Peter Kirby

Here are the quotes on John 3.

Francis J. Moloney writes: "The narrative dedicated to Nicodemus and to the final appearance of John the Baptist follows the reflection on the faith of many who came to believe in Jesus because of the signs he did (2:23-25). The final remark of the narrator (2:25: 'for he himself knew what was in each person') and the introduction of Nicodemus to the story (3:1: 'Now there was a person, one of the Pharisees') are closely linked. Elements in the literary structure of 3:1-36 also indicate that the presentations of Nicodemus and John the Baptist are closely related (cf. Rensberger, Johannine Faith 58-61). The two reports form a diptych, as both contain a narrative in which first Nicodemus (vv. 1-10) and then the Baptist (vv. 22-30) play central roles. Both characters are fimly situated within the world of Judaism. Nicodemus is described as 'one of the Pharisees . . . a ruler of the Jews' (v. 1) and 'a teacher of Israel' (v. 10). He meets Jesus in the city of Jerusalem as there has been no change of place since Jesus' arrival in the city (cf. 2:13). Although the Baptist is probably active at a Samaritan site (cf. Boismard, 'Aenon' 218-229) his association with Israel is traditional, and the discussion that leads to his words on his relationship to Jesus is 'between John's disciples and a Jew over purifying' (v. 25). The narrative sections are followed by discourse-type material (vv. 12-21, 31-36), each developing the two-stage argument. Both open with the claim that Jesus is the unique revealer of the heavenly (vv. 12-15, 31-35), and then move to the logical consequence of such a claim: salvation or condemnation flows from the acceptance or refusal of this revelation (vv. 16-21, 35). Whatever traditions might lie behind 3:1-36 its close association with 2:23-25 and its internal unity show that it continues a series of encounters between Jesus and characters from the world of Israel." (The Gospel of John, p. 90)

Raymond Brown writes: "Literally 'a man of the Pharisees'; perhaps this use of 'man' is designed to recall the end of the last verse (ii 25) where we heard that Jesus was aware of what was in man's heart. Notice here how Jesus knows what is in Nicodemus' heart." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 129)

Bruce Vawter writes: "Nicodemus is mentioned only in Jn (also in 7:50; 19:39); however, the name was a common one. Though the Sanhedrin, the governing body of the Jews recognized by the Romans, was mainly composed of the Sadducean element, it also counted Pharisees among its members (cf. Acts 5:34). As a Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin, and a rabbi (v. 10), Nicodemus represents the quintessence of Judaism." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 429)

Frank Schleritt writes: "These verses [1-2a] give details of the situation: after Jesus had been addressed by 'the' Jews in 2.18-20, now a specific person encounters him in the form of Nicodemus, the Pharisee and councillor (= member of the Supreme Council). However, he again appears as a representative of a group, namely official Judaism (cf. the plural 'we' in v. 2), and is also regarded as such by Jesus (cf. the plural 'you' in vv. 7, 11f., and the designation 'teacher of Israel' in v. 10)." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 440)

The first or second century document Papyrus Egerton 2 contains parallels to Jn 3:2 and 10:25 as well as the question about tribute to Caesar in the synoptics: "Coming to see him, they tempted him with a tricky question, saying, 'Teacher Jesus, we know that you have come from God, for what you are doing gives testimony above all the prophets. So tell us, is it lawful to render to kings what belongs to their rule or not?"

Bruce Vawter writes: "In view of the official opposition to Jesus, already suggested by John and borne out repeatedly throughout the Gospel, a prominent leader such as Nicodemus could only have come to see Jesus secretly. John also intends a significance like that of 13:30. Nicodemus has come to Jesus out of the darkness (see 1:5); eventually he became one of Jesus' disciples, and is doubtless one of those mentioned in 12:42." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 429)

Raymond Brown writes: "John obviously intends Nicodemus to illustrate a partial faith in Jesus on the basis of signs and has prepared the way for this with ii 23-25. Such an illustration comes logically after examples of more satisfactory faith (the disciples at Cana) and of complete lack of faith ('the Jews' at the Temple). Thus, the sequence is at least logical." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 135)

Funk and Hoover write: "In both John and Thomas [22], a saying is quoted and then the initial aphorism is rephrased and interpreted. In John 3:3-5, the mention of water and spirit points clearly to the rite of baptism: the cleansing wtaer and enlivening spirit mark the beginning of new life. In Thom 22:4-7 the interpretive rephrasing takes a different turn: one enters life by recovering one's original self, undivided by the differences between male and female, the physical and spiritual. Paul uses similar language with different import in reference to baptism in Gal 3:26-28" (The Five Gospels, p. 407)

D. Moody Smith writes of verse 3: "For the first time in John 'kingdom of God' is mentioned. Whether Jesus is calling for rebirth or birth from above depends on how the Greek term anothen (RSV: 'anew') is rendered. It means either 'again' or 'from above'. Nicodemus understands Jesus to say 'again' (v. 4), although he grossly misinterprets him as meaning physical rebirth. Jesus immediately makes clear that he speaks on a different level." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 1051)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "Seeing and entering the kingdom of God are consequences of a ritual of water that accompanies the gift of the Spirit. Commentators rightly remark that that the expression 'the kingdom of God' comes to this gospel from earlier Christian tradition. In that tradition Jesus often speaks of the kingdom as a present reality (cf., for example, Mark 1:15; 9:1; Matt 5:10; 6:10, 33; Luke 9:2, 11; 17:21; Rom 14:17), but the image of 'the kingdom of God' is basically eschatological. This eschatological language has been adapted to correspond to the more realized Johannine understanding of the Christian experience. The kingdom of God refers to a community of believers, a group of Christians who profess and attempt to live the Johannine understanding of Jesus. The original readers of this gospel were aware of a pasage away from a former situation of life style and belief, by it Temple or synagogue, into a community bound by Christian belief and practice. The result of a gift from above 'of the Spirit,' being born again 'of water' enabled people to see and enter into the kingdom of God. From its beginnings the gift of the Spirit 'from above,' which enabled this passage, was accompanied by a ritual of rebirth solemnized by water baptism (vv. 3, 5)." (The Gospel of John, p. 93)

Bruce Vawter writes of verse 3: "As with the disciples' initial faith, this profession of Nicodemus will be of no value unless it fixes itself upon Jesus as he truly is; therefore, Jesus replies with an enigmatic saying as in 1:51. Nicodemus has said that Jesus is a teacher from God, meaning one whose teaching is truly in accord with God's mind. Jesus will now show him that he is from God in a way that he has not understood. The Kingdom of God is not to be seen merely through the miracles that have impressed Nicodemus. It can only be experienced through a spiritual rebirth (1:12f.)." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 429)

