John; The trial and the judgement

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John ch3 v16).

The key to understanding the “judgement” theme in John’s gospel is that the state of coming under judgement is the default condition of the world.
It is the state of separation from God, and it follows on from the state of Sin.
Separation from God obstructs our access to the Life which comes from God.
Then “judgement” is about remaining in that condition, and “salvation” is about escaping from it into eternal life.

So that’s the way we should read the meaning of the verse quoted above. Those who believe in the Son of God are entering into a new relation with God, thus escaping judgement and gaining eternal life.
On the other hand, the man who rejects the Son is failing to take advantage of this opportunity, so he remains in his condition of judgement and perishes. “He is condemned already”.
When “the light” came into the world, men either came to the light or avoided the light, and that response was in itself the process of judgement (vv18-21).

But even as the coming of Jesus brings judgement to the world, there is a competing process.
The world is attempting to place Jesus himself under judgement.
This begins to come out into the open when Jesus heals the sick man on the Sabbath, and the Jews disapprove.
Jesus responds to their attack by declaring that his authority for everything he does comes direct from the Father.
And this includes his part in the judgement of the world.
“The Father judges no one, but has given all judgement to the Son” (ch5 v22).
The Son’s part in the judgement is that he brings life, so that those who are willing to receive life separate themselves out from the others.
“He who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgement but has passed from death into life” (v24).
So when the Father “granted the Son to have life in himself”, he was also, at the same time, giving him “authority to execute judgement”.
His word has the effect of dividing the world into two groups, those who will rise to the resurrection of life, and those who will rise to the resurrection of judgement.
“I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear [from the Father], I judge; and my judgement is just, because I seek not my own will, but the will of him who sent me” (v30).

Nevertheless, those who reject the teaching of Jesus and want to judge him themselves are continuing to pursue their own course.
At the Feast of Tabernacles, the leaders of the people attempt to have him arrested.
This provokes a protest from Nicodemus;
“Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” (ch7 v51)
Even in their own terms, they are acting unjustly.
Later Jesus spells out the difference between the two kinds of judgement;
“You judge according to the flesh, I judge no-one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgement is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and he who sent me” (ch8 vv15-16).
That is, the Father and the Son are working closely together, so that neither of them is acting entirely alone.

His final appeal to the Jews incorporates one last explanation of individual judgement;
“If anyone hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him… The word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day” (ch12 vv47-48).
In other words, this is really about self-judgement.
The word of Jesus has opened up the possibility of salvation, in escaping judgement.
But the unbeliever has rejected the opportunity, and remains in his original condition.
“He who believes in the Son has eternal life;
He who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests [or “remains”] upon him” (ch3 v36)

Meanwhile, the world’s counter-judgement of Jesus is pressing on relentlessly.
It was renewed after Jesus healed the blind man (ch9).
The Pharisees launched an investigation, questioning the healed man himself and his parents.
They themselves were now identifying Jesus as a “sinner”, which meant that anyone who followed him would be guilty by association.
“The Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue” (v22).
That last phrase translates a single, technical word- APOSYNAGOGOS; that is, “un-synagogued”.
In his discourse at the Last Supper, Jesus predicted that his disciples would be coming under even greater pressure after his death. They could then be plausibly presented as the followers of a condemned criminal.
But he promised, at the same time, that the Holy Spirit would come to their defence, as their advocate, and would “convict” the world which was seeking to judge them.
(See next post for my previous comments on this promise)

The hostility of the Jews was intensified by “I and the Father are one” (ch10 v30), though this was implied in his previous teaching about their joint activities.
That was the statement which provoked the people into picking up stones to throw at him.
By the time the Passover arrived, “the chief priests and the Pharisees”, meeting together, were in agreement that he could not be allowed to continue.
Caiaphas, in particular, had already judged Jesus in his mind and condemned him to death;
“You do not understand that it is expedient that one man should die for the people”.
So they took counsel on how to get him put to death (ch11 vv45-53).
The formal proceedings were put in motion when they found an opportunity.
Jesus was arrested and finally handed over to the Romans, a move which was intended to result in his execution.
The official charge was that he was calling himself king of the Jews.
This was for the benefit of the Roman authorities, who would recognise the danger of sedition.
This gospel reports that when Pilate could see no evidence for this charge, the Jewish leaders admitted their own reasons for wanting him dead;
“We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God” (ch19 v7).
Between these two sets of reasons, Jesus was condemned and crucified.

