Archive: Wood Hath Hope Past Studies

 "

Here is a study that ran through the latter part of 2010 and the beginning of 2011. It is an inquiry about the way we meet the divine, initially a definable material space but ultimately purely a relationship belonging to every space...


Sacred Space #1 Jacob’s encounters with God.(10/1/10)

Sacred space is the space in which God or the divine is experienced. But what exactly does that mean? The purpose of this and the following studies is to pursue that question. The stories in Genesis are filled with sacred spaces marked by altars and the blood of animal sacrifice. For example 12:6-8.

“Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the Oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. Then the Lord appeared to Abram, and said, ‘To your offspring I will give this land.’ So he built there an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him. From there he moved on to the hill country on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar to the Lord and invoked the name of the Lord.”

Also 13:18 “So Abram moved his tent, and came and settled by the oaks of Mamre, which are at Hebron; and there he built an altar to the Lord.” Abraham is portrayed as moving through Canaan mapping out territory for the God of Israel. And the same is true of the other patriarchs; see 26:23-25 among others.

There are many important narratives associated with Abraham – to do with promises, the land and circumcision. In contrast the stories of Jacob have a more personal feel. They describe his character, his strivings as an individual, his trickery and the violence this provokes. With Jacob the concept of sacred space shifts from a place of awe and transcendence to something ultimately to do with relationship.

The story of Jacob’s ladder (Gen 28:10-22) is the first of two well-known narratives about Jacob encountering the divine. Jacob’s dream is quoted by Jesus in John1:51 when Jesus tells Nathaniel (an honest Israelite) that the Son of Man will be the new founding theophany for Israel: “Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man”. For the evangelist John, it is the raising up of Jesus on the cross that reveals God’s glory. The ladder in the dream that bridges the gap between heaven and earth is replaced by the person of Christ crucified.

This story is twinned with a second story – one of the most intimate and fascinating in the Bible - is found in Gen 32:22-32. The context of this story is that Jacob tricked his brother Esau out of his birthright – his father’s blessing. Fearful of his brother’s anger, Jacob fled to Haran in the East to relatives of his mother’s brother Laban. There he stays for many years, marrying first Leah then Rachel, accumulating family, flocks and possessions. Eventually he decides to return to his homeland, but is fearful of the reception he will get from Esau. Gen 32:3-21 describes his attempts at allaying Esau’s wrath by sending presents of flocks, slaves and even his family ahead of him. Finally he is alone. It is at this point, in the night, that Jacob encounters a “man” who wrestles with him until dawn. Even though he is wounded (struck on his hip) Jacob does not yield and demands a blessing from his opponent. The man replies “You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with humans, and have prevailed” and Jacob names the place Peniel (meaning the “face of God”) - for he has seen God face to face and yet his life is preserved.

In this account of the struggle between Jacob and God at Peniel God is weak against Jacob, but leaves Jacob with both a wound and a blessing. This is a different picture of God from the prevailing image in the Torah in which God is usually understood in terms of power and threat.

In Genesis 33: 1-11 Jacob meets his brother. Esau does not exact revenge, instead runs to meet him, embraces him, falls on his neck, kisses him and weeps. Esau does not want to accept any of Jacob’s gifts but Jacob responds “If I find favor with you, then accept my present from my hand; for truly to see your face is like seeing the face of God”.

There is an implied critique of the violent image of God found in Deuteronomy and Exodus here. While Genesis is the first book of the Bible, and draws on ancient traditions, it reached its final form later than many of the books of the Old Testament. In the earlier Amos1:11; Jeremiah 25:21; 49:8-10 and book of Obadiah, Edom is depicted as a hated enemy of Israel. Esau is traditionally the ancestor of the Edomites (Gen 36:9). In 2 Samuel 8:13-14 David conquers Edom. In this context the attitude of Esau in Genesis is amazing. His attitude of forgiveness and brotherhood spurs his brother, who has so recently encountered God, to liken his face to that of God. This face is of a God who does not prevail against his enemies, but wounds them and blesses them through weakness.

These two stories – Jacob’s dream and his wrestling with God at Peniel- frame the story of the conflict between Esau and Jacob. The first portrays the more traditional image of a divide between heaven and earth, in which a ladder is needed for the divine to enter into the human space. The second signals that sacred space, the place we encounter God, is ultimately to do with relationship, surrender, weakness, blessing and forgiveness. In John’s gospel the Son of Man fulfills this second pathway to perfection, and so brings the ladder of the transcendent divine into the heart of human existence.




Sacred Space #2. Jeremiah’s condemnation of the temple (10/15/10)

Jeremiah had a long prophetic life spanning 45 -50 years in the 7th century BCE. He began prophesying in the reign of Josiah, king of Judah. Josiah is often considered one of the better kings because he instituted a reform to clear the land of the worship of other gods. Josiah was killed in a battle against the Egyptians at the plain of Megiddo. This was the site of numerous battles led by various armies, including those of the Canaanites, Egyptians, Napoleon and the British. Megiddo is also the supposed site of the great future battle of Armageddon. Nazareth lies about eight miles from the central Megiddo highway, and it marks the beginning of the territory of Galilee. In this particular battle, Judah had sided with the emerging Babylonian empire against the Egyptians, who were allies of the Assyrians. Josiah, despite being a righteous king, was defeated. It seemed as though God had abandoned Judah.

Jehoiachim, Josiah’s successor, became king in 609 BCE. He aligned himself with Egypt against Babylon. He was cynical – contemptuous and dismissive of Jeremiah. It is during the same year that Jehoiachim ascended to the throne that Jeremiah gives his powerful sermon against the temple. In 598 BCE Jehoiachim dies. The following year Babylon attacks and Jehoiachin (Jehoiachim’s heir, then only eighteen years old) immediately surrenders. Because of his decision not to fight, the city is not destroyed - but the king and about several thousand hostages of import are taken into captivity.

After ten years the remaining officers, court and priests, under the lead of Zedekiah, choose to rebel. They believe that the Temple is invincible. Jeremiah, in a hugely unpopular move, preaches against rebellion, but his words go unheeded. The Babylonian army returns to destroy Jerusalem, burning everything and tearing down the Temple. The people are exiled to Babylon, with just a handful of the poor left behind. Jeremiah, on the basis of his favorable prophetic message, is offered certain privileges by the Babylonians should he return with them. He declines – opting to stay in Jerusalem. The Babylonian-appointed governor is killed and those responsible escape to Egypt. Jeremiah goes with them, staying faithful to Yahweh when his companions become disillusioned with their faith and turn to the gods of Egypt. Jeremiah prophesies against them and, according to tradition, they kill him.

Jeremiah’s life is in many ways the autobiography of a failure. He gets to prophesy at perhaps the worst time in Jewish history - he complains and laments. Almost in spite of himself, he is driven to speak unpopular messages to people unwilling to hear. “O Lord, you have enticed me, and I was enticed; you have overpowered me and you have prevailed. I have become a laughingstock all day long; everybody mocks me. For whenever I speak. I must cry out, I must shout, ‘violence and destruction!’ For the word of the Lord has become for me a reproach and derision all day long” (Jer 20:7-8).

Twenty years into his career he gives the sermon found in Jer 26:1- 24 predicting the destruction of the Temple. At this time Jerusalem had a fully fledged temple cult – with its architecture, rituals, priests and sacrifices. Jeremiah foretells disaster – Jerusalem will be like Shiloh (a sacred Israelite site from before the time of the kingdoms, famously destroyed, probably by the Philistines). Shiloh was the symbol of a ruined place. If the Israelites do not change their ways then the Lord will send a mighty force to destroy the Temple.

Chapter 7 gives another account of the same prophesy. Jer 7: 30-34 alludes to the practice of child sacrifice – an abomination to God. “They go on building the high place of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire – which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind” The site Topheth is another name for Gehenna, which lies south of the Mount of Olives. In New Testament times it became the site of the city incinerator. Jesus refers to this place when he uses it as an example of a fiery pit that never goes out.

Jeremiah frequently speaks out against sacrifice. Jer 7:21-23 suggests that the legislation found in Exodus and Leviticus is not from God. God does not want blood sacrifice, rather obedience. Jer 7: 5-7 again calls for justice rather than the shedding of innocent blood. This has to mean the blood of the sacrificial animals. The implication is that killing animals for sacrifice is not God’s will. When Jesus clears the temple before his arrest he quotes from this passage in Jeremiah: “Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight?” (Jer 7:11). Where Jesus’ message is of repentance and forgiveness, Jeremiah threatens the worst. If the people do not change they face ultimate destruction.

Sacrifice is present historically in all human cultures. There is something deep within us that calls out for innocent blood as a way to make things right. Sacrifice is a lightening rod for the anger and energy of the group against its enemies. The act of violence brings a transient sense of peace to the group, as the group violence is discharged through the sacrificial victim.
Jeremiah and the other prophets speak out against the Temple and sacrifice. They are generally suspicious of temple sacrifice exhorting the people instead to act justly and embrace mercy as the way to gain God’s favor. Sacrifice is a human not a divine institution.

In Chapters 30 - 31 Jeremiah preaches from the perspective of exile. In 31:31-34 he describes the new covenant that God will make with his people. God’s law will be written on people’s hearts. There is no more need for a Temple because the people will all know the Lord –will be in relationship with him. The tone has changed from threat to promise and redemption. God is on their side and has a plan – an image of a reconciled humanity. Matthew has Jesus using these words when he tells his disciples at the last supper that the cup is “my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (MT 26:28).

After the return from exile, and despite the witness of Jeremiah, the Temple was rebuilt more splendidly than before. It was gradually developed until, by the time of Jesus, it had become one of the wonders of the ancient world - its dome covered in goldleaf. It is estimated that over a million people made the pilgrimage there during the Passover – the Temple must have been awash with the blood of all of those animals. Its final destruction in 70 AD by the Romans (and foretold by Jesus) led to a huge crisis for the Jewish people, surmounted only by the Rabbinic written tradition, not depending on Temple. The deep need in people for violence and blood sacrifice is so strong that only a transformation of our hearts that goes deeper still can overturn it. This call to enter into a transformed humanity is what lies at the heart of the gospel and is the witness of the crucifixion.



Sacred Space #3. Sacrifice and the Temple of Solomon (10/22/10)

The Bible can be seen as a list of failed human attempts to relate to God, i.e. with means involving violence. One of the biggest of these is through the sacrifice of animals. At the Passover at the time of Jesus it is estimated there were over a million pilgrims. With each family making a lamb sacrifice, the Temple would have become like an enormous abattoir to accommodate the blood fest.

Chapter 4 of Genesis provides the first account of sacrifice. There is no preamble, no instructions from God to do it, no explanation why sacrificial practice suddenly appears in the text. It arises in the story of Cain and Abel where Abel’s animal sacrifice finds more favor in God’s eyes than Cain’s harvest offering. This leads to the first murder, Cain’s founding of the first city and the birth of civilization. A struggle exists in the text. God hears the blood of Abel crying out from the ground for justice, but then immediately God protects his murderer by placing a mark on Cain. God prefers Abel’s animal sacrifice, but then the blood of Abel himself (an even greater sacrifice) seems to lead God to protect and bless Cain in what seems a contradiction of his earlier call for justice. This is an anthropological rather than a theological text. It tells us more about us than about God. It is a reflection about who we are: that there is a deep human need in all cultures for sacrifice. That the end result of sacrifice is order, structure, civilization – and that the pouring of blood is a powerful thing. Sacrifice was common to all ancient cultures. It is a deeply embedded human practice that, because of its power, was ascribed to the will of God/the gods. It just emerges spontaneously in the Bible. This ancient human practice is incorporated into the text. The Bible both embraces it yet also cannot completely reconcile itself to it (see prophets below) - because it seems antithetical to the emerging understanding of God.

In Exodus 12:21-27 God gives the Passover sacrifice instructions. It paints an intolerable picture of God. He sends his angel of death to pass over the human metropolis of Egypt, slaying the first born sons of all whose homes are not marked by the blood of a slaughtered lamb. The blood is not just a marker (like paint). Rather it is apotropaic – something that wards off evil. Like making the sign of the cross, the evil eye or blessing someone after they sneeze. It is something holy or magical that keeps evil away. It was an ancient practice in Europe to kill an animal and place it under the threshold of the house to protect the home. Spilling blood is a powerful primitive means of protection.

In Genesis 15:7-20 God makes a covenant with Abram. He instructs Abram to cut several animals in half and to arrange their rendered bodies in two lines to form a corridor. A smoking pot and a flaming torch appear and pass along the corridor. These symbols recall the pillars of fire and of smoke depicted in the Exodus story. They represent God who now moves down the rows of animals. God is saying that if he breaks his promise then he calls down this destruction upon himself. Abram does not have to walk down the corridor – only God. The slaughtered animals act as a curse. This account gives us a picture of how ancient peoples behaved. They used blood to give binding meaning to a promise.

The book of Samuel is the story of the founding of the Kingdoms. Before there were kings, the people were led by Judges –charismatic figures (for example Gideon and Samson) who rose up according to the needs of the people. Samuel, an early prophet, objects to the establishment of a king. He eventually, grudgingly, agrees to anoint Saul king – giving in to the will of the people. The prophets emerge at the same time as the kings – speaking out against them. The kings are another failed prototype. The prophets speak out also against what inevitably comes with a king – the palace and the temple, injustice and false worship. David, Saul’s successor and the archetypal king, did not establish a temple. It was his son, Solomon, who built it. 2 Samuel 7:1-17 tells of David considering establishing a Temple, but he is dissuaded by God, through the prophet Nathan:
“Are you the one to build me a house to live in? I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle. Wherever I have moved about among all the people of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the tribal leaders of Israel whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’”
God is saying that, unlike a tent that moves with the people, you cannot move a temple.
A temple is to do with centralized, visible, vertical power.

The basis of the Book of Samuel is written by a scribe in @950 BCE. He is preserving both the memory that God did not want a temple yet also that history shows that the Temple was in fact built. The account is contradictory - God doesn’t approve of sacrifice, but then he does; doesn’t want a temple, but then allows it. There is a struggle within the text to reconcile both strands of the tradition. The account tries to resolve the dilemma by having God reply to David that his son, rather than he, will be the architect of the Temple. The temple is therefore removed, at least by one generation, from the idealized reign of David.

The mechanism that makes a temple a temple is sacrifice. The ancient human practice, recounted in the earlier Genesis stories, thus gets institutionalized and introduced into the heart of Israel. The prophets continue to speak out against the Temple and sacrifice, maintaining the struggle/tension within the text:
“I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me you burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and your offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” (Amos 5:21-24 – a text quoted by Martin Luther King).
“For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6)

Jesus continues in this prophetic tradition. He takes on the whole sacrificial mechanism, becoming himself the sacrificial victim but overturning the concept itself through infinite forgiveness and love. In so doing he shows us the way to break with the human dependence upon sacrifice once and for all.


Sacred Space #4. The City of Zion as Sacred Space. (10/29/10)

Isaiah is comparatively a huge body of text. It is generally agreed it was composed over a long period of time by a school of prophesy. The material spans over two hundred years – including a period before the fall of the northern Kingdom and up to the end of the 8th century well before the Babylonian invasion, then the Exile followed by the immediate post-exilic era (last third of 6th century). A distinctive thing about Isaiah is that it is located in Jerusalem. The prophet Jeremiah is hostile to Jerusalem – he is a prophet of doom against the temple. Ezekiel is worse - with God authorizing a slaughter in Jerusalem because of the sins of the people. Isaiah doesn’t have this sense of judgment. Instead Isaiah celebrates the city. It is a Zionist school (in a sense completely unrelated to modern Zionism). Isaiah holds the image of Zion as the sacred city.

In Isaiah the city itself becomes sacred space. A whole city becomes beloved of God, the place where God dwells. Here the focus has shifted from the temple to the city as the sacred space. When Jesus weeps upon seeing the Jerusalem (Lk 19:41-44), he is recalling the feeling and words of Isaiah. Jesus sees the drama and catastrophe of Jerusalem set against the backdrop of Isaiah’s promises for the city. There is a mystique attached to Jerusalem that persists to this day, making it one of the most fought over places in the world. It was a walled city, impregnable for a long time up until the Babylonian invasion.

Isaiah 2: 1-4 describes the city as a place of peace. A peace not resulting from overwhelming military might as was the case with the Pax Romana. Rather this peace emanates from the word of the Lord: “for out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem”. Politically, Israel was never a major player, yet this prophecy describes it as the place that draws all people. It is a triumphal image.

Isaiah is not blind to the sins of the city. In the opening chapter (1: 1-17) Isaiah speaks out against the injustice and corruption in Jerusalem. In Is 1:21 Jerusalem, the faithful city, has become a whore. God abhors the evil doing and the empty feasts. Isaiah has no use for the temple – despising its uselessness, emptiness and the futility of its rituals.

Isaiah 11:1-9 is the prophecy of the peaceful kingdom: “A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse….” It is a picture of peace that is more than political. It spreads to the animals – the wolf living with the lamb, the leopard lying down with the kid. All flesh is related and no animal is preying on any other: “They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea”. (v.9). This is the heart of the prophesy. The spirit of the Lord will rest upon the Messianic figure. He will strike the earth, not with violence, but with the rod of his mouth. Justice will come through hearing and understanding the word, through a change of heart.

Isaiah 25:6-10 continues this beautiful vision. It portrays a big feast that takes place on the mountain of the Lord. It is a feast of rich foods and well-aged wines for all peoples. God will remove the shroud that is cast over all peoples – he will destroy death. The prophesies written up to the end of Chapter 39 are those of First Isaiah and are written before the Babylonian invasion in a time of relative prosperity.

Second Isaiah begins at chapter 40. It is written after the destruction of Jerusalem. (Jeremiah is written in the period between first and second Isaiah). Second Isaiah is a new voice written in the context of the loss of everything. In the face of such devastation, he tries to make sense of the earlier Isaiahan promises. How can the earlier prophesies be true?

He begins “Comfort, Oh comfort my people, says the Lord” (40:1-11). It is the Book of Consolation. Zion is destroyed, but not irrevocably. Hope springs up again – existing when everything else is gone. The prophet urges the people to find their security in the word of the Lord. Structures can, and do, fail – but the word of the Lord stands firm. (“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever” (v. 8). In chapters 40-55 there is no mention of the temple because it no longer existed. Instead, like in the Gospels, compassion, promise and relationship are what are sacred.

In 539 Cyrus took over the Babylonian Empire. He decreed that all displaced peoples could return to their original lands. He was considered an enlightened ruler. He believed that it was better for people to pray to their own gods for the good of the Empire. Many of the exiled Jews returned to Jerusalem and around 520 BCE a rudimentary temple was rebuilt.

Third Isaiah begins at chapter 56. It opens with a promise that God’s covenant will be extended to all who obey his laws: “For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples”. (v. 7). This passage is quoted by Jesus attached to the quote from Jeremiah 7:11 about the house of God being turned into a den of thieves. Here Isaiah is taking a stand against an emerging movement to exclude outsiders form Judaism. There was a decisive push for the returning exiles to marry only among their own community. For Jewish leaders, the exile was seen as resulting from impurity. Their desire was to create a pure community – in practice, beliefs and bloodline, to stop such devastation occurring again as a result of the sins of the people. (Ezra and Nehemiah, written at this time, demonstrate this belief). As a result foreigners, eunuchs and other ritually unclean people were excluded from the temple. Third Isaiah’s response to this is to include all who observe the Sabbath.

In the final chapter (Is 66:1-13) there is again a shift away from the temple to the city. There is a growing disillusionment with the temple (“Whoever slaughters an ox is like one who kills a human being”), but not with Zion. Jerusalem is seen as a mother bearing children. Her days of mourning are over, after the travail of the exile. Compassion flows out from the city to her children - compassion learned through her experience of loss. Now Zion becomes a source of compassion for the whole earth. The Bible itself ends with a vastly expanded vision of the New Jerusalem. It is depicted as a perfect geometrical, symmetrical space. A place where the leaves of the trees are for the healing of the nations; and death is no more.




Sacred Space #5. Ezekiel’s temple of doom and the temple of his dreams. (11/15/10)

Ezekiel is one of the four major prophets (the others are Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel). All of these prophets pivot around the crucial event of the Babylonian invasion, the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and the exile. Daniel, unlike the others, was not written at that time. It was written 400 years later, but gives its 2nd century prophecy added weight by placing it in the 6th century BCE. These prophets were a big deal. They preserved the faith of the people when they had lost their leadership, land and temple. In the process of preserving the faith in the midst of unthinkable loss, they actually created something new.

Ezekiel has been called a catatonic schizophrenic! His visions have an almost psychotic feel. Why then is he considered a major prophet? He stands out. His psychic state is a matter of public record and the psychosis he is dealing with is a national historical event. Jeremiah has a relentless message of judgment; Isaiah has words of consolation and a new vision of Zion. What Ezekiel has is an intense sense of violence. There is something about his understanding of the violence of the moment, and of Israel’s role in it. Ezekiel has a priestly, ferocious image of God – a God of wrath. Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion states that the Old Testament God is arguably the most unpleasant figure in literature. His description of a violent, autocratic and patriarchal deity is not far from Ezekiel’s vision of God. Ezekiel was a temple priest and his mind is formed by the temple. Unlike Jeremiah who had little time for the temple, Ezekiel cares deeply about it.

