Love On John's Terms (part 20)

Jesus, apparently uninterested in the background of the blind man that He understands Himself as charged to heal, and concerning Himself only with the fact that He must “perform the deeds of the one who sent me as long as it is daytime” (John 9:4a), took steps to deliver sight to this previously blind individual.  The result of Jesus’ action seems to have generated confusion along with a bit of anger, while also demonstrating that this man was well-known to the community and that his condition was common knowledge.  Questions were asked:  “Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?” (9:9a)  Some confidently answered “yes,” while others said “no.” 

Undoubtedly, a natural incredulity was at work here, in that even if a person may have been reasonably certain that this was indeed the beggar with which they were familiar, the fact of his now being able to see was something of a confusing matter, as people simply did not go from being blind for an entire life to seeing---such was entirely unexpected and contrary to human experience (this then is not unlike the Resurrection).  Eventually, the matter and the man was brought to the attention of the Pharisees, who offered up their own line of questioning, while the author take the opportunity to insert the previously unknown fact that Jesus had performed this act of healing on the Sabbath. 

Presumably, for the author, until those concerned with the important matter of covenant markers (Sabbath-keeping, circumcision, and dietary/purity laws) were involved, healing on the Sabbath was not an issue.  This, of course, becomes the primary concern for the Pharisees, as they say “This man, “ meaning Jesus, “is not from God, because He does not observe the Sabbath” (9:16b).  Others disagreed.  The formerly blind man, when queried, offers his own assessment, which was “He is a prophet” (9:17b).  This, just as was the case with mentions of “Samaritan” in the eighth chapter, provides another connection with what has been previously heard.  This use of “prophet” again links Jesus to Moses, which is an ongoing theme of this Gospel.

The man’s parents become involved in the matter, and as it appears that they wanted nothing to do with this controversy because it will risk their standing in the synagogue (9:22), they insist that their son is more than capable of answering for himself.  Accordingly, yet another inquiry is made.  The formerly blind man is told “Promise before God to tell the truth.  We know that this man is a sinner” (9:24b --- a sinner understood as somebody who does not possess right covenant standing, rather than somebody who performs or fails to perform acts according to a subjective standard or morality and perceived righteousness). 

The man who was blind, but who now has sight, responds to this assertion by saying “I do not know whether he is a sinner.  I do know one thing---that although I was blind, now I can see” (9:25).  When asked to again recount the story of what happened, he again proceeds, perhaps unwittingly, to stir a pot of underlying anger directed towards Jesus by saying “I told you already and you didn’t listen.  Why do you want to hear it again?  You people don’t want to become His disciples too, do you?” (9:27). 

This produced an inflamed response of “You are His disciple!  We are disciples of Moses!  We know that God has spoken to Moses!” (9:28b-29a)  Of note, Moses comes into play again, which the audience (reader or hearer) should take as a rather ironic statement, as it has clearly been an ongoing point of the author to explicitly connect Jesus to Moses.  It also serves as an indication that a part of the stories that had been circulating about Jesus in His day, as well as being an indication that part of the ongoing means, in the author’s day, by which Jesus was either being discredited or by which adherents to His cause were being won, was whether or not He fulfilled the role of the prophet to come that would be like Moses.  This fits well within the overall sense that the Gospel of John serves in an apologetic function concerning Jesus’ role as the physical revelation and incarnation of the Creator God, while also doing a form of historical rendering. 

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 5)

At the same time, though having detailed the usage of “love” words, it is not necessarily the case that one can only grasp the Johannine community’s conception of love in conjunction with the use of those words.  That is to say, it is not necessary to limit an exploration of what love of one another will look like (again, on John’s terms) to those places in the Johannine texts that use related words.  The point was providing a simple chronicle of the growing use of “love” as a Scriptural and doctrinal motif, to illustrate the ascendancy of the notion of love for one another, now understood to be based on the Creator God’s love for the world (for both His image-bearers and His creation) within the context of His redemptive purposes, as something very close to the heart of what it means to live as a disciple of Jesus. 

Having established that the motif of relational love that demonstrates the fact that one is a disciple of Jesus is love functioning in a redemptive manner in relation to the establishment of the kingdom of the Creator God (mimicking Jesus’ love, which is the manifestation of the Creator’s redemptive and reconciliatory love for the world), it is now possible to move through the Johannine writings in a way that will allow for a determination what is truly meant by Jesus’ insistence that His disciples love one another as He has loved them. 

