Christ’s Coming to the Believer at Death to Receive Him to Heaven. John 14:1-3-The Fathers House: Are We There Yet? Mr. George Gunn Exegesis of John 14:1-3 Context Any discussion of the exegesis of a passage needs to pay close attention to the context. John 14:1-3 is no exception to this important hermeneutical principle. Those who argue for a non-eschatological interpretation of Jesus’ promise are fond of pointing out that matters of eschatology are almost entirely missing from the Upper Room Discourse and are certainly to be found nowhere in the immediate context of our passage. It is universally acknowledged that John is the least eschatological of the 4 Gospels. In fact, as Tenney admitted, I will come back of verse 3 is one of the few eschatological allusions in this Gospel. [25] We should therefore raise the question of whether this promise is indeed an eschatological promise. It is true that the Upper Room Discourse is not an eschatological discourse per se (like the Olivet Discourse or the parables of the Kingdom). However, to rule out the possibility of any eschatological reference on this basis is unwarranted. This is not the only place in the Gospel of John that an eschatological saying of Jesus occurs in the midst of a non-eschatological discourse. See, e.g., John 5:25-29; 6:39, 40, 44, 54. [26] A reference in the Upper Room Discourse to His coming back is entirely appropriate to a context that deals supremely with words of comfort given to the disciples He is about to leave. And while it is true that comfort is offered by means of reference to the coming of the Paraklete in John 16:7, this same Paraklete will “comfort” them in part by “showing them things to come” (16:13). Is it possible that Paul had these words of Christ in mind when he concluded his rapture passage with the statement: “Wherefore comfort one another with these words” (1 Thess 4:18)? [27] Additionally, in a discussion of context we need to recognize that there are two distinct contexts to consider when interpreting this passage: (1) the context of the original saying; (2) the context of the recording of this saying some 60 or more years later. Borchert recognizes the significance of this distinction when he writes, John once again is addressing the turmoil within his community of believers in a heart-to-heart manner. He does so at the same time as he portrayed Jesus addressing his disciples. Accordingly, we have another example of a double-level presentation reflecting two historical settings. [28] Another way to think of this difference is to observe the distinction between what Sailhamer refers to as text and event. [29] In terms of the text, we recognize that this discourse was recorded by the apostle John somewhere in the mid to late 90s and was included in his gospel to help further his purpose of bringing unbelievers to faith in Jesus (John 20:30-31). On the other hand, when we consider the event itself, we have a different time frame, a different purpose, and thus a different context. We are not only looking here at inspired text recorded by the apostle John, we are also looking at the words of Jesus spoken to His disciples for the purpose of giving them the information they will need in order to live a faithful life in the days following His departure from them. [30] The difference may be presented diagrammatically as follows: Event (The Original Saying by Jesus) Text (The Recording by John) Time Frame - Early to mid 30s Mid to late 90s Audience - Disciples Unbelievers Purpose - Instruction for discipleship Evangelistic (John 20:31) Context - Passover Meal and Last Supper Upper Room Discourse (John 13-16) Thus, we may consider the possibility that there was in fact an appropriate eschatological context in the original saying that did not suit John’s evangelistic purpose. This being the case, John would simply have omitted those features that described the eschatological context. Jesus may have had a reason for speaking eschatologically to His disciples, but when John recorded these words for unbelievers, he meant to bring out the evangelistic application. But are we simply “grasping at straws” when we speak about some supposed eschatological context? Is there any actual evidence for such a theoretical context? I believe there is such evidence. When we compare John’s Gospel with the Synoptic Gospels we observe some very interesting features. John has the discourse, but the Synoptics do not. On the other hand, the Synoptics have The Lord’s Supper, while John does not. However, we know by comparing certain events of the Upper Room Discourse with the Synoptic Gospel accounts of the Lord’s Supper that they occurred at the same time. Edersheim notes: so far as we can judge, the Institution of the Holy Supper was followed by the Discourse recorded in St. John xiv. [31] The Lord’s Supper itself is an institution that is meaningful for the believer but not necessarily for the unbeliever, and thus was not relevant to John’s evangelistic purpose. It seems reasonable, therefore, that John would omit a description of the institution of this ordinance. But it is specifically this Last Supper context that provides us with the eschatological setting for Jesus promise. From the Synoptic Gospels, we find that the Supper was instituted with an accompanying eschatological reference when Jesus said, I will not drink henceforth from this yield of the vine until that day when I drink it with you anew in my Father’s kingdom (Mt 26:29). Furthermore, when we note the progress of the Seder celebration and how it correlates with the discussions in the upper room we find an additional – and very significant – eschatological setting. Edersheim reconstructs the Last Supper and its correlation with the Upper Room Discourse as follows: [32] Paschal Supper Upper Room Discourse 1. The First Cup 2. Head of the Company Washes His Hands Washing the Disciples’ Feet (13:5-17) 3. Bitter Herbs, Salt Water & Karpas 4. Breaking of the Aphikomen [33] (unleavened wafer) (Breaking “the bread” of the Eucharist – Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:17; not in Jn) 5. The Second Cup is Filled 6. The Second Cup is Elevated three times; Psalms 113 & 114 (beginning of The Great Hallel) are sung; the Cup is Drunk 7. The Entire Company Wash Their Hands 8. The “Sop” is Taken Prediction of Judas’ Betrayal (13:18-30) Prediction of Jesus’ Departure (13:31-35) Prediction of Peter’s Denial (13:36-38) 9. The Third Cup is Filled “The Cup of Blessing” (1 Cor 10:16) = the Communion Cup (Mt 26:27; Mk 14:23; Lk 22:20; not in Jn) 10. The Fourth Cup is Filled; Psalms 115-118 are sung 11. Discourse of John 14 If Edersheim is correct in his reconstruction of the events of that night, then John 14 immediately follows the singing of the eschatological Psalm 118. With the refrain of Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord (Ps 118:26) still ringing in the disciples’ ears, Jesus comforts their sorrowing hearts with this promise, “I come again to receive you to myself”. Yes, there is indeed an eschatological context, and the significance of the specific language of Psalm 118:26 will be explored below under the exegesis of verse 3.
Posted on: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:59:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015