Lesson 15 (Gospel Doctrine): Brigham Young, The Water Drawing Rite, and Punctuation

[pelagius]

Part II of my notes for gospel doctrine lesson 15. Part I can be found here:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7863

Update: PDF version of the Lesson Notes (it includes both part I and part II).

I. Teachings From God

• Read John 7:14-18:
  
  

  (14) Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. 15 And the Jews marveled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? (16) Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. (17) If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (18) He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

• How are verses 16-17 an answer to the question in verse 15? Who is actually asking the question in verse 15? Is the reaction of the questioners surprising given who it is? Or does “marvel” have pejorative connotations?
  
  
• Do you view verse 17 as different from a scripture like Moroni 10:3-5? How is it different? How is it similar? Do you think any of this related to Brigham Young’s quip that,
  
  

  More testimonies are gained on the feet than on the knees?[1]

• What is verse 18 about? Why the distinction between speaking for oneself and speaking for another? Why is Jesus emphasizing motives or incentives? Do you think he is condemning the religious leadership?

II. Living Water

A. The Water Drawing Rite

• I view verses 37-39 as the climax of the chapter. Although, the preceding verses that we skipped are well worth studying extensively.
  
  
• I think the backdrop of the Feast of the Tabernacles is very important here. During the seven days for the festival proper the rite of the water drawing took place. George Breasley-Murray explains the rite as follows (emphasis in original):[2]
  
  

  The pilgrims entered into the procedures with the greatest delight: in Sukk. 5:1 it is stated, “He who has not seen the joy of the water-drawing has not seen joy in his whole lifetime.” At the break of day priests processed the water and bore it back to the temple. On approaching the watergate on the south side of the inner court the shophar (trumpet) was sounded three times–joyous blasts which were explicitly related to Isa 12:3, “with joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.” The priests bearing the water then processed around the alter, watched by pilgrims, while the temple choir sang the Hallel (i.e, Pss 113-118). When the opening words of Psalm 118 were reached, “give thanks to the Lord,” every man and boy shook the lulab (a bunch of willow and myrtle tied with palm) with his right hand and held aloft a citrus with his left (a sign of the harvest gathered in), and the cry “Give thanks to the Lord” was repeated three times. The same thing happened at the cry “O Lord save us!” of Ps 118:25. Since all this took place at the time of the daily offering, the water was offered to God in connection with the daily drink offering (of wine).

• This ceremony was performed for seven days: the water was carried from the pool of siloam to the temple during each ceremony. The water was both a reminder of water that the Israelites received from the rock in the desert (Numbers 20:2-13) and a symbol of hope in the coming deliverance by the Messiah.[3]

B. The Proclamation

• Read John 7:37-39:
  
  

  (37) In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. (38) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (39) (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

• Given the backdrop of the rite of the water drawing, what is Jesus doing? What is his message to the people? How would the crowd or the people have understood his proclamation?
  
  
• The last day referred to in verse 37 could be either the 7th or 8th day. Deut 16:13 refers to 7th day as the last, but Lev 23:34-36 counts an eighth, Sabbath day. If it is the 7th day, then a water rite has probably just been performed or maybe is being performed. The ceremony was the most elaborate on the 7th day. No rite was performed on the 8th day.[4] Does the image change if Jesus did this on the 7th or 8th day?
  
  
• What is the second part of Jesus’ proclamation in verses 37-38 about? Specifically, what does, “[h]e that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water?” Is the verse saying that living waters flow out of those that believe? If so, what does that mean?
  
  
• It seems to me that the most natural reading is that we come to Christ and our thirst is quenched (we thirst no-more). The rivers of living water flow within us (from our heart) and change us as the gush within us; the living waters transform us. I think it also suggests that we become rivers of living water to others.Do you think verse 39 is consistent with this idea?
  
  
• Are there any other possible readings or interpretations of verse 38?
  
  
• Apparently, there is a lot of controversy over how to translate verses 37-38. Actually, maybe translate is not the right verb. It seems like most of the controversy is over how to punctuate the verses (remember there is no punctuation or even spaces between words in the manuscripts). Many scholars currently suggest that this proclamation by Jesus has a poetic parallel structure. For example, the NIV, ESV, NET, and others all provide two possible translations for this verses. The first, usually in the main body of the texts, is close to what we just read in the King James Version. The second, usually in the margin notes, follows the poetic construction. The WBC translation using the poetic construction is the following:
  
  

  “If anyone thirsty, let him come to me,
  and let him drink who believes in me.”
  As the Scripture said, “Rivers of living water will flow from his heart.”

• Is this case, I think the most natural reading is that the rivers of living water flow from the heart of Jesus. Actually, maybe that is overstating things. It seems like the pronoun could refer to either the believer or Jesus in the poetic reading. So I guess, at the least, the poetic construction opens the possibility that “his heart” refers to Jesus’ heart. So which construction do you think is more likely? Is verse 39 an important key? Does verse 39 help us decide if “his heart” refers to Christ or believers?
  
