Jesus wasn’t talking about Muslims in John 14:6

September 27, 2012 by Bo Sanders 38 Comments

I love John 14:6. I take so much encouragement from it and it challenges me deeply.

I love John 14:6 but I do not like what many today are doing with it: hiding behind it as a catch-all explanation for other religions.

Jericho Books has given Homebrewed a bunch of Brian McLaren’s new book to give away. We put out the John 14:6 Challenge and many people have responded with posts and voicemails (through the speakpipe microphone on the right hand side of the homepage). Later today we will be recording a TNT that includes this challenge.

Here is what I love about the passage and the three things I don’t like that people do with the passage:

What I love - this is a disciples invitation. It happens within a story, it is in dialogue that Jesus’ famous sentence “I am the way, the truth, and the life”. It comes in response to a very specific question. Here is the thing – the question is not “What about other religions?” The question was a disciples’ question about following.

Three things people do that scare me - My first concern is that people only quote John 14:6 and not John 14:1-5 or even 14:7. They have ripped this one sentence out of its narrative context and acted like it emerged in a vacuum. This is never a good sign. In fact, the only way this famous sentence of Jesus works as an answer to the question ‘What about other religions?’ is if you isolate it from the rest of the story and place it in a vacuum.

The second concern is that our inherited (non-Hebrew) concern with substance and our language’s (non-Hebrew) lack of relational emphasis really handicaps us when reading the scriptures. I have to explain to people all the time that when Jesus calls God ‘Father’ he is speaking relationally – he related to God as one relates to one’s pappa (or abba). He is not saying that god IS ontologically a Father. Language about God is not univocal, it is equivocal. Or, if you prefer, as Nancey Murphy points out, language is not representative of God, it is expressive. Language does not represent God is a 1:1 ratio – it is merely expressive of some aspect or nature of God.

The third concern is that in John 14:6 Jesus could not possibly have been talking about Muslims. He had never met a Muslim (as Islam didn’t exist yet) and therefore could not have been talking about them. In fact, once one comes to terms with this reality, one has to question whether Jesus would have even know about Buddhists or Hindus either. No, Jesus had probably never encountered them and certainly wasn’t referring to other religions in John 14:6.

(Unless of course you are retroactively ascribing attributes … at which point you are going to have to explain why you chose this one over other preferable ones.)

This sentence was uttered:

in conversation with his disciples
in response to a very specific question
as an invitation to his disciples
to relate to God as he related to God

Where the problem seems to lie: When people miss the relational language (come to the Father as related to God), remove the sentence from its narrative context (as if it emerged in a vacuum) and assume that Jesus was referring to things he couldn’t possibly have known about … then irony sets in.

The ironic thing is that quoting John 14:6 as a stand alone explanation – without receiving it as a disciples invitation – one may actually be doing the exact opposite with that passage as Jesus was asking one to do: follow his way.

Having said all of that: Maybe Prophet Isa was talking about Muslims in John 14:6. Maybe he was saying that if they want to relate to God as he did – that they could only do so by walking his way and following his life. In fact, if you take away the univocal calling God Father (ontologically) and see it as expressive (or equivocal) of relating to God as one relates to a loving father … you would remove the biggest obstacle Islam has to Jesus – namely that the Quran tells Muslims not to say that ‘God has children’.

You may think that I am out in left field here – but until we:

stop quoting John 14:6 in a vacuum
stop thinking that Jesus was talking about other religions
stop thinking that Jesus’ Father language is univocal (instead of relational)

We won’t even be able to have the conversation and explore the possibility.

Filed Under: engaging, latest, thinking Tagged With: Bible, book, books, Buddha, Christianity, church, Father, God, Hebrew, image, Islam, jesus, Jewish, John 14:6, Language, McLaren, Moses, Nancey Murphy, Prophet Isa, Quran, religion, univocal

38 comments

Newest | Oldest

MarshallPease

Here is the same argument by J. Gresham Machen in Christianity and Liberalism (1923 ... Free download access at Reformed.org ,,, http://reformed.org/books/chr_and_lib/index.html)

"The error consists in supposing that the Golden Rule, with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, is addressed to the whole world. As a matter of fact the whole discourse is expressly addressed to Jesus' disciples; and from them the great world outside is distinguished in the plainest possible way. The persons to whom the Golden Rule is addressed are persons in whom a great change has been wrought − a change which fits them for entrance into the Kingdom of God. Such persons will have pure desires; they, and they only, can safely do unto others as they would have others do unto them, for the things that they would have others do unto them are high and pure. " -p.33

Ya think?

