Tuesday, June 3, 2014

John 3

Alright, chapter 3.

1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”

I know that the Gospels are all read together, but if we're taking John as a separate text, written with reference to the others but on its own, I have to wonder what miracles and signs we're missing that are so impressive. First Nathanael was super impressed by Jesus knowing about him sitting under a fig tree and now, after one wedding where Jesus turned water into wine (something that likely wouldn't have gotten around because who knew? who told?) and running a whole bunch of people out of the Temple, we have someone highly placed in the Jewish hierarchy sneaking out at night to meet Jesus and tell him that he must be from God.

Now, 'from God' does not necessarily mean that the claim of Jesus as being the Word or being God himself are supported or believed by Nicodemus at this point. Prophets were sent from God. Kings and righteous men were sent from God. 

Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
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?”
Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 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.”

The section above is clearly referring to baptism. Which, I should point out, is not a new concept. While, from my understanding, there is not a concept of rebirth involved in the Jewish mikveh and the cleanliness associated with it, it is not something that should be ignored. 

Jesus came out of the Jewish people. He was raised in an observant household. I know that, while it is different, I always feel *new* and refreshed after getting out of the ocean or the pool. There's something about being completely immersed in water that is relaxing and freeing. Is it a call back to when we lived in the liquid environment of the womb? I don't know. But it's no stretch at all for me to see the emotional and physical connection between being immersed in water and feeling *reborn* in some way or another. 

Then we have his cousin John who was performing baptisms in the Jordan. What was he baptising for? What did his followers think was happening?

I believe it must be a kind of mikveh, a ritual cleansing. A rededication or a dedication to God. John was an apocalyptic preacher. He was preaching the end of the world, the coming of the messiah to bring war and eventual supremacy of the Jewish people over their own lands once again. People who followed him would want to be spiritually prepared, ritually cleansed. 

You see the same thing in revivals here in the US. A preacher rolls in, stirs up the congregation with a lot of very impassioned and fiery rhetoric. Usually it involves the end of the world and 'Where will you be, when the devil comes?!?!?' and all that. And people, caught up in the moment, caught up in fear or passion or whatever the preacher stirs in them, rededicate their lives to Christ. They answer an altar call (a call for people who want Jesus to come into their hearts or words to that general effect) and/or get baptised (or rebaptised in some cases). 

It's hardly something new or unique. The emphasis on it being necessary for salvation is new though, as far as I can tell.

I think this passage might also be used for the Christians who are against infant baptism, though the connection is a bit weak. There's no mention of the believer making a choice or age. Only that there must be two births, one of the body and one of the spirit. 

12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

I'm not really sure how baptism and rebirth is an entirely earthly thing. It seems to me like it is a heavenly thing. Having to do, with, I don't know, the getting into heaven of it all.

Verse 13 is one of those that's commonly used to show that no one gets to heaven but through Jesus. After all, how many good, righteous men and woman had died up until this point? We have the prophets, the patriarchs, King David, King Solomon...though what about Elijah? He was 'taken up into heaven' in the Old Testament. So either the Bible cannot be taken literally (shock!) or someone else did get into heaven aside from the Son of Man.

The Moses & snake reference is, of course, meant as a foreshadowing (or a prophetic statement) of the crucifixion. In the desert, Moses formed a serpent out of bronze and placed it up on a pole. Anyone who was bitten by a snake looked at the bronze serpent and was healed.

Keeping in mind that it was God who instructed Moses to do this, it is presumably not a sign of creeping polytheism but an instrument of faith. The people believed that God would heal them and that the serpent was a sign to remind them of this promise.

One could say that likewise, God would save those who looked upon the sign of the crucifixion. But does that make Jesus God? Was the serpent god? 

Verses 16 through 21 are where Lewis' 'liar, lunatic, lord' question comes into play. We have here an example of Jesus seeming to claim directly that he is divine in some way. So you have to look at verses like this and ask if Jesus was lying? Was he running some sort of a scam? Was he trying to build an army on false belief? Or was he a lunatic? Did he really believe that he was divine but was only a man? Or was he lord? Meaning that what he said was true and that he was God incarnate.

