|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time.
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Since the people (crowds) speaking are almost certainly Jews (duh, it's one of the three major pilgrimage feasts in Jerusalem, whaddya expect), this is one of the many cases where context pretty much forces us to take "the Jews" as meaning "the Jewish authorities."
Also, the koine word for Jew is the same as the word for Judean.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 16804 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
OK - continuing - Jesus at the festival of Booths [NRSV]
quote:
[14]About the middle of the festival Jesus went up into the temple and began to teach.[15]The Jews were astonished at it, saying, "How does this man have such learning [or know his letters] when he has never been taught?
[John7:14-15]
This is John paraphrasing the attitude of some of the hearers. If here were totally untaught, I doubt he would be allowed to teach in the temple - unless they had such things as open mic sessions even in those days. But -
quote:
[16]Then Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine but his who sent me.[17]Anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own.[18]Those who speak on their own seek their own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him s true, and there is nothing false in him...
The problem is - how many people have said just that? It's the standard prophetic pitch: Thus saith the Lord...
The Jews loved to argue. It's the eastern mystical traditions which demand that you sit down shut up and listen. How hard it must have been for them!
[ 13. March 2012, 15:35: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think it a mistake to take "havỉng never studied" (or whatsit) as a reference to illiteracy, general ignorance, etc. After all, I suppose every village had its synagogue, and the Jews were big on basic education (at least for boys). More likely what they mean is "having never studied WITH US" (that is, he's never been a disciple of any rabbi, he doesn't spend hours at the temple every day cozily arguing with the other eggheads and ignoring the lowlifes, MY GOSH WHERE ARE HIS CREDENTIALS? And how dare he come in and teach with authority (and become popular with the great unwashed, oy vey) WHEN HE'S NOT ONE OF US? Academia can really get its panties in a twist over such things. In some circles the worst thing you can say of a fellow academic is that his books are popular...
As for
quote:
[16]Then Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine but his who sent me.[17]Anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own.[18]Those who speak on their own seek their own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him s true, and there is nothing false in him...
I don't see this as the standard "God spoke to me" pitch at all. I mean, you hear that, and it's usually followed up with "So send me buckets of money RIGHT NOW." (We have a very popular looneytunes prophetess of that sort not a long way from my home.) Same old, same old.
What Jesus is doing is challenging his hearers to observe him. Is he just another self-glorifying in-it-for-the-money-and-fame liar, or does he truly look out for God's kingdom first and leave his own personal advancement out of it? This is a damn good test.
It's easy to talk the "it's all about God" schtick, but when you start looking at people's bank accounts, cars (or not), home(s)--possibly multiple, with goldplated toilets--that's when you find out who is seeking God's glory, and who is all about himself.
--------------------
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 14314 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I certainly take the point of your last couple of paragraphs, LC; but as for teaching in the temple, I thought it was the (synoptic?) tradition that Jesus did, in fact (if we can say "in fact" of anything about Jesus' early life) teach regularly in the synagogues, was a well known rabbi, and had probably sat at the feet of Gamaliel some time. But this is off the top of my head and I need to check it out - though it's perhaps no big deal. Peo[ple then, as now made assiumptions about the famlous, not allof which can be true.
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Whatever the synoptics say, John is here making it quite clear that Jesus keeps his identity secret (7:10); and even when Jesus starts teaching the people refer to him as 'this man" (7:15); it is not until 7:25 that they start to realise that he is Jesus.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2201 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I certainly take the point of your last couple of paragraphs, LC; but as for teaching in the temple, I thought it was the (synoptic?) tradition that Jesus did, in fact (if we can say "in fact" of anything about Jesus' early life) teach regularly in the synagogues, was a well known rabbi, and had probably sat at the feet of Gamaliel some time. But this is off the top of my head and I need to check it out - though it's perhaps no big deal. Peo[ple then, as now made assiumptions about the famlous, not allof which can be true.
Um, actually it was Paul who sat at the feet of Gamaliel, not Jesus; and as far as his pre-baptism life, Jesus appears not to have done anything out of the ordinary barring a shenanigan when he was twelve. So I'm thinking "run the carpenter shop, assist widowed Mum to raise younger siblings, etc." Nazareth was not a hotbed of intellectual activity.
