Love On John's Terms (part 16)

Continuing to observe the potential connection that the author is making with the event with the woman at the well, it is worth re-considering that the Samaritan woman had replied to Jesus by saying “How can you---a Jew---ask me, a Samaritan woman, for water to drink?” (John 4:9a)  How did Jesus respond to that questions?  He said “If you had known the gift of God and who it is who said to you, ‘Give me some water to drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water” (4:10).  The response of the woman at the well was “Sir…you have no bucket and the well is deep; where then do you get this living water?  Surely, you’re not greater than our ancestor Jacob, are you?  For he gave us this well and drank from it himself, along with his sons and his livestock” (4:11-12) 

Is this talk of Jacob and his “giving us this well” and its water not echoed by the people’s mentioning of Moses in the sixth chapter?  What was Jesus’ reply?  He said, “Everyone who drinks some of this water will be thirsty again.  But whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life” (4:13-14).  What is it that Jesus says in the sixth chapter, after the bread-seeking response of the people to Jesus’ talk of bread from heaven and the connection to Moses (similar to Jacob and the well) implied by such words?  Jesus said, “I am the bread of life.  The one who comes to Me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never go thirsty” (6:35).  The connection practically jumps off the page. 

The Samaritan woman’s response was “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water” (4:15).  With this, the comparison with the record of the sixth chapter does indeed become rather obvious.  A short while later, after Jesus is said to have told the woman something about herself that He could not possibly have known, the woman said “Sir, I see that you are a prophet” (4:19).  This again calls attention to the talk of Jesus as the Prophet like Moses that was to come, which seems to be an ongoing theme in this Gospel.  Jesus alluded to this in the encounter with the woman, as it closes with Him saying “I, the one speaking to you, am He” (4:26). 

In chapter six, Jesus speaks words that take much the same form, when He says “Everyone whom the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never send away” (6:37).  What happened in the fourth chapter?  The woman went and told people about Jesus, many came to see Him, and many believed in Him (4:39).  Continuing in the sixth chapter, Jesus said “For I have come down from heaven not to do My own will but the will of the One who sent Me…  For this is the will of My Father---for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (6:38,40). 

With the story of the Samaritan woman, it is a chorus of Samaritans (again, telling an observer something about the community for which this is written and the issue of Gentile inclusion in the church) that says “for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this one really is the Savior of the world” (4:42b).  Here, it is more than worth noting that this use of “Savior of the world” would not have been heard or even intended as a reference to people getting “saved” so that they might have the opportunity to go to heaven when they die, but is instead a subversive poke at Rome and its emperor, who carried the title, beginning with Augustus, of “savior of the world”.  Thus, the language here in use is intensely messianic/kingly.     

Love On John's Terms (part 10)

Not only does Mary become the first to see Jesus, but she speaks with Him and is instructed to “Go to My brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’” (John 20:17b)  So “Mary Magdalene came and informed the disciples, ‘I have seen the Lord!’  And she told them what Jesus had said to her” (20:18).  Interestingly and in an ironic contrast, there seems to be an indication that Jesus’ own disciples did not necessarily believe Mary’s report, whereas the Samaritans believed the report of the woman that came to her (naturally, one supposes it’s easier to believe things being said about a live man at a well, regardless of the source, than things being said about a man that one is certain was crucified and placed in a tomb) . 

This report of Mary’s message and the natural, incredulous response to such a message, also gives witness to the nature of the spread of the Gospel and of the church in the days of the composition of this Gospel narrative.  Taken together, these two instances of women evangelists provide a context that provides a better understanding of what “love” means for this author, for his community, and for the church. 

The events of the sixth chapter of the Gospel continue to add to the insights on love that have been gained through this approach to John.  This is where the Johannine account of the “feeding of the five thousand” is encountered.  Just before the author delves specifically into the account of the feeding, the reason for the large numbers of people that are following Jesus is given.  Verse two reports that “A large crowd was following Him because they were observing the miraculous signs He was performing on the sick” (6:2).  Surely this presentation of Jesus as being overtly concerned with the sick is a component of the defining of the way that the love of Jesus is to be on display by, for, and through His disciples.  At the same time, this use of “miraculous signs” is something in which an observer can take interest. 

