ARCHIVE: Romans 8 and the Open View

[Yxboom]

There is always Bumblyburg.........the search continues............

 

[Arminian]

Yikes!

 

[geoff]

Arminian,

"Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling counsel."

is 'now' contrastive, or is it conjunctive.

I dont believe it is contrastive, and I dont think you can provide a conclusive argument for it.

I believe it is joining the events of chapter 2, and providing context for this:

"He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.""

Jesus has just (strangely enough) performed a sign. His cleansing of the Temple. Elsewhere we are told that the disciples 'remembered' that scripture foretold this of the Messiah (and John tells us the purpose of this narrative is to reveal Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God remember.. john 20:30ff).

If this isnt the context, I'll be a monkies uncle!

 

[Yxboom]

Monkey...is this your uncle?

 

[geoff]

No, I thought it was a very good self portrait though mwahahahahah

 

[Jaltus]

It is a contrastive now, since it is "de" and not "nun." "Nun" could link it, but "de" in this instance cannot.

 

[Arminian]

geoff,

I read it as contrastive. That was part of the interesting aspect of the Geek I noticed. It involves a pattern in John. I'll post on it tomorrow if you are interested.

 

[Arminian]

I still can't believe I read Pink.:shocked:

 

[geoff]

Well I have it on fairly good authority that it can not be proven either way...

As I said, if it is contrastive, it doesnt make sense for the discussion to follow.. Does Nicodemus know that Jesus has turned water into wine? John has not revealed to us any other 'signs'. The only sign John has told us of, is the Temple cleansing.

I would concede it is contrastive, in the sense of 'next' - like 'now - after this', or 'in the light of this'.

My paraphrase goes like this:

'(Jesus cleanses the temple)... now [in the light of this] there was a man named Nicodemus, the Head rabbi, who came to see Jesus...'

 

[Big Finn]

As I said, if it is contrastive, it doesnt make sense for the discussion to follow.. Does Nicodemus know that Jesus has turned water into wine? John has not revealed to us any other 'signs'. The only sign John has told us of, is the Temple cleansing.

Joh 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

 

[geoff]

that, finn, is a bit more of a leap han I am willing to commit too. I dont think that the sign directly preceeding it it too much to ask.

 

[Arminian]

geoff,

As I said, if it is contrastive, it doesnt make sense for the discussion to follow.. Does Nicodemus know that Jesus has turned water into wine? John has not revealed to us any other 'signs'. The only sign John has told us of, is the Temple cleansing

I'll probably post more on John's Greek tomorrow. Right now I'm tired and have no reference material.

Anyhow, I think you are wrong about the temple cleansing being the only sign. First of all, how is the cleansing a sign? The Jewish use of the term indicates that they are speaking of a miracle. What kind of a sign is making a mess of a few tables? Sure, the disciples remembered Psalm 69:9 because of the incident, but the people didn't.

Also, the verse in question says that "at the Passover feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing." "Signs" is plural, indicating that there was more then one. "Doing" suggests an ongoing or series of events.

Finally, the verse in question says that the signs (plural) took place "at the Passover feast." Yet verse 13 says that the temple cleaning took place "When it was almost time for the Passover..." The temple cleaning took place BEFORE the signs that Nic is speaking of. The temple cleansing left the people asking Jesus for a "sign" to prove his authority (verse 18), but after the signs (plural) that took place at the Passover, "many believed in his name."

So no, the "signs" can't possibly be the temple cleansing.

 

[geoff]

Arminian:

First of all, how is the cleansing a sign? The Jewish use of the term indicates that they are speaking of a miracle. What kind of a sign is making a mess of a few tables? Sure, the disciples remembered Psalm 69:9 because of the incident, but the people didn't.

Nicodemus wasnt 'the people' - the head Rabbi probably (the dude in charge of the Temple teaching system.. at the very least one of the dudes in the high council) - He may well have made the connection ... These guys were looking for the Messiah to come, after all, and this is generally thought of as one of the signs of the Messiah - at least it is a claim to a mission directly from God, as His representative.

Finally, the verse in question says that the signs (plural) took place "at the Passover feast." Yet verse 13 says that the temple cleaning took place "When it was almost time for the Passover..."

Dude I think you are confused...
"2:13 The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple ..."
&
"23 When he was in Jerusalem during the Passover festival, many believed in his name because they saw the signs that he was doing."

When it was near, Jesus went to Jerusalem, arriving in time for the Passover, during which the Temple was cleansed, and people believed....


"2:15 Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple,...18 The Jews then said to him, "What sign can you show us for doing this?"

Note, this sign doesnt mean a "miraculous" sign... more like a 'sign of authority'.

"signs" in v23 is strange because we are not told about any other signs - the fact that He doesnt mention them should make us realise that they are not the focus here. You dont mention something as major as the temple cleansing, to over shadow it and direct the focus elsewhere by something so insignifiant.

So no, the "signs" can't possibly be the temple cleansing.

This is misleading... the cleansing is one of the signs.. its the major sign.. and its the sign John wants us to focus on... if it wasnt, He would have mentioned the other signs, rather then a passing comment.

 

[Arminian]

Hi geoff,

Nicodemus wasnt 'the people' - the head Rabbi probably (the dude in charge of the Temple teaching system.. at the very least one of the dudes in the high council) - He may well have made the connection ... These guys were looking for the Messiah to come, after all, and this is generally thought of as one of the signs of the Messiah - at least it is a claim to a mission directly from God, as His representative.

He was one of the people. And we aren't told that he disagreed.

Dude I think you are confused...
"2:13 The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple ..."
&
"23 When he was in Jerusalem during the Passover festival, many believed in his name because they saw the signs that he was doing."

