www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Gospel Of John

I will reply as respectfully as I can:

First of all, I will not respond anymore to a "Sola Scriptura" methodology, or mentality, or approach, whatever word you choose; I did at one time (it was the Pentecostal fundamentalists who gave me the gospel of redemption which saved me from a 20-year bout with drugs and alcohol, no catholics at the time seemed to be interested enough or knew better enough to share their faith at a time I desperately needed it, I mention this just in passing).

Second, if you are trying to say that the church intellectually and theologically picked the books of the new testament I will have to respectfully disagree. My Bible has Jesus saying to the apostles that the "Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth"; so that is how the church fathers decided upon the NT books.

Now if the Holy Spirit wishes to intellectualize and theologize, He may go ahead..it is no business of mine...I will not tell the Third Person of the Trinity how to carry on His ministry


Peace,
Walter

"To answer Joe's question, just use your basic hermeneutic paradigms within a contextual perspective predicated on interpretive notions whose norms are grounded in historicity."

Alex,

Then you answer the question. Walter already discounted the Church as having authority to pick what it considered to be Scripture. He, of course, refuses to discuss the aforesaid "Sola Scriptura" based on his bad experience of not having any caring Catholic around twenty years ago when he needed them. I can understand how this might have disturbed him, but it still doesn't answer the question.

Before you blow off this seemingly pithy question, I should note that it was the stumbling-block question that many former Evangelicals had to answer truthfully before they found Catholicism or Orthodoxy. It all has to do with authority. Walter deflects this issue onto the Holy Spirit alone, but fails to note how Jesus did give authority to his Apostles. Another question while we are at it: Is Theosis possible only with the Holy Spirit or is the participation of Man needed (aka, 'synergy')? But that can be for another thread.

Walter also considers the participation of the Evangelists as like passive robots who allowed the Holy Spirit to do the real work. Sounds like a good answer, but he will then have to answer the skeptic's charge that the same Evangelists wrote too many contradictions in their Gospel accounts, which prove that the Gospels were just made up out of thin air. Will the Holy Spirit also be responsible for that?

Once again: Using the Principle of Sola Scriptura, tell me how it was decided which books were to be considered scripture and included in the New Testament? Where in the NT text is a list of NT books? (The Table of Contents came centuries later and this is not the list I am talking about). No need to apply any hermeneutic paradigms within a contextual perspective predicated on interpretive notions whose norms are grounded in historicity.

Sorry for getting off the topic of John's Gospel. But since this thread is about John's Gospel, maybe you and/or Walter can explain why he disagrees with Matthew, Mark and Luke as to what day the Last Supper was shared?

Joe

[ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

First of all, it is obvious that John does not record all the details of the meal in and of itself. But the evangelist has provided us with certain words and actions that provides more insight to Jesus' behavior and nature...which is the thematic element of his gospel.

As Joe has pointed out, the chronology of John's is different than that of the Synoptics. John has the Last Supper occuring before the Passover, while the other 3 evangelists depict the Last Supper as the Passover meal.

One explanation could be that the Pharisees and other groups in Israel celebrated Passover a day earlier than, let us say, the Sadducees. Another explanation that theologians have used is there was 2 different calendars that were in use at this time. Support for this theory supposedly has been provided by the Dead Sea Scrolls. ( I am not that familiar enough with the Scrolls to actually quote verses supporting this, sorry.)

Other possibilities:
One of the calendars was figured by the solar year, the other calendar by the lunar year; or, there was a difference in days as recognized by the temple and that by the Qumran Essenes; or, Jesus, having been chastised by the temple priesthood and considered as a radical apostate, might have been forced to celebrate the feast at a different time thant the others.

Whatever answer we may opt for, I guess there can be no other conclusion than Jesus DID celebrate the meal with the apostles on Thursday evening, that the trial before Pilate and His crucifixion occurred on Friday...and later on Friday afternoon the Lord's Body was placed in the tomb.

St. John, however, focuses our attention on Jesus' washing the feet of the apostles. He also informs us that Jesus was certainly aware of the plot against Him (13:3).

This has been debated for some time among theologians whether John's meal was the actual meal or not; yet is appears that is occurs on the same night as the arrest and betrayal.

