THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN
In this and subsequent posts, I will examine the Gospel of John as a creative work of theology. The Gospel of John has had many books and papers written about it. I am not going to bother with attempting to explain what others have written. I will examine this gospel, sections at a time, to point out some of the nuances I see in it. The readers of this blog are invited to read the Gospel of John (hereafter referred to as John) along with me as I comment on it. My hope is to offer an objective understanding of this gospel as a work written during a particular time in which Christianity emerges as a new monotheistic religion.
In this and other posts, I will be working from the premise that John is composite work involving more than one author and that it has been subjected to numerous editing throughout its dissemination within the early church. As such, I will be referring to its authors and editors.
The Gospel of John assumes its audience has some knowledge about the life and times of Jesus; that is, enough knowledged to allow its authors to play around with timelines, storylines, and the characters found in the three synoptic gospels. For instance, names appear out of the blue with little or no introduction as to what role they played in Jesus's life and ministry. There is an assumption on the part of John's authors that their audience knows what and who they're talking about.
All of this lends support to the notion that the Gospel of John is theological work or perhaps, better said, an early doctrinal work on the meaning of Christ and the Eucharist.
Minutiae matters in John. Most Christian readers gloss over it because they think they know the Jesus's story so well. The Gospel of John turns most of what we think we know about Jesus on its head - especially when read in comparison with the synoptic gospels.
The Gospel of John assumes its audience has some knowledge about the life and times of Jesus; that is, enough knowledged to allow its authors to play around with timelines, storylines, and the characters found in the three synoptic gospels. For instance, names appear out of the blue with little or no introduction as to what role they played in Jesus's life and ministry. There is an assumption on the part of John's authors that their audience knows what and who they're talking about.
All of this lends support to the notion that the Gospel of John is theological work or perhaps, better said, an early doctrinal work on the meaning of Christ and the Eucharist.
Minutiae matters in John. Most Christian readers gloss over it because they think they know the Jesus's story so well. The Gospel of John turns most of what we think we know about Jesus on its head - especially when read in comparison with the synoptic gospels.
John 1
TO BEGIN WITH
John is written for an intellectual audience. Given the premise that John's audience is primarily Jewish, one can speculate that they were Hellenized Jews and that some of this audience were gentiles, particularly Greek, and well versed in Hellenized thought because the first verse of John is immersed in both Greek and Judaic logic. The point of the first chapter of John is to established the divinity of Jesus.
"In the beginning" is the exact phrase used at the beginning of Genesis. Readers of the Septuagint [Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures] would have understood the implications of what the authors were about to embark on. In fact, the word for beginning in Greek is loaded. It has, in modern-day parlance, a Big Bang quality about it. It connotes a sense of power and can be literally translated as such.
"In the beginning was the Word." The Greek word for "Word" is "Logos," another very loaded term, which connotes reason, logic, and in this case the act of saying or creating. Its use supports the ancient monotheistic concept that God is a verb, God is acting, but John does not stop there, John's mission is to move from an indescribable, abstract construct for God to a very much flesh and blood one, a person, who will redeem or recreate creation with this simple phrase, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us... ."
Jesus in a very few lines is identified as the eternal Word through whom all things are made and then comes to be enfleshed as one of us to live in a redemptive relationship with us. This is a seismic shift in theology. To think of God becoming a human is beyond scandalous, it's heresy, at least to the Judaic mindset of the time. Philosophically it raises ontological questions as to why God would do this and who's running the cosmic show while God's saving this speck of dust called Earth. It will ultimately lead to the question what is the nature of God, but that's for a later discussion. John's concern is to say that God is fully present in Christ Jesus who becomes God's enfleshed, only-begotten Son.
