Question regarding John 2:1-11
Hey guys,
In your studies, what is the conclusion regarding the Lord's first sign, when He manifested His glory to His disciples, what attribute of His was He showing?
Thank you,
Comments
-
Jesus has just revealed (manifested, showed) His authority and power by performing His first miracle. The Greek word (doxa) is accusative (direct object) and Jesus is nominative (subject). The Greek word carries the connotation of greatness, honor, and power (omnipotent). The Messianic age was thought to be a period when God would reveal His glory (Psalm 97:6; 102:16; Isa 60:1-2). It is in Jesus' humanity that God's glory is revealed.
0 -
Christian R. Proano M. said:
regarding the Lord's first sign
First sign? Okay, I'm lost again. You are asking about one of three events called "epiphany" (1) the magi (2) baptism of Jesus and (3) miracle at Cana. If you follow the meaning of "epiphany", the relevant attribute is divinity i.e. a theophany of sorts.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Recently heard a sermon in chapel on young earth creationism that used the event to showcase God's ability to instantly create something from (almost) nothing. Thus perhaps it show cases His role as Creator?
Just throwing this out there
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Christian R. Proano M. said:
regarding the Lord's first sign
First sign? Okay, I'm lost again. You are asking about one of three events called "epiphany" (1) the magi (2) baptism of Jesus and (3) miracle at Cana. If you follow the meaning of "epiphany", the relevant attribute is divinity i.e. a theophany of sorts.
Peace to you! And Joy!
Now, I'm lost! *smile* I'm from a liturgical church with heavy emphasis on church year, etc. Yes ... divinity ........ theophany, yes, that's Epiphany. But, why would a person with a non-liturgical background have to connect this event to Epiphany rather than the beginning of miracles?
Yours in Christ,
.......... Mel
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
why would a person with a non-liturgical background have to connect this event to Epiphany rather than the beginning of miracles?
Good question ... but how did they come to be put together liturgically? I'd say it by looking at the connections between the various events deemed important enough to be included in the story. I think that we are more impressed by the miracles than Christians were in the early centuries - miracles were not limited to Jesus Christ so I doubt that the miracle aspect was what first came to mind. However, I am quite willing to say I might be wrong.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Milford Charles Murray said:
why would a person with a non-liturgical background have to connect this event to Epiphany rather than the beginning of miracles?
Good question ... but how did they come to be put together liturgically? I'd say it by looking at the connections between the various events deemed important enough to be included in the story. I think that we are more impressed by the miracles than Christians were in the early centuries - miracles were not limited to Jesus Christ so I doubt that the miracle aspect was what first came to mind. However, I am quite willing to say I might be wrong.
You might even be right! *smile* I love the unfolding of the Church Year!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Hi Christian. I hope this reply is not too off-topic, or promote too many diverse views. But you asked a searching question about how this revealed God's glory, so here's something you may like to consider.
When the Word became flesh, God was tabernacled among us (1:14.) The tabernacle (and later the temple) was the place where God’s glory resided, where God could be known. In Jesus, God’s glory was tangible, perceivable.
In the rest of Chapter 1, John then assembles a series of testimonies about Jesus. The spotlight falls on John the Baptist (who was not the light), then Andrew and Peter (initially John’s disciples but moving towards Jesus), and on to Philip and Nathanael. The chapter concludes with Jesus own testimony that he is the “Son of Man” (the human-in-heaven seen in Daniel 7.) We are intended to see the glory of God resting on him, as he links heaven and earth.
John then takes us straight to the wedding feast where Jesus initially says his time has not yet come (2:4) but provides wine for the celebration anyway. Out of all the things God could have done — stopping wars, feeding the starving, preventing plagues, etc — providing some 800 bottles worth of wine for a Galilean wedding seems a rather odd way to “reveal his glory.” There’s got to be more going on here.
