John 15.1-11: Exegetical Comments and Theological Interpretation

     On the surface reading, John 15:1-11 is fairly straight-forward in its intent to enjoin upon its readers the importance of “abiding” in Christ Jesus.  Those who abide, bear fruit and those who do not abide face negative consequences.  This much seems clear: abiding is good and not abiding is bad.  Controversies begin to emerge when questions are asked about the nature of those “not abiding” in Christ and the nature of the judgment these non-abiding branches face.  It is here that one’s larger theological framework tends to enter and, at times, constrain one’s exegesis.  In light of this concern it is helpful to be aware of two different types of framework constraining impulses.  The first revolves around factors in the text itself.  One’s theological system can move one to adopt questionable interpretations within the passage or to miss exegetical clues that are not amenable to one’s theological presuppositions.  The second issue relates to factors outside the text.  A person’s systematic theological reflections can be brought to the text in such a manner that the text is asked questions which lay beyond the author’s intention.  Sensitivity to these potential dangers will need to be kept in mind as John 15 is approached.

            Jesus begins this section with the evocative words: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser” (v 1).  The immediate surroundings of vineyards no doubt prompted the use of this imagery but there is far more laden within this language.  The imagery of vines and vineyards has a number of intertextual echoes from the Old Testament (Ps 80:8-9, 15; Isa 5:1-7; Jer 5:10; Ezek 17:1-10; Hosea 10:1).  In these Old Testament passages Israel is likened to a vine or a vineyard and the Lord is the owner of the vineyard (Isa 5:1).  Jesus is utilizing standard and stylized imagery from the Hebrew Scriptures and infusing it with new meaning revolved around himself.  Instead of Israel being the vine, Jesus now declares himself to be the vine and the true followers of the Father must find relationship to him through Jesus. 

            This recognition of the intertextual echoes of the vine/vineyard imagery is important because it is this Old Testament imagery that helps inform the rest of the passage.  It is this context that must be seen as primary rather than overly interpreted viticulture practices that some would use to tease out of the passage an over-abundance of meaning. 

            In verses two and three Jesus states:

Every branch in me that does not bear fruit, he takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, he prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.  You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

Jesus speaks of two different kinds of branches: those who do not bear fruit and those who do bear fruit.  These two branches have two different actions done to them.  Fruit-bearing branches are pruned or “cleaned” so that they may bear even more fruit.  This imagery is drawn from the practice of removing some of the tendrils on the vine in the spring so as to maximize fruit production.  There is some controversy as to the meaning and significance of what happens to the branches that do not bear fruit.  The New American Standard Bible translates the Greek word airo as “takes away.”  Another rendering of this word is “lifts up.”  The Greek word has both meanings in the Gospel of John although the majority of uses are “takes” or “takes away.”[1]  It would appear most natural to accept the translation of the NASB in light of three factors: (1) the majority of prior usage of this word in John; (2) the parallelism is better maintained in verse 2;[2] and (3) there is a corresponding comment in verse 6 which should be taken into account as a contextual indicator. 

EXCURSUS: GARY W. DERICKSON’S

VITICULTURE AND JOHN 15:1-6

Gary W. Derickson has written an article in which he attempts to argue for the understanding of “lifts up” in reference to the John 15:2.[3]  His argumentation involves an examination of the viticulture techniques of the first century.  Although space constraints forbid a full analysis a few items should be noted that are problematic for Derickson’s position.  First, there a number of assumptions made by Derickson that must all line up in order for his interpretation to hold.  Four such assumptions are:

(a) Derickson recognizes that the spring pruning removed some nonfruiting

       branches but he chooses to emphasize that, “Some nonfruiting branches

       were kept on the vine.”[4]  Derickson assumes that it is these kept branches

       that Jesus was referring to in John 15:2.  