MarshallPease

Same as Bo's argument in the post I mean.

@DeFactos Assuming there is one god is cool. Not sure about the rest, but there's something there.

DeFactos

Hi Guys, I've found this interesting! Check it out! http://threereligions.blogspot.com/

JamesWalker

1 Like

I think what drives the "traditional" view of this passage, and it's use as a "clobber" against pluralism, is the interpretation that has the person of "Jesus the Savior of the World" standing as gatekeeper to God. What if that interpretation is wrong, though? What if Jesus was speaking in terms of his life, his example, his teachings being the way and the truth and the life rather than his person? What if he was making the claim that no one can approach God without emulating the Christ? Salvation then instead of being a transactional deal where we tick the appropriate boxes (believe in the virgin birth "check", believe in the sacrificial death "check", resurrection "check", etc.) becomes a transformational deal where we strive every day to walk in Christ's footsteps, learning more about our Father and how to relate to Him as we go. How different then, is walking in the footsteps of the Buddha or taking the path of any other faith that leads to the same central lessons about life, love and deity? When we walk on common ground, how can we not arrive at the same destination?

DouglasHagler

1 Like

As an ardent and enthusiastic pluralist (of a sort) my problem with this reasoning is different. Religions ask different questions, and provide different answers to those questions. To say to a Buddhist "No one comes to the Father except through me" is nonsense. The question "How do I come to the Father?" is a specifically Christian question. To pretend that deep down, all religions ask that question is ridiculous at best. To me, it's obvious that Jesus couldn't possibly be talking about other religions in this passage, because the answer he is providing for those other religions would not have made the slightest bit of sense to them.

MarshallPease

@DouglasHagler

This isn't <i>language</i> a Buddhist (or other non-Christian) would use. A Buddhist might ask, "How do I realize Original Mind?" Or do you think there are different Realities for followers of the various religions?

O Best Beloved, form is not other than emptiness,

emptiness is not other than form ....

Sleepy one, Awake!

BoSanders moderator

@MarshallPease hmmmmm I think that you may be changing the subject from what @DouglasHagler is talking about ....

let me clarify something first: if he says that there are not different realities, then are you going to say that John 14:6 applies here then ?

cuz if so that is cheating ... but I don't think that is what you are doing. -Bo

MarshallPease

@BoSanders @DouglasHagler

I think that in general Jesus is talking to/with Second Temple Jews and their compatriots and so naturally he uses their language, but I don't think he is talking just to them, and neither do you or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't think Jesus ever taught "religion".

I don't understand why you want to limit his comments as addressed to Thomas and Peter and their excessively literalist questions. Back in 13:34, surely he wasn't telling just the Eleven that they should love each other? The dramatic situation is that they are waiting for the soldiers and officers, and he knows everyone is about to run off "to their own homes"... seems like the time for invitations has passed, time for demonstration has arrived.

BoSanders moderator

@DouglasHagler We are saying the same thing. A) Jesus wasn't talking about religions B) this invitation was specific. It only makes sense in the narrative context. :) -Bo

cikamarko

1 Like

I think you are downplaying the context of the whole Gospel of John. It was mentioned in another comment that the context is that the first readers of the Gospel, "believing Jews," were being challenged by the unbelief of the rest of the Jews.

The Jewish people at large did not believe that Jesus was the way, nor the truth, nor the life. This fact would not escape the first Jewish believers in Jesus. Few Jews at the time actually had faith that Jesus was these things. So when the writer quotes Jesus as saying "No one comes to the Father but through me" he really is making and exclusive claim.

He could have simply said "Come to the father by the way, the truth and the life, as you received them from Moses," or "as you understand them." That would make it an open invitation to the disciples and to the non-believing Jews and to the pagans around them.

