HOLY COMMUNION - MYTHOS AND MEANING

MYTHOS

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:  And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.   After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."  1 Corinthian 11:23-26  (KJV)

The first mention of Holy Communion is not found in any of the Gospels, but in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, which I have quoted above.  Paul's letter to the Corinthians predates the earliest Gospel of Mark by at least twenty years.  Consider the first sentence of Paul's description of Jesus instituting what is widely known as Holy Communion.

"I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you..."   

This statement should give us pause.   Paul is not claiming he was told this story by any eyewitness.  There is no mention of his version being confirmed by Jesus disciples.  He is saying Jesus taught him this.  He doesn't say how he "received" this information.  Was it in a vision or a dream?    

How, then, did renditions of what Paul wrote to the Corinthians end up in the Synoptic Gospels? 

Nobody really knows.  What we do know is that Paul's version of Jesus' instituting Holy Communion during the Last Supper became the central rite in the emerging Christian church.   Most Christians assume that Jesus instituted the rite of Holy Communion  during the Last Supper is common knowledge.  Little thought, however, is given to Paul's role promulgating that story.

Acts 2:42-42 introduces the shared meal by Jesus' earliest followers, which is widely known as an Agape meal today  In the book of Acts it is referenced as breaking bread together.  What it indicates is that Holy Communion, as Paul described it, was not ritualized when the followers of Jesus lived communally in Jerusalem in what became known as the Church in Jerusalem.  

Whether Paul "received" a vision or had a dream in which Jesus told him what Paul passed on to the Corinthians, it is Paul who introduced this rite within the early church.   1Corinthians 11, suggests that the Church at Corinth  may have been the first Christian gathering in which Holy Communion was practiced.  By the time the Synoptic Gospels were written, Paul's description of Holy Communion in 1 Corinthians was accepted as fact.  

PAUL

Paul figures prominently in New Testament literature.  His epistle or the epistles attributed to him make up more than half of the 27 books of the New Testament.  What we know about Paul comes from his letters and a probable disciple of his, Luke, who is the nominal author of the Gospel by that name along with The Acts of the Apostles.  Apart from the Acts of the Apostles and Paul's epistles, there is only one reference to Paul which is 2 Peter 3:15, "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you," which tells us very little about Paul other than by the time the second letter of Peter was written Paul's influence in the early church was being noted.

Paul is a complex person as his epistles demonstrate.  He was the product of two worlds; being well-versed in both the world of Judaism and the world of the Greek speaking Roman Empire.   As a Jew, he had to know that the mere thought of eating human flesh, much less drinking human blood, was about as repulsive as one can imagine, but as a Roman citizen he would have known that the symbolism of Jesus changing bread into his body and wine into his blood would have resonated within that world where mystery cults of the Greeks and Romans was an attraction that Paul could adapt to help spread the Gospel in Hellenized world of the Roman Empire.  

The Eleusinian and Dionysian (Bacchus) mysteries come to mind.  Paul would at least have had an awareness of them and their popularity in Greek and Roman culture.  Paul was no fool to what appealed to his audiences, and the audience that he found willing to listen to him, was not the Jewish communities that resided in almost every major city of the Roman Empire but the Greek-speaking gentiles.  What they would find appealing was ready access to a mystery religion that offered them a way to eternal life.  To this day, mystery is a literally at the center of the Holy Communion liturgy:

                                                 "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith:

                                                                        Christ has died

                                                                        Christ is risen.

                                                                        Christ will come again."

This  mystery of faith is not only central to Holy Communion but also reflects Paul's theological perspective.  In Paul's view, participation in Holy Communion literally incorporates the faithful into what Paul referred to as the Body of Christ, the living presence of Christ in our world.  

* * *

Brian Muraresku's book, The Immortality Key, explains that wine in ancient times was frequently mixed with herbs, mushrooms, and ingredients that would result in psychedelic experiences. Muraresku points out that wine wasn't the "weak" wine we drink today.  It was potent and particularly potent if mixed with substances known as psychedelics today which were likely perceived as visionary pathways the divine in ancient time.

In Corinthians 11, Paul is upset with the Corinthian church because they turned Holy Communion into what sounded like a Bacchanalian event.  Paul comments, " For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.  That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep (1Cor 11:20-30 Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® ).  

Muraresku suggests that the reason people mixes a psychedelic brew back then was to enhance a spiritual experience, to have a taste of eternity or to have a vision of the divine. These were mixtures that could be lethal, especially, if not done accurately or people overindulged.  He hypothesizes that the people Paul is talking about may have become sick and died  because the wine they were drinking was mixed with such substances that led to overdoses which killed some and made others sick.  It is an interesting hypothesis.   

Paul's pharisaical side comes through in his epistles as expressions of moral outrage at the behavior exhibited in places like Corinth and Rome.  Things that he railed against such as drunkenness and sexual promiscuity were commonplace in the cosmopolitan atmosphere of the Roman Empire.  Drunkenness was often associated with religious and civic events and where there was excessive intoxication other behaviors were likely to emerge.   

In his effort to spread the Gospel, Paul admits to trying to be all things to all people, as he says in 1 Corinthians 9:22, "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak.  I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some" (NIV).  Paul understood what appealed to his audiences with regard to spreading the Gospel message.  Salvation, eternal life, as the result of Jesus atoning sacrifice for sin, "once for all" was something that would have had great appeal to vast number of people who understood that sacrifice was necessary in order to appeal and appease the gods or God. 

In addition, the rite of Holy Communion allowed everyone, regardless of status, to participate in the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, once for all.  "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3;28-29 (NIV)  Interestingly, over time Holy Communion became known as the sacrificed offered for us; the concept of the Sacrifice of the Mass that continues to this day.  

JESUS

As I have mentioned in other post, Jesus was not into sacrifice.  In Matthew 9:13 and 12:7, Jesus quotes Hosea 6:6, "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Jesus quoting Hosea seemingly supports the notion that Jesus would not have considered any suffering he would go through as a sacrifice to God for the sins of others.  Human sacrifice was an abomination in eyes of Jews.  

Being a devout Jew, it is unlikely that Jesus would not have entertained such a repulsive idea of equating bread and wine as symbols of his body and blood.  In chapter 6 of the Gospel of John, this repulsion is noted when a number of Jesus' disciples leave him when he states in John that he is the Bread of Life and mentions eating his body and drinking his blood.  I will address this further when discussing the mythic features of that Gospel.

Offering sacrifices made sense in the religious world of the first century CE and one can understand how Jesus crucifixion was cast as a sacrifice to God for the sins of the world.  Jesus' crucifixion as an insurrectionist against Jewish authority and the Roman Empire was seen as the ultimate putdown and degradation of a human being.  The resurrection of Jesus, which we will come to in the next post was understood in the early chapters of the Acts as a reversal of the degradation Jesus suffered.  In fact, the first seven chapters of Act in which Peter and Stephen make speeches at theTemple, they never allude to Jesus's death on the cross as a sacrifice to atone for their sins.  

MEANING

Paul made a huge leap from Judaism's repulsion at the thought of eating human flesh and drinking human blood to presenting such an act under the species of bread and wine as active participation in Jesus' atoning sacrificial act on the cross; nevertheless, we see him trying to rationalize that leap in Judaic terms justify the  practice of Holy Communion.   For example, in 1 Corinthians 5:7 he writes, "For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed," and in Romans 3:25-26." God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.  He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."  (NIV)

In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, we see the first mention in the New Testament of Jesus' crucifixion linked to the Jewish celebration of Passover, which according to the Synoptic Gospels was the setting of the Last Supper.  In Paul's mind, Jesus becomes the sacrificial lamb by which death passes over us or rather that death passes us over to life in the resurrected Christ.  In his letter to the Romans, Paul links Jesus crucifixion as a sacrifice of atonement "to be received by faith."  This is a bizarre statement that becomes even more bizarre as Paul continues to say that God did this to demonstrate God's righteousness, because God left sins go unpunished before Jesus atoning sacrifice in order for God to demonstrate God's righteousness in justifying "those who have faith in Jesus."  

