Here is the next Bible Study Summary. We would love to know if these are helpful - are you using them as a tool to help group Bible Study? For personal study? Do you have any comments or suggestions...? It would be great to get feedback from you.
- Peace, Linda.
As well as the Gospel and letters of John this Bible study uses the book “Written that you may believe: Encountering Jesus in the fourth Gospel” by Sandra M. Schneiders (2003) Crossroad Publishing Co. New York, NY.
Background reading to study #8 Written that you may believe chapter 8.
The Gospel of John #8 – Feminism in John 06/10/10
Women are important figures in John’s Gospel. While there have been many oppressed groups, women within these groups have been an even more oppressed minority. The Bible has both condoned this oppression and spoken out against it. The Bible makes an option for the poor and oppressed, and in so doing gives oppressed peoples a voice. But the text itself is pervasively androcentric and patriarchal, frequently sexist and at times even misogynist. In many ways it has been responsible for serious oppression of women (think the blaming of Eve). This has led some feminist scholars to declare the text irredeemable.
The meaning of the Biblical text is constrained by the ideology of those interpreting it. Everyone has an ideology and until recently all Biblical scholars were predominantly men and leaders of patriarchal churches. A characteristic of ideology is that it is invisible to those propagating it. Women have an advantage (paradoxical) because they can see the way interpretation works oppressively and can be freed up for other understandings. They are in a unique position to rescue the text. For example: identifying texts with liberating potential such as Martha sitting at the feet of Jesus – a technical phrase implying discipleship.
In John 4:1-42 we have the story of the Samaritan woman at the well. A traditional, superficial reading portrays a somewhat flighty, promiscuous woman who has had five husbands strangely in conversation with Jesus. A more careful exploration of the text would lead us to the realization that it is improbable that a woman at that time would have out-lived 5 husbands. (With childbirth mortality the reverse would have been more likely.) Another meaning for these five relationships should be sought….
The Samaritans were close to the Jews, but were considered heretical. They were neither racially nor culturally pure. 2 Kings 17:24-34 tells of the introduction of peoples to the kingdom of northern Israel after its destruction by Assyria. The Israelites had been deported and other displaced peoples settled in their place. These imported peoples came from five different nations. The Assyrian king sent a Jewish priest back so that the Jewish God would be honored and look favorably on the foreign immigrants, but the new settlers continued also to worship their own gods. The Samaritans therefore were a mixed race who recognized the Jewish faith, but who had according to the Judeans polluted this faith with that of the gods of five other nations. When Jesus speaks of husbands he is talking as a prophet. For the biblical tradition the Lord was the husband of the people, the bridegroom of Hosea and Jeremiah, and by implication other gods are adulterous husbands. The woman at the well understands that he is talking in this vein about the Samaritan faith (not her personal life): “Sir, I see that you are a prophet”.
She continues the conversation “Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem”. Jesus replies by saying that the Samaritans worship what they do not know, the Jews what they do know. The Jews have the true relationship, the one that leads to a true knowledge. Jesus goes on to say that true worship is not linked to a place, but takes place in spirit and truth. The Samaritan woman begins to relate to this. “I know the Messiah is coming…he will proclaim all things to us”. Jesus answers “I am he” – the first time in the Gospel he has used the divine “I am”. She is the first person to receive the full revelation of Christ in the Gospel. She leaves her water jar (like the disciples leaving their nets) and becomes the initiator of the mission to the Samaritans. She goes to the town and says in v. 29 “Is he not the Christ?”- i.e. a rhetorical assertion and invitation. This is the original Greek – a more positive reading than the NRSV translation: “he cannot be the Messiah, can he?” The latter makes her sound more ditzy, less assured. Our reading shows how this woman has been undermined by both poor translation and a misunderstanding of the meaning of the text.
When the disciples return their uneasiness reflects the concern of the emerging male hierarchy at the stage when the gospel was being written. That Jesus should be in theological conversation with an unmarried woman is shocking. The woman is arguing and thinking like a rabbi, or at least a rabbi’s student – like Mary of Bethany sitting at the feet of Jesus. She is also a woman who adopts the role of apostle, carrying the gospel to a community that has not heard it before. In contrast the story is placed in John’s Gospel after the story of a man, Nicodemus – who does not present well in comparison.
It is not clear whether this was an historical event. It is an archetypal biblical story – the meeting between a man and a woman at a well. Isaac, Jacob and Moses all had such meetings at wells. Wells were places where women and men could meet without comment. They were places where wooing took place. In the Johannine story Jesus meets the woman at the most famous of all wells – Jacob’s well. Jesus is depicted as the true bridegroom. He comes to claim Samaria. He reaches out to embrace all those on the outside – Samaritans and women.
The story may be a literary device that validates the influence of newly converted Samaritans in the Johannine community. After Stephen was killed in Jerusalem many Christians left Jerusalem. Some of these started a mission in Samaria. They were Hellenistic converts and did not demand circumcision or conform to the Jewish dietary laws. This story reflects the spreading of the gospel in Samaria. The woman also may have been a literary creation representing generic “woman” – as is found elsewhere in the Gospel.
That a story that presents women so positively was written at all indicates the highly respected status of women in the Johannine community. It implies that women were accepted in roles of leadership and authority.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
An ex-priest deceased, a dog that died, and the Holy Trinity
I’ve been reading proofs, doing conferences and road trips, and dealing with home remodeling. Thinking gets too much like all the blown dust on all the various surfaces to want to gather it in any kind of a blog. However, there is something besides thought, isn’t there, and somehow in the past week or so I have felt it quite strongly. There is something called contemplation. It is a big word, but I find it preferable to meditation because meditation is something you do; contemplation is something that happens to you.
How then to write about something that is passive, something that happens when you actually stop doing things? Well, relationship is one way. I have felt the power of certain relationships.
With the conferences and connections of these past several weeks I have become very aware that there is a circuit which for me makes up a sense of the Spirit’s transforming presence. It consists (though not exclusively) of organizations like Wood Hath Hope, and Theology and Peace (http://www.theologyandpeace.org/), and the Colloquium on Violence and Religion (http://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/cover/ ), and numerous significant individuals scattered through and around all of that. I’m not saying this circuit is ideal in any way (a kind of true church), nor that it couldn’t shift or change, nor that there are no others like it, but that for me in the concrete it was a kind of fuzzy or shadow image of the circuit in God which we call the Trinity. Whoa! I can almost hear it being said. Right there seems like a huge claim. But why should it be so outlandish? Jesus said, “Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect” and he did not mean this in any airy-fairy, holier-than-thou kind of way, but one absolutely concrete and real. What he meant was that his followers would become part of the circle of absolute giving and living which he experienced from his Father and was teaching to the rest of us.
