 |
John 12:20-26 Some Greeks ask to see Jesus. Jesus is told about it and he launches into a lesson about...something else.
I have never been able to make sense of this sequence of events, or why these Greeks are even mentioned. As far as we know, they never see him and go away denied. Meanwhile, Jesus is talking on a different topic.
Any thoughts?
First problem: Who were these Greeks? I checked various commentaries and like how Thomas Coke explained it --
John 12:20. And there were certain Greeks— After the conquest of Darius by Alexander, all his successors of different nations were called Greeks, whence came the name of "the Grecian monarchy," otherwise called "the Syro-Macedonian." Thus Antiochus Epiphanes is said to have reigned in the hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks, 1 Maccabees 1:10. St. Paul likewise often distinguishes all other nations from the Jews by the name of Greeks, Romans 1:16; Romans 2:9; Romans 10:12 and the greater part of Syria was, in our Saviour's time, called Greece by the Jews. Hence, when he was in the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and a woman besought him to cast the evil spirit out of her daughter, she is called a Greek, a Syro-phoenicean by nation, Mark 7:26 and these Greeks who were desirous to see Jesus, were probably of the same nation, and known to Philip, who is here said to have been a native of Bethsaida in Galilee, a neighbouring country, for which reason they might particularlyapply themselves to him. As all the Gentiles were thus named by the Jews Ελληνες, it denoted their religion, rather than their country; but in the present instance, the persons called Greeks were not idolatrous Gentiles; for their business at the feast, which was to worship, shews that they were proselytes to the Jewish religion, and that they cherished expectations of the Messiah. See Acts 2:5; Acts 8:27; Acts 13:43.
Also Heinrich Meyer's explanation --
John 12:20. The Hellenes are, as in John 7:35, not Greek Jews, Hellenists (Calvin, Semler, B. Crusius, Ewald), but Gentiles,—proselytes, however, as is shown by what follows (note especially the pres. part. ἀναβαιν.: who were wont to go up), and that of the gate, like the Aethiopian chamberlain, Acts 8:27, not pure Gentiles (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Salmasius, Selden, and several others, including Paulus, Klee, Schweizer).
Where did the scene take place? Probably in the court of the temple, with which locality, at least, the entry just related, and the connected transactions, onwards to John 12:36, best correspond. According to Baur, however (comp. also Scholten), the whole affair is to be referred simply to the idea of the author, who makes Jesus, under the ascendancy of Jewish unbelief, to be glorified by believing heathendom. This idea is that of the history itself. Bengel rightly observes: “Praeludium regni Dei a Judaeis ad gentes transituri.”
Well and good, but I'm wondering why it's there at all. As far as I can see, it contributes nothing to the narrative.
Maybe to show that Jesus welcomes and embraces everyone, no matter nationality or culture or lifestyle or livelihood or even orientation.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
He welcomes and embraces everyone who comes to Him on His terms. What did He tell the woman caught in adultery? "Go and sin no more." That message never changes. Same thing with the rich young ruler. Have you ever read that he told someone, "Go and live any way you want?"Quote:
Maybe to show that Jesus welcomes and embraces everyone, no matter nationality or culture or lifestyle or livelihood or even orientation.
As to the Greeks, that's a really good question. It's possible, of course, that he did see them. Perhaps the story is there to contrast with the attitudes of the Pharisees who most definitely did not want to see or listen to Jesus.
What??? Jesus reaches out to everyone. Any one of those has the choice to say, "No, thanks."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
As for "Greeks" (from the quoted material I previously posted in this thread):
St. Paul likewise often distinguishes all other nations from the Jews by the name of Greeks, Romans 1:16; Romans 2:9; Romans 10:12 and the greater part of Syria was, in our Saviour's time, called Greece by the Jews.
I would agree with that. "No, thanks, Jesus. I think I will stick with my way."Quote:
What??? Jesus reaches out to everyone. Any one of those have the choice to say, "No, thanks."
You didn't scold me about my (deliberate) grammar mistake. [What??? Jesus reaches out to everyone. Any one of those have the choice to say, "No, thanks."]Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You're slipping!
I'm getting older everyday, WG. I miss the minutiae from time to time. And I think you will give me some applause for my sincere effort with my vocabulary. Yes??? Minutiae! Yeah.
It's NOT minutiae! (Did you take Latin?) It's subject-verb agreement! I went back and corrected it in my original post.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And I really like your answer to dwashbur's question:
"As to the Greeks, that's a really good question. It's possible, of course, that he did see them. Perhaps the story is there to contrast with the attitudes of the Pharisees who most definitely did not want to see or listen to Jesus."
You do realize, I hope, that you are slowly but surely regaining your status as the committed grammarian?
Even if you did not agree with it, wouldn't you still give me a few props for using the word? I think it's a great word.
Oh, my! Those are the sweetest words I've heard all week!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I am simply in awe that you so quickly pulled that word out of your personal lexicon! I want to shoutQuote:
Even if you did not agree with it, wouldn't you still give me a few props for using the word? I think it's a great word.
"Venivit, visit, vincit!"
Uhm...have no idea what that means. It does sound Italian. And I pulled that word out of my own, 67 year old head.
You've heard or read "veni, vidi, vici"? It's Latin. Supposedly, Julius Caesar said it after his quick victory in his short war against Pharnaces II of Pontus at the Battle of Zela. That famous declaration is in first person. The one I posted to you is in third person. Now, feel free to google.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
See how these threads begin to meander, dwashbur?!
It's bound to be, "I came, I saw, I conquered."
Nope. Close! Third person (WG speaking about JL), not first person (JL speaking about himself):Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"Venivit, visit, vincit!"
