In my article “Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior,” I ask the following question: “Do the ‘signs’ cited in John 20:31 refer to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples or do they refer to all the signs recorded in the book of John?” To this question I answer: “Context, chronology, Christ Himself, cross references, church-age audience, and certain scholars will demonstrate that the ‘signs’ cited in John 20:31 refer specifically to the three resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples.”
To further solidify my premise that the “signs” cited in John 20:31 refer to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples and not to all the signs recorded in the book of John, four more evidences can be added to the six listed above: common sense, claim, composer’s usage, and clarifying comments. These evidences are explained as follows:
Common sense: Commenting on my article, Greg Schliesmann says: “Jon, I was only able to spend a short time reading your paper but enjoyed it. I think the thesis of the paper is very strong. Recently I've been thinking of a couple facts that would support your thesis of John 20:31 relating to the resurrection signs. First of all, it’s interesting the so-called ‘purpose statement’ comes near the end of the book. It is well known that purpose statements for letters of the time came at the beginning, not the end.”1 Similar to this, Charlie Bing writes: “It would be natural for any author to put the purpose statement for the entire book at the beginning”.2 Even Zane Hodges affirms: “The mistake made here is simple. . . The purpose for the epistle [of 1 John] is given precisely where we would expect it to be – in the Prologue (1:1-4) [i.e. at the beginning of the book].”3
Claim of the writer: Greg Schliesmann asserts: “John 20:31 does not claim to be the purpose statement for the book but the purpose statement for the writing of ‘these signs’ (whatever they are).”4 Similarly, O’Day writes: “[A]ccording to the majority opinion, ‘many other signs [sēmeia]’ in v. 30 is a summary statement of all of Jesus’ activity in the Gospel. By reading the reference to signs in v. 30 so broadly, however, one misses the importance of this verse in clarifying the Evangelist’s understanding of both the resurrection appearances and signs. Rather than referring to Jesus’ entire ministry, the narrator is identifying the events of John 20 as signs.5 Note that also in 2:11 and 4:54 the reader is not informed that the miracles Jesus performed were “signs” until the end of the story (so also 12:18). In addition, in 2:18-20 Jesus Himself pointed to his [death and] resurrection as a sign.6 The narrator’s comments about signs in v. 30 thus echo the narrative commentary of 2:21-22, in which the disciples’ faith is linked to the completion of the events narrated in John 20.”7 As I wrote in my article “Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior”, Matthew Henry also understands the “signs” cited in John 20:30-31 as referring to the resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples, not all the signs in the book of John. Concerning this Henry writes: “[John] instructs us in the design of recording what we do find here; (v. 31.) ‘These accounts are given in this and the following chapter [i.e. John chapters 20-21], that ye might believe upon these evidences; that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, declared with power to be so by his resurrection.’ . . . [This is the] duty of those that read and hear the gospel. It is their duty to believe, to embrace the doctrine of Christ, and that record given concerning him, 1 John 5. 11.”8
Composer’s usage: Greg Schliesmann writes: “[S]imilar purpose statements, using the same near demonstrative pronoun (‘these’ [Greek: tauta]) found in his first epistle (1 John 2:1, 26; 5:13) refer to the immediate context, not the entire book. This would fit about your point of John 20:31 fitting solely within the scope of resurrection signs.”9 Similarly, speaking of John’s first epistle and 1 John 5:13 in particular, Bob Wilkin says: “Such an interpretation hinges on a questionable understanding of the first words of v 13: ‘these things I have written’ (tauta egrapsa). It is suggested that ‘these things I have written’ refers to the whole epistle. . . . This interpretation is questionable for two reasons. In the first place the expression ‘these things I have written’ occurs in two other places in the epistle—in 2:1 (with the present