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

Re: [John_Lit] water to wine

Expand Messages
  • Thomas W Butler
    Dear Jeff, Mark, Bob, Bob, Jim, Eric, Frank and J-Lit Listers, I have made a study of Johannine signs, particularly as they relate to Mosaic oracles. My work
    Message 1 of 28 , Jun 29 5:49 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Jeff, Mark, Bob, Bob, Jim, Eric, Frank and J-Lit Listers,

      I have made a study of Johannine signs, particularly as
      they relate to Mosaic oracles. My work also includes
      a consideration of the temporal markers in the Fourth
      Gospel. Some of my work may be of interest to you.

      The word "hour (ora)" appears 24 times, and is scattered
      throughout the gospel. I am writing a devotional guide to
      the gospel called A Day with Jesus in which I have used
      the word "hour" as an end marker within the text. Each
      portion of text that ends when the word "hour" is used,
      contains numerous signs that relate to Mosaic oracles.

      I believe that the gospel was intended to be used as a text
      book for the training of disciples in the discipline of
      theological reflection, using the method commonly used
      in rabbinic schools of that time: expounding upon the
      meaning of a text, by using the language of sacred scripture,
      especially the Torah.

      The gospel is both an example of the product of such a
      method and a means of prompting the reader to engage
      in that method, first by discerning the signs that are being
      used that way (in each "hour") and then expounding upon
      the possible meanings of those signs.

      With regard to John 2: 1-11 (or 12), the first sign is the
      transformation of waters of purification into wine.

      This establishes a pattern in which the oracles used in the
      Mosaic texts with regard to the temple, the priesthood and
      the rituals of sacrifice are used within the context of the
      Jesus narrative in a way that suggests a new tradition is
      being established out of the building blocks of the old one.
      In this case, the stone jars used to contain the waters of
      purification are used to supply the jars which are used to
      poor the wine for the wedding feast.

      I agree with James Rudolf that the reader is expected to
      see this as a sacramental wine, even though the ritual of
      the Eucharist is not explicitly presented as a part of the
      narrative. (One could say that the entire gospel functions
      as a haggada for the Passover of the Followers of Jesus).
      In other words, the rhetorical transformation that takes
      place is the replacement of water for purification with
      (sacramental) wine for purification. The new tradition
      comes forth from the old tradition, but takes on a new
      form.

      In light of this approach, here are my responses to Jeff's
      interesting set of questions:

      > Jeff Staley writes:
      >
      > The "signs" in John are great places to explore, rhetorically.
      > I wrote briefly about the rhetorical significance of this sign
      > in my dissertation (published in 1988 by Scholars Press)
      > entitled "The Print's First Kiss."
      >
      > A number of things in this miracle story interest me from a
      > rheotrical standpoint:

      > 1) Exactly when does the miracle occur?

      The sign is delivered as Jesus issues two commands.
      1. Fill the jars with water.
      2. Draw some out, and take it to the chief steward.

      By filling the stone jars with water, especially as the reader is
      told that the jars are filled to the brim, the reader is expected
      to see that what is being transformed is the full tradition.

      By drawing water out of these jars, the reader is expected to
      see that what Jesus will offer comes out of the tradition. By
      directing that it be taken to the wine steward (the ruler of the
      feast), the quality of what is being offered is being submitted
      for examination and evaluation.

      The reader is allowed to see that the judge of this new tradition
      will recognize its quality without knowing from whence it has
      come or by whom. However, those who have obeyed the
      commands of Jesus DO know from whence it comes and by
      whom.

      The source of the language / symbols used as "signs" in the
      Fourth Gospel is the Pentateuch. (More specifically, the
      Septuagint version of the Pentateuch). The Fourth Gospel
      is a record of the theological transfer from the Mosaic
      tradition to the Jesus tradition of sacred language, images,
      names and symbols.

      > 2) When do we as readers know that a miracle has occurred?

      The readers know that a miracle has occurred when the narrator
      informs them that the water has become wine (vs. 9). That this
      transfer (transformation) is an improvement is affirmed in the
      response provided by the steward (vs. 10).

      > 3) Who, among the characters in the story, know/s that a
      > miracle has occurred?

