BLINDNESS AND BAPTISM IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN - Johannine Theology Part VIII



 

JOHN 9

The story of Jesus healing the man born blind was one of the first stories in John that disturbed me enough to pay attention to what this gospel is about.  Again we are presented with a story that has multiple levels of meaning and theological application. Rooted in this story is the Christian notion of the implacable nature of God's righteous judgment on those not chosen for re-creation. In John God is merciful to those chosen to believe, those who see the light, but is not merciful to those who are not chosen, who are deemed unworthy.  Also rooted in this story is the idea that belief is the basis of true knowledge rather than knowledge as the basis of  fact-based belief.   This particular story may explain why so many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have a near impossible time accepting scientific evidence; such as climate change, evolution and display an ardent rejection towards people of other religions or those who are non-religious. 

Although I do not believe the story was written with these particular outcomes that have resulted some 2000 years later, the seeds for such intransigent thinking on the part of Christians can be found in this story.  This story was originally written to  addresses a particular situation that the early Jewish Christians encountered in being rejected by the larger Jewish community after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE. It was meant to give encouragement to those who were kicked out of their synagogues by illustrating through this story that they are a new creation through baptism; that they are reborn and now see the light and are children of the light. 


A CAPRICIOUS DEPICTION OF GOD

It begins with Jesus and his disciples coming across a man blind from birth.  This of course is a metaphor for any person who does not know Jesus.   In essence he represents the uninitiated, the unbaptized, the unborn-again.  We are all born blind to God.

The disciples ask Jesus who sinned, the man or his parents?

It's an interesting question.  How could this man sin before he was born, unless one accepts the notion of original sin, which could be read back in John's account. That his parents sinned reflects the thinking of the times; that chronic illness or deformity of any kind was the direct result of sin, a sign of divine retribution.

In this particular case, Jesus answers the man was born blind for the sole purpose of being healed by Jesus as a sign and symbol of the work he was sent to do.  On the surface this would appear that Jesus debunks both the notion of original sin and that illnesses and deformities as a sign of divine retribution.

The fact is Jesus does neither.

Instead the writer adds another disturbing possibility; God causes such suffering to serve his own purposes.  If we were to take what Jesus says in this story as factual, we would have to accept that we are mere pawns; subject to the whims of a capricious God which, unfortunately, many Christians believe.   What this should do is clue us into understanding that this is just a story, not a fact but rather a tale.  As such, I don't believe the writer of John 9 is trying to make a theological statement about sin, rather the writer is banking off of an existing belief prevalent at that time, that the gods are  indeed capricious.  Capriciousness is not something Abrahamic monotheists would readily admit or associate with the God of Abraham, but the concept of divine capriciousness is nevertheless implied in all ancient theistic religions. 

BAPTISM AS A RECREATIVE ACT

Unlike the story of the paralytic in John 5,  neither the man asks to be healed nor does Jesus ask if he wants to be healed.  This is a factor that can be easily overlooked as Jesus simply having compassion on the man, but remember that in John 5 Jesus asked the paralytic if he wanted to be healed.  There is a purpose in the question never being asked by either party. Remember the man is chosen for this purpose - people are chosen for purposes known only to God according to John.   Jesus goes to this chosen man of God to figuratively and literally recreate him.  Jesus mixes his spittle with dirt as if to make a poultice to draw out the blindness. The writer of John may be referencing stories of Jesus healing the blind as found in Mark 8.  In John, however, there is a sense that Jesus is doing more than just making a poultice.  In John what is being intimated is that Jesus re-forms or recreates the blind man from the spiritual clay that calls to mind the creation of Adam in Genesis 2.  In addition, there is another step that Jesus adds to process before the man's sight is restored and that is for the man to wash in the pool of Siloam. This is a clear reference to baptism.  It is only after he complies with this request, that the man's sight is restored. 



BEING DIFFERENT


What is noteworthy in this story is that once receiving his sight, it is others who see the former blind man differently.  Being a sighted person suddenly raises questions as to who he is.  He is changed, no longer dependent on begging, no longer dependent on their mercy.  More importantly, he knows who healed him, even though the story never depicts this man and Jesus having a conversation. 

How does he know Jesus's name?

I would suggest that the writer is saying that even though people who are recreated by God through baptism have never seen the historical Jesus (like the audience John is addressing), they know who he is because they are known by him, that they have a purpose just as the blind man had a purpose in being made blind from birth. 

The man's neighbors, people who have known him all his life are now confused by his new identity and bring him to the Pharisees (John's synonym for Jewish authority).  Again, this occurrence takes place on the Sabbath day, the day of rest and is in violation of the prohibition against working on the Sabbath.  What we know of the Sabbath Day healings is that, in John, it is a symbol and a reminder of the intransigent traditions of Judaism that get in the way of seeing the good - of seeing God as presented in Jesus; that they are being willfully blind to workings of  God's mercy and grace that have been enacted through Jesus.

Again the Pharisees are depicted as not being concerned that the man is cured as they are upset that he was healed on the Sabbath.  When the Pharisees argue that Jesus is not a man of God, others question how could such good occur if he was not from God?  In the story the people, the Judaic Jews, turn to the healed man and ask him his opinion.  The blind man tells them that he thinks Jesus is a prophet, and then his inquisitors accuse him of never having been blind in the first place, at which point they bring in his parents. 

This is an interesting twist to the story and reflects the turmoil that likely occurred in families between those Jewish family members who became Christian and those who remained committed to Judaism.  Here the writer of this story makes clear the issue being addressed by this story is the fear of being kicked out of one's community, family, and synagogue.  When the "Jews" ask his parents if he was indeed born blind, they confirm that he was, but they don't want to go further than that.  There is no rejoicing that their son is seeing or, as John might have put it, seeing the light.  On the contrary, John tells us that they were afraid of being kicked out of the synagogue if they suggested that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah.   No other gospels contain stories of people being kicked out of their synagogues because they confessed Jesus to be the Messiah. This factor in John assures us that this is a story about the times in which John was written.

When they question the man again, he stands by what he said.  He not only confesses his belief that Jesus is sent by God but asks if they would like to be a disciple, also.   At that suggestion, they throw him out.  On the surface his invitation to the "Jews" appears naïve, but it actually addresses the underlying issue why Christian Jews were being thrown out of the synagogues, they were inviting their fellow Jews to be Christian and this was something those; namely, the surviving Pharisees could not afford to tolerate in their effort to keep Judaism alive after the destruction of the Temple. 

What is also interesting is that after the blind man was cast out of the synagogue, Jesus approaches him and fully reveals himself to the man, who then worships Jesus as God.  This is the reassurance John wants to give to those Jewish Christians who remain faithful; that Jesus - God- will come to them in fullness because of their belief in Jesus as the Christ.


BELIEF AND KNOWING


At the end of this strange story, Jesus makes an enigmatic statement that he was sent into the world to judge it; that those who do not see will see and those who see will be blinded.  At this, the Pharisees respond by asking if they too are blind.  Jesus answers that if they were blind, they would have no sin, but since they see, they in essence should understand and therefore remain in their sin. 

These closing remarks show the metaphorical nature of this story, that blindness is a condition of not knowing that allows one to believe without the benefit of sight or knowing (a theme that is unique to John) which is to say that belief is, in itself, spiritual sight/knowing.  John is saying that since the Pharisees claim to see because of their traditions and laws but do not believe that Jesus is the Christ (John makes a point of saying that Moses and Abraham were speaking of Jesus in their times), they remain in their sins and are judged because of what John sees as willful ignorance.  

This is a story of suffering on various levels and by everyone in the story except Jesus.  The pathos is palpable when given a close reading.  This writer in John is trying to comfort the suffering of those Jewish Christians who have been rejected by kith and kin because of their beliefs.  In the end, John shows Jesus coming to them to be worshiped and embraced as the fullness of God.

To those who do not believe in Jesus as the only begotten Son of God (the Pharisees, for example) their situation is dire.  Because of their willful disbelief (hearing but not accepting) John says they are deemed sinners and they remain in their sin.  They too are suffering but don't know it and, according to John, there is nothing Jesus can do about it.

* * * * * * * * * *

John 9 has mostly been treated as a miracle story revealing the divine nature of Jesus as the only-begotten Son of God, but as I hope to have illustrated here, it is much more than that.  In my opinion, this is one of the most important stories recorded in the New Testament which depicts what I am describing as Johannine theology of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries C.E.  Throughout the history of Christianity, this and other stories in John have been interpreted without much consideration to their historical context at the time it was being written.

I feel that the Gospel of John illustrates what I have termed the differentiating paradigm found in all religions; that seeking difference is at the heart of what theistic religion and perhaps religion as a whole is geared to do and which ironically countermands the original impulse of religion which was and is to underscore the fact that we need each other.  Difference is at the heart of Abrahamic Monotheism - the notion of a people set apart.  This notion runs deep in all three Abrahamic monotheisms and is repeatedly demonstrated in the Gospel of John.
 

While many progressive Christian attempt to embrace the original purpose of religion - "We need each other" -  Christians as a whole have yet to remove their holy scriptures off of the divine pedestal they have been on for almost two thousand years and admit their human origins.  The failure to do so keeps God as a person who is  "the Out-There-Other"  rather than accepting their all too human origins.

Fully accepting holy writ's human origins can lead us to embrace the indescribable intimacy of what is termed God in all that is - that God is so close that God cannot be seen or even heard beyond our own perceptions and thoughts and that our holy writs, understood as literature written within a particular historical context, can help us better understand their applications in the age which we now live. Ultimately, such literature leads those who are open-minded enough to realize that we are connected to each other in ways that we cannot fathom, in ways that we call God. 

Until next time, stay faithful.      

THE LITERARY STYLES OF JOHN - Johannine Theology - Part VII

 John, chapters seven and eight, is a good place to talk about (for a lack of a better term) the literary style or styles of John.  As I have stated throughout the last several posts, the Gospel of John is a theological work designed to promote a  particular theological perspective on who Jesus is.  It is my contention that John is the work of several writers or editors who worked on it together or separately, adding or editing what others had written.  Nothing supports my hypothesis better than these two chapters.

John does not have a particular literary style as it has a theological agenda that drives the way it was written.  The writers and editors of John exercised free reign when it come to borrowing, creating or reworking the information they presented.  What they stayed clear of in their presentation of Jesus as the only-begotten Son of God was any of the parables of Jesus or the actual teachings of Jesus that are found in the synoptic gospels.  Instead they utilized parables or stories about Jesus, some of which were highly stylistic; such as, the story of the Samaritan woman where there was a completion to the story. 

Other stories left one hanging; such as, the story of Nicodemus' night time visit or the paralytic man by the pool of Bethesda where ones doesn't find out what happened to these characters as a result of their encounter with Jesus.  Then there is the story of Jesus feeding the five thousand and walking on water that were clearly borrowed from the synoptic gospels but which show the editorial struggle in how to incorporate those stories to fit John's theological perspective.
  

The reality is that very few of the stories found in the synoptic gospels fit John's theological perspective which consists of Jesus being the reason the world and creation came to be, that Jesus is the only-begotten so Son of God, that no one can believe this unless chosen by the Father (God) and no one can know the Father except through believing in Jesus as God's only-begotten Son, that only belief in Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb of God can assure one of eternal life, and, most importantly, Christianity is not Judaism.


What I find ironic is that John's interpretation of Jesus's earthly mission tends to interpret what the synoptic gospels say about Jesus's life.  This was by design on the part of those who formulated the New Testament's canon.  For example, it would have made immense sense to have the Gospel according to Luke be the last gospel since its author also authored the Book of Acts. Since the Gospel of John talks about the beginning of things, it would have made immense sense to make the Gospel of John the first book in New Testament canon - or would it have?  Not if you wanted John's theological perspective to dominate Christian theology. Placing John as the last Gospel gave John the last word on Jesus and it stuck.


