In an earlier blog entitled “The Resurrection in Matthew,” I pointed out that the New Testament contains many conflicting stories concerning the resurrection of Jesus. Mark’s story is clearly an add on, not original to the author, and lacking in details. Matthew’s story is the most spectacular involving an eclipse of the sun, two earthquakes, the return to life of Jewish holy men in Jerusalem, and the physical return to life of Jesus on a mountain in Galilee. Although in Luke the resurrected Jesus often appears as a ghost as he flies through doors and walls, his appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem is very physical. In John, Jesus meets with his disciples in a closed room in Jerusalem, and then again in Galilee along the sea of Tiberias. It is clear from John’s account that Jesus is physically present. In Acts, Jesus is very physically present with his disciples in Jerusalem for forty days after his death on the cross (1: 3-5), and then the disciples watch while he physically ascends to heaven (1:9).
But Acts also contains the story of Paul’s encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road. See Acts 9:1-30, 22: 1-21, and 26: 9-20. This resurrection encounter was clearly a vision experience. While on the way to Damascus, a light came from heaven surrounding Paul, the soon to be apostle fell to the ground, and Jesus spoke to him from heaven, explaining to Paul that he had a special job for him to do. In Acts 26: 16-19, both Jesus and Paul confirm the fact that this encounter was a vision experience. In 1Corinthians 15: 3-8, Paul claims that his experience of the resurrected Jesus was the same as the experiences of the disciples.
What are modern Christians to do in sorting out all this confusion. This is an important question because the resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of the Christian faith. Let me answer that question by telling a story of my own.
I am married to a ski patroller. Eight years ago Lyn changed jobs requiring that we move our winter residence from Summit County Colorado to Leadville, a tiny town in central Colorado that sits at over 10,000 feet. The news of her new job came to us in North Carolina, requiring that we make our plans for housing over the internet.
Our new digs were different—tiny, dark, with furniture that belonged in a landfill. When our son came to visit, he pulled me aside and asked: “Dad, when did you and Mom take up smoking pot? This place reeks of it.” I explained that we hadn’t done so yet, but that it might help create a brighter glow to the place.
One morning I was working on a novel alone in the apartment, and I needed to consult a reference book that was stored in our bedroom. The bedroom was dark and without windows. As I entered the door, I saw my wife’s dresser, and the beautiful face of her mother jumped out at me.
Instantly the meaning of the resurrection became clear. Love does not die. I felt a pulsing of love for this wonderful woman who had died the year before. It was obvious that her love was an ever present reality for my wife. Her picture was the only item of beauty in the apartment.
That’s what happened two thousand years ago. Though he had died on a cross, the love between Jesus and his disciples continued as an ever present reality. His close followers encountered that love in dreams, vision experiences, and in retelling stories about their shared time together. Love is real. It is part of the created universe. You cannot kill or destroy it. Over the forty or fifty years it took for these love stories to find their way into gospels, the stories took on legendary characteristics and were crafted to reflect the Jewish belief in a soon to come general resurrection. The most damning evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus comes in Acts 10: 41. Here the author comments that “God raised him to life and allowed him to be seen, not by the whole people, but only by certain witnesses God had chosen beforehand.” A God of love would not operate that way!
Monday, May 4, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Introduction to Acts
When introducing the gospel of Luke, I pointed out that the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were almost certainly written by the same author around the time of 90 CE. Acts begins with the words, “In my earlier work.” Both works are dedicated to Theophilus, an unknown person, most probably a Roman official. There are striking similarities in grammatical style and the vocabulary used in the two works. There is also a logical progression to the two works. Luke presents the story of Jesus while Acts documents the activities of the early church.
Acts examines the history of the early church from the resurrection to the house arrest of Paul in Rome. The author describes the spread of the early Christian movement from its beginnings in Jerusalem outward into the Hellenistic world. The Holy Spirit comes to the followers of Jesus at Pentecost (2: 1-4) which guides their efforts as they preach the good news in Judea and Samaria and later to Paul for his work as a missionary in the Gentile world.
A central theme of Acts is the unity of the church in this effort. It is unified by the Holy Spirit. Yes, there are conflicts as is seen in the debate over whether Gentiles must be circumcised, but these conflicts are healed by the intervention of the Holy Spirit. At the Jerusalem Conference (15: 1-21), the issue of whether Gentiles must become Jews first in order to be saved is taken up. Following a spirited debate, James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Christian community, rules that they do not. James’ decision heals the split within the community.
An important question regarding Acts is whether the author’s presentation is historical. It is certainly not history as we know it. There are three problems. First, the book contains several speeches—four long ones by Peter, Stephen, Paul, and James, and shorter ones by an array of characters. It is not possible that these speeches are accurately reported fifty or sixty years after taking place. Obviously they were not recorded, and there are no hints that the author was there.
Second, there is a parallel structure between the gospel of Luke and Acts which is troubling from an historical perspective. In Luke, Jesus heals the sick, casts out demons, and raises the dead. The apostles in Acts perform identical actions. At his trial as described in Acts (24:1-27), Paul stresses that he has done nothing against the Jewish people. After examining his testimony, the Roman authorities find him to be innocent. Paul’s problem is with the Jewish establishment. Sound familiar!
The last historical problem is the picture in Acts of Paul as a good Jew to the end. He accepts the main tenets of Judaism, his differences with the Jerusalem Christian community are played down. This picture of harmony contrasts sharply with Paul’s letters where the apostle to the Gentiles portrays himself as a Jew who has definitely moved to a new place. To cite but one example, in Galatians 2:21 Paul tells his Gentile followers that for them to obey Jewish law is an affront to God. The author of Acts clearly wants to demonstrate the work of the Holy Spirit in minimizing conflict within the Christian community. The question is whether this harmony accurately reflects the early history of the Christian movement.
One of the most important topics presented in Acts is Paul’s resurrection encounter of Jesus in heaven on the Damascus road. Paul describes it three times—Acts 9: 1-30, 22:1-21, and 26: 9-20. You might want to read these three passages in preparation for next week’s blog.
Acts examines the history of the early church from the resurrection to the house arrest of Paul in Rome. The author describes the spread of the early Christian movement from its beginnings in Jerusalem outward into the Hellenistic world. The Holy Spirit comes to the followers of Jesus at Pentecost (2: 1-4) which guides their efforts as they preach the good news in Judea and Samaria and later to Paul for his work as a missionary in the Gentile world.
A central theme of Acts is the unity of the church in this effort. It is unified by the Holy Spirit. Yes, there are conflicts as is seen in the debate over whether Gentiles must be circumcised, but these conflicts are healed by the intervention of the Holy Spirit. At the Jerusalem Conference (15: 1-21), the issue of whether Gentiles must become Jews first in order to be saved is taken up. Following a spirited debate, James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Christian community, rules that they do not. James’ decision heals the split within the community.
An important question regarding Acts is whether the author’s presentation is historical. It is certainly not history as we know it. There are three problems. First, the book contains several speeches—four long ones by Peter, Stephen, Paul, and James, and shorter ones by an array of characters. It is not possible that these speeches are accurately reported fifty or sixty years after taking place. Obviously they were not recorded, and there are no hints that the author was there.
Second, there is a parallel structure between the gospel of Luke and Acts which is troubling from an historical perspective. In Luke, Jesus heals the sick, casts out demons, and raises the dead. The apostles in Acts perform identical actions. At his trial as described in Acts (24:1-27), Paul stresses that he has done nothing against the Jewish people. After examining his testimony, the Roman authorities find him to be innocent. Paul’s problem is with the Jewish establishment. Sound familiar!
The last historical problem is the picture in Acts of Paul as a good Jew to the end. He accepts the main tenets of Judaism, his differences with the Jerusalem Christian community are played down. This picture of harmony contrasts sharply with Paul’s letters where the apostle to the Gentiles portrays himself as a Jew who has definitely moved to a new place. To cite but one example, in Galatians 2:21 Paul tells his Gentile followers that for them to obey Jewish law is an affront to God. The author of Acts clearly wants to demonstrate the work of the Holy Spirit in minimizing conflict within the Christian community. The question is whether this harmony accurately reflects the early history of the Christian movement.
One of the most important topics presented in Acts is Paul’s resurrection encounter of Jesus in heaven on the Damascus road. Paul describes it three times—Acts 9: 1-30, 22:1-21, and 26: 9-20. You might want to read these three passages in preparation for next week’s blog.
Monday, April 20, 2009
John: Odds and Ends
The Disciples Get It (John 1: 40-51 and 2:12). The disciples immediately recognize Jesus as the Messiah, which is so different from the picture given in the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).
The Conversation With Nicodemus (John 3: 1-10). Nicodemus is attracted to Jesus, but he doesn’t understand what Jesus means when he says that a person must be born from above or born again to enter into the kingdom of God. Instead of putting his arms around him, admitting that this is a rather strange way of looking at things, and gently providing an explanation, Jesus lectures him and criticizes him for his failure to understand. Unless you think of Jesus as a self-righteous preacher throwing red meat at the choir, this is the work of an editor.
An Inclusive Movement (John 4: 1-42). Jesus the Jew tells the Samaritan woman all about her past, brings her to faith, and stays with the townspeople for two days. Jews hated Samaritans. This example offers evidence that Jesus led an inclusive movement. As I pointed out last week (“The Christian Community in John”), the author of the gospel has a different view. For John, the Christian community is an exclusive club.
The Cure of the Nobleman’s Son (John 4: 43-54). This is the story of the cure of the son of a royal official. Compare John’s version of the story with the versions presented in Matthew (8: 5-13) and Luke (7:1-10). The differences illustrate what happens to stories when they are subjected to an oral tradition. Note also that there is no attempt to hide the cure from the general public. Read the story of the cure of the man born blind (John 9: 1-41). Jesus cures him so that the works of God can be displayed in him (9:3). Miracles have a different purpose in John than they have in Mark. The point is to bring people to faith, to tell the world all about these glorious signs. In Mark, miracles come in response to faith, and their results are to be kept hidden. The work of two different editors!
The Death of Jesus (John 11: 45-54 and 19: 12-37). The reaction of the Pharisees to the raising of Lazarus is fascinating. They are worried that this remarkable feat will make him a hero, which will threaten Rome and lead to Rome attacking Israel. Caiaphas, the chief priest, speaks for all when he says, “better for one man to die for the people, than for the whole nation to be destroyed (11: 50-51).” This is the first expression in the gospels of the idea that Jesus died for others. John further develops this idea at the end of the gospel. Jesus dies at a different time than in the other gospels, in the afternoon of the Day of Preparation when all the lambs are killed. For John, Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. After long reflection on the death of Jesus, the Christian community comes to see it as an atoning sacrifice.
The Passion Narrative (John chapters 18 and 19). John presents the same outline as Mark’s story, but there are some significant differences. There is no panic at Gethsemane or charge of blasphemy. Jesus voluntarily surrenders to the Temple guards who are reluctant to arrest him. There is also less emphasis on the miraculous as Jesus dies—no mention is made of an earthquake, eclipse of the sun, or the tearing of the Temple veil. The Roman centurion plays no role in the interpretation of Jesus’ death. His final words are “It is accomplished”, suggesting that God’s purpose has been achieved. Finally, his burial is the most spectacular in all the gospel accounts. He is buried in his own tomb, in a garden, with his body wrapped in spices and covered with expensive lotions. This is patterned after the burial of a king. These differences reflect the work of an editor who wants to place his own spin on these events.
The Conversation With Nicodemus (John 3: 1-10). Nicodemus is attracted to Jesus, but he doesn’t understand what Jesus means when he says that a person must be born from above or born again to enter into the kingdom of God. Instead of putting his arms around him, admitting that this is a rather strange way of looking at things, and gently providing an explanation, Jesus lectures him and criticizes him for his failure to understand. Unless you think of Jesus as a self-righteous preacher throwing red meat at the choir, this is the work of an editor.
An Inclusive Movement (John 4: 1-42). Jesus the Jew tells the Samaritan woman all about her past, brings her to faith, and stays with the townspeople for two days. Jews hated Samaritans. This example offers evidence that Jesus led an inclusive movement. As I pointed out last week (“The Christian Community in John”), the author of the gospel has a different view. For John, the Christian community is an exclusive club.
The Cure of the Nobleman’s Son (John 4: 43-54). This is the story of the cure of the son of a royal official. Compare John’s version of the story with the versions presented in Matthew (8: 5-13) and Luke (7:1-10). The differences illustrate what happens to stories when they are subjected to an oral tradition. Note also that there is no attempt to hide the cure from the general public. Read the story of the cure of the man born blind (John 9: 1-41). Jesus cures him so that the works of God can be displayed in him (9:3). Miracles have a different purpose in John than they have in Mark. The point is to bring people to faith, to tell the world all about these glorious signs. In Mark, miracles come in response to faith, and their results are to be kept hidden. The work of two different editors!
The Death of Jesus (John 11: 45-54 and 19: 12-37). The reaction of the Pharisees to the raising of Lazarus is fascinating. They are worried that this remarkable feat will make him a hero, which will threaten Rome and lead to Rome attacking Israel. Caiaphas, the chief priest, speaks for all when he says, “better for one man to die for the people, than for the whole nation to be destroyed (11: 50-51).” This is the first expression in the gospels of the idea that Jesus died for others. John further develops this idea at the end of the gospel. Jesus dies at a different time than in the other gospels, in the afternoon of the Day of Preparation when all the lambs are killed. For John, Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. After long reflection on the death of Jesus, the Christian community comes to see it as an atoning sacrifice.
The Passion Narrative (John chapters 18 and 19). John presents the same outline as Mark’s story, but there are some significant differences. There is no panic at Gethsemane or charge of blasphemy. Jesus voluntarily surrenders to the Temple guards who are reluctant to arrest him. There is also less emphasis on the miraculous as Jesus dies—no mention is made of an earthquake, eclipse of the sun, or the tearing of the Temple veil. The Roman centurion plays no role in the interpretation of Jesus’ death. His final words are “It is accomplished”, suggesting that God’s purpose has been achieved. Finally, his burial is the most spectacular in all the gospel accounts. He is buried in his own tomb, in a garden, with his body wrapped in spices and covered with expensive lotions. This is patterned after the burial of a king. These differences reflect the work of an editor who wants to place his own spin on these events.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
The Christian Community in John
The Farewell Discourses in John (13:33 through Chapter 17) where Jesus gives final instructions to his disciples before his arrest and crucifixion are a Christian treasure. They are all about building a community on the foundation of mutual love.
Love is the only commandment (13:34-35, 15: 12-13). Followers of Jesus achieve union with God through mutual love between each other. This love nourishes the community as a vine nourishes its branches (Chapter 15). Ethics or good works flow from loving relationships.
Though Jesus must leave them, he promises to send an Advocate to teach and guide the community in his absence. The Advocate will come in the form of the Holy Spirit (14: 26). The Farewell Discourses provide a wonderful vision of a joyful, loving community led by the Holy Spirit. Religion is about mutual, indwelling love which flows from serving one’s neighbor.
And yet there’s a problem. The love commandment only applies to the community. The believer’s only duty is to the community. There is no larger responsibility to the world. The Christian community that inspired the writing of this gospel is deeply alienated from the world. The world and the church are in an antagonistic relationship with one another (see 14:19, 15: 18-19, 16: 8, and 17:9).
Christianity under such circumstances becomes an exclusive club. There is an us versus them mentality. The only way to know and relate to God is through Jesus (14:6). Love your fellow member, and the rest of the world be damned is the operational mode of such a community.
Many religious groups from a wide array of spiritual traditions take on such characteristics. It is one of the great problems with religion. It creates intolerance, a dangerous self-righteousness, and sparks violence between competing communities of faith.
We need to redefine John’s vision. Religious communities are uniquely designed to teach and promote mutual love. Membership in such communities creates joy, and provides meaning and purpose for life. But the point must always be to apply what you learn and gain from such a community to a larger arena. The goal must be to extend love beyond the immediate community to the world. In this way, religion becomes a tool for healing larger problems. It becomes an important solution to global problems rather than a primary cause of those problems.
Love is the only commandment (13:34-35, 15: 12-13). Followers of Jesus achieve union with God through mutual love between each other. This love nourishes the community as a vine nourishes its branches (Chapter 15). Ethics or good works flow from loving relationships.
Though Jesus must leave them, he promises to send an Advocate to teach and guide the community in his absence. The Advocate will come in the form of the Holy Spirit (14: 26). The Farewell Discourses provide a wonderful vision of a joyful, loving community led by the Holy Spirit. Religion is about mutual, indwelling love which flows from serving one’s neighbor.
And yet there’s a problem. The love commandment only applies to the community. The believer’s only duty is to the community. There is no larger responsibility to the world. The Christian community that inspired the writing of this gospel is deeply alienated from the world. The world and the church are in an antagonistic relationship with one another (see 14:19, 15: 18-19, 16: 8, and 17:9).
Christianity under such circumstances becomes an exclusive club. There is an us versus them mentality. The only way to know and relate to God is through Jesus (14:6). Love your fellow member, and the rest of the world be damned is the operational mode of such a community.
Many religious groups from a wide array of spiritual traditions take on such characteristics. It is one of the great problems with religion. It creates intolerance, a dangerous self-righteousness, and sparks violence between competing communities of faith.
We need to redefine John’s vision. Religious communities are uniquely designed to teach and promote mutual love. Membership in such communities creates joy, and provides meaning and purpose for life. But the point must always be to apply what you learn and gain from such a community to a larger arena. The goal must be to extend love beyond the immediate community to the world. In this way, religion becomes a tool for healing larger problems. It becomes an important solution to global problems rather than a primary cause of those problems.
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Jewish Conflict in John
There is real bitterness against Jews in the gospel of John. John mentions “the Jews” over seventy times in his gospel in disparaging ways, which is more than the other three gospels combined. The Jews represent all those who reject Jesus. They become a symbol for all that is evil in the world. There is intriguing evidence in John that the conflict between Jews and Christians had become so bitter that Jews were expelling Christians from the synagogue (9:22).
A good example of this problem comes in John’s account of the Passion Narrative. Read his story of Jesus before Pilate (18:28-19:16). In the story, we see a Pilate that believes Jesus to be innocent, and “the Jews” who want him crucified. I have already pointed out the historical problems with Mark’s account of the Passion Narrative (See the blog under that title.). The same problems apply to John’s story.
To briefly summarize these problems, it is extremely unlikely that Jesus was buried. Victims of crucifixion were left on the cross to be eaten by animals. It was part of the horror of the punishment. Second, trials were not held. The victim was arrested and placed on a cross. The hearing with Pilate in John is fiction. Finally, the Romans killed Jesus. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment. If the Jewish Sanhedrin had wanted to kill Jesus, he would have been stoned. As I explained in the blog relating to Mark’s account, Jesus was crucified by the Romans because he was seen as a political threat.
Despite this history, John places the blame squarely on the Jews. This distortion of history has had important historical consequences. Biblical literalism can present real problems.
James Carroll, in a fascinating book entitled Constantine’s Sword, points out the profound consequences of the anti-Semitism which originates in the gospel of John. He demonstrates how Christian thinkers from Marcion in the second century, to Ambrose, Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther developed theologies that were anti-Semitic and inspired by the gospel of John. These theologies created a climate of opinion which explains the First Crusade of 1096 which was directed against Jews, the Spanish Inquisition in the 15th century which led to the massacre of thousands of Jews, and the holocaust. The point Carroll makes is that Hitler killed the Jews, but the anti-Semitism that originates in John created a climate of opinion that made the holocaust possible. Read Carroll’s book. It is well researched and deeply disturbing.
The anti-Semitism of John also worked to change the religion of Jesus. This unfortunate consequence was aided by the Roman/Jewish War (66-73 CE) which killed 600,000 Jews. Those Jews that survived were exiled throughout the Hellenistic world. The result was that Jewish Christianity was destroyed. The Christian religion was then reconstituted in the Hellenistic world. This fact plus the anti-Semitism of the gospels, especially John, led to a divorce between the new Christian religion and its Jewish origins. The result was that individual salvation became the central focus rather than creating a relationship with God that centers around the practice of ethics and loving your neighbor. See my blog entitled “The Sermon on the Mount” which summarizes the interest of Jesus in the practice of ethics. This practice of ethics became a secondary concern for Hellenistic Christianity, and yet it is in doing this hard work that one finds God. Sadly, many Christians miss this point.
As the two examples above suggest, biblical illiteracy and scriptural literalism have important consequences. These consequences linger today. When Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion of Christ” was released, an Evangelical church in Denver gleefully proclaimed “The Jews Killed Jesus” on its roadside sign. The Biblical Literacy Project is dedicated to fighting these problems.
A good example of this problem comes in John’s account of the Passion Narrative. Read his story of Jesus before Pilate (18:28-19:16). In the story, we see a Pilate that believes Jesus to be innocent, and “the Jews” who want him crucified. I have already pointed out the historical problems with Mark’s account of the Passion Narrative (See the blog under that title.). The same problems apply to John’s story.
To briefly summarize these problems, it is extremely unlikely that Jesus was buried. Victims of crucifixion were left on the cross to be eaten by animals. It was part of the horror of the punishment. Second, trials were not held. The victim was arrested and placed on a cross. The hearing with Pilate in John is fiction. Finally, the Romans killed Jesus. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment. If the Jewish Sanhedrin had wanted to kill Jesus, he would have been stoned. As I explained in the blog relating to Mark’s account, Jesus was crucified by the Romans because he was seen as a political threat.
Despite this history, John places the blame squarely on the Jews. This distortion of history has had important historical consequences. Biblical literalism can present real problems.
James Carroll, in a fascinating book entitled Constantine’s Sword, points out the profound consequences of the anti-Semitism which originates in the gospel of John. He demonstrates how Christian thinkers from Marcion in the second century, to Ambrose, Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther developed theologies that were anti-Semitic and inspired by the gospel of John. These theologies created a climate of opinion which explains the First Crusade of 1096 which was directed against Jews, the Spanish Inquisition in the 15th century which led to the massacre of thousands of Jews, and the holocaust. The point Carroll makes is that Hitler killed the Jews, but the anti-Semitism that originates in John created a climate of opinion that made the holocaust possible. Read Carroll’s book. It is well researched and deeply disturbing.
The anti-Semitism of John also worked to change the religion of Jesus. This unfortunate consequence was aided by the Roman/Jewish War (66-73 CE) which killed 600,000 Jews. Those Jews that survived were exiled throughout the Hellenistic world. The result was that Jewish Christianity was destroyed. The Christian religion was then reconstituted in the Hellenistic world. This fact plus the anti-Semitism of the gospels, especially John, led to a divorce between the new Christian religion and its Jewish origins. The result was that individual salvation became the central focus rather than creating a relationship with God that centers around the practice of ethics and loving your neighbor. See my blog entitled “The Sermon on the Mount” which summarizes the interest of Jesus in the practice of ethics. This practice of ethics became a secondary concern for Hellenistic Christianity, and yet it is in doing this hard work that one finds God. Sadly, many Christians miss this point.
As the two examples above suggest, biblical illiteracy and scriptural literalism have important consequences. These consequences linger today. When Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion of Christ” was released, an Evangelical church in Denver gleefully proclaimed “The Jews Killed Jesus” on its roadside sign. The Biblical Literacy Project is dedicated to fighting these problems.
Monday, March 16, 2009
John's Concept of the Kingdom of God
In the blog entitled “Mark’s Jesus and Jewish Eschatology,” I argued that three views of an eschatological future were swirling around Palestine at the time of Jesus. Let me review them for you. The first, labeled apocalyptic eschatology, called for the destruction of the world with the establishment of a kingdom in heaven. It was mean-spirited in that a favored group would be saved while the vast majority of us burned. The second approach, prophetic eschatology, argued for a new order for this world, a renewed Israel in which God’s anointed would rule as king. The third approach, realized eschatology, posited that the kingdom was here, that it had arrived in the teachings and acts of Jesus, and that it was essentially a kingdom of the heart—a kingdom within.
The clearest expression of realized eschatology in the New Testament comes in the gospel of John. The key story is the raising of Lazarus, a story found only in John (11:1-54). Lazarus was an old friend of Jesus. The sisters of Lazarus, Mary and Martha, send word to Jesus that their brother is gravely ill. Hearing the news, Jesus sets off for Judea to visit him. When he arrives, he finds that Lazarus has been dead for four days. In consoling Martha, Jesus tells her that her brother will rise again. Martha assumes that Jesus means that he will rise again at the general resurrection at the end of days (apocalyptic eschatology). In fact, Jesus means that he will rise now, and he does. “I am the resurrection. If anyone believes in me, even though he dies he will live, and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.” (11: 25-26) Eternal life is redefined in qualitative terms. It is about knowing and loving God. It is about living in a community defined by mutual love. See also John 4:36, 5: 24-25, and 12:46.
A new idea about judgment comes with this realized eschatology. In the well known story concerning the instruction of Nicodemus, the Pharisee (3: 1-21), Jesus spells it out. He explains that God did not send him into the world to judge it, but to save it. Those who refuse to believe in Jesus, judge themselves (3:17). Jesus is the light of the world. Those who see the light and live by it, participate in a new quality of existence—eternal life now. Those who prefer darkness to the light, judge themselves. See also John 7: 8 and 12: 47-48.
Though the main thrust of the gospel posits a realized eschatology, a softened idea of apocalyptic eschatology emerges from time to time. Jesus tells his disciples that he is returning to heaven and will come back for them at a later time. See John 13: 37, 14: 1-3, and 6: 40-44. There are also several references in the gospel to Jesus as the Son of Man (3:13, 5: 27-28, and 6:53-54). I say a softened apocalyptic eschatology because none of these references point to some horrible fate for those left behind. These references do, however, make clear that salvation will be for believers in heaven. As Jesus tells Pilate, he is not a king of this world (18:30).
It is possible that the author of John intends for these two concepts of the kingdom to exist together in a paradoxical relationship. It is also possible that the two contrasting views represent two distinct voices within the gospel. In this second scenario, the voice of realized eschatology comes from the author of John after many years of reflection on the meaning of Jesus’ life and death and the fact that the expected kingdom had not come. The voice of apocalyptic eschatology is added by the early church in an attempt to make John’s gospel more like the other three in this regard.
No matter, realized eschatology is an idea that makes sense for modern Christians. Who knows what happens when we die. It is life’s last great mystery. What is important is how one lives now in this life. Realized eschatology posits a kingdom that resides in the heart. You enter it when you know God and love your neighbor. It is found when one lives in a community defined by the mutual love described in the Farewell Discourses (John 13:33 through chapter 17). It is an approach to spiritual life that focuses on the here and now rather than the hereafter. It is a concept of the kingdom of God that Christians should more carefully consider.
The clearest expression of realized eschatology in the New Testament comes in the gospel of John. The key story is the raising of Lazarus, a story found only in John (11:1-54). Lazarus was an old friend of Jesus. The sisters of Lazarus, Mary and Martha, send word to Jesus that their brother is gravely ill. Hearing the news, Jesus sets off for Judea to visit him. When he arrives, he finds that Lazarus has been dead for four days. In consoling Martha, Jesus tells her that her brother will rise again. Martha assumes that Jesus means that he will rise again at the general resurrection at the end of days (apocalyptic eschatology). In fact, Jesus means that he will rise now, and he does. “I am the resurrection. If anyone believes in me, even though he dies he will live, and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.” (11: 25-26) Eternal life is redefined in qualitative terms. It is about knowing and loving God. It is about living in a community defined by mutual love. See also John 4:36, 5: 24-25, and 12:46.
A new idea about judgment comes with this realized eschatology. In the well known story concerning the instruction of Nicodemus, the Pharisee (3: 1-21), Jesus spells it out. He explains that God did not send him into the world to judge it, but to save it. Those who refuse to believe in Jesus, judge themselves (3:17). Jesus is the light of the world. Those who see the light and live by it, participate in a new quality of existence—eternal life now. Those who prefer darkness to the light, judge themselves. See also John 7: 8 and 12: 47-48.
Though the main thrust of the gospel posits a realized eschatology, a softened idea of apocalyptic eschatology emerges from time to time. Jesus tells his disciples that he is returning to heaven and will come back for them at a later time. See John 13: 37, 14: 1-3, and 6: 40-44. There are also several references in the gospel to Jesus as the Son of Man (3:13, 5: 27-28, and 6:53-54). I say a softened apocalyptic eschatology because none of these references point to some horrible fate for those left behind. These references do, however, make clear that salvation will be for believers in heaven. As Jesus tells Pilate, he is not a king of this world (18:30).
It is possible that the author of John intends for these two concepts of the kingdom to exist together in a paradoxical relationship. It is also possible that the two contrasting views represent two distinct voices within the gospel. In this second scenario, the voice of realized eschatology comes from the author of John after many years of reflection on the meaning of Jesus’ life and death and the fact that the expected kingdom had not come. The voice of apocalyptic eschatology is added by the early church in an attempt to make John’s gospel more like the other three in this regard.
No matter, realized eschatology is an idea that makes sense for modern Christians. Who knows what happens when we die. It is life’s last great mystery. What is important is how one lives now in this life. Realized eschatology posits a kingdom that resides in the heart. You enter it when you know God and love your neighbor. It is found when one lives in a community defined by the mutual love described in the Farewell Discourses (John 13:33 through chapter 17). It is an approach to spiritual life that focuses on the here and now rather than the hereafter. It is a concept of the kingdom of God that Christians should more carefully consider.
Monday, March 9, 2009
God Becomes Flesh
In the beginning was the word. This is not about prophetic revelation—words from God spoken to a prophet. This is about the divine logos—a deep mystery, the creative power of the universe, the mind of God which creates order out of chaos, the grand pattern for the universe. In the Prologue of John (1:1-18), the author proclaims Jesus as this logos, the incarnation of this logos of God.
Matthew and Luke see Jesus as an Old Testament Messiah, the king born in Bethlehem. This is different. John pictures Jesus as pre-existent, as existing with God from eternity, as the creative force in the universe. Jesus is a divine being who comes from heaven and returns to heaven.
In John’s gospel, Jesus sees himself as God made flesh. “The Father and I are one (10:30).” He makes several “I am” statements, a symbol of the divine nature which comes from Exodus where God defines his nature as “I am” (Exodus 3:14). I am the bread of life (6:48), I am the light of the world (8:12), I am the good shepherd (10:11). Before Abraham was, I am (8:58). Note that Jesus does not say before Abraham was, I was. Instead he uses the divine designation of I am.
He also acts like God. In chapter 5, Jesus has a typical confrontation with the Jewish establishment, but the story is really about the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Son functions for his Father in the world. The establishment is mad at him because Jesus sees himself as God’s equal (5: 16-18).
The scenes describing his arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection are informative. Jesus explains to his followers exactly what will happen (chapter 14). He encourages his arrest, chooses to die, with the arresting authorities falling on their knees in acknowledgment of his divinity (18: 1-9). He controls his crucifixion (chapter 19). He carries his own cross, seemingly suffers little, and utters “it is accomplished” as his final words. When the soldiers come to break the legs of the three victims on crosses, they leave Jesus alone because the paschal lamb does not have broken bones ( Exodus 12: 46). At the resurrection (chapter 20 and 21), he appears to whom he wants, when he wants. In all of these events, Jesus is in control. He functions like God.
The gospel of John is a glorious statement of faith by an author writing for a Christian community in the Hellenistic world who believed that Jesus was the incarnation of God. It is not history. It does not have to be our statement of faith if the idea of God walking around on earth is troubling. Marcus Borg makes a strong case that the “I am” statements come from the early church. These statements come in long speeches made by Jesus. There is no way that these speeches were remembered. They were obviously invented by someone. I have already pointed out the historical problems with Mark’s version of the passion narrative. The same problems exist with John’s story which I will point out again in the blog two weeks hence on the Jewish conflict in John. We don’t have to accept the worldview of first century Hellenism where people routinely expected gods to roam the earth.
In a blog entitled “The Resurrection in Matthew,” I pointed out several problems with the resurrection stories. These problems apply to John’s story of the resurrection. I would like to add an additional problem. John’s Jesus appears to Mary of Magdala as a gardener, to the disciples in an upper room in Jerusalem, and then eight days later to Thomas and the other disciples in that same room (chapter 20). He makes his last appearance to the disciples on the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (chapter 21). Why does Jesus only appear to Mary and the disciples? This picture of the resurrection makes the religion of Jesus into a small, select group. A God of love wouldn’t act that way. Such a God would insist that Jesus appear widely to the masses of the people. The religion of Jesus would be open to all.
If one rejects the worldview of John, does this gospel have meaning for Christians living in the twenty-first century? Absolutely! Jesus is the logos, the pattern of God in the world for all to see. Before Jesus, the pattern of God was enshrined in Law, now it is found in a flesh and blood human being. With God as the source, Jesus reflects that source and is the light of the world (8:12). We see this light in the mutual love described in the Farwell Discources of chapters 13-17. We see this light in the inclusive community of followers created by Jesus. We see this light in the love communities established by those followers after Jesus’ death (see Acts 2: 42-47 and 4:32). We see that light in the parables in Luke (see blog on the topic), and the teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. The problem is not seeing this pattern in the gospel of John, it is living it. I keep trying!
Matthew and Luke see Jesus as an Old Testament Messiah, the king born in Bethlehem. This is different. John pictures Jesus as pre-existent, as existing with God from eternity, as the creative force in the universe. Jesus is a divine being who comes from heaven and returns to heaven.
In John’s gospel, Jesus sees himself as God made flesh. “The Father and I are one (10:30).” He makes several “I am” statements, a symbol of the divine nature which comes from Exodus where God defines his nature as “I am” (Exodus 3:14). I am the bread of life (6:48), I am the light of the world (8:12), I am the good shepherd (10:11). Before Abraham was, I am (8:58). Note that Jesus does not say before Abraham was, I was. Instead he uses the divine designation of I am.
He also acts like God. In chapter 5, Jesus has a typical confrontation with the Jewish establishment, but the story is really about the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Son functions for his Father in the world. The establishment is mad at him because Jesus sees himself as God’s equal (5: 16-18).
The scenes describing his arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection are informative. Jesus explains to his followers exactly what will happen (chapter 14). He encourages his arrest, chooses to die, with the arresting authorities falling on their knees in acknowledgment of his divinity (18: 1-9). He controls his crucifixion (chapter 19). He carries his own cross, seemingly suffers little, and utters “it is accomplished” as his final words. When the soldiers come to break the legs of the three victims on crosses, they leave Jesus alone because the paschal lamb does not have broken bones ( Exodus 12: 46). At the resurrection (chapter 20 and 21), he appears to whom he wants, when he wants. In all of these events, Jesus is in control. He functions like God.
The gospel of John is a glorious statement of faith by an author writing for a Christian community in the Hellenistic world who believed that Jesus was the incarnation of God. It is not history. It does not have to be our statement of faith if the idea of God walking around on earth is troubling. Marcus Borg makes a strong case that the “I am” statements come from the early church. These statements come in long speeches made by Jesus. There is no way that these speeches were remembered. They were obviously invented by someone. I have already pointed out the historical problems with Mark’s version of the passion narrative. The same problems exist with John’s story which I will point out again in the blog two weeks hence on the Jewish conflict in John. We don’t have to accept the worldview of first century Hellenism where people routinely expected gods to roam the earth.
In a blog entitled “The Resurrection in Matthew,” I pointed out several problems with the resurrection stories. These problems apply to John’s story of the resurrection. I would like to add an additional problem. John’s Jesus appears to Mary of Magdala as a gardener, to the disciples in an upper room in Jerusalem, and then eight days later to Thomas and the other disciples in that same room (chapter 20). He makes his last appearance to the disciples on the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (chapter 21). Why does Jesus only appear to Mary and the disciples? This picture of the resurrection makes the religion of Jesus into a small, select group. A God of love wouldn’t act that way. Such a God would insist that Jesus appear widely to the masses of the people. The religion of Jesus would be open to all.
If one rejects the worldview of John, does this gospel have meaning for Christians living in the twenty-first century? Absolutely! Jesus is the logos, the pattern of God in the world for all to see. Before Jesus, the pattern of God was enshrined in Law, now it is found in a flesh and blood human being. With God as the source, Jesus reflects that source and is the light of the world (8:12). We see this light in the mutual love described in the Farwell Discources of chapters 13-17. We see this light in the inclusive community of followers created by Jesus. We see this light in the love communities established by those followers after Jesus’ death (see Acts 2: 42-47 and 4:32). We see that light in the parables in Luke (see blog on the topic), and the teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. The problem is not seeing this pattern in the gospel of John, it is living it. I keep trying!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
