Acts, Jealousy & Honor (part 4)

This leads into the report that “Now the high priest rose up, and all those with him (that is, the religious party of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy” (Acts 5:17).  Why were they filled with jealousy?  Was it the performance of miraculous signs and wonders?  No.  Was it the growing crowds and the people gathering from all over?  Not directly.  So what was it?  It was the “high honor” being accorded to the disciples, which was evidenced by the behavior of the people.  Public honor was a limited good.  The growth of the honor of one necessarily led to the diminishing of the honor of another.  Yes, they still had their power, but they were losing their honor.  If enough honor slipped from their hands, their power would ultimately go with it. 

Though it comes from John’s Gospel (composed after Acts), the eleventh chapter contains a story that sheds light on this way of thinking: “So the chief priests and the Pharisees called the council together and said, ‘What are we doing?  For this man is performing many miraculous signs.  If we allow Him to go on this way, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation.’” (John 11:47-48)  As seen in Acts, these are concerns about honor and power, and they are prefaced with mention of miraculous signs and a growing number of followers.

What was the response of the high priest and his cohorts in Acts?  “They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail” (5:18).  They attempted to shame and humiliate the apostles, doing so publicly in an attempt to diminish their public honor and increase their public shame.  Consequently, the high priest would not suffer the further loss of honor.  This backfires on the council, as the disciples are honored, with Luke indicating that the honoring is accomplished by the Creator God Himself (somewhat indirectly), as “during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the prison, led them out, and said, ‘Go and stand in the Temple courts,’” the place that symbolized the public honor of those who had jailed them, “and proclaim to the people all the words of this life.’” (5:19-20).  “This life” would have been the life of the way of the kingdom of the Creator God.  “This life” would have the been the resurrected life of Jesus.  “This life” would have been the promise of the general resurrection to come.

The response of the opposition is predictable.  The disciples, who have done precisely what the angel has instructed them to do, are re-arrested and taken before the council.  “When they had brought them, they stood them before the council, and the high priest questioned them, saying ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name.  Look, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood on us!’” (5:27-28)  Proclaiming Jesus would be an indirect challenge to the high priest and associates, as they, having delivered up Jesus to the provincial government, were complicit in the execution of Jesus as a state criminal.  Thus, via these continued challenges and the associated accusations that they had acted unjustly based upon the verdict of Israel’s God as indicated by the Resurrection and the reversal of that shaming, shame continues to come their way. 

In response, Peter piles on, saying “We must obey God rather than people” (5:29a).  This, in itself, is an interesting public-honor-diminishing statement, as the high priest was presumed to speak for the covenant God.  Peter makes it clear that the high priest and the council do not in fact speak for Israel’s God, with the primary evidence of that fact being the stand that they had taken against Jesus (the personal revelation of their God).  He continues: “The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you seized and killed by hanging him on a tree” (5:30). 

Love On John's Terms (part 28)

The uniqueness of the miraculous signs in John does not simply lie in the fact of the occurrence of the miraculous.  It could also be seen that Jesus gained a following, with people believing in Him, His message, and His movement, through the witnessing and reporting of miraculous signs.  Others before Jesus (and after Him) had and would gain substantial followings as well.  However, in contrast to Jesus, their followings often grew with reports of their rebellious and subversive activities (Jesus was shown to be subversive, but in a more subtle manner), their incitement to violence against their oppressors, or their military exploits against the vaunted Roman military machine.  Jesus’ following achieved no growth along such lines.  He certainly did not go about achieving His popular support in the usual or largely expected way. 

Though John the Baptist is reported to have been caustic in his speech (though not in John’s Gospel), what was said of his cousin (Jesus) could also be said to be true of him, as he did not gain his following along the lines of the usual or expected means.  How could he?  Had he engaged in overtly revolutionary activities, he certainly could not have heralded himself or have been heralded as preparing the path for the type of messiah that Jesus presents Himself to be, nor would Jesus have aligned Himself and identified Himself with John’s movement (the signaling of a new exodus for Israel, and through Israel for the world) by undergoing a baptism at John’s hands.

The regular references to Moses in the Gospel of John, whether those references be explicit or implicit, are both an adjunct to the mentioning of miraculous signs and a reminder of the way in which Moses went about proving that he was charged with representing the covenant God to His people.  It must be said that Moses gained a following, though the following was not gained (as he may have hoped or expected), when he raised his hand to kill an Egyptian that was abusing one of his fellow Israelites.  That action merely sent Moses into his own period of exile, possibly delaying the Creator God’s plan to deliver Israel from their Egyptian bondage. 