Of course there's always another option.

That Jesus didn't say these things at all.

All of Christian faith is predicated on the belief that what is recorded about Jesus in the Bible is true. Certainly there is quibbling about details and how accurate is accurate, etc. but anyone who claims Christianity as a faith believes that essentially the important bits are correct.

But what if they're not?

John is the most explicit Gospel in regards to the divinity of Christ and the Trinity.

John is also the last Gospel of have been written. I think it's generally dated around 90/100 AD which is at least 60 years after the death of Christ. 

The oldest copy found is about 100 years older than that, so around 200 AD.

From what I understand, most Biblical scholars agree that John the Apostle was not the actual author of the text. 

So it's not as if we have a signed copy of the text with a picture of John the Apostle on it, hugging Jesus.

Of course those who believe believe and there's the faith aspect of it. If you believe that Jesus is God then you can also believe that the text was kept from error by divine will. 

It's a matter of choice, in so many ways. 

I don't know how people can be expected to believe unless they have some sort of...experience. 

I have no trouble believing in things I can't prove or necessarily see. I believe in ghosts (though I have seen them, I believed in them before that). I believe in God because things make the most sense with a creator at the center of them. 

I'm just not sure I believe in this specific interpretation of God, if that makes sense.

12 comments:

  1. // I have to wonder what miracles and signs we're missing that are so impressive. //

    John's got you covered, at the very end of his gospel:

    "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25 ESV)

    He's picking and choosing to advance his main goal, which he gives back in ch.20:

    "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31 ESV)

    // The section above [v3-8] is clearly referring to baptism. //

    Well... kinda. It does mention water there, and you're right to see the "cleansing" metaphor, but it's not baptismal regeneration. Getting dunked or sprinkled isn't going to give you the rebirth that you need - it's a work of the Spirit. Jesus may have had Ezek. 36:25-27 in mind here, which also explains why he gently rebukes Nicodemus, supposedly an expert on books like Ezekiel, for not knowing this stuff;

    "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules." (Ezekiel 36:25-27 ESV)

    // So either the Bible cannot be taken literally (shock!) or someone else did get into heaven aside from the Son of Man. //

    Well, Christ's death on the cross as a propiatory sacrifice for his people covers all generations, future and past. The means by which God's justice is satisfied was Christ's substitutionary sacrifice, and no other method of satisfying that justice exists. So in that sense, everyone who makes it to heaven does it only through the merits that Jesus earned.

    So how were people in the OT saved? This may head down a rabbit trail, but I'll do my best to keep it quick. Romans 9 and following will talk about how many Israelites thought that they could be saved by lawkeeping (which was wrong). Those who were saved were those who realized that God required perfect obedience that they couldn't produce, realized that the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings represented what was necessary for forgiveness, and realized that God would one day send someone that would do what all the animal sacrifices could not do - pay the bottomless debt of sin forever. And so, as they obeyed the cermonial law and trusted in the suffering servant (Isaiah 53) to come, God credited Jesus' sacrifical death to their account.

    That's the quick version!

    // The oldest copy found is about 100 years older than that //

    Actually a fragment of John is the oldest portion of the New Testament that we have at the moment. The fragment, P52, is dated to about 125 AD, though some textual critical scholars put it even to the beginning of the 2nd century.

    You might really enjoy the book "Reinventing Jesus". It goes into more depth on the process of verbal transmission in the 1st century, the dating of the NT documents, whether the copying process corrupted the manuscripts throughout the centuries, whether Christianity ripped off other religions, etc. Used copies starting at $5.50!

    http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Jesus-J-Ed-Komoszewski-ebook/dp/B001QOGJXQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "John's got you covered, at the very end of his gospel:

      "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25 ESV)

      He's picking and choosing to advance his main goal, which he gives back in ch.20:

      "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31 ESV)"

      Yes, yes. That was honestly a curiosity kind of a question. I assume that there must have been other things going on that led people to be so impressed. Aside from Nathanael, who I can't stop thinking of as gullible. I just wonder what they were.