Francis J. Moloney writes of verse 5: "The remaining dialogue (vv. 5-8) concentrates upon 'spirit'; 'water' is never again mentioned. Was the reference to 'water' added by later scribes to render a 'spiritual' text more ecclesial (Bultmann, Gospel 138 n. 3)? It is likely that it was added to the text at some stage of the history of the Johannine community. The earliest form of this text would have spoken of the need for rebirth in the Spirit for entry into the community. However, the community's break with the synagogue and a growing awareness of its uniqueness led to the introduction of the reference to water, to make an explicit reference to the ritual of water baptism, a public sign that externally marked the internal experience and commitment to the beliefs of the Johannine community." (The Gospel of John, p. 99)

Raymond Brown writes: "Since there is no textual evidence whatsoever against the genuineness of the phrase 'of water,' what makes scholars think that it is a later addition to the Johannine tradition? First, the phrase does not seem to fit in with the ideas and words in the context. This is the only reference to water in the whole discourse. If we omit the phrase, vs. 5 then reads 'without being begotten of Spirit'; and this is a better parallel in length and form to vs. 3, 'without being begotten from above,' than the present reading of 5. The ideas of 5 are developed in 6-8, but in those verses there is mention only of PSirit, and not of water. Indeed, 8 almost repeats 5 when it speaks of 'everyone begotten of the Spirit,' and it does not mention water. These observations carry weight. . . . When all these arguments are weighed, we find no certainty." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, pp. 142-143)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "The same Greek word (to pneuma) can be used for 'the wind' and 'the Spirit.' Making a play on this word, Jesus starts with a reflection on the everyday experience of 'the wind.' The wind (to pneuma) is a mystery; one can experience it; it is part of life. But one can never claim to have discovered and explained where it comes from or where it is going (cf. Qoh 11:5; Sir 16:21, where this same point is made). On the basis of this observable truth about the wind (to pneuma), Jesus affirms that it is also thus with those born of the Spirit (to pneuma). 'The Spirit, like the wind, is entirely beyond both the control and comprehension of man: it breathes into this world from another' (Barrett, Gospel 211)." (The Gospel of John, p. 93)

Funk and Hoover write of the 11th verse: "Here Jesus is made to give a speech on behalf of the Christian community: 'We tell what we know, and we give evidence about what we've seen, but none of you accepts our evidence' (4:22 is another example). The speech reflects a conflict between John's Christian congregation and the 'Judeans' - those who apparently did not accept the 'evidence' the Christian movement was offering in its preaching." (The Five Gospels, p. 408)

Raymond Brown writes of verse 11: "For the same idea expressed in the first person singular, see vii 38, xii 50. There are many attempts to explain Jesus' use of the plural here: a plural of majesty; an association of the Father's witness with the Son's; a reference to Jesus and his disciples (Are they present?). However, any suggestion that Jesus is joining others in speaking founders on the emphasis on Jesus' uniqueness in vs. 13. Some have thought that in vs. 11 John is slipping into a dialogue between the Church ('we') and the Synagogue ('you,' plural). Certainly some of John's thought is addressed apologetically to the Synagogue; however, one must remember that the evangelist returns to 'I' in vs. 12, even though he keeps the 'you' plural; and thus if the Church is speaking, it does so only for one verse. Perhaps the most satisfactory answer is to see vs. 11 as the continuation of the rebuttal of Nicodemus in his own words begun in 10. Just as in vs. 10 Jesus picks up the theme of 'teacher' from Nicodemus' words in vs. 2, so in vs. 11 Jesus picks up the 'we know' from vs. 2 and turns it against Nicodemus. Thus, the use of 'we' is a parody of Nicodemus' hint of arrogance." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 132)

Bruce Vawter writes on verse 12: "Up to this point, Jesus has been speaking of what should be comparatively easy to understand, at least by analogies. In this sense rebirth and the presence of the Spirit are 'earthly things.' If Nicodemus cannot understand these, if they cannot bring him to faith in Jesus' true character, then he is obviously in no position to receive the revelation of 'heavenly things,' that is, mysteries of which faith alone can provide the basis of understanding." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 430)

D. Moody Smith writes: "The key to heavenly things, which Nicodemus and company do not know, is knowledge of Jesus, particularly where he is from and where he is going. Thus, in v. 13 Jesus speaks enigmatically of the ascent and descent of the Son of man, to and from heaven. Ascents to God were claimed for other personages of Judaism (e.g., Enoch, Elijah, Moses). This statement denies all such ascents to God except Jesus', and Jesus can uniquely claim to have descended from God (heaven). While Judaism could easily speak of men sent from God (1:6; 3:2) and knew of ascents to God, the claim to have descended from him was another matter. Precisely that, however, is said of Jesus." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 1051)

R.V.G. Tasker writes: "By earthly things are probably meant spiritual truths for which a human analogy can be found, as distinct from heavenly things, to which there is no human parallel. The justification by God of the ungodly, and the reconciliation of men to God while they are yet sinners, are examples of such heavenly things. And it is signficant that in the present context Jesus proceeds at once to speak of redemption." (John, p. 71)

Bruce Vawter writes: "The 'heavenly things' of which Jesus has just spoken cannot be grasped by any man at will. Here the reader may have been reminded of the Gnostic 'mystery' religions that pretended to transfer initiates into a realm of heavenly knowledge. The only one who can speak authoritatively of heavenly things is the only Person who has both came down from heaven and ascended into heaven, the Son of Man (see 1:51)." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 430)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "Many take the link between the ascent motif (v. 13a) and the Son of Man (v. 13b) as associated with either the Gnostic idea of the ascension of the Primal Man or the Lukan idea of Jesus' ascension. Some see it as both. Against this is the use of the parallel between Moses' action with the serpent in v. 14. There is no hint in the OT that the serpent ascended. It remains fixed so that it can be seen. The background to v. 13 is contemporary Jewish speculation conerning the ascent of Israel's revealer-figures, Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, Enoch, and other great saints (cf. Tg. Onq., Tg. Ps.-J., and Frg. Tgs. on Deut 30:11-14; Tg. Ps. 68:19; Mart. Isa. 2:9; 3:7-10; 1 Enoch 71; 2 Bar. 2:1-8; 3 Bar.; Adam and Eve 25-28; 2 Enoch 1; T. Abra, Rec. A: 10-15; Rec. B: 8-12). All such revelatory ascensions into heaven so that the transported visionary might return to make God known are categorically denied by means of oudeis (cf. 1:18). For a discussion of these ascending figures see Talbert, 'The Myth of a Descending-Ascending Redeemer' 418-443; Moloney, Son of Man 53-55." (The Gospel of John, pp. 100-101)