Perhaps there’s a hint when he says to his mother, “What does this have to do with me? My time has not yet come.” It was the responsibility of the groom (or his family) to provide for the guests. It would therefore be possible to understand Jesus’ words as, “Why do you ask me to sort this out? It’s not my wedding yet.” In may be informative to examine the other verses where John reports that Jesus time as not yet come (7:30; 8:20) or that his time has come (12:23; 17:1.) I think this makes more sense than to say that Jesus meant, “It’s not time for me to do a miracle for you” but then he does one anyway.
So, if Jesus does have his own wedding in mind in Jn 2:4, it throws a completely different light on how this miracle hints at his glory. No longer is he performing a rather odd stunt for an unknown groom: he is joining in a celebration that hints at where his mission is going, the ultimate glory he will have as he rescues his bride and prepares for her. The picture of salvation as God rescuing his bride is an Exodus picture that’s explicitly spelled out in the prophets (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, etc.) and understood this way by the early church (e.g. Eph 5:31f; Rev 19:7.)
At this stage, the bride is still hidden within him, and is not revealed until after his death. That’s still consistent with the way John is writing his gospel: his very next account is the cleansing of the temple, and John’s emphasis is that though the Jews thought of the temple as the place where God resides, God was actually resident in Jesus’ body (2:21), and the disciples put this together and “believed” after he was raised from the dead (2:22.)
At the marco level, John is telling a creation story (c.f. 1:1), and Jesus is both the Son of God (the Word incarnate) and also Man as he was originally destined to be, culminating with the resurrection: the Man in the garden at the start of the new creation week (20:1, 19.)0 -
Allen Browne said:
Hi Christian. I hope this reply is not too off-topic, or promote too many diverse views. But you asked a searching question about how this revealed God's glory, so here's something you may like to consider.
When the Word became flesh, God was tabernacled among us (1:14.) The tabernacle (and later the temple) was the place where God’s glory resided, where God could be known. In Jesus, God’s glory was tangible, perceivable.
In the rest of Chapter 1, John then assembles a series of testimonies about Jesus. The spotlight falls on John the Baptist (who was not the light), then Andrew and Peter (initially John’s disciples but moving towards Jesus), and on to Philip and Nathanael. The chapter concludes with Jesus own testimony that he is the “Son of Man” (the human-in-heaven seen in Daniel 7.) We are intended to see the glory of God resting on him, as he links heaven and earth.
John then takes us straight to the wedding feast where Jesus initially says his time has not yet come (2:4) but provides wine for the celebration anyway. Out of all the things God could have done — stopping wars, feeding the starving, preventing plagues, etc — providing some 800 bottles worth of wine for a Galilean wedding seems a rather odd way to “reveal his glory.” There’s got to be more going on here.
Perhaps there’s a hint when he says to his mother, “What does this have to do with me? My time has not yet come.” It was the responsibility of the groom (or his family) to provide for the guests. It would therefore be possible to understand Jesus’ words as, “Why do you ask me to sort this out? It’s not my wedding yet.” In may be informative to examine the other verses where John reports that Jesus time as not yet come (7:30; 8:20) or that his time has come (12:23; 17:1.) I think this makes more sense than to say that Jesus meant, “It’s not time for me to do a miracle for you” but then he does one anyway.
So, if Jesus does have his own wedding in mind in Jn 2:4, it throws a completely different light on how this miracle hints at his glory. No longer is he performing a rather odd stunt for an unknown groom: he is joining in a celebration that hints at where his mission is going, the ultimate glory he will have as he rescues his bride and prepares for her. The picture of salvation as God rescuing his bride is an Exodus picture that’s explicitly spelled out in the prophets (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, etc.) and understood this way by the early church (e.g. Eph 5:31f; Rev 19:7.)
At this stage, the bride is still hidden within him, and is not revealed until after his death. That’s still consistent with the way John is writing his gospel: his very next account is the cleansing of the temple, and John’s emphasis is that though the Jews thought of the temple as the place where God resides, God was actually resident in Jesus’ body (2:21), and the disciples put this together and “believed” after he was raised from the dead (2:22.)
