Conservative Friends Bible Study of The Gospel of John #29

John 17:20-26

We read The Gospel of John in Greek and sit with Jesus’ prayer that believers share a living unity that convinces the world. We trace how words like logos, doxa, and onoma point past outward religion toward inward immersion in the Spirit, then we pivot into John 18 and the roots of the Quaker peace testimony.

• Reading and translating John 17:20-26 with attention to Greek grammar
• Logos as proclaimed witness that carries spiritual power
• Unity as mutual indwelling in the Spirit rather than an outward agreement
• Doxa as glory, honor, and the manifested presence of God
• “Made perfect” as maturity and completion in spiritual awareness
• “Name” as character, essence, and what God is like
• Baptism as immersion into God’s life, not a debate about water
• Quaker rejection of original sin as a later doctrine
• Kingdom as an inward state, not a physical realm
• John 18’s arrest scene and the significance of “I am he”
• “Put your sword back” and the historic peace witness of early Christians and Friends
• Constantine, just war thinking, and how the church’s stance on violence changed

The quote in our introduction was taken from parts of George Fox's 56 Epistle.

A complete list of our podcasts,  organized into topics, is available on our website.

We will be publishing video interviews with Conservative Friends on YouTube.  See our YouTube channel.  The first interview is with Susan Smith. 

To learn more about Ohio Yearly Meeting (Conservative) of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), please visit  ohioyearlymeeting.org.

Those interested in exploring the distinctives of Conservative Friends waiting worship should consider checking out our many Zoom Online Worship opportunities during the week here. All are welcome! 

We also have several Zoom study groups.  Check out the Online Study and Discussion Groups on our website.   

Advices read in these podcasts can be found on page 29 in our Book Of Discipline.

We welcome feedback on this and any of our other podcast episodes.   Contact us through our website.

Transcript

Opening And John 17 Reading

Henry Jason 0:02

This is the Ohio Yearly Meeting, Greek Bible Study. We are reading the Gospel according to John. We left off at chapter 17, verse 19. So we will begin with verse 20. And this is session number 29. I'm going to just read through the end of this chapter. I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me, and I am in you. May they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me, I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them, and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I desire that those also whom you have given me may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. Righteous Father, the world does not know you, but I know you, and these know that you have sent me. I made your name known to them, and I will make it known, so that the love with which you have loved me may be in them and I in them.

Unity Through Spoken Logos

Henry Jason 1:27

I found some of this chapter difficult to translate because of the grammar. It's just somewhat unusual, or not something I'm very familiar with, some constructions here. We're just looking at again in verse 20, see, concerning the ones believing because of the words of them, believing in me because of the words of them. And that's the word logos, which can't mean any verbal statement. Long, short, even a single word. Whatever it's the words of those who have heard Jesus and have proclaimed them to others, have proclaimed Jesus to others, that's being said here. That all may be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I am in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe, may have confidence, may have trust that you sent me. Of course, I'm understanding here the spirit that they are in the spirit of the Father, they are in the spirit of Christ, that we are in that spirit of Christ. And throughout the rest of this chapter, we just hear the variations from what angle it's being said here in terms of being in unity, being in one. In verse 22, the glory which you have given me, I have given them, that they may be one, just as we are one. And again, this word glory, as I've talked about so often, has a number of meanings. It can mean brilliance, splendor, honor. It also refers to the Hebrew Shekhinah, the manifested presence of God in the world. And depending on actually the phrase, each phrase we're reading here, it may refer to one or more of those meanings, as well as there are other meanings for

Glory Doxa And God’s Presence

Henry Jason 3:29

that same word, doxa. And the verb is similar to glorify doxazo. Okay.

SPEAKER_05 3:37

I think that um what he's talking about here is ministering the gospel, the power of God. And starting with 20, they will believe on me for them also which shall believe on me through their word. It's the ministering the power of God, which is the gospel. It's not just ministering what they have heard Christ say, what they're ministering is the same spirit that Christ spoken in.

Henry Jason 4:10

That's right. That's what I understand here. But it's through their words, through the um words of the apostles who are ministering to others who are proclaiming the gospel, that others can join in this unity.