As one considers that the Gospel writer has a structure in mind, and that, rather than throwing together stories and sayings haphazardly, that structure can be recognized as being carried out across the whole of the Gospel (think about the comparison between the story of the Samaritan woman and that of Mary Magdalene).  Thinking along those lines, this use of the term “miraculous signs” becomes something of a “trigger phrase.”  When it comes to the Gospel accounts, the phrase is unique to John, and it is encountered on nine occasions. 

Taken together with the preponderance of the use of “love” in the Johannine corpus, the repeated use of “miraculous signs” becomes significant, though going so far as to make a direct correlation that says that the miraculous signs are the evidences of “love” would be unwarranted.  Though it would be difficult to disconnect the miraculous signs from the conception of the love of the Creator God that was presumed to have been on display and outworked through His Christ, one cannot help but think that the “signs” are somehow closely related to the way that “love” is to be understood, and how it is to be expressed by those seeking to truly understand what it means to be disciples of Jesus. 

Love On John's Terms (part 9)

What follows from Jesus’ declaration of His status as Messiah?  The woman returns to her town, saying “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did.  Surely He can’t be the Messiah, can He?” (John 4:29).  In response to this, the author reports that “they left the town and began coming to Him” (4:30).  Effectively then, this woman becomes the first evangelist.  One should not underestimate how odd it would have been for John’s hearers to learn that “many Samaritans from that town believed in Him because of the report of the woman who testified” (4:39a), especially if considering that, in that time, a woman’s testimony was considered to be worthless. 

Additionally, one also cannot underestimate how significant it is that a group of Samaritans, at the instigation of a woman with what would have been a rather disreputable standing in the community (on top of the fact that she would have been considered to be a lowly woman, who would obviously have been paired with a man lacking honor standing in the community as well, as a man with any honor standing whatsoever would not have taken such a woman as his wife, thus magnifying this woman’s place near the bottom of the social spectrum) are apparently the first to believe in Jesus as Messiah en masse. 

This bit of information tells the audience something about the Johannine community, and does so on multiple levels.  On one level, it points to the early sensitivity towards the issue of Gentile inclusion in the church (the covenant people), effectively answering those that may have wanted to reserve the message of the Gospel to Jews alone.  On another level, the massive reversal on display through the story of this woman indicates that there may have been those who believed that women were not to have a prominent role within the church.  This serves to silence those that gave voice to such unwarranted opinions.  On a third level, it informs an observer that women were most likely already in prominent roles---including non-Jewish women, with the story serving to underscore the legitimacy of their honored status withing Jesus communities---a novelty introduced into the world through the personal and ongoing work of the Christ. 

Now, one may think that this may be reading too much into a single instance, but this fits quite well with what is to be found at the end of this Gospel, when Mary Magdalene is said to have gone to Jesus’ tomb.  She “saw that the stone had been moved away from the entrance” (20:1b), and “went running to Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved” (20:2a), who was the un-named (but not anonymous) author of this Gospel, with a report that Jesus’ body was not in the tomb.  With this, a woman becomes the first witness to an empty tomb---effectively beginning the life of the church that has continued to proclaim an empty tomb since that moment.  Mary joins the Samaritan woman as representatives of what would be said of those who believed in Jesus as Lord of all (the Gospel), demonstrating the world being turned upside down.   

Continuing at the tomb then, after Peter and the other disciple left, “Mary stood outside the tomb weeping” (20:11a).  She went inside the tomb, is reported to have had a conversation with “two angels in white sitting where Jesus’ body had been lying” (20:12b) (which is something of an echo of Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman), and then is said to “have turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus” (20:14b).  So it is a woman who becomes the very first person to see the resurrected Jesus.  This parallels the fact that, according to this same Gospel’s witness, that a woman (and a despised Samaritan woman at that) was the first person to hear an explicit declaration from Jesus that He was, in fact, the Messiah, while subsequently becoming the first successful evangelist. 

Love On John's Terms (part 8)

Returning to the well in Samaria and to the unusual event there recorded, Jesus can be heard speaking to the aforementioned Samaritan woman and saying “Give me some water to drink” (John 4:7b).  The startling impact that this would have had upon the Samaritan woman should not be underestimated.  It is likely that she would have been completely taken aback by the fact of this Jewish man speaking to her. 

