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

October 27, 2012 · 12:24 pm

Exploring the Gospel of John: 6

EXPLORING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

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

St. Peter’s Anglican Church [2006]

Breaking Bread With Jesus

John 6:1-15

1. The scene now switches back to Galilee, from Jerusalem (which is the focus from 2:13-3:36 and 5: 1-47).  A large crowd is following Jesus “because they saw the signs he was doing among the sick” (6:2).  The only healing sign in Galilee mentioned, thus far, is the one in 4:46-54, the healing of an official’s son (designated as Jesus’ second sign, in 4:54).

The mention that the crowd is following because of signs hints at a lack of real faith (a hint confirmed later in 6:15).  In 2:24-25, however, we have already seen that “Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them [those who believed in him because of the signs he was doing], because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.”  It is clear that seeing signs does not necessarily translate into actual faith.

2. The mention of going up on “the mountain” (6:3) is important, in indicating the symbolic setting for what is to happen.  Going up to “the mountain” is precisely what Moses does in Exodus 19:3, to receive a revelation from God.  The mountain introduces the theme of revelation and the giving of the manna, which takes place in Exodus 16.  The discourse, which extends from 6:22-71, will take up these themes.  Here, the passage reveals Jesus to be the true bread of life, who fulfills and surpasses the manna given in the wilderness.  The temporal note “Now the Passover . . .was at hand” (6:4) brings this into sharper focus.

3. As is typical of John, the passage emphasizes the sovereignty of Jesus:

First, instead of waiting for the crowd to get hungry and then providing food, Jesus raises the issue even before it arrives.  Here, he plays the host and does not simply respond to a need (see Mark 8, for example).

Second, while Jesus asks Philip about food, 6:6 makes it clear that Jesus knows already what he is going to do.  It becomes clear that Philip is responding to Jesus simply on a human plane; for him, what Jesus asks is simply impossible, in that more than six months’ wages of an average person would make only a dent in solving the problem.  We are immediately reminded of Nicodemus’ protest that being born from above/again is impossible, because it means returning to the womb.

4. Likewise, Andrew responds on the merely human level; he has located some food  — but there is the dispiriting realization that “what are they among so many?” (6:9).  The mention of the two barley loaves may be a reference to 2 Kings 4:38-44, where Elisha feeds one hundred men with twenty barley loaves and some grain.

Andrew’s objection echoes that of Elisha’s servant: “How can I set this before a hundred men?”   The food that Jesus has available is more scarce than what Elisha had and the number of people he must feed is far greater.  Just as we will learn that Jesus is greater than Moses, we now learn that Jesus is greater than Elisha.  The point of these comparisons is not merely to show that Jesus is better than what [who] preceded him but to emphasize the surpassing work of God, which is now taking place — the same theme contained in within the story of the wedding in Cana (2:1-12).

5.  Jesus’ actions with the bread are significant:  (1) Jesus “took the loaves” (2) gave thanks (the Greek verb is eucharisteo) and (3) “distributed them.”  These actions replicate almost exactly Jesus’ actions in the Upper Room which, according to Luke 22:17 were “he took bread, and when he had given thanks [a form of eucharisteo], he broke it and gave it to them.” 

It seems almost certain that Jesus’ actions here are seen as “eucharistic” in nature and, although John offers no actual account of the Last Supper, he is certainly aware of it.   If we put all the pieces of the puzzle together, it seems that John portrays this action as a kind of new Passover — there is the “Passover, the feast of the Jews” (6:4) and there is Jesus’ new Passover.   John further emphasizes Jesus’ role in this feeding because, unlike Mark 8, it is Jesus who distributes the food that he has blessed — not the disciples (6:11).  This emphasizes the point that what is given comes from Jesus and further parallels the accounts of the Last Supper, where the bread and cup are given to the disciples — by Jesus himself.

6.  Paralleling the wedding at Cana episode, the emphasis falls on the theme of abundance.  Even after five thousand men (compare that to Elisha’s one hundred!) have “eaten their fill” (6:12), there is still plenty left over.  The number of baskets filled with leftovers is significant — twelve.

Later on in this chapter (6:67, 70, 71) Jesus will emphasize the fact that there are twelve disciples.  This is not just an unimportant symbolic detail but is a reminder that Jesus’ mission is not just about bringing individuals to the Truth or performing signs to attract a following.  Jesus understands himself to be about the work of reconstituting Israel and this is important because it means that, while there will be a Church of Gentiles, it cannot merely be a Gentile Church, a community which has no connection to Israel.

7.  The response of the crowd now justifies the suspicions hinted at earlier.  It sees in Jesus “the Prophet who is to come” (6:14), a possible reference to Deuteronomy 18:15.  If this is so, the crowd may be thinking of Jesus as a kind of prophet-king and this is the light in which some Jewish traditions viewed Moses.  But it clearly misunderstands Jesus’ mission and identity.  1.49 refers to Jesus as a “king” but it is clear that the crowd is thinking of installing Jesus as king through insurrection — as if his kingship depended upon popular support and was simply an alternative to the rule of Herod Antipas.  This is not to say that Jesus’ kingship is a merely “spiritual” reality but it is to say that “the consent of the governed”  does not determine his kingship – nor is it simply an alternative to other rules.

John 6:16-21

1.  We need to read this episode along with the preceding one, in order to make proper sense.  This is to say that it is an extension of the previous episode — not an independent one. The whole scene is somewhat enigmatic.  The passage does not tell us why the disciples departed without Jesus nor how they expected Jesus to come to them, while they were on the Sea of Galilee.  And while the sea is rough, there is no indication that the disciples are in danger or that they need to be rescued  (as is suggested in a parallel account, in Matthew 14:24).

2. Looking beyond all this, it is clear that this episode has a very definite function, one which is made clear, in Jesus’ response to the disciples in 6:20 which, translated literally, reads “I am; do not be afraid.”  The “I am” is, of course, the way in which God identifies himself in the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14; Isaiah 41:4; 43:10, 25; 45:18; 46:4; 48:12; 51:12).  The image of sovereignty over nature strengthens the connection between Jesus and God’s self-identification.

3. We now know why the effort to make Jesus king was wrong and what the feeding of the five thousand reveals:  Jesus acts as one who has the power of God at his disposal.  In the case of Moses and Elisha, God assists his servants with signs of divine power while, in the case of Jesus, there is no assistance at all, since in him, the Father (the sovereign Creator) is acting personally.

John 6:22-59

1. 6:22-24 provides a transition from the feeding of the five thousand and Jesus’ walk upon the Sea of Galilee to the next stage of the action.  This section recalls the feeding and emphasizes its Eucharistic dimension, by reminding us that the feeding took place “after the Lord had given thanks” (6:23) — making use of the Greek verb eucharisto once again.  This section also emphasizes that only one boat was available to Jesus and his disciples and that it is known that Jesus did not get into the boat with them — underlining the mysterious nature of how Jesus got to the other side.

2. 6:25-29:  The crowd goes in search of Jesus for the wrong reason.  6:25 signals this, when the crowd strangely asks Jesus when he came to Capernaum — not how.  This alerts us to the fact that there is a significant gap between Jesus and the crowd.  Jesus himself makes this clear, when he identifies the reason why the crowd has followed him — it seeks him because he provided food — not because it has understood the sign (note the omission of the role of the fish in the feeding).

Jesus attempts to move this exchange to another plane, with the paradoxical admonition  “Do not labor for the food that perishes [the bread of the sign] but for the food that endures to eternal life [Jesus himself] which the Son of Man will give to you” (6:27).