SPEAKER_05 4:26

The gospel being the spirit, when they feel that spirit within and speak from that spirit, that's what's convincing.

Henry Jason 4:34

Right, that's what I understand also.

SPEAKER_05 4:37

I think it says the same thing in 22: the glory which thou gavest me I have given them. The glory which he has given is to speak that spirit that he feels within, and to let that guide his speech. And that provides glory.

Henry Jason 4:54

The manifested presence of the Father in him is what he is giving to them. That's that glory. An older word, uh, in order that the world may know that you sent me and loved them just as you loved me. I think that's saying the same thing again. Again, the word no here is the word no that the world may experience that spirit of God the Father through the Spirit of Jesus Christ. And then in verse 24, Father, that which you have given me, I desire, I want that where I am they also may be with me, that they may see, they may, again, this is not the regular see, this is they may perceive, they may notice the glory, you become aware of my glory, which you have given me, because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

Quaker Unity And Trinity Debates

SPEAKER_04 6:19

Henry, I have an observation that I've never quite coalesced into this sense before, and I'm not sure how well I can express it. We've recognized that Quakers did not use Trinitarian language or doctrine, and in fact, that Trinity is not mentioned in the scriptures. But I think the Trinitarian teaching has attempted to say that there are these different aspects of or manifestation of the divine that are in a mystical union, sort of looking at something from different perspectives or experiencing it differently. But what I'm seeing here is that that sense of unity in this teaching includes us. We are bound into that unity which Jesus as the Messiah was experiencing with his father, the creator. And that just feels so deep. I want to dwell with that, I want to understand that better. It seems like such a gift.

Henry Jason 7:22

I agree with thee, David, that but what is very clear is that a person must be in that spirit to be truly in unity with God the Father, God the Son. Is it the word here in uh what was that verse? Uh the in verse 23. Let me see how it gets translated in the English here. Become completely one. This is a participle, a verbal participle. Tete leomenoi. They may be made complete or fully. That root that means fully developed, that they may come to the maturity, to the fullness of that awareness of that spirit, of being in that spirit. How is that translated in uh the King James Version, Pat? 23.

SPEAKER_05 8:11

23, I in them and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.

Henry Jason 8:18

Yeah, made perfect. That that's that's okay. It's a participle, though. That let me go on again. I was saying this verb here, it means see, but in the sense that we often see it here is the sense of perceive, notice, become aware of. It's a subtle difference, but it's an important difference. You miss something if you just simply translate it as C. The ordinary word for C is Harao.

SPEAKER_05 8:48

In 24, it says, Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am. I think that's a way of saying the same thing. Be with him where he is in the same spirit in which he is. And and it goes back to 14.3, where he says the same thing, and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also. So he's talking about being in the same place, which we do sort of say this the the use that term colloquially, I guess, when we say I'm in the same place as you, when we say we agree or we understand.

Henry Jason 9:35

Right, right. We don't mean a physical place. I mean, we're using words that refer to physical outward things, but we the the sense is clearly inward, clearly spiritual. That's an important point to make, I think. Sometimes um gainsayers against early Quakers would take whatever they said very literally, when clearly the friends would not mean them literally. I was just thinking in terms of what David Fink was just saying earlier about the Trinity. If you look at the history of Christianity in those first few centuries when they started arguing so much about the kind of academic things, as the Son proceeding from the Father, or the Holy Spirit going from the Father and the Son, or just from the Son, or it's it can drive you crazy and you start wondering why are they fighting about all this stuff? That's how you got the Trinity and the final Trinitarian formulation in the Council of Nicaea, because there were people just like the Emperor Constantine who wanted them to stop fighting, and he didn't become a Christian until he was on his deathbed. Of course, it was only in his last week of life because Christians at that time were understood if you you could no longer sin after becoming a Christian. That was quite clear. So he didn't become a Christian until he was on his deathbed.

God’s Name And Inward Baptism

SPEAKER_05 10:54

Do you think it would be worth reading this uh beginning paragraph of Epistle 46 in Fox that we read in the last New Foundation Fellowship?

Henry Jason 11:05

How much of that?

SPEAKER_05 11:07

Oh, about 10 lines.

Henry Jason 11:09

Yeah, go ahead, because that's talking about the same thing here about unity.

SPEAKER_05 11:13

Yes. To all friends who are in the unity, which is in the light, walk in the light. It is one light that doth convince you all, and one Christ that doth call all to repentance up to himself, the one head, which is Christ. The wise man's eye is in his head who changeth the mind and calleth from above to that which lies below. It is he alone that gives faith, and all who are in the faith are one. It is the one power that raiseth up the seed, and your faith being out of words, in the power, ye are all one, and the seed is one, and ye are all one if ye be ten thousand, which seed is one, which is Christ, and he is the master, which is one, and all the brethren who are in the spirit are one.

Henry Jason 12:08

What's the number of obviously has to do with the fact that he's saying that the only true complete unity is being in that divine spirit? It was 46, David.

SPEAKER_04 12:20

46, thank you.

Henry Jason 12:23

Okay, let me just go on here. 25. Righteous Father, indeed, the world did not know you, did not have an experience of you, but I knew you, I have experienced you, and these ones, these knew they have that experience that you sent me, and I made known to them your name. Again, name refers to not only name, but it can refer to the basic nature of someone or something, the essence of something. So I have made known the basic nature essence of God, the divine father, and I will make it known that the love which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them. This gives a very important reason for ministry, I understand. That if you have this spirit in you and you are really connected with it, and you understand that God wants this unity in those that call themselves Christians, followers of Christ Jesus, that they must have that true unity, not diversity. And this makes sense in terms of the um in the last chapter of Matthew 28, the Great Commission, where I may as well go there. This is verse 19, 28, verse 19 in Matthew. I'm going to just translate it. Therefore, having gone out, make students of all nations, immersing them into the name of the Father, into the basic nature, the essence of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep everything, whatever I have commanded you. And look, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. It's immersing them, baptizing them into the name of the Father. Baptize means to immerse into something, immersing those people that you're trying to convert. Any other comments on this chapter?

SPEAKER_02 15:01

Yes, this comment or this uh concept of baptizing has led to so many different interpretations of that. I used to know a Quaker pastor who uh served in Honduras, and people would ask him if he was baptized, and he said, Yes, I have been dry cleaned, but some say you need to be immersed in water, and some say you need to be sprinkled, and some say something else.

Henry Jason 15:38

Yes, but the true immersion, though, is really into the name, into the spiritual things of God. The Greek word itself does not necessarily imply water. If you take it out of a religious context, baptismo just means to immerse something into something else. It can be usually something flowing like water, but it can be, you know, when you talk about being baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus, that's being immersed in those understandings. So it's not a water baptism that people oftentimes demand. What friends very early understood was that you can get stuck on all these outward ceremonies and rites and feel that that's where the real truth is, when the truth is the inward immersion, the inward baptism that matters, not the outward. And of course, then eventually you had children getting baptized who had nothing to, you know, wouldn't even know what's happening to them. Well, there's just such a long history regarding baptism, of course. Friends have written enough about it, a lot, actually, a lot over the generations.

SPEAKER_02 16:50

Do you suppose this idea of water baptism was, shall we say, a transference from John's baptism?

Henry Jason 17:00

Yes, I do. Friends have written about this. I'm thinking of Joseph Phipps wrote some articles on this in the 18th century. That, you know, you you do and you do see this water baptism in the New Testament, but the true baptism wasn't the water baptism, that it was because of the rites and rituals of the Jews that continued there among the Jews that you had these outward rites. They should have passed away as other rites and rituals among the Jews did in early Christianity. Fortunately or unfortunately, it became to be understood as a rite of initiation in terms of becoming a Christian. And I know even among the in the Catholic Church, they talk about a uh baptism in blood, so that someone who wasn't baptized in water, but what became a martyr for Christianity would be understood to be baptized even though it wasn't in water, that he gave up his life for Christian beliefs that he wasn't even a member of quite yet in terms of the outward sign.

SPEAKER_03 18:04

Yeah, actually, a lot of people misunderstand that think baptism is a Christian invention, uh, with water, which it isn't because the Jews predating the Christians baptized with water. And we read in the Bible in the New Testament that John indeed baptized with water, he was doing the Jewish ritual. See, it's a different baptism, right?

Henry Jason 18:36

Some Jews still use water baptism with converts, and it's not disappeared. You have to remember that also. Of course, what was so important with John the Baptist was it was a baptism of repentance and that you needed this change in heart. That is the real important thing, both in John the Baptist and in Christ Jesus. As he was just saying, Jack, John said, I baptize with water, but he will baptize with the Holy Spirit. And I think that's the important thing that we realize that it's not the outward signs that matter, it's the inward change, the inward understandings that are critical. You can baptize anyone, but if their lifestyle doesn't change, if they're the same they were before, or even with a baby or someone who doesn't know anything about what's happening, it doesn't make any sense in a real spiritual way.

SPEAKER_04 19:30

Henry?

Henry Jason 19:31

Yes.

SPEAKER_04 19:38

And I was looking at how this word onoma is rendered. A number of them continue King James of saying the name. But I was helped to see several alternative renderings that I think is closer to what you've been teaching us. The contemporary English version says, showing them what you are like, and the good speed says, I have made yourself known to them, and I will do so still. And the good news Bible, um today's English version says, uh, I've made you known to them. So it expands it beyond this tendency to see the name as some magical incantation. It's it's much deeper than that.

Henry Jason 20:30

Yeah, the word anama does mean name, a name of something, anything, but it it does have this sense of the basic character of something. In the ancient world, Roman, Greek, Jewish world, names were very important. You were careful about what you named a child, as to why you did it. You had to think about it as to why you call the child by a specific name. Uh again, the basic character, the basic nature of something, the personality, the basic personality, the uh I'm trying to think of various words can be used here. And you must remember, even in modern Hebrew, another way of saying God without saying God is calling God the name.

SPEAKER_04 21:14

Hashem.

Henry Jason 21:15

Hashem.

SPEAKER_04 21:18

Well, I understand that when Jews see the tetragammon, whatever the YHWH, they say Hashem.

Henry Jason 21:26

Yeah, the name. Of course, I mean, that is a word you would not pronounce. Um you see various possible translations of what it meant. And I liked one I saw many, many years ago. I am that I am, as or something like that, is what you see. But I do remember reading many years ago someone saying perhaps it was a causative, causative verb I am who makes things be, who causes existence. And to me, I say, uh, that really I think. It says something about God if it is a causative verb that that refers to, not just the state of be or am, but causes to be, causes to exist.

SPEAKER_04 22:09

I've also heard from some Hebrew scholars that it could be I will be who I will be.

Henry Jason 22:16

I think I've heard that too. All right, can we go on? Anything else in this section we just done? We're just done here.

Kingdom As Inward State Of Being

SPEAKER_00 22:26

I've heard other pastors and so forth, Christian, that say that baptism was to erase original sin. And that's just a whole other concept to me, if you believe in original sin. But that would be baptism, that's why they would baptize babies.

Henry Jason 22:44

Right, but Quakers have not believed in that theological doctrine of original sin. And there's nowhere in the Bible that you have any mention, any terminology that refers to the original sin, the sin of Adam and Eve. Of course, they did sin, they were disobedient, they did eat of that fruit of the tree when they were told not to touch it, but they were tempted by the serpent, the serpent being a symbol of earthly wisdom that, hey, if you eat this, you will become like gods. And it was that temptation to be godlike that they gave into. So the Quakers have really focused on that understanding. Again, in the first centuries of Christianity, you don't have that concept of original sin. The first mention of it by someone was a bishop in the second middle of the second century, and it wasn't until the fifth century that it finally got declared a doctrine that you needed to believe in.

SPEAKER_00 23:40

It doesn't come up in the Bible, right? As original sin.

Henry Jason 23:45

No, it's never there in the Bible. You won't find it in the Bible.

SPEAKER_06 23:49

This is Sarah again. Um I'm still wondering about this word in um verse 24 of M, A M, be with me where I am. That's been discussed in terms of Jesus' nature and how he is. But is there any other implication involved here?

