Jane Webster on John 6:63

Jesus continues with the line: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is useless” (6:63). Until now, that which gives life has been identified as belief in Jesus (3:15, 16, 36; 5:40; 6:40, 47; see also 11:25; 17:3; 20:31), and in John 6, believing is equated with the act of ingesting his flesh (6:40, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54). For the first time in this discourse, the life-giving principle is identified as the spirit. The use of the term “spirit” (πνευμα) in the Gospel of John is very complex. First, the term is used to distinguish that which is of the heavenly realm from which is “of the world.” So, for example, Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born of the spirit or “from above” (3:3-8). When πνευμα is understood in this sense, John 6:63 claims that that which comes from the earth does not give life, but that which comes from heaven (bread = Jesus) does give life (cf. 6:48-50). “Spirit” also refers to the life force that animates Jesus’ flesh. Thus, when Jesus “gives up the spirit,” he dies (19:30). His flesh “is useless” without the presence of this animating spirit. Finally, “spirit” refers to the life-giving Holy Spirit that Jesus imparts to believers after his death (7:39; 17:2; 20:22). In this way, 6:63 can claim that “it is the [Holy] spirit that gives life [to believers], the flesh is useless.” Because the Gospel often combines various references in one image or word, it is possible that all three of these aspects of the Spirit are at play here.

The idea that the spirit gives life is extended in the next sentence. Jesus’ words are “spirit and life” (6:63). He both speaks the word and is the Word (1:1), as he both provides bread and is bread. He embodies that which comes down from heaven.

A contrast is established between those who believe what Jesus says and those who do not (Jesus knows who they are from the beginning, 6:64). There are those who follow Jesus looking or signs and wanting to eat their fill of bread (6:26). There are those who never come to Jesus in the first place; these are identified as the Jews (6:41-59). There are the “many disciples” who heard his words but found them too difficult to accept; these are the ones who “turned back and no longer went about with them” (6:66). Finally, there are the remaining disciples, introduced here for the first time as the “Twelve” (6:67). (Jane S. Webster, Ingesting Jesus: Eating and Drinking in the Gospel of John [Academia Biblica 6; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003], 86-87)

More on the Authenticity of John 21

Paul Minear wrote an article, “The Original Functions of John 21,” JBL 102 (1983):85-98 that argued John 21 is original to the Gospel. In her summary of the article, Jane S. Webster wrote:

Paul Minear points out that there is no manuscript evidence to suggest that chapters 1-20 circulated without chapter 21. Nor are there significant grammatical or lexical differences between chapters 1-20 and 21. On the basis of this evidence, Minear proposes that the concluding statement in 20:30-31 applies only to the preceding chapter (i.e., chapter 20) and not to the entire Gospel. Thus, the “signs” mentioned in 20:30 refer, not necessarily to the miracles in John 1-12, but to the “signs” of Jesus’ resurrection found in Jon 20: the empty tomb seen first by Mary (20:1-2), and then by Peter and the beloved disciple (20:3-10); the appearance of Jesus to Mary (20:11-18), then to the ten disciples behind the locked doors (20:19-23), and then again to the disciples with Thomas (20:24-29). Therefore, he argues, John 20:30-31 does not conclude the Gospel, only chapter 20. Minear provides other reasons for including John 21 in the Gospel. Narrative strands connect chapter 21 in significant ways to the first 20 chapters of the Gospel. For example, chapter 21 finishes the stories of Nathanael (1:45-51; 21:2), Peter, and the beloved disciple. It also continues themes that are developed throughout the Gospel, such as discipleship, the dualism of light and dark, and martyrdom. The three denials of Peter in John 18 are balanced by the three question of Jesus to Peter—“Do you love me?”—in John 21:15-17. Minear concludes that John 21 is an integrated part of the Gospel as a whole and an interpretation of the chapter should reflect this unity. Serge Besobrasoff rightly confirm that John 21 cannot be understood unless it is read in the context of the whole Gospel, drawing on themes introduced elsewhere (e.g., 10:1-18; 13:31; 17:1; 12:33; 18:32) (S. Besobrasoff, “John 21,” NTS 3 [1956-1957]:132-6). (Jane S. Webster, Ingesting Jesus: Eating and Drinking in the Gospel of John [Academia Biblica 6; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003], 134-35)

Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Abraham Now Online

Sorry for not posting a lot in recent days; I spent a few days at the temple in London and been busy at work (also: got top marks in my exams, including 97% in Management Accounts!)

I just found out that Hugh Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Abraham is available online as a PDF here. Enjoy!

Timothy Ware: Eastern Orthodox *DO* Believe in the Bodily Assumption

In his 2017 debate with Peter D. Williams, James White, during the cross-examination, questioned Peter who (correctly) noted that the Eastern Orthodox believe in the Bodily Assumption of Mary (albeit, not as a dogma). As one Eastern Orthodox bishop and theologian wrote:

But Orthodoxy, while for the most part denying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary firmly believe in her Bodily Assumption. Like the rest of humankind, Our Lady underwent physical death, but in her case the Resurrection of the Body has been anticipated: after death her body was taken up or ‘assumed’ into heaven and her tomb was found to be empty. She has passed beyond death and judgement and lives already in the Age to Come. Yet she is not thereby separated from the rest of humanity, for that some bodily glory which Mary enjoys now, all of us hope one day to share.

Belief in the Assumption of the Mother of God is clearly and unambiguously affirmed in the hymns sung by the Church on 15 August, the Feast of the ‘Dormition’ or ‘Falling Asleep’. But Orthodoxy, unlike Rome, has never proclaimed the Assumption as a dogma, nor would it ever wish to do so. (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church [rev ed.; London: Penguin Group, 1997], 260, emphasis added)

In a footnote for the above, Ware adds the following:

Immediately after the Pope proclaimed the Assumption as a dogma in 1950, a few Orthodox (by way of reaction against the Roman Catholic Church) began to express doubts about the Bodily Assumption and even explicitly to deny it; but they are certainly not representative of the Orthodox Church as a whole. (Ibid., 270 n. 1, emphasis in original)

 For those who wish to delve into the Bodily Assumption, see Stephen J. Shoemaker, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption and See also Chapter 5: The Bodily Assumption of Mary, pp. 139-56 of my book, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology 

Brury Eko Saputra on Samaritans being the "other sheep" in John 10:16

Commenting on the identity of “the other sheep” in John 10:16, Brury Eko Saputra wrote against the “Gentile” interpretation (he instead opts for the Samaritans being these “other sheep”):

The statement of John 10:16 says “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold.” The phrase “other sheep” has been debated. Some scholars, like Martyn, suggest that the phrase refers to scattered Christian communities. Some also argue that “the other” refers primarily to diaspora Jews. Others insist that “the other” refers to Gentiles. However, the context and background of John 10 do not support these suggestions. As mentioned earlier, the good shepherd image has been heavily influenced by the Old Testament, especially Ezek 34. Notably, both John 10 (John 10:12; 11:52) and Ezek 34 (especially Ezek 34:2-6) speak of the scattering and gathering theme (John 10:16; Ezek 34:13). In its own context, the gathering in Ezek 34 may refer to “the uniting of Ephraim and Judah under one shepherd” (Ezek 37:22-24)” (Craig Keener, John vol 2, 818). It may then be argued that the evangelist in alluding to Ezekiel may be thinking about the gathering into one the Israelites and Samaritans.

If this is the case, it is possible that “the other” in John 10:16 refers to Samaritans, since Samaritans are also mentioned in John 4 . . . the Samarians know, believe and practice the Shema on a daily basis. The only thing that makes them different from the Jews is their ethnic (John 4:9) and cultic (John 4:20) identity. However, to those who belong to Jesus (including “the other” sheep), the worship place is no longer the issue, since it is already replaced by Jesus himself. Both ritual (John 4:21) and race (John 4:39-42) are no longer applicable in speaking of having a relationship with God because he is revealed by the messiah he sent (John 4:25-26). In this regard, “the other” in John 10:16 can, sociologically and theologically, be interpreted as the one who has a different social and ritual identity but has a relationship with God. Thus, the phrase “there will be one flock, one shepherd” should be understood as crossing both social and ritual boundaries. (Brury Eko Saputra, The Shema and John 10: The Importance of the Shema Framework in Understanding the Oneness Language in John 10 [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2019], 69-70)

Of course, Latter-day Saints, based on explicit modern revelation (3 Nephi 15:17, 21; D&C 10:59-60) know the identity of at least some of the “other sheep” (i.e., the Book of Mormon peoples). For a discussion, see, for e.g.:

The "other sheep" of John 10:16: A Critique of the "Gentile" Interpretation

Eugene LaVerdiere on the Census in Luke

Because there is no reason to doubt that Jesus was born while Herod the Great is still alive, unanswered is the question of why Luke wrote as he did. Three possibilities are worth considering. The first is that he had wrong historical data. Two major revolts occurred around the time of the birth of Jesus. The first was at the end of Herod’s life and the second at the time of the annexation of Judea, when the census would have taken place. Luke, who was writing perhaps 75 years later, yet aware of these two periods of upheaval, simply confused the time of the census.

Second, Luke surely conceived and presented Luke-Acts as a work of Christian history. He approached writing his account from a historical viewpoint, and history from a Gospel viewpoint. Luke is careful to situate Jesus in human history, showing his relationship to the Roman world and its provinces as well as providing the grounds for the journey of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem.

The clearest indications we have of his historical intent might be seen in the two prefatory statements that Luke begins both his account of the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. Their form corresponds to the primary and secondary prefaces long employed by Hellenistic historians. This enabled his readers to see how the Gospel could be at home in a Hellenistic culture. It also showed how Hellenistic culture could thrive in a world infused y the Gospel. Those who heard Luke’s account also would be able to situate their history as part of a broader history, all of which was determined by God to bring about our salvation by means of “the events that have been fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1). (Eugene LaVerdiere, The Firstborn of God: The Birth of Mary's Son, Jesus: Luke 2:1-21 [Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 2007], 22-23)

Will There be Few or Many Sons of Perdition?

Commenting on whether there will be few or many Sons (and Daughters!) of Perdition, Owen K. Peterson wrote:

It is said that there will be few who become sons of perdition and who will therefore suffer the second death. However, a careful reading of the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, suggests that there may actually be more than a few who ultimately suffer that fate.

The view that only a very few will die the second death seems to be based on the idea that few had had the opportunity to receive the knowledge and enlightenment in this life necessary to qualify for such a condemnation. While it is true that there have been long periods in human history when the gospel in its fullness was not found among the known nations of the earth, there have been some significant periods when the gospel was on the earth and widely disseminated. During the dispensation of Adam the gospel was known among a population that must have grown very large because of the long lifespan of Adam’s descendants. In the days of Enoch the gospel resulted in a while city being translated. In the days of Noah the gospel was taught to all the people prior to the flood and as a result many were caught up to Zion thereby escaping the flood (see Moses 7:27) . . . It is true that the fullness of the gospel among the Gentiles of the old world in the era of the apostles had a fairly short duration, still there must have been many hundreds of thousands who heard its message during perhaps a 150-200 year period when some measure of priesthood authority must have been present. After a long period of darkness the gospel is now spreading throughout the world with upwards of 15 million members as of 2014. Besides these we have reason to believe that among the lost ten tribes the gospel has been present and that millions must have embraced it over the millennia. And then there is the millennium during which the gospel will fill the earth and many billions will be blessed by it.

Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that in the history of the world up to the present many multiple billions of people have had the opportunity to receive the fullness of the gospel and mong them there must be many who could have become sons of perdition through willful rebellion. In each dispensation there must have been many like the people in the Book of Mormon who, after nearly 200 years of righteousness, “did not dwindle in unbelief, but [who] did wilfully rebel against the gospel of Christ” (4 Nephi 1:38). Referring to such souls, Joseph Fielding Smith said: “I have no idea in my mind that every soul that has lived upon the face of the earth, who has died and gone to the spirit world, is going to repent and receive the gospel. There will be many that will not do that. Our scriptures point to that act. They are not going to receive the gospel in the spirit world, when their souls are full of bitterness and hate towards the truth, but they have a right to have it taught to them” (CR, April 1959, p. 23, emphasis added). Since Elder Smith has made it clear that those who inherit the telestial kingdom must accept the gospel and repent . . .it follows that any who ultimately cannot or will not repent must inherit a kingdom without glory—that is, they must suffer the second death. This agrees with Helaman 14:18 and D&C 29:44. See also Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 3, 194.

This statement by President Smith even allows that one could become a son of perdition without ever actually embracing the gospel. President Joseph F. Smith seemed to have suggested this also when he said: “the sons of perdition, men who once were in possession of the light and truth, but who turned away from them and denied the Lord, putting him to an open shame, as did the Jews when they crucified him”, will have it said to them “’Depart from me, ye cursed.’ (Matt. 25:41). I never knew you; depart into the second death, even banishment from the presence of God for ever and ever . . . from whence there is no redemption, neither in time nor in eternity” (Gospel Doctrine, 451, emphasis added). For this to be the case these must necessarily have received an absolute witness from the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ and then to have wilfully turned from it and consented to his crucifixion.

Concerning those who live during the Millennium, Bruce R. McConkie said: “(Isa. 65:20.) Isaiah’s description of life and death during the Millennium seems to preserve the concept that even then—even in that blessed day when Satan is bound and righteousness overflows—even then men are free to come out in open rebellion and, as sinners, suffer the fate reserve for the sons of perdition. Manifestly they, being accursed, would die the death with which we are familiar, for their resurrection is destined to be in that final day when those shall come forth ‘who shall remain filthy still.’ (D&C 88:102.)” (The Millennial Messiah, 646). Such a fate must also await those who come out in open rebellion at the end of the Millennium, causing Satan to be loosed, and who join with him in the final battle against Michael and his angels for the souls of men . . . thorough study of the scriptures, particularly the Book of Mormon, with its strong emphasis on the fate of the wicked and the possibility of many suffering the second death, makes this conclusion seem likely. According to Samuel the Lamanite, the main requirement for avoiding the second death is repentance. D&C 76 clearly states that the sons of perdition are the only ones on whom the second death will have any power. (For some examples of the warnings against such a fate, see 1 Nephi 10:20, 1 Nephi 15:32-35, 2 Nephi 9:46, Jacob 3:11, Mosiah 2:36-39, Mosiah 16:10-12, Mosiah 26:25-27, Alma 12;14-18, 32, Alma 13:30, Alma 41:3-4, Helaman 14:17-19, D&CC 63:17, Revelations 21:8.) (Owen K. Peterson, The Joy of our Redemption: An LDS Scriptural Journey [4^th rev.; 2017], 100, 101-2, 103)