by IP_SEC 64 Replies latest watchtower bible
Dttp:
Forgive me if this is frustrating for you
So do you believe that Jesus reference to the "Other Sheep" at the moment in time he made the reference was purely an ethnic distinction? (Jews = "Fold" Gentiles = "Other Sheep")
In other words, Do you believe that Jesus was not making an explicit reference to their "calling?" ("Other Sheep" = Earthly calling)
I believe he was making more than just an ethnic distinction, I believe that ethnic distinction was between those who the covenent was made with (Jesus' brothers, his own people) and the Gentiles. I believe the Gentiles were not of the heavenly calling, nor were they the seed of Abraham.
Two folds who become one flock.
Sorry, I don't see two folds: in v. 1 there is just one (the sheepfold, hè aulè tôn probatôn); those who are "not of this fold" (ha ouk estin ek tès aulès tautès, the demonstrative tautès clearly referring to v. 1) are not said to belong to "another fold". They are just depicted as being "out" of this one (in the open countryside, as it were).
If we are to define the metaphor allegorically -- for instance, if "fold" = covenant -- then this suits perfectly the situation of Jews vs. Gentiles. In the Jewish perspective, Israel was in a covenant relationship with Yhwh, the Gentiles weren't (they were not in another covenant -- you might bring up the covenant with Noah here, but Judaism generally viewed it as including the Mosaic one, not a separate one; and anyway GJohn does not refer to that).
They are still two folds.
As I said there were never "two folds," and the metaphor applies to where the sheep were prior to Jesus' calling them. Afterwards they are no longer pictured as enclosed anywhere. He "leads them out" (v. 3, exagei auta, remember the ek in v. 16). The gate through which they pass is Jesus, and he doesn't lead them to another "fold" or "closed place" (v. 9, "Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture," a beautiful depiction of freedom).
As far as what the "one" is, is not defined as "anointed Christians".
Indeed, "anointed Christians" is JW speech. Where does the NT speak of "non-anointed Christians" btw? When the Johannine writings use the metaphor of "anointing," chrisma, it explicitly applies to all (1 John 2:20,27).
In the Gospel, the "one" is the divine unity of the Father and Son, which ultimately includes believers (10:30; 11:52; 17:11,21ff). Whence "one flock, one shepherd," not "one flock under one shepherd"
Vs. 48-50 show who the "ethnos" is, it is not the Jewish race as a whole, but rather what the Romans will take away. Ethnos does not always specifically refer to race. Caiaphas= buddy of Romans, Jesus=King means Romans fight with the nation .Not only them of that nation but any Jew anywhere would become a threat to fight with the Romans.. I will let the fact that commentators are split (Clark, Interpreters Bible Commentary) quell this.
I disagree: ethnos doesn't mean "country". Only from the modern perspective of "nation" is such a misunderstanding possible. Btw the ethnic solidarity to which you refer in the highlighted phrase shows that the whole Jewish community, including the diaspora (to which "this place," the Jerusalem temple, was a central unifying symbol down to 70 AD), was logically included in Caiphas' statement. The destruction of the temple was a threat to the Jewish community (ethnos) everywhere.
Plus, in other Johanine expressions, he uses similiar language of Jews abroad.?
Thanks for your latetst post, I am Going away for the weekend, I will give it more than a quick glance and get back to you in the near future.
Regards.
Oops, Sorry, I forgot about this forum.
Nark:Sorry, I don't see two folds: in v. 1 there is just one (the sheepfold, hè aulè tôn probatôn); those who are "not of this fold" (ha ouk estin ek tès aulès tautès, the demonstrative tautès clearly referring to v. 1) are not said to belong to "another fold". They are just depicted as being "out" of this one (in the open countryside, as it were).
Reply: Well verse 1 seems to apply only to the Jews as "the sheepfold", the Jews being the focus of the discussion all the way to vs. 16...Then he says he has sheep that do not belong to that fold mentioned in vs. 1. Isn't another fold implied though when it says as the NAB renders it "These do not belong to this fold".?
Nark:As I said there were never "two folds," and the metaphor applies to where the sheep were prior to Jesus' calling them. Afterwards they are no longer pictured as enclosed anywhere. He "leads them out" (v. 3, exagei auta, remember the ek in v. 16). The gate through which they pass is Jesus, and he doesn't lead them to another "fold" or "closed place" (v. 9, "Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture," a beautiful depiction of freedom
Reply: Interesting interpretation on "Freedom"... But I do take it merely as an interpretation of what Christian Freedom entails. However, I must say I enjoy your style and knowledge on this topics, and the other ones you have posted on.
Nark: Indeed, "anointed Christians" is JW speech. Where does the NT speak of "non-anointed Christians" btw? When the Johannine writings use the metaphor of "anointing," chrisma, it explicitly applies to all (1 John 2:20,27).
In the Gospel, the "one" is the divine unity of the Father and Son, which ultimately includes believers (10:30; 11:52; 17:11,21ff). Whence "one flock, one shepherd," not "one flock under one shepherd"
Reply: "All" always has exceptions, but in this case the "all" refers to the people John is writing to. So therefore it would be unfair to expect me show the term "non-anointed Christians". Again, I am not necessarily fond of the aspect of freedom you assign the Sheep. Christ is still said to be the head of the body, which implies a subjection. I do believe the sheep will attain a nature equality with the Son as that is explicitly taught in scripture.