The creation story in John is notable for its lack of mentioning anything good about creation as frequently described in Genesis One. In John, there are people who see the light and those who dwell in darkness. John is setting the stage for the followers of Jesus to experience the intimacy of their relationship with Jesus by presenting the world as it is or thought to be at the time. It's not all good. It's a mix. Into this mixed up world Jesus, the enfleshed only-begotten Son of God, comes to establish the kingdom of God. John points out that there are people who will not accept Jesus, who do not know him, cannot recognize him. The authors of John make it clear that it is near impossible for mere mortals to see the enfleshed God in Jesus unless one is called, one is chosen to see Jesus.
This theology is shaped by the real experience that there are and were those who cannot or refuse to accept the Johannine theology that Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God. What John acknowledges is the counterintuitive nature of the gospel message. The world beyond the confines of the ecclesia cannot grasp its message by itself, only those to whom it is revealed by God are capable of receiving it. There is a Gnostic undercurrent in John.
The intent of John, however, is not to create anxiety over this lack of understanding or rejection exhibited in others, but rather to reassure John's audience that there is a degree of intentionality about it all; that there is a purpose in all of it and since the reader or listener is one of the blessed, one of those who has seen the light and receives Jesus as the Word, sonship awaits for those "born of the will of God" - the chosen few.
The intent of John, however, is not to create anxiety over this lack of understanding or rejection exhibited in others, but rather to reassure John's audience that there is a degree of intentionality about it all; that there is a purpose in all of it and since the reader or listener is one of the blessed, one of those who has seen the light and receives Jesus as the Word, sonship awaits for those "born of the will of God" - the chosen few.
JOHN THE BAPTIST
The Johannine school of theology also makes an effort to clear away any confusion about who John the Baptist is. There's an implied issue here. Apparently there were those who considered John the Baptist to be the messiah. The authors of John are intent on clearing this up and assigning John the Baptist the role of Jesus's forerunner and gives John the Baptist the honor of being the first, in John's gospel, to recognize Jesus for who he is.
An oddity in Chapters One and Two is the element of time. We have a beginning that does not mention anything about time or days, as does Genesis One, but then when John starts talking about John the Baptist we suddenly have in verse 29 mention of a "next day" - as in the second day - when John the Baptist sees Jesus coming to him.
What happened to the first day?
It is tempting to make something of a missing piece, to assign it a mystical meaning. In this case what I think the lack of a mentioned first day points to is the composite nature of John; that it was pieced together by its authors or that mention of a first day was editorialized out of of the final script. Simply put, whatever happened to day one in the narrative about John the Baptist and/or Jesus is simply lost.
What we have is a next day, a second day in which Jesus makes his first appearance as a real person doing real human things, like walking by John the Baptist as he is baptizing people in the Jordan. What is a curious fact about this event is that Jesus is not baptized by John. Jesus approaches John for the purpose of being declared by John the Baptist to be the "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world."
There is no description of Jesus entering the river or being baptized. Rather John the Baptist declares that the spirit of God is resting of Jesus and states that whereas he baptizes with water, Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. There is always an assumption by readers of John's gospel that Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist and, later on in the gospel, the assumption that Thomas actually puts his hands into the wounds of Jesus, even though John never says any of those things happened.
There is no description of Jesus entering the river or being baptized. Rather John the Baptist declares that the spirit of God is resting of Jesus and states that whereas he baptizes with water, Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. There is always an assumption by readers of John's gospel that Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist and, later on in the gospel, the assumption that Thomas actually puts his hands into the wounds of Jesus, even though John never says any of those things happened.
Why?
Sometimes things left unspoken in John serve as invitations for further contemplation. This is what makes the Gospel of John more of a challenge and a difficult read. In John's gospel, Jesus doesn't require the act of a physical baptism to be declared the Lamb of God. The Holy Spirit is already upon Jesus as the eternally begotten Son of God, enfleshed in human form. Later, Thomas does not need to touch Jesus's wounds, he only needs to hear Jesus's voice, Jesus's word, and be recreated in his acknowledgement that Jesus is his Lord and God. Words have power in John because the Word is the power of God.
