Feast upon the Word Blog

A blog focused on LDS scriptures and teaching

John 16 and 17: Lesson 24

Posted by cherylem on July 14, 2007

My lesson notes are here:

Lesson 24: John 16 & 17

I thought I’d point out that my interpretation regarding 16:8 differs somewhat (maybe only slightly) from Jim F’s.

I was especially interested in the references to the pre-existence, and to the seeming (darkly veiled) references to ongoing revelation.

For those of us studying Girard, there is much here that is germaine. See especially 16:8, 33 (to my mind, the world’s peace is that which comes after violence, after war, after murder) and 17:20-24 (how does being “one” keep us safe from the mimetic crisis?).

8 Responses to “John 16 and 17: Lesson 24”

  1. Jim F. said

    Good Cheryl. If we all agree, then all but one of us is unnecessary. As you suggest, however, I’m not sure there is a great deal of difference between our positions on verse 8–and i fthere is, I prefer yours.

  2. cherylem said

    Thanks Jim.

    I do have some questions regarding stuff in these chapters. I’m wondering what everyone else thinks about 16:7: Why couldn’t the Comforter come unless Jesus left? has this been already discussed?

    also, I gave some questions re 17:5, regarding Jesus’ preexistant and post resurrection glory. I’d be interested in others’ thoughts on this also.

    Last, what does it mean to be one with Christ and God? (17:20-24)? What does this mean in giving up our differences? in the church, does being one allow room for dissent? Is being one with the church different than being one with Christ?

    These are all unanswered questions for me.

  3. Robert C. said

    Cheryl, here is a post by BrianJ that I believe touched on this issue of the Comforter only coming after Jesus left. My comment #1 links to some passages by Raymond Brown on the Paraclete. I don’t think we came to any profound consensus (or if we did, I’ve forgotten…).

  4. cherylem said

    Thanks Robert – I’m printing this out and then on my way to teach . . .

  5. brianj said

    Robert and Cheryl: I am working on a post that will summarize some of my thoughts on the Paraclete. It will not be definitive by any stretch, but it will be a good place to continue the discussion.

  6. cherylem said

    Brian,
    Thanks. I found your earlier post and Robert’s and others’ comments really helpful in furthering my own thinking.

    Our entire Sacrament meeting today was devoted to the gift of the Holy Ghost today, so our discussion in SS flowed right out of this.

  7. brianj said

    Excellent! I had a horrible (from my perspective, not the class’) time teaching my lesson on the Paraclete, so I am happy to hear that yours went well.

  8. Robert C. said

    Cheryl, I’m quite fascinated with your question about oneness and giving up differences. I think that difference is a key element in the Garden of Eden story, and because of the peculiar positive spin that we put on the Fall in Mormonism (e.g. 2 Ne 2) as well as the separate personages in the Godhead (as you emphasize in your notes), that there is good reason for Mormons to allow for differences in our concept of oneness/unity (again, I like the “compound in one” phrase that stands in contrast to “one body” in 2 Ne 2:11.

    Also, I think we are given an intriguing episode in Galatians 2:11ff where Paul rebukes Peter, despite the “unity of the saints” Paul frequently talking about (this passage in Galatians came up recently on the wiki…).

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: