They may have gone a little overboard with the "words of Christ in red" thing. |
Verse 13 reads "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." This clearly states that the Son of Man (Jesus) has already ascended to heaven and is in heaven now. This was true at the time that the Gospel was written, but it was very obviously not true at the time of the conversation with Nicodemus -- when Jesus was, well, having a conversation with Nicodemus. You know, on earth.
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven" (v. 13) -- a blanket statement that ignores such obvious counterexamples as Enoch and Elijah -- reminds us of the similarly categorical statement in John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time," which ignores the obvious counterexample of Moses. John 1:18 is clearly the author writing in his own voice, not quoting Christ, so it makes sense that the same would be true of John 3:13.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son" (v. 16) sounds as if God had made a great sacrifice by "giving" his Son. This makes the most sense in a post-crucifixion context, when readers would understand that God so loved the world that he had allowed his beloved Son to be tortured to death.
If vv. 10-21 is a single long speech to Nicodemus, it is strange that nothing is said of Nicodemus's reaction, or how the conversation ended. The narrative just abruptly stops, and we jump to the next episode in Jesus' life. It makes much more sense if vv. 9-12 are the end of the conversation.
[9] Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
[10] Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? [11] Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. [12] If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?This certainly sounds like a refusal to teach this "unbeliever" any more, not like a prelude to further holding-forth about Moses lifting up the serpent and God so loving the world.
The content of vv. 13-21 is not clearly related to the preceding conversation about being born again; the most reasonable assumption is that it is a bit of commentary by the author (the Beloved Disciple) speaking in his own voice.
The only potential problem that I can think of for this interpretation is v. 14: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up." This "lifting up" of the Son of man is most naturally interpreted as a reference to the crucifixion -- but the author can't very well be saying "Jesus must be crucified" after the crucifixion and resurrection have already taken place. The choice of words does probably allude to the crucifixion, but the primary meaning must be something else. He must be saying something like: We must "lift up" the Son of man -- i.e., spread the word about him, preach the gospel -- so that others can believe in him and have eternal life.
6 comments:
Enjoyed this and found it stimulating.
I would disagree with the Red Bible and also You in assuming that there is a division into, and a distinction between, Jesus's reported words and the words of the author. Also that there is a narrative structure with episodes demarcated. Throughout this gospel, we get a 'voice' that is much more fluid (or more inclusive) than that, and episodes sometmes 'overlap'.
Why not? The author is not demartating what he knows now (after the ascension) from what he knew then. He is trying to make clear what Jesus taught, and what we each should do.
(Also, like the episode with the Samaritan woman, this Nicodemus episode is reported, not an eyewitness account - in that Jesus was alone with Nicodemus and the SW, and Lazarus presumably got it via them - and this kind of style mixing direct speech with interpretation also happens with th SW - creating an impression of 'confusion' when we try to work out a narrative structure.)
My way of approaching this is to understand what is being 'taught', more than who is saying it.
So the Moses/ raising passage I find to be speaking of the ascension - not the crucifiction; since that is what is being taught, the overall theme being that we must die 'biologically', and be resurrected (born again) to reach Heaven (eternal life).
Bruce, thanks for your input.
I do know what you mean, but I think understanding who is speaking to whom, when, and under what circumstances, makes it much easier to understand what is being taught. As I've tried to show in this post, the interpretation of such assertions as "the Son of Man has ascended to heaven" and "the Son of Man must be lifted up" depends very much on whether they were spoken before or after such key events as the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension.
I don't think the "raising" of the brass serpent makes for a very good symbol of the resurrection or ascension. Moses didn't restore a serpent to life or make it go up to heaven; he fixed it to a pole and displayed it in a public place. This clearly foreshadows the cross -- either as the instrument of Jesus' execution or as the standard of Christianity, lifted up as an ensign to the nations.
@William
To pick-up Barfield's point about language and concepts - it seems likely that any traditional symbolic event like Moses had multiple simultaneous meanings; and for me the author of the IV Gospel was acting poetically in extending the range of meanings of this already-multiple event.
My 'evidence' is that the IV Gospel is not much interested in the specifics of the crucifixion (because whether Jesus was crucifed or stoned, or died falling off a cliff or from an infection or old age, does not matter 'crucially' to the success of Jesus's mission); but is quite likely acknowledging/ referencing the crucifixion here - while (poetically) making the new meaning that it was also a 'symbol/ metaphor' of ascension to Heaven.
And interesting omission of the Gospel as we have it is any account of the actual ascension - unless it is implied at the end of Chapter 20, after the doubting Thomas episode - and bearing in mind that the intended audience for the Gospel would almost certainly have known such specific details.
The intent or function of the Gospel is to explain 'what it all means', which job it does supremely well.
You know what i would like to see: A Red Letter ( Gold Letter ( Purple Letter ? ) ) Old Testament, with everything that gawd is unambiguously thought to have said ( ? ) Why do you suppose that no one has come up with one of these ( ? ) The Distinction between Divine Inspiration ( Genesis and such... ) and The Many Passages that are either introduced or amended with 'And So Saith Jehovah' or some such ! ( ? ) would make a clear distinction between them ( ? )
Ask and ye shall receive.
http://www.decaturalabamalaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/KJV-modified12242015.pdf
This is a Blocked Site at the Library ?
Post a Comment