(b) Derickson draws attention to the fact that both “trailing” vines and

       “trellising” of vines was common.  Derickson must assume the “trellising”

       of vines is what is under consideration in John 15.[5] 

(c) He assumes that airo was an established term “farmers used then to

      describe their own practice” even though, as he acknowledges, this usage

      lacks any attestation in the literature of the time.[6] 

(d) He assumes that both terms mentioned in verse 2 in reference to pruning

       “are better understood as being done simultaneously.”[7]

           

The second major problem is that Derickson “overinterprets” the details of Jesus’ metaphor.  In attempting to correlate Jesus’ metaphor with first century viticulture practices he gets bogged down in the details of such practices.  In pressing these details to the extent he does Derickson comes close to saying the opposite of what Jesus intended.  For example, first century viticulture practices demonstrate that both fruiting and nonfruiting branches were kept “and were desired on every vine in Jesus’ day.”[8]  In pressing this detail is it to be realistically expected that Jesus is saying the Father “desires” nonfruiting branches?  Also, these same viticulture practices speak of pruning away the fruiting branches “for they are considered useless.”[9] Derickson does not  attempt to correlate this practice with the text of John 15 since it would be obviously out of place to think that Jesus was thinking of removing good branches to be thrown away.

            In verse 3 Jesus speaks to his disciples before him and states that they are “already clean.”  This is in line with words he has already spoken earlier in the evening.  In John 13:10 Jesus told his disciples, “you (plural) are clean, but not all of you.”  The reference to the one who is not clean is explained in verse 11 as being Judas—the one who is to betray Jesus. 

This state of being “already clean” creates the context in which the disciples are to “abide” in Christ as mentioned in verses 4 and 5.  In these verses Jesus shows the both the necessity of abiding and the sufficiency of abiding in him.  The necessity is seen in that without abiding in Christ there is no fruit-bearing.  However, abiding in Christ allows one to produce much fruit.  The language of “abiding” which is so frequent in this passage signifies “remaining” in obedient allegiance to Christ.  Something of this is seen in verse 7 when Jesus speaks of his word abiding in his disciples.  Furthermore, this language of “abiding” figure prominently in 1 John where the apostle both exhorts and illustrates what abiding looks like in the believing community.  John details out in this epistle three main categories of obedience, love, and faithfulness to the apostolic doctrine of Christ.  The first two of these (obedience and love) are themes that are also in the larger context of John 15 (John 13:34-35; 15:10, 12-14, 17). 

            In verses 6 Jesus mentions the consequences of not abiding in him.  The imagery of a branch being thrown away and being burned is highlighted.  The language of “fire” is often used by Jesus in reference to judgment (Matt 7:19; 13:40, 42, 50; 25:41).  This verse makes sense as correlated with verse 2 in that the fruitless branches there are said to be “taken” and now here in verse 6 their fate is shown.  The primary emphasis of the passage is not on judgment however, but, rather, on the positive expectation of his disciples abiding in him. 

            Verses 7 and 8 speak about the promise of answered prayer for those who abide in Christ and how this will glorify the Father as his disciples bear much fruit.  In so abiding, with its corresponding fruit-bearing, the disciples will manifest that they are indeed Jesus’ disciples. 

            Verses 9 and 10 urge the disciples to abide in the love of Christ through obedience.  Jesus stresses the depth of his love in that he compares it with the love with which the Father loves Jesus.  Jesus emphasizes that this abiding is not primarily a mystical union as it is a relationship of obedience to his commandments.  Jesus draws the parallel between his abiding by obedience to his Father and the need for his disciples to abide by obedience to his commandments. 

            In verse 11 Jesus gives the reason for the words he is speaking.  He is seeking his disciples joy.  In abiding in Christ through obedience the disciples will know the joy of Christ’s presence and love.  The accent in this passage is on the positive outcomes for his abiding disciples.

            Many times the difficulties with this passage are brought about by the systematic theological categories that one brings to this text.  The three theological systems of Free Grace theology, Arminian Theology, and Reformed Theology all bring their frameworks to the text and tend to ask certain questions of the text.  It may prove helpful to show briefly how these various views tend to see the interpretative options in John 15.