Initially, Moses gained his following through performing miraculous signs, which is what he was instructed to do by the Creator God when he returned to Egypt with the demand to “let My people go.”  When Moses had questioned God as to how he was going to convince Pharaoh and Israel that he spoke for the God of Israel and that he was the vessel through which that God was bringing about the deliverance of His people, Moses was provided with a series of miraculous signs to perform.  The book of Exodus records the performance of these various signs.  This point shall be taken up again shortly. 

Returning to the text then, the author seems to take pains to hammer home a point previously and repeatedly made (this would have been second nature for his audience, but not so much for members of a modern Christian culture which has a tendency to separate, divide, and pluck passages and stories from their setting and examine them in isolation), which is that the Gospel narrative must be heard as a unified presentation, rather than presented through selected portions of the narrative. 

While it is certainly possible and appropriate to elaborate on circumstances, situations, and statements, such things demand to be considered within their wider context.  Any statement by Jesus, or the author for that matter, that is pulled out of the text and examined on its own without being placed in its appropriate theological, soteriological, sociological, cultural, political, and eschatological framework (at the very least), will end up as nothing more than an ingredient in a recipe for fallacious and anachronistic exegesis.  

Love On John's Terms (part 27)

The author of John provides an excellent example of the necessity of hearing the story as a whole in what follows from the presentation of Jesus as the good shepherd.  In the twenty-second verse of the chapter, there is a change of scenery in Jerusalem, as the author writes “Then came the feast of the Dedication in Jerusalem.  It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the Temple area in Solomon’s portico” (John 10:22-23).  Clearly, this represents a substantial shift in timing, because all that has been heard from the seventh chapter up to this point has occurred in conjunction with the Feast of Tabernacles, which does not take place in the winter. 

The temptation, then, is to pick up right here with these verses and treat this story separately.  To do so would be foolish, as when Jesus is heard to say “My sheep listen to My voice and I know them, and they follow Me.  I give them eternal life, and they will never perish” (10:27-28a), it can only be heard correctly in the context provided by all that has come before in the narrative, which is also dependent on a knowledge of Israel’s history along with then current understanding of Jewish hopes that would have informed Jesus’ use of eternal life (otherwise, Jesus could not expect to be understood).  As stated, the narrative continues to build, demanding to be heard as a whole. 

Again, the concepts as presented, and especially ideas concerning what is meant by love, demand to be heard on their own terms.  So to understand John’s notion of love, which is prefaced by the description of the way that the Creator God loved the world, and to do so without retrojecting preconceived notions about its definition, it is entirely necessary to take this step by step journey through the Johannine text, so as to come to grips with this author’s theology and its accompaniments (Christology, soteriology, eschatology, ecclesiology, etc…) that will define the ethic. 

A fair amount of space in this study has been spent on the issue of “miraculous signs” in this Gospel, with nine such appearances in the text having already been reviewed.  The phrase has not been encountered since the seventh chapter, but it reappears at the close of the tenth chapter, where the author reports that “Many came to Him and began to say, ‘John performed no miraculous sign, but everything John said about this man was true!’  And many believed in Jesus there” (10:41-42).  This is prefaced by a reference to the fact that “Jesus,” following his time spent specifically in Jerusalem, where He has His dealings in the time periods of the Feast of Tabernacles and the Feast of Dedication, “went back across the Jordan River again to the place where John had been baptizing at an earlier time and He stayed there” (10:40).  This mention of John at the close of the tenth chapter is mildly intriguing, as it obviously calls attention to the words and work of John the Baptist.  It takes the step of re-identifying Jesus with John and the exodus-themed movement that John had begun at a place not terribly distant from Jerusalem. 

By making mention that it was being said that “John performed no miraculous sign,” it seems that the author wants to hang a substantial amount of weight on the miraculous signs performed by Jesus, as reported in his Gospel.  It would appear to be the case that the miraculous signs are what, in the author’s mind, set Jesus apart from all those that had come before Him.  With the Resurrection from the dead following His crucifixion being the ultimate miraculous sign, it could be said that the church was fully agreed that Jesus was quite unique.  