On the face of it, this was the triumph of the world’s judgement upon Jesus.
Nevertheless, Jesus insists, in advance, that the judgement is the other way round;
“Now is the judgement of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out” (ch12 v31).
It was a judgement on the world, because it had the effect of identifying and separating the two groups already mentioned, those who do and those who do not accept what Jesus came to offer.
It also comes as a judgement against the whole complex of sin-and-death, “the ruler of this world”.
That was the oppressive power which was condemned and overthrown by the sentence carried out on the Cross.

This thread was influenced by my memories of a book called “Jesus on trial” (read before 1984).
I can’t pin it down any closer than that, because Google offers too many options.
The same book was the main inspiration of my previous thread describing the promise of the Holy Spirit to be our advocate on earth;
The Spirit, the Advocate

a reply to: DISRAELI

John 8 - Your missing the point of the exchange, 13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.

14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

Jesus says his record true, without any witness, ergo Jesus is declaring himself to be fully God.

15 Ye judge after the flesh;

This sets the frame, Jesus is now speaking about the physical, the appearance = in this sense the physical man Jesus ( for God is a Spirit ) then says truthfully =

...I judge no man.

16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

This last statement is critical. If the Pharisees knew God ie the Spirit, they would know Jesus' flesh was animated by this Spirit, that Jesus was the Father, but they don't know the Father, so they don't know Jesus.

Jesus first statement, |
"Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true:" is spiritually absolutely true, however if one is blind to the Spirit ie Truth, then as the Pharisees, one sees a mere man, who is appealing to a force outside of himself and distinct to his self as witness. When in fact the real Jesus is a Spirit in flesh, who is absolutely and completely God.

a reply to: RudeCherub

When in fact the real Jesus is a Spirit in flesh, who is absolutely and completely God.

Yet he has a God, and never claimed to be "the Father"

See what happens when you mix Christian dogma with what he actually said?

a reply to: RudeCherub
Thank you for that contribution.
I was looking at that exchange from the angle that was most relevant to my theme. The deeper implications are there, but they lead into the different question of the theology of Incarnation.

a reply to: Akragon

Huh, I guess you missed the part where Jesus said the Father and I are one, or before Abraham I AM or if you have seen me you have seen the father, or the one where he said he Jesus would raise himself from the grave.

Or perhaps you missed the memo in Isaiah where the son to be born, is given the title-names the Mighty God and Everlasting Father, along with Wonderful, Counsellor and Prince of Peace.

Time to take off those tradition of men tinted glasses, and read what the words actually say.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I was coming from the angle of Judgement is something that is applied in the spirit by the Spirit, if we look to appearance, ie the Physical, such judgement will be self defeating and in error.

In this way it is faith, hope in the unseen, ie hope above and beyond the appearance ie the Physical

For this reason Jesus said of the living - they are dead, and of the dead, like Jarius' daughter or Lazarus, they are sleeping,

a reply to: RudeCherub
Yes, indeed. So Jesus says to the Pharisees "You do not know where I come from" (and they admit the same thing as a complaint against himself). They are "blind" to the spiritual implications of his origin.
My next thread will be on John's use of the word "believe", following threads on "Light" and "Truth" and this one. I suppose the common element is "our response to what God has revealed".

I disagree that the OP is giving the "correct" understanding of John's gospel and that what he says is how we or anyone "should" interpret the passage.

John is the Gospel that introduces what is called logos Christianity similar to the teachings of Philo.

Meaning that Jesus is the Word(logos) of God made flesh.

Logos means word and reason.

So I don't see the passage as literally meaning that God sacrificed his only BEGOTTEN Son as an atonement for sin. That defies logic and reason. And I don't see it as a way of avoiding our fate in hell because of original sin.

It is enticing. Believe in him and receive eternal life.

And threatening. What if I don't believe it (I don't). No eternal life?


God have us the power to choose. If you choose to believe in God you can study the the wisdom of the ancient faiths.

Belief/faith leads to the search for truth(God).

Truth/God is Infinite/Eternal life.

Judgement is for the dead.

To find God is to realize that you ARE his Son. He gave you the world and the world you.

No God sends is son to earth to die as a sacrificial atonement for sin like a scapegoat because he loves everyone. That is called human sacrifice.

So the key is in the parables, metaphors and allegory. Nobody knows if anything in the bible is fact so you can either accept that it is unprovable nonsense founded on a mountain of deceit or you can find a meaning in the mythology.