Whether Paul intended it, the rite of Holy Communion provided the gravitational force needed to give structure to the emerging Church and to draw people into its orbit.  While Paul seemed to be unaware of the teachings of Jesus found in the Synoptic Gospels,  Paul's point of reference to Jesus in his epistles is Jesus' last supper with his disciple, his trial and crucifixion, and his resurrection/ascension.   

While one can only hypothesize, there is good reason to consider that Paul created this myth to incorporate both Jews and gentiles into a cohesive religious group that became Christianity.  He rejected his Jewish proclivity to repulsion at the thought of the flesh and drinking the blood of a crucified victim in order to create a sacrificial meal that crossed the boarders of Judaism by allowing the gentile a place at the table of God's love in Christ Jesus; as such, Paul's actions support the Pagan Continuation Hypothesis that archeologist are seeing at play within the rites practiced within the early church.

* * *

For the vast majority of Christians throughout the world today, Holy Communion remains the gravitational center of Christian worship, while losing much of its gravitational pull to those outside of the Church's orbit. That it has lost its gravitational pull is due, in large part, to access to it has been guarded to ensure that those who partake of it are worthy of doing so.  This can also be traced back to Paul who wrote to the Corinthians: 

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.  For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29 - NIV)

Throughout the centuries the glue that held the church together was the belief in "one holy,  catholic, and apostolic Church," whose central rite was Holy Communion.  Today the idea of "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" is largely a rhetorical construct found based on the Nicene Creed which is said in most liturgical churches, but this statement belies the fact that the Church has fractalized into numerous denominations where the rite of Holy Communion may no longer be central in some denominations' worship.  The emphasis throughout the centuries has been that participation in this rite ensured the participant being one with Christ and if one with Christ then one with God; therefore, securing the full atonement of sin and the promise of life everlasting.  

Today, many Christians see Holy Communion as a sign and symbol of God's forgiving love for the world; that participation not only brings us into a deeper relationship to God in Christ, but into a deeper relation with those we are sharing this minimal meal of consecrated bread and wine with.  Increasingly mainline Protestant church practice "open" communion; that is, communion offered to all who seek a deeper relationship with Jesus.  As a result, Holy Communion is increasingly being treated as entry into the   ongoing redemptive ministry of Jesus;  that those who partake of it are called to bind up the wounds of those who are hurting, heal the broken hearted, and recognize a child of God, a sibling of Jesus and oneself, in every human encounter.

* * *  

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm

 

  

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF JESUS - MYTHOS AND MEANING

 MYTHOS

The story of the Transfiguration is recorded in the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew 17:1-13, Mark 9: 2-13, and Luke 9:28-36.  It  is not recorded in the Gospel of John. 

I have written several posts on the Transfiguration of Jesus and I invite the reader to take a look. The first is a homily I delivered at Christ Episcopal Church  on February 14, 2021 which you can see here.  I also wrote about the Transfiguration in a 2017 post that was the start of a series of posts on "The Mystic Journey" which can be viewed here. 

As I have mentioned in other posts, visions are personal experiences such as Jesus experienced at his baptism where he heard God identify him as God's beloved son and saw the Spirit of God descend on him like a dove.  It is rare to have a shared vision, although the Roman Catholic Church has recorded such multiple events, the most famous and relatively recent is the Miracle of Sun associated with sightings of the Virgin at Fatima, Portugal in 1917 which was reportedly witnessed by 70,000 people.  I must let such things stand for those who experienced such events.  It would be wrong for me to question their experiences as they remain highly personal regardless of how many or how few people experienced such visionary events.

Could the story of Jesus' Transfiguration which was witnessed by three of Jesus' disciples Peter, James, and John have occurred?  Yes.  What leans me towards it being presented as a myth in the Gospels is the construction of its telling and the purpose for being presented at all. 

According to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, six days after predicting his death Jesus takes Peter, James, and John up a high mountain where Jesus begins to glow and Elijah and Moses appears and are seen conversing with Jesus. The disciples are afraid.   Peter offers to build three shelters or tabernacles for them, after which a cloud overshadows the scene and the Voice of God proclaims, "This is my Son.  Listen to him!"   The cloud  suddenly disappears as it appeared leaving only Jesus and the three disciple.  Jesus instructs Peter, James, and John not to tell anyone what they have experienced.  The disciples then question Jesus about Elijah's presence.

In the Gospel of Luke,  this event occurs eight days after Jesus  predicts his death.  Jesus takes Peter, James, and John up a high mountain to pray and while they are praying Jesus' face changes and his clothes take on the brightness of a lightening flash.  Then Moses and Elijah appear in "glorious array."  Jesus, Moses, and Elijah are talking about Jesus' departure.  Luke notes at that point the disciple become very sleepy and it is during this period of sleepiness that Peter suggest building three dwelling for Moses, Jesus, and Elijah.  Suddenly a cloud appears and overshadows the frightened disciples who "enter" into the cloud as it envelops them.  It is then they hear a voice saying, "This is my Son whom I have chosen.  Listen to him!"  After this,  the cloud disappears and the disciple become fully awake and see only Jesus standing by them.  In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus doesn't need to tell his disciples not to tell anyone.  They simply don't or can't tell anyone about what they experienced because they remain both frightened and confused.

MEANING

There is no small amount of the mystical about this story.  As I am prone to do, I would point out some of the elements of this story usually overlooked when the story is presented as a factual event and taken literally.  Speaking of facts, the most overlooked fact of this story is that all three of the Synoptic Gospels point out that a number days that pass after Jesus predicts his death to his disciples.  Numbers are important in any story found in biblical literature.  In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the transfiguration of Jesus takes place six days after he predicts his death and in the Gospel of Luke it is eight days after his prediction.

Six days after Jesus' predictions of his death symbolizes the near completion of Jesus redemptive ministry, in the same way that six days represent the near completion of God's creation.  In light its numerological significance,  Jesus taking three of his closest disciples represents half an equation of God's creative order, the mortal or earthly creation.  Once the disciples reach the top of the mountain, Jesus begins to glow in brilliant radiance and two other radiant being, Elijah and Moses appear with Jesus forming the other half of the equation as the eternal divinized.   The three of them are conversing, but the disciples are not able to hear or recall what they are talking about.

Peter intuitively, within his awestruck confusion, perceives that the fulfillment of creation, the harvest, the end of time is upon them and thus offers to build the dwellings used in the Jewish festival of Succoth.  After this a cloud overshadows them and they hear the voice of God saying, "This is my Son.  Listen to him."  

The presence of God's voice reveals the presence of a seventh being, the fullness of all creation, God's self, the cloud that envelops all of them, that being in which all things exist.  When the cloud lifts, Jesus awakens his disciples back to the reality we know and warns them to say nothing about this vision to anyone.  In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark the disciples question Jesus about the presence of Elijah.  They ask when will Elijah come to which Jesus replies, that Elijah has already come, implying that John the Baptizer was/is Elijah.  Such talk almost borders on describing a multiverse in which past, present, and future have no real meaning as everything is eternal in God's being.  Identity, itself, is nebulous.  Elijah and John the Baptizer are interchangeable characters or identities.  

In the Gospel of Luke Jesus takes his disciples up to a high mountain to pray eight days after he predicts his death.  Luke seems to like adding some nuances to these shared stories.  The number eight is significant in this story as it is after eight days that a male baby is named and circumcised, thus Jesus in this myth is named (identified) in the presence of both living in this life and those living in the next life.  God gives Jesus his identity as God's Son; that is,  the person God has chosen to be God's Son.   This is an interesting twist to the earlier birth story of Jesus in Luke, where Jesus is the conceived Son of God via the Virgin Mary.  In this myth, Jesus is God's chosen one to be God's son, which begs one to question whether this myth or the birth myth of Jesus were later additions to this Gospel.

In Luke's account, the three disciples become very sleepy when Moses and Elijah appear.  Sleepiness represents a state of liminality - a place where visions and dreams emerge.  It is in this liminal state that Peter offers to build a shelter for Moses, Jesus, and Elijah.  That the disciples immediately understood who Moses and Elijah were is a bit of mystery.  How did they know?  

The suggestion of liminality strips away the mask of mundane reality to reveal the holy other.   The disciples just know.  James and John are rendered speechless during this event.  In fact, Jesus doesn't have to remind the disciples not say anything to other disciples, suggesting that they were too overwhelmed by the experience to be able to do so.  Was it a dream or a vision?  At this point, the disciple are not even talking about this experience amongst themselves, which is supposedly due to its being so otherworldly; as such, they have no point of reference to make what they experienced as real for them.  The time will come, according to all three of these Gospels, when its meaning will become apparent as the point of reference needed to understand Jesus' death and resurrection.

In Luke, the nebulous is expressed by the claim that Jesus' face changes; that is,  was "heteros" meaning other in Greek.  The transfigured Jesus is a vision of something other than the mundane likeness the disciples recognized.  There is no description of what this face looked like, but it was different.  

* * *

The myth of the Transfiguration of Jesus is like something out of a sci-fi movie.  Reality as the disciples knew it became altered.  The long-ago dead are not dead or as Jesus once said, "(God) is not the God of the dead, but of the living," Matthew 22:32.    Identity is nebulous and indeterminate as this vision demonstrates.  Elijah is John the Baptist in another age.  All of which leads me, at least, to say there is more to this story than merely pointing out that Jesus is the Son of God; that there is more to life than this life.  For the moment, we are who we appear to be, who we think we are, and who others think we are but there is larger sense of life that is obscured by the cloud of God's Being that overshadows us.  

All three of the Gospel presentations of this myth proclaim in the presence of witnesses, what at Jesus' baptism was only presented to him; the Voice of God proclaiming Jesus to be God's beloved son in whom God is well-pleased.  In this myth that proclamation comes with a command, "Listen to him."   It is that command which is the true purpose of this myth.  One can walk away from its telling thinking that this is simply another myth telling us that Jesus is God's Son, but there is more to it.  "Listen to him" is what this myth is telling us to do.  Ingest Jesus' teaching. 

Traditional theological conclusions draw attention to the fact the Moses and Elijah represent the Law and the Prophets.  Undoubtedly that is a meaning derived from this myth.  I would suggest that there is more it than that.   Jesus is portrayed as central to understanding the law and prophets, not merely the ultimate keeper or fulfillment of the law nor merely the fulfillment of what the prophets prophesied.  Jesus is the ultimate voice of God's law and prophetic vision.  Jesus represents a new vision and a new version of law and prophesy.  He is Jesus.  He is Moses.  He is Elijah.  All are one in the Being of God; as all are one in Christ (Galatians 3: 28).

That's a lot to wrap our finite brains around, but in this twenty-first century, we are faced with trying to wrap our finite brains around a lot of things that border on the unreal.  Accepting the nebulous nature of our being is the first step to understanding the meaning of this myth and its pointing to the truth of a greater reality.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm

   

  

JESUS AND THE SEA OF GALILEE MYTHS - MYTHOS AND MEANING

 MYTHOS

There appears to be two different myths involving Jesus and the Sea of Galilee which are largely the same thematically, as there was with the myths of Jesus feeding the four and five thousand.  All of these the Sea of Galilee myths involve stormy weather and rough seas, with Jesus walking on the water in one version and  Jesus calming the storm that is rocking the boat where Jesus and his disciples are in in the other.

Jesus walking on the water is found in Matthew 14:22-22, Mark 6:45-52, and John 6:16-23.  Jesus calming the stormy sea is found in Matthew 8:23-27, Mark 4:35-41, and Luke 8:22-25.  Once again Matthew and Mark contain both stories, but Luke has Jesus calming the sea and John only has the story of Jesus walking on the water.   

* * *

JESUS CALMS THE STORMY SEA

I'll begin with the less dramatic of the two myths, Jesus calms the stormy sea.  Since the three gospels in which this myth is found are almost identical, I am going to offer the portions of homily I delivered at Christ Episcopal in Yankton, SD on June 16, 2021. The gospel for that Sunday was Mark 4:35-41.  For the purpose of this post, I am substituting myth for the word "miracle" in the original text of my homily:

"The myth of Jesus calming the sea paints a picture, an icon, or a triptych to meditate on. If this myth was to be depicted as a triptych, the first panel might portray a boat packed with Jesus’ disciples.  The boat has a mast with the sail loosed from its fittings and flapping wildly in the wind. The boat is being buffeted by the waves on all sides and filling with water.  Nobody is in control of the boat’s rudder. Jesus is asleep in the stern near the rudder and appears oblivious to the storm raging about him. The disciples, drenched with water, are depicted pleading with Jesus to wake up, with gesture suggesting they want him to take control of the rudder.  Jesus does not appear wet at all and has a serene expression on his face.

In the second panel, we see Jesus standing serenely at the stern, ignoring the rudder, with one hand raised to the wind and the other pointing to the waves. He appears to be talking while his drenched disciples are crouched down and holding on to the sides of the boat, the mast, or each other.  

In the third panel, Jesus hands are still in the position we saw them in the second panel, but now the sky is blue and cloudless, the sun is shining, and the sea is as calm as glass. The disciples are no longer wet, their faces are lit with a mix of amazement and laughter.  If this triptych was in a museum, a docent might ask, 'As you are looking at this triptych, what do you think is going on? What is your take away?'”

JESUS WALKS ON WATER

Of the two myths, Jesus walking on water is by far the more dramatic.  Nothing says myth than using an  impossibility to explain a proclivity we humans are prone to.  Jesus walking on the water is treated differently in each of the three Gospels it found.  I want to start with John's account because oddly it is the most straightforward.  It's as if John really didn't want to spend much time on it.  In all three of the gospel accounts that contain this myth, this event takes place after the feeding of the five thousand.  After which Jesus heads toward the hills.  In Matthew and Mark Jesus went into the hills to be alone and pray.  In the Gospel of John's case, it is to escape from the crowd who wanted to crown him king because he fed them. 

John points out that Jesus's disciples went ahead of him in a boat to get to the other side of the Sea of Galilee.  Later when the sea was getting rough Jesus come to them walking on the water. Naturally the disciples frightened, but when Jesus says that it is him, they stop being afraid and helped him in the boat.  That is all there is to it.  The people on the side of the sea who were present when the disciples took off without Jesus wondered how he ended up in the boat when the disciples arrived. 

Mark offers a similar account.  After Jesus was praying around dawn, he noticed that the disciples were struggling with their oars as a wind came against them. Jesus takes off and walking towards them he almost passes them by.  The disciples are frightened because they think Jesus is ghost, but Jesus tells them it is him and Jesus helps himself into the boat and immediately the wind stops blowing.  Marks tells us that the disciple were amazed (as well they should have been) but Mark says they were amazed because they did not understand the miracle that Jesus did in feeding the five thousand because their hearts were "hardened."  

The Gospel of Matthew basically follows the story line of Mark.  Jesus goes into the hills to pray and sends his disciples into a boat to cross to the other side of the Sea of Galilee.  While Jesus is prayer a strong wind comes up and the disciples are struggling against it.  When its about dawn, Jesus goes to them by walking on the water. As in Mark the disciples are terrified by what they perceive is a ghost coming towards them.   

It is at this point that Matthew adds a twist to the whole story.  The ever-questioning Peter offers a test to Jesus, "If you are who you say you are, tell me to come out on the water."  That should give anyone ready pause to question Peter's sanity.  As fisherman by trade, he should know, better than anybody, that people immediately sink if they step on water. At any rate, when Jesus says, "Come," Peter steps out of the boat and starts to walk towards Jesus, but then notices the waves and the wind and immediately starts to sink and cries out, "Lord save me."  Jesus does, saying to Peter, "O you of little faith.  Why did you doubt?"  After entering the boat, the wind stops and all are safe.  

MEANING

The original meaning of these myths of the miraculous calming of the sea is that Jesus is truly the Son of God; as evidenced by the wind and wave obeying him.  But every myth, biblical or other, is layered with meanings.  Mythic stories are there for us to explore and probe the meaningful depths they contain. 