tense) and in 2:26. It is clear in both of those passages that ‘these things’ refers not to the whole epistle but to the immediately preceding words. That is, ‘these things I have written’ in 2:1 looks back to 1:5-10 and in 2:26 to 2:18-25. It thus is evident that ‘these things I have written’ in 5:13 looks back to 5:9-12, not the whole book.”10 Concerning 1 John 5:13 and the near demonstrative pronoun “these” (Gr. tauta), Zane Hodges affirms: “Strangely enough, the idea has taken hold in some circles that the words These things refer to the contents of the whole epistle. This view is a centerpiece for the school of thought that treats the entire epistle as a test of its readers’ salvation. We have already noted how completely far afield this perspective really is. . . . The phrase These things (Greek: Tauta) by no means refers to the entire content of the epistle, but rather to verses 6 through 12. Indeed, this near reference is consistent with John’s style elsewhere in the letter. Thus in 1:4, the words ‘these things [Greek: tauta] we write to you’ refer to what has just been mentioned in the prologue (1:1-3). In 2:1, the statement ‘these things [Greek: tauta] I write to you, so that you may not sin,’ refer to the previous discussion on sin found in 1:5-10. In the same way, the words of 2:26, ‘these things [Greek: Tauta] I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you,’ obviously refer to the preceding discussion about the antichrists in 2:18-25.”11
Clarifying comments: Concerning this point O’Day writes: “[T]he intrusion of the narrator’s voice directly into the storytelling (vv. 30-31) is not unusual in the Fourth Gospel; indeed, it is one of the distinctive traits of the Fourth Evangelist’s narrative style. For example, at 11:51-52 the narrator interprets the story of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin in order to ensure that the reader understands the full meaning of Caiaphas’s prophecy; at 2:22 and 12:16, the narrator makes explicit connections to the disciples’ situation after Jesus’ glorification; at 12:33, the narrator interprets Jesus’ words about his death for the reader (see also 18:32); and at 19:35, the narrator comments on the source and veracity of the testimony in 19:34. The narrator’s words in 20:30-31 belong to this same category of interpretive comment; the Fourth Evangelist interrupts the flow of the narrative to ensure that the reader grasps the significance of what has just been recounted. On this basis, John 21 is not an addendum. The Fourth Evangelist uses the narrator’s comments in vv. 30-31 to underscore for his readers that Jesus’ blessing in v. 29b is addressed to them; ‘you,’ the readers, are among ‘those who have not seen.’”12
In light of these ten truths, it is clear that John 20:31 refers to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples and not to all the signs recorded in the book of John!
References:
1 Greg Schliesmann, Pursuit of Truth blog. See the post by knetknight titled “Losing sight of the lost man” (November 1, 2007). In the comment thread, see the comment by Schliesmann on November 3, 2007 at 10:59 pm.
2 Charlie Bing, “Interpreting 1 John”, GraceNotes, Number 37: 1.
3 Zane C. Hodges, “We Believe In: Assurance of Salvation”, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 3 (Autumn 90): 3.
4 Greg Schliesmann, Pursuit of Truth blog. See the post by knetknight titled “Losing sight of the lost man” (November 1, 2007). In the comment thread, see the comment by Schliesmann on November 3, 2007 at 10:59 pm.
5 At this point in the original statement there is a footnote citing: Edwyn Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 550; P. S. Minear, “The Original Functions of John 21,” 88-90.
6 In the original statement there is a footnote citing: P. S. Minear, “The Original Functions of John 21,” 90.
7 Gail R. O’Day, The New Interpreter’s Bible, 12 Vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 9:851.
8 Matthew Henry, Henry’s Exposition, 6 Vols. (Philadelphia: Towar & Hogan, 1828), 5:949.
9 Greg Schliesmann, Pursuit of Truth blog. See the post by knetknight titled “Losing sight of the lost man” (November 1, 2007). In the comment thread, see the comment by Schliesmann on November 3, 2007 at 10:59 pm.
10 Bob Wilkin, “Assurance: That You May Know”, Grace in Focus (Dec 90): 1.
11 Zane C. Hodges, The Epistles of John (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 226-227.
12 Gail R. O’Day, The New Interpreter’s Bible, 9:851.
No comments:
Post a Comment