Now as for Jesus' post-baptism life, whether you take it to be one year or several years, yes, he clearly taught in the synagogues and basically anywhere else he found an audience. But that was not surprising. AFAIK it was customary for the local synagogue gathering to offer distinguished visitors a chance to teach; there was no clear line of division between those who oughtta listen and those who oughtta preach similar to the one found in many mainline Christian denoms today. (You didn't have to go off to seminary, get ordained, and receive a formal call before they'd hand you the mike. And such teaching had nothing to do with priesthood--that was something you were either born into or not, and if you were, your focus would be on the sacrificial center of the temple at Jerusalem, not on teaching centers like local synagogues.)
So to get invited to teach in a synagogue, you basically needed to be a) male, b) of good repute, and c) someone wanted to hear you. Witness the synagogue invitations to Paul & Co. even after their Christianizing and during their missionizing: "Brothers, if you have anything to say, please come on up." Might get stoned afterward, but hey, the floor is yours for now...
Now, on teaching in the temple--have you ever looked at a model or blueprint of that thing? Man, it was HUGE. You could hold any number of teaching sessions, prayer meetings, and polka dances in the temple courts, all at the same time. Which I take to be the location of Jesus' teaching--nobody was going to let him into the temple proper, which was just for priests and Levites. And him a Judahite!
But out in the courts, hey, as long as you're not scaring the animals... Oh dear. He DID do that, as I recall. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 14314 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
"...[19]Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why are you looking for an opportunity to kill me?" [20]The crowd answered, "You have a demon! Who is trying to kill you?" [21]Jesus answered them, "I performed one work, and all of you are astonished..."
[John7:19-21]
Only one work? To which one work is he referring? Clever of John to meet the obvious reaction of the reader half way - "The man's paranoid!". Shakespeare would have approved.
The really clever bit, though, and one WS uses himself frequently, is not to answer the question. The device is merely used to acknowledge the reader's/hearer's incredulity.
["Was ever woman in such humour woo'd?//Was ever woman in such humour won?"](Richard III)
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
All quiet on the christian front.
quote:
"...[22]Moses gave you circumcision (it is, of course, not from Moses, but from the patriarchs) and you circumcise a man on the sabbath.[23]If a man receives circumcision on the sabbath in order that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I healed a mon's whole body on the sabbath? [which I guess answers the question in the previous post - but it seems a long time away; perhaps in the editing process it got detached from the original story of the man healed on the sabbath?][24]Do not judge by appearances but judge with right judgment."
But this does not finish the argument about people (impotently) desiring to arrest him, as we shall see...
Interesting that John appears to correct Jesus' misapprehension of the historical facts! A typo, maybe.
[ 23. March 2012, 05:31: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Sorry, but I don't geddit. I mean, of course his life was in danger, just as he said. That was the whole reason for his rather stealthy way of entering Jerusalem. And as for the crowd contradicting him about it, this reminds me of something I've seen many a time, when everyone knows a particular unpleasant truth (Dad's drunk again, and etc.) but the first person to openly declare the fact gets shouted down. Bringing unpleasant truths out into the open, you see. Who wants that? Hush him up.
--------------------
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 14314 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
The correction I was referring to was in verse 22 - though it's possible I suppose that Jesus himself was talking in brackets!
Incidentally, what's the significance of circumcision coming from the patriarchs and not from Moses? I thought in my ignorance that Moses was a patriarch anyway. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, I talk in brackets, though I hope the Lord would do better. I don't suppose it really matters whether that is Jesus or John here, after all, Moses DID give them circumcision (for the second time, after they'd apparently given it up mostly during their time of slavery). So if John is being a tad pedantic, that's all right.
But it could easily be Jesus, since the point he is making is that even for them, something overrides the Law--and that happens to be an action of grace affecting one part of the body (circumcision), an institution which in fact predates the Law and therefore overrides it (as Paul points out later). Healing is also an action of grace, but this affects the whole body (and is therefore apparently even more urgent and appropriate, though I find the reasoning a tad peculiar! It appears to suggest that circumcision is a minor form of healing, which seems odd to me--saith the female!--but since it was the entry into membership in the people of God, much like baptism today, perhaps that's what he's after here.)
By the way, when they say "the patriarchs" they mean Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel, and occasionally the twelve sons thereof--the physical progenitors of Israel. But Moses doesn't qualify, though he gets termed a prophet on occasion.
--------------------
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 14314 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
The correction I was referring to was in verse 22 - though it's possible I suppose that Jesus himself was talking in brackets!