Raymond Brown writes: "What about the legends concerning the various apocalyptic seers who were supposed to have been taken in vision up to heaven (Daniel, Enoch, Baruch)? We may remember also that Moses was thought to have seen heavenly things on Mount Sinai and to have been admitted into heaven after his death. Evidently Jesus refuses to be put on a plane with these heavenly pilgrims; his association with heaven is much more profound than what had been given by a vision. Some OT texts are interesting in this regard. In Prov xxx 3-4 the author denies that he possesses divine knowledge: 'Who has ascended to heaven and comes down? Who has gathered the wind with his fists?' (Note the collocation of the secret of the wind and ascension into heaven.) Wisdom ix 16-18 has a similar idea: 'We can hardly fathom the things upon earth . . . but when things are in heaven, who can search them out . . . except you give wisdom and send your holy spirit from on high?' Baruch iii 29 asks, 'Who has gone up to heaven and got her [Wisdom] and brought her down from the clouds?' (Also Deut xxx 12.) Thus it is quite clear that the privilege that Jesus is claiming in vs. 13 goes beyond the lot of men; this verse is another way of stating what is found elsewhere in John, namely, that only Jesus has seen God (i 18, v 37, vi 46, xiv 7-9). See vi 62 where Jesus answers another objection to the mysteriousness of his teaching by speaking of the Son of Man's ascension to heaven." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 145)

Bruce Vawter writes of verse 14: "The reference is to the incident recorded in Nm 21:4-9; in Wis 16:6f. the bronze serpent is called symbolon soterias, 'symbol of salvation.' The basis of comparison here is that in both cases salvation has come through a 'raising up.'" (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 430)

R.V.G. Tasker writes: "This Son of man by becoming flesh has become subject to the death to which all flesh is subject; but the death that He is to die has unique significance. In order to explain wherein the significance lay, Jesus takes an illustration from the story of the Israelites during their wanderings in the wilderness. They had sinned by rebelling against Moses their divinely-appointed leader, and in consequence were the victims of fiery serpents. But Moses, acting on the merciful command of God, who would not 'make a full end' of His people, fashioned a serpent of brass and lifted it upon a pole for all to see; and all who looked upon it were spared the penalty of death (Nu. xxi. 9). Similarly, Jesus, the heavenly Son of man made flesh, is destined to be lifted up for all to see. He will hang on the cross like a condemned criminal. But His subjection to that particular form of death will not be due to some mischance. He will die in that way, precisely because it is in that way that God has chosen to reveal His love for sinners. He has given His Son to pay the penalty of their sins." (John, pp. 68-69)

Raymond Brown writes: "Thus, in John 'being lifted up' refers to one continuous action of ascent: Jesus begins his return to his Father as he approaches death (xiii 1) and completes it only with his ascension (xx 17). It is the upward swing of the great pendulum of the Incarnation corresponding to the descent of the Word which became flesh. The first step in the ascent is when Jesus islifted up on the cross; the second step is when he is raised up from death; the final step is when he is lifted up to heaven. This wider understanding of 'being lifted up' explains a statement like viii 28: 'When you lift up the Son of Man, you will realize that I AM.' The justice of Jesus' claim to the divine name 'I AM' (see App. IV) was scarcely evident at the crucifixion; it was recognized only after the resurrection and ascension (xx 28). Nor was the claim in xii 32 verified in the crucifixion alone: 'When I am lifted up from the earth, I shall draw all men to myself.'" (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 146)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "Another major theme of this gospel emerges for the first time in vv. 16-17. The saving love of God stands behind the mystery of the 'lifting up' of the Son, 'sent' to bring the possibility of eternal life and the salvation of the world. The message of vv. 13-15 lingers as Jesus indicates the immensity of God's loving gift of the Son for the life of the world. The Son was sent that the world might be saved, not judged. A universal element enters Jesus' words despite the strongly Jewish context of the encounter with Nicodemus that prefaced this brief discourse. 'God so loved the world' (v. 16); 'God sent the Son into the world' (v. 17). This recalls the promise of the Prologue (cf. 1:12-13) and prepares for the shortly-to-be-introduced narrative dedicated to Jesus' encounters with Samaritans and a Gentile (4:1-54). But the loving gift of the Son for the salvation of the world raises the issue of judgment. Despite God's gift of the Son for the salvation - not the judgment - of the world (vv. 16-17), a judgment takes place. It flows from the acceptance or refusal of the unique revelation of God that takes place in the Son. The language of the Prologue returns as Jesus speaks of 'life,' 'light,' and 'darkness' (vv. 18-21, cf. 1:4-18). Belief leads to freedom from condemnation and to life, but unbelief produces condemnation and death (v. 18). Neither the Son nor the Father acts as judge. To refuse belief brings self-condemnation, shown in evil deeds and the presence of darkness (vv. 18-19). The time of judgment is now as the believer is faced with the revelation of the Father in the Son. Johannine realized eschatology stresses the importance of the response of the believer, not the sovereign action of God." (The Gospel of John, p. 96)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "The language of vv. 11-17 is typical of later Gnostic literature. The Son speaks of what he has seen (v. 11); the revelation of earthly and heavenly things (v. 12); the descent of the Son of Man (v. 13); the 'lifting up' of the Son of Man (v. 14); the Father sends the Son to save the world (v. 16), not to judge the world (v. 17). 'It is this passage more than any other which supports Bultmann's theory of adaptation from a pre-Gnostic source. . . . It is more reasonable to suppose that John presents what is basically Jewish and Christian teaching, in words that may be expected to be meaningful to a Gentile audience familiar with the ideas of Hellenstic religious aspirations' (Lindars, Gospel 147-148). This passage is another fine example of the author's use of language and ideas that tell the traditional story in a new way." (The Gospel of John, pp. 101-102)

R.V.G. Tasker writes: "It is a reasonable assumption that verses 16 to 21 are not part of Jesus' words to Nicodemus, but comments by the evangelist, as Jesus in speaking of the first Person of the Trinity refers to Him as 'Father' not as 'God'." (John, p. 69)

Raymond Brown writes: "We saw that vs. 16 is not to be completely dissociated from 14-15 in theme; and once again 16 starts with a connective (gar) thta works against any theory of a new speaker. The last clauses of 15 and 16 are the same, and it does seem arbitrary to attribute them to different speakers. . . . Of course the evangelist has been at work in this discourse, but his work is not the type that begins at a particular verse. All Jesus' words come down to us through the channels of the evangelist's understanding and rethinking, but the Gospel presents Jesus as speaking and not the evangelist." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 149)