      We are only told that the steward knew, and that the steward
      shared this knowledge with the bridegroom. This leads to a
      pair of questions: Who is the wine steward? Who is the bride-
      groom? In the Johannine community as now these questions
      no doubt prompted some wonderful discussions, not only
      because the possible answers are rich and varied, but because
      extensions of the questions themselves can be rich and varied.
      (Who is the judge of the tradition? Who is the bride?)

      > 4) At what point do we as readers suspect that something
      > more than purification is at issue here?

      When the mother of Jesus tells Jesus "They have no wine,"
      and Jesus replies, "Woman, what concern is that to you and
      to me? My hour is not yet come." Clearly there is a dis-
      agreement between Jesus and his mother as to the significance
      of the moment that is about to be described.

      I think it is significant that Jesus addresses his mother as
      "Woman." (Note that he does this again when hanging on the
      cross.) I have drawn a connection between these two
      passages and Genesis 3: 15, which would suggest that Mary
      KNOWS that Jesus is the offspring of Woman, who will
      strike the head of the serpent, while the serpent will strike
      against his heal. She is apparently ready to get on with the
      plot, while Jesus knows that some time will pass before the
      ancient divine prophesy is fulfilled. Still, at this moment in
      time, the fulfillment of that prophesy begins.

      > 5) What is the significance of these?

      This story serves to announce the beginning of the mission of
      Jesus, which is the transformation of a system of worship that
      has become dysfunctional into one that can maintain a renewed
      and living covenant with God.

      Yours in Christ's service,
      Tom Butler

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Bob MacDonald
      Thanks to all for the very interesting replies in this thread. Draw some out, and take it to the chief steward. I think we have drawn some out and I think I
      Message 2 of 28 , Jun 29 8:19 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks to all for the very interesting replies in this thread.

        "Draw some out, and take it to the chief steward."

        I think we have drawn some out and I think I have tasted here some very good
        wine. Frank has pointed out before some of the literary affinity that Philo
        has with John. The depth of the flavour of the Tanach (Psalm 42, Song, and
        Moses)

        This being a literature dialogue - I have a trouble with scholarship and the
        use of imagery. There seems to be a severe tension here. Without some care,
        we might extend an image too far. With too much care, we might miss the
        point entirely.

        How does one know how far to stretch a metaphor?

        Bob

        mailto::BobMacDonald@...
        + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

        Catch the foxes for us,
        the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
        for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
        http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
      • Bob Schacht
        ... Only as far as the author intended! :-) Bob Schacht
        Message 3 of 28 , Jun 29 8:29 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          At 08:19 PM 6/29/2002 -0700, Bob MacDonald wrote:
          >Thanks to all for the very interesting replies in this thread.
          >
          >"Draw some out, and take it to the chief steward."
          >
          >I think we have drawn some out and I think I have tasted here some very good
          >wine. Frank has pointed out before some of the literary affinity that Philo
          >has with John. The depth of the flavour of the Tanach (Psalm 42, Song, and
          >Moses)
          >
          >This being a literature dialogue - I have a trouble with scholarship and the
          >use of imagery. There seems to be a severe tension here. Without some care,
          >we might extend an image too far. With too much care, we might miss the
          >point entirely.
          >
          >How does one know how far to stretch a metaphor?

          Only as far as the author intended! :-)
          Bob Schacht
        • efholer
          James and others, I m partially through Jeff s dissertation, very stimulating. Perhaps now would be the time to see how many on the list are in the Seattle
          Message 4 of 28 , Jun 29 8:43 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            James and others,

            I'm partially through Jeff's dissertation, very stimulating. Perhaps now
            would be the time to see how many on the list are in the Seattle area and
            would be interested in meeting for coffee (or whatever your cup of tea might
            be) and conversation. Anyone who is interested please email me with
            suggestions for a time and place.

            And yes, I am familiar with Culpepper's work. P. Duke and M. Stibbe have
            also been helpful to me for the literary approach.