("Veni, vidi, vici" is the famous quote by Caesar. First person, "I" as the subject.)
Hey, I could teach you Latin conjugations and declensions, JL!
You came, you saw, you conquered???
That one confused me, too.
I doubt he saw the Greeks, and I don't understand his answer when he was told about them. It strikes me a bit like this:
"The kitchen faucet is leaking. Can you fix it?"
"Did I ever tell you about the wart on my elbow?"
There is no direct explanation of it in the text, so we are left to speculate. It is odd that the story was even included and you do wonder what the point was. I imagine it is one of those, "You would have to have been there," situations.
I have decided Jesus took a quick look and saw them and thought, Yo! Even the 'Greeks' [non-Jews] are here to check out the temple and join us in worship! Which reminds me, where on earth are the Pharisees? They're supposed to be here, too!" Then Jesus said, "And now that at least some of us are here, did you ever think about what can happen with a seed?"Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Um, third person (the words bolded earlier) singular is he/she/it. Thus,Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"He came, he saw, he conquered."
I was referring to you, dear JL, as being the subject "he." Our next lesson in Latin will be on noun singular and plural endings. Or dwashbur can teach us a bit of Greek.
Believe it or not I studied Greek in Bible college. I don't recall the endings. Too long ago.
The story follows after the triumphal entry. The Jews at the feast were seeking to make Christ King, to follow Him, even against those who hated Him and his popularity.
But this was not His purpose. As the Jews came with palms and a great many were seeking His counsel and to look upon Him, the focus is upon the hour of his death. He sought to love them that were with Him more and to prepare the disciples for His death. See 12:13,27,13:1,34
This is where the significance of the Greeks lie, albeit I'm not sure of their specific place in society, Christ says as an answer to their request, now I must go die like this wheat. This so that the kingdom of heaven can multiply. He was preparing for his death and putting off the hopes of those that would make Him King of Israel.
Does that help?
How do you know that?Quote:
The Jews at the feast were seeking to make Christ King
John 12:13 - Luke 19:38 - Mark 11:9,10
Lets not forget that Herod sought to kill the coming King, fearing that He would usurp his authority.
Matthew 2:3
To this day, Jews believe Christ is not the Messiah because He had never ruled as King, this is a central tenant of the Jewish belief about the Messiah. It would make sense that those treating Christ like royalty, believed He was this King.
Micah 5:2 / Genesis 49:10
In 30 BC Herod was declared by the Roman Senate the great King the Jews, these territories were later annexed by the Romans (6ce) and the Jews lived under Roman rule at the time of the Triumphal Entry. This was to be the fulfillment of the Messianic rule of Judea, they were promised a king, I imaging common thought at the time was that this King would free them from the Romans.
You are right. I misread your post to say that the GREEKS were seeking to make Him king. My bad.
I have been thinking about this a bit more, and reading the prophecies in Isaiah, Psalms, and elsewhere. I believe that the Greeks are specifically mentioned as a fulfilment to some of these prophecies.
The Greeks and the gentiles are often used interchangeably in the New Testament, and there are several prophecies explaining that Christ would be the redeemer for all nation's, to establish a covenant with the gentiles, and to be a light for the whole world. Isaiah 11:10 stands out exceptionally for this question concerning the Greeks.
See:
Isaiah 42:1-7 - Isaiah 66:18-20 - Habakkuk 2:14 - Zechariah 9:9-10
Galatians 3:8 (Genesis 12:3) - Isaiah 2:2-3 - Isaiah 11:10
Except that there is no evidence Jesus even talked with this group of Greek men, much less gave them any spiritual benefit.
More along the lines of seek Him, not so much be a disciple.
I like that thought.
We don't seek Him. He finds us!Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
WG, I think it's a bit of both...
Relative to this discussion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaiah 11:10
The first steps certainly belong to Him. Wow! We agree on something.Quote:
We don't seek Him. He finds us!
Thank you. He never even seems to have answered the question of whether they could see him or not, he went off on a different topic. Hence my question: why is this even there?Quote:
Except that there is no evidence Jesus even talked with this group of Greek men, much less gave them any spiritual benefit.
Encouragement to the rest of us Greeks?Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Found this on the internet which was interesting, especially the thought that these were Greeks who had accepted the Jewish faith and thus were in Jerusalem on a feast day, but still doesn't completely address your question. "
"When you read the passage, the Greeks came to Philip. Instead of simply bringing them to Him, Philip goes and gets Andrew, as though there was some kind of hesitation. As if Philip thought to himself, "Should I bring these Greeks to Jesus?" If you read the whole passage above Matt 15:21-28 this Canaanite woman is crying out to Jesus and he is ignoring her basically because she is not of the House of Israel. I am sure this was something the disciples / apostles of Jesus were very aware of and so the hesitation of Philip.If you look at Acts 10 & 11 it is absolute proof that even after the ascension the Apostles strongly thought that the message was for the Jews only. The only conclusion to make here in John regarding Philip with the Greeks is that Philip did hesitate due to this knowledge that Jesus was primarily ministering to the lost of the house of Israel."
DWash, have you ever read the NET translation? Just wondering what you think of it. I would imagine its study notes would appeal to you.
It's been ages since I looked at it. I think I stopped consulting it when I bought a Logos package.
I have pondered this and pondered this. We know that He came for the lost house of Israel. Mathew 15:24 Could He have been implying he had nothing to talk to them about until AFTER his death, burial and resurrection? Because after Jesus is informed that there were Greeks who wanted to meet with him in verse 24 He goes on to say unless a corn of wheat falls into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it brings forth much fruit. Gentiles were grafted in after his resurrection. Just a thought. Am I way off??????
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:05 PM. |