JUDAS, PETER, LUKE AND JOHN - Johannine Theology Part XII

John 13 is largely centered around the interactions between Jesus, Peter, and Judas.  There is a lot going on in this chapter that merits spending some time unpacking its implications for what is to follow. What we see is Jesus preparing those closest to him for what is to occur; his sacrifice on the cross as the Lamb of God.  

John 13 is a mirror image of John 12 with the important difference that it is Jesus who is preparing (initiating) his disciples for (into) the most intimate relationship with God, his sacrifice.  In the synoptic gospels this is spelled out as the Last Supper, but in John this is referenced as a meal just before the Passover, just before Jesus is crucified as the sacrificial Lamb of God.  For John, the true Passover meal is played out on Good Friday, when Jesus is literally broken and poured out as the bread and wine of salvation.  What the reader is presented in John 13 is the beginning of a conversation that explains the meaning of a new Passover.   

John 13 mirrors what occurred in John 12 where Mary anoints Jesus's feet with Nard in preparation of Jesus's sacrifice, death, and burial as the blameless, spotless Lamb of God who will take away the sins of the world. In John 12, Jesus informs "the Jews" (meaning Judaic Jews) that he will die in order to glorify God's name and from this act a new creation will emerge, a new kingdom of believers who will have eternal life (the rest condemned by their unbelief). 

In John 13, Jesus informs his disciples that not only will he be killed, but that he will also be betrayed by one of them, that through all of this he will be glorified, and that one of them will deny him in his hour of need.  The context of John 13 through John 17 is this pre-Passover meal.  The communal nature of a meal can be lost on a modern reader, where meals are not the family or social events they once were.  It is important that this is not lost on the reader of John where a Middle-eastern meal of the type being described was not only a communal event, but an intimate event where food was shared from common utensils, bowls and cups.  It is in the communal context of this meal that John has Jesus explaining the meaning of Holy Communion.  For John, the institution of Holy Communion is not the words spoken by Jesus in the other gospels, but rather the in the act of being sacrificed. 

GETTING INTIMATE

During this meal, Jesus takes a bowel of water and washes his disciples feet.   John makes it clear that Jesus does this to serve as an example for his disciples to follow amongst themselves.  I am stressing the fact that this is meant to be an "in-house" ritual in John rather than a practice meant to be shared with the whole world, as it is being frequently interpreted today; such as, when we see Pope Francis washing the feet of prisoners and Muslims. There is nothing wrong with Pope Francis doing that, and I applaud his doing it, but such an act likely would have appalled the Johannine community because for next four chapters, John is not about those outside the circle discipleship, but rather what it means to be a true disciple of Jesus. 

At first, Jesus's disciples are appalled that he was washing their feet.  According to John, they were not use to seeing Jesus act this way. This was a whole new side of Jesus for them.  John has Peter, the nominal head of the early church, question Jesus's motives for washing the disciples' feet.  Peter's questions become a form of catechesis with Jesus providing the required answer.  It is reminiscent of the questions asked during the Feast of the Passover. 

Why would we do this? 

What does it mean? 

When Peter resists Jesus doing the menial task of a servant or slave, Jesus responds that if he doesn't wash him, Peter  will have not part of him.  This is code for one's baptismal entrance into grace.  Just like Mary who, in chapter 12, became one with Jesus when drying his feet with her hair, Jesus's disciples enter into an intimate relationship with Jesus by being washed by him, literally baptized by him from the feet up. The foot washing story only occurs in John.

When Peter asks Jesus to wash his whole body, Jesus reminds Peter that his feet are sufficient to cleanse the whole body.  The bathing of one's feet in both John 12 and John 13 contain the message about walking  on a new path or in a new way.  It is the feet that carries one into the life and, in this case, into new life.  To this day, most Christian denominations insist that before receiving Holy Communion, an individual has to be  baptized, ritually washed before eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ. 

BETRAYAL

It is paradoxical, if not ironic, that in the discussion of Jesus's betrayal, the rite of Holy Communion  is contextualized and explained.  This is true of all the gospel accounts of the Last Supper and the writers of John are reliant that their readers are familiar with those accounts.  But John takes a very unique approach to this and adds a theological twist to the story by introducing for the first time in the New Testament accounts of Jesus's betrayal two divine characters, the devil and Satan. We don't often think of the divine nature of evil characters in scripture, but the ancient Hebrew scriptures give divine status to Satan and by extension any minions he might have had. 

The devil and Satan are not mentioned in any of the synoptic gospels as playing a direct role in Judas's betrayal of Jesus. It is implied in Luke, particularly when it comes to Peter's upcoming denial. That the devil and Satan are mentioned in John deserves attention. Some may question why I am talking about the devil and Satan as two separate entities.  Simply because in John we have two distinct terms being used, διάβολος and Σατανας in the same story.  Most treat them as interchangeable terms, but I would caution against doing so. 

In John 13 they appear treated differently and, as always, it is best to pay attention to such details in John.  One could say that they point to two different versions of the story being combined or that the devil is presented more as a figurative character or mental flaw in Judas who was prone to temptation and overthinking situations; that the devil or devils that plagued Judas's thought process put it into Judas's heart to betray Jesus and opened the door to allow Satan, as the acting agent, to enter his being. 

Satan is an interesting biblical character, and I am suggesting that since John is addressing a Jewish audience that we view the character of Satan not as the demonic ruler of the Dante's Inferno, but rather as the adversarial character in the Book of Job, the one who accuses God of tipping the scales and showing favoritism to certain humans. If you recall, Satan has access to the courts of Heaven in Job. Satan is divine.

The question becomes why John thought it necessary to include these characters into the story?  

The answer, I believe lies in the portrayal of Jesus as no mere mortal or a demi-god. 

Jesus is God  - enfleshed. 

I would also add, that in John it would be wrong to assume that Jesus was considered fully human. Jesus, according to John, exists before creation as the Word of God; before there were human beings.   Although John refers to Jesus as the Son of Man several times, the treatment of Jesus throughout John is, at best, that of a quasi human, as the Son of Man descended from Heaven [John 3:13] for the sole purpose of being the Lamb of God who takes upon himself the flesh of human kind, making it spotless by virtue of his divinity and thus sacrifices it to make the perfect atonement for the sins of the world.  There are any number of ancient heresies that taught this view of Jesus's nature, but they were squelched after the council of Nicea. 

Avoiding the orthodox view of this for moment, John depicts that in order for Jesus to become the divine sacrifice that atones for the sins of the world required a divine agent to carry out the deed, and this divine agent is Satan.   No mere mortal can do the deed.  What John also points out, and which is consistent with the ancient Hebrew understanding of Satan,  is that Satan cannot go where Satan is not invited.  In fact, when the devil (plaguing Judas's thought process) convinces Judas to betray Jesus, the door to Judas's heart is open to receive Satan, but that, in itself, is not enough to cause Judas to betray Jesus.  Satan does not enter Judas until Jesus dips his bread and hands it to Judas.  It is the sign that Jesus gives to permit Satan to enter Judas.  In fact, Jesus, himself, orders the Satan-possessed Judas to do what he has to do quickly and Judas goes out and betrays Jesus to the chief priests.  


The Gospel of John, in many ways, is a theological reflection on the Gospel of Luke.  The devil appears as a character in Luke during Jesus's temptation in the wilderness.  According to Luke, after Jesus's temptation (which is not part of John's account) the devil waits for "an opportune time."   John defines the opportune time as occurring during this pre-Passover meal. Luke also has Judas betraying Jesus before the Passover meal and Jesus instituting the rite of Holy Communion. 

Throughout all of this John is careful to avoid linking the act of Jesus and Judas dipping in the common serving bowel (reflecting the accounts of this act in Matthew and Mark) as occurring during the Eucharistic meal.  In this sense, John avoids the thorny issue of having Judas share in the deepest ritual of being one with God in Christ.  John makes sure the reader understands that Judas was absent before Jesus explains the meaning of Holy Communion.  It is interesting to note that Jesus washed Judas's feet along with the other disciples, but it becomes clear that his feet was to set on a more treacherous path in order to fulfill God's will.

DENIAL

Peter's is a different story.  Peter is portrayed throughout the gospels as the pure heart of the group. Peter's mind is not plagued by demons.  Peter does not over think things.  If Peter has a fault, it is that he doesn't think things through and John picks up on this facet of Peter's persona.  As we have already seen, Peter rushes to conclusions and is passionately opinionated, but he doesn't grasp or possess an innate appreciation for subtle meanings.  In this sense, Peter represents the initiate who possesses an innate passionate heart that requires experiential direction.

All of the New Testament gospel accounts contain the story of Peter's denial.  While Peter hears what Jesus is saying about being betrayed and that his disciples cannot go where he is going, which Peter somewhat wrongfully interprets as Jesus talking about his death, Peter isn't getting the whole message.  In John, Peter questions Jesus why he can't go where Jesus goes and states that he would follow Jesus even if it means his own death.  It is then Jesus tells Peter that he will deny Jesus three times before a cock crows.

Again, John appears to be referencing Luke's gospel account in Luke 22, which offers us insight into the scenario John is talking about.   Luke places Peter's denial within the context of Jesus telling his disciples to serve one another. At the end of that short monologue, as if out of the blue, Luke has Jesus saying:

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

And he (Peter) said unto him, "Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death"

And he (Jesus) said, "I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shat thrice deny that thou knowest me"    

Luke 22: 31 - 34 KJV

What Luke, combined with John's account, clearly points out that Judas and Peter have something in common, Satan's desire for both.

Why?

There are similarities, traits that both of these disciples share.  They are cut from the same passionate fabric. Judas and Peter are so passionate about what they want to see in Jesus, that they fail to see what Jesus is about.  Both want Jesus to be a messiah that will lead Judea out from under Roman rule and who will reunite Israel and reclaim its former glory. 

They are zealous, but as I have mentioned above, they also have a major difference - their thought processes are different  - Judas thinks and Peter doesn't.  In Luke, Peter is more or less described as a tabla rasa, an empty slate, something that can be shaped or as Luke says, can be converted.   The only thing that prevents Peter from becoming a betrayer, himself, is Jesus's prayerful intervention.   Once again, we see that Satan cannot go where he is prohibited from going.  

In John 13, the writer has the same scenario placed in the context of Jesus telling his disciples that they should love one another as he has loved them; that this is the way the world will know that they are Jesus's disciples. 

What Luke tells us about Satan's role in Peter's situation is not mentioned specifically in John.  Rather there is a monologue by Jesus that touches upon the same subject of Jesus having a say in what will occur:

"Verily , verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord, neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him 

If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

I speak not of you all:  I know whom I have chosen:  but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath  lifted up his heel against me."

John 13: 16 - 18  KJV

John takes a slightly different approach to both Judas's and Peter's situation.  While John tends to reflect or play off of Luke's account, John makes it clear that where Judas and Peter are concerned, the choice between who betrays and who is saved is Jesus's choice - "I know whom I have chosen."  It's unclear what Jesus actually means by this, but it is clear that Jesus makes two decisions, who will betray him and who will deny him.

* * * * * * * * * *

John 13, raises difficult issues for Christians. Why was Judas chosen to fail and be condemned when Peter's failing merely becomes a teachable moment?  Where is the justice in that?  We don't give them much consideration because we are largely indoctrinated to gloss over them in the light of salvation theology.