Love On John's Terms (part 17)

Moving along to the seventh chapter and to the next use of “miraculous signs” in this Gospel narrative, one finds “Whenever the Christ comes, he won’t perform more miraculous signs than this man did, will he?” (John 7:31b)  The immediate context is provided by “Yet many of the crowd believed in Him and said…” (7:31a)  So again, “miraculous signs” is linked with “belief.”   Thus one must again consider the overall movement of this presentation of Jesus, in that the Creator God’s love for the world (John 3:16) is bound up with belief in Jesus.

By this, additional credence is lent to the link between the repetitious appearance of “miraculous signs” here in John (the only Gospel where such are to be found, save one usage in Luke), and the obvious Johannine predilection towards love, clearly rooted in the covenant God’s love for the world, as the operative Christian ethic.  The words of the thirty-first verse also forces a consideration of the wider context of the statement, which are questions about Jesus’ identity as the messiah.  As an observer situates himself within the original and intended audience for the narrative, such is done with the pre-supposition that Jesus is the Messiah (the Christ), and the development of the Gospel presentation will be heard from that position.

Whereas Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand, His walking on water, and His discourse about Himself as the bread of life took place in Galilee, these words from the seventh chapter are lifted from His being situated in Jerusalem.  Presumably then, Jesus has a new audience, differing quite significantly from the audience that He has had in the region of Galilee.  The season of the year is the Feast of Tabernacles, which is one of the fall feasts of Judaism.  The setting is presented in the fourteenth verse of the seventh chapter, where the author writes “When the feast was half over, Jesus went up to the Temple courts and began to teach.” 

A back and forth between the Jewish leaders and Jesus stems from the commencement of the aforementioned teaching.  As should be expected by now, at least according to the structure at play, Jesus brings a reference to Moses into play.  Eventually, the back and forth leads to what is reported to be an open discussion on the part of the residents of Jerusalem as to whether or not Jesus could actually be the Christ (7:25-26), which also results in some words from Jesus that lead to an unsuccessful attempt seize Jesus. 

In all of the back and forth, and in all of the reports within this Gospel about what Jesus has done since venturing back into Judea and Jerusalem, the reader does not stumble upon anything that seems like it would prompt the people of Jerusalem to mention Jesus in the same breath as “miraculous signs.”  Nevertheless, this is the very thing that is reported to have taken place.  In fact, though it can be reasonably presumed that word of the large-scale feeding has made its way around the countryside, the only miraculous signs that Jesus has performed to this point in the Johannine narrative are the turning of water into wine in Cana and the healing of the royal official’s son in Capernaum. 

The latter two of those three, which could be supplemented by the walking on water, would not be prone to massive dissemination.  To this point, the only miraculous sign that Jesus has performed in Jerusalem itself is the healing of the paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda.  In this Gospel story, the remainder of Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem so far, is confined to teaching and speaking about Himself.  There is little reason to wonder, then, that the story demonstrates that there is not an outright acceptance of Jesus’ claims about Himself.  At the same time, one is left to wonder at the paucity of miraculous occurrences to be found in the very Gospel that is loaded with references to miraculous signs.  However, one must never forget the over-arching/underlying context of love and the love of the Creator God for the world as it is being expressed through Jesus, that seems to inform every aspect of this presentation of the life of Jesus.

Love On John's Terms (part 13)

When it comes to the question of love on display, the fifteenth verse of John’s sixth chapter informs the reader that “Jesus, because He knew they were going to come and seize Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone” (6:15).  How does this show love?  There is a marked and remarkable self-restraint on the part of this man Jesus, as He refuses to succumb to the people’s desire to make Him king; and perhaps even the temptation to receive the acclimation must at least partially stem from the fact that an acclimation of Him as king is going to come with a declaration of war against Rome. 

Of course, the author writes from a position of the knowledge of what happened when the Jews rebelled against Rome a few decades preceding the time of the written composition of this work (though it is a possibility that the oral tradition that eventually took this written form preceded the written work by a number of years), whereas Jesus is presented as having an implicit knowledge of what will happen if He allows Himself and His people to travel the path that will follow from their desire to make Him king.  Not only will destruction come to Israel, but the plans for the kingdom of the Creator God, and how it is to be brought about, will be nullified.  Here, through this withdrawal, Jesus preserves His disciples, these people, and His nation, in a way that does not derail the purposes of the kingdom that He believes begins and is to be found in unity with Him.  So indeed, this could be looked upon as an example of love to be worked out, understood, and manifested by the community of those that claim allegiance to Jesus.   

