Out Of This World

[Sketch]

i have ((not that i know Greek)) and it appears very obviously that the Greek says 'no longer am I in the world'

i would say it's clear that the NIV translators saw this statement as very strange and decided to abandon a literal rendering in favor of an interpretive one - following the majority of preaching and thought on the subject, they changed the text to reflect what they figured He meant by what He said rather than what He actually said. common thing; eisegessis, not exegesis.

The other way to look at it is that the NIV translators properly rendered the idiom.
We don't always mean what we say literally. If I lose my concetration I might ask, "Where was my head?"
Does this mean that my head had gone missing temporarily? Not at all. It means that my mind had wandered.
I think that what Jesus said had that sort of poetic quality that we use in idioms.
If I am still at work after quiting time someone might say, "I thought you had already left." to which I might reply,
"Oh, yes. I'm already gone." (running late) But are you indeed gone? Only in the poetic sense.

 

[p_rehbein]

i have ((not that i know Greek)) and it appears very obviously that the Greek says 'no longer am I in the world'

i would say it's clear that the NIV translators saw this statement as very strange and decided to abandon a literal rendering in favor of an interpretive one - following the majority of preaching and thought on the subject, they changed the text to reflect what they figured He meant by what He said rather than what He actually said. common thing; eisegessis, not exegesis.

easy for you to pontificate

 

[p_rehbein]

Forerunner Commentary

John 17:11


Deuteronomy 6:4 states, "The LORD our Elohim is one LORD." In John 17:5, Jesus establishes that there was a time when He was alongside the Father, but now He says that He is with, alongside of, His disciples. He is not alongside of the Father, and in this context, He asks the Father, "that they [the apostles] may be one as we are." What kind of oneness is this, if it is not being "alongside of"? John 17:21 shows this unity is actually "inside of"!

(here)

John 17:11 (KJV) - Forerunner Commentary


John Gill's Commentary

And now I am no more in the world
In the earth; which is no contradiction to his resurrection from the dead, and stay with his disciples for a while; nor to his return to judge the world at the last day; nor to his reigning on earth with his saints a thousand years; since it will not be the world as it now is, but it will be a new earth, renewed, purified and refined, and clear of the wicked inhabitants of it; and in which will only dwell righteous persons: besides, Christ was to be, and will be no more in the world, in such circumstances, and doing such work as he then was: the meaning is, that whereas he had been in the world, and had done, or as good as done the work he came about, he was now just going out of it; it was but a very little while he had to stay in it; nor should he continue long with his disciples when he rose from the dead; and whereas his bodily presence had been a guard unto them, a protection of them, and he had bore the heat and burden of the day for them, and had took all reproaches and persecutions upon himself, now he was going from them:

but these are in the world;
and will continue for some time, they having much work to do, and be exposed to the evils, snares and temptations of it; where they were hated, and were liable to great hardships, afflictions and persecutions; which shows that Christ was not so intent on his own glory, as to neglect the good of his people, and to be unconcerned for them:

(here)

John 17:11 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

Adam Clark Commentary

Verse 11
I am no more in the world - I am just going to leave the world, and therefore they shall stand in need of peculiar assistance and support. They have need of all the influence of my intercession, that they may be preserved in thy truth.

(here)

John 17 Commentary - Adam Clarke Commentary

I kinda go with the Adam Clarke one.......but that is just me.......soooooo

 

[NayborBear]

see that explanation contradicts itself, tho -- because He says He is coming to the father in the same tense and at the same time that He says He is no longer in the world. if He is ignoring time and space and speaking of being in a place He isn't physically at and at a time He isn't temporally dwelling in, then it's inconsistent to simultaneously say He's coming to the Father.

what i do like about your thought though is that it points out how in this passage physical reality is divided from what He considers reality. this verse establishes that within time, the location of the physical body is not necessarily the location of the person, in His eyes.

That's as fine a job of defining "multi-tasking" as I've heard, PH!

Home is where, and how long your attention span can handle!

 

[posthuman]

The other way to look at it is that the NIV translators properly rendered the idiom.
We don't always mean what we say literally. If I lose my concetration I might ask, "Where was my head?"
Does this mean that my head had gone missing temporarily? Not at all. It means that my mind had wandered.
I think that what Jesus said had that sort of poetic quality that we use in idioms.
If I am still at work after quiting time someone might say, "I thought you had already left." to which I might reply,
"Oh, yes. I'm already gone." (running late) But are you indeed gone? Only in the poetic sense.

what would that mean about Him saying of the disciples "they are in the world"?

