CAF Bible Study - The Gospel of John

[Nita]

St. John speaks quite a bit in his first letter about what is required to abide in Christ:

1 John 2:6 he who says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked.

vs 24 If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father.

1 John 3:6 No one who abides in Him sins

vs 24 All who keep His commandments abide in Him, and He in them.

1 John 4:12 No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and His love is perfected in us

vs 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in Him, and he in God.

vs 16 … God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

These verses tell us that abiding in God consists of imitating Our Lord, believing in Him and accepting His teaching, obeying His commandments, and loving one another.

Nita

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Just off the top of my head I would say that the coming of the Holy Spirit upon mankind was contingent upon our redemption. Thus, Jesus had to die on the cross - “go away”- before the grace of the Spirit’s presence would be restored to fallen man.

Will check out some commentaries and see if I can find anything.

Nita

I have a thought, but I can’t quite recall all of it.

I think PJPII wrote an encyclical, although I can’t remember which one, which discusses this passage in John with reference to the Judgement of the world.
I wish I could remember exactly what he said…

There are a couple of things I can add right now, however.
The para-clete (similar to para-legal) is one who calls out beside a person. Counsel, comfort, advocate, but attracted due to distress is the common idea.
It is definitely a male as a person in these texts.

Also, in Hebrews, it says Jesus had to enter the true temple in order to officiate as priest over the eternal sacrifice – since there are already priests here on earth.
So, I am thinking that there were other reasons why Jesus had to leave – rather than a mere sending of the Holy Spirit – since the Holy Spirit certainly had spoken through the prophets of old. So it isn’t as if the Holy Spirit never came to man – but rather there is something unique about this sending.

If anyone knows which encyclical PJPII speaks of the necessity of the judgement of the world, I’d sure appreciate it if you tell me so I can figure out what is bothering me in that vague quiet corner of my mind.

 

[Nita]

I have a thought, but I can’t quite recall all of it.

I think PJPII wrote an encyclical, although I can’t remember which one, which discusses this passage in John with reference to the Judgement of the world.
I wish I could remember exactly what he said…

…
If anyone knows which encyclical PJPII speaks of the necessity of the judgement of the world, I’d sure appreciate it if you tell me so I can figure out what is bothering me in that vague quiet corner of my mind.

It may have been his encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem. Here is a link to the portion on the Holy Spirit coming for judgement.

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0142/__P9.HTM

Read it a long time ago, but will have to reread.

Nita

Think I still have time to edit. Here is the link to the first part of the encyclical. Number 8 and 11 also touch on John 16:7.

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0142/_INDEX.HTM

 

[lak611]

It may have been his encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem. Here is a link to the portion on the Holy Spirit coming for judgement.

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0142/__P9.HTM

Read it a long time ago, but will have to reread.

Nita

Think I still have time to edit. Here is the link to the first part of the encyclical. Number 8 and 11 also touch on John 16:7.

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0142/_INDEX.HTM

Thanks for the link. I never read that encyclical, but I will definitely check it out since it it so relevant to John’s Gospel.

 

[Nita]

Spent the day reading Dominum et Vivificantem (DV). About 2/3 of it is like a study on John 16. Very good. Some of his points that I found helpful for this chapter:

1. The Holy Spirit is revealed as a Person.
   The pope notes that in the OT the “Spirit of God was was in some way made known” (DV 22), but “the personality of the Holy Spirit is completely hidden…(DV 17)”. In His farewell address at the Last Supper, Jesus reveals the Holy Spirit “is a Person-gift” (DV 22) - “The new, definitive revelation of the Holy Spirit as a Person who…” (DV 23)

The pope notes the use of the personal pronoun “he”; the titles (eg. counselor).

