We are continuing our discussion on baptism as written.
Mar 15 2010
Church Fathers on John 3.5
There was a man named Nicodemus, a Jewish religious leader who was a Pharisee. After dark one evening, he came to speak with Jesus. “Rabbi,” he said, “we all know that God has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are evidence that God is with you.”
Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.”
“What do you mean?” exclaimed Nicodemus. “How can an old man go back into his mother’s womb and be born again?”
Jesus replied, “I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life. So don’t be surprised when I say, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it wants. Just as you can hear the wind but can’t tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can’t explain how people are born of the Spirit.” (John 3:1-8 NLT)
Dec 31 2009
An Apophatic Rendering of the Logos in John’s Prologue
I have not familarized myself as well as I should with Apophatic Theology, but I did find this post interesting. This is only a part of the post, but take your time to read it:
Continue reading “An Apophatic Rendering of the Logos in John’s Prologue”
Dec 02 2009
Prologues to the Gospels – John
We are examining two prologues – Anti-Marcionite and the Monarchian. Most agree that an early date, c200 for the Anti-Marconite Prologues while the latter has a date which ranges from 200-400. We will be using Ben C. Smith’s translation.
Jun 23 2009
Bultmann's order for John
During a recent conversation at BBB, the blogger at Church Discipline made mention of a post that he had written sometime ago about Bultmann’s (as if he is important) order for the Gospel of John. Not content with how the Gospel appears, Bultmann decided to rearrange John’s Gospel:
One thing that is very nice about Price’s book is that John is in Bultmann’s order. Having now tried it, wow does it make a difference! So since people aren’t going to buy Price based on my recommendation I figured I would presents the corrected order to read John in, seriously give it a try. Because it is hard to follow visually for those trying to see how chapters break up, I’ve color coded each of the divided chapters.
1, 2:1-13a, 5, 7:15-24, 3:22-30, 4, 6, 7:1-14, 7:25-29, 7:40-43:, 7:30-32, 7:44-52, 7:37-39, 9, 8:12-20, 10:19-29, 10:1-18, 10:30-42, 11, 12:1-19, 7:53, 8:1-11, 2:13b-25, 8:31-59, 3:1-13, 3:31-36, 12:20-33, 7:33-36, 8:21-30, 12:34-36a, 3:14-21, 12:44-50, 12:36b-43, 13:1-35, 15:9-17, 14:15-24, 15:1-8, 15:18-27, 16:1-23a, 14:1-14, 16:23b-33, 14:25-30, 13:36-38, 17-21
Frankly, while John’s Gospel does appear out of order in some places, when compared to the Synoptics, I always thought that it was the flair of the author used to highlight certain things at certain times. I will attempt to read John, in the order Bultmann suggestion – but their is just something special about the way John, I believe, wrote it.
Jun 18 2009
More towards A Theology of Wisdom and Word
Damian has entered into the conversation which several of us have been having concerning, first the genderization of the pronouns in John’s Prologue (before the Incarnation.) (See the Index here) which then gave way to connecting the ‘male’ logos with the ‘female’ sophia. Now, I believe that both are merging into something more meaningful – something which analyzes the not ony the proper method of interpretation, but of translation.
First, Damian:
What I’m curious about, is the concept that Logos/Sophia are connected because their source is speculation concerning the nature of God. Regarding them like this (correctly, I suspect), is in a way regarding them as a precursor to the Kabbalistic understanding of God’s emanations. But what does this speculation as applied to Christ mean for Christians?
That’s an honest question. I really don’t know, beyond making some point in an argument on gender bias. Does anyone who reads here have a working understanding of this relationship, and what it means for a Christian? Does anyone have a theology of wisdom and word?
Suzanne then brings considerable weight for discussion with this post here:
We can declare that the universe was made by letters and meaning, but can we really talk about it, or is it only something to be lived? If, the familiar text we know so well, has become unwisdom in the hands of those who have interpreted it to us, then we rest simply on the belief that wisdom still exists in creation, and may be still hidden in the text.
The human need for meaning may be met in the Christ (word), but it cannot be the Christ of someone else’s mediation, created in the image of someone else’s humanity. The notion that the logos/tao/davar are first, along with sophia/hokmah, means that meaning is before and has priority over every interpretation that is known to man or woman.
We can listen to the interpretation of others, but, going back to the allegory of the cave, we must not mistake the human interpretation for the actual meaning of reality. The lesson is that interpretation does not create meaning. Meaning precedes interpretation and not the other way around.
I am been toying with something – not developed – but what if Wisdom/Word was like Thunder/Lightning? While you hear one, you see the other, and yet, they are the same. Both, I believe are God’s path to us – not in the Platonic tradition, but in the two hands of the early Church Fathers.
Of course, we also know that Christ is both the Word and the Wisdom of God and His Power.
So maybe, just like the storm that approaches, when Christ was Incarnated in the Flesh, we saw the lightning flash and heard the thunder roar at the same time, because we were in the center.
Beyond that though, we must allow the original meaning to create for us not just our interpretation, but our translation and our theology. We must strive for that original meaning, to find it and then maintain it in the heart and minds of those around us.
You and I both know that the bible has been used for some pretty horrible things, because people readily forget, or ignore, the original meanings. Remember, God said that He must be worshiped in Truth and Spirit. Let us find that Truth and bend to it.
Jun 11 2009
John's Epilogue
This past week, there has been a lot of interaction (Index) among bloggers concerning John’ prologue and the translation of αὐτοῦ as found in John 1.3, but what of John’s Epilogue? We turn to 1st John 1.1-3.