Ezekiel 1:1-28 gives a description of the divine chariot – the merkabah. The chariot was the fighting machine of the day (like a modern tank). God is kick-ass in an armored vehicle. It is a chariot of supernatural qualities – full of fire, wings and eyes. Filled with life and spirit, it can move in any direction and immediately, without turning. Angel imagery, picked up from the Babylonians, is incorporated into the description. Sitting on the top of the chariot is the glory of God. At this point Ezekiel’s language begins to break down. In v. 26 he starts using the phrase “something like” because he can no longer fully express God’s glory.

He has this vision in Babylon five years after the first exile occurred when Jehoichin (the 18 year old king) surrendered the city. Ezekiel was one of the 10,000 members of the court, the army, craftspeople and temple who were exiled with the young leader. The city is still intact at this point – it will be another five years before Jerusalem’s destruction. Ezekiel is writing in the midst of a secular, non-Jewish alien environment. He mentally compensates for the absence of the land, temple and culture. He has lost his holy place. It is in that gap that he sees this vision – a vision of the glory of God inhabiting the temple. Ezekiel is dealing with violence done to the most precious thing to him – the temple.

Ezekiel 22: 1-16 Ezekiel describes a city of idolatry and violence. A place where strangers suffer extortion, slander leads to bloodshed and people give false witness in court, women are violated while menstruating, and where “the princes …have been bent on shedding blood.” The spilling of blood is mentioned a lot. It is an account of a bloody city. Ezekiel has an aversion to blood spilled in the wrong place (v.26). It becomes a violation of the holiness which happens when blood is poured in the right place – in the temple. Sacrifice is the only acceptable form of bloodshed. Everything else renders things impure. The city is unclean and impure. Because of this, Ezekiel says, the Lord will make you even more impure. Ezekiel makes the mechanism of vengeance clear, violation of the holy brings violation of the people. He wants to blame the invasion on the sins of the people. They have created the sacrificial crisis. The people will thus be made the sacrifice. Here he prophesies the final destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.

Chapter 9:1-10 is one of the most intolerable chapters in the Bible. Here God orders the slaying of the people. He pours out his wrath on Jerusalem, defiling his own temple with the dead bodies. The people have defiled him so he will defile them in turn to show his holiness. Only those who “sigh and groan over all the abominations” will be spared – having been marked on their foreheads by an emissary of the Lord. No mercy will be given to the elderly, women or children. No sanctuary found in the temple. Scholars think that this chapter, with its instructions to the executioner, is probably an account of what actually happened. In times of invasion people often gather at the temple as a last sanctuary. That is also the place where a conquering army would target. Their goal would be to profane that place, cutting the people down without mercy. What is at stake is the transcendence of the other, which you must destroy. The Romans did the same thing. Ezekiel describes the event then gives it a theological spin. Saying that it is all part of God’s nature and his plan.

In Ez 10:1-17 the chariot described in chapter one is here in the middle of the temple. The fire from the wheels is used to burn the city and the temple. In vv 18-22, after the slaughter, the chariot carrying the glory of God leaves Jerusalem. This chariot carrying the glory of the Lord lifts from the temple and parks itself on top of a mountain halfway between Jerusalem and Babylon. Only when the people are again dedicated to holiness and purity will God’s glory be restored to the temple.

Ezekiel is sometimes called the Father of Judaism. After the return from exile, his prophesy of the rebuilding of the ideal temple (found in Chapter 40) becomes a key text. Today it is important for Dispensationalist and fundamentalist Christians. Ezra and Nehemiah look to the Ezekiel tradition for their sense of national purity. The Pharisees at the time of Jesus have dedicated themselves to holiness laws and rituals in an attempt to keep God’s favor and to forestall further disaster. They are seeking not to repeat the mistakes of the past. For Ezekiel, the sacrificial system with its focus on sin, holiness and purity keeps things controlled and is the source of the people’s security. For Ezekiel the holy is everything. At the same time he has a sense of a genuine interior transformation (“a new heart and a new spirit I will give you”, 36:26). It is for this that the prophecy is remembered more than his concern of the temple. All the same Jesus stands very much in contrast to his temple ideology. He deliberately hangs out with the impure and heals on the Sabbath. He transforms the water jars, set aside for purification, into wine. He breaks the holy open by shutting the temple down.



Sacred Space #6. Wisdom. (11/12/10)


The wisdom literature of the Old Testament is neither prophetic in character nor does it see the need for temple. It is a way of thinking common to all peoples –that if you act well your life will turn out well. It is age and experience passing on to the next generation the message that life has a pattern to it. If you are truly listening to life’s message then there is a level of truth within you that you can rely on. Of course it may be blown away by circumstances, but basically it holds true. Proverbs 3:13-20 talks about the source of true wealth. “Happy are those who find wisdom and those who get understanding…” Jesus uses the same form of expression in the beatitudes: “happy are the poor in spirit, etc.” - i.e. these are Wisdom statements.

Wisdom is personified as a female relational being in the Old Testament. She is not simply something in your head or inherited right thinking, but a persona. Wisdom is a shadowy figure in the Old Testament. She is linked to the tree of life at the center of the Garden of Eden. See Proverbs 3:18, “She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her’. The implication is that through Wisdom, humans can attain life everlasting. In contrast, folly leads to death. Without wisdom people come to harm. There is no God of wrath. Instead we can choose to bring destruction upon ourselves by denying Wisdom, or choose life by following her paths.

The Lord, through Wisdom, created the earth. She is a beautiful person in relationship with God. She was there at the beginning, at the moment of creation (Proverbs 8:22-36). "When he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master worker; and I was daily he is delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the human race”(v. 30-31). The word for “master worker” can also be translated as “little child” which seems to fit better contextually. The former is usually used though, because it is less relational and more Greek, so easier to deal with. Wisdom delights in us, God delights in Wisdom. It is a wisdom thing to do – to delight in other people. There is no need for a separate sacred place if the world is full of delight – no need in fact for a temple. Instead through Wisdom we find transcendence in each other. We find the fulfillment of God’s purpose in creation.

Wisdom is a minor key in the Bible – less dominant than the Torah, the prophets and the history of the kings. But still it is one of the strands. It is present throughout the Bible. In the Torah Joseph is in fact a Wisdom figure. He figures things out through his dreams which provide insight into actual circumstances. He reorganizes the food stores of Egypt so that they are able to survive the famine. His wise actions bring life.

The book of Proverbs (a wisdom book) is hard to date. It has material from the 10th century (the time of Solomon) but probably reached its final form in the 6th century. It is fairly well developed – particularly the first eight chapters. In the 2nd century Sirach, another Wisdom book, was written. This is considered deutero-canonical by the Roman Catholic Church, apocryphal by the Protestants. Jesus knew this book and was informed by it. Parts seem to have been used and developed by him. In Chapter 24 Wisdom praises herself in the presence of the Most High. “I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist…” (v.3). Here Wisdom is associated with the breath or the word of the Most High. There is an identification of Sofia (Wisdom) with the Logos (the Word). The Prologue in the Gospel of John uses this Wisdom thought, saying that all things were created through the Word. This is a wisdom theology. Jesus used Wisdom sayings and identified himself with the person of Wisdom – who invites people to eat and be filled and promises them life and peace.

In v. 13 Wisdom is depicted also as a great tree. “I grew tall like a cedar in Lebanon, and like a cypress on the heights of Hermon” In v.23 she is associated with the Torah, and in v. 31 forms a great river spreading across the earth.

In Ch 50:1-21 the scribe describes a temple service that took place at some point between 219-196 BCE when Simon son of Onias was high priest. It gives us a snap shot of the liturgy. The scribe sees this is a continuation of the world made good – It is a glorious picture of heavenly splendor come to earth. It is also the last time that Wisdom literature basks in its own confidence.

In 167 -164 the Seleucid kings of Syria take over Judea. Alexander the Great had conquered the known world at end of the 4th century. After his death, power was divided among his military leaders. Two powers in particular arose– the Ptolemies (Cleopatra was a member of this family) and the Seleucids who were centered in Damascus and Syria. The Seleucid leader, Antiochus Epiphanes, tried to turn the temple in Jerusalem into a place of Greek worship. As a part of this effort he erected a statue of Zeus - the infamous “abomination of desolation”. He also forbade circumcision and the reading of the scriptures. This was the first time that an invading army had tried to wipe out the Jewish religion. There were also Jewish Hellenizers in Jerusalem promoting the Greek way of life. They adopted Greek dress and built a gym in Jerusalem. Antiochus Epiphanes’ attempt to Hellenize the temple provoked a guerilla war. The successful rebellion was led by the Maccabee family. They were not a Davidic family instead they were a minor priestly family. Following the success of the rebellion they assumed leadership in Jerusalem. Herod the Great married in to the Hasmoneans – the last of the Maccabean line. Herod was regarded as an imposter because he was of Arab blood and also married to this non-Davidic family.

1 Maccabees 1:36-50 describes the defilement of the temple. Many chose to flee to the desert rather than accept pagan rituals and laws. 1Macc 2:29-41 describes how they were pursued into the wilderness. They were overrun on the eve of the Sabbath. They refused to fight on the Sabbath and so profane it: “ ‘Let us all die in our innocence; heaven and earth testify for us that you are killing us unjustly.” So they attacked them on the Sabbath, and they died, with their wives and children and livestock, to the number of a thousand persons” (vv 37-38).

The Maccabean leader, Matthias, is more secular minded. He justifies fighting on the Sabbath to prevent them from perishing. “When Matthias and his friends learned of it, they mourned for them deeply. And all said to their neighbors: ‘If we all do as our kindred have done and refuse to fight with the Gentiles for our lives and for our ordinances, they will quickly destroy us from the earth.’”

The initial non-violent group were, very probably, the forerunners of the Essenes (the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls). They sought holiness through purity, and refused to fight the Romans. They were not completely non-violent, however – according to the Qumran “War Scroll” they were prepared to fight when the angels came to lead them in the final battle to restore holiness to the land. The Pharisees also sought holiness through purity and were probably related in some way to this initial group.

In the context described, the project of Wisdom – that if you chose to live a righteous life you will do well – appeared to have failed. In response Wisdom thought becomes apocalyptic in the Book of Daniel. The premise of apocalyptic literature is that in order for good to prevail, for the righteous to live, God has to intervene directly. This book, the last of the four major prophets, was written at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes in 167-164 BCE. In Daniel 11: 29-35 there is an account of the Greek profanation of the temple. It also tells of non-violent resisters who fall by the sword. These wise among the people will give understanding to many. Though they fall by the sword, unresisting, this will be so that they might be “refined, purified and cleansed, until the time of the end, for there is still an interval until the appointed time.” (v 35). In Chapter 12: 1-4 we have the first clear description of resurrection in the bible. In this picture some of the dead will awake to everlasting life and then “those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky…”

Wisdom from being a broad picture of living well has shifted to a key of non-violence in a time of crisis. And logically connected to this the only way we are going to make the world turn out well for life is through resurrection. In this thinking it is not a reward of “salvation” in a heavenly hereafter, but as the only way a God of wisdom can bring about the fulfillment of his project. The violence of the world may destroy you – but the resurrection makes it right and becomes our hope.

The concept of sacred space breaks down. Violent power took over the temple and the people who finally triumph through violent rebellion are not the authentic descendants of David and quickly became corrupt. At the time of Jesus, the temple was compromised. Instead the wilderness was the place where people went to meet God, awaiting a breakthrough of a just life on earth. John the Baptist represents the movement away from the temple to the wilderness and apocalyptic. He becomes the link between the Old and the New Testaments. Jesus is then the fulfillment of Wisdom’s project for the earth.







Sacred Space #7.The early Christian community (11/19/10)

The earliest writings of the New Testament are those written by Paul. Thessalonians is one of the first – from about 49AD – roughly 20 years after Jesus death. It is a direct communication between Paul and one of the early Christian communities. It provides us with a sociological study of the early church.

The Greek word for church is ecclesia- which was a secular term meaning “called together” or “gathering”. It did not have the modern association with a sacred place of worship. Christians were called together at each others’ houses. The concept of “church” as a separate building came with Constantine. The Roman emperor gave a Basilica (a royal palace) to the church. The king’s private quarters became the area behind the altar from where Jesus/the king would emerge to be seen. The church was adopted by the imperial power and became identified with power and prestige and all of its trappings. For the first three centuries, however, Christian gatherings took place in peoples’ homes. Ecclesia was a small assembly of people. The Pauline letters usually use the phrase “church at the house of”. For example 1Cor 16:19 “Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, greet you warmly in the Lord”. (See also Romans 16:5). Prisca and Aquila were tent makers who moved around – living in Corinth, Ephesus and Rome. At that time it was relatively safe to travel – during the relatively stable Pax Romana. Other examples of house churches are found in the letters to Philemon (1:1-2) and to the Colossians (4:15).

When the head of the household became a Christian, it was usual for his household (his wife, children, servants and slaves) to follow suit. Romans 16:10 alludes to this “ Greet those in the Lord who belong to the house of Aristobulus.” In 1 Cor 1:16 we see the same thing “I did baptize the household of Stephanas.” It has been estimated that 25-33% of the population of the Roman Empire, were slaves. Paul does not argue against slavery as an institution. He did not set out to abolish slavery – rather teaches a subversive love that will ultimately undermine it. For Paul, the Christian message is not about bringing down the empire – rather it introduces a new understanding about who we are in relationship to others, something that overturns the deep structure on which the empire rested. In Philemon Paul says to receive a slave as a brother.

The Pauline message is a message of transformation. God invites us to change our hearts by the power of love. Social order is subverted from within. In 1 Cor 7: 17-24 Paul describes the freedom that comes through belonging to the Lord. The Jewish community had clear demarcating lines with its practice of circumcision, and through its dietary laws. Christianity in contrast has no preconditions. This being the case there is always the tendency to chaos. Paul’s letters struggle with the tension between anarchy and freedom in the Spirit. Paul tries to keep the freedom but at the same time seeks to introduce some order. He recognizes that freedom requires a tremendous surrender to the Spirit to make it work. Christians can experience freedom in any situation – whether slave or master, woman or man, rich or poor.

The early church also has a number of women in leadership roles. Romans 16:1-2 describes Phoebe, a deacon and benefactor. She is a woman of independent means, who traveled to Rome. Her name is not linked to any man. In Romans 16:7 another woman, Junia, is called an apostle. In the Middle Ages an “s” was often added to the end of her name to make it sound like a man’s. In Acts 16:14, Lydia, a business woman dealing in purple (a luxury dyed cloth) is described as the head of her household – another woman of influence.

The New Testament gives us a picture of the people who made up the early church. It also gives us a picture of how they worshipped as a community. 1Cor 11:17 describes problems emerging in relation to the communion meal in Corinth. Corinth was a small Christian community – perhaps just four or five households. Divisions had emerged because people had not learned to share with the poor. Paul says it is better that they eat at home if they cannot be in community.

1 Corinthians also offers teaching on the issue of whether it acceptable to eat food sacrificed to idols. There are three chapters devoted to this subject (8-10). 1 Cor 10:23 -32 sums up this teaching. There is no need to observe dietary laws if you are ruled by love. Food should not become a barrier to entering into a relationship with another. The Christian is free to eat any food, even if it has been dedicated to a god. If another believes that the dedication is meaningful, however, then don’t eat it because it might cause them offense. This concept of no rules only works if you have respect for the other and for yourself. The new Christian movement has no sacred order – instead it is trying to work out a new way of how to be free with each other. “ For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them….I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.” (1 Cor 9:19-23)



Sacred Space #8. Relationships in the Gospel of John. (11/26/10)

Jn1:35-39 gives the account of the calling of the first disciples. These were followers of John the Baptist who hear him announce, “Here is the Lamb of God.” They follow Jesus who asks them, “What are you looking for?” They ask, “Rabbi where are you staying?” Jesus replies “Come and see” - and they stayed with him.

Jn 20:15-17 describes the morning of the resurrection. Mary Magdalene sees Jesus, but doesn’t recognize him. Jesus speaks to her, asking, “Whom are you looking for?” Mary recognizes him and calls out, “Rabbouni”. Jesus tells her not to hold on to him, but instead to “go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, my God and your God’”.

These two passages are bookends or literary inclusions. There is a progression between the first to the second. Both have questions, but these transition from what to whom, from the impersonal to the personal. The disciples call him Rabbi (translated as teacher); Mary calls him Rabbouni. In both accounts the evangelist uses parenthesis to give the same translation - teacher. The difference is that the word’s ending changes to give the meaning “beloved teacher” in the resurrection narrative. They are structurally parallel accounts with a common drama. Mirror stories placed at the beginning and the end of the Gospel. The first story announces the thematic –Jesus is a teacher. As the Gospel unfolds the reader enters into a deeper, more meaningful, relationship with Jesus. The Gospel is an invitation to learn from Jesus and enter into this relationship.

There is a lot of turning in this story. In v. 14, “When she had said this she turned around and saw Jesus standing there…” In v. 16, “Jesus said to her ‘Mary!’ She turned and said to him in Hebrew, Rabbouni”. The Hebrew word for repent is “to turn around”. Turning here has a spiritual and relational sense. The first time she turns she sees who she is expecting to see, what she is looking for – the gardener. The second time she hears his voice and is open to a different understanding. You can’t see this new risen Lord unless you turn, change your perspective. When you move from your fixed way of being you can begin to see him. It signifies a shift in relationship – from Rabbi to Rabbouni. In the first story the disciples follow Jesus to his home in Capernaum; here Mary is called to a new relationship.

Mary tries to hold on to Jesus, to keep things the way they were in the past. Jesus replies that “I have not yet ascended to my Father and your Father…” He then tells her to go to the brethren and tell them, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God”– the present tense. He is in process of ascending. Ascension in John is not a physical thing, a movement to another place, but rather a progressive growth in relationship. Otherwise why link himself and his disciples in this way? He “ascends” in the measure that his disciples enter into the same relationship as he has with the Father.

At the same time being “raised up”, going upward, in John is all about the cross. Jesus will not complete his ascension, he will continue to ascend, until people understand that Jesus’ God, his Father, is also their God and Father, and that he is the one who willed the nonviolence of the cross. When you see Jesus you see the Father - a nonviolent God. Because of this all the barriers between us and the divine are no more. The intermediary mechanisms of sacrifice and temple are redundant once you have been brought into this relationship. Priests and Pastors may serve a useful pastoral role but cannot substitute for the new relationship with God. We see that Mary needs to let go of Jesus and this is so in order that she may enter into this privileged relationship with the Father and help lead others into it. Although we understand the Father through Jesus, Jesus in a way has to become less so that the Father becomes more.

In Jn 14:1 Jesus says to his disciples, “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me.” Here he is talking of the same thing. That the Father is nonviolent and loving, so there is no need to worry. Jesus shows us who God is - the Father. Jesus mirrors the Father – and so creates an endless reflective relationship with us in the middle!

The accounts of the Samaritan woman at the well and the anointing of Jesus by the woman at Bethany are also parallel stories. Jn 4:6-15 describes the meeting at Jacob’s well –a holy site. Jesus gently deconstructs that sacred space. He asks the woman to give him water, breaking the cultural barriers associated with Samaritans and Women. Jesus as the source of living water will become the source welling up within you. There is no more need to return to the well. True worship is in spirit and in truth. Neither Jacob’s well nor Jerusalem will be necessary as sacred space. They are replaced by this new relationship between the believer and Jesus. The woman who anoints Jesus in Jn 12:1-8 is a mirror of the Samaritan woman in terms of relationship. She pours costly nard on Jesus’ feet in an extravagant gesture of limitless love. She has moved beyond argument to an act that shows the depth of this relationship.




Sacred Space #9. Jesus and the Temple (12/3/10)

In John’s Gospel Jesus replaces the temple. After he announces his ministry at the wedding feast at Cana, the first thing Jesus does is to shut down the temple. This event is placed at the end of his ministry in the Synoptic Gospels – which is more likely to be chronologically correct. It is hard to imagine that he would have succeeded in completely disrupting the business of the temple without having established a reputation and a large following. John places the incident at the beginning of his Gospel to signal that he is reconstituting the human relationship with the divine. That he is making all things new.

Traditionally the purpose of placing the clearing of the temple at the start of the book was understood as the gospel reconstituting the sacred order. The temple still exists – but has been replaced by the body of Jesus. The temple therefore becomes cosmic and bigger – the underlying sacrificial system remains. In the Roman Catholic tradition this is evident in the idea of the universal sacrifice of the mass, no longer limited to one central temple but accessible on any church altar. Wooden church altars to this day are required to have an embedded piece of stone that evokes the ancient sacrificial altars. Protestant churches may not have altars but often have tables set aside for the purpose of communion, with a sacred aura and which cannot be used for more secular things.

Jn 2:13-22 gives us the account of the clearing of the temple. It is the feast of the Passover, celebrating the liberation of the Exodus. It describes a scene of dramatic action. Jesus drives out the sacrificial animals, along with the money changers and the traders. The money changers were engaged in exchanging the shekel into the officially approved Tyrian coin—probably with the most stable value as currency. This was surely one of the most lucrative industries in Jerusalem.

Next time the temple is mentioned is in Jn 5: 1-9 – the healing of the man at the pool of Siloam. This takes place during a feast. This feast is most likely the feast of Pentecost. Pentecost was a festival that celebrated the first fruits of the harvest. The healing takes place at the sheep gate – the place where animals enter to be prepared for slaughter. The healing here is already a displacement of sacrifice.