But he said "no one but..." and that is limiting, no way around that. I am not saying that the writer's intent was to exclude Jews, far from it. I think he wrote his tome in order to persuade people to see that Jesus was much more than just a prophet, so that they would trust him and find life in him.

I do believe that when people are first stirred by God's Spirit to seek after something greater, they often gravitate to the religion of their people. So I don't look at those of other faiths and assume that they are outside of God's grace. God's grace is making them hungry for God!

I also believe that the Gospel of John is written to be confrontational to people who heard of Jesus and yet for one reason or another rejected him and his invitation. It is an invitation to reexamine Jesus himself. It is written with the intent that they would reconsider Jesus and find life.

BoSanders moderator

@cikamarko I like much of what you said here. I agree about God's spirit stirring people and John's larger audience.

Just for clarification: Your sentence "So when the writer quotes Jesus as saying "No one comes to the Father but through me" he really is making and exclusive claim." - I never said it wasn't exclusive. It's just that it is exclusively for the disciples! You are right in one sense, but not in scope.

Jesus wasn't talking about other religions or to people of another religion. This verse is simple not in that context. Jesus wasn't talking about Muslims here. We will have to get our answer to that question from a different passage - that is just not what this one is about.

When I ask about Muslims folks are going to have to quote something beside John 14:6 -Bo

sean muldowney

1 Like

Hey Bo,

I've been thinking about this post the last few days. In a pervious post of yours about preaching the text (6/28/2012), you call for people to move the application up in the interpretive process. You also say "Instead of imposing something ON the text I am instead trying to bring something OUT of the text."

I see how that method is at work here, especially in respecting what the text is saying and what it is not saying. But if we regard making the application the priority here as you also propose, what does it *mean* for Jesus followers right now, in our world of religious pluralism, where following Jesus is one option of many? How far a leap is it from what it meant to what it means, considering the cultural climate change over the last 2,000 years? I guess I'm asking how do we "have the conversation and explore the possibility" moving forward?

(and I do realize the previous post I am quoting from has more to do with the use of poetic devices, but it was a good point of reference for me to formulate this question)

BoSanders moderator

@Sean Patrick Brilliant! What a great question! Here is my 2cent response:

If John 14:6 is out of bounds for a question about 'other religions' - since that was not what Jesus was talking about - then WHERE ELSE would you go in scripture?

If you can't quote John 14:6 - since it has a much to say about other religions as Psalm 23 does - where would you start? That is what I mean by "have the conversation and explore the possibilities".

SO where shall we start? -Bo

Len MacRae

1 Like

Bo,

I respect and agree with all 3 of your concerns, however, I don't know that you've really provided a way to move beyond the application of this verse to other religions.

While this is an invitation to disciples, I don't think it's improper to extrapolate that a) it's a very good thing to be a disciple of Jesus and b) a bad thing to not be a disciple. So, a rejection of other religions is not unreasonable. As your 3 concerns indicate, than cannot be used as a simple trump card against Islam and other religions, but I don't think it's unreasonable to use this passage to promote the Christian faith over against other religious traditions.

Our scriptures do indicate that we should give a priority to following Christ rather than other religious leaders. My suggestion is that if we are not comfortable with this, we could consider it in a similar manner as we do NT passages regarding the treatment of women, slavery, etc. While the Bible does record this, we are not bound by it. Of course, this is a teaching of JESUS, and not Paul or Peter, so it feels more problematic to leave it behind, but perhaps that is the best way forward?

BoSanders moderator

@Len MacRae we agree in many places and disagree in one major place. In your words:

a) it's a very good thing to be a disciple of Jesus - agreed

b) a bad thing to not be a disciple. - agreed

Then you say "but I don't think it's unreasonable to use this passage to promote the Christian faith over against other religious traditions. " we disagree!

1) it is simply NOT about other religions. It can not be used for that because that is NOT what it is about! Extrapolated or not - that is NOT the subject!

2) "Over/Against" ? ... I am shocked. This is not an us/them, in/out, right/wrong scenario or invitation. It is to walk in Jesus' way.

