PROPHECY AND PRAYER - Johannine Theology - Part XV

PROPHECY

Prophecy in the Christian scriptures of the New Testament serves a different purpose than prophecy served in the Hebrew scriptures.  Prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures was more about pointing out the ignored obvious (the injustice exercised by the ruling class and corrupt religion) to warn of impending doom, whereas prophesy in the New Testament is more about taking the obvious signs of impending doom (wars, rumors of wars, natural calamities, and persecution) and forecasting God's ultimate victory in Christ.

In the Hebrew scripture, no matter how dire the prophecy, there is always a conciliatory note attached reassuring the Chosen People that God always loves and cares for them; that ultimately the world will be a better place because of God's glory in and God's love of creation..  Prophecy in the New Testament is apocalyptic and messianic-based. As such, New Testament triumphalism is attached to it. God is glorified through the ultimate victory of Christ as King.

MESSIANIC PROPHECY

It is important to note that apart from the apocryphal book of  Second Esdras, there is no direct reference to the Messiah in the ancient Hebrew scriptures of the Old Testament.  In fact, in the New Testament the older the gospel,  the less the Messiah is referenced.  For example, in Mark, the oldest of the gospels,  the Messiah is mentioned six times, in Luke twelve times, in Matthew seventeen times and in John sixteen times.

In Mark there is only the claim of Peter that Jesus is the Messiah, other than that it is inferred.  Both writers of Luke and Matthew claim that they are writing about the Messiah, with Jesus strongly inferring that he is but never directly saying it in these texts.  By the time John is composed, Jesus claims to be the Messiah.

It is interesting that, with the exception of Romans 9:5, there is no specific mention of the Messiah in any of the Epistles, which lends support to the notion that as time passed and Jesus did not reappear within the lifetime of his disciples and the earliest apostles there re-emerged an apocalyptic fervor about the second coming of the Messiah who will come to judge both the living and the dead.

DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES

In the Hebrew scriptures prophecy is about justice and the future establishment of peace through the restoration or redemption of Israel, whereas the role of prophecy in the New Testament it is about judgment and the reign of the righteousness with Christ as King.

Speaking of prophecies in the Hebrew scriptures, there is a marked difference between how Judaism and Christianity views them.  In Judaism most of the prophecies of the Hebrew scriptures are yet to be fully realized. Christians see most as fully realized in the person of Jesus the Christ of God.  In both cases, the role of prophecy is ultimately about reassurance; that no matter how bad things are or how bad they will become for those chosen of God, God is faithful to them.

John 16

John 16 opens with Jesus prophesying that he is returning to his Father and that things are going to get bad for his disciples; that they will be thrown out of the synagogue and will be killed.

The interesting thing about New Testament prophecy is that most of it serves as a precursor to the return of Christ in glory; that much of what these prophecies say have taken place or were currently taking place by or at the time they were written.  The audience of John's day likely shook their heads in agreement that what Jesus said was true because they were experiencing such events at the time.

For Christians of today, prophecies of this type hold a pseudo-historical interest as something occurring in the past verifying the prescient knowledge of God in the person of Jesus.  In addition to that, most of today's Christians see apocalyptic prophecies as yet to be fulfilled, since Christ hasn't returned and the signs of his return are so generalized as to be applicable to every and any period of time.

THE HOLY SPIRIT

That the Holy Spirit receives a great deal of attention during Jesus's table discourse is worthy of one's attention. It demonstrates an evolving theology that begins to define the triune nature of God, which  became identified as the Trinity by the late second century.

More than any of the other gospels, John defines the role of the Holy Spirit. The term, particularly used in John, to describe the Holy Spirit is paraclete, which is an anglicised term derived from the same-sounding Greek word frequently defined as comforter, advocate, or helper.

In this chapter, the Holy Spirit is described as presenting incontrovertible evidence against the world regarding its understanding of sin, righteousness, and judgement in the light of the truth that Jesus is the Son of God. It is an odd statement that can leave one glossing over it as scriptural hyperbole:

The world doesn't understand the true nature of sin because it doesn't believe.

It is void of the righteousness because the epitome of righteousness, Jesus, is returning to the Father.,

The world(ly) lack judgement because the identified ruler of the current evil world, Satan, already is judged.

Jesus makes the case that if he doesn't return to the Father the Holy Spirit will not come.  

In all of the gospels , however, the Holy Spirit is present at the baptism scene involving John the Baptist.   John the Baptist sees the Spirit of God descending on Jesus like a dove.  In essence, the Holy Spirit is constantly present while Jesus is present.  It is what makes Jesus divine.  What Jesus is saying is that the divination of those who believe him cannot occur until he returns from whence he came, the Father.

