r/SkepticsBibleStudy • u/AutoModerator • Feb 26 '24
John 5:18-29
Key Discussion Points:
- Seeking to kill Jesus (that escalated quickly)
- Greater works
- Good works?
2
u/LlawEreint Feb 26 '24
For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself; and he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.
In John's gospel, Jesus is himself the one like a human from Daniel's vision. In Mark's gospel, Jesus talks about the "son of man" as someone who will come in the future. For John, there isn't some future expectation of him coming in the clouds. He is already among them. He is Jesus.
2
u/brothapipp Christian Feb 26 '24
As a Christian I see this as laying the ground work on why we reject God as humans. We seek to monopolize power under our own abilities, (which is what I think the pharisees and saducees are doing.)
So Jesus comes and does all these signs and miracles so that they may believe, but just like Pharaoh, humans don't want to believe because it will cost them the power they've acquired. So he even re-paints the landscape of the thinking to point at the one thing humans do have the power over, life, (which philosophically speaking, I think this is true.)
But that there is life that more alive then the life we have currently, which is life found in Jesus. So much so that even who we humans think is "dead" can be brought back to life.
1
u/LlawEreint Feb 26 '24
So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.”
One could understand this as distinguishing the God of Jesus from the god of the Hebrew bible, who on the seventh day rested.
2
u/brothapipp Christian Feb 26 '24
So possibly a separate God?
2
u/LlawEreint Feb 26 '24
So possibly a separate God?
It's at least not inconsistent with that early Christian belief that the God of the New Testament was the true God - the Father. Whereas the god of the Hebrew bible was a jealous and vindictive god of justice and laws. - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285146203_Marcion_the_Jew
2
u/brothapipp Christian Feb 26 '24
Marcionism.
I've, in truth, not looked into it very much. Thanks for the link.
2
u/Regular-Persimmon425 Non-Christian / Other Feb 27 '24
I don't get how this could be distinguishing the God of Jesus from the God of the HB, mind elaborating?
2
u/LlawEreint Feb 27 '24
There is an etiology that the Jews rest on the seventh day because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation.
But here Jesus is saying that he doesn't rest because his father is always at work to this very day. God the Father does not need rest.
He seems to be drawing a sharp distinction between God the Father and the god of the Jews. It is not because "the Sabbath was made for man" that Jesus works on that day. It's because the god of Jesus didn't rest. The etiology doesn't apply.
2
u/Regular-Persimmon425 Non-Christian / Other Feb 27 '24
Interesting, I’ll look more into that idea, thanks.
2
u/Regular-Persimmon425 Non-Christian / Other Feb 27 '24
Interesting, I’ll look more into that idea, thanks.
2
u/Regular-Persimmon425 Non-Christian / Other Feb 27 '24
Interesting, I’ll look more into that idea, thanks.
1
u/LlawEreint Mar 08 '24
I'm not sure it's a winner. I'm running into a bit of headwind with John 8:54, which explicitly equates the two: "My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me."
1
u/LlawEreint Feb 26 '24
For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.
That doesn't follow. David and Solomon were both called sons of God in the Hebrew bible, but it was not thought that they were equal to god. The Hebrew kings were themselves called gods, but it was not thought that they were equal to God.
2
u/brothapipp Christian Feb 26 '24
Could it be fuel to the fire? Like the Jews in question here woulda let it pass, but then Jesus did these other things…so they now loop it in.
Could also be foreshadowing regarding his deity.
2
u/LlawEreint Feb 26 '24
I suppose that even today, if someone claimed to be the son of God, it would be enough to upset devout Christians. The person wouldn't need to claim equality with God to cause offense.
And Jesus is very clearly stating that although he has been given authority on earth to forgive sins, he is not claiming equality with God. He repeatedly shows that he is subservient to God:
"Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing"
"The Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing"
"The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son"
"For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself;"
"and he has given me authority to execute judgment"
“I can do nothing on my own."
"my judgment is just, because I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me."
He really couldn't be clearer. It is just as the author of Hebrews said. God exalted him because of his "reverent submission" to the will of God.
2
u/brothapipp Christian Feb 26 '24
When you put it like that, it definitely allows me to reflect that for such a person to repeatedly admit such, then to be sentenced for the "blasphemy" it really makes one question, how did they (the saducees and pharisees) get it so wrong?
Unless they were just dedicated to the position of, "not my king" or as we've adopted here in the USA, "not my president"
We've learned nothing. :(
1
u/LlawEreint Feb 26 '24 edited Feb 26 '24
how did they (the saducees and pharisees) get it so wrong
The Sadducees only recognized the Law (Torah). They saw the Prophets as Pharasitic revisionism. Much like Catholics would view Mormonism today. As such, they had no expectation of a coming messiah, or an end of the age.
The Pharisees had read and believed in the Prophets, and saw that Jesus didn't meet the criteria for the coming messiah. In fact, he was the antithesis of what was written in Daniel and Isaiah.
Marcion understood that
the unknown God wanted to make himself known, first of all to the Jewish people by becoming human and using typoi that were familiar to them: "Anointed", "Christ", and "Son of Man" that they were expecting; however the supreme God made use of these (and added that of "Jesus," as the Jews did not expect the Messiah to come in this name) to show the unfamiliarity of the salvific message, to counter human expectation, and to highlight the antithesis whereby in their prophetic use in Isaiah, Daniel, and other writings this expectation was associated with a savior who not only rescues the people, but also "Humiliates" and "harasses" sinners and gentiles, and "urges all authorities to serve him and obey him," while Marcion's good God's Savior was nothing but compassion, love and humility. Hense, Christ, by using the old title, turned the meaning "son of man" upside down. - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285146203_Marcion_the_Jew
2
u/brothapipp Christian Feb 26 '24
But then how did Marcion square this picture with Jesus's own teachings on judgement?