Unless an audience was familiar with the story of Jesus, and presumably John is initially composed and performed for a community or communities that were familiar with the Jesus story, this could be a bit surprising to a listener, especially if the one hearing or ready the story was from one of the Jewish communities of the diaspora.  Of course, the author provides a clue that this Gospel is composed for a mixed audience, as the author is compelled to include the fact that “Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans” (4:9c), which comes on the heels of this woman, startled by the very fact of speaking and the request that it contained, says “How can you---a Jew---ask me, a Samaritan woman, for water to drink” (4:9b).      

Jesus, undeterred by the violation of cultural norms which are also put on display with the report of His disciples’ return and the fact that they were “shocked because He was speaking with a woman” (4:27b), engages in a rather in depth conversation with the Samaritan woman.  Not only is he speaking with a woman, and not only is He speaking with a Samaritan woman, but He is effectively engaging in a conversation that takes the shape of a rabbinic debate---which has great significance in and of itself, as a rabbinic debate would only take place among and between social equals (perhaps not equal in level of honor, but equal in that both sides were able to engage in the social honor competition, which was inaccessible for women in that day).  Of course, things like this simply do not happen.  In that day, women were not considered at all worthy to be involved in such things (honor competition or rabbinic debate), but here, Jesus elevates this woman to the status of social equal. 

The encounter begins with a request for water, and then moves to a conclusion in which Jesus utters words that would appear to be confirmation of His messianic status, with this following what should be recognized as a fascinating give and take.  Most often, the focus of the story becomes the content of the conversation---the questions of the woman, the responses from Jesus, her responses to His words, and the woman’s present marital status.  These are legitimate things on which to focus, but they can also create a situation in which one misses seeing the forest because of the time spent looking at all of the trees.   

With the conversation and its content, not only is Jesus doing cross-cultural ministry, but it must be reiterated that Jesus is elevating this woman.  In this conversation, which is reported by the author of John for in obvious accord with his narrative and wider purpose, Jesus flattens out the social dynamics.  This should prompt a reflection on the developed and developing theological tradition within the church that operated on the basis that there was neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.  Is this not love at work?  Is this not an advance illustration, at least as far as the presentation of the narrative is concerned, of the power of the Gospel. 

Hated (part 2)

Not only had Jesus been conducted into Jerusalem as its King, and then said and done some interesting things in connection with the Temple, but He had also said and done a great number of things prior to that which had enabled Him to gain a following and a reputation that resulted in what would come to be referred to as His “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem, and His being able to act with seeming impunity in the Temple. 

The record of Mark’s Gospel prior to Jesus’ words that spoke of the destruction of the Temple (on the heels of the widow’s unfortunate offering) have Him enduring Satan’s testing in the wilderness following His baptism, casting out demons, healing Peter’s mother-in-law, cleansing a leper, healing a paralyzed man, restoring a withered hand, offering mysteriously authoritative teaching, calming a storm, restoring a well-known demoniac to sanity, reversing a woman’s twelve year long ailment, raising a twelve year old girl from the dead, feeding multitudes, walking on water, providing hearing to a deaf man, giving sight to a blind man, experiencing a transfiguration accompanied by Moses and Elijah, and cursing a fig tree so that it withers and dies. 

This is the man---that has done these amazing works---that now speaks such things about the Temple.  He goes on to speak of the possibility of being mislead, with many coming in His name, of wars and rumors of wars, of nations and kingdoms rising up in arms against one another, of earthquakes, of famines, and of pain (13:5-8).  It is then that Jesus speaks of His own disciples experiencing persecution, of standing before governors and kings on His behalf, of preaching the Gospel to all nations, of arrest, of the Holy Spirit, of brother rising against brother, and of children rising against parents.  It is to this that Jesus adds those poignant words, saying “You will be hated by everyone because of My name.” 

Hated?  Hate was not an uncommon disposition in those days.  Hate was part of the social fabric and the contest for honor.  Israel was hated by a variety of people.  In turn, Israel offered hate in return---one can think of the attitude and disgust engendered against the Samaritans in this regard.  In many respects, the hate for and from Israel would center on Israel’s claims to be the special and chosen people of the covenant God, and thus stem from the exclusivist positions derived from their understanding of that claim.  Perhaps Jesus’ mention of this hatred because of Him was a way of communicating to His disciples that they must continue on with some of the exclusive practices being carried on by the wider citizenry of Israel? 

