Is that why there was a veritable epidemic of demon-possession during Jesus’ ministry, unlike anything seen before or since?
Is it why the disciples so often seem impossibly obtuse in the Gospels, but not in the Acts? Is it why we so often read that they didn’t understand what Jesus was saying, but that after he was glorified, they did?
Is it why Jesus’ ministry was so short — perhaps as short as possible while still accomplishing his mission?
4 comments:
I find the Fourth Gospel quite clear in its statement that the Holy Ghost came only after Jesus's ascension, and was actually Jesus himself.
Jesus was telling the disciples that, after he had ascended, (only) then there could and would be a *new* 'spirit' for teaching, guidance and comforting.
Of course; if other parts of the Bible are accorded equal authority to the IV Gospel, then indeed the message gets very confused.
To my mind, I feel confident that your above putative interpretation is not true!
@Bruce
While I agree that the Fourth Gospel is uniquely authoritative, I don’t think it makes sense to “read it in isolation” as you do. It is just a selection of a few key events, and one extended discourse, from Jesus’ life, and the reader is assumed already to have considerable background knowledge. For starters, without the other Gospels, we wouldn’t even know that Jesus was baptized by John.
Luke-Acts, with its Pentecost story, reinforces the IVG idea that the Holy Ghost didn’t come until after the Ascension — but it also emphasizes that many people were filled with the Holy Ghost before Jesus. I think it makes sense to take that into account.
I understand your reading of John 14-16 and will explore it further when I get to those chapters.
@WmJas - "For starters, without the other Gospels, we wouldn’t even know that Jesus was baptized by John."
It seems perfectly clear to me from just the IV Gospel!
Read 'in isolation' the IV Gospel (ie. Chapters 1-20) is essentially about what Jesus did metaphysically/ cosmically, taught, wants from us etc. The biographical incidents are apparently chosen for that purpose.
If one starts with the IV Gospel, and then goes to the Synoptics; it is clear that the authors were in the first place working from a variety of secondhand sources, of varying reliability; and - in the case of Luke and Matthew especially, that they had several prior interpretative ideas/ concepts concerning what Jesus was 'about', through-which were filtered the information they gathered and arranged. And some of these interpretative concepts were wrong.
This means that when they differ add to the IV Gospel, I find it is difficult to know whether his is genuinely extra and valid information. I also find that it doesn't seem to matter - because, contrary to what you say here, the IV Gospel (read in isolation, and immersively) does seem to be self-sufficient. Once one has 'got it' everything else necessary is implied.
Of course, there is much else that has been and may be positively *valuable* - like Christmas, or the role of Mary. But not theologically-essential. On the other hand, the minimalist 'iconoclastic' attitude of nothing-but, can easily become deadly and inhuman.
Overall, my conviction is that - in these times - Christians really do need to be clear about the simple core of their faith - and the mainstream churches have, for whatever reasons, largely got this wrong (in particular falling into confusing and demotivating double-negative theology, which probably originates from this original Synoptic/ Pauline Epistle wrongness about the simple core).
The truth is *in-there* in the mainstream Christianity for sure - but not where it should be: at the Heart.
This does not appear to be the direction you are going in with this, but I'll point out that one of the reasons that has been used to justify the "heresy" of pneumatomachia (disputing the divinity of the Holy Spirit) has been the scriptural evidence that the Spirit was only sent upon Pentecost and therefore that it was not co-eternal with the Father and Son, etc. Of course, there are a lot of embedded assumptions in such a view, such as: 1. that the Spirit's "being sent" implies that that was when He came into existence; 2. all of the OT references to the Spirit are talking about some other "spirit of God"; 3. it would also seem to do away with the ubiquity that is supposed to be a characteristic of God ("Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD." -- Jer. 23:23-24).
Post a Comment