Actually, I think that's quite possible because I don't think it was a correction, I think it was a clarifying distinction.
quote:
Incidentally, what's the significance of circumcision coming from the patriarchs and not from Moses? I thought in my ignorance that Moses was a patriarch anyway.
Here's my take on it:
This whole section is about the Law, authority, and how much people were thinking about the original meaning of the Law vs. unthinkingly applying the Law in a legalistic way. Jesus was pointing out that the Law was written by Moses, but that in it, Moses was describing circumcision as something God instituted with Abraham as a sign of the original covenant. As another, later part of the Law, Moses described God commanding the Sabbath as a memorial to God's work of creation.
I think part of Jesus' point was that when these two parts of the Law conflicted with each other, people had already worked out which took precedence, even though that precedence was not explicitly in the Law itself. This was an example (that the people were already comfortable with) of people working out for themselves how to make sense of the Law based on what its purpose was (e.g. because commitment to the covenant was more important than remembering creation).
Jesus then compared circumcision (a sign of the covenant) taking precedence over the Sabbath (remembering God's creation) to healing taking precedence over the Sabbath. I think his implication was that his listeners should realize that healing and helping others was more important as part of the covenant than refraining from work as part of remembering the Sabbath, if only they would stop to think about why God had commanded the Sabbath. If they had thought about how the Sabbath related to other, similar laws, they would have realized that the point of the Sabbath was to remember that it was God who was providing everything for them, rather than thinking they were doing it all on their own. It was not meant to prevent them from healing and helping each other.
So I think Jesus was referring to Moses as a synonym for the Law, and to the patriarchs as a synonym for the original covenant, and that he was drawing a pointed distinction between the two. I think his message was that the covenant was bigger and more important than the Law, which came later and was subordinate.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth.
Posts: 1005 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Yes - I had got as far as remembering who the patriarchs were, but I'm grateful for your succinct explanations of what Jesus was on about.
The story continues with a third party confirmation that Jesus was not being paranoid, and the crowd wondering if this charismatic teacher might not be the Christ (Messiah):
quote:
[25]Now some of the people of Jerusalem were saying, "Is not this the man whom they are trying to kill?[26]And here he is, speaking openly, but they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Messiah?..."
[John7:25-26]
But the tradition was, apparently, that the Messiah would appear [i]incognito[/]:
quote:
[27]"...Yet we know where this man is from; when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from."
[ 25. March 2012, 06:33: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Yeah, I wonder what they meant. I mean, there were definite expectations that he would be of David s family and hometown, so not completely unknown. Diid they mean merely that he would have no obvious mundane backstory? I could imagine people being disappointed by the sheer ordinariness of Jesus younger years...
--------------------
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 14314 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Quite - that's something that bugs some Christians, too - always did. It's crazy, when we're so ready to idolize our modern celebrities
(did anything any good ever come out of Tiger Bay?) ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
It's a play on the word ” know” :
John 7:28 NET
Then Jesus, while teaching in the temple courts, cried out, “You both know me and know where I come from! And I have not come on my own initiative, but the one who sent me is true. You do not know him,
You do not ”know ” where the Messiah comes from because you do not ”know ” God.
Jews value life because they believe that doing mitzvah makes the world better. The more mitzvah done the more the world is blessed and you need living Jews to do mitzvah. That's why circumcision is even done on a Sabbath, to save the baby:
Exodus 4:26 NET
So the Lord let him alone. (At that time she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” referring to the circumcision.
11. The following three passages are applied to three different cases of circumcision: (i) And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people (Gen. XVII, 14) — this applies to an adult whom his father did not circumcise as an infant. (ii) And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised (Lev. XII, 3) this is a command to the father of the child. (iii) Every male among you shall be circumcised (Gen. XVII, 10) — this is a general command, e.g., to the Beth din, for a child to be circumcised after his eighth day if not circumcised at the proper time.
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath
Folio 132a
[ 26. March 2012, 12:56: Message edited by: footwasher ]
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 782 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
30 At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his hour had not yet come. 31 Still, many in the crowd believed in him. They said, “When the Messiah comes, will he perform more signs than this man?”
32 The Pharisees heard the crowd whispering such things about him. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees sent temple guards to arrest him.
Oops! Just read the first post! Apparently I can restart the study by saying ” start”. And I durn thought I had kilt the thread! So ” Start”!