1:1 ῞Ο ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς·
Both words are neuter, and impersonal, pointing to the Word (from the beginning). This makes the Word, from the beginning, impersonal (and again, John encapsulate the Word into humanity by seeing, hearing, and touching)
1:2 καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν·
Does the neuter point to the femine Life? Cannot the translation of that first phrase be:
‘this Life was revealed, and we have seen her and testify to her, and declare to you the eternal Life that was with the Father and was revealed to us— (NRSV, modified).’
The pronouns, in any translation, are added words (found in the italics in the KJV as ‘it’). I am not stating that the pronouns must be feminine, but to follow the ‘he’ of the KJV, and subsequent modern transaltions in John’s prologue, shouldn’t we then use the same rules in John’s Epilogue?. Note that the phrase ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, the Word of the Life (1.1), occurs nowhere else in the New Testament.
In my personal understanind, Life is Wisdom:
For whoever finds me finds life, And obtains favor from the LORD; (Proverbs 8:35 NKJV)
By means of her, immortality will be mine, I shall leave an everlasting memory to my successors. (Wisdom 8:13 NJB)
Wisdom is brilliant, she never fades. By those who love her, she is readily seen, by those who seek her, she is readily found. (Wisdom 6:12 NJB)
1:3 ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν· καὶ ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
Jun 11 2009
Index to the Current Discussion
For those of you who may be following along, or who will pick this conversation up years hence due to a stray search term, Suzanne is keeping and index on the dialog!
I want to thank all of those are have participated in this – it has made my week!
Jun 10 2009
What does it mean to be born again?
In John, chapter 3, Christ is speaking to one person, a Pharisee by the name of Nicodemus, who had cowardly come to Christ during the midnight hour. It is possible that the conversation was only attended by The Jewish Rabbi and the Jewish Pharisee. In John 3.22, we see the direct mention of the disciples, of during the all important conversation – a conversation which has reverberated throughout the history of Christianity, and more so, it seems, since the Reformation – this conversation involved two people, a Teacher and a man who could talk to the Light only in the dark.
After dark one evening, a Jewish religious leader named Nicodemus, a Pharisee, came to speak with Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “we all know that God has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are proof enough that God is with you.” Jesus replied, “I assure you, unless you are born again, you can never see the Kingdom of God.” “What do you mean?” exclaimed Nicodemus. “How can an old man go back into his mother’s womb and be born again?” Jesus replied, “The truth is, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives new life from heaven. So don’t be surprised at my statement that you must be born again. (John 3:1-7 NLT)
There is debate on whether the Greek should be translated as ‘again’ or ‘above’. I will accept merely, ‘reborn’ or ‘born anew’. The sense is best understood by Nicodemus who questioned the possibility of again returning to before-childhood to once more come from the womb. John Gill, the great commentator of ages past, sites a Rabbinical source, for verse 3,
“one that is made a proselyte, כקטון שנולד דמי, “is like a child new born”.” – T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 22. 1. 48. 2. 62. 1. & 97. 2.
Whether it is ‘again’, ‘above’, or ‘anew,’ the sense is the same – there requires a very physical reaction to the Gospel. There is a connection between the earthly and the heavenly, as says the Jewish Carpenter,
But if you don’t even believe me when I tell you about things that happen here on earth, how can you possibly believe if I tell you what is going on in heaven? (John 3:12 NLT)
Let’s put aside our Tradition and our doctrine on the ‘new birth,’ whether baptism is required, or whether the Spirit is the fire of Pentecost or the dove from heaven. What did this meant to Nicodemus? Here was a man, a Pharisee, which no small position in 2nd Temple Judaism. He, as far as he was concerned, as a Jew, he was in the Kingdom of God. He was most likely a middle-aged man, with children and grandchildren. He was well established with a good report in his community. He is often thought of as the Talmudic Nicodemus Ben Gurion, a wealthy 1st century Jew who was a leader of the community against the Zealots (not Canaanites).
For Nicodemus, the words of Christ had to mean more than baptism, it meant an entirely new form of existence. Had Nicodemus forsaken all at that moment to follow Christ, he would have had to give up his position at the Sanhedrin, perhaps his family, and indeed, he would have been seen as casting his lot in among the heretics. For him, it was not merely about becoming a new creature, but about a new – not new in the Gospel sense, instead different life, one which everything he knew before might very well be taken away from him.
For Nicodemus, the new birth was not something spiritual, but something physical. It very well included the loss of his family and friends, and his standing in the community. It was not some ‘feel good moment’ where the trees came to life and danced for joy – of some warming of the heart; no, for Nicodemus, it was the very real end of a very prosperous life, and the start of one which meant following a very poor Rabbi and his band of rabble rousers.
Remember, this conversation was not public, and very well might have excluded the disciples. This is a very personal decision for Nicodemus, which he wrestled with for the entirity of John’s Story. We find that he defended the Rabbi, calling for a fair trail (John 7.50) and brought enough funeral dress for a king (John 19.39-42). Something starting working on him that night, but it was until the murderous rage by the Romans that Nicodemus declared the Rabbi King.
No one but Christ and Nicodemus know of the words spoken that night – perhaps the Master would tell John later, or perhaps, even Nicodemus would tell John; nevertheless, one of the key passages in John (including the famed 3.16) was spoken at night, in the dark, among two Jews.
According to early Christian Tradition, Nicodemus would be martyred for the cause of Christ.
Next Page »