The use of “miraculous signs” in the second verse of the sixth chapter of John has been mentioned, as it is this instance that took this study down this particular path.  The sixth chapter contains another usage of the phrase, and it occurs following the story of the feeding of the five thousand.  There, when pressed as to how it is that He had been able to make it to the place at which He was now encountered, Jesus says “I tell you the solemn truth, you are looking for Me not because you saw miraculous signs, but because you ate all the loaves of bread you wanted” (6:26).  To that He adds, “Do not work for the food that disappears, but for the food that remains to eternal life” (6:27a).  Here, as in the third chapter and the conversation with Nicodemus that stemmed directly from His actions in the Temple as they were recorded in the second chapter, the witness of miraculous signs is tied to “eternal life,” which the hearers of this story know is linked to the need for belief in Jesus as the harbinger of the kingdom of Israel’s God. 

The notion that Jesus’ miraculous signs, especially as they relate to the provision of bread, are connected to the kingdom of God, is given further concretion by the people’s response, which is “What must we do to accomplish the deeds God requires?” (6:28b)  This, of course, comes as Jesus expresses the love of His God, and as there is a desire on the part of the hearer or reader to know what it means to express love to and for one another in aspiration towards discipleship, as this is what Jesus is said to desire from His people.  Relating to the belief in Jesus in connection to the presence of the kingdom of the Creator, Jesus simply offers “This is the deed God requires---to believe in the one whom He sent” (6:29). 

Here, Jesus insists that belief must take on the form of a loyal allegiance to the Creator God and to His purposes to lead His people in an exodus (eternal life---the life of the age to come invading the present) and to bring them into that which He has promised to them, as the statement makes a push towards the previously mentioned reference to Moses.  This push towards Moses culminates with the response to Jesus’ statement about the deeds required by God, which is “Then what miraculous sign will you perform, so that we may see it and believe you?  What will you do?  Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” (6:30-31) 

Love On John's Terms (part 12)

To this point, the observation of “miraculous signs” has been limited to the plural.  However, its usage in the singular must not be overlooked.  It cannot be said that the singular phrase is limited to the Gospel of John alone, as a singular use is also to be found in Luke’s Gospel.  However, as it is a single instance, it does not appear to play a role in the overall structure and movement of Luke, but this most certainly cannot be said of its role in the Gospel of John. 

Adding the uses of the singular “miraculous sign” to that of the plural, one finds an additional five instances of its role in the Gospel, thus bringing the total number of “miraculous sign” language to fourteen instances.  Clearly, it is a key component of what is being communicated by this author.  This makes sense, especially when reflecting on the fact that the pre-supposition of this Gospel is a very high Christology, operating on the premise that Jesus is the incarnation of Israel’s covenant God.  The hearers then, especially with this presupposition at play in their own community, are not going to be surprised that miraculous signs follow Him. 

“Miraculous sign” makes its first appearance in the fourth chapter, following the healing of the son of a royal official.  This is recorded as “His second miraculous sign when He returned from Judea to Galilee” (4:54).  It makes two of its five appearances in the sixth chapter, which is heavy with “sign” language.  All told, between the singular and the plural, the listener and the reader encounter this language four times in this chapter.  Considering the fact that the chapter contains the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus making His walk on the water, and His discourse related to bread (which ultimately springs from the feeding), this is unsurprising.  Does love play a role in any of this?  In this chapter that is filled with miraculous signs, and references to the same, is it possible to make any additions to an understanding of what “love” means on John’s terms?  As is almost always the case, the qualifying answer is “perhaps.” 

In the fourteenth verse the author writes “Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, ‘This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.’”  This is an allusion to a statement from the book of Deuteronomy---a key component of the Hebrew Scriptures that weighed heavily on Jewish self-understanding in the second Temple period.  In the eighteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, as Moses continues to address Israel, he can be heard saying that “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you---from your fellow Israelites; you must listen to him” (18:15). 

Because Moses, of course, was understood as the man that the Creator God had raised up to lead Israel out from under Egyptian oppression, these words, as reported by John, must be seen and heard in that light and context.  The people were affirming Jesus as the new Moses.  Therefore, He must also be the one that is going to lead them out from under Roman oppression and occupation.  For the crowds, this Moses-like leadership is confirmed by the fact that Jesus has miraculously provided bread to a multitude of people there on the mountainside, just as Moses (though it was Israel’s God at work---one can say the same for Jesus from the perspective on offer by John) miraculously provided bread to the nation of Israel in the wilderness following their exodus.