A possible translation or paraphrase of “perfect” is “one who has reached the end or goal.” What it means for Jesus, however, is paradoxical. It means that the end or goal of the Father is the beginning of another in love. Jesus experiences the Father as pouring himself out completely for him and for the world. And then anyone who imitates the Father reaches his or her goal or end by giving himself/herself reciprocally for the sake of, for the beginning of the other. Jesus of course does this first and supremely, and then putting the Spirit into the picture creates an endless circle of giving between a threesome. This becomes the meaning of Trinity, where each for ever allows the other to receive the boundless life arising from the first giving. When we begin to imitate the Father and Jesus the circuit becomes a foursome, with the fourth member made up of millions and millions of individuals or sub-circuits replaying the life of the original circuit. Each individual or small human circuit imitates the Trinity, with one individual or group continuing the love of the one before and giving his/her/their life for the next, and so on, on and on! The circuit creates a circle full of ends which are always beginnings, and so is wonderfully end-less!
Just sensing this circuit, at any level, is an event of contemplation.
But, of course, this sense can easily disappear. It only takes something to go wrong, for someone to have a difference of opinion and begin to reciprocate with anger or negation, and the experience of the end-less circle of the Trinity disappears like morning mist. And we are left as always with the harsh glare of a violent world order.
So, again, how to communicate this strong sense of contemplation, to say that it’s really real, so you can feel it and overcome the world?
This week in Syracuse I experienced two deaths both of which touched me personally. The first was a former R.C. priest, a well-known and well-loved married and family man, social advocate, peace activist, ex-director of a L’Arche house, and all round good guy. Frank was gentle and thoughtful, someone who modeled nonviolence and, more than anyone I know, evinced the Spirit-given compatibility of priesthood and marriage. There were hundreds and hundreds at the calling hours; it took for ever for the crowd slowly to snake round to greet his widow. And the other death? Well, it was that of a German Shepherd dog called Ginger. I knew this dog through her owner whom I often met while walking my own dog, Sofia. This man loved his dog, caring for her through multiple health problems, spending thousands if not tens of thousands on treatments and operations. I did a little private calling hour with this man stopping my car by his house where so often before he had hung out in his yard with his dog. I listened to the story of Ginger’s final days and felt the connection for him when he said his dog was “one in ten mil.”
There’s no way the significance of the dog’s life can be measured against Frank’s. Frank will be remembered by history, Ginger will not. Frank impacted many thousands of people, on moral and philosophical issues of human dignity, destiny, God, war, peace etc. The dog impacted only one life, and in that basically nonconceptual way in which we relate to dogs and cats etc. She was a dumb animal. But Ginger was intensely meaningful to her owner, and when it comes to that kind of meaning in the human heart, you can’t really make a hierarchy between the meaning that Frank represented for his community and the meaning that Ginger had for her owner. This kind of meaning is an imponderable mix, of love, companionship, present peace, proximity, hope, pleasure. Between these cases, Frank’s and Gingers’s, therefore, there is an undeniable continuum, of human meaning, truth, of reality, and as I connected with this meaning in both these cases I entered a kind of field of contemplation, a place where I shared these deep sensations.
Ah, that then is perhaps a way of describing it! The senses that arise when through love we feel a life poured forth in love, and it fills us with more love, and with associated peace, compassion, gentleness, hope. Contemplation is a Trinity moment, one that is always seeking to take over the whole world.
By making the meaning of contemplation continuous with the meaning of a human life, the meaning of a dog’s life, we see how completely real it is. Christians too often see contemplation as something that touches on a separate realm of existence, heavenly, out of this world. No, it touches this world, and in the most truly meaningful way.
What would it be like if Christians lived in a continual state of Trinity contemplation, of deep transformative meaning, in the same way that Ginger’s owner lived and lives in emotions related to his dog, and Frank’s friends and admirers live in relation to the emotions he invokes? What would it be like, if prayer and its inner sense were to be that real?
Tony
How then to write about something that is passive, something that happens when you actually stop doing things? Well, relationship is one way. I have felt the power of certain relationships.
With the conferences and connections of these past several weeks I have become very aware that there is a circuit which for me makes up a sense of the Spirit’s transforming presence. It consists (though not exclusively) of organizations like Wood Hath Hope, and Theology and Peace (http://www.theologyandpeace.org/), and the Colloquium on Violence and Religion (http://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/cover/ ), and numerous significant individuals scattered through and around all of that. I’m not saying this circuit is ideal in any way (a kind of true church), nor that it couldn’t shift or change, nor that there are no others like it, but that for me in the concrete it was a kind of fuzzy or shadow image of the circuit in God which we call the Trinity. Whoa! I can almost hear it being said. Right there seems like a huge claim. But why should it be so outlandish? Jesus said, “Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect” and he did not mean this in any airy-fairy, holier-than-thou kind of way, but one absolutely concrete and real. What he meant was that his followers would become part of the circle of absolute giving and living which he experienced from his Father and was teaching to the rest of us.
A possible translation or paraphrase of “perfect” is “one who has reached the end or goal.” What it means for Jesus, however, is paradoxical. It means that the end or goal of the Father is the beginning of another in love. Jesus experiences the Father as pouring himself out completely for him and for the world. And then anyone who imitates the Father reaches his or her goal or end by giving himself/herself reciprocally for the sake of, for the beginning of the other. Jesus of course does this first and supremely, and then putting the Spirit into the picture creates an endless circle of giving between a threesome. This becomes the meaning of Trinity, where each for ever allows the other to receive the boundless life arising from the first giving. When we begin to imitate the Father and Jesus the circuit becomes a foursome, with the fourth member made up of millions and millions of individuals or sub-circuits replaying the life of the original circuit. Each individual or small human circuit imitates the Trinity, with one individual or group continuing the love of the one before and giving his/her/their life for the next, and so on, on and on! The circuit creates a circle full of ends which are always beginnings, and so is wonderfully end-less!
Just sensing this circuit, at any level, is an event of contemplation.
But, of course, this sense can easily disappear. It only takes something to go wrong, for someone to have a difference of opinion and begin to reciprocate with anger or negation, and the experience of the end-less circle of the Trinity disappears like morning mist. And we are left as always with the harsh glare of a violent world order.
So, again, how to communicate this strong sense of contemplation, to say that it’s really real, so you can feel it and overcome the world?
This week in Syracuse I experienced two deaths both of which touched me personally. The first was a former R.C. priest, a well-known and well-loved married and family man, social advocate, peace activist, ex-director of a L’Arche house, and all round good guy. Frank was gentle and thoughtful, someone who modeled nonviolence and, more than anyone I know, evinced the Spirit-given compatibility of priesthood and marriage. There were hundreds and hundreds at the calling hours; it took for ever for the crowd slowly to snake round to greet his widow. And the other death? Well, it was that of a German Shepherd dog called Ginger. I knew this dog through her owner whom I often met while walking my own dog, Sofia. This man loved his dog, caring for her through multiple health problems, spending thousands if not tens of thousands on treatments and operations. I did a little private calling hour with this man stopping my car by his house where so often before he had hung out in his yard with his dog. I listened to the story of Ginger’s final days and felt the connection for him when he said his dog was “one in ten mil.”