Frank Schleritt writes: "The passage [vv. 19-21] displays a theological tendency which is different from that of the evangelist (J. Becker). According to the evangelist, in principle all human beings - except the Jews (cf. 8.30-59) - have the opportunity to attain salvation through faith in Jesus. By contrast, vv. 19b-21 divide humankind into two groups, which have already qualified themselves for salsvation or doom before the coming of Jesus. The coming of Jesus merely serves the purpose of disclosing the twofold determination of human beings." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 443)

Bruce Vawter writes: "The realized eschatology of Jn . . . does not deny the common NT teaching on futuristic eschatology (cf. 5:27-29); but just as eternal life already begins in this world for him who has decided for Christ, so does the unbeliever already stand condemned." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 430)

D. Moody Smith writes: "The Evangelist here contemplates the fact of unbelief, rejection. Such rejection is judgment for the unbeliever (v. 19) and is explained in terms of a light-darkness dualism reminiscent of the prologue (esp. vv. 5, 9). An explanation of why some avoid the light while others come to it is then given (vv. 20-21); it could mean that Jesus as light only confirms a preference for light or darkness, depending on people's previous disposition and conduct. Faith in Jesus would then be morally predetermined. John seeks, however, to find terms adequate to explain the phenomenon of rejection and the consequent alienation of communities (church and synagogue) in which he lives or has lived. Only in such a confrontation and decision for or against Jesus may the true character of one's past, as well as the direction for the future, be seen." (Harper's Bible Commentary, pp. 1051-1052)

Raymond Brown writes: "It should be noted that the dualistic vocabulary of vss. 19-21 (light/darkness; practicing wickedness/doing truth) has remarkable resemblances in the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially in 1QS iii-iv. We have compared Johannine and Qumranian dualism in CBQ 17 (1955), 405-18, 559-61 (now NTE, pp. 105-23), and must refer the reader there for detail. Here we cite only the well-known Qumran division between the sons of light and the sons of darkness, and also the text of 1QS iv 24: 'According as man's inheritance is in truth and righteousness, so he hates evil; but insofar as his heritage is in the portion of perversity, so he abominates truth.'" (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 148)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "There is a break from the preceding scene, marked by an expression often used in the fourth gospel to indicate a new stage in the narrative: 'after this' (meta tauta). Jesus and his disciples move away from the city of Jerusalem into the broader geographical context of 'the land of Judea.' In this new place Jesus and his disciples remained together, and Jesus baptized. The imperfect tense of the verb 'to baptize' (ebaptizen) indicates that he resumed a habitual practice (v. 22). In a different place, Aenon near Salim, John is also practicing baptism. The location of Aenon is not known for certain, but its description as a place where there was much water has led many to suggest a location in Samaria (cf. Boismard, 'Aenon pres de Salem' 218-229). The imperfect passive form of the verb 'to baptize' reappears to describe the fact that people came to John and were baptized (ebaptizonto) (v. 23). Two characters have been located in different places and both have been described as practicing baptism. There is no hint in these introductory remarks that there was any qualitative difference between the two baptisms. The focus is on the baptizers, not the respective merits of their baptismal rites. In a final introductory note the reader is informed that all this took place before John had been put in prison (v. 24). The description of the characters, the time, the place, and their parallel activities sets the scene for the brief narrative that follows." (The Gospel of John, p. 105)

Bruce Vawter writes: "The strange chronology of this passage (in 3:22 Jesus comes to Judea, whereas in 3:1-21 he was already in Jerusalem) and the fact that vv. 31-36 are largely a repetition of vv. 13-21 are not necessarily signs of dislocations in the text. Chronology is secondary to John's theological purposes. Rather, the Evangelist seems to have paralleled two narratives touching on the same theme, each followed by a similar meditation. The theme remains Jesus' replacement of the institutions of Judaism - specifically through Christian baptism (cf. 3:4)." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 430)

Raymond Brown writes: "The name is from the Aramaic plural of the word for 'spring,' while 'Salim' reflects the Semitic root for 'peace.' There are three important traditions for localizing these sites. (a) In Perea, the Transjordan. We know that John the Baptist was active in this region (i 28), and the reference to Judea in vs. 22 may imply that he was close by (Perea is just across the river). The 6th-century mosaic Madeba map (BA 21 [1958, No. 3]) has an Aenon just northeast of the Dead Sea, opposite Bethabara (see Note on i 28); there are contemporary pilgrim indications to the same effect. (b) In the northern Jordan valley, on the west bank some eight miles south of Scythopolis (Bethshan). In the 4th century Eusebius (Onomasticon, in GCS 11, p. 40:1-4; p. 153:6-7) has this tradition, as has the pilgrim Aetheria. The Madeba map has another Aenon in this vicinity. Eusebius speaks of Salim in reference to Salumias, and there is a modern Arabic name of Tell Sheikh Salim in the area. There is no remnant of the name Aenon in the area. One objection to both these sites in the Jordan valley is that, with the river Jordan nearby, John's mention of the availability of water seems superfluous. (c) In Samaria. Four miles east-southeast of Shechem there is a town of Salim known from early times; eight miles northeast of Salim lies modern Ainun (1:100,000 map: 187190). In the general vicinity there are many springs, although modern 'Ainun has no water. W. F. Albright defends this localization in HTR 17 (1924), 193-94. It would agree very well with the strong traditional ties that connect John the Baptist with Samaria." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 151)

Bruce Vawter writes: "This site [Aenon near Salim] has not been satisfactorily identified; no doubt it is a real and not a symbolic place. Aenon is probably a transliteration of the Aram enawan, 'springs.' The site is identified by W. F. Albright (AP 247) with an Ainum, 7 mi. from a Salim that lies to the E of Nablus in Samaria; tradition from the 4th cent. perhaps more plausibly connects it with the springs near a Salumias or Sedima about 7 mi. S of Beth-shan (Beisan in the Jordan valley (cf. F.-M. Abel, GP 2, 441f.; C. Kopp, Holy Places, 129-37)." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 431)

Frank Schleritt writes: "The reference to the imprisonment of the Baptist, which has yet to take place, comes from the evangelist. His purpose here may be to lessen the conflict between the tradition that Jesus made his first public appearance only after the imprisonment of the Baptist (cf. Mark 1.14f.; Luke 3.19f., 21; Matt. 11.2-6) and the parallel activity which is reported here, by 'predating'." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 444)

D. Moody Smith writes: "We learn also that John had not yet been arrested (v. 24; cf. Mark 1:14). This statement seems to reflect some knowledge of the synoptic account of Jesus' ministry, whether on the part of the author or a very early editor." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 1052)