The third mention of the temple is in Jn 7: 1-11. This time the incident is during the feast of Succoth – the festival of Booths. Succoth, the later harvest festival, included dancing with fires and drink in the piazza of the temple. It celebrated the goodness of the land. It also recalled the wandering in the wilderness. Its name comes from the tents or booths that the people made as shelter in the wilderness. Jesus is staying away from Judea because the authorities were looking to kill him. His disciples go to Jerusalem to take part in the festival. Jesus initially says he will not go but then goes in secret. On the last day of the festival the priest traditionally poured water all over the altar – possibly relating to the Ezekiel prophesy about water flowing out from the temple, but also to the prophesy in Zechariah 14. Jerusalem is pictured as the source of a mighty river, of life for the whole world. Here (in v.37-39) Jesus again displaces the temple. He cries out “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, ‘Out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water.’” This echoes Jesus’ meeting with the woman at the well in Samaria. There the invitation was for her to drink living water – here the invitation is extended to the whole world.

The feast of Booths is also an eschatological feast. It refers to a Messianic text in the prophet Zechariah about the future king (the anointed one). Zechariah was written immediately after the exile (about 530-510 BCE) at a time when there were no kings in Israel. The King described in Zechariah is a peaceful one, a non-violent Messiah (not planning on rebelling against Persian overlords). Zechariah 9: 9-10 describes him riding on a donkey instead of a horse, (associated with warriors and war). Instead he is to bring peace to the nations. Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on a donkey in the Synoptics signals that he is to be a Zechariah style messiah.

Zechariah is written at the end of the time of the prophets. The fifth century BCE marks the end of the monarchy. As they disappeared so too did the court prophets and also the need for prophets speaking out against the injustices associated with power. What replaced the court was the temple, and with it a move towards religious purity. When John the Baptist comes he is the eruption of a new prophetic voice after a period of silence. What is new about John the Baptist’s message is the element of apocalyptic. An increasing sense that God himself has to break into history to transform the world, overcome the wicked and raise up the good. His message is a call to prepare because God is going to come soon. Jesus embraces this, but changes the message to a non-violent act by God – not the expected violent war against evil.

Chapter 14 of Zechariah is one of the earliest apocalyptic texts. It is the chapter associated with the festival of Booths. Jerusalem has no army here – instead it is God’s army who fights for the people. Zech 14:8 describes the living water flowing out from Jerusalem. In v.16 the enemies that have been defeated in the battle will keep the festival of Booths. It describes the end times, when all things promised to all peoples will come to pass. It is an eschatological, or last-times, text. It is a vision of peace and celebration and the end of purity boundaries. “On that day there shall be inscribed on the bells of the horses, ‘Holy to the Lord’. And the cooking pots in the house of the Lord shall be as holy as the bowls in front of the altar; and every cooking pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be sacred to the Lord of hosts, so that all who sacrifice may come and use them to boil the flesh of the sacrifice. And there shall no longer be traders in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day.” (v20-21).

The horse represented war and military power. Even the bells on the horses, the most secular things, will be inscribed as holy. The cooking utensils are holy. Everything that is secular will be filled with holiness. The people will not need to have special pots to prepare the meat of sacrifices. Pots were used to carry the sacrificed meat from the temple back to the family. At the time of the Passover clay ovens were set up on street corners to help cook the meat so that it would last the journey home. Here everything is reversed. Here the pots in the city kitchens are holy. There essentially is no need for a temple, or at the least the basic distinctions on which it is based are destroyed.

In fulfillment of this feast of Booths prophesy, Jesus gets rid of the animals and the traders in the temple. Mark 11:15 tells the same story. “..and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple.” This has often been understood in sacrificial terms – that Jesus was keeping the temple space holy and pure by not allowing anything to be carried in to it, maintaining the sacred space of the sanctuary.

But the word used for “anything” here is skeuos which means vessel or utensil generally, and in the context of the temple refers to all the paraphernalia of sacrifice (there are numerous OT uses in this sense) and of course including pots. Jesus was preventing the traffic of vessels, the kind used in sacrifices to carry materials in and the carcasses out. It should be best translated as “pots”, as in the Zechariah prophesy (although the actual word in Zechariah is not skeuos). Jesus’ action marks the end of the sacred function of the temple. In the Synoptics it is after this that the authorities seek to kill him. Jesus is slain by the forces that would keep the sacrificial system going.



Sacred Space #10. Revelations. (12/10/10)

Revelations is the final book of the Bible. Some early Christians did not think it should have been included in the canon because it did not have apostolic authorship. It describes a dramatic vision of history yet to come. It is mind-bending in its expression and its repetition of themes. It is important because the story ends with an opening. It is written in crisis mode – not a comfortable expression of sacred space, but is yet filled with tremendous energy and hope.

The book begins with a series of addresses to seven churches. Seven is a recurring figure throughout the book. Chapter 2: 12-13 is a letter to the church in Pergamum. This is a place where Christians are being persecuted “where Satan lives”. Antipas, a faithful witness, has been killed there. Pergamum was a city where the cult of the emperor was practiced. An important shrine to Zeus and to the Caesars (Julius and Augustus) had been erected. It was a trading city in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) that traded goods between Greece and Asia Minor. Pergamum vied with other trading cities to get privileges from Rome. Pergamum gained a march on its rivals by instituting the cult of the emperors. Anyone who traded there was probably required to participate. The “mark of the beast” probably relates to participation in this cult. There was pressure on Christians to collude with – the worship in the temple of the Caesars. Antipas refused to collude and so he was killed.

Satan here is code for the Beast and its power. It is a word that encompasses the Roman system of rule and culture. Satan represents all worldly violence, power and influence. This is similar to the Gospel use of the name - Satan is depicted as the ruler of the world in the temptation of Jesus. The emperor Nero is also associated with the Beast. He heads a kingdom that opposes the Kingdom of God. Christians towards the end of the first century were becoming aware of the powers ranged against the Lordship of Christ. These were real and significant. Satan is not understood as a real personal metaphysical rival of God (as in Milton’s Paradise Lost). Rather Satan is the price of doing business - the forces of the world.

Chapters 4 – 5 describe the court of heaven and the worship of the Almighty on his throne. In his right hand he holds a scroll that no one in heaven or on earth is worthy to open. “Then I saw between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered…” The Lamb opens the scroll at the throne. The only one worthy to open the scroll is the Lamb who was slain. Here the Lamb, as the agent of God, becomes the conquering hero in opposition to the throne of Satan. The Lamb is mentioned twenty-nine times in Revelations. A lamb is immediately recognizable as a sacrificial animal – the inverse of one who slays.

In 5:9 the blood of the Lamb is introduced for the first time. From this point blood becomes a dominant theme - the blood of limitless violence and the blood of the Lamb. The blood of the Lamb is in conflict with the bloodiness of the world. This changes the meaning of being “saved by the blood of the Lamb” from the purely personal to a much more social or systemic thing. The blood of the Lamb discloses or reveals the bloodiness of the world and brings it to an end.

In chapter six the scroll with seven seals evokes the scrolls of the prophets. The scroll is a prophetic motif in Isaiah and Ezekiel. It also captures the excitement of something hidden that is going to be revealed. It has seven seals that can only be opened by the Lamb. The first four seals are four horsemen – white, red, black and green. These represent Christ, war, famine and death. The fifth seal is the crisis of Christian persecution – the blood of the martyrs. Their blood calls out for vengeance from under the altar. The normal function of sacrificial blood is to bring peace. Here the blood is not peaceful. The word for vengeance can also mean vindication – a restoration of life. The blood cries out – like the blood of Abel. The blood of the witnesses of the Lamb is not quiet.

The sixth and seventh seals continue the blood theme with the moon becoming like blood (v.12), and after the seventh, with the trumpets, hail and fire mixed with blood (7:7) and the sea becoming blood (v.9). Other blood references can be found in 11:6, 14:17-20 and 16:4-7. The more blood you spill – the more blood will be spilled (see 13:10). Once the innocent victim is revealed, the world reacts with more violence in its attempt to restore the world to the old order. It is a picture of the twentieth century with its two huge world wars, including the Holacaust and the atom bomb. Things can no longer be brought to the peace of forgetfulness anymore – the blood cries out. The cross has brought on the crisis. The worse the crisis is the closer the triumph of the Lamb. The book of Revelations is a revelation of violence, not (as it is sometimes used) an inciting of violence. The blood of the Lamb is not the terrifying red stuff that all humanity fears, rather it transforms and brings healing and peace. The Lamb’s blood counter-veils (reveals) and counter-offends (forgives) – robes are made white as snow. (7:13-17).

The miracle of Revelations is that, after all the blood-letting, comes the promise of healing and transformation. All those who have been killed will reappear and in Chapter 21: 1-4 we have the vision of the new Jerusalem – the final sacred space without sacred violence. This final image is of sexual union – of a bride and groom. New humanity is the bride, the Lamb is the groom. There are no more temples (v22). The Lamb triumphs over the violence. There is no more need for a temple to negotiate with a God identified with violence. Rather the Lamb replaces the temple - the Lamb whose blood sets us free from blood-letting.




Sacred Space #11.Trinity. (12/17/10)

The doctrine of the Trinity is highly evolved, not finding full, systematic expression until 451 AD. It describes three persons of the Godhead who share the same substance, and one of whom also became a human being! It came out of the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and Chalcedon from the fourth to the end of the fifth century, the time when Christianity had become the established religion of the Roman Empire. It was formulated in Greek terms of substance and nature but was rooted in the lived experience of the early church.

In polytheistic religions there is a rivalry among the various gods. In monotheism, the single god inevitably becomes a symbol of solitary might and power. For Christians, the Trinity became the way of understanding God in terms of community, love and equality – without rivalry or violence. While triadic forms exist in other religions and three is a holy number in many cultures, for Christians, the idea of the Trinity grew organically from the person of Jesus.

1 John :1-4 is a riff on the Prologue of John’s Gospel. It was written at a later time than the Gospel of John and attempts to counter the Greek Docetic and Gnostic heresies that were emerging at that time. These denied or down-played the humanity of Jesus. Jesus only appeared to be human. 1 John underscores the physicality of Jesus: “We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life.” (v. 1)

On the night before his death Jesus prays for his disciples in John’s Gospel (Jn 17). Jesus makes the amazing claim that he alone knows the Father. “Righteous Father, the world does not know you, but I know you” (v.25). Here “knowing” refers not to intellectual understanding and conceptualization, but to intimacy. In this sense it is closer to the Old Testament meaning of “knowing” as sexual intimacy. This claim by Jesus comes as liberation: the concept of Trinity is rooted in the practice of love witnessed in Jesus. It brings God into our human realm. Through the concrete ways that he behaved – teaching, healing, serving, dying, Jesus manifests this claim that would otherwise appear megalomaniacal.

Mt 11:25-27 has a similar passage. “All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” It is a Johannine like passage but written much earlier. It is unexplained in the text but is entirely memorable. It reads like other of his wisdom sayings and is probably authentic to Jesus. It suggests an exclusive intimacy between Jesus and the Father which is not a matter of doctrine but of perfect love unmarred by any division or rivalry. Packed away in these earliest traditions the Trinity is already there.

The Holy Spirit appears in John’s Gospel: “if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go I will send him to you” (Jn 16:7). A three-fold relationship is shown to exist. The Spirit is the reality within the Christian of the unbroken relationship of love between Jesus and the Father. The Spirit comes from Jesus and becomes our inner experience of God. The Spirit is something inside us that is not Jesus. It is poured out on people. And so the only way to describe it is as another entity, and necessarily a personal one. It was therefore through the lived experience of the early Christians and their attempts to describe it that the concept of Trinity was born. Jesus’ final prayer is that his disciples be one as he is one with his Father. He is praying for the relationship within the Trinity to spread out to the human race. The Trinity is meant to be passed on. Christianity is about learning this relationship.

If we relate to Jesus and imitate him we will imitate his crucial formative relationship. Trinity is the ultimate sacred space determined not by architecture or geography but by relationship. If the Spirit is pure loving relationship, then relationship becomes the ultimate sacred. Any place where this relationship exists becomes sacred. The Trinity sets us free from defined sacred space in order to make every space sacred.

A Johannine Study Even though we did a study on John/Mark almost directly before this (archived below) we return to John's gospel one more time, as the go-to document for Christian communities seeking to be faithful in a new way that is also old. Centered on the witness of the unnamed Beloved Disciple the community represented by this gospel sought to be faithful via a personal intimacy with the person of Jesus, rather than through a system of office and authority. "Remain in me" is the watchword and this is accomplished through an immersion in words, symbols, discourse and feeling. It is like walking into a sea that gets deeper as you go, and suddenly you find yourself swimming and breathing like a fish which is part of the ocean itself. John is a triumph of the Word in every sense--words, the medium of meaning, lead to the most profound change of meaning. Immersion in Jesus brings the new creation, right now as much as in the future. We used as a basis for our discussions, Sandra Schneiders Written That You May Believe: Encountering Jesus In The Fourth Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 2003). Each of the following studies follows one or two chapters from this book.

That You May Believe 1

Background reading to study #1- Written That You May Believe Chapters 1&2. 04/08/10 The Johannine Community John’s Gospel is the last of the canonical Gospels to be written and stands apart from the Synoptics in style and material. (For example the ministry of Jesus in Matthew, Mark and Luke lasts a year, in John three years). It offers a non-hierarchical and non-traditional source of New Testament authority, apart from the figures of Paul or Peter. This authority lies in the witness and relationship with Jesus of the beloved disciple. In John’s Gospel the beloved disciple is the central figure apart from Jesus. S/he is the witness to the material – the person around whom the material gathers and who guarantees its authenticity. The beloved disciple takes a pivotal role but is not identified in the Gospel. Traditionally the beloved disciple has been associated with John, the son of Zebedee. In John’s Gospel Jesus uses signs to communicate his message. This has especially loaded meaning in John, but also in the Synoptics Jesus works through signs. Jesus chose twelve men to represent the twelve tribes of Israel. However, in contrast to the Synoptic Gospels the twelve are only mentioned once and not in association with the initial call of disciples. And no authority is given them. In light of this, recent scholarship tends not to associate the beloved disciple with one of the twelve. The beloved disciple was most probably someone who lived for many years in a Christian community which was originally based in Palestine (Israel) but perhaps later relocated to Ephesus in Asia Minor. The Gospel, though based on the reflections and memories of this individual, was probably written by someone else. The evangelist was probably a younger, second generation member of the Johannine community. Gospels emerge within the context from which they are written. They are shaped by the needs of these communities and the audience they are targeting. The features of the Johannine community identified by the theologian Raymond Brown are as follows: The original community was probably made up of highly motivated Jews such as the followers of John the Baptist described in Jn 1and 3. Though highly religious they were not zealots. They would most likely have included Galileans and lived outside of Jerusalem. At some point a significant number of Samaritans joined the community. Samaritans were some of the first to receive the gospel (Acts 8:4-8) – the story of the woman at the well provides the Gospel’s evidence for this. Also joining the community were Diaspora Jews – Jews who had settled outside Israel without ties to Jerusalem. Gentiles were the final group to join. Brown argues that because of the prominence given to women in the Gospel of John that the original community would likely have had a strong female leadership. Sandra Schneiders argues that the beloved disciple was a woman – possibly Mary Magdalene. The Evangelist could also have been a woman – or if not, then an enlightened man, sympathetic to women. (The role of women in the Gospel will be explored more fully in a later study). The beloved disciple, while based on a historical figure, is not identified, creating an open set or cipher. The “beloved disciple” becomes a literary device – a representative figure with which the reader can identify. In this way the beloved disciple becomes the means by which the reader is drawn into the Gospel and into a relationship with Jesus. This relationship lies at the heart of the Gospel. The Johannine community was, therefore, a non-hierarchical community that existed independently from the Jerusalem church. It did not promote priesthood or hierarchical leadership but instilled a direct communion with Christ. Probably after the death of the beloved disciple the text is edited and an additional ending added – Chapter 21. This story – of Jesus meeting the disciples on the sea of Galilee and the rehabilitation of Peter – is an attempt by the Johannine community to build a relationship with the emerging hierarchical church. In part this was an effort by the Johannine community to counter the growing challenge of an early form of Gnosticism. Gnosticism, influenced heavily by Greek thought, believed that the body was an empty shell. This form of thought typically denied the bodily incarnation of Jesus – that Jesus was really human, suffered and died. The Johannine letters, written after the Gospel around 100 CE/AD, address this by stressing the human, physical Jesus. By aligning with the Petrine church, the Johannine community was affirming its belief in the fully human Jesus and the bodily resurrection. The second ending gives Peter a pastoral role and in so doing indicates that the Johannine community were accepting the pastoral role of the Petrine church. However the ending is also written in such a way that it allowed the community to retain their own unique identity and spiritual independence.

Written That You May Believe 2

Background reading to study #2 Written That You May Believe chapters 1&2. 04/15/10 The Prologue The Prologue to John’s Gospel is found in Jn 1:1-18. In the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church this passage was included as part of the ritual at the end of every mass – demonstrating its importance. John’s prologue is often compared with the beginning of Genesis, “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void…,” describing the beginning of the world. The Johannine Prologue has traditionally been used as the underpinning for doctrine – the teaching that Jesus pre-existed with the Father even before the creation of the world. The Prologue gives Jesus immense status. Unlike the Synoptics, Jesus is not baptized by John in the Jordan – there is no need, his authority has already been proclaimed. John’s prologue says that in the beginning was the Word. The Word essentially means communication. The end of John’s Gospel sees an inclusion re. the Word – though this time in written form—when it says that “these [signs] are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah” (20:30-31; this is also reiterated in the revised ending in Chapter 21:24 “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them…”). (The inclusion leads you back to the beginning of the Gospel. Read in this way the Gospel is saying that the beginning of Christian life begins with the communication of the gospel message. Everything begins with the Word… The Evangelist probably intended both meanings – the cosmic and pre-existent Christ and the concrete, present, life-transforming Jesus. By placing Jesus in both paradigms the evangelist describes the mystery of Jesus. However, the Prologue, suggesting the pre-existence of Jesus, gave credence to the dualistic Gnostic heresies emerging at that time. These made Jesus more spiritual and removed. They believed that Jesus wasn’t really human. The subsequent letters of John seek to counter this belief. In the prologue of the first letter of John (1John1:1-4) the author takes pains to state that what is written comes from witnesses who saw, heard, touched and watched the human Jesus. The emphasis is on the physical senses. The message is that Jesus was real. The gospel is totally available to the physical realm and it is only through the physical world that fellowship with God is achieved. It is almost like a correction to the tendency towards the “spiritual” found in the Gospel’s prologue. The Johannine letters proceed to challenge the Gnostic claims . In 1 John 1:8-10 the author states that those who say that they have no sin deceive themselves and make Jesus a liar. Gnostics, who divided the world into spiritual (good) and physical (bad), could make that claim. If truth and meaning is found only in the spiritual world then the physical realm is meaningless and whatever takes place in it insignificant. This is a belief that continues today in Christian fundamentalism and in new age religions; in any religion or faith that seeks escape into the purely spiritual and fails to see the spirit at work in and through the world. What makes you a Christian is love, and this love in communion with the concrete other (koinonia). In 1 John 4:1-3 the author states that the Spirit of God is known because it confesses that Jesus came in the flesh. Flesh here is used to denote the physical body, not the Pauline understanding of the powers and systems of world. In 2 John 7 the author calls those that do not confess that Jesus came in the flesh to be deceivers and antichrist. In 1 Jn 3: 11-17 the message of the gospel is of love. We know we have passed from death to life because we love one another. This is not a hidden knowledge or a spiritual sense. Rather it is a lived experience. In v.17 it goes on to say that you can’t be spiritual and be unjust to the poor. The Gnostic crisis was the first that the Johannine community had to face. A second crisis can also be discerned from the Johannine letters. This was a crisis in its relationship to the emerging hierarchical church. The second letter opens with an address to “the elder to the elect lady and her children”. The Johannine community would be the elect lady (with Jesus as her Lord). The local community understood itself in intense relational terms as the bride of the Lord. 3 John 2-8 paints a picture of people being sent from one community of the beloved to another, sharing a message of brotherhood and sisterhood. In v. 9 a figure (Diotrephes) is discussed. He is an official of the church (possibly the Petrine Church) who refuses to recognize the status of the Johannine sisters and brothers and refuses to welcome them as friends. They are not officially licensed – and are therefore expelled. The letter goes on to reaffirm the Johannine community – it is through love rather than obedience to an organization that true authority comes. This letter illustrates the tension between the Johannine community and the emerging hierarchical church. On the one hand the community understands the need to establish a relationship with the Petrine church – standing with them against Gnosticism. On the other hand they have a very different focus and anti-hierarchical structure founded in Christian fellowship. John does not use the word church (ecclesia), except in 3 John 6 and 9 (which is possibly distant in tone), preferring “communion” (koinonia) and love. In the second ending to the Gospel (Ch 21) Peter is reinstated and his pastoral role recognized (although he is not the shepherd); but in v.22 there is a hint in Jesus’ response to Peter of a continued difference in the Johannine community. When Peter asks about the Beloved disciple Jesus replies “what is that to you?” suggesting that the Johannine community should be given space to retain its identity and sense of communion—i.e. “remain until I come.” Peter should focus on following the Lord. There is a subtle critique of Petrine authority. Similarly in the empty tomb narrative, while Peter is the first to go inside the tomb, it is the Beloved disciple who gets there first!