There’s no way the significance of the dog’s life can be measured against Frank’s. Frank will be remembered by history, Ginger will not. Frank impacted many thousands of people, on moral and philosophical issues of human dignity, destiny, God, war, peace etc. The dog impacted only one life, and in that basically nonconceptual way in which we relate to dogs and cats etc. She was a dumb animal. But Ginger was intensely meaningful to her owner, and when it comes to that kind of meaning in the human heart, you can’t really make a hierarchy between the meaning that Frank represented for his community and the meaning that Ginger had for her owner. This kind of meaning is an imponderable mix, of love, companionship, present peace, proximity, hope, pleasure. Between these cases, Frank’s and Gingers’s, therefore, there is an undeniable continuum, of human meaning, truth, of reality, and as I connected with this meaning in both these cases I entered a kind of field of contemplation, a place where I shared these deep sensations.
Ah, that then is perhaps a way of describing it! The senses that arise when through love we feel a life poured forth in love, and it fills us with more love, and with associated peace, compassion, gentleness, hope. Contemplation is a Trinity moment, one that is always seeking to take over the whole world.
By making the meaning of contemplation continuous with the meaning of a human life, the meaning of a dog’s life, we see how completely real it is. Christians too often see contemplation as something that touches on a separate realm of existence, heavenly, out of this world. No, it touches this world, and in the most truly meaningful way.
What would it be like if Christians lived in a continual state of Trinity contemplation, of deep transformative meaning, in the same way that Ginger’s owner lived and lives in emotions related to his dog, and Frank’s friends and admirers live in relation to the emotions he invokes? What would it be like, if prayer and its inner sense were to be that real?
Tony
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
John #7
As well as the Gospel and letters of John this Bible study uses the book “Written that you may believe: Encountering Jesus in the fourth Gospel” by Sandra M. Schneiders (2003) Crossroad Publishing Co. New York, NY.
Background reading to study #7- Written that you may believe chapter 7.
The Gospel of John #7 – Being born again 06/03/10
The story of Nicodemus visiting Jesus by night is found in Jn3:1-16. It is a classic example of Johannine irony. It is so evident that Nicodemus doesn’t get it. He thinks in terms of re-entering the mother’s womb when Jesus is trying to get him to see a completely different level of meaning. This same surface reading occurs in the parallel story of the woman at the well in Samaria: “You have no bucket and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water?”
Nicodemus is a representative figure – i.e. someone who does not see, one searching for understanding, but not willing to go the whole way. He is described as a person of some prestige – a Pharisee. In Jn 3:19-20 Jesus says “The light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed.” This does not reflect well on Nicodemus who visits Jesus by night. There is a hint here that he was not living in the light. Coming to Jesus in the dark illustrates the lack of clarity in his understanding.
All the while Nicodemus recognizes Jesus as a teacher – the conversation is at the level of teacher to teacher. He is drawn to Jesus because of the signs that Jesus has done which he believes show God is with him. Yet he cannot make the radical shift necessary.
In v.3 Jesus says that to see the kingdom of God one needs to be “born again”. An equally possible translation is “born form above” – but the born again or “anew” is closer to the dramatic sense. The meaning is to start over, start again from the beginning or from the top (like a piece of music). Being “born again” is close – but is a heavily loaded phrase in our culture today. It has associations of judgment, fundamentalism, legalism, elitism, shallowness, narrowness and violence.
To try to understand what Jesus was saying we have to understand his words without the meaning that has been loaded upon them. So what was Jesus’ intention? Birth is the major human event. Being born again is to start over again in a big way. It is as momentous as birth.
Jesus says in v. 5 that we need to be born of water and spirit. Traditionally this has been interpreted in terms of baptism -the water of baptism being associated with being made clean or being put right with God.
For John’s Jewish audience water and spirit would have brought to mind the creation story – when the earth was a formless void and the Spirit hovered over the water. The Spirit stirred up the water and life was created. In John chapter 3, Jesus is calling for a second, new creation, a total transformation. This is what baptism symbolizes – not a legal making right with God.
Water is the primordial element of life. We come forth from the waters of our mother’s womb. In Jewish thought God’s Spirit gives life to the flesh. Here flesh is understood as the general human reality that we will ultimately die when God’s spirit or breath leaves it. Thus the Spirit blows where it will. You cannot know where it comes from or where it is going. It cannot be grasped intellectually within the present scheme. Trying to nail it down leads to legalism. It is unanticipated, uncontrollable and inexplicable. To be born of water and the Spirit means to let go of all the old constructs. The human transformation that Jesus is calling for is of our whole human reality.
Nicodemus shows up two more times in the Gospel.
In Jn 7:45 the temple police fail to arrest Jesus. When questioned by the chief priests and Pharisees they answer that “Never has anyone spoken like this”. They are accused of being taken in by Jesus. Nicodemus, who is identified as one of the leaders of the Pharisees, tries to defend Jesus using the Law. He is portrayed as a figure of the good religious person but who cannot commit. He wants to fit Jesus into the known, to make him acceptable. But the Spirit cannot be controlled and Jesus will go to his fate in a struggle against all established forms.
Nicodemus’ final appearance is after the crucifixion. In 19:38-42 he brings myrrh and aloes to anoint Jesus body. He is not identified as a disciple like Joseph of Arimithea. Again his nocturnal visit to Jesus is mentioned, suggesting that Nicodemus is still in darkness. The expensive ointments he provides are evidence of his wealth. John’s Gospel has another account of anointing in 12:1-8 when Mary of Bethany anoints Jesus’ feet. Here Mary assumes the prophetic role, anointing Jesus as Messiah.(The text adds that Jesus said she should keep the ointment for his burial, but then she is not mentioned in the subsequent anointing; and she has brought one pound while Nicodemus brings one hundred!) She stands in contrast to Nicodemus who does the religious thing – ritualizing death, creating shrines. He waits for Jesus to be safely dead then gives him glory. Religion is all about dead things – what happens to you when you are dead and rituals of death. People want the dead to be in a good place. Death is not an issue for Jesus – “let the dead bury the dead”. The time for transformation is now. Being born again is not about the hereafter. It is about the here and now. Mary anoints Jesus in the living present.
Background reading to study #7- Written that you may believe chapter 7.
The Gospel of John #7 – Being born again 06/03/10
The story of Nicodemus visiting Jesus by night is found in Jn3:1-16. It is a classic example of Johannine irony. It is so evident that Nicodemus doesn’t get it. He thinks in terms of re-entering the mother’s womb when Jesus is trying to get him to see a completely different level of meaning. This same surface reading occurs in the parallel story of the woman at the well in Samaria: “You have no bucket and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water?”
Nicodemus is a representative figure – i.e. someone who does not see, one searching for understanding, but not willing to go the whole way. He is described as a person of some prestige – a Pharisee. In Jn 3:19-20 Jesus says “The light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed.” This does not reflect well on Nicodemus who visits Jesus by night. There is a hint here that he was not living in the light. Coming to Jesus in the dark illustrates the lack of clarity in his understanding.
All the while Nicodemus recognizes Jesus as a teacher – the conversation is at the level of teacher to teacher. He is drawn to Jesus because of the signs that Jesus has done which he believes show God is with him. Yet he cannot make the radical shift necessary.
In v.3 Jesus says that to see the kingdom of God one needs to be “born again”. An equally possible translation is “born form above” – but the born again or “anew” is closer to the dramatic sense. The meaning is to start over, start again from the beginning or from the top (like a piece of music). Being “born again” is close – but is a heavily loaded phrase in our culture today. It has associations of judgment, fundamentalism, legalism, elitism, shallowness, narrowness and violence.
To try to understand what Jesus was saying we have to understand his words without the meaning that has been loaded upon them. So what was Jesus’ intention? Birth is the major human event. Being born again is to start over again in a big way. It is as momentous as birth.
Jesus says in v. 5 that we need to be born of water and spirit. Traditionally this has been interpreted in terms of baptism -the water of baptism being associated with being made clean or being put right with God.
For John’s Jewish audience water and spirit would have brought to mind the creation story – when the earth was a formless void and the Spirit hovered over the water. The Spirit stirred up the water and life was created. In John chapter 3, Jesus is calling for a second, new creation, a total transformation. This is what baptism symbolizes – not a legal making right with God.
Water is the primordial element of life. We come forth from the waters of our mother’s womb. In Jewish thought God’s Spirit gives life to the flesh. Here flesh is understood as the general human reality that we will ultimately die when God’s spirit or breath leaves it. Thus the Spirit blows where it will. You cannot know where it comes from or where it is going. It cannot be grasped intellectually within the present scheme. Trying to nail it down leads to legalism. It is unanticipated, uncontrollable and inexplicable. To be born of water and the Spirit means to let go of all the old constructs. The human transformation that Jesus is calling for is of our whole human reality.
Nicodemus shows up two more times in the Gospel.
In Jn 7:45 the temple police fail to arrest Jesus. When questioned by the chief priests and Pharisees they answer that “Never has anyone spoken like this”. They are accused of being taken in by Jesus. Nicodemus, who is identified as one of the leaders of the Pharisees, tries to defend Jesus using the Law. He is portrayed as a figure of the good religious person but who cannot commit. He wants to fit Jesus into the known, to make him acceptable. But the Spirit cannot be controlled and Jesus will go to his fate in a struggle against all established forms.
Nicodemus’ final appearance is after the crucifixion. In 19:38-42 he brings myrrh and aloes to anoint Jesus body. He is not identified as a disciple like Joseph of Arimithea. Again his nocturnal visit to Jesus is mentioned, suggesting that Nicodemus is still in darkness. The expensive ointments he provides are evidence of his wealth. John’s Gospel has another account of anointing in 12:1-8 when Mary of Bethany anoints Jesus’ feet. Here Mary assumes the prophetic role, anointing Jesus as Messiah.(The text adds that Jesus said she should keep the ointment for his burial, but then she is not mentioned in the subsequent anointing; and she has brought one pound while Nicodemus brings one hundred!) She stands in contrast to Nicodemus who does the religious thing – ritualizing death, creating shrines. He waits for Jesus to be safely dead then gives him glory. Religion is all about dead things – what happens to you when you are dead and rituals of death. People want the dead to be in a good place. Death is not an issue for Jesus – “let the dead bury the dead”. The time for transformation is now. Being born again is not about the hereafter. It is about the here and now. Mary anoints Jesus in the living present.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Gusher in the Gulf
I’m thinking there’s a metaphor here, and a many-sided one. Oil is spewing forth and nothing can really stop it. It’s too deep, too pressurized, too violent. The whole six hundred thousand square miles of sun-kissed Gulf is under threat and with that the Atlantic coast and who knows what else. Our human world is suffering a man-made eruption of subterranean filth into the biosphere, and it becomes an instant image of the upwelling of violent human desire into the human world, happening on an unprecedented scale, and no one can do anything to stop it.
When I first heard about the BP drilling catastrophe I was struck by the given name of the rig where it literally all went down: Deepwater Horizon. Down there, five thousand feet down, that was their horizon, that’s where their vision was. Most people don’t look anywhere near that deep, but BP did, Haliburton did. They’re tapping into the abyss, the place where in biblical cosmology monsters dwell and now those monsters are marching upward and onward toward the land, just like the book of Daniel saw it. These giant companies are driven by ruthless ambition and lust for profit and they are mobilizing forces of catastrophic proportions. But their abyssal vision after all is only a concentration and a focus of something we all share unconsciously, and across the whole face of the earth. It is the thing inside all of us that pushed them progressively to deeper and deeper levels of sea and land. They couldn’t have done what they did unless they were urged along by the universal human demand for objects of desire welling up from our collective human depths. BP didn’t make the gusher. We did.
But this terrible truth, while crucial, is not the final term of the metaphor. The amazing thing about the gospels is that there is nothing about the way human beings work which cannot be redeemed, and in fact already has. Jesus said the sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah: that is, of the prophet who was swallowed by a monster of the deep, and then that very same monster spewed him forth on the land as a prophetic sign of a final end to violence and killing in Nineveh—in other words a striking prophetic vision of conversion and resurrection. In the meantime, yes, after two thousand years of Christianity, human culture has gotten hold of a derivative and destructive notion of life freed from all restraints. Westerners have taken the shell of Christianity and made an ideology of limitless freedom exemplified by the once-macho-now-pathetic mantra of “Drill, baby, drill!” They took the demythologizing force of the cross—freeing the world from fear of all gods and monsters—and made it a divinely-given right to drill and grab, steal and deal, shoot and bomb as and when they wanted. They took the mother-of-pearl shell but discarded the wondrous oyster within, the truth of infinite self-giving love. And now all the oysters are dying.
And yet it is not too late. We are now fully in apocalyptic times and apocalyptic thinking and choices are required. Deeper than the gusher of desire lies the gusher of grace.The flood of oleaginous desire covering the earth could not be there unless the living water of grace had set it in motion in the first place. We have much preferred the murky pleasures of oil to the transparency of water, but now we are being brought to see that the first leads to death and is after all only a dumb short-circuiting of the second. It is in fact only a very short human journey, a simple anthropological twist, to bring us from outrageous desire to outlandish love. The deep source is the same—the infinite self-giving of Christ. In the deepest sense it is not we who made the gusher, Christ did, but a choice is built in to that distinction. It is a matter of going that little bit deeper to encounter the bottomless well of love at the core of all contemporary desire.
This short journey also demands what seems like a death-defying leap. It seems like everything that is meaningful for us, everything pleasurable, is going to die. But now—and here’s the really apocalyptic part—all the images on T.V. and internet tell us that it is dying anyway. All humanity has to do is understand the true character of its situation, understand that the real gusher in the gulf is the Jesus who was Jonah, the one who humanized all monsters, and in every sense. Jesus is the one who changed the co-ordinates of being human, making it possible to release the well-spring of human desire so that it one day have the true possibility of becoming the living fountain of love.
Sound like a tall order? Just turn the T.V. back on and check out the choices we have left. And in the meantime as Christians it’s really not our business to second-guess what the rest of humanity will do. The one thing required of us is to be completely faithful to the sign of Jesus in our times, the deepwater horizon of our world.
