Idol or Image

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by michael on September 9, 2009 at 9:57am

Nah...John is a Jew. Speaking to mostly Gentile Christians in Asia Minor, probably Ephesus or nearby. He is talking about actual literal idols. Big-time pressure on Christians then and there to offer incense, even animals to idols. Emperor cult was strong there.

All else is application. The interpretation is that John refers to idols. Real idols of stone and such.

Shalom from Manila,
--Michael

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dena Brehm on September 9, 2009 at 12:49pm

I think you're on to something, Dave ... we can indeed have "graven images" of God, of Christ, in our minds.

I see that we're also told that we perceived ourselves to be enemies of God *in our minds*.

What if that concept was never in the Mind of God...?

Wondering how many things we think are of God, but are really of men...?

Shalom, Dena

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dave Packett on September 10, 2009 at 1:48am

Hi Dena

my journey has bene teaching me that our minds work from our soul makeup - our psychology !

Consequently our thoughts are not His thoughts - however by the Spirit He reveals them and we can again by the Spirit have His mind.

Knowing the Lord - is a spiritual reality. Too much of our life experience can be us driving ourselves by our own reasoning ( what appears to be good or bad)- God wants to renew us by the transforming process of the discovery of Him and the realligning of our whole beings to fully know Him.

we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”

one thing have I desired of the Lord that will I seek after

seek ye first etc

lots of other things are secondary at best

every blessing

Dave

Dena Brehm said:

I think you're on to something, Dave ... we can indeed have "graven images" of God, of Christ, in our minds.

I see that we're also told that we perceived ourselves to be enemies of God *in our minds*.

What if that concept was never in the Mind of God...?

Wondering how many things we think are of God, but are really of men...?

Shalom, Dena

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dave Packett on September 10, 2009 at 1:53am

Hello Michael

contextually in terms of culture and geography that might be so

as far as the text goes - that idea does seem disconnected from the rest of his "sharing".

IMO John is probably the least Jewish of all the NT writers in His message and means of delivery.

grace and peace



michael said:

Nah...John is a Jew. Speaking to mostly Gentile Christians in Asia Minor, probably Ephesus or nearby. He is talking about actual literal idols. Big-time pressure on Christians then and there to offer incense, even animals to idols. Emperor cult was strong there.

All else is application. The interpretation is that John refers to idols. Real idols of stone and such.

Shalom from Manila,
--Michael

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dena Brehm on September 10, 2009 at 12:26pm

Dave -- your thoughts and observations resonate with what I'm seeing ...

I see it as ego (carnal thinking) vs. the Mind of Christ.

I no longer see a battle ... but when the Light shines in the dark recesses, the darkness is absorbed by the Light ... the shadows serve to let me know where the Light needs to shine.

Thus, the ego/carnal mind, is a helpful gift ... something to die TO, but not to slaughter.

Shalom, Dena

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by michael on September 11, 2009 at 1:12am

Hi Dave et al,

You wrote:

contextually in terms of culture and geography that might be so

Precisely! This is where we need to start for good exegesis BEFORE ever making the transition into applications. Too many Christians make application before proper interpretation, thus miss a vital step...thus their application can be faulty. That is why we want to understand what John is saying in his context before "translating" his ideas into our contexts.

as far as the text goes - that idea does seem disconnected from the rest of his "sharing

I admit that his parting words seem somewhat abrupt at first glance, but they are not disconnected.

There is sin leading to death [idolatry is listed in the Torah as being punishable by death. Secret idolatry was taken care of by KARET, i.e. God "cut off" the offender without going through a trial in Israel's court system]. I do not say that he should pray about that [already written about]. All unrighteousness is sin, but there is sin not leading to death [some sins are worse than others, contrary to popular Christian thought]. We know that whoever is born of God does not [continue to, habitually] sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself [from sinning unto death], and the wicked one does not touch him [as he may those who practice idolatry]. We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one [one of the evidences of the world being under the sway of Satan is idolatry]. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true [as opposed to idols, which are false]; and we are in [covenant with] Him who is true, in [covenant with] His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God [not an idol] and eternal life [unlike idolatry, which leads to death]. Little children, keep yourselves from idols [the implicit is made explicit...very Jewish way to write!]. Amen.

John is probably the least Jewish of all the NT writers in His message and means of delivery

Since the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, and their application to Johannine studies, most scholars in the field have moved away from that position. It is now easier to recognise how incredibly Jewishly John wrote. In fact, the entire first letter of John is a MIDRASH on the Cain and Abel story!

Shabbat Shalom from Manila,
--Michael

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dave Packett on September 11, 2009 at 1:44am

Kello Michael

Seems to me that if this is an example of a "good Jewish" attempt to ungentile gentiles it would have been a lot more direct in many more places.