The other stylistic motive for how John is written is that it addresses several contemporary issues at the time it was written.  In that respect John is very much like the epistles.  It was meant to provide a specific interpretation on how salvation works, but with the interesting twist that it is presented as though Jesus said what the authors and editors of John wanted said, which brings us to a discussion of John 7 and 8.

JOHN 7

John 7 is perhaps one of the most confusing, if not one of the most convoluted pieces of scripture found in the entire Bible.  It starts with saying the reason Jesus went to Galilee was to get away from the Jews who were trying to kill him.  Then we read that Jesus's brothers asked him to go to Jerusalem with them to celebrate Sukkot, the Feast of the Booths, one of three feasts that required Jews to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem during the Temple period.  When Jesus displays his reluctance to go, his brothers tell him that a person who wants notoriety (to encourage his followers) would be eager to show his stuff on the bigger stage of Jerusalem.  (Biblical sarcasm?) John makes the editorial comment that even Jesus's brothers did not believe him.


Jesus responds to his younger, earthly siblings, that his time has not yet come; that their time is always present; that the world hates him, but loves their ilk (more sarcasm?) Then John says Jesus's brothers leave and he stays behind in Galilee.


This is a good place to pause for a moment. 


What just happened and why make what seemingly appears to be a sibling issue part of this gospel?


As always, there is the overriding agenda in John.  Mention of Jesus's brothers is perhaps directly aimed at Jesus's most notable brother, James, the once head of the now extinct Church in Jerusalem. Other brothers of Jesus, might have also had lead roles in establishing churches, but the only one we know of is James.  Is this a slam against the remaining followers of James' church, that might have survived the Fall of Jerusalem or who still remained loyal to the teaching of James?  Possibly.


The church in Jerusalem, before its destruction in 70 AD, was composed of Pharisaical elements.  Pharisees are particularly targeted in John as Jesus's enemies who are out to get him killed when, in fact, it was the Sadducees who played a much more prominent role in going after Jesus as they represented the ruling branch of Judea prior to its destruction, but in John, it becomes the Pharisees.  There is absolutely no mention of the Sadducees in John.  Their absence is a glaring omission.  For the authors and editors of John they were no longer a problem, as they no longer existed.  The Pharisees survived and as intimated in the Book of Acts they were also part of the first Christian church.  If they remained in the Christian community as urging continued compliance with Judaic law, they would have been perceived as a problem for Johannine Christian community, if not the newly emerging church as a whole.


The only insight one has into this possible controversy is the Letter of James attributed to Jesus's  brother James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem during the Temple period.  What I have come to appreciate in the Letter of James is its injunction against faith as mere intellectual assent - as belief; that faith sans works (doing something) is pointless and is, in the words of James, dead.

For centuries many theologians and church historians saw the Letter of James as in conflict with Paul's teaching on justification by faith.  I propose that it is squarely aimed at the Johannine perspective on faith as belief, as mere intellectual assent to a theology about Jesus.  James is also notable for not mentioning Jesus as the only begotten son of God and connecting Christian faith to its Judaic roots. That James survived to be in the New Testament canon is amazing as its presence sheds a great deal of light on the evolution of Christianity as a religion.


We left off with Jesus staying in Galilee. This was stated in verse 9 of John 7.  In verse 10, however, Jesus decides to head to Jerusalem "in secret" after his brothers leave. One can't help but question Jesus's motive or why he either lied to his brothers or had a change of mind about going.  Neither of these obvious conclusions appear to bother the writers and editors of John.  Remember, everything Jesus does in John is intentional  - is done in accordance with the will of his heavenly Father, God. 


Does one see the danger that the Gospel of John poses in its logic or its theo-logic?


By this logic, the editors and writers of John suggest that if Jesus lies, it's not a lie because it is the will of God.  If Jesus appears to change his mind, its not a change of mind because the mind of Jesus and his Father are in sync with each other. 


By extension, those "true believers" who are one with Christ in God the Father can claim the same logic to whatever religious, hair-brained, action taken in the name of God. 

While this illogic is not specifically spelled out as such anywhere in the New Testament, its implication and application has been evident throughout the history of the Christian church and the world, and we find one of its sources in John 7.


Try as one may to make this have a different meaning, it is what it is  - an ill thought means on the part of John's writers to get Jesus to where they want him to be, Jerusalem.  What I would suggest is that this is evidence of the pieced together editing that takes place throughout the Gospel of John.  It's as if we have two different stories that the writers are trying to piece together as a whole and don't do a very good job of it.  It's rather sloppy theology and is why I see John a composite work of several different writing styles, writers, and theological approaches. 


SUKKOT AND THE TRANSFIGURATION

Given what I said above, it intrigued me why John mentions the Festival of Sukkot.  What is its significance to what John is presenting in chapter seven?  I would suggest that its significance lies in its relationship to another story about Jesus that is found in all three synoptic Gospels but is missing in John, the story of Jesus' transfiguration.

That it is missing is, in my opinion, a bit mysterious because it is a story where God, himself, tells Jesus's disciples, Peter, James and John that Jesus is his Son, His beloved or chosen.  It would seem that this information would back John's theological purpose of declaring Jesus to be God's son.


Well... perhaps its not so mysterious because it's not what the account of The Transfiguration says that would bother John's writers as much as what it doesn't say, that Jesus is God's only-begotten Son.  The idea of Jesus being chosen from amongst us mortals to be God's son is not an option for John.  The other thing that writers find untenable is Jesus sharing the stage with others, particularly with "Old Testament" characters such as Moses and Elijah.    The transfiguration story, however, has Peter mentioning building three tabernacles or booths for Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. 