And as far as Joe stating that I made the evangelists out to be passive robots because they were led by the Holy Spirit...I give you Jesus' words:

"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of Truth." (John 14:16)

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom my Father will send in my name, WILL TEACH you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (John 14:26)

"But when He, the Spirit of truth comes, He WILL GUIDE you into all truth. He will not speak on His own, He will speak only what He hears, and He WILL TELL YOU what is to come." (John 16:13)

"...do not worry beforehand about what you are to say. But say whatever WILL BE GIVEN TO YOU at that hour. For it will NOT BE YOU who are speaking but the Holy Spirit." (Mark 13:11)

I think passive robots was a bit too strong, don't you? I was merely giving praise to the Holy Spirit as being the One responsible for leading the Church to correctly select the writings which God wanted us to relish.

And my reason for warning about intellectualizing scripture studies is I have seen it happen many times in the past: An individual asks a sincere question, and those who respond can get off on a theological tangent, get sidetracked with other issues and forget all about the basic question....kinda what we did, huh?

Love and Peace
Walt Metrick

Dear Cantor and Mentor Joe,

Anyone, such as yourself, who can take a cynical comment such as mine and turn it around into a "snare" for scriptural consideration is not only a good teacher, but a great one!

Certainly, and without a doubt, "Sola Scriptura" falls on its own premises.

There is no biblical statement anywhere that affirms which of the many orthodox scriptural texts are part of the actual "Canon" of the New Testament.

That was entirely based on the judgement of the Church.

To accept the 27 books of the New Testament is to, at one and the same time, affirm the authority of the Church and submit to its inspired decision in this regard.

I frankly don't know about the discrepancy in John and the Synoptics.

I also don't understand why one Gospel states that Christ hung on the Cross for six hours rather than three.

I await instruction, Teacher!

Alex

Walter,

The above quotes are reassuring. Yet, many well-intentioned evangelicals claim that THEY are the ones backed by the Holy Spirit. How do we discern whether contradictory statements issued by evangelical preachers are due to their shortcomings or the Holy Spirit playing tricks on us?

Jesus' instructions in the four quotes you gave were directed only at his immediate disciples or Apostles (at the Last Supper discourse for John's quotes). They were not public discourses; the last public discourse in John being given in Jn 12.27-13.1. In John 14.16, Jesus responds to Thomas' question about knowing the way. In John 14.22, Judas (not Iscariot) asks why Jesus will disclose himself to them rather than the world. Both Thomas and Judas' questions are bookends to his main point of Jesus' manifestation of himself. Even Peter makes note of this in his speech in Caesarea. The role of the Holy Spirit, again, is spoken about in context of the disciples, the “chosen witnesses” per Peter (Acts 10.41). In John 16.13, Jesus' reference to the Holy Spirit is in relation to his disciple witnesses and not the public. Lastly, in Mark 13.11, the role of the Holy Spirit was discussed “privately” (Mk 13.3b) to Peter, James, John and Andrew (the Pillars of the Church) and not a public discourse. None of the four quotes you gave were public discourses; they were private addresses to his chosen disciples. Can anyone who simply picks up the Bible claim to have the Holy Spirit teach, tell, give and guide them in their interpretation? Can anyone simply take bread and wine and make it eucharist? Even the priest must "call down" the Holy Spirit (epiclesis) because even he doesn't have the power to change the offerings into our Lord's Body and Blood.

It is not so much that we go off onto “theological tangents” but that ordinary BIBLE-BELIEVING Christians do ask these questions. I remember a bunch of Baptist friends arguing over whether God can make a rock he can't lift? Isn't this intellectualizing? How did the Spirit lead many to conclude the end of the world would soon happen? How does one explain the Millerites, Mormons, Shakers, and Perfectionists? Millenialism, Post-Millenialism, and Dispensationalism?

Joe

Dear Joe,

That's all well and good.

But please remember I'm taking tomorrow off and you've yet to answer that issue about the time of the Last Supper.

You're not going to leave me in suspense for the next four days are you?

Alex

Dear Joe:

In response to:
Jesus' instructions in the 4 quotes you gave were directed only at his immediate disciples or Apostles...they were not public discourses...

For one, the Bishops of the early church received their office from the Apostles--Ignatius of Antioch makes this perfectly clear--so this promise from Jesus to the Apostles is transferrable to the Bishops....once again, this is how they knew which writings were "inspired" and would eventually make up what we now call the N.T.

Your question:
How do we discern whether contradictory statements issued by evangelical preachers are due to their shortcomings or the Holy Spirit playing tricks on us?