Nark:I disagree: ethnos doesn't mean "country". Only from the modern perspective of "nation" is such a misunderstanding possible. Btw the ethnic solidarity to which you refer in the highlighted phrase shows that the whole Jewish community, including the diaspora (to which "this place," the Jerusalem temple, was a central unifying symbol down to 70 AD), was logically included in Caiphas' statement. The destruction of the temple was a threat to the Jewish community (ethnos) everywhere.
Reply: Well I have not formally studied Greek, so I will take your info into consideration on this subject. Under my thoughts on it, I took it to mean a reference to a group of people, depending on context what that would entail. Of course you know how I understood the context of 11:52.
Interesting that the Living Bible (a paraphrase) glosses ethnos as "Israel".
Nark: Plus, in other Johanine expressions, he uses similiar language of Jews abroad.
Reply: 7:35, similiar language.
Regards.
Dttp, thank you.
Reply: Well verse 1 seems to apply only to the Jews as "the sheepfold", the Jews being the focus of the discussion all the way to vs. 16...Then he says he has sheep that do not belong to that fold mentioned in vs. 1. Isn't another fold implied though when it says as the NAB renders it "These do not belong to this fold".?
Well, "being not of this fold" can imply either "being of another fold" or "being of no fold at all". I personally find the latter more "economic" (Ockham's razor comes to mind). The undebatable fact imo is that John 10 mentions only one fold. A second fold has to be read into the text. And even if you imagine two folds, the other fact remains that "fold" points to the origin, from which the sheep are led out -- not the destination (one flock, one shepherd).
Reply: "All" always has exceptions, but in this case the "all" refers to the people John is writing to. So therefore it would be unfair to expect me show the term "non-anointed Christians".
To me the category of "non-anointed Christians" simply does not exist in the NT. It is the WT's creation, with the problematic consequence that the NT does not apply, stricto sensu, to those "Christians".
At the very least the burden of proof rests on those who insist that there is such a "secondary class". That's why we always come back to the only WT "prooftexts," i.e. John 10:16 and Revelation 7, which I find shaky to say the least. Frankly, don't you?
Interesting that the Living Bible (a paraphrase) glosses ethnos as "Israel".
Which is different from Palestinian Jews. For instance, Saul/Paul of Tarsus in Cilicia can say: "All the Jews know my way of life from my youth, a life spent from the beginning among my own people (ethnos) and in Jerusalem." (Acts 26:4, NRSV). Ethnos is an... ethnic, not geographical term (as you will find).
About John 7:35, it actually reads " Therefore the Jews said among themselves: "Where does this [man] intend going, so that we shall not find him? He does not intend to go to the [Jews] dispersed among the Greeks and teach the Greeks, does he?" (NWT). Note that the NWT explicits the genitive diaspora tôn Hellenôn, lit. "dispersion of the Greeks," as meaning "the [Jews] dispersed among the Greeks," which I believe is semantically correct. However it follows that the "Greeks" Jesus would teach according to the crowd's assumption are Gentiles, not the diaspora Jews. (Same sense of "Greeks" in 12:20.) Actually all this texts (7:35; 10:16; 11:52f; 12:20ff) consistently point to how Jesus would eventually reach Gentiles through his death and resurrection (the crowd's ramblings are presented as unwittingly prophetic, just not as they think -- the same for Caiphas' statement).
Regards.
Nark,
Agaib, sorry forthe delay, I had to take time and check some examples. Thank you for you latest post,
After searching thru the LXX and GNT, I guess I can see some of the examples of "ethnos" I took as supportive of my view could be seen your way as well, without too much imagination. (Matthew 24 etc.etc..) I do not have access to X-Biblical Greek examples from the time of Christ-and in the Patristic period, maybe you could help me out there with a couple sources/or links?
As far as the the fold/flock of John 10:16, we shall agree to disagree.
Quick question: Do you have access to the Original Greek of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho and other works ? If you do, could you answer the PM I am sending you? If you do not wish to be bothered with it, then don't bother with it :>)
Regards.
DttP,
I pm'd you, but as I won't be able to access the text immediately I'd rather repeat it here in case someone has a Greek text of Justin available: it is actually the First Apology which is needed.
About ethnos, it is basically a very wide notion of "class" or "race" which can apply even in a non-ethnic or supra-ethnic way (to "the race of gods," "the race of men," "the race of beasts," or a corporation for instance); there are just too many examples but I thought of looking in the LXX of Esther as it reflects an ethnic sense in a diaspora situation. The first interesting case I came across is 3:8, about the diaspora Jews: "There is a certain people (ethnos) scattered (diesparmenon) among the peoples (en tois ethnesin) in all your kingdom."
Well not to continute to beat a dead horse.....
...But I still don't see how this can possibly be reconciled with orthodox JW belief, which holds that individuals like John the Baptist were included in the term, "Other sheep."
The little flock would start at Pentecost.