            Free Grace theology tends to read John 15 within the confines of its larger theological commitments.  They see two classes of Christians as being spoken of here—fruiting-bearing and non-fruit-bearing Christians.  This comes out most clearly at the exegetical level in discussing verse 2 and what it is that happens to the branches that do not bear fruit.  A few questionable exegetical moves are made here.  First, as was seen above, the language of airo is interpreted to mean “lift up.”  Second, there is an attempt to create a disjunction between verses 2 and 6 so that they are seen to be not speaking of the same persons or realities.  Third, the judgment language of verse 6 can be seen by some Free Grace advocates to mean something less than eschatological judgment.  This is a possibility but it should be kept in mind that Jesus is using a metaphor.  This metaphor may not be offered here to specify the details of temporal or eternal punishments.  Having recognized this, however, does not mean the imagery should be reduced to “uselessness” in the kingdom.  Jesus is using this dramatic metaphor to say something about the status of these non-abiding persons. His language does not speak of someone being in the kingdom but merely an unproductive member. 

            An Arminian understanding of this passage will tend to find confirmation of its theological belief that a fully regenerate believer can cease to be a follower of Christ and be eternally lost.  The exegetical details this view will tend to focus on will be the phrase “in me” of verses 2 and 6.  They will point out that there are people who are “in Christ” and yet fail to bear fruit and abide.  They will further look to the fiery judgment language of verse 6 as speaking of eschatological judgment and not mere temporal judgments.  They will, of course, see that the major focus of the passage is of a positive nature but they will recognize that a minor subplot within the passage is the threat of divine, eschatological judgment for those who do not remain in Christ.

            Those influenced by a Reformed or Calvinistic theological system will tend to bring in constructs of an eternally decreed ordo salutis which can effect the understanding of the passage.  Given their understanding of the persons being spoken of here, Reformed types can so stress the inability of Christians to “fall away” that the warnings of verse 2 and 6 are rendered superfluous or merely hypothetical.  Simplistic version of Reformed theology are so top-heavy on the decretal aspects of theology (aspects which are not on the surface in John 15) they that can read that theology into the text. 

            More sophisticated versions of Reformed theology will often invoke the construct of the “covenant.”  One can be in the covenant and yet not decretally elect.  There is, thus, a real falling away from something for those who do not remain “in Christ.”  There are, to be sure, various permutations and nuances as to how the concepts of covenant and the decrees both interface and are explained.  I tend toward this Reformed covenantal reading of John 15 and below I will detail a few of the textual indicators that when taken together lend weight for this view.

            First, the intertexual echoes found in John 15:1 point in the direction of a covenantal context.  Jesus is using language drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures that is found in covenantal contexts.  Israel is God’s covenanted people and yet he brings judgment and destruction upon her.  To be sure, there is always a remnant but this only reinforces the covenantal context. 

            Second, the mention of the disciples being “clean” in verse 3 serves as a reminder of the similar language in John 13:10 where Jesus said, “you are clean, but not all of you.”  This one who is not clean is a reference to Judas as the next verse makes clear.  So here is a group of disciples who have “a personal relationship” with Jesus and yet one will betray him thus “falling away.”  Judas was in the orbit of Jesus’ ministry and, from all indications in the Gospels, participated in the miraculous ministry of Jesus.  In spite of all this Judas did not abide or remain with Jesus.

            Up to this point an Arminian interpreter may be able to affirm the reality of falling away but question why a covenantal construct is needed.  Why not simply affirm that some Christians can fail to endure and, thus, forfeit salvation?  The answer is found in the strong predestinarian focus in the Gospel of John.  The close context of John 15:16 and 19 mentions Jesus “choosing” his disciples.  It is, however, the larger context of this Gospel’s portrayal of God’s sovereignty on behalf of his own that provides the exegetical context for a unique status for the elect and their endurance.[10]

            A third indicator of a covenantal context is found in John’s presentation of similar themes in 1 John.  First John is replete with language of “abiding.”[11]  For example, 1 John 4:15 states: “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.”  Yet, there are those who have confessed, at one time, this Jesus and then leave.  John describes them in this way in 1 John 2:19:

They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.[12]

John clearly recognizes that some who at one time were part of the community of faith have left.  He does not speak in terms of “losing salvation” but of those who are leaving as manifesting their true identity—“they all are not of us.” 