Both the story of Judas and Peter in the New Testament gospels depict God as capricious and Machiavellian; that God acts unreasonably whimsical at times and that God's ends justify God's means.   We are all taught, especially in New Testament theology, not to question God's motives; that belief in God is more important than trying to reason God's motives.  This is particularly true in Johannine theology and it remains highly influential amongst Christians. 

Of course, one can find other ways to look at these stories; such as, out of chaos good evolves, but that is an exercise of glossing over what is being said.  The reality of John is that Jesus is depicted as being far above the fray; that he only comes down to our level to save a remnant of the old creation in order to start a new creative order of chosen people from amongst the nations.  This made all sorts of divine logic at the time John was written - You don't question the gods or God  and the gods or God are just by virtue of being divine and so on.    

The difficulty is that such a deterministic theology underwrites a contemporary theology that implies that evil can be carried out for good purposes; that humans can justifiably throw away other human beings because it ultimately serves God's higher plan.  Although none of us know what God is thinking or know what God's plan is, we think we do because we have scriptures that tell us God has one.  

Does God have a plan?

I find it interesting that the teachings of Jesus, the one's I think he most likely gave  (his parables and some of his monologues, like the Sermon on the Mount) are generally void of  Jesus trying to read God's mind.   The best he gets at this is telling us to consider the lilies of the field and birds of the air.  In some gospel accounts he blatantly tells his followers he has no clue what God's time table is for certain things to take place or who is going to sit at his right or left hand when he comes into his kingdom or what God's ultimate goal is but rather he encourages his followers to seek the goodness that he attributed to God's fatherly love for everyone.

Until next time, stay faithful.  

 

 

PLOTTING AND PREPPING - Johannine Theology Part XI

My last post dealt with the mythic story of Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life after having been dead for four days.  There is more to John 11, the context of which I feel is a better match with the events described in John 12.  After Lazarus is brought back to life, John tells us that many of the people who witnessed this event started to believe in Jesus and others went to Jesus' nemesis in John, the Pharisees, and told them what happened.  They, in turn, informed the chief priests who called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

PLOTTING 

It's important to note that the writers and editors of John are giving the story of Jesus's arrest and trial a twist to subtextually address the issues of their day.  What is generally explained in the synoptic gospels as occurring after Jesus's arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane has been, throughout John, part of an ongoing narrative where the Pharisees and/or disbelieving "Jews" are constantly plotting to kill Jesus.  John deepens the sense of plot by bringing in the chief priests.

The dialogue at the end of John 11 exposes a perceived concern the writers of John believed the Judaic community had regarding Christianity at the time John was being written.  The concern cryptically referenced is that Jews are being lured away from Judaism by the Christian message.  What provides a clue to this concern is the question John has the members of the Sanhedrin asking themselves in verse 47,  "What are we accomplishing?"  The question is intended to belie what John sees as the Jewish community's angst over Christianity.

The news that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (code for Jesus being raised from the dead)  is portrayed as being a threat to their authority.  There is no rationale as to why this would be the case prior to Jesus death and resurrection.  After all, Christianity as a religious entity did not exist at the time John is talking about.  John depicts the Sanhedrin accepting as fact that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.  There is no questioning on their part whether the story was a hoax.  On the contrary, they give credence to its occurrence and that Jesus had, in fact, performed "many miraculous signs;" that if allowed to keep on doing this, everyone was going to end up believing him.    

This is how John is coding the concern the writers of John believe the Judaic Jews  of their time had regarding Christianity; that it was growing and drawing members from their community away.  That John doesn't follow the timeline of the synoptic gospels is not a result of John not knowing the timeline of these events as recorded in the other gospels.  Rather, John is deliberately changing them to address the concerns of the day.  Historical accuracy is not John's goal, John's goal is to define Truth (not the facts) and encourage the members of their community to remain faithful to their beliefs

The outcome of John's twisting the story is its portrayal of the Jewish leaders and by extension, the Jews as a whole, deliberately going against God's plan to redeem Israel via the promised Messiah who would make Israel a light to nations.  The question this poses is, if Jesus is true Messiah, why weren't they climbing on board?

According to John, it was their greed; that they feared for their bottom line, loss of the little power they had and the destruction of their nation by the Romans.  In essence, what John is saying is that the Sanhedrin really did not want the Messiah showing up and upsetting the status quo. John was utilizing a real time concern the Sanhedrin lived with; an open rebellion against Rome that would be directly connected to events in Jerusalem and the Temple.  Rebellions by Galileans happened before and Jesus was from Galilee.   That there would be a legitimate concern about Jesus's motives when in the Temple's precinct would have been very likely.

BETTER THAT ONE MAN DIES

John utilizes the legitimacy of this concern by having the High Priest, Caiaphas, reason that it is better one man dies "for the people" rather than the whole nation.  John said this was a prophetic moment for Caiaphas, in his role as High Priest, but what I suspect John does is to take the pragmatic solution of killing one person (a perceived troublemaker) as a means to avoid a massacre (something the Roman garrison located next door to the Temple, to keep an eye on it, would not bat an eye doing) and give it a slight twist by adding "dies for the people" to give it a prophetic tone.

I doubt that the Jewish Christian writers of John had given any thought to the long term effect their portrayal of Pharisees and Judaic Jews would have; that they helped plant the seeds of anti-Semitism that would emerge centuries after them. Fortunately, John is tempered by the messages of Jesus found in the other Gospels and in the authentic letters of Paul.  If John were the only gospel upon which Christianity was based, it would be a far different, more stringent and phobic religion than it is.   

One might question how the writers of John would know what was said in a private meeting of the Sanhedrin.  Remember, John has an insider available, Nicodemus, who the reader can assume is the source of this information.  Of course, apart from John, there is no other record that Nicodemus existed.  Nicodemus primarily exists to give credence to the perspective John has of the Pharisees and traditional Judaism.