Sometimes things left unspoken in John serve as invitations for further contemplation. This is what makes the Gospel of John more of a challenge and a difficult read. In John's gospel, Jesus doesn't require the act of a physical baptism to be declared the Lamb of God. The Holy Spirit is already upon Jesus as the eternally begotten Son of God, enfleshed in human form. Later, Thomas does not need to touch Jesus's wounds, he only needs to hear Jesus's voice, Jesus's word, and be recreated in his acknowledgement that Jesus is his Lord and God. Words have power in John because the Word is the power of God.
John goes on to talk about the calling of select group of disciples that come to Jesus in twos, Andrew and Simon or Peter and Philip and Nathaniel - an odd selection. The first two are rather familiar and the latter two not so much, the underlying message seems to be this: There are those who have actually seen Jesus, heard him talk and then there are those who are brought to Jesus by those who seen him first.
The interesting undertone is that both Simon and Nathaniel are the one who receive more comment and compliment from Jesus than the Andrew and Philip do. What can one make of that? The obvious meaning is that those who come late to Jesus are just as important, just as worthy, as those who originally knew and met Jesus. Jesus comes to those who come to him and the promise is that there is more to come. The obvious message in this vignette is that Jesus knows who he is calling. Disciples are chosen. John's audience who receive the message are God's new Chosen People.
The interesting undertone is that both Simon and Nathaniel are the one who receive more comment and compliment from Jesus than the Andrew and Philip do. What can one make of that? The obvious meaning is that those who come late to Jesus are just as important, just as worthy, as those who originally knew and met Jesus. Jesus comes to those who come to him and the promise is that there is more to come. The obvious message in this vignette is that Jesus knows who he is calling. Disciples are chosen. John's audience who receive the message are God's new Chosen People.
The first chapter of John establishes several things about Jesus. Jesus is the reason for creation, Jesus is God and, in the flesh, Jesus becomes the Only-begotten Son of God. There are people who get this, like those who knew Jesus, such as, John the Baptist, Andrew, and Philip, and those who are seekers of Jesus, like Peter and those who are met by Jesus, like Nathaniel. All proclaim Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God More importantly, according to John, one cannot get this message unless one is chosen by God; in that, God wills some to get it. It's reflects the "many are called but few are chosen" scenario found in the Gospel of Matthew.
John 2
WEDDING WINE
Chapter 2 begins with " And the third day...." and the story of the wedding at Cana. I think this is a totally contrived story - a parable about Jesus - to set the stage for what is to come. It's a story that has multiple layers or meanings, the least of which is that it has to do with a real time experience.
The premise of the story is that the Jesus and his band of disciples along with his mother were at this wedding feast. We don't know whose wedding this was or if the person was a friend or relative of Jesus, but the implication that Jesus' mother was serving means the people involved were well known to Jesus, were his friends and relatives ( in coded language, the family of God, the ecclesia). The lack of detail is telling and clues us to the story's parabolic nature. The use of a geographic location, Cana of Galilee, tends to lend credibility to its being a real time event, but I would suggest that the authors' intent is a double entendre, a parable with real time application, God at work in our world, our reality. John is also pointing to the greater reality that John's audience is part of, the realm or kingdom of God. John is notorious for use of this approach in delivering a message to the listeners of the day.
The wedding feast or feast is common theme of Jesus' parables in the synoptic gospels. It plays a role in Pauline theology and it should not be a surprise that Jesus should be portrayed as performing his first "miracle" in John at a wedding in which Jesus and his disciples are participating in. A wedding feast is code for the ecclesia, the Eucharistic feast.
The wedding feast or feast is common theme of Jesus' parables in the synoptic gospels. It plays a role in Pauline theology and it should not be a surprise that Jesus should be portrayed as performing his first "miracle" in John at a wedding in which Jesus and his disciples are participating in. A wedding feast is code for the ecclesia, the Eucharistic feast.
