The protasis (condition) is essentially the same in both cases (minor textual differences), but the apodosis (result) has a major textual problem. The form of the apodosis determines the nature of the protasis. (1) "You would have known (αν ηδειτε or εγνωκειτε αν) my father." There are two variant readings in the manuscript evidence. The condition becomes a contrary to fact condition rebuking them for not knowing him as they should have known him. (2) "You will know (γνωσεσθε) my father." In this case, the condition is assumed to be true resulting in a promise that they will know the father based on what Jesus said in verse 6. The manuscript evidence is strong for both forms of the text.
I take it to be a rebuke. "If you had known me, you would have known my father also." There are two reasons for this conclusion. (1) Jesus made the same statement in John 8:19 to the Jews in the temple. They did not know Jesus so they could not know his father. (2) This translation is consistent with the rebuke Jesus gives to Philip in John 14:9. Philip immediately proved he did not really know Jesus by his question (v.8), so Jesus rebuked him for his lack of knowledge.
The conditional sentence implies that the disciples have not really known Jesus so have not known God the father. They knew Jesus on one level. They walked, talked and worked with him. On another level, they did not yet know him so did not really know the father because to really know Jesus is to know the father. To know Christ means that we know him in such a way that the knowledge changes how we live like knowing a spouse in the fullest sense changes how we relate to everyone else. Our knowledge changes the choices we make in life. So, knowing Jesus changes how we live and this level of knowledge is the only way to know God as father.
No comments:
Post a Comment