            Taking all this into account—Jesus’ clear echoes to Israel, John’s strong predestinarian account, the promises, the warnings, the reality of those who do fail to persevere—a covenantal framework appears supportable.

---

     [1] The word airo appears 26 times in John.  Aside from the disputed meaning at John 15:2 there are eight occurrences which can take the meaning “lift up”: 5:8, 9, 10, 11, 12; 8:59; 10:24; 11:41.  It should be noticed that the majority of these occur in John 5 in reference to the “picking up” of a pallet.  Another usage (10:24) may be part of an idiomatic phrase (“our souls lifted up”). The other seventeen references are more naturally rendered by “takes” or “takes away”: 1:29; 2:16; 10:18; 11:39, 41, 48; 16:22; 17:15; 19:15 (2 x’s), 31, 38 (2 x’s); 20:1, 2, 13, 15. 

     [2] Non-fruit-bearing branches (a negative state of affairs) results in being taken away (a negative result).  Fruit-bearing branches (a positive state of affairs) results in being cleaned so as to produce more fruit (a positive result).

     [3] Gary W. Derickson, “Viticulture and John 15:1-6,” BSac 153 (1996): 34-52.

     [4] Derickson, “Viticulture,” 48.

     [5] Derickson, “Viticulture,” 44.

     [6] Derickson, “Viticulture,” 48-49.

     [7] Derickson, “Viticulture,” 49.

     [8] Derickson, “Viticulture,” 49.

     [9] Derickson, “Viticulture,” 46. 

     [10] Robert W. Yarbrough, “Divine Election in the Gospel of John,” The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will (vol. 1): Biblical and Practical Perspectives on Calvinism (Baker, 1995), 47-62. 

     [11] The word μένω which is behind the translation “abide” is used 16 times in 1 John.

     [12] The word translated “remained” is a form of the Greek word μένω.

J. P. Moreland on the Abandonment of Cessationism

Cessationism is the idea that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, such as prophecy, healing, miracles, and tongues (see 1 Cor. 12:8-10; 13:8-10), ceased with the death of the apostles and, thus, are no longer available today.  Fewer and fewer Christian scholars hold to cessationism, and it may fairly be called an increasingly marginalized viewpoint.  This shift in scholarly opinion has been partly responsible for the renewal of miraculous ministry in the Western church (non-Western Christians are almost never cessationist in orientation).

If you are a cessationist, please do not misunderstand my point.  I was trained in a cessationist seminary and have great respect and love for my cessationist friends.  Cessationists have tirelessly and faithfully called the church back to the Bible as the final authority for ministry and practice.  The church owes their cessationist brothers and sisters an incredible debt for this, even if not for their cessationist conclusions.

Moreover, the simple fact that cessationism is an increasingly minority position does not prove it is wrong.  However, this observation is of limited value.  If a viewpoint is an increasingly minority position among learned folk and yet one continues to accept that viewpoint, one needs to be able to explain why it is losing favor in such a way that one can continue to accept the position with intellectual integrity.  For example, if one can show that for historical, sociological, or spiritual reasons, people have a vested interest in retaining a majority viewpoint even though it is false and perhaps, less rational than the marginalized position, this this carries weight.

Precisely this strategy is what critics of evolution use in arguing that, while in the minority, Intelligent Design and various creationist theories are better justified than evolutionary alternatives.  But this strategy is a hard sell regarding the waning of cessationism.  Indeed, a growing number of noncessationists have come from the cessationist camps, and they have a solid understanding of the case for cessationism.  Moreover, it is hard to find sociological, historical, or spiritual reasons that adequately explain the growing and widespread acceptance of noncessationism among Evangelical scholars and pastors.