Also, we have our first encounter with the fruit of the vine, wine. Wine is the literal life blood of the ancient Mediterranean world. Running short if wine at a wedding might have been considered an embarrassment to the host. In the full context of this gospel, John uses this story metaphorically to hint that this wedding feast represents the depleted state of Judaism of which John's audience was a part of. In the light of Christ, it's traditions and laws are the jars, and its jars are empty. There is a very symbolic moment in this story when Jesus asks the servants to fill the jars with water.
Water is associated with death in Judaic mindset and is a symbol of baptism. Baptism is an entry into the death of the old self. It is used to clean the dead. Jesus fills the jars with water which then become wine, and not just any wine, but the wine that will make you party hardy. Wine, new wine, is new life and new meaning. This is a transformative moment, a moment of transition. Jesus injects new life into the party, offers the better wine of celebration, has taken the ordinary and transformed it into the extraordinary. One could play with the various meanings of this story ad infinitum, another indication of its parabolic nature.
Water is associated with death in Judaic mindset and is a symbol of baptism. Baptism is an entry into the death of the old self. It is used to clean the dead. Jesus fills the jars with water which then become wine, and not just any wine, but the wine that will make you party hardy. Wine, new wine, is new life and new meaning. This is a transformative moment, a moment of transition. Jesus injects new life into the party, offers the better wine of celebration, has taken the ordinary and transformed it into the extraordinary. One could play with the various meanings of this story ad infinitum, another indication of its parabolic nature.
MARY
Leave it to the mother of faith, Mary, to come to the rescue. The jars are empty. In the story, when the wine runs short, Jesus' mother, Mary, tells the servants (another term for believer) to do what he says and all will be well. Jesus feigns being annoyed by being approached by his mother on what he views as a trite matter and complains that his time has not yet come - a phrase that will be repeated after his resurrection to another Mary [as mentioned earlier John has to be read as a whole or one will miss the clues to its coded message]. In other words, throughout John there is implied a hiddenness to who Jesus is; a not-yet or yet-to-be quality that is held in tension throughout the gospel. It gives an esoteric quality to John, an unspoken question, "When will Jesus' time come?" It provides an eschatological patina to the entire works attributed to John as found in the New Testament.
Jesus, compelled by his mother's intercession, turns ordinary water into wine - a wine that far exceeds the quality of the first wine. The role of Mary as intercessor is undoubtedly established or is being established as doctrine by the time John is written. Jesus becomes the ultimate host of the feast, the Eucharistic celebrant who changes the ordinary into the extraordinary. Mary represents the faithful intercessor who is wise beyond knowing.
HOUSE CLEANING
The scene quickly shifts, not as a new day but to a new location. It seems to me the editors of John make a rather shabby attempt at giving the narrative a linear feel as a means of giving it real time look. The reality is that what John jumps to next is anything but in keeping with the timeline of events recorded in the synoptic gospels. This too points to John being a theological commentary on who Jesus is.
We find Jesus and company in the Temple precinct just before the feast of the Passover. Again, the reader is confronted with a not-quite-the-time or an anticipatory moment. John uses these in between times to underscore a sense of preparation or a call for preparedness. As noted before the authors of John assumes the reader has previous knowledge about Jesus. There is no cogent reason why Jesus would drive those who were selling cattle and doves for sacrifice in the Temple precinct as stated in John. One would have to possess some understanding as to what Jesus saw that would lead him to do something like that. It's a violent act that places Jesus in an uncharacteristic light. The reason Jesus gives for doing so in John is even more confusing, "How dare you turn my Father's house into a market."
First one has to understand that sacrifice was an essential function of the Temple. How else were people to offer sacrifices if they could not purchase animals to do so? Of course, what is unspoken in John is that there was corruption in the selling business, especially with the money changers who gouged people for converting the imperial currency to temple currency.