The Holy Spirit would NEVER play a trick on anyone, and I'm sure every devout follower of Christ knows that. The problem(s) may present itself (themselves) because of the difference between interpretation and application.

For example:
The rich young man that the Lord addresses in...hmmmm, we'll use Luke's version (18:18-23).
We are all familiar with this story. A rich young ruler asks our Lord what must he do to inherit eternal life. Jesus tells him, and he replies I have done all of these things. Jesus, however, recognizes his one flaw...his attachment to his possessions...so He tells him to sell what he has and give it to the poor. The young man does not care to hear this, so he walks away.

Now we must look at how an interpretation and application can differ depending upon the leading of the Holy Spirit...not church authority for example.

The interpretation would be as follows:
Each one of us is to put ourselves in the place of the young ruler; we tell Jesus what WE have done to inherit eternal life: I was baptized, I was confirmed, I received my first Holy Communion, I pray the Office and Rosary daily.....etc. But Jesus says to each and every one of us, "Ah yes, on the outside you look good, but you have this one flaw."

The application is where contradictions and disagreements may occur. Someone who is wealthy and is in bondage to the idolatry of money and possessions would need to take this passage literally; but someone who has a different flaw than this in their heart would NOT take this literally.

Here is where each individual must follow the leading of the Holy Spirit that will be different and unique than others. This is when evangelicals will disagree and even split with each other. There have hundreds (probably thousands) of churches and movements that have started this way: not understanding and/or tolerating the difference between interpretation and application.

The Holy Spirit may indeed give a million DIFFERENT applications of this message to a million different believers without the Holy Spirit ever contradicting Himself. Does this make sense?

We can end up putting God "in a box" if we just confine Him to church mandates. The church DOES have the authority to interpret the scripture passage, but it doesn not have the authority to tell the individual believer in what area of their life they are to apply it to...that is the conviction aspect/job of the Holy Spirit.

The rich young man obeyed all the Mosaic laws, he was under temple authority, yet Jesus shows us he was far from being a true follower. Our re-birth, regeneration caused by the Holy Spirit, makes us true Christians...not external rituals.

We must also take into account the Bible's admonishment of "do not enter into disputes with them" (Romans 14:1). Christians are going to disagree on things. At the time this was written, believers disagreed on what could be eaten: some thought anything and some thought only vegetables.
St. Paul goes on to write: "The man who will eat anything MUST NOT ridicule him who abstains from certain foods......each should be certain of his own conscience" (Romans 3-5).

What is in our conscience will come from the Holy Spirit. The times that we disagree can also be caused by each individual being on a different level of spiritual progress.

I have learned this in the bible studies I have attended/taught: I may say "let us turn to the book of Revelation" only to find that 1/2 of the people there do not even know where to begin to look for it. As a believer, they each possess the Holy Spirit, but that does not mean they each possess the same amount of spiritual wisdom/knowledge/awareness. This is why I think there can and will continue to be differences that appear to be contradictions.

Peace,
Walt Metrick

"Your question: How do we discern whether contradictory statements issued by evangelical preachers are due to their shortcomings or the Holy Spirit playing tricks on us? The Holy Spirit would NEVER play a trick on anyone, and I'm sure every devout follower of Christ knows that. The problem(s) may present itself (themselves) because of the difference between interpretation and application."

I agree the Holy Spirit will never play tricks on anyone, but I have witnessed Christian communities split over little issues - like if they should have individual cups for their 'communion' service or one single goblet; all depending on whether the Last Supper was a Passover Meal or a meal with one shared cup. Each side stated that THEY had the Holy Spirit on their side. But I agree with you that the difference may actually lie in the interpretation and application. I only have to think of the diverse practices of distributing communion in the Catholic and/or Orthodox churches! But at a different level, some Orthodox patriarchs have stated that there are "ontological" differences between Catholics and Orthodox. This is a different story.


"For example: The rich young man that the Lord addresses in...hmmmm, we'll use Luke's version (18:18-23). The application is where contradictions and disagreements may occur. Someone who is wealthy and is in bondage to the idolatry of money and possessions would need to take this passage literally; but someone who has a different flaw than this in their heart would NOT take this literally."

