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.

REACHING A TIPPING POINT - Thoughts on the Second Amendment

In light of my last post, I thought I would also share and opinion paper I wrote after the mass shooting that took place at the Orlando Fla. gay nightclub, Pulse.  I wrote this paper at the request of my daughter, Elizabeth, because she was struggling with trying to explain to some of our relatives the need for gun regulation in this country.  As I pondered how best to help her explain the need, I turned to what I generally turn to in this debate, The Constitution of the United States. 

THE SCOURGE OF POLITICAL FUNDAMENTALISM

I feel that, like Christianity, The Constitution of the United States has been high-jacked by fundamentalism, not religious fundamentalists, but political and social fundamentalists who, in a number of cases, are also religious fundamentalists.  I hesitate to use the word conservatives, because I don't believe that true conservatives are necessarily political and social fundamentalists, but I do believe there is a growing confusion amongst conservatives as to what their true identity is and we are seeing this played out on political stage during this election year.

What I don't hear are the voices of progressives who, in my opinion, are largely silent about the Constitution as if they don't know how to speak about it.  This is what happens when something is being high-jacked by a specific ideology, other opinions become silent, either from not wanting to engage in a war of words or the fatigue of having to argue with stupidity.

We need to talk about our Constitution and we need to protect it, including the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, but the language needs to change from inane debates over guns as if that's all the second amendment is referring to. We need to talk about guns differently and stop romanticizing them and anthropomorphizing them as if they have rights that are equal to the rights of people.

We need to understand that assault weapons are attack weapons designed to attack other people; that assault means attack and wake up to the obvious!

We need to stop political fundamentalist, supported by a civilian arms industry, who are fomenting an irrational fear about our government being to big and untrustworthy and putting an end to that industry's mass production of civilian assault rifles in the guise of protecting our Second Amendment rights.  We need to wake up before it is to late.

 As you will read, I'm not against the Second Amendment, but I don't agree with fundamentalist or so-called originalist interpretations that are touted as trying to protect it. I believe that such views ultimately will endanger the Second Amendment and undermine the Constitution itself.


COMAS THAT SPEAK

One point I did not discuss in my opinion paper and wish to make here is that punctuation speaks when it comes to interpreting these amendments.  This is particularly true in the case of the Second Amendment.  A straightforward reading of the Second Amendment would lead the average, unbiased or unaffected reader to conclude the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to hold and bear arms in case there is a need to form a militia.  Grammatically, that makes all kinds of sense, but legally, comas are interpreted as somewhat separating the subject which is actually about militias from the predicate which is about private possession of arms. 

This of course has resulted in a variety of proponents and opponents of gun regulation. What appears to be central to the Second Amendment's subject is the modifying participial phrase, "being necessary to the security of a free state."  "A free state" is, itself, a vague concept if one treats the Second Amendment as a stand alone amendment; one that has no relation to the rest of the Constitution, which I argue it is not.

To fully grasp the meaning of the Second Amendment, it must necessarily be understood within the context of the Constitution, itself, and specifically its Preamble. 

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

ON PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES

The Role of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights

By

Norm Wright

The title of this short opinion paper is premised on the much larger topic of protecting the Constitution of the United States and the importance of the Second Amendment in facilitating the comprehensive purpose of the Constitution as stated in its Preamble:

We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The question this short paper addresses is whether governing entities of the United States of America (federal, state, and local) have a responsibility regulate the sale and possession of arms, and if they do, in what way does it protect the United States Constitution and by extension the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

What the Second Amendment states is this:

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What I find most interesting in the ever present debate on gun regulation is that the Second Amendment is frequently treated as an isolated, disconnected item unrelated to rest of the Constitution by both opponents and proponents of gun regulation.  Extreme views with regard to the Second Amendment range from those who would advocate that its “shall not be infringed” phrase be treated like the religious disestablishment clause in the First Amendment (as in there should be no law regarding the right to own and carry guns of any type) to repealing of the Second Amendment in its entirety as an anachronism. 

CHECKS AND BALANCES

What is needed is to attach the Second Amendment to the overall purpose of the Constitution as stated in the Preamble; in particular the words: “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  This is the purpose behind every article of the constitution.   I would also suggest that the Second Amendment is closely related to the First Amendment, which stands as the pinnacle of the Bill of Rights: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 There is a direct correlation, in my opinion, between contentious issues involving the Second Amendment and contentious issues involving the First Amendment.  Broadly speaking, groups of people who are strongly opposed to gun regulation, ironically, tend to be strongly opposed to the disestablishment clause regarding religion.  In other words, those political and religious fundamentalists who feel that their states need to add protection of religion clauses to their state statues which are clearly aimed to protect certain Evangelical Christian values in order to discriminate (under the guise of the free exercise of one's religion) others (namely, gays and transgender individuals) which is a direct violation of the First Amendment's disestablishment clause and the right of people to have and protect their own person as implied in the Second Amendment. 

There is an irony in this that I believe stems from an inaccurate understanding of this nation’s history and the extreme importance the Constitution has in protecting this nation from utter anarchy by promoting the liberty and freedom enjoyed by all of its citizens regardless of creed, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, and race.  With that said we need to recognize that the Constitutional rights of every citizen has emerged from an understanding of government by and for the people that initially began as government by the few, for the many and has over this nation’s short lifetime come to stand at a crossing where we can choose the path that realizes the full meaning of government by and for the people, or to take the backward trail that increasingly will result in a government by and for the few.    

In establishing an orderly government, the founding fathers were keen on avoiding what they understood as the tyranny of democracy.  They saw a need to amend the Constitution; to include an enumeration of the rights each citizen has.  They knew that government, to be effective in protecting the freedoms and liberties they fought for, had to protect the will, the thoughts, the ideas, the property and the personhood of each individual from the tyranny of the majority and as a necessary means to grow this country into becoming the beacon of freedom it strives to be.

The Constitution is, itself, a model of checks and balances.  Checks and balances are at the very core and spirit of our constitution, our republic, and our sense of democracy.  It recognizes that no function or branch of government and, by extension, no article within the Constitution can function entirely on its own or be treated as an entity free from the preamble or any other article within the Constitution.  The Constitution, itself, has been amended, which is an attestation to the concept of the checks and balances it can be subjected to as our nation grows and matures while remaining rooted in its foundation and purpose as expressed in the Preamble.

THE FOUNDATION OF RIGHTS IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Nothing in the Constitution should be construed as superseding the Preamble.   Apart from the Preamble itself, all articles and amendments in the Constitution are technically amendable, including the Bill of Rights.  While I shudder to think of the can of worms that might be opened if any articles within the Bill of Rights should be amended or repealed, it is important to recognize that they are not sacrosanct and immune from such a constitutional procedure.  Should there ever be an attempt to amend or remove the Preamble from our Constitution, it would no longer be the Constitution that built our nation.

The third through the twelfth articles amended to the United States Constitution are referred to as the Bill of Rights with article four being referred to as the Second Amendment of the Bill of rights.  As previously mentioned, the Bill of rights protects the will, thoughts, ideas, property and personhood of each citizen.  It begins with prohibiting government from establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise of religion, or abridging free speech, or the freedom of the press, or the freedom of people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.  Religion has to be broadly understood as any ideology that is shared by others or held by an individual. Its free exercise is within its own private domain and domicile.  It ensures protection of every individual to say what’s on her or his mind in the public square, and for the press to report what it hears and witnesses, for people to gather in peace and for people to publicly protest any action they wish to bring the government’s attention to.  The first of these rights is the pinnacle, not the foundation of our rights.

 The foundation of our rights is the preamble.  Most fail to recognize this fact.  The rights that follow the first amendment in the Bill of Rights support the pinnacle and herein resides the importance of the Second Amendment.  I believe that the Second Amendments purpose is to guarantee the rights enumerated in the First Amendment and The Constitution as a whole; that its purpose is to serve as a check and balance when called upon to do so by our constitutionally ordained government in the form of militia if needed and when and if warranted to protect the individual citizen against overt intrusion by any entity that attempts to unconstitutionally deprive a citizen of the right to tranquility of personhood and property.