None of this is mentioned in John, which leads one to conclude that either John's audience would have known all about this or they didn't and for John's purpose what matters is to get to the point of Jesus being asked by the "Jews" which, by the way, is the first time "Jew" is mentioned in as a differentiating comment which will increasingly be mentioned in a negative context, for a sign of his authority. Jesus responds, "Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days." The "Jews" take him to mean the Temple there having this conversation in (and why wouldn't they?), so the authors want to make sure John's audience understand this is code for the resurrection, making the connection that he, Jesus, is the true temple of God, the indwelling presence of his heavenly father.
While John wants to get to the point about Jesus sending a coded message about his eventual death and resurrection, I can't help but be intrigued about John having Jesus complain about turning his Father's house into a market. In fact, I see more application of this statement in today's world than any other found in these first two chapters, which brings me to the following:
MAKING SENSE OF THIS TODAY
As many of you know, I'm not particularly fond of John as a gospel and some may be asking why spend so much time on it if I find it to be difficult and troublesome. My answer is simply that John is what it is, a vital part of the Christian story. It has to be dealt with and interpreted to make sense in today's world. John is itself a theological work, a commentary on the life Jesus written in and for a specific time in history, a time that is both different and in some ways similar to the time we live in. What intrigues me about John is that it is itself an interpretation of Jesus' life and ministry, and once one comes to understand that aspect of John, one has sense of freedom to interpret the gospel itself. One cannot afford to take John at face value or as a literal, factual account.
Believing in John gets one nowhere. It gets one where every literal interpretation of any theistic scripture gets us, running into a concrete wall. Studying it, examining its meaning and applications at the time it was written and for today is what matters and will hopefully bring about a better understanding of ourselves and the world we live.
In the first two chapters of John, we see John's authors setting the stage or re-setting the stage for the presentation of this new monotheistic religion, called Christianity. It's a chaotic time. Christianity is one of probably hundreds of religious cults floating around the cosmopolitan realm of the Roman Empire at the time, each vying for adherents and trying not to ruffle the feathers of the powers that be. As such, John does not present the world of its time in good light. In fact, John portrays the world in stark contrasts of people of the light and those in darkness. John is the breakaway gospel from the Judaic tradition that Christianity emerged from. It seeks its own identity by making Jesus, as the Christ, the only begotten Son of God - equal to God and the very reason creation exists. In this sense, John presents a very narrow view of creation and the world in which we live. It also accounts for why Christianity, today, contains elements that possess a very narrow view of today's world.
In my opinion, the creation story of chapter one, verses one through five, needs to be seen for what it truly is instead of the romanticized and sanitized interpretation that it has been presented by the church since the canon of the New Testament was set. It wrongfully places Jesus as the reason for creation and means by which creation came into being. It turns the story of creation found in Genesis One which depicts chaos being turned into goodness back into something chaotic and in need of salvation.
Jesus as the Lamb of God, to be sacrificed for the sins of the world is also theological time-piece. As much as this language has found its way in the liturgy of orthodox Christianity, one needs to be careful in its use. John identifies Jesus as the Lamb of God as new interpretation of the Passover, in which blood of the lamb was spread on the door post of the Israelites in Egypt to spare their household from the angel of death. Jesus represent the new Passover, the blood that pays the price for our sins, and spares the believer from eternal death. Again, the theme is that Judaism is being replaced by Christianity; that at best, everything in the Hebrew scriptures only has meaning in the sense that it foreshadows Christ. In today's world, we need to be cautious with such interpretations. Judaism has its own rich history that Christianity shares, not replaces. The Passover story of Judaism is the Passover. The death and resurrection story of Jesus, needs to be seen in its own light as a Christian story that has broader applications. I will explain this further along in these posts.
The wedding at Cana is a unique parable about Jesus. It's application for today is that religions, especially theistic religions, run dry after a period of time. They need to be refreshed, cleaned out filled with water - the common stuff of life today, which is then fermented (contemplated) into new wine. This is one way of interpreting this parable for today's world. We need the faith of Mary to take action in the sense of trusting God's actions in and through our actions to bring about better world.
