Pages

▼

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Johannine reprobation


Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind" (Jn 9:39).
 
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin (Jn 15:22).

Notice the dual purpose of redemption. Jesus comes to save, but he also comes to condemn. He comes with the intention of inculpating unbelievers. That’s a premeditated effect of his ministry.

Notice, too, the divine counterfactual: “If I had not come…” Their aggravated guilt was avoidable. God could have spared them that fate. God’s action wasn’t contingent on their response. Rather, their response was contingent on God’s action–with the dire, foreseeable result. 
at

5 comments:

  1. Distant Cousin12/15/2011 12:37 PM

    "He comes with the intention of inculpating unbelievers."

    Wouldn't they have already been inculpated in Adam?

    ReplyDelete
  2. steve12/15/2011 12:42 PM

    Their guilt is overdetermined. Multiple grounds.

    There's also a distinction between mere guilt and aggravated guilt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Godismyjudge12/15/2011 4:09 PM

    On John 9:39, Christ may simply mean that those who think they are sinnless may see their sinful state.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  4. Godismyjudge12/15/2011 4:13 PM

    This would make more sense then reprobation, given John 3 says Christ did not come to condemn.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  5. steve12/15/2011 7:03 PM

    GODISMYJUDGE SAID:

    "On John 9:39, Christ may simply mean that those who think they are sinnless may see their sinful state."

    Wrong. In context, this is dealing with objective guilt, not guilt feelings.

    On the one hand 9:39 (and 15:22) look back to themes laid down in 1:4-5 and 3:19-21. On the other hand it looks forward to 12:37-40.

    The public ministry of Christ uncovers the latent enmity which children of darkness harbor towards God's light.

    Or, to vary the metaphor, it's like watering soil. What comes up is what was already there, under the surface.

    "This would make more sense then reprobation, given John 3 says Christ did not come to condemn."

    You can't use 3:17 to blunt 9:39 or 15:22, for it's not as though 3:17 is absolute while 9:39 or 15:22 is relative. There's no internal reason to elevate 3:17 over the other two, as the arbiter.

    If anything, it works in reverse. There's thematic progression in the Fourth Gospel. So later statements are epexegetical in relation to earlier statements. In the course of the unfolding narrative, later statements reflect a more qualified, more developed formulation of introductory statements.

    ReplyDelete