Who is the "he" - God or Jesus?
Is the 'fullness of grace' the Word-become-flesh & the revelation of God's glory, or is it that we can be called Children of God, or...?
The 'his' refers to both God and Jesus as in the context of the prologue the two are identified. v1 "The Word was God". I've always understood this as John's thesis statement.
The NASB reads "For of his fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace." literally, 'grace for grace'
So, all of the above.. a hyperbolic statement emphasising how much blessing a believer has in Christ?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I would assume that 'grace' in this verse refers back to v.14, where grace is connected to 'glory' and 'truth'. Interesting that whereas glory and truth are mentioned throughout the rest of John's Gospel, grace is not.
The NIV here in this verse tinkers around with the wording. Better translation would be: "for from his fullness we have all received, grace after grace."
Not sure what John uses to reflect 'grace' in the rest of his Gospel.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
(16) For of his fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
(17)For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realised throgh Jesus Christ
Hope it is OK to move on here. It is a while since anyone has posted. Also, these two verses seem to go together so does anyone object to them being discussed together?
John seems to be into the summary stage of his prologue here. There is an inference that his audience has agreed and experienced God's fullness through Christ in v 16.
V17 by mentioning moses seems to be creating a link to the exodus. Does anyone see John's portrayal of Christ as heralding a new, kind of spiritual exodus one involving a new revelation of grace and truth.?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
V17 by mentioning moses seems to be creating a link to the exodus. Does anyone see John's portrayal of Christ as heralding a new, kind of spiritual exodus one involving a new revelation of grace and truth.?
Thank you, Jamac, for moving this forward.
There may be a link to the exodus. Certainly Christ talks about setting us free in chapter 8.
In talking about the Mosaic law isn't John saying that Christ gave us a new law? Whereas Moses' law is ancient and ritualistic, Jesus law is about mercy and reveals the truth much more clearly.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
(As an aside I think that doing up to three verses at a time, for the sake of context, may help)
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
While the KJV uses the disjunctive "but," other translations imply an "and."
I think that John was setting forth the bona fides of Jesus by saying that His grace was at least as important as the Law. Also, John makes the point that grace is a gift specifically from Jesus and thereby sets up the proposition that Jesus is godly in nature. John wasn't writing for a group of people who grew up believing in Jesus, John was writing for people who needed to be persuaded that Jesus was important to them.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Verse 17 does indeed seem to fill out the “grace after grace” in verse 16 and “grace and truth” in verse 15: the Law was given through Moses, then grace and truth came into being through Jesus. Two things stand out for me: there is no hint of any negativity about the Law here - it was a grace from God; yet a greater grace/truth came via Jesus. The former (Law) was merely given, whereas the latter was inherent in Jesus himself in a way that the Law was not in Moses.
On the exodus link, how strong does this appear? There are four links to the past so far: creation, becoming God’s people, wilderness dwelling (the glory ‘tabernacled’, v.14) and Sinai (the giving of the Law). The actual exodus as such seems to be missing. I wonder if John was casting a wider net over Israel’s history in general?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Verse 17 does indeed seem to fill out the “grace after grace” in verse 16 and “grace and truth” in verse 15: the Law was given through Moses, then grace and truth came into being through Jesus. Two things stand out for me: there is no hint of any negativity about the Law here - it was a grace from God; yet a greater grace/truth came via Jesus. The former (Law) was merely given, whereas the latter was inherent in Jesus himself in a way that the Law was not in Moses.
On the exodus link, how strong does this appear? There are four links to the past so far: creation, becoming God’s people, wilderness dwelling (the glory ‘tabernacled’, v.14) and Sinai (the giving of the Law). The actual exodus as such seems to be missing. I wonder if John was casting a wider net over Israel’s history in general?
All of the links you mention are thematically, 'exodus' links. I got the idea of John being concerned to portray Jesus as signalling a new kind of creation (the Christian) and a new destiny, or new exodus, for God's new people (the church,)from an Aussie Bible teacher named Rick Watts who is I think, presently in a Bible college in Canada. I must say it seemed to make sense of a lot of John's selections from Christ's life. The water into wine for instance at Cana definitely has a 'new creation' link. The feeding of the 5000 has a real echo of manna in the wilderness (an exodus link.)
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I believe the exodus link was also made by Bultmann, who made the typological link between Jesus and Moses – a second salvation (exodus) with signs following, as it were. Jesus as the Passover lamb occurs later in chapter one, so it is possible that this was a theme that John had in mind.
My only concern is that there are so many other actions and words in the Gospel that do not seem to link to the exodus event. We have, for example, a possible representation of Jesus as the fulfiller of the meaning of the Feasts of Israel: Passover (chap. 6), Tabernacles (chap. 7), and Dedication (chap. 10). These could be caught in a sense by exodus, if we cast the meaning of ‘exodus’ widely enough, but we might lose the significance of exodus as a salvation event if we do. That was the only reason why I wondered if it was better to see the whole history of God’s working in his people’s history as being represented thematically in John.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Time to move things on again. Verse 18 (I’ll just do the one here as v.19 starts a new section). Three translations, because there are slightly different ways of interpreting this text:
quote:
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known [NIV].
No one has seen God at any time. The only conceived Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him [World English Bible].
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart,who has made him known [NRSV].
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Boy, there are some differences there, aren't there.
quote:
18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.[NKJV]
Is it "God the one and only" or the "only begotten Son"? The Greek seems to say the former.
Is He "in the bosom of the Father", "at the Father's side", or "close to the Father's heart"?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
V18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained him.
This is the NASB version with a gloss that 'only begotten God' is said by later manuscripts to read 'only begotten son'
Surely it means Christ, as only he as a member of the Godhead is ever described as 'begotten.'
The verse suggests a kind of peroration of John's thesis that God himself, the Father, was in fact revealed in Christ. It confirms the incarnation. In this gospel, Christ is primarily portrayed as the son of God. Comments?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I think this passage has two messages. The first is that Jesus is important, in that He is with God and therefore, on a level with God.
The second is that people can now have a new relationship with God. That is, God has never been seen before, but now Jesus brings God to us.
As with several other verses in the beginning of the Gospel, John is setting up themes for people to follow throughout the body of the Gospel.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Here is Young's Literal Translation's version of that verse. quote:
God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.
This is as close to the original as you can get if you don't know Greek.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
This is as close to the original as you can get if you don't know Greek.
That's right, Moo. The NIV is way off in this instance, it seems.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Here is Young's Literal Translation's version of that verse. quote:
God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.
This is as close to the original as you can get if you don't know Greek.
Moo
Do we know what "on the bosom" means? Is that just an expression, like "right-hand man," or something similar? Or does it have to do with the heart? "A man after God's own heart"? Or "The Son God loves"?
And is it saying that Christ "declared" God - made him known to us in the flesh, since we couldn't see him?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I think 'bosom' means intimacy. To me 'right-hand man' suggests function rather than relationship.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
According to my Koine Greek dictionary the word means "in the chest" or "in the heart." Obviously there is an idiomatic expression involved.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
