January 25, 2013 · 7:44 pm

Exploring the Gospel of John: 12

EXPLORING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

By the Rev. Dr. Michael Petty [Fr. Michael Petty]

St. Peter’s Anglican Church [2006]

New word:  Click here for definitions:  prolepsis, foreshadowing, prolepsis

The Last Events of Jesus’ Public Ministry

John 12:1-50

I. The Proleptic Anointing of Jesus for Burial: 12:1-11

1. Six days before the Passover, Jesus returns to Bethany, the scene of the resurrection of Lazarus.  As we have learned (11:53), the latter event has sealed Jesus’ fate and this will be his final Passover.

2.  Mary’s action of anointing Jesus both foreshadows his death and displays the extravagant response that his self-offering calls forth.  Mary uses a huge quantity (almost a pound) of an expensive perfume to anoint Jesus.  The estimated value of this perfume is (12:5) about what an average person might earn in a year and Judas can, thus, denounce Mary’s action as a scandalous waste.  Underlining the extravagance of the act is the fact that Mary wipes Jesus’ feet with her hair.  Since Jews did not embalm their dead but rather anointed corpses with perfumes and spices, Mary effects a proleptic anointing of Jesus for burial (cf. John 19:38-42).  Mary has also proleptically kept Jesus’ final commandment that “you love one another as I have loved you” (15:12).

3.  While the text clearly labels Judas’ response to Mary’s action as hypocritical (12:6), the chief failure here is not mere dishonesty but a failure to understand the significance of what has just happened.  The devotion of Mary reflects an insight into the nature of Jesus’ departure — a departure for which Jesus will begin to prepare the disciples, in chapters 13-17.

4.  In 12:7, Jesus explicitly interprets Mary’s actions with reference to his burial. 12:8 has often been misinterpreted and taken to mean that care for the poor is not important. Actually, Jesus’ remark presupposes the continuing validity of Deuteronomy 15:11, which says that “there will never cease to be poor in the land,” which means that “you shall open wide your hand to . . . the needy and to the poor.”

5.  Jesus is under a sentence of death and now (12:10) Lazarus [also] comes under one, as well.  Ironically, it is his being brought back to life that is the cause of his death, since “on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus” (12:10). The possibility of Lazarus dying again serves to remind us that, while raised from the dead, he does not yet participate in the resurrection in its fullness, which is a resurrection to a life beyond death (cf. Romans 6:9).

II. Jesus’ Final Entry into Jerusalem: 12:12-19

1.  This scene confirms the decision of the Jewish leaders, in 11:53, and their decision to get rid of Lazarus, in 12:10-11.  In John, it is the raising of Lazarus that is the primary cause of Palm Sunday (though the actual day of Jesus’ arrival was probably Monday or Tuesday).

2.  John is the only gospel that mentions the use of palms to mark Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem.  Since the time of the Maccabees (who forced the Greeks out of the Temple and began the celebration of Hanukkah or the Feast of the Dedication), palms signified victory (cf. I Maccabees 13:51).  The welcome that Jesus receives is that of a national hero.  Psalm 118:6 provides the first part of the crowd’s acclamation:  “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”  “Hosanna!” (12:13 is simply a transliteration of the Hebrew: “Save us!”

3.  Jesus’ own actions make clear how he understands himself to be king.  Zechariah 9:9 provides the [slightly-altered] text for the citation, in 12:15.   In the larger context, the king mentioned here will not only restore Israel from exile but will also bring a reign of peace and justice to the whole world.

4.  12:6 makes it clear that the disciples did not understand the significance of this act, until after the resurrection.  That is to say, the disciples did not understand the nature of Jesus’ kingship, until after his death and resurrection, after which it was possible to see that the cross defined the kingship of Jesus.  This comment is an indication that John’s gospel is written [in a manner that] looks back at the events of Jesus’ life, as seen in the light of his glorification.

5.  In the other gospels, the cleansing of the Temple follows Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem.  In John, however, this has already happened (2:13-22).  Uniquely, John connects the entry into Jerusalem with the raising of Lazarus in that, apparently, some of those who witnessed the event were in Jerusalem, giving testimony, and this accounts for the presence of a crowd (2:18).

III. The Hour Has Come: 12:20-36

1.  In this section, Jesus announces, for the first time, that his hour has now come.  The moment to which his life has been directed is now here. Three important things about this moment are made clear:

2. 12:23-26:  The necessity of Jesus’ death:  Just as a grain of wheat must disintegrate (“die”) into the ground, in order to bear fruit, so Jesus’ own death is necessary in order to produce “much fruit” (12:24).  In Jesus’ case, to reject death is to reject the fruitful consequences of death.  The saying in 12:25 has parallels in Mark 8:35; Matthew 16:25, 10:39; Luke 9:4, 17:33.  To “hate one’s life” is a Semitic expression for having no higher loyalty than preserving one’s life, all the time failing to realize that life is a gift from God.  Jesus’ action of laying down his life is a pattern that the disciples will follow:  God calls them to trust him in such a way that they are willing to surrender life, in the hope of receiving it back again.

3.  12:27-30:  Jesus’ struggle in the face of death:  This is John’s equivalent of Jesus’ Garden of Gethsemane experience.  What Jesus says here echoes Mark 14:34 (“My soul is sorrowful, even to death”), which echoes Psalm, 42:5-6:  [“Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you in turmoil within me?”]  

While in Mark’s account, Jesus prays that this hour might pass from him and then resigns himself to God’s will (Mark 14:36), in John, Jesus makes no such request but makes it clear that “for this purpose I have come to this hour” (12:27).  Instead of a prayer for deliverance, Jesus asks that God’s name be glorified.  God’s name has been glorified, in Jesus’ signs, and it will be glorified again, in his death and resurrection.  It is important to notice that the divine voice, responding to Jesus, is not for his benefit but for that of the crowd.   Jesus does not need a response from the Father because he already knows the Father’s response.

4.  12:31-36:   The consequence of Jesus’ death:  Jesus’ death is full of irony in that, seen from a merely worldly point of view, it appears to be a defeat for him but a victory for “the ruler of this world” (12:31).  Seen from a cosmic point of view, however, things are very different, in that Jesus’ death functions like a cosmic exorcism, through which “the ruler of this world [is] cast out” (12:31) and the world is judged.  But the action of Jesus’ death is two-fold, in that Satan is driven out while people are drawn to Jesus (12:32).  This, in short, describes God’s reclamation of his creation.  12:33 makes it clear that the crucifixion is what is being designated by the metaphor of “lifted up” (12:32).  In response to the crowd’s question, “Who is this Son of Man?” (12:34), Jesus replies, in effect, “It is I.”

IV. Jesus’ Summary of His Ministry: 12: 37-50

1.  With this section, Jesus’ public work comes to a conclusion and chapters 13-17 will involve only Jesus and his disciples.

2.  It is now clear that Israel’s response to Jesus is quite mixed, since “though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him” (12:37).  But we are not to understand this reaction, the narrator says, as rendering Jesus’ claim false. Two passages from Isaiah are cited to show that Israel’s response to God’s servant, promised by Isaiah, is precisely the response given to Jesus:  12:38 cites Isaiah 53:1 and 12:40 cites Isaiah 6:10 (in a modified form).  Isaiah 6:10 makes two things clear: that Israel’s disobedience is not beyond God’s sovereignty and that there is still hope for repentance, since the hardening of hearts is not final.   Isaiah was able to see this, since he beheld God’s glory (12:41; cf. Isaiah 6:1-5).

3.  The comment in 12:42 seems to contradict 12:37 but we soon discover that this is not the case — for the belief of the “authorities” is actually a “pseudo” belief, since they do not openly confess their belief because fear hinders them. (12:42-43).

4.  Jesus’ testimony concludes with two summary statements:  First, Jesus says that judgment is a secondary consequence of his work but that the word he has spoken is the same word that God will speak at the last judgment (12:47-49).