            > As far as John 2:1-11, from a literary perspective, have you considered
            > what the miracle "does?" Why is this miracle here? What purpose does
            > it serve? No one is healed. The only people who benefit from this
            > miracle do so unwittingly. From all appearances, no "sign" is done to
            > point to Jesus as God in the flesh, or to show His power in some
            > extraordinary way.

            Your point on the ignorant beneficiaries is something I have been thinking
            about. All of the sign-miracles benefit someone, whether a healing or a
            feeding, etc., but at the wedding in Cana the met need seems somewhat
            superficial in comparison. In considering the honor/shame aspect of the
            culture, however, perhaps the sign is just as compassionate as healing and
            feeding. I'm curious how this aspect, that of always meeting a need, works
            for the author to develop Jesus, the God-man - perhaps to show additional
            motive characterization beyond his coming to do the Father's will.

            Also, taking the healing of the blind man as an example - Jesus meets his
            need both physically and spiritually, the healing directly corresponding to
            the need(s) of the man. However, I'm missing the same connection in 2:1-11.
            The need is more wine, and the sign itself seems to point to
            replacement/transformation of purification rites. I'm curious about the
            correspondence between the physical obvious need and the deeper spiritual
            need...

            Are any of you familiar with Koester's work, 'Symbolism in the Fourth
            Gospel'? I think he has a great introduction on the role of the signs in the
            FG, but I was dissapointed in the commentary on the wedding pericope. I'll
            review my notes on the book and see if there something beneficial for our
            discussion.

            Your other comments were helpful. I'm curious about the connection/inclusio
            formed by the use of 'mother of Jesus' and 'wine' in both the wedding
            pericope and the crucifixion scene. Has anyone looked thoroughly at that?

            Cut and pasted from Jeff Staley:

            What I am saying, is that in my reading, this is perhaps the most
            rhetorically open
            miracle in the FG--perhaps in all of the NT--perhaps in the ancient world.
            It is purposefully difficult to pin down.

            Eric responds:

            No good author gives the prize away so soon =) The difficulty for me is
            having read the gospel so many times that I lose the feeling of suspense
            during a first reading. I agree, the diffululty of this scene is purposeful,
            incites/invites the reader to reread and move forward - indeed, I don't know
            anyone who is not driven to reread the whole once he or she has come to the
            end.

            Lastly, I was intrigued by Frank's use of Philo for understanding aspects of
            the FG. Given the contemporaneity of the two authors and obvious parallels
            between their work (some stronger than others), how does one make the jump
            from observing similarity in the texts to comparison for the sake of better
            understanding them both? This is more a question concerning hermeneutics
            than one concerning the FG, but I'd be grateful for any thoughts on this
            issue. Also, I'm not familiar with Philo's works - if there's anyone on the
            list who disagrees with Frank's use of Philo, I'd like to hear from them.

            To all - thanks for the great thoughts - I didn't expect my introduction to
            start a dialogue - so if my posts are infrequent, it's just that I'm more
            comfortable listening than 'speaking' - I'm still a child in the world of
            Johannine scholarship.

            Eric Fholer
            Northwest Theological Seminary
            Lynnwood Wa
          • Jack C Pilato
            Just a thought and perhaps in left field. But here goes. Christ came to fulfill the law to perfection. When his mother asked him to do something to help, he
            Message 5 of 28 , Jun 30 7:55 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Just a thought and perhaps in left field. But here goes.

              Christ came to fulfill the law to perfection. When his mother asked him
              to do something to help, he did what was required by the law to honor
              his mother. The further meaning then is that God hears all our requests
              no matter how mundane or trivial in the eyes of others. If the request
              is important to us it is important to Him and He will honor them if they
              are within his permissive will.

              Jack
            • Bob MacDonald
              It seems to me that the rhetorical analysis is a synonym for metaphor stretching - and Bob Schacht has pointed to the author as authority for the limits on
              Message 6 of 28 , Jun 30 10:28 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                It seems to me that the rhetorical analysis is a synonym for metaphor
                stretching - and Bob Schacht has pointed to the author as authority for the
                limits on stretching. (Lots of scope for stretching with John).

                Yesterday I was at a wedding and a little boy stretched his balloon too far
                with predictable results - a loud bang and tears of shock. But if he had
                not stretched it at all, authority of the material aside, he would not have
                learned as much about balloons.