The cleansing of the Temple, is another parabolic story. For me the story is that places of worship can get too busy with the business of the place. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this unless it becomes the sole focus of what a place of worship is. For instance, fund raising can become an obsession, especially when money becomes the issue for a place of worship. After awhile, there is a tendency with all market places to play to the consumer.
In theism, this can be problematic in a variety of ways. Ironically, John seems to be doing some of that in the sense that John seems to be trying to create a new market for Christianity at the time. The reality is that religions do market themselves. We're seeing that happen in today's world in rather dramatic and violent ways. The question for the religious market should not be how do we market our particular brand of religion but rather what is needed in the religious market to sustain the goodness of creation and the dignity and worth of every human being as the image of God.
Until next, stay faithful.
Leave it to the mother of faith, Mary, to come to the rescue. The jars are empty. In the story, when the wine runs short, Jesus' mother, Mary, tells the servants (another term for believer) to do what he says and all will be well. Jesus feigns being annoyed by being approached by his mother on what he views as a trite matter and complains that his time has not yet come - a phrase that will be repeated after his resurrection to another Mary [as mentioned earlier John has to be read as a whole or one will miss the clues to its coded message]. In other words, throughout John there is implied a hiddenness to who Jesus is; a not-yet or yet-to-be quality that is held in tension throughout the gospel. It gives an esoteric quality to John, an unspoken question, "When will Jesus' time come?" It provides an eschatological patina to the entire works attributed to John as found in the New Testament.
Jesus, compelled by his mother's intercession, turns ordinary water into wine - a wine that far exceeds the quality of the first wine. The role of Mary as intercessor is undoubtedly established or is being established as doctrine by the time John is written. Jesus becomes the ultimate host of the feast, the Eucharistic celebrant who changes the ordinary into the extraordinary. Mary represents the faithful intercessor who is wise beyond knowing.
HOUSE CLEANING
The scene quickly shifts, not as a new day but to a new location. It seems to me the editors of John make a rather shabby attempt at giving the narrative a linear feel as a means of giving it real time look. The reality is that what John jumps to next is anything but in keeping with the timeline of events recorded in the synoptic gospels. This too points to John being a theological commentary on who Jesus is.
We find Jesus and company in the Temple precinct just before the feast of the Passover. Again, the reader is confronted with a not-quite-the-time or an anticipatory moment. John uses these in between times to underscore a sense of preparation or a call for preparedness. As noted before the authors of John assumes the reader has previous knowledge about Jesus. There is no cogent reason why Jesus would drive those who were selling cattle and doves for sacrifice in the Temple precinct as stated in John. One would have to possess some understanding as to what Jesus saw that would lead him to do something like that. It's a violent act that places Jesus in an uncharacteristic light. The reason Jesus gives for doing so in John is even more confusing, "How dare you turn my Father's house into a market."
First one has to understand that sacrifice was an essential function of the Temple. How else were people to offer sacrifices if they could not purchase animals to do so? Of course, what is unspoken in John is that there was corruption in the selling business, especially with the money changers who gouged people for converting the imperial currency to temple currency.
None of this is mentioned in John, which leads one to conclude that either John's audience would have known all about this or they didn't and for John's purpose what matters is to get to the point of Jesus being asked by the "Jews" which, by the way, is the first time "Jew" is mentioned in as a differentiating comment which will increasingly be mentioned in a negative context, for a sign of his authority. Jesus responds, "Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days." The "Jews" take him to mean the Temple there having this conversation in (and why wouldn't they?), so the authors want to make sure John's audience understand this is code for the resurrection, making the connection that he, Jesus, is the true temple of God, the indwelling presence of his heavenly father.