At the marco level, John is telling a creation story (c.f. 1:1), and Jesus is both the Son of God (the Word incarnate) and also Man as he was originally destined to be, culminating with the resurrection: the Man in the garden at the start of the new creation week (20:1, 19.)Alan! *smile* The Peace of the Lord be with you! Joy to you!
How beautiful your post. Will have to study it quite a bit, but just great! I think I'll be using the notes function! *smile*
Thank you very much!
Yours in Christ,
...... Mel
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Hi, Christian
As Allen said, without meaning to stir up a hornet's nest, I would like to reply to a sincere question:
The Marriage Feast of Cana
When one reads Mark 8:14-21, it becomes apparent that Christ’s miracles have meaning, and that meaning can only be found allegorically. Both objects and numbers can have significance. This is how I interpret John 2:1-11:
1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. One of the key elements of this story is wine, which represents redemption. “They” refers to Galilee, and they have no wine (redemption) because Galilee is a part of the kingdom of Israel which God divorced (Jer 3:8). Thus they are no longer in covenant with God, e.g. a part of God’s people.
4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? No, Jesus is not being rude to Mary. This element serves to separate Christ’s miracle from Mary’s request – think Luke 2:49 “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”
4 … mine hour is not yet come. John defines Christ’s hour in 17:1: 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. Obedience to God’s commandments is tied to God’s favor throughout Scripture (Exd 20:6, Lev 26:3-4, Deu 5:10, Neh 1:9, Pro 4:4, etc.). John said (15:10): If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. There is much symbolism here… First, the number six denotes “man” or “man destitute of God”. Man was created on the sixth day. (see Bullinger, Number in Scripture). Second, God is portrayed as the Potter in Scripture, pots (man) as His creation (Isa 64:8, Rom 9:21). Third, the role of the pots (purification/sanctification) sets up the following element.
7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. Water is associated with the Holy Spirit throughout Scripture, from creation (Gen 1:2) through baptism (Jhn 3:5). Thus, this symbolizes the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which performs the role of sanctification (as above).
8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. Again, there is much symbolism here. The ruler of the feast would be the Father, and Christ, as depicted throughout the New Testament, the Bridegroom. The comparison of the old and new wine represents the superiority of the new redemption through Christ versus the old redemption by the Mosaic covenant. See also Matt 9:17, Mar 2:22, Luke 5:37-39. I believe the “now” refers to the marriage feast of Cana, which is symbolic of the marriage feast of the Lamb in Rev 19:9. Note the similarity of Cana with Canaan (the Promised Land)?
11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him. Thus, Christ manifested His glory by laying out His new redemptive plan (those who love God and keep His commandments, filled with the Holy Spirit, will be redeemed by the blood of Christ upon His return) through His first miracle, and His disciples believed on him.
I hope that this has been helpful...
Michael
0 -
Hi brothers and sisters,
Wow such great answers from you all, one more interesting than the other, thank you so much for such a fast responses, hope more people keep talking about this in this post, I'll check my conclusions and post it too, that way we all participate.
God Bless you all!
0 -
Michael said:
Hi, Christian
As Allen said, without meaning to stir up a hornet's nest, I would like to reply to a sincere question:
The Marriage Feast of Cana
When one reads Mark 8:14-21, it becomes apparent that Christ’s miracles have meaning, and that meaning can only be found allegorically. Both objects and numbers can have significance. This is how I interpret John 2:1-11:
.................. ...................... ............ ...........
I hope that this has been helpful...
Michael
Peace and Joy to you, Dear Brother! *smile*
You wrote: "and that meaning can only be found allegorically"
Here, Michael, is where I begin to disagree with you. It's good to think things through, but IMHO - to draw such conclusions - it's not being true to Scripture - it's even 'adding' to Scripture (which is verboten). What you share is quite interesting, but again IMHO you are "stretching things." I thought Alan was "right on" with his observations which moved me enough that I will be doing a deep study on his comments. (like the Bereans, I hope .... *smile* )
Yours in Christ,
......... Mel
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Peace and Joy to you, Dear Brother! *smile*
You wrote: "and that meaning can only be found allegorically"
Here, Michael, is where I begin to disagree with you. It's good to think things through, but IMHO - to draw such conclusions - it's not being true to Scripture - it's even 'adding' to Scripture (which is verboten). What you share is quite interesting, but again IMHO you are "stretching things." I thought Alan was "right on" with his observations which moved me enough that I will be doing a deep study on his comments. (like the Bereans, I hope .... *smile* )
Yours in Christ,
......... Mel
Hello, Brother Mel!