Raymond Brown writes: "Let us consider here the problems of sequence caused by the context. Jesus has been in Jerusalem of Judea according to ch. ii; yet now he comes into Judea. Verse 24 mentions that John the Baptist has not yet been arrested; the verse is a parenthetical addition of the redactor inserted to aovid objections based on a chronology like that of the Synoptics. According to Mark i 14 (Matt iv 12), Jesus went to Galilee to begin his ministry only after John the Baptist had been arrested; but in John, Jesus has already been to Galilee and to Jerusalem and still John the Baptist has not been arrested. It is true that the Synoptics do not tell us exactly when John the Baptist was arrested, so that all that John has narrated might have occurred before the official opening of the Galilean ministry (John does not fully describe a Galilean ministry). Nevertheless, the impression gained from the Synoptics is that the Galilean ministry opened immediately after the baptism of Jesus and that the arrest of John the Baptist also was closely associated with the baptism (especially Luke iii 19-20). An even greater sequential difficulty is raised by vs. 26. The disciples of John the Baptist have heard their master testify eloquently to Jesus in ch. i: Jesus is the Lamb of God; John the Baptist's whole purpose in baptizing was that Jesus might be revealed to Israel. Yet now they cannot understand why people are coming to Jesus and they resent it. Notice that this cannot be explained away by saying that these are other disciples than those of ch. i, for vs. 28 specifically identifies them as disciples who had heard John the Baptist's message about Jesus." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 153)

Raymond Brown writes: "Let us see how placing iii 22-30 in the same setting as ch. i solves the difficulties of sequence that we have mentioned. (In this theory the clause set off by dashes in vs. 26 and the whole of vs. 28 must be thought of as additions made by the readactor to adapt the scene to the final setting in which he placed it - see Notes.) Jesus comes into Judean territory (vs. 22), not after having been at Jerusalem with Nicodemus, but toward the beginning of the Gospel narrative. We hear similar statements in the Synoptic tradition in relation to the time of Jesus' baptism: 'Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan' (Matt iii 13); 'There went out to him [John the Baptist] all the country of Judea' (Mark i 5). The puzzled hostility of the disciples of John the Baptist toward Jesus can be understood if Jesus is just appearing on the scene and John the Baptist has not yet given to all his disciples the testimony to Jesus of which we hear in ch. i. Verses 27, 29-30 belong to the same general type of initial testimony to Jesus that appears in i 29-34." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 154)

D. Moody Smith writes: "The introduction (v. 25) does not lead smoothly into the question of v. 26 but seems superfluous. One would have anticipated a dispute with disciples of Jesus if not Jesus himself." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 1052)

R.V.G. Tasker writes of verse 25: "In the Greek MSS the reading varies between 'Jews' or 'a Jew'. As this writer invariably uses the definite article when speaking of 'the Jews', the latter reading should probably be followed (RSV). As Westcott says, 'it gives a definiteness to the incident otherwise lacking'." (John, p. 74)

Raymond Brown writes: "There is good evidence, including p66, for the reading 'the Jews'; but the best witnesses, including p75, read the singular which is the more difficult reading. The plural may be on the analogy of Mark ii 18 and par. which associate the Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist on the legal question of fasting. (Boismard, however, accepts the plural, suggesting that the singular Ioudaiou is by analogy with Ioanou.) If we read the singular, the connection of the verse with what follows is not totally clear. Loisy, p. 171, along with others (Bauer, Goguel), thinks that the text originally read 'Jesus,' but that pious reasons caused scribes to expunge a reference to a dispute between the disciples of John the Baptist and Jesus. There is no textual support, but the reading would give excellent sense." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 152)

Frank Schleritt writes of verse 25: "This verse is puzzling. Its manifest intention is to create an occasion for the disciples of John to complain to their master about the growing influence of Jesus (v. 26), but it cannot perform this function. For a dispute which they carry on with some Jew about 'purification' is not an appropriate occasion for this. (It is not said that this Jew had been baptized by Jesus.) Could the evangelist have replaced another party in the dispute - the disciples of Jesus or even Jesus himself - with the 'Jew'? In that case the story would make good sense: after a dispute with Jesus or his disciples about the meaning or legitimacy of the baptism practised by Jesus (v. 25), the disciples turn to their master for advice (v. 26)." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 444)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "There is some textual confusion over meta Ioudaiou. Some manuscripts have meta ton Ioudaon which would make excellent sense and should be rejected precisely beacuse it is the lectio facilior. There is also a popular (but unattested) reading of meta Iesou, which would also make good sense. Schnackenburg (Gospel 1:413-414) makes the good suggestion that 'the Jew' may habe come from Judea, where Jesus was baptizing. This would lead logically into the question of v. 26. The presence of 'the Jew' also retains the narrative focus on the world of Judaism." (The Gospel of John, p. 109)

Frank Schleritt writes: "That Jesus himself baptized is sometimes regarded as one of the few pieces of historical information in the Gospel of John by which the Synoptic picture of Jesus can be corrected (J. Becker). In fact this would be a plausible explanation of the rise of baptism in the Christian community. But it is also conceivable that the assertion that Jesus himself baptized was a counter-reaction to a charge by the rival Baptist community that with the baptism that Christians practised they were dependent on John. It is similarly possible that after Jesus had become the centre of the cult, the view arose that he himself had baptized." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 445)

Raymond Brown writes: "There is no plausible theological reason why anyone would have invented the tradition that Jesus and his disciples once baptized. The practice of Christian Baptism certainly did not need such support; and, as a matter of fact, the information that Jesus once imitated John the Baptist in baptizing would be a dangerous weapon in the hands of the sectarians of John the Baptist (whence probably the modification in iv 2)." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 155)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "This episode [3:22-36] comes at the end of a triptych of encounters between Jesus and characters from the world of Judaism: 'the Jews,' Nicodemus, and John the Baptist. The theme of 'the word' has been central. According to the Prologue (1:1-18) the saving revelation of God takes place in the incarnation of 'the Word,' Jesus Christ (1:14-18). Within the narrative, therefore, the 'word of Jesus' has been the place where the characters in the story encounter what God is doing in and through Jesus. By this criterion 'the Jews' demonstrate a total lack of faith while the faith of Nicodemus is limited by his determination to understand Jesus according to his own categories. Finally, John the Baptist sees himself as the firend of the bridegroom, rejoicing to hear his voice. He shows an openness to the word of Jesus, cost what it may: 'He must increase but I must decrease' (v. 30). The earlier experience of the mother of Jesus comes to mind. She told the servants to do whatever Jesus told them despite the fact that she had been sharply rebuked by her son (2:4-5). John the Baptist, like the mother of Jesus, has been presented as an example of authentic belief, laying himself open to the word of Jesus (3:29)." (The Gospel of John, p. 107)

Bruce Vawter writes: "The role of the best man at a wedding was to bring the bride and the bridegroom together, and to rejoice in the bridegroom's happiness. This has been John's function, with which he is content." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 431)