Henry Jason 24:10

Yeah, let me say a couple things about that. You'll find, especially, I think, among a lot of commentaries in the 20th century English speaking world about this word I am. A go is a word for I, and a me is the word for am. So often you'll have people refer to this I am, uh, these commentaries refer to Jesus saying, I am, and referring back to this tetragram, God the Father is I am who I am, or I am what I am, and see a relationship there. I disagree with that because in these places in the New Testament, especially here, we have it so often, Jesus saying, I am the light of the world, I am truth, I am light. It's not the I am that matters, it's the following, the light, the truth, the spirit. That's the focus. People, I don't know why they want to refer back to the Old Testament with the ego, am I, I am, when I really feel the more important thing is what that I am is referring to. I am this, I am that, all these divine aspects of Christ that they're referring to. I think I'm giving a fairly typical traditional Quaker understanding because I've never seen any earlier Quaker make any mention of ego a me, I am, as to referring back to God the Father.

SPEAKER_06 25:40

Well, I just wondered in this particular verse whether there was a logistical implication involved, since he's talking about that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me, for thou lovest me before the foundation of the world.

Henry Jason 25:55

I would say the state that I am in is what Jesus is saying. The state that I am in, where I am, what I am in, is what he's saying. And again, this the word state is very much like the Greek word kingdom, basileia, which most often did not refer to an actual kingdom, it referred to that power of God, that state of God. An English word state is a very good word to use because just like the word basileia, kingdom, it could refer to a physical country, a state, a kingdom, but much more often it did not. And that's led to a lot of misunderstanding in the English world when it's translated as kingdom, and they're thinking of a physical, temporal, spatial sense when it refers to something non-spatial, divine, eternal, the eternal state. We are in a state of crisis, that kind of state. We are in a state of happiness, we are in a state of joy. I think you get a better understanding of the Greek word kingdom if you think of it that way, because we just have a similarity there in the Greek word and in the English word. Realm. I also think of it in a scientific sense of a field. When you talk about electric fields, that sort of thing, electromagnetic field, domain. So these don't necessarily mean physical. And like I said, the Greek word most often does not refer to an actual physical kingdom.

SPEAKER_06 27:35

Okay, thank you.

Henry Jason 27:37

If you recall what Jesus said when Pilate asked him if he were a king, what did Jesus say? My kingdom is not of this world, it's not a physical state. It's not physical, it's not outward, it's inward. The kingdom of God is within you, Jesus said to the Pharisees and scribes. It's not something you can say, here it is, or there it is, it's coming, it's there, it's over here. No, because it's an inward state, a divine, eternal state of being, a state of awareness, a state of consciousness of being with God, in God, as we would say in this last chapter of 17.

SPEAKER_06 28:20

I guess when I've read this in the past, I've thought of this as almost like him referring to his return to the Father after his resurrection and being at the right hand of God, and that he wanted us to witness the glory that he has in that manifestation. That's how I was thinking of it before.

Henry Jason 28:44

I still think that too, but I'm not thinking of it physically, not outwardly. I mean, this is why we worship Christ Jesus because of what he did. He followed God completely, he was obedient to God completely, and the fullness of that divine spirit of the Father was in him fully, as Paul says. And we should strive to rise up to that same stature that Jesus had with the Father. Okay, all right, we okay?