The ultimate context is IMO a communion with the spiritual position of the writer - John is primarily a lover of Jesus - who seeks to explain that in the spiritual realities that he is experiencing.

Keeping his commandments is not from a place of culture or legalism.

grace and peace


michael said:

Hi Dave et al,

You wrote:

contextually in terms of culture and geography that might be so

Precisely! This is where we need to start for good exegesis BEFORE ever making the transition into applications. Too many Christians make application before proper interpretation, thus miss a vital step...thus their application can be faulty. That is why we want to understand what John is saying in his context before "translating" his ideas into our contexts.

as far as the text goes - that idea does seem disconnected from the rest of his "sharing

I admit that his parting words seem somewhat abrupt at first glance, but they are not disconnected.

There is sin leading to death [idolatry is listed in the Torah as being punishable by death. Secret idolatry was taken care of by KARET, i.e. God "cut off" the offender without going through a trial in Israel's court system]. I do not say that he should pray about that [already written about]. All unrighteousness is sin, but there is sin not leading to death [some sins are worse than others, contrary to popular Christian thought]. We know that whoever is born of God does not [continue to, habitually] sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself [from sinning unto death], and the wicked one does not touch him [as he may those who practice idolatry]. We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one [one of the evidences of the world being under the sway of Satan is idolatry]. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true [as opposed to idols, which are false]; and we are in [covenant with] Him who is true, in [covenant with] His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God [not an idol] and eternal life [unlike idolatry, which leads to death]. Little children, keep yourselves from idols [the implicit is made explicit...very Jewish way to write!]. Amen.

John is probably the least Jewish of all the NT writers in His message and means of delivery

Since the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, and their application to Johannine studies, most scholars in the field have moved away from that position. It is now easier to recognise how incredibly Jewishly John wrote. In fact, the entire first letter of John is a MIDRASH on the Cain and Abel story!

Shabbat Shalom from Manila,
--Michael

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by michael on September 11, 2009 at 11:36am

Hi Dave et al,

You wrote:

Seems to me that if this is an example of a "good Jewish" attempt to ungentile gentiles it would have been a lot more direct in many more places.

The attempt WASN'T to "ungentile gentiles." It was the instructions of a Christian Jew to a mostly Christian Gentile audience. And, at the end of his letter, John the Jew was attempting to dissuade his readership from cow-towing to the pressure that was on them in Asia Minor at that time to commit literal physical idolatry.

Even you admitted that this was the probable context:

"contextually in terms of culture and geography that might be so"

The ultimate context is IMO a communion with the spiritual position of the writer - John is primarily a lover of Jesus - who seeks to explain that in the spiritual realities that he is experiencing.

So now you're seeking to separate John the Jew from his nationality, and you are seeking to separate the recipients of John's recognizably Jewish MIDRASH from their historical and cultural context...? Why would you want to do that?

Keeping his commandments is not from a place of culture or legalism.

I don't know what you mean there, but I will say that I am pretty sure (real sure actually) that "keeping His commandments" is coming from a Torah [Mosaic Law]-oriented perspective that has been tempered by the Christ-event. And applied to New Covenant Gentiles.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dave Packett on September 14, 2009 at 2:01am

Not trying to seperate John from anything actually. But also dont see the necessity of the context of his nationality.

Because some scholar sees this in Jewish terms - doesnt settle anything you can find any number that will slant things according to their "coloured glasses" - truth is spiritually discerned.

The "Jewish" thing is not the BiG Issue for me - which I presume it is for you.

The BiG thing for me is to know the reality of what he is talking about which I understand to work at a deeper level trhan nationality, culture and interlect alone.



michael said:

Hi Dave et al,

You wrote:

Seems to me that if this is an example of a "good Jewish" attempt to ungentile gentiles it would have been a lot more direct in many more places.

The attempt WASN'T to "ungentile gentiles." It was the instructions of a Christian Jew to a mostly Christian Gentile audience. And, at the end of his letter, John the Jew was attempting to dissuade his readership from cow-towing to the pressure that was on them in Asia Minor at that time to commit literal physical idolatry.

Even you admitted that this was the probable context:

"contextually in terms of culture and geography that might be so"

The ultimate context is IMO a communion with the spiritual position of the writer - John is primarily a lover of Jesus - who seeks to explain that in the spiritual realities that he is experiencing.

So now you're seeking to separate John the Jew from his nationality, and you are seeking to separate the recipients of John's recognizably Jewish MIDRASH from their historical and cultural context...? Why would you want to do that?

Keeping his commandments is not from a place of culture or legalism.

I don't know what you mean there, but I will say that I am pretty sure (real sure actually) that "keeping His commandments" is coming from a Torah [Mosaic Law]-oriented perspective that has been tempered by the Christ-event. And applied to New Covenant Gentiles.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This