      "Well... kinda. It does mention water there, and you're right to see the "cleansing" metaphor, but it's not baptismal regeneration. Getting dunked or sprinkled isn't going to give you the rebirth that you need - it's a work of the Spirit. Jesus may have had Ezek. 36:25-27 in mind here, which also explains why he gently rebukes Nicodemus, supposedly an expert on books like Ezekiel, for not knowing this stuff;"

      But even in Ezekiel the water is an important element. Not, as you say, that the water itself is saving, but that it is being used as a conduit in some way. Baptism is, as far as I know, a sign of the new covenant in the way that circumcision was a sign of the old. So necessary even if it is not the thing itself that saves.

      "Romans 9 and following will talk about how many Israelites thought that they could be saved by lawkeeping (which was wrong)."

      But doesn't it seem as if they were set up for this? God handed down the law and told them to follow this in order to be saved. They were obeying the covenant as they understood it. Saying, 'well God *said* one thing but *meant* another' makes it seem like God is a trickster.

      "pay the bottomless debt of sin forever. And so, as they obeyed the cermonial law and trusted in the suffering servant (Isaiah 53) to come, God credited Jesus' sacrifical death to their account."

      Why is sin a bottomless debt? I know that humans are not perfect, but why is it seemingly impossible to some peoples' minds to live a life where your sin is outweighed by your obedience to God and your good works? (I'm not saying that works save, but even people who are adamantly faith-alone for salvation expect good works to come out of that faith)

      And why should one massive sin, the murder of an innocent person, wipe out all other sin? Because he was a willing, perfect sacrifice? We're still talking about adding more sin to the world. An even greater sin, if you believe that Jesus was also God, because then these people tried to murder God.

      "Actually a fragment of John is the oldest portion of the New Testament that we have at the moment. The fragment, P52, is dated to about 125 AD, though some textual critical scholars put it even to the beginning of the 2nd century."

      I had forgotten about this fragment!

      One of those things where you really wish more of it had survived, if for no other reason than it could answer how well the text has survived over the centuries.

      I will check that book out and add it to the list.

      The list is practically a living entity of Things I Will Eventually Read at this point.

      Delete
    2. // But doesn't it seem as if they were set up for this? God handed down the law and told them to follow this in order to be saved. //

      God's standard was, and still is, complete and absolute perfection. The law in the old covenant served two purposes: to keep sin in check (by declaring what was good and punishing what was evil) and showing the Israelites their inability to achieve righteousness by lawkeeping (which is what the sacrificial system, to pay for their sins, was all about). And the prophets told them about the ultimate sin-bearing sacrifice that was to come, that would pay for their sins completely and do away with the animal sacrifices that had to be offered again and again. So, they should have known.


      // Why is sin a bottomless debt? //

      Because it is infinitely offensive. If I walk up and slap a homeless guy, I might get a citation if a cop sees it, but that will be about it. If I slap Bill Gates, I'm going to be taken to court and pay a hefty fine. And if I slap the President as he's doing a meet-and-greet on a rope line, I'll probably spend a loooong time in a federal prison, if I'm not gunned down on the spot. Same crime, different results. Why? Because of the person it's done to.

      It's not a perfect analogy, because all 3 victims in this case are people. But the position and "worth" of the person being victimized changes the outcome.

      And in our case, even the smallest sin is an act of direct rebellion over an infinitely holy, infinitely righteous, and infinitely praiseworthy God. It is cosmic treason. That's why we can never hope to have our good works outweigh our bad. It's like a serial murderer pleading with the judge that he helped an old lady cross the street on his way to the courtroom. The judge will say "Well, that's great, but it doesn't change the fact that you committed heinous crimes. And you have to pay for them."

      Delete
    3. Oh sorry, missed this bit earlier:

      // And why should one massive sin, the murder of an innocent person, wipe out all other sin? Because he was a willing, perfect sacrifice? //

      It was indeed the most horrific sin in the history of the world, a murder that Jesus willingly submitted himself to. And if that's all it was, it would be useless. (Some mainline denominations teach that all the crucifixion really did was show us an example of supreme love -- God telling us "I love you so much, I'm wiling to die for you." But to stop there is to really miss the boat altogether.)