Because of this, I urge my cessationism brothers and sisters to reconsider their viewpoint.  At the very least, the direction of Evangelical thought on these matters should cause cessationists to lower the degree of strength they take themselves to have regarding the truth of their position.  In other words, even if one continues to assert cessationism, one should be far less confident that it is true than was possible, say, forty years ago.  This means that the harshness and rigidity that sometimes characterized cessationist advocates should be tempered, not merely because all of us need to dialog about our differences in a gracious manner, but because it may well be intellectually irresponsible to embody that sort of certainty with respect to cessationism that sometimes fuels such harshness and rigidity.  [Bold added]

--J. P. Moreland, The Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan, 2007), pp. 175-176

Francis Schaeffer on Humanity as Fellow-Creature

In my systematic theology class for high schoolers we began to discuss the doctrine of humanity.  I began with talking about how as created beings we share a kinship with the rest of creation.  We often move so quickly to our uniqueness as humans being created in God’s image that we fail to recognize our shared creature-liness with other created entities.  I read some of the following from Francis Schaeffer’s work Pollution and the Death of Man (1970).  All pages numbers are from The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer—vol. 5 (Crossway, 1982).

As a Christian I say, “Who am I?”  Am I only the hydrogen atom, the energy particle extended?  No, I am made in the image of God.  I know who I am.  Yet, on the other hand, when I turn around and face nature, I face something that is like myself.  I, too, am created, just as the animal and the plant and the atom are created.  (p. 30)

Therefore, intellectually and psychologically, I look at these animals, plants, and machines, and as I face them I understand something of the attitude I should have toward them.  I begin to think differently about life.  Nature begins to look different.  I am separated from it, yet related to it.

Notice the phrase “intellectually and psychologically.”  This is a very important distinction.  I can say, “Yes, the tree is a creature like myself.”  But that is not all that is involved.  There ought to be a psychological insight, too.  Psychologically I ought to “feel” a relationship to the tree as my fellow-creature.  It is not simply that we ought to feel a relationship intellectually to the tree, and then turn this into just another argument for apologetics, but that we should realize, and train people in our churches to realize, that on the side of creation and on the side of God’s infinity and our finiteness we really are one with the tree! (p. 31)

The value of the things is not in themselves autonomously, but that God made them—and thus they deserve to be treated with high respect.  The tree in the field is to be treated with respect.  It is not be romanticized, as the old lady romanticizes her cat (that is, she reads human reactions into it).  That is wrong because it is not true.  When you drive the axe into the tree when you need firewood, you are not cutting down a person; you are cutting down a tree.  But while we should not romanticize the tree, we must realize God made it and it deserves respect because He made it as a tree.  (p. 32)

Christians, of all people, should not be the destroyers.  We should treat nature with an overwhelming respect.  We may cut down a tree to build a house, or to make a fire to keep the family warm.  But we should not cut down the tree just to cut down the tree.  We may, if necessary, bark the cork tree in order to have the use of the bark.  But what we should not do is to bark the tree simply for the sake of doing so, and let it dry and stand there a dead skeleton in the wind.  To do so is not to treat the tree with integrity.  We have the right to rid our houses of ants; but what we have not the right to do is to forget to honor the ant as God made it, in its rightful place in nature.  When we meet the ant on the sidewalk, we step over him.  He is a creature, like ourselves; not made in the image of God, but equal with man as far as creation is concerned.  The ant and the man are both creatures.  (p. 43)  

Hunting game is another example of the same principle.  Killing of animals for food is one thing, but on the other hand they do not exist simply as things to be slaughtered.  This is true of fishing too.  Many men fish and leave their victims to rot and stink.  But what about the fish?  Has it no rights—not to be romanticized as thought he were a man—but real rights?  On the other hand, it is wrong to treat the fish as though it were a human baby; on the other hand, neither is it a chip of wood or stone.  (p. 44)

