"Society" in the CNT

[PhilNotChristian]

Bill, when I read the CNT and I see the word "Society" it trips me up somewhat. Can you expand on that a little bit ? CB

[wmfinck]

Bill, when I read the CNT and I see the word "Society" it trips me up somewhat. Can you expand on that a little bit ? CB

This should do it:

What is the World?

[CIman]

J.E. Botha and P.A. Rosseau, secular scholars at the New Testament University of South Africa, did a very thorough and good examination of the word cosmos (which Judeos often purposely mistranslate as "the whole world"),

For God did not so love the whole world – only Israel!

http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/art ... le/479/378

[Joe]

CIman wrote:

J.E. Botha and P.A. Rosseau, secular scholars at the New Testament University of South Africa, did a very thorough and good examination of the word cosmos (which Judeos often purposely mistranslate as "the whole world"),

This paper has many problems. Some examples.
He says universalism is still valid, does not prove it, but simply states that John 3:16 cannot prove it.

However, while contending that traditional interpretations of this verse
are untenable, we must also at the outset say that this is not an attack against
the fundamentals of Christianity. Christians can still with confidence say, and
believe, that God sent his Son to this world to save those who believe in Him.
We are merely saying that having examined this verse in its grammatical,
literary, social and cultural context, it is clear that this particular verse does not
support that traditional notion, and cannot be used to support the idea that
God so loved the whole of humankind!

Again.

Again we must make the point that God’s providence for
all of humankind is not in dispute here (or anywhere in this study, for that
matter,) but the dogmatic misappropriation of a Bible verse has to be
criticised.

He has a problem with 'born from above'.

The implications are clear: only someone from the sky regions
(“above”) will be able to return because that is where he came from (Malina &
Rohrbaugh 1998:85).

And here.

Given the reasons for Jesus’ quest for social reform among God’s
people (and, undoubtedly, no less, their deep and genuine spiritual rebirth
from “above” without which, undeniably so, any social reform would have
been doomed to failure)

A new birth status?

condition: to be born anew
– from above/once more), thereby
acquiring a new birth status and, consequently, a new (and better) honour
rating (1998:81)

He fails to realize that only Israel has the Law and only Israel can sin.

Thus defined, it is also clear that what is at stake here is not the sins of
all of humankind through all of time and space, but that the allusion is to the
people of Israel. The sin of the “world” equals the sin of Israel, not the sin of all
of humanity!

He fails to understand the nature of the propitiation.

The purpose of Jesus” crucifixion in John, then, stands
prominently and unmistakably enunciated: he did not die because God
“wanted” him dead as a propitiation for sin, but, in dutiful obedience to the
commandment of the Father (Jn 10:18), he laid down his life in order to take it
up again – an almighty deed which no man could ever hope to imitate or
achieve on his own – Jesus died to rise again.

Strings attached? (I sort of understand "if you love me, keep my commandments. But salvation is based on an unconditional promise made to a certain race)

Jesus, then, was indeed God’s gift-with-strings-attached (Malina 1993b:85) to the
“world” –the physical “embodiment” of God’s agápé. God’s gift in the son had
to be honoured by his people in a fitting way.

And here.

God’s giving-in
always comes with an obligation for the receivers (Malina 1993b:85) to
reciprocate in some or other form. In John 3:16 the reciprocation amounts to
receiving/believing in God’s only Son, the Saviour from God, the one who
takes away their sin and in so doing they become part of a new fictive kinship
group: the family of God.

Some sort of trinity doctrine with Jesus as a 'broker'.

Jesus, then, was the agent/broker sent from God as the
singular [greek word] who mediates access to the patron and in proclaiming the
kingdom Jesus presented himself to the Jews in this capacity (Malina
1993c:136), acting as their mediator.

Eternal life was just a lifestyle not actual eternal life.

Why forfeit the experience of a quality of life so excellent that it is called “eternal life” – a metaphorical reference to no less than God’s (the “eternal”) life – and even in not nearly perfect conditions?
Trying to remedy the situation by leaving the community could not and would not have worked, so why aggravate an already dire situation by turning the back on where “life” comes from?

Antichrists are simply those who were believers but leave this group.

The seriousness of this situation necessitated apocalyptic language whereby
the departure of former members had them branded as “Antichrists” (1 Jn
2:18-19).

And lastly there is this.

Jesus, also a Jew and kind of a rabbi, whom Nicodemus approached during
night to speak to about what he (Jesus) was doing. The conversation itself
centres around becoming a partaker of the kingdom of God (a Jewish
concept) by new birth – a subject and theme
which specifically and exclusively
encompassed Israel, the people of God.