1. The need for Jesus to depart before the Holy Spirit can come.
   “The Holy Spirit will come insofar as Christ will depart through the cross: He will come not only afterwards, but *because of *the Redemption accomplished by Christ, through the will and action of the Father.” (DV 14. See also 8 &11)
2. The “convincing of sin”
   There was much on what this encompassed.
   John 16:9 connects it with the rejection of Jesus. The first fulfillment of this “convincing” occurred on Pentecost when Peter preached to the crowd “this Jesus … you crucified and killed…” and they were convinced of their sin and repented (DV 30)

Because of the “universality” of Jesus’ Redemption, the meaning of sin in the verse can be expanded to include “every sin wherever and whenever committed” since they have a reference to the Cross of Christ–and therefore indirectly also to the sin of those who ‘have not believed in him’ and who condemned Jesus Christ to death on the Cross. (DV 29)

The points are too numerous to list. Will just give some references for those interested. (DV 31, 32, 35, 39, 42, 43)

1. The coming of the Holy Spirit Jesus speaks of - and which was fulfilled after His death and resurrection - will be a new way in which the Spirit will be present. (DV 41 & 42)

John 16:14 “All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”

“The Holy Spirit is first sent as a gift for the Son who was made man, in order to fulfill the messianic prophecies. After the ‘departure’ of Christ the Son, the Johannine text says that the Holy Spirit ‘will come’ directly (it is his new mission), to complete the work of the Son. Thus it will be he who brings to fulfillment the new era of the history of salvation.” (DV 22)

Didn’t succeed too well in trying to keep this brief.
For any who have the time, the encyclical is well worth reading.

Nita

 

[Church_Militant]

Thanks for that Nita. I agree with you about encyclicals though. I did the same thing with Ecclesia de Eucharistia. WOW!

Here’s a passage that speaks to me whe I get a little down.

20] Truly, truly, I say to you, you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice; you will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn into joy.
21] When a woman is in travail she has sorrow, because her hour has come; but when she is delivered of the child, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a child is born into the world.
22] So you have sorrow now, but I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Spent the day reading Dominum et Vivificantem (DV). About 2/3 of it is like a study on John 16. Very good. Some of his points that I found helpful for this chapter:

I am a much slower reader than you. Thanks, that was in fact the encyclical I was looking for.

1. The need for Jesus to depart before the Holy Spirit can come.
   “The Holy Spirit will come insofar as Christ will depart through the cross: He will come not only afterwards, but *because of *the Redemption accomplished by Christ, through the will and action of the Father.” (DV 14. See also 8 &11)

And this is even more perplexing after reading the encyclical.

1. The coming of the Holy Spirit Jesus speaks of - and which was fulfilled after His death and resurrection - will be a new way in which the Spirit will be present. (DV 41 & 42)

And that is precisely what I was thinking before – only now it is obscured by the chronology of events and of salvation history. EG: The Holy Spirit and baptism as prophecied by John the Baptist do not occur until after the “Lord’s” baptism in the crucifixion – yet, here in this passage in John which takes the place of the last supper – that Eucharist was given to those not baptized yet with the Holy Spirit.

I am also sensing a totally different meaning to the phrase “if I go” in connection with judgement, and the bitterness in Gethsemanie when Christ says “If this cup can pass…”

Didn’t succeed too well in trying to keep this brief.
For any who have the time, the encyclical is well worth reading.

Thanks Nita. Both for trying to be concise, and failing delightfully.
I am too tired tonight, but I have a thought about the paraclete worth developing when my mind is clearer. The bitter-sweetness of the word and the synthesis of ideas – death, sin, birth, life, are really quite at a zenith here in John.

God bless you.

 

[Nita]

1. The need for Jesus to depart before the Holy Spirit can come.
   “The Holy Spirit will come insofar as Christ will depart through the cross: He will come not only afterwards, but because of the Redemption accomplished by Christ, through the will and action of the Father.” (DV 14. See also 8 &11)

A couple of the Pope’s statements that helped me with understanding:
#22 (last sentences) After the “departure” of Christ the Son, the Johannine text says that the Holy Spirit “will come” directly (it is his new mission), to complete the work of the Son. Thus it will be he who brings to fulfillment the new era of the history of salvation.
together with
#24 (last sentence) And this Redemption is, at the same time, constantly carried out in human hearts and minds–in the history of the world–by the Holy Spirit, …
and
#42 …the holy Spirit becomes present in the Paschal Mystery in all his divine subjectivity; as the one who is now to continue the salvific work rooted in the sacrifice of the Cross.