I get the idea that this is another statement that has the Pharisees foaming at the mouth, renting their clothes and throwing dust in the air, in reaction to Jesus' claim of being divine. But hid in the midst of their righteous anger is jealousy:
Acts 13:42-45 NET
As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people were urging them to speak about these things on the next Sabbath. When the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who were speaking with them and were persuading them to continue in the grace of God.
On the next Sabbath almost the whole city assembled together to hear the word of the Lord. But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy, and they began to contradict what Paul was saying by reviling him.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 782 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
John 7:33-36 NET
Then Jesus said, “I will be with you for only a little while longer, and then I am going to the one who sent me. You will look for me but will not find me, and where I am you cannot come.”
Then the Jewish leaders said to one another, “Where is he going to go that we cannot find him? He is not going to go to the Jewish people dispersed among the Greeks and teach the Greeks, is he? What did he mean by saying, ‘You will look for me but will not find me, and where I am you cannot come’?”
This is Jesus warning the Jewish people that His offer is for a limited period only, as He will be going away. We know now He is talking about the Ascension, but at the time this information just went over their head. John repeats this pattern throughout his Gospel, and it kind of puts his readers at ease, knowing that the teaching they received was as startling to the Apostles as it is now to them. "Yup, we heard and we didn't understand at first either! So don't worry, you'll soon be up to speed!"
[ 28. March 2012, 05:53: Message edited by: footwasher ]
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 782 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
Teaching About the Spirit
7:37 On the last day of the feast, the greatest day, 101 Jesus stood up and shouted out, 102 “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and 7:38 let the one who believes in me drink. 103 Just as the scripture says, ‘From within him 104 will flow rivers of living water.’” 105 7:39 (Now he said this about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were going to receive, for the Spirit had not yet been given, 106 because Jesus was not yet glorified.) 107
Differing Opinions About Jesus
7:40 When they heard these words, some of the crowd 108 began to say, “This really 109 is the Prophet!” 110 7:41 Others said, “This is the Christ!” 111 But still others said, “No, 112 for the Christ doesn’t come from Galilee, does he? 113 7:42 Don’t the scriptures say that the Christ is a descendant 114 of David 115 and comes from Bethlehem, 116 the village where David lived?” 117 7:43 So there was a division in the crowd 118 because of Jesus. 119 7:44 Some of them were wanting to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him. 120
Lack of Belief
7:45 Then the officers 121 returned 122 to the chief priests and Pharisees, 123 who said to them, “Why didn’t you bring him back with you?” 124 7:46 The officers replied, “No one ever spoke like this man!” 7:47 Then the Pharisees answered, 125 “You haven’t been deceived too, have you? 126 7:48 None of the rulers 127 or the Pharisees have believed in him, have they? 128 7:49 But this rabble 129 who do not know the law are accursed!”
7:50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus 130 before and who was one of the rulers, 131 said, 132 7:51 “Our law doesn’t condemn 133 a man unless it first hears from him and learns 134 what he is doing, does it?” 135 7:52 They replied, 136 “You aren’t from Galilee too, are you? 137 Investigate carefully and you will see that no prophet 138 comes from Galilee!”
V 37 is linked with:
1"Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; And you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk Without money and without cost. Isaiah 55
10“And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut.Matt 25
Anybody going to be caught short?
13“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” Luke 11
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 782 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Footwasher. Lot's of useful stuff here - but I can't keep up (it's my great age, you know). We've been taking this at a fairly leisurely pace up to now. No rigid rules, but we've been giving folk, after each post, a little while to read,understand, and possibly comment.
I'm still working on your post a few days back. I've found that "doing mitzvah" means carrying out religious observances in everyday life. Which is helpful because I always thought that the Jewish pre-ccupation with religious minutiae was largely pharisaical and academic.
Keeping God's many commandments in order to keep the wheels of the universe oiled is a much happier idea.
I haven't found out who the Beth din are/were yet, but I've got it on my list.
Welcome to the discussion! I hope you won't tire of it.
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
P.S. Could you possibly explain to this ignoramus what all those other numbers are - 101 -137, etc. - thanks.
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
P.S. Could you possibly explain to this ignoramus what all those other numbers are - 101 -137, etc. - thanks.
Sorry, on all counts. Lemme get the hang of it, yes?