 

[posthuman]

easy for you to pontificate

o I agree I'm open to criticism, but I am aiming to take what is literally there and make sense of it, rather than bring a view I already have and fit it to the text. that's how I arrived at the conclusion that He's not talking about physical location of His body when He says this, knowing His physical body is on earth at the time. if I presumed instead that being in the world always draws its meaning with reference to our corporeal presence, I'd have to adopt some view like He is mixing temporal cases, talking about the future as though it is past.

 

[p_rehbein]

o I agree I'm open to criticism, but I am aiming to take what is literally there and make sense of it, rather than bring a view I already have and fit it to the text. that's how I arrived at the conclusion that He's not talking about physical location of His body when He says this, knowing His physical body is on earth at the time. if I presumed instead that being in the world always draws its meaning with reference to our corporeal presence, I'd have to adopt some view like He is mixing temporal cases, talking about the future as though it is past.

I wuz referring to the two words you used........ you know......those 25 dollar words.......

 

[Sketch]

what would that mean about Him saying of the disciples "they are in the world"?

I think that is the counterbalance to his poetic statement.
He is not in the world, they are in the world.

 

[Poinsetta]

I think that is the counterbalance to his poetic statement.
He is not in the world, they are in the world.

They’ve always been in the world even after death and resurrection of Christ.

 

[Sketch]

They’ve always been in the world even after death and resurrection of Christ.

Right. This is not hard to understand. It goes without saying.
So the purpose seems more poetic, or idiomatic, than informational.
That's my point.

 

[Poinsetta]

Right. This is not hard to understand. It goes without saying.
So the purpose seems more poetic, or idiomatic, than informational.
That's my point.

Right. I agree.

 

[posthuman]

Occam's razor is often misstated. it's not,
'the simplest explanation is the preferred one' -- it's,
'the simplest explanation which accounts for all the information is the most preferable'

 

[posthuman]

Right. This is not hard to understand. It goes without saying.
So the purpose seems more poetic, or idiomatic, than informational.
That's my point.

what would He be telling us by only using this poetic device in one part of one sentence in the whole speech?
He'd be emphasizing something, by only using a certain voice that one time, in the whole prayer. calling our attention to it.

what, and why? why in this way, only this one part?

 

[Sketch]

what would He be telling us by only using this poetic device in one part of one sentence in the whole speech?
He'd be emphasizing something, by only using a certain voice that one time, in the whole prayer. calling our attention to it.

what, and why? why in this way, only this one part?

Actually there are lots of statements in this scripture that should not be taken literally, as I see it anyway.
There are other poetic contrasts as well.

"... those you have given me, for they are yours." - vs 9 (what? who's are they?)
"All I have is yours, and all you have is mine." - vs 10 (say what?)
"... glory has come to me through them." - vs 10 (not from the Father?)
"... protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me..." - vs 11 (wait, who's name?)
"... so that they may be one as we are one." - vs 11 (say what?)
"While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe..." - vs 12 (while he was with them?)

John 17:9-12
I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

 

[posthuman]

Actually there are lots of statements in this scripture that should not be taken literally, as I see it anyway.
There are other poetic contrasts as well.

"... those you have given me, for they are yours." - vs 9 (what? who's are they?)
"All I have is yours, and all you have is mine." - vs 10 (say what?)
"... glory has come to me through them." - vs 10 (not from the Father?)
"... protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me..." - vs 11 (wait, who's name?)
"... so that they may be one as we are one." - vs 11 (say what?)
"While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe..." - vs 12 (while he was with them?)

John 17:9-12
I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

does the difficulty in taking as literal any of these change if one approaches these words with the presumption that Jesus is in fact God vs. the presumption that He isn't?

what does He specifically mean, "for them" ?

HELPS Word-studies​

4012 perí (a preposition) – properly, all-around (on every side); encompassing, used of full (comprehensive) consideration where "all the bases are covered" (inclusively). 4012 (perí) is often translated "concerning" ("all about").​

​

[4012 /perí is the root of the English term, "perimeter."]​

does our understanding of this change in any way depending on our view of the person of Jesus?
is He saying something about the fact of His intercession or something about the fact of His saying these things in their hearing?