As the wilderness is used as a metaphor for transitional and/or transformative periods in biblical mythology, storms on the sea are a metaphor for the storms we encounter in life, those moments when it is rough going is caused by some form of chaos.  Whatever blows our way or is impeding our progress is when Jesus comes to us in order to calm the chaotic environment we find ourselves in.

In the story of Jesus calming the stormy sea, Jesus is asleep, resting on a pillow in the stern of the boat.  It is only when awakened to the disciples's fear he calmly rebukes the wind and immediately everything is back to normal. The meaning of this myth is quite simple when the disciple proclaim, "Surely this must be the Son of God; " Even the wind and the waves obey him." 

Awakening Jesus is a metaphor for prayer in this myth.  In some ways, this myth implies that Jesus, knowing that everything will ultimately turn out just fine, doesn't seem a bit bothered by the chaos of the environment.  Jesus knows everything will turn out just fine, but as far as Jesus' disciples are concerned everything is not fine.  They fear being swamped by the waves and drowning in the sea.    Jesus is awakened by their pleas for him to wake up and do something.   Jesus awakens and rebukes the wind and the wave and immediately the sea is miraculously calm as if nothing ever happened.  

Did Jesus know the storm was scaring the dickens out of his disciples?  Was he waiting for them to come to him and ask for help?  Perhaps.  The Gospel of Mark implies a connection between the disciples failure to see the miracle that took place in feeding the five thousand and probably didn't see the "miracle" in the feeding of the four thousand either because feeding themselves was not the issue for them, even though they were concerned about a large number of hungry people..  It is probable, in Mark's view, that Jesus delayed in stopping the storm until they demonstrated a personal need for an answer to their immediate concerns.

In the myth of Jesus walking on the water,  Jesus takes leave of his disciples to go off on his own to recoup by heading into the hills - the high place above the fray of life and nearer to heaven from where he can see his disciples, his followers, struggling against the sea of life.  Interestingly, Jesus doesn't stop praying when he sees them struggle.  He completes his moment of meditation and prayer and when a new day is about to dawn he comes down from the hill walking on the surface of surface of the water as his disciples are battling the forces of nature. 

Jesus is unaffected by the storm, a sign of his being above nature (supernatural) and beyond the limitations of other mere humans.  Jesus knows that he will calm the storm.  He could have done it from where he was praying but he comes to them on the water instead. Why?  As mentioned above to prove a point of his ability to do the miraculous in order to meet their needs.  Their lack of faith is the issue in both of these mythic representations.  

Matthew's Petrine twist to the myth of Jesus walking on the water is both baffling and intriguing.  If Jesus walking on water is not enough, Matthew drags Peter into the scene for a purpose that is not entirely clear. The absurdity of this twist to the original story begs either its dismissal or a deeper look into its presence.  What is absurd about this story is Peter's response to Jesus declaration that he is Jesus, "Lord if it is you, tell me to come to you on the water."  WAIT - WHAT?  

If Peter had any doubts about who he was talking to why make such a ridiculous suggestion?   

Perhaps therein lies the point of Matthews version of this myth.  If one follows the story of Peter in the Gospels, one can see that Peter has a problem with distinguishing between what he believes should be true and faith that will lead him to what is actually true.  In the twenty-first century we are seeing this difference between beliefs and faith being played out in real time in our politics and in the rise of Christian Nationalism within the United States. What we believe to be true can carry us only so far before one starts realizing that one is in deep water and sinking fast.

Belief is not Faith.  

What Peter believed prompted him to jump overboard.   If Peter had faith, he would have waited in the boat to discern whether it was truly Jesus. He would not have challenged Jesus to perform a personal miracle to validate his belief.  As a mythic story this Petrine twist exposes the naivety of those who possess ardent religious beliefs in the absurd.  

Peter's belief that he could walk on water if Jesus' says faltered as soon as he comes to realizes that the sea he is walking on is anything but a walk in the park.  If this wasn't a mythic story, he would have started sinking before both feet hit the water, but as a myth we need to suspend the rational to explore the meaning it is offering.   Even though Peter is able to make a few steps towards Jesus, the sea being rough and the waves are high, his common sense kicks in at the most inopportune time making him realize he should be sinking which he immediately does.   If this myth was written in the present day, the author or authors might have been compelled to attach a warning banner which would read:  "Kids, don't try walking on water!"  

Personal beliefs that are not based on fact or experience can be fatal; especially, when the obvious is being ignored in the belief that the obvious does not apply to one.  How many cults in recent years have led people to take their own lives, to justify killing as righteous cause?  These myths possess the tint of truth.  Faith is not belief.  Faith discerns.  Faith does not challenge.  Faith awaits.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm 

 

 

THE FEEDING OF THE FOUR AND FIVE THOUSAND - MYTHOS AND MEANING

 MYTHOS

The story of Jesus feeding the four and the five thousand is generally treated as a two separate miracles in Mark 6:30-44 and Mark 8:1-9 and in Matthew 14:13-21 and Matthew 15:29-29.  The Gospels of Luke and John only contain the story of the feeding of five thousand in  Luke 9:10-17 and John 6:1-13.    Miracles are, for the most part, highly personal experiences.   I've experience the miraculous in my own life, but as Rabbi Jonathan Sachs has rightly pointed out they rarely convince anyone to become religious or prove the validity of the person who experienced such an event religious beliefs.  I am not going to address the accounts of Jesus miraculous healing of individuals as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels because they are events that are subjectively experienced rather than objectively understood.

Unexplained (miraculous) healings are a likelihood, particularly in the ancient past.  While one can speculate as to why they occurred; that they may have had a scientific or psychological reason for occurring, it would be presumptuous to say that they did not occur which begs the question why consider the "miracles" of Jesus feeding the four and five thousand as myths?  Could not Jesus have performed such miracles?   Perhaps. 

Whereas healing miracles can be claimed today because there are healings that, for a lack of better word, "miraculously" happen for which there is no current known medical or scientific reason for their occurrence.  On the other hand, there appears to be more magic than miracle in these mass "feeding" events of the Gospels if taken literally.  What marks them as myths, in my opinion, is a specificity in their telling that points to their being metaphorical myths rather than actual events for which there are no like events by which to suggest possibility.

* * *

New Testament myths often contain coded messages that point to their being more than stories intended to confirm Jesus as the Messiah by displaying supernatural acts like feeding four thousand men (not to mention women and children) with seven loaves of bread and a few fish or feeding five thousand men (not to mention women and children) five loaves of bread and two fish.  One cannot help but notice the use of specific numbers regarding how many loaves, how many fish, or how many people, the time of day, the location and other features of these stories.  Such specifics are not backed by verifiable fact and if they occurred some two thousand years ago, at best would have to be considered one-off events that have no explanation and no applicable meaning in the twenty-first century.  The writers of these Gospels would have been aware of the mythic mystery they were presenting and as such used coded language to give it meaning. 

For example, four thousand people, like forty years or forty days and forty nights, is basically saying there was a lot of people.  The number 4, however, has numerological significance as well as representing  wholeness as in the creation of the universe (i.e Sun, Moon, planets, and stars) the four corners of the earth and in this context might represent the whole world of "men."  [I'd like to say humans or mankind but these stories are specifically patriarchal, reflecting who in the culture of the time was counted as important.  For the moment I'm going to stick with the Gospel script.} Any number that is a multiple of 5 is connected to the notion of grace, particularly in the New Testament.  As such both the feeding of the 4000 and the 5000 as multiples of 5 represents acts or symbols of God's grace.  

Then there is the meal itself consisting of bread and fish.  Why not merely say some loaves and some fish?  Why seven loaves of bread in the case of feeding four thousand and five loaves and two fish in the case of feeding five thousand? Why the specificity? Obviously these numbers mean something.  In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke Jesus has his disciples, in the story of feeding the five thousand, seat them in groups of 50 or 100, which lends to being able to count how many men were present, but why that number  Why not smaller groups? 

What makes this myth so "magical" is that after feeding the four thousand men from seven loaves of bread, the disciples pick up seven baskets full of left over bread, which means that more bread was generated as it was being handed out than the seven original loaves which was used to establish it as a miraculous event.  The same is true in the case of feeding the five thousand men, the disciples pick up twelve baskets of bread.  So let unravel the numbers for a moment.  