[Staropramen]

Joe,
Thanks for looking through this and posting these quotes with commentary.

[Staropramen]

Eternal life was just a lifestyle not actual eternal life.

Why forfeit the experience of a quality of life so excellent that it is called “eternal life” – a metaphorical reference to no less than God’s (the “eternal”) life – and even in not nearly perfect conditions?
Trying to remedy the situation by leaving the community could not and would not have worked, so why aggravate an already dire situation by turning the back on where “life” comes from?

Unless I'm missing something he seems to be differentiating between eternal existence and eternal life. He's doing it from a universalist perspective but nonetheless it is, imo a valid distinction when properly applied. All Israel has eternal existence but rewards or the lack thereof [Daniel 12:2] based on works determine whether or not it will be eternal life in the quality sense.

[Joe]

I understand what you are saying Staropramen. It is slightly difficult to articulate what I think he is asserting and I could have used a better example. See what you think:

(The boxes/brackets represent greek words that your browser doesn't have the character set for)

The beginning of eternal life is prominent in the theological/dogmatic
“use” of John 3:16 whereby the commencement / beginning of eternal life,
being “born again” in the turn of speech of John 3:3, is over-familiar. The
present participle for believing (
 ) and the present subjunctive having
(
), however, emphatically state another (and radically different) fact about
eternal life as Jesus is reported here to have said – he referred not to a
beginning, but the continuance in faith and thereby having life. Likewise, the
aorist deponent subjunctive 
, while it would not exclude such a
reference, in the context of the Gospel’s premise (Jn 20:31) it does not appear
to indicate a futuristic perishing, but a voluntary act of unbelief with an
inescapable and tragic outcome in the present: life from Jesus is cut off. As
such, John 3:16 is juxtaposed with John 20:31, but also in close and constant
relation to the  imperatives in John 15:4, 6. The use in John 3:16,
respectively, of the aorist for the negative and the present for the positive is
significant: a ceasing/cutting off and losing as opposed to a continuance and
gain. For members of the Johannine community who might have
contemplated to leave the community it should have held a definite and
certain incentive against doing just that.

So he is saying that faith in Jesus is life, while those who lose faith are dead. His main assertion is that John 3:16 is designed to encourage a particular audience to continue in the faith. Thus it is not a promised eternal life but is a metaphor instead. That whosoever believe in Him has eternal life, it being conditional on belief; that is how he seems to read John 3:16. The belief itself being 'eternal life'. He also puts 'eternal' in quotations implying that it is a metaphor.

That seems to be his assertion from what I can understand. With consideration to my earlier example in my earlier post too.

[Lazarus] emerges from the tomb on
Jesus” call and, even though still swathed in grave-clothes, he was given a
new lease on life. Ironically, the fact that Lazarus had this lease precisely
served as the rationalisation Jesus’ enemies appropriated as reason for him to
have to also die

I found it difficult to determine exactly what he was saying on this point so I welcome any corrections.

[CIman]

CIman wrote:

J.E. Botha and P.A. Rosseau, secular scholars at the New Testament University of South Africa, did a very thorough and good examination of the word cosmos (which Judeos often purposely mistranslate as "the whole world"),

This paper has many problems. Some examples.
He says universalism is still valid, does not prove it, but simply states that John 3:16 cannot prove it.

However, while contending that traditional interpretations of this verse
are untenable, we must also at the outset say that this is not an attack against
the fundamentals of Christianity. Christians can still with confidence say, and
believe, that God sent his Son to this world to save those who believe in Him.
We are merely saying that having examined this verse in its grammatical,
literary, social and cultural context, it is clear that this particular verse does not
support that traditional notion, and cannot be used to support the idea that
God so loved the whole of humankind!

Again.

Again we must make the point that God’s providence for
all of humankind is not in dispute here (or anywhere in this study, for that
matter,) but the dogmatic misappropriation of a Bible verse has to be
criticised.

He has a problem with 'born from above'.

The implications are clear: only someone from the sky regions
(“above”) will be able to return because that is where he came from (Malina &
Rohrbaugh 1998:85).

And here.

Given the reasons for Jesus’ quest for social reform among God’s
people (and, undoubtedly, no less, their deep and genuine spiritual rebirth
from “above” without which, undeniably so, any social reform would have
been doomed to failure)

A new birth status?

condition: to be born anew
– from above/once more), thereby
acquiring a new birth status and, consequently, a new (and better) honour
rating (1998:81)

He fails to realize that only Israel has the Law and only Israel can sin.

