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.

 

   

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



 

JOHN 9

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

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


A CAPRICIOUS DEPICTION OF GOD

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

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

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

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

The fact is Jesus does neither.

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

BAPTISM AS A RECREATIVE ACT

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



BEING DIFFERENT


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

How does he know Jesus's name?

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

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

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

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

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

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


BELIEF AND KNOWING


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

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

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

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

* * * * * * * * * *

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

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

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

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

Until next time, stay faithful.      

THE LITERARY STYLES OF JOHN - Johannine Theology - Part VII

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

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

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

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


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


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

JOHN 7

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


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


This is a good place to pause for a moment. 


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


SUKKOT AND THE TRANSFIGURATION

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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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

JOHN 8 

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


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

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


THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD THAT SHEDS SOME LIGHT ON STYLE


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


TRANSFIGURATION REVISTED


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

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

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


Until next time, stay faithful.



                               



THE BREAD OF LIFE - Johannine Theology, Part VI

JOHN 6

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

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

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

ALLEGORY AND SYMBOLISM

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

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

THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND



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

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

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

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

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

WALKING ON WATER



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

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

I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE

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

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

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

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

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

Which is it?

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

What would Jesus do?

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

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

CONTROVERSY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time, stay faithful.