What John is implying is that Jesus is victorious; in that, through his atoning sacrifice and resurrection, he paves the way for the chosen believers to enter into divine union that he and the Father have through aegis of the Holy Spirit.  This, of course, is not fully realized until, like Jesus, we pass from this life to new life in the resurrection, yet to come.

SYMBOLS

As always I am interested in the use of symbols in the New Testament.  In reference there are two symbols used to signify the presence of the Holy Spirit, a descending dove and tongues of fire. A descending dove is mentioned as resting on Jesus at the Jordan river during the time of John the Baptist.  While fire is not mentioned in connection to the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John, it is in both Matthew and Luke and was likely understood by the Johannine community as representing the Holy Spirit during the Pentecost event.

I would suggest that the writers of each of these gospels understand the significance of the dove and it's association with Noahide covenant, as recorded in Genesis 8.   The dove is sent out by Noah and returns with a sign of new life of an emerging new and cleansed earth upon which God will estabish his Chosen People.

The dove descending on Jesus represents the  new covenant being made through Jesus.  The Spirit of God heralds this new covenantal relationship by resting on the beginning of a new creation, Jesus. It is, after all, the Spirit of God that moved above or stirred the waters of chaos before speaking creation into being in the first chapter of Genesis.  In the New Testament, the Spirit takes shape, first as a dove to signal a new realm of creation and then as tongues of fire which calls to mind the Pillar of Fire that led the children of Israel by night after the Passover.  In like manner, after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus - the new Passover -  the Holy Spirit takes the form of fire to lead and guide the Church, the newly formed body of Christ, through the darkness that is this world.

THE HOLY SPIRIT ADVANTAGE

In John,  Jesus claims it is to his disciples' advantage that he leaves so that the Holy Spirit can come. In fact, Jesus tells his disciples  there simply was not enough time to tell them everything, and that is why the Holy Spirit is being sent to instruct them; to tell them what Jesus wants them to know. As Jesus will glorify the Father, the Holy Spirit will glorify Jesus.

In John, Jesus raises the role of the Holy Spirit to new heights and has Jesus explaining to John's audience the significance of Christianity's Pentecost experience - so much so, that this section of John is often read as the Gospel during Pentecost to this day in most liturgical churches.  It is interesting that John has Jesus opening the door to new information; things that Jesus did not or could not tell his disciples at the time.   As you recall, in John 14 Jesus also told the disciples that greater things could be accomplished by them or those who follow them than what Jesus did.

It is not clear what is meant by those statements.  Were greater acts produce?  If so, what were they? Could they still occur?   What other information did the Holy Spirit impart to Jesus's disciples or to those who followed them?  Is there more to come?

There is no small amount of ambiguity about such statements or claims.  Prophetically speaking, they are rather weak and suggest possibility rather than certainty.   From a practical point of view, they offer the writers John a degree of literary license by which to defend their claims about Jesus's teachings.  More importantly, however, they offer room for expansion in the domains of  religious accomplishment and intuition. To date I have found no reference to these verses as directly applying to any deeds greater than Jesus's or new teachings produced  of Jesus since they were written. 

Some might conclude that the letters of John and the Book of Revelation is being referenced by such statements, but I remain skeptical of such conclusions for the same reason that I remain highly skeptical that the Gospel of John is the work of one author.  While it certainly fits the Johannine motif of "just believe," the Book of Revelation is talking about itself. Nevertheless, its placement as the final book in the New Testament canon has certainly wrapped things up nicely, and in some cases with leather bindings.

A FINAL CLUE

At the end of chapter sixteen, Jesus tells his disciples that he had been using figures of speech when talking to them and that he would no longer do that.  This is a curious line in John and I would suggest it is code to the reader and listener to review what has been written to seek out the hidden meanings of John's text.

PRAYER

There is a very interesting and revealing Latin phrase that captures the Johannine theological perspective on prayer.  The phrase is Lex orandi, Lex credendi, which is attributed to Prosper of Aquitaine, a disciple of Augustine of Hippo who lived in the 5th century.  The meaning of this phrase is literally, the law of prayer [is] the law of belief or, another way of translating it is, we believe in the manner in which we prayer.  Throughout this table discourse, Jesus instructs his disciples to ask the Father to give them what they need in his name and the Father will grant it.  Jesus mentions this repeatedly in chapters 14, 15, and 16.  In chapter 14, Jesus says he will do whatever is asked in his name, and in chapters 15 and 16, the Father will grant whatever is asked in Jesus's name. 