Since people don't ressurect from the dead or talk to God and the bible is mythology I don't believe in fearing judgement.

I believe we all are sons of God and will return to her.

a reply to: Parazurvan

Good luck with that.

I'll stick with the more traditional theology. It has been working well for me so far.

I am the way, the truth and the light and all that.

Whosoever shall believeth in me shall not perish, etc.

Sometimes, a rock is just a rock and the Son of God is the Son of God.

a reply to: ketsuko
I take it you know that this is "him" again.

I think that the Pharisees have been misunderstood as being Jesus enemy when they were historically friendly with the Nazarenes and Hillel and many Pharisees were known for their righteousness.

They were few in number but scholarly and most educated in the scriptures. They didn't worship a different God and were known for not bothering anyone being content as separatists.

They really didn't kill the son of God

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ketsuko
I take it you know that this is "him" again.

I don't know. I'm not all that good at spotting repeat accounts, but I am simply seeing familiar theology.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah I don't need luck and tradition is of men.

Traditional theology is the tradition of men who are traditionally corrupt.

So I would say keep your luck for yourself if you are going to follow the errors of the past in blind faith like we have not advanced spiritually for 2000 years.

Pretty much a joke is traditional theology. I am just having fun but when I am serious I can interpret the bible as good as anyone and I can tell you that theology is not the true meaning of the Bible.

Theology is like the public image of a corporation. Whatever is best for business is what is said in public. Behind the scenes is another world that is not as easy to understand, but is still true.

What the Bible says and what it means are two different things and theology hides the truth in favor of what they think people should hear.

To each their own though.

a reply to: ketsuko

And sometimes a rock is a father, and a priest and the symbol of the Roman Catholic Church's hero Simon Peter. Petra means rock. A Praeter or Peter was a pagan priest (not sure on spelling) and also Pater is father as in paternal.

St. Peters basilica has a hidden meaning to it.

A Basilisk is a Greek word meaning serpent king.

So while people don't think of serpent kings when they hear basilica it is still the true meaning of the word even if they invent cover definitions and such.

Sometimes a rock is a mountain that conceals the secrets people don't want to know.

a reply to: Parazurvan

Sometimes a rock is a mountain that conceals the secrets people don't want to know.

I like that a lot..

On top but a question is it a bad thing or a good thing

originally posted by: RudeCherub
a reply to: Akragon

Huh, I guess you missed the part where Jesus said the Father and I are one, or before Abraham I AM or if you have seen me you have seen the father, or the one where he said he Jesus would raise himself from the grave.

Or perhaps you missed the memo in Isaiah where the son to be born, is given the title-names the Mighty God and Everlasting Father, along with Wonderful, Counsellor and Prince of Peace.

Time to take off those tradition of men tinted glasses, and read what the words actually say.

Nope didn't miss any of that actually....

Christian dogma vs what he actually said... like i said previously...

I and my father are one... meaning one mind... not one and the same...

the I AM statement means nothing more then he pre-existed Abraham...

The passage in Isaiah means nothing, he wasn't ever called ANY of those names...

Though he did say after he came back that all the power was given to him from heaven and earth... Who could have possibly given him such power?

Himself... Of course... makes perfect sense

Try reading what it actually says as opposed to parroting what you were taught in church

Jesus had a God, and attributed all to him... and nothing to himself...

Its pretty clear he wasn't God... Though pointing out the obvious to Christians is like pushing a nail though some wood using a Feather

Pointless

I could understand believing traditional theology if the church had a record of unimpeachable honesty, but it doesn't.

With the knowledge of how many gospels and acts and epistles where denied canonicity for political reasons under the pretense of pseudepigraphal authorship or the Apocrypha that was just kept for the big shots of the church and hidden from the "profane."

The ridiculous notion that there can only be 4 gospels because of the so called four corners of the earth.

The destruction of the library at Alexandria to deny mankind knowledge of history means they were recreating history and needed to erase the old one.

But they did not succeed unless you want them to have. The truth is not hard to find.

originally posted by: Lyrical
a reply to: Parazurvan

Sometimes a rock is a mountain that conceals the secrets people don't want to know.

I like that a lot..

On top but a question is it a bad thing or a good thing

Thank you. It is a bad thing for a church to conceal its truth I.m.o.

If you are claiming God knowledge capable of saving souls and you know that the whole story behind it stinks to high heaven then you are not good. IMO.

a reply to: rudeCherub

Me and America are one.

Does that mean I am the government now because I said that?