[Jesus is not telling them to work for anything at all because the real food is not something other than Jesus himself and this food only comes as a gift from God.]  The crowd does not understand this because it asks, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” (6:28).  “Doing the works of God” was a way of speaking about being faithful to Torah.  The question being asked, according to Jesus, is:  What does one need to do, in order to be faithful to God?  Astoundingly, Jesus makes it clear, in 6:29, that having faith in him is what being faithful to God is all about.  This is to say that Jesus understands that faith in himself is being faithful to Torah.

3.  6:30-40:  The questions the crowd asks, in 6:30, at first sounds strange.  We have to remember back to 6:14, where the crowd identifies Jesus as the new Moses (“the Prophet”).  Seen in this light, the question seems to be that of what sign Jesus has performed, to show that he is greater than Moses.  Exodus understands that signs and wonders have vindicated Moses’ office.  The crowd, naturally, sees one of the greatest of these signs as the manna (literally in Hebrew “what is it?”).  The question here seems to be “Can you outdo the giving of manna?”

This is exactly the question that Jesus wants the followers to ask.   Jews generally saw manna, not simply as the “bread” supplied by God in the wilderness, but also as Torah.  By identifying himself as “manna,” Jesus will emphasize that he both fulfills and surpasses Torah.

On the way to this point, Jesus makes a clarification:  it was not Moses that gave the manna but God.  In the Moses scenario, the manna comes to Israel through Moses’ intercession.  In Jesus’ scenario, God is the giver and Jesus himself is the gift.  Jesus makes it clear that he is not simply talking about performing a sign but about God [himself] directly giving a gift.  It becomes clear that manna here is not referring to a thing:  “For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (6:33).

The crowd has not yet caught up to Jesus (no surprise here!) and seems to think that what Jesus is offering is simply an endless supply of manna.  (We remember that the manna stopped when Israel crossed into the Promised Land).  Jesus now makes an unambiguous declaration, which is the center of this whole chapter:  “I AM the bread of life, whoever comes to me shall not hunger and whoever believes in me shall never thirst” (6:35).

According to Deuteronomy 8:3, God gave the manna as an object lesson: it made clear that “man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.”   Here, the manna is God’s life-giving revelation.  In John 6, that life-giving revelation is Jesus himself.

What Jesus says here is amazingly similar to Sirach 24:19-22:  “Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your fill of my produce . . . Those who eat me will hunger for more, and those who drink me will thirst for more.”  In this text, the speaker is Wisdom.  Clearly, Jesus now surpasses what was given through Wisdom.  Two very important things about God’s life-giving revelation in Jesus are immediately made clear:

First, the reception of this revelation is not something which takes place by chance since, not only does it have its source in God, but also the reception of it is, finally, due to God’s work:  “All that the Father gives me will come to me . . . ” (6:37).

Second, the form of this revelation and its consequences are simply spiritual but physical as well.  It is the Father’s will that “everyone who looks on the Son of Man and believes in him should have eternal life.”   Here, “eternal life” means being raised up (resurrected) “on the last day” (6:40).  In Jesus, revelation has a physical quality (humans can look upon it, as in 1 John 1:1) and it leads to the resurrection of the body.

4. 6:41-59: Echoing Exodus 16:2, 7-9, 12, in the Greek Old Testament, the crowd now “murmurs” about Jesus, just as it had done about Moses.  Notice that John partially identifies the crowd as “the Jews,” John’s code phrase for those who reject Jesus.  The reason for the murmuring is stated in 6:42 and appears, on the surface, to be genealogical in nature — Jesus’ parents are known and this knowledge does not seem to fit with the claim that Jesus “came down from heaven.”  The real issue, however, is theological:  John asserts that the human element of Jesus (having human parents) fits with his divine element, being the Word of God; this is the meaning of the initial assertion that the “Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14).

A merely earthly perspective on Jesus will always result in the wrong conclusions.  In 6:43-46, Jesus replies but, typically, does not directly address the objection.  With respect to Jesus, what is truly important and saving is not what humans conclude about him, on their own, but what the Father brings about in them.

An adequate view of Jesus (belief) requires the initiative of God.  Quoting Isaiah 54:13, Jesus restates his point:  “And they will all be taught by God.”   The crucial statement comes in 6:47-51.  This section draws together 6:27, 32, and 35 into a synthesis of amazing concreteness.  The statements “whoever believes in me has eternal life” (6:47) and “I am the bread of life . . . If anyone eats this bread he will live forever” (6:48, 51) are parallel and mutually reinforcing statements.

Jesus identifies himself as the “living bread,” as manna, wisdom, and revelation from God.  These two statements make it clear how to appropriate the manna/wisdom/revelation, which is Jesus.  Jesus identifies belief as essential and makes it clear that it is not simply a human capacity or a mental act.  To believe in Jesus is not merely to entertain ideas about Jesus, which one understands to be true.  To believe in Jesus means that God has brought a person to Christ and has placed that person in a living relationship with him, such that God gives Christ  (the life-giving manna/wisdom/revelation) to the believer.  The ultimate consequence of belief is not enlightenment, but resurrection, to share eternal fellowship with God.

In 6:52-59, the parallel mode of receiving Jesus is made clear, though it is first introduced in 6:51:  “And the bread that I give for the life of the world is my flesh [sarx].”  This is surprising because we might expect that Jesus would say that the bread he will give is his body (soma).  Sarx is much more physical than soma and this seems to focus attention on the physical, concrete nature of Jesus in his incarnation, death and bodily resurrection. The bread Jesus gives for the life of the world is not a concept or a disembodied wisdom but himself, in his own incarnate, crucified. and risen reality.  6:53 is very close to the eucharistic language of Matthew 26:26,28:  “Take, eat; this is my body [soma=”self”] . . . Drink of it [the cup], all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many . . .”

Clearly, this is not meant in a cannibalistic sense, as if life was to be had from eating pieces of Jesus or drinking his actual blood.  (It is interesting to note, however, that the Romans did understand the early Christians to be cannibals, because they spoke in this way.)  Rather, the emphasis seems to be on the fact that the sacramental meal is a means, through which the living Jesus makes available his saving benefits.  The passage does not nake explicit the means by which “eating” mediates eternal life, access to Jesus, but it is possible that something along the lines of 1 Corinthians 10:14-16, where “eating” and “drinking” grant a “participation” (10:16) or koinonia in Christ is in view.  Whatever the means, the meal seems to be connected to Jesus, in the sense that both are physical realities (meal and Christ’ sarx) and the meal symbolically parallels Jesus’ incarnation (sarx), death (in the bread as broken and the cup as poured) and resurrection (celebrated, not in Jesus’ absence, but in his presence).

Questions for Reflection:

(1)  By speaking about Jesus as manna, wisdom, and revelation, John helps us to think concretely about Jesus as the bread of life.  In what other specific ways could we think about this?

(2)  By speaking of bread, the basic food staple of the day, John clearly states the utter dependence of Christians upon Christ.  In what ways does living in a society of abundance hinder this sense of dependence?

John 6:60-71

1. In the previous section (6:22-59) the crowd is identified as “the Jews” (6:41), that is, as those who explicitly oppose Jesus.  This group finds the whole bread of life discourse unbelievable because it understands Jesus only within a human framework (6:41-42, 52).  In this section, the audience is narrowed down, from a group distinct from the crowd and designated as “many of his disciples” (6:60) to the smaller group designated as “the Twelve” (6:67).

2.  The “hard saying” in 6:60 probably refers back to 6:53-56, in which Jesus’ sacrificial death is made unavoidably explicit.  This appears to be too much for those disciples who had accepted Jesus as the Messiah but who now find the notion of his sacrificial death as beyond belief.  We are presented with two different responses to Jesus — both of which are inadequate.  The crowd is unable to get beyond bread and, thus, revealed to be earthly-minded.  The larger group of disciples is able to get beyond bread, to Messiah-ship, but is unable to take the Cross — and the eating and the drinking — which are the visible connections to it.