First, thanks for the warm greetings and the smiles... I genuinely appreciate an irenic discussion of scripture with others that love the Word as much as I do. Please take my questions with the same warmth and sincerity...
Before I respond to your post, I would like understand the reason for your disagreement... Do you object to the content (e.g. you believe I have stated something that is unorthodox) or to the methodology (allegory) or to both? At times it seemed the one, then the other. Instead of adding to scripture, my intent was to explain scripture with scripture, much as my old friend Matthew Henry...
I am still relatively new to the study of scripture, so I am by no means above correction. Nevertheless, to be corrected I must understand the basis for your disagreement. Could you please explain?
Thank you, Mel
Michael
0 -
Peace!
Looking forward to replying ... But, today is booked in until late, late, late ... will respond tomorrow or soonest! *smile*
Yours in Christ,
Mel
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Allen Browne said:
John is telling a creation story (c.f. 1:1), and Jesus is both the Son of God (the Word incarnate) and also Man as he was originally destined to be, culminating with the resurrection: the Man in the garden at the start of the new creation week (20:1, 19.)
Allen Browne said:if Jesus does have his own wedding in mind in Jn 2:4, it throws a completely different light on how this miracle hints at his glory
Interesting observations well worth making your comments a note. But I swear that I've never heard "tabernacle" used as a verb before. This make give my linguistically-trained brain overload. [:S]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Michael said:
that meaning can only be found allegorically. Both objects and numbers can have significance.
Much of your interpretation could also be labelled "intertextuality" which is currently more "politically correct." Again, I find your response worth saving as a note. Thank you.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
One of my favorite commentary sites is by Chris Haslam, Anglican
Diocese of Montreal at http://montreal.anglican.org/comments/archive/cpr02l.shtml:
Note that this mainstream commentator leans towards the symbolic/allegorical side for the Gospel According to John.John 2:1-11
John uses symbolism extensively in his telling of the good news. He says in
20:31:
“these [signs] are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus
is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have
life in his name”. Our reading looks forward to Jesus’ resurrection and
glorification (“on the third day”, v. 1),
the Last Supper, and the messianic banquet expected at the end of time,
when Christ comes again. The “mother of Jesus” appears for the first
time in the gospel; the last time is when she stands at the foot of the
cross. On both occasions, Jesus addresses her as “Woman” (v. 4), a
title roughly equivalent to Madam today: Jesus is guided in his ministry only by the Father’s will (“my hour ...”). Mary’s words in v.
5 suggest that she believes in Jesus,
as she does at the foot of the cross. Jesus has the water jars filled completely (“to the brim”, v.
7) with water. In Judaism, the
“rites of purification” (v.
6,
washing before and after eating) were ceremonial, but in totally
transforming water into wine, Jesus replaces the old (Judaism) with the
new; wine is a symbol originating in Christ. In Isaiah, marriage
between God and his people symbolizes the fulfilment of God’s purpose
for his people; here the abundance of good wine symbolizes the joy
accompanying the fulfilment (as foretold in several prophetic books).