What I am suggesting is that John is very aware of other gospel stories; that they are familiar to members of the Johannine Christian community and John's writers are addressing them to suit their own purposes.  So instead of talking about the transfiguration of Jesus, John has Jesus talking about Moses during the Feast of Sukkot.  Elijah gets little press in John, being only mentioned in John 1 with regard to whether John the Baptist was Elijah, which John the Baptist denies. 

There is no mention of Elijah ever being associated with Jesus in John and I believe this is purposeful because Elijah's presence would indicate that Jesus is the Messiah of Judaism and John is claiming Jesus as the Christ, the cosmic Messiah who created and redeems the world.  Jesus is God and the Feast of Sukkot is the place, in John, where Jesus is making this declaration in the Temple, the biggest booth of all. What happened with Jesus trying to be secretive?


In the process John has Jesus making a historical error about the origins of circumcision.  When talking about how the "Jews" did not understand Moses, apparently Jesus (in John) didn't understand the history of circumcision. It's worth giving that selection from King James Version:


²² Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.


Jesus states in verse 22 that Moses gave Judaism the rite of circumcision, but then it is followed by  parenthetical editing which I highlighted that clarifies that it wasn't Moses, but rather the "fathers" - code for Abraham.  What is interesting about this is that the editors didn't edit Jesus's error out as they might have done.  

There may be a couple of explanations as to why they didn't.  The first is that John has Jesus talking about Moses, not Abraham, and they would have had to change the entire script so they opted for editing in the correction (as if Jesus was thinking this all along).  Another possibility is that the editing took place much later when John was already being passed around as a gospel and was not immediately caught until a later scholar caught the mistake and made the addition, but didn't want to change what had by that time become recognized as sacred scripture.   

What the editor is also alluding to is working on the Sabbath, as in "ye on Sabbath day circumcise a man."  Is the comeback for being accused of healing on the Sabbath or is it confused editing trying to make a point about the Judaic prohibition against working on the Sabbath as part of Mosaic law and tying circumcision to Mosaic law.


John 7 ends with the Temple authorities being inaccurately portrayed as Pharisees ordering the Temple guards to go and kill Jesus which would also have been historically inaccurate since they had no civil authority to do so and who don't because whatever Jesus was saying made so much divine sense to them, which had the Temple authorities (the Pharisees) shaking their unbelieving heads.  John 7 is one of several places in the New Testament that erroneously references the Hebrew Scriptures.  If anything argues against the inerrancy of scripture, John 7 stands as a case in point.  

JOHN 8 

John 8 actually begins with the last verse of John 7.  Don't ask me why, but again this seems to indicate an editorial mistake.  John 8 begins with what I consider to be the finest story about Jesus in John - maybe the one of the finest stories in the entire New Testament and most theologians and Bible translators now agree that it wasn't part of John's original script, that it was inserted later by someone different than the original "writer" of John.  That story is the story of the Adulterous Woman. 


Most modern translations have gone so far as to place the entire story in brackets and it rarely finds its way in any liturgical church's lectionary.  I quite agree that it is not original to the original script of John.  It's so unlike anything else written in John; so compassionate and forgiving, so inclusive that it couldn't possibly have been in the original script. 

My hypothesis is that it was a story added to John to tone the Gospel down a notch or two - to make Jesus appear more human and less divine.  I would like to think that it is a truer depiction of who Jesus really was than anything else written in John.  The story, John 7:53 through John 8:11, is self explanatory.  I have written about this story already in my post on "Forgiveness."  If you wish to read my thoughts on it, click here.  What I would say here is that it again provides incontrovertible evidence of the composite nature of this gospel and its being subject of several writers and editors.


THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD THAT SHEDS SOME LIGHT ON STYLE


By verse 12 where back at Jesus saying things about himself that are understood as his making a direct claim to his own divinity in terms of his being the "Light of the World."  What strikes me in this section is how John 8 reflects what is found in John 1 and 3.  Stylistically, one can almost trace which writers wrote certain sections of John.  The light writer, the water writer, the bread /wine/vine writer and the editors who inserted stories from other gospel sources, much like you can trace the Hebrew scriptures to those of Elohist, Jahwist, Deuteronomist, or Priestly sources. Perhaps at some point there was someone or a group of people who oversaw, finalized these various scripts into the form we have today.


TRANSFIGURATION REVISTED


At the end of John 8, Jesus castigates the "Jews" for not understanding that their own scriptures and makes the claim that everything in the Hebrew Scriptures ultimately points to him, as God's Son; that before Abraham was, he existed which brings us back to the Transfiguration.  In both of the these chapters,  Jesus claims for himself to be the Voice, the very Word of God.  There is no vision of Moses and Elijah, just Jesus talking about the two fundamental witnesses in the Hebrew scriptures, Jesus claims foretold of him, Moses and Abraham.  There are no booths, but the rather this all takes place in or near the Temple precinct in the holy city of Jerusalem. 

Sukkot is the feast of ingathering, the harvest, and I believe the authors and editors of these stories are making a point that in every harvest there is thrashing, there is division between what is true grain and what is chaff.  Clearly John is making of Judaism the chaff that once held the grain, but now that Jesus has come, the chaff is being dispensed with.

John does not use these metaphors directly, but the accounts of John 7 and 8 are within the context of this feast and correlate to the Transfiguration story found in the synoptic gospels as a turning point in how to perceive Jesus.  In the synoptic gospels this occurs as revelation. In John this occurs as confrontation between Jesus and his fellow Jews.


Until next time, stay faithful.



                               



THE BREAD OF LIFE - Johannine Theology, Part VI

JOHN 6

John 6 introduces us to the Johannine theological perspective on the rite of Holy Communion. The first five chapters largely introduced us to who Jesus is and metaphorically discusses the initiation rite of Holy Baptism.  We have heard a great deal about water; that the water of Baptism representative of the mundane turned into the richness and new life of wine, the blood of Christ, that washes away and keeps filling one with richness as intimated in the story of Wedding at Cana -  In the story of Nicodemus, that one must be reborn again, as a chosen child of God. - That baptism is God's act of mercy and grace, regardless of one's background or past in the story of the Samaritan woman - That through Baptism one becomes a chosen vessel to bear the truth of God in Jesus - That once shown God's mercy, one is bound to Christ lest some worse thing should happen as intimated in the story of the healing of the paralytic.  