This is not simply conjecture, because it is rather obvious that this is the way these things are meant to be understood.  To this point, later on in the sixth chapter Jesus is heard to say “I tell you the solemn truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but My Father is giving you true bread from heaven” (6:32).  This explicit mention of Moses (in the wake of the implicit mention of Moses in the fourteenth verse) in the midst of a section of the Gospel full of references to miraculous signs, calls attention to the single use of the plural “miraculous signs” that is to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures.  That use is in the one hundred fifth Psalm.  There, within a context of the Psalmist speaking about Moses and Aaron and the display of divine power that precipitated the Creator God’s delivery of Israel from Egypt, the Psalmist writes “they executed His miraculous signs among them” (105:27a).  Thus, one can surmise that John’s “miraculous sign” structure, especially here in the sixth chapter, plays on the exile and exodus motif (perishing and eternal life) that was established in the third chapter during the conversation with Nicodemus. 

Love On John's Terms (part 11)

It is then appropriate to take a look at the uses of “miraculous signs.”  In the second chapter of John, this term is used in conjunction with the changing of the water into wine, as the author writes that “Jesus did this as the first of His miraculous signs” (2:11a).  This was said to have been a way in which “He revealed His glory, and His disciples believed in Him” (2:11b).  Consequently then, the presentation of the signs are often linked to the issue of belief. 

In the twenty-third verse of the same chapter, the author reports that “while Jesus was in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, many people believed in His name because they saw the miraculous signs He was doing.”  Interestingly, this mention of miraculous signs is not specifically connected to any particular account of the performance of miraculous signs.  It is simply an assertion on the part of the author that seems to rely on the knowledge of the miraculous as part of the Jesus tradition in the community for which this Gospel was composed. 

At this point in the record offered by the author of John, all that Jesus is said to have done in Jerusalem was the driving out of those changing money and selling animals (2:15), along with making a statement about the Temple being His Father’s house (2:16).  These would hardly be defined as “miraculous signs” in any respect.  In response to His activity in the Temple, unsurprisingly, Jesus is questioned by the Jewish leaders, with a demand to know why, and under what authority, He had done what He had done.  In fact, as it relates to the purposes of this study at this point, it is even asked of him “What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?” (2:18b)  Here, the use of “miraculous” is not offered.  Jesus is said to have responded to the query with the highly subversive and quite obviously proleptic “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again” (2:19), but there is certainly nothing in this story that approaches the level of “miraculous sign”. 

From there, John immediately moves to the story of an encounter between Jesus and a Jewish leader named Nicodemus.  With no chapter breaks in the original composition, and with it most likely designed to be delivered as an oral performance at a single setting, the listener is taken directly from Jesus speaking to a group of Jewish leaders, to Jesus speaking with one Jewish leader.  Presumably then, it is reasonable to understand Nicodemus as coming to Jesus as a direct result of what took place in the Temple.  It is probable then, for the purpose of this Gospel and its author, that the listener is supposed to presume that Nicodemus was himself present at the event in the Temple and heard what Jesus said. 

In his opening statement to Jesus, Nicodemus says “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God.  For no one could perform the miraculous signs that you do unless God is with Him” (3:2b).  Once again, this talk of “miraculous signs” presumes a shared knowledge within the Johannine community, for there is nothing in the Jerusalem-situated narrative, to that point, that could truly be labeled as such. 

Jesus’ response to Nicodemus contains the first reported use, in the Gospel of John, of the all-important phrase “kingdom of God.”  Jesus said to Him, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (3:3).  This will go on to tie in quite well with Jesus’ talk, within the same conversation, of perishing and eternal life (which, as has already been established, is linked to conceptions of exile and exodus, both of which speak to the nature of the rule of the Creator God over His people, and through them, the whole of creation), and of the salvation and redemption of the world that is part of the Creator’s design and purpose for the Christ.  Naturally, Jesus then goes on to speak about the need for belief (3:12,16,18), thus relating Nicodemus’ use of “miraculous signs” with belief. 

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. 

Only Son (part 6)

Now, putting aside the statements about being born from above and born of water and spirit, what would probably have been more significant for Nicodemus was Jesus’ multiple use of the term “kingdom of God.”  This would have been Nicodemus’ concern.  It is likely that this is what he was after---that which he desired to see.  To that end, he would be asking “Was Jesus the Messiah?”  Was He the One through Whom the Creator God of Israel was going to work to usher in His kingdom and set all things right? 

As one ponders the thoughts and emotions that these possibilities would have been potentially stirring in Nicodemus, his seemingly ludicrous response about a man entering into his mother’s womb and being born a second time (John 3:4b) almost comes off as an effort to focus on something besides Jesus’ talk about the great Jewish hope, with this being an attempt to obfuscate his own tremendous excitement at what this might very well mean for him, for his people, for their land, and for the world. 

The same thing could possibly be said about Nicodemus’ question of “How can these things be?” (3:9a)  Remember, Nicodemus was not necessarily there for a theological and philosophical dissertation.  He came, based on his relationship with Jesus, for a conversation concerning expectations.  He came for information.  The Gospel record attempts to make it obvious that Nicodemus wanted to know what Jesus thought about Himself.  His concern was the kingdom of God, and whether the God of Israel was now and finally fulfilling His long-standing promise through this man that had quite recently been so incredibly demonstrative at the Temple, and who was said to have done many signs while at the feast of Passover. 

This too is significant.  Passover is always crucial, and due to the crowds that the celebration would bring to Jerusalem, the events of Passover would regularly be seized upon for those wishing to draw attention to themselves and their causes by making grand, symbolic statements.  Thus, one should not lose sight of the fact that the signs to which Nicodemus is referring were being performed by Jesus in association with Passover.  Passover, of course, was the yearly celebration of the Creator God intervening on behalf of His oppressed people, conquering their enemies, and leading them out of Egypt (in dramatic confirmation of His promise to Abraham) under the leadership of their great deliverer, Moses. 

The juxtaposition of performing signs at Passover, combined with His actions in the Temple, would not have been lost on anybody who was in the least bit culturally and religiously aware, especially a Pharisee who was also a member of the ruling council.  A person doing what Jesus was said to have done, in conjunction with the feast that was conducted on an annual basis in celebration of the time when the covenant God gave His people liberation from their oppressors who were keeping them outside of the promised blessings of their God, was effectively declaring that he was, at the least, a messianic figure.  This could very well serve to inspire great hope and arouse great passions among a significant portion of the people. 

Naturally, this sparking of hope and passion could take different paths.  One path would be the establishment of the heaven-come-to-earth kingdom of the God of Israel, through a glorious display of His saving power against the enemies of Israel (not unlike that which was said to have been witnessed by the Egyptians).  The other way would be a rebellion that would inevitably result in being crushed by Rome, along with an executed messiah.  Accordingly, Nicodemus needed to know more from Jesus.  That is why he was there.        

Only Son (part 5)

Before one can attempt to delve into what Nicodemus is supposed to think when he hears Jesus say “This is the way God loved the world…” (John 3:16a), it is necessary to examine other parts of the conversation, as this is a building process.  Jesus does not just make this lone statement, but gets there over the course of a relationship and a conversation (of which we have only a glimpse).  In the Gospel record, Nicodemus has already spoken to Jesus about the signs that He is doing, with an indication of an assent on his own part that Jesus “has come from God” (3:2b).  Again, it cannot be said enough that this was a time of great expectation.  Israel is expecting their God to act on their behalf.  They are expecting some type of a messiah to make his presence felt. 

A widely-held (though certainly not exclusive) understanding about the messiah was that he would somehow be the physical embodiment of Israel’s God.  When Nicodemus speaks of Jesus as coming from God, Nicodemus speaks from within this expectation.  Nicodemus seems to be making a rather subtle inquiry as to whether or not Jesus was (or at least thought He was) the messiah.  His own words about the Creator God of Israel being with Jesus would seem to indicate that he believes that this is a strong possibility. 

How does Jesus respond to what Nicodemus says?  He responds by making reference to the Jewish, messianic hope that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was certainly going to fulfill His promise and establish His kingdom.  Keeping things simple, this would entail firstly the removal of Roman oppression, and secondly the subjugation of Rome to Israel, as Israel was to be elevated above all nations, with its messiah installed and recognized as king.  Jesus, presumably, is fully aware of the Jewish hope and would have shared in that hope.  Indeed, by His own words that are to come, one can see that He believes that He is fulfilling the Jewish hope of kingdom. 

In demonstration of this awareness of the kingdom hopes harbored by Himself and by His people, Jesus says to Nicodemus: “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (3:3).  After a response from Nicodemus which serves to reveal just how truly puzzling this statement was, with its inclusion of being “born from above,” Jesus continues and says, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (3:5). 