John presents “signs” (v. 11) as aids to people in reaching his
objectives (20:31). Jesus shows that
God is present in his very nature (“his glory”).© 1996-2003 Chris Haslam
John 2:1-11
In 1:50, Jesus has told Nathanael: “You will see greater things than these”. This prophecy is
beginning to be fulfilled. [BlkJn]Verse 1: “third day”: This is the third day after the calling of Philip (the apostle) and Nathanael (see
1:43-45), counting that day as the first. John tells us of (or, of most of) the seven days of the new creation story.Verse 1: “wedding”: A symbol in the prophetic tradition for the time of fulfilment of God’s
purpose for his people: see Isaiah 54:4; 62:4-5. For a wedding feast as a parable of the messianic kingdom, see also
Matthew 22:2-14 (the Parable of the Wedding Feast); 25:1ff (the Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids) ; Mark 2:19;
Revelation 19:9 (“the marriage supper of the Lamb”). [BlkJn]Verse 1: “Cana”: A small village 15 km northwest of Nazareth. John distinguishes it from Cana in
Phoenicia.Verse 1: “the mother of Jesus”: John mentions her several times (see 2:12; 6:42; 19:25-28) but never
by name. BlkJn says that “mother of Jesus” is a more honourable appellation than Mary.Verse 2: How many of Jesus’ disciples were present? So far in the book, five have been mentioned but there
are twelve in 6:67.Verse 3: Mary’s concern with the shortage of wine suggests that the wedding was that of a near relative.
Verse 4: “what concern ...”: For this Hebrew idiom, see Judges 11:12; 1 Kings 17:18; 2 Kings 3:13;
Hosea 14:8. Persistence after rejection is also found in the other miracle at Cana: see 4:47-50. [NJBC]Verse 4: “Woman”: Jesus also addresses Mary this way in 19:26 but a son did not normally address
his mother thus. However, notes BlkJn, the same form of address is used to the Samaritan woman (in 4:21) and
to Mary Magdalene (see 20:13, 15), so it must be compatible with affection and respect.Verse 4: “My hour ...”: Jesus will do nothing without his Father’s will. In 5:19, Jesus says
“the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does,
the Son does likewise”. The miracle is not done for Jesus’ own convenience but to save his host
embarrassment. This motive may not have seemed so trivial as it appears to us. Here Mary assumes that Jesus will
do something to meet the situation (v. 5). [BlkJn] See also 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1. [NOAB]Comments: “in totally transforming water into wine, Jesus replaces the old (Judaism) with the new”:
BlkJn disagrees with this allegorical interpretation. “six” (v. 6) is not a number that has symbolic
significance. But he does consider the event to be a miracle.Verse 6: “stone”: Stone was used because it was believed that it could not contract ritual uncleanness.
That the jars were empty may be symbolic: an indication of the inadequacy of the Jewish rites of purification.Verse 8: “chief steward”: At Gentile banquets, to be “steward” was a mark of honour
for a guest. Perhaps Jewish weddings followed a similar custom. Today we might call this person a headwaiter
or toastmaster. However, BlkJn thinks that a Gentile custom is unlikely to have been followed at a Jewish village
wedding. To him, the “chief steward” is probably an old family slave, one accorded the freedom of
speech possessed by an old retainer.Verses 9-11: These verses underscore the reality of the event.
Verse 10: Comments: “the abundance of good wine symbolizes the joy accompanying the fulfilment”:
For the association of plentiful good wine with the eschaton, see Amos 9:11-14; Hosea 14:4-7; Jeremiah 31:12-14.
See also Hosea 2:21-22; Joel 3:18; Isaiah 29:17; 1 Enoch 10:19; 2 Baruch 29:5. [NJBC]Verse 11: “the first of his signs”: The second can be found in 4:46-54: “Then he came again
to Cana in Galilee where he had changed the water into wine. Now there was a royal official whose son lay ill in
Capernaum ...” [NOAB]© 1996-2003 Chris Haslam
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Here's another interpretation from the historical redemptive perspective: http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV11N1A1.asp
The miracle of the water turned into wine fulfills O.T. anticipatory prophecies about the messianic age, which is described in terms of a feast with wine (Jer. 31:12). John wants us to know that in Jesus, the messianic age has dawned and we get a taste of its goodness (wine). And yet, the present age itself anticipates the ultimate and final fulfillment at the marriage supper of the lamb (Rev. 19:7, 7, 9).