R.V.G. Tasker writes: "It is important to notice that on this occasion of John's final witness to Jesus the setting is provided by a dispute between some of John's disciples and a Jew about purification. John's complete inability to provide true purification is one of the reasons why he cannot be the Christ. His function has been, as he readily admits, to go before the Christ like the groomsman dispatched to make the final preparation for a wedding; to rejoice in the humble role he is called upon to play at the wedding itself; and to retire into obscurity when his appointed task is finsihed. And in the discharge of these functions his cup of happiness has been full." (John, p. 73)

Raymond Brown writes of verse 30: "This verse has played a significant role in the tradition concerning John the Baptist. Just as the birthday of Jesus was fixed at December 25, the time of the winter solstice after which the days grow longer (the light has come into the world; he must increase), so John the Baptist's birthday was fixed at June 24, the time of the summer solstice after which the days grow shorter (he was not the light; he must decrease). The two Greek verbs in vs. 30 are also used for the waxing and waning of the light of heavenly bodies." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 153)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "Having established his role as sent by God but not the Christ, the Baptist describes his relationship with the Christ. The Baptist's use of marriage imagery has two sources. The Scriptures often speak of Israel as the bride of God (cf. Isa 62:4-5; Jer 2:2; Ezek 16:8; 23:4; Hos 2:21) and the Christian Church continued this imagery to speak of itself as the bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-27, 31-32; Rev 21:2; 22:17). This is sufficient background for the Baptist to affirm that 'not he but Christ is the head of the New Israel' (Barrett, Gospel 222-223), but the image of the friend of the bridgroom who stands and hears him (akouon autou) and rejoices greatly in his voice (ten phonen) (v. 29), draws from marriage practice of the time. Paralleling himself with the friend of the bridegroom who accompanies him until such time as he takes possession of his bride, he places himself in a subordinate position, 'hearing' the bridegroom's 'voice.' This hearing has taken place and thus the Baptist can announce, in the present tense, that his joy is now full (peplerotai). Full of joy, he is prepared to decrease as Jesus comes upon the scene (vv. 29-30). This description of the decreasing importance of the Baptist and the centrality of Jesus reflects what happens from this point on in the story, but there is more to these words of the Baptist than a description of what will happen from now on. In 2:5 the mother of Jesus became the first person in the story to place unconditional belief and trust in the word of Jesus. Although there is no use of the expression logos or related words they are paralleled by the word phone in v. 29. John the Baptist demonstrates openness to the word of Jesus even though it means he must disappear from the scene. This leads to a comment from the narrator (vv. 31-36) that has parallels with vv. 11-21." (The Gospel of John, p. 106)

D. Moody Smith writes: "Although there is no explicit indication of a change of speakers, vv. 31-36 (like vv. 16-21) may be understood as a kind of comment of the Evangelist upon the episode that has preceded." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 1052)

Frank Schleritt writes: "Verses 31-36 are not marked off from what has gone before; so they seem still to belong to the discourse of the Baptist in 3.27-30. After the Baptist has modestly withdrawn in v. 30, however, it is quite surprising that he lets himself be carried away and continues his discourse. Moreover it is strange that his remarks seem like a paraphrase of the previous statements of Jesus and that he suddenly speaks about truths which are otherwise reserved for Jesus to speak. It follows from this that vv. 31-36 are manifestly no longer part of the Baptist's discourse, nor are they meant to be. Rather, they give the impression that Jesus is the speaker or that the evangelist himself is beginning to preach suddenly. But it would be both improbable and without analogy for the evangelist to have neglected to mark off a discourse of Jesus or his own commentary from the discourse of the Baptist in vv. 27-30 (there are no quotation marks in Greek). All this indicates that the present section is an addition (J. Becker)." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 446)

Raymond Brown writes: "If vss. 31-36 do represent a discourse of Jesus, why would an editor have inserted it where it is now found, namely, after words by John the Baptist and without an introduction? That a discourse of Jesus can be added without an extensive introduction we can clearly see in the instance of xii 44-50; however, there Jesus is at least identified as the speaker. Some have suggested that an editor saw the close relationship of 31-36 to the Nicodemus scene and wanted to place it nearby; however, this does not explain why it was added after iii 30 instead of after iii 21. The best solution seems to be Dodd's, namely, that the editor wanted to use 31-36 to recapitulate the whole of iii 1-30 and to summarize both the Nicodemus and the John the Baptist scenes. If the editor regarded the words as pertaining to the John the Baptist scene as well, then his failure to indicate a break between vss. 30 and 31 may be somewhat more intelligible." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 160)

Raymond Brown writes: "The theme of vs. 32 is the same as that of 11: the failure of Jesus' audience to accept his testimony even though he has come from above and knows whereof he speaks. The 'no one' is not categorical, as the next verse (33) shows. Verse 33 takes on added significance against the background of 26, which reported that everyone was flocking to Jesus to be baptized. If the Nicodemus scene justified the pessimism of 32, then the success reported in the John the Baptist scene justifies the affirmative character of 33. Verse 33 also points out the relationship that borders on identity between Jesus' testimony and the Father's truth. 1 John v 9-10 will state that God Himself has given testimony about his Son, and whoever does not believe has made God a liar. This is why Jesus can say in xiv 6, 'I am the truth,' and can insist that it is through him that the Father is known by men (xiv 9)." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 161)

Bruce Vawter writes of verse 34: "The prophets of the old covenant, of which John the Baptist was one, communicated with God's Spirit; but the fullness of God's revelation has come only in Christ (cf. 1:17f.)." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 431)

R.V.G. Tasker writes of verse 34: "Many ancient MSS omit God; and, as the words unto him are an explanatory addition by AV, it is possible, following the reading which omits God, to regard Jesus as the subject of the verb. The evangelist would then be saying, 'Jesus speaks the words of God, as can be seen from the fact that He (Jesus) gives the Spirit in an unlimited degree to His followers.' So apparently RSV 'he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit'. The meaning implied in AV is 'Jesus can speak the owrds of God because God has given Him the Spirit completely'. This seems to be more suited to the context. The insertion, however, of the words unto him may give the wrong impression that while God gives His Spirit fully to Jesus, He only gives the Spirit to others sparingly. Most modern scholars therefore take the sentence as a statement of the general truth 'God gives not His Spirit by measure', which was illustrated consipicuously in the case of Jesus. God's Spirit is in fact available for all who are called to do His work in all the fullness necessary for its accomplishment." (John, p. 74)

