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

Re: [John_Lit] Water and Blood in 1 John 5:6

Expand Messages
  • Matthew Estrada
    Hi Matthew, I believe I am hearing what you are saying, but I still do not see wine as referring to some higher kind of water. Perhaps this point will help
    Message 1 of 33 , Aug 16 4:33 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Matthew,

      I believe I am hearing what you are saying, but I still do not see "wine"
      as referring to some higher kind of water. Perhaps this point will help my
      point: I believe in Jn 1, Jn 2, Jn 3, and Jn 4 that John the author is creating
      stories to show the different dispensations of the Trinity. The Father (= the
      Law and the Prophets), the Son, and the Spirit, even though they are One and all
      share the same purpose, have acted at different times and in different ways in
      history. Once we see this, then we see the distinction between "water" (the
      Father) and that to which it is being compared/contrasted (the Spirit) which
      comes about through the Son's actions.

      Matt
       




      ________________________________
      From: Matthew Miller <logosmadeflesh@...>
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 12:23:09 AM
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Water and Blood in 1 John 5:6

       
      Matt

      I will admit that understanding John the Baptist as a representation of the "Law
      and the prophets" has a certain plausibility. Though I don't think simply
      replacing this phrase with John the Baptist's name in the prologue constitutes
      proof. I likewise admit that interpreting the water mentioned in John the
      Baptist's opening testimony (John 1), associated with the Stone waterpots (John
      2), used in description of Aenon (John 3), found in Jacob's well (John 4) and
      waiting to be stirred in Bethesda(John 5)could also be seen as symbol for the
      "law and the prophets." Though I find John's meaning of this water to be less
      specific. Each of these instances relates water to rituals of purification (e.g.
      baptism in chapter 1, stone waterpots in chapter 2, baptism again in chapter 3,
      traditional well and surprisingly another waterpot in chapter 4, and of course
      the stirred pool in chapter 5).


      The case I'm making, however, deals more importantly for our present discussion
      with the contrasting liquid that is connected with Jesus. In my last post I
      showed how through an allusion to the second day of Creation (Genesis 1:6-8),
      John has implicitly described the Holy Spirit as water "from above." By calling
      it "water which had become wine" in John 2, the author appears to also regard
      the wine in John 2 in some sense as water but water of a higher kind. Due to
      grammar and context, water and spirit in John 3:5 refer not to separate births
      but to one. A better translation of this phrase is "water which is the Spirit"
      and due to its status as a restatement of anothen in John 3:3, Jesus describes
      this birth as once again "from above." Thus the living water mentioned by Jesus
      in John 4 and which you correctly interpret as the Spirit is not the first time
      that water from above has been described. Thus in this specific instances while
      the Spirit is contrasted with water it is also at the same time being compared
      to water. The only difference between these two waters is that one is from above
      and the other is from below.

      The healing of the lame man in John 5 presents an interesting deviation from the
      pattern established in John 1-4. Though a lower water is discussed, the impotent
      water of the pool, a contrasting higher liquid isn't directly mentioned. But
      that doesn't mean the water does not appear. The author in fact once again
      contrasts and compares the stirred water of the pool with Jesus himself. The man
      looks to the stirred water to heal him but it is Christ in fact who performs the
      healing. Jesus it appears is the true source of healing water.

      Matthew Miller
      Canby Bible College
      logosmadeflesh@...







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Matthew Miller
      ... Essentially.
      Message 33 of 33 , Aug 20 2:37 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        > I believe that I understand your argument: You want to interpret the first thing
        > in the comparison (water) in a literal fashion- as normal earthly "water" that
        > can only do what it was meant to do in whatever context it is found within John,
        > and then you want to interpret the second thing being compared/contrasted as
        > referring to something "symbolic"- something "more" than what the first thing
        > can do that is being compared/contrasted. Thus your "earthly" and "heavenly"
        > descriptions. Am I correct?

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