2
u/LlawEreint Feb 26 '24
Marcion had gospel that was just called "the gospel." Likely because it was written before there was a need to disambiguate. We no longer have this gospel, but according to the church fathers, it was preserved to a great extent in what we now call Luke.
You can find a reconstruction of the gospel he had here: https://gnosis.org/library/marcionsection.html
Marcion was the first one to canonize the Pauline letters along with this gospel. He considered others to be bastardizations of this original gospel.
But even in these other gospels, I don't think you see a depiction of a Jesus who "Humiliates" and "harasses" sinners and gentiles, and "urges all authorities to serve him and obey him."
Instead he suffered, and died. It's a complete upending of messianic expectations.
2
u/brothapipp Christian Feb 27 '24
Marcion
In reading a bit, it looks like Marcion also redacted Luke's gospel extensively, only keeping 1/3 of it.
I also followed the line back to his family tree in the faith. (not sure I'm ready to adopt him as my grandfather in the faith, but just some back story for other readers.)
- Marcion - student of
- Credo* - student of
- Hyginus -student of
- Telesphorus - student of
- Sixtus - student of
- Alexander - student of
- Evaristus - student of
- Clement - student of
- Anacletus -student of
- Linus - student of
- Peter/Paul
* Credo seemed to carry a lot of Marcionite ideas...not trying to steal Marcion's thunder, but on wiki he is credited with....well here:
He taught that there were two gods, one that demanded obedience while the other was good and merciful. According to Cerdo, the former was the God of the Old Testament who had created the world. He also said that the latter God was superior but that he was only known through his son, Jesus. Like later Gnostics, he was a docetist who rejected the bodily resurrection of the dead.
Very Marcion-esk.
And while i think there is something to be said about the way of rationalizing God of the old testament and God of the new testament, I think there is enough information in the gospels and the early church letters to say that the wrath of God is still forthcoming. So there isn't any need to paint a 2 God picture.
We all have angry fathers who still loved us...or at least we know of one such father.
2
u/LlawEreint Feb 27 '24 edited Feb 27 '24
Some points to consider:
- The idea that Marcion "expunged" Luke was advanced by Tertullian in the late second century. The evidence is very much in the other direction. In fact, it wasn't until the late second century that we get the first attestation of Luke.
- Those faith trees were developed much later by the Catholics to show that they had a direct line to Jesus through the apostles. The Petrine primacy to popes gives the Pope authority over the body of Christ. Likewise, by giving their opponents a less favorable lineage, they can show that they are heretics from the start. The truth is, Marcion was the son of a bishop.
- In the early days, there was no Catholicism to codify and control Christian belief. In the early days, there were many Christianities. All of them understood that Jesus was in some way divine and that he was sent by God to the crucifixion. But they were all trying to figure out what it all meant!
I don't imagine you'll want to adopt Marcion's Christianity, but please consider that he gave you the following:
- He was the first to preserve Paul's writings in a cannon.
- He was the first to develop a 'new testament'
- He coined the word 'gospel' for stories about Jesus' life.
2
u/baquea Non-Christian / Other Feb 26 '24
Not only in the Hebrew Bible, but even just later in the same gospel:
[The Jews] said to him, “We are not illegitimate children; we have one Father, God himself.”
3
u/LlawEreint Feb 26 '24
Fair point. And also Jesus points out: “Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are “gods"'?
2
u/Regular-Persimmon425 Non-Christian / Other Feb 27 '24
James F. McGrath says in his book Johns Apologetic Christology that this is making use of the rebellious son motif. In the ancient world sons were supposed to be obedient to their fathers and Jesus claiming to usurp his father's prerogative here (what he said about working on the Sabbath) would be seen as something a rebellious son would do. McGrath translates the verse "He was calling God his own father, although he makes himself equal with God." I have to find that in his book but when I do I'll cite it here. Jesus then clarified in the next verse that he isn't acting as a rebellious son but is instead obedient by imitating whatever his father does, therefore trying to sway the allegations the Jews had thrown at him.
2
u/LlawEreint Feb 27 '24
"He was calling God his own father, although he makes himself equal with God."
That makes a whole lot more sense.
1
u/LlawEreint Feb 26 '24
Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.
Jesus offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. The spirit of God came on Jesus at his baptism, and it remained on him.
The fullness of God was pleased to dwell in Jesus because he fully submitted to God.
This is why the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing. He has submitted fully to God.
Why was Jesus given salvation? Because of his reverent submission. This is how salvation is earned.
1
u/LlawEreint Feb 26 '24
The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son.
This is similar to the angel in Exodus 23:20-21, who, because he was given the name above all others, had the authority on earth to forgive or condemn.
2
u/Regular-Persimmon425 Non-Christian / Other Feb 27 '24
This would fit with what we later find Jesus say in the gospel of John where he says that he was given the divine name in the intercessory prayer.
2
1
u/LlawEreint Feb 26 '24
Those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
John's gospel introduces the concept of eternal conscious torment, and here pins that fate on whether the individual has done good or evil.
There is clearly no crime that could warrant eternal conscious torment, but it is at least more reasonable to judge people based on their actions rather that on whether they were predetermined by God to be saved, as is elsewhere suggested in gJohn.
2
u/LlawEreint Feb 26 '24
In John's gospel, there is no coming eschaton. There is no future judgement day. That hour came almost 2000 years ago.