John Chapter 8:30-38

We’ve got another segment of the same extended conversation between Jesus and his audience. It’s the continuation of the last section, and it appears to run until the end of the chapter. As a result, there are few natural places for these sections to be broken into clean and discreet chunks. Jesus has been talking to the group about his relationship with the father.

I have overlapped Verse 30 from the previous post because I noticed I gave short shrift to the implications of the verse.

Text

30 Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν.

Having said these things, many believed in him.

One suspects that “the many” do not include those considered to be “The Jews” since Jesus dialogue with them continues into the chapter. Ergo, the sentiment expressed in this verse feels a little awkward or out of place. In the last post we alluded to the image of the Temple courtyard as sort of a Hyde Park, where speakers held forth and people either gathered to listen or not. Or, this image could be from The Life Of Brian, which has a scene with various orators orating in what memory glosses as the marketplace. So people hearing Jesus in the Temple nodded in agreement. This leads to the question that necessarily arises in every discussion of the Passion Narrative: how did we go from the alleged rapturous acceptance of Palm Sunday to mob screaming for his blood on Friday? One commentator notes that the belief here expressed was a shallow and ephemeral thing since these believers were the same persons who would be in th mob on Good Friday morning. So it may be. And here is where John’s Jerusalem-centric narrative presents a special–unique, really–set of problems for commentary. As always keep in the front of your mind that the gospels had one task that is under-appreciated by modern scholars: They had to explain to their new pagan converts, or those they wished to convert, why there were still Jews. Mark’s solution was the Messianic Secret wherein Jesus didn’t tell the crowds who he was. With or without that the problem is not so acute for the Synoptics; since Jesus did not go to Jerusalem until the last week of his life (?) Jerusalem would have been full of Jews who had never heard Jesus preach and so would have been unlikely to become followers. In John, this doesn’t quite work as well. The “fickleness” explanation actually works better if the transition took place within a few days. If it was of some standing, then it becomes rather more difficult to wave it away. But then the Synoptics say that Jesus taught in the Temple daily, implying this happened more than a few times in a single week. This is why there needs to be a discussion about this inconsistency. 

That we encounter the attitude of  sneering at mobs, one point needs to be made. For the most part, educated persons in the ancient world were wont to do just that: sneer at mobs. The crowd of the people was considered to be fickle, emotional, inconstant, and violent. Hence the abhorrence of democracy as a form of government. This attitude goes back as far as we have writers who wrote about forms of government–usually within the various poleis, the term translated as “city-states”. Thucydides adds fuel to the fire with his reporting on the Athenian assembly and its prosecution of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. Plato was not a fan of democracy since it was the Athenian assembly–AKA “mob”–that voted to execute Socrates. In Book II of his History of Rome—Ab Urbe Condita— Livy describes the rationale for the Republican–not democratic–form of government instituted after throwing off the yoke of the Etruscan kings. Then in Book VI of his history, the Greek Polybios* describes and praises the republican government as a major factor for Rome’s defeat of Hannibal; the Founders of the US, being members in good standing of Enlightenment principles who were well-schooled in their Classical literature, consciously modeled the US government on the description of Rome. This is why the Constitution institutes Congress in Article I and does not establish the President until Article II. Congress was meant to be the leading organ of government since the President was elected by popular vote. Sort of. So when we get commentators sneering at the mob for being fickle, these commentators stand in a long tradition of such sneering.  

However…

This almost feels like quite the opposite. It feels more like John is holding up these individuals who accepted Jesus as the Good Guys who are opposed to the elitist rulers/leaders of “The Jews” who want to kill Jesus. This is why this topic needs some in-depth analysis.

30 Haec illo loquente, multi crediderunt in eum.

31 Ἔλεγεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πρὸς τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ Ἰουδαίους, Ἐὰν ὑμεῖς μείνητε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ, ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μού ἐστε,

32 καὶ γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς.

So Jesus said  to those Jews having come to believe him, “If you will remain in my word, truly you will be my disciples, (32) and you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” 

One commentator points out a subtle (?) difference in Jesus’ wording between Verse 30 and 31. In Verse 30, the Greek is they believe εἰς αὐτόν, while in Verse 31 they simply “believe him”. Verse 30 literally translates as “believe into/unto him”. The KJV renders this as “on him”, while most modern translations, mine included, render this as “in him”; to be frank, the KJV version is not exactly what I would call correct, and it does not particularly make sense in English. Honestly, I don’t even like “in him”. In Greek and Latin both the <preposition + accusative> formation, which is what we have here, generally signifies “motion towards/motion to/motion into”, as in “I go to/in/into the house”. The most common preposition for “on” is different, and takes a dative in Greek. The other thing is that “believe in him” in English is not quite the same nuance as the Greek use of the preposition. “Believe in him” does not have the sense of movement towards, which is the key aspect of the preposition in Greek and the corresponding preposition in Latin. So the translation here would imply something like “they moved into belief in him”, or “they moved into believing him”. This last would scarcely be different from the “believing him” we find in Verse 31.

If my last statement is anywhere close to accurate, it is proper to ask how significant is the change. I’m not sure it is. One commentator says that the more perfect acceptance is shown in the first expression whereas the second is more transitory. I’m not sure about that. The same commentator opines that “so careful a writer” would not have made an accidental mistake. I might beg to differ. We’ve perhaps seen a couple in this chapter alone. We must always remember that John probably wasn’t a native speaker of Greek, that writing Greek was an accomplishment of scholarship, so he was bound to make mistakes. They all were. Although, this does make me wonder about how the process of copy-editing, and regular editing, and copying gospel manuscripts. What happened when John was finished? Did he revise? Did he simply hand it over to secretaries to start cranking out copies? I’ve never seen this discussed, but, once again, it should be.      

Of course the real payoff is the last part of Verse 31 and Verse 32. Believe, and remain in one’s belief and the truth shall set you free. Of course Jesus is talking about freedom from sin, so people don’t have to die in their sin(s). This is obviously of critical importance to the overall message, but the import and implications seem so pellucid that I don’t know what else needs to be said about this. There are potential implications when we get to the matter of salvation–a word John rarely uses–whether the key is faith or right behaviour/works, assuming there is a difference; in the 16th Century, a whole lotta Christians killed a whole lotta Christians over this basic question. I grew up in the Roman Rite and the RR of my youth was heavily invested in the latter, but we shan’t go into that. I’m not sure what you may think of the notion of being set free by the truth, the idea was several centuries old by the time John set this to paper. It is the fundamental belief of Platonism, or perhaps the fundamental flaw of Plato. He believed that it is necessary to know what is good before one can act in a good or just or appropriate manner. Nay, it goes beyond that. He believed that if one knows the good, one will act in a good or just or appropriate matter. If only. Needless to say, this is a hopelessly naïve attitude. Plenty of people know how to behave properly but choose to act in a most wicked and reprehensible fashion. This is part of the problem of evil. 

Now, I grant that this is a slightly different take on Plato and Platonism, but only slightly. Jesus’ statement is not an effort to teach us, at least not in the way that Plato tried to teach through his Dialogues. Rather than learn per se, it’s a question of recognition. We must recognize, and so understand who and what Jesus is. The distinction I’m suggesting between knowing and recognizing is subtle; knowledge is not possible without recognizing that it is accurate. Rather, as Jesus puts it, the wrinkle, or maybe the implement or process required is faith rather a syllogism. Faith in Jesus allows the epiphany that comes in a flash, as it were, although the same could be said for a revelation of knowledge. Truly, it is impossible to completely sever the idea of recognition from that of learning unless we get down into some heavy-duty logic chopping. It is always possible to create distinctions where none is obvious, but that path was abandoned in the 15th Century by the Humanists. They rejected the hyper-logical, and ultimately sterile arguments of the so-called Scholastics who quibbled about angels dancing on heads of pins*, a rather took a meat-cleaver to the Gordian Knot** of hyper-logic.