The authors and editors of John take a unique approach in introducing Holy Communion. They use a story found in all four canonical gospels, the "Feeding of the Five Thousand."  To fully appreciate John's telling of this story, one might read the other accounts found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 14, Mark 6, and Luke 9).

Unlike the account in the Synoptic Gospels, John places this event near the feast of the Passover. This clues us that the authors and editors are making a point that their version of this story is about this  new Passover Feast,  Holy Communion.  On the surface, this story is about the divinity of Jesus, but in all of the gospel accounts the reader and listener is confronted with images and information that most Christians have been indoctrinated to overlook, if not ignore or avoid.

ALLEGORY AND SYMBOLISM

There can be no denying the astrological, numerological, and mythological symbolism employed by the authors of all four gospels.  Five loaves of barley, two fish, five thousand men, twelve baskets of left overs and the young boy bearing the five loaves and two fish.  This is no mere miracle story.  It is loaded with symbolic meaning.    John gives this story a nuanced twist to its interpretation.  But let's first get to allegorical and symbolic meanings presented.  The five thousand men is symbolic of the multitudes gathered together by the mercy and grace of God - Five (numerologically symbol for grace and mercy ) multiplied a thousand times - the abundance of God's grace shown to the multitudes drawn to Jesus.  The appearance of a young boy in all these accounts calls to mind the puer aeternus in Greek and Roman mythology and may reference a direct connection to the Eleusian mystery cult that suggests rebirth, resurrection, new life represented with the use and presence of grain and wine associated with Demeter and Dionysus.   Five barley loaves another symbol of grace, but also a symbol of Christ's own body. Barley is associated with the feast of unlevened bread, the Passover.  The two fish are a bit more ambiguous, but the number two is the symbol of unity - between Christ and the church - between Jesus and God the Father. The two fish is also the sign of Pices, the age of faith or symbol of faith. After all, the fish became a symbol for Christians throughout the Roman empire. The twelve baskets are obvious reference to the twelve tribes of Israel being gathered together to form a new kingdom who in turn offer sustenance to the world and the 12 disciples, the patriarchs of new tribes of chosen people.  These symbols are present in all of the gospel accounts.

My reason for pointing this out is not to give this story a sense of mystery, but rather to explain that the writers and editors of John and the other gospel had no problem with utilizing allegory, imagery from Greek and Roman polytheism, numerology or astrology to get their point and meaning across to the audience of their day.  Understanding their presence in these stories can provide one a deeper appreciation of the literary effort that went into creating these writings that reflect the mindset of the people of the time.  Understanding them gives us a window into how early Christians viewed their world at that time.

THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND



In John, the premise of the story is that a large crowd followed Jesus into the wilderness because they saw him heal people. This is a twist on the reason the others gospel give for people coming to see Jesus, which was to be healed and/or to hear him preach. Whereas the other gospels depict Jesus feeding the five thousand as a compassionate act, Jesus, in John, has a different reason for feeding them -to foster a discussion on his being the Bread of Life.

In the other gospel versions, it is the disciples who show concern that the people will get hungry and have nowhere to obtain food.  In John's version it is Jesus who asks his disciple, Philip, where they would buy enough bread to feed the crowd.  John says Jesus did this to test Philip.  I'm not sure what sort of test this was.   A test to see if Philip was willing to feed them, a test to show how great a miracle would have to be performed in order to feed so many?

John goes on to point that Jesus knew exactly what he was going to do, which gives Jesus asking  Philip the question a capricious, judgmental hue.   Philip explains it would take six month's wages to pay for the amount of bread needed to feed so many people the bare minimum of bread.  Andrew comes to the rescue and says there is a boy who has five barley loaves and two fish - problem solved.

Jesus has the disciples seat the crowd, whereupon  Jesus is depicted as giving thanks and then has the disciples distributing it and the fish to the people.   After having their fill, Jesus commands that his disciples take baskets and gather up the remnants of the bread.  There is no mention of fish at this point, as there is in the other gospels.  I would suggest that there is a possible reason in that the bread takes on a symbolic meaning as in gathering up the chosen from the twelve tribes, that are now bread to the world, that nothing is lost or wasted.

What happens next is that the crowd perceives Jesus to be a prophet and want to make him their king.  This is the only account where people want to make Jesus their king after being fed.  In most accounts it is presented as a miracle story whose meaning is revealed to Jesus's disciples, not the people who were fed by it.  Only in John do the five thousand perceive that a miracle that took place in their midst.  Jesus picks up on their intent to make him a king and removes himself from the scene, going up a mountain to pray

WALKING ON WATER



The source the editors of John used for "The Feeding of the Five Thousand" is likely the same source or version used by both Matthew and Mark because it is followed by another miracle story found in these two gospels, Jesus walking on water.   It's almost as if the editors of John don't know what to make of it, other than to say it was one of Jesus' miracles that demonstrate his divine power of nature.   John's use of the story is perfunctory, a means to get Jesus from one side of the Sea of Galilee to the other, and quickly, because once Jesus' disciple realize that it is Jesus walking on the water towards them, they let him in and the boat "immediately" makes it to the other side.

John uses this miracle story as something that amazed the crowd who followed him to the other side.  John points out that the those who followed him commented there was only one boat that the disciples used when they set across the Sea of Galilee and Jesus was nowhere in sight.  When they see Jesus on the other side by Capernaum, they question how he got there.  John's interpretation of this story or lack of one stands in striking contrast to Matthew's and Mark's account where water takes on a symbolic meaning for both life and death and shows Jesus as Lord over both.  John simply uses it as a miracle story that verifies his divine nature and gets him to the other side.

I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE

John uses the above, well-known stories of the time to proclaim Jesus as the Bread of Life.  Jesus's "I am the bread of life" soliloquy begins with Jesus's comment that the crowd has followed him not to seek signs (presumably about who Jesus is) but because he fed them the day before.  This doesn't seem to be a rational response on Jesus's part, but, then again, the editors of John are not concerned about a reasoned intellectual understanding of what Jesus is saying, but rather a blind intellectual acceptance of whatever Jesus says in John because Jesus knows all, and if he says that these people are just out to get another free meal, you can/should believe it, even though the evidence contradicts that conclusion. 

I sense that the editors had a difficult time trying to utilize what must have been a fairly universal story about Jesus to make the point they wished to make.  They simply rely on the premise they have made all along in John that Jesus knows, which gives them a great deal of literary license to have Jesus say pretty much what they want him to say.

John uses Jesus's conclusion to admonish his audience "to work" for food that does not perish but gives them eternal life that Jesus will give them.   This prompts the question, what work is required? The answer is "to believe" in Jesus as the one sent "from heaven."

[Notice the transition in John from pistis as faith which motivates one's every day functioning, one's work, as in Paul's version of faith that sees the working of Christ in all, to pistis as belief; as intellectual assent, a work in itself.]

The crowd then asks Jesus for a sign that he is who he says he is. Again, this shows some haphazard editing or multiple attempts of various editors to make sense of this story.

Which is it?

Earlier John has Jesus saying the crowd was not looking for a sign, but rather a handout.  Now John has the crowd asking Jesus for a sign.  John has the crowd responding that Moses fed the Israelites in the wilderness with manna.

What would Jesus do?

John goes on to have Jesus inform this Jewish crowd that it wasn't Moses that gave manna but Jesus's Father.  This, too, is an editorial oddity.  It would be obvious to any Jew that it was God, not Moses, who provided manna. They understood Moses to be a prophet and are trying to make a prophet of Jesus.  It is conceivable that the editors are saying that Jesus is no prophet like Moses, but rather that there is a direct connection between Jesus and God; that the bread Jesus offers is far superior - that it is food for eternal life.  The crowd's response is they want that bread always.

Jesus goes on to clarify that he is the Bread of Life, and later on in this chapter, Jesus states that this bread is his flesh for the world and that unless one eats his bread and drinks his blood, one cannot have eternal life.  All of this takes place in the context of controversy with Jesus's audience in John. In some ways John 6 mirrors John 3, not in the context of the  initiation rite of Baptism, but in the context of Holy Communion.  Once again Jesus begins to refer to himself in the third person, as the Son.  He restates that only those given to him by the Father can believe in him.  In other words, only those chosen by the Father can "come to him."

CONTROVERSY

What I think the writers of John were doing was addressing a real time controversy that surrounded the practice of Holy Communion at time of their writing. It is well-known that the implied cannibalism of Holy Communion was not only repellent to the Judaic mindset but also to the Greek mindset. John is not written as an apologetic gospel defending Johannine theology.  It is stating it as fact.

What the writers do in John 6 is to concretize the breach that existed between Judaic and Christian communities.  John goes so far as to say that God cannot be understood without Jesus. Of course the writers have Jesus saying this himself.  John makes Jesus his own authority and authenticator. John the Baptist disappears from the conversation.

According to John many of Jesus's disciples left after his Bread of Life soliloquy; in particular, the repellent notion of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Jesus then asks the faithful remaining twelve if they too will leave and Peter, speaking for the rest, asks where would they go, that only Jesus has the words of eternal life.

Peter is not an authenticator of Jesus, but speaks for the assenting believer.  Peter's statement affirms for the Christians in John's audience that believing only Jesus has the words for eternal life is requisite for salvation.  Faith as a willful action taken by individuals living in the ever uncertain present becomes synonymous with belief; where belief is an esoteric form of knowledge given by God to chosen individuals who are assured in the certainty of possessing eternal life.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

With John 6 we readers of John move into a prolonged discussion on the rite of Holy Communion which is practiced in most Christian denominations.  Most mainline Christian denominations have mitigated the Johannine theological perspective on Holy Communion; choosing to interpret it as less stringent, less exclusive than it really is.  As I have said in past posts, I'm fine with that as long as one doesn't sweep what John is really saying under the theological rug. 

John is a harsh gospel when it comes to describing those who do not or (more rightfully said)

cannot accept Jesus as the Only-begotten Son of God.  What fascinates me about John and what I hope I am shedding some light on is that all theology is an evolutionary process - that the Gospel of John, itself, is work of theological evolution in response to the times, the environment in which it was written.  As such, it possesses the patina of survivalism, of circling the theological wagons, to preserve the faithful few, which is why the sense of being chosen becomes essential to Johannine message.

Christianity was nascent at the time the Gospel of John was written.  It's ability to survive (from the Johannine perspective) was premised on making belief (intellectual assent) in Jesus as God's only begotten Son an absolute necessity for obtaining eternal life. 

At this juncture in time, the writers and editors of John could not afford to be too merciful, too gracious.  They obviously felt that they could not afford to risk being too forgiving to those who were throwing them out of the synagogues of their once beloved Judaic religion.

Jesus becomes the judge who dispenses mercy according to the will of the Father to those chosen by Father.  Given that situation, they turned their attention to breaking ties with the past in no uncertain terms.  To that end, as we have seen here and will see in future posts, the writers and editors of John had no problem rewriting not only Jewish biblical history, but also reshaping the Christian story as found in the Synoptic Gospels.

Until next time, stay faithful.

THE BETHESDIAN DILEMMA - Johannine Theology Part V

JOHN 5

In the fourth chapter of John, we saw in Jesus the personification of God's justice as mercy in response to wisdom, the bearer of truth.  John 5 reveals Jesus as God's righteous judge. This theological understanding of God's justice is presented in the context of the story of the paralytic man who had been placed by the pool called Bethesda in Jerusalem.  According to some early versions of John, the waters of the pool were occasionally stirred by an angel of God and when this occurred whoever made it first into the pool at that time would be healed.  What starts out as one of several healing miracles of Jesus found in the gospels contains the Bethesdian Dilemma.