* * *

Seven is a holy number.  It is the number of completion and wholeness as on the seventh day God rested after creating the cosmos and all living things.  Five loaves reflects the grace of God, the two fish also represent faith in the feeding of the five thousand.  In astrological circles the two fish represent Pisces, which in Christian astrological circles represent faith.  As Christians are aware that an early symbol for Christ or being a Christian was to draw a fish, which in Greek is ICTHOS whose five Greek letters serve as an anagram meaning Jesus Christ God's Son Savior.  The number 2 in Christian numerology also implies multiplicity and cooperation   In this story, the disciples fill twelve baskets  The obvious correlation of twelve baskets is to the twelve tribes of Israel being fed.  The number 12 also is used to demonstrate the perfect power of God as 12 is a perfect number.

One can interpret the meaning of these numbers in several ways.  If one knows the numerological value of the numbers then one can decipher the meaning behind the story.  Numerology undergirds many stories in the New Testament.  This particularly noticeable  in the Johannine scriptures attributed to Jesus' disciple John.  I have already addressed the mythic element of John's presentation of this story in a post on "The Bread of Life."   The Gospel of John offers a unique mythic telling of this story that supports the Pagan Continuation Hypothesis talked about in the preceding posts on the Mythic Jesus. I encourage everyone to  read my post on John's presentation of Jesus feeding the five thousand here. 

* * *

That all the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death and were likely edited throughout the following three centuries after his death is something to give serious consideration to.  It is quite possible that the feeding of the four and five thousand are two versions of the same story.  That the Gospels of Luke and John only has the feeding of the five thousand indicates that both authors of these gospels didn't see a need to write about two similar events.   

As noted in my last post, the wilderness is a place of testing and self-discovery.  Like God, Jesus is leading these crowds into the wilderness to find themselves.  There is also an eschatological theme present in these stories as what makes the disciples anxious about sending the people home is that it is late in the day and the people will get and looking  for food. It is possible that their anxiety is due to the fact the hungry people can quickly become hangry people who will take what is not theirs.  Here we see a metaphorical need for haste in feeding the multitudes before it is too late.  In addition to their concerns about their own safety,  if night falls, the people will have to wander through the wilderness without sustenance.  They could become lost and weakened from hunger. They could easily become prey for wild beasts who are also looking to be fed, which in mythical terms is a reference to the demonic.

When they bring their concerns to Jesus, they are undoubtedly shocked when Jesus says, "Feed them."  Against all reason about their and the people's safety, they bring out their meager rations.  What initiates this miracle, is Jesus blessing the bread and the fish.  In the Synoptic Gospels breaks the bread and in some cases the fish and distribute them to the people. Jesus turns their fear into a feast.  One cannot help but notice the connection between this act of Jesus and the Jesus breaking bread at the Last Supper.  As such this myth serves as a precursor to that event and it is why this myth is found in all four Gospel.  

MEANING

Spiritual hunger is a major theme being addressed in these stories.  To take them literally as a "miracle" of feeding large numbers hungry men as proof of Jesus divinity would miss the point of completely.  These are myths that address the biblical (if not perennial) truth that humanity is not fed by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4 and Deuteronomy 8:3).

Speaking of Deuteronomy 8, there is a likely connection between these feeding stories and the mythical journey of Israelites in the wilderness after their exodus from Egypt in which God feeds them with manna; a tangible emblem of every life-giving word of wisdom that comes from the mouth of God.  God feeds the Israelites with not only with miraculous bread, but also wisdom to understand who they are and whose they are.  The same is true with these feeding stories.  The wisdom of God is as tangible as the bread we eat and God feeds those who seek it.  

* * *

Christians are prone to misunderstand what is an essential story in all four Gospels of the New Testament canon.  Fundamentalist, who are perpetually sidetracked by insisting that everything the Bible has to say must be taken  as fact, see the meaning of this miracle as proof that Jesus is God, citing nothing is impossible with God. (Matthew 19:26)  While this is a standard teaching of most theistic religions, fundamentalist are largely inhibited by their literalism from probing the depths of scripture beyond its surface meanings. 

More mainline Christians have tried to explain the "miracle" by giving it a rational basis for happening; as in, the miracle, in all likelihood, was the result of Jesus and his disciples deciding to share their meager stash of loaves and fish which prompted those who came prepared for the possibility of finding themselves in a place where no food was available to wisely bring t their own stash of loaves of bread and fish with them.  So when the disciples started passing around the loaves and the fish, those who had fish and bread merely passed the loaves and fish that Jesus blessed on to those who might not have been as prepared, which explains why everyone was fed and why the disciples were able to pick seven or twelve baskets of bread pieces.   I have heard at least two sermons based on this interpretation of these stories.  

There are serious flaws with this interpretation.  Who were these men?   They were Jews like Jesus and his disciples. On the surface this interpretation inadvertently fosters an anti-Semitic stereotype associated with Jews as being hoarders, selfish, and only looking out for their self interests. Another flaw is that it deprives this story of being a miracle of Jesus in which Jesus blesses the ordinary to manifest the extraordinary, something not readily perceived by the human mind, the communal spiritual hunger we all share.

The Gospel of Matthew demonstrates the metaphorical nature of this myth in Matthew 16:5-12 when his disciple were the ones to forget to bring bread:  

When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.  “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.” Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?  Do you still not understand? 

Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.  [Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®]

All of Jesus' teachings underscore the richness and fullness of God's grace and love for all.  He frequently uses yeast to illustrate what he called the Kingdom of God. But here we see that there are different kinds of yeast, metaphorically speaking.  Teachings that attract people are memetic and have the ability to spread for good or bad just like five or seven loaves expanded to five or seven baskets of left-over bread. 

Another feature regarding the feeding of the five thousand in the Synoptic Gospels is that Jesus doesn't appear concerned about the time of the day it is or that people would have to find their way home in the dark on empty stomachs.  It is the disciples who are concerned to which Jesus says, "Well, do something about that."  This is not too subtle of a message that when we see people hunger for physical and spiritual food to do something; to check one's or the communities resources and offer what we have to meet the needs of others as distributers of God's grace.  

* * * 

In the twenty-first century, this myth's importance is underscored by the sense of haste that resonates with the need to do something about the important issues that we are faced with; climate change, political and economic turmoil, wars that threaten world war and nuclear annihilation, the scourge of racism and rising nationalism worldwide, the refugee/immigration catastrophe that is already taking place, and in the United States, the almost daily tragedy of gun violence and mass shooting.  Amidst all of this is the feeling that religion has gone missing, stuck in its outdated doctrines and dogmas while believing Jesus or God will do something about the needs that face us if we but bring it to God's or Jesus' attention.  This myth tells us otherwise.  

It tells us that we are led by Jesus' teachings to comprehend the wilderness of our making in order to find ourselves by listening to voice of Jesus, the voice telling us "Well, do something!  What do you have to meet the physical and spiritual hunger that is looking you in the face."  Complacency disguised as praying about it is not the answer, prayer without a desire to act is nothing more than an act in futility.  Ora et labora - not prayer alone but a willingness to work at finding and implementing solutions quickly is what is needed. Darkness, in its many shapes and forms is upon us.  Yet there is hope that in our actions, God will act as President Kennedy said in his inaugural address in 1961, "...that here on earth God's work must truly be our own. "

Finally, the communal nature of this myth cannot be dismissed.  Jesus breaking bread and distributing it to the masses is essential to understanding this myth and its application in the twenty-first century.  The use of numerology and astrology is present to underscore the universality of this myth.  While it is true that we exist because of creative power (word) of that which we call God, that power empowers us to be creative which is obvious in all the technological and scientific advances made within this new century alone.  there is hope that should prompt us to be involved and be concerned with finding valid solutions to address the encroaching darkness that we as a species have greatly contributed to.  The clarion call to do something is vital to God's intervening blessing.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm   

JESUS IN THE WILDERNESS - MYTHOS AND MEANING

MYTHOS

The story of Jesus in the wilderness is recorded only in the Synoptic Gospels:  Mark 1:9-13, Luke 4:1-13, and Matthew 4:1-11.  The Gospel of John does not record this story as Jesus is presented in John's Gospel as more divine than human and above the human frailty of succumbing to temptation.  In John, Jesus doesn't fall for anything.

There are two ways to look at the story of Jesus being led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan.  The first is to treat it as a metaphor of Jesus' struggle with being told he is God's Son in a vision after being baptized by John the Baptizer, which I have written about in a post that can be viewed here.   

The second way is to treat this story as a myth.  Buddha, Mohammed, and others identified as founders of a religious movement throughout history have mythic stories about being tempted before becoming a leader of religious movement.  It is the mythic version of Jesus temptation in the wilderness that is the topic of this post.  The mythic elements of this story is both its setting in the wilderness and its cast of characters: the Spirit of God, Jesus, the tempted; Satan, the tempter who is God's appointed adversary;  and the angels who comfort Jesus following his being tested.   

The first consideration is why the Spirit would lead Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan.  There is no biblical or prophetic reference; much less, a biblical precedent regarding why God would test Jesus.  This is not God's usual modus operandi.  

An omniscient God has no need to test anyone or anything.  As such, there is something Jobian about this story that makes one question whether Jesus' test is a challenge to Satan; as in, God's challenge to Satan in Job, "Have you considered my servant Job" or in this case "my Son, Jesus?"  The Jobian similarity is the wager-like motif that is implied between two immortal beings over the capability of a mortal to remain faithful to his calling.  

The divine testing the quality or worth of a mortal to fulfill a divine task is as old as theism itself.  That this concept finds its way into the Gospel narrative supports the idea of the Pagan Continuation Hypotheses forwarded by Brian Muraresku, the author of Immorality Key.  That early Christians thought it necessary to include a test to prove that Jesus was worthy to be declared God's Son is understandable, given the time and place in which nascent Christianity emerged, but it leaves something to be desired in the twenty-first century.

* * *  

The Gospel of Mark simply records that Jesus was sent into wilderness for forty days and forty nights to be tempted by the Devil and attended to by angels.  It does not elaborate on the type of testing that occurred.  On the other hand, both Luke and Matthew give us some detail what was involved.  The temptation of Jesus involves three tests to challenge his faithfulness in God.  The first test is to turn stones into bread.  After forty days and night of fasting, Jesus' body was craving something substantial, like carbs, to satisfy his hunger, but Jesus reminds Satan that humans do not live by bread along but by every word that comes out of God's mouth.  

The second test depends on whether one is reading Matthew or Luke.  For the sake brevity I am using Matthew's test in which case, Satan takes Jesus to the highest pinnacle of the Temple and challenges Jesus to jump, citing Psalm 91 which states that angels will rush to his aide to avoid him dashing his foot against a stone, to which Jesus retorts, "You should not tempt the Lord."  In an odd twist, one can't be sure if Jesus is talking about himself or whether he is accusing Satan of tempting God to act.  Either interpretation is valid.  If that is the case,  Jesus knows or at least believes that as God's Son no harm can come to him as long as he is doing the will of his Father.  The catch here is that Jesus knows he is being tested and he doesn't need to prove anything to Satan.  What would be the point?   If, on the other hand, Satan is trying to get Jesus to test God, to see if God would respond to him as the Psalmist said God would, then Jesus would prove himself faithless and defeated by Satan before he would even begin his ministry.  There is a sense that if Jesus had succumbed to that temptation, the story of Jesus would have ended and we would not be talking about him, mythically speaking.  This brings us to the final temptation in Matthew.  

Satan takes Jesus to the highest mountain peak from which he shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and appeals to his human nature and the lust for wealth and power.  Satan offers Jesus all of them to him if he would simply bow down and worship Satan. It would appear that if Jesus would be attracted to such a proposition, Jesus' divine nature would be questionable, but Jesus doesn't.  Jesus' response is to tell Satan to go to Hell, that as God's Son he must worship God and only serve him.  It is at this point that Satan leaves and Jesus is attended to by angels, which confirms that Jesus has passed the test by averting Satan's temptations.  

I have preferred using the term Satan as opposed to the Devil, simply because Satan in Jewish mythology performs a special function, as God's appointed adversary in God's court.  Satan is the ultimate prosecutor who ferrets out the unfaithful as a reminder to God that God's perfect creation is anything but perfect; that the creation of humans was a mistake God should regret having made.  In the Old Testament, it was the righteous and faithful that was put to the test by Satan and again we see God leading Jesus into the wilderness to be tested which in a mythical way for God to poke a divine finger in Satan's eye to remind him that the creation of humans was no mistake that, in spite of their many failing, humans have an innate capacity for faithfulness. 

MEANING

The original meaning of this myth is to prove Jesus to be the Son of God who can withstand the temptations of Satan on his way to being the perfect sacrifice needed to redeem the world.   Its theological importance to Christians is that Jesus can be relied on to be faithful  in meeting our needs just as he was faithful to his heavenly Father.  As our exemplar, we are prompted to resist the temptation to chose expedience over thoughtful consideration in the choices we make; to understand that immediate wants are not consistent with what we truly need.  To discern the will of God is not a quick process.  It requires patient introspection.   There is an element of patience in the story's premise that Jesus took a long time (metaphorically 40 day and 40 nights)  to discern what it was that God wanted from him as God's Son. 

* * * 

In the twenty-first century, this myth can be problematic.  One has to question why God would have had a need to test Jesus.  In my earlier post on this subject, I used this myth as a metaphor for the inner conflict Jesus faced following the vision in which God called him God's son in whom God was well-pleased.  That particular interpretation of the story seems reasonable to the modern ear, but it would not have resonated with an ancient ear; especially, if the purpose of this myth is demonstrate Jesus' worthiness in being chosen as God's Son.  

The problem with this myth is that God sent Jesus into the wilderness.to be tempted by God's appointed adversary.   As a metaphor for those of us who struggle with the challenges that life throws at us from time to time, this story makes some sense, but as a mythical story designed to prove the faithfulness of Jesus to God or to Satan  it leaves me unimpressed as it implies, like the story of Job, that God has a capricious streak.  While I doubt the writers of the Gospels in which this myth is recorded intended that to be the message the reader would get from this story, it is the message that comes glaringly comes through some two thousand years after writing it down.

As a mythic event, its meaning is found in its being treated as a metaphor as described in my earlier post.  The story is emblematic of those who struggle with an identity that at some point in their life was  revealed to them.  Ultimately, the meaning of this myth is to seek understanding who one truly is regardless of how that identity is seen as inconsistent with one's beliefs about who one should be or with what others think a child of God should be or act like.  As I mention in earlier posts, God's ways are rarely our ways.  We grow up with the opinions of others as to who we should be and how we should act, never giving thought to who we are in the sight of God, a beloved child in whom God is pleased.  

Self realization can take a long time to come to fruition. Forty days and forty nights is a metaphor for doing something a long time.  It can take forty plus years to know who one truly is.  I think the meaning of this myth today guides us to recognize the questions and challenges each of us have faced as shaping self-understanding through examining how we answered or addressed them without entertaining guilt in the process. The answers and the responses we gave set us on a course to who and where we are today. In that sense to be faithful to our calling as children of God is to embrace those experiences with grace in the knowledge that we are God's, for God has made us who we are.

* * *

Until next time, stay faithful,

Norm

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS - MYTHOS AND MEANING

MYTHOS

 To my readers the idea that Jesus baptism was a myth may seem a stretch.  Couldn't Jesus have been baptized by John the Baptizer?  Couldn't he have experienced a vision in which he heard God declaring him to be God's Son in whom God is pleased and see the Spirit descend you him like a dove?  Yes, all of this could have happened, but what becomes mythic, in my opinion, is the interpretation that has been assigned to this story.

The story of Jesus' baptism is recorded in all three of the Synoptic Gospels.  What all three gospels attest to is that John the Baptizer is "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of the Lord.'"  [Isaiah 40:3]   The Gospel of Mark is the earliest Gospel and gives us a description of John the Baptizer and the statement that the one coming after him is greater than him, that John is unworthy to untie the straps of his sandal, and that he only baptizes with water but Jesus will baptize with fire.  This claim by John is basically recorded in all four gospels.