  
• I think verse 39 does suggest that “his heart” refers to the believers heart; that the believers or disciples of Christ become rivers of living water. I guess it just seems more natural to think of the Spirit gushing as a river from the heart of the believer. In other words, believers receive the living water from Christ, but it only becomes a river gushing from our heart when the disciples receive the Spirit after the death and glorification of Christ. If “his heart” refers to Christ’s heart it just doesn’t seem to have the same effect. If it is about the Spirit (as living water) gushing from the heart of Christ it seems like the image wold be more like, the Spirit is flowing from his heart, like a River of gushing water, but the believers will not receive it until he is glorified. I think I prefer the first reading. However, I don’t feel confident in proclaiming one reading over the other, but I guess I am inclined to suggest that the first seems more consistent with the parenthetical note. What do you think?
  
  
• However, I still like the poetic rendering of the verses. The parallel poetic construction connects Jesus’ proclamation, I think, in a very cool way to another proclamation by Jesus just one chapter earlier in John 6:35:
  
  

  And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life:
  he that cometh to me shall never hunger;
  and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

• The structure is not exactly the same, but it is similar. They both use parallelism to express a remarkably similar message. Thus even though I think there is a higher probability that “his” refers to believers than Christ, I actually do prefer the poetic rendering of the verses.

Endnotes

1. I don’t know the original source for this quote, but Truman G. Madsen quotes in a 1994 devotional at BYU. See Madsen, G. Truman, 1994, On How We Know , BYU Speeches.
   
   
2. Breasley-Murray, George R., 1988, Word Biblical Commentary: John, Word Books, 113-114.
   
   
3. Coogan, Michael D. (Editor), 2001, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Oxford University Press, 161.
   
   
4. Breasley-Murray, George R., 1988, Word Biblical Commentary: John, Word Books, 114.

[Archaea]

thanks. I should take time to digest.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

thanks. I should take time to digest.

Yep, its not exactly light reading. My goal for the lesson (really every gospel doctrine lesson I give) is just to try to take the scriptural text seriously; to really engage it. I don't really mind if I get it wrong or engage the text naively sometimes. This may sound slightly sappy, but for me, study is worship.

It occurred to me that some people might like a printable copy: PDF version of the Lesson Notes (it includes both part I and part II).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Yep, its not exactly light reading. My goal for the lesson (really every gospel doctrine lesson I give) is just to try to take the scriptural text seriously; to really engage it. I don't really mind if I get it wrong or engage the text naively sometimes. This may sound slightly sappy, but for me, study is worship.

It occurred to me that some people might like a printable copy: PDF version of the Lesson Notes (it includes both part I and part II).

Do you go on tour?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Yep, its not exactly light reading. My goal for the lesson (really every gospel doctrine lesson I give) is just to try to take the scriptural text seriously; to really engage it. I don't really mind if I get it wrong or engage the text naively sometimes. This may sound slightly sappy, but for me, study is worship.

It occurred to me that some people might like a printable copy: PDF version of the Lesson Notes (it includes both part I and part II).

That is my goal when I teach as well. I absolutely can't stand gospel doctrine teachers who teach a theme based lesson. i.e. if repentance was one of the themes of the reading material, then we get a one hour discussion of repentance which may or may not include reading no more than a few verses from the text. Last week we read a couple verses, then discussed how to become like children and how to treat children for an hour.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

That is my goal when I teach as well. I absolutely can't stand gospel doctrine teachers who teach a theme based lesson. i.e. if repentance was one of the themes of the reading material, then we get a one hour discussion of repentance which may or may not include reading no more than a few verses from the text. Last week we read a couple verses, then discussed how to become like children and how to treat children for an hour.

For the new testament, this approach is great.

Although, if you read Avraham Gileadi, you'll find a thematic grouping of scripture such as Isaiah, whether you accept the unity of Isaiah or not, to be useful.

Usually, I find engaging the text useful or more worshipful.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by jay santos

That is my goal when I teach as well. I absolutely can't stand gospel doctrine teachers who teach a theme based lesson. i.e. if repentance was one of the themes of the reading material, then we get a one hour discussion of repentance which may or may not include reading no more than a few verses from the text. Last week we read a couple verses, then discussed how to become like children and how to treat children for an hour.

It does seem like the vast majority of lessons take that form from the time we are 3. So, Like you, I sometimes get frustrated with those kind of lessons. However, in my better moments I remember that the lesson manual really does push teachers in that direction. If we just had more variation in teaching styles, I think I would enjoy the topical approach. Teaching really is a pretty difficult gig.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Do you go on tour?

Sure, as long as we call it, "The Heretic's Tour."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by pelagius

It does seem like the vast majority of lessons take that form from the time we are 3. So, Like you, I sometimes get frustrated with those kind of lessons. However, in my better moments I remember that the lesson manual really does push teachers in that direction. If we just had more variation in teaching styles, I think I would enjoy the topical approach. Teaching really is a pretty difficult gig.

When my wife taught GD she did a very nice job of balancing these two approaches. She perceived that many people (at least in our ward) don't want to analyze the text very closely. That's not why they go to GD. OTOH, some people, like me, much prefer the pelagian approach. I think the difficulty in leading GD in a balanced ward is to try to meet th these separate needs. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but it can be hard to bring them together.

For me, I very much enjoy the Book of Pelagius,as we have seen it here so far, and it has actually encouraged me to dig back into the GD course routine, which I had sort of given up on for a while.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Sure, as long as we call it, "The Heretic's Tour."

What about Hendy's Heavenly Heretic? Tour complete with Britney Spears DvD.