Friday, September 30, 2016

THE RELIGIOUS IMPULSE AND GLOBAL AWARENESS



In earlier posts, particularly my post on religion, I defined the religious impulse in terms of how early human beings recognized their need for each.  I said that religions came from the drive for survival as a species, a recognition that we are better off working together as a means to survive in a hostile environment than to fend for oneself alone.  I want to expand on the fundamental concept of the Religious Impulse to broaden "We need each other" to include, in the Twenty-first Century, everyone and everything on this planet. 


 
THE RELIGIOUS IMPULSE AND POWER
 
 

I contend that there is more to the impulse of religion than just being nice or just being a warm and fuzzy thought. As I have previously discussed in my posts on secular and theistic religion, religion is about power.  Initially, religion was developed to generate power; as in the saying, "There is strength in numbers."  We needed each other to become stronger as species in order to survive within a hostile environment.

One could say the family became the first unit of power and the first binding force we call religion.  Unlike some other animals, humans do not do well being alone.  Our young take longer to develop into adulthood, and even as adults it was near impossible to go it alone, much less to continue our species.  Families extended into tribes. The larger the tribe the more power it had. Size brought along other difficulties, food, shelter, and the need for identifiable leaders to make decisions for the good of the tribe. 

The appeal to power came next.  Tribes migrated to find food, water, and shelter before the discovery of wells and cultivation. Getting along with other tribes meant or obtaining cooperation from another tribe to defeat a threatening tribe or engage in a project that would benefit both (such as the eventual digging of wells) required an appeal of some sort that resulted in cooperation. 

Power creates its own problems as in Lord Acton's famous saying, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." 

As tribes became communities and communities consolidated to form kingdoms, power became increasingly invested in an agent, such as a king.  Kings had total power over life and death. Yet, it soon became evident that total power of one person led to excessive abuse of that power and the use of power had to be controlled and mitigated.  This is were theism comes in. To mitigate the power of  a leader,kings needed to be subject to a higher power. As such, they became answerable to their gods from whom their authority was derived.

As mentioned in previous posts, with writing came the ability to codify beliefs into distinct ideologies, and religion morphed into two distinct branches, theism and secularism; each holding ideals and ideologies that people subscribed to and which bound them together in common perception and thought.  Sadly, the idea of secularism as a religious branch is not talked about in terms of its religious underpinnings.  When people say that religion is a problem.  I say, "Yes!" and mean the entire religious spectrum is a problem.



GLOBAL AWARENESS
 
 

My point is that the impulse to religion is deeply embedded within the human psyche.  The religious impulse is so much a part of our makeup that we fail to recognize it.  In modern parlance, we have defined religion solely as a theistic function.  We need to reacquaint ourselves with and reorient our understanding of the religious impulse in order to survive as a species and work together in saving our planet from ourselves.   

For the most part, the religious impulse has served us well.  In more recent times, it is the drive that brings us together as a force to meet our common needs.  It drives us to look at the face of difference and appeal to the strength  that is our common humanity.  It drives us to use power wisely in all of its manifestations.  This is its bright side - the good it does, but it retains a darker side also. The impulse of religion has also led to using power as a means to deprive others.  It has caused us to look at differences as a threat, and has led to the shameful abuse of power.

This does not change the religious impulse's primary function of addressing our need for each other.  Rather the challenge is to broaden our sense of the other and in defining the essentials necessary to sustain all life on this planet.  We remain as homocentric as ever, which is both a secular and theistic problem.  Our needs ultimately reflect and are connected to what makes life sustainable on this planet, as a whole.

As a species, we have dominated the Earth, but we have not subdued nature.  The power of nature continues to supersede our power to control it.  Nature as a whole reacts to life as a whole.  Thanks to science, we are beginning to understand the forces of nature.  We know it interacts with living organisms, both plants and animals. As such the Earth can be understood as an organic entity. In particular, science has made us aware of the human imprint, our abuse of power, that is stirring the forces of nature into increasingly chaotic patterns.

Anthropologist and geologists have identified the age we live in as the Anthropocene Age.  We can trace our collective imprint in the very rocks and soil under our feet. We have left an indelible mark that is more likely to indict our use of power than glorify it.  As a species, we need to redefine our moral imperatives in terms of global survival.



KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, AND DENIAL


WHAT WE KNOW


It is an odd human trait that as intellectually advanced as we have become, intellectual knowledge is not valued by the vast majority of our species.  As a species, we remain highly reliant on experiential knowledge to drive us to change.  This is the problem scientists and experts of every kind and type encounter on a daily basis.  Even though scientists and experts can provide factual evidence to support their findings, most people don't react until directly affected or personally experience what has been predicted.

This is particularly concerning in light of the information we have regarding the human causes of global warming.  This is perhaps the single most urgent natural threat to existence we face. It has driven the scientific community to appeal to the powers of the international community, the community of nations, in order to prompt a monumental reduction in the carbon emissions that have been identified as the major cause of global warming.

This is not the only threat to existence. Apart from this and other natural disasters, we have the capacity to annihilate life via biological, chemical or nuclear means.  What appears to be deeply embedded in our brains and collective psyche is an instinctual distrust of the religious impulse. This instinct predates human language and thus predates the intuitive insight of our need for each other. This instinctual distrust is embedded in religion itself, in what I have identified as the differentiating paradigm of religion. In other words, religion is paradoxical, holding and generating two contradictory views of the other. Religion recognizes both the need and the fear of the other. 

The theistic side of religion, in large part, has evolved to mitigate the fear of the other by giving us something larger than ourselves to fear - the gods or God. Theism has also evolved to sustain our need of the other by projecting that need on to an out-there-other; an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God who judges us by how we judge and treat our fellow human beings.  This too has evolved into what has become known as the Golden Rule and the greatest monotheistic commandment that, in essence, states the love of God is contingent on how well we love others, or, to broaden that out, to love God is dependent on how well we love what God loves. Yet, theism retains both a sense of fear and love of God as other.  Luther's Small Catechism, for example, captures this paradox in its explanation of the Ten Commandment with starting each explanation of them with, "We should fear and love God that..." 

Theistic religions, as a whole, are trending towards recognizing and embracing the religious impulse as they come to identify the core beliefs they share with each other and in honoring the differences that have evolved around them. This is evident in any number of interfaith dialogues that are becoming common place.  This trend has also led to a fundamentalist backlash and a drive to retain difference as a means to maintain their identity and power.

The secular side of religion, on the other hand, is harder to gauge.  Although it too has narrowed into identifiable ideologies affecting nationhood, politics, economics, culture, and social issues, it is still in a young adolescent stage with regard to its recognition and embrace of the religious impulse that has given rise to the nations of world.  While there has been and are recent efforts to find common purpose in mitigating the arbitrary use of power by any one nation; such as, in the establishment of the United Nations, buy in is slow as there is tremendous pushback and resistance to global unification in meeting common goals for fear of losing national identity and power.  We must not forget that what brought about the need for nations to talk to each other was a global experience, the development and deployment of atomic power to wreak death and destruction on a previously unimaginable scale.

The instinctive fear of the other has resulted in our becoming a narcissistic species which has turned this instinctual fear on ourselves. I once heard that there is more genetic differences between two fruit flies which, for all practical purposes, look identical to the human eye than there is between two human beings of a different race.  In some ways, our instinct to survive as a species may very well become our undoing.  

We may not eat our young as some species are prone to do, but we have no qualms about killing each other at will and by the millions.  Some might argue that our instinctual will to survive has resulted in an evolutionary overdrive which heightened our sense of difference with regard to other human beings in order to cull our own as a means of species survival. In other words, killing another human being is easy to do if one can identify another human being an imminent threat or as less worthy of existence. We hear of such sentiments as in the movie lines; such as, "You dirty rat..." which is generally followed by a hail of bullets.   We are also a highly phobic species, prone to fear the differences we perceive in others because we "know" they see a difference in us. Such an overdrive has pushed us to the point of having the capacity to annihilate not only our own species but every living thing on the planet.  In essence we, as a species, are capable of committing globicide.

We know this.

The question is do we believe what we know?


WHAT WE BELIEVE


We need to accept and embrace what we know.  We need to believe it in order to do something about it, but in order to do so, we have to do something that is not natural to our species.  We need to invest faith in each other. We must trust the other in order to save our imperiled planet.

It's easy to say this because it is so obvious, but it is hard to hear, and near impossible to do.

 Scientists and experts in a host of fields  are warning us of the need to do something  now, but are finding themselves placed in the same category as the prophets of old.  They are seen by far too many as inconvenient gadflies who annoy us by telling us things we don't want to hear, much less believe.   As we have mindlessly passed one dire environmental threshold already and are speeding to the next, their pleas to change our destructive ways, to turn from our abuse of the environment and the exploitation of its resources is being met with a belief that "It ain't so" by people who consider what they want believe as knowledge instead of believing the knowledge offered them.


WHAT WE DENY


We are in a worldwide zeitgeist of populist fundamentalism and nationalism.  If there is one word to describe this zeitgeist, I would choose denial.   People are trying to stop a clicking clock by their sheer belief that the changes in the environment are not as bad as they appear. On another scale, fundamentalist and nationalists in this populist zeitgeist are attempting to divert attention from the life and death issues of our planet by ironically claiming the biggest problem we are facing is the result of the progress we have been making in coming together as a species to meet the needs of the other on a global scale (i.e. taking in refuges, helping the starving and war torn areas, aiding the victims of natural disasters, protecting wild life, forests, and waterways, etc.) - that we have become too accepting of difference within our own species (race, gender, culture, ethnicity, etc.) - and  that we see the plight of the other (including plants and other animals) as our own.