 

[Sketch]

does the difficulty in taking as literal any of these change if one approaches these words with the presumption that Jesus is in fact God vs. the presumption that He isn't?

what does He specifically mean, "for them" ?

HELPS Word-studies​

4012 perí (a preposition) – properly, all-around (on every side); encompassing, used of full (comprehensive) consideration where "all the bases are covered" (inclusively). 4012 (perí) is often translated "concerning" ("all about").​

​

[4012 /perí is the root of the English term, "perimeter."]​

does our understanding of this change in any way depending on our view of the person of Jesus?
is He saying something about the fact of His intercession or something about the fact of His saying these things in their hearing?

Yes, of course.
My aim was to point out that the verse you were focusing on was not different in delivery, nor the only difficult statement in the passage. The deity aspect does put some of this in a different light. Even then we are facing some challenging questions.

Here they are again.

"... those you have given me, for they are yours." - vs 9 (what? whose are they?)
"All I have is yours, and all you have is mine." - vs 10 (say what?)
"... glory has come to me through them." - vs 10 (not from the Father?)
"... protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me..." - vs 11 (wait, whose name?)
"... so that they may be one as we are one." - vs 11 (say what?)
"While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe..." - vs 12 (while he was with them?)

John 17:9-12
I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

 

[posthuman]

Yes, of course.
My aim was to point out that the verse you were focusing on was not different in delivery, nor the only difficult statement in the passage.

re: your second point, ¡por supuesto!

this whole passage is immeasurably profound, but i wanted to focus in on this part in this thread:

"I am no longer in the world"

re: your first point, which other parts are about the future but are delivered as though it were already past? none of what you quoted. so you haven't substantiated your point, but mine - it's either not spoken in some poetic time-shifting voice at all, or it's the only 7 words out of the whole chapter that are. either case is significant, but what do they mean?

 

[Sketch]

re: your second point, ¡por supuesto!





re: your first point, which other parts are about the future but are delivered as though it were already past? none of what you quoted. so you haven't substantiated your point, but mine - it's either not spoken in some poetic time-shifting voice at all, or it's the only 7 words out of the whole chapter that are. either case is significant, but what do they mean?

Again, I think the statements are idiomatic not literal. That solves it for me.
If you say something funny and I say, "Your killing me." What am I really saying?
Am I accusing you of murder? (nope)

 

[posthuman]

The deity aspect does put some of this in a different light. Even then we are facing some challenging questions.

Here they are again.

"... those you have given me, for they are yours." - vs 9 (what? whose are they?)
"All I have is yours, and all you have is mine." - vs 10 (say what?)
"... glory has come to me through them." - vs 10 (not from the Father?)
"... protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me..." - vs 11 (wait, whose name?)
"... so that they may be one as we are one." - vs 11 (say what?)
"While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe..." - vs 12 (while he was with them?)

to look at the deity aspect closer:

• "... those you have given me, for they are yours." - vs 9 (what? whose are they?)
  • given Christ = God this is easy. they are His. ((Psalm 89:11))
• "All I have is yours, and all you have is mine." - vs 10 (say what?)
  • given Christ = God this is easy. they are His. everything is through Him and for Him ((Hebrews 2:10))
• "... glory has come to me through them." - vs 10 (not from the Father?)
  • given Christ = God this is easy. all things are for Him, by Him, and to His glory. ((Romans 11:36))
• "... protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me..." - vs 11 (wait, whose name?)
  • given Christ = God this is easy. His name is One ((Zechariah 14:9))
• "... so that they may be one as we are one." - vs 11 (say what?)
  • given Christ = God this is easy. and we also, have our life in Him ((Colossians 3:3))

• "While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe..." - vs 12 (while he was with them?)
  • this one is different. it has to do with Him being with them and no longer being with them, and so it connects to the theme i intended for the thread, what it means that He says at this time He is no longer in the world; what it means that 'while He is in the world' he is the light of the world. to be it seems obvious that something has changed by this point in time.
    • what is that something???

 

[posthuman]

Again, I think the statements are idiomatic not literal. That solves it for me.
If you say something funny and I say, "Your killing me." What am I really saying?
Am I accusing you of murder? (nope)

i don't see that as solving so much as pushing it under the rug as though it's irrelevant & meaningless.

it's like you have a problem, find what x equals. so you create a new variable called y and define it such that y = x. then you say you're done; you've solved it: x = y.

but you don't know what y is. you've just given x a new name, and you haven't found the solution.

if that makes sense?