To further this point we need to look at the much overlooked Third Amendment to the Bill of Rights: 

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

For most United States citizens this may appear an anachronism, a leftover from the United States revolutionary period, but I again would argue that it is essential in understanding the whole of the Bill of Rights.  Yes, there is history behind this and all amendments.  My reason in pointing out the Third Amendment is that it places the Second Amendment in a context of checks and balances, which is what both the Second and the Third Amendment are.  The Third Amendment makes clear what is implicit in the Second Amendment that it serves as check and balance against unconstitutional activities that attempt to dismantle the core and spirit of the Constitution as recorded in its Preamble.  The Third Amendment is a mirror image of the Second Amendment.  Let me explain:

The Second Amendment starts by talking about creating a militia and ends with a personal right to hold and bear arms as individuals. The Third Amendment, interestingly, begins by protecting the right of individual from having to house soldiers in a time of peace unless with the consent of the property owner and ends by saying that they may have to do so in a time of war as prescribed by law.  My reason in pointing this out is that  we (including some on the Supreme Court) tend to overlook the issue of balance that is present in both of these Amendment and that the concept of war changes the way in which these amendments are applied. The implication is clear that situations change how these amendments are to be applied, which I will explain further on in this paper. 

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VS HELLER (2008)

With regard to the Second Amendment, the term that often creates an emotional response is the term infringed; as in, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  Let’s go back to the First Amendment, for a moment and the first clause that “Congress shall make no law establishing a religion,”  There is a confusion, I believe, by those who do not believe in any form of gun regulation of equating infringement as making laws regulating the use and purchase of guns.  The right against infringement is not a legal impediment against any and all regulation with regard to sale and possession of identified types of arms.  It is a simple statement that guarantees the rights of individuals to own and carry arms. It is a non-specific statement that requires interpretation in application.  

The government of the United States has a long history of regulating “arms.”   This was made clear in a recent ruling by Supreme courts in a ruling that defended the right of individuals to possess firearms in  District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).  The majority opinion was written by no less a person whose stature as a conservative/originalist justice is widely, the late Justice Scalia.  What I find interesting is that “arms” is initially defined as “firearms;” in that, handguns is the subject of the case that was decided, but I would remind the reader that nowhere in The Constitution is arms defined to specifically mean firearms or guns; that this is a “traditional” understanding is clear, but nowhere does The Constitution define the meaning of arms to be solely firearms or guns.

[It is important to note that while the founding fathers expressed many diverse personal opinions about all of these amendments, they did not include them in the final, enacted document.  Sparsity of language is intentional throughout The Constitution as they had the foresight to know that what they were enacting could not possibly address every contingency this nation would meet.  Each age, each situation that touches upon these amendments prompts interpretation to adjust whatever checks and balances are required to preserve the overall purpose of the Constitution.]

 As Scalia points out and what is germane to the District of Columbia Vs. Heller case is that definition of arms as firearms is based on a traditional understanding and that possession of handguns, in particular, can be used by lawful means for self-defense within the home without any stipulation as to it containment or use within the home, for example.

What Justice Scalia also wrote in his majority opinion is that “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” (page 54 of the ruling) which is to say it can be limited and goes on to give the example of “prohibiting dangerous and unusual weapons” (page 55).  I find majority opinions comment interesting in that it expands the definition of “arms” to weapons in general. If arms is here defined as weapons, then by extension firearms, being synonymous with weapons, permits that certain types of firearms can be considered dangerous and unusual weapons and thus subject to prohibition.

This of course was accomplished in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 which “timed-out” in 2004. This was a widely supported law by both Democrat and Republicans; such as, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Regan, and George H. Bush.  It was enacted by then President Bill Clinton, and the future President George W. Bush favored retaining it. The point in briefly perusing the background and recent history of the Second Amendment is to simply say that it is meant to provide and check and balance to the Bill of Rights and The Constitution as a whole and that it is subject its own checks and balances through legislative process.

Since the abolition of the Assault Weapons Ban, the United States has experienced an increase in mass killings perpetrated by a lone gunman in possession of an assault type gun.  There is no doubt of the damage that can be inflicted in a short amount of time by one person with a military grade gun at his or her disposal in a public place where people have peaceably gathered, whether it be a school, a theater, a church, a business party, or a gay nightclub.  The obvious response to these factors to at least reinstate the assaults weapon ban, once again.  That, however, does not appear feasible since the Gun Lobby and the NRA have the current Republican controlled Congress in their pocket.  So I’m not wasting my time here to rant about the obvious roadblock to a reasonable solution but rather stick to the issue at hand, the preservation of The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and The U.S. Constitution. 

