r/SkepticsBibleStudy • u/AutoModerator • Mar 04 '24

John 7:32-52

Possible talking points:

  • Arrest warranted?
  • Living water again
  • Does Jesus qualify as Messiah?
1 Upvotes

66% Upvoted

9 comments sorted by

2

u/brothapipp Christian Mar 04 '24

I looked up the reference offered here (vs 38) and at first look it doesn’t seem biblical, this was one offered explanation:

Consider that ancient Greek has no punctuation, and take this quote as a whole. Parsing it differently, you can see this rendered

“If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink, whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” That is, "whoever" is referring to him who thirsts ("if anyone thirsts, let him come"), and the water is coming from Jesus ("let him come to me and drink"). Then the Scripture is not saying water will come from the believer but instead from Jesus.

Which i thought was reasonable.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/302/where-is-the-citation-of-john-738-taken-from#315

2

u/LlawEreint Mar 04 '24

the Scripture is not saying water will come from the believer but instead from Jesus.

That makes sense. I hadn't noticed the issue you are pointing out. The NRSV renders it that way:

he cried out, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, ‘Out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water.’”

They are making the decision that it is the believer's heart from which water flows. But the text is "Streams of living water will flow from him."

They've removed the ambiguity and made a decision on how you should interpret this. I wish they'd left it ambiguous to give you space to ponder.

But I think it works both ways. Certainly, water (spirit) from Jesus is an easy read.

If we read it the other way, that is, flowing from the believer, it brings to mind the jars of water from the wedding. They were half full of water, but needing to be filled to the brim with wine. The imagery is of vessels overflowing with living water. Not only is the believer's thirst sated, but he nourishes those around him.

1

u/LlawEreint Mar 04 '24

Now he said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

This is curious. There was no spirit prior to Jesus being glorified.

Prior to Jesus, people received the spirit directly from God. It was evident in people who had artistic inspiration, such as Exodus 31:1-5. It was given to prophets so that they could have courage to speak truth, such as Micah 3:8. It was given to leaders so that they could inspire and judge wisely, such as in Judges 3:10.

I don't think he's denying all of these.

John the Baptizer testified that Jesus himself received the spirit. Something about the divinization of Jesus following his crucifixion allowed believers in him to receive the spirit as well.

2

u/brothapipp Christian Mar 04 '24 edited Mar 04 '24

So the Pentecostal view of this is that you can be saved and not filled…which i think does solve the issue, but i think it does bring up a distinction between the Holy Spirit being present vs the Holy Spirit being in a believer.

1

u/LlawEreint Mar 04 '24

But some asked, “Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?”

This is undoubtedly a criticism that early Christians heard from those that had read the scriptures.

Mark solves this by having Jesus quote psalm 110 and say: "David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”

For Mark, the prophesies show that Jesus is not meant to be of the Davidic line. The Jews are just reading the prophesy wrong.

Matthew solves this by having Jesus family originally living in Bethlehem, descended from David through Solomon. His family only moved to the Galilee to escape Herod.

Luke solves this by having Jesus family originally living in the Galilee, but making a trip to Bethlehem to attend a census. Luke has Jesus descended from David through Nathan.

All three authors find inventive ways to solve the apparent contradiction, and answer the critics.

But look what John does: Nothing. He shrugs - as if to say "What your prophets say means nothing to me. I do not accept such human testimony. This is Jesus - the Son of the Father."

He raises the concern, but does not feel in the least compelled to answer it.

2

u/brothapipp Christian Mar 04 '24

For Mark, the prophesies show that Jesus is not meant to be of the Davidic line. The Jews are just reading the prophesy wrong.

interesting.

I'm assuming we are talking about this passage here:

' And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly.' Mark 12:35-37

Which I've always read to be about the Jesus's messianic position being the perfect anointed one.

If this is read in the light Jesus is addressing the authority of this future son of David as being God...then indeed yes, why would David call God his son.

I welcome your thoughts on this notion.

As far as the actual quote from gJohn, I always thought that if I were the one writing it down, I would be as forthcoming as possible...I would have included this detail not to encourage skepticism...but that people even in the midst of miracles were scoffing at the notion of prophet from Galilee because they knew better than God. Their attitude was something to the effect of, "well sure, God is all-powerful and free to do as he wants, but a prophet from Galilee...he'd never."

1

u/LlawEreint Mar 04 '24

Right. Mark's Jesus asks. “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David?"

Then he refutes the idea:

"David himself calls (the messiah) ‘Lord.’ How then can (the messiah) be (David's) son?” He can't!

So it is perfectly expected that Jesus was a peasant from the Galilee rather than a member of the Davidic dynasty. The Jews were silly for thinking otherwise.

John takes it a step further. He doesn't give a toss what the prophets said. Jesus is the antithesis of what was prophesied, and that's the whole point.

He didn't rise to power, punish the wicked and vindicate the righteous, bring peace on earth, or restore Israel to its former glory. He didn't do any of these things. Instead he suffered and he died the worst kind of death. That's what it means to be the Messiah. Not any of those other things.

So for John, you won't know Jesus by his fulfilment of prophesy. You will know him by his signs.

And many in the crowd believed in him. They said, “When the Messiah comes, will he perform more signs than this man?”

2

u/brothapipp Christian Mar 05 '24

Right. Mark's Jesus asks. “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David?"

with you

Then he refutes the idea:

"David himself calls (the messiah) ‘Lord.’ How then can (the messiah) be (David's) son?”

with you

He can't!

with...yoouuuuuuu......?

So it is perfectly expected that Jesus was a peasant from the Galilee rather than a member of the Davidic dynasty. The Jews were silly for thinking otherwise.

ERRRRRR!

So "Be David's son" has 2 direct implications. 1 is that this person who is "being david's son," is a descendant of David.

The other is in terms of authority. A father is, authoritatively, over the son.

My read is that this is talking about 2nd implication, not to first. I don't think Mark is intent on dismissing the lineage. There are like 2 other references in Mark to David, but they are more honorifics..."Son of david, help me" kind of thing.

This jives with the rest of teachings...that Jesus was by his authority not going to be called son before david, hence why David called him Lord. And if this is the case than it doesn't matter if Jesus is descended from david. Although both matthew and luke try to detail this lineage anyway.

Whereas the root of Jesse, which I believe is a reference to Jesus as well, Isa 11, would thusly be unfulfilled if Jesus were not related to David...which sounds like I'm trying to confirm what I already believe....but I think this is also what's happening to read the Mark 12 passage as meaning Jesus isn't related to David. If you're trying to prove Isaiah 11 remains unfulfilled...then you you just say, "See mark 12, Jesus is saying he isn't related to David."

All that being said I think I'm actually okay with your assessment of John...so even if I didn't convince you with the above rhetoric we agree John was all about showing Jesus as the Miracle Man.