                This is the second wedding in two days, the earlier one very traditional
                Cranmer prayer book service (with reference to Cana of course and Ephesians
                5 and so on), the second otherwise. The second conflicted with a funeral -
                my wife and I attended both, singing at one and eating at the other. How far
                can I stretch the wedding metaphor in John? What was really going on in
                Cana? Did the 16th century interpretation of the lawfulness of marriage have
                anything to do with it? Or was that a 16th century binding only. Each of
                these words requires a book.

                The issue of metaphor and usage is very dear to me and my understanding of
                the Bible. Many have stretched the metaphors in ways that clearly need
                correction; yet many have not stretched sufficiently and end up with an
                impoverished tradition. We are bound (religio) by the stretching we
                achieve. And as Jesus says - what we bind here is bound in heaven; what we
                loose here is loosed in heaven.

                Now to answer the rhetorical questions as Tom Butler did but with variation.

                1) Exactly when does the miracle occur?

                When we begin to hear the story not just as consecrating a wedding but as
                foreshadowing Jesus' death. It is good that the process of marrying and
                being given in marriage can continue (though some would forbid it) - but the
                real marriage is otherwise - all whom the Father gives me shall come to me.
                (6:37) This is our 'bridegroom of blood' (Exodus 4).

                2) When do we as readers know that a miracle has occurred?

                When the disciples believe. - These are the same disciples as the synoptic
                gospels! They have hard hearts and get it all wrong. So it is with us.
                John is not writing about those same quarrelsome disciples.

                3) Who, among the characters in the story, know/s that a miracle has
                occurred?

                The Father (the steward) and the Son (the bridegroom) know when we (the
                bride) are ready. The bride (Mary, us, the reader) know also. But the mass
                of the tradition does not.

                4) At what point do we as readers suspect that something more than
                purification is at issue here?

                When we are born. The morality of our traditions is not adequate to the
                variety of our conditions.

                5) What is the significance of these?

                The potential for life is here in abundance. The work of obedience to Jesus'
                commands still needs to be done. The wine of God's wrath needs to be drunk.
                The wine is the blood of the Eucharist by which our death is included in his
                death, so that his life might be known in our life.

                I think all these points could be supported by John's gospel - but whether
                the balloon will break - ... maybe I have only just begun to blow it up -
                tough material at first - hurts the cheeks.

                abundant blessings of stretched metaphor to you all

                Bob

                mailto::BobMacDonald@...
                + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

                Catch the foxes for us,
                the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
                for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
                http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
              • Elizabeth Danna
                The recent discussion of water in the wedding narrative has sparked some thoughts which I would like to share, if somewhat belatedly. Briefly, what is the
                Message 7 of 28 , Aug 18, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  The recent discussion of water in the wedding narrative has sparked
                  some thoughts which I would like to share, if somewhat belatedly.

                  Briefly, what is the connection between 2:1-11 and 7:37c-39? For
                  reasons which will become clear I had better offer a translation of the
                  latter passage: "If anyone is thirsty let them come to me, and let the
                  one who believes in me drink. As the Scripture says, 'Out of his
                  insides will flow rivers of living water.' He said this about the
                  Spirit, which those who believed in him would receive; for the Spirit
                  had not yet been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified."

                  There are several links between these two passages. The most
                  obvious is the water symbolism in each. In both passages Jesus is the
                  source of drink. At 2:7 the servants, at Jesus' instruction, fill the
                  water jars to the brim, which suggests abundance. And there is
                  something about the idea of "rivers of water flowing out" which also
                  suggests an abundance of what is supplied. Both passages also mention
                  believers in Jesus, and Jesus' glory (having read 2:21f, the implied
                  reader is able to guess that the glorification of Jesus mentioned at
                  7:39 refers to his death). I suggest that AUTOU at 7:38 refers to
                  Jesus, not the believer. Do these connections suggest that my
                  interpretation of 7:38 is correct?

                  Elizabeth Danna
                • kymhsm
                  Dear Elizabeth, It appears to me that in Jn 7:38 the subject, from whose heart/belly will flow rivers of living water, is the He who believes in me , not
                  Message 8 of 28 , Aug 18, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Elizabeth,

                    It appears to me that in Jn 7:38 the subject, from whose
                    heart/belly will flow rivers of living water, is the 'He who believes
                    in me', not Jesus. If you throw into the equation 4:14, '...the water
                    I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up
                    to eternal life' I think the meaning is clear.

                    This is not to deny that Jesus, with the Father, is the ultimate
                    source of the living water/Spirit.

                    Kym Smith
                    Adelide
                    South Australia
                    khs@...
                  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                    ... whose heart/belly will flow rivers of living water, is the He who believes in me , not Jesus. If you throw into the equation 4:14, ...the water I shall
                    Message 9 of 28 , Aug 18, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Kym Smith responded to Elizabeth:

                      >>It appears to me that in Jn 7:38 the subject, from
                      whose heart/belly will flow rivers of living water, is
                      the 'He who believes in me', not Jesus. If you throw
                      into the equation 4:14, '...the water I shall give him
                      will become in him a spring of water welling up to
                      eternal life' I think the meaning is clear.<<

                      I've often wondered if Jn. 7:38 is intentionally
                      ambiguous and thereby intended to refer to both Jesus
                      and the believer.

                      Has anyone suggested this or a category of ambiguity
                      in John? -- call it Johannine ambiguity, by analogy to
                      Johannine irony.

                      Jeffery Hodges

                      =====
                      Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                      Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                      447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                      Yangsandong 411
                      South Korea

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
                      http://www.hotjobs.com
                    • Bob Schacht
                      ... Is the Greek sufficiently precise to distinguish whether the He who... or Jesus is merely the *conduit,* or the *source*? Bob Robert M. Schacht
                      Message 10 of 28 , Aug 18, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 01:00 AM 8/19/2002 +0000, you wrote:
                        >Dear Elizabeth,
                        >
                        >It appears to me that in Jn 7:38 the subject, from whose
                        >heart/belly will flow rivers of living water, is the 'He who believes
                        >in me', not Jesus. If you throw into the equation 4:14, '...the water
                        >I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up
                        >to eternal life' I think the meaning is clear.
                        >
                        >This is not to deny that Jesus, with the Father, is the ultimate
                        >source of the living water/Spirit.

                        Is the Greek sufficiently precise to distinguish whether the "He who..." or
                        Jesus is merely the *conduit,* or the *source*?
                        Bob


                        Robert M. Schacht
                        Flagstaff, AZ
                        If I were a Rich Man...I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men,
                        several hours every day. That would be the sweetest thing of all.
                        Fiddler on the Roof

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • kymhsm
                        Dear Bob, My post was,
                        Message 11 of 28 , Aug 19, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Bob,

                          <<< Is the Greek sufficiently precise to distinguish whether the
                          "He who..." or Jesus is merely the *conduit,* or the *source*?>>>

                          My post was, admittedly, only from looking at the English text. I
                          am no Greek expert. For me it is out with the exicons etc. But
                          from the brief look I have had I think the Greek is quite
                          unambiguous. Someone else may correct me but that is my
                          reading of it. Though the source must and can only be Christ, it
                          is the believer out of whom the living waters flow.

                          Sincerely,

                          Kym Smith
                          Adelaide
                          South Australia
                          khs@...