And those numbers are superscript annotations:
http://net.bible.org/#!bible/John+7
Very useful. The Netbible tells us why they choose a particular meaning among a wide choice of meanings and what those choices are. Other Bibles make different choices but don't explain the reasoning behind those choices.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 782 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Many thanks. The NET bible is really impressive and I've now got a permanent shortcut to it. I like the way you can scroll text and notes independently.
The only reservation I have about using the annotation numbers here is that unlike on the original, the numbers, being of the same size and intensity as the text, become somewhat intrusive. Others may not agree. The point is that many shipmates look at this forum when they have no bible to hand - which is why we are asked to quote or give links to the text.
Having to follow links to the notes every other word feels like hard w*rk. But then, I'm lazy. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
This is only my personal opinion and I apologize if I've crossed the boundary into junior hosting. Junior? Dream on, pimple!
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Would anyone like to explain, or comment on, John's belief that "the Spirit hadn't yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified"?
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Haven't been able to post for a few weeks – apologies for running back over a number of verses here with scattered thoughts...
Who are “The Jews” and why not speak openly?
Along Lamb Chopped's lines, I assume that “the Jews” was John's shorthand for those associated with the Temple authorities – the high priest (who had civil powers vested in him by the Romans), his supporting council (some whom were co-opted Pharisees) and the state theologians based in the Temple complex (scribes, etc). Given that Rome expected them to take responsibility for keeping the peace in the realm, it would have been in their joint interests to manage expectations among the people. That probably meant having to pronounce opinion on every Tom, Dick, and Jesus who popped up to rock the boat. Fear of the consequences should they fail to keep to peace probably motivated “The Jews” (Romans stepping and sacking them - or worse); fear of the consequences should they fail to follow the official opinion probably motivated “The People” (Temple police stepping in and hauling them off for judgement).
Was Jesus ever a student?
There was a memory elsewhere of Jesus having discoursed in the Temple as a child with teachers and as having developed understanding as he grew up (Luke 2:41-52). There is evidence that the Temple was not just used for the ritual, but also housed the theologians and official teachers. The learning / student style here, I would assume, was that of teacher – disciple and probably took place daily in the courts. It's possible that Paul learned his theology here (possibly around the same time Jesus was in operation) under the guidance of the Pharisees.
The Jews and the crowd – two judgements
The Jews want to kill Jesus; as above I think John refers to the authorities here who are questioning Jesus' authority – Whose disciple was he? Where did he receive this learning? Has he a pedigree or is he just spouting off the top of his head??? If it was an established teaching from a known rabbi, then all was safe; one could engage in harmless philosophical debate among all the other harmless philosophical debates going on. If not established, then warning bells would clang...
Then the crowd think him paranoid; different audience here, this is the general people who would be quite used to hearing teaching going on in the Temple courts – 15 minutes of fame applied even then.
Right judgement
John's court metaphor coming to the fore! Against the judgement based on physical evidence alone (miracles, heritage), the authorities need to judge according to the principle of God's will – doing as God really wanted his people to do.
I think there's quite a bit more than meets the eye here; This section is important for John. It goes to the question of how it is possible to determine whether the claims Jesus made are really true.
Where does the Messiah come from?
Enigmatic statement in verse 27! Later on (v.42) John makes it clear that there was divided opinion on the messiah's origins. It seems that there could have been a number of 'messiahs' that were expected at the time Jesus was teaching: Davidic, Aaronic, and the basically zealot rebel. Perhaps that was why Jesus shied away from adopting the title among Jews; it was more trouble than it was worth. Here John records Jesus' focus on knowing God, rather than signs (including Scriptural 'signs' about where a messiah might come from).
Hellenistic Jews
Whether a memory or not, John's record of the authorities' bemusement over Jesus' statement that he would be going away provides a useful piece of historical insight. There's little record of the Jews being engaged in mission to non-Jews. They were happy to accommodate God-Fearers, but little else. Here the Jews make a reference to the diaspora Jews, now Hellenised. Josephus also mentions groups of Hellenised Jews who had formed slave labour in the past in the Greek empire and who had later retired back to Jerusalem. There seems to have some friction between the two groups of Hellenised (Greek-speaking?) Jews and Hebrew Jews (Aramaic speaking). Here we may have a note of concern by the Jerusalem authorities that this troublesome teacher, Jesus, might up and off to spread even more discord among those troublesome Greek-Jews.
When was Jesus glorified?
