ARCHIVE: Romans 8 and the Open View

[Arminian]

My second attempt. This article rocks! An even better one is the one by Hays mentioned in this article.

http://www.sundoulos.com/articles.aspx?in=19

Thank me later,

 

[Arminian]

geoff,

The whole discussion would seem to be in the context of what Jesus had just done at the end of John 2, where he cleanses the Temple, surely? thats the reason Nicodemus is there in the first place isnt it? That certainly seems how it looks to me.

It seems that Nic is more interested in the miracles, since that is what he mentions. I don't see a hint that he is interested in the temple. It seems that he wanted to be taught by Jesus since "no one could perform the miraculous signs ...if God were not with him."

 

[geoff]

John seems to have other ideas, considering how he has placed the 2 things together and connected them..
The miracles prove that Jesus has come from God, and is deserving of some (barely) respect..

"Now... a man... came..."

 

[Big Finn]

Geoff,

You are going to have to prove your assertions about the temple in reference to John 3:1-21 as this whole conversation shows Jesus pointing out the real source of salvation to Nicodemus. I see nothing tied to the temple at all. This is all heart stuff. Jesus also ties it directly to His own ministry and the prophecies concerning Him through His usage of the brass serpent which God told Moses to make and then walk through the camp of the Isrealites so that anyone who looked at it might be healed from being bitten by a snake when the camp of the Isrealites in the wilderness was overrun by snakes. That Jesus brings this out to Nicodemus and relates it to Himself also points out that the OC and NC are very much alike for all anyone had to do to be healed was to look. It was look and live. It was being healed by faith in what God provided. These lessons are to be found throughout the OT.

Just as humanity has been bitten by that old snake the devil and we will die if we don't look to Jesus, so the Isrealites when bitten by the snakes were to look and live. Jesus is quite plain in His analogy.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
John 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

This whole conversation has to do with Jesus and His ministry, and Jesus makes it very clear. It is as if He read Nicodemus' heart and answered Nicodemus' heart question instead of his opening gambit.

The very fact that Nicodemus came to Jesus at night tells us something. By that time in Jesus' ministry anyone who acknowledged Jesus openly was being excommunicated (thrown out of the temple and unable to worship there). So, if Nicodemus wanted to really learn from Jesus, and not be ostrasized by those of his own social status, he couldn't do it openly. Thus, Jesus in speaking to salvation and heart condition to Nicodemus was in reality addressing the very things that Nicodemus was questioning. Nicodemus knew all the prophecies of the OT about the Redeemer to come, and must have had questions. His opening admission that Jesus had to have come from God shows this.

 

[Big Finn]

Arminian,

That was an excellent article.

 

[Arminian]

geoff,

John seems to have other ideas, considering how he has placed the 2 things together and connected them..

I don't think Nic knew about your ideas of the design of the narrative. He was only aware of his own request.

 

[1013]

thanx arminian. I'll read it when I get a chance. In the mean time, I'll share the NP page that I have been recently browsing through. There's a lot of interesting stuff there. There are good intorductory articles to the new perspective for novices like myself.


http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/paulpage/

 

[Arminian]

1030,

Thanks! I've never actually searched the web. Now I'll be too interested to spend time with my family or do my work. What little time I have will be spent reading. Curse you!!!:crackup:

Regardless of anyone's opinion of NP, NP is having a HUGE affect on how we understand the Bible. Even those who reject it are adopting many of ideas the NP theologians are putting forth.

Time for another Kuhnian paradigm shift!!!

 

[geoff]

arminian,

Nicodemus didnt write Johns Gospel did he?

Finn,

By verse 13 Jesus has long finished talking with Nicodemus, He is talking to the crowd.
BTW, Nicodemus came to Jesus at night for a few reasons, a: it was the end of the day (after the Temple cleansing), and b: thats when most teaching took place, because people had to work to live... No KFC, McD's or fridges back then.

If you want a good overview of recent Pauline thought "Israel's Law and the Church's Faith" by Stephen Westerholm is Brilliant. His summaries of the major schools of thought is second to none.

 

[Arminian]

Geoff,

Nicodemus didnt write Johns Gospel did he?

No, so I guess he didn't have the temple cleansing in mind when he approached Christ.

 

[Big Finn]

Geoff,

By verse 13 Jesus has long finished talking with Nicodemus, He is talking to the crowd.

Hmmm.... The NIV sets the whole block of text from verses 1-21 aside as the story of Jesus interview with Nicodemus. So do all the commentaries I've read. None of them try to make an artificial break in the middle of Jesus discourse to Nicodemus. In fact verse 13 is in the middle of a paragraph in the NIV. And, if there had been a crowd the Bible would most likely have mentioned it, as it does in the other places that a crowd had gathered to hear Jesus. As no crowd is mentioned you have to hypothesize this out of thin air. There is no evidence to support it at all.

As to:

BTW, Nicodemus came to Jesus at night for a few reasons, a: it was the end of the day (after the Temple cleansing), and b: thats when most teaching took place, because people had to work to live... No KFC, McD's or fridges back then.

Most commentaries support my position as to why Nicodemus came at night. Those who don't are simply silent on the matter. So, I'd say the weight of evidence does not back you up.