                          --- In johannine_literature@y..., Bob Schacht <r_schacht@y...>
                          wrote:
                          > At 01:00 AM 8/19/2002 +0000, you wrote:
                          > >Dear Elizabeth,
                          > >
                          > >It appears to me that in Jn 7:38 the subject, from whose
                          > >heart/belly will flow rivers of living water, is the 'He who
                          believes
                          > >in me', not Jesus. If you throw into the equation 4:14, '...the
                          water
                          > >I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling
                          up
                          > >to eternal life' I think the meaning is clear.
                          > >
                          > >This is not to deny that Jesus, with the Father, is the ultimate
                          > >source of the living water/Spirit.
                          >
                          > Is the Greek sufficiently precise to distinguish whether the "He
                          who..." or
                          > Jesus is merely the *conduit,* or the *source*?
                          > Bob
                          >
                          >
                          > Robert M. Schacht
                          > Flagstaff, AZ
                          > If I were a Rich Man...I'd discuss the holy books with the
                          learned men,
                          > several hours every day. That would be the sweetest thing of
                          all.
                          > Fiddler on the Roof
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Mary Coloe
                          I read 7:37 with 7:39 which speaks about a later time when the Spirit will be given, compared with the now time. In this context in the present time Jesus is
                          Message 12 of 28 , Aug 20, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I read 7:37 with 7:39 which speaks about a later time when the Spirit will
                            be given, compared with the now time.
                            In this context in the present time Jesus is the source of living water as
                            he promised the Samaritan woman.
                            But there will be a time in the future when the historical Jesus will no
                            longer be present and in that future time he promises that
                            believers, because of the gift of the SPirit, will become sources of living
                            water. Behind both statementsI have argued lies the image of the Temple.
                            Jesus as the new Temple (2:21) is able to provide waters (Ez 49), but as he
                            promises when this temple of his body is destroyed he will raise a Temple
                            in its plcae (2:19).
                            This Temple is the Temple of the believing community, transformed through
                            the 'Hour' into the new house(hold) of God.

                            If you would like to see more detailed arguments and references to the
                            above lines of thought may I suggest my book, God Dwells with us - Temple
                            Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel - Loturgical Press, 2001.
                            In emails its just not possible to give the details of the exegesis.
                            Best wishes.

                            Dr. Mary Coloe pbvm
                            Australian Catholic University Limited
                            (ABN 15050 192660)

                            Locked Bag 4115
                            Fitzroy. VIC 3065 AUSTRALIA

                            ph (61 + 3) 99533137 Fax (61 + 3) 99533245
                            M.Coloe@...
                          • Elizabeth Danna
                            ... But even in this verse it is said, twice, that it is Jesus who gives the water. Elizabeth Danna
                            Message 13 of 28 , Aug 20, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              kymhsm wrote:

                              > If you throw into the equation 4:14, '...the water
                              > I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up
                              > to eternal life' I think the meaning is clear.

                              But even in this verse it is said, twice, that it is Jesus who gives the
                              water.

                              Elizabeth Danna
                            • fmmccoy
                              ... From: Elizabeth Danna To: Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
                              Message 14 of 28 , Aug 20, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: "Elizabeth Danna" <ejdanna@...>
                                To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 1:05 PM
                                Subject: Re: [John_Lit] water to wine


                                > The recent discussion of water in the wedding narrative has sparked
                                > some thoughts which I would like to share, if somewhat belatedly.
                                >
                                > Briefly, what is the connection between 2:1-11 and 7:37c-39? For
                                > reasons which will become clear I had better offer a translation of the
                                > latter passage: "If anyone is thirsty let them come to me, and let the
                                > one who believes in me drink. As the Scripture says, 'Out of his
                                > insides will flow rivers of living water.' He said this about the
                                > Spirit, which those who believed in him would receive; for the Spirit
                                > had not yet been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified."
                                >
                                > There are several links between these two passages. The most
                                > obvious is the water symbolism in each. In both passages Jesus is the
                                > source of drink. At 2:7 the servants, at Jesus' instruction, fill the
                                > water jars to the brim, which suggests abundance. And there is
                                > something about the idea of "rivers of water flowing out" which also
                                > suggests an abundance of what is supplied. Both passages also mention
                                > believers in Jesus, and Jesus' glory (having read 2:21f, the implied
                                > reader is able to guess that the glorification of Jesus mentioned at
                                > 7:39 refers to his death). I suggest that AUTOU at 7:38 refers to
                                > Jesus, not the believer. Do these connections suggest that my
                                > interpretation of 7:38 is correct?
                                >

                                Dear Elizabeth Danna:

                                That there are connections between 2:1-11 and 7:37c-39 is undeniable.

                                2:1-11, though, ISTM, gives us a mixed message as respects the question of
                                whether the AUTOU of 7:38 refers to Jesus or to a believer.

                                In 2:1-11, it is the servants who pour the water into the stone water jars
                                and who take this water become wine to the master of the feast.