Written That You May Believe 3

Background reading to study #3 Written That You May Believe Ch. 6. 04/22/10 Women in John’s Gospel Women play an important role in John’s Gospel. They have much greater prominence here than in the Synoptics. Luke brings women into his accounts, but in John they have extraordinarily prestigious roles. There is a subtle undermining of the male hierarchy found in the early tradition and even the other Gospels. In Paul’s account of the resurrection appearances of Jesus found in 1 Cor 15:5 (an account that he himself received – most probably from the Jerusalem church) Jesus appears first to Cephas, then to the twelve, then to five hundred brothers, then to James, and lastly to Paul himself. In this account the message is only given to men. In Matthew and the longer ending of Mark the first witnesses of the resurrection are women, but in John the first witness is exclusively Mary Magdalene and an extended scene of recognition is devoted to her. In John all the key moments include women with individual roles. In Chapter 4 there is the account of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well. In v. 28-30 & 39-42 she is described as the person who leads people to faith. “Come and see a man who has told me everything… can he be the Messiah?” In this she appears to fulfill Jesus’ commission made the night before he died. At that time he prays for his disciples (the “priestly prayer of Jesus”). In this prayer he leads his disciples into communion with himself and with the Father, through him. Then in Jn 17:20 he prays for those who will believe through the word of these disciples. The Samaritan woman has already modeled this for the disciples. In v. 24 he also prays that people will enter into a direct relationship with him, “to see (his) glory”. This woman, who is not even Jewish, has achieved this for her townspeople. Through her they have entered into this relationship, have believed for themselves and begun to see the glory of Christ. She stands in contrast to Nicodemus from the previous chapter who seeks Jesus by night and while he enters into conversation with Jesus, does not move forward in faith as she does. The confession of the Christ Mt 16:16 by Peter at Caesarea Philippi is seen as the turning point of the Synoptic gospels. It gives Peter a tremendous prestige. In John’s Gospel this role is assumed by Martha of Bethany. In Jn 11:27 after the death of her brother, Lazarus, it is Martha who proclaims Jesus “the Messiah, the Son of God”. The woman at the well in Samaria makes a tentative question “Can he be the Messiah? For Martha there is no doubt. No man in John’s Gospel does anything equivalent. The woman who anoints Jesus as Messiah ahead of his crucifixion is Mary of Bethany. She does not wait for an official priest or prophet but takes the role upon herself. Jn 11:5 identifies the only named persons in the Gospel whom Jesus loved – Mary, Martha and Lazarus. To some theologians they are therefore the best candidates for the historical figure of the beloved disciple. It is noteworthy that two of the three are women, and the man is placed last. The key woman in the Gospel appears at the beginning and end of the Gospel. In Chapter 2:1-11 we have the account of the wedding at Cana. The wedding itself evokes the final image of the New Testament: the new Jerusalem descending like a bride adorned for her husband (Christ). The wedding at Cana is the first of the signs and marks the re-beginning of the Gospel (following the Prologue and the calling of the disciples). It takes place on the third day, the day of resurrection, anticipating the end of the Gospel. Conversely the garden scene at the end of the Gospel evokes both Eden and the New Jerusalem with its trees of life and healing. The scene opens with the wine running out and Jesus’ mother asking Jesus to intervene. He replies “Woman what is this to you and to me?” adding that his hour has not yet come. This sounds like a semi-rebuke – we should not be getting involved. This semi-rejection reflects other accounts in the Synoptics where Jesus keeps his mother and brothers at a remove in order to establish a new community not based on ties of blood. Strangely Jesus then acts counter to his words by working the miracle. The woman prompts him to act before he wants to. He produces an enormous quantity of wine (about 600 liters) and his glory is revealed. This seems to indicate that his hour has indeed come. The transformed wine is a symbol of the transformed earth. It symbolizes the joy of the resurrection. So who is this woman? This figure’s primary importance is in her symbolism not as an historical figure. Traditionally this passage has been understood as Mary, the mother of Jesus, displaying her influence over her son. Why then does Jesus call her “Woman”— a term that would have been as strange then as today when addressing one’s mother? At the foot of the cross in Jn 19:25-27 Jesus addresses the two key figures of the beloved disciple and the woman. He says “Woman here is your son” and to the disciple “here is your mother”. From that moment the beloved disciple “took her into his own” - that is brought her into close relationship. This has been read traditionally as Jesus looking out for his mother, Mary, as a dutiful son. Instead (as so much in the Gospel) this passage can only be read symbolically. The word for disciple is masculine – there is no female form. Some modern scholars say that the male pronoun “he” and also the word “son” is used as a substitute for this male noun. There is no way of knowing from the text the gender of the beloved disciple. This had led some to identify Mary Magdalene as the beloved disciple here. This is corroborated by the Gospel accounts that state that all the male disciples scattered after Jesus’ arrest –with only the women remaining at the foot of the cross. The significance of Jesus’ words is that the beloved disciple should enter in to a relationship with the woman. Theologian Raymond Brown argued that by bringing the woman into his home, this makes the beloved disciple a brother of Jesus. This seems trivial. If read at a wider level of symbolism, however, the meaning becomes deeper. The figure of the beloved disciple symbolizes both the reader, the one entering into relationship with Jesus through the Word, and also the new redeemed human community. The Woman is both Jesus’ mother (Mary) from whom Jesus was born. But she also stands for more than this – for the natural created order – the earth, nature, physical motherhood and God’s feminine Wisdom poured forth into all of this. At Cana she is the created order that brings forth Jesus. At the cross she becomes the earth redeemed from violence – embraced and transformed by the beloved disciple in a new creation in the shadow of the cross. She therefore represents the old creation on the way to transformation. The Christian disciple brings creation into relationship with her/himself in order to bring it to the perfection God intends.

Written That You May Believe 4

Background reading to study #4- Written That You May Believe Chapter 3. Revelation in John 04/29/10 Revelation has traditionally been associated with the communication of knowledge. In the Roman Catholic tradition the focus of this knowledge is the sacred mystery of the trinity and the incarnation. The Protestant take on revelation is centered on the knowledge that we are saved and the acceptance of this truth. In contrast, John’s Gospel understands revelation as an invitation to enter a relationship, a shared life. The revelation is exclusively of the person Jesus. It is not about information. Like falling in love, we get to know Jesus as we enter into a relationship with him. Once the physical Jesus and the first-hand witnesses to his life had gone, the Gospel became the way in which the person of Jesus was revealed. The written Gospel itself has the real effect of facilitating a relationship between the reader and Jesus. John’s gospel does not begin with the words “in the beginning was God”. Instead John begins with the Word, with communication. God’s very nature is communication, and when we communicate in love – that is the start of everything. Language has always been more about relationship than communication of dogma or knowledge. Language is human. It separates us from the primates. In Girardian thought the transition from primate to human is a moment of sacrificial violence, and from it emerges self-awareness and the birth of language. Humans have always been violent. God entered the world to reveal this violence, and to show us a different way of communication through the witness of the cross. Jesus’ works of power, or miracles, are called “signs” in John’s Gospel. They are, therefore, understood as another form of communication, as a form of language. In parallel the long discourses in John contrast with the short pithy sayings by Jesus found in the Synoptics. These discourses are theological constructions by John to communicate the love of God for the world and to invite the reader to connect with God through Jesus. Anyone who has truly come to know Jesus knows the Father. Jesus communicates that God so loved the world that he poured himself into the world to save it. Salvation in John does not come through expiatory sacrifice--through exchange value by means of violence--but rather through relationship with God. It comes from connecting directly with God thru’ the absolute self-giving of Jesus. Salvation takes place not by what we do but by plugging in and understanding the heart of God. It is not an intellectual idea, but a change that comes over us in the face of the cross. The crucifixion is Christ’s glory, the place where he is fully revealed and shown by God and as God. In the Synoptics this glory is displayed in the triumph or vindication of the resurrection. For John the resurrection is the not the vindication, but the point where we begin to see and to understand. It returns us to the meaning of the Word, to the cross as divine communication beginning right now. The Spirit is the living presence of Jesus breathed out on the cross. Through the Spirit we enter into intimacy with God through Jesus. There is no need for ritual or sacrifice to enter into this relationship. In fact John’s Gospel does not even have a Eucharist (instead Jesus washes his disciples’ feet the night before he dies). This is perhaps a recognition by the Evangelist that the Eucharist had already become ritualized by the time he wrote his Gospel. For John, salvation is all about our relationship with the Father through Jesus, and his Gospel is the living revelation of this.

Written That You May Believe 5

Background reading to study #5- Written That You May Believe Chapter 4. Symbolism in John 05/13/10 The Synoptic Gospels called Jesus’ miracles works of power, John calls them signs. Signs refer to something, show you something that you didn’t see before. They alert us to the deeper level of meaning in John. John was written later than others and has had a greater chance to reflect deeply on the meaning of Jesus. The author is thinking about how the message will be continued after the death of the primary witnesses. How can the message be preserved? The tools of communication he uses are the Word and Sign. Today our world is exploding with signs. John’s sense of their importance is very contemporary. The sign/symbol of water runs thru’ the Gospel – the water transformed into wine, the woman at the well, water and blood pouring from the pierced side of Jesus… Water on an ordinary human level has a powerful impact. It is essential for life. In the Gospel it becomes a means for communicating the teaching of Jesus. For example Jn 7:37-39 “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink…out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water”. Water becomes a symbol of Jesus himself. By taking in Jesus the believer experiences and becomes the source of living water. Water is associated with the Spirit of Jesus that will be fully experienced because of Jesus’ glorious death. In the Bread of Life discourse (Jn 6:35-58) John uses another symbol. Jesus is the bread that comes down from heaven. John’s gospel does not have the institution of the Eucharist that is so pivitol to other three gospels and also to Paul. In the first part of the discourse (up until v.50) there is nothing about eating his flesh. “Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.” The key thing here is relationship and belief. At v. 50 the discourse slips in to something else – it talks of eating. Bread as symbol raises the idea of eating and here eating becomes the focus. “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you”. Traditionally these verses have been read literally and been understood in terms of applying to the physical sacrament of the Eucharist. From this understanding emerged the doctrine of transubstantiation in the 13th century. This inevitably returns us to the ritual and the sacrificial. This literal reading overlooks the irony of John found elsewhere in the Gospel. For example when Nicodemus response to Jesus saying we must be born again – “Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb?” In the same way the Jews would be asking how is it possible to eat this man’s flesh? This scandalous and shocking language pushes the metaphor of bread all the way so that we begin to understand. Understood metaphorically—symbolically, by means of a sign—we are fed and sustained by the real person of Jesus and by his world-overturning death on the cross. Food, like air is essential for life. Unlike breathing, eating is a conscious act. What we choose to eat becomes a part of us. “Eating Jesus” is receiving God. Jesus in fact is himself the core metaphor in John– the direct communication or sign of who and what God is. Jesus is there, center stage, all the time - the central figure of the Gospel. God becomes present thru’ Jesus. The Gospel in turn is the direct communication of Jesus –the whole thing is symbolic revelation through and through. Schneiders differentiates between sign and symbol. For her, unlike a sign (which points to something else), a symbol participates in what it represents. For example a flag symbolizes patriotism and can evoke that emotion. It gives a deeper connection. In this way Jesus both shows us the divine and becomes the means to reaching the divine. This interpretation reflects traditional Western metaphysical thought: signs refer to the visible world, but the real is invisible and needs another communication – Jesus enables us to bridge the divide. A different understanding focuses on human transformation rather than divine revelation as information. Jesus used signs to communicate meaning. In him our whole semiotic system—signs, symbols, what have you—is revolutionized into new communicated meaning—away from violence toward self-giving love. It is very difficult to transfer from one root human meaning to another, and so John acts a kind of dictionary or lexicon of translating signs, doubling over and over on themselves until we finally get it. Jesus acted to change human existence from within. He modeled a new way of being human. Jesus, the ultimate sign, did not point to heaven, but to the human heart. Jesus said look at me and you will begin to understand yourself and how you can be transformed. And you will also understand God. The cross as the supreme sign of Jesus is the only sign that matters. It reveals our violence and changes our world of meaning.

Written That You May Believe 6

Background reading to study #6- Written That You May Believe Chapter 5. John and Commitment - 05/20/10 Commitment is a key theme in John, one that is linked to the early church’s relationship to “the Jews”. In this Gospel there is the most tension between the emerging faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God and traditional Judaism. Judaism was beginning to define itself over and against this emerging faith. The gospel message had already moved into the Gentile world –apparent in the Synoptics, where the Jewish question is present but not as intense. In many ways they had already moved beyond this, focusing instead on the Greek and Roman world. In John, however, it remains a central question – and there is great pain in it. Unlike the Synoptics and most of the Pauline works, the Jews are called “the Jews” rather than the more specific “chief priests”, “scribes”, or “people of Jerusalem”. Rather the whole body of the Jews is named. In our contemporary world this is very controversial. John’s Gospel, more than any other Biblical text, has led to claims anti-Semitism. There have even been calls to delete these passages in the text. Schneider argues that John’s reference to “the Jews” is only to the chief priests and Jewish leaders. It is hard to make this claim from the text however. Judaism in Jesus’ time was a pluralist movement made up of many different sects. Among these were the Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees and the early Christians in Jerusalem who originally attended temple - Messianic Jews. As the years went by opposition between Jews and Christians became more definite. It became even more emphatic after the destruction of Jerusalem following the Jewish rebellion (66-70 AD) when over a million Jews lost their lives. The Christians were making enormous claims about Jesus. He substituted for everything of importance to the Jews – Law, Temple, Land. As this became increasingly obvious Christians were forced out of the Synagogues. At the turn of the century there was a parting of the ways. In John the person of Jesus is central to everything. He came from Judaism, yet the Jewish community rejected his message. “The Jews” in John refers to the body of people who are denying these Christian claims. It does not refer to a particular subset. In some ways Christianity created the current Western definition of “Jews” (i.e. the ones who are not Christians). The tension develops out of the emergence of Christianity. Christians and Jews have become like warring siblings. They cannot get away from each other, are in fact dependent on each other, because they are defined by each other. This is part of the sorrow and the trial of Christianity and Judaism. Contemporary pluralism tries to gloss over this--and is valid as far as it goes--but root tensions remain. More than any other writing it is the gospel of John which launches this drama into the world. In John’s Gospel Jesus did not intend to set up something separate from Judaism – all Jews were called to follow Jesus. Many did not choose to do this. Those who refused Jesus were associated in John’s time with the “world”. They became the bad guys. The intensity of the Gospel leaves no room for middle ground. Being a true Israelite for John was not a matter of biology, but of faith. John’s Gospel has intensified the violence in Christian history because the text can be (and has been) interpreted in a violent way. John did not intend his gospel to be a manifesto against all subsequent generations of Jews, rather simply a definitive statement of the meaning of Jesus. This tension can only be resolved through complete fidelity to Jesus’ non-violence. The clearing of the temple is placed at the beginning of John. It is his first public act (whereas in the Synoptics it is his last). John sets the scene by clearing the ground. Humans have always used sacrifice as a way of communicating with God and discharging violence. By clearing the Temple Jesus dismantles this mechanism, breaking the cycle of violence. He points to something new. Placing the clearing of the temple at the beginning of the narrative shows the enormous confidence of John. If you get rid of the temple then Jesus can take center stage. The absolute importance of Jesus, what he means for the world, is made clear in the following passages: In Jn 5:19-20 there is a visual communication with the Father: “The Son can do nothing on his own, only what he sees the Father doing”. Jn6:42-45 “No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father”. Any relationship with Jesus is initiated by the act of the Father. The Father moves directly to put you in relationship to Jesus. The initiative is with the Father. Jn 7:16 “My teaching is not mine but his who sent me”. The validity of Jesus’ teaching will be evident to all who seek to do the will of God. Jn 7:27-29 “I know him because I am from him and he sent me”. There is a direct link between Jesus and the Father. Jn 8: 29 “I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me”. This shows a great intimacy, a unity of heart between Jesus and the Father. There is an intimacy and communion between the two. Jesus is “close to the Father’s heart”,(Jn1:18). This language can sound metaphysical but this intimacy is always in connection to Jesus being “raised up” – his crucifixion and pouring himself out as breath and Spirit. His equality with the Father is only in this context. This is illustrated after in the Gospel. As the crucifixion draws nearer, the initiative shifts from the Father to the Son. In Jn 14:6-7 Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No-one can come to the Father except thru’ the Son. By knowing Jesus you know the Father. In Jn 14:9 whoever has seen Jesus has seen the Father and in Jn15:23 whoever hates Jesus hates the Father. In Jn 16:15 “All that the Father has is mine”. And in v.23 “If you ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you”. These passages build up the privileged relationship between Jesus and the Father. This relationship is often understood ontologically (an essentialist understanding). The Father and Son are of the same “substance” (Greek “homoousios”). Later the Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, would be included. It becomes an intellectual doctrine to explain three persons, one God. The oneness that Jesus had with the Father is better understood anthropologically as resulting from a relationship without violence (without denying a final ontological truth—although intellectually this remains mysterious). There was no violence between them, only confidence, intimacy and peace. With everyone else some violence exists within the God relationship – a suspicion that God cannot love us absolutely. God is used against people. People fear God. Our relationship with God is implicated in violence. It is the relationship that Jesus had with the Father that enabled him to do what he did and is at the heart of John’s description of Jesus. So the call to commitment in John is to jettison the old ways, the ancient traditions, in favor of this new relationship. It is this decision that the “Jews” were being asked to make. The price of this choice was religious rejection and persecution and having to leave behind beloved and familiar traditions. For Christians today any commitment that stands in the way of this relationship to Jesus becomes idolatry.

Written That You May Believe 7

Background reading to study #7- Written That You May Believe Chapter 7. Being Born Again 06/03/10 The story of Nicodemus visiting Jesus by night is found in Jn3:1-16. It is a classic example of Johannine irony. It is so evident that Nicodemus doesn’t get it. He thinks in terms of re-entering the mother’s womb when Jesus is trying to get him to see a completely different level of meaning. This same surface reading occurs in the parallel story of the woman at the well in Samaria: “You have no bucket and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water?” Nicodemus is a representative figure – i.e. someone who does not see, one searching for understanding, but not willing to go the whole way. He is described as a person of some prestige – a Pharisee. In Jn 3:19-20 Jesus says “The light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed.” This does not reflect well on Nicodemus who visits Jesus by night. There is a hint here that he was not living in the light. Coming to Jesus in the dark illustrates the lack of clarity in his understanding. All the while Nicodemus recognizes Jesus as a teacher – the conversation is at the level of teacher to teacher. He is drawn to Jesus because of the signs that Jesus has done which he believes show God is with him. Yet he cannot make the radical shift necessary. In v.3 Jesus says that to see the kingdom of God one needs to be “born again”. An equally possible translation is “born form above” – but the born again or “anew” is closer to the dramatic sense. The meaning is to start over, start again from the beginning or from the top (like a piece of music). Being “born again” is close – but is a heavily loaded phrase in our culture today. It has associations of judgment, fundamentalism, legalism, elitism, shallowness, narrowness and violence. To try to understand what Jesus was saying we have to understand his words without the meaning that has been loaded upon them. So what was Jesus’ intention? Birth is the major human event. Being born again is to start over again in a big way. It is as momentous as birth. Jesus says in v. 5 that we need to be born of water and spirit. Traditionally this has been interpreted in terms of baptism -the water of baptism being associated with being made clean or being put right with God. For John’s Jewish audience water and spirit would have brought to mind the creation story – when the earth was a formless void and the Spirit hovered over the water. The Spirit stirred up the water and life was created. In John chapter 3, Jesus is calling for a second, new creation, a total transformation. This is what baptism symbolizes – not a legal making right with God. Water is the primordial element of life. We come forth from the waters of our mother’s womb. In Jewish thought God’s Spirit gives life to the flesh. Here flesh is understood as the general human reality that we will ultimately die when God’s spirit or breath leaves it. Thus the Spirit blows where it will. You cannot know where it comes from or where it is going. It cannot be grasped intellectually within the present scheme. Trying to nail it down leads to legalism. It is unanticipated, uncontrollable and inexplicable. To be born of water and the Spirit means to let go of all the old constructs. The human transformation that Jesus is calling for is of our whole human reality. Nicodemus shows up two more times in the Gospel. In Jn 7:45 the temple police fail to arrest Jesus. When questioned by the chief priests and Pharisees they answer that “Never has anyone spoken like this”. They are accused of being taken in by Jesus. Nicodemus, who is identified as one of the leaders of the Pharisees, tries to defend Jesus using the Law. He is portrayed as a figure of the good religious person but who cannot commit. He wants to fit Jesus into the known, to make him acceptable. But the Spirit cannot be controlled and Jesus will go to his fate in a struggle against all established forms. Nicodemus’ final appearance is after the crucifixion. In 19:38-42 he brings myrrh and aloes to anoint Jesus body. He is not identified as a disciple like Joseph of Arimithea. Again his nocturnal visit to Jesus is mentioned, suggesting that Nicodemus is still in darkness. The expensive ointments he provides are evidence of his wealth. John’s Gospel has another account of anointing in 12:1-8 when Mary of Bethany anoints Jesus’ feet. Here Mary assumes the prophetic role, anointing Jesus as Messiah.(The text adds that Jesus said she should keep the ointment for his burial, but then she is not mentioned in the subsequent anointing; and she has brought one pound while Nicodemus brings one hundred!) She stands in contrast to Nicodemus who does the religious thing – ritualizing death, creating shrines. He waits for Jesus to be safely dead then gives him glory. Religion is all about dead things – what happens to you when you are dead and rituals of death. People want the dead to be in a good place. Death is not an issue for Jesus – “let the dead bury the dead”. The time for transformation is now. Being born again is not about the hereafter. It is about the here and now. Mary anoints Jesus in the living present.

Written That You May Believe 8

Background reading to study #8 Written That You May Believe Chapter 8. Feminism in John 06/10/10 Women are important figures in John’s Gospel. While there have been many oppressed groups, women within these groups have been an even more oppressed minority. The Bible has both condoned this oppression and spoken out against it. The Bible makes an option for the poor and oppressed, and in so doing gives oppressed peoples a voice. But the text itself is pervasively androcentric and patriarchal, frequently sexist and at times even misogynist. In many ways it has been responsible for serious oppression of women (think the blaming of Eve). This has led some feminist scholars to declare the text irredeemable. The meaning of the Biblical text is constrained by the ideology of those interpreting it. Everyone has an ideology and until recently all Biblical scholars were predominantly men and leaders of patriarchal churches. A characteristic of ideology is that it is invisible to those propagating it. Women have an advantage (paradoxical) because they can see the way interpretation works oppressively and can be freed up for other understandings. They are in a unique position to rescue the text. For example: identifying texts with liberating potential such as Martha sitting at the feet of Jesus – a technical phrase implying discipleship. In John 4:1-42 we have the story of the Samaritan woman at the well. A traditional, superficial reading portrays a somewhat flighty, promiscuous woman who has had five husbands strangely in conversation with Jesus. A more careful exploration of the text would lead us to the realization that it is improbable that a woman at that time would have out-lived 5 husbands. (With childbirth mortality the reverse would have been more likely.) Another meaning for these five relationships should be sought…. The Samaritans were close to the Jews, but were considered heretical. They were neither racially nor culturally pure. 2 Kings 17:24-34 tells of the introduction of peoples to the kingdom of northern Israel after its destruction by Assyria. The Israelites had been deported and other displaced peoples settled in their place. These imported peoples came from five different nations. The Assyrian king sent a Jewish priest back so that the Jewish God would be honored and look favorably on the foreign immigrants, but the new settlers continued also to worship their own gods. The Samaritans therefore were a mixed race who recognized the Jewish faith, but who had according to the Judeans polluted this faith with that of the gods of five other nations. When Jesus speaks of husbands he is talking as a prophet. For the biblical tradition the Lord was the husband of the people, the bridegroom of Hosea and Jeremiah, and by implication other gods are adulterous husbands. The woman at the well understands that he is talking in this vein about the Samaritan faith (not her personal life): “Sir, I see that you are a prophet”. She continues the conversation “Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem”. Jesus replies by saying that the Samaritans worship what they do not know, the Jews what they do know. The Jews have the true relationship, the one that leads to a true knowledge. Jesus goes on to say that true worship is not linked to a place, but takes place in spirit and truth. The Samaritan woman begins to relate to this. “I know the Messiah is coming…he will proclaim all things to us”. Jesus answers “I am he” – the first time in the Gospel he has used the divine “I am”. She is the first person to receive the full revelation of Christ in the Gospel. She leaves her water jar (like the disciples leaving their nets) and becomes the initiator of the mission to the Samaritans. She goes to the town and says in v. 29 “Is he not the Christ?”- i.e. a rhetorical assertion and invitation. This is the original Greek – a more positive reading than the NRSV translation: “he cannot be the Messiah, can he?” The latter makes her sound more ditzy, less assured. Our reading shows how this woman has been undermined by both poor translation and a misunderstanding of the meaning of the text. When the disciples return their uneasiness reflects the concern of the emerging male hierarchy at the stage when the gospel was being written. That Jesus should be in theological conversation with an unmarried woman is shocking. The woman is arguing and thinking like a rabbi, or at least a rabbi’s student – like Mary of Bethany sitting at the feet of Jesus. She is also a woman who adopts the role of apostle, carrying the gospel to a community that has not heard it before. In contrast the story is placed in John’s Gospel after the story of a man, Nicodemus – who does not present well in comparison. It is not clear whether this was an historical event. It is an archetypal biblical story – the meeting between a man and a woman at a well. Isaac, Jacob and Moses all had such meetings at wells. Wells were places where women and men could meet without comment. They were places where wooing took place. In the Johannine story Jesus meets the woman at the most famous of all wells – Jacob’s well. Jesus is depicted as the true bridegroom. He comes to claim Samaria. He reaches out to embrace all those on the outside – Samaritans and women. The story may be a literary device that validates the influence of newly converted Samaritans in the Johannine community. After Stephen was killed in Jerusalem many Christians left Jerusalem. Some of these started a mission in Samaria. They were Hellenistic converts and did not demand circumcision or conform to the Jewish dietary laws. This story reflects the spreading of the gospel in Samaria. The woman also may have been a literary creation representing generic “woman” – as is found elsewhere in the Gospel. That a story that presents women so positively was written at all indicates the highly respected status of women in the Johannine community. It implies that women were accepted in roles of leadership and authority.

Written That You May Believe 9

Background reading to study # 9- Written That You May Believe, Chapter 9. The Man Born Blind 07/15/10 The story of the healing of the man born blind in John chapter 9 is probably a Johannine literary creation. It draws from stories of Jesus’ healing ministry (like the one found at Mk 8:22ff.) but, because the account is so highly constructed, it is unlikely to have been an identifiable event in Jesus’ life. It does have a vividness however that makes it seem authentic if not actually historical. John has given the story many layers of meaning and it tells something true on each of these levels. For example, the “cast of characters” is highly significant. Each character represents a group affecting the Johannine community @ 90CE. The man born blind is “everychristian”, i.e. those in John’s community, who began in the dark, were brought into the light, and then become witnesses to this light. The man does not have a name but is called “the man” (anthropos in Greek). This is the generic word for human being – as opposed to the specific word for male, aner. Anthropos, for example, can be applied to women if a feminine article is used. The disciples who asked the first question are also Christians – but agonizing over life’s mysteries. The neighbors who ask questions about the man are inquirers, those attracted to the Christian message but not yet committed to it. The Pharisees (who later in story become “the Jews”) represent the officialdom of Judaism persecuting the early church. The parents are crypto-Christians – those fearful of persecution. Jesus in the story is a transcendent figure who incorporates the earthly, historical Jesus, the Easter Jesus and the Jesus worshipped in the early church. The story has the structure of a trial scene (one of many found in the Gospel). The man born blind is the defendant – but judgment when it comes falls on the reader. The reader is placed in a situation of spiritual crisis and asked to make a choice. The story begins with a discussion about sin. The disciples ask who sinned – the man or his parents. Jesus replies that human disability is not the result of sin – rather it is an opportunity for God’s work to be revealed. Bad things happen that much greater good can be done. But God’s work must be done “while it is still day” - an announcement of the coming crisis. Jesus makes mud from earth and saliva and places it on the man’s eyes. The mud is mentioned four times in the story – underscoring its significance. There are different layers of meaning here. Mud on a person’s eyes is counterintuitive as a means for curing blindness. It is as if we have to obscure our vision, make our blindness obvious, in order to see with new eyes. Humans cannot see. It is this blindness (not original sin—a legal penal concept) that we have been born into. Just as the man born blind does not ask for healing, so we have been unaware of our blindness. The mud also evokes the original clay from which human beings were formed by God in Genesis 2:7. Jesus adds his saliva, his “DNA”, to create a new humanity. Generic man is recreated as the new human by Jesus. This newness is recognized by the man’s neighbors who question whether this is the same man. The old and new humanity look the same but there is something different. The healed man asserts that “I am the man”. He uses the Jesus terminology “I am” – the new human takes on the role of Jesus. Jesus sends the man to the pool of Siloam (a name that means “sent”). The man obeys and is healed. Healing can only come through obeying, through surrender. You cannot see your way to healing – you must surrender to it. After his healing the man is subjected to a series of interrogations. The neighbors ask how to find Jesus. The man replies that he does not know. Unlike the crippled man healed in chapter 5 who when questioned does not know who his healer is, the man born blind acknowledges Jesus and gradually comes to know him as the story unfolds. The crippled man remains in darkness, while the man born blind begins to see. The man is then questioned by the Pharisees. They accuse Jesus of not being from God because he healed on the Sabbath. The man defends Jesus, saying that he is a prophet. The Jews question the man’s parents – implying that they lied about their son’s blindness. The parents deflect the questions back to the healed man. Like some would-be Christians at the end of the 1st century they are afraid of being put out of the synagogue. The man is then questioned by the Jews. They demand that the man “give glory to God” by declaring Jesus a sinner. This is often religion’s way of glorifying God – categorizing sinners and rejecting the evil ones. This is what the disciples were seeking to do at the beginning of the story (“who sinned?”) This is an example of Johannine irony. The Jewish authorities fail to understand the true way of giving glory to God. Jesus heals the man born blind so that “God’s work might be revealed in him” – to reveal God’s glory. God’s glory is revealed when his work is carried out through us and that work is to end the human system based on violent differences and exclusion. In contrast the authorities want to label Jesus as a sinner. They accuse Jesus of being a sinner and demand to know how he opened the man’s eyes. The Jews revile the healed man by saying that he is Jesus’ disciple while they are disciples of Moses. Jesus has no authority because no one knows where he comes from. (This contrasts with Jn 7:40-52 where Jesus is rejected because he is known to have come from Galilee). The man responds by saying that never since the world began has someone opened the eyes of a man born blind, yet they do not know where he comes from. Such an unprecedented, singular event in human history has to come from God. Jesus cannot be a sinner because God listens to him. The Jews accuse the man of being born in sin, therefore judged by God, and as such has no grounds for argument. He is excluded by the thought of a God who excludes. They drive him away. It is at this moment, after his persecution and rejection that Jesus seeks him out. Jesus asks him “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” This is the peak moment of the story. The words “Son of Man” have more importance in terms of power and impact than the term “Messiah” in John’s Gospel. Jesus is asking in effect “Do you believe in the child of human beings?”: i.e. the new humanity. Other mentions of the Son of Man in John are found in Ch 3:14 (“Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up”); 8:28 (“When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he”) and 12:32-36 (“‘And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.’ He said this to indicate the kind of death he was to die. The crowd answered him, ‘We have heard from the law that the Messiah remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?’ Jesus said to them ‘The light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, so that the darkness may not overtake you. If you walk in the darkness, you do not know where you are going. While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become children of light’”). The Son of Man is the decisive figure of human transformation and judgment. In John 5:26 authority to execute judgment comes through the Son of Man. This authority comes from his having been “lifted up” – through his crucifixion as the end of all systems of violent difference and exclusion. Judgment is understood, not in terms of sin, but in the rejection of this transformation Jesus brings. In Jn 9:41 Jesus says that “If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say ‘we see’, your sin remains”. We return here to the true nature of sin. It is not about human disability or original sin. Paul’s assertion that “Sin came into the world through one man (Adam)” has been interpreted legalistically. In contrast John’s gospel is not talking of original sin, rather our human condition –we are stupid and blind. It is not our fault unless we choose to remain that way when offered enlightenment in the new humanity of Jesus. The sin consists not in the original blindness, but in claiming to see. It is related to our response to Jesus’ call to enlightenment. We can accept or reject. We are called to accept that we need new eyes and receive our new sight from Jesus. We are called from blindness to sight. This acceptance of a new way of being human leads us to a new understanding of Jesus’ divinity. At the end of John’s Gospel Pilate says “Behold the Man” (Jn 19:5). Jesus is the prototype of the new human. But through his passion and crucifixion the Son of Man is revealed also as the Son of God. Only the Son of God could bring a completely new way of being human which overcomes the generative power of violence. That is why Jesus is God and worthy of worship. The man born blind worships Jesus when he reveals himself to him as the Son of Man. Thus he completes the full trajectory of Christian conversion. Like the Christians in the Johannine community the man born blind believes in Jesus, despite adversity and persecution, and acknowledges him as Lord.

Written That You May Believe 10

Background reading to study # 10- Written That You May Believe, Chapter 10. The Community of Eternal Life (Part 1) 07.22.10 We have been using Schneider’s book to provide a framework for understanding John’s Gospel. Her process is to first explore the text as literature, then historically, theologically and finally spiritually. Like in much of the Gospel, she sees the author as having constructed most of the narrative in Chapter 11. While there seems to be a traditional oral source for the story of the raising of Lazarus, it is also clearly marked by Johannine theology and concerns. It is the highly constructed culmination of the Book of Signs. It marks the turning point in the Gospel that leads to Jesus’ arrest. In the Synoptics this event is the (historically more likely) closing down of the temple sacrifices. For John, the raising of Lazarus is the event that makes Jesus untenable for the Jewish authorities. Chapter 12 is a bridging chapter that leads to the Book of Glory. There the anointing by Mary points to Jesus’ death, and the triumphal entry into Jerusalem to his resurrection. The Book of Glory begins in Chapter 13 with the events leading up to the Passover. At John 11:2 there is a reference to an event that has not yet happened (Mary’s anointing of Jesus). This implies a strong familiarity with the oral tradition within the Johannine community. Jesus travels to Bethany after hearing that Lazarus is ill. Lazarus is the brother of Martha and Mary. Martha is not a proper name rather it is a word that means “mistress of the home” or “Lady”. It is the feminine of maran (as in maranatha “come Lord”). Mary could be Mary Magdalene – who was named for a place “Mary of Magdala” rather than the more usual “daughter of x” (bath). The Mary in John 11 could have lived as a “sister” to the lady of the house in Bethany. Mary of Magdala is mentioned first by name in Jn 19:25 and then appears in the resurrection accounts. The logic is that it is highly unlikely there would be two Marys of such critical intimacy to Jesus, one to anoint him prior to his passion, the other to be first witness of the resurrection. Mary is Jesus’ disciple – she sits at the feet of Jesus (Lk 10:38-42). Jesus defends Mary’s decision in a society that excluded women from taking this role. In John 12:1-8 it is Mary who anoints Jesus as Messiah – again breaking the rules. In Jn 11:17 it is Martha who meets Jesus on the road to Bethany. She says, “Lord if you had been here…,” and then goes on to say “But even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask of him”. She instigates a conversation (like the Samaritan woman at the well) that leads to one of Jesus’ crucial “I am” sayings: “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die” (v.25-26). At the time of the Gospel’s composition Christians were dying. A lot of the original witnesses had also died. It was a contemporary concern – the meaning of death in a post-resurrection world. They had expected Jesus to return soon, had not expected to have to deal with death. This passage helps understand the meaning of death – that even if you die, you don’t die. Martha declared Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world. This is equivalent to the declaration by Peter at Caesarea Philippi in Matthew. It is the most developed confession in the fourth Gospel. Again it gives pivotal status to a woman. Martha goes home and calls Mary using the words “the teacher is here” (v.28) underscoring Mary’s role as disciple. When Mary Magdalene greets Jesus in the Garden after his resurrection she calls him “Rabbouni” which means “beloved teacher”. This might be another indication that Mary of Bethany is in fact Mary Magdalene. Mary goes quickly to greet Jesus repeating Martha’s words “Lord if you had been here…” She kneels at his feet (reminiscent of sitting at his feet). Unlike Martha who makes a powerful theological statement, Mary weeps. Jesus is “greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved” (v.33). It is at this point, rather than after the big doctrinal statement, that he is moved to raise Lazarus. Mary models human anguish and Jesus enters into her pain. The raising of Lazarus is not just the story of overcoming death, but of human anguish, the catastrophe of death and separation. Mary is the representative figure who brings Jesus into this space, in the same way that she appropriates the role of anointer. Her tears anoint him into the human condition and his role within it. Note: The Gospel Women It is not easy to get all of the women (especially the Marys) in the Gospels straight. Mary was a prestigious, and therefore common name - Miriam being the sister of Moses. At the cross Mary of Bethany is not mentioned, however, Mary Magdalene is. In Jn 19:25 standing at the cross are “his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene”. Mary the wife of Clopas could be the other of the two disciples mentioned in the post-resurrection account found in Luke 24:18 (the walk to Emmaus), one of whom is called Cleopas. “The one of them whose name was Cleopas, answered him…” It is possible, even likely, that the second disciple was his wife – Mary. Luke does not mention the women around the cross – but after the resurrection they are listed as Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women. (Lk 24:10). Joanna is the wife of Herod’s steward (Luke 8:1-3) and Mary the mother of James refers to Jesus’ mother, Mary. James was known as the “brother of the Lord” by the early church. Mary is not named as Jesus’ mother by Luke because Jesus’ teaching in the Synoptic Gospels was so fiercely against giving any prestige to his birth family, both because of the character of the kingdom and possibly as a way of deflecting any attempts at building a family dynasty. Mary is also named as the mother of Jesus’ brothers in Mark 15:40 “Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses”. Compare also Mk 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” Only in John’s Gospel is Mary clearly named as Jesus’ mother. John uses Mary to illustrate the crucial importance of women to Jesus, making use of the natural role and prestige of a woman close to him, his mother. However, for John she is a powerfully symbolic figure, representing “woman”, i.e. the earth, wisdom, femininity. This is signaled by Jesus calling her “woman” rather than “mother”. Jesus’ mother Mary became prominent in the 4th and 5th centuries. This was related to the theological arguments that were occurring at that time – was Jesus considered to be God after his baptism (when the spirit alighted upon him – “adoptionism”) or from the womb? Orthodox Christianity concluded that his divinity was integral to his humanity – that it was not an added layer – and must therefore have been present from the beginning. Mary therefore began to be known as the “Mother of God”. It was a doctrinal decision that attempted to uphold the true divinity of Jesus connected to his humanity– but it had the effect of making Mary less human and more divine. The later doctrine of the Immaculate Conception cemented this. In John 8: 2-11 there is the account of the woman caught in adultery. The earliest Greek manuscripts do not include the story. It appeared to have been a free-floating account that was eventually placed at this point in John’s Gospel (probably because of John’s sympathy for women) in the 5th century. It has a different writing style, however, and may actually fit better in Luke 21. Traditionally the woman has been associated with Mary Magdalene (from whom “seven demons had gone out” Lk 8:2) but there is no scriptural evidence for this.

Written That You May Believe 11

Background reading to study # 11- Written That You May Believe, Chapter 10. The Community of Eternal Life (Part 2) 07/29/10 In John’s gospel the raising of Lazarus is the event that precipitates the arrest of Jesus. In the Synoptics this event is the clearing of the Temple (Mk 11:15-33). Jesus has just entered Jerusalem in triumph, enters the sacred space, drives out the money changers and stops the sacrifices. He demonstrates his charismatic and political power. He holds the people spellbound. In Mk 11: 25-26 Jesus says “Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses”. He says this in the context of the temple – the place where people go to make themselves right with God. It becomes his rationale for shutting the temple down. There is no need for sacrifice or offerings – it is in forgiving your enemies that your offences against God will be forgiven. In John this same event is placed at the beginning of the Gospel. (Jn 2:13-23). In v. 18 the authorities ask him for a sign that proves his right to clear the temple. Jesus replies, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”. John is signaling that the key sign of the Gospel is going to be the resurrection. From the very start of his ministry John indicates that the new life that Jesus brings replaces the need for the temple and sacrifice. The raising of Lazarus is the last act of Jesus’ ministry in John’s Gospel. It holds the same place as the clearing of the temple in the Synoptics and is linked in the gospel of John to the clearing of the temple passage in chapter 2. Both take place at the time of Passover. In both cases (2:23 and 11: 45) many come to believe in Jesus because of his signs/what had been seen. Both passages are concerned with resurrection and life. In Jn 11:25 Jesus says “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die”. Jesus substitutes himself for the temple because he offers the endless life of forgiveness. When in chapter 2 he talks of destroying this temple and the comment says he is talking of his body– he does not mean the temple of his body in the modern moral sense of this phrase. He means that in his person he has replaced the temple, through forgiveness. The sign that he gives for this will be resurrection – endless life. Forgiveness makes you vulnerable. To forgive means to open oneself to violence. Humanly speaking it is almost impossible to overcome our instinct for survival. If someone is really threatening my life I cannot let them do it unless I am convinced that my life is somehow secure. Jesus combines forgiveness and life through the promise of resurrection. We are set free to forgive and live. Jesus is the resurrection and the life because of forgiveness. Fundamentalists, zealots and extremists are OK with dying for their cause, without having to forgive. They are looking to escape this life for a martyr’s paradise. Resurrection is about a belief in renewed life here in this life. Lazarus is the sign of this resurrection. Resurrection implies forgiveness and vice versa. Unless Jesus had forgiven he would not have risen. And without his trust in the Father and his hope in resurrection, he could not have forgiven so completely. Without the resurrection, Jesus’ project would have failed. Jesus also changes our relationship with God through forgiveness. There is no more need for sacrifice. Temples are human constructs where negotiation takes the place of forgiveness. It is a place where the holy can be contained and controlled. In abolishing the temple we no longer have control. Lazarus was dead for four days, Jesus was raised after three. The early Christians associated themselves with Lazarus – like him we will follow Jesus’ resurrection and be raised on “the fourth day”. Resurrection allows Christians to see death differently. It is no longer the definitive end of life. Nor is it the separation of spirit to another realm. Rather it is like a long exhale – while we wait to inhale again. It is like we do not actually die - “everyone who lives and believes in me will never die”. It is a negation of death. A Christian doesn’t expect to die. Forgiveness brings us fullness of life. Resurrection is therefore not a reward, but the natural consequence of forgiveness.

Written That You May Believe 12

Background reading to study # 12- Written That You May Believe, chapter 12. Seeing and Believing 08.12.10 This study is of the passage found in Jn 20:1-10 –the account of Peter and the Beloved Disciple at the empty tomb. Mary discovers the empty tomb and runs to tell Peter and the Beloved Disciple. The Beloved Disciple outruns Peter, reaching the tomb first. Peter enters the tomb and sees the linen wrappings lying there with the head cloth rolled up in a place by itself.The Beloved Disciple enters, sees and believes. The Beloved Disciple is never named. He (or she) is a literary construct that allows the reader to enter into the narrative by associating with the figure. The Beloved Disciple represents the Christians of the Johannine community – the model Christian. The Beloved Disciple reaches the tomb ahead of Peter. This is mentioned three times. The text acknowledges that there is a rivalry between Peter and the Beloved Disciple (which is also evident in chapter 21). While Peter enters the tomb first, the Beloved Disciple reaches the tomb first and is the first to believe. The Beloved Disciple has looked inside and seen the linen cloths, but when he enters the tomb the head cloth is also visible. What is it about the head cloth that promotes this belief? Schneiders makes a connection between the face cloth and the veil that Moses puts aside after coming down the mountain, having seen God. In the same way Jesus puts aside the veil of his flesh in the resurrection. He puts aside the world to go to his Father. The head cloth symbolically represents this. However this seems to buy into a dualist theology that is not Johannine. Here Schneiders reverts to an old metaphysics that is incongruent with the rest of the Gospel. For Schneiders the face cloth is a sign, a sign that creates belief. However if this is so, it is not an effective one because it points outside this world. Jesus’ other signs in John (for example water, healing, bread and light) are immediate, physical and take place in the world. Here (according to Schneiders) the sign points to an Old Testament textural reference to suggest a metaphysical reality. So what is the significance of the head cloth? Often it is depicted as a flat piece of cloth placed over the face of Jesus (like a smaller version of the shroud of Turin). In the Lazarus story in Jn 11:44 there is mention of a similar cloth: “The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, ‘unbind him, and let him go.’” This cloth (and the head cloth of Jesus) was likely a cloth wrapped around the face and jaw to stop the jaw dropping and staying fixed that way because of rigor mortis. This practice is still used today when laying out a corpse to make the corpse more presentable for viewing by the family. This head cloth was not just dropped with the rest of the linen cloths but “rolled up (or around) in a place by itself”. This implies that it was deliberately wrapped up and placed by someone. Or, it could mean it retained its form from the head and was simply taken off and set aside. In any case it suggests Jesus took the wrapping off himself. Someone removing the body would surely not have taken the time to remove his linen cloths – or if they had (in order to create the illusion of resurrection) would not have thought to have carefully placed the face cloth in a separate place. In other words this seems simply another Johannine realist detail that goes with faith in a transformed human world. And in this case the belief of the Beloved Disciple comes simply because he has come to a position where he is required to make a leap of faith. Circumstantial evidence can bring you to a certain point, but belief cannot be arrived at through logic or reason alone. It is his personal relationship with and knowledge of Jesus that tips the balance. Nevertheless it happens in a real world. For the Beloved Disciple the head cloth is the phenomenological sign that leads him to believe. For Thomas it is touching Jesus’ wounds, for Mary Magdalene it is hearing Jesus call her by name. Each person has a different process of relating to the new reality which is the resurrection.

Written That You May Believe 13

Background reading to study # 13- Written That You May Believe, chapters 13-14 Mary Magdalene 08.19.10 Mary Magdalene is the foundational witness in the Gospel of John. Mary Magdalene is not mentioned by name before the crucifixion scene in 19:25. In John she is the sole first witness of the resurrection. In Matthew and Mark she is one of the women who go to the empty tomb, and in Matthew one of a group who see the Risen Jesus (28:8-10) but in John she is the first and only witness. (The longer ending in Mark echoes and seems to get its information from John.) This also contrasts with the account written by Paul in 1 Cor 15:3-8. This is a report of the resurrection that Paul received - a report of the tradition that dates from about three or four years after the death of Jesus. It is a very primitive narrative. In this Jesus appears first to Cephas (Peter) then to the Twelve, then to more than five hundred “adelphoi” – translated either as “brothers” or “brothers and sisters”. In this account the foundational witness is to men recognized as the officials of the church. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark (longer ending) and John represent a different tradition that goes against the official version. (Luke has the two disciples walking to Emmaus as the first witnesses – though on their return they hear that Jesus has already appeared to Peter. In this Luke belongs to the tradition that accepts the primacy of Peter). The fact that an alternative, and counterintuitive version even exists in the tradition gives it credence. It is just so unlikely that such an account, centering on women, would have been created by design. It is therefore more likely to be true. John boils it down to one woman thus radicalizing the Matthew tradition. Like other figures in John, Mary Magdalene is a person with whom the reader can identify and whose story brings us into relationship with Jesus. So Mary Magdalene is both a named historical figure who also has a paradigmatic role. The primary purpose of the Gospel is to achieve this relationship– it is “written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name” (Jn 20:31). The author is interested in leading the reader to a point of connection. John’s account is not an official formula like Paul’s – rather it ends with a relationship. For John relationship trumps authority. In Jn 20:11-18 Jesus finds Mary Magdalene grieving and in distress compounded by thoughts that his body has been desecrated. He asks her “Whom are you looking for?” This evokes the call of the disciples in Jn 1:38 “What are you looking for?” The disciples in chapter one address him as “Rabbi” (1:38). When Jesus speaks Mary’s name she replies “Rabbouni” which means dear teacher – a relational term of affection. This also echoes chapter 10 when Jesus, as shepherd to his flock, calls each of his sheep by name. Literary evidence points to a rivalry between Mary Magdalene and Peter as primary witness. Many of the Gnostic gospels, for example, display this rivalry. In part their rejection by orthodoxy can be attributed to this. The Magdalene strand was not suppressed completely and has been preserved in Matthew, Mark and most particularly by John. This is important for the church today as the sacred order is collapsing around us. Both Catholic and Protestant churches have adopted the male, hierarchical, Petrine tradition (even those with women ministers). The Magdalene foundational witness is feminine, non-legal, non-hierarchical and relational. It points not to Peter (hierarchy), not even to faith, but relationship of love as the new primordial foundation. Unlike the Synoptics, John’s Gospel does not have a glorious resurrection or ascension passage. For John Jesus’ passion and death is his glorification. Resurrection is not a dramatic reversal or divine vindication, but a communication of the glorification that has already taken place. The resurrection appearances explore through the disciples’ encounters the effect and meaning of Jesus’ glorification. Jesus says “I am the resurrection and the life” not “I am the resurrected one”. His glory is the possibility that we might enter into resurrected life through relationship with him. In Jn 20:11 it is till dark, painting a predawn obscurity. The tomb is placed in a garden by John, and Jesus is mistaken as the gardener. This evokes the Garden of Eden and the image of a new creation. Mary peers into the tomb. This verb is used just three times in the New Testament – twice in John and the third time by Luke in a passage probably borrowed from John. It is the same word used in the Septuagint Song of Songs to describe the action of the lover who peers into the window searching for her beloved. (Song of Songs2:9). The garden backdrop and the peering evoke the Song of Songs – a hymn of the covenant love between Israel and YHWH which was read at the Passover. The Song of Songs is secular erotic love poetry which at the time of Jesus had been validated as part of the tradition. It was recognized as an allegory of the love relationship between God and his people. Mary Magdalene (the beloved) searches for her lover. Earlier, in the same chapter, the Beloved Disciple also peered in the tomb (same verb) looking for Jesus. Jesus is the lover who has given himself completely. The story seeks to rebuild the relationship lost in Eden. Mary Magdalene as “woman” becomes a paradigm for the Johannine community, the church, the new people of God who are seeking this relationship. In v. 17 Jesus says “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brothers and say to them ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’”. This has traditionally been interpreted as Jesus not wanting Mary to touch him because he is in some mystical place between this world and the next and he does not want her to interfere with his leaving the physical realm. This dualist understanding does not fit with Johannine theology which understands Jesus as already glorified through his crucifixion. He has not yet ascended because the fullness of his glorification is realized only when everyone has been told about it. Mary Magdalene is the primordial witness to this new intensity of relationship, but it cannot remain exclusive to her. The discovery of how to love must be shared. The prohibition is against making an exclusive relationship – go and tell my brothers and sisters! The discovery of how to be a true lover must be shared. The full realization of his glory comes through all people entering into a love relationship with Jesus. (See Jn 17:10 “All mine are yours and yours are mine; and I have been glorified in them” and Jn 12:32 “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself.”) Mary is told to deliver a message to the disciples – now siblings with Jesus. The quotation marks added by modern editors seem to give Mary the role of secretary. “Say to them ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’ ” makes it seem as though Jesus is referring to the Father and God of his brothers alone. If these quotation marks are removed (they would not have existed in the Greek) then the God and Father belong to Mary and the disciples collectively and the message relates first to her. Jesus uses the present tense “I am ascending”. He is still ascending to his Father. Until the whole world accepts Jesus and enters into this relationship modeled by Mary his ascension is not complete.

Written That You May Believe 14

Background reading to study # 14- Written That You May Believe, chapter 14. Contemplation and Ministry 08.26.10 Chapter 21 is an addition – a redaction. Chapter 20:30-31 appears to be the original ending to the Gospel. The first twenty chapters were probably written around 90-95 CE, the final chapter perhaps around ten years later. What could have happened in this period to warrant the introduction of this material? Chapter 21 accepts the pastoral ministry of Peter, but recognizes that it comes with a cost. It hints at two very different concepts of how Christian community should be. The Jerusalem-based Petrine Church and the non-hierarchical Johannine community. The chapter recognizes the role of Peter but also validates the Johannine relationship. It advocates a kind of co-existence. Chapter 21 of John demonstrates the tension between the figures of Peter and the Beloved Disciple. The Beloved Disciple is not identified with any particular person. The figure is left empty of identifiers so that the reader may enter into that space. The Beloved Disciple recognizes the Lord before Peter. He is the primary proclaimer of the gospel message. While Peter has pastoral authority, he is secondary to the Beloved Disciple – dependent on his/her witness. So what is this rivalry about? For Schneiders the thematic at work is the tension between Ministry and Contemplation. Ministry is exemplified by the pastoral role of Peter (this passage where Jesus tells him to “feed my sheep” is the source of the word “pastor”); the Contemplative - that is the immediate vision and receptivity to Jesus shown by the Beloved Disciple – stands in contrast to this. Schneiders, therefore, separates the contemplative and the active. Peter is a leader of men. The disciples follow him. He is to be a “fisher of men” and hauls in the net alone(v.11). The 153 fish represent all the then known nations of the world. By the time that the Gospel was completed, Peter had already emerged as a symbolic, heroic, hierarchical figure following his martyred death in the persecution of Nero in 63-65 CE. Jesus asks Peter three times “Do you love me?” This seems to refer to Peter’s three denials of Jesus in chapter 18, but also points to something more. Jesus is addressing the person who is to become the figure representing the authority and leadership of the established church. He asks him “Do you [really] love me?” It is a question addressed to all Christians in positions of power. The Peter of the Gospels emerges as one who is more comfortable with the idea of the triumphant Messiah. He rebukes Jesus when he says he has to go to Jerusalem to suffer and die (Mt 16:22). He wants to build a booth for Jesus on the mountain after his transfiguration (Mt 17:4), to create a monument. He is willing to fight to protect Jesus at his arrest – cutting off the ear of the high priest’s slave (Jn 18:10). In John 13:6 he initially refuses to have Jesus wash his feet. For Peter, the holy and powerful is to be kept out of the dirt of world and Jesus’ action turns his world upside down. It upsets the worldly order. Jn 21: 18-19 has Jesus telling Peter “When you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go”. He is indicating the martyrdom of Peter who was traditionally crucified upside down in Rome. Peter’s heroic martyrdom cemented his position as symbolic leader. Peter asks what will happen to the Beloved Disciple, will he also suffer? Jesus replies “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!” The word for “remain” is the same as that translated “abide”, found in Chapter 15 in the discourse about the vine and branches. The word has intense significance. “Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete”. The Beloved Disciple is asked to abide until Jesus comes. To abide in his love. In the intensity of today’s violent, media-driven world, we also need this relationship with Jesus. The institutions are no longer enough to counter the violence (undifferentiation) of the world. The institutions are in decline and Christians are seeking a new monasticism that merges ministry and contemplation. The Johannine message is rising up with more relevance. Jesus calls us into relationship that will stand even if the institutions fail. Peter is going to die, but the “beloved disciple” will abide/remain.

---

Wood Hath Hope study group ran a course from August 14, 2008:
Parallel Study of the Gospels of Mark and John.

Course Desription:

Taking two gospels together has special advantages. By reading the texts side by side, we highlight the composition of the gospels, the diverse messages about Jesus that Mark and John offer in their arrangement of the material. It helps us understand in what direction the writer intends to take the hearer/reader of the story.

At the same time, putting the gospels together points to the underlying pre-gospel layers. It leads us to look for the Jesus-level of the tradition. It's a kind of triangulation effect, moving us toward a third point which is the story of the person of Jesus prior to the written gospels.

Finally, the two gospels Mark and John together show from different angles the strangeness of Jesus, the Jesus who does not fit pre-existing categories. Mark introduces a disturbing figure surrounded by human violence. John presents a transcendent figure surrounded by God. But in an uncanny way one figure is the other, Jesus the nonretaliatory victim of human violence is the divine Jesus, and vice versa.... To read these studies in order, scroll to the bottom, Study 1.

Mark/John Bible Study #11 - The Beloved Disciple
Wood Hath Hope Bible Study 12/18/08

Here is the final summary of the Mark/John study. The first post of our new "Journey with Jesus" study will be posted shortly...Linda

Mark's Gospel's association with the witness of Peter goes back to the first century. Having Peter as the source would have lent authority and status to the text - the gospel was transmitted through one who had accompanied Jesus - a firsthand account. The Gospels were all written to some extent in response to the passage of time and as an attempt to preserve the original witnesses to Jesus. But also internal features of Mark suggest a situation of great stress and danger which would fit with composition in Rome around the time of Nero's persecution, the circumstances where traditionally Peter is said to have ended his life.

In Jn 21:24 the Gospel concludes with the witness of the beloved disciple. Verse 20 identifies this disciple as the one who is "testifying to these things" -- the source and final author of the fourth Gospel. In John's Gospel Peter has a key role -- but is subordinate to the beloved disciple. Jn 13:23 illustrates this--at the last supper it is the beloved disciple who rests/reclines on the breast of Jesus and who acts as Peter's intermediary with Jesus. (Peter is not as close to Jesus as the beloved disciple). This scene of intimacy at the Last Supper mirrors the physical touch and proximity of the anointing of his feet and wiping with her hair of Mary at Bethany. At the empty tomb it is the beloved disciple who is first to see and believe; on the shore it is the beloved disciple who points out to Peter that "it is the Lord".

There is a tension evident in John's Gospel between the figures of Peter and the beloved disciple which reflects those between the patriarchal and hierarchical Petrine/early apostolic Church and the Johannine community. In the third letter of John (written at the end of 1st Century or beginning of 2nd) we find the only use of ecclesia (church) by the Johannine writer--and it is not used in a positive way. Verse 9: "I have written something to the church; but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority". This tension reflects the different structure and mission of the two communities. History shows that it was the Petrine community that evolved into the established Church.

1 John 1:1-4 describes four modes in which the community around John perceived/knew Jesus: "We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life." It is this witness that they pass on in order to create fellowship with others with the Father and Jesus. The mode by which Jesus is understood is not legalistic or based in doctrine. The Word of Life is imparted in an immediate and relational way. This fits better with the teaching of Rene Girard who writes about the importance of direct imitation as fundamental for human development. The imitation of love lies at the heart of the Christian message.

In the 21st century our confidence in the hierarchical traditional Church institutions has been undermined. Perhaps the Johnannine form of community fits better in our present time. John emphasizes the importance of community and relationship. At the moment of his death Jesus turns to his mother whom he addresses as "woman" and to the beloved and asks the latter to invite her into his home. Both figures become symbolic figures that lead the disciple/reader to identify with them. The Beloved (intimate, loving disciple) and the Woman (wisdom; Spirit; non-violence, etc)--the two key figures in John. We, as Beloved/the Woman, share an immediate relationship with Jesus and are called to community and relationship with others. Christianity is not a self-help program leading to personal/individual self awareness--rather it is a shared life/journey in relationship with Jesus and with the Christian community. This non-hierarchical, ecclesiology allows for communities that are at home in the digital age, more relational and immediate, embracing the feminine attributes of God and earth and encourages local/grass-roots structures rather than the institutional.

Mark/John Bible Study #10 - Jesus & Women
Wood Hath Hope Bible Study 12/11/08

Luke's gospel has several stories of women--the widow of Nain (7:11) and the sinful woman anointing Jesus at the house of Simon the Pharisee (7:36) for example. In Luke women are listed as followers of Jesus (Lk 8:1-3), providing for Jesus out of their resources. This was exceptional in that rabbis did not have women students at that time and they probably sat in separate areas in the synagogues. Greek culture also understood women as lesser in status than men. However while Luke lists them as disciples they are still seen as distinct from the twelve. They are also women who are marked out as different because they were sick or afflicted by evil spirits and then were healed; or they were given an acceptable status by being wealthy or linked to men--Joanna the wife of Herod's steward.

In Mark 14: 3-9 there is a parallel story of the woman anointing Jesus with oil. In Luke's version the woman pours oil on his feet and the story stresses the sinfulness of the woman and Jesus’ act of forgiveness. Mark's account has the woman anoint Jesus' head and with costly ointment. There is no reference to washing his feet with her tears or wiping them with her hair. The passage continues with a controversy about the cost of the ointment and then Jesus says that she has done a good thing --anointing him beforehand for his burial. In Mark the event takes place shortly after Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. In this context the anointing becomes a significant act-- the anointing of the Messiah (Christ/ Messiah = "the anointed one"). The anger of the disciples is the same word used of the disciples' anger at James & John when they request special privileges in Lk 20:24--an anger resulting from jealousy of status. It seems likely that the anger resulted less from the expense of the ointment and more from the audacity of the woman to claim such an authoritative (and male) role.

It is incongruous that Jesus would ascribe to the woman a perception about his imminent death that was not evident to anyone else. In anointing him as Messiah the woman probably held the prevalent beliefs of a triumphant Son of David who would bring liberation from the Romans and not a suffering crucified Christ. In fact myrrh was the ointment that was used to anoint bodies after death--the only other reference to the expensive ointment used by the woman -- pure nard -- is in the Song of Songs. Her use of nard would have symbolized her love & esteem and the importance of her symbolic act. It seems likely then that the evangelist is trying to deal with a particularly scandalous event--and seeks to try to downplay the woman's power/prominence. The story is told in a way that becomes again acceptable to a male audience. In a telling statement Jesus says that wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world what she has done will be told in remembrance of her. It is strange then that her name has been lost. However, with the loss of her name, she assumes the symbolic representative persona of all women--and all women can therefore identify with and appropriate her action.

John gives the woman a name--Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha. In John 12:1-8 he gives his account of the anointing of Jesus by Mary at Bethany. Mary of Bethany is a formal disciple of Jesus. (In Lk 10:38-42 she "sits at the feet" of Jesus--a term used to describe the teacher-pupil relationship; for example Saul/Paul is described as having sat at the feet of the Rabbi Gamaliel). The protests of Martha are therefore not about Mary slacking off from helping out with the housework but instead relate to Mary taking on this hitherto unfeminine role. Jesus affirms Mary saying that she has chosen the better part and this will not be taken away from her. It is interesting to note that the personal name Martha did not exist prior to this time It was a word that meant something like "lady of the house". She could then be a role figure, a literary construct, provided to give Mary respectability (as her sister) rather than having Mary be a free floating woman disciple.

John's account merges the Luke and Mark versions. Mary anoints Jesus before the Passover with costly nard as in Mark, but anoints his feet and wipes them with her hair as in Luke. There is no mention of her being a sinner. Jesus again refers to his death, saying Mary could keep the ointment to use at his burial (i.e. a future use in contrast to the improbable present anticipation of his death at Mk 14.8). Later in John however it is Nicodemus who anoints his body. By anointing his feet her political act is transformed into one of love. This washing of the feet as a symbolic act of love is then repeated by Jesus himself when he washes the feet of his disciples. In John's gospel this replaces the eucharist, and Mary has shown the way to this possibility.

From the gospel accounts it appears that Jesus had a unique relationship with women, not only valuing them as equal to men but recognizing that they play an important part in understanding and expressing a radical new humanity. The attributes of non-violence, self-giving, non-possessiveness that are traditionally associated with the feminine are part of this. This is not about embracing feminism as such , which can become like many fights against oppression, just a displacement of power, women fighting to assume the power of men that has been withheld from them. Rather the gospel is about finding a non-violent, re-creative way to restructure humanity. A turning away from the way the world has always done things. Women, in their very powerlessness, are closer to the gospel message. It is not by accident that it is a woman (Mary Magdalene) who becomes the first and key witness to the resurrection.

Mark/John Bible Study #9 - Jesus' Manner of Speaking
Wood Hath Hope Bible Study 12/04/08

In Mark's Gospel Jesus is the master of the sound bite (aphorism). His stories are clear, concise and often controversial. His sayings have authority and a natural rhythm and flow, leading commentators to agree that he was a gifted oral teacher. He draws from recognizable human situations, using wisdom sayings that everyone can agree with, but that are used in controversial situations and so become transformative. E.g. Mk 2:17 ("those who are well have no need of physicians"); 2:21-22 ("new wine, new wineskins") & 2:27 (Sabbath is for humankind, not humankind for the Sabbath). Jesus uses stories effectively, using comparisons with everyday objects/experiences to make his point (parable = mashal, "a likeness" or a "byword") e.g. Mk 4:21-32 ("light under a bushel…").

Mark also shows how Jesus wins every verbal challenge. He adroitly turns the table on his opponents, gaining the upper hand and showcasing his intelligence and wit. (Check out Mk 11:27-33 "By whose authority..").

In contrast John's Gospel is filled with lengthy discourses which initially led scholars to dismiss their content as less historical than the Synoptics. Since the 1960s this has changed: for example Jesus' three year ministry in John is now considered more authentic than the one year ministry depicted in the Synoptics; also Jesus' relationship with the John the Baptist movement seems more accurately recollected than in the Synoptics.

The gospel of John seems harder to understand than the straightforward narrative of Mark. The words often have many layers of meaning. Jn 3:1-12 is the first dialogue in John. There is a greater sense of transcendent authority to the voice of Jesus while the dialogue carries the reader along. Jesus is more patient, more willing to engage than in Mark. Nicodemus has three interchanges with Jesus: a prolonged and sustained conversation compared with the pithy one-liners in Mark. Jn 5:19-24 illustrates another element found in much of Jesus' conversations in John. That is his relationship (his simultaneity) with the Father which adds extra authority to his words. In this passage Jesus assumes the Father's role of judgment and also his prerogative of giving life. Jesus is definitely identified with God. John therefore has a very "high" Christology (compared to the much lower Christology of Mark).

A comparison of Mark and John's versions of the cure of a paralytic shows how they have different ways of expressing Jesus' authority through his use of the word. They both use the miracle to illustrate a controversy - Jesus' claiming the authority to forgive sins (in Mark's version, Mk 2:1-12) and Jesus healing on the Sabbath (in John 5:2-17). In Mark's gospel Jesus responds to his accusers with a powerful comeback that leaves them floundering and awed. In John, Jesus enters into dialogue that draws the reader into a closer understanding of the work and nature of God and in so doing draws the reader also closer into Jesus' relationship with the Father. This then is the key to understanding John's version of Jesus' speech: it always invokes the third-party of the Father, making the Father a direct participant in the dialogue and drawing the reader into the relationship between Jesus and the Father.

Jn 6:32-51 ("I am the Bread of Life") builds on the previous miracle of the bread and fishes and formally represents the effect of Jesus' speech. Jesus, as the living presence of God in the world offers eternal life right now as "bread from heaven." "The bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world… It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life." This dialogue invites the reader to enter in to the divine relationship, and in the process the distinctions between heaven and earth break down, "eternal life" is now, heaven is on earth; (see 5.24: "anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life…has passed from death to life"). In this sense the "high" Christology of John is simultaneously very "low" theology: the identification or simultaneity of Jesus and the Father means that earth is the arena, the place, of the divine. Jesus is "exalted" but God is brought "down" to the level of humanity.

The invitation to enter into a relationship with Jesus and his Father is especially clear in Chapters 14 - 17 which is one long discourse that Jesus shares with his disciples. In Chapter 17: 20-26 this invitation is made explicitly to his future followers (us!). Entering this relationship produces the same intimate unity between disciples as between Jesus and the Father, and so the "glory of God" is displayed in the love and unity of the Christian community. The world will know Jesus is from God when Christians have a seamless unity with each other and with Jesus. Loving relationship is at the heart of everything. Just as the doctrine of the Trinity emerged from the early Christian community's attempts to express their experience of the Holy Spirit, so also in John's Gospel relationship experienced through dialogue /conversation come before doctrine. John's Gospel invites us into the very heart of the relationship of the Trinity. For John the Trinity becomes a Quaternity (i.e. a fourth element, us!). For the same reason John's Gospel, despite its "high" Christology, is the most anti-hierarchical, the gospel that dispenses absolutely with the need for temple, sacrifice and any other barriers/intermediaries that prevent us from an immediate relationship with the Father. In this frame metaphysics is also a distraction: the mere idea or formulation of Jesus' identity with God. What is vital is the conversation with Jesus which draws us into intimate unity with the Father. Jesus alone is the starting point, the doorway. Through Jesus' conversation we are led into a direct communication with God.

Mark/John Bible Study #8--Resurrection
Wood Hath Hope Bible Study 11/20/08

There are two extremes in the usual understandings of the resurrection of Jesus. The first is that there was no actual bodily resurrection and Jesus stayed dead. The biblical accounts were constructed or invented by the disciples as a way of describing their experience of Christ who is alive to them in his teaching and in the memory of his actions. He lives on in his ideas in an abstract way. This seems to retroject 20th-21st century sensibilities onto those first century disciples. After Jesus' crucifixion and death--a deliberately dehumanizing death (to be hung on a tree was considered a curse)--the Romans and temple authorities would have seemed vindicated and more powerful than ever. Jesus' ministry would have been seen as a failure, and Jesus a fool to have attempted to take on the powers. The disciples were terrified, uneducated, powerless and leaderless. It is unlikely that they would have had the resources to have successfully established a movement based upon this abstract academic belief and in the face of tremendous opposition. Yet something did happen that empowered the disciples to come out of the shadows and witness about this risen Messiah.

The second extreme is magical/metaphysical: Jesus-as-spirit survives, appears to his disciples and lives in another realm. This understanding is heavily influenced by Greek metaphysics (which is not scriptural). At his resurrection Jesus is resurrected in an entirely spiritual way and ascends to a different heavenly realm where he reigns with his Father. In this scheme the Earth remains a shadowy, sinful, violent place from which we can all now seek to escape with Jesus' divine intervention. Life after death is the passage of our spirits or souls (freed from our earthly bodies) into this heavenly kingdom of peace and light. The general resurrection of the dead then becomes an afterthought and itself spiritualized.

1Cor 15:42-49 gives us the earliest written teaching on Jesus' resurrection. Paul is writing @52-55 AD: that is about 20-25 years after the death of Jesus. He uses language that could be thought almost dualist and as such has probably mistakenly fueled the more mythical understandings of the resurrection. However, Paul while using language familiar to his Greek audience, was not Greek in his thought. For Paul the distinction between the physical body and the spiritual body was not dualistic (the body being bad, the spirit good); rather he was describing the experience of living a transformed life. The spiritual and heavenly are expressions of the new life lived here and now and of this Earth transformed in the future.

In Mark 15:47 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Sanhedrin, was appointed to get the body off the cross before the start of the Sabbath and the Passover. He is not identified as a disciple but rather as a righteous man. He and the Sanhedrin were very probably concerned about the defilement of the Sabbath. In other words the gospels account of a summary but decent burial of Jesus are historically plausible.

The New Testament accounts of the resurrection rest on the testimony of women. Mary of Magdala sees where the body is laid. (Mary is the common thread in all 4 Gospel resurrection narratives). In Mk 16 she goes to the tomb with Mary the mother of James and Salome to anoint the body. The stone has been moved and the tomb lies empty. A young man dressed in white tells them to not be alarmed, that Jesus has been raised and he commissions them to tell the disciples that Jesus is going ahead of them to Galilee. The women flee and say nothing because they were so afraid. This (verse 8) is probably how the original manuscript of Mark ends. Two endings (a shorter and a longer one) were later added to try to soften this abrupt and uncompromising conclusion to the Gospel. In fact some scholars have postulated that the evangelist could not have meant to end it like that: the end of the original manuscript must have been destroyed or the evangelist was interrupted--perhaps by illness or death- before completing the work. It is more likely that Mark is saying that the women (like the men in 14:50) also fled: there is a failure by the disciples not only in the face of the cross but also of the resurrection. Mark is saying that the resurrection is in fact just as scary as the crucifixion. The women had expected to fulfill their established culturally accepted role, of preparing the corpse for burial. Even in grief there is safety and comfort in ritual. They are instead confronted with the empty tomb and the shock of the new and unknown.

Another reason why the Gospel might end like this is that the story in fact does not end. It continued in the lived experience of those evangelized and for whom the Gospel was written. Each person has to meet the risen Jesus individually. The most important thing in Mark's account is the empty tomb. There are no accounts of ghostly apparitions which would leave the powers of this world in place, just "visited" by a being from another realm. Instead the empty tomb symbolizes the complete break with the old and expected. The old worldly systems of control have been shattered. The body is not there! Mark underscores the fear associated with the emptied space and the faith needed to enter into it.

John's account in chapter 20:1-18 again has Mary of Magdala playing the pivotal role. Mary sees that the stone has been moved and runs to tell Simon Peter and the disciple Jesus loved. Peter and the beloved disciple then run to the tomb and find it empty. The beloved disciple enters the tomb, sees the rolled up linen and believes. The disciples then return to their homes. The Beloved disciple is a literary device used by John to draw the reader into the narrative. The beloved disciple is unnamed and so the reader can identify themselves with that person. Here John is inviting the reader to believe in the face of the empty tomb. This is in contrast to doubting Thomas whose meeting with Jesus is recorded later in the chapter, who requires physical evidence before he will believe.

After the disciples leave Mary remains outside the tomb. It is then she sees the two angels who ask why she is weeping. She turns and sees Jesus whom she mistakes for the gardener. With Johannine irony she then asks Jesus whether he has carried away and hidden the body. It is only when he speaks her name that she recognizes him, John indicating that hearing the spoken word is more important for belief than the physical evidence of seeing. That Mary confuses him for a gardener again signals the breaking in of the new. Jesus brings in the transformed creation: a new Eden.

In v. 17 Jesus says to her "Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father". This has been traditionally understood metaphysically: that he is in some kind of unstable spiritualized state related to his transition between the earthly and heavenly realms. In John's Gospel, however, up is down. When Jesus is raised up and glorified it is at the moment of his crucifixion and when he was most abandoned and forsaken. Ascension therefore becomes not passage to a higher spiritual realm distinct from this earth. Rather it refers to the transformed source of meaning. He ascends as our understanding shifts to his absolutely new order of self-giving.

In Verse 17 Jesus commissions Mary to tell the disciples that he is ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. In most translations there are quotation marks added around these words of Jesus. This implies that the Father/God is the Father/God of the male disciples and Mary is to relay that message to them. These quotation marks do not exist in the original Greek. Remove them and we see the Father/God belongs to Mary just as much as the others and she is the first to know it! Mary then returns to witness to the disciples. At that time women were not able to testify in court except on domestic matters. That the resurrection narrative should depend on the word of one person and that this person was a woman is remarkable. In John's Gospel it is the Beloved Disciple and Mary Magdalene who are the first to believe and witness to the resurrection. Later, on the shore, it is the beloved disciple who informs Peter that "It is the Lord". So Peter, the "chief of the apostles," needs the testimony of the beloved disciple in order to enter into resurrection faith.

Mark/John Bible Study #7
Wood Hath Hope Bible Study 10/30/08 & 11/13/08

Well it is good to be back in Syracuse after time out in England and then recovering from my surgery. Thanks to all who offered condolences after the death of my father - it was appreciated. Here is the latest Bible study summary (a combination of the past two sessions) in which we looked at apocalyptic themes in Mark and John - peace, Linda

Mark 13 is the foundation apocalyptic text: it is the basis of similar passages in Luke and Matthew. It has three main elements: Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the Temple; a warning about the upcoming persecution of the followers of Jesus including the desolating sacrilege; and the coming of the Son of Man. To get a clearer understanding of which elements are probably authentic to Jesus it is useful to understand the context of the writing.

The gospel of Mark was written during a period of intense suffering for the early church: probably (according to scholar Martin Hengel) around 69 AD. 64-66 AD was when Nero had unleashed his savage persecution of Christians in Rome. It is thought that both Peter and Paul were killed at this time, while others were sent to the arena or burned alive as human torches. In 68 AD Nero committed suicide, but such was the terrifying violence associated with his rule, the rumor grew that he wasn't actually dead but that he would return from the East to destroy Rome. The year 69 was a turbulent year of transition before the relative stability of Vespasian's rule: it included three Roman emperors, civil war, earthquakes and famine in Italy. The middle part of Chapter 13 (vv 9--23) that foretells persecution was probably added by the author (substantially reworking material available in the tradition, i.e. material stemming from Jesus) to give comfort and courage to the Christian community. At one point, in v. 14, the voice of the evangelist directly intrudes ("let the reader understand") in the middle of Jesus' words about the desolating sacrilege. It adds further weight to the theory that this is an editorial reworking. It suggests that there were contemporary events, or concrete expectations of events, which the community collectively understood in a very specific way. The reason for the passage is clear: the early Christian community is suffering, and by putting these words into the mouth of Jesus it brings to mind that Jesus, whom they follow, also suffered and warned them they would suffer.

The desolating sacrilege relates to Daniel 11:31 & 1Maccabees 1:54 where the invading Greek forces occupy and profane the Temple and erect a "desolating sacrilege on the altar of burnt offering": probably statues of their gods. This passage also speaks to the intense Christian fear that Nero will rise up in the east and return to persecute them. This expectation is reported by Roman historians of the first century, Suetonius and Tacitus, and it took the form of a military commander arising from the East and sweeping all before him, arriving eventually to destroy Rome itself. Revelations 13:3,14 & 17:9-18 also reflect this fear. Mark seeks to encourage them to remain faithful to Christ in a time of extreme chaos and anxiety, including the threat of a transcendent figure of evil.

The first and third elements of Mark 13 are more likely to be authentic to Jesus. Opposition to the temple, with an expectation of its purification and restoration during the time of a final, supernaturally-aided battle, was a key part of the beliefs of the community at Qumran. The community was contemporary with Jesus and so the temple was a current apocalyptic theme. A prediction of the destruction of the temple is picked up at the time of his death when it is used as a charge against him: that he will "destroy the temple and build another…in three days". A problem between Jesus and the temple is deeply embedded in the tradition, both because of his action in the temple when he halted the sacrifices, and because of what was repeatedly said about him. It seems reasonable to recognize that Jesus was both verbally critical of the temple, and more than simply predicted its destruction, somehow invoked it. In John's gospel Jesus' overturning of the temple is placed right at the beginning of his ministry in Chapter 2, signaling the importance of the transformative role Jesus has in bringing an end to sacrifice and its violence.

The third part of Mk 13 which describes the coming of the Son of Man is apocalyptic in the full sense: a vision of human history explained and understood at the level of heavenly things. In Daniel 7 the coming of "one like a Son of Man" before the throne of God is the way God takes action to resolve human injustice and violence. It is noteworthy that in this passage no violence is used. Rather it is God's sovereign edict that brings an end to the oppressive empires, without a fight.

The darkening of the sun and moon and the falling stars are illustrative of the collapse of the cosmic powers. The falling of the stars indicates a tremendous upheaval in the order of things: enormous transgression, conflict or oppressive force. Isaiah 13:9-13 speaks of God's wrath against pride and tyranny, when he will cause the sun, moon and stars to darken. Daniel 8:9-12 tells of the Greek invader Antiochus Epiphanes who had the power to cast down stars from heaven. In both cases the falling of the stars is related to a time or figure of overwhelming disruptive violence.

In the Old Testament the stars do more than give light. They are semi-mythical spiritual figures that exist in the heavenly realm and serve God (Ps 148:3). They also function as representatives of earthly political powers, as their cosmic military counterparts. In Dn 10:12-14 the angel Gabriel tells of his battles with the heavenly protector/prince of Persia, and of conflict among the angels of other nations. (Michael was the main angel champion of Israel). As there is conflict on earth, so there is a corresponding battle being waged in the heavenly arena. The heavenly and earthly spheres are connected. A defeat in one sphere will impact the other. These heavenly bodies can fall because God causes it or because human arrogance provokes it. The order of the cosmos is not absolute and it can tumble.

In John's gospel there are no apocalyptic narratives. In Jn 1:51 Jesus does however speak of angels; he tells Nathaniel that he will "see angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man". This refers to Jacob's dream in Genesis 28:10 when he dreams of a ladder between heaven and earth on which the angels are ascending and descending. And in his dream God renews his promise to bless Jacob and his descendants and not to leave him until his work is completed and his promise fulfilled. In John's gospel up and down are very significant. When John speaks of Jesus being raised or lifted up he is referring to his crucifixion. It is when Jesus enters this deepest abyss that he is most glorified. In Jn 12:27-32 (another passage with apocalyptic elements--angels, the hour of judgment, God's glory…) it is only when Jesus speaks of his death that the voice from heaven affirms him. In the image of the ascending and descending angels it is important to note that the movement begins from the earth to the heavens--the angels follow the movement of Jesus--ascending from earth to heaven and back again rather than descending from on high. For John it is not the action of a Nero figure that triggers the fall of the cosmos, rather it is Jesus' crucifixion that destroys the temple and triggers the end of the existing order -overturning the powers of earth and heaven.

Mark/John Bible Study #6 - All Our Hamlets
Wood Hath Hope Bible Study 10/19/08

We led off with preliminary study of a pre-Christian text. For centuries Christians have looked to the big metaphysical doctrines of Plato and Aristotle as a way of understanding the meaning of Christ. But if Jesus came to change the structure of our humanity then a much better place to start would be the Poetics, Aristotle's enormously influential discussion of art and drama. In his treatise the Greek thinker tells us that a tragedy works by releasing feelings of fear and pity. These emotions pivot around key effects of "recognition" and "reversal" within situations of misfortune and suffering. "Recognition" means suddenly seeing the dramatic hero/ine in a very different way from how s/he was first understood; "reversal" means that the dramatic action veers round to the opposite direction from the one it was initially going in.

We are also told that only a certain type of character is suitable for provoking the crucial emotions of pity and fear. Aristotle says the downfall of a completely righteous person won't work because this creates only shock in the audience. Neither will the downfall of a thoroughly evil person work because we will only feel moral satisfaction. For the crucial emotions to be released the dramatic figure's misfortune must come about from an element of "error or frailty" in that person.

In other words--and this is how we interpreted it--the audience must be able to identify or empathize with the hero/ine up to a certain point but also be able to distance itself. In terms of scapegoat anthropology what this means is that we can both empathize with the dramatic figure and yet finally blame that person. It is this mixture that produces the delightful combination of pity and fear, the "tragic wonder" which everyone feels at the end of a "successful" play (or, these days, movie).

But then what is the figure of Jesus in the gospels? Is he a tragic figure? If not why not, and what else could he be? Contemporary scholars see Mark as having constructed his gospel according to Aristotle's classic outline. There is an evident turning point in his gospel which is a clear moment of recognition and reversal. It comes at 8.22-23, beginning with a miracle of the healing of blindness. The gradual process of this healing highlights the critical nature of seeing and frames the following episode where Jesus asks his central question, "Who do you say I am?" Peter makes the answer that is pivotal to the New Testament, "You are the Messiah." This is recognition of a sorts but it is only complete and true (as in the case of the blind man) when Jesus speaks to it, producing then a profound reversal. Rather than the victorious military Messiah this one must suffer, be rejected and killed. It is Peter then who undergoes a dramatic reversal: he protests Jesus' version and is declared by Jesus to be "Satan," one of the most stunning rejoinders of the whole of the gospels.

Reflecting on this we can see three differences from the classical pattern: in the case of Jesus, his is the downfall of a virtuous man who freely and personally chooses the suffering which should normally be the fault of the tragic hero; by the same token it is he who produces the reversal (from Messianic expectations), not circumstances that spiral out of his control; and finally he produces a reversal in all those around him who thought their violence righteous but now must begin to see it is “Satan.”

But the question remains: how then can we empathize with Jesus if he is completely virtuous and--according to Aristotle--his death should produce only shock?

In answer we turn to John's gospel which has a structurally parallel moment of recognition and reversal at 12.12-33. (Note verses 25-26 use the same saying tradition as at Mark 8.34-5). Here it happens in the context of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem when he is acclaimed as "king of Israel," a political and military figure. And there is the added dimension of the whole world following him, illustrated by the interest of "some Greeks" at verse 20. There is implied reversal in Jesus' mode of transport, "a young donkey," but it becomes fully clear in Jesus' words from 23-27. And here is the point: the reversal takes place largely within Jesus' self-expression, within a demonstration of his own consciousness. He gives the little parable of the "grain of wheat" falling into the earth, dying and bearing much fruit. And then at verse 27 we have the Garden of Gethsemane moment in John's gospel: "Now, my soul is troubled. And what should I say 'Father, save me from this hour?'"The internal nature of Jesus' choice, whereby he fully embraces the abandonment that lies before him, is what makes it possible to empathize with him. It is his absolute nonviolence/nonretaliation in response to the forthcoming violence that allows us mimetically to enter his situation, and once we do that we become part of his entirely new humanity in the earth. Another way of saying this is that it is Jesus' fully willed and trusting vulnerability which produces our experience of forgiveness and new life. We literally follow him in his infinite love.

That is in fact why "the whole world has gone after him," and why John sees Jesus' moment of surrender as also the moment of glory. The voice comes from heaven guaranteeing the glory (or the full human and cosmic recognition) of the Father's name just as Jesus is deeply faithful to its meaning. (This manifestation of glory is very similar to the Transfiguration which follows directly after the passage we have studied in Mark: John in fact does not have Transfiguration but instead he has this moment.) And at the very same moment the world is judged (not Peter), and its ruler (Satan) is driven out. In other words John has taken the dramatic sequence of Mark 8 and shown both its internal meaning in Jesus and its cosmic repercussions around him. When Jesus is "lifted up from the earth (he) will draw all people (to himself)" which has the indivisible meaning of both Jesus' mode of death (including its internal dimension) and the universal recognition of its meaning. There is thus a final reversal underlined here, a glorious reversal of the terrible reversal that Jesus freely embraced.