Jesus, always aware of people plotting against him, decides to avoid Jerusalem until the time is ripe for him to offer himself as the sacrificial lamb.  This brings us to the verge of the main event in John, the Eucharistic meal - the dawn of a new creative order.

PREPPING



Once again we have a feast day that draws Jesus back to Jerusalem for the last time, Passover.  In John 12 we learn that Jesus arrives six days before Passover at the home of Lazarus, Mary and Martha, just outside of Jerusalem.  As noted in past posts, numbers mean something in John.  The number six is the number of chaos (see my post on Mercy and Truth) and also represents the six days of creation - Out of chaos comes creation and order, which is both a theological truth and a theoretical finding in Quantum Physics.

The period of Jesus's preparing for his being the sacrificial Lamb of God is marked by chaos and preparation - chaos for his followers, preparation for a new creative order by Jesus.

THE ANOINTING OF JESUS AS THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB OF GOD

As I have suggested before, John borrows heavily from the Lucan story of Mary and Martha and Jesus' parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.  Martha, once again, is seen preparing and serving a meal for Jesus, Lazarus is John's coded symbol of Jesus being raised from the dead by God and a warning sign meant to convince those, who blinded by the concerns of the here and now, the "riches" of worldliness to see the light of God's new creative order.  Then we have Mary who, once again, is seated at Jesus's feet, but this time is entrusted with honor of anointing Jesus's feet with Nard and wiping them with her hair. The story of Jesus having his feet anointed by a woman with her hair is also found in the gospels of Matthew (Ch. 26) and Mark (Ch. 14), along with Judas's complaint of the Nard being sold and the money given to the poor.

NARD

Nard is an aromatic oil that was used as an incense in Temple worship and in purification rites.  John makes it clear that what Mary is doing is in preparation of Jesus's sacrifice and his burial.  Anointing his feet is significant.  Foot washing is symbolic in John, more than in the other gospels.  Generally, if someone were to anoint someone in ancient times, it would be from the head, but Jesus is anointed on his feet.  The practice of foot washing in the Middle East upon entry into one's home or place of worship is well known and was often the job of servants in wealthier households.  To cleanse the feet is to cleanse the body.  To anoint one's feet was to anoint the whole person from the soles of one's feet to the very soul of one's being; that is what is being implied by foot-washing in John.  Jesus's whole being is sanctified by the act of Mary.  Wiping his feet with her hair is not only an act of extreme humility, it is a very sensual, intimate act and marks a transition in themes from what differentiates Judaism from Christianity to the unitive intimacy that exists among those who believe Jesus to be the only-begotten Son of God. 

In the act of wiping Jesus's feet with her hair, Mary is anointed by the very essence of Jesus divine sacrifice.  Once again, it is a woman who demonstrates and personifies divine wisdom.  She demonstrates divine knowing without uttering a single word.  She merely acts.  The only interruption comes from the pragmatic voice of Judas Iscariot, who chides this lavish act as wasteful.  Judas, like the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas are the brothers of the Rich man in Luke, who are blinded by the concerns of this world and cannot see the larger picture of God's salvific act in Jesus.

Jesus gives one of his most interesting statements found also in Matthew and Mark in response to Judas's concern, "The poor you always have around, but not me." [My paraphrase]  On the surface it would seem Jesus is callously dismissing the needs of the poor because the fact is Judas is right about the cost, and John, like the other gospels, points out that Judas is, in reality, a thief who has a tendency to pocket the disciples' money. 

At first sight, this accusation of Judas being a thief who steals from the common treasury of the disciples paints a despicable picture of Judas as the soon to be betrayer of Jesus, to make him out to be lowest character imaginable.  This may be John's intent, but I would suggest that  John is aligning Judas with the mindset that Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin has; that he, like them, is blinded by what appears to be pragmatic reasoning from seeing the light of  God's bigger picture in Jesus.  Of course, according to John, they can't help it.  Their blindness, in fact, plays a necessary role in facilitating God's bigger picture. 

GETTING RID OF LAZARUS

Now that Lazarus is brought back to life, John has to find a way to remove him from the scene, so that there are no questions as to why he doesn't play much of a role in the story after this meal.  John tells us that the Pharisees hatch a plot to kill Lazarus along with Jesus.  We never find out what happens; if Lazarus is murdered, but the suggestion that there is a plot and that Jesus is killed suggest that Lazarus suffered the same fate because he disappears from the narrative after Chapter 12.  Again, the story of Lazarus is a mythic story, an amalgam of several stories about Jesus.

MOVING FORWARD

The next day, we are told, Jesus enters Jerusalem to the welcome of a great crowd who gathered because of those who testified that Jesus brought Lazarus back from the dead.  This is the Palm Sunday scenario recorded in the other gospels.  The story is familiar enough to Christians that I won't go into detail as to its prophetic meanings.  What I find relevant to John's particular portrayal of it is that Pharisees express the same concern expressed by the Sanhedrin; that they were helpless to stem the tide of Jesus's popularity; that everyone was following him - a coded message that the Pharisaical elements at the time John was being written could not stem the tide of Jesus's popularity.

MEETING WITH GREEKS

John briefly mentions that there were some Greek followers of Judaism who asked to meet with Jesus.  We don't know whether Jesus met with them, but again John uses a question to provide an unrelated answer.   There are some interesting lines in Jesus' response that merit some attention.  What catches my attention is they reflect teachings that Jesus actually gave, such as in Luke 9 or reflect other teachings about Jesus from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, but John is putting it in the context of his entry into Jerusalem as a teaching about himself:

"I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies it remains only a single seed.  But if it dies, it produces many seeds.  The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.  Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant will also be."  John 12: 24 -26  [The Holy Bible, New International Version 1984 by International Bible Society]

John does not have a Garden of Gethsemane scene as the synoptic gospels do, but captures an important moment of that scene which John borrows from Luke: "Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say?  'Father, save me from this hour?'  No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.  Father, glorify you name."  John 12: 27 - 28  [The Holy Bible, New International Version 1984 by International Bible Society]

At this point, God thunders that his name has been glorified and will be glorified again. This is a somewhat veiled reference to the creative power of God; that his name was glorified ( made known) in the creation of the universe and is about to be glorified again (made known again) in the recreating of creation through the sacrifice of Jesus. 