What strikes me defining this story as a myth is the lack of a credible explanation as to why Jesus sought the baptism of John.  The Gospel of Matthew subtly noted there is a problem with Jesus seeking to be baptized by John; in that, by the time the Gospel of Matthew was written, Jesus was understood to have known he was the Son of God before he approached John. If that was the case, why then bother to be baptized?  

Matthew, gives a typical Matthean answer in the form of a conversation between Jesus and John:  "Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, 'I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?' Jesus replied, 'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.' Then John consented." Matthew 3:13-15. [Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®] 

The author of Matthew is hard pressed to find a prophetic reference that Jesus is fulfilling (Matthew's usual mode for explaining why Jesus does something) so Matthew resorts to the vague explanation that Jesus is seeking baptism by John to "fulfill all righteousness," which Matthew apparently thought was a sufficient enough answer because there is no prophetic connection for Jesus doing so, which begs an explanation as to what Jesus means by "to fulfil all righteousness,"  but Matthew doesn't bother with trying to explain  it.

The Gospel of Luke has Jesus receiving his vision after his baptism while he is praying, but otherwise stays close to the basic script. What is interesting in Luke is that John the Baptizer's preaching style and his condemnation of hypocrisy is very similar to Jesus' style.  In fact, Luke reports that John's preaching was so effective that both tax collectors and soldiers came to him for baptism.  Herein lies another problem.  If John was such an effective preacher to draw a diverse following, couldn't he be considered the Messiah?  The Gospel of Luke records that people did in fact wonder if John was the promised Messiah.  John denies that he is, making  the same claim that he is unworthy to untie the sandals of the one coming after him, ect..  

The Gospel of John, however, presents a different story in which John the Baptizer plays a bigger role; a story in which Jesus isn't baptized by John.  The author of John has John the Baptizer saying the same things the other Gospels do but within the context of a different narrative that occurs over three days.  In John's narrative [John 1], John the Baptizer is being questioned by the priests and Levites from Jerusalem if he is the messiah and later by the pharisees who question why he baptizes if he isn't the Messiah or Elijah or some prophet.  

On the second day, as Jesus approaches, John the Baptizer says: 

“Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!  This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’  I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”  Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”  [Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®] 

On the third day, Jesus passes by and John tells his disciples, "Behold the Lamb of  God."  As a result, two of John's disciples leave him and start following Jesus.  This is where the story of Jesus' baptism becomes mythic.  

As with Jesus' birth, the Gospel of John's influence on the meaning of Jesus' baptism is what defines its significance.  Jesus is not only the Messiah, but he is the sacrificial lamb of God who will take away the sins of the world.  The prominence of John the Baptizer in all of these stories is not that he baptized Jesus, but rather it suggests there is something going on behind the scenes that requires the reader of these Gospels to underscore that John the Baptizer is not the Messiah.  

Perhaps the biggest give-away is that John the Baptizer did not drop everything and follow Jesus as two of his disciples did.  Matthew 11:1-2 tells us that while in John is in prison, he sends his disciples to Jesus in order to ask if Jesus is the Messiah or if they should look for someone else. I think the most nagging question is if John the Baptizer believed Jesus was the Messiah, why he didn't follow him?  

What is telling is the fact that to this day there remains a religious group in the Middle East that claims John the Baptizer is the greatest prophet of all, the Mandaeans.  According to gthe Encyclopedia Britannica, Mandaeans believe that Jesus was a false Messiah. This explains the need for a mythic telling of Jesus' baptism to clearly make the distinction between Jesus and John the Baptizer by having John deny his being the Messiah. The Gospel of John gives an interesting twist to the story of Jesus' baptism by stating it was John the Baptizer who saw the Spirit of God descend on Jesus.  For the Mandaeans, this must come across as a slap in the face.

As with Jesus' birth story, Christians cannot understand the story of Jesus' baptism without the Gospel of John's mythic interpretation of it. Jesus, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world is entrenched in the Christian mind and worship.  It's likely that most do not notice that Jesus wasn't actually baptized in the Gospel's account because the baptism story of Jesus blends all four gospels accounts of it, into one narrative.  That John the Baptizer sees Jesus approaching John doesn't mean John baptized Jesus. In fact, Jesus as depicted in the Gospel of John knows he is the Son of God the moment he steps onto the human stage.

 

MEANING

Does this myth convey any truth about Jesus?  For Christians it does.  It's clear intent is to establish that Jesus is the Messiah at the start of his ministry and that John the Baptizer wasn't.  This may seem like water under the bridge to the modern Christian, but it was likely a hot issue the early Church. That John the Baptizer wasn't a disciple of Jesus and has a following after both his and Jesus' death cast a shadow of doubt on Jesus being the Messiah.

In Brian Muraresku's book, "The Immortality Key," he quotes the archeologist overseeing the site of the Eleusinian Mysteries in Greece, Kalliope Paangeli, who makes this interesting observation regarding the Pagan Continuation Hypothesis, "Whatever they (the Christians) cannot extinguish... they keep.  It's a very clever technique."  [Muraresku, Brian, The Immortality Key, St. Martin Press Group, 120 Broadway, New York, New York,]    This seems applicable to the Gospels treatment of John the Baptizer, given the confrontational questions by John the Baptizer's disciples.  The Gospels literally turn John into "the voice of one crying in the wilderness." 

Ironically, since the days of the early Church Christians continue to utilize the baptismal format of John as the baptism of Jesus.  Grant it, a baptism with fire would be hard to facilitate and is understood metaphorically.  In application there is little difference between the two.  In meaning, it symbolizes the start of every Christians ministry to follow in Jesus' footsteps and continue his ministry.  

If one looks past the notion of Jesus being the only begotten Son of God as promoted in the Gospel of John, the Baptism of Jesus and his vision of being declared God's Son in whom God is well pleased, if true about Jesus,  is true about us also.  As children of God, we too are well pleasing in God's sight and in the divisive world we are currently living that is something we need to embrace.

* * *

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm

JESUS' BIRTH - THE MEANING OF THE MYTHOS

 

[Blogger's Note: After finishing my last post, my son-in-law let me borrow a book he had recently purchased called, "The Immortality Key" by Brian C. Muraresku.  It is a scholarly book that begins exploring the Eleusinian Mysterys but which leads to an exploration of the Pagan Continuity Hypotheses  in relationship to  "paleo-christianity" (before 313 AD) and the early practice of the eucharist in the home-churches and catacombs of the Greek speaking Mediterranean.  It's a fascinating book I highly recommend for those interested in early church history, which we know so little about prior to the 4th century;  as much of what we do know has been sifted and filtered through the imperial church of the late fourth century.  I will likely make some references to this book as it offers some insight to the mythic understanding of Jesus. - Norm]

In my previous post, I examined the myths of Jesus' birth.   As mentioned in that post there are two distinct myths; one offered in the Gospel of Matthew from Joseph's perspective as Jesus' nominal father and the one offered in the Gospel of Luke from Mary's perspective.  That neither of these stories are based on fact, other than the fact that Jesus was born, leave us no choice but to consider them myths, which raises the question why there was a need to provide mythic tales surrounding Jesus' birth. 

The simplest answer is that whereas all the Gospels in the New Testament were written for the Greek speaking world of the Mediterranean and Jesus was just a man from Galilee who presented a different take on the law and prophets of ancient Israel and Judah, his teachings wouldn't have gone very far.  Jesus didn't actually teach anything that was new to Judaism.  What was new was his interpretation and application of the scriptures he knew.   What caught the attention of people living in the Roman Empire at the time was the stories about Jesus, which were used to declare him as the Son of God.  In Judaism,  the term "Son of God" could be applied to kings, prophets, and the awaited for messiah.  Beyond Judah that term meant divinity; in that, the Son of God is God.   

Matthew and Luke faced a mixed audience of both Jews and Greeks.  As noted in my previous post, Matthew was focused on proving Jesus' divinity by referencing Old Testament prophesies.  While the Gospel of Luke makes slight use of prophecy regarding Mary, it appeals to a broader, cosmopolitan  Greek-speaking audience within the Roman Empire where gods were known to impregnate women  who bore offspring considered to be Demi-gods.  