One must remember, when moving forward, that the type of love given voice in the declaration concerning the way that the Creator God loved the world, within this Gospel presentation that explicitly equates Jesus with the Creator God of Israel, will color the way that love is perceived by the recipients of this narrative telling of the life of Jesus.  Beyond that, the Creator God’s love for the world, with its connection to concerns related to exile and exodus (perishing and eternal life) and the fact that an overt presentation of Jesus as the very embodiment of the Creator God implies that Jesus was and indeed is the Messiah of Israel, is indissolubly connected to then prevalent notions about the messianic banquet (as envisioned in Isaiah and the fourteenth chapter of Luke), and of the types of things that will accompany the messianic-banquet-signaled in-breaking of the Creator God’s reign on earth. 

The declaration of the fourteenth verse of the first chapter of John, that “the Word became flesh and took up residence among us,” is not only an unequivocal declaration that Israel’s God was present among humanity and in the world as Jesus, but it is also an unmistakable use of Temple-related language, as the Temple was understood (by Israel and almost all Ancient Near East people) to be the place in which a god was understood to reside.  Because of that claim, an implied conflict with the Temple authorities becomes the explanation for the underlying source of antagonism between Jesus and those that present themselves as His adversaries, as well as the ultimate cause of His death (though the raising of Lazarus will be reported as the proximate cause of His death---though this is understandable, as the raising of Lazarus, historical or not, certainly underscores the claim that Jesus is the place in which the Creator God’s power is present and therefore the true Temple). 

Because the dwelling place of the Creator God was always thought to be the Temple (or the tabernacle prior to the Temple’s construction, or the whole of the creation according to the overt temple language of the Genesis narrative), the author makes it clear that everything that follows in His narrative (written probably a couple of decades after the Temple’s destruction by the Romans in association with the Jewish revolt in 70 A.D., though it most certainly draws from traditions in circulation from the days of Jesus on), portrays Jesus as fulfilling the role of the Temple. 

This helps to make contextual sense of John the Baptist’s quite early declaration in the Gospel that Jesus is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29b), as the removal of sin mentioned in this statement (in connection with the sacrifice of a lamb) that is provided its context by the Day of Atonement (without even getting into John’s own and possibly legitimate claim to the high priesthood), is something that was carried out in connection with the Temple.  When John gives voice to this idea, he is using overt Temple language. 

Love On John's Terms (part 3)

Combined, the remainder of the New Testament letters make mention of “love” in some variation an additional seventy-four times.  This means that, outside of the Johannine texts (this excludes Revelation, which appears to have a different author than the Johannine works), there are one hundred fifty eight words variously translated as “love,” “loved,” or “loving” (133, 22, 3).  Added to the seventy-two instances to be found in the Gospel and Epistles of John, “love” appears in the New Testament texts two hundred thirty times.  Nearly a third of the total number of uses are located in the Johannine texts.  While it should be noted that not all of the uses of “love” are presented in a positive sense, there is little reason to wonder at the reason that the doctrine of love became foundational for the life of the Christian community.

One can observe the development of the doctrine as it take center-stage for the followers of Jesus.  Over time, and as the writings of the New Testament era are generated, love begins to define the life of the community, as Christians attempted to put into practice what they believed was implied by the Resurrection and the inauguration of the Creator God’s kingdom on earth.  Putting aside the letters, the majority of which pre-date the written forms of the Gospels, it is worthwhile to make note of the use of “love” in the earliest Gospel, which was that of Mark.  Mark makes use of “love” only three times.  Matthew and Luke, both of which rely heavily upon the Markan narrative while also drawing on other sources (both oral and written), expand the usage of “love,” with Matthew offering up ten instances of the term, and Luke employing the vocabulary of love on twelve occasions.   

By the time that the Gospel of John is composed (by the “disciple whom Jesus loved”), with the letters bearing the name of “John” most likely being roughly contemporary with the Gospel, it is love that has taken the field as the driving force that underlies the living out of the life of allegiance to the claims of Jesus and the response to His Resurrection and His kingdom.  That is evidenced by the narrative of the life of Jesus, who is recognized from the beginning of the Gospel as the embodiment of the Creator God, that has been constructed by the author of the Gospel of John.  It is reinforced by the sensibilities of the Johannine-related community which are revealed by the Johannine letters. 