John then addresses a problem that is plaguing the Johannine community.  One of the arguments against Jesus being The Messiah is that The Messiah does not die, how is it that Jesus died and is considered the Messiah.  Where is he?  Where was he when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and Temple?  Jesus, again responds in a vague manner to the "Jewish" question, but John is directing Jesus's answer to the Christian Jews of the day, "Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light" John 12: 36 [The Holy Bible, New International Version 1984 by International Bible Society]

After this, John says Jesus left and hid himself from the people.  This is an odd piece of information in the narrative and I suggest it is code for saying that only the believing person can know or find Jesus because John goes on to explain that Jesus's hiddenness is in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy because God has "blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts."  Isaiah 6:10 [The Holy Bible, New International Version 1984 by International Bible Society]

Jesus reiterates what he has said earlier in John that he and the Father are one.  That he does not judge anyone, but rather that people are judged by not accepting what he says because what he says comes directly from and at the direction of his Father and that what he says will lead to eternal life.  With that John changes the conversation from the differences between Judaism and Christianity and concentrates on the unitive intimacy of the Eucharistic meal.

Until next time, stay faithful.

I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE - Johannine Theology Part X

John 11 marks another transition point in John.  It is the last chapter of John that is devoted to a single tale about Jesus's involvement in a particular situation centered around one particular individual which, in this case, is the death of Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha.  Like John 6, this story is a prequel to the main theological event which will be revealed in chapters 13 and 14 of John, the meaning and the purpose of the Eucharist, Holy Communion. 

As I have discussed in early posts, the Gospel of John can be compared to some sort of initiation manual for would be converts.  The stories are written in such a way as to convey a meaning or pose an intellectual conundrum that an initiate might have to encounter and work through before being considered part of the Johannine community of believers.   The initiation rite, per se, involves grasping certain I AM statements made by Jesus which merit some attention before progressing further.

I AM

On the surface, Jesus comes across as some divine narcissist who's obsessed with himself, but it's the writers of John who make him look this way.  Their purpose was not to make Jesus sound like a narcissist but rather define Jesus in a faceted manner.  The I AM statements that Jesus is making in John recall the answer that God gave Moses in the wilderness when asked by Moses who was sending him back to Egypt to lead the Israelites to the Promised Land.  The burning bush story is, in some sense, Moses's initiation into his a leader and prophet. In Exodus, God gives Moses the vague description that has been translated, "I AM that I AM," or the more likely interpretation of the Hebrew text, "I will be what I will be." In copying this I AM definition, John may be cryptic but is not trying to be vague about who Jesus is. In part, John's use of I AM is to say Jesus is God, but then John drops the second I AM by filling out the phrase with a descriptor.

Thus far in my discussion of John, Jesus's I AM statements have been:

I AM the Bread of Life.

I AM the Light of the world.

I AM the Gate, and  

I AM the Good Shepherd.  

There will be more.  

The point John is making is that Jesus is God and, like God, Jesus is multifaceted.  There is no singular descriptor that fully captures Jesus, yet in Jesus we encounter the full description of God.

John is demonstrating that Christianity is the new covenant of God which, according to John, has replaced the old covenant made with Israel and represented by Judaism, but since Judaism rejects Jesus as God's only-begotten Son, the "Jews" (John's term for Judaism) broke their covenant relationship and God is selecting a new chosen people from among the nations of the world in Jesus as the Christ. 

As such, it is not circumcision that identifies the true believer. Rather it is the believer's intellectual assent or figuratively giving one's heart to Jesus as God (in the form of God's only-begotten Son), the essence of belief and in being recreated through baptism as the entry point into God's divine mystery of Christ.  The transformational rite of Baptism is never mentioned  but is  intimated by the frequent references to John the Baptist and the mention of water; such as the water turned into wine at the wedding at Cana, the living water, in the story of the Samaritan Woman. The initiate is now poised to enter into the deepest, most mysterious and intimate relationship with Christ on this side of death and, by extension, with God - the rite of Holy Communion which is cryptically implied but, again, never directly mentioned.

The initiate needs to figure it out, accept the necessary conclusions before moving on.   It is this cryptic side of John that makes me think of it in terms of a mystery religion and Gnosticism.  To this day, Christians refer to the mystery of faith when coming to rite of Holy Communion in most litugically oriented churches.  This concept is firmly rooted in Johannine theology.

JOHN AS A MYTHICAL GOSPEL

To the modern ear, the story of Resurrection of Lazarus is perhaps one of the most baffling and bizarre stories in the Holy Bible.  For the most part, Christians have been so indoctrinated to see it as depicting the compassion Jesus had for Lazarus and his two sisters, Mary and Martha that they fail to see what a non-Christian might conclude if this was the only story upon which such a person would base his or her understanding of Christianity.

A modern nonbeliever would likely fail to see a compassionate Jesus and would question why anyone would follow someone who displays such an arrogant disregard to an urgent request to save a friend when he is depicted elsewhere as having the capability of doing so; that his later display of emotion either shows someone who is emotionally unstable, regrets his earlier decision to wait and is in disagreement with his Father's plan or who is faking compassion for affect. 

So we need to unpack this story and put it into context.