Why would the wealthy need to take it literally? Why would those with a different flaw not take it literally? If I was poor, I would take it literally because I would want those wealthy folks to distribute their riches a little bit more democratically. Think of those Enron employees who were not able to benefit from selling their stock, whereas the executives were able. If I was wealthy, I would want to brush off the literal request to pitch my wealth. Literal or not, maybe there is another interpretation that goes beyond the mere obvious: how about the superiority of Jesus' law over the commandments (the "old Law") ? Under the old Law the rich young man kept the commandments and still got rich, demonstrating that the Old Law didn't change much in the area of social justice. Jesus' New Law, the Law of the Beatitudes (Mt 5:3-12 // Lk 6:20b-26), asks for something more.

Now, things get muddier when we look at the differences (contradictions?) between Matthew's version of the Beatitudes and Luke's version. Luke includes only four Beatitudes (Lk 6:20b-23) and four Woes (Lk 6:24-26). Luke mentions "the poor" (6:20b) but Matthew mentions the "poor in spirit" (Mt 5:3a). Luke follows up with a Woe for those who are "rich" and their "consolation" (Lk 6:24) but Matthew doesn't. Luke mentions those who "hunger now" (Lk 6:21a) but Matthew mentions those who "hunger and thirst for righteousness" (Mt 5:6). Luke follows up with a Woe unto those who are "full now" (Lk 6:25a) but Matthew doesn't. In the first two cases, Matthew 'spiritualizes' the poor and the hungry; Luke doesn't. It would seem that Luke leans more towards social justice here-and-now, but Matthew is more spiritualized and not so demanding - almost vague. Continuing, Luke has Jesus bless those who "weep" (Lk 6:21b) and woes those who "laugh now" (Lk 6:25b). Matthew doesn't. Matthew goes on with more social-justice lite Beatitudes. It is no wonder why Matthew's Beatitudes are favored in churches. Too many stares would be given if we chanted Luke's version with his woeful nastygrams aimed at the rich.

There is an oddity between Luke's version (Lk 18:18-23) and Matthew's. Luke and Mark agree that Jesus' response was, "Why do you call me good?" (Mk 10:17b//Lk 18:19a) whereas Matthew asks, "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Matthew does not equate the good with Jesus; Luke and Mark do. Luke (and Mark) agree that the "good" that the "man" (Mk) or "ruler" (Lk) asks is Jesus himself. Matthew doesn't, for the "good" is a mere "deed" (Mt 19:16a). Now, this can lead to many interpretations, but if one begins with the rule of sola scriptura, one is fenced in. What is the good - Jesus or a deed?

Without considering whether the Holy Spirit aided me in my interpretation or not, and not using any authoritative pronouncements form the church, I have remained within the text of the Gospels alone. In the case of the Rich Young Man and the Beatitudes we are left with seemingly different takes on what constitutes a blessing/beatitude and what is good. How do we reconcile such contradictions if we remain in confines of the text? Those adhering to Sola Scriptura are caught between a rock and a hard place. Marcion took care of the contradiction problem in his own way.


"Here is where each individual must follow the leading of the Holy Spirit that will be different and unique than others."

It is quite unanimous that the Orthodox and Catholic churches have preferred Matthew's social justice lite to Luke's hit-the-wealthy-where-it-counts version of the Beatitudes for the Liturgy. We love to hear about the "poor in spirit," the "meek," those who "hunger and thirst for RIGHTEOUSNESS" (so Torah like for Matthew's scribal-like character), the "merciful," the "pure in heart," the "peacemakers," etc. We don't hear about the woes to the "rich," those who are "full now," and those who "laugh now." Is there a reason why we prefer the spiritualized version? I question how many monasteries on Mt. Athos were built with funds from the laity? Now, we can say, if we believe that the Evangelist Matthew was the same Matthew known as the tax-collector for watering down the bit about the wealthy here-and-now, but it can also be understood as a scribe's (a half-century later) desire to honor the Torah in a different light.


"The Holy Spirit may indeed give a million DIFFERENT applications of this message to a million different believers without the Holy Spirit ever contradicting Himself. Does this make sense?"

I agree. For those different applications begin right in the Gospels themselves! The Evangelists spoke to different communities and their versions (Gospel "according to") reflect that. It has been asked many times how the Universal Church can contain multiple theological Traditions and still remain one? We just have to look at the Gospels for the answer. The message proclaimed overrides the apparent contradictions. Literalism and Fundamentalism can't see the forest for the trees.


"The rich young man obeyed all the Mosaic laws, he was under temple authority, yet Jesus shows us he was far from being a true follower. Our re-birth, regeneration caused by the Holy Spirit, makes us true Christians...not external rituals."

Well put.

[ 08-03-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]