Second, Jesus’ testimony is in complete agreement with the Father’s will and word (12:50).

Questions for Reflection

(1) The Gospels tell us about events in the life of Jesus, not merely to offer us information, but to answer two major theological questions:

(a) Who is God (God’s nature and character)? and

(b) What does it mean to follow Jesus (the nature and character of discipleship)?

What answers does this chapter offer to these questions?

Leave a comment

Filed under discipleship, Interpretation of Scripture, The Gospel of John, theology and doxology

Tagged as , ,

January 22, 2013 · 10:32 pm

Film Review: Les Miserables 2012

lesmis

Dear Readers,

Click here, to read a thoughtful review, written by my daughter:  Les Miserables: A Revolution of Grace.

Coram Deo,

Margot

Leave a comment

Filed under Books, Film Review, Films

Tagged as , ,

January 21, 2013 · 11:18 am

Exploring the Gospel of John: 11

EXPLORING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

By the Rev. Dr. Michael Petty [Fr. Michael Petty]

St. Peter’s Anglican Church [2006]

New word:  Click here for definitions:  prolepsis, foreshadowing, prolepsis

The Raising of Lazarus

John 11:1-57

(1) The raising of Lazarus is the seventh and final sign, which Jesus performs in this Gospel.

It is helpful to take note of the other six:

(1st)       Water transformed into wine (2:1-11);

(2nd)     The healing of the official’s son (4:46-54);

(3rd)      The healing of the paralyzed man (5:1-18);

(4th)      The healing of the man born blind (9:1-41);

(5th)      The feeding of the five thousand (6:1-15) and

(6th)      Walking on water (6:16-21).

The raising of Lazarus is the culminating sign. It is significant that there are seven signs.  We can divide the raising of Lazarus into six scenes:

(2)  Scene I:  11:1-6:  This scene sets the stage for the action that follows. 11:2 points forward to 12:1-8, where Mary anoints Jesus with perfume and washes his feet.  This action clearly indicates that the focus of this episode is not so much the death of Lazarus but that of Jesus.  In 12:1-8 Mary prepares Jesus proleptically for burial.   Jesus does not immediately respond to the plea of Mary and Martha for help but waits for two days before departing for Bethany (11:6).  The reason for this, as we have seen before, is that Jesus follows a timetable that God – not human need – dictates.  Jesus’ remark, “this illness does not lead to death” (11:4) probably does not mean that Lazarus will not die but that death will not be the final outcome of what appears to be a tragedy.  Once again, Jesus is here more focused on his own death than on the death of Lazarus.  The raising of Lazarus is essentially an enacted parable about Jesus’ crucifixion and death, which also “does not lead to death.”   Lazarus’ death will be an occasion for the glorification of the Son of God and will also be the catalyst for his death (note 11:45-53).

(3) Scene II:  11:7-16:  In 10:31, there is an attempt to stone Jesus for blasphemy, followed, in 10:39, by an attempt to arrest him (presumably for the purpose of being put on trial).  Given this, it is understandable that the disciples do not receive, with enthusiasm, Jesus’ decision to return to Judea.  (11:8).  Jesus attempts to turn their attention from the peril of death to what he considers to be a greater peril, that of stumbling (11:9, 10).  “To stumble” is to leave off obedience in the face of difficulty, something that Jesus considers worse than mere death.  Jesus says that Lazarus has “fallen asleep” (11:11), a Jewish euphemism for “died.”  As I Corinthians 7:39; 11:30; 15:6; 18:20, 51 indicate, “falling asleep” also became an early Christian expression for “death.”   The emphasis falls upon the temporary state of death as something that will be overcome.  The narrator explains Jesus’ real meaning and the disciples’ failure to grasp it, in 11:13.  Thomas (11:16) is correct, in thinking that the journey to see Lazarus is really about Jesus’ death.

(4) Scene III:  11:17-27:  It becomes clear that Lazarus is really dead, in that he has been in the tomb for four days (11:17) and Jews believed that the soul left the body after three days.  Jesus will not merely revive Lazarus but will resurrect him.  Martha’s greeting of Jesus clearly carries overtones of disappointment and complaint (11:21).  But even so, it implies belief in Jesus’ healing powers.  Martha has not rejected Jesus but expresses the view, common among Jews, that God hears the prayers of a righteous person (11:22).  Of course, Jesus does not really pray in this episode, a fact that has great theological significance for John.  In a real sense, Jesus has no need to pray, given his relationship with the Father.  This conversation, in the midst of grief and some disappointment, leads to a moment of epiphany:  “I am the resurrection and the life” (11:25). The “I am” formula is important (as it was in 8:58) but so is the idea that resurrection is not simply an event brought about by God (according to Jewish belief) but is actually a person – Jesus.  While Martha assents to this, it is not at all clear that she sees its implications or fully embraces it — for, when Jesus orders the stone to be removed from the tomb, in 11:39, Martha raises what, to her, seems to be a sensible objection.

(5) Scene IV: 11:28-37:  It is now Mary’s turn to greet Jesus.  We find the same mixture of disappointment and resentment (11:32) but a new twist is added:  “the Jews” who had come to help her mourn have followed her to Jesus (11:31).  In 11:33, a great change comes over Jesus.  There is disagreement over the nature of this change.  The verb used here is the same as that in Mark 14:33-34 (“greatly distressed and troubled”) and Matthew 26:37-38 (“sorrowful and troubled”).  Quite probably, the emotion being expressed here is that of anger and the object of the anger is most probably death.  On one hand, Jesus the Incarnate Word does not simply jump into action when informed of Lazarus’ illness.  On other hand, as a real human being, Jesus responds to death with real anger and sorrow (11:35).  The response of “the Jews” to Jesus here is divided, with some remarking on Jesus’ affection for Lazarus (11:36), while others offer the implicit criticism that he who restored the blind man’s sight may now be in over his head (11:37).

(6) Scene V: 11:38-44:  The Gospel writer emphasizes, once again,  Jesus’ anger at death, in 11:38 (the same verb is used here as in 11:33).  11:40 makes it clear that God will soon reveal his glory. But the glory is Jesus,’ as well, since he does not pray to God to restore Lazarus to life but commands this to happen.  The thanks he offers to God is not really necessary but is offered “on account of the people standing around” (11:42).  It now becomes clear that, what Jesus said in 5:25 (“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear him will live.”) is now coming to pass.  The episode of Lazarus is a proleptic demonstration of the resurrection.  The release of Lazarus from the burial wrappings emphasizes his freedom from the bondage of death.

(7) Scene VI: 11:45-53:  The reaction of “the Jews” is significant, with “many” believing in Jesus but “some” heading to Jerusalem, to inform the authorities.  The most significant consequence of the raising of Lazarus is the decision, by the authorities, to put Jesus to death (11:53).  Ciaphas prophesies (11:51) that Jesus will die “for the nation,” that is, for Israel.  While Jesus’ death has a universal dimension to it, we should understand also that he died on behalf of Israel, as well – this is an aspect that we cannot overlook.  Of course, the text makes clear here that what Ciaphas says is ironic:  Jesus, he says, will be handed over, to guarantee Israel’s continued existence, but he uses “for” in a way that he does not understand.

(8) Epilogue: 11:54-57:  The text makes clear that the raising of Lazarus sealed Jesus’ fate.  Jesus is coming to Jerusalem, to celebrate Passover, and the authorities are making ready to arrest him.  This will be his last Passover and, as John makes clear, the Passover will finally find its true fulfillment.

Questions for Reflection

(1) Why is it significant that Jesus’ last sign in this Gospel is the raising of Lazarus?

(2) John makes it clear that Jesus raises Lazarus, not because he is Jesus’ friend but in order to glorify God.  Why is this important to emphasize?

 (3) What is revealed about Jesus in this episode?