The first thing Christians and others need to understand is that this is just a story.  Like all stories about Jesus in John there is a purpose behind it. What John wants one to grasp is another facet of Jesus as the Christ - as God in the flesh.

CHRISTIANITY'S STRUGGLE WITH MYTH

John could easily be described as a mythical gospel.

The bias that monotheistic religions of the Abrahamic variety have against some of their stories being called myths is that they are mixed in with facts and presented in a linear timeline that resembles history.

The Holy Bible is a mess in that regard.

John, however, has no problem being mythical.  John contains editorial comments indicating something was a saying or a metaphor.  The writers of John, after all, lived in a time when all religions had their myths and nobody questioned their own because beliefs when the meaning of a story outweighed its factualness.

Myths held truths that were more highly valued in ancient times than they are today, and it is truth, as Johannine theology presents it, that John is trying to portray.  John goes so far as to mythologize stories about Jesus life up to and including his death and the story of his resurrection.  The synoptic gospels also contain myths, particularly Matthew and Luke, such as stories about Jesus's birth, for example.  

The bad rap myths get in Christianity can be traced to the Letters of First and Second Timothy, Titus and Second Peter, where myth is associated as "cleverly devised stories" or lies.  In Titus, myths are identified as "Jewish myths."  Again, this is where myths become associated with lies as opposed to' truths within Christianity and which point to the likelihood that those pieces of scripture were either written post-John or the writers of those letter didn't have access to the Gospel of John or, since John was Christian, they didn't see anything mythical about it.

PARABOLIC MYTHS

The myths in John of are two kinds:  Parabolic myths that address issues of the day at the time John was written and used to illustrate the differences between Judaism and Christianity; such as, The Healing of the Paralytic at Bethesda, and the Healing of the Blind Man from Birth.

REVELATION MYTHS

Then there are the Revelation Myths in which Jesus makes his I AM statements; such as, The Feeding of the Five Thousand, The Woman caught in Adultery, and the story commonly referred to as the Resurrection of Lazarus which we will now examine.

BRINGING LAZARUS BACK TO LIFE

Lazarus is an interesting biblical character.  The only place in the Bible that treats Lazarus as resembling a real person, is the Gospel of John.  There is a Lazarus parable told by Jesus in Luke, but a Lazarus as the brother of Mary and Martha and friend of Jesus is found only in John.  Since we know very little about Mary and Martha, it's entirely possible that they had a brother, Lazarus.

One cannot help wonder if the writer of this story in John was melding together two stories found in Luke; one of which only mentions Mary and Martha, but not a brother called Lazarus and Jesus's parable about Lazarus and the Rich Man.    It seems possible that the Lazarus in Luke, who goes to heaven but cannot warn the rich man's brothers to straighten out their act is resurrected in John as Mary and Martha's brother to make the point about Jesus being The Resurrection and The Life.  In many of John's stories about Jesus there seems to be a link (highly altered) to other stories about Jesus or, in this case, a parable of Jesus found in Luke's gospel.

JOHN 11:8

I will not review the entire story of Lazarus being brought back to life, but rather mention some of the themes and features in this story that are specific to Johannine theology. In verses eight, for example, Jesus's disciples question why Jesus would return to Judea when the reason he left and his presumed reluctance to heal Lazarus when requested was to avoid being killed.  Jesus is depicted as being on the run or going into hiding for much of the first part of John to avoid being killed.  At the time of John being written, this probably made all kinds of sense, but to a modern reader this seems to argue against the case of Jesus being fully divine.

I would suggest that John having Jesus go into hiding or being incognito when in Jerusalem contains a cryptic message:  Jesus remains hidden until asked to appear directly or indirectly as in during a conversation about him.  This becomes a more evident feature in John's post-resurrection stories.

As usual, Jesus doesn't directly answer his disciples' question, but gives a cryptic response couched the familiar theme of light and dark in which being the "world's light" [as in I AM the Light of the World] is a way of saying he sees what they cannot see and knows what they cannot know; that he is not blindly stumbling into something unaware, that he is the light of the day and those who don't get it will stumble.

JOHN 11:16

Verse 16 gives us a foretaste of doubting Thomas, who is the pragmatic one in the group of disciples. In spite of Jesus's previous claim in verses nine and ten that he knows what he is doing, Thomas believes Jesus is walking into a trap and is willing to die with Jesus.  This an important factoid to hold on to which will come into play later on in John.

MARTHA

Knowing that Lazarus is dead and buried by the time he arrives, Jesus encounters a household of mourning and grief.  Martha is there to greet Jesus and chides him for not showing up earlier to save Lazarus, but confessing her belief that God will do whatever Jesus asks.

This the point at which Jesus reveals his I AM statement, "I am the resurrection and the life, that whoever believes in him, though he dies will have eternal life.  Martha then makes the essential statement of her belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, who has come into the world and then goes off to find Mary.

MARY

After another mild chiding by Mary who is greatly distressed and weeping, Jesus also weeps.   In an otherwise gospel that depicts Jesus beyond human emotion, John sends a poignant message to his followers: Jesus feels your pain.   At this point, John's portrayal of Jesus shows Jesus having greater interaction and intimacy with those who believe in him.

JESUS'S AFFECTUAL PRAYER

After his dialogue with Martha and Mary, Jesus brings Lazarus back to life.  What I find interesting in that event is the prayer Jesus offers to the Father. I can't help but think he prays for affect on his audience rather than it being or effective in bringing Lazarus back to life.   This is one of several moments in John when Jesus offers his own editorial commentary on what he is saying.  The prayer consists of Jesus offering thanks to his Father for listening to him and then goes on to say that he knows he's always be heard by God and, in a somewhat apologetic tone, says he is saying that for the benefit of the people within earshot of his prayer so they can believe (as if bringing Lazarus back to life after four days wouldn't do the trick). 

We're back to an arrogant depiction of Jesus.  If this wasn't meant to be serious, such a display of overt attention seeking would be seen as having a comic or cynical affect.  Its intent in John, however, is to underscore the oneness between Jesus and the Father.  The way in which John writes about this; in Jesus's voice, again is a poorly disguised attempt to hide such editorial comments by making them come from Jesus's mouth.

A THEOLOGICAL CONUNDRUM

If taken any other way than myth, Lazarus being resurrected poses a theological conundrum.   First, according to the Letter to the Hebrews, it is appointed once for humans to die.  This obviously isn't going to be the case where Lazarus is concerned and raises the question whether the writer of Hebrews knew about the Lazarus story in John and treated it as a myth or was unaware of that story.  The other conundrum is that Lazarus's resurrection seems to be more a resuscitation than a resurrection.   What supposedly happened to Lazarus appears to be far different than what happened to Jesus. If it were to be treated as a precursor to Jesus's resurrection, it would  argue against Jesus being the first fruit of a new creation. As we will find out in my next post the "Jews" not only plot to kill Jesus, they plot to kill Lazarus.  In fact, we hear no more about Lazarus's character in the New Testament.  This all argues for this story being a myth.

This mythic story allows the writers of John to make the claim that Jesus  possesses the power to give life to those who believe.  John's use of this story is to make clear that all who remain steadfast in their belief, the belief of Martha and Mary, will be given eternal life even though they die, which is the bottom line and ultimate goal of Johannine and salvation theology in Christianity.

There is more to discuss in John 11, and will do so in my next post.

Until then, stay faithful.

THE GOOD SHEPHERD AND HANUKKAH - Johannine Theology Part IX

JOHN 10

The context of John 10 occurs during the Feast of the Dedication, Hanukkah, which isn't apparent to the reader until verse 22. The Gospel of John is unique in that every important event and every important message made about Jesus by Jesus occurs during a Jewish feast, in or near the Temple.  Given this information one would have to  assume that Jesus spent the majority of his ministry in Jerusalem, hanging around the Temple which is not supported by the synoptic gospels nor would it have been likely that Jesus would move around so many times during the time in which he lived. Some scholars suggest that this was done to illustrate Jesus as the fulfillment of all that the Jewish feasts represent, which is saying they point Jesus as the Passover, as the Atonement, as the ingatherer, as the inextinguishable light, and ultimately, as the Messiah.

Hanukkah calls to mind the rededication of the Temple following the Maccabean revolt that wrested Judea and Jerusalem from the Selucid Empire in the second century B.C.E.   At the time of Jesus, Judea was in a quasi state of autonomy that largely afforded Judeans control of their Temple and religion. Rome had all the military and political power and kept a watchful eye on the Temple as a hotspot for sedition and rebellion, which it ultimately became and resulted in Rome destroying Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 C.E..

A TALE OF TWO STORIES

John uses an interesting approach leading to the question of whether Jesus is the Messiah by having Jesus deliver an explanation of the type of Messiah he is by referring to himself as the Good Shepherd. In my opinion, Jesus explanation of the Good Shepherd was originally meant to stand alone as a teaching about Jesus and may have been related, derived from, or was a commentary on one of Jesus's parable, such as, the parable of the Lost Sheep in Matthew 18.  The Good Shepherd story seems to be a insert into the Gospel of John, and has no direct connection to the Messiah question other than its placement by the writer or editors of John.  The connection that is made to any linear time-line is its brief reference to the story about the healing of the blind man in chapter 9.

That the Good Shepherd story appears to be an editorial decision as to its placement and used by John to explain the type of Messiah Jesus is may be a stretch as it seemingly fails to accomplish that goal. Jesus's use of metaphors, as in, sheep, shepherd, gates, gatekeeper, bandits, thieves, and hired hands contains all sort of cryptic meanings and coded messages - a trademark of the author or editor behind this story.  In fact, there actually appears to be two different stories of the Good Shepherd in this one telling. There is the story depicting Jesus as the Good Shepherd, and the story of Jesus as the gate melded together by writers of John

The first story or first part of the story is presented as an allegory or a figure of speech, depending on the translation of the Greek word παροιμία.  Some translators have used the word, parable to translate that word, but there is a word for parable in Greek and its is not used here. In fact, παροιμία is not used in the other gospels. It is only used in reference to stories told by Jesus in John.  What I find interesting is the recognition of allegory, and in this case, an allegorical story that continues to defy explanation even when explained by John's Jesus.

The first part of the story is about a shepherd taking his flock safely in and out of a sheepfold or pen. In this story we hear about those who sneak into the sheepfold by means other than the gate. This story has a gatekeeper, but it is unclear as to who or what, if anything the gatekeeper is in reference to.  The second story clearly places Jesus in the role of the gate (code for judge) who knows who should and should not enter into the sheepfold.  Both of these stories could stand alone and possibly reflect parables of Jesus or teaching about Jesus from unknown sources  Nevertheless, these two stories are melded into one story which Jesus declaring he is the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep.  

SNEAKERS, BANDITS AND THIEVES...  OH MY!

In the final analysis, John uses these stories to reference Jesus's death and resurrection with Jesus portrayed in the role of the Good Shepherd as both judge of the earth and ruler of his flock, the church.  In all of this telling, however, the references to thieves, bandits and hired hands are not clearly explained.   For instance, it would be nice to know who exactly is being referenced when Jesus is talking about thieves, bandits, and hired hands.

Who are the people who sneak in?  What is that in reference to?

More importantly, what does Jesus mean when he says all who came before him are bandits and thieves?

Let me stop briefly to point out that earlier in John Jesus states that he existed before Abraham and Moses.  So if he is referring to those who came before him, who would that be?   Everyone?