When we have learned this—the Christian view of nature—then there can be a real ecology; beauty will flow, psychological freedom will come, and the world will cease to be turned into a desert.  Because it is right, on the basis of the whole Christian system—which is strong enough to stand it all because it is true—as I face the buttercup, I say: “Fellow-creature, fellow-creature, I won’t walk on you.  We are both creatures together.”  (p. 55)

Here are a few items of relevance:

Francis Schaeffer on Ecology

Habakkuk and God's Concern for the Environment

Charismata in Other Countries: A Dialogue

A few years ago I engaged in a dialogue about charismatic gifts in other countries.  My first comment was merely to call for expanding our interest in what is happening in other countries.

Richard Klaus says:

September 12, 2011 at 12:57 pm

Perhaps another perspective to consider is the exclusive focus of this discussion (so far) to the North American scene. Philip Jenkins in his books (“The Next Christendom” and “The New Faces of Christianity”) shows us that churches in the “Global South” are very much alive with healings and exorcisms. The larger church community is reading the Bible and their background experiences bring different sets of questions and answers to the text. For example, Tod K. Vogt was a church planting missionary among the Fon people of Benin, West Africa. He has written in interesting essay “Jesus and the Demons in the Gospel of Mark: Contrasting Secular and Animistic Interpretations” in which Fon believers are noted as to their reflections on the demonic in Mark and their experience. Vogt’s essay can be accessed here http://www.africamissions.org/africa/markexor-vogt.html
Also worth looking at is Amsalu Tadesse Geleta’s study for the Lausanne Conference on World Evangelization, “Case Study: Demonization and the Practice of Exorcism in Ethiopian Churches.” Gelata documents 20 cases of exorcism in which 16 Gelata was personally involved. Gelata’s study can be found here http://www.lausanne.org/en/documents/all/nairobi-2000/187-ethiopian-case-study.html
The discussion of cessationism/continuationism should also include perspectives from outside our own culture and time.

Jim says:


September 12, 2011 at 1:51 pm


Rick, could not find any material on healing sickness at this link you sited. I have heard alot of stories and a lot of books have been written but I or any of my church associates have never seen a genuine healing through another person. I agree with Michael…..if it’s happening it certainly is either not that amazing or not happening very often IMHO. The whole North America might not be getting it concept suggested by Richard is rather amusing. ….easy to say things are happening when one isn’t there to verify. Not trying to sound too annoyed but I get tired of hearing of great healings and neither the believer or unbeliever recognize it.



Jim says: 


September 12, 2011 at 1:55 pm 


Sorry, last sentence should read. neither the believer or unbeliever are acknowledging en mass as what was happening during Christ’s ministry.



Richard Klaus says:

 
September 12, 2011 at 2:08 pm


Jim,
I don’t mind disagreement but let’s not put words in my mouth. You wrote: “The whole North America might not be getting it concept suggested by Richard is rather amusing.” I did not suggest any such thing. Go back and read my comments. My post had to do with other perspectives outside the North American context. I made no claim as to what North America may or may not be “getting.” Since many of the claims being made in this discussion revolve around experience then we should be willing to look outside our own cultural context to hear of their experiences as well. That was my point, plain and simple–nothing amusing about as far as I can tell.