Brian Muraseku draws an interesting connection between the Greek god Dionysus and Jesus regarding their birth stories.  I will speak more of this when it comes to mythic Jesus in the Gospel of John, but for now (to whet one's interest) Jesus and Dionysus are both connected to Galilee, Jesus hailed from Nazareth and Dionysus hailed from Scythopolis or Nysa, hence the name Dionysus or the god from Nysa part of the Decaoplis area and close to Nazareth. [Muraresku, Brian, The Immortality Key, St. Martin Press Group, 120 Broadway, New York, New York, pg. 200]

The point here being that such connection in the first century would resonate to a much large audience.  Within the ancient world, the idea that Jesus is God had precedents for such an understanding  

But what about today? 

How are we to understand the stories of Jesus' birth in the twenty-first century if the initial intent was to present Jesus not only as a Son of God, but also God incarnate?  

* * *

I am an advocate for keeping Jesus fully human and the concept of God as something beyond our comprehension to fully know.  I do not see a need to divinize Jesus any more than we are divinized when God breathed God's self into our first mythical parent, Adam to life.  Here I am going to rely on my primary thesis regarding Jesus:  What is true about  Jesus is true about us; likewise, what is true about us is true about Jesus.  

That premise rests on the one fact that is demonstrable - Jesus was a human just like us:

                                                                    Jesus was born.  

                                                                    Jesus lived.  

                                                                    Jesus died.  

In liturgical terms, we can identify this statement as the mystery of life that applies to all of us.  

I'm not a huge fan of using the term mystical, but for the purpose of this series on the Mythic Jesus, it is a term I cannot avoid because myth moves us from the concretized factual towards the perennial truths that myths often present in a mystic sense.  Given the facts, many of the stories about Jesus formulate mysteries based on myths which have been distilled into what is called the mystery of faith within liturgical settings:   

                                                                    Christ has died.  

                                                                    Christ is risen.  

                                                                    Christ will come again.  

It is the mythic that forms a demarcation between the factual and the mystical.  

* * *

If Jesus is purely human and nothing more, what truth(s) does Jesus' mythic/mystical birth stories present?     

I think there may be several.  The myth of Jesus' birth offers the idea that  every person born into this world is ultimately God's child and that this unfathomable creative and animating force is our true lineage.  Such a lineage is not based on a bloodline but rather a breath-line.  We share breath with every living thing that has been born on this earth since the dawn of  life on this planet.  

Mary's question, "How this can be?"  is the ultimate ontological question.  Gabriel's answer that the spirit of God would hover over her recalls Genesis 1 when the spirit of God hovered over the waters before God said, "Let there be light."  This creates a mystical connection between Jesus and God's first son Adam.  Jesus' birth represents a reset of the original creation story with a twist.  

Instead of Eve coming from Adam's side (rib), this new Adam (Jesus) comes from a new Eve's (Mary's) womb.  In essence, Jesus' birth is a mystic rebirth of who we are.  The Christmas story, especially as recorded in the Gospel of Luke, is essentially our birth story.  We enter the world naked and in need of care from the moment we take our first breath, the breath that every living thing shares with us on this earth.  To this day we continue to recycle the the first breath that Jesus took, that Adam took, and that every creature took since the beginning of life on this planet.  We are more connected by air than by blood, and we are more connected by being alive and experiencing life together more than anything else.

If God is a verb, the creative force that energizes all the power within the universe and animated life on this planet, then within this minimalist story of a baby boy born in a stable we are brought down to earth in order to be grounded in mystery that is life.  The idea that God came down and became incarnate is to recognize our common source and our common essence, the very ground we walk on. We are all incarnations of the creative and energizing force we call God.  In this sense, the birth story of Jesus in Luke resonates with the Gospel of John, more than it does with the Gospel of Matthew.  

Mary is the main character in this birth story.  Her visit from Gabriel starts her on a mystical journey with the child she bears.  She doesn't question the mechanics of the situation, she accepts the position God has placed her in.  What does it all mean?  How can it be? Are question that open the gate into her mystical journey where her pondering nature is the mode of transportation.  That which she has given life to becomes her life.

In Luke's version there are "shepherds abiding their fields by night, keeping watch over their sheep" to whom a host of angels appear to give them the good news of Jesus' birth.  Shepherds keeping watch over their sheep during the night present strong metaphorical connotations.  It is to those who watch over the vulnerable who get invited to see for themselves a new creation's humble beginning.  

Being awake to the dangers that lurk and prey on the helpless and unaware is a prophetic calling.  In the twenty-first century the shepherds of this era are the "WOKE," the people who are on the lookout for those who agitate and separate people into warring factions so that they are easy prey for the power-hungry.   They are the peacemakers that Jesus talks about, who are specifically called the children of God.  [Matthew 5:9] 

* * *

The Gospel of Matthew offers another perspective of Jesus' birth; that of a parent or a caretaker.  The "in-name-only" father of Jesus, Joseph, is the main character in Jesus' birth story in the Gospel of Matthew.  In order to protect Mary and Jesus, Joseph must give up his personal pride, his ego.  Joseph is dreamer (a mystic if you will).  He processes his dilemma of being married to Mary when he finds out she is pregnant with someone else's child.  His first impulse is to put Mary away privately.  He cares about Mary because he loves her, but he is faced with a nagging question, "Does she really love me?"  As far as the child goes, why should he care about it? It's not his.  He's in an awkward position and something deeper is nagging him not to  make a quick decision, so Joseph sleeps on it.

In his dreams an angel comes to him and fills Jospeh in on the details of Mary's pregnancy.  He immediately understands  and accepts that the child she bears is God's child.  Joseph awakens with a fresh outlook on both his wife and this child of God who he is entrusted to his care for as his own.  Joseph is not exactly an adoptive father.  He like Mary and Jesus are being used as archetypes, the Holy Family.  There is an otherness to their relationship with each; in that, they serve as exemplars of how we are to relate to each other and treat each other. 

Joseph is the adult in the room; both by age and by role.  He must overcome his inclination for self-preservation and become the preservationist of the other regardless of how the other appears to him.  He not only is given insight into their importance to God, but he sees their importance to whole family of God, the whole of humanity.  

The Gospel of Matthew also has visitors coming from a long distance to see Jesus.  The priestly Magi from ancient Persia, like the shepherds in the Gospel of Luke are watchers.  Unlike the shepherds, however, the Magi are seeking fulfillment of a Hebrew prophecy that said a king would be born in Bethlehem.  [Micah 5:2,4].  They offer the toddler Jesus metaphorical gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, which are traditionally understood as standing for his being a king, a priest, and a prophet.  Some see myrrh as symbols of the oil used to prepare his body for burial.  

The Magi were not Judaic priests, they were Zoroastrian priest of one of the oldest monotheistic religions.  How they came into contact with the prophet Micah can be explained by Jews sent into exile by the Babylonians who later came under the rule of the Persians. Their meaning in the twenty-first century is that their presence represents the perennial wisdom that exists throughout the world, a wisdom that will find a path to truth for those who are seeking it. 

The world of our making is never safe, and it wasn't safe for the infant/toddler Jesus.  Herod is a symbol of the paranoia that always accompanies those who seek power.  Any threat to power inches everyone in the way closer to death.  

The journey into Egypt is a reverse of the Israelites escape from Egypt.  Egypt in Jesus' day was a safer refuge for Jews than Jerusalem, a  city in the throes of constant power struggles between religious leaders, potentates like King Herod and the Roman governors.  

In the twenty-first century we must see Jesus as a refugee like the hundreds of thousands of refugees today on the move throughout the world.  Every human has ancestors that were refugees at some point.  Every person of European and Asian decent living in the U.S. is refugee of some kind.  Those who follow Jesus cannot turn a blind eye to those seeking refuge. 

The meaning of the mythos of Jesus' birth has many layers.  I have touched on only what had seeped into my mind at this time.  The reader may think of others, but from my perspective what I have written here will suffice for the present.

The next post in this series will be address the mythos attached to Jesus' baptism in the Jordan.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm