Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [John_Lit] The Johannine Jews

Expand Messages
  • ProfRam@aol.com
    Hi everyone, One question, in light of Frank s research into Israel, people, nation, etc. In 11:50 Caiaphas says it is expedient for one man to die for the
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi everyone,

      One question, in light of Frank's research into Israel, people, nation, etc.
      In 11:50 Caiaphas says it is expedient for one man to die for the people. We
      all know that this was not a statement about redemption thru the cross but
      purely a political strategy.

      But when the author repeats it in v 51 (using 'nation' instead of 'people'),
      is it still just political or is it now a statement about the atonement. I
      have assumed it to be the latter because it appeals to Caiaphas being a
      prophet and therefore speaking more wisely than he knows.

      My question is, Does this mean that in John's Gospel, Jesus died for the
      nation of Israel? Is this the same as saying that he died for "the Jews"? Or
      does "the nation" now mean Christians (on the basis of some sort of
      supersessionism). I would think it still means the Jewish people because in v
      52 it goes on to add the Gentiles. Supersession doesn't seem to work here.

      If in chapter 10 he dies for his own sheep (10:11, 15), and in chapter 11 he
      dies for the Jewish nation, then are the Jews still his sheep? Obviously the
      Jews addressed in 10:26 are not, but 10:19-21 suggests that "there are Jews
      and then there are Jews." They are not a monolithic group but are torn by a
      schism (see also 7:43, 9:16).

      If indeed Jesus died for (some of) the Jews, then are they "the children of
      God who are *not* scattered abroad," in contrast to those who are (v 52)? If
      they are children of God, then I guess they are not children of the devil.
      Are we generalizing too much about the Jews in John's Gospel.

      Ramsey Michaels
    • Paul Anderson
      ... Good points, Frank and Ramsey. In fact the I-Am sayings in John, like the Son of Man sayings, typify the embodiment of Israel (see Borgen s treatment of
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 5, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com writes:
        >My question is, Does this mean that in John's Gospel, Jesus died for the
        >nation of Israel? Is this the same as saying that he died for "the Jews"?
        >Or
        >does "the nation" now mean Christians (on the basis of some sort of
        >supersessionism). I would think it still means the Jewish people because
        >in v
        >52 it goes on to add the Gentiles. Supersession doesn't seem to work here.
        >
        >If in chapter 10 he dies for his own sheep (10:11, 15), and in chapter 11
        >he
        >dies for the Jewish nation, then are the Jews still his sheep? Obviously
        >the
        >Jews addressed in 10:26 are not, but 10:19-21 suggests that "there are
        >Jews
        >and then there are Jews." They are not a monolithic group but are torn by
        >a
        >schism (see also 7:43, 9:16).

        Good points, Frank and Ramsey. In fact the I-Am sayings in John,
        like the Son of Man sayings, typify the embodiment of Israel (see
        Borgen's treatment of Israel as the nation of vision in Philo and John).
        This raises the Johannine critique of the Ioudaioi to the scandalization
        of the unbelieving world (with Bultmann), a critique which cuts in
        ways Christian as well as Jewish, Samaritan, and Gentile.

        In that sense, and adequate understanding of the Fourth Gospel
        may be one of the best antidotes to antisemitism and religious
        triumphalism.

        Thanks.

        Paul Anderson
      • jestaton@zoom.co.uk
        The scattered children of God (v.52) are a separate group to the nation (v.51). This is a not only...but also construction. Both groups are different
        Message 3 of 3 , Mar 5, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          The "scattered children of God"(v.52) are a separate group to
          the "nation"(v.51). This is a "not only...but also" construction.
          Both groups are different entities, but both are saved, and
          eventually gathered into one. Pancaro argued that "nation" in this
          passge referred to the Jewish nation, whereas "people" or "children
          of God" refers to those who are of the believing community. Of
          course, the believing community would include people who were
          ethnically Jewish, but John's Gospel refers to such people as "true
          Israelites" or some such thing. The word "Jew" is normally reserved
          for Jesus' Jewish opponents.

          Hope this helps

          JOHN E STATON
          jestaton@...
          www.jestaton.org
          --- In johannine_literature@y..., ProfRam@a... wrote:
          > Hi everyone,
          >
          > One question, in light of Frank's research into Israel, people,
          nation, etc.
          > In 11:50 Caiaphas says it is expedient for one man to die for the
          people. We
          > all know that this was not a statement about redemption thru the
          cross but
          > purely a political strategy.
          >
          > But when the author repeats it in v 51 (using 'nation' instead
          of 'people'),
          > is it still just political or is it now a statement about the
          atonement. I
          > have assumed it to be the latter because it appeals to Caiaphas
          being a
          > prophet and therefore speaking more wisely than he knows.
          >
          > My question is, Does this mean that in John's Gospel, Jesus died
          for the
          > nation of Israel? Is this the same as saying that he died for "the
          Jews"? Or
          > does "the nation" now mean Christians (on the basis of some sort of
          > supersessionism). I would think it still means the Jewish people
          because in v
          > 52 it goes on to add the Gentiles. Supersession doesn't seem to
          work here.
          >
          > If in chapter 10 he dies for his own sheep (10:11, 15), and in
          chapter 11 he
          > dies for the Jewish nation, then are the Jews still his sheep?
          Obviously the
          > Jews addressed in 10:26 are not, but 10:19-21 suggests that "there
          are Jews
          > and then there are Jews." They are not a monolithic group but are
          torn by a
          > schism (see also 7:43, 9:16).
          >
          > If indeed Jesus died for (some of) the Jews, then are they "the
          children of
          > God who are *not* scattered abroad," in contrast to those who are
          (v 52)? If
          > they are children of God, then I guess they are not children of the
          devil.
          > Are we generalizing too much about the Jews in John's Gospel.
          >
          > Ramsey Michaels
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.