Bill
0 -
Nice resource - I'll add it to my journal links.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
WilliamAAnderson said:
Here's another interpretation from the historical redemptive perspective: http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV11N1A1.asp
The miracle of the water turned into wine fulfills O.T. anticipatory prophecies about the messianic age, which is described in terms of a feast with wine (Jer. 31:12). John wants us to know that in Jesus, the messianic age has dawned and we get a taste of its goodness (wine). And yet, the present age itself anticipates the ultimate and final fulfillment at the marriage supper of the lamb (Rev. 19:7, 7, 9).
Bill
Peace in the Lord to you, Bill! And Joy! *smile*
You have a habit, Bill, of sharing very, very good items! Thank you. What an excellent document. More great things there, "more than I can shake a stick at"!
Am grateful!
Yours in Christ,
....... Mel
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Thanks MJ and Bill for the links to these commentaries... It is nice to know that others have interpreted these verses within the same framework.
And thanks MJ for increasing my vocabulary! However, political correctness has never been my strong suit (although I am working on it). [*-)]
To be honest, I am a bit frustrated by the popular rejection of allegory as an interpretive method. If we define allegory as "a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another," then it seems impossible to me to read scripture and not employ allegory. I suppose a pantheist might have not problem with literally portraying Christ as a vine or a lamb, but I have yet to meet a professing pantheist... The argument of literalism vs. allegory is no different than the old argument between Aristotle and Plato. And just as true science has never occured without the influence of both philosophies, I believe that both are critical to constructing true theology. Neither one nor the other will suffice alone... What we seem to lack is criteria to evaluate the validity of an allegorical interpretation, which would probably result in an indication of certainty on a continuum rather than a dichotomous valid/not valid appraisal.
I am seriously considering writing a commentary that would employ both the grammatical/historical and the allegorical methodologies, but fear that most would dismiss it immediately due to the allegorical element without even giving it a fair consideration.
0 -
Michael,
I hope you don't mind me chiming in but I think I can summarize the reason for allegory getting the bad rap that it has.
You can allegorize ANYTHING. Even what i just wrote....but the question always is; where do we stop?
I believe that trying to get to the "authorial intent" just precludes this approach.
Is there allegory in the bible? Sure; just like there are all kinds of other literary devices to make certain points, but allegorizing can easily be over done.
I think that grammar, syntax, historical context, and overall context carry a lot more weight than any allegorical suppositions.
just my 02cents.
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
[:^)]Now THIS is going to be an interesting discussion. By the time the RSS feed got this to me the discussion was already on the 2nd page. The first page carried some really good views that I intend to look at a bit more closely, but almost got exciting.
What I mean by "almost got exciting" is that I was hoping to see the ancient controversy between the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools approached again with you guys. (Yet "...both hermeneutical camps agreed that the Hebrew Scriptures ought to be approached typologically" [David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992], 3:435) simply to make it easier to point toward Jesus Christ.)
Don't hold back now!
running Logos Bible Software 6.0a: Collector's Edition on HP e9220y (AMD Phenom II X4 2.60GHz 8.00GB 64-bit Win 7 Pro SP1) & iPad (mini) apps.
0 -
Michael,
Your welcome for the link. I wouldn't characterize the historical-redemptive method as allegory, but rather the consistent application of the hermeneutic which takes seriously both the immediate and broader contexts of Scripture and emphasizes that all of Scripture points forward to Christ and is fulfilled in Him.