Tony
When I first heard about the BP drilling catastrophe I was struck by the given name of the rig where it literally all went down: Deepwater Horizon. Down there, five thousand feet down, that was their horizon, that’s where their vision was. Most people don’t look anywhere near that deep, but BP did, Haliburton did. They’re tapping into the abyss, the place where in biblical cosmology monsters dwell and now those monsters are marching upward and onward toward the land, just like the book of Daniel saw it. These giant companies are driven by ruthless ambition and lust for profit and they are mobilizing forces of catastrophic proportions. But their abyssal vision after all is only a concentration and a focus of something we all share unconsciously, and across the whole face of the earth. It is the thing inside all of us that pushed them progressively to deeper and deeper levels of sea and land. They couldn’t have done what they did unless they were urged along by the universal human demand for objects of desire welling up from our collective human depths. BP didn’t make the gusher. We did.
But this terrible truth, while crucial, is not the final term of the metaphor. The amazing thing about the gospels is that there is nothing about the way human beings work which cannot be redeemed, and in fact already has. Jesus said the sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah: that is, of the prophet who was swallowed by a monster of the deep, and then that very same monster spewed him forth on the land as a prophetic sign of a final end to violence and killing in Nineveh—in other words a striking prophetic vision of conversion and resurrection. In the meantime, yes, after two thousand years of Christianity, human culture has gotten hold of a derivative and destructive notion of life freed from all restraints. Westerners have taken the shell of Christianity and made an ideology of limitless freedom exemplified by the once-macho-now-pathetic mantra of “Drill, baby, drill!” They took the demythologizing force of the cross—freeing the world from fear of all gods and monsters—and made it a divinely-given right to drill and grab, steal and deal, shoot and bomb as and when they wanted. They took the mother-of-pearl shell but discarded the wondrous oyster within, the truth of infinite self-giving love. And now all the oysters are dying.
And yet it is not too late. We are now fully in apocalyptic times and apocalyptic thinking and choices are required. Deeper than the gusher of desire lies the gusher of grace.The flood of oleaginous desire covering the earth could not be there unless the living water of grace had set it in motion in the first place. We have much preferred the murky pleasures of oil to the transparency of water, but now we are being brought to see that the first leads to death and is after all only a dumb short-circuiting of the second. It is in fact only a very short human journey, a simple anthropological twist, to bring us from outrageous desire to outlandish love. The deep source is the same—the infinite self-giving of Christ. In the deepest sense it is not we who made the gusher, Christ did, but a choice is built in to that distinction. It is a matter of going that little bit deeper to encounter the bottomless well of love at the core of all contemporary desire.
This short journey also demands what seems like a death-defying leap. It seems like everything that is meaningful for us, everything pleasurable, is going to die. But now—and here’s the really apocalyptic part—all the images on T.V. and internet tell us that it is dying anyway. All humanity has to do is understand the true character of its situation, understand that the real gusher in the gulf is the Jesus who was Jonah, the one who humanized all monsters, and in every sense. Jesus is the one who changed the co-ordinates of being human, making it possible to release the well-spring of human desire so that it one day have the true possibility of becoming the living fountain of love.
Sound like a tall order? Just turn the T.V. back on and check out the choices we have left. And in the meantime as Christians it’s really not our business to second-guess what the rest of humanity will do. The one thing required of us is to be completely faithful to the sign of Jesus in our times, the deepwater horizon of our world.
Tony
Thursday, June 3, 2010
John #6
As well as the Gospel and letters of John this Bible study uses the book “Written that you may believe: Encountering Jesus in the fourth Gospel” by Sandra M. Schneiders (2003) Crossroad Publishing Co. New York, NY.
Background reading to study #6- Written that you may believe chapter 5.
John and Commitment - 05/20/10
Commitment is a key theme in John, one that is linked to the early church’s relationship to “the Jews”. In this Gospel there is the most tension between the emerging faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God and traditional Judaism. Judaism was beginning to define itself over and against this emerging faith. The gospel message had already moved into the Gentile world –apparent in the Synoptics, where the Jewish question is present but not as intense. In many ways they had already moved beyond this, focusing instead on the Greek and Roman world. In John, however, it remains a central question – and there is great pain in it.
Unlike the Synoptics and most of the Pauline works, the Jews are called “the Jews” rather than the more specific “chief priests”, “scribes”, or “people of Jerusalem”. Rather the whole body of the Jews is named. In our contemporary world this is very controversial. John’s Gospel, more than any other Biblical text, has led to claims anti-Semitism. There have even been calls to delete these passages in the text.
Schneider argues that John’s reference to “the Jews” is only to the chief priests and Jewish leaders. It is hard to make this claim from the text however. Judaism in Jesus’ time was a pluralist movement made up of many different sects. Among these were the Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees and the early Christians in Jerusalem who originally attended temple - Messianic Jews. As the years went by opposition between Jews and Christians became more definite. It became even more emphatic after the destruction of Jerusalem following the Jewish rebellion (66-70 AD) when over a million Jews lost their lives. The Christians were making enormous claims about Jesus. He substituted for everything of importance to the Jews – Law, Temple, Land. As this became increasingly obvious Christians were forced out of the Synagogues. At the turn of the century there was a parting of the ways.
In John the person of Jesus is central to everything. He came from Judaism, yet the Jewish community rejected his message. “The Jews” in John refers to the body of people who are denying these Christian claims. It does not refer to a particular subset. In some ways Christianity created the current Western definition of “Jews” (i.e. the ones who are not Christians). The tension develops out of the emergence of Christianity. Christians and Jews have become like warring siblings. They cannot get away from each other, are in fact dependent on each other, because they are defined by each other. This is part of the sorrow and the trial of Christianity and Judaism. Contemporary pluralism tries to gloss over this--and is valid as far as it goes--but root tensions remain.
More than any other writing it is the gospel of John which launches this drama into the world. In John’s Gospel Jesus did not intend to set up something separate from Judaism – all Jews were called to follow Jesus. Many did not choose to do this. Those who refused Jesus were associated in John’s time with the “world”. They became the bad guys. The intensity of the Gospel leaves no room for middle ground. Being a true Israelite for John was not a matter of biology, but of faith. John’s Gospel has intensified the violence in Christian history because the text can be (and has been) interpreted in a violent way. John did not intend his gospel to be a manifesto against all subsequent generations of Jews, rather simply a definitive statement of the meaning of Jesus. This tension can only be resolved through complete fidelity to Jesus’ non-violence.
The clearing of the temple is placed at the beginning of John. It is his first public act (whereas in the Synoptics it is his last). John sets the scene by clearing the ground. Humans have always used sacrifice as a way of communicating with God and discharging violence. By clearing the Temple Jesus dismantles this mechanism, breaking the cycle of violence. He points to something new. Placing the clearing of the temple at the beginning of the narrative shows the enormous confidence of John. If you get rid of the temple then Jesus can take center stage.
The absolute importance of Jesus, what he means for the world, is made clear in the following passages:
In Jn 5:19-20 there is a visual communication with the Father: “The Son can do nothing on his own, only what he sees the Father doing”.
Jn6:42-45 “No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father”. Any relationship with Jesus is initiated by the act of the Father. The Father moves directly to put you in relationship to Jesus. The initiative is with the Father.
Jn 7:16 “My teaching is not mine but his who sent me”. The validity of Jesus’ teaching will be evident to all who seek to do the will of God.
Jn 7:27-29 “I know him because I am from him and he sent me”. There is a direct link between Jesus and the Father.
Jn 8: 29 “I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me”. This shows a great intimacy, a unity of heart between Jesus and the Father. There is an intimacy and communion between the two. Jesus is “close to the Father’s heart”,(Jn1:18).
This language can sound metaphysical but this intimacy is always in connection to Jesus being “raised up” – his crucifixion and pouring himself out as breath and Spirit. His equality with the Father is only in this context.
This is illustrated after in the Gospel. As the crucifixion draws nearer, the initiative shifts from the Father to the Son. In Jn 14:6-7 Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No-one can come to the Father except thru’ the Son. By knowing Jesus you know the Father.
In Jn 14:9 whoever has seen Jesus has seen the Father and in Jn15:23 whoever hates Jesus hates the Father. In Jn 16:15 “All that the Father has is mine”. And in v.23 “If you ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you”. These passages build up the privileged relationship between Jesus and the Father. This relationship is often understood ontologically (an essentialist understanding). The Father and Son are of the same “substance” (Greek “homoousios”). Later the Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, would be included. It becomes an intellectual doctrine to explain three persons, one God.
The oneness that Jesus had with the Father is better understood anthropologically as resulting from a relationship without violence (without denying a final ontological truth—although intellectually this remains mysterious). There was no violence between them, only confidence, intimacy and peace. With everyone else some violence exists within the God relationship – a suspicion that God cannot love us absolutely. God is used against people. People fear God. Our relationship with God is implicated in violence. It is the relationship that Jesus had with the Father that enabled him to do what he did and is at the heart of John’s description of Jesus.
So the call to commitment in John is to jettison the old ways, the ancient traditions, in favor of this new relationship. It is this decision that the “Jews” were being asked to make. The price of this choice was religious rejection and persecution and having to leave behind beloved and familiar traditions. For Christians today any commitment that stands in the way of this relationship to Jesus becomes idolatry.
Background reading to study #6- Written that you may believe chapter 5.
John and Commitment - 05/20/10
Commitment is a key theme in John, one that is linked to the early church’s relationship to “the Jews”. In this Gospel there is the most tension between the emerging faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God and traditional Judaism. Judaism was beginning to define itself over and against this emerging faith. The gospel message had already moved into the Gentile world –apparent in the Synoptics, where the Jewish question is present but not as intense. In many ways they had already moved beyond this, focusing instead on the Greek and Roman world. In John, however, it remains a central question – and there is great pain in it.
Unlike the Synoptics and most of the Pauline works, the Jews are called “the Jews” rather than the more specific “chief priests”, “scribes”, or “people of Jerusalem”. Rather the whole body of the Jews is named. In our contemporary world this is very controversial. John’s Gospel, more than any other Biblical text, has led to claims anti-Semitism. There have even been calls to delete these passages in the text.
Schneider argues that John’s reference to “the Jews” is only to the chief priests and Jewish leaders. It is hard to make this claim from the text however. Judaism in Jesus’ time was a pluralist movement made up of many different sects. Among these were the Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees and the early Christians in Jerusalem who originally attended temple - Messianic Jews. As the years went by opposition between Jews and Christians became more definite. It became even more emphatic after the destruction of Jerusalem following the Jewish rebellion (66-70 AD) when over a million Jews lost their lives. The Christians were making enormous claims about Jesus. He substituted for everything of importance to the Jews – Law, Temple, Land. As this became increasingly obvious Christians were forced out of the Synagogues. At the turn of the century there was a parting of the ways.
In John the person of Jesus is central to everything. He came from Judaism, yet the Jewish community rejected his message. “The Jews” in John refers to the body of people who are denying these Christian claims. It does not refer to a particular subset. In some ways Christianity created the current Western definition of “Jews” (i.e. the ones who are not Christians). The tension develops out of the emergence of Christianity. Christians and Jews have become like warring siblings. They cannot get away from each other, are in fact dependent on each other, because they are defined by each other. This is part of the sorrow and the trial of Christianity and Judaism. Contemporary pluralism tries to gloss over this--and is valid as far as it goes--but root tensions remain.
More than any other writing it is the gospel of John which launches this drama into the world. In John’s Gospel Jesus did not intend to set up something separate from Judaism – all Jews were called to follow Jesus. Many did not choose to do this. Those who refused Jesus were associated in John’s time with the “world”. They became the bad guys. The intensity of the Gospel leaves no room for middle ground. Being a true Israelite for John was not a matter of biology, but of faith. John’s Gospel has intensified the violence in Christian history because the text can be (and has been) interpreted in a violent way. John did not intend his gospel to be a manifesto against all subsequent generations of Jews, rather simply a definitive statement of the meaning of Jesus. This tension can only be resolved through complete fidelity to Jesus’ non-violence.
The clearing of the temple is placed at the beginning of John. It is his first public act (whereas in the Synoptics it is his last). John sets the scene by clearing the ground. Humans have always used sacrifice as a way of communicating with God and discharging violence. By clearing the Temple Jesus dismantles this mechanism, breaking the cycle of violence. He points to something new. Placing the clearing of the temple at the beginning of the narrative shows the enormous confidence of John. If you get rid of the temple then Jesus can take center stage.
The absolute importance of Jesus, what he means for the world, is made clear in the following passages:
In Jn 5:19-20 there is a visual communication with the Father: “The Son can do nothing on his own, only what he sees the Father doing”.
Jn6:42-45 “No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father”. Any relationship with Jesus is initiated by the act of the Father. The Father moves directly to put you in relationship to Jesus. The initiative is with the Father.
Jn 7:16 “My teaching is not mine but his who sent me”. The validity of Jesus’ teaching will be evident to all who seek to do the will of God.
Jn 7:27-29 “I know him because I am from him and he sent me”. There is a direct link between Jesus and the Father.
Jn 8: 29 “I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me”. This shows a great intimacy, a unity of heart between Jesus and the Father. There is an intimacy and communion between the two. Jesus is “close to the Father’s heart”,(Jn1:18).
This language can sound metaphysical but this intimacy is always in connection to Jesus being “raised up” – his crucifixion and pouring himself out as breath and Spirit. His equality with the Father is only in this context.
This is illustrated after in the Gospel. As the crucifixion draws nearer, the initiative shifts from the Father to the Son. In Jn 14:6-7 Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No-one can come to the Father except thru’ the Son. By knowing Jesus you know the Father.
In Jn 14:9 whoever has seen Jesus has seen the Father and in Jn15:23 whoever hates Jesus hates the Father. In Jn 16:15 “All that the Father has is mine”. And in v.23 “If you ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you”. These passages build up the privileged relationship between Jesus and the Father. This relationship is often understood ontologically (an essentialist understanding). The Father and Son are of the same “substance” (Greek “homoousios”). Later the Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, would be included. It becomes an intellectual doctrine to explain three persons, one God.
The oneness that Jesus had with the Father is better understood anthropologically as resulting from a relationship without violence (without denying a final ontological truth—although intellectually this remains mysterious). There was no violence between them, only confidence, intimacy and peace. With everyone else some violence exists within the God relationship – a suspicion that God cannot love us absolutely. God is used against people. People fear God. Our relationship with God is implicated in violence. It is the relationship that Jesus had with the Father that enabled him to do what he did and is at the heart of John’s description of Jesus.
So the call to commitment in John is to jettison the old ways, the ancient traditions, in favor of this new relationship. It is this decision that the “Jews” were being asked to make. The price of this choice was religious rejection and persecution and having to leave behind beloved and familiar traditions. For Christians today any commitment that stands in the way of this relationship to Jesus becomes idolatry.
John # 5
As well as the Gospel and letters of John this Bible study uses the book “Written that you may believe: Encountering Jesus in the fourth Gospel” by Sandra M. Schneiders (2003) Crossroad Publishing Co. New York, NY.
Background reading to study #5- Written that you may believe chapter 4.
Symbolism in John 05/13/10
The Synoptic Gospels called Jesus’ miracles works of power, John calls them signs. Signs refer to something, show you something that you didn’t see before. They alert us to the deeper level of meaning in John. John was written later than others and has had a greater chance to reflect deeply on the meaning of Jesus. The author is thinking about how the message will be continued after the death of the primary witnesses. How can the message be preserved? The tools of communication he uses are the Word and Sign.
Today our world is exploding with signs. John’s sense of their importance is very contemporary.
The sign/symbol of water runs thru’ the Gospel – the water transformed into wine, the woman at the well, water and blood pouring from the pierced side of Jesus… Water on an ordinary human level has a powerful impact. It is essential for life. In the Gospel it becomes a means for communicating the teaching of Jesus. For example Jn 7:37-39 “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink…out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water”. Water becomes a symbol of Jesus himself. By taking in Jesus the believer experiences and becomes the source of living water. Water is associated with the Spirit of Jesus that will be fully experienced because of Jesus’ glorious death.
In the Bread of Life discourse (Jn 6:35-58) John uses another symbol. Jesus is the bread that comes down from heaven. John’s gospel does not have the institution of the Eucharist that is so pivitol to other three gospels and also to Paul. In the first part of the discourse (up until v.50) there is nothing about eating his flesh. “Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.” The key thing here is relationship and belief.
At v. 50 the discourse slips in to something else – it talks of eating. Bread as symbol raises the idea of eating and here eating becomes the focus. “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you”. Traditionally these verses have been read literally and been understood in terms of applying to the physical sacrament of the Eucharist. From this understanding emerged the doctrine of transubstantiation in the 13th century. This inevitably returns us to the ritual and the sacrificial.
This literal reading overlooks the irony of John found elsewhere in the Gospel. For example when Nicodemus response to Jesus saying we must be born again – “Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb?” In the same way the Jews would be asking how is it possible to eat this man’s flesh? This scandalous and shocking language pushes the metaphor of bread all the way so that we begin to understand.
Understood metaphorically—symbolically, by means of a sign—we are fed and sustained by the real person of Jesus and by his world-overturning death on the cross. Food, like air is essential for life. Unlike breathing, eating is a conscious act. What we choose to eat becomes a part of us. “Eating Jesus” is receiving God.
Jesus in fact is himself the core metaphor in John– the direct communication or sign of who and what God is. Jesus is there, center stage, all the time - the central figure of the Gospel. God becomes present thru’ Jesus. The Gospel in turn is the direct communication of Jesus –the whole thing is symbolic revelation through and through.
Schneiders differentiates between sign and symbol. For her, unlike a sign (which points to something else), a symbol participates in what it represents. For example a flag symbolizes patriotism and can evoke that emotion. It gives a deeper connection. In this way Jesus both shows us the divine and becomes the means to reaching the divine. This interpretation reflects traditional Western metaphysical thought: signs refer to the visible world, but the real is invisible and needs another communication – Jesus enables us to bridge the divide.
A different understanding focuses on human transformation rather than divine revelation as information. Jesus used signs to communicate meaning. In him our whole semiotic system—signs, symbols, what have you—is revolutionized into new communicated meaning—away from violence toward self-giving love. It is very difficult to transfer from one root human meaning to another, and so John acts a kind of dictionary or lexicon of translating signs, doubling over and over on themselves until we finally get it. Jesus acted to change human existence from within. He modeled a new way of being human. Jesus, the ultimate sign, did not point to heaven, but to the human heart. Jesus said look at me and you will begin to understand yourself and how you can be transformed. And you will also understand God. The cross as the supreme sign of Jesus is the only sign that matters. It reveals our violence and changes our world of meaning.
Background reading to study #5- Written that you may believe chapter 4.
Symbolism in John 05/13/10
The Synoptic Gospels called Jesus’ miracles works of power, John calls them signs. Signs refer to something, show you something that you didn’t see before. They alert us to the deeper level of meaning in John. John was written later than others and has had a greater chance to reflect deeply on the meaning of Jesus. The author is thinking about how the message will be continued after the death of the primary witnesses. How can the message be preserved? The tools of communication he uses are the Word and Sign.
Today our world is exploding with signs. John’s sense of their importance is very contemporary.
The sign/symbol of water runs thru’ the Gospel – the water transformed into wine, the woman at the well, water and blood pouring from the pierced side of Jesus… Water on an ordinary human level has a powerful impact. It is essential for life. In the Gospel it becomes a means for communicating the teaching of Jesus. For example Jn 7:37-39 “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink…out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water”. Water becomes a symbol of Jesus himself. By taking in Jesus the believer experiences and becomes the source of living water. Water is associated with the Spirit of Jesus that will be fully experienced because of Jesus’ glorious death.
In the Bread of Life discourse (Jn 6:35-58) John uses another symbol. Jesus is the bread that comes down from heaven. John’s gospel does not have the institution of the Eucharist that is so pivitol to other three gospels and also to Paul. In the first part of the discourse (up until v.50) there is nothing about eating his flesh. “Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.” The key thing here is relationship and belief.
At v. 50 the discourse slips in to something else – it talks of eating. Bread as symbol raises the idea of eating and here eating becomes the focus. “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you”. Traditionally these verses have been read literally and been understood in terms of applying to the physical sacrament of the Eucharist. From this understanding emerged the doctrine of transubstantiation in the 13th century. This inevitably returns us to the ritual and the sacrificial.
This literal reading overlooks the irony of John found elsewhere in the Gospel. For example when Nicodemus response to Jesus saying we must be born again – “Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb?” In the same way the Jews would be asking how is it possible to eat this man’s flesh? This scandalous and shocking language pushes the metaphor of bread all the way so that we begin to understand.
Understood metaphorically—symbolically, by means of a sign—we are fed and sustained by the real person of Jesus and by his world-overturning death on the cross. Food, like air is essential for life. Unlike breathing, eating is a conscious act. What we choose to eat becomes a part of us. “Eating Jesus” is receiving God.