Jim Z. says:


September 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm 



Richard, I’ve heard the “geographic argument” before and find it, frankly, appalling. Sorry if that sounds harsh. I don ‘t direct it at you personally, but rather at that argument. What it seems to say is that 1.) God has rejected the modern world in favor of the primitive world, 2.) God’s gifts depend on the receiver’s faith, 3.) God no longer loves the modern world (say the USA) but loves the primitive world. The “geographic argument” seems to have grown from the liberal Christian stream that in its self-loathing says that everything Western is bad and everything non-Western is good, so why would God want to do anything in the West? I grew up with that sort of teaching.
But beyond that, where the “geographic argument” get quite nasty is when it robs someone of hope that God loves them and CAN heal them regardless of where they live. I, like Michael, have a badly arthritic back and I think one of my knees is going down the tubes, too. I need the hope that regardless of whether I live in Wisconsin or Papua New Guinea God loves me enough to heal me.
It is interesting, is it not, that all of these reports of miraculous healing and raising of the dead in the global south take place in areas where there is virtually way to authenticate them by expert medical eye witness? How come we never hear of an instantaneous, complete, and permanent healing of a disfigurement by a charismatic in, say, Johns Hopkins? How come we never hear of a medically certified dead person being brought back to life by a charismatic Christian in, say, the University of Wisconsin Hospital? Is it because the patients at those type of places don’t have enough faith, or even as much faith as a native of some slum in Benghazi?
I’m not opposed to the idea of healing. Lord knows, and He does, that I desparately want it for myself and my father who was just diagnosed with cancer. Rather, I believe that miraculous healing is something that God does and it doesn’t depend on location or standard of living. If He chooses not to heal me, I’m fine with that. I know that His grace and love for me doesn’t depend on whether He chooses to heal me. I submit to Him and not the other way around.



Jim Z. says:


September 12, 2011 at 2:57 pm 



Richard, just for clarification: The way that I have always encountered the “geographical argument” is with people telling me something along the lines of “if only we Americans would get it like the people in the Third World do, then God would do those sorts of miracles here, too.” The other, less common, way that it has been told to me is “We have so much to learn from global south Christians. look at how God is blessing them with miracles”.
That is just my experience. It is always in the sense of people castigating western Christianity for not being blessed like the global south is being blessed. I have never heard spoken any other way. Perhaps you and others have. I’ve only heard people speak of reports of the miraculous in the Third World as meaning that there is something wrong with, most often, Christianity in the USA.
Back to the subject at hand.



Richard Klaus says:

 
September 12, 2011 at 2:59 pm 



Jim Z.
You need to read my response to Jim. Almost everything you say in your post (#10) is completely irrelevant to what I wrote. Your thoughts are worth saying and I’m not trying to shut you down but the fact that you direct the comment at my comments shows a real disconnect between what I wrote and what you wrote in response. I did not present a “geographical argument.” I made a suggestion to consider the voice of others from outside our own cultural context. This is simply an aspect of Christian charity as well as an attempt to refrain from limiting our experiential horizon.
Furthermore, you continue to make claims that go beyond the evidence available. There are those who seek to bring self-critical analysis to miraculous healing claims. As one example see David C. Lewis’s essay “A Social Anthropologist’s Analysis of Contemporary Healing” in “The Kingdom and the Power” edited by Gary S. Greig and Kevin N. Springer (Regal, 1993). I wonder if you have not raised the bar of authenticity too high when you speak of “expert medical eye witness” testimony. Must this be American medical expertise? What do you think of the testimony outlined in Jack Deere’s book “Surprised by the Power of the Spirit” (pp. 203-206) in which he narrates the raising of a man’s son. Deere claims to have seen the death certificate with the official seal and even provides the address for the boy’s family in Zaire. Does this count as evidence–if not, why not? The bigger issue is that the Spirit doesn’t often choose to operate under the framework of clinical medical trials. But then why would we expect him to do that? Someone said he is like the wind–he blows wherever he wishes.



Richard Klaus says:


September 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm 



Jim Z.,
Thanks for the clarification in post #11. Just to further clarify–I never wrote or said any of the things you are bothered by in your post. I did not castigate North America or elevate the Global South. I did not say “we have so much so to learn from the Global South.” I did not say that we Americans “need to get it.” You might be fighting an opponent but it’s not me!

Jim Z. says:

September 12, 2011 at 4:41 pm

Richard, I’ve tried hard not to direct anything at you personally and please don’t take it that way. It is certainly not intended by me to be read that way and anyone who does so is wrong and totally mis-reading what I wrote.