Another example might help. Take Psalm 23. In this psalm, David writes as the Shepherd King of Israel (2 Sam. 5:1-5) and as a sheep himself. This is key -- David is Shepherd and sheep. Most interpretations of this passage focus on the latter and apply the psalm solely to our experience with God as sheep. But this ignores this important context and misses the richness of the developing historical redemptive drama played out in the rest of Scripture. Later in the prophets, Jeremiah and Ezekiel speak against the false shepherds of Israel and promise that one day God himself will come and seek out his sheep (Jer. 23:3; Ezek. 34:11) and set up David as the shepherd of God's flock (Ezek. 34:23). Fast forward to John 1:1, 14, where the Word, who is God, became flesh. That is, God himself came down to be with us. Then, in John 10 Jesus says he is the true shepherd, an unmistakable allusion back to these OT shepherd-sheep passages. So, Jesus, who himself is God, is the true shepherd. In Jesus, God himself came to seek and save his flock in fulfillment of Jeremiah 23 and Ezekiel 34. Like David before him, John tells us that Jesus, the Shepherd King, is himself a sheep (Jn. 1:29). Bringing this all together, Psalm 23 points forward to Jesus coming as the true Davidic Shepherd King who came to rescue his sheep. How did he do this? The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (Jn. 10:11). The Good Shepherd became a sheep so that through his death we might be brought safely home.
To complete the picture, Psalm 23 points beyond John 10 to the day when we will finally be brought to our eternal home, where the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be our Shepherd forever (Rev. 7:17).
Bill
0 -
I have enjoyed reading the thoughts that each of you have brought to this discussion and was compelled to add my own.
As I think about this passage my thoughts are drawn to the fact that John included specific stories to guide the reader to the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah(John 20:30-31). So when this question is raised I, with Christian, have to ask what is it that I should be learning about God from this story. We know that this story is a sign (v11) and that the Jews were seeking a sign (v18). In fact the Old Testament is full of signs from God, some large and some personal.
What I find interesting is that the religious leaders were looking for that big showy flash and instead, as with Christ’s birth God gave them something small, quiet, and invisible to the world at large. Had not John written about this miracle, it would have been lost among the insignificant and unimportant.
What I learn and what I believe that John is teaching is that God is personal. Though we know it happened, there is no way of laying a finger on the exact moment the miracle took place. We are privileged to be with John and the few who witnessed the event. It is important to note that they are all in the place of servants (v5) and that only those who were in the place of service knew of the need(v3).
There are many aspects of the story that merit consideration for us as application. The need for real Joy in marriage, the way that Jesus turned old human instruments of ceremonial cleansing into containers of God’s joyous blessing; but for me at least, and I believe John, the message is that God is intrusting to, we servants, the task of carrying a miracle to those who do not even know they need one.
As with this blog, we few have come to enjoy that most of the world will never see, so it was with this miracle and the work of God in the hearts of the few that day. Not loud and showy but humble, personal and effective.
Thanks again
Dan
0 -
Robert Pavich said:
Even what i just wrote....but the question always is; where do we stop?
That is a good question - one that applies to nearly every technique. Think of Nameless, Blameless, and Without Shame: Two Cannibal Mothers Before a King (Interfaces series) by Gina Hens-Piazza as an example of extreme analysis that works well. However, I am a fan of allegorical reading as one element of scriptural analysis. On the Antioch/Alexandria rift The Power of the Word: In the Worshiping Church by John Breck has a great introduction.
The answer to "where do we stop" however, is manageable by criteria such as "rooted in the plain meaning," "compatibility with Tradition," etc. There have been times and people where it has been taken to the extreme, but those are the exception. In some ways, intertextuality and post-modern interpretation slip allegory back into analysis under a more acceptable "modern" guise.
Robert Pavich said:I think that grammar, syntax, historical context, and overall context carry a lot more weight than any allegorical suppositions.
I would agree that the tools to get to the plain meaning carry more weight than any suppositions - note I left out the qualifying "allegorical". However, here you imply a premise that I can't agree with - that scripture study is document (text) study. It can be that and appropriately needs to be that under certain circumstances. But it is also to be the Word of God spoken here and now for the first (eternal) time - here the emphasis is on the spoken word, listening, conversation. In this context, I like to say that God may use scripture as a springboard to speak to me what I need to hear. This is the content for which I see allegory, intertextuality, deconstruction etc. as the most useful. Again, Tradition, scriptural unity, plain meaning, etc. provides some boundaries but they are very wide. Gemetria takes this to an extreme. Note: I find gemetria interesting to muse over but "too far out there" to believe or to use as basis for belief.
Robert Pavich said:I believe that trying to get to the "authorial intent" just precludes this approach.