Jesus is inviting his disciples into his way - to relate to the father as he does.

Making it anything else is on one's own shoulders. -Bo

Len MacRae

1 Like

@BoSanders Please note, I am, to a great extent, playing devil's advocate here. Especially with the strong "over against" language used. Don't be TOO shocked. :)

While this is certainly a "family discussion" between Jesus and his disciples, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider how this text could apply outside of that relationship. If, as you say, "Jesus is inviting his disciples into his way" what happens when that invitation is rejected? If we keep reading to John 15:6, it sounds like a very bad thing indeed.

Even though this is not about other religions, it's not some sort of shocking abuse of the text to see an exclusivist trajectory there. If we were to imagine that a worshipper of Jupiter was eavesdropping on this conversation, what do we think Jesus might have said to her?

It just feels to me that it's a bit too "easy" to say that this is not about other religions. My suggestion then, is that just as we reject any tacit acceptance of slavery in the Bible, we can reject any exclusivist thought as well. But, we do have to own up to the fact that we are rejecting it, not just deny that it's a possible and legitimate reading of the text.

BoSanders moderator

@Len MacRae Here is where we are disagreeing - you said "While this is certainly a "family discussion" between Jesus and his disciples, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider how this text could apply outside of that relationship."

What I am saying is that it is simply NOT about other religions. NOW - if you want to APPLY it (which you accounted for - well done) then that is a second maneuver. I get that. I just want to be clear that it is not what the text is ABOUT. Does that make sense?

Once that link is broken - I want to know where ELSE would you go in scripture? Since this is not a house you can live in any longer ... where will you go? where will you find shelter? -Bo

baroo

@Len MacRae @BoSanders

Hi Len. I like your : "But, we do have to own up to the fact that we are rejecting it, not just deny that it's a possible and legitimate reading of the text." Well put. We can't twist the scriptures into something they are not saying and we do not need to. I find it a difficult break moving from a somewhat conservative background into a more open theology and sometimes it requires a fresh viewing of the text but other times I find i am just going to have to bite the bullet and go against the old bibliocentric grain and admit that I am rejecting it in favour of reason and experience.

DArcyWatsham

Hey man,

I appreciate that we can not take a sentence out of its narrative context and thus we can't take this one phrase and bash people over the head with it, but I think you are taking Jesus out of the narrative context concerning the entire story of God. First and foremost Jesus was fully God and fully man, and so to say he was incapable of knowing something isn't a statement you can make with any authority. Being fully God means he was capable of knowing anything, I don't know if He did, but I don't know what Jesus knew or didn't know.Second, I'm pretty sure most people do not use the word father as a univocal term describing God. Most people I know know father to be the best description of God's loving character, not his ontological state. And as much as 'father' is a statement of God's character, Jesus was born of a virgin who was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, so one could argue that God is Jesus' 'father'.

Third, back to the narrative thing. The whole story of God is about Him bringing creation back to into harmony with itself and with Him, and this is only possible through the work of Jesus Christ, and His Church (those who have put their faith in him and are now empowered by the Holy Spirit). Only God can enact real change, and so Jesus has to be involved.

Hope that gives you some food for thought, or if I've misunderstood or misrepresented you please respond.

BoSanders moderator

@DArcyWatsham Hmmmm.... I see what you are up to but ... you take a couple of short cuts that I think we would do well to name (and not assume).

You start well but then you make a fatal flaw. Just to be clear: I have left Jesus squarely IN the narrative of the Gospel. What you are talking about with fully human/fully God (while true) is that thing I said people do (in the original post) of retroactively ascribing attributes.

The fully god/ fully human thing is something that we definitely believe but which comes in later. For you to then say that is the whole story and I have ripped Jesus out of it ... not exactly accurate. It is kinds in the wrong order.

If you don't think that people talk of God in univocal terms ... you have not talked to who I have talked to :( Conservatives, evangelicals, and charismatic - pentecostals all use 'representative' language instead of 'expressive'. (Nancey Murphy, that I mentioned, is the go to on this)

Your third point (while I agree with many points of it) is QUITE presuptive. and not really in the correct 'order' of how things came to be .... You take the whole things as we understand it now and impose it upon the past. That is not good.