      Because there was more going on. Christ was accomplishing the means that would allow sinners to be reconciled. The people at the foot of the cross saw only a man suffering under Roman brutality, but God was actually pouring out all His wrath and just punishment of the sins of his people on Jesus. An infinite debt was meeting infinite value. And once the price of those sins had been paid by the death of an infinitely valuable sacrifice, God was now free to forgive everyone for whom Jesus died without violating his own perfect justice.

      "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross." (Colossians 2:13-14 ESV)

      "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith... It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Romans 3:23-26 ESV)

      Delete
    4. Sorry for the delay, life interrupted me this past weekend.

      "God's standard was, and still is, complete and absolute perfection."

      Then perhaps God should have thought twice before creating flawed creatures with free will?

      "The law in the old covenant served two purposes: to keep sin in check (by declaring what was good and punishing what was evil) and showing the Israelites their inability to achieve righteousness by lawkeeping (which is what the sacrificial system, to pay for their sins, was all about)."

      This in no way does not read as God setting people up to fail. He creates people, knows that they're going to do what they want, and then comes over and offers them a way to get back into His good graces. He lays it out for them, highly detailed, and says, 'Yes. Live by these laws (including the sacrifices), and I will forgive you your sins and you can go to heaven when you die.' All the while sending out secret, heavily encoded messages that tell people that the whole game is rigged and will not work at all.

      "And the prophets told them about the ultimate sin-bearing sacrifice that was to come, that would pay for their sins completely and do away with the animal sacrifices that had to be offered again and again. So, they should have known."

      Most people have trouble solving murder mysteries. Secret messages couched in metaphor and sometimes highly bizarre language? And they should have known?

      They did interpret the prophecies that they received, only they seem to have come up with different solutions than the ones Christians have come to. Even within Christianity you have people who look at the prophecies of the Bible and come up with different messages or answers to them. Why is that? Because they're not clear? Because prophecies are the kind of things that are applicable in almost any circumstance you want them to be?

      I think they're rather like the images of Jesus people find in their toast. You can see him if you tilt your head and believe.

      "And in our case, even the smallest sin is an act of direct rebellion over an infinitely holy, infinitely righteous, and infinitely praiseworthy God. It is cosmic treason. That's why we can never hope to have our good works outweigh our bad. It's like a serial murderer pleading with the judge that he helped an old lady cross the street on his way to the courtroom. The judge will say "Well, that's great, but it doesn't change the fact that you committed heinous crimes. And you have to pay for them.""

      I question what kind of security lets the serial killer help the old lady across the street.

      But seriously.

      I don't understand what all these sins are that people are committing every second of their lives that they are unable to atone and pay for them? In Judaism and Islam there is a system set up of laws which, as you say earlier in your comment, are there to help people avoid sins and to live righteous lives in line with God's will. What sort of sins are people doing just by breathing?

      In your example, the crime, the slapping (whether it's against a random stranger or the president) is a conscious act. The person decides to walk up to someone else and slap them. They are caught and (because human justice is not perfectly equal) they must pay for the crime in whatever manner the law prescribes. But the punishment is not infinite. The punishment is not eternal. No one goes to jail for the rest of their life for slapping the president. (Mostly because they'd probably be shot by the secret service, if we're being realistic here.) You pay a fine, you do your time in jail and your debt is paid. Why is imperfect human justice more fair than God here?

      Some crimes have harsher or lengthier punishments than others because we have given them different values. A murder creates more harm than speeding, for example. But if all sins are equal in Gods eyes, they should all be able to be balanced by good deeds and obedience to the laws of God in the end.

      Delete
    5. "It was indeed the most horrific sin in the history of the world, a murder that Jesus willingly submitted himself to. And if that's all it was, it would be useless. (Some mainline denominations teach that all the crucifixion really did was show us an example of supreme love -- God telling us "I love you so much, I'm wiling to die for you." But to stop there is to really miss the boat altogether.)"

      Is murder murder if the victim is willing?

      This has very little to do with your point, sorry, just a random late night thought.