Clearly, Nicodemus is confused by Jesus’ speech here, and one would have to imagine that he would not be alone in his confusion.  Even Jesus’ own disciples, though they are with Him all the time and had the chance to hear Him speak (and likely expound on His thoughts) on a regular basis, as He likely made similar intriguing and potentially confusing statements on that same regular basis, were routinely perplexed by what He had to say and found themselves in need of private explanations. 

Granted, as a Pharisee and an esteemed member of the Jewish ruling council, Nicodemus was no doubt part of the elite and educated citizens of Israel.  It is unlikely that he was an intellectual and theological slouch.  However, the Gospels report that Jesus routinely stumped even the most elite with His statements and His questions.  As he hears the words of Jesus, one can surely envision the confused expression that rested upon Nicodemus’ face, prompting Jesus to say “Do not be amazed” (3:7a) at these things that I have said to you. 

Only Son (part 4)

As one attempts to gain a more thorough and properly rooted understanding of what Jesus means with the words that have come to be designated as John 3:16, it must be borne in mind that not only are the words offered in the context of what must be a larger discourse and long-running relationship between Jesus and Nicodemus (of which the author surely provides only a small portion), but that they are offered in a political, historical, cultural, social, and theological context as well.  So understanding the context will take quite a bit more than simply examining the verses that come before and after.  The context is far more complex than that.  Rather, the entire setting in which the words were spoken must be taken into consideration, which will allow the reader to gain an insight into the potential mindset of Nicodemus. 

This is to be done so that one can understand first what Nicodemus may have thought when Jesus spoke these words, and along with that, the things to which Jesus might be referring upon speaking these words.  Then, if this material has been traversed correctly, though relatively briefly (and certainly not exhaustively), the words will have a more correct and perhaps deeper meaning for the reader as well, as the way in which they fit into what it is that it is the great and over-arching plan of the Creator God for this world and for the beings that had been made in and as His image can now be properly grasped.

In the story as presented in this Gospel record, the very first thing that Nicodemus says to Jesus is “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God.  For no one could perform the miraculous signs that you do unless God is with him” (3:2b).  There is, of course, a great tradition of the giving and receiving of signs within Israel’s history.  Abraham asked for a sign from his God.  Moses asked for a sign that would demonstrate that the One speaking to him was truly the God of his forefathers.  Gideon would request and receive a sign from Israel's God.  There are numerous other instances of people asking for signs, so this was not simply limited to Jesus’ day and to the people of the time.  With his statement then, Nicodemus fits neatly into this long tradition.  First, he acknowledges that Jesus seems to be quite special, and then makes his reference to signs.  It is worth noting that, up to this point, the record of the Gospel of John does not have Jesus performing a large number of “signs.” 

What were the signs, according to what has been presented by the author, of which Nicodemus would be aware, and to which he would be making reference?  In the second chapter is the story of Jesus turning water into wine, which was not only miraculous on the surface, but was also a dramatic social and cultural statement by Jesus, centered upon meal practice, that did much to upend the honor and shame culture while also forever providing a cue to the followers of Jesus and what was to expected of them (the truly miraculous occurrence was not the transformation of liquid).  John reports that “Jesus did this as the first of His miraculous signs, in Cana of Galilee.  In this way He revealed His glory, and His disciples believed in Him” (2:11).  Following that, the Johannine narrative presents Jesus’ dramatic actions in the Temple.  It was this that drew the attention of the Jewish leaders to Jesus.  They said to Him, “What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?” (2:18b) 

In response, Jesus speaks about the destruction of the Temple and its being rebuilt in three days.  He offered this as a sign.  The reader then goes on to find that “while Jesus was in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, many people believed in His name because they saw the miraculous signs he was doing” (2:23).  So it is possible to come to the conclusion that it is His activities in the Temple, together with the signs (symbols of Messiah-ship?) that He was performing during the feast, that prompts this particular conversation with Nicodemus.      

Light Of The World (part 1 of 2)

Then Jesus spoke out again, “I am the light of the world.  The one who follows Me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” – John 8:12  (NET)

Though these words from Jesus are reported here in verse twelve of the eighth chapter of John, it is quite likely that is should actually be the first verse of the chapter.  In truth, it should be a part of the story of the seventh chapter, as with His words, Jesus appears to be addressing an issue raised in chapter seven.  Of course, it is very much worth noting that until more than a thousand years after the composition of John’s Gospel, there were no set chapter divisions.  In this case, the chapter division provides for a rather unnatural and perhaps ultimately unhelpful break in the narrative flow. 