Write me back. Does that make sense ? -Bo

paul thom

one last thing: thanks for having this conversation. I'm a Christian missionary who married a Muslim, so it means a lot to me. I'd call into the speakpipe right now but there's this jet-lagged Ugandan guy right next to me and he needs the sleep and i don't want to wake him up. it's his 1st time to leave Uganda and he's blown away by the idea of tap water. if you want, you can meet him, Sam Ojok, on this video http://water.cc/water He's awesome.

John Doukas

in my understanding, a disciple learns directly from a teacher. He, in the sermon on the mount, gave a parable/warning about people who did miracles in His name...but Jesus said He never knew them. Again, in my understanding, that's scary...it's not just what i do to be a disciple, but WHO is my teacher.

John Doukas

I don't think He was mentioning or eluding to Muslims, but He still narrowed the field. Jesus didn't need to make a list of names of who not to follow, but summed it up...it's through Him, by Him, and with Him only. Likewise with chapter 15, apart from Him, you/we can do nothing. I don't think discipleship with Jesus is just a mental-state or attitude. I think it's personal, as the article relates with being relational with the Father, but I also think it's a hard fact, that you need to be relational with the Father. John 1 says He gives the right to be sons...it doesn't say symbolic sons or philosophical, but simply...sons. Jesus in Matthew sent out all the apostles with the command to make disciples of Him, teaching His commands.

paul thom

1 Like

Borg makes the case that John's responding to Jews being "put out of the synagogue" for saying Jesus is the Messiah (ie cast out of the Jewish community, the way culture works, how you meet a girl, get married, everything) referred to in John 9:22 and other spots, by putting down Jesus' John 14:6 words. So he's really saying, dude, don't go back to the old way, continue on this Jesus thing because it's the way" to Jewish followers of Jesus. http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2000/08/Jesus-The-Way-The-Truth-The-Life.aspx

matteritchie

Great post! Re the need to put more emphasis on v. 1-4 and less on 6, I wholehartedly agree. http://theoprudence.com/?p=415

baroo

1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me.

2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.

4 You know the way to the place where I am going.” Jesus the Way to the Father

5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jesus is talking about 'The Fathers house' where there is a 'place' prepared for his disciples (at least those present in the passage here) to where Jesus is going.

They don't seem to realise they know the way to the place because it is Jesus himself - not geographical neither a doctrine, religion, creed, or concept but a PERSON who they KNOW already. I think it is fair to say that when Jesus is refering to the Father he is refering to God (?)

He then says 'NO-ONE can come to the Father except through me'

A little look at the Greek (I am no Greek Scholar but thanks to the internet):

No-one: oudeis = oude + eis = no one

Comes: erchomai = is coming (present imperfect)

To: Pros = towards

Conclusion:

1. I think it is fair to say one has to do considerable mental gymnastics to avoid the clear staement that Jesus is claiming some kind of exclusivity here.

2. The only 2 loopholes I could suggest is that

either

a) Jesus did not really say this but it was added by Christians later on to give Jesus some kind of leverage.

b) The fact that the verb 'comes' is not a generalisation for future generations but a rather literally present day statement 'is coming towards'. ... like everybody is doing it this way ...or everybody who is coming to me at this present time is whether they know it or not coming to the Father because I am in the Father and the Father is in me! (The Father at least representing a relationship to God which Jesus cherishes above all other descriptions - at least in the book of John)

BoSanders moderator

1 Like

@baroo BAROO! come on :) let's take this in chunks:

1) You said "considerable mental gymnastics to avoid the clear staement that Jesus is claiming some kind of exclusivity here." WHAT? I never said that Jesus is not claiming SOME kind of exclusivity here! But is exclusivity for disciples! This is a disciples invitation. It would call for real gymnastics to see it as anything else!

2) NEVER give me only 2 options. I am so allergic to dualism that I might reject a binary on principal alone :)

3) Are you talking about the English tense? That's translation friend. Investigation is required. Don't get too comfortable and sure on stuff like that.

4) WHOA! Now you are quoting a different passage about the Father as support to this one? I do not disagree that " The Father at least representing a relationship to God which Jesus cherishes above all other descriptions " but that does not address what I am saying about the RELATIONAL language not being 'exacting' but 'expressive'.

-Bo

baroo

@BoSanders

Yo Bo

1) I was being generous

2) I hate binaries too

3) I did say i was not an expert but I think it is a fair rendering of the Greek text for ‘oudeis’ to mean no-one. No-one therefore (being inescapability binary) in this context would exclude every other way whether it be Muslim, Buddhist, past present or future. If Jesus was referring to his disciples only he would have said it differently like "I am the way the truth and the life. YOU can only come to the Father by me"

or: "I am the way the truth and the life. MY FOLLOWERS can only come to the Father by me"

but No-one means just that. I'm comfortable with the translation ... not so much with the implications.

As for the second word ‘erchomai’ it is definitely in the present imperfect tense and I was on your side with that one which at a squeeze could imply something only relevant to the time it was said (but potentially progressively looking to the future.)

4) By exacting do you mean that - a precise overarching definition of God as Father is to be extracted ... and by relational do you mean there is nothing more meant than Jesus own personal relationship and expression of his relationship with God?

So to a Muslim you have an expression for your relationship with God which is ‘Allah’. As for Jesus his expression for that relationship is ‘Father’. The only way to be able to express one's relationship with God as Father would be through Jesus.

If so I think that this is a bit limiting and a general reading of scripture would not favour that. You are right in that which you affirm but wrong in that which you deny. It means much more than that.

Although I do agree with what you are trying to say which I think is ‘God is bigger than the conservative Christian salvation package - who tend to make their interpretation of the Gospel the sum total of God's way of relating to humanity’, I don't think you can use this scripture to back it up. Even taken in it's context it says 'No one can come to God the Father but through/by Jesus' ... but that's the Bible for ya ;o)

You mentioned the Wesley quadrilateral in another post: Perhaps in the context of this passage we could relegate a literal Bible rendering beneath reason and experience?

If I was with a Muslim I wouldn't jump to this passage to prove my point because 'proving my point' isn't what its all about - as intimated in another post somewhere i would simply try to learn from my Muslim friend with no strings attached - simply loving attentiveness to this person, as a person - not as a Muslim.

If forced to show this passage I would simply read it and ask what they thought of it and leave it at that. If they then asked me what I thought I would say that 'it seems to say' .... etc. I would then let the Holy Spirit do the interpretation to that particular human being. How I interpret a passage does not mean that this is the only way to interpret it - we should let scripture be more flexible than that and not be too exacting. Cold analysis of the text will simply create a dualism- a separation but no relationship.

I used to be really into Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments with secular science and still enjoy it but I have seen recently that we do not need to squeeze God within the scientific parameters to give him (sorry) Godself leverage - God doesn't need it - God is bigger than that.

In the same way a similar scientific/analytic approach to scripture doesn't do God any favours. Scripture needs to be broken loose from these strictures for God to be truly revealed and known.

So in summary: I love your posts and they really make me think - you are a great guy! In this case I agree with you in principle but not so much in the way you go about it - There are different ways to skin a conservative – whoops I mean cat. (I've nothing against cats mind you – or my conservative friends – I think;o)

MarshallPease

1 Like

I don't disagree with your conclusion, that other religions should not just be ruled out of court ... but concerning your point 2, or rather your third concern: surely Jesus never met a Muslim, but he met many "pagans", which were not a monolithic group: besides the Roman state version, there were the Egyptians and lots of local cults. Some of the Greek mystery cults like the Eleusinain seem to have been well-developed theologically. There were other ANE religions like Zoroastrianism. Probably Jesus encountered adherents to all of these ... eg, John 12:20. Not to mention the ashoreth people and the shrines in the high places, and "heretical" Jewish cults like the Essenes. So he did have other religions he COULD have been talking about, or rather against, and why not see Islam or Hinduism as more of the same?

Although my opinion is that he was talking about HIMSELF: the second person of the trinity.