While John wants to get to the point about Jesus sending a coded message about his eventual death and resurrection, I can't help but be intrigued about John having Jesus complain about turning his Father's house into a market. In fact, I see more application of this statement in today's world than any other found in these first two chapters, which brings me to the following:
MAKING SENSE OF THIS TODAY
As many of you know, I'm not particularly fond of John as a gospel and some may be asking why spend so much time on it if I find it to be difficult and troublesome. My answer is simply that John is what it is, a vital part of the Christian story. It has to be dealt with and interpreted to make sense in today's world. John is itself a theological work, a commentary on the life Jesus written in and for a specific time in history, a time that is both different and in some ways similar to the time we live in. What intrigues me about John is that it is itself an interpretation of Jesus' life and ministry, and once one comes to understand that aspect of John, one has sense of freedom to interpret the gospel itself. One cannot afford to take John at face value or as a literal, factual account.
Believing in John gets one nowhere. It gets one where every literal interpretation of any theistic scripture gets us, running into a concrete wall. Studying it, examining its meaning and applications at the time it was written and for today is what matters and will hopefully bring about a better understanding of ourselves and the world we live.
In the first two chapters of John, we see John's authors setting the stage or re-setting the stage for the presentation of this new monotheistic religion, called Christianity. It's a chaotic time. Christianity is one of probably hundreds of religious cults floating around the cosmopolitan realm of the Roman Empire at the time, each vying for adherents and trying not to ruffle the feathers of the powers that be. As such, John does not present the world of its time in good light. In fact, John portrays the world in stark contrasts of people of the light and those in darkness. John is the breakaway gospel from the Judaic tradition that Christianity emerged from. It seeks its own identity by making Jesus, as the Christ, the only begotten Son of God - equal to God and the very reason creation exists. In this sense, John presents a very narrow view of creation and the world in which we live. It also accounts for why Christianity, today, contains elements that possess a very narrow view of today's world.
In my opinion, the creation story of chapter one, verses one through five, needs to be seen for what it truly is instead of the romanticized and sanitized interpretation that it has been presented by the church since the canon of the New Testament was set. It wrongfully places Jesus as the reason for creation and means by which creation came into being. It turns the story of creation found in Genesis One which depicts chaos being turned into goodness back into something chaotic and in need of salvation.
Jesus as the Lamb of God, to be sacrificed for the sins of the world is also theological time-piece. As much as this language has found its way in the liturgy of orthodox Christianity, one needs to be careful in its use. John identifies Jesus as the Lamb of God as new interpretation of the Passover, in which blood of the lamb was spread on the door post of the Israelites in Egypt to spare their household from the angel of death. Jesus represent the new Passover, the blood that pays the price for our sins, and spares the believer from eternal death. Again, the theme is that Judaism is being replaced by Christianity; that at best, everything in the Hebrew scriptures only has meaning in the sense that it foreshadows Christ. In today's world, we need to be cautious with such interpretations. Judaism has its own rich history that Christianity shares, not replaces. The Passover story of Judaism is the Passover. The death and resurrection story of Jesus, needs to be seen in its own light as a Christian story that has broader applications. I will explain this further along in these posts.
The wedding at Cana is a unique parable about Jesus. It's application for today is that religions, especially theistic religions, run dry after a period of time. They need to be refreshed, cleaned out filled with water - the common stuff of life today, which is then fermented (contemplated) into new wine. This is one way of interpreting this parable for today's world. We need the faith of Mary to take action in the sense of trusting God's actions in and through our actions to bring about better world.
The cleansing of the Temple, is another parabolic story. For me the story is that places of worship can get too busy with the business of the place. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this unless it becomes the sole focus of what a place of worship is. For instance, fund raising can become an obsession, especially when money becomes the issue for a place of worship. After awhile, there is a tendency with all market places to play to the consumer.
In theism, this can be problematic in a variety of ways. Ironically, John seems to be doing some of that in the sense that John seems to be trying to create a new market for Christianity at the time. The reality is that religions do market themselves. We're seeing that happen in today's world in rather dramatic and violent ways. The question for the religious market should not be how do we market our particular brand of religion but rather what is needed in the religious market to sustain the goodness of creation and the dignity and worth of every human being as the image of God.
Until next, stay faithful.
No comments:
Post a Comment