When it was near, Jesus went to Jerusalem, arriving in time for the Passover, during which the Temple was cleansed, and people believed....

I'm sorry, but the only time mentioned in the passage is the time before. You had to skip to verse 23 and also add "during which" to your description.

"2:15 Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple,...18 The Jews then said to him, "What sign can you show us for doing this?"

Note, this sign doesnt mean a "miraculous" sign... more like a 'sign of authority'.

The miraculous sign WAS the sign of authority to the Jews.

"signs" in v23 is strange because we are not told about any other signs - the fact that He doesnt mention them should make us realise that they are not the focus here. You dont mention something as major as the temple cleansing, to over shadow it and direct the focus elsewhere by something so insignifiant.

The Jews asked for signs (verse 18) because they hadn't seen any. Why would signs be "insignificant"? Why ask for a sign if they had already seen the sign (singluar) that caused them to believe in his name?

Rather than jump from verse 13 to verse 23, as though they were attached, I notice that the Jews don't believe until they see the signs (plural) performed at the Passover. They certainly did not accept his authority until the signs performed after the temple cleansing.


quote of Arminian:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So no, the "signs" can't possibly be the temple cleansing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is misleading... the cleansing is one of the signs.. its the major sign.. and its the sign John wants us to focus on... if it wasnt, He would have mentioned the other signs, rather then a passing comment.

If you were correct, cleansing would be a sign (singular). The word, however, is plural. After the cleansing we see the Jews asking for a sign because they had yet to see one. Then we find them believing after they had seen "signs" (plural). Therefore, the signs Nic mentioned can't possibly be the unmiraculous temple cleansing.

Later,

 

[geoff]

Arminian:

I'm sorry, but the only time mentioned in the passage is the time before. You had to skip to verse 23 and also add "during which" to your description.

Its all part of the same narrative.. I dont see how its a problem at all.. Jesus left to go to Jerusalem b4 the passsover, He arrives and cleanses the temple, then afterwards Nicodemus comes to him.. how hard is that to comprehend?

The miraculous sign WAS the sign of authority to the Jews.

Yes, they wanted to know what authority He had to do this... think about it... in John, signs are not always miraculous... I have a reference for that.. I will dig out it soon, you might find it interesting.

The Jews asked for signs (verse 18) because they hadn't seen any.

They asked for A SIGN (authority) for him to cleanse the Temple.

Why would signs be "insignificant"?

The SIGNS of V23 were not mentioned. They are OBVIOUSLY different signs.. The sign John wants us to focus on is the cleansing. The Jews ask for a 'sign' because they are too DUMB to recognise that the cleansing IS a sign. Nicodemus is not so dumb though.

Why ask for a sign if they had already seen the sign (singluar) that caused them to believe in his name?

I am sure Jesus did other miracles while he was there... however the ONE sign we are to focus on is the cleansing of the Temple.

The problem is, you do not seem to accept the temple cleansing as a sign. I would suggest that it is a singularly powerful sign that Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah. The Temple is God's house, and Jesus anger at its misuse, and His power to cleanse it were akin to (and in fact) God's... as the first testament Scriptures (which later occurred to the disciples.. but I doubt took so long to occur to a learned man like Nicodemus) prophesied.

 

[Arminian]

geoff,



quote of Arminain:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why ask for a sign if they had already seen the sign (singluar) that caused them to believe in his name?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am sure Jesus did other miracles while he was there... however the ONE sign we are to focus on is the cleansing of the Temple.

Your argument that the temple cleansing is the "signs" is what we are talking about. Nic can't possibly be speaking of it when he says "signs."

The problem is, you do not seem to accept the temple cleansing as a sign.

The issue is moot. Nic isn't speaking of it, and the Jews show no hint that they considered it a sign.

I would suggest that it is a singularly powerful sign that Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah.

I can think of dozens more powerful. In fact, I can't imagine that many would make the connection. Rather, the "signs" would have more impact than the cleansing.

 

[Jaltus]

Aren't I right that, in john, the word "sign" is used for miracle?

There are seven signs in John (though he only numbers the first three). Each sign shows a particular matter of Jesus' authority.

The first is in 2:11. Note that the second sign is not until chapter 4. Therefore, it only makes sense that the sign referred to is the wedding feast, since that is the only recorded sign by John.

The problem with geoff's argument is that we have to link a few different times together in order to make it work. Would Nic really refer to the temple cleansing when the last signs mentioned (though not by specifics) would be those performed during the passover week, and not the cleansing beforehand? And if you want to argue for the cleansing, then you need to state why it is not the wedding miracle, when that has the best claim due to it being the only named "sign."

"Sign" (singular) appears 8 times in John, with only two occurences not referring to miracles. The other two refer to the sign on the cross.

The word "signs" occurs 11 times, and every single occurence has the word "miraculous" attached to it. Miraculous NEVER refers to something as mundane as the temple cleansing.

Sorry, geoff, but I do not think your argument is really feasible, at least with respect to sign or signs.

 

[geoff]

I can think of dozens more powerful. In fact, I can't imagine that many would make the connection. Rather, the "signs" would have more impact than the cleansing.

So, you dont think the temple cleansing a sign, or even really important?

 

[geoff]

Jaltus,

The passage refers to the cleansing of the Temple DURING passover week... thats the point..

He leaves 'as passover is near' - arrives at Jerusalem for passover, cleanses the Temple...

Its all highly symbolic... the passover lamb cleansing the temple yadda yadda...

I dont see a time discrepency at all... at least not until you bring in the synoptics... but we arent doing that at all. Well, I am not.

 

[Arminian]

I just cleaned up my last post. I don't know how I messed it up so badly. It looks better now.