BIBLICAL NUMEROLOGY

Numbers possess coded meanings in Bible.  This is particularly true in the Gospel of John.  The purpose of numerology is not to convey a sense of mystery but rather it is used like shorthand to provide information without having to use costly ink and papyrus to explain something.  It served an economic purpose.  Times, amounts, ages, and any use of numbers deserves close scrutiny when reading the Bible.  There is usually a meaning attached to it that hints or suggests some background information the author is getting at as we will see in the story of the paralytic man.

For instance, the number five comes into play in the mention of the five covered pillars which identifies the place as Bethesda.  Bethesda comes from the Hebrew words beth, meaning house, and hesed, meaning mercy. As noted in my previous post, the number five is the numerological symbol for mercy, sometimes identified as grace.  The five covered pillars become the house of mercy. Invalids of various kinds were brought here, which suggests it served as some sort of care center. The notion of an angel stirring the waters has been, in some translations or versions, eliminated.  This information was assigned to verse four of this chapter.  If your Bible does not mention an angel, check the verse numbering in this chapter.  In most translations without this account, the verse numbering goes from verse three to verse five.  There is no verse four.

MERCY

It is unknown what level of care was given, but the suggestion is that family or friends would have been the main care providers, as the paralytic in this story points out he had neither to help him into the pool. The notion of mercy implies more than compassion.  Mercy,  as we observed in chapter four, is shown to the undeserving. Mercy involves judgement and a willful suspension of justice.  Chronic illness or disability; the type seen in this story, was largely viewed as a result of sin in the middle east of the ancient world. The sin was either the result of something done by the suffering person or by some member of the suffering person's immediate family.  It was seen as punishment, an act of God's justice. The mercy most likely shown in the case of Bethesda would have been by those who passed by in the form of alms, food, or some other form of care.  There is very little information as to how these individuals managed to exist or subsist, which brings us to the story of the paralytic.

THE STORY

Jesus is entering Jerusalem via the Sheep's Gate. [Jesus is, as John will point out, the Good Shepherd.  The editors do not miss a beat at drumming home a point.] The reason Jesus is in Jerusalem is because of a feast.  What is interesting is that the editors don't bother telling us what feast he was observing.  It obviously was not important but served as the reason to get Jesus in the city to tell this story.  There are some oddities about this story.  The first is that Jesus and his disciples are traveling on the Sabbath day, the day of rest.  The authors of this story are making a point about Jesus' divine nature.  The Sabbath day is also the seventh day, not only a day rest, but numerologically it represents God's word, God's completed acts.  So Jesus walking about, carrying on as usual on the Sabbath,  becomes a symbolic reference to his divine nature and parentage which Jesus will reference later on in this chapter.

The paralytic man appears not have been totally paralyzed.  It is apparent that he could attempt to get himself to the pool, perhaps using his arms to pull himself there when the waters were stirring.  The length of this man's illness was 38 years.  The number 38 is not numerologically significant by itself, but I would suggest it is code for the number's combined value, 3+8 =11 which is significant. The number 10 in biblical numerology stands for the law and orderliness (the Ten Commandments , for example). The number 11, on the other hand, symbolizes chaos, disorder, excess, lawbreaking, and judgement. We also encountered the number 11 in the story of Samaritan woman who had five husbands and was living with a sixth male which the combined numbers make 11.  In her case, she was wise to admit and accept the message of Jesus.  In this story there is a much different outcome. 

[Note: In the icon I chose for this post you will see the number 11 in several places. I'm not sure that is what the artist had in mind, but I couldn't help but notice its abundant presence in this piece.]

According to this story, Jesus deliberately makes an effort to stop at this pool and chooses to heal this particular paralytic. There is no mention of his paying attention to anyone else or that he is moved by compassion at seeing the suffering that is all about him.   Again this is a story, a parable about Jesus, so such details are irrelevant from the authors and editors point of view.  What is relevant is that this healing story is not an unconditional healing.  Rather it is a story of healing as a show of mercy given by a judge.  In fact, Jesus asks the man if he wants to be healed.  You would think this would be a no-brainer, but the authors are being deliberate in having Jesus ask this question.

THE BETHESDIAN DILEMMA

There are probably several ways to interpret Jesus asking this question.  Given what I've already said about this individual, especially the coded significance of his age, his particular paralysis is depicted as the result of something he did - some sin.  There is a sense that he deserves what has happened to him. There is  also a hint of egocentrism that creeps into to this man saying he cannot get to the pool in time. He says he has no one to put him in the pool and cannot get himself there in time. On the surface this is tragic and we are prone to feel sorry for him, but there is something amiss in the way this man describes his situation.

Is it that he literally has no ability to get into the pool and needs total assistance but does not ask for help?

Is he too proud to ask for help?

No one helping this man for 38 years would also beg the question of John's audience at the time:  "What did this man do that others refuse to show him mercy?" He must have done something  tremendously egregious to be such an ignored, tragic figure.

It may be that he suffers from a narrow religious perspective; that he is too accepting of his fate, that he wallows in his condition and is somewhat comfortable with his misery. If so, he's as much (or more) a prisoner of his religious beliefs about his paralysis  than to the paralysis itself.  He is in some sense spiritually paralyzed, and this seems to be the point that is being made by the authors about this man.  So Jesus makes of it a simple choice on this man's part, he simply asks him "Do you want to be healed?"

Notably, the man does not give a direct answer but rather offers an excuse as to why he hasn't been healed.  So Jesus makes it even simpler. He tells the man to get up and [here's the clincher] to take (carry) his bed and walk.  And the man does just that.

