[John_Lit] Re: John 1:29: now incl 5.14
>>* Hence for John, sin is not a debt that must be paid, but a condition ofis
>>blindness or bondage from which one must be freed, through the revelation
>i.e. passive - being freed? Yes, but ....
>I'm not so sure about this one. IMHO, while blindness is a feature of the
>gospel, the way *sin* is treated in e.g. 5.14 & 8.11 indicates that there
>an active component to the way humans are to deal with sin (MHKETIis
>hAMARTANE - do not sin anymore), as well as the active "taking way" which
>done by the AMNOS TOU QEOUTrue. However 1. What follows is hINA MH CEIRON SOI TI GENHTAI (or you may
>But how do you read 5:14?? I suspect that the sin referred to here is the
>lame man's refusal to claim responsibility for himself and his avoidance of
>conflict with the authorities over the Sabbbath violation. The lame man is
>the negative example of healing that does not issue in faith, set in
>contrast to the other Sabbath healing in 9, which issues in faith. Sure,
>there is an active component, but it has to do with receiving and acting on
>revelation. For the 4G, sin is, in the final analysis, resistance to the
>revelation of God's love and truth in Jesus.
suffer something worse - NEB) which seems to indicate that the man's sin had
something to do with his initial condition. I recognise that this may be
difficult to defend in the face of MHKETI hAMARTANE being present imp. which
I presume would make a good case for where you are going.
2. How does this tie in with your original statement about blindness? Also
there seems to be only a healing here, with no statement of revelation - but
I might have missed this.
Yes the issue of faith is vital - and in the light of this it is strange
that the evangelist does not make more of this.
>>* Of course, John has several allusions to the language of sacrifice, suchassume
>>as 11:50. And there is a strong motif in John of Jesus' death as an
>>expression of love for his own. Yet even here, the fourth gospel usually
>>highlights these elements as an example to be imitated, rather than a gift
>>of forgiveness to be received. Its primary function seems to be ethical,
>>rather than soteriological.
>Both. The ethical "doing" and the "being done to".
>I would value your response to this.
>I knew I would get nailed on this . . . . yes, it is both. Yet the order
>is reversed from what most of us naturally assume. Traditionally, we
>that the relationship between mutual love and salvation goes something likeGod
>this: Out of gratitude for the forgiveness of our sins, we offer ourselves
>to God and to one another in love, which creates a transformed community.
>The logic of the 4G seems to go instead like this: Having been loved by
>through self-revealing love that is faithful even to the point of death, weWell said. There is also something about having "life" in there too (20.31)
>too must love another with that same love, which has the capacity to
>continue to reveal the truth about God to others. This is why the 4G twice
>makes the astounding claim that believers are "sent" just as Jesus is
Nigel and Rebecca Hanscamp
Trinity Methodist Theological College
Auckland Consortium of Theological Education, New Zealand
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research interests to email@example.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
Contact list managers: e-mail email@example.com