My intent was merely to state my views based upon *my experience only*. Why not “expert eye witness testimony”? To be sure, all new “miracle drugs” have to go through extensive FDA testing before they are released on the general public. New types of surgery have to be peer-reviewed. So, if someone is claiming healing powers, why would that be exempt? Are we not supposed to “test the spirits”? Your comment about Jack Deere saying that he saw the death certificate and published the boy’s address. I have not read Deere’s book. But did he print a copy of the death certificate in the book? Was it subjected to any scrutiny at all? Here’s the issue that I see–and I was reporter during my college days (back in the day when reporters were real skeptics! ): You’re talking Zaire, not exactly a bastion of governmental integrity, where someone could certainly buy a phony death certificate. Indeed, if a charismatic *REALLY* raised someone from the dead (maybe he really did), don’t you think that it would merit more than just mention in charismatic circles? Wouldn’t we have at least one story on it in a major-market news outlet? I mean, really, this is the definition of news–a person certifiably dead is brought to life at the command of another person. You’d think that it would at least show up in the AP’s “World News In Brief”. That tells me that someone somewhere probably looked into the story and said that there is no real “there” there.

Richard Klaus says:

September 12, 2011 at 5:41 pm

Jim Z.,
I’m not taking anything personally so don’t worry about that. I’m enjoying the discussion with you. My concern is that somehow my initial comments led you to think that I was putting forward a “geographical argument.” This was an error on your part. Go back and read my comments. It was not a “geographical argument.” I certainly understand if you want to speak to your experience about others who may have put forward a “geographical argument” but this is not something I did. I hope that distinction is clear.  Regarding your standards of evidence you delineate. Be careful of the reasoning here. I think I understand the trajectory of it but it begins to sound like the unbelievers who say things like: “If Jesus rose from the dead why isn’t there more mention of him and this event in the ancient literature?” (This apologetic challenge can be met by the way.) The concern here is an unhealthy skepticism. When evidence is brought forward it seems that there is always some reason to discount it. If a medical certificate is brought forward, well, now it is the “wrong kind” from people with a bad government. I can imagine that even if someone did meet your burden of proof then you could potentially say, “Well, that’s only one! We should expect a lot more if continuationism is true! And why is it not happening at John Hopkins (or wherever else your standard dicatates)?” Surely the path is somewhere between naive gullibility and hyper-skepticism.
Thanks for the interchange, Jim.

"Marriage & Society: The Big Picture"--ADF's New Video

Here is a new video from Alliance Defending Freedom which argues for the importance of marriage and why government should take a stand on this issue.

Hemorrhaging Woman and Jairus' Daughter: Thematic Parallels

There are a number of thematic parallels between the two episodes.[1]

Mark 9.18-26	Hemorrhaging Woman	Jairus’ Daughter
Number “12”	She has “had a hemorrhage for twelve years” (v. 25)	“…for she was twelve years old.” (v. 42)
“Daughter”	Jesus addresses her as “daughter” (v. 34)	Jarius refers to her as, “My little daughter” (v. 23)
Wealthy background	She “had spent all that she had” (v. 25)	Daughter is lying in a separate room.  This would be a sign of wealth for the family.
Touch	Woman touches Jesus (v. 27)	Jesus takes “the child by the hand” (v. 41)
Faith	Jesus mentions woman’s faith      (v. 34)	Jesus urges, “Do not be afraid, only believe” (v. 36)
Restoration of Fertility	Potential restoration of fertility due to healing of hemorrhaging (v. 29)	Culturally marriageable age (12); raised up to potentially marry/bear children
Ritual Impurity	Menstrual impurity based on Leviticus 15.25-30	Dead body becomes a source of uncleanness (Numbers 19.11-13)

---

     [1]  John DelHousaye, “Jesus and Jewish Menstruation Traditions: Implications for the Liberation of Women” (Unpublished paper), 4-5.