The dilemma the man is faced with is that, in getting up and (more importantly) carrying his bed, he is violating the  prohibition against working on the Sabbath.   What strikes me as odd is that Jesus, knowing it is the Sabbath, knows the prohibition against working and tells the man to carry his bed. Why not just tell the man to get up and walk?  Why carry his bed?  In John, there is a capricious side to Jesus that is used to warn the readers to not take Jesus lightly:  Grace and mercy are not to be toyed with or taken for granted.

I would suggest there is an agenda at play in the way this story is being told. The reason for this story's appearance in John is to provide John's authors and editors a reason to have Jesus talk about his divine nature and his mandate as judge of the earth.  A secondary agenda is to provide a written polemic against what John depicts as a distortion of God's law and idolatrous adherence to the written word by the "Jews" which, according to John, they misunderstand.

In the story, once the "Jews" see the healed paralytic walking about carrying his bed their first concern is not that the man has been miraculously healed but rather that he is carrying his is bed on the Sabbath.  The presumed reason why he is being questioned by the "Jews" is that he went to the Temple to declare his wholeness. We can assume this because Jesus later catches up with him in the Temple.   The "Jews" are most likely priests, in this case.  As bothered as they are that this man is carrying his bed, they are more bothered that someone had the audacity to heal him on the Sabbath and ask the healed paralytic who did such a thing.   The man said he didn't know who healed him and the story says he didn't know because Jesus slipped into the crowd.  What is implied is that the man does not try to follow Jesus, to thank Jesus, but goes his own way and follows the Law by showing himself to the temple authorities.  In the other gospels, Jesus would have instructed the man to do so, but Jesus "slipping away" is used as code for the reader to seek the one showing mercy; to seek Jesus.

As the story continues, Jesus meets up with the man in the Temple and affirms the obvious that man is healed. It is interesting that many modern editors have added exclamation marks after this, as if Jesus is excited for the man.  It may be that Jesus was pleased for the man, but John's version of Jesus is not of a person who gets excited, and what Jesus says next seems to confirm the serious intent of this meeting.  Jesus tells the man to sin no more, less he risks something worse happening to him.

What could be possibly worse than paralysis, unless it would be judged for something against God, himself.   And that is precisely the dilemma this man finds himself in.  The question is what would offend God more, turning Jesus into the Temple authorities or saying nothing to them. The man does not know who Jesus is, even after being healed by him.  He knows the Temple authorities.  The implied question is whether this man committed a greater sin by telling the Temple authorities who Jesus is.

John doesn't have to answer the question directly.  That he commits a greater offence in turning Jesus in to the authorities has been implied throughout the story.  In John, the authors and editors exploit Jesus as being God's Only-begotten Son; in that, everything Jesus does is purposeful, even if what he does exploits situations or people to prove the point being made by these authors and editors.

After the healed paralytic man tells the Temple authorities who Jesus is, he is no longer needed in the story.  We are left with the disturbing thought that his fate was worse for having been healed by Jesus; that he feared religious authority rather than than show gratitude for God's mercy. He expresses no gratitude towards Jesus. He tells the authorities that it is Jesus who healed him.   The fate of this man is not a concern by the  authors and editors. It's a story that gets them to the point they want to make about Jesus and the Temple (Jewish) authorities. The story basically ends with the editors explaining that healing, working on the Sabbath, is why the "Jews" persecuted Jesus.  In fact John quotes Jesus  answering yet another unspoken question, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."

EQUALITY WITH GOD

The authors and editors have Jesus give one of many soliloquies on himself in John. Presumably, Jesus is addressing the Temple authorities in this soliloquy in which he claim to be equal to God the Father, which John points out is why the "Jews" persecute Jesus (which is to say that is why the  traditional Jews of the day were persecuting Jewish Christians by kicking them out of their synagogues). There is strong reference to salvation theology in this chapter, of Jesus giving life to whom he will.  Again salvation is not universal in John.  It's a matter of divine selection.  Jesus claims he can do nothing apart from the Father and the Father has turned all judgment over to him.

THE DISPASSIONATE JUSTICE OF JESUS IN JOHN

Unlike John 4, John 5 is less merciful in judgment or perhaps, better said, clarifies what mercy means.  In John 5 we learn that mercy is shown only to those who believe in Jesus, that he is God's only-begotten, and is the saviour of those who believe.  Mercy, after all, is an act of judgement.

Belief, in John,  must be understood as intellectual assent rather than faith.  It is perhaps the Gospel of John where the confusion over use of the word pistis originates, and it is the Letter of James that addresses the Johannine theological perspective rather than the Pauline perspective where faith is seen as action and motivation.  Faith as belief is stagnant, but that is what Johannine theology indicates it to be. Faith, in John, is not a matter of action, choice or motivation, but a matter of intellectual assent bestowed to those who are chosen. In other words, according to John if you are a Christian you have been chosen and the only free choice left is to the ability to reject being chosen.

This is the dilemma that John poses throughout its gospel.  The only choice a believer has is not to believe and by extension this forms the basis for John's polemic against Judaic Jews.  They were the chosen people who chose not to believe in Jesus as God's only-begotten Son even though, according to John, their own scriptures should have clued them in to who Jesus is.

John has Jesus telling the Judaic community, via his diatribe against the Temple authorities, that they are worshipping their scriptures rather than God; worshipping their laws to point of their own damnation, as illustrated in the story of healed paralytic; that they do not love God and do not (cannot?) understand their own scriptures.  In the end, there is no mercy being shown to those who do not believe, and Jesus can't help them because he must do the will of his Father. 

With this story John ends the discussion on the initiation rite of Baptism.  It is notable that the paralytic has resided by the water that could have renewed him for 38 years and presses no one to help him.  It is notable that when offered living water, in the person of Jesus, he shows no inclination of wanting to be healed and no gratitude for being healed or being granted a new lease on life. Again, John the Baptist is referenced to lend credibility to this perspective as a means to remove any nagging doubts amongst this gospel's audience.  The story serves as a final warning to those who have been baptized, not to take God's mercy lightly.

In chapter six John moves to a discussion on Holy Communion. 



Until next time, stay faithful.