Regardless, Jesus’ take on Plato is a wrinkle. The question then becomes: What does this say about John’s outlook on the world, or about his philosophical inclinations? Has anyone done that? In two millennia of scholarship, we would think someone had gone into this, but one never can be certain. It requires a certain warped perspective to raise the question, no? 

*It pains me to resort to using this rather inaccurate example. There was a purpose to the debate, and angels on pinheads was metaphorical. Still, at the most obvious level, the degree of absurdity is patent and easily recognized and understood as an exercise in futility, no matter how learned the arguments presented.

**Google it.

31 Dicebat ergo Iesus ad eos, qui crediderunt ei, Iudaeos: “Si vos manseritis in sermone meo, vere discipuli mei estis

32 et cognoscetis veritatem, et veritas liberabit vos”.

33 ἀπεκρίθησαν πρὸς αὐτόν, Σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ ἐσμεν καὶ οὐδενὶ δεδουλεύκαμεν πώποτε: πῶς σὺ λέγεις ὅτι Ἐλεύθεροι γενήσεσθε;

34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν δοῦλός ἐστιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας.

35 ὁ δὲ δοῦλος οὐ μένει ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα: ὁ υἱὸς μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

They answered towards him, “We are the seed of Abraham, and we were never enslaved to no one (double negative = force modifier). How do you say that we will become free?” (34) Jesus answered them, “Amen, amen I say yo you that all committing sin is the slave of sin. (35) And the slave does not remain in the dwelling to the extent of eternity; the son remains forever.

As with most languages that are not English, the double negative in Verse 33 reinforces rather than negates the negative. Even so, I found this statement that they are enslaved to no one due to their heritage from Abraham a bit odd considering that the Exodus was such a significant part of their national/religious identity. And really, what makes it odd is the citation of Abraham, harkening back to their ancient past. But this is one of those cases where the author is rather boxed in by circumstances and so ends up overstating, or sliding down that slippery slope into conditions that may not be exactly accurate. Then, of course, there is the question of the *cough* Roman occupation *cough*. Which followed a couple of centuries of Greek occupation.

The point Jesus makes is metaphorical as we all understand. Or is it? This notion of bondage to sin will have a long, very long history in Christian thought and imagery. It is probably part of the reason why the “paying off the pawn ticket and getting us out of hock to sin” has proven so popular. And now thinking about the topic, this “redemption (from hock)” analogy is the most common explanation of the reason for Jesus’ death. It crops up early and often, starting right off the bat with Paul. Certainly Augustine and the Mediaeval thinkers would take this and run with it; I think of Advent songs, like my favorite:

O come O come Emmanuel / And ransom captive Israel

The concepts of ransoming a hostage to sin is not entirely different from redeeming us by paying off the pawn ticket. I really don’t have the theological chops to question whether the notion makes sense, so let’s leave it at that. Jesus died for a reason. He died for our sins. And here Jesus is pretty much telling his audience that believing in him is the key to redemption, that it’s a matter of faith rather than works. The two are not mutually exclusive to our mind, but these conflicting notions caused a lot of grief back in the day.

More than that, however, Jesus is telling the audience that the corporate redemption of the Jewish people as a whole has been superseded by an individualistic redemption. As the descendants of Abraham the Jews were the Chosen People by blood; redemption of the race was a birthright for each Jew. It was inherited. Now Jesus is saying, it must be merited by believing in who Jesus is/was. Again, I don’t want to get into the debate about whether we can or can’t merit salvation, or even help ourselves; that one caused a lot of grief, too, starting with the Pelagians and leading eventually to Calvin and his doctrine of double predestination. Here Jesus seems to be, or could be taken to be, saying that the first act of attaining redemption starts with us. We choose, or we seem to have the capacity to choose whether we believe what Jesus tells us about his relationship to the father. One interesting and (perhaps?) unique take on eternal life that we get here is the idea of remaining in eternal life. Now I would put “eternal life” in the same category as being “unique”. The word unique cannot be qualified, it means “one of a kind” so something either is, or it is not, unique. In the same way, is it possible to qualify “eternal”? Doesn’t seem like it offhand. “Eternal” means eternal, as in forever. Anything else may be a very, very long time, but it’s not eternal. My suspicion is that the word got away from John; I’m not sure he intended to write “remain”. Another strike against the careful writer hypothesis.