John 18 Arrest Narrative Differences

Henry Jason 29:17

Shall we begin verse one of 18? Okay, we're going into the passion of Christ. And the word passion, the English word passion, originally meant suffering. That's the Latin word. Just like the word patient goes back to Latin, and it's someone who suffers. But a patient, a patient in the hospital is someone who's suffering. And if you see the older English translation of the word, like in the King James Version, you'll see the translation long suffering as an adjective. Suffer in English also had the sense of allow, permit, that kind of sense. But I don't we can get too far into this, so I'm just gonna drop this right now. So I just wanted to mention that passion originally meant the suffering. Okay, verse one. After Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples across the Kidron Valley to a place where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered. Now Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place because Jesus often met there with his disciples. So Judas brought a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees. And they came there with lanterns and torches and weapons. Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, Whom are you looking for? They answered, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus replied, I am he. Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, I am he, they stepped back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them, Whom are you looking for? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I told you that I am he. So if you are looking for me, let these men go. This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken. I did not lose a single one of those whom you gave me. Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus. Jesus said to Peter, Put your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me? This passage where we're beginning the passion here in John, in many ways is different from what you see in the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It leaves out information there, but it adds other information that we may not find in those passages. If you recall in the other passages, the way the soldiers, the police identified Jesus was that Judas went up to him and kissed him. It was normal for a student to go and kiss his teacher in greeting. And that would be the way that the soldiers would know that this was the man they wanted. I should also just make a comment here that in the Roman Empire there was no distinction made between the army and police. Both functions were done by the same people. I might comment on that later, but that's kind of an important thing. Of course, that there were these temple police, the Jewish police guards, but among the Romans, they didn't make a clear distinction between those two functions. I mean, it was all Roman army that um had the weapons and controlled things.

SPEAKER_04 32:49

Henry, I have a comment about the uh incident with cutting off the ear.

Henry Jason 32:55

Yeah, I was gonna get to that. Go ahead.

SPEAKER_04 32:57

Okay, I I can wait.

Henry Jason 32:59

Oh, I was just gonna say the ear there. Uh, what verse is that? 10. Uh I'm just looking for the word. Where is the word? Uh Otarian. Okay.

Put Away The Sword And Peace Witness

Henry Jason 33:09

Yeah. This is a diminutive form of the word for ear. And some people think that maybe what happened was he didn't cut off the whole ear, but cut off the uh lobe. Lobe, yes, ear lobe. But either way, I mean, he was using a weapon to defend himself and Jesus. And this is a very important passage that friends and historically have referred to in terms of the peace testimony, that Jesus did not allow self-defense with weapons, with physical weapons, that we could no longer use physical weapons to defend ourselves. I think you also find this, if I remember correctly, even in early Christian writings, I just remember it for sure in Quaker writings, but that self-defense could no longer be accepted in terms of using actual weapons. Of course, Quakers have gotten around it in having uh Quaker canon in other ways, you know, trying to fool violent people who wanted to uh with canon on a ship, but this was an important thing in early Christianity.

SPEAKER_05 34:20

It doesn't really say that there he's acting in self-defense when he draws the sword and cuts off the ear. The reason that Jesus gives for not using the sword is that it interferes with the plan that is set out for him that he must drink the cup that the Father has given him.

Henry Jason 34:41

I was referring to the Quakers saying in their writings, this is one of the reasons why they should not use physical weapons. This was important to me. I have to say that before I ever knew anything about Quakerism, I had become interested in early Christianity. And one of the two important parts of Christianity that I was so surprised of was the pacifism, the Christian pacifism of early Christians in those first two, three hundred years. That really surprised me. And there are just many passages there in the writings. Actually, I was reading a book of an anthology, and there was no section on Christian pacifism, but it came out so clearly so often in so many passages that I was reading, said, wow, someone like um Minutius Felix, or maybe been Tertullian, was saying that, you know, they were so opposed to violence that even when someone, a horrendous, heinous, evil person was found and caught and would be executed, they could not even think of looking at that person being killed. You get some very interesting comments, quiet little comments, but they really say something about early Christianity. On the other hand, you find more modern 20th century English writers trying to refute that because of the cases where they can find that people did not fall in that kind of category. You may have had no choice in the matter if you're a young, strong guy and being put into the Roman army, that was that. But as a Christian, you were not allowed to kill. So you might be able to do some police work, but you could not kill. That would not be allowed. There's a lot more, there's a lot more to say about that, but go ahead, Pat.

SPEAKER_05 36:22

Okay, well, just that Pennington, you know that I presented that idea to you that even though Quakers were opposed to their using violence, they did see a place for among others in the society in order to keep order within the society, such as the magistrates.