Oh boy. So much we could look at here. Well, in John (cheating here a bit!) the glorification refers to Jesus' death/resurrection/vindication – represented by his seating at God's right hand. Then he sends the Spirit. Its interesting why John felt the need to add this comment – or even better, why include the memory of Jesus' references to water. In chapter 4, with the Samaritan woman, John gives just an oblique hint of the link between water and Spirit. There Jesus talks about living water overflowing to eternal life. Only later in the conversation does Jesus refer to spirit, but a link to water as a metaphor might not have been understood. Here in chapter 7 we can hardly avoid the flying brick type hint from John!
Posts: 2256 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Would anyone like to explain, or comment on, John's belief that "the Spirit hadn't yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified"?
Jesus' last discussion with his disciples at the last supper was very largely about this. As I recall, he said something along the lines of "If I didn't go away, the Holy Spirit would not come to you; but if I go away (=die), I will send him to you." He later goes on to talk of sending us "another Comforter" and so on, which has always been interpreted as a reference to Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit to dwell permanently and intimately with all of us who believe.
And somebody (Paul or the writer to the Hebrews) regards this as the fulfillment of the OT prophecy, "When he ascended on high, he gave gifts to men."
Why not both Jesus bodily present and Spirit too at the same time? I really don't know. Maybe this is Jesus' "going away present"?
Not that the Holy Spirit has not been present and active in this world from before Day One. But Pentecost seems to mark a turning point, when the indwelling of the Spirit becomes permanent and much more profound--not just an occasional visitation to a chosen prophet or so, but a permanent gift to all God's people.
Oh, about the glorification bit--this most likely refers to his return to his former place of glory as the ruler of everything, "seated at the right hand of the Father." In other words, post-passion. Although one could argue that his glorification started at the cross itself, since John 17 has Jesus praying, "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son..." which could almost be taken as saying that Christ's ultimate obedience (and mercy on us!) is his glory.
--------------------
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 14314 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Right, that seems to wrap quite a lot up - including my trinitarian muddle-up (inspired by "conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary...").
The Holy Spirit always was, as Christ always was, but the former was not on-stream (so to speak) for believers until after Pentecost. Have I got that right?
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
John 7:39 NET
(Now he said this about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were going to receive, for the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.)
The Epistles were written to explain how God had fulfilled His plan, as prophesied in the OT, the promise of making Abraham's Seed a blessing to the world:
Galatians 3:13-14 NET
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”) in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we could receive the promise of the Spirit by faith.
John's Gospel tells us the details of that redemptive act. It gives a basis to the teachings found in the Epistles and forms a written record for the purpose of preserving and passing of information to future believers , when witnesses to Jesus' deeds and teachings would no longer be around.
Excellent points, Nigel and Lamb Chopped!
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 782 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
[Tangent alert] Paul's quote from Deuteronomy (cited above) is fascinating in it's own right. An executed criminal whose corpse is hung on a tree must not remain there overnight, because a corpse left overnight on a tree is cursed by God.
So the executed criminal is not by virtue of his punishment separated from God. But if he is left on the tree he is cursed - that is, the criminal, not the people who leave him there. Or perhaps it's implicit that they are cursed too.
But hang on a bit! Christ's body was not left on the tree overnight, so Jesus was not cursed. So WTF is Paul on about? [Tangent over]
Not that Paul's exegesis would get him many marks in a modern seminary, bless him!
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Okay, a muddleicious reply after a LONG day at church.
I'm not sure what "on-stream" means--is it like "on tap," you know, like beer? I think the difference between how OT believers experienced Him and how NT and NT+ believers do is sort of the difference between the dating part of a relationship and the marriage.
I mean, the Holy Spirit is running around all over the OT, and it's very hard to deny that believers such as David etc. had the Holy Spirit in/with them in a way rather like what we do now. It's particularly hard if you're a Lutheran, and believe that all true Christian faith is a gift created and given by the Spirit.
On the other hand, he seems to sort of drop in and out all through the OT. I mean, he blazes into town, does a sort of drive by spritzing on the 70 elders of Moses' day, and then BAM! he's (apparently) outta there. And then a judge or prophet shows up, usually in the middle of a hellacious crisis, and WHAM! we're back in business, miracles, gifts, prophecy, everything. Until the guy/gal dies, and all is quiet again. And twenty years later he quirks a finger at some other nobody in a totally different tribe, and ...
But it just doesn't seem to last all that long. He's not predictable, and he's always passing through. Until Pentecost. When he finally moves in with all his tchotchkes and family photos, and we know he's here to stay. Quietly, noisily, whatever. He's home. With us. Finally.
--------------------
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 14314 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
AND we drop with a hellacious CLANG! from the Spirit to the (dead) flesh, in the space of a double post. (mea culpa)
IMHO the thing about dead guys on a stick (as RooK so eloquently put it a few Easters back) is that dead bodies are defiled and defiling. That's just their nature. They are living (oops) proof of the reality of human sin, which ultimately brings forth death. And so the decent thing to do in every culture is to dispose of the corpse, one way or another. Bury them, burn them, do something--but get them decently out-of-the-way and private as soon as possible. (which is why we find preserved and exhibited corpses simultaneously revolting and fascinating, in a car wreck kind of way. But I digress.)
Okay, so corpse = defilement. All the more so if the corpse is a) publicly exhibited in defiance of all decency and b) the result of judicial execution--that is, the death was deserved. So God orders that anyone executed in such a shameful way be put decently underground (or whatever) as soon as possible, lest the land be defiled.
Now in Jesus' case we have a paradox, because you have the public, shameful execution (naked, even!) of someone who is simultaneously the most holy, innocent person ever, and the worst, most dreadful sinner and criminal ever (on account of his voluntarily taking on human sin). So that leaves us with a nice conundrum. Is the corpse of such a man defiling--or cleansing? Harmful, or healing? Which doesn't get properly sorted out until the Resurrection, at which point the verdict is clear. This is the only corpse that ever was, that ever could be, that takes away corruption. (ever notice how nobody in the Easter story, barring John before he believed, seems to take the least notice of the laws of Moses regarding contact with a dead body? No bathing and sacrifices for them. After the Resurrection the whole thing is academic. How I would love to hear the rabbis rule on that one.)
--------------------
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 14314 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Well done, Lamb Chopped! You deserve a rest after that. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 14314 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
[Tangent alert] Paul's quote from Deuteronomy (cited above) is fascinating in it's own right. An executed criminal whose corpse is hung on a tree must not remain there overnight, because a corpse left overnight on a tree is cursed by God.
So the executed criminal is not by virtue of his punishment separated from God. But if he is left on the tree he is cursed - that is, the criminal, not the people who leave him there. Or perhaps it's implicit that they are cursed too.
But hang on a bit! Christ's body was not left on the tree overnight, so Jesus was not cursed. So WTF is Paul on about? [Tangent over] Not that Paul's exegesis would get him many marks in a modern seminary, bless him!
I understand the text to mean any person hung on a tree is already cursed. Leaving of the body overnight leads to defilement of the LAND.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 782 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped, non sequitur. After the Resurrection, it wasn't a corpse!
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 782 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, it sure beats calling the Lord a meat puppet.
--------------------
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 14314 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, it sure beats calling the Lord a meat puppet.
Yes Boss Lady, No Boss Lady, Three bags full, Boss Lady! See how easy it is!
Striped 'shrooms on the left, speckled 'shrooms on the right, shitakes in the centre, ol' McDonald had a farm...
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 782 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
An interesting (and tangential?) episode follows:
quote:
Then each of them went home, while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them.
[John 7:53-8:2]NRSV
Nothing very odd about that. Except that it introduces the story of the woman taken in adultery, which has had a chequered history in the history of the bible's compilation.
Here's NRSV's footnote:
The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11;
other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.
Its placing by some in Luke's gospel is particularly striking. The fact that it is missing in the most ancient texts doesn't mean, of course, that it didn't exist before, in the oral tradition or one of the evangelists' sources. I'd like to think it came to be incorporated in the fourth gospel along with the passages about the "beloved disciple" - but that's wishful thinking!
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well that was surreal.
Never mind.
The reason I think the John 8 bit is genuine is because it SOUNDS so much like Jesus. Not just the compassion, but the way he lets the bastards blow themselves out while he doodles on the ground--and then stands up and totally devastates them with a single line. And goes back to doodling.
If I were going to fake a Jesus episode, I never would have had the genius to put in that kind of totally irrelevant detail. If it's not real, it should be.
--------------------
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 14314 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
Sorry, LC, just trying to make you laugh:-( .
The passage probably existed as a standalone incident during the period. The compilers probably thought it was a good place to insert the story, along with other interaction with the Pharisees.