BoSanders moderator

@MarshallPease Wow. I was with ya for a little bit but then you took a turn on me ;p

Even if all your first paragraph is true (I'm with ya) it still doesn't change the fact that Jesus isn't talking about other religions! That is not the question he is answering! He is making a disciples invitation. We extrapolate anything else that we want to pull out of that.

Secondly, the trinity? ;) Talk about retroactively ascribing attributes! wow. That is quite a jump from John 14:6 ! ;) -Bo

MarshallPease

2 Like

@BoSanders

I do that, don't I? ;)

I said I agreed with you, that he wasn't talking against other religions, and of course he didn't know any Muslims; but so what, that doesn't imply that he didn't know about religions other than Judaism. He is quoted as saying "... except through me ..." and that's a pretty strong statement I don't see you addressing.

He certainly did address himself to believers other than Jews. I pointed to John 12:20-26. Jesus' reply to the Greeks has a strong echo of the Eleusinian Mysteries, and he is identifying himself with their head of grain, which goes to the Earth and is reborn to give back a hundredfold. He seems to be saying, what you Greeks are doing, that's me; and "if anyone serves me, the Father will honor him."

I suppose it depends on whether you are thinking of the trinity as a description of something real, or as a sectarian credal statement. Someday it would be worth having a discussion about to what extent the second person should be exclusively identified with the human person Jesus of Nazareth.

paul thom

1 Like

It's just recently begun to seem very weird to me that we so widely take this to mean "so the only way to God is to become a Christian". For starters, insofar as they're Jesus' words, there was no Christian religion when he spoke them. Maybe the words are actually about who Jesus is, as the words themselves say. After all, John's clear with us that the point of his gospel is for us to know who Jesus is, so maybe the words mean that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life--there is no way to the Father but by truth and life...that's they way. It just happens that the Father expressed that truth and life through the person of Jesus. Did God make a world absent of truth and life before Jesus and the Christian religion?

BoSanders moderator

@paul thom Ok ... I get what you are up to... I see where where you are going ...

I would just want to slow down and make sure we pull apart some terms that might be getting mashed together:

Jesus - the historical figure

Christ - the idea or concept

Christian - follow

Christianity - formalized and organized

Religion - ??

So there are 5 terms I don't want to see conflated too early... does that make sense? -Bo

paul thom

@BoSanders I like that, though I'd suggest some get pulled apart to get mashed up again. John's specialty is kind of taking "Jesus" and "Christ" and the logos, light, life, truth, bread, alpha, omega and more and mash them up to make the case for his oneness in being with the Father. Which all emphasizes your point, because it's so reductionistic to take John 14:6 as though Jesus is comparing the "way" of Christian faith to the "way" of Muslim faith. Insofar as Jesus is the logos and there in the beginning, then he (the way, the truth, the life, the way to the Father) precedes Islam, Christianity, Judaism, sacred texts, humankind, lizards, volcanos, amoebas and everything. So "Christian", "Christianity", and "Religion" are all anachronistic impositions that maybe should not be imposed on the meaning of John 14:6.

ngilmour

1 Like

As you know, I think that people grossly overplay the Adolph-von-Harnack Hebraic-versus-Hellenic binary, but I do think that attention to the questions that set up John 14:6 (so that we don't assume it's answering a question that it ain't) is central to all good Bible-reading, especially here.

BoSanders moderator

@ngilmour VERY good caution (as always). I appreciate the affirmation (and you as an ongoing conversation partner) - but you already knew that ;) -Bo

ngilmour

1 Like

@BoSanders iPor supuesto, amigo! I just now left a John 14:6 challenge on your SpeakPipe, so I'm doing all of my deaconly duties this week, right?

BoSanders moderator

@ngilmour can't wait to hear it :)

Trackbacks

What if John 14:6 isn’t even about Salvation? says:

November 28, 2012 at 9:02 pm

[...] swung first with “Jesus wasn’t talking about Muslims in John 14:6″ and followed it up with “an alternative to John 14:6″ saying that one that famous [...]

Living the Questions

Jesus wasn’t talking about Muslims in John 14:6

Trackbacks

Search

Subscribe via iTunes

Support the brew