What I will say about the Congress is that it is demonstrating negligence in its responsibility to uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States by refusing or failing to enact laws that protect the public square in this country, that it has deferred the safety of this nation’s citizenry to the citizens to fend for themselves; as in, "We will do nothing to control the weapons used by individuals to destroy you.  You need to get one yourself, if you want protection."   This is a fundamentalist mentality that is self-convinced that it is doing something by doing nothing to interpret the word in The Constitution or for that matter in their sacred scriptures.  What seemingly is used as an argument against any form of gun regulation that would protect the public is that guns are being inappropriately blamed what is described by gun proponents as a people problem; meaning a mental health problem.  This is nothing but slight of hand politicizing. The illogic of that argument is worth inspection.  

PROTECTING GUNS versus PROTECTING PEOPLE

I don’t think anyone, gun regulation proponents or gun regulation opponents, disagree that gun regulation is about people.  Guns regulation is not about guns, but rather a it is about people obtaining and using certain types of guns to kill other people for the purpose of causing fear and terror, whether mentally ill or not.  I worked in mental health facilities all my life and the first thing I can tell you is that you don't know who is or isn't mentally ill by looking at a person.  Second, guns aren't allowed in mental health facilities and the United States of America is largely becoming one.

When gun regulation opponents say guns don’t kill people, people kill people, they are right.  The trouble is they don’t finish the logic.  They don’t go on to say that people make the guns; that people fire the guns, that people use the guns to kill other people; especially in the case of assault weapons which are specifically designed for military use with the sole purpose of effectively killing other people in combat situations, but being sold to civilians.  

For what real purpose other than the illogical paranoia that is sweeping this country of being killed and not trusting the government?

How this inane proposition became an argument against gun regulation is mind-boggling, but even intelligent people or, perhaps better said, people we send to congress and our legislatures fall prey to this illogic.  In a recent article in the New York Times [7/1/2016] reporting on California’s new legislation restricting assault weapons and ammunition that was signed by Gov. Brown, a State Assemblywoman, opposed to the legislation, was quoted, “You want to blame something you can control, but you cannot control murder and you cannot control insanity.”   She is correct that it is far easier to control something used to kill people, than it is to control those who want to kill people, or who are affected by mental illness, but she is wrong in saying you cannot control murder and insanity. We cannot control all of it, but we can control some of it by removing the weapons that are being used. 

Her choice of the world blame is interesting as in “blaming something you can control.”  No one is blaming guns for being guns.  It’s not about blaming an inanimate object used to kill people.  We don’t blame rocks used by people to kill people and we don’t blame guns used by people to kill people.  Her comment, however, reveals a disturbing but common emotional attachment to the issue of guns that has become so engrained in the psyche of some citizens as to raise guns to a totem level.

What this illogic also proposes is that guns have equal or more value than human lives.  The anthropomorphizing of guns revealed in the Assemblywoman’s statement is a fundamentalist phenomenon that has largely gone unchecked.  The Second Amendment is not about the rights of guns, it is about the rights of people to have and bear arms; to be and to have and to hold - protect their own person and property. How we have become so unbalanced in our collective perceptions about guns is a study I’m sure someone else is working on. 

The problem with substituting emotional attachment for logic, in this case, is that it places domestic tranquility and the public welfare at risk which in turn places the U.S. Constitution at risk and by extension places the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights at risk.  When Congress fails to address violent acts that threaten domestic tranquility and the public welfare in form of terrorism, it fails to support and defend the Constitution.  When it tells its citizenry to fend for themselves, it places our military and law enforcement officers at risk by creating and influx of high grade military arms in the hands of a largely untrained and, from the perspective of the military and law enforcement, a largely unstable and potentially volatile civilian situation.  In the end, the congress must own the fact that its job is, above all, to protect the people of this nation; particularly from harm coming from within this nation.

INFRINGE

This one word is what the Second Amendment hinges on.  It’s a relatively ambiguous term in that there is no contextual definition to guide its meaning within the amendment.  It does not imply a prohibition against any or all legislative regulation as Justice Scalia pointed out.  It seems to simply imply that people have a general, non-specified right to possess and have arms, a term that is likewise undefined.  For example, Tasers are prohibited in five states. Tasers are arms.  Yet I don’t see anyone becoming particularly upset that these states have prohibited Tasers and that others have laws regulating their use.  Certain types of weapons grade material are definitely regulated and prohibited from sale to the public, such as weapons grade plutonium.  These could certainly be considered arms, in the modern sense of arming oneself and theoretically, at least, could arguably be covered by the Second Amendment's vague use of the word arms.  We don’t seem to have a problem placing prohibitions on them, but have a dickens of time doing so on guns and their munitions that is specifically designed to kill massive quantities of people in short order.