D. Moody Smith writes: "Because Jesus is so freqently referred to as 'Son,' God is often called 'Father.' The Father-Son relationship symbolizes and expresses the Johannine concept of revelation. That God's revelation and salvation are now vested wholly in the Son is confirmed by the either-or alternative set out in 3:36. Belief in the Son means eternal life already. Disobedience (i.e., refusing to believe) cuts one off from life and, instead, incurs God's wrath (v. 36)." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 1052)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "The narrative of 2:13-3:36 articulates a point of view about how one should respond to Jesus and the fruits of such a response. Using 'the word' of Jesus as the criterion, the story points to the possibility of no faith (2:13-22: 'the Jews'), partial faith (3:1-21: Nicodemus), and authentic Johannine belief (3:22-36: John the Baptist) within the world of Judaism. The narrator comments on the limitations of a faith generated by Jesus' miraculous signs (2:23-25). Closely associated with these models of belief is the Johannine message on the importance of belief in the revelation of God in and through the word of Jesus for life and salvation (cf. especially 3:11-21, 31-36). The concentration on characters within the world of Judaism indicates that Israel has not been excluded from the Johannine theology of revelation and salvation. However much the bitter encounters between Jesus and 'the Jews' may intensify as the story unfolds, these encounters that open Jesus' public ministry have shown (2:13-3:36) what was told in the Prologue (1:16-18). God's former gift of the Law has been perfected in the gift of the revelation of God in the word of Jesus Christ. As the Johannine community had its roots in Judaism, Johannine Christianity was the fruit of authentic belief among Jews (Martyn, History and Theology; Brown, Community). John 2:13-3:36 indicates that such belief is always possible in Israel." (The Gospel of John, pp. 107-108)

I invite comments, either on these quotes or on the original questions.

best,
Peter Kirby

Gringo

The comments you quoted by Raymond Brown about Jesus being lifted up were probably on target in including the resurrection. Later, when Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, he calls himself the resurrection and the life, and John includes resurrection story too.

Lots of excellent questions and commentaries; I thought those commentators were much easier to understand and more on target than those discussing John 1.

Peter Kirby

Gringo writes: The comments you quoted by Raymond Brown about Jesus being lifted up were probably on target in including the resurrection. Later, when Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, he calls himself the resurrection and the life, and John includes resurrection story too.

I thought you might appeal to the quote from Brown. Sure, Brown's idea is plausible. But I thought your idea as you originally expressed it to be a little more interesting.

Gringo writes: Lots of excellent questions and commentaries; I thought those commentators were much easier to understand and more on target than those discussing John 1.

It probably helps that these commentators share our modern world view and English language and adhere to secular critical methods that aim to show the intent of the human authors. Heracleon and Ptolemy were religious writers, who wrote in Greek in the second century, and who attempted to uncover the allegorical meaning of the divine Author. It is only natural that we find the former easier to understand than the latter.

best,
Peter Kirby

Clarice O'C

Hi Michael,

Shucks, I see that John's symbolism from Chapter 2 is appearing on this John 3 thread and maybe I should have posted my message from the John 2 thread to this one. I'm posting it here, also, and I hope it's OK. Y'all are going too fast for me and that's because I'm slow What happened to John 1; where is it?

Me too. One of my main interests in John 2 is to crack the code of meanings that John had in mind. I thought that along with the quotes from various scholars that Peter has provided in his first post in this thread that I would see what others have to say, and so I looked in some older books that I have as Peter provided the best of the newer ones. Anyway, I don't have any one book that tells what all of the symbols mean (does Brown or anyone else do it?) but this seems important towards understanding Chapter 2 and the rest of the gospel.

(Some of my interpretive extractions from the various authors are probably crude but I know you'll figure it out.}

---------------
In _The Life of Christ_ by Frederic W. Farrar, D.D., F.R.S., (1874), Vol. I, p. 162, Farrar says that he doesn't know who the bridegroom is but remarks in a footnote:

"The notion that the bridegroom was Simon the Canaanite, arises from a complete, but not unnatural, error about his name. An improbable tradition followed by St. Jerome and St. Bonaventura, and adopted by the Mahometans (D'Herbelot, s.v. 'Johanes'), represents that the bridegroom was the Evangelist St. John."

And so we have one vote that the bridegroom was St. John himself.

Bridegroom = St. John

-----------------

_The New Testament: A Critical Introduction_, by Edwin D. Freed, (1986), p. 207:

Wine = Christianity

Water = Judaism

Temple = "main symbol of the old order, Judaism, is replaced by Jesus' resurrection"

--------------

_The Book of the Acts of God_, G. Ernest Wright & Reginald H. Fuller, (1957), p. 393:

Cana "... indicates that the old Jewish order of purifying is to be replaced by the new and final purification."

"Then comes the cleansing of the temple: the old order of purification replaced, there will follow a new order of worship, in which the temple at
Jerusalem is replaced by the temple of Christ's body."

Cana = the old Jewish order

Temple (Jewish) = old Jewish order of purification

Temple = Christ's body

--------------

_The Four Gospels: An Introduction_, by Bruce Vawter, C.M. (1967), p. 86 (even though the woman in chapter 2 is not named, Vawter assumes it):

Mary = "the whole people of God, the Church... the new Eve, the mother of all the living"

Bridegroom = Jesus of the messianic kingdom

Jewish Feasts = Institutions prefiguring Christ

---------------

_Understanding the New Testament_, by Howard Clark Kee, (first ed. 1957), p. 159:

Wine and water: "for John, the best wine is available now (2:10), not in an age to come. That is, the joys of the new age are already available for the faithful. The second level of meaning is purely symbolic, and centers on the linked factors of water and wine. Although one cannot be certain, the explicit contrast with the Jewish rites of purification (John 2:6) implies that Christian purification--that is, baptism--is being
symbolized. And the climax of the story, the new wine, could be seen as pointing to the other Christian sacrament, the Eucharist." So:

Wine = joys of the new age now and the Eucharist

Water = Jewish--purification; Christian--baptism

------------------

Peter provided the rest of the books and quotes that I'll take a shot at. If you need fuller text, please refer to Peter's first post in this thread.

------------------

Frank Schleritt:

"according to many Old Testament texts the time of salvation will be marked not least by an inexhaustible supply of wine."

Wine = time of Salvation

----------------

R.V.G. Tasker writes: "Jesus [or the writer -ed.]
wished, through the symbolism of the water turned into wine, both to expose the inadequacy of Judaism as a religion of salvation, and to initiate His disciples into the necessity for His own redeeming death ... waterpots of stone were set there, the evangelist states, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews ... The water contained in these vessels was used for the ceremonial washing indicative both of the nature
and of the weakness of Pharisaism."

Water = Judaism inadequate for salvation

Wine = Salvation

Stone waterpots = Purification of the Jews

------------------
Francis J. Moloney writes:

"The water in the jars, used for Jewish purification rituals, will be transformed into a 'sign' (c. 11: semeion) in and through which the doxa will be revealed ... "... transformation of water from six jars used for the Jewish rites of purification into a good wine was a first 'sign' (cf. 2:11) of the fullness of the gifts of God that perfects the former gift of God to Israel."