This appears to demonstrates what I've been saying all along,  John is a composite of stories about Jesus; written by more than one author and edited by more than one editor.  The writer and editor of this section doesn't appear aware that another writer or editor had Jesus existing before any others, which makes this claim appear to be in conflict with that particular piece of theology.

Of course, the common interpretation would be that this is in reference to people before Jesus' earthly ministry as a human.  Fair enough, but even then, the category of "all who came before him" would include everyone all the way back to Adam and Eve. Most every Christian who hears this story glosses over the bandit and thieves part as if they know that what Jesus is referring to are false teachers, prophets and/or false messiahs; however, Jesus is not clear as to what this means.  Here's a good spot to remember that it's not Jesus who is really talking here. The real speaker is this particular writer in John and I suspect, as with most of the writing in John, there is an agenda in the vagueness this story presents. 

I suspect the audience this writer had in mind when writing this piece would have known exactly what was meant by thieves and bandits and therefore did not feel a need to have Jesus fully explain these particular metaphors. The times in which this was written were a dark and uncertain time for Christians and  I don't doubt that writers saw a need to be cryptic in what they wrote for fear of it being caught and prosecuted, if not persecuted; especially if the two original stories came from a period before the destruction of the Temple.  I suspect that the when John has Jesus saying all who came before him are bandits and thieves, he is meaning just that; that even the patriarchs and prophets of Israel were, at best, hired men who at some point demonstrated they didn't really care as much Jesus cares about the sheep.  I also suspect that thieves, bandits, and those who sneak in by another way refers to elements who have infiltrated the Johannine Christian community, suggesting a different theology other than theirs or, more likely, who were trying to maintain ties with Judaism. The Gospel of John repeatedly places Jesus far beyond the reach of anyone who came before him; that at best, they could only point to him.

Needless to say, not everyone is part of Jesus's flock, but this writer opens the door, just a bit, to include that Jesus has sheep, followers who are not of this fold, who are not Jews or that there are Christians who are not in full step with the Johannine theological perspective.  There is a missionary motif in this story about the shepherd leading the sheep out - to be sheep in the world, grazing about as it were.  The sheepfold where they return to is the realm of God and Jesus is not only the Gate, but also the Gatekeeper.   Again, the only good news here is if you're one of the sheep in the Johannine fold; one who believes that Jesus is God's only begotten Son, which brings us back to Hanukkah.

HANUKKAH

At the end of Jesus's Good Shepherd soliloquy, we find Jesus in the Temple during Hanukkah being pressed to answer the "Jew's"  burning question as to whether he is the Messiah. This setting of Hanukah is during the darkest period of the year in the Northern Hemisphere.  The world is cold and dark and itself becomes a metaphor for the conditions in which the young Church found itself in.  Questions abounded about Jesus, about who he was and who he is.  John addresses these contemporary questions at the time of writing by placing them in Jesus's day to have Jesus answer.  Most importantly, for John, the setting of Hanukkah is about shedding light in a dark time and keeping it alive. As I have noted in other posts on John, not only was Judaism at risk of being annihilated after the destruction of the Temple, but Christianity was at risk by its association with Judaism.  So to lend authority to the answer to the contemporary questions, Christians were likely to have about Jesus, John  has the Jews of Jesus's day ask the burning questions of his day.

THE SNARKINESS OF JESUS

The way John presents their question contains the sense of urgency and earnestness that these early Christians had about Jesus in the "Jews" in the Temple to know who Jesus is. - "Don't keep us wondering. Tell us in plain language who you are?"

True to the Johannine way of portraying Jesus, Jesus doesn't answer their direct questions with a direct answer.  As usual in John, Jesus violates almost every modern day rule regarding how to avoid conflict by avoid  being vague and conflictual.  He gives a rather snarky response (and here I'll paraphrase), "I've told you.  I've shown you, but you don't believe and therefore you can't get it and are not part of my flock. If you were, you'd have figured this out."  

To make matters worse, Jesus  takes his lead from Jacob's second youngest son Joseph and begins talking about his heavenly Father and how his sheep will follow him and never leave; they will have eternal life.  What his heavenly Father has given him is better than anyone else and it can't be taken away because he and his Father are one and it's clear that Jews in the Temple who are trying to figure him out are not part of his flock.

It's no wonder that the "Jews" started picking up stones.  But wait - Jesus gets even more snarky (my paraphrase), "For what miracle are you going to stone me for (you ingrates).  To which they reply (my paraphrase), "It's not because of them, you idiot, its because you're being such a blasphemer (you narcissistic ass)." 

Jesus seems back off a bit after that and says (my paraphrase),  "Well if you can't believe in who I am at least believe in the works I do.  From there you might be able to figure this out."    Then the Jews try to arrest Jesus. One more time he escapes because, it's not his time and he head to the Jordan river were people affirm him, as John the Baptist did and believed.

* * * * * * * * * *

What this writer in John is affirming is that those connected to the Temple (the synagogue by extension), the Judaizers in their midst, refuse to believe and those outside of this formal, traditional religion are much more receptive.  I realize that I have spent little time on what Christians get from this story;  that Jesus, as the Good Shepherd, lays down his life for his sheep. That is the essential message Christians hear and take heart in, but I feel it is important to know the context this essential message is couched in which, to my twenty-first century ears, sounds less heartening. 

What John 10 reveals is the struggle the early church found itself in trying to maintain its identity as a community of believers.  Unlike Paul, the question for the Johannine community was not a matter of faith, but rather what to believe in by which faith could be invested?   As such, knowing what and who to believe became more important than expressing faith in terms of doing in spite of not fully knowing, as Paul taught.  The result of this need to know and to know who to trust and who not to trust resulted in producing the work we are currently looking at, the Gospel of John. 

Until next time, stay faithful.