                                To the extent that 2:1-11 and 7:37c-39 are connected, this suggests that the
                                AUTOU refers to a believer: for if a number of people are involved in the
                                giving of the water in 2:1-11, then this should be the case in 7:37c-39--and
                                there are many who are believers, but only one Jesus.

                                On the other hand, in 2:1-11, the bridegroom is praised for saving the good
                                wine till the end--which suggests that he alone is the source for the water
                                become wine.

                                To the extent that 7:37c-39 are connected, this suggests that the AUTOU
                                refers to a single individual, i.e., Jesus.

                                So, ISTM, on one level of 2:1-11, there are a number of people responsible
                                for the giving of the water become wine while, on another level of 2:1-11,
                                only the bridegroom is responsible for the giving of the water become wine.
                                The first level of meaning lends support to the idea that the AUTOU of 7:38
                                is a believer, while the second level of meaning lends support to the idea
                                that the AUTOU of 7:38 is Jesus.

                                If you could establish that (1) the second level of meaning to 2:1-11 is the
                                only true level of meaning, so that, in it, it is *only* the bridegroom who
                                is truly responsible for the water become wine and that (2) on this second
                                level of meaning the bridegroom is the Bridegroom of 3:29 (i.e., Jesus) and
                                that (3) on this second level of meaning the water become wine is the
                                Spirit, then, ISTM, you could use the connections betwen 2:1-11 and 7:37c-39
                                as supporting evidence for your suggestion that the AUTOU of 7:38 is Jesus.

                                Just a thought--hopefully a helpful one.

                                Frank McCoy
                                1809 N. English Apt. 17
                                Maplewood, MN 55109
                              • kymhsm
                                Dear Elizabeth, You wrote: I am sorry if I am missing
                                Message 15 of 28 , Aug 20, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dear Elizabeth,

                                  You wrote:

                                  <<<But even in this verse (i.e. Jn 4:14) it is said, twice, that it is
                                  Jesus who gives the water.>>>

                                  I am sorry if I am missing something, but I am not sure what the
                                  need for your comment is. I have responded twice, both posts
                                  are very short, and in both posts I have insisted that God/the
                                  Father/Jesus is/are the source of the living water.

                                  A number of OT references such as Jer 2:13; 17:13; Ezek 47
                                  also make it clear that God is the source of the living water.

                                  The issue is that we are not given the Spirit to keep to ourselves.
                                  Jesus' promise of the Spirit / living water in the passages under
                                  discussion indicates that the life he gives us is to be lived out.
                                  Through us that life, the life of the Spirit, is to flow out into the
                                  world in which we live. We are never the source of that life / Spirit,
                                  but we are called to be healthy springs issuing forth that which
                                  God, the 'fountain of living waters' (Jer 2:13), has given to us.

                                  Sincerely,

                                  Kym Smith
                                  Adelaide
                                  South Australia
                                  khs@...
                                • Elizabeth Danna
                                  ... You have, and I should have made a note of that in my own post - my apologies. My point is that while you stress one aspect of 4:14, I stress another.
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Aug 21, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    kymhsm wrote:

                                    > Dear Elizabeth,
                                    >
                                    > You wrote:
                                    >
                                    > <<<But even in this verse (i.e. Jn 4:14) it is said, twice, that it is
                                    > Jesus who gives the water.>>>
                                    >
                                    > I am sorry if I am missing something, but I am not sure what the
                                    > need for your comment is. I have responded twice, both posts
                                    > are very short, and in both posts I have insisted that God/the
                                    > Father/Jesus is/are the source of the living water.

                                    You have, and I should have made a note of that in my own post - my
                                    apologies. My point is that while you stress one aspect of 4:14, I stress
                                    another.

                                    Elizabeth Danna
                                  • Elizabeth Danna
                                    fmmccoy wrote: [interesting post snipped for space reasons] ... Helpful indeed - thank you, Frank. Elizabeth Danna
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Aug 21, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      fmmccoy wrote:
                                      [interesting post snipped for space reasons]

                                      > Just a thought--hopefully a helpful one.

                                      Helpful indeed - thank you, Frank.

                                      Elizabeth Danna
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.