If you take it out, you'll see the rest of the text has continuity.
The words on the sand were probably "Mene, mene, mene,tekel, upharsin."
[ 04. April 2012, 04:25: Message edited by: footwasher ]
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 782 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Ah, I get it now. Reading for comprehension doesn't work too well in the middle of my personal IRL crisis! thanks.
--------------------
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 14314 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well that was surreal.
Never mind.
The reason I think the John 8 bit is genuine is because it SOUNDS so much like Jesus. Not just the compassion, but the way he lets the bastards blow themselves out while he doodles on the ground--and then stands up and totally devastates them with a single line. And goes back to doodling.
If I were going to fake a Jesus episode, I never would have had the genius to put in that kind of totally irrelevant detail. If it's not real, it should be.
Not sure how to take that "surreal".If that's trans-pond for "what a load of bollocks" I quite understand your frustration, LC. It sounds like the authentic Jesus to me, and it's one of my favourite stories, worth close reading.
quote:
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him,"Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery..."
[John 8.3-4]
My ultra-feminist knee-jerk reaction to this is to wonder how long the tossers watched (just to make sure). My second question is where is the bloke she was caught in flagrante delicto with? It was a man's world, no? Has anything changed much?
Calming down a bit, I have to acknowledge that the lascivious onlookers were in fact the respected (if not respectable) ones of their age - they are careful to remember the common courtesies - "Teacher..."
But they are about to make a vicious, very cleverly calculated attack on the man they fear so much.....
[ 04. April 2012, 11:38: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
They're jerks, plain and simple.
I'm fairly sure they knew when the er, assignation would be ahead of time, so they could be sure to show up in force and accidentally-on purpose "catch her in the act." Otherwise why weren't they off at their trades like decent people? Looks highly suspicious when a small crowd of teachers and Pharisees (not one or two!) shows up with a ready-made victim in tow--and NOT the male.
It almost suggests entrapment.
--------------------
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 14314 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
RE: John 7:53-8:11
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
...the story of the woman taken in adultery, which has had a chequered history in the history of the bible's compilation.
Literary criticism is a bit like adultery. You find cheating texts in all the wrong places.
An oft-used question crops up here in the context of this episode in John: because the earliest and best manuscripts do not contain 7:53 – 8:11, should Christian preachers teach from it?
Posts: 2256 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Depends on the teaching. I've heard good and bad from this text. Mysogynists will home in on the last verse (wait for it!).
--------------------
But at my back I always hear//Time's winged chariot hurrying near (Andrew Marvell)
Posts: 7077 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
What, "go and sin no more?" Jesus only said this eleventy-gabillion times, to men and women alike. I don't find it unusual.
--------------------
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 14314 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
It'd be a bummer if the tale was ditched as 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone' is one of Jesus' best and most well-known sayings.
I gather there's a theory of unlikeliness in the Gospels meaning likely to be true. Otherwise, why put the unlikely thing in. This tale is salacious. Also, the New Testament has plenty of stuff about 'sexual immorality'. Wouldn't this story be a bit 'off-message' to be making up?
Footwasher - your mushroom stuff is referring to Lamb Chopped's other thread? I thought at first that you were making connections that few others could follow, but then I thought that might be me...
Posts: 348 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I think the story has an affinity with Jesus' teaching and could very well be part of the memory passed down orally among teachers and their audiences in the first generation set of Christians.
And I think there's enough clout in the fact that the majority of Christians accepted the story as valuable enough to disseminate and eventually include in the canon. Enough to warrant a preach or two.
Not sure I've ever come across a feminist reading of this passage, though. Is that because of the textual issues? If there haven't been any such readings, we'll have to invent one!
Posts: 2256 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
Footwasher - your mushroom stuff is referring to Lamb Chopped's other thread? I thought at first that you were making connections that few others could follow, but then I thought that might be me...
Yeah , I was playacting a suitable response to unreasonable behavior. Now I have to apologise to The Kebab again... SORR-eeeee-Y!
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 782 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
How about you just deal with the "Mushroom" issue on that thread, refer to Lamb Chopped by "Lamb Chopped' or "LC" if your in a rush, and just let her discuss the topic at hand, like she seems to want to?
Kelly Alves
Kerygmania Host
--------------------
Now an Alpha Mu Gamma.
Posts: 25309 | From: Waves and seagulls, football crowds, and churchbells. | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