3.  The question in 6:62 is a little difficult, in Greek, but seems to mean something like “Would you not be even more offended were you to see the Son of Man ascending to return to the Father?”   It is one thing to accept Jesus as the Messiah (within the confines of this term’s Jewish meaning) and quite another to arrive at explicit Christian faith that Jesus is the incarnate Word, who returns to the Father, through his death and resurrection.

4.  The statement in 6:63 sounds a bit odd, given what has come before it, with the emphasis on Jesus’ flesh:  “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail.”  In what has come before, flesh (sarx) has a positive meaning, referring to Jesus’ incarnation and crucifixion.  Now, the meaning has shifted to the negative:  “flesh ” as that dimension of creation alienated from God.  To use a Pauline phrase, the unbelief of the larger group of disciples is due to the fact that they are “in the flesh” (see Romans 7:5, for example); their own perceptions bind them in state, in which they remain, and hostility to God marks this state.   There is a great irony here.  The flesh of Jesus (understood as his death and resurrection) avails much while “the flesh” (understood as a merely human attitude to Jesus) avails nothing.

5.  6:64-65 shows that none of this is a surprise to Jesus.  He is neither shocked nor disappointed; the fact that some of his disciples do not really believe in him does not send him into a state of doubt about his own mission.  It is important to notice that the conviction that Jesus is Messiah is not counted as “belief” by Jesus in 6:64.  These disciples (who are not really disciples) are not given “partial credit” for thinking Jesus the Messiah; they fall into the same category as the crowd designated as “the Jews.”  The reason for this is made clear in 6:65.   All real faith has its mysterious origin in God.   Faith is a relationship of “abiding in” (6:56) and it is granted by God; it has not been granted to this group of disciples.

6.  All of this produces a crisis in Jesus’ ministry (the Greek meaning of the word, “crisis,”  iss a moment of decision).  Some of the faux disciples “turned back and no longer walked with him” (6:66).  Note that no mention is made of Jesus earnestly pleading for them to come back and think things over.

7.  6.67 makes is clear that the disciples have reached a moment of decision:  “Do you want to go away as well?”   What Peter says here is the equivalent of his confession in Mark 8:29.  Peter acknowledges the truth of what Jesus has been saying in this chapter.  Peter, speaking on behalf of true faith, acknowledges that the option of “going away” simply does not exist — he recognizes Jesus as the unique source of the “words of eternal life.”  Once again, as 6:70 indicates, Jesus is not surprised.  After losing many disciples, Jesus does not greet Peter’s confession with relief.  Peter is not congratulated on his loyalty or on remaining one of the faithful few; Jesus knows about Peter because he chose him.  Jesus does not make clear his reasons for choosing “a devil” (6:70).   The passage makes clear that Jesus does not see Judas as a huge disappointment (“Oh, he had so much potential!”).  This introduces an important theme of John’s account of Jesus’ arrest, crucifixion and death.  Jesus does not appear to be a victim, in any way, nor an idealist, which a corrupt system has over-taken.  Jesus faces betrayal, arrest, and death with a sense of equanimity, not because he has no feelings but because he has long ago embraced the Father’s mission.

Questions for Reflection

(1)   Jesus makes it clear that “the flesh” (a merely human attitude) is a huge obstacle to faith. What are so me of the manifestations of “the flesh” that you see in your own life?

(2)   Does the idea of faith finally being a gift of God seem frightening or comforting (or both)?  What would you say to an atheist or agnostic friend who had read this passage?

(3) Could the idea of faith being a gift of God lead to irresponsibility (“I don’t believe because God has not given me the gift”)?

Leave a comment

Filed under Interpretation of Scripture, The Gospel of John

Tagged as ,

October 23, 2012 · 10:06 am

Hymnody: “Pange Lingua” [Gregorian Chant]

 

Dear Readers,

“This hymn is one of the most beautiful and renowned in the repertory of Gregorian chant.  St. Thomas Aquinas, the Italian scholar-priest, wrote the words in 1263 at the request of the Pope, to fit an earlier hymn tune.”

[Images of Christ, The Cambridge Singers, directed by John Rutter, Collegium Records.]

“The Eucharistic text of Pange lingua glorioso Corporis mysterium was written in 1263, by the Italian scholar-priest St. Thomas Aquinas at the request of the Pope to fit the melody of Pange lingua gloriosi proelium certaminis, Venantius Fortunatus’ famous sixth-century hymn in honor of the Cross.  The melody was used by Holst in The Hymn of Jesus and by Charles Wood [to its orginal text] in his St. Mark Passion.”

[Sing, Ye Heavens:  Hymns for All Time, the Cambridge Singers, Directed by John Rutter, Collegium Records]

For more information: Pange Langua [1] ; Pange Langua [2]; Pange Langua [3]

“Written by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) for the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, this hymn is considered the most beautiful of Aquinas’ hymns and one of the great seven hymns of the Church.  The rhythm of the Pange Lingua is said to have come down from a marching song of Caesar’s Legions: “Ecce, Caesar nunc triumphat qui subegit Gallias.”  Besides the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, this hymn is also used on Holy Thursday. The last two stanzas make up the Tantum Ergo (Down in Adoration Falling) that is used at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.”

[Pange Langua]

Latin text:

Pange lingua gloriosi
Corporis mysterium,
Sanguinsique pretiosi,
Quem in mundi pretium
Fructus ventris generosi
Rex effudit gentium.
 
Nobis datus, nobis natus
Ex intacta Virgine,
Et in mundo conversatus
Sparso verbi semine,
Sui moras incolatus
Miro clausit ordine.
 
In supremae nocte cenae
Recumbens cum fratribus,
Observata lege plene
Cibis in legalibus,
Cibum turbae duodenae
Se dat suis manibus.
 
Verbum caro, panem verum
Verbo carnem efficit;
Fitque sanguis Christi merum,
Et si sensus deficit;
Ad firmandum cor sincerum
Sola fides sufficit.
 
Tantum ergo Sacramentum
Veneremur cernui,
Et antiquum documentum
Novo cedat ritui; 
Praestet fides supplementum
Sensuum defectui.
 
Genitori, Genitoque
Laus et jubilatio
Salus, honor, virtus quoque
Sit et benedictio;
Procedenti ab utroque
Compar sit laudatio.
 Amen
[St. Thomas Aquinas]
 

 English translation 1:

Of the glorious Body telling,
O my tongue, its mysteries sing,
And the Blood, all price excelling,
Which the world’s eternal King,
In a noble womb once dwelling,
Shed for this world’s ransoming.
 
Given for us, for us descending,
Of a Virgin to proceed,
Man with man in converse blending,
Scattered he the Gospel seed,
Till his sojourn drew to ending,
Which he closed in wondrous deed.
 
At the last great Supper lying,
Circled by his brethren’s band,
Meekly with the law complying,
First he finished its command,
Then, immortal Food supplying,
Gave himself with his own hand.
 
Word made Flesh, by word he maketh
Very bread his flesh to be;
Man in wine Christ’s Blood partaketh:
And if senses fail to see,
Faith alone the true heart waketh
To behold the mystery.
 
Therefore we, before him bending,
This great Sacrament revere; 
Types and shadows have their ending,
For the newer rite is here;
Faith, our outward sense befriending,
Makes the outward vision clear.
 
Glory, let us give, and blessing
To the Father and the Son;
Honour, might, and praise addressing,
While eternal ages run;
Ever too his love confessing,
Who, from both, with both is one.  
Amen.
[Translation from J. M. Neale and others]
 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Pange Lingua Gloriosi Corporis Mysterium is a hymn written by St Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) for the Feast of Corpus Christi  (now called the Solemnity of the Holy Body and Blood of Christ).  It is also sung on Maundy Thursday, during the procession from the church to the place where the Blessed Sacrament is kept until Good Friday.  The last two stanzas, called separately Tantum Ergo, are sung at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.  The hymn expresses the doctrine of transubstantiation, in which, according to the Roman Catholic faith, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.

It is often sung in English as the hymn Of the Glorious Body Telling, to the same tune as the Latin.

The opening words recall another famous Latin sequence, from which this hymn is derived: Pange Lingua Gloriosi Proelium Certaminis by Venantius Fortunatus.

Music history

There are two plainchant settings of the Pange Lingua hymn. The better known is a Phrygian mode tune from the Roman liturgy, and the other is from the Mozarabic liturgy from Spain. The Roman tune was originally part of the Gallican Rite.

The Roman version of the Pange Lingua hymn was the basis for a famous composition by Renaissance composer Josquin des Prez, the Missa Pange lingua.  An elaborate fantasy on the hymn, the mass is one of the composer’s last works and has been dated to the period from 1515 to 1521, since it was not included by Petrucci in his 1514 collection of Josquin’s masses, and was published posthumously.  In its simplification, motivic unity and close attention to the text it has been compared to the late works of Beethoven, and many commentators consider it one of the high points of Renaissance polyphony.

Juan de Urrede, a Flemish composer active in Spain in the late fifteenth century, composed numerous settings of the Pange Lingua, most of them based on the original Mozarabic melody.  One of his versions for four voices became one of the most popular pieces of the sixteenth century, and was the basis for dozens of keyboard works in addition to masses, many by Spanish composers.

Building on Josquin’s treatment of the hymn’s third line in the Kyrie of the Missa Pange Lingua, the “Do-Re-Fa-Mi-Re-Do”- theme became one of the most famous in music history, used to this day in even non-religious works such as Wii Sports Resort. Simon Lohet, Michelangelo Rossi, François Roberday, Johann Caspar Ferdinand Fischer, Johann Jakob Froberger,[2] Johann Kaspar Kerll, Johann Sebastian Bach, Johann Fux wrote fugues on it, and the latter’s extensive elaborations in the Gradus ad Parnassum made it known to every aspiring composer – among them Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, whose Jupiter[3] theme borrows the first four notes.

The last two verses of Pange Lingua (Tantum Ergo) are often separated out.  They mark the end of the procession of the monstrance in Holy Thursday liturgy.  Various separate musical settings have been written for this, including one by Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, one by Franz Schubert, one by Maurice Duruflé, and one by Charles-Marie Widor.

Franz Liszt‘s Night Procession from Two Episodes from Lenau’s Faust is largely a fantasy on the Pange Lingua melody.[4]

A setting of Pange Lingua, written by Ciaran McLoughlin and produced by Paul MacAree, appears on the Solas album Solas An Domhain.

Pange Lingua has been translated into many different languages for worship throughout the world.  However, the Latin version remains the most popular.  The Syriac translation of Pange Lingua was used as part of the rite of benediction in the Syro-Malabar Church of Kerala, India, until the 1970s.

Coram Deo,

Margot

Leave a comment

Filed under Hymns

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

October 20, 2012 · 3:18 pm

How My Garden Grows: Seven

parterreBirdsEyeView_a

A “Bird’s Eye View:”

Designing the Horizontal Spaces of  Your Garden

Dear Readers,

To read or review the previous posts in this series, click here:  How My Garden Grows: One.

Each post, One through Six, will provide a link for the next post.

 

 

Margot’s Get-Real Guide:

Space:

Identify the horizontal space:  Do you wish to create a border, bed, island, or garden path?

Speak Compass:

Toward which direction does this space face?

Sun exposure requirements will determine your plant choice.

Soften:

Choose plants that will soften the angular architectural features.

Standing Feature:

Consider one standing “feature” in each large bed, border, or island.

Ex:  a fountain, a stone statue, a bird bath, a bird feeder, a fogger/mister, an obelisk, or a tutor.

Space:

Within the design, plan open spaces, for these purposes:

  • Walkways [“allees”] for trimming/pruning.
  • Access to water spigots/hose, fountains, bird baths, bird feeders, utilities. etc.
  • “Growing and breathing space” between plants and buildings or between plants and fences or walls.
  • Foot-paths, stepping-stones, etc.

Study Notes:

Research, using The Southern Living Garden Book:

Which “care-free” and “bullet-proof” plants are best-suited for the space?

Spine:

For beauty and low-maintenance all year round, perennial evergreens should form the “spine” or “backbone” of your garden spaces.

Ground Covers range in height,  from 6 inches to 4 feet, so you have a great variety of sizes from which to choose.

Systemize:

From your Study Notes, create a Table or Chart, listing each “care-free” and “bullet-proof” plant.

Include these categories:

  • Formal name, informal name
  • Requirements for light exposure:  Su=Sun; Sh=Shade; P=Part; Lt=Light; F=Full
  • Requirements for: soil, moisture, fertilizer
  • Size:  height, width, “OC,” which means “off-center” or “space between plants”

Use this Table/Chart, to revise the Sketch of your garden design.

Keep the Chart:   At the end of the season, add notes:  What worked?  What did not?

Sketch:

Draw a rough sketch of the horizontal space.  Indicate approximate sizes of each section.

Refer to your Study Notes and add your favorite plants to the design.

Stature & Size:

Height, Width, Depth

Do not line up your plants like little soldiers!

Within the space, mix up the height, width, and depth.

Surface Texture:

Provide contrast between/among the plants.

Consider the shape of the plant [macro] or the texture of the leaf [micro].

Shades, Hue, Color:

Break out your color pencils, crayons, or water-colors, as you design your Sketch.

I do not like a strict color scheme:  I have a Georgia red-brick house but I use a “Crayola” color palette.

Consider the color of the bloom, foliage, stem, bark, etc.

An all-white night-blooming garden is fabulous, with a view from a porch or window.

Snow Drift:

Imagine a snowdrift, on a slope, with soft curves of snow, covering the earth.

This is the soft, organic look you want.  Avoid sharp edges.

For perennial evergreen ground cover:   Plant three different plants in three large “drifts,” of roughly the same size, with the central drift slightly larger.

Shapes:

The “Paisley” shape is one of the most pleasing designs to the human eye.

In your composition, employ the “paisley” shape:  Use a different plant for each paisley shape.

Interconnect and overlap the shapes, as above drawing illustrates.

Stagger:

Within each paisley shape [above], stagger the plants, with an odd number of the same plant.

 Select:

Take your Sketch and your Table/Chart to the Nursery.

Select your favorite “bullet-proof” and “care-free” plants.

Choose an odd number of each type of  favorite plants:  1, 3, 5, etc.

Maintenance:

Shear or Prune?

Most perennial evergreen ground covers do not require maintenance.

For those plants that require maintenance:

Consult the Southern Living Garden Book and choose the appropriate method:

Prune from the inside:  encourage a natural, soft shape;  allow air to circulate; eliminate weak stems and branches.

Shear according to the natural design shape; plants should look lush and full.

 Plan Your Future Design:

Gradually eliminate turf and replace with beds, borders, islands, and garden paths.

 

Coram Deo,

Margot

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gardens, Healing Gardens

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

October 16, 2012 · 10:42 pm

Exploring the Gospel of John: 4

EXPLORING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

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

St. Peter’s Anglican Church

2006

A Conversation at a Well

John 4:1-43

1.  4:1-6:  The introduction to this episode gives hints to the reader that he/she should understand it, in the light of Genesis 1-67 (where Abraham’s servant, Eliezer, comes to a well, in search of a wife for Isaac); Genesis 29:1-14 (where Jacob encounters Rachel, at a well); and Exodus 2:15-22 (where Moses meets his future wife, Zipporah).

The key theme, in each one of these texts, is betrothal.  We have already seen that the marriage symbolism plays an important role in this Gospel.  It does so in 2:1-12 and in 2:29.  John the Baptism refers to Jesus as the “bridegroom” of the bride.  The reader should understand this, in the light of the Old Testament and the consistent portrayal of God’s relationship with Israel being nuptial, with God as the groom and Israel as the bride (Isaiah 62:4-5; Hosea 2:2-23; Ezekiel 16).  In this episode, we have Jesus in God’s place, as the groom and the Samaritan woman (representing her people) in the place of the bride.  Jesus is the bridegroom.

There is no geographical necessity, when traveling from Judea to Galilee, to pass through Samaria. The idea that Jesus “had to pass through Samaria” (4:4) is theological; this is part of his mission from God.  The “sixth hour” (4:6) is probably noon.

2.  4:7-26:  Jesus initiates the conversation with the Samaritan woman, who is surprised at a two-fold breach of propriety.  First, men and women who were unrelated or unknown to each other did not speak in public. Second, Jesus proposes to drink water from something touched by a Samaritan – an extreme breach of purity, from the Jewish point of view.  The Samaritans were the descendants of the northern tribes of Israel (Ephraim and Manasseh, mainly), which the Assyrians had conquered in 723 BC and into which non-Jewish people had mixed.   Jews regarded Samaritans as worse than Gentiles because they claimed to be part of the covenant people but were of mixed ancestry.  In 128 BC, Jews destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerazim and hostility continued.

Jesus’ request for water allows him to begin to focus on what this woman really needs to hear.  (Jesus followed the same strategy with Nicodemus.)  If the woman knew the “gift of God” (4:10) she would be the one asking Jesus for a drink because he has living water.  In Greek, the phrase, “living water” and “running water” are the same and Jesus plays upon this.  Just as he uses the word, “anothen” (again, from above) to move Nicodemus from physical birth to birth from God, so Jesus attempts to move the woman from water in a well to the living water, given by God himself.  The symbolism of water is important:  In the case of Nicodemus, it meant the cleansing of the Spirit (after Ezekiel 36:25-27).

Water is also associated with wisdom.  In Sirach 15:3, Wisdom, portrayed as a woman, “will feed him with the bread of understanding and give him the water of wisdom to drink.”  This Gospel uses both the themes of God’s wisdom, Incarnate in Jesus, as bread and water [note John 6).  The important thing to note is that the Old Testament does not portray wisdom as an abstract quality but as a person:  in the Septuagint, as sophia or Lady Wisdom.  This personalism continues in the Gospel of John, with Jesus as the wisdom of God.

Like Nicodemus, the woman initially responds to Jesus simply on the human level:  Jesus has nothing with which to draw water.  Where does he get this “living water”?  Her question, in 4:12, which she intends as a mild criticism (“And just who do you think you are?”) opens the way to the heart of the matter:  “Are you greater than our father Jacob?”  Still building upon the running/living water parallel, Jesus attempts to get the woman to make the conceptual shift that she needs to make (remember that Nicodemus never quite made the necessary shift:  “(How can these things be?”):  Jesus is not speaking of physical water but of “eternal life” (4:14).  In Sirach 24:21 (paralleling 15:3), Wisdom says that “those who eat me will hunger for more and those who drink me will thirst for more.”  Jesus clearly surpasses sophia – drinking from him is the end of thirst.  The woman’s response, in 4:15, reflects both a lack of understanding and an openness to receive what Jesus offers.

4:16-18 introduces the issue of the woman’s marital status, which the reader should understand on two levels:  First, it is clear that her [culture] regards as morally suspect – this explains her presence at the well at noon, a time at which no other people are present.  This fact marks her as something of an outcast (the exact opposite of Nicodemus’ social status).  Second, after Hosea 2, the woman’s domestic situation is symbolic of unfaithfulness.  Marital infidelity is one of the Old Testament’s most powerful metaphors for idolatry and unfaithfulness.  The woman’s domestic situation represents the spiritual situation of the Samaritans.

In 4:19, the woman takes a major step toward recognizing Jesus’ identity.  Believing him to be a prophet, she raises what, for her, is the central religious question:  Who is right:  Jews or Samaritans?  Which one of the two rival temples (Gerazim, Zion) is the proper one?  Jesus’ answer is a bit surprising:  The time is now here when geography does not determine the true worship of God – in a sense, asking which temple is the right one is asking the wrong question.  True worship is a matter of a relationship to God, made possible by the Spirit and by the Son (“in truth”).  Real worship is not a matter of location but is a matter which the Son and the Spirit mediates.  But in saying that neither temple is the right one, Jesus is no way diminishes the salvation-historical role of Zion because “salvation is from the Jews” (4:22).  [In short, Jesus announces that the eschatological hour has now come, when temples on a specific mountain can be left behind.] (Remember 2:13-22).

Now comes the moment of revelation: The woman has moved from seeing Jesus as an odd Jew with pretensions (“Are you greater than our father Jacob?”) to seeing him as a prophet (4:19) and then to seeing him as something a bit more than a prophet.  She says that the Messiah will come to straighten out these issues and this provides Jesus with a moment of self-revelation:  “I who speak to you am he” (4:24).  The Greek [phrase] reproduces the affirmation of Exodus 3:14 (God’s self-revelation to Moses) so Jesus’ response to the woman is “I AM the Messiah.”

3. 4:27-30:  Something important has happened.  The story of Nicodemus ended with incomprehension but the woman here leaves the well without her water jar (4:28) and returns to Sychar to witness: “Can this be the Christ?”  The woman’s witness sends others out to meet Jesus.

4. 4:31-38:  With the woman gone and the disciples having returned, the focus now shifts:  The woman’s failure to understand Jesus is now put into some perspective, by the failure of the disciples to understand Jesus’ use of food:  “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work” (4:34).  Talk of food leads to the harvest (from which the food comes) and this allows Jesus to make another point:  the eschatological harvest is here.  [The Son has sown this harvest and the disciples and those who followed will reap the harvest.]

5. 4:39-42: Despite her dubious past and religious status, the woman at the well has brought to Jesus a harvest. She has become a catalyst for the Samaritan to receive Jesus.

Leave a comment

Filed under Interpretation of Scripture, The Gospel of John

Tagged as ,

October 15, 2012 · 7:59 pm

Exploring the Gospel of John: 2

EXPLORING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

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

St. Peter’s Anglican Church

2006

John 2:1-12

A Wedding, As Sign and Glory

1. In John 1:43-51, Nathanael is amazed at Jesus’ knowledge of him:  knowledge that he interprets to be supernatural (1:49).  Jesus tells him,  “You will see greater things than these” (1:50) [and it appears that what happens here is intended.]

2. The time reference in 2:1 (“On the third day”) is a bit vague -–third day counting from when?  This could be a reference to Exodus 19:11, where God comes down on Mt. Sinai on “the third day” and reveals his glory.  In this Gospel, Jesus’ actions are often presented as being parallel to significant Old Testament events.  In light of 2:11, the connection with Exodus 19:11 seems to fit since, in Exodus 19, God reveals himself for the first time to his liberated people and, in 2.11, Jesus performs his first sign for his disciples.

3. The context of this first sign is important – a wedding.  The opportunity for the sign comes at a moment of crisis:  the wedding guests have exhausted the supply of wine.  Weddings were not simply private affairs but often involved an entire village and could last for several days.  Running out of wine would have exposed the groom to a loss of honor and this was a very serious matter, in a culture bound together by reciprocal obligations.   What for us might be a failure of planning would be, for this culture, a shaming of the guests, bringing dishonor upon the host.  This is no mere faux pax.

4. The text does not tell us why Jesus’ mother (this Gospel does not mention her name) brings this to the attention of Jesus.  Does she have some responsibility at the wedding or does she believe that he is capable of resolving the crisis?  Her instructions to the servants in 2:5 are open to either — or both — possibilities.  Certainly, her command shows her to be a model of belief – she trustfully places everything under her Son’s authority.

5. We are surprised at Jesus’ brusque response to Mary in 2:4.   It is not disrespectful but it is distancing and the phrase, “My hour has not yet come” explains the distance.  In this Gospel, Jesus’ “hour” is his glorification, which takes place in his Crucifixion and Resurrection (7:30; 8:20; 12:27-28; 13:1; 16:32; 17:1).   The point is that the heavenly Father dictates Jesus’ actions  — not human requests (not even the request of his mother).   As in the case of Lazarus’ illness and death in John 11, Jesus responds to situations but he responds in his own terms.  Mary’s instructions to the servants seem to indicate that she does not expect to control her Son.

6. Jesus says, in 2:4, that his “hour” has not yet come — yet in 2:7, he takes action to solve the wine dilemma.  Has something changed?  Has Jesus’ “hour” now come?  We should probably see Jesus’ actions, not as a delayed response to Mary’s request, but as a proleptic manifestation of his “hour”– here, the “hour” is prefigured.

7. The number and purpose of the water jars in 2:6 is significant:  Six is a number indicating insufficiency or incompleteness (thus, in Genesis 1, Creation takes place over seven days).  The jars hold water for the various rites of purification.  The fact that these jars are filled with water and then transformed into wine clearly carries with it both the notion of abundance and the notion of the transformation of the old.  Jesus will bring in abundance what the Jewish rites of purification now only hint at.  In the Old Testament, the abundance of wine (always associated with God’s goodness and generosity in Judaism) is associated with the Messianic time (Amos 9:13-14; Isaiah 25:6; Jeremiah 31:12: Joel 3:18).  This is a sign in advance of what Jesus “hour” will bring about, the abundant cleansing and restoration, which is the time of the Messiah, the pouring out of God’s generous gifts.   The theme of Jesus replacing various Jewish institutions and feasts is a significant one in this Gospel.  In 2:13-22, for example, we see how Jesus fulfills and replaces the Temple.  For John, Jesus gathers together all the various threads of Judaism into a unity and brings them to their fulfillment.

8.  One can read, on several levels, the response of the steward of the feast, to the miraculous wine in 2:10 (as one can read a great deal of this Gospel on several levels).  At one level, the text makes clear that Jesus had not only saved the bridegroom’s honor but has actually enhanced it.  The best wine is served at this wedding at a time when – how shall we say it? – the faculties of the guests are impaired. What generosity!  The best has come last!  On another level, this underscores the sequence of salvation:  The best has not come first (Moses) but has been saved for the end (Jesus).  Much of the Gospel of John is devoted to getting this sequence right.

9. The context of this sign is rich with symbolism -– a wedding.  The wedding is a favored image, describing Israel’s eschatological fulfillment.  One day, God will rejoice over Israel, as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride (Isaiah 62:4-5).  Jesus also uses the image of a wedding feast to depict the coming of the Messiah in Matthew 8:11, Matthew 22:1-14 and Luke 22:16-18.  Note the same imagery in Revelation 19, where we find the wedding feast of the Lamb.

10. This was the first of Jesus’ signs.  This is this Gospel’s technical term for Jesus’ deeds.  Not coincidently, the Gospel uses the same Greek word as the  Septuagint uses in Exodus 4:8, to designate the three actions that God authorizes Moses to perform, to convince Israel of his role.  The purpose of these signs is authorize or confirm belief in Moses’ vocation.

11. Jesus will perform six other signs in this gospel (making a perfect series of seven).  But these signs do not compel belief on the part of those who witness them.  This becomes clear in John 11, after Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead.  In John 11:45-53, some of the witnesses of this sign inform the authorities in Jerusalem.  Neither the witnesses nor the authorities appear to doubt what Jesus has done — but this only has the effect of moving them to plot Jesus’ death.  Signs apparently have three possible effects, all of which John portrays:   Signs can deepen belief (as they do here), they can be met with indifference or unbelief (as in 7:1-5), or they can arouse opposition.

12. Two texts from Luke provide some illumination to this passage.  In Luke 5:34, when asked why John’s disciples fast but his do not, Jesus says, “Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them?”  The bridegroom at the eschatological wedding is the Messiah and can one be expected to fast, when God’s salvation is being realized, in one’s presence?   In Luke 5:36-39, Jesus tells a parable about how new wine cannot be poured into old wine skins.  While some will not recognize it (5:39), the new wine surpasses the old -– the best has been kept until the last.

13. The meaning of this incident is not hidden but is rather made explicit in 2:11:  “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory.”   The glory of Jesus is the glory of the Incarnate Word (1:14), a glory now glimpsed by the abundant replacement of water for purification by eschatological wine.  In a real sense, Jesus not only fulfills Old Testament expectations but also surpasses them.

John 2:13-22

“The Temple of His Body”

1. “The Passover of the Jews” (2:13) is [intended] not as a snipe at “the Jews” but has the function of distancing the reader of the Gospel from Passover, a feast that this Gospel understands Jesus to have fulfilled (see 19:31-37).

2. This event is recorded in all four gospels (Mark 11:15-17; Matthew 21:12-13; Luke 19:45-46).  John is unique in placing this event at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry rather than at the end, and his account is more detailed than those of the other three gospels.

3. One of our most significant decisions, with regard to this passage, is that of determining [toward] what Jesus’ actions in the Temple are aimed.  The presence of animals and birds in the Temple precincts was necessary, in order to fulfill the sacrifices appointed in Leviticus 1-8.   The presence of the money-changers was, likewise, necessary, in that the Temple precincts did not allow Roman coinage, which bore the image of the emperor, since the Jews understood it to violate the prohibition [against] making idols.  The money changers were a necessary presence, if Jews were to be able to buy sacrificial animals and to pay the Temple tax levied on all adult male Jews.  In light of these facts, it is difficult to see Jesus’ actions as aiming at a “cleansing of the Temple” from “commercial abuse.”

4. Jesus’ actions in the Temple appear to be “sign act,” a symbolic action familiar to the Old Testament prophets.  An example is Jeremiah 19 where, in order to announce God’s coming judgment on Israel, Jeremiah takes an earthenware jar and smashes it in public.  The smashing of the jar is a sign act, which promises what it enacts.  By interrupting the sale of sacrificial animals, Jesus is symbolically bringing the Temple’s existence to a halt and announcing its coming destruction/replacement.

5. What Jesus says in 2:16 echoes Zechariah 14:21:  “And there shall no longer be a trader in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day.”   In Zechariah 14, what is announced is a new order in which “the Lord will be king over all the earth” (14:9) and even Gentiles will go up to Jerusalem “to worship the King, the Lord of hosts” (14:17).  In this radically transformed situation, “every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holy to the Lord of hosts” (14:21).  The traders in the Temple will no longer be necessary — because God’s presence in Jerusalem will be such as to render everything holy and so inaugurate a new pattern of worship.  As becomes clear, Jesus’ Death and Resurrection establishes this new order of worship.

6. 2:17 informs us that the disciples “remembered” this connection  [to] Psalm 69:9.  The remembering here, as 2:22 makes clear, occurs after Jesus’ Resurrection.  This is to say that the Resurrection renders the memory of the disciples into a coherent whole:  in the light of the resurrection, their memory of Jesus’ actions took on a new significance.  Psalm 69:9 (which John converts from the past to the future tense) identifies Jesus, not merely as one who detested the Temple and its sacrifices, but as one who saw their replacement/fulfillment by a new temple and a new sacrifice.  It is zeal for God’s real temple that will cause his death.

7. In 2:18, “the Jews” (which refers to the chief priests who have charge of the Temple) demand a sign, which will show that Jesus is authorized to do what he has done.  2:20 indicates that “the Jews” understand Jesus to be making a literal claim about the Temple as a building.  This is part of a pattern, in which someone understands Jesus in a literal/worldly way and so misunderstands his meaning completely (see 3:1-15).  Jesus is not talking about the Temple as a building but rather a temple of an entirely different order:  the Temple of his Crucified and Risen Body.  The presence of God will no longer be found in the Temple for, as Zechariah 14 clearly sees, this presence will come in a new way.  The notion of Jesus’ Crucified and Risen Body as the Temple of God has a deep impact on New Testament writings (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:20-22; 1 Peter 2:4-5).

8. We see an indication of what this theology looks like as Hebrews 8-9 develops it.  Here, Jesus recapitulates, fulfills, and transcends the core of Judaism as Temple, sacrifice, and priesthood.  The point to grasp, about both John and Hebrews, is that we can understand Jesus only within the matrix of the Old Testament narrative.  John and Hebrews understand that Jesus transcends the core of Judaism [Temple, sacrifice, and priesthood] not because they are Jewish but, rather, Jesus transcends them God intended them to have a provisional value (note especially Hebrews 9:23-28).

9. To say that Christ’s Risen Body replaces the Temple is to say several things:  Just as Israel understood the Temple to be the locus of God’s presence in the world (not in the sense that God was confined to it but that, by covenant, God caused his Name to dwell there), so now the body of the risen Christ becomes the locus of God’s presence.  This is why there is no ‘promised land’ in the new covenant:  God’s temple is now co-extensive with creation (note Revelation 21:22-27).  This notion of Christ as the new Temple also serves as the foundation of Christian holiness.  If the Christian life is life “in Christ,” this means that we live all of life within the Temple and that there is no sacred/secular distinction (note Romans 12:1-2).  Thinking along these lines causes a radical re-thinking of the significance of human life, as becomes clear in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20.

Leave a comment

Filed under Interpretation of Scripture, The Gospel of John

Tagged as , , ,

October 15, 2012 · 7:58 pm

Exploring the Gospel of John: 3

EXPLORING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

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

St. Peter’s Anglican Church

2006

[Exploring the Gospel of John: 4]

John 3:1-21

A Conversation at Night

1. Initially, two things about this episode are worth noting: The first is that Nicodemus’ question provokes an extended discourse from Jesus, one during which Nicodemus seems to drop out of sight (around verse 13).  This odd feature may be due to the way in which Jesus is consistently portrayed in John:  On one hand, Jesus enters into a conversation with Nicodemus and yet, on the other hand, Jesus does not simply answer questions addressed to him; he exercises a kind of sovereignty, possessing the freedom to say what he thinks needs to be said.  Second, we do not know how this encounter turned out – things are left unresolved.  Nicodemus is mentioned again in 7:50, where he counsels leniency toward Jesus on the part of the Sanhedrin.  Later, in 19:38-42 Nicodemus reappears to assist in the preparation of Jesus’ body for burial.  These actions indicate the he remained sympathetic to Jesus but we do not know much beyond this.  This episode conveys an important truth: There were influential Jews who were in sympathy with Jesus and his ministry, even if they found parts of his message baffling.

2. The fact that Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night indicates awareness that open association with him by a man of Nicodemus’ standing could have negative consequences.  It is sometimes suggested that the fact that Nicodemus comes to Jesus under cover of darkness is symbolic of his own spiritual darkness.  This, while possible, seems a bit extreme. Nicodemus is being discrete.

3. In 3:2, Nicodemus makes a confession about Jesus’ identity:  “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” For Nicodemus, this is a tremendous admission, one made on the basis on 2:1-12 and 2:13-22.  And yet, readers of this gospel know that it is not enough.  Nicodemus is “on his way to Jesus” but has clearly not arrived yet.  For him, Jesus is a rabbi “come from God,” that is, sent and inspired by God.  Nicodemus clearly does not mean, “come from God,” in the sense of 1:14 or 3:17. Important as this confession is, it only approaches the truth.  Even if Nicodemus is placing Jesus in the same category as Moses (which, in light of Exodus 3:12, he seems to be) he is far from the mark.

4. Jesus’ response to Nicodemus is similar to his response to Mary in 2:4. It is, perhaps, even more icy.  Jesus seems to take no pleasure in this highly complimentary statement from an important and informed person (a Pharisee).  But Jesus is not being aloof or cold; he knows who he is and he wishes to bring Nicodemus to the truth. In John, Jesus seems to be impervious to both flattery and contempt (note Jesus’ response to Pilate in 19:11).

5. Jesus speak precisely the truth which he believes Nicodemus needs to hear, jarring as it is: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God “ (3:3).  This saying is quite close to Luke 18:17:  “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”  The two sayings would have struck a first-century audience as equally odd, given the low status of children.  The saying seems to be deliberately ambiguous, in that Jesus wants to draw on the dual meaning of the Greek word anothen, which can mean either “from above” or “again.”  Of course, this is a direct reference to 1:12-13, where the Word grants birth from God, which is a birth “from above” (because from God).  Nicodemus clearly interprets Jesus to be saying, “born again,” which he understands literally.  In John, people who understand Jesus literally only reveal their lack of comprehension.  This is particularly significant here because we are dealing with a learned person. This has nothing to do (it should be noted) with the literal interpretation of Scripture.  Those who understand Jesus literally reveal that they are still on an earthly plane.

6. In 3:5-6 Jesus changes his terminology and we move from being born from above/again in order to “see the kingdom of God,” to being born of water and the Spirit, so as to “enter the kingdom of God.”  This provides some clarification:   It certainly corrects Nicodemus’ mistaken impression that Jesus wants him to go back into the womb and re-emerge.  It is now clear that Jesus is talking about a rebirth effected by the Spirit and that rebirth is from above because the power, which effects it, is from God.  In line with the Old Testament, “water and the Spirit” should not be seen as two separable things but as functional equivalents.  This is certainly the case in Ezekiel 36: 25-27:  “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you…And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes . . . ”  Here, the cleansing by water and the giving of God’s Spirit refer to the one purifying action of God.  While there are nuances which can be traced, the point is quite clear:  One can only enter the kingdom of God by being purified by God.

7. The distinction drawn by v.6 between that which is born of flesh and that which is born of Spirit is not a distinction between the “material” and the “spiritual,” as if these were opposites.  The contrast, rather, is between that which is simply human (that which is flesh and no more) and that which has been effected by God (through his Spirit).  Entrance into the kingdom of God is not something and cannot be something that is effected by human efforts and agency.

8. This birth has a mysterious quality about it – it is real but that does not make it fully comprehensible.  Drawing upon the fact that the Greek word pneuma can mean both wind and spirit, Jesus makes it clear that there is an analogous relationship between wind and Spirit.  The wind’s origin and destiny are both mysterious but this does not mean that the wind is unreal.  The same is true of the Spirit, whose origin in God and whose work in human beings is not open to full analysis but who is not any less real for this fact.

9. Nicodemus’ second response to Jesus represents no real advance over his first one.  First he wondered how one could return to the womb and now, after Jesus has clarified what “birth” means, he can only ask “How can these things be?” (3:9).  His progress is all the less impressive because Jesus has already answered the question:  These things can be because they are brought about by God.  Jesus returns to Nicodemus’ original compliment in 3:2 and uses it to underline the depth of Nicodemus’ lack of comprehension:  “Are you a teacher of Israel and yet do not understand these things?” (3:10).

10. The purpose of this question is to point to an irony.  Nicodemus is a “teacher of Israel” and yet he seems to be unaware of this central aspect of the doctrine of God – the work of the Spirit and the Spirit’s relation to the kingdom of God.  This is all the more strange, in light of the reference to Ezekiel 36.  This gets at a key theological issue in John.  Nicodemus the Pharisee is criticized here, not for being Jewish, but for being unaware of something presented in Israel’s scriptures and for being unaware of a central fact about Israel’s God.  If Nicodemus has fumbled the analogies of birth and wind (“earthly things”) how can Jesus possibly take him to the knowledge of God (“heavenly things”)?

11. 3:13 is key to the theology of John.  The faith of John’s community is based on the most reliable witness of all:  God himself.  The claim of this gospel is that Jesus is uniquely qualified to be God’s witness and this is because he is from God:  “No one has ever seen God: the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known” (1:18). The only one who can truly make God known is the one who knows God face to face and this one is the Son.  Nicodemus has acknowledged that Jesus is a “teacher come from God” (3:2) and now Jesus clarifies and corrects this inadequate confession.  He has “descended” from heaven (the very presence of God) to enter the world.  Jesus’ ascent to heaven is not the elevation of a very righteous person to be with God but is his return to his origin. This only emphasizes how far a sympathetic and learned man like Nicodemus has yet to go before he arrives at the truth know by John’s community. Though the distance is great, there is hope because the Holy Spirit bridges the distance between the ascended Son and the world.

12. To explain the saving role played by the Son, there is a reference to in 3:14 to Numbers 21:9.  As the people of Israel travel through the wilderness they complain of the lack of food and water.  As punishment, God sends serpents to afflict them.  After intercession by Moses, God tells him to make a bronze serpent and to attach it to a pole.  When the bronze serpent is “lifted up” and gazed upon, those who see it are healed.  The Son’s being “lifted up” on the cross has an analogous function.  For John, Jesus’ being “lifted up” is a moment of glory — not of shame or defeat.

13. 3:16-21 is a theological reflection on the mission of the Son, which further develops the theme of what it means that Jesus the Son is “sent” from God.  The principle that Jesus reveals God has already been introduced (3:13).  Now it is deepened in 3:16.  The Son reveals the Father’s love for his alienated creation and, in fact, is the Father’s love.  This is an exact parallel to Romans 5:6-11.  The Son is the Father’s authorized agent of judgment, where “judgment” is understood in its Old Testament sense, of both the establishment of the conditions of salvation and the removal of the resistance against God.   The Son’s primary mission is to establish the conditions of salvation and this is what the discussion of being born anothen (3:3) and the lifting up of the bronze serpent (3:14) is driving at.  But the rejection of the Son has consequences — in that those who believe in the Son (and thus accept the conditions of salvation which he brings) are “not condemned” (3:18) but those who reject the Son are “condemned already” (3:18).  To not accept the first part of the Son’s mission is to place oneself in resistance against God and thus to face the second part of the Son’s mission.  God’s judgment is not based on arbitrary criteria but on whether a person has welcomed his own saving work in the Son and the Spirit.  To reject this is, by definition, to reject God’s salvation and to come under judgment.  As 3:19-21 makes clear, with respect to God’s own work in the Son and the Spirit, there is no room for neutrality; one either enters the light or draws back from it into darkness.

Leave a comment

Filed under Interpretation of Scripture, The Gospel of John

October 12, 2012 · 2:35 pm

Hymnody: “Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence”

 

Dear Readers, 

The study of Theology always begins and ends with Doxology.  And a Hymn is Theology, set to music.

Study, memorize, and sing hymns that are rich in Theology:  hymns that are solid, historic, orthodox,  ancient, classical, and Trinitarian.

This is a delightful way to engage in both Theology and Doxology.

Below I have provided two versions of a theologically-rich hymn, “Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence.”

 

Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence

“This powerful Eucharistic hymn, so full of awe and mystery, is taken from one of the early liturgies of the Greek Orthodox Church.  The verses are based on a part of the Liturgy of St. James, which dates from the fourth century and is found in both Greek and Syriac .

The whole liturgy was first translated into English, by J. M. Neale and R. F. Littledale, and published in their Primitive Liturgies [1868-9].  Shortly after the books’ publication, the Reverend Gerard Moultrie [1829-85] versified a section entitled Prayer of the Cherubic Hymn, to form this hymn.  Moultrie was successively Chaplain of Shrewsbury School, Vicar of South Leigh, and Warden of St. James’ College, also in South Leigh.  He was responsible for several translations of hymns, as well as a number of his own compositions.

It is Moutlrie’s translation which appears [above] and which is found in most Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Presbyterian hymnals.”

~~~From The Book of Hymns, Ian Bradley

 

Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence:  Version One

French Carol Melody, Picardy; Liturgy of St. James, Translated by G. Moutlrie

Let all mortal flesh keep silence,

And with fear and trembling stand;

Ponder nothing earthly-minded,

For with blessing in His hand,

Christ our God to earth descendeth,

Our full homage to demand.

 

King of kings, yet born of Mary,

As of old on earth He stood,

Lord of Lords, in human vesture –

In the Body and the Blood –

He will give to all the faithful

His own Self for heavenly food.

 

Rank on rank, the host of heaven

Spreads its vanguard on the way,

As the Light of Light descendeth,

From the realms of endless day,

That the powers of hell may vanish,

As the darkness clears away.

 

At His feet, the six-winged Seraph;

Cherubim with sleepless eye,

Veil their faces to the Presence,

As with ceaseless voice they cry,

“Alleluia!  Alleluia! Alleluia!  Lord most high!”

 

“The text of Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence is . . . taken from the fourth-century Orthodox Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem; Gerard Moultrie’s verse translation was published in 1864, when there was renewed interest in early Christian rites, awakened, doubtless, by the Oxford Movement.  Vaughn Williams included it in The English Hymnal, set to the French carol melody Jésus Christ s’habille en pauvre, an unlikely, but inspired, union.”

~~~From CD and Notes:  Sing, Ye Heavens:  Hymns for All Time:  The Cambridge Singers, Directed by John Rutter, Collegium Records

 

You can listen to the hymn here: Hymnody: “Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence”

 

Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence:  Version Two

Let all mortal flesh keep silence and stand with fear and trembling, and lift itself above all earthly thought.

For the King of kings and Lord of lords, Christ our God, cometh forth to be our oblation and to be given for Food to the faithful.

Before him come the choirs of angels with every principality and power; the Cherubim with many eyes, and winged Seraphim, who veil their faces as they shout exultingly the hymn:  Alleluia. 

From the Liturgy of St. James

~~~E. C. Bairstow, [1874-1946]

“Outwardly, Sir Edward Bairstow typified the English organist-composer of the early twentieth century:  conservative, craftsman-like, gifted with a natural feeling for choral writing, and discriminating in his choice of texts.  From 1913, until his death, he was organist of York Minster, for the spacious acoustic of which building Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence was doubtless conceived. 

Yet this brief anthem, written in 1925, is filled with an awe-inspiring sense of mystery, majesty, and power that is anything but conventional, evoking the solemn liturgical music of Russia, rather than the aura of the English organ loft.  One wonders what Bairstow might have achieved if he had been free to devote himself more fully to composition.”

~~~From CD and Notes:  Images of Christ, The Cambridge Singers, Directed by John Rutter, Collegium Records

Coram Deo,

Margot

Leave a comment

Filed under Hymns

Tagged as , , , , , ,