Water = Sign in and through which the doxa will be revealed

(What does "doxa" mean?)

Bridegroom = Jesus (who provided the wine)

Jewish Temple = Old Jewish order

New Temple = Jesus' body replacing old temple

---------------------

D. Moody Smith:

"If Jesus himself is the good wine, his appearance at the culmination of salvation history is symbolized by its emergence out of the waters of Jewish purification: the last, not the first, is best."

Good wine = Jesus/salvation

Water = Jesus' emergence out of the waters of Jewish purification

----------------------

Robert Kysar:

"Most would argue that the passage attempts to present Christ as the replacement of the Temple that has been destroyed."

Temple = Christ

----------------------

Raymond Brown:

New Temple = Jesus' body

Wine = Replaces the water used for Jewish purifications

**Christian thought about the spiritual Temple from Brown:

(a) the Christian Temple or house of God is the Church
(b) the Temple is the individual Christian

A passage like II Cor vi 16 hovers between (a) and (b).

(c) "the Temple is in heaven - this is the tradition of the apocalyptic works (II Bar iv 5), where the earthly Temple and Jerusalem are only copies of the heavenly. Rev xi 19 and Heb ix 11-12 have this interpretation."

-----------------

The results of the above exercise are as follows:

-----------------

Bridegroom = St. John
Bridegroom = Jesus of the messianic kingdom
Bridegroom = Jesus (who provided the wine)

------------

Wine = Christianity
Wine = joys of the new age now and the Eucharist
Wine = Time of Salvation
Wine = Salvation
Wine = Replaces the water used for Jewish purifications
Good wine = Jesus/salvation

------------------

Water = Judaism
Water = Jewish--purification, Christian--baptism
Water = Judaism inadequate for salvation
Water = Jesus' emergence out of the waters of Jewish purification
Water = Sign in and through which the doxa will be revealed

---------------------

Temple (Jewish) = old Jewish order of purification
Temple = Christ's body
Jewish Temple = Old Jewish order
New Temple = Jesus' body replacing old temple
New Temple = Jesus' body
Temple = "main symbol of the old order, Judaism, is replaced by Jesus' resurrection"

--------------------

Cana = the old Jewish order

Mary = "the whole people of God, the Church... the new Eve, the mother of all the living"

Jewish Feasts = Institutions prefiguring Christ

Stone waterpots = Purification of the Jews

---------------------

So, trying to make a connection between the wedding at Cana and the destruction of the temple scene in Chapter 2, maybe it's Jesus replacing the old Jewish order and ushering in the new age of God's order/salvation in his only begotten son. Perhaps this is early in John's gospel because it sets the stage for the rest of his book?

Am I close? Would someone take a stab at saying it better or changing it if it's not correct.

Best,
Clarice

Clarice O'C

Hi!

On the realized eschatology thing I'll just throw into the pot something that I learned back in a religious studies class (but who knows if the professor was right). On salvation, he said that you can tell the difference as to when NT writers are talking about the present or the future (after physical death) because there are two different Greek words for them. I think that they are "chronos" and "tirus" (sp?). Chronos has to do with time and tirus has to do with quality of life in the present, I think. So, "everlasting life" would be chronos or life after death (salvation) and "eternal life" would be tirus, a good quality of life in the present (salvation).

Anyway, I'll bet you all can figure out what I'm talking about even if I got everything mixed up. Or maybe it's all a crock.

Best,
Clarice


[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Clarice O'C ]

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Clarice O'C ]</p>

Clarice O'C

Hi!

On the realized eschatology thing I'll just throw into the pot something that I learned back in a religious studies class (but who knows if the professor was right). On salvation, he said that you can tell the difference as to when NT writers are talking about the present or the future (after physical death) because there are two different Greek words for them. I think that they are "chronos" and "tirus" (sp?). Chronos has to do with time and tirus has to do with quality of life in the present, I think. So, "everlasting life" would be chronos or life after death (salvation) and "eternal life" would be tirus, a good quality of life in the present (salvation).

Anyway, I'll bet you all can figure out what I'm talking about even if I got everything mixed up. Or maybe it's all a crock.

Best,
Clarice

Clarice O'C

See my previous post which is the correct one because on this one I forgot to put in the word "salvation."

Clarice

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Clarice O'C ]</p>

Clarice O'C

I'm sorry that I'm messing up this thread but I've still not figured out how to use this board. Clarice

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Clarice O'C ]

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Clarice O'C ]</p>

Clarice O'C

Alrighty then, I wrote to my professor:
<a href="http://members.aol.com/thelogos/emil1.htm" target="_blank">link</a> about the above and from my first email he didn't know what I was talking about because I spelled teleios incorrectly. He is not who I learned what I wrote above from, but this is what he said:

"With reference to a distinction pertaining to eternity the only thing I can think of is the distinction between immortal and eternal. Immortal means a life that never ends, like the Greek gods who were "born" but never die. Eternal is tricky. It can mean without beginning and without end but in time (having a life with continuous duration) like the Greeks thought about the cosmos or it could mean a life beyond time without continuous duration: without past, momentary present, or future. (Boetius) That meaning of Eternal is mystery."

And so I looked at an on-line Greek lexicon for the words that I was trying to remember, and their meanings. These are the ones that I originally thought were connected to "everlasting" and "eternal," respectively:

chronos o = time
teleios = complete, perfect

I wrote to Dr. P. again, explaining that and he said:

"Of course I refer to time or chronos and teleios or the end as perfection or the final cause (telos) in Aristotle. Aionios is the root of (a)eon meaning age as in the Augustan Age. Lately I have been teaching New Testament and Paul and the Historical Jesus none of which take me into the Johannine Christian Gnostic texts much. On the question of time eschaton (End-Time) is more important generally in the NT and Paul."

I checked in Strong's Concordance and found that all of the appearances of "eternal" and "everlasting" go back to the same Greek word "aionios;" they are synonomous and mean: "perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):--eternal, forever, everlasting, world (began)."

Best,
Clarice

[Edited Link - Maverick]

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Maverick ]</p>

lpetrich

Jim Jones and his People's Temple are a rather far-out case, it must be said. However, the history of Christianity has featured many nasty fights over doctrine and persecutions of supposed heretics. I doubt that the homoousia-homoiousia controversy is anything to be proud of. (do the Father and the Son have the same essence or similar essences?)

But I do think that this is an interesting interpretation of the water-into-wine story, that it's an implied replacement of one sacred fluid by another. Otherwise, that story looks rather out-of-place in a book with lots of murky theological discourse.