Thus defined, it is also clear that what is at stake here is not the sins of
all of humankind through all of time and space, but that the allusion is to the
people of Israel. The sin of the “world” equals the sin of Israel, not the sin of all
of humanity!

He fails to understand the nature of the propitiation.

The purpose of Jesus” crucifixion in John, then, stands
prominently and unmistakably enunciated: he did not die because God
“wanted” him dead as a propitiation for sin, but, in dutiful obedience to the
commandment of the Father (Jn 10:18), he laid down his life in order to take it
up again – an almighty deed which no man could ever hope to imitate or
achieve on his own – Jesus died to rise again.

Strings attached? (I sort of understand "if you love me, keep my commandments. But salvation is based on an unconditional promise made to a certain race)

Jesus, then, was indeed God’s gift-with-strings-attached (Malina 1993b:85) to the
“world” –the physical “embodiment” of God’s agápé. God’s gift in the son had
to be honoured by his people in a fitting way.

And here.

God’s giving-in
always comes with an obligation for the receivers (Malina 1993b:85) to
reciprocate in some or other form. In John 3:16 the reciprocation amounts to
receiving/believing in God’s only Son, the Saviour from God, the one who
takes away their sin and in so doing they become part of a new fictive kinship
group: the family of God.

Some sort of trinity doctrine with Jesus as a 'broker'.

Jesus, then, was the agent/broker sent from God as the
singular [greek word] who mediates access to the patron and in proclaiming the
kingdom Jesus presented himself to the Jews in this capacity (Malina
1993c:136), acting as their mediator.

Eternal life was just a lifestyle not actual eternal life.

Why forfeit the experience of a quality of life so excellent that it is called “eternal life” – a metaphorical reference to no less than God’s (the “eternal”) life – and even in not nearly perfect conditions?
Trying to remedy the situation by leaving the community could not and would not have worked, so why aggravate an already dire situation by turning the back on where “life” comes from?

Antichrists are simply those who were believers but leave this group.

The seriousness of this situation necessitated apocalyptic language whereby
the departure of former members had them branded as “Antichrists” (1 Jn
2:18-19).

And lastly there is this.

Jesus, also a Jew and kind of a rabbi, whom Nicodemus approached during
night to speak to about what he (Jesus) was doing. The conversation itself
centres around becoming a partaker of the kingdom of God (a Jewish
concept) by new birth – a subject and theme
which specifically and exclusively
encompassed Israel, the people of God.

My intentions were not to quote the paper as some sort of theological authority (that's why I wrote secular scholars).. just wanted to show a good explanation of the word that Judeos often believe means "the whole world". When I was a Judeo I wasn't not convinced of CI when I only read CI sources, I also wanted to read secular sources that confirmed what CI's said. Papers like this are perfect to send to Judeos who want secular sources for CI (they should not be regarded as "theological" papers).

[Joe]

That is fine CIman, but I have to make sure that people recognize the difference between what we think and what the paper is saying.

I didn't speak on this, because I am not a Greek scholar, but if you compare Bill's explanation and definition of 'oikoumene' with the one given in the paper you will find that even that is lacking. I personally would prefer to use Bill's paper to explain the meaning of 'world', even to a jewdeo.

Here is the definition given

the author’s use of the term “world” is notJ E Botha & P A Rousseau
HTS 61(4) 2005 1157
simply his way to refer to humanity in the universal sense, but, depending on
the context in which “world” is referred to, in the Gospel of John it can refer to:
• the physical world (for instance 1:10),
• Israel as God’s chosen humanity (1:10 read with 1:11), and
• Judeans (8:26)

I also found the answer for Staropramen. He does believe in an eternal life, but that the eternal life being referred to in John 3:16 is different, and does relate to faith/belief as I have said previously. I do not agree with this at all.

But, however, while the futuristic and eternal should and cannot be denied,
the life referred to here, and as it is indicated by the grammar, has largely to
do with the present/immediate circumstances of the “world”. This is also clear
from the context of verse and the thrust of the Gospel itself.

[Nayto]

That is fine CIman, but I have to make sure that people recognize the difference between what we think and what the paper is saying.

Agreed, and thanks for taking the time to read it and critique it, Joe. One could even say it's fun for us to get the opportunity to apply our knowledge and rightly divide the Word. If someone does it, don't take it personally CIman