What the infringement seems to imply is that people have the right to protect and defend their homes and their persons by lethal force if necessary.  That is the essence of the Second Amendment.  It is not about the means, but rather the application of arms to do so.  That infringement has been almost solely defined as referring to guns is a misnomer.  Nowhere is arms defined as guns in The Constitution. 

People will argue that this is what the founding fathers had in mind.  Perhaps, but they didn’t specifically say so.  They also had swords, canons, bayonets, etc. that would have also qualified as arms.  They did not specify any of those and I believe with reason because they understood, already then, that times will change and application of this amendment will be tested against the conditions of the times. 

The historical argument that arms means guns is specious.  One could argue, that based on history, arms, as guns, should refer to single load guns, such as was historically used at the time.  This, of course, is not what the Second Amendment is saying.    Infringement is not a prohibition against any prohibition.  It is, as I have said, a guarantee of the right and a responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to defend one’s own property and person by lethal force if necessary. 

Ultimately the infringement clause is about the responsibility to protect the frees state as defined by the Preamble and the right to defend one's self and property. 

 It means that no one can be accused of violating a law for possessing and using legally permitted arms to protect and defend their property or their own persons; that being  legally armed is right and cannot, by itself, be used to prosecute an individual in defense of one’s property and person.  

I would clarify, however, that infringement is not a ban against regulating arms or the types of arms, as I have pointed out.  If a person is carrying a lawfully recognized weapon there should be no consequence for doing so, but should  Congress or a state decide that certain weapons are banned out of concern for protecting the well-being of the people, then if person is found possessing and carrying an illegal arm, they could be prosecuted as violating such laws, and such laws have been used in the past with success.

A GAME CHANGER - THE WAR ON TERRORISM

We are a nation at war with terrorists of various kinds, both domestic and foreign. So once again let us consider the Third Amendment.  The Third Amendment implies that the congress of the United States has the ability to impose wartime legislation that infringe upon the rights of citizens including the need to house troops if called upon to do so.  By extension, situations of war enable the congress to impose other limitations on rights for the protection and defense of our nation while in a state of war; such as, the Patriot Act.   That the  Congress and the majority of state legislative bodies refuse to take action on the supposed principle of defending Second Amendment rights when terrorists of all makes have ready access to assault grade military weapons within this country and that we have endured repeated incidents of terrorist attacks in this country demands safeguarding these weapons from falling into the hands of those who would do our citizens  and nation harm. 

Yes.  It’s about protecting our weapons from falling into the hands of used of those who would destroy our nation.  You don’t do that by putting them on a gun show table for anyone to grab.  You protect them; you lock them away for the time being. 

We need to change the conversation about how we talk about the Second Amendment and how we talk about protecting our constitutional rights to domestic tranquility and the provision of public welfare.  Congress needs to step up to the plate and do its job.  Personally, at a time of war, such as this one, we need to secure our military grade weapons from falling into the hands of would be terrorists.  It is far easier to control military grade weapons than to try and figure out who all the bad guys are or trying to classify who is or isn’t mentally stable enough to own one. It is simply easier to control things, like guns, rather than people. This isn’t about blame. It’s about defending and protecting the very foundation of freedom.

CHANGING THE CONVERSATION

We need such weaponry to be in the hands of those who can best preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States, our voluntary military and our law enforcement agencies. That congress refuses to pass bills that would deter a person on terrorist suspect no-fly list from purchasing any gun while being on that list on the basis that it violates that person’s due process clause is beyond comprehension.  That’s the least Congress could and they won’t do that without making such a law with ridiculous expectation and burdens placed on the Department of Justice. 

I trust that the Department of Justice has cause to place individuals on a no-fly list or they would not do so. The recent incident in Orlando demonstrated the measures the FBI took to ensure the perpetrator’s rights were not being violated.  If the creation of a no-fly list stands the test of due process, it should be sufficient, in a time of domestic terrorism, to prevent such individuals from purchasing a gun until such time that person is off the list. That the Republicans in congress want to put a time limit on the Justice Department to ensure due process is nothing but a farce to lay blame for future attacks on the Justice Department.  The fact is being on that list didn’t work in the case of the Orlando perpetrator because he was taken off.  Had there been a connection between that list and the purchase of guns might have given the FBI enough pause to keep him on the list. 