I have concerns with the contemporary emphasis on "authorial intent.":
- First, I don't see sufficient consideration taken of the interpretative framework at the time the text was written i.e. how the author expected his text to be interpreted.
- Second, I have doubts that the interpretative framework used in the New Testament meets our modern criteria for "authorial intent."
- Third, I have doubts that all human writers of scripture were aware that they were writing scripture and, therefore, that their intent was to be interpreted as scripture. God's intent ... well I won't start that argument
- Fourth, because I belief that Scripture is the living word of God not just a bound text, I find the image of listening with all my interpretative resources at hand (dictionaries, commentaries, diagrams, etc.) delightfully ludicrous. Picture meeting God at Starbucks and putting all the interpretative tools between oneself and actually listening [:D]
I just had a politically dangerous thought that I may retract on further reflection. Could it be that our trying to tame the meaning of Scripture so that it can be determined by the human intellect following interpretative rules is our way of taming God - keeping Him in safe boundaries?
I might post some resources on the meaning of Scripture later today - depends on the state of the documents and my time.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I might post some resources on the meaning of Scripture later today
I posted some that were stacked up in my bookmarks. As usual, I'm interested in comments and additions. This combined with the Logos topic data points out the need for Logos to consider some form of web page archiving to assure quality of links.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Quick off the top of my head, I would put Jn 2 in with the _many_ feeding miracles picking up the images from many of the prophets of the great messianic feast. One of the key signs of the messianic age is feeding the people, and so it is foreshadowing of the rest of the story. (Jn 4 and 6 come to mind)
Jesus is already named as the Lamb of God by John the Baptist back in 1.29, and Jesus's mission is always connected with his end, and so his hour (when he is lifted up) has not come. Later in chapter 2, Jesus speaks of "destroying the temple", which we are to understand has his death, but his saying is not understood. A basic part of John's story telling is to kinda say it in circles, circling around Jesus as the messiah of God, transforming everything as we understand things in the light of Jesus's life, death, and victory over death. Of course, since not all the story has been told yet, this does not make sense to the people in the story yet, and we are shown a pile of people mis-understanding Jesus.
Like the Synoptics, Jesus's kingdom is a party, but it is a weird party. It is not of this world (as Jesus tells Pilate later) but, it comes to this world in the incarnation in Jesus (Jn 1) as a gift.
I haven't really spent much time studying this passage, but perhaps this will give you some clues as to where to look.
Ken McGuire
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Ah - hermenutical theory. People much smarter than I have discussed this, and sometimes actually shed light on it. Historically I have not really settled out all my internal tensions. As a Lutheran, I have inherited a skeptical view of things allegorical, and yet, as a Lutheran, I also want to attach myself much more to the Alexandrian Christological readings which developed into allegorical readings much more than Antioch.
And so, a few years ago I returned to some of the source - Origen, and I found that for him Allegory was a tool to find Jesus in the Scriptures. It is a dangerous tool, yes. Do I think Origen read a bit too much into the Exodus stories as the story of our souls wandering in the desert? Yes, when he seemed to turn it into a spiritual growth road map. On the other hand, it is comforting to see Christ, as the organizing structure of the world (the Logos) guiding us throughout our lives, even when we are lost in the desert.
On the other hand, I have read and heard too many allegorical or psychological readings that seem to use this tool to ignore Christ, and instead use it for parenting or business tips from scripture... In Lutheran speak, we confuse Law and Gospel by ignoring Christ and because we fail to use the merits of Christ, we speak as if our theology would be ok with leaving him in the tomb.
Really, we churches of the Reformation have at least as much of a problem with doing this as does Rome.
Ken McGuire
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Kenneth McGuire said:
use this tool to ignore Christ, and instead use it for parenting or business tips from scripture
I couldn't agree more. One thing I like about Sofia Cavalletti's approach is her limiting typology to Christological, ecclesial and sacramental pairings. I must also admit to having read "inductive" Bible analysis that goes as far afield as allegorical readings.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