      I understand what you are saying here but I cannot agree with it, perhaps because I simply do not see the debt of sin as being infinite? God does as God pleases, and I cannot see that He has need of an 'infinitely perfect' sacrifice in order to forgive finite sins.

      Each person is responsible for their life and the choices (and sins) that they make within that life. Why should God require another to repay those choices? Certainly we have failures in our lives, sins that come back to us again and again but why is God's mercy not enough to embrace us without bloodshed?

      Delete
  2. Interestingly, the consensus of liberal scholarship in the late 19th century was that John was written very late, around 170-180 AD, because of the belief that the earliest followers of Jesus didn't really view him as divine, and it took time for that myth to develop. Only much later did you have a fake "John" writing about a fully divine Jesus.

    Then P52 was discovered. And all that scholarship got blown out of the water.

    Which is one of the reasons I think God has a sense of humor. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P52 would seem to say that that belief in Jesus' divinity started much earlier. But then when cult leaders die in modern times many of their followers seem to think that they will rise from the dead too. With, clearly, a lack of results in their case.

      I'm fairly certain one only needs to look at the platypus to know that God has a sense of humor. :)

      Delete
    2. That raises some other interesting issues around the resurrection

      1) Jesus' followers were actually NOT expecting Him to rise from the dead. As you surmised earlier, the whole "destroy this temple and I will raise it up in 3 days" thing had gone completely over their heads. They had been hoping to get this restoration of Israel thing on the road, and had just had a great week where people were cheering Jesus... and now he was dead. The Pharisees had rammed through his death sentence, the people had been shouting for his crucifixion, and the Romans had done it. For the disciples, it was OVER.

      2) The safest thing for them to do would have been to abandon the silly ideas about Jesus being God, rejoin society again as best they could, and never say anything about Jesus again.

      3) And if any of them were so foolish as to claim that Jesus was SO divine that in fact he had raised HIMSELF from the dead, the Pharisees would have gleefully marched them to Jesus' tomb and shown them his mouldering body. And then probably thrown them in prison. Christianity would have never gotten off the ground.

      So the resurrection and the explosive growth of Christianity within a few years was quite against any natural expectations.

      Delete
    3. We do see the clinging to beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and even the best interests of the people in modern day cults as well. There's an amazing capacity in the human mind to adapt core beliefs when expected results fail to appear.

      Take, for example, the death of FLDS leader Rulon Jeffs death. From accounts that I have read from people who belonged to the group, there was an understanding that Rulon Jeffs would be the last prophet. That the world would end before his death and that he would be their prophet for forever.

      Of course, then he died and the world has kept on spinning.

      They waited for him to rise from the grave, in the manner of Jesus.

      This too did not happen.

      His son, Warren, manipulated the people and their beliefs so that they saw Rulon as alive, in heaven, using Warren as his mouthpiece on earth.

      Evidence? None.

      Belief? Extremely deep.

      re: the body - that does seem to be the answer, doesn't it? That it would be easy enough to stop the rumours by showing a rotting corpse? So why wouldn't they?

      Who's to say that they didn't? We have no record of it, so this is pure speculation, of course. But the reply to such a show is also simple enough - the apostles telling the faithful that it's a Roman/Pharisee trick. They might lose some followers, but for those who truly believe, that sliver of doubt would be enough.

      The possibility also exists that they didn't show the body because it was just too much trouble for too little return. As I said above, some might be convinced but there is no guarantee that this showing would discourage all of the followers of Jesus. Simpler to just execute people when they became actually inconvenient? I find this a little hard to swallow given the general Roman attitude about discontent and uprisings, to be honest. But it was a stressful time and they may have been trying not to rile up an actual rebellion by executing what looked like a bunch of harmless peasants.

      The third option is, of course, that they didn't have a body to show.

      But does that necessarily mean that Jesus was resurrected or that he resurrected himself?

      Delete
  3. I am enjoying your thoughts, Amber, and I'm glad David decided to join the conversation. It's interesting looking at these passages through your eyes. Thanks for sharing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *poke* Feel free to contribute your thoughts too, Susanne. You know you have them. :p

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...