What would have definitely helped was refusing him legal access to such weaponry on the basis that all military assault weapons were banned for civilian use; that no civilian could purchase them at a time of our nation is being threatened by terrorists.  All  purchases of military assault weapons should be banned until such time the war on terrorism is no longer a threat to our domestic tranquility and the public’s welfare.  And yes – there is a possibility that it would be a very long time before they are considered safe enough for civilians to purchase them because we have been engaged by has been described as perpetual war.   There is nothing in the Second Amendment that says that whatever the military has at its disposal must be on the market in the United States for public consumption. That that there are is a decision the makers of such weapons choose to do because it is profitable and the easily marketed in an atmosphere of fear. 

That gun manufacturers are allowed to put them on the public market is decision that lawmakers choose to permit.  There is nothing in the Second Amendment that requires either party to allow it.  We need laws regulating the unfettered proliferation of military grade weapons amongst the civilian population.   We need to hold gun manufactures accountable for selling weapons of mass destruction to civilians. Such actions are being taken as I write by families of the Sandy Hook School shooting.  If congress does not have the will to make needed changes.  It may very well end up that the courts will have to dry up the source of proliferation through endless litigation. 

Currently, we’re at war with insidious enemies in our midst.  Disarming them should be our first priority. Those who won’t; those who turn a blind eye to the repeated tragedies that have taken place, do so to line the pockets of the makers of military assault weapons for civilian consumption and those congressional leaders who turn a blind eye to the unchecked sale of such weapons to civilians for profit, under the guise of defending the Second Amendment, have the blood of United States citizens on their hands.

TIPPING POINT

Most people who own and use guns in the United States are respectful, law abiding citizens.  I live in a state where hunting for sport is a mainstay of the state’s economy.  Although I don’t own a gun myself, I know many people who do and know them to be safe and careful with them.  The Second Amendment is, in my opinion more than just about guns, it’s about defending our nation and defending our homes and loved ones.  It’s a guarantee that when our government cannot, rather than will not, preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, citizens have a right and responsibility to step in and see it gets done.  We are not at such a juncture in our nation’s history, but some in Congress and at various state levels would like us to believe we are, thus boosting gun sales to line their pockets via the gun lobbies they’re supported by.   

As domestic terrorism and violence involving assault grade military weapons appears to be increasing, the need to curtail access to such weaponry is needed now. 

Will this stop all acts of terrorism?

No. Not completely. 

Undoubtedly those bent on terrorism will try utilizing other means, but it will make it harder and will likely prevent some of them from doing so.  Making it harder to access such weapons will enhance law enforcement’s and the military’s ability to better track the movements of those seeking to do our nation harm. 

Doing nothing is likely to reach a tipping point with the public.

 When we no longer feel safe in our schools, our places of business, our places of worship, our place of entertainment – when we are no longer free to move about in our own neighborhoods without having to carry a weapon in order to do so;  while elected officials find political ways to avoid curtailing a civilian arms industry that cares little about the carnage that is resulting, there will soon come a time when the majority of people will have had enough and a groundswell will arise that will demand an end to the rights of gun ownership in this country.    There are already calls for that to happen. There are already legal experts suggesting a repeal of the Second Amendment. 

Personally, I think that is dangerous course as it leads to setting a precedent that could ultimately be used to undermine other amendments  within the Bill of Rights.  It is better to legislate regulation than to repeal or amend the Second Amendment.  The trajectory  of no regulations does not bode well, in the long run, for private gun ownership.   

If regulation is not forthcoming soon, those opposed to the right to bear arms are likely to win as those do-nothing members of congress get voted out, which is likely to happen as the number of deaths by assault weaponry on our soil increases.  Repealing the Second Amendment will be seen as the only option if there is not some form of reasonable regulation aimed at protecting the public square from gun violence.   The reality is that the Second Amendment is being placed at risk not by those seeking reasonable regulation (including what is reported to be the vast majority of gun owners) but by the intransigent position of those who refuse to do so, particularly  by our Republican led congress.  

Should this happen, it will be seen as another failure of the congressional branch of government to do justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and provide for the general welfare of our citizens. Congress has largely been dysfunctional for some time now due to blatantly partisan reasons that have led this nation into quagmire it currently faces.   It has only itself to blame for its diminishing role in governing this nation.  It’s time to start voting for the preservation of the Constitution of United States and by voting out the dead weight that is that is trying to suffocate the Constitution into the dead document they want it to be.