The irony is that the fear of becoming more accepting of our need for diversity and being more sympathetic to the needs and suffering of all living things has led to what I refer to as the terrorism of intolerance - religion gone mad.

The rise of violent terrorism is in large part generated by radicalized theistic fundamentalists and secular nationalists of all stripes.  While the current rise in violent terrorism can be traced to extreme Islamic fundamentalism which contains both theistic and secular (nationalist) religious views (for example, the  attempt to established a caliphate), it is interesting to note the resonance such Islamic fundamentalist movements have with other theistic and national fundamentalist movements worldwide.  This resonance is particularly noticeable in the United States.

Such ideologically fundamentalist groups espouse isolationism, a circling of the wagons against those believed to be the enemy.  They see the embrace of diversity as an attack on their version of the status quo and the acceptance of things they have deemed unacceptable (for example, same-sex marriage) in their concrete understanding of ancient scriptures as inerrant and inviolable.  Interestingly, populism of a fundamentalist and nationalist flavor is a reaction to their sense of diminishing power and control in light of knowledge that reveals the ideologies  they long held to be false. To that end they often engage in rewriting history to favor their views.

The appeal of populism is also generated by a sense impatience and a longing for an idealistic past in which those now outdated ideas and beliefs were accepted as fact.  They seek a quick fix and will listen to any who can label the problem as being a threatening other and offer a quick solution.  As a result we see a worldwide populist pushback in the form of increased racial tension, xenophobia, homophobia, and an overt fear of globalism and moral relativism.  The fundamentalist backlash against progress is from people who are experiencing disorientation in form of denial as their views of the world are no longer sustainable or correct.

On a broader perspective, as global awareness and interconnectedness grows, both secular and theistic religion narrows. This too has led to the recent rise of nationalism, and virulent forms of fundamentalism.  While we muddle our way through this current zeitgeist, events beyond our capacity to control them loom in the near future of our planet. 

The hope is that as experiential knowledge is accessible at the speed of light in our interconnected and internetted world, it will lead to an awakening of such a magnitude as to shake us into becoming a realized global community we must become; a world where belief is based on knowledge, and faith is invested in our fellow human beings.

If not (permit me to wax scientifically prophetic for a moment), the very mountains, the seas, the torrential rains, and the heated winds of the earth will rise up to put an end to our foolish ways - that is, if we don't annihilate ourselves up first.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

POLYRELIGION

Given my broad definition of religion as any ideological belief that people subscribe to, whether it be secular or theistic, one can talk in terms of polyreligion.  By this definition one can speculate that any cognitive human being is polyreligious.  We all have a number of ideological beliefs that we subscribe to and share with others.

The diversity of our individual beliefs means that we do not share all the beliefs we hold as individuals with the same people; that while one might belong to a particular theistic religion, one might belong belong to a different political party (a secular religion), or an organization that promotes a particular idea that one believes in.  The fact is one might belong to a branch of a branch of a theistic religion and hold differing beliefs within a political party, that is broadly defined a left-leaning, right-leaning, or centrist.  Each of these, in turn, can be broken into smaller ideological beliefs that we share with others in ever shrinking numbers as the more branched out they become.

RELIGIOUS SINGULARITY

What I find intriguing in this polyreligious view is that from the diversity of our ideological beliefs emerge identifiable core beliefs that give shape and substance to the religious groups we belong to - an identity to both the religious community and the individuals who belong to them; even if there is a diverse understanding within such communities as to what those core ideological beliefs mean.  If asked, individuals within that community should be able to identify its core beliefs, and if pressed further, identify a singular belief essential to that identity.

It would be interesting to find out if such a reduction process would lead to identifying essential core human beliefs, shared by most. Of course, beliefs, in themselves, cannot define an absolute "What is" or perceive an absolute reality.  At best, they can only define how we see "What is" and how we perceive reality.

Religious singularity is not about coming to a point at which everyone believes the same thing. That would be unimaginable and an impossibility with nearly eight billion people, each having innumerable ideological beliefs, some of which we are unaware that we possess until prodded into our awareness by some event or personal experience.

BELIEFS

Beliefs - We all have them. The fact is we can't function without them.  They serve as a guidance system, like GPS, orienting us to and helping us navigate the world we live in.  Beliefs allow us to work collectively towards meeting common goals and needs.

All humans are believers.

The absurd statement, "I have no beliefs," is actually a belief about something -  beliefs.  We can't avoid believing something. Nothingness paradoxically exists as a something that is nothing - a cognitive construct to distinguish the somethingness of existence.
 
The cognitive awareness of something led to the intuited awareness of nothing. The intuited awareness of nothing in the face of experiencing something led to the intuition of a cause, which ultimately led to theism as the first ordering of our collective human experiences into the conceptual components we call beliefs.   Humanity's whole system of thought processes is based on beliefs. Beliefs about somethingness, nothingness, and their causes expanded exponentially.

The concept of nothing is actually similar to the concept of God; in that, at the very least both conceptually exist, both cannot be disproven, both can be intuited, and both can be expressed in terms of thought and feeling.

I have many beliefs that are ideological (secular and theistic) and non-ideological (subject to quick change, depending on environmental shifts).  My claim to agnosticism is based on a reluctance to assign absolute certitude to any of the ideological beliefs I have.

Does this mean that such ideological beliefs have no impact on me?

On the contrary, they have shaped how I see the world around me, and, to a lesser degree, how others see me.  If they didn't impact and shape me, I wouldn't be blogging.

What one can deduce by looking at the far past is that ideological beliefs were not differentiated from non-ideological beliefs.  Beliefs were beliefs and weren't discussed as such.  In fact, beliefs were treated as facts.  They explained cause and effect on a cosmic scale.

Perhaps the most primitive theistic beliefs provide a window into religious development.  Generally speaking, what is defined as primitive religion today demonstrates a unitive view of  life on this planet.  Everything is seen as coming from the same creative spiritual force or source unbound by the confines of earth; something that resides in the vastness of the skies above or the depths below that expresses itself through the forces of nature.

As civilization advanced and people began to form communities around these theistic beliefs within a defined geographical area, beliefs became increasingly diverse and the religions that gave shape to them became more complex resulting in polytheism.  The functions of life and death, planting and harvesting vegetation, events such as peace and war were idealized and personified into gods and goddesses. This process of idealization and personification allowed people to observe such mysterious functions as life and death or war and peace objectively in the form of myths.

Perhaps the most significant human development, apart from the ability to speak to one another and verbally express our thoughts, was the ability to write them down, to examine them as concrete concepts. Whereas language expanded theistic religion exponentially to create polytheism, writing narrowed polytheism and quickly led to monotheistic views, as differentiation occurred between our understanding of the mundane and the mysterious.  Gods might have existed, but increasingly there was acceptance of a transcending god by which all other gods came into being and was seen as the ultimate creative source of the entire universe.

Writing led to philosophy and theology.  We were not only figuring out the big questions, but figuring out how things worked on a human eye level that did not rely on a god or goddess to explain something's function.  Writing allowed us to identify our beliefs and examine their validity.   Ironically, as theism narrowed religion, as a whole, religion expanded. 

POLYREGLION

It is an ideological belief of mine that theism has been contracting for over three millennia.  I theorize that polytheism was at it highest level before written language was used to record our beliefs.  It is during what Karl Jaspers described as the Axial Period that we can observe a religious metamorphosis; religion dividing into two distinct manifestations, secularism and theism.

Events that narrowed theism also gave rise to secularism. Conquest of one kingdom over another led to empires and the need for statecraft.  For example, the seeds of democracy were embedded in theism early on; in divine, heavenly councils, in priesthood and priestcraft, in discerning the will of the gods.  Kings and emperors needed and depended on wise counsel and trusted lieutenants to govern their vast empires.  Statecraft increasingly became a process of discerning the needs of the empire or the kingdom by a meeting of the minds of the king's council to determine the king's will or what the king's mind would accept  While voting, in the sense we understand it today, was not binding on a ruler, reaching a consensus was valued by most wise kings who could do the math.

The city-states of Greece developed the concept of democracy, especially, in Athens where for a short period of time the will of the people ruled.  Pure democracy, even on a small scale, proved to be fraught with problems as it could be easily manipulated (subject to populism) and become as tyrannical as any king. Plato's "Republic" becomes the first secular work that attempted to systematically define statecraft that could be studied.  Philosophy, as a whole, became a way of looking at and living life objectively.  Philosophy began to order our perceptions of life by examining "What Is."

Of course, this wasn't merely a Western development. The Axial Age was an identifiable global event.  Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Judaism all became identifiable religions at this time as they began to examine the "What Is" of our existence.  Philosophy allowed us to become objective about rather than subjective to our theistic ideologies.  It gave rise to the realm of metaphysics, an objective approach to understanding what it is to be.  Philosophy also gave rise to theology, the "What is" of God and our relationship to God?"

Philosophy led to the scientific method that explored the "What is" of things; identifying what they are and how they function.  It led to identifying the realm of politics, economics, and ethics that gave rise to the study of human relationships with oneself, others, and the world in general. In its early manifestations, philosophy in the West gave rise to Stoicism, Pythagorism, Cynicism, Epicureanism etc. Today we have Globalism, Humanism, Relativism Scientism, etc. of various types.

One can conclude that everything I'm saying boils down to some form of philosophy.  In essence, that is correct.  My insistence on identifying all such ideological beliefs as religions is simply due to the fact that we humans clump around these beliefs; that we not only identify with them, but that they identify us as individuals and as communities of believers.  In that regard, they are religions.

In that regard, we are all polyreligious.

Until next time, stay faithful.




Sunday, September 18, 2016

THE NARROWING OF RELIGION AND THE SEEDS OF CHRISTIANITY

Now that I have completed my review or commentary on the Gospel of John as a theological work reflecting the Johannine community and my earlier review of the theology of the apostle, Paul, I hope I have illustrated how these theological works influenced the broad spectrum that is today's Christianity.  The purpose for doing so is to take a religion that I know fairly well and reexamine its origins as a means to engage in broader conversation about Religious Singularity.  What I have hoped to illustrate is how events and experiences shape religion as a whole by looking at origins of Christian theology. 

THE PROBLEM WITH RELIGION

As many of you know from reading my past posts, my definition of religion is extremely broad and includes both secular and theistic ideologies. I admit that the idea or notion of secular religion is not readily accepted, but I feel it important to understand its ramifications as I move forward in looking for a solution to problems that arise from religion, as a whole.  We still tend to think in dualistic terms when it comes to religious ideologies, which encompasses both theistic and secular ideologies.  Throughout my blog, I have maintained that human beings are religious by nature; that is, they come together through a bond of shared ideologies whether it is secular or theistic; that this coming together to form ideologically based communities exemplifies the fundamental impulse of religion - our need for each other.

Over time this need became differentiated, as we perceived our experiences in our world differently and led to humans seeing other human beings differently.  As such,  I have talked about the differentiating paradigm of religion that gives rise to not only different versions of theism, but also has given rise to secular ideas; nationalism, globalism,capitalism, socialism, democracy, theocracy, and so on.

I quite agree with those who argue that religion is a problem, but I would add that religion is a problem only to the extent that humans are a problem.  Religions, like all human creations, eventually become a repository of human dysfunction.  For some, like atheists, the answer is ridding the world of theism, as though it is a cause of human dysfunction. What I would say is that theism magnifies such dysfunction, but is not the cause.  Rather, I would say that when any religious ideology is left on its own, as a self-regulating entity, which many theistic religions are prone to do, problems begin to arise as that religion becomes increasingly incapable of processing unfamiliar events and ideas.  Atheism is not the solution, as Atheism, itself, is religion, if not a not a theistic one.

For example,  there is a growing number of intellectuals, who identify as atheist, who believe theistic religions are detrimental and have no relevance in today's world.  Some have written thought-provoking, if not inspiring, books on the problems theism poses. While they might take issue with my broad definition of religion, they are by my definition of religion, a religion and advocating a form of theism that I would identify as inspired intellectualism or intellectual spiritualism - a theistic-like way of perceiving the awesome grandeur of being and the cosmos without the need for an out-there-other, commonly known as God.

They are religious in their notion of  an ideal world that is void of theism.  Proof of their religious nature is in the simple fact that they write books.  Why say anything if you don't want people to come your way or (in their case) you don't think your helping people or helping the world wake up to one's understanding of reality which is driven by a personal need or desire to enlighten others - to better their lives which, in turn, betters one's own.

You don't have to be a theist to be religious . You don't need to belong to a church, mosque, temple or an organization.  All you need is an idea that you identify with or invent an Ideal concept as one's personal compass.  Even if you were to keep such ideas or a sense of the Ideal to oneself, it would shape one's perspective of the world as it would shape one's personal identity - what it means to be you to you.  Isolative idealism, however, is religion gone mad in the form of a self-absorbed delusion, as it ultimately defies the religious impulse of needing others to survive.

Having clarified my reason and purpose for taking a months long excursion into what I consider the most influential theological perspectives that evolved from the teachings of an itinerant, early first century rabbi and the environmental or historical conditions that produced a body of teachings about that rabbi resulting in a new theistic religion, I think it important to take a look at what I consider to be the seeds of Christianity, as a way of looking at what causes our ideologies and concepts of the Ideal.

THE NARROWING OF RELIGION

To begin with is the realization that all religions evolve from events and the human experiences that result from them.  Human experiences lead to notions of cause and effect.  Facts, in themselves, are often unsatisfactory in explaining occurrences.  Humans are prone to look deeper as to what caused a factual event to occur.  We look at not only the cause and effect of an event, but also the affect it has on our human nature.  This leads to ideological beliefs that can become concretized into concepts of an Ideal. 

I submit that this evolutionary thought process is true for all religions, both secular and theistic. That we have a divergence and a plethora of religions is the result of the plethora of divergent events that led to differing human experiences and the effect they collectively had on us.   As cultures evolved and tribalism evolved into defined political and religious states, this plethora of religions increasingly narrowed from familial/tribal religions to distinct global religions that people of different nations and states subscribed to. Monotheism, itself, is a prime example of narrowing in theistic religion.  The emergence of atheism is further evidence of theistic narrowing.  In fact, this narrowing is accelerating as our experiences are shaped by shared global events.  Out of narrowing comes expansion of new ideologies; as such narrowing is a precursor to dramatic ideological change.  It is this narrowing of religion that has led me to consider a potential global understanding of religion that I call Religious Singularity. 

Evolution of every kind is initially exponential, marked by rapid expansion and growth, until it reaches a certain point at which the size and scope of what has evolved produces a gravitational effect that slows everything down to an observable past. In terms of ideas, evolution is paradoxical; in that, the events that lead to dissipation of old ideas also lead to the creation of new ones. Human behavior mimics these evolutionary patterns, including the religions we developed.

To examine religious evolution and the effect of religious narrowing on a discrete level brings me to the theistic religion I was born and raised into, Christianity.  In the scope of theistic religions, Christianity is a relatively newcomer, along with Judaism, its parent religion, and Islam, its sibling religion.  Christianity's formation was rapid by evolutionary standards and can be readily traced in its canonical scriptures, which are among its earliest known writings.


EVENTS

So let's examine the events that play a role in the emergence of religions and of Christianity, in particular. Historical events have brought about and shaped all three Abrahamic monotheisms, Judaism, Christianity, Islam.  For Judaism it is the Babylonian Captivity and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, for Islam it is Mohammed's experiences in Mecca and Medina, for Christianity it was the crucifixion of Jesus around 30 CE and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Whereas these formative events are documented in sacred Jewish and Islamic literature, apart from accounts of the crucifixion in canonical gospels, the impact of Jerusalem's destruction is less obvious in Christianity's New Testament.  In fact, Christians in church pews today are virtually oblivious to the impact the Fall of Jerusalem had in forming the religion they belong to. This is because the New Testament doesn't talk about it other than in the vague language of Jesus foretelling its occurrence in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.  The Gospel of John doesn't contain Jesus's prophetic foretelling of the Temple's destruction and it is not referenced in any of Paul's letters, which were written before its occurrence.

In my opinion all of the  canonical gospels were written after 70 A.D..  My reason for believing this is they would not have contained Jesus's predicting the Temple's destruction had it not occurred. Mention of Jesus's prediction in the Synoptic Gospels was used to validate Jesus as a prophet because the intended audience of these gospels knew it had occurred. The Gospel of John treats the Temple as the place where Jesus showed himself to be the Son of God and where he was rejected.   It is not missed because the Johannine theological perspective was being shaped by events that were occurring at the time it was being written.  The Temple reemerges in the Book of Revelation as an Ideal -  as the heavenly Temple. 

THE SEEDS OF CHRISTIANITY

What we see in the earliest development of Christianity are catalytic events that lead to ideologies about them. Christianity is rooted in beliefs first developed by its parent religion, Judaism and reiterated in a creative fashion by a man called Jesus of Nazareth - an itinerant Jewish rabbi who emerged on the world scene at the start of the first century CE, in an area called Galilee in the Roman province called Palestine.

The collected sayings of Jesus are contained in the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These sayings mostly consist of parables and collections of random teachings that were used to form Jesus's Sermon on the Mount or Sermon on the Plain. All of Jesus's teachings are firmly rooted in Hebrew Scriptures he was familiar with.  What Jesus did that would serve to plant the seed for a new religion was to define these these teachings in a relational manner, in which the individual finds himself or herself in personal relationship to God as Father and, by extension, in a relationship with every other human being. In this sense, Jesus could be identified as a forerunner of humanism or theistic humanism. 

Familial love, in the sense of God being father of all -  making all of us, friend and foe alike, brothers and sister.  This is central to Jesus's teachings. What shaped Jesus's particular theocentric humanism can only be speculated at, but I believe that events in his life led him to make profound observations about his own religion, Judaism, and the world at large.  He was able to do this by looking at what I will refer to as "What Is," a common philosophical thread found in all major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc.) and schools of philosophy.  Christianity, for the most part, has not fully embraced what I consider Jesus's most important teachings.  Instead it and its sibling religion, Islam, veered into apocalyptic eschatology which produced salvation theologies. 

Judaism, itself, emerged from a tribal religion that, at the very least, accepted a polytheistic view of theism; in that, every other kingdom had its gods and goddesses.  There was a narrowing of this polytheistic view prior to the Babylonian Captivity, but Abrahamic monotheism was cemented during and after that event, resulting in the Judaic Ideal of only one God, the God of Abraham, who is God over all.

A SPECULATIVE VIEW OF JESUS'S LIFE

The reality is that we know virtually nothing of Jesus as a person, apart from what can be deduced from the gospels written about him, which are heavily mixed with metaphor and myth.   For instance, we know nothing of what shaped his views, the experiences that taught and lead him to become a teacher and preacher. That side of Jesus's life is a blank page which is notably reflected in the earliest gospel, the Gospel of Mark, which says nothing of his birth and early life.  

The historical assumption is that Jesus was born into a poor Galilean family and had no formal education; that he could neither read nor write.  The theological assumption is that he was born into poverty to be one with the poor of the world and did not need an education because he is the Son of God and is, by virtue of his divine nature, omniscient.

In my opinion, Jesus was not born into abject  poverty; that his family had means or access to relatives or friends who had financial means to give him at least a rudimentary education.  The phrase used in the canonical gospels, "He speaks as one having authority" is interpreted as meaning that people were surprised that this poor Galilean had the ability to sound intelligent.  While there may be a grain of truth to that, it most likely indicates that he was well-educated and was able to take on other educated types, like the legal experts of his time, the scribes. 

As such, Jesus would be similar to other inspirational leaders of the time, Buddha who started out as a prince, Socrates, who came from aristocratic roots.  They didn't write books.  They weren't particularly concerned with creating their own legacy, but rather were concerned with "What is."  Like others who came later; Francis of Assisi, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr., Jesus came to identify with the poor and the needy as a choice informed by observation and personal experience with the poor.  In other words he was neither too near nor too far away from suffering, but at the right spot which allowed him to take the education he had and apply it to the observations and experiences that shaped his teachings. 

In considering the accounts of Jesus's birth and early childhood as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, one can, without  much imagination or speculation and with a rudimentary knowledge of the times in which Jesus was born, extract an alternative narrative to what these two gospels say of Jesus's upbringing in more credible manner  that is void of the mythic embellishment found in  these accounts.  In fact, one could easily account for the teachings of Jesus that are found in the Synoptic Gospels, if such mythic embellishments  had never existed.  Without them Jesus's teachings would remain as relevant today as they were when the time he first presented them.  

So without these embellishments, what can be credibly deduced from these two gospels?

Jesus is born to parents named Joseph and Mary.  They may have traveled to Bethlehem or to a nearby village during the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria because of a revolt against being taxed by the Romans that was brewing in Galilee, by a Zealot, Judas of Galilee. The probability exists that Jesus's parents had friends or family connections in Bethlehem or near Jerusalem, who were people of monetary means, like Joseph of Arimathea or Mary and Martha of Bethany. 

The Galilean revolt would have happened around or shortly after Jesus's birth.  As Jesus' parents were Galilean, it's credible that Jesus was born in Bethlehem or nearby village to avoid the immediate effects of that revolt.  Being from Galilee raised the specter of guilt by association under territories rule by Herod the Great.   As things became dicey for Galileans, anywhere in Palestine, I can see the family being encouraged to leave the area until things settle down, and so they move to Egypt, presumably Alexandria, which had a large Jewish community.

It seems likely that Jesus was bright and inquisitive as a young child.  Alexandria was an extremely cosmopolitan and intellectual center in which a number of cultures met.  It was also the home of Philo the great Jewish philosopher who lived and taught during the time Jesus was there.  Much of what Jesus taught is similar to the views and teachings of Philo. It is possible that the young Jesus was taught by Philo or by one his students. 

Upon returning to Judea as a young adolescent, Jesus may have also spent time learning from scholars in the Temple precincts, which may have given rise to the story of Jesus at the age of twelve teaching the scholars in the Temple.  As things settled down in Galilee, Jesus returned to Nazareth and his family's home. I find it interesting that he is referred to the carpenter's son and not as a carpenter, himself.  It begs the question what Jesus did for living before his becoming a teacher. 

What we can deduce from his teachings is that he had a profound understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures that just didn't happen.  He was taught and well-versed in them.  When the gospel accounts say that he read from the scrolls, I don't doubt that he did.  It is from his deeply rooted and profound understanding of Judaism that he developed a unique understanding of the divine relationship between humans and God on a personal level of intimacy with God. 

Jesus reinterpreted the quintessential law of Judaism to love God with all of one's being as synonymous with loving one's fellow human being, or to turn it around, to love what God loves as the highest form of love that one can give to God

He illustrated this teaching in both word and deed, and it captured the hearts and the imaginations of a people desperately in need of love and a change of perspective as to their value in the eyes of God.

As far as belonging to a particular group, I do not see Jesus belonging to any.  He was not Essene, Pharisee, Sadducee, or a Zealot.  I would describe Jesus as an intellectual outlier who was charismatic, eloquent, and passionate about his insights into humanity's intimate relationship with God as our Father.  His non-alliance to any particular group afforded him the ability to openly talk about his perception of the way things were at the time.  What appears to have motivated him the most was the plight of the disenfranchised; namely, the impoverished, the sick, and most importantly, the social outcast.  Jesus viewed their treatment of these individuals as pariah by the devout religious leaders of his time as tantamount with putting the goodness of God and God's creation on the backburner of Judaism. 

In this sense, Jesus became an activist, literally reaching out to lepers and the clearly identified "sinner" of his day and literally bringing them to the table, back to the goodness and love of God that Jesus understood as extending to all of God's creation.  His approach was counterintuitive and confusing to the religious leaders of his day, who wanted to categorize him in terms they could understand. Was he the Messiah?  Was he a prophet of some kind?  According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus applied the vague term, Son of Man, to describe himself, which contained multiple meanings and defied categorization.

The New Testament identifies two religious groups that were prominent in Judaism at the time of Jesus's ministry, the Pharisees who sought to preserve Jewish tradition from encroachment of Hellenization by maintaining personal purity through strict adherence to their laws, and the Sadducees who sought to maintain control of the Temple and what little autonomy the Judean elite had left under Roman rule. Judaism and the political geographic entity called Judah was being squeezed from all sides, which resulted in Judaism becoming increasingly narrow and polarized.

For the most part, Jesus flew under the radar of the Sadducees.  His popularity as a teacher and healer was largely amongst the poor and disenfranchised, which likely made up the vast bulk of his following.  He didn't make, what we would refer to today as, headlines.  For the most part he didn't make huge waves that would catch the attention of the elite and powerful.  The Pharisees were seemingly interested in him and his understanding of scripture. They would engage him along with the scribes in discussions and debates.  He attracted a Zealot following also, in that some of his disciples were identified as Zealots, like Judas Iscariot and Simon the Zealot.

He didn't come to the attention of the Sadducees (the elite and powerful) until he entered Jerusalem along with an entourage of admiring followers prior to the Feast of Passover, which they undoubtedly viewed with suspicion as his being another Galilean trying to incite a revolt.  This was, in their minds, confirmed when Jesus overturned the money changers' tables in the Temple's precincts which struck me as uncharacteristic of Jesus who became incensed by the thievery that was permitted by the Temple authorities.  His passionate display of anger caught the attention of the Sanhedrin and was to become his undoing.  The Jewish ruling body, the Sanhedrin, was not about to risk another Roman intervention to put down a revolt in the Temple during  Passover, so they quickly hatched a plot to get him arrested and executed by the Romans and thus avoid risking a popular backlash by his followers.  Their plot, aided by the disillusioned Judas Iscariot,  succeeded to the extent they achieved in getting the Romans to do the deed, but as we know from the Gospels, they didn't avoid the ire of Jesus's followers.

What the Sadducees were not prepared for or were not aware of is just how many people knew Jesus or how many lives he touched by his actions and teaching.  Not only did Jesus fly under their radar, his followers also did.  Getting the Romans to crucify him created a groundswell of outrage among those who followed him and, oddly enough, they weren't outraged at the Romans, they were outraged at their own religious establishment's injustice.

Those who followed Jesus knew that what Jesus taught should not have resulted in his death, and so, Jesus doesn't die.  His followers claimed to experience Jesus in visions, and visions, being what they are, required explanations.   As such the resurrection of Jesus cannot be considered in any modern sense  a historical event. What these visions led to was an ideological belief based on Jewish concept of resurrection which was expressed in the ideal conceptualization of Jesus resurrected.  Once the word got out that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, belief in this idealized Jesus, spread like wildfire. 

The gospels go out of their way in having Jesus buried quickly after being crucified.  I think this highly unlikely.  My reason for thinking this is because if Jesus was crucified for being an insurrectionist, the Romans would have left his body to rot or be carrion for birds and wild animals  in order to send a graphic example to any who entertained the idea of insurrection.  Furthermore, the Sadducees and the Sanhedrin, as a whole, would have wanted to send the same message to any fly-by-night, wannabe messiah or they wouldn't have asked that he be crucified. They could have easily dispatched him upon being identified by Judas or had him stoned for blasphemy.

My point is simply this, that religions emerge from catalytic events in real time.  The events that seeded Christianity can be historically traced to events that occurred during Jesus's lifetime and beyond. The single most important event that can be directly linked to Jesus personally and that planted the seed that would become a new religion was Jesus's crucifixion. Had he not been crucified, it is questionable if any of us would have heard about him. 

* * * * * * * * * *
 
As we begin to understand our universe better, we are beginning to understand our world better and role we play on this fragile planet home of ours, Earth.  While I am no scientist or mathematician by any measure, I have gained an appreciation for what they have taught us about the environment we find ourselves in.  What they teach us about the macro and microcosm that surrounds us, that it is part of our very being and is played out on a human scale in everything that we encounter.

While our grasp of this knowledge is nascent at best and limited to our ability to know anything, it has informed us as to the ideals and ideologies that we have created or discovered as we experience this side of life, which may be the only life we will ever experience in the form of life we now possess and know. 

My purpose, contrary to what many might think, is not to debunk religion or Christianity, but rather to understand religion as a deep human function that shapes every perception that we humans collectively possess.  I will continue to reference my own religion, Christianity, as an observable example, in the hope that what I say about it will cause others to look deeply at their own religious ideologies, whether secular or theistic. 

"All is one"  is perhaps one of the oldest and most profound religious idea every intuited by human beings.  Its simplicity belies its infinite meanings and applications.  Religious singularity is an attempt to look at the ALL to find the ONE - the common thread - to broaden our scope in order to understand the religious nature of being human, and by it, to find solutions to immense problems we face living on this speck of cosmic dust, we call home.


Until next time, stay faithful.








     

Saturday, September 10, 2016

THE RESURRECTION UNTOUCHED - Johannine Theology - Part XVII

In every canonical gospel, the resurrection of Jesus begins with the discovery of an empty tomb by women. The implications are obvious, either his body was stolen or he was physically resurrected - that God raised him from death to life.  What the resurrection means is debatable.  Was Jesus physically brought back to life or was he transformed into a new type of being that defied the law of physics as we know them?

Regardless of one's definition of the resurrection, the gospels assure that he was resurrected.  The Gospel of Luke goes so far to debunk the rumor that his body was stole, which obviously some believed had happened during the time Luke was written.  Two gospels, Luke and Matthew make it clear that Jesus's resurrection was a physical event; that he was physically brought back to life by God with the ability to physically appear and disappear at will.  In Matthew the women who see him grab his feet.  In Luke, Jesus demonstrates his physicality by eating fish in front his disciples.

The Gospel of Mark (the shorter early and longer later version of the resurrection story) does not mention a physical encounter with the resurrected Jesus. The later version talks about Jesus appearing in a different form.

The Gospel of John gives the longest account of the resurrection event.  As is true of the entire Gospel of John, the resurrection story in John is concerned more with its theological meanings than with giving a historical account.

Like Mark, John does not mention any physical encounters with a physically resurrected Jesus.  Some of you may be thinking, "What about Thomas?"  A good question and I will get to that story.

Important to understanding John's approach in talking about Jesus's resurrection is recognizing the difference John makes (strongly hints at) between physical presence and real or true presence. Remember John is a coded gospel; events, people, time, numbers and place convey messages that the initiated believer can access.  Sometimes these are very clear and sometimes they are not.

THE THIRD AND THE FIRST DAY

All the accounts of Jesus's resurrection take place on the third day following his crucifixion, early Sunday morning.  There is numerological significance to the third day. In the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, the third day was referenced when Jesus told his audience in Jerusalem that if they destroyed the Temple, he could raise it up in three days, which was interpreted as Jesus talking about the temple of his body.

Numerologically, the number three is also the number of completion and divine union.  John's resurrection account does not specifically mention the third day, but rather the first day - the dawning of a new creation and the fullness of God.  God is one.  There are also three witness that John utilizes to make a point.  The first is Mary Magdalene, who sees that Jesus's rock-hewn tomb was open. Instead of checking it out, she finds Peter and John who run to the tomb and verify that it was empty and tidied up.

According to John,  the disciple John, being the younger of the two arrives at the tomb and peeks in and sees it empty, then Peter arrive and goes in and John follows. This gospel claims that when the younger John, the founder of the Johannine community, sees the empty tomb, he  immediately believes.

In both Matthew and Mark there is no mention of any of the disciples going to the tomb.  In Luke only Peter finds it empty.  John's account gives one a sense of one-upmanship with the founder of their community arriving before Peter.   This may seem trite some two thousand years later, but it's intent was to give the Johannine community a sense of being directly connected to the resurrection story.

MARY MAGDALENE

It is Mary Magdalene and her encounter with the resurrected Jesus that John focuses on in chapter 20.  Mary Magdalene is a character who is present in all four gospel accounts of the resurrection.  Apart from the the empty tomb itself , she is the one constant in these diverse accounts, the one witness consistent in them all.

What we know of her, apart from these accounts, comes from the Gospel of Luke where it us written that Jesus cast out seven demons from her.  From this gospel, we know she was part of group of women that followed Jesus, ministering to his needs.

There has been much speculation about Mary Magdalene, including those who  speculate that she may have been Jesus's wife.   To dwell on any speculation about personal relationships would lead to a gross misunderstanding of the purpose and meaning the presence of females convey in the gospels. This is particularly true of John, even though John paints a particularly intimate picture of the two when Jesus reveals his true presence to her.   John uses that moment, however, to say something about the resurrected Jesus.

After Peter and John leave the scene of the empty tomb, Mary Magdalene decides to look into the tomb, herself,  and what she sees (that those two disciple didn't see) are two angels; one sitting at head where Jesus had lain and one at foot.  Mary is so distraught at finding his body missing that she seemingly fails to recognize them for who they are, presumably because she was weeping.  They ask her why she is weeping and she responds that someone had taken Jesus's body away and she doesn't know where they buried it. She turns away and sees a man who again asks her why she is weeping, and again she responds that someone has taken Jesus's body. Assuming the man to be a gardener, she asks if he knew where Jesus was taken to.  It is then that Jesus says her name and she immediately recognizes Jesus. She responds by calling him teacher and presumably attempts to physically touch him, but Jesus tells her not to because he has not ascended to his Father.  Jesus's warning not to touch him because he a has not ascended to the Father is not given an explanation in John, but I believe there is one.

What is important to remember is that John is a theological work and an attempt to depict a connection between the events described in this gospel.  In this case, we need to see the connection between Jesus's crucifixion and his resurrection.  We must also keep in mind that the writers of John were also rewriting the ancient Hebrew narrative and casting it in a Christian light.  For example,  if the crucifixion represents the new Passover, what is the theological significance of the resurrection?   Specifically, what does John's account make if it?

THE NEW ARK OF THE NEW COVENANT

John gives us a clue to what he makes of the resurrection story with the presence of the two angels,  one sitting at the head and one sitting at the foot where Jesus had been laid.  Numerologically, one can deduce some significance, but it is the placement of two angels that caught my attention and brought to mind the Ark of the Covenant, which had two angels at each end of  its lid, facing each other.  The lid was called the "Mercy Seat," and the space between the two angels is where God's presence resided, from where the voice of God was heard. I think this is fairly obvious to anyone who studies Christian scriptures and I am sure others have written about it as well.

The two angels sitting where Jesus had lain, speak with one voice when asking Mary why she is weeping.  The same question is then asked by Jesus when Mary thinks him to be a gardener.  This is a moment of transition from the voice heard in the representative Mercy Seat to the revealed presence of Jesus who asks the same question.

What this account is saying is that Jesus is the Ark of the Covenant, that he is the place where God's voice, God's  presence resides.  Jesus is the true presence of God, and, as was true for the original Ark of  the Covenant becomes also true for the New Ark of the New Covenant - It cannot be touched. The result of the resurrection is that while Jesus is presented as a real, true presence there is an intangibility to his presence.

After his resurrection, Jesus is pure holiness, pure otherness to the extent that he can only be recognized when he speaks.   This notion of recognition(seeing as comprehension) through hearing his voice is true of all the gospel accounts, is true of the apostle Paul's vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus, and is especially true in John.  Jesus is, after all, the Word.

THE FEMININE PRINCIPLE IN JOHN

Women play a prominent role throughout John.  This does not occur by happenstance, but is done with intentionality.  The writers of John employ the feminine principal throughout this gospel. The Feminine Principle is found in many ancient religions and is found in many mythological stories. The Feminine Principle basically refers to an intuitive understanding or knowledge of things, a sense of receptivity and openness to truths,  wisdom, compassion, and a strong determination to see things through.

This principle was prominently utilized the in the story of the Samaritan woman at the well.  It was on display when Jesus's mother advised the servers at the wedding at Cana to listen to Jesus and do what said.  It is tacitly invoked in the story of raising Lazarus from the dead which plays off of Luke's account of Jesus dining at the home of Mary and Martha.  It is also invoked at Jesus's crucifixion when Jesus addresses the only group of followers who have the nerve and determination to be present during his sacrifice,  and we see it here in the story of Jesus's resurrection.  In all, there are five stories, the numerological symbol of mercy and grace, and in each of these stories, the mercy and grace of Jesus is portrayed.

THE MARIAN PRINCIPLE

 John deepens the use of this principle by what one might define as the Marian Principle.  Mary apparently was a rather common name, as in Mary, Jesus's mother and his aunt (her sister) Mary, the wife of Clopas, sharing the same name.  It makes one wonder, doesn't it?

"What's in a name?"  to quote Shakespeare.  To have three specific stories related to three separate individuals named Mary points at something, as does having three Marys present at Jesus's crucifixion, but what?  

In my opinion, John gives the Feminine Principal a name that people can relate to, Mary.  When it comes to the Marys, John follows Luke's storyline regarding them.  In other words, to understand John's use of it, one has to reference Luke's information about these three Marys.

All three are particularly devoted to hearing God's word.  In the case of Jesus's mother, it is the angel Gabriel who delivers the new that she will conceive and bear God's son.  In the case of Mary, the sister of Lazarus, she sits at his feet devouring every word that Jesus says, and in the case of Mary Magdelene, she understand the very power of his word that freed her from demonic possession. Their love for Jesus is unflagging, and Jesus, in turn is devoted to and deeply loves all three.

What about Martha?

While Martha is female by gender, she doesn't represent the Feminine Principal.  In fact, she is female example of the Masculine Principal, which tends to be more pragmatic, judgmental, and concrete in making observations.  As such, Martha has more in common with Peter than with her sister Mary in these stories.  In John's account of Lazarus's being raised from the dead, it is when Jesus sees Mary weep that Jesus becomes troubled, recognizes other people weeping, and weeps also. 

In fact, John portrays it's namesake, Jesus's disciple, John, as an example of the feminine principle and refers to him as Jesus' beloved disciple who leans on Jesus's breast and who often is depicted as possessing feminine features in paintings, such Da Vinci's "Last Supper."   It is the disciple John who is quick to believe in Jesus's resurrection.

The three Marys at Jesus crucifixion show extreme devotion to Jesus, ministering to his needs by being present in his hour of utter need.  As such the Marian Principle is about the unflagging devotion and love of Jesus as the Word, God's real presence in the world.  The mention of these individuals is purposeful; in that, to an initiate, they offer the prime characteristics of what a true believer should possess.  They represent the deepest form of love and devotion to Jesus, and if you were a member of the Johannine community, in order to follow the founder of this community, you must embrace the Marian Principal.  This explains this gospel's emphasis on loving one another as a passive approach to evangelization and its special devotion to Mary, the mother of Jesus, the bearer of God, the Theotokos.

It is Mary Magdelene who is given the unique position, however, to be present at God's most poignant display of power over death, the resurrection of Jesus.  There may be other sources that John is referencing when it comes to Mary Magdalene, but what can be deduced from her position in this story is that she was deeply loyal and devoted to Jesus in a way that other disciples were not.  She is, as it were, the constant witness to God's power over death, which, in some traditions makes her, the most important of Jesus's disciples.


* * * * * * * * * *

In my opinion, John 20 was originally intended to be the last chapter in the Gospel of John.  It would appear that the author of this chapter had intended to end this Gospel with end of the first day, which (from a literary point of view) would have been nice touch, but we know this not the case.  As usual, John is subject to editorializing, with additions and insertions made to address a particular question or situation that someone thought was lacking.

An example of this occurs in John 20, itself.  The story of Thomas appears to be a late insert into this chapter.  When Jesus appears to his disciples the evening of the first day, he breaths on them his spirit.  If one were to stop right there, one would conclude that all eleven remaining disciples of Jesus were present at this event, because this was their "Pentecost Moment" in John, their receiving the Holy Spirit.

The reason for believing the story of Thomas is a later insert is that we learn in verse 24 that Thomas was not present during that first meeting. In fact, the story Thomas says that Thomas didn't show up until a week later.  This is problematic.

There is no mention of Thomas receiving the Holy Spirit.  He is excluded from John's Pentecost Moment on the evening of Easter and begs the question if Thomas received the Holy Spirit, and if he did, when did he receive it?

JOHN'S PENTECOST MOMENT

Let's back up for a moment and take a look at John's Pentecost Moment. It's apparent that after Peter and John return "home" they meet with the other disciples in secret and behind locked doors, "for fear of the Jews."  It is not easy for John to let go of this "fear of the Jews" motif, and I suspect it is because the Johannine community had their own fear of the Judaic community they were being excluded from.  So this comment  could serve as this author's attempt of providing a sense of real-time solidarity with the experiences Jesus's disciples had or were reported to have.  In this case, it also provides a reason to keep the doors locked.

While the disciples are gathered, Jesus appears and stands among them and said "Peace." He then shows them his hands, feet, and side that bear the marks of his sacrifice and the disciples rejoice.  Jesus appearing in their midst without bothering to have them open a door, is John's not too subtle way of distinguishing between real and physical presence; in that, Jesus shows his real wounds (as described by John), but the issue of physical presence remains unanswered. 

The ancient world's understanding of spirit and physical is not as differentiated as we view it today.  The spiritual and the physical possess a related reality.  In the ancient world, the spiritual is more real in the sense of possessing a sense of permanence rather than the physical. We tend to have diminished our sense of the spiritual realm today to theological ideologies or representing philosophical truths rather than present time reality.
Jesus breathing on the gathered disciples and saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit" differs from Luke's account in Acts and begs the question why John saw a need to rewrite the Pentecost story.  In fact, the author of this chapter contradicts some of what other parts of the Gospel of John says about the Holy Spirit being sent by the Father as opposed to breathing the Holy Spirit on them himself.

A reason for this rewrite may be a deliberate attempt to disassociate the Johannine community of churches from the church that existed in Jerusalem prior to 70 AD.  Although the Johannine community may have existed within Palestine, it might have had an unfavorable relationship with the church at Jerusalem, which remained tacitly attached to the Temple and Judaism.  I also suspect that there was a strong or notable pharisaical element in the Jerusalem church that had a different approach to how Jesus was viewed and understood.  Setting the record straight within  the of the Johannine community is one of the goals of writing this gospel.

With the destruction of the church in Jerusalem, the dividing line between Judaic-leaning Christians and Johannine Christians became increasingly hostile, to the point that this particular author of John deprives them of receiving the Holy Spirit and simply rewrites Luke's Pentecost narrative.
As previously mentioned, if one were to delete the story of Thomas and jump from verse 23 to verse 30 in Chapter 20, the Gospel of John would have a smooth, concise ending. Verses 30 and 31 basically wrap things up by saying there could be a lot more said about what Jesus showed his disciples, but this was enough for one to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God and that in believing one can posses eternal life.  A good finish, in my opinion.  
THOMAS  

Chapter 20 includes what I consider to be an inserted story about Jesus's disciple Thomas.  As is true of the entire Gospel of John, the story of Thomas is just that, a story.  It's intent and purpose is to indoctrinate the initiate as to the proper understanding of what it means to believe.  It is put in this chapter to contrast with the story of Mary Magdalene who demonstrates the proper understanding.

According to this story, Thomas was not present when Jesus appeared to his other disciples on Easter evening.  There is no reason given and I suspect it doesn't matter, from a story-telling point of view.  What the author of this story wants to point out is that it is wrong to question the real presence of Jesus after the resurrection.  In this sense, Thomas displays what I early said was the Masculine Principal - "I'm not going to believe unless I can see for myself."  

The reality is, however, that no one believed in any of the gospel accounts of Jesus's resurrection until they hear his voice and then see his real presence. This is also key to understanding the story of Thomas.  Unfortunately, this story resulted in Thomas's reputation being tarnished.  In many ways if John hadn't stuck with the denial story of Peter, Peter could have been a good example to choose to question Jesus' resurrection, but since Peter is presumably reformed and contrite by the time of the Resurrection, Thomas who also questioned Jesus during the table discourse becomes the obvious choice to question Jesus's resurrection in this story.

In many ways, the structure of this story is a repeat of the John's Pentecost Moment.  The disciples are behind locked doors and Jesus suddenly appears in their midst and says, "Peace."  In this account, Jesus addresses Thomas directly and specifically tells him to go ahead and stick his hand into the wounds of his hands and side; telling Thomas not to doubt but to believe. 

The impulse is to believe that Thomas does as he is told, but John stops short of saying that.  Instead, when Jesus says he touch his wounds, Thomas responds, "My Lord and my God."   He doesn't touch Jesus's wounds. He hears his voice (as did the others) and can see for himself. The story ends with John using this as a teachable moment.  If this were a play, I would have Jesus turning to the audience and telling them that they are blessed because they have not seen and yet believe.  This is what John wants to convey to the Johannine community, that believing without seeing makes them more blessed than the disciples who saw.
  
PUER AETERNUS
John 21 serves as an afterword attached to the Gospel of John, as if there was some last minute tidying up to do.  As mentioned above, the stories in John 21 may reflect information that John's editors thought should be included in this Gospel.  This chapter begins with seven disciples, including Thomas, Peter, and Nathaniel (one of the first disciples mentioned in John) the brothers James and John and two other unnamed disciples.  Of course, the mention of seven disciples demands our attention.  It is the number of a completed creation.  It may also be a refering to these disciples as the founders or the patron saints of the churches in Asia Minor, which play a prominent role in another piece of Johannine scripture, "The Revelation of John."  It is interesting to note that the seven churches of Asia Minor composed the Johannine community at the time Revelation was written. In fact this may be the prime reason for this late insertion, to serve as a connection between these two pieces of scripture.

Chapter 21 begins with Peter stating he is going fishing, and the other six disciples decide to join him.  While on the Sea of Galilee during the night, they catch nothing.

 Night is the time of unknowing.  It is the moment when Nicodemus approaches Jesus to try and figure out who Jesus is. 

Fishing, itself, is metaphorical - trying to gather the faithful - a Piscean reference to true believers.  They cannot be caught or brought in while it is dark.   

So John tells us that Jesus comes at daybreak, the start of a new era.  Jesus comes with and as the light of day and tells the disciples to cast their net on the right side; to fish in a different direction, to look for the chosen of God amongst a different people, the gentiles, and when they do the net is filled to overflowing.  It is at that moment, Jesus's beloved disciple recognizes who Jesus and tells Peter it is Jesus.  Peter, being Peter, once again acts on impulse, takes off his clothes and jumps in the water to meet Jesus with the other disciples taking the boat ashore, dragging their haul behind them. 

When the disciples reach the shore, they see Jesus frying fish on a charcoal fire.  The count of the fish is 153. Again this number has significance in that consists of the cardinal numbers 1, 3, and 5, which  can be interpreted individually or as the sum total of 9. As we have seen, one, five and three are all significant numbers in biblical numerology and have been discussed in this an past posts. Their order is also significant. At this stage, I'll let the reader figure out the significance.

What catches my attention, however, is when Jesus offers the disciples breakfast and took some bread and broke it and then broke the fish also and gave it to them.  John makes a point of saying this is the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples.  Three represents the presence of God in Christian numerology and also conveys a sense of completion. 

What this portion of Chapter 21 calls to mind is the story of Jesus feeding the five thousand in John.  I mention in my reflection John's depiction of that story the young boy who brings Jesus the five loaves and two fishes, appears as a puer aternus figure.  Here we see Jesus depicted as the Puer Aeternus, the divine, eternal boy - the true Son of God offering bread (the symbolic substance of his body) and fish (the symbol of belief and faith) to the seven disciples by which to feed there flocks. The writer of this chapter is tacitly referencing the Feeding of the Five Thousand to represent not the tribes of Israel, as represented by the Twelve Baskets of leftovers, but rather to recast it in order to present the seven disciples as establishing the seven churches in Asia Minor which have an association to the Johannine community. 


PETER


After the breakfast meal, there is depicted an odd encounter between the resurrected Jesus and Peter. Jesus asks Peter if he loves him.  Peter affirms that he does, to which Jesus says, "Feed my sheep."   Jesus asks again and Peter affirms that he does a second time with Jesus again directing him to feed his sheep. When Jesus asks a third time, Peter shows signs of frustration and weariness.  He tells Jesus that Jesus knows everything; that he knows that Peter loves him to which Jesus replies, "feed my sheep."  Jesus goes on to tell Peter that when he was young (uninitiated) he went his own way, but as he grows older, he will  stretch out his hand and be yoked and taken to where he did not want to go.  There appears an editorial comment that says Jesus is telling Peter the method by which he would die.  Perhaps that is part of the meaning with regard to stretching out his hand, but the girding and taken where he does not want to go also indicates submission to the will of God.

By this time we know that saying something three times has significance in John and what I suspect John means by this is that Peter is being shaped and made whole, that he is being rounded out and made holy.  Peter no longer acts on impulse, but appears to finally be in touch with his feelings.  He is  wounded by Jesus persistent question about his depth of love and in being wounded he is displays his love, not as something he generates on his own, but which Jesus generates, "You know that I love you."  Peter is not fully initiated until he engages the Feminine Principal that allows him to realize what he feels, to be truly compassionate. Jesus not only tells him to feed his sheep but reiterates his original call to Peter, "Follow me."


JOHN  
   
Throughout the last chapters of this gospel, the authors of John, depict a close relationship between the namesake of this gospel and Peter.  Like Jesus, Peter is fond of John, and asks what will happen to John.  Jesus basically responds that Peter shouldn't worry about him.  If he wants John to live until he returns, it's none of Peters business.  This appears to be a note to the Gospel of John's immediate audience, the Johannine community.  Apparently, there was a rumor that John would not die, that he would be alive when Jesus returns.  It is clear that by the time this gospel is being written John, Jesus's disciple, has passed away; otherwise, there would be no point in bringing this up.  What this insertion indicates is the disciple John is not author of this gospel.

Chapter 21 ends the Gospel of John by revamping the ending of John 20 and adding that the world could contain the books that could be written about Jesus. 

Until next time, stay faithful.

Sunday, September 4, 2016

WHAT IS TRUTH? - Johannine Theology - Part XVI

The story of Jesus's trials and crucifixion as recorded in John 18 and 19, are rather anticlimactic.  In part because they have been, throughout John, a foregone conclusion as Jesus's primary purpose in being "sent" to earth.  These two chapters and the last two chapters, John 20 and 21, serve as a seal on the primary doctrinal thesis of the Gospel of John which is laid out in John 14 through 17.

The Gospel of John's account of Jesus's trials, crucifixion, and his resurrection and its aftermath are uniquely Johannine.  As such, they contain material that is found only in John.  Unlike scholars who have promoted the idea that John used other sources than the Synoptic Gospels, I see John as creative work that relied on John's audience's knowledge the Synoptic Gospel accounts of Jesus's life to write what I consider the first deliberately doctrinal document of the early church, in gospel form, in order to present a unique theological perspective on the meaning of Jesus as the Christ and to differentiate the differences between being a Christian and being a Jew.

In this post, we will examine the trials and crucifixion of Jesus.  In order to appreciate John's perspective and presentation of this event, it would be good to understand the basic structure to the trials and crucifixion of Jesus as depicted in all four of the canonical gospels:

1.  After a meal with his disciples, Jesus goes goes with his some of his disciples to a location just outside Jerusalem's city walls and is betrayed by Judas.

2.  Jesus's disciples abandon him and Jesus is led to the High Priest where he is questioned and found guilty of blasphemy and worthy of death.

3.  Peter follows Jesus at a distance and ends up denying he knew Jesus on three different occasions  before a rooster crowed.

4.  Since the Sanhedrin didn't want risk a popular uprising against them they try accusing him of  insurrection and hand him over to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who finds no cause to execute Jesus.

5.  Pilate attempts to release Jesus by offering them people a choice of who they wanted released, Barabas or Jesus. They chose Barabas.

6.  The crowds demand that Jesus be crucified and Pilate reluctantly acquiesces to their demand.Jesus is crucified along with two thieves.

7.  Jesus is buried in a rock-hewn tomb.

From there, the gospels vary in details. John maintains this basic structure of events in a rather minimalistic way. In John there are no sleepy disciples - no prayer by Jesus to have "this cup" removed.  Judas does not betray Jesus with a kiss and there is no detailed account of Jesus's trial before Caiaphas.  Instead there is a brief encounter with the Jew's recognized legitimate high priest, Annas. During all of this John gives his version of Peter's denial of Jesus. After briefly acknowledging that Jesus was sent to Caiaphas, John says Jesus was sent to Pontius Pilate.

THE SANHEDRIN

John's editorial comment about Jesus being sent to Pilate in order to fulfill the Hebrew scriptures description as the means by which Jesus would die raises an interesting question.

Setting aside the notion of prophetic fulfillment for the moment, exactly why did the chief priests send Jesus to Pilate?

Stoning would have seemed the appropriate response for blasphemy [ See Leviticus 24:10-23].  In fact, Pilate suggests they take care of the situation under their own laws in John 18. In response, they tell Pilate that it is unlawful for them to execute anyone. This is questionable given, the fact that the New Testament, depicts Jews stoning people without having to appeal to the Roman authorities.  John says the reason for sending Jesus to Pilate was to fulfill scriptures.  Hmmm....  I suspect there might have been a more pragmatic reason (at least from the Sanhedrin's point of view) for doing so.

There is a subtle implication that one can deduce from reading John regarding the reasons the Sanhedrin sent Jesus to Pilate.  The first is an editorial comment reminding us that Caiaphas was the one who suggested that it would be better that one person die "for the people" (rather than risking a massacre).  The second is brought up by Jesus, himself, when he reminds the Sanhedrin that he taught in the Temple on more than one occasion.  The implication being that he and his teachings were well-known in Jerusalem; that he had a following established in Jerusalem.  As Jesus implied after being slapped by a guard, if there was anything wrong in what he said at those times, why wasn't he addressed then? Of course, if we have been paying attention to John, we know the answer to that.  The time wasn't right and Jesus avoided being arrested on several occasions.

Given a pragmatic reading of Jesus's trial as recorded in the gospels, the purpose of moving Jesus's case to the court of Pilate was twofold.  While blasphemy was their reason for wanting to kill Jesus, the Sanhedrin did not want to risk a popular uprising in Jesus's defense and therefore they sought avoid responsibility for his desired death by pinning it on the Romans. In order to do that, however, they would have to provide the Romans with a reason, because the Romans could have cared less about blasphemous behaviour towards the Jewish God. What the Romans would react to was anyone considered to be an insurrectionist - a rebel.

So they present Jesus as one who would be king, a messianic zealot or did they? 

One is led to believe that insurrection is the reason they give Jesus to Pilate, but John says the chief priests and member of the Sanhedrin offered Pilate the vague reason that Jesus was some sort of criminal.  We get the notion of Jesus being accused of insurrection from Pilate, not the chief priests or members of the Sanhedrin in John 18.

PONTIUS PILATE

The relationship between Sanhedrin and the Roman governors sent to govern Palestine was at best strained. The Romans had dealt with Galilean zealots before and Sanhedrin knew just how ruthlessly they did.  They crucified the lot - and Pilate had a reputation for ruthlessly putting out fires before they started.  Pilate was also greatly disliked because of his attempt to place the imperial emblem in the Temple and ended up putting down an insurrection in the Temple precinct, as a result. There was no love lost between Pilate and the Sanhedrin. So the chief priests  accomplish two things. They get rid of Jesus and pin his execution on a despised Roman official.

According to all the gospels, Pilate sees through their ruse. It's entirely credible that Pilate would have avoided becoming enmeshed in their religious disputes.  Such disputes would have interested him only to the extent that they posed a threat to Pax Romana.  So when the chief priests approach Pilate with the Jesus, Pilate tries to turn the tables on them and takes the case to the people as an attempt to throw it back into Sanhedrin's court.  The chief priests, however, were banking on their ability to play the people's distrust and hatred of Roman rule and Pilate, and they were right, according to the gospel accounts.

If Pilate wanted to save Jesus, he would have.  The reality is that he would not have lost any sleep over executing another Galilean, and ultimately that's what he does. What disturbed Pilate, if anything, was that he was being played.  In a failed attempt to turn the tables on the Sanhedrin, Pilate offers an exchange a notorious murderer and insurrectionist, Barabas or Jesus.  Underestimating the religious fervor that the Sanhedrin could command, the crowd chooses Barabas and Pilate orders Jesus's execution.

By the time the gospels were written this information would have been well established as fact.  By the time the Gospel of John was written this widely known information within the early Church gave the writers of John the ability to focus on the interchange between Pilate and Jesus.

All of the gospel accounts tend to paint Pilate in a favorable light or at least as a man caught "between a rock and a hard place," as the saying goes.   In fact, some early church traditions raised Pilate to saint status; having claimed he converted to Christianity later in life.  I think that conclusion rather spurious.  At the time of Jesus's trial, Pilate was no saint and the Sanhedrin was not being vindictively unreasonable in the context of that time.

If one were to base Jesus's trial  before the Sanhedrin on Jesus's teachings in John, one would have to conclude that the Sanhedrin had cause to charge Jesus with blasphemy.  After all, in John Jesus present himself as God's Son repeatedly.

Try putting John's claim about Jesus in the context of today.  Anyone claiming to be God or to be God's Son would more than likely be viewed as suffering from a mental illness, if not a blasphemer.   The only way one can accept that Jesus as the only-begotten Son of God is to do so as an idealistic belief. That was true back in the time John was written and remains true today.

John's major condemnation of Judaic Jews is that, given their scriptures, they should have recognized who Jesus was.  Typical of John is that he condemns the "Jews" for their lack of belief.  In contrast to John's treatment of the "Jews," John places Pilate in a favorable light because of his tacit belief that Jesus could be God's Son.

STRETCHING THE TRUTH

The writer or editors responsible for this gospel's account of Jesus's trial and crucifixion almost paint themselves into a corner regarding their presentation of the events of Jesus's trial and crucifixion.  In their zeal to paint the "Jews" as the culprits responsible for Jesus's death and exonerating Pilate, they end up being creative with the basic structure of these events.  One can deduce this by a quick comparison with the Synoptic Gospel accounts of these events.  In Matthew and Mark, Jesus says nothing to Pilate.  In Luke Jesus says very little. and Luke clearly points out that the reason Pilate was hearing Jesus's case at all was because Jesus was presented to him as an insurrectionist and found Jesus to be anything but that.  It is also in Luke where Pilate tries to wiggle out of the situation by having Jesus tried by Herod who ruled Galilee.

The Gospel of John, as always, is not concerned with adhering to the facts as using them as a framework to expound the Johannine theological perspective. In contrast to the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus virtually says nothing in his defense, Jesus, in John, becomes quite conversant with Pilate.

The difficulty with Johannine account of Jesus's discourse with Pilate is that it blatantly makes vast assumptions that beg questions that have no answers.  When Pilate begins to interrogate Jesus, the first question asked is, "Are you the King of the Jews?"

Where did that come from?

The chief priests said nothing more than he is a criminal in John 18.

So where did Pilate get that information?

Once again one has to question whether this anomaly is indicative of different accounts being merged into one or whether it is an attempt at minimalism, banking off of what the reader knows or believes about these events and Jesus.  Or, is it a simple matter of John making a point that Jesus is a king and not bothering to explain Pilate's intuitive insight.

Regardless of how Pilate knew to ask this question, John has his asking it to provide Jesus with a teachable moment - a chance to explain that his kingdom is not of this world.

Jesus stating that his kingdom is not of this world would have been a good place for John to stop. Instead John takes another jab at the Jews by having Jesus say that if he were a worldly king his followers would have raised up to protect him from the Jews.  In other words, what John has Jesus saying is that if he were a worldly king, he would have attacked the very people he was claiming to be the king of.

Once again, John takes the opportunity to demonstrate the division, if not the outright enmity, that existed between the Johannine and the Judaic communities.  The indicators of enmity between Christians and Jews in this gospel became a contagion that ultimately spread and gave rise to antisemitism some eighteen hundred years later.

While the writers and editors of John didn't have antisemitism in mind, their passion for differentiating their community from the Judaic community was frequently overplayed to underscore one of this gospel's primary thesis, that Jesus as the Truth is the only-begotten Son of God.

During Pilate's interrogation of Jesus regarding his kingdom, Pilate asks Jesus a clarifying question to determine if Jesus was indeed claiming to be a king.  As usual, Jesus avoids answering Pilate directly and instead claims his purpose for being in this world was to testify to the Truth and implies that his kingdom consist of those who listen to the Truth, to which Pilate famously responds, What is truth?"

Of course, John's audience knows the answer.  The truth is staring Pilate in the face.  After trying to release Jesus and losing his wager with the people when they choose Barabas, Pilate decides to have Jesus flogged (beaten to a pulp) to elicit some pity for Jesus which resulted in another famous quote by Pilate, "Behold, the man."  When Pilate presents Jesus to the crowd, the chief priests start shouting for Jesus to be crucified and the crowd follows suit.

It is in John 19 that Pilate tells them to crucify him themselves because he finds no reason to.   What is odd about this is that in John 18, the chief priests said they were prohibited from executing anyone, but Pilate is telling them they can, but instead of doing so they tell Pilate that Jesus must be killed because he committed blasphemy by claiming to be God's Son.  Again, in John 18 the leaders of the Sanhedrin and the chief priests were vague in their reasoning for bringing Jesus to pilot, but in John 19 they reveal their motive as Jesus was blasphemous. 

Two different authors, two different accounts, or is it an editorial oversight?

According to John, when Pilate heard this he became paranoid about Jesus, asking where he was from and when Jesus doesn't answer him, Pilate reminds Jesus he has the authority to kill him.  Jesus reminds Pilate that he would have no authority unless it was given to him.  Jesus also tells Pilate, as if to ease his anxiety over what to do,  that those who handed him over to Pilate bear the most guilt for what is about to happen.  Once again, John doesn't waste any time to pointing a finger at the "Jews."

What becomes bizarre in all of this is that, if one steps back far enough to look at John's narrative of the events, one can see that the Sanhedrin and Pilate are all being played by God.   If  Jesus was sent to earth for this purpose, to be sacrificed, why assign guilt.  What purpose does it serve? Assigning guilt would seemingly be another waste of ink, but John's doing so is purposeful in that it gives reason for the Johannine community to fully separate from their Judaic roots.  

In the end what overrides Pilate's paranoia about Jesus is his more immediate paranoia about the emperor Tiberius. When the cheif priests point out that sparing Jesus's life when he claim to be a king puts Pilate at odds with the emperor who is their only king, Pilate acquiesces, and Jesus is crucified.

Pilate, however, gets last word on the subject.  In ordering Jesus's crucifixion, he also orders that a placard be placed above him staying that Jesus is the King of the Jews.  This is an outrage to the chief priests who advise Pilate to change the sign to "He said he was King of the Jews."   Pilate's response was that what he had written is what he meant.  This is also what John wants us to get. 

THE CRUCIFIXION

John's account of Jesus's crucifixion is about as minimalistic as the account of Jesus's trial before the Sanhedrin.  John makes the obligatory references to the prophetic Hebrew scriptures regarding the robe he wore on his way to being crucified and his side being pierced (an editorial catch that was overlooked in the Synoptic Gospels).

While Jesus is recorded as saying more things while on the cross in the Synoptic Gospels, John has Jesus saying very little.  In fact the only saying of Jesus, original to John, is when he tells his beloved disciple, presumably John, to take care of his mother Mary, to treat each other as mother and son.

In all the Synoptic Gospel accounts, the disciples have abandoned Jesus and are not present during Jesus's crucifixion.  The Gospel of John makes a point, however, about the presumed founder of their community being there.   It also demonstrates the connection this community had with Mary, the mother of Jesus.

While all the canonical gospels have women present during Jesus's crucifixion, John specifically lists three named Mary, his mother, his mother's sister - Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.   Again, numbers mean something in John.

The three Marys represent completion and the divine presence.  Add the "beloved disciple"  and the number four represents a new creative or relational order, as in a new mother and son relationship.  In this case,  the writers and editors of John were also claiming Mary as the mother of their community, which will soon be understood as Mary being the Theotokos, the Mother of God and the Mother of the Church.  I will discuss the significance of the Marys in my next post.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus is portrayed as being fully in control at all times, including his death.  It is when Jesus states he is finished, the ordeal of his death and sacrifice is completed.

Unique to the Gospel of John is Jesus side being pierced. The Synoptic Gospels do not mention this event.  Yet, it has become such a part of the crucifixion story, that every artistic portrayal of the resurrected Jesus depicts him with this wound, further demonstrating the tremendous influence John has had on Christian theology.

The intent of John in presenting this account is not about historical accuracy but rather to make a theological point of what had taken place.  The point being that when Jesus's side was pierced water and blood poured out.  This is a bookend completion to Jesus earthly mission.  Jesus's mission begins with turning water into wine (the symbols of new birth and the life giving property of Jesus's blood) and ends with water and blood being poured out from him as the emblems of the two life giving sacraments, Holy  Baptism and Holy Communion.  

At the end of Chapter 19, Jesus's body is removed from the cross, by Joseph if Arimathea and, along with Nicodemus who brought expensive burial spices helped Joseph bury Jesus in a newly hewn tomb.  The number two again is significant as it represents validity.  That both of these individuals were members of the Sanhedrin also lends an air of authority to their being witnesses of Jesus's burial.

* * * * * * * * * *
The death of Jesus, within the context of John's entire gospel, is meant to represent a New Passover, a new release from the slavery of worldliness.  It also marks, a stark departure from the Judaism, the land of the oppressor, in the Johannine point of view.  Jesus is the Lamb of God who was sacrificed, who pours out both life-giving water and blood by which the new chosen people of God, Christians, are saved for eternal life in Christ's eternal kingdom. 
John's account of Jesus's death is by far the most influential account of this event in the canonical gospels.  It's doctrinal thesis of Jesus being Truth as God's only-begotten Son sent to bear witness of the Truth, that is God's righteousness in establishing a new creative order is depicted as being assured in Jesus's unflagging willingness to do his Father's will throughout the Gospel of John and fulfilled in sacrificing himself.  In this act, Jesus initiates a new order that will come to fruition in his resurrection.

Until next time, stay faithful.