33 Responderunt ei: “Semen Abrahae sumus et nemini servivimus umquam! Quomodo tu dicis: “Liberi fietis”? ”.

34 Respondit eis Iesus: “Amen, amen dico vobis: Omnis, qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati.

35 Servus autem non manet in domo in aeternum; filius manet in aeternum.

36 ἐὰν οὖν ὁ υἱὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλευθερώσῃ, ὄντως ἐλεύθεροι ἔσεσθε.

37 οἶδα ὅτι σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ ἐστε: ἀλλὰ ζητεῖτέ με ἀποκτεῖναι, ὅτι ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐμὸς οὐ χωρεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν.

38 ἃ ἐγὼ ἑώρακα παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ λαλῶ: καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν ἃ ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ποιεῖτε. 

“So if the son may set you free, you will be truly free. (37) I know you are the seed of Abraham, but you seek to kill me, because my logos (my message, the account I am giving,) does not remain in you. (38) I have seen the things beside my father, (and) I speak: and so you did the things of my father which you have heard.”

Grammar points. The word bolded & highlighted in blue in Verse 37 of both the Greek above, and the Latin below, as well as the “because” that is bolded & black font in the translation all refer to the same word. The Greek is actually the original. Now, while it can be used as “because”, but it almost never is. In Greek, it means “that/so that”, implying that the action occurring in the coming clause is the effect of what happened in the preceding clause. “I did X so that Y would happen after doing X”. Rendering as “because” reverses the temporal and so the causal chain: “I did X because Y, which happened before X”. Now, “because” is a legitimate use of the Greek ὅτι, but it’s Definition B, well down the list, after Definition A, Ex I, II, III, IV, & V. The Latin is clear, the standard word for “because” in the sense used here. My question is “why?” what was John thinking? Was he trying to be confusing? Or was he confused? The Greek word is pretty common, occurring in the NT scores of times, a few dozen in John alone. To be fair, it appears that it is used for “because” at least twice before this in John; apparently, I was able to twist myself enough in those instances that it didn’t phase me too much. But it does here. So again, why? Why be deliberately obfuscatory, or even difficult? Was he showing off his detailed grasp of the finer points of Greek prose? 

Really, these are actually vocabulary points, but regardless, there is another one. Of course it concerns logos, a couple of words after “because” in the translation. Of course, the Vulgate chose to render as sermo, “word”, a in John 1:1. And, to be fair, logos here is singular as is sermo, and “word” is a perfectly legitimate translation. I realize (finally! finally?) that I may be missing something. I understand the thought behind “the word of God”, but what Jesus is teaching goes well beyond a single word. Doesn’t it? That’s what I may be missing. I understand Jesus to be teaching about a means of attaining eternal life; that seems to require more than a word, no? Don’t we need a more complete text? Again perhaps I’m being to literal about a word, If so, my apologies.

As for the actual meaning of the text, it’s pretty straightforward: believe in Jesus and do the things of the father as Jesus has instructed. This actually does put some weight oh the side of works and not just faith. We are essentially getting a foreshadow of “I am the Way…”

36 Si ergo Filius vos liberaverit, vere liberi eritis.

37 Scio quia semen Abrahae estis; sed quaeritis me interficere, quia sermo meus non capit in vobis.

38 Ego, quae vidi apud Patrem, loquor; et vos ergo, quae audivistis a patre, facitis”.