In reference to the bolded section of your quote:

This is not supported by the weight of the evidence of scripture. Almost all the crowds that Jesus taught were during the day. We have evidence of Him sending them away when it got towards evening too. Very few of the scenes that the Bible relates in the life of Jesus took place at night. Other than the Transfiguration (no crowds there), His arrest and trial, and the Saturday evening when He healed Peter's mother (there was a crowd there for the Bible explicitly says so), and the scenes of the disciples fishing at night, I can't think of any other nighttime events. Oh, the trip to Emmaus after dark, but then again, this was unusual and there were no crowds around. There may be a couple more, but I think I've covered the great majority of them.

By far the greatest amount of Jesus teaching, according to the Biblical record, is during the day. You are arguing your point b in the face of great evidence to the contrary.

 

[geoff]

Arminian,

You dont know that... and John seems to have written with that intent in mind, so i go with the author.

Finn,

There is an obvious change around verse 7-9 where Jesus ceases talking to Nicodemus and directs his speech to the crowd about him.. He repeatedly uses 'you' (individual) and then 'you' (the group) - its clear in the text and is mentioned in every decent commentary.

 

[Arminian]

Hi geoff,

You dont know that... and John seems to have written with that intent in mind, so i go with the author.

I'll have to meet you half way on this, geoff. You first said that Jesus was rebuking Nic for not understanding why Jesus cleansed the temple. I can't agree because that's not the issue that Nic brought up and that Jesus addressed.

However, John is including the stories for reasons that are bigger than the individual stories themselves. He is showing that the "old" is leaving and the "new" has arrived. So, yes, I do understand the purpose of John's narrative in a way similar to the way you understand it.

Enjoy the American holiday,

 

[geoff]

Arminian,

Thanks for the concession

Now, if you read the passage, you would see that Jesus cleansed the temple, then Nicodemus came to him to try and shoot him down. Jesus, by cleansing the Temple was claiming to be more than just a Rabbi. WAY more. You couldnt probably read a claim to divinity, however Johns mention of the verse regarding 'zeal for His house' is a direct Messianic link. This action was a demonstration of Jesus claim to be the Messiah, the annointed King. Nicodemus recognised that, and came with the intention of proving Jesus wrong, although in a polite and respectful way.

He was unable to prove Jesus wrong, because the argument Jesus gave him was irrefutable. In the end Nicodemus has to admit Jesus is right: John 3:9 Nicode'mus said to him, "How can this be?" -
(incidentally, this is where the conversation shifts, Jesus begins to redirect the focus from Nicodemus to the crowd surrounding using you (singular( and you (plural)).

Nicodemus should understand, He should know what Jesus authority to cleanse the temple was, if He was really a Son of Abraham he would have recognised him as the Messiah.

See, Johns gospel was written to reveal Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, so that we might believe and have eternal life (john 20:31f)
He does this by having Jesus meet various characters, and reveal himself to them by words, signs, and wonders. Many of Jesus' discussions take on new significance when looked at in this light. Especially this one. Jesus' logic is so completely clear and true they cant defeat him.... just look at the buffoons in John 8:30-59. Jesus totally shoots them down... they call him a liar but cant convict him of any sin, so all the can do is call him names and try and kill him.

Fascinating stuff... I have been studying John's gospel for 4 years now.. with a passion. I looooove it. John, Gen 1-11, and the Psalter... thats where you'll find me...

 

[Arminian]

geoff,

Nicodemus recognised that, and came with the intention of proving Jesus wrong, although in a polite and respectful way.

I just don't see that, nor the "temple issue," lurking behind Nic's comments. He'd have to be sitting in the author's chair. However, if you give me corporate election and a large amount of money, I'll give you this. If not, ...well.....

 

[geoff]

Arminian,

Whats the point of having the 2 passages stuck together like that, and interconnected? Some might say the interconnect is 'weak' - but its still there...

and I did give you the corporate election thing, just not on the basis that individual election is excluded.... because its logically impossible for that to be true.

 

[1013]

The British did... you just helped.

yeah, that's just really illogical. nobody ever thinks like that.

 

[Arminian]

geoff,

Whats the point of having the 2 passages stuck together like that, and interconnected? Some might say the interconnect is 'weak' - but its still there...

Are you saying that Nic put the verses there? I already said why John put them there. You, however, FIRST commented on Nic. Now you are commenting on John.

 

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

Your analogy of Uncle Sam foreknowing individual soldiers is all messed up. I guess they don't have drafts in New Zealand.
When Uncle Sam drafted soldiers for Vietnam (and if he decides to draft again), he drafted a corporate group. I'm not sure exactly, but let's say he drafted all men between the ages of 18-25. Sure, it's made up of individuals as any group is, but it's a very generic corporate group. Also, Uncle Sam wouldn't foreknow for certain these individuals until the draft - he wasn't exactly picky and fickle when they drafted for Vietnam - thus it's much more like Open View: it's predestined, thus knowable.

Likewise if somebody volunteers, like I did. Did my recruiter know I was going to volunteer that day? Did the President? NSA? FBI? CIA? Secretary of Defense? No, of course not. Did they make me? No. Did I do it of my own freewill? Yes, of course I did.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[1013]

I'm not sure exactly, but let's say he drafted all men between the ages of 18-25.

It's even less definate than that. They draft according to a randomly selected birthday as the need for more soldiers arises (maybe that was another war but it's still pretty random). So the selection of individuals is removed even further than than the selection of the group!