Jesus in fact is himself the core metaphor in John– the direct communication or sign of who and what God is. Jesus is there, center stage, all the time - the central figure of the Gospel. God becomes present thru’ Jesus. The Gospel in turn is the direct communication of Jesus –the whole thing is symbolic revelation through and through.
Schneiders differentiates between sign and symbol. For her, unlike a sign (which points to something else), a symbol participates in what it represents. For example a flag symbolizes patriotism and can evoke that emotion. It gives a deeper connection. In this way Jesus both shows us the divine and becomes the means to reaching the divine. This interpretation reflects traditional Western metaphysical thought: signs refer to the visible world, but the real is invisible and needs another communication – Jesus enables us to bridge the divide.
A different understanding focuses on human transformation rather than divine revelation as information. Jesus used signs to communicate meaning. In him our whole semiotic system—signs, symbols, what have you—is revolutionized into new communicated meaning—away from violence toward self-giving love. It is very difficult to transfer from one root human meaning to another, and so John acts a kind of dictionary or lexicon of translating signs, doubling over and over on themselves until we finally get it. Jesus acted to change human existence from within. He modeled a new way of being human. Jesus, the ultimate sign, did not point to heaven, but to the human heart. Jesus said look at me and you will begin to understand yourself and how you can be transformed. And you will also understand God. The cross as the supreme sign of Jesus is the only sign that matters. It reveals our violence and changes our world of meaning.
John #4
As well as the Gospel and letters of John this Bible study uses the book “Written That You May Believe: Encountering Jesus in the Fourth Gospel” by Sandra M. Schneiders (2003) Crossroad Publishing Co. New York, NY.
Background reading to study #4- Written That You May Believe chapter 3.
Revelation in John 04/29/10
Revelation has traditionally been associated with the communication of knowledge. In the Roman Catholic tradition the focus of this knowledge is the sacred mystery of the trinity and the incarnation. The Protestant take on revelation is centered on the knowledge that we are saved and the acceptance of this truth.
In contrast, John’s Gospel understands revelation as an invitation to enter a relationship, a shared life. The revelation is exclusively of the person Jesus. It is not about information. Like falling in love, we get to know Jesus as we enter into a relationship with him. Once the physical Jesus and the first-hand witnesses to his life had gone, the Gospel became the way in which the person of Jesus was revealed. The written Gospel itself has the real effect of facilitating a relationship between the reader and Jesus.
John’s gospel does not begin with the words “in the beginning was God”. Instead John begins with the Word, with communication. God’s very nature is communication, and when we communicate in love – that is the start of everything. Language has always been more about relationship than communication of dogma or knowledge.
Language is human. It separates us from the primates. In Girardian thought the transition from primate to human is a moment of sacrificial violence, and from it emerges self-awareness and the birth of language. Humans have always been violent. God entered the world to reveal this violence, and to show us a different way of communication through the witness of the cross.
Jesus’ works of power, or miracles, are called “signs” in John’s Gospel. They are, therefore, understood as another form of communication, as a form of language. In parallel the long discourses in John contrast with the short pithy sayings by Jesus found in the Synoptics. These discourses are theological constructions by John to communicate the love of God for the world and to invite the reader to connect with God through Jesus. Anyone who has truly come to know Jesus knows the Father. Jesus communicates that God so loved the world that he poured himself into the world to save it. Salvation in John does not come through expiatory sacrifice--through exchange value by means of violence--but rather through relationship with God. It comes from connecting directly with God thru’ the absolute self-giving of Jesus.
Salvation takes place not by what we do but by plugging in and understanding the heart of God. It is not an intellectual idea, but a change that comes over us in the face of the cross. The crucifixion is Christ’s glory, the place where he is fully revealed and shown by God and as God. In the Synoptics this glory is displayed in the triumph or vindication of the resurrection. For John the resurrection is the not the vindication, but the point where we begin to see and to understand. It returns us to the meaning of the Word, to the cross as divine communication beginning right now.
The Spirit is the living presence of Jesus breathed out on the cross. Through the Spirit we enter into intimacy with God through Jesus. There is no need for ritual or sacrifice to enter into this relationship. In fact John’s Gospel does not even have a Eucharist (instead Jesus washes his disciples’ feet the night before he dies). This is perhaps a recognition by the Evangelist that the Eucharist had already become ritualized by the time he wrote his Gospel. For John, salvation is all about our relationship with the Father through Jesus, and his Gospel is the living revelation of this.
Background reading to study #4- Written That You May Believe chapter 3.
Revelation in John 04/29/10
Revelation has traditionally been associated with the communication of knowledge. In the Roman Catholic tradition the focus of this knowledge is the sacred mystery of the trinity and the incarnation. The Protestant take on revelation is centered on the knowledge that we are saved and the acceptance of this truth.
In contrast, John’s Gospel understands revelation as an invitation to enter a relationship, a shared life. The revelation is exclusively of the person Jesus. It is not about information. Like falling in love, we get to know Jesus as we enter into a relationship with him. Once the physical Jesus and the first-hand witnesses to his life had gone, the Gospel became the way in which the person of Jesus was revealed. The written Gospel itself has the real effect of facilitating a relationship between the reader and Jesus.
John’s gospel does not begin with the words “in the beginning was God”. Instead John begins with the Word, with communication. God’s very nature is communication, and when we communicate in love – that is the start of everything. Language has always been more about relationship than communication of dogma or knowledge.
Language is human. It separates us from the primates. In Girardian thought the transition from primate to human is a moment of sacrificial violence, and from it emerges self-awareness and the birth of language. Humans have always been violent. God entered the world to reveal this violence, and to show us a different way of communication through the witness of the cross.
Jesus’ works of power, or miracles, are called “signs” in John’s Gospel. They are, therefore, understood as another form of communication, as a form of language. In parallel the long discourses in John contrast with the short pithy sayings by Jesus found in the Synoptics. These discourses are theological constructions by John to communicate the love of God for the world and to invite the reader to connect with God through Jesus. Anyone who has truly come to know Jesus knows the Father. Jesus communicates that God so loved the world that he poured himself into the world to save it. Salvation in John does not come through expiatory sacrifice--through exchange value by means of violence--but rather through relationship with God. It comes from connecting directly with God thru’ the absolute self-giving of Jesus.
Salvation takes place not by what we do but by plugging in and understanding the heart of God. It is not an intellectual idea, but a change that comes over us in the face of the cross. The crucifixion is Christ’s glory, the place where he is fully revealed and shown by God and as God. In the Synoptics this glory is displayed in the triumph or vindication of the resurrection. For John the resurrection is the not the vindication, but the point where we begin to see and to understand. It returns us to the meaning of the Word, to the cross as divine communication beginning right now.
The Spirit is the living presence of Jesus breathed out on the cross. Through the Spirit we enter into intimacy with God through Jesus. There is no need for ritual or sacrifice to enter into this relationship. In fact John’s Gospel does not even have a Eucharist (instead Jesus washes his disciples’ feet the night before he dies). This is perhaps a recognition by the Evangelist that the Eucharist had already become ritualized by the time he wrote his Gospel. For John, salvation is all about our relationship with the Father through Jesus, and his Gospel is the living revelation of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