It is patently obvious that the controlling ethic of love has taken center-stage for the Christian community to which the John writings are directed (and perhaps for the wider Christian community as well), and this is reflected by the narrative of the global Christian community that has been passed down through the centuries.  It is also possible that the author wanted to push the community in the direction of love, but with the growing presence of “love” in the synoptic Gospels as they are developed, it seems more likely that John’s structure is a response to a direction that has been previously taken.     

At the time of the writing of John, it seems clear that the high Christology of the Creator God in the person of the Christ has been worked out quite fully.  This would be, in no small part, due to the efforts of men such as the Apostle Paul, whose preaching, teaching, and letters had been a major influence in the development of what could be referred to as Christian orthodoxy.  It was the love of the Creator God, demonstrated by His grace and mercy while being firmly rooted in His faithfulness to His covenant and His creation, with all of this happening in and through Jesus, that best explained the whole of the Christ-event (incarnation, ministry, death, Resurrection, ascension).   

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 1)

When Jesus heard this, He said, “This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” – John 11:4  (NET)

Prior to making this statement, Jesus had received a message about a good friend.  In that message, He had been told that “the one You love is sick” (11:3b).  As an aside, it should be noted that Lazarus is the only man in the New Testament of whom it is said that Jesus loved him, while here it can also be learned that “Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus” (11:5).  It is fascinating to consider that it is these people alone that are of spoken of in this way (Jesus loved him/them), and spoken of this way here in this Gospel alone, which makes an internal claim to be authored by the disciple whom Jesus loved (21:20,24). 

Upon hearing this, Jesus---the one that had demonstrated power to turn water into wine, who is said to have pronounced from afar the healing of the son of a royal official in Capernaum, reported to have healed a long-crippled man at the pool of Bethesda, multiplied a few loaves and fishes to feed a multitude of people, walked on water, and gave sight to a man that had been blind from birth---did not run to Lazarus’ bedside and He did not pronounce healing from afar, though presumably, based on His track record and what is reported about Him, He could have done so.  The author reports that He simply replied to the message by saying that “This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”  Additionally, having heard this report about the one (the only individual in Scripture) that Jesus is specifically said to have loved, somewhat oddly, “He remained in the place where He was for two more days” (11:6b). 

So what did Jesus mean by this statement concerning sickness, death, the Son of God, and glory?  Many conclusions can be drawn.  As possible answers are considered, it must be remembered that these Gospel narratives were not compositions of random occurrences.  Rather, the Gospels, John included, are continuous narratives.  As continues narratives that leave out some details of Jesus’ life, while including and highlighting others, are designed to tell a story that is subsequently designed to prompt the reader of the story to draw a conclusion about the person upon Whom they are focused. 

When Jesus said that this sickness would lead to God’s glory, was He indicating a knowledge that Lazarus was going to die, and that He was going to go and call him forth from the tomb, thus bringing glory to the Creator God?  This is possible and simple, but it seems to be unlikely.  In fact, it is probably as unlikely as the idea that the man that had been born blind, about whom can be read in the ninth chapter of John, spent an entire lifetime suffering in blindness and darkness so that one day Jesus could come along and heal Him and the God of Israel could be glorified through the healing.  That would seem like nothing more than a great, cosmic joke by a prankster god unworthy of praise.  That does not seem like the type of God that Jesus is said to reveal.  

Considering the record of the man that was born blind, Jesus said that this condition existed “so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him” (9:3b).  Thus, that case would seem to  less about the healing and more about Jesus’ Messianic claims, as the fall-out over the healing, as recorded in the Gospel narrative that must be read as a continuous and connected story, would ultimately center on questions about Jesus as Messiah and Jesus’ presenting Himself as the Good Shepherd, which carried patently messianic undertones.  Through the healing, the acts of the Creator God were in fact revealed, in that one of the widely held expectations about Israel’s messiah was that he would be the physical, human embodiment of the faithful and covenant God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that He would be acting on behalf of Israel to fulfill His promises to them.  In addition to that, through the healing, the reader, who has been introduced into the Johannine story about the true divine image-bearer with the words “In the beginning,” is given a glimpse into what the Creator God had always intended for humanity.