IN JESUS'S NAME

The intercessory nature of payer is strongly embedded in Christianity as is the mediating nature of prayer; which implies that God is inaccessible without presenting the correct credentials; invoking the name of Jesus as a true believer.  What the reader is exposed to in these three chapters is indoctrination - repetitious instruction that becomes so ingrained in one's psyche that one cannot but do it.  It is like the those chain letters that say if you don't pass it on to ten people, bad luck will happen or you will forfeit the good luck you could have had if you passed it on.   So pervasive is the idea that prayer in the Christian church has to end in Jesus's name that in almost every liturgical church, where prayers are largely written out, they end with words like, "through Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with you (the Father) and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.  Amen."  Evangelical churches are even more prone to throw Jesus name behind anything that smacks of prayer-like nature.

Nowhere in the Synoptic Gospels is this teaching stated by Jesus.  The Lord's Prayer, which Jesus taught his disciples is absent in John, but is noteworthy in that Jesus never mentions himself in that prayer and clearly claims that God is the Father of all - Not so in John.  Access to God in prayer is assured to those who invoke Jesus's name as a true believer.  By doing this, John was utilizing Prosper of Aquitaine's maxim, Lex orandi, Lex credeni, prior to Prosper stating it.  

THE TALISMAN EFFECT

What is interesting is that John, according to most scholars, is addressing a largely Jewish audience. In Judaism, there is no need for a mediator.  God can be addressed directly and this is true for what Jesus teaches about prayer as mentioned in his teaching of the Lord's Prayer.  Here John may be borrowing a page from Paul's letter to the Romans, where Paul mentions that the Holy Spirit and Jesus intercedes for the Church, not because we ask them to do so, but because that is what they do.


In John, the name of Jesus is treated like a verbal talisman to insure a response. 

The power of a talisman is that it offers comfort to those who believe in its power and where it becomes an object of one's focus.  Jesus is that for the Johannine community. For all of its prayers, Judaism appeared from the Johannine perspective to have failed.  There is no Jerusalem and no temple.  Since Jesus is the very Word of God made flesh, those who are chosen to believe and maintain their belief in Jesus as the only-begotten Son of God are assured that God will answer their prayers, which brings us to Jesus's High Priestly Prayer.

JOHN 17 



LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI 

The Gospel of John does not have a Garden of Gethsemane scene where Jesus is portrayed as praying that "this cup (of suffering) will be taken from him and sweating like great drops of blood. Rather John takes that moment of Jesus's private prayer and utilizes it as part of Jesus's table discourse - as a teachable moment. The prayer is divided into three sections:   prayer about himself, prayer for his disciples, and prayer for those who believe in him. It's a great example of lex orandi, lex credendi. It sums up nicely what John had Jesus saying in the last three chapters. 

GLORY IN SACRIFICE

Unlike the questioning prayer of submission  Jesus offered in the Garden of Gethsemane,  in John Jesus prays from a position of glorifying the Father and being glorified.  He exudes a sense of triumph in his soon to be fulfilled purpose.  It is a sacrificial prayer of Jesus offering up himself according to the Father's will.  There is no questioning that will in this prayer.

Theologically, John has moved beyond the human aspect of suffering that Jesus is portrayed experiencing in the other Gospels. Verse three is a dead give away about the didactic intent of this prayer.  In the Jesus portion of this prayer,he prays in verse three, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou sent." (KJV).  As in John 3, we have Jesus talking about himself in the third person.  One would think it obvious that there is no need to explain this to God.  What this verse demonstrates is the intent of this prayer to provide a teaching/preaching moment.

SANCTITY AND SANCTUARY

While John 17 seemingly is a prayer for the eleven disciples that remained faithful to Jesus, the intent is also to reassure the current disciples, the believers that are hearing this prayer.  It assures them that they are made holy and that they are being protected since they too have received the words of Jesus as recorded in John.  It affirms the reality that they are to remain in an evil world, but not be part of it.  That as he is leaving, he can no longer offer the direct sanctity and sanctuary of his presence, but asks God to bestow it on them, presumably through the aegis of the Holy Spirit.

What this section of the High Priestly prayer offers us is insight into the understanding of  prayer at the time John was written and the effect it has had on prayer to this present day.  In Jesus's prayer for his disciples, he defines their mission of being both the keepers and disseminators of his word.  As such he prays that they are sanctified, made holy, to bear this word of Truth.  This prayer is also about sanctuary; in that prayer itself, if properly addressed,  is a place of sanctuary - a place to go for protection against the ravages of the world.  This section of the prayer, reminds the reader that those who follow Jesus are protected by the mediation Jesus is performing and thus ensured of eternal life 

UNITIVE COMMUNION

John has Jesus ending this prayer with a view towards the future.  That, in itself, is a revealing feature of this prayer.  It tells us that by this time, the early church had given up on the idea that Jesus's return in glory was forthcoming any time soon.  Their theology clearly was being adjusted for the long haul.  The explanation that John has Jesus offering is that there are those, yet unborn in any number of ways, who are part of God's new creation.  John has Jesus revisit the unitive theme offered in John 15, that all those chosen to believe are one in God through Christ. 