Leave a comment

Filed under Interpretation of Scripture, The Gospel of John, theology and doxology

Tagged as , ,

January 13, 2013 · 7:45 pm

Exploring the Gospel of John: 10

EXPLORING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

By the Rev. Dr. Michael Petty [Fr. Michael Petty]

St. Peter’s Anglican Church [2006]

Jesus: The Good Shepherd

John 10:1-42

10:1-21

(1)   This section clearly follows the episode of the man born blind, in John 9.  The audience is the same (9:18, 10:19), there is once again a division of opinion (9:16, 10:19), and there is a clear reference back to the healing of the blind man (10:21).  “The Jews” are leaders of Israel, who drive the man born blind out of the synagogue.  This action allows Jesus to introduce the traditional imagery of Israel’s leaders (kings, priests, prophets), which is the imagery of the “shepherd.”  Jesus sets up a contrast between false leadership and himself.

(2)   While the shepherd was a prominent symbol of leadership, beginning with Joshua (Numbers 12:27-33), it comes to full stature in David, the shepherd who became king (2 Samuel 5:2; 7:7-8).  After David, the shepherd becomes the ideal of the messianic king (Micah 5:2-4).  Ezekiel 34 draws a stark contrast drawn between Israel’s shepherds — who have not been feeding the sheep but have been feeding themselves – on the sheep (34:2-3).  God will replace such shepherds by the ultimate shepherd  — who is God himself:  “I will feed them with good pasture, and on the mountain heights of Israel shall be their grazing land . . . I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I myself will make them lie down, declares the Lord God” (34:14, 15).

(3)   10:1-6 is a mini-parable, which establishes two things:

  •  The legitimate access of the shepherd to the sheep.  Most Palestinian sheep herds were small and the shepherd kept the herd in a fenced or walled sheepfold at night.  The shepherd assumed that anyone entering the sheepfold, by means other than the gate, was a thief (10:1).
  • The intimate relationship between sheep and shepherd.  An average flock consisted of one hundred sheep and the shepherd gave a name to each sheep.  The shepherd moved the flock, by going before the flock, and by calling each sheep by name.  While not intelligent animals, sheep do not follow strangers or respond to their voices.  But they do respond to the voice of the shepherd (10:5).  10:6 points out that the meaning of this parable is not understood.  “The Jews” think of themselves as the shepherd and of Jesus as the intruder.

(4)   10:7-10 expands upon 10:1-2.  Instead of emphasizing that Jesus is the shepherd who comes through the gate, this section emphasizes that Jesus is the gate.  He embodies access to the sheepfold:  “I am the door of the sheep” (10:7).  In this way, Jesus fulfills the role of God, which Ezekiel 34:10 depicts, where God himself rescues his sheep from the devouring “shepherds.”  Just as in Ezekiel 34, this passage in John sets up a sharp contrast between the “shepherds” who “kill and destroy” (10:10) and the “real Shepherd,” who comes “that they may have life and have it abundantly” (10:10).

(5)   10:11-18 focuses on the identification that the reader has been anticipating:  that of Jesus’ identification with the shepherd (with Ezekiel 34 as the backdrop).  Jesus is the “good shepherd” (10:11) and here, the Greek word “kalos” (translated as “good”) really means “ideal” or “true.”  Jesus is the true shepherd of Israel because “he lays down his life for the sheep” (10:11).  Being a shepherd brought exposure to danger but, here, the dedication of the shepherd to the sheep is amazing and beyond expectation.  The emphasis falls on two important things:  that the shepherd’s death is voluntary (not merely inflicted or accidental) and that the shepherd’s death is on behalf of the sheep:  This is a radical contrast with the shepherds who feed on the sheep.  The solemn pronouncement “I am the good [true] shepherd” is spoken twice (10:11, 14) and, in each case, the warrant for this saying is the shepherd’s willingness to die for the sheep (10:11, 15).  Jesus’ death proceeds from two things, each of which is equally important:  his knowledge of the Father (10:15) and his intimate relationship with the sheep (10:14).

The pretend “shepherds” possess neither of these things. 10:16  “I have other sheep that are not of this fold” probably refers to Gentile believers.  The background for this is still Ezekiel 34:23 and 37:24, where God gathers a scattered Israel into one “pasture,” with its ultimate shepherd.  10:16 makes the point that the scattered Israel includes Gentiles, as well.  The result of Jesus’ work will fulfill Ezekiel 34.  “So there will be one flock, one shepherd” (10:16).  10:17-18 focus on Jesus’ death and resurrection as acts of sovereign freedom and forecloses any notion that Jesus is a victim.  Jesus’ death is a gift of himself (he is not simply killed) and his resurrection is accomplished by virtue of who he is (John 1:1), not given to him as a “reward” for having done well.  The accusation that Jesus is possessed (in 10:20) takes us back to 8:48, 52, while the argument that a demon possessed man could not restore sight takes us back to 9:31-33.

10:22-42

(1)  This section is another interrogation scene, in which Jesus is in conflict with “the Jews” (10:24).  The themes of 10:1-21 continue but some time has passed because we are told that, instead of being in Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles (7:2), Jesus is in Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Dedication (10:22).

(2)   10:22-30 is the first part of this section.  “The Jews” now want an explicit “yes” or “no” from Jesus, about whether he is the Messiah.  Jesus has not claimed to be the Messiah, in the presence of religious authorities although, from 1:41 onwards, the issue of “messiah-ship” has come up (note also 4:25-26).  Jesus’ response to the questioning is twofold:

  • First, he says that his works answer their question (5:36).
  • Second, he says that their lack of faith is due, ultimately, to the fact that “you are not part of my flock” (10:26).  As 6:44 has made clear, only the Father can draw a person to Jesus.  The lack of clarity, in the minds of the religious leaders, is not an indication that Jesus’ works lack clarity.  In contrast to the religious leaders, those who are part of Jesus’ flock enjoy an eternal security, held by both Jesus and the Father who, ultimately, while distinct, have one “hand” (10:28-29).  In the salvation they provide and in the eternal security they guarantee, Father and Son act as one.

(3)  In 10:31-39, the point of contention between Jesus and “the Jews” is sharply made clear.  In 10:33, Jesus is accused of blasphemy, in the sense that he has made himself equal to God or has identified God with himself. This was the implicit issue in 8:58-59.  The Christian confession that Father and Son have equal status was one of the main points of contention between the Church and the synagogue.  Jesus offers a counter-argument, which draws upon Psalm 82:6, in which God addresses a gathering, by telling them:  “You are gods.”  The identity of the group addressed need not detain us here, since the simple point is that, if this group can be so addressed, how can there possibly be any objection to Jesus, “whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world” (10:36)? The word “consecrated,” of course, picks up on the Feast of Dedication (which marked the re-consecration of the Temple) and identifies Jesus as its fulfillment.  Jesus’ works make it clear that his claim is not blasphemy because his claim is true; his works make it clear that “the Father is in me and I am in the Father” (10:38).

Leave a comment

Filed under The Gospel of John, theology and doxology

Tagged as , , , , ,

December 31, 2012 · 3:03 pm

A Christmastide Meditation by a Guest Blogger

Dear Friends,

My daughter and I have been thinking about and discussing a common theme, during Advent and Christmastide.  I offer this meditation for your reflection and contemplation:

Holy Time: The Joy of the Incarnation and the Pieta

I cannot express this theme any better than she as written.

Coram Deo,

Margot

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

December 8, 2012 · 9:29 am

Exploring the Gospel of John: 9

EXPLORING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

By the Rev. Dr. Michael Petty [Fr. Michael Petty]

St. Peter’s Anglican Church [2006]

 

Jesus and the Man Born Blind

John 9:1-41

Readers can best understand this episode as a sequence of seven scenes:

(1) Scene I:

9:1-7:  The focus of this scene is the healing of the blind man.  It begins with a question, posed by the disciples, who assume that blindness is punishment for sin, either the sin of the man’s parents or the sin of the man himself.  Jesus dismisses the premise of the question and substitutes his own premise: The blindness is due neither to the man’s sin nor to the sin of his parents but “that the works of God might be displayed in him” (9:3).  The reader should understand the man as providing Jesus with the opportunity to perform another life-giving work.  Not only does Jesus “re-frame” the disciples’ question, he also indicates a sense of urgency in that he “must work the works of him who sent me while it is day” (9:4).  None of Jesus’ deeds are merely random but are part of his larger “work,” which he will finish, finally, on the Cross (19:30).  The proper context of the healing of the blind man is this:  It confirms what Jesus said, in 8:12, at the Feast of Tabernacles and repeats the emphasis of 1:4, 5, 9:  “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (9:5).  The Gospel writer quickly describes the actual healing, which involves the use of spittle and mud.  In the ancient world, spittle was thought to have healing properties and healers often made use of it.  Jesus then sends the man to the Pool of Siloam (which played a role in the Feast of Tabernacles) and whose meaning is translated here as “Sent.”  This underlines what Jesus has just said:  he is doing the works of him who sent him. The man returns from the pool, with his sight fully restored, but Jesus is no longer present.

(2) Scene II:

9:8-12: This scene focuses on establishing the fact that the man who now sees is the man whom the villagers knew to be a blind beggar.  The man, who was formerly blind, bears witness to his identity by saying, “I am the man” (9:9).  Then, a villager asks the man how he received back his sight.  The man provides a brief account of what Scene I tells us.  The thing to notice is that the man is largely in a state of ignorance about Jesus.  When asked where Jesus is, he simply replies, “I do not know” (9:12).

(3) Scene III:

9:13-17: This scene is, in fact, a mini-trial.  The man is brought to the Pharisees, not merely to satisfy their curiosity, but because the Pharisees assume that the actions of Jesus have breached the Sabbath [9.14].  Strictly speaking, Jesus is guilty of a double violation of the Sabbath, in that he has both engaged in healing and has made clay.  There is immediately a division of opinion about Jesus, with some concluding that “this man is not from God” and others concluding that a sinner could not do such signs (9:16).  The man, compelled to voice some opinion about Jesus, says that he is a “prophet” (9:17), meaning that he is “of God,” that God has authorized his mission.  This is the first step in this man’s spiritual awakening.

(4) Scene IV:

9:18-23:  In this scene, the sympathetic Pharisees disappear and “the Jews” replace them (9:18).  Two new witnesses appear: the man’s parents, whom “the Jews” question.  The parents will only go so far as to say that this is, in fact, their son and that he was born blind.  They refuse to speculate on how he received his sight or who restored it.  The narrator supplies the reason for this refusal in 9:22: the parents that Jesus is a controversial figure and that those who “confess” him will be “put out” of the synagogue.  It is quite likely that John wrote this Gospel, during a time when officials made a distinction between Christian and Jew, with Christians being excommunicated from the synagogue.  Notice that the parents, who are certainly Jews themselves, are said to act as they do because “they feared the Jews” (9:22).

(5) Scene V:

9:24-34:  This is the final trial scene and the officials recall and question the previously blind man.  It is now clear that they have reached a verdict:  “We know that this man is a sinner” (9:24).  The admonition, “Give glory to God” (9:24) makes it clear that the witness is under solemn oath.  Ironically, we already know that the way to give glory to God is to believe in the one whom he has sent (6:29).  The officials question the man, yet again, about the manner of his healing.  The man now appears to be much more confident -– he is no longer an ignorant man, standing in fear before his betters.  This confidence shows up in his counter question:  “Do you also want to become his disciples?” (9:27).  Does this also indicate that the man is now a disciple?  It seems highly probable and most likely accounts for the man’s newfound confidence.  This leads the interrogators to give their estimation of the situation:  “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses” (9:28).  This goes back to the contrast between Moses and Jesus in the prologue (1:17) and to the repeated assertion that God speaks through Jesus (3:34; 7:16; 12:49-50).  In this context, being a disciple of Moses and being a disciple of Jesus are only incompatible if one understands the former state to be a denial of the latter state.  The statement that they do not know from where Jesus comes is ironic; it is meant to be part of the reason for dismissing his claims but appears, in the light of what we have seen thus far, to be a statement of fundamental ignorance -– they do not know that Jesus has come “from the Father” (8:42).  The man formerly blind offers an argument that they cannot refute:  “This man opened my eyes.”  We know that God does not listen to sinners (meaning that he does not grant them what they want).  The healing of a person born blind is unheard of.  How then could this man possibly be a sinner?  “If this man were not from God, he could do nothing” (9:33).  The authorities can only respond to this argument by dismissing the man as a sinner (“You were born in utter sin”) and scoffing at him (“ . . . and would you teach us?”).

(6) Scene VI:

9:35-38:  Two important things happen in this scene. First, Jesus finds the man, after the authorities have driven him.  Second, Jesus draws out his incipient faith. He does this by asking a question:  “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” (9:35).  In John, as 5:27 illustrates, “Son of Man” and “Son of God” are synonymous terms. The man is open to such belief and only wants Jesus to point out the object.  Jesus makes it clear that the object of belief is himself:  “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you” (9:37).  This statement produces full belief and the proper response:  worship (9:38).  The man’s restored sight now mirrors his spiritual sight.

(7) Scene VII:

9:39-40:  This episode ends with Jesus making a solemn pronouncement:  “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind” (9:39).  This is an echo of 3:19-21 and reminds us of the theme of 8:14-18.  The judgment Jesus exercises has both positive and negative consequences -– the nature of the consequences depends on the response to his person.  Jesus has come to restore sight to the blind (as an anticipation of the resurrection of the body) and to bring judgment upon those who have the illusion of sight.  The episode ends with Jesus applying the same judgment to the Pharisees that they applied to the man:  They are in sin.

Questions for Reflection

(1) The focus of this episode is the man’s coming to faith in Jesus by gradual steps.  What are the things that have to happen to him, to bring him to the point of worshiping Jesus? What does this tell us about the way in which God works in us?

(2) One of the main themes of this story is that of blindness, particularly spiritual blindness.  Does this episode give us any ways to deal with our own blindness?

Leave a comment

Filed under The Gospel of John, theology and doxology

Tagged as

December 3, 2012 · 3:12 pm

Advent 2012: Messiah Sing A Long!

121119095232

The First Week of Advent 2012

Dear Readers,

Here is a delightful way to observe Advent!  It is not the entire libretto.  Therefore, plan for the Sing a Long to last only for one hour and one-half, maximum.

“Sing along or just listen, at the Tallahassee Music Guild’s ‘24th Annual Handel’s Messiah Sing Along,’ 

at 7.30 pm, on Thursday, at Faith Presbyterian Church, corner of Meridian and John Knox Roads.

Music scores are available for rent at the door and a reception follows, where all are invited to gather around the piano, to sing carols.

Tickets are $10 for adults, $5 for children.”

Call 850.893.5274.”

~~ http://www.tallahassee.com

Notes from Margot:  Bring cash.  Arrive early to find a seat in your “Section.”  Haley and I will be in the “Alto Section.”

GFHandel

Leave a comment

Filed under Advent, Messiah Oratorio by Handel

Tagged as , ,

December 1, 2012 · 3:03 pm

Exploring the Gospel of John: 8

EXPLORING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

By the Rev. Dr. Michael Petty [Fr. Michael Petty]

St. Peter’s Anglican Church [2006]

Jesus and the Feast of Tabernacles (IV)

John 8:12-38

1.  We momentarily pass over John 7:53-8:11, an account of a women accused of adultery.  Many translations of this section have it bracketed, indicating that not all manuscripts of John’s Gospel contain it.  Its inclusion here is odd because it disrupts the flow of the narrative, which continues directly from 7:14-44; neither the scene nor the audience has changed.

2.  8:12-20:

7:37-38 states the first part of Jesus’ “Tabernacle claim:”  “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.”  As we have seen, Jesus claims to fulfill the dimension of Tabernacles associated with abundant rain and, hence, sustained life.

He now makes the second part of his “Tabernacle claim,” recalling that a second dimension of the feast was the large lamp stands in the Temple’s court of the women, that were lit at night, during the festival.  The theme of light may also be related to questions raised earlier about whether the Messiah comes from Galilee (7:41, 52), in that Isaiah 9:1-2 does associate the Messiah with Galilee and announces “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them the light has shined.”  Echoing 5:30-47, this statement immediately raises questions about the validity of Jesus’ testimony:  What are the authorities or who are the witnesses, which vindicate this claim (7:13)?  Jesus’ response here is sharper than it was in 5:30-47.  Jesus says that his testimony is unique because of his identity; he is from God and is returning to God.  This means that his testimony is self-validating because it is not simply of human origin but, in fact, has its origin in God.  The Pharisees, Jesus says, judge “according to the flesh,” which seems to mean not that they judge according to the senses but that they judge from a perspective hostile to God.  The “flesh” in this sense is not the realm of the physical but the realm of resistance and hostility to God.

8:15-16 is a bit puzzling:  “You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one.  Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me.”  Jesus does not mean that he never judges.  He means that, while the Pharisees judge on the basis of hostility to God, he does not judge in this way, in that he judges with God; Jesus’ judgment and God’s judgment are not two separate things but take place conjointly.

In 8:17, we return to the theme of the Law.  In 5:31-37, Jesus accommodated himself to the Law and he does the same here.  He notes that the Law requires two human witnesses to establish something (Deuteronomy 19:15) but says that he has supplied two divine witnesses – himself and the Father.  The meaning of this claim is completely misunderstood and the Pharisees want to know the location of Jesus’ (biological) Father.  This prompts Jesus to make a radical accusation: “You know neither me nor my Father.  If you knew me, you would know my Father also” (8:19).  This goes back to the accusation made in 7:28.  The real problem, Jesus says, is not merely that they dislike him or dispute his claims but that they do not know the God of Israel — because if they did, they would know him, as well.

3.  8:21-30:

This section begins with another instance of misunderstanding.  As we discover later in 14:28, “going away” refers to Jesus’ return to the Father via crucifixion, resurrection and ascension.  The Pharisees take this as reference to suicide (8:22).  This is clearly not what Jesus means.  The phrase “you will die in your sin” (8:21) is important.  Here, “sin” is in the singular because of the reference to the sin of unbelief, which is the fundamental separation between a human being and God.  As 3:3-16 has already made clear, belief in Jesus and reception of his testimony is what enables a person to be born from above and to enter eternal life.  The lack of understanding only underlines the real difference between Jesus and the Pharisees:  “You are from below; I am from above.  You are of this world; I am not of this world” (8:23).  There are, finally, only two orientations.  One can either be “of this world,”  by which Jesus means  “hostile to God”  or “from above,”  by which he means “having been reborn and reconciled to God.”  Being hostile to God is perfectly compatible with “being religious,” as the case of the Pharisees shows – they are not atheists or agnostics.  The question in 8:25 (“Who are you?”) emphasizes the lack of comprehension.  Jesus reaffirms his central contention in 8:26 that, in God’s dispute with the world, he is God’s true witness against the world; his testimony about God is a testimony against the world.

How will Jesus’ status as truthful witness be confirmed?  It will be confirmed precisely at the moment when the world believes that it has been denied – at the crucifixion when “you have lifted up the Son of Man” (8:28).  Just as “going away” is a code phrase for “returning to the Father,”  so  “lifting up”  is a code phrase for crucifixion.  Jesus’ death will be his vindication, in that it reveals that “I do nothing on my own authority but speak just as the Father has taught me” (8:28).   For John, the cross reveals that what happens in Jesus is finally accomplished by God.

4.  8:31-38:

8:30 notes that “many believed in him” but we soon discover that this belief is either false or temporary.  8:31 shows that the standard of discipleship of continuing allegiance to Jesus, which is the meaning of “abiding” in his word.  This allegiance alone grants the truth, which is freeing, where “freedom” is understood as freedom from the power of sin and death.  So long as one remains in sin, truth becomes impossibility.  This leads to yet another misunderstanding:  “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone” (8:33).  This statement indicates at least two things:  First, they have misunderstood what Jesus has said about freedom.  Jesus has spoken of freedom from sin and they seem to be thinking of political freedom.  Second, since they are currently living under the rule of Rome, their statement is untrue in a significant way.  The point is that they do not think that they need to be freed from anything.  Jesus responds by pointing to the distinction between the slave and the son in a household, the former having no permanent place, while the latter does.  Jesus may have in mind Genesis 16:15 and 21:9-21, where the one to inherit the promise to Abraham’s son (Isaac) — not the son born to his slave Hagar (Ishmael).  Paul draws on this distinction, in Galatians 4:21-31.  Like Paul, Jesus seems to be making the point that Abraham’s true descendants are those who follow Jesus, not those who merely claim descent from him.

Questions for Reflection:

(1)  John 7-8 provides an opportunity to reflect on the person of Jesus.  Here, Jesus says that his witness and his judgment are the same as the Father’s — making them unique.  John presents this as the only real way to correctly understand the person of Jesus.  What are some of the obstacles to a true perception of Jesus?

(2)  Jesus identifies belief and discipleship as abiding in his word (8:31).  According to John 15:1-8, what does this abiding mean? What are some ways in which it could be nurtured?

(3)  In 8:32, Jesus promises that following him leads to freedom. What does this freedom mean?  What Jesus tells the Pharisees is very similar to what Paul says in Romans 6:15-19. In what ways is Christian freedom paradoxical?

Jesus and the Feast of Tabernacles (V)

John 8:39-59

(1) 8:39-47: 

This part of the conversation follows from 8:31-38, in which “the Jews” claim Abraham as their father (8:33) and Jesus responds with this question:  Why it is that they do not act like Abraham, who welcomed God’s revelation?  Jesus then draws a sharp contrast:  “I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father” (8:38).  The clear implication is that their father is neither God nor Abraham.  In 8:39-40, Jesus sharpens his criticism.  If they were, in fact, Abraham’s children, they would be following his pattern.  Jesus may be thinking of Genesis 18:1-9, where Abraham receives the messengers with hospitality.  In contrast to this, “the Jews” are seeking to kill God’s messenger, in the person of Jesus.   Biological descent from Abraham is not sufficient to establish one in a covenant relationship with God.  In 8:41, Jesus begins to identify who their real “father” is.  It is clear now that God is not their father (8:19) — nor is Abraham.  So, who is their father?  They take Jesus’ statement, “You are doing what your father did” (8:41) to imply that he considers them idolaters.  Remember that “sexual immorality” is used in the Old Testament (Hosea 1:2; 2:4-5) as a metaphor for idolatry.  They claim to have only one father, who is God, as so to be loyal to the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4).

What Jesus says next is his strongest claim yet:  “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here” (8:42).  Their claim to love God is self-evidently false, since God (“I am”) is before them and they clearly do not love him.  The conflict between Jesus and “the Jews” is a conflict based on origins;  he is “from above” and they are “from below” (8:23).  While Jesus is of his Father, they are also of theirs:  “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires” (8:44).  Jesus’ indictment here parallels indictments of Israel made in the Old Testament:  that Israel does not know God (Isaiah 48:8), is a slave of sin (Isaiah 50:1) and does not listen to God or his witnesses (Isaiah 42:18, 20).  Isaiah tells Israel that her ancestor was a transgressor (Isaiah 43:27), that from her birth she was a rebel (Isaiah 48:8) and that she has been involved in idolatry (Isaiah 44:9).  It would be very wrong indeed to see what Jesus says here as somehow anti-Semitic, since this is clearly an intra-Jewish conflict.

The claim that “you are of your father the devil” (8:44) expresses the reverse side of the claim, “If you knew me, you would know my Father also” (8:19).   To reject the testimony or witness of Jesus is to reject God himself, since the Son is the Father’s witness to himself.   The witness of Jesus casts a bright light on the human situation — so that all is seen for what it really it is and it becomes clear that, once again, there is a situation in which “you who are called by the name of Israel . . . who swear by the name of the Lord and confess the God of Israel, but not in truth or right”  (Isaiah 48:1).

(2)  8:48-59:

“The Jews” respond to Jesus’ denunciation with one of their own.  They denounce him as a Samaritan (a person who is not really part of the covenant people) and demon-possessed (a person in the grip of evil and a stranger to the truth).  This only confirms their alienation from God.  This dishonor done to Jesus is not merely a personal affront but is, finally, an affront to God:  “Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge” (8:50).   Jesus’ concern for his honor is not egocentric or rooted in vanity; God seeks Jesus’ glory because of his unique status.  One cannot dishonor Jesus and still claim to serve the God of Israel.  Jesus offers a solemn declaration:  “Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death” (8:51).  The death being referred to here seems to by physical death.  This is a parallel to the solemn saying in 5:24:  “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life.  He does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.”  Jesus has the authority to grant eternal life and to both exercise God’s judgment and to exempt people from it.  In response to the questions, “Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died?  Who do you make yourself out to be?”  Jesus responds that the Father establishes his identity.   Jesus concludes, by claiming that Abraham is a witness to himself.  The statement that “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day” (8:56) reflects the Jewish belief that Abraham was allowed to see the end times and, hence, the consummation of God’s work.  This view is also implied in Hebrews 11:8-16, where figures such as Abraham are said to have not “received the things promised, but having seen them greeted them from afar . . . ” (Hebrews 11:13).

The entire narrative of 7-8 now comes to its culmination. Jesus is asked a question in 8:57, which provides him with the opportunity to make a statement of his identity:  “You are not yet fifty years old and have you seen Abraham?”   In response, Jesus makes another solemn pronouncement:  “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (8:58). While this is a clear echo of Exodus 3:14, it also has a parallel in Isaiah 43:10-11:  “ ‘You are my witnesses,’ declares the Lord, ‘and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he.  Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.  I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior.’ ”

Questions for Reflection

(1)  Reading John 7-8 takes care and attention, not only because the material is so dense, but also because it is so important.  One important theme in these two chapters is the relationship of Jewish people to Jesus the Messiah of Israel.  Unfortunately, Jews and Christians have a long history of poisoned relationships and many Christians have done their faith little credit.  Jesus clearly insists that Abraham was able to see ahead to him and rejoiced at the sight (8:56), meaning, of course, that he did not appear simply as the negation of Judaism.  How can we today help Jews to see that the Christian faith is not simply a Christian invention but is rooted in the Old Testament?

(2)  John 7-8 is primarily concerned with Christology, our understanding of who Jesus is.  How do the following passages express who Jesus is?

“But I have not come of my own accord. He who sent me is true…I know him, for I come from him, and he sent me.” (7:28, 29).

“Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart, will flow rivers of living water.’  Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.” (7:39)

“ . . . for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me . . . I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” (8:16, 17)

“Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day.  He saw it and was glad.” (8:58)

Leave a comment

Filed under Interpretation of Scripture, The Gospel of John

Tagged as , ,

November 12, 2012 · 8:06 pm

The Problem With Pink

Dear Readers,

You say you are tired of October and all the Pink Ribbons?  You say you are relieved that  November is finally here?  Well, I hear you!  

Yet, we should be grateful for the Pink Ribbons, despite their profuse, plastic tacky-ness, for they have accomplished their purpose:  By now, everyone, I sincerely hope, is aware that one out of eight women WILL be diagnosed with Breast Cancer.

Yet, the pink bumper-stickers continue to puzzle and irritate me:  “Save the Ta-Tas!”  

Why are we still so silly about the word, “breasts?”   I should not have to list the other euphemisms . . . and I will not.

That is one of the Problems With Pink.

“Save the Ta-Tas!”   That is, indeed, an excellent idea:  Women should learn how to do regular Breast Self-Examinations [BSE] and should submit to regular Mammograms.   We should contribute to Breast Cancer Research.

However, the time to “Save the Ta-Tas” is now, before a Breast Cancer Diagnosis.  The sober fact is that, once a woman receives a Breast Cancer Diagnosis, it may well be too late to “Save the Ta-Tas.”  

After the diagnosis, we immediately shift the focus: “Save a Woman’s Life!”

A woman, faced with a Breast Cancer Diagnosis, is willing to give up both of her breasts, if necessary, to save her LIFE.

I will be honest here:  The prospect, three years ago, of a bilateral mastectomy traumatized me.  The surgery is daunting yet it pales, in comparison, to the ravages of chemotherapy.

The spectre of chemotherapy mortified me and it was, indeed, more terrifying than I could ever imagine.

After I survived the surgery and the chemotherapy, there remained very few things, of which I was afraid.  I am certainly not afraid of facing my life without breasts.  Before the surgery, my breasts did not define me.  The loss of those breasts certainly will not define me now.

I have no Breast Reconstruction:  My bust area is concave and my collar bones are now more prominent than the place of my incision scar.  I can feel each one of my ribs.  By touching my hand to my chest, I can feel my heart not merely beating — I can actually feel my heart pumping.  [I mention these details to remind folks that not every woman is a candidate for Reconstructive Surgery.]

~~~~~~~~~~~

When I was going through chemotherapy, I received offers of make-up lessons and free samples.  The good-hearted folks extending these offers assumed, perhaps, that my first waking thought in the morning was,  “Am I going to feel pretty and girlish today?”  

And that is another Problem With Pink.

I refused the offers — kindly, I hope.  My first waking thought in the morning was, instead, “Am I going to survive chemotherapy today?”  and “Will I live long enough to hold my second grandchild?”

I recently stumbled across a blog, written by a young woman, in which she listed her fears.  Her top two fears?   Wrinkles and grey hair.   She was fearful of the inevitable aging process, against which she has absolutely no control.

I am more fortunate than that young woman:  I know now what to fear and what not to fear.

I should not have to point out that some Breast Cancer Patients may not live long enough to enjoy the luxury of obsessing over their wrinkles and grey hair.

Now, can we stop being so silly about wrinkles and grey hair . . . and about the word, “breast?”

Can we now turn our attention to protecting the health of women and on saving the lives of women?    

To focus on all things “pink and girly” and “the Ta Ta’s” is to view women as bifurcated beings.  But we are integrated beings, endowed not only with bodies but also with intelligence, creativity, strength, wisdom, imagination, and a myriad of other gifts.

I have identified the problem and, in future blog entries, I will offer practical suggestions to women, on how we can protect the health of our breasts and how we can support and encourage the strong and heroic women among us:  those battling Breast Cancer.

Coram Deo,

Margot

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under Breast Cancer

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 12, 2012 · 11:27 am

Exploring the Gospel of John: 7

EXPLORING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

By the Rev. Dr. Michael Petty [Fr. Michael Petty]

St. Peter’s Anglican Church [2006]

Jesus and the Feast of Tabernacles (I)

John 7:1-13

1.  The material in 7:1 through 8:59 has the Feast of Tabernacles as its symbolic backdrop, which means that Jesus is understood [to be] the reference to the various symbolic meanings of this feast.  In John 6, this happens with respect to the Passover.  John assumes that Jesus is comprehensible only if one first begins with the Jewish matrix, out of which he came and which he does not merely leave behind.

2.  The Feast of Tabernacles was one of the most popular pilgrimage festivals (a festival that one had to go to Jerusalem to celebrate).  The feast lasted for eight days, during the first seven of which men lived in booths or tabernacles — temporary structures, which reminded Jews that, during the wilderness wandering Israel had no permanent home.  In the first century, The Feast of Tabernacles celebrated the completion of the harvest and was connected with God’s leading of Israel through the wilderness, while Israel dwelt in tents.  Tabernacles had also become connected to the salvation that God would grant at the eschaton (Zechariah 14).  The Feast of Tabernacles was also accompanied by prayers for abundant rain, as a sign of God’s provision for Israel.  On the first seven days of the feast, there was a procession at night, to gather water from the Pool of Siloam and four large menorahs would be placed in the court of the women, to provide light for the festivities. Thus, water, light, and salvation are intertwined at the feast.

3.  7:1 reminds us of the growing opposition to Jesus, mentioned in 5:18 and emphasized in 6:41.  While there is opposition in Galilee, only in Jerusalem is there the threat of death.

4.  Jesus’ brothers want him to go to the feast, to display himself (7:3-4).  These brothers were present at Jesus’ first sign (2:12) and seem to be aware that Jesus is doing signs — but it is clear that they do not believe (7:5).  Their unbelief blinds them to his entire mission, which is not to attract attention through publicity generating deeds, but to do the will of the Father.  The brothers fail to notice, among other things, that Jesus’ mission is not a congenial one and that, once the meaning of his signs is made known (as in 6:41), the likely result will be not adulation but opposition.

5.  Jesus’ response makes clear his very different perspective. To their suggestion, in 7:4, he offers the same response that he offered to Mary’s suggestion in 2:4, “My time has not yet come…” (7:6).  On the other hand, the brothers’ time is “always here” (7:6), meaning that they are free to do as they please, at any given moment, and this is a function of their relationship to “the world”– the world can not hate them (7:7) because they live according to it.  These two facts — that Jesus follows the will of the Father and because he is his own person –demonstrate the huge distance between God and the world (and “world” here includes even “religious” people), he is the object of hatred.  The opposition to Jesus is not simply the product of power-hungry priests or a legalistic frame of mind, as if the opposition was simply at the level of ideas or personalities.  The opposition to Jesus is, finally, an opposition to God.

6.  In 7:10, Jesus appears to be dishonest; he has refused to go to Jerusalem but, after his brothers leave, he departs as well. This is actually part of a pattern:  We saw it in 2:3-10 (where Jesus refused to do anything about the wedding wine and then does something) and we will see it again in 11:3-5 (where Jesus will refuse to respond to Lazarus’ illness and then he comes to Mary and Martha).  These episodes emphasize the fact that “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me” (6:38).  Notice the contrast between the counsel from the brothers, in 7:4:  (“Show yourself to the world!”) and what Jesus actually does in 7:10:  (Jesus goes up to Jerusalem “not publicly but in private”).

7.  7:10-13 draws an important distinction drawn between “the Jews” (7:11) and “the crowd” (7:12).  The distinction between the two is important:  First, it is only “the Jews” who are seeking to kill Jesus (7:1), while the crowd is of a divided mind about him.  Second, the crowd’s discussion of Jesus cannot be carried on openly, “for fear of the Jews” (7:13).

Questions for Reflection

(1)  “For not even his brothers believed in him” (7:5).  This verse suggests that the opposition to Jesus was quite extensive and that even members of Jesus’ family (presumably those who were familiar with him) did not believe.  What does the brothers’ lack of faith suggest to you?  Does their familiarity with Jesus and their lack of faith in Jesus have a message for us?

(2) In suggesting that Jesus go to Jerusalem to “show yourself to the world” (7:4), the brothers operate from the perspective of “common sense” (what seems sensible to them).  However, it is clear that this is not what Jesus is called to do.  In what ways can following “common sense” lead us to act unfaithfully? (Consider Romans 12:1-2.)

(3) In 7:7, Jesus says that the world hates him. What does it mean for the world to hate us?  In 1 John 2:15, we see the other side of this: “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”

Jesus and the Feast of Tabernacles (II)

John 7:14-36

1.  7:14-36 is a little difficult to read because it is not always clear who the audience is.  In 7:11, it is “the Jews” then, in 7:12, it is “the people.”  In 7:15, we come back to “the Jews” but then, in 7:20, it is “the crowd.”  By 7:25, there is a shift to “some of the people of Jerusalem” and then, in 7:35, we come back to “the Jews.”  To make matters more complicated, 7:32 introduces the Pharisees and “the chief priests.”  One possible reason for this lack of clarity is that John is not interested in drawing clear lines of distinction but in presenting various objections to Jesus.  The category “the Jews” is not a completely delimited one — membership in which is always the same.  It is, rather, a fluid category in which, while not including all Jews, designates those Jews of various backgrounds who oppose Jesus.

2. The chief issue, which surfaces in this context, is that of authority — Jesus’ authority, in particular.  Indicating a lack of anxiousness about “showing himself” to the crowd (7:4), Jesus appears at the middle of the Feast of the Tabernacles.  The initial response of “the Jews” (7:15) is one of astonishment: How is it that Jesus is a master of the Law, without having studied it properly?  Jesus is not a rabbi and this raises the question of the source of his wisdom (note also Matthew 7:28-29).

3.  Jesus’ response to this astonishment needs to be seen, in light of both 7:12, where he is accused of being a false prophet, and Deuteronomy 18:15-22, which promises a prophet Like Moses, about whom God says “I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them.”  “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.”  (7:16) Jesus responds to the charge of being a false prophet and makes clear the source of his authority.  How is this claim to be validated?  “If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority” (7:17).  One cannot validate Jesus’ claim to authority, apart from a commitment to God’s will.  The nature of this will has already been disclosed in 6:29, where we learn that God’s chief work is bringing about belief in the One whom he has sent.  In the final analysis, belief in Jesus can only be validated by belief in Jesus; this belief does not have a criterion of judgment that is external to it.  This may sound circular — but it points to the unique relationship between God and Jesus.  Belief in Jesus is not something that is distinct from or secondary to belief in God and this is because the Son is the Father’s revelation of himself. Another way of saying this is “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father” (6:65).  Faith in Jesus can only be a gift from the Father because Jesus is the Father’s gift of himself in the Son.  Jesus’ claim to authority is a complex one. On one hand, he claims that his authority is completely derived from God and that his submission to this authority is a sign of his authenticity.  On the other hand, he claims to work with God’s authority so that he can say, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven” (6:51).

4.  The conversation takes a new turn in 7:18-24.  Jesus raises the issue of whether “the Jews” are really faithful to Moses. There are those seeking to kill Jesus (7:1), on the grounds that he is a false prophet and yet, for Jesus, the question is whether they actually understand the Law, in observance of which they are seeking to kill him.  The accusation in 7:20 — that Jesus has a demon — needs to be taken seriously, as meaning (1) that Jesus is insane and (2) that he is a false prophet.   Jesus refers back to the events of 5:1-18 (where a paralyzed man is healed by Jesus on the Sabbath) to make his point.  He says that Torah seems to have two conflicting commandments – Sabbath-keeping and circumcision on the eighth day – and that these seemingly conflict when the eighth day falls on the Sabbath.  And yet, as Jesus points out, circumcision is seen as so important that it is carried out even on the Sabbath – in apparent violation of the Law.  Jesus makes use of a standard method of rabbinical argument called “from the lesser to the greater.”  If it is acceptable to violate the Sabbath, in order to deal with a single part of the body (circumcision), how much more acceptable must it be to restore an entire body?  Jesus has produced a legal argument to justify his action.  But his argument is not merely legal — not simply a clever trick.  It makes an important point about judgment.   In order to understand the Law, one must approach it in the right way, not by mere “appearances” (7:24) but with “right judgment” (7:24). What does this mean?  In light of this whole narrative, it seems to mean that Jesus himself is the standard of “right judgment.”  The issue here is not merely one of “legalism” but of the whole purpose of the Law and the One who gave it.  Jesus suggests that all attempts to apply the Law, apart from him, will always be misguided.

5.  The conversation takes another turn in 7:25-30.  “Some of the people of Jerusalem” (7:25) advance the opinion that the authorities have changed their mind about Jesus (remember 7:1), since here he is teaching in the Temple.  But, at the same time, they make it clear that such a change in view would be wrong, since Jesus cannot be the Messiah.  Why?  Reflecting a particular Jewish conviction that the Messiah’s origin and identity would remain hidden until his full manifestation, they say, “we know where this man comes from” (7:27).  For John, this is an ironic statement.  For the crowd, Jesus is “from Galilee” but this only gets at half the story — because he is also “from God.”  As Jesus makes clear in 7:28-29, the crowd’s confident assertion of knowledge is another example of “judgment by appearances.”  Judging by appearances has not only resulted in complete ignorance of Jesus’ origin (he has been sent by God and, thus, is true, just as the One who authorizes him is true) but also in another ignorance:  Jesus accuses his accusers of not knowing God (7:28).  This takes us back to what was said earlier about knowledge of God and knowledge of Jesus.  It is not simply that Jesus’ accusers have misunderstood him and yet are right about God.  It is, rather, that their failure to rightly regard him reflects that they do not really know God.  Jesus is not accusing them of being atheists or agnostics but of something much more concrete and serious: He is claiming that Israel does not really know the God of Israel, whose revelation he is.  Some in the crowd perceive the enormity of Jesus’ claim, for they attempt to arrest him (7:30). But the response to Jesus is not uniformly negative, for “many of the people believed in him” (7:31).

6.  In 7:32-36, we return to “the Jews” and their reaction to Jesus.  Jesus’ mission is to return to the Father:  “I am going to him who sent me . . . Where I am you cannot come” (7:33, 34). The way of return is by the cross and resurrection — and this constitutes Jesus’ glorification.  “The Jews” reveal their lack of comprehension, by interpreting this to mean that Jesus is speaking of going to the Dispersion (to Jews who live outside Palestine).  This is ironic, since Jesus will, in fact, go to the Dispersion, but not in the way that they imagine.

Questions for Reflection

(1) Section 3 above points out that belief in Jesus can only be validated by belief in Jesus.  While this sounds circular, it is simply another way of stating the principle that “faith seeks understanding.”   This means that the understanding of faith presupposes and proceeds from faith. The only thing that makes faith in Jesus finally understandable (and fruitful) is faith in Jesus.  This does not mean, however, that faith is irrational.  Can you think of instances where your faith has led you to a greater understanding of what you already believed?

(2) In 7:28-29, Jesus makes it clear that one does not really know God, apart from himself.  This is because he is God’s self-revelation.  How can this fact help us to deal with other religions, which are monotheistic and make a claim to know the God of Abraham (Judaism and Islam)?  Certainly, at this point, Jesus challenges any kind of “Christian deism.”

Jesus and the Feast of Tabernacles (III)

John 7:37-52

1.  The time marker in 7:37 is important.  What Jesus is about to say is said, on the last day of The Feast of the Tabernacles (“the great day”), which would have been a Sabbath.  On the previous day, this annual reenaction occurred:  a procession of priests drew water from the Pool of Siloam and moved around the altar in the Temple seven times.  The purpose of this action was to ask God for abundant rainfall, so as to provide an abundant harvest.

2.  In 7:37-39, Jesus applies this symbolism to himself, moving from actual water (absolutely necessary for life) to another type of water, identified in 7:36, as the Holy Spirit.  Jesus does here with water what he did in John 6 with manna:  he moves from a limited gift from God, given to Israel during the Exodus, to an unlimited gift from God, given as a consequence of the fulfillment of God purposes.  In each case, we understand manna and water as signs that point beyond themselves, from the provisional to the final and, in each case, Jesus identifies himself with the final purpose.

3.   The Scripture citation, in 7:38, “Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water” is probably a composite citation; it is not a citation of one actual verse of Scripture but is a citation that gathers up several passages together.  Psalm 78: 16, 20 (which refers to Exodus 17:6):  “He made streams come out of the rock and caused waters to flow down like rivers . . . He struck the rock so that water gushed out and streams overflowed.”  Isaiah 43:20 uses the flow of water as an image of Israel’s future salvation:  “ . . . for I will give water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give drink to my chosen people . . .” Isaiah 44:3 uses this image to indicate the gift of God’s Spirit: “For I will pour water on a thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing upon your descendants.”

Zechariah 14:16-19 uses the Feast of Tabernacles as an image for the final fulfillment of God’s purposes — all nations will come to Jerusalem to keep the festival.  Ezekiel 47:1-12 envisions water flowing from the Temple and becoming a literal river of life.  There is an early Christian precedent for identifying Jesus as the rock from which the water flowed (1 Corinthians 10:4) and John identified Jesus with the Temple (John 2:13-22).  Jesus sums up and fulfills both the rock and the Temple.  This is reinforced when John 19:34 notes that blood and water flow from Jesus’ pierced side on the cross. Jesus is also seen here as fulfilling the eschatological meaning of the Feast of Tabernacles, indicated by Zechariah, and he draws on the connection made by Isaiah 44 between water and the gift of the Spirit.  In this way, John 7:38 sums up the history of Israel, from Exodus to promised restoration and identifies all this with Jesus.

4.  The note at the end of 7:39 is important: “ . . . for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”  This verse makes an important theological connection between Jesus’ glorification (his crucifixion, resurrection and ascension) and the gift of the Holy Spirit, making it clear that the Spirit’s coming is a fruit or consequence of Jesus’ work and that the two are organically connected.   John 19:30, 34 and 20:21 make this point.  In short, the Spirit is not a source of general religious inspiration but, rather, the work of the Spirit is to realize in individuals and the Church what has been accomplished in Jesus.

5.  The response to what Jesus has said is reported in 7:40-44.  It is not uniform but rather diverse and confused (7:43).  Some think that Jesus is the Prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18:15-22, a Prophet who would be a new Moses.  Some understand Jesus to be “the Christ” (=”Messiah”).  7:43 may be ironic, in light of the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:5-6; Luke 2:4, 15). The questioners seem to have in mind Micah 5:2.  Some believe Jesus guilty of serious offenses and judge that he should be arrested (7:44).

6.  7:45-49 adds yet another perspective. The chief priests and the Pharisees dismiss the judgments of the crowd as completely unsound:  They think the crowd is easily taken in because the crowd does not know the Law and is “accursed.”

7.  7:50-52 raises grave questions about the supposed competence of the chief priests and Pharisees to judge in matters of the Law.  Nicodemus reappears from 3:1-15 and casts doubt on the position of the chief priests and Pharisees, by alluding to the provisions of Deuteronomy 1:16-17, about the necessity of fair and impartial judgment.  This is met with derision, by implying that Nicodemus is from Galilee (that is, that he is backward, not learned in the Law, and unobservant of it).  If the Pharisees mean that there is no prophecy of the Messiah coming from Galilee, they are mistaken, as Isaiah 9:1,2 does just this.

Questions for Reflection

(1) We are now in a position to understand the connection between Jesus and the Feast of Tabernacles.  Here, Jesus lays claim to be the fulfillment of what is promised and symbolized in water, the water from the rock (life in the desert, God’s provision), water flowing from the Temple (the great cleansing and life-giving stream) and the water in the wilderness (the restoration of Israel).  How does the connection made by this gospel help you to understand who Jesus is and what he does?  Could this be of help in speaking to those who are not yet Christians?

(2) In Chapter 7, we see that Jesus’ claims about himself are continually controverted.  While few today think of Jesus as being an evil influence, many adopt a view of him that is only partially correct. What are some of the reasons for these views and how might we respond to them?

Leave a comment

Filed under The Gospel of John