So the story of Jesus is not a tragedy, rather it is the undoing of all tragedy. All the Hamlets of human history who produce "tragic wonder" can be and are relieved of their tragic role by the Jesus-empathy of forgiveness, nonviolence and new life.

Mark/John Bible Study #5 - The Holy Spirit Wood Hath Hope Bible Study 10/08/08

Last time we looked at the different ways Mark and John dealt with the question of demons. In Mark Jesus acts with power to cast them out. In John he responds to the accusation that he has a demon by exposing the human violence that creates demons: "your father, the devil (the adversary, i.e. Cain)….was a murderer from the beginning" (John 8.44). In this study we're looking at another spirit, one opposed to the system of violence, the Holy Spirit. At Mark 3.29 we read of the unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Someone who does this is "guilty of a sin into the age…." What does this mean?

To answer the question it's important to look at two other passages in Mark, 12.36 and 13.11. These are the only other passages in Mark which use the full title "the Holy Spirit," which is a very emphatic form, literally "the Spirit the holy." The more general expression "holy spirit" (without articles) is common in the New Testament, and the still more general "spirit" even more so. "The spirit the holy" is frequent in Acts which has been called the gospel of the Holy Spirit. Its presence on these three exclusive occasions in Mark is significant because of the circumstances of the passages. They are all describing situations of intense stress and controversy: about Jesus casting out by the prince of demons, about the character of the Messiah (whether he is really the son of David, the ideal warrior king), about the persecution of Jesus' disciples. They are topics filled with violence, and the Holy Spirit is invoked in resistance against this violence but without having recourse to the means or tools of violence. The Holy Spirit stands against the violent world order, and helps Jesus' disciples to stand against it. "When they bring you to trial …do not worry about what you are to say… for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit" (13.11).

The frequent presence of "Holy Spirit" in the New Testament is in contrast to the Old Testament where the expression is rare. (The few examples are in Psalm 51, at Isaiah 63, and at Wisdom 7.) This strongly indicates the core breakthrough experience of Spirit in early Christianity. In our language it means a new structuring principle in human relations. Rather than violent competition (or mimetic conflict) there is a new way of relating, in the nonviolent Spirit that Jesus first received in his baptism and passed on through his life and forgiving death. A refusal (blasphemy) of this Spirit leaves one stuck in the old violent order. That is why the sin cannot be forgiven, even all the way into the new age: simply because it chooses to remain in the old order of violence and unforgiveness.

At the same time, as already said, this Spirit is not passive or remote from the world. It actively counters and opposes the world order. This becomes totally clear in John. John describes the Spirit as rivers of living water springing up in the believer's heart (7.38-9). These rivers are parallel to the eternal life which Jesus gives those who believe in him and which they have in the present tense (6.47). But John is also insistent that this experience only happens after Jesus is glorified, that is, after his death which is his glorious "lifting up" (12.32), an event seamless with his resurrection. At the point of Jesus' death we see this exactly: "he bowed his head and gave up the spirit" (19.30). Jesus' utterly nonviolent surrender is the event which first releases the Spirit into the world. Then, alongside this, John shows Jesus teaching the special character of the Spirit, so much that he gives the Spirit another name. Jesus calls the Spirit the Paraclete or Advocate, the one who speaks out on our behalf (14.26). Thus the Spirit does not simply give the believer life but actively argues with and challenges the world's view of things.

"If I go I will send him (the Advocate) to you. And when he comes he will prove the world wrong about sin, because they do not believe in me, about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; about judgment because the ruler of this world has been condemned" (16. 7-11). These three topics essentially repeat the same three effects or consequences of the Holy Spirit in Mark. The Advocate proves or demonstrates the only meaning of sin is the refusal of Jesus' way of profound forgiveness; that the meaning of Messianic righteousness is not revolution, but Jesus' absolute surrender in love which removes him from the world order but unites him to the Father; that the meaning of final judgment is not climactic violence but the overthrow of a world regime based in violence. The Holy Spirit actively engages the world in this way, progressively subverting its age-old way of doing things.

It is an extremely powerful claim. What it means is that Jesus' endless nonretaliation on the cross little by little breaks down the world's security in its violent righteousness and its righteous violence. The Holy Spirit, therefore, is a force of assertion and truth in its own right, carrying the argument to the world and at all the subtle levels where a violent human system makes its home. It is an active recreative movement in and by which both Mark and John guarantee their readers the final victory of Jesus' way, not on some ethereal plane or another planet, but here in this human realm itself, the earth.

Mark/John Bible Study #4 - Miracles & Demons
Wood Hath Hope Bible Study 09/04/08

Mark uses the term "acts or deeds of power" for what we popularly call miracle. The first miracle in Mark's Gospel (Mk 1:34) is the exorcism of a man with an unclean spirit (a term interchangeable in Mark with demon). Those possessed by demons in the Gospels are often those most vulnerable to the violence of the world: for example the Gadarene demoniac possessed by a demon calling itself "Legion". Legion was of course an expression of Roman military violence. The following three miracles in Mark also illustrate Jesus' ability to deal with serious dysfunction and in its place bring peace and transformation. They include the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, a leper and a paralytic. These four healings are followed quickly by four controversies, the growing drama pulling the reader forward in an increasingly urgent pace. (Mark uses the phrase "and immediately" over forty times in his Gospel).

In John the miracles are called "signs" and have a different feel. The first is the Wedding at Cana (Jn 2:1-12). John picks up the marriage theme also present in Mark (who talks of the bridegroom's presence being the reason why it is not the time to fast, 2.19). In contrast to Mark there is no dramatic crisis, rather a social embarrassment (running out of wine). Jesus comes across as hesitant and reserved and has that strange conversation with his mother. Jesus' act is full of symbolism, the symbolic content surpassing the action. It takes place on the third day, providing an inclusio with the resurrection narrative at the end of the Gospel. The wedding feast symbolizes the Messianic banquet, the time of fulfillment and joy when the community comes together to celebrate the love relationship of the lover & the beloved.

Jesus' conversation with his mother has a resonance with that first miracle in Mark: the demon asks, "What have you to do with us?" Jesus is intruding in their space and they are fearful that he will destroy them. Jesus replies to his mother, "Woman what concern is that to you and me?" Here Jesus himself hesistates at the borders of his mission. By calling his mother "Woman" is Jesus being rude or disrespectful? Obviously not.… In John every word and sentence is loaded with meaning. Jesus' use of the word "Woman" to address his mother is symbolic. He is bringing to mind Woman Wisdom in the Old Testament who invites everyone to her banquet. In the Synoptics it is the Holy Spirit driving him forward whereas in John it is Woman Wisdom that propels Jesus into the world, breaking the reserve of their intimacy and sharing it with all the world. Wisdom's invitation to "come and see" is repeated by Jesus to his first disciples. If God is Jesus' father, Wisdom is his mother.

Returning to the theme of demons. …In Mk 3:20 Jesus argues that his power over demons does not come from Beelzebul (sometimes translated as Lord of the Flies, paraphrased as the Ruler of Demons). He repeats three times that a house divided cannot stand: he is taking a cue from his opponents argument and suggesting that in fact Satan's kingdom IS divided because it is a kingdom based on violence. Earlier the demons shout out "have you come to destroy us...Holy One of God?" Jesus' rebuke to "be silent" has been attributed to the mysterious "messianic secret" theme that runs through the Gospel. However it seems more likely that the secret Jesus is revealing is violence and its overturning by forgiveness, and so he is rebuking them for their violent (mis)understanding of his action. The silencing by Jesus is silencing violent preconceptions about the nature of God's action in the world. He does not come to destroy but to restore life. And so he binds up the strong man (3.27) rather than killing him.

While John does not have exorcisms in his Gospel, he does have lengthy and increasingly antagonistic discussions with his opponents. In Jn 7, during the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus asks his opponents why they are trying to kill him. They reply by saying he is crazy, that he has a demon. With Johannine irony, in v.25 it is revealed that there is in fact a plot against him. Jesus speaks openly and directly about what is being spoken in secret. To be accused of having a demon is to become an outcast, a scapegoat. In 8:39 the controversy continues. Jesus is accused of being a Samaritan, not a true Jew; again he is being demonized, in the same way that human beings have always dealt with their enemies. In v.41 Jesus responds by saying that his opponents are from the Devil "who was a murderer and liar from the beginning". In saying this he is not counter-demonizing his opponents but rather exposing their system of lies and murder. He says that their father is the Devil because he sees and declares the truth of their actions. He is exposing the hidden violence. "A murderer from the start" recalls the story of Cain and Abel. From this initial murder and its cover-up the story goes on to tell of the founding of the first city by Cain and his descendants. All principalities and powers are built upon this founding violence. A façade of apparent truth preserving a system of murder. Jesus' message in contrast recalls the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, 2.23-4 , that death was never meant to be a part of God's plan but came by the adversary's envy. Jesus never accuses his opponents of demonic possession; rather he demythologizes the violent system of demonization and brings healing to those who have been imprisoned by it. In Mark he does this by deeds, in John by words.

Mark/John Bible Study #3 : John the Baptist
Wood Hath Hope Bible Study 08/28/08

The figure of John the Baptist is present in all four Gospels. He appears as both witness and forerunner to Jesus. In Mk1:1-8 he appears in the wilderness; deliberately separate from the established religious institutions and structures of his time. He has broken away from the Temple, from Jerusalem and from the Pharisees. His life is a prophetic witness. He fasts, dresses in camel hair and eats locusts and wild honey, not because of his desire for asceticism but rather because that is the condition of his chosen prophetic location. Living in the desert and his ministry at the River Jordan evoke the Israelite entry into the land and also the return to the land after the exile. In fact the wilderness and the Jordan symbolically evoke the whole history of and God's promise to Israel. The baptism of John is a call for spiritual rebirth, a last chance to get right with God. His message is a call to repentance and preparation for the great and terrible day of the Lord. To re-boot the Jewish story, get it back on track.

John was associated with Elijah who (according to the prophet Malachi) was to reappear to witness to the imminent coming of the Day of the Lord. It seems as though John the Baptist did not see himself as Elijah, but rather as the one who was setting the scene for him. (Jn1:19-27). He identifies himself as "a voice preparing the way" (quoting second Isaiah, written to herald the return from exile). It is not until the transfiguration (MT17:9) that John the Baptist is associated by Jesus as Elijah. John was a well-known and respected religious figure of his time. He was considered a great prophet and had the attention not just of the population in and around Jerusalem but also of the ruling authorities (e.g. Herod Antipas). John drew big crowds to the river. He also drew Jesus. John the Baptist acted as an early mentor to Jesus. Jesus would have been attracted to John's radical message and prophetic activism. Prior to the start of his own ministry Jesus joined in John's baptism ministry.

This initial association of Jesus with John the Baptist leads the Gospel of John to down-play the Baptist's role, to subordinate him to Jesus. Disciples of John the Baptist continued his ministry long after his execution and lived along-side early Christian communities in Palestine (Acts19: 1-3, disciples as far away as Ephesus). Jesus' own first disciples were initially those of John (Jn 1:35). The evangelist uses a literary devise to make a theological statement. He has John the Baptist himself announce Jesus' supremacy. He uses a parable from the earlier Gospel of Mark of the bridegroom (used by Mark in relation to the issue of fasting) and has John the Baptist identify this figure with Jesus. He is seeking to lay the ghost of John the Baptist.

The baptism of John, while primarily a symbol of rebirth, also had connotations of purification. John was perhaps influenced by the Qumran community that lived 8 miles away and had elaborate purification rituals to prepare for the coming of the Lord. (This would be a day when the forces of good and evil would enter into violent conflict to make things right again). These themes of purity and the violent intervention of heaven to right wrongs held no part in Jesus' message. In Jn 3:25 a discussion arises between the disciples of John and "a Jew" about purification. This quickly segues to a discussion about Jesus' popularity. It seems likely that the Jew mentioned earlier would have been Jesus, the story hinting at differences between the two. At the wedding in Cana Jesus transforms the purification water into wine, he eats and drinks with sinners. Purity is not a prerequisite for receiving the love of God. Jesus and his disciples are accused of not fasting like John's disciples and the Pharisees in Mk 2:18. The goals of fasting, communion with God and spiritual joy, can be achieved in a new way through Jesus.

The relocation of Jesus to the Sea of Galilee shows another change. The Jordan was specific to the Jewish story, the Sea of Galilee had different symbolism. The sea is much broader. It represents the turbulence/chaos of the whole world and the ultimate violence of death. Jesus' crucifixion is the real baptism, like Jonah he enters into the abyss, but then brings all to rebirth. If John is seeking to re-boot Judaism; Jesus is seeking to reboot the whole of creation.

John's ministry remains part of the old order. His baptism still has elements of violence: it evokes the entry into the land which was achieved by conquest and battle. John is still looking for a violent intervention by God. When in prison he sends messengers to ask if Jesus is really the one he has been waiting for (Lk7:18) Jesus has not been talking and acting as the expected Messiah, the chosen of God who will sweep away the Romans from the land for example. Jesus replies that blessed are those who are not scandalized by him. He says that while John is the greatest of the prophets, the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he. In MT11:7 Jesus says that from the time of John the Baptist to today the Kingdom of God has been violated and the violent have hijacked it. This could have been a criticism by Jesus of John's violent understanding of the coming of God.

In John's Gospel, John the Baptist makes a declaration that Jesus is the Lamb of God. The main OT references to lambs are the paschal lamb and the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah who is led like a lamb for the slaughter. Unlike the synoptic Gospels who have the crucifixion on the day of the Passover, John has Jesus' death fall on the day of preparation, the day when the sacrificial animals are killed. John puts this high theological statement into the mouth of John the Baptist right at the beginning of his Gospel. This proclamation by John the Baptist is what leads John the Baptist's disciples to leave him to follow Jesus. Their (and our) following of Jesus therefore rests on his non-violent act of surrender.

Mark/John Bible Study #2
Wood Hath Hope Bible Study 08/21/08

Both Mark and John start their Gospels with the beginning…, "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mk1:1)… "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (Jn1:1). The Greek word archē evokes Plato's first principles, but for the Christian community there is a more obvious resonance. Genesis 1 describes the creation story, the original (imagined) creative moment. John and Mark's Gospels, by echoing the words of Genesis, proclaim the new (re)creative moment that takes place in the middle of history with the person of Jesus. This new beginning starts in the center. In contrast to our established and linear way of understanding events, that everything has an absolute beginning, middle and end point, Jesus' eruption into history acts a singularity or event horizon. God bursts into worldly reality and in doing so transforms it totally. The beginning of the Old Testament takes place at the beginning of time; the beginning of the New Testament takes place in the middle of time. It is neither a linear nor a cyclical creative event but rather it is eruptive. In John and Mark's Gospels, Jesus' coming re-writes everything. A useful expression for understanding this is the medieval phrase creatio ex nihilo, creation out of nothing. This is a move away from the Greek idea (for example in the work of Aristotle and Philo) of eternal creation. If John is read in this different light, with the Word as the starting point of transformation, we shift away from thinking of the beginning as some mythological place outside of time. The beginning, the place where life begins and all things come into being, is the place where the Word is. John's Gospel spells this out - In the beginning was the Word.

The Word in the Genesis 1 account is what brings life. Creation takes place when God speaks. This is unlike other creation narratives where life is brought forth from violent acts carried out by the gods. Creation through the Word is non-violent. Jesus is the embodiment of the Word who brings about a violence-free (re)creation.

Very quickly in John the element of opposition is introduced. Light and darkness that seeks to overcome it (v. 5) and v.10-11: "the world did not know him…, his own people did not accept him". This is not metaphysical dualism, a mythological battle between the forces of good and evil. Rather it places Jesus in the recognizable world of human conflict. A world in which people can choose to accept or reject the Word.

Mark1:2 introduces the words of the prophet Isaiah. The same words from Isaiah are quoted in Jn1:23 ("a voice crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord"). Both Gospels signal the importance of Isaiah to the early Christian movement's understanding of Jesus. Deutero (or Second) Isaiah, who authored chapters 40-55 of Isaiah, wrote at the time of the return from exile. This was the time when Israel was trying to come to terms with the complete destruction of Jerusalem and the failure of their national project. Isaiah offered consolation and hope, that God would bring something new out of the violence and ruins. There is no temple in Second Isaiah, instead there is a promise that God will dwell among his people in peace. The Gospels are announcing that Jesus' coming heralds the final return from exile. The baptism in the Jordan that follows continues this theme, recalling the crossing of the Jordan into the Promised Land.

The account of the preaching of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus is one of the few passages common to all four Gospels. Mark (being the earliest Gospel) and John (being the latest) have distinct differences. In Mark, it is Jesus who sees the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descend like a dove upon him. He hears the voice from heaven say "You are my Son, the Beloved, with you I am well pleased" (Mk1:9-11). In John's Gospel, these events become part of John the Baptist's testimony about Jesus: he becomes the witness to these events. He sees the Spirit descend as a dove, and proclaims the words spoken to him by God, that Jesus is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. (Jn1:29-34). John's Gospel is perhaps (by providing John the Baptist as a witness) seeking to strengthen the validity of the event. Mark's Gospel can be understood as recording a much more recognizably human experience. His account portrays a revelatory moment in Jesus' life. He understands that he is the beloved of the Father and sees the Spirit descending on him like a dove.

The dove is found in two other places in the Scriptures. In the Song of Songs, where both the lover and the beloved use the image of the dove to describe the object of their love, and in Genesis, in the story of Noah's ark. Noah sends the dove out three times on the seventh day, returning twice, then not returning, as a sign that the flood waters have receded. The dove therefore symbolizes blessing in place of annihilation. The three X seven motif underscores the Sabbath seventh day, the completion of creation. The dove also evokes the creation story in Genesis, the spirit hovering over the water. Again, the image is of bringing life out of the chaotic watery abyss. Jesus sees the heavens torn apart, but instead of the expected (thunder, lightning…) he sees the Spirit descend like a dove- the gentlest of creatures. Finally, it was this gentle and non-resisting nature that led to the dove being used as a sacrificial animal. In Chapter 1 John introduces another animal that displays similar characteristics, the Lamb.

Mark/John Bible Study #1
Wood Hath Hope Bible Study - 8/19/08

One way in which these Gospels stand apart from the other two is that both Mark and John begin with a prologue, whereas Matthew and Luke have extended infancy narratives. These infancy narratives have elements similar to those present in the stories of other great leaders, the miraculous signs and wonders that signal greater things to come. Both Luke and Matthew seek to establish Jesus in a way that is acceptable and familiar to their target audience. The genealogy in Matthew that connects Jesus to the key figures of Jewish history speaks to the concerns of his Jewish readers; the opening remarks that Luke makes to the aristocratic Greek Theophilus would have inspired confidence in his Hellenistic world. Both introductions act as an apologia, framing the gospel in an acceptable way and deftly inserting it into the prevailing culture. Mark and John make no apologies. Their prologues make absolute claims, that Jesus is Messiah and Son of God.

We are so used to having four Gospels that it is hard to recall that round the middle of the second century there were many other Gospels in existence. These apocryphal and Gnostic Gospels were finally rejected by emerging orthodoxy after decades of debate and discernment. The criteria for establishing orthodoxy took into account both internal and external evidence. The textual content of the non- orthodox Gospels showed far greater elaboration and speculation. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were also quickly established as the earliest chronologically and therefore had greater authority.Mark is universally acknowledged as the first written account of the story of Jesus. It is clear that both Matthew and Luke had copies of Mark and used it as a source. In comparison to Luke and Matthew, Mark is shorter, is written in a less developed Greek and has a more disturbing, edgy tone. For centuries because of this it was often down-played in favor of the other two. In the 19th and 20th centuries Mark finally came into its own with the emergence of historical and textual criticism. He is now recognized as an innovator and ground-breaker. Some, however, (for example John Crossan) believe he is a genius who invented much of the story of Jesus.

Paul had written earlier than Mark (around 50-60AD), but his letters are theological, passing on the meaning of Jesus rather than telling stories about him. Up until that point there had been an oral tradition in which stories about Jesus had been passed on, and passed on effectively. The Christian movement had been growing. So why in the late 60s did Mark write his Gospel? Bishop Papias (120-130AD) is quoted in Eusebius. Papias tells of "The Elder", the author of 2nd and 3rd letters of John who lived in 80-90AD. The Elder stated that Mark was the interpreter of Peter. He said that Mark had heard Peter preach in Rome and wrote down his sayings as he heard them and so the events may not be recorded in chronological order. Some modern scholars dismiss this as the early church trying to give Mark authority by linking him to Peter. However the sense of the text is rather to explain difficulties in Mark's style rather than addressing authenticity as such.

It seems likely that Peter is Mark's primary source. This might explain Mark's narrative style (he uses a lot of ands.. like someone telling a story orally). Peter was by all accounts not a scholar. It seems likely that his good news of Jesus would be passed on in the form of storytelling rather than theological reflection. It is also unlikely that he would have had a good grasp of Greek and therefore having an interpreter would make sense. Mark's Gospel would have been an attempt to capture these firsthand accounts while the eye witnesses were still alive. The passing of time also meant a change in the situation of the early Christian community. Growing persecution and the fading expectations (present for example in Paul) that Jesus would quickly come again, meant that the theological message of redemption was no longer enough. There was a growing desire for a connection to the historical Jesus. The vibrancy of the human person of Jesus, captured in the Gospels, achieved this.