The Holy Spirit’s mission is to make Our Lord’s Redemption present in time. Before He can do this tho, the Redemption must be accomplished - Jesus must “depart”, be crucified. THEN and only then will the necessary graces for our redemption have been merited; graces for forgiveness of sin and our sanctification; graces received in the Sacraments.

It is through the work of the Holy Spirit that these “redemptive” graces are infused into our soul, into our hearts and minds. This is the “new way” the Holy Spirit is active in human history.
#11 The Redemption accomplished by the Son…–accomplished in his “departure” through the Cross and Resurrection–is at the same time, in its entire salvific power, transmitted to the Holy Spirit: the one who "will take what is mine."

I think especially of the Mass which makes present the sacrifice of Our Lord - the sacrifice which is the source of all these redeeming graces. It is through the power of the Holy Spirit that the bread and wine become Our Lord’s body and blood. (Epiclesis at Mass; CCC 1104-1107).

When you look into Church teaching on all the ways in which the Holy Spirit is present and active today (can check Catechism passages), you see how many are dependent on the redemption accomplished by Our Lord. Eg. without the redemption/departure there would be no new covenant, no Catholic Church, no Mass, no sacraments. Thus, Jesus had to depart before the Holy Spirit could come and work in and through these new ways.

Nita

 

[Huiou_Theou]

…
#22 (last sentences) After the “departure” of Christ the Son, the Johannine text says that the Holy Spirit “will come” directly (it is his new mission), to complete the work of the Son. Thus it will be he who brings to fulfillment the new era of the history of salvation.
together with

Yes, I got that part – the cause and effect sequence is proven quite clearly by the pope – what has gotten perplexing is the “why” rather than the “how”.

#24 (last sentence) And this Redemption is, at the same time, constantly carried out in human hearts and minds–in the history of the world–by the Holy Spirit, …
and
#42 …the holy Spirit becomes present in the Paschal Mystery in all his divine subjectivity; as the one who is now to continue the salvific work rooted in the sacrifice of the Cross.

Right, and History being only after the year of our lord or before?
For the passage in John makes the one contingent on the other, and this appears to be a major focus of the popes encyclical.

I am not a Thomist – and I am focusing on the statement made at (Trent?)
that the eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and divinity of christ.
So, I see that the sign of bread is joined to his body by the action of the Holy Spirit, (same as the incarnation of his physical body), the substance underneath the sign dogmatically being the second Person of the Trinity. (As a side note, the order of consecration may affect when the body and blood become incarnational – epiclesis is not the only consideration.)

When I hear “soul”, which is synonimous oftentimes with “spirit” I am led immediately to consider that the Holy Spirit which effects the transubstantiation is also the source of unity between all Eucharistic elements and participation.
Ergo: the conduit of all graces and therefore the “blood” / “breath” / “life” of the “body”.

Jesus is the life, the truth, the way. Therefore, I would conclude that his spirit is “the spirit of truth”, “the spirit of life”, and as you note “the new spirit of the way” – which is a new thought to me.

The Holy Spirit’s mission is to make Our Lord’s Redemption present in time. Before He can do this tho, the Redemption must be accomplished - Jesus must “depart”, be crucified. THEN and only then will the necessary graces for our redemption have been merited; graces for forgiveness of sin and our sanctification; graces received in the Sacraments.

Which causes one of those logical loops – as the first Eucharist predates the completion of the sacrifice. Yet today, no one receives Eucharist before baptism.
And no one is constituted a priest until after baptism. So there is more going on here – and the necessity or causality of baptism enters the question. The baptism of John the baptist was considered insufficient in later scripture…

Jesus breaths on the apostles and says “recieve the holy spirit” in the upper room after the resurrection. Now I see no reason to argue time loops, or the nature of the first Eucharist on Thomistic grounds – but I do wonder at the purpose of the first Eucharist given the context of the coming of the Holy Spirit. The immaculate conception notwithstansing as it is permissive of one person out of mercy.

I will post again in a few minutes (/hours…), but try to focus on the scripture in John and how it relates to the Ideas of the encyclical – especially the major idea of “convincing” of sin, justice (in that Jesus left us?), etc. and also the idea of “comforter” or “consolation” and what (everything !!! ) which is “mine” that Jesus speaks of. The major thesis appears to be that the Holy Spirit is required to convince someone of something.

 

[maryj]

Thanks Nita, a lot of research must have gone into that. I think I’ve got it now. Shall we continue?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Thanks Nita, a lot of research must have gone into that. I think I’ve got it now. Shall we continue?

Hi mary, a quick 2cents.

Abide also is related I think to abode – a house / household.
So to abide in something is for that to be one’s home.

Also, abide, has to do with permanence or a long time –
an abiding presence is one which is perpetual.

So, I think the word has much to do with the final living arrangements of everyone.

 

[maryj]

Which causes one of those logical loops – as the first Eucharist predates the completion of the sacrifice. Yet today, no one receives Eucharist before baptism.
And no one is constituted a priest until after baptism. So there is more going on here – and the necessity or causality of baptism enters the question. The baptism of John the baptist was considered insufficient in later scripture…

Jesus breaths on the apostles and says “recieve the holy spirit” in the upper room after the resurrection. Now I see no reason to argue time loops, or the nature of the first Eucharist on Thomistic grounds – but I do wonder at the purpose of the first Eucharist given the context of the coming of the Holy Spirit. The immaculate conception notwithstansing as it is permissive of one person out of mercy.

And yet if we skip ahead just slightly to John 17:4 we see Jesus speaking to the Father " I glorified you on earth by accomplishing(past tense?) the work you gave me to do. vs. 5 now glorify me, Father with you, with the glory that I had with you before the world began.

Interesting…so the Holy Spirit could not display the redemptive works of Christ until it was accomplished, thus the spirit could not come until the Son accomplishes His task. Did the Son accomplish His tasks?? It says HE DID in 17:4?? I am perplexed again

 

[Huiou_Theou]

And yet if we skip ahead just slightly to John 17:4 we see Jesus speaking to the Father " I glorified you on earth by accomplishing(past tense?) the work you gave me to do. vs. 5 now glorify me, Father with you, with the glory that I had with you before the world began.

Interesting…so the Holy Spirit could not display the redemptive works of Christ until it was accomplished, thus the spirit could not come until the Son accomplishes His task. Did the Son accomplish His tasks?? It says HE DID in 17:4?? I am perplexed again

At least here I can help with the Greek.
The word for “I give glory” is e-doksa-sa, which is not really a past tense word.
I don’t have my notes, but I am pretty sure it is Aorist which is emphasizing a relationship, not when something happens but the relationship. So, it isn’t referring to glorification at any time. Normally, translators assume that the best translation is the “simple past” – but the aorist does not have to mean in the past.
Perhaps this awkward translation will help:

I am the one who glorifies to you upon the Land (earth), the finish/ed/ing work you are the giver of that I (will) do.

The “that” clause appears to make this task happen in the simple future (sigmatic future) if I have read it right or present if I am wrong. Sorry – my notes are all on a computer which has died, so I am going purely from memory and unannotated Greek, and hopefully haven’t made a mistake. But in either event, the sentence isn’t referring to the past – although it is referring to the completion of the work.

 

[Nita]

When I hear “soul”, which is synonimous oftentimes with “spirit” I am led immediately to consider that the Holy Spirit which effects the transubstantiation is also the source of unity between all Eucharistic elements and participation.
Ergo: the conduit of all graces and therefore the “blood” / “breath” / “life” of the “body”.

In the expression concerning Our Lord which says “body, blood, soul and divinity”, soul refers to the human soul that was part of the human nature He assumed.

Jesus is the life, the truth, the way. Therefore, I would conclude that his spirit is “the spirit of truth”, “the spirit of life”, and as you note “the new spirit of the way” – which is a new thought to me

.
I just wanted to make a correction here. I don’t think I said “the new spirit of the way”. That would be incorrect. There is not a new Spirit. Rather, it is the same and only Holy Spirit - third Person of the Trinity. But He is active in the world in a “new way”.

Which causes one of those logical loops – as the first Eucharist predates the completion of the sacrifice.

God does make marvelous exceptions to the norm doesn’t He?
The celebration of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, prior to Calvary, being one of them. At least to us, existing in time, it seems like an exception.

I have not come across anything concerning the above in my years of reading - at least not that I remember. If you know of any work/s where it is discussed, I’d appreciate hearing about it.

Nita

 

[Huiou_Theou]

In the expression concerning Our Lord which says “body, blood, soul and divinity”, soul refers to the human soul that was part of the human nature He assumed.

Well, I could understand it the way you put it here – but I’m struck by the divinity part of the sentence and the fact that the soul which is the form (informs) the body would still seem to imply the holy spirit, for it is the spirit which formed the body of Jesus in the womb (by the Power of the Holy Spirit he became man).
So I would still maintain the results are the same, the holy spirit is the conduit of all graces in the body of christ. Do you have a link I could read which shows clearly that “soul” refers to his human soul only in the declaration, as perhaps I should have considered it in ‘divinty’?

I just wanted to make a correction here. I don’t think I said “the new spirit of the way”. That would be incorrect. There is not a new Spirit. Rather, it is the same and only Holy Spirit - third Person of the Trinity. But He is active in the world in a “new way”.

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to misquote you. I was just thinking of Isaiah and how God will put a “new spirit” in us and read that into your statement by mistake.

God does make marvelous exceptions to the norm doesn’t He?
The celebration of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, prior to Calvary, being one of them. At least to us, existing in time, it seems like an exception.

Well, no, not in the sense of time. I have no more problem with the body blood soul and divinity being present in that first Eucharist than at any other – for the fact is that his body as a human and carnal one was present right before them, so what difference does it make that he transforms bread into his body before them?
Every time he ate bread, it naturally became part of him – he just did it there without eating it first.

What I am surprised at is that he would give it to people who had not yet received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but only a washing of the feet.

I have not come across anything concerning the above in my years of reading - at least not that I remember. If you know of any work/s where it is discussed, I’d appreciate hearing about it.
Nita

Hmmm. … which part / idea exactly?

 

[Nita]

…
Interesting…so the Holy Spirit could not display the redemptive works of Christ until it was accomplished, thus the spirit could not come until the Son accomplishes His task. Did the Son accomplish His tasks?? It says HE DID in 17:4?? I am perplexed again

Redemption, in us, consists in the restoration of communion with God, the restoration of the supernatural life of God in our souls. The Holy Spirit indwells us at Baptism. He infuses the supernatural life of sanctifying grace into our souls. Jesus, through His redemptive sacrifice merited these gifts; they are dispensed to us through the working of the Holy Spirit.

My understanding is that atonement had to be made before these gifts could be restored to mankind - in a general, continuous way (not sure if that’s a proper way to express it). I’m referring to the institution of the sacraments and their availability to those who desire them. As noted earlier, God does make exceptions. I love the statement in the CCC
#1257 …God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Regarding 17:4, I’m wondering if we should wait until we get to that chapter. I’ve pondered and puzzled over the meaning of glorify for years. The “fog” clears a little, but there will always be mystery, for me at least.

Nita

 

[Nita]

Well, I could understand it the way you put it here – but I’m struck by the divinity part of the sentence and the fact that the soul which is the form (informs) the body would still seem to imply the holy spirit, for it is the spirit which formed the body of Jesus in the womb (by the Power of the Holy Spirit he became man).
So I would still maintain the results are the same, the holy spirit is the conduit of all graces in the body of christ. Do you have a link I could read which shows clearly that “soul” refers to his human soul only in the declaration, as perhaps I should have considered it in ‘divinty’?

The words “body, blood, soul and divinity” refer to the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity which includes a full human nature (body, blood and soul) and His divine nature (divinity). Normally in speaking of our human nature we don’t include “blood” - we just say we consist of a body and a soul. I think blood is included because the phrase is used in connection with the Eucharist where both bread (This is My body) and wine (This is My blood) are consecrated. We say Jesus is present in the Eucharist - body, blood, soul and divinity.

I don’t have a specific link and it’s too late to start a search. Unless you’re questioning whether Jesus had a human soul. That I can find real quick.

God is spirit, but we don’t speak of any of the three Persons of the Trinity as having a soul - at least not to my knowledge.

What I am surprised at is that he would give it to people who had not yet received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but only a washing of the feet.

Jesus told Peter “…you are clean…” so I would say it is one of those times when God chose to act (cleanse of the stain of original sin) outside of the sacrament of Baptism (see reference to CCC #1257).

Hmmm. … which part / idea exactly?

The Last Supper being the first Mass - where Christ’s redeeming sacrifice on Calvary is made present, prior to its actual occurance in time. It’s that old time factor again.

Time to call it a night.
God bless,
Nita

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Normally in speaking of our human nature we don’t include “blood” -

Right, good point.

I don’t have a specific link and it’s too late to start a search. Unless you’re questioning whether Jesus had a human soul. That I can find real quick.

no, he had a human soul and a divine “soul/spirit”, so I don’t dispute that – so it’s definitely the longer search on a day when you have time. No rush, there are other things to discuss … like scripture.

God is spirit, but we don’t speak of any of the three Persons of the Trinity as having a soul - at least not to my knowledge.

It may be a philosophjical difference, which is why I could accept the Holy spirit as being included in “Divinity”. What I am referencing is that the “spirit of truth” is also the “spirit of christ”, so that I have seen many times in PJPII and elsewhere that the idea of the Holy Spirit being the spirit of christ is sort of, universal.
Perhaps I have misread it … but I don’t think so.

Jesus told Peter “…you are clean…” so I would say it is one of those times when God chose to act (cleanse of the stain of original sin) outside of the sacrament of Baptism (see reference to CCC #1257).

Yes. it could be. But I am not sure – for they still had to receive the Holy Spirit later. One is not baptized twice, ever. The church says it isn’t repeatable. The only “re-baptism” possible is confession. Yet the Holy Spirit is not given to them in remission of their sins, is it? I don’t recall a formula of absolution being said by Jesus when he grants them the Holy Spirit. Oh well, an idea for another thread…

The Last Supper being the first Mass - where Christ’s redeeming sacrifice on Calvary is made present, prior to its actual occurance in time. It’s that old time factor again.

But, it isn’t necessary to use the time factor. That was the point of my earlier statements – the sacrifice of the Eucharist is a NON BLODY representation of the sacrifice of Calvary a SACRAMENTAL presentation. To be more precise, the sacrifice began in the upper room with the Eucharist so when Jesus took his body in his hands, and broke it – it was a sacrifice of his body in a NON-bloody way at that point in time. The non bloody sacrifice would be “consummated” and the butchering finished by a bloody sacrifice. None the less the whole from the breaking of bread to the scourging to the nails to the last breath can be viewed as one act, and I see no dogma requiring anyone to believe that a time warp is involved.

Even St. Thomas has to come to the conclusion that breaking bread in no way hurts Jesus in the mass or the Holy Mysteries today. He is present “whole” and entire in every part of the bread but in a Sacramental fashion. It isn’t a repetition of the cruelty in the consumation of the sacrifice, so although the two parts of the sacrifice — the upper room and the final breath on the cross — are part of one historical action, only the sacramental portion of the sacrifice is repeated.

Good night Nita. Sleep well. God bless you too, very much.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

At the risk of incensing the EO, perhaps the easiest explanation of the son’t spirit being the Holy Spirit, is just to say Filioque. The eternal procession is mirrored by a temporal procession.

Now, on to those sqripture quotes I was thinking about:

Jesus makes a big deal about sending the “comforter” or “paraclete” in the passage in John 16:7 – though the why isn’t clear yet – but there are several scriptural things I noticed when contemplating the passage.

For example, what is a paraclete to a Greek/Jew anyway? So I did some vocabulary searching – and I think Church Milatent is on the right track with his last post – but I had no idea how traumaticly suggestive the word is.

For example, Genesis 38:12 and elsewhere uses it to refer to the period of mourning when one’s wife has died (as a verb) the man cries out / calls her to his side – but alas, she is gone. This is the word for “mourning”

So, then I got to thinking – psychiatry is a relatively new concept – what is a counsellor or comforter in the day of Jesus. Isn’t it the one who you have at your side to plot war?

So I looked around some more, say Deuteronomy 32:36 – wheir “their” gods are counsellors and there is almost a sarcastic pity being mentioned. Oh dear, quite a disaster that passage. In neither passage is the word translated counseling or comforting , but rather mourning, pity, and the like.

And Job uses it in the ironic sense as well, as his “friends” torment him.

In fact I seldom came across much “comfort” in the situation where the comforting was happeneing. Isaiah is the only place it was really a peaceful thing, eg: Isaiah 66:11 and elsewhere even Isaiah uses it ironically:
For example Isaiah 28:29 – uses it to describe the wonderful counsel of God in beating the gith with a stafh, and cumin with a rod – rather than crushing it unendingly with wheels and horses – reminiscent of chariots…

So, rather than a good thing alone – the word counsellor is a good thing through a trial. The threshing floor is marked, but take comfort only the chaff and weeds will be destroyed totally…

And to CM comment, I wonder at how all the male Ego’s did in Jesus’ time by being compared to a woman giving birth – or perhaps Jesus was comparing only himself, and his “birth from the dead” here? I am not totally sure,
but I know given the history of Israel’s counsellors I would be very concerned about what Jesus was saying – this isn’t easy street he’s talking about.

 

[Nita]

At the risk of incensing the EO, perhaps the easiest explanation of the son’t spirit being the Holy Spirit, is just to say Filioque. The eternal procession is mirrored by a temporal procession.

Now, on to those sqripture quotes I was thinking about:

Jesus makes a big deal about sending the “comforter” or “paraclete” in the passage in John 16:7 – though the why isn’t clear yet – but there are several scriptural things I noticed when contemplating the passage.

For example, what is a paraclete to a Greek/Jew anyway? So I did some vocabulary searching – and I think Church Milatent is on the right track with his last post – but I had no idea how traumaticly suggestive the word is.

For example, Genesis 38:12 and elsewhere uses it to refer to the period of mourning when one’s wife has died (as a verb) the man cries out / calls her to his side – but alas, she is gone. This is the word for “mourning”

So, then I got to thinking – psychiatry is a relatively new concept – what is a counsellor or comforter in the day of Jesus. Isn’t it the one who you have at your side to plot war?

So I looked around some more, say Deuteronomy 32:36 – wheir “their” gods are counsellors and there is almost a sarcastic pity being mentioned. Oh dear, quite a disaster that passage. In neither passage is the word translated counseling or comforting , but rather mourning, pity, and the like.

And Job uses it in the ironic sense as well, as his “friends” torment him.

In fact I seldom came across much “comfort” in the situation where the comforting was happeneing. Isaiah is the only place it was really a peaceful thing, eg: Isaiah 66:11 and elsewhere even Isaiah uses it ironically:
For example Isaiah 28:29 – uses it to describe the wonderful counsel of God in beating the gith with a stafh, and cumin with a rod – rather than crushing it unendingly with wheels and horses – reminiscent of chariots…

So, rather than a good thing alone – the word counsellor is a good thing through a trial. The threshing floor is marked, but take comfort only the chaff and weeds will be destroyed totally…

And to CM comment, I wonder at how all the male Ego’s did in Jesus’ time by being compared to a woman giving birth – or perhaps Jesus was comparing only himself, and his “birth from the dead” here? I am not totally sure,
but I know given the history of Israel’s counsellors I would be very concerned about what Jesus was saying – this isn’t easy street he’s talking about.

Thanks Huiou. I always like reading your comments. Points catch your attention (eg. counsellor/consoler) for meditation that just slip right past me - until you bring it up. Thanks again.

By the way, can I ask how you pronouce your name? I’m always saying it in my head, but then get the feeling I’m not “think-saying” it right - (Hee/oo Too is who you’ve been to me so far! )

Nita