Of course, in consideration of Jesus’ wide-open practices in the area of table-fellowship, in which He welcomed all and sundry to break bread with Him in defiance of custom and societal norms, such thinking can be dismissed almost immediately.  Thus the high-mindedness with which Israel looked upon themselves, which was a large part of the reason for which they disassociated from the rest of the world and therefore became the grounds for mutual hatred, was demonstrably precluded by Jesus’ active and oft-repeated example. 

Yet at the same time Jesus spoke of His disciples being hated.  So how would these disciples have responded to this?  How would they have heard this?  To uncover the answer it is necessary to look into Israel’s history, and especially the history by which Israel saw itself supremely defined.  It must always, always, always be remembered that even though Jesus was certainly unique in a number of ways, His teaching and His mission were firmly grounded within Judaism and the history of Israel.  

Calling Down Fire (part 1)

Now when the days drew near for Him to be taken up, Jesus set out resolutely to go to Jerusalem.  He sent messengers on ahead of Him.  As they went along, they entered a Samaritan village to make things ready in advance for Him” – Luke 9:51-52  (NET)

This action of sending messengers ahead of Himself, so as to make things ready in advance for Him, as can be here read about in relation to the Samaritan village, is a Caesar-like action.  Undoubtedly, as the recipient of Luke’s writing (who was likely a Roman government official) is borne in mind, these words were meant to draw a contrast between the Caesar (the man that was then honored and widely worshiped as the world’s savior and son of god) and Jesus the Christ.  It is also possible that Luke’s use of “taken up” in reference to Jesus is a subtle allusion to the “apotheosis” of the Caesar, which is the recognition of Caesar’s deification as a god (making a son that would follow him on the throne the “son of god”). 

Sending a messenger ahead of himself was a common practice for the Caesar.  Those messengers, who could be referred to as “evangelists,” went out proclaiming the “good news” (evangelion) concerning Caesar, regularly going ahead of him for the purpose of preparing a town or city within his realm to welcome the Caesar with all appropriate honor.  In this role, the evangelist prepared the people in subjection to the son of god to bow the knee to the Caesar as their lord and master and the giver of all good things.  This is the likely interpretive framework within which the reader/hearer of Luke’s narrative is asked to understand Jesus’ sending of messengers on ahead of Himself---Jesus is the world’s true Savior, Son of God, King, Lord, Master, and giver of all good things. 

In the case of the particular instance reported here by Luke, though Jesus had sent these messengers to make ready things in advance for Him and presumably to prepare the people for His visit, “the villagers refused to welcome Him” (9:53a).  Luke adds what he must have thought was a necessary explanatory statement, indicating that the refusal to welcome Jesus stemmed from the fact that “He was determined to go to Jerusalem” (9:53b). 

The Samaritans, of course, were looked down upon by the Jews, though clearly, according to the record in the Gospels of His interactions with them, not by Jesus.  However, apparently owing to the ill-will between Jews and Samaritans, the Samaritans refused to honor one that had determined, within His messianic mission, to simply use their city as a stopping point on the way to Jerusalem.  Regardless of the reason or motivation behind their refusal to receive Him, the significant fact to observe is that Jesus was not welcomed. 

Because of this, Luke writes: “Now when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, ‘Lord, do you want us to call fire to come down from heaven and consume them?’” (9:54)  Why would they say such a thing?  It would seem to be clear that Luke is pointing out the fact that James and John were well aware of the very Caesar-like nature of what was Jesus had done in sending messengers ahead of Him to prepare various places to welcome Him as King. 

To go along with this, if Luke’s record is accurate, Jesus’ disciples have already repeatedly heard Him use royal titles for Himself, such as Son of Man.  In the course of the linear progression of the narrative, they have also seen him cast out demons, heal the sick, raise a man from the dead, still a storm, and feed a multitude.  They rightly interpret these things within the messianic, kingly context in which they are performed, and which Jesus had provided to them by the very words of His mouth, so the sending of an advance team, in the mold of the Caesar, is not at all surprising to them.  Human nature being what it is, it is not difficult to imagine that these followers enjoyed being a part of the chosen entourage of the King that was now traveling the path to Jerusalem.