The theological insights offered in the High Priestly Prayer have had a profound effect on Christian theology throughout the history of the church.  Jesus ends this prayer with a reminder that those chosen by God to believe are one in Christ and one with God through Christ.  This is the ultimate role of communion in Johannine theology.  This perhaps explains why John does not bother with repeating the words of institution that is found in the Synoptic Gospels and the writings of Paul. 

For this community, the purpose of Holy Communion is not about forgiveness of sins, but rather union with God.  One does not hear much about sins being forgiven in John, especially in the table discourse of Jesus.  What one hears is an extended discourse on the unitive experience of  Holy Communion, that is outwardly expressed in the love shown by believers towards one another - that attracting scent that leads those chosen by God into this unitive experience.


Until next time, stay faithful.

I AM THE TRUE VINE - Johannine Theology - Part XIV

John 14 ended with Jesus telling his disciples to get up and get going because he didn't have much more to say to them and, in fact, says in John 14:30, "Hereafter I will not talk much with you... ."  


But according to John 15, they didn't get up and go.  Jesus keeps right on talking. 

I have already suggested that John 14 dovetails nicely with John 18; that the likelihood exists that John 14 was originally intended by its author to be the last teaching Jesus gave to his disciples before being betrayed by Judas Iscariot.

So what happened?


There are a couple of possibilities.  The most likely is that John 15, 16, 17 are a set of teachings that were written by a different author or authors at a different time and written to expand upon what was already said in John 13 and 14.

  

John 14 ends on a relatively positive note which is quickly remedied at the beginning of John 15 where there is no attempt to explain why Jesus continues speaking after indicating he was done talking in Chapter 14.  In my opinion,  this inserted information makes sense as a form of teaching for those being initiated into this community; as it serves both as a warning and an indication of what to expect as a disciple of Christ.


INTO THE INNER SANCTUM

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he takest away, and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

John 15:1-3 (KJV)

With these words we enter the inner sanctum of Johannine theology.  In terms of an initiate, this is moment you've been waiting for - union with Christ - union with God.  It gets no better than this on this side of life.   What makes one consider this chapter was intended for initiates is the the plethora of "ifs," "ands," and "buts"  that follow.  Verse 8 actually talks in terms of becoming Jesus's disciple, not being one.


If this were a play and I were to direct it, the setting for John 13 and 14 would naturally be around a table where Jesus's disciples would be seated.  At the end of chapter 14 when Jesus tells his disciple to get up and go, I would have the table scene fade to black with Jesus walking to front center stage addressing the audience, saying the above verses while a single spotlight focuses on Jesus alone.


While being portrayed as Jesus talking to his disciple, John 15 (as is true of the entire Gospel of John) is addressing the current reader or listener.


It serves as an invite to the chosen to delve further into a deepening relationship with Jesus and the Father, a challenge to bear fruit - to bear the the task of loving one's fellow disciple as Jesus loved his disciples, and to warn against taking such an invitation and challenge lightly.


Yes, chosen.


One doesn't get into the Johannine community because you made a choice.  The only way in is because one is chosen, as we are reminded in verse 16, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit."


Once chosen, you better listen up and follow its code of conduct, which is to love your fellow community members just like Jesus loved his disciples.  Once your chosen you have been made clean, you are considered recreated by the very Word that brought all creation into being.


And Yes!  You can screw this up!


This may sound strange to the modern Christian, but by the time Christianity became accepted as a legitimate religion in Roman Empire, there were those; such as the emperor Constantine who was reported to have waited until he was on his death before being baptized so as not to sully his soul before meeting his maker.


According to John, nothing appears to be a done deal on this side of life unless you're one of the "not chosen."  And God alone knows (has determined) who is or isn't chosen.


Remember John 3:18 - the unbelievers are "condemned already."  They are devoid of any choice beyond this side of life according to John, and the choice left to the chosen few is to choose not to believe.  If one were to follow such theologic to a reasoned logical conclusion, it would mean that God knows who of the chosen is "chosen" to fail like Judas Iscariot.


And here's what you can expect if you are one of the chosen:


You are not going to be well liked by those who weren't chosen.


In fact you're going to be hated and persecuted by them just as Jesus was hated and persecuted by them.


But not to worry - Jesus will have the Father send you the Advocate, the Holy Spirit.


BEARING FRUIT


So what's all this talk about bearing fruit about?


If the believers consist of those chosen to believe, then what fruit or product are Jesus's followers supposed to bear?


Bearing fruit has always been about bringing others to Jesus. Yet, John consistently reminds the reader that the believer believes because believing is matter of God or Jesus choosing who will believe.


If you believe it is only because you were chosen to believe.  If you don't, logically speaking, it's not your fault.  It's because you were not chosen.  It's as simple as that.


Or is it?


