tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post8809040009526050886..comments2024-03-28T02:24:59.003-07:00Comments on Left Behind and Loving It: The Light that Exposes and RevealsD. Mark Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12016377712982292924noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-34885399579787342112014-03-10T17:13:02.182-07:002014-03-10T17:13:02.182-07:00Just read a post on text that infers that Jesus wa...Just read a post on text that infers that Jesus was basically blowing Nicodemus off, by a very circuitous & obtuse answer....<br /><br />Nicodemus was a doubter- and Jesus wasn't ready to take him in/ Nick had to figure that out for himself...<br /><br />any grounds for that in the translation?blairhughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296619275162368284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-62235210822965593092012-03-21T06:26:30.557-07:002012-03-21T06:26:30.557-07:00(John 8:3-12, I mean, the woman brought as an adul...(John 8:3-12, I mean, the woman brought as an adulteress)Victoria Gailehttp://gaudetetheology.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-83536094737975468152012-03-21T06:23:10.757-07:002012-03-21T06:23:10.757-07:00There's so much here! but just focusing on v17...There's so much here! but just focusing on v17-19:<br /><br />I'm very struck by the fact that "judge" is the *last* meaning of the verb κρίνω. It seems to me that the big difference between κρίνω and σῴζω is not between negative and positive, but between discriminating and non-discriminating. This is especially underlined by the grammatical difference: he is the *subject* of κρίνω , but the *instrument* through which σῴζω is accomplished. <br /><br />So perhaps a plausible reading is, God did not send the son into the world in order that he might select out some from others, but in order that he might be the means by which the whole world is rescued from deadly peril.<br /><br />It's the difference between picking out fruits at the grocery store ("Hmm, I'll take this one, and that one.. that one's got a soft spot, I'll leave it.. oh this is a good one, I'll take it") and plucking a child from the path of an oncoming train, which doesn't even come with words, exactly, more like "SHRIEK -- RUN -- GRAB -- KEEP RUNNING". I mean there's no attention to the qualities of the child at all: the attention is all on the peril.<br /><br />Which leads me to read v18 as placing the source of the judgment on the non-believers themselves: by not-believing, they themselves discriminated, and that discrimination is what they are enmired in.<br /><br />Then in 19, "for their works were evil", it makes me think that those works were the very peril from which the world is rescued through the son.<br /><br />And don't you think that John 8 is an example of this non-discriminating and rescuing??Victoria Gailehttp://gaudetetheology.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-14876217536381834652012-03-17T06:53:23.448-07:002012-03-17T06:53:23.448-07:00Thanks, Leslie. Glad to hear it.Thanks, Leslie. Glad to hear it.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-20517024317989705152012-03-16T15:39:12.679-07:002012-03-16T15:39:12.679-07:00Just wanted to thank you for sharing your study no...Just wanted to thank you for sharing your study notes. It was very helpful and led to some good reflection on the thoughts here.Leslienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-42644307154660480592012-03-14T07:08:10.112-07:002012-03-14T07:08:10.112-07:00Ah, yes. I apologize for misreading what you meant...Ah, yes. I apologize for misreading what you meant. <br />I sympathize a lot with how you describe your own journey. Sometimes I need Jesus to look at people around me and say, "loose him and let him go."Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-39310957144143885092012-03-14T07:04:59.577-07:002012-03-14T07:04:59.577-07:00Mark, I didn't mean I wouldn't want to say...Mark, I didn't mean I wouldn't want to say it from the pulpit; but I wouldn't want to say it so poorly that folks didn't get what I was saying and I might not even know what I'm saying yet. My brain has now taken me to thinking about being bound by sin and released by the binding of the new covenant. And Lazarus was brought to mind coming out of the tomb with partial bindings. Maybe that's an image for my spirituality. I know I'm alive because of Jesus; and I also know I'm still wrapped up in stuff that needs removed. I just get these weird tangential thoughts when words or phrases capture me.Mariannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-16707756671164997582012-03-14T03:21:11.175-07:002012-03-14T03:21:11.175-07:00Loree, Thanks for the comments. And what a great q...Loree, Thanks for the comments. And what a great question! The question of which antecedent goes with which pronoun comes up a lot in the NT, and I'm not always sure how to connect the dots. Grammatically, I see no hard and fast reason why 'he' could not refer to either God or Jesus as an antecedent. <br />However, the parallel structure between vv.15 and 16 seems to indicate that the topic is believing in the son - the son of man in v.15 and the only genetic son in v.16. <br />My guess is that the interpretations we grew up with probably are correct in seeing 'he' as Jesus. <br />You have brought to my attention two interesting differences in vv.15 and 16, however. First, "son of man" and "only genetic son" - I am trying to see what differences John sees in those titles. Second, v. 15 says 'believe IN him,' v.16 says 'believe INTO him.' I'm wondering now if there's a meaningful difference in those prepositions. Thanks for that!Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-61045592239171635182012-03-13T18:38:14.657-07:002012-03-13T18:38:14.657-07:00I was referred to your site by someone who says yo...I was referred to your site by someone who says you do good homework! In John 3:16, does the "he" have to refer to Jesus or can it say "whoever believes in God"? I am completely incompetent in Greek, so will appreciate your help. IF he can be God, then the verse changes meaning from the memory verse of my childhood to more, "This is how God loves the world: God sent Jesus (to show us the way to live) so that by believing in God we will receive eternal life." Maybe?Loreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08053175674868362818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-90947890316593865372012-03-13T11:02:17.904-07:002012-03-13T11:02:17.904-07:00Marian, I'm always intrigued when we pastors a...Marian, I'm always intrigued when we pastors are torn between preaching and keeping to ourselves. Would you mind opening that question up a little bit and sharing what is behind it? <br />I have an interest in this because I'm working on developing a radio show with another pastor and one segment we're planning is "the anonymous pastor," where we interview a pastor about one thing s/he would never say from the pulpit.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8320313747187588188.post-72764355617866338112012-03-13T07:26:09.585-07:002012-03-13T07:26:09.585-07:00Mark, your comments on binding and lifting up have...Mark, your comments on binding and lifting up have given me food for thought as I attempt to tie these passages in with an ongoing covenant theme. I was heading in the direction that God's 'ultimate covenant' was Jesus' blood. His being lifted up physically (blood being shed) bound the covenant and our lifting him up in metaphoric exaltation seals or binds the covenant on our part. Don't know if I can preach this or will just have to keep it for myself.Mariannoreply@blogger.com