Henry Jason 36:41

No, I didn't understand it that way. I'm saying I think it's a default kind of position because they are not in that spirit that they should be, that divine spirit, you know, that spirit of love, divine love, the spirit we're talking about in this past chapter. So it's it's kind of like saying all the horrible things that were happening with the Lord God telling the Jews to go smite this people or that people, that's no longer the case. You should no longer be doing that.

SPEAKER_05 37:09

It was because not in an aggressive way, but in a defensive way for the order and society that was sanctioned by Pennington.

SPEAKER_04 37:18

I wanted to comment on this verse and its centrality in my understanding of a peace testimony. Some of the other gospel writers add an additional clause that Jesus says, for they who live by the sword will perish by the sword. But I'm remembering something, and Henry, you may have the uh attribution, but one of the early church fathers in the pre-Constantinian era said something to the effect of when Christ tells Peter to put up his sword, he thereby disarmed every Christian. And I would love to find that the verbatim and the actual I I have read

Constantine And Just War Thinking

SPEAKER_04 37:56

that.

Henry Jason 37:56

Well, I know the two people who really destroyed the peace testimony, one was Augustine and the other was Ambrose, the church leaders, fathers, 100, 200 years later.

SPEAKER_04 38:08

It's part of what in the free church tradition was called the Constantinian captivity of the church. Once the church makes common cause with the state, then you're going to have the use of violence, whether civil or uh military, and all kind of jumping through hoops. Luther does it, you know, two kingdoms and all of them.

Henry Jason 38:28

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_04 38:29

But it's uh if you're true to Jesus' teaching and the first centuries of the life of the church, where there were martyrs who were soldiers who refused orders because they said we're following our real leader, not Caesar. Well, there's a whole book by a British author whose name will come back to me about um the peace testimony of D.O.E.

Henry Jason 38:52

But you're just reminding me something, too, that it wasn't just Constantine. The church was already changing. You know, the long dark night of the apostasy didn't start in 325. Things were already happening in the last generation or two before that. And I think that's important also to realize the differences, like these quiet changes that continue to occur. And uh the final real nail in the coffin was under Constantine, or even with the peace testimony with Ambrose or uh Augustine, you know, a just war theory. And uh, but it's strange that it's always the small churches today, you know, uh the the peace churches we talk about today that are always small, but they still hold on to this understanding.

SPEAKER_03 39:38

The early Quakers called it primitive Christianity revived.

Henry Jason 39:42

Yes, yes. I've got to admit though that conservative friends among 20th century friends were the best in terms of keeping the peace testimony, like in the Second World War, when so many young men, liberal friends, evangelical, pastoral friends, did go to war. Conservative friends were the most consistent in upholding that peace testimony. So I think we should be proud of that fact. We have that book that's still available, the paperback Statements Against War, that was published by OIM. The knows what I mean, Jack, I think. Yes. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 40:21

We were looking in the uh Heritage Zoom the other day and found about 20 copies of it. It is definitely still available.

Henry Jason 40:30

Great. That's good to know. We should publicize it at the yearly meeting next week. I'm wondering if that might be a good idea. I don't know when there would be a per a time or whatever for people to get in touch with someone in the historical library, uh, Marie Bundy, or somebody, and if there's an interest, why not let people know that we do have books like that available?

SPEAKER_03 40:50

Or get in touch with Earl Smith.

SPEAKER_02 40:53

Yes. I have been thinking about how we could do that. And it may be that I can set up a web page that would have information on how to mail order books.

Henry Jason 41:09

Yeah, okay. David is showing something.

SPEAKER_04 41:13

I found the book I was looking for, 1958, I think, by Jeffrey Nuttall, and then reprinted here in 1971, Christian Pacifism in History. N-U-T-T-A-L-L.

Henry Jason 41:28

Right. I I have a few books. Like I said, the way I got drawn to Quakerism was through the early pacifism of early Christians, also their understanding of the kingdom of God being

Final Thoughts And Next Session

Henry Jason 41:40

within us. Those two concepts, you know, I'd had this earlier interest in early Christianity. And when I learned about Quakers a few years later, I said, wow, there's something really here. Anyway, it's getting late, and I think perhaps uh we can stop there for the moment. We'll have to go over what we've just been doing here in the first few verses, but I think that shouldn't be a problem.