How does one know who is chosen?  How is this Christian community supposed to grow?


What is the Johannine mission?


Mission in the Synoptic Gospels is about preaching and sowing the seed freely, if not carelessly  and letting it grow to bring forth fruit as it will (as demonstrated by the Parable of the Sower in Matthew. 13).  The Gospel of Matthew ends with the Great Commission.  The Gospel of Mark clearly indicates that Jesus appointed twelve apostles to spread the word, and Luke is clear in Acts that the Word is to be spread to the ends of the earth.


THE PLAN


This is not to say that John lacks a mission plan.  John has one and is defining it in Chapter 15.  It is a cautious plan that is not dependent on reckless broadcasting of the gospel message to garner followers from among the masses as the Gospel of Matthew indicates in Chapter 22:14, "For many are called, but few are chosen,"  but rather it is careful plan designed to attract the chosen, but as yet uninitiated, by having the initiated lead exemplary lives to draw uninitiated chosen to Christ; like a bees to honey.


THE ATTRACTING FORCE OF LOVE


It is in the esoteric nature of the Johannine approach to mission to be subtle, if not cryptic.


The times dictated a need to be careful.  Preaching in the synagogues was perilous if not impossible for a number of reasons. The Pauline approach of speaking in the public square was likewise risky business.  John's cautionary approach hints at and offers us a glimpse into changing world - one that was increasingly more hostile and suspicious - an environment that required careful and cautious planning.


Martyrdom was not the goal of the Christian or Johannine community, even though it would be the price exacted on some.  The question for the Johannine community was how to carry out their mission to bear fruit in such a hostile environment and survive.


John offers a two-pronged solution.  Jesus says that advocate, the Holy Spirit, will be sent by the Father to testify and that the chosen, his disciple, will also testify since they have been with him from the beginning. 


I believe Jesus saying that they were with him from the beginning conveys a double entendre, meaning that twelve were there from the start of Jesus's ministry and a more cryptic meaning that all the chosen have been part of him from the beginning of creation.


What does testify mean in this context?


The Holy Spirit speaks to the heart of the those who listen with the ears of the heart, to quote St. Benedict, who came on the scene some four hundred years later.

For the chosen there was another mode of testifying.


There is a saying that actions speak louder than words and this becomes the approach adopted by the Johannine community.  Jesus repeatedly tells his disciples and to those listening to this gospel, that world will know who his disciples are by the love they demonstrate to each other.  What will bring this new realm, this new creation into being and knit it together is the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the force of love.


THE VINE, BRANCHES, AND COMMUNION

"I am the Vine; ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him; the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing."  John 15:5 KJV


This is the  last formal I AM statement made by Jesus in John. It is an interesting metaphor for John to close with.


This is the one metaphor which includes Jesus's followers.


At the beginning of Chapter 15, Jesus describes himself as the true vine.  The implication is there are other types of vines and branches that are not true or trustworthy.  One never gets too far from the differentiating paradigm of religion in John.


When one hears of the vine and the branches, pruning and cutting what comes to mind is viticulture and wine-making.  I'm fairly sure this is what the author of this chapter had in mind as it is consistent with Eucharistic - the Communion -  subtext that runs throughout the Gospel of John. 


Stepping back a bit and taking a look at this gospel from a broader perspective the two essential elements of Holy Communion, bread and wine, are linked to the concepts of Word and Spirit.  The Bread of Heaven or Bread of Life is associated with the solid stuff of Jesus's preaching and teaching.  The Vine is associated with the fluid elements; the working of the Holy Spirit, the love of Christ flows through the vine to the branches.


Once again, we see the patina of a mystery cult that involves hidden knowledge that is yet to come to the initiated.  The uninitiated await a metamorphosis from mundane to divine, from the physical to spiritual just as liturgical churches treat the bread and wine sanctified and sacrificed during communion in terms of alchemy; of bread and wine transformed literally into flesh and blood, the mundane transformed into the divine.


Although some might be offended by referencing the doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation as religious alchemy; that's what they're portrayed as it being.  To carry this correlation further, I would say that where bread and wine are understood to be the true body and blood of Christ serves as an elixir vitae - that washes away one's sins and ensures eternal life


John brings another dimension to this Eucharistic mystery that is rarely talked about.  In John, the Bread of Life and the Vine sustain and bind the believing community together.  This aspect of the rite of Holy Communion has lost potency over the centuries, but it is clearly established in John.


Vines and their branches possess a fractal quality -  like producing like -  in an ever-expanding pattern, similar to a family tree. In this sense, John is describing an ever-expanding Holy Family.


John reminds us, however, that being a part of this system is dependent on knowing the source of one's divination, which is Jesus - "for without me ye can do nothing."  


Being chosen requires one to sublimate one's ego, which most mystery religions require as necessary for transformation.. One must give up what one thinks one is to put on a new self, to become the true self in and of Christ.


Whereas Jesus incarnates, becomes divinity enfleshed, the reverse  happens to the initiated believer, who becomes flesh enspirited, made divine in Christ - no longer living for oneself but living as part of much larger, more extensive organism; the Vine which is Christ.

* * * * * * * * * *

It is likely the Johannine community of believers lived on the fringe of the destruction that occurred in Palestine in 70 AD.  They, like their fellow Jews, migrated to other areas, such as, Asia Minor where they were viewed by suspicion by the Jewish communities in those areas and where they encountered a flourishing Greek culture that strongly influenced their theological perspective. 


The Johannine approach to presenting the gospel of Christ is uniquely different from the Synoptic Gospels to the extent that one wonders how the Gospel of John found its way into the New Testament canon.  The answer, I believe, lies in the likelihood that this community's perspective had great appeal to the emerging Church in the Greco-Roman world.


John 15 is one of the most remarkable pieces of literature in the New Testament by virtue of its creative approach to knitting together a community that ensured its survival.  One can speculate with a degree of certainty that their approach increasingly became the approach taken by the larger Christian community as this gospel became a mainstay of Christian literature and is why we are studying it today.



Until next time, stay faithful.

I AM THE WAY, AND THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE - Johannine Theology, Part XIII

In John 14 we enter the longest conversational monologue of Jesus in the New Testament.  I describe it as a conversational monologue simply because there is very little back and forth dialogue between individuals.  It is conversational only to the extent that certain individuals periodically ask Jesus questions to move Jesus's monologue along.   There is no debate or argumentation as we saw in John 13, between Peter and Jesus.  That is not the point of this literature.  This is not about Jesus reasoning with his disciples.  It's about them believing what Jesus is telling them.

As always I need to be clear about where I'm coming from.  In my opinion, John is, in actuality, a unique theological work deliberately designed to put forth one of the early church's doctrinal statements on the nature of Christ. 

It is my personal belief that Jesus actually said none of the things he's quoted as saying in John.  I do not believe the writers of John were trying to be deceitful or devious in using this approach. In fact, I'm personally impressed by the innovative way they presented their theological message.

The fact is that what these next four chapters has Jesus saying about himself and his disciples has greatly shaped Christianity as we know it today and is why I consider them to be the central thesis of Johannine theology.  From John 1 through John 12 the writers of John rewrite the ancient Hebrew narrative of creation and redemption as being a precursor to the true story of creation and salvation which is rooted in Christ. Story after story in these early chapters emphasize the difference between the Judaic community and the Christian community in the attempt to establish Christianity as its own religion.

Now the narrative turns to what it means to be Christian, to find oneself in an intimate relationship, not with just a religious community, but with God.

John 13 ends with Jesus telling Peter that he would deny him. John 14 begins by reshaping the conversation that Peter didn't understand what Jesus meant when he said he was going away to telling  the disciples not to worry about this - that all they need to do is believe in God and believe in what Jesus is going tell them about himself and them in John 14. 

BELIEVING IS KNOWING

Some of my regular readers may wonder why I translate the Greek verb form of πίστις as believe in the Gospel of John when I was so insistent that it be translated as faith, an act of faith, or faithfulness, elsewhere and; in particular, when used by the apostle Paul.  The simple answer is context. 

As I have mentioned in past post on John, intellectual assent to the Truth portrayed in John is essential to Johannine theology.  It is knowing what is true as opposed to trusting God without knowing, as we see faith used in the writings of Paul, "For now we know in part..." (1Corinthians 13:9) or "We walk by faith not by sight." (2 Corinthian 5:7) and so on.  In John we are dealing with believing a Truth that is enfleshed in Jesus as the Christ.  There is no gray area or room for doubt. 

So when it comes to translating the verb form of πίστις as intellectual assent in John, it is because there is no single English word that comes close enough to its contextual use other than belief which has its own etymology rooted in Germanic languages.

For a further look into the etymology of belief click here.   

In fact, I would argue that faith as belief is rooted in Johannine theology which has evolved theologically throughout the centuries until the two words have became synonymous.   Belief in John is equated with the intellectual property of knowing as in John 14:7, "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also:  and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him."  (KJV). 

The author of John 14 rephrases what Jesus says in John 13:36 which is, "Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards"  to what is written in John 14:4, "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know."   Instead of Peter's bold statement about defending Jesus to the death, we have Thomas asking the question, John wants asked in the next verse, "Lord, we know not wither thou goest; and how can we know the way?" 

Thus John has set the stage for the central thesis of this gospel which comes in verse 6 with John having Jesus say, 

"I am the way, the truth, and the life:  no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

For those of us who are Christian, we need to stop and think about this statement and consider the impact it has had on our collective psyche for the past two thousand years.

I emphasized the last part of John's claim about Jesus to give us pause.  I grew up with this statement and recognize it as one of the earliest bible verses drilled into my childhood memories about Jesus:

Only Jesus is the way to heaven.  Only Jesus...  Only Jesus!

No one can know God or can come to God except  through Jesus. 

And if you have been following my posts on John or simply have read the Gospel of John on your own, this is exactly what John means.  There is no fudging on this.  It is central to Johannine theology and it is central to orthodox Christian theology.

Why I don't believe this was said by Jesus is because it stands in stark contrast to almost everything else Jesus is reported to have said in the synoptic gospels and in Paul's undisputed writings. 

This Jesus is not the Jesus who marveled at the faith of the Syrophoenecian woman in Mark 7or the Roman centurion in Matthew 8 neither of whom were Jewish and, more importantly, knew nothing about Jesus and approached him simply out of  πίστις - trusting faith in an unknown rather than being in possession of an intellectual ability to believe in the Jesus as the Truth.  For them, Jesus was a man of God at best; not the Son of God or the only-begotten Son of God, much less God enfleshed.

The other fact about this statement is that every brand of "orthodox" Christian takes this statement literally; including, Christian universalists, progressive Christians, mainstream Christians, evangelical Christians and fundamentalist Christians. 

How they interpret it may vary, but they all take it literally. 

For Christian universalists and progressives, the interpretation is that God loves everyone, and as Christians, we firmly believe  in a God who will ultimately save his entire creation because of the love of God in Christ Jesus is for everyone, regardless of one's religious affiliation or non-affiliation.

So Yes! Everyone is saved because Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and all are claimed to be God's own because of what Jesus did, which is to say they have mitigated John's message with a tinge of Pauline theology.  

The problem this poses, however, is that it denigrates other religions as being saved in spite of themselves; suggesting that they are in some way flawed or are using different language to express the same understanding of God.

For many mainstream, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians, it means just what it implies; that no one is saved unless they believe in Jesus as only way, the only truth and the only life as the only-begotten Son of God who died to save us from our sins. 

The fact is, those in mainstream, evangelical and fundamentalist churches who believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation and the true knowledge of God are in good stead with Johannine theology and with what the Gospel of John is actually saying. 

Dispensationalism is alive and well in orthodoxy because the Gospel of  John was given the final word in the gospels on who Jesus is.  From a dispensationalist point of view the argument against my referencing the stories of the Syrophoenecian woman and the Roman centurion is that depiction of Jesus was who Jesus was before the resurrection and John is telling us about Jesus after the resurrection, as he is now, the revealed only-begotten Son of God. I cannot argue with that position from a literalist point of view except to point out that it is unlikely that Jesus said any of the things he is recorded as having said in this gospel.  

On an evololving theological scale, this I AM statement, more than perhaps any other in the Gospel of John, is the catalyst that set Christianity on a new footing from which doctrinal orthodoxy evolved as the fittest and most resilient form of Christianity that has lasted to the present.

At the time this was written, I believe it was meant to shore up the beliefs of a Jewish Christian that identified with Jesus's disciple, John who may have founded this Christian community.  As I have contended throughout this commentary, the Gospel of John is presented in a format of an initiation rite for those coming into the early church. 

As such both John 13 and 14 serve to illustrate wrong and right approaches to what is being taught about Jesus.  The reasoning intellect of Judas will lead to betrayal and the thoughtless zeal of Peter will lead to denial while the sincere enquiry of Thomas will put one on the path to knowledge; to know the truth and to know fullness of life in Jesus as the risen Christ

What is also noteworthy is that up until this point it has always been God who chooses the followers of Jesus;  that no one can understand Jesus unless selected by God to believe.  Here we see an important shift.  John is having Jesus say no one can know God unless they believe in Jesus, which brings us to Philip's question

BELIEVING IS SEEING

Philip asks Jesus to show the disciples the Father so that they will be satisfied. Satisfaction, in this context, is related to their sense of being comforted and not troubled by Jesus's departure.  It's an odd request, but it affords this writer of John the opportunity to address a peculiar problem that the Christian communities of the late first century faced.

Jesus's departure created a crisis of faith for his disciples. Similarly, as the church began to age, when the expected return of Jesus is not happening as soon as most thought, and those who may have known Jesus personally or who knew Jesus's disciples and their associates are dying, it was becoming harder to walk by faith and not by sight.  None of Jesus's disciples make it including John.  I can hear some of you saying, but doesn't John end with Jesus telling the disciple John that he would not die ? All I can say, is "Wait for it."  I will get to that.

The early church was entering a new era that was completely void of anyone who personally knew Jesus or his disciples.  So what John has Thomas and Philip asking Jesus is relevant to the Christian community at the time John is being written.

As such we see a theological transition in John from πίστις as faith that knows in part and needs no sight to πίστις, as belief which knows and sees in full.   We see this in Jesus's response to Philip, "...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father."  John 14:9b (KJV)  Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me... ."  John 14:11a (KJV).  

Jesus goes on to tell his disciples that he will always remain active in the life of the church; that they too will do great or greater works; that anything asked of God in his name will be granted. Whereas faith acts in trust without seeing or knowing, belief is itself knowing and seeing that conjures the power of God's to act on one's behalf.  Jesus consistently claims, throughout John, that he is not acting of his own will, but that everything he does is done in accord to Father's will so that the Father will be glorified.  Jesus knows this because he and the Father are one and John is telling the community that they too have access to this unitive power if they believe and adhere to what Jesus is telling them. 

John's appeal to Christian community being addressed is that they are being offered certainty in an uncertain time and it sticks.    We hear it echoed today in Christians who claim "to know and accept" Jesus as their "personal Lord and Savior."

 
BELIEVING BECOMES BE-LOVING

If you checked out the etymology of belief, you will notice that it's various meanings in other languages dovetails nicely to the notion of loving something deeply.  Believing is almost synonymous with be-loving and it may be why translators consistently translate πίστις as believing in John.  In John 14, the dialogue shifts from believing to loving.  In John believing, in its own right, is a mental action that I have been calling assent.  In John 13, Jesus gives his disciples "a new commandment" that they love each other as Jesus loved them. 

The reality is that Jesus didn't show a whole lot of active love in John or even talked about it until now.  It is in these final chapters that we see Jesus talking about a deep spiritual love that makes John considered by many, the Gospel of Love. 

As the focus in John changes from the differentiation between Christianity and Judaism to divine unification of those who love Jesus, believing increasingly becomes associated with be-loving. I use the term be-loving as opposed to loving to emphasize it as a mental activity, much like believing. 

Jesus doesn't explain what loving one another consists of and the use of the Greek verb form of the word love, αγάπε, eliminates a sense of familial love or the brotherly love of friendship, much less the erotic or  obsessive forms of love.  It is a love on a higher plane. 

In the Christian world, αγάπε is God's love and it is the verb form of this love that is used throughout John. The question that is never fully answered in the New Testament is how we mortals do that.  

John hints at it as being something esoteric.   The love of God is unitive. Jesus explains that those who love him and keep his commandments will find that they are one with him, and if one with him, they are one with God and the fullness of Jesus will be revealed to them.

Judas or Jude asks why Jesus just doesn't reveal himself to the world. True to Johannine, this is an excellent question, but Jesus glosses over it and at the end of this chapter indicates that the "Prince of this world" (another term for Satan) has a job to do - indicating that Jesus can't intervene.  It seems to be a weak argument, but we have no other choice but to take John's word for it.  In other words, this is how John addresses tough questions there isn't a good answer for - just believe.


THE CONDITIONS OF LOVE

Unconditional love is frequently touted as God's love, αγάπε.  John has Jesus giving a twist to the common under standing of αγάπε.  Jesus says in verse 15 that if  his disciples love him, they will keep his commandments.

Up till now Jesus has only specified one commandment in John - that they love one another as he loved them.  So what is meant by commandments?

It could refer to things said about loving one's neighbours and enemies as oneself that Jesus talked about in the Synoptic Gospels, but it's not clear.  What is clear is that love is conditional in John.

[Compare Johannine understanding of love to the Pauline understanding of love in 1Corinthians 13 which has become the standard definition of unconditional love in Christianity.]

In John 14 love is a test that, if passed, would result in Jesus asking his Father to send the Holy Spirit to be with them, reside in them, and who would teach them everything they need to know and remind them of what Jesus has taught.  John defines the role of the Holy Spirit as an advocate, as one who stands by someone do defend and, in this case, to offer comfort.

GET UP AND GO

John 14 has an odd ending.  John has Jesus saying in the last verse (to paraphrase the Greek), "Let's get up and go."  The problem is they don't, at least as far as the Gospel of John is concerned.  There are three more chapters of Jesus's table teachings. 

Once again, this oddity points to the composite nature of John being composed of several different accounts.  What strikes me as even more odd is that, as editorialized as John is at times, the editors leave some of these little details slip by. 

Is there a purpose to them?  Perhaps, but I am hard pressed to fine one in this case.

If one flips to chapter 18, one can see how this ending easily connects to verse one of chapter 18.  It is possible and perhaps likely that chapters which follow John 14 were inserted at a later time, and perhaps hastily so that this odd ending to chapter 14 remained.  What this oddity also suggests is the sacrosanctity the Gospel of John was and is held in; that it couldn't be changed after a certain point.

Until next time, stay faithful.

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.