At any rate, the primary reason that it should be the first verse of the chapter is that it is generally agreed upon that the story of the woman caught in adultery and thrown before Jesus for judgment, which appears in the section from John 7:53 through John 8:11, is actually not contained in what are recognized to be the earliest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John.  Thus, it was almost certainly not originally a part of John’s Gospel (though the story may certainly have been known in the community for/by which the Gospel was composed, and some manuscripts have even placed the story after Luke 21:38.  Now, this is not to say that the account is not true or that it did not occur, but that it should not rightly be found here in this Gospel. 

Indeed, as something to which has previously been alluded, the inclusion of the story of the woman taken in adultery appears to interrupt a singular train of thought being communicated by the author, thus artificially and unfortunately disconnecting what is presented in chapter eight from what is presented in chapter seven.  What is it that is going on in the seventh chapter?  In it, Jesus has secretly come to Jerusalem during the Feast of Tabernacles.  This is one of the three fall feasts of the Jewish calendar (generally referred to as Trumpets, Atonement, Tabernacles), that mark the beginning of the Jewish New Year. 

There, it can be read that Jesus “went up, not openly but in secret.  So the Jewish leaders were looking for Him at the feast” (7:10b-11a).  It is safe to say, and the author probably intends to communicate, that there was an aura of expectancy around Jesus, and accordingly, “There was a lot of grumbling about Him among the crowds.  Some were saying, ‘He is a good man,’ but others, “He deceives the common people’.” (7:12).  Either way, the expectancy concerning Him was palpable, with Jesus causing a stir and making an impact.

So, making His appearance in Jerusalem and making Himself known in spite of the inherent and apparent danger in doing so, Jesus bursts on the scene in the middle of the feast, making His presence felt by teaching in the Temple courts.  His wise words are reported to have provoked astonishment amongst the leaders of the people.  With what is demonstrated to be a keen sense of discernment, Jesus says, “My teaching is not from Me, but from the One Who sent Me” (7:16).  With this, we find that His public speaking being all the more astonishing, in that with these types of words, he is provoking great personal risk in its undertaking.  We are able to learn that (or have that sense confirmed) when we read that “some of the residents of Jerusalem began to say, ‘Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill?  Yet here He is, speaking publicly, and they are saying nothing to Him’.” (7:25-26a) 

One can certainly imagine how quickly talk of such words would spread through the crowds, thereby bringing the inevitable conclusion of “Do the rulers really know that this man is the Christ?” (7:26b)  This, however, presented a firm dilemma, because as it pertained to the messiah, there appears to have been a generally held proposition that “Whenever the Christ comes, no one will know where he comes from” (7:27b).  The dilemma is confirmed when the people are to be found saying, “But we know where this man comes from” (7:27a).  Thus we have here an indication of doubt concerning the potential messianic status of this Jesus character.  Added to this doubt however, was the growing consensus about Jesus, and the growing number of those that believed Him to be the Messiah, which is reflected in the question of “Whenever the Christ comes, He won’t perform more miraculous signs than this Man, will he?” (7:31b).     

Remembering Egypt (part 1 of 2)

…that all the days of your life you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt. – Deuteronomy 16:3b  (ESV)

In the book called Deuteronomy, the fifth and final book of what are commonly referred to as the “books of Moses,” we find the above statement made in connection with the celebration of the Passover.  Now, it is often said that we should forget the past and put things behind us, and we are routinely told not to dredge up old memories, because doing so is not useful or helpful.  Yet here, Moses tells the people of Israel, God’s covenant people---those that are called a chosen and treasured possession to whom God has gone out to reveal Himself and to make a people for His praise and His glory, to actively call to mind their day of deliverance from the place of their captivity and servitude.  The instruction to them is to do this “all the days of your life,”  and this charge is given this quite seriously.  Moses is presented as being so insistent about this directive, that throughout the book of Deuteronomy, which is set forth as Moses’ final address to the people of Israel, we find Moses consistently reminding the people of their time in Egypt.  In fact, Egypt is mentioned nearly forty times through the course of Deuteronomy. 

The people had said, “Because the Lord hated us He has brought us out of the land of Egypt…to destroy us” (1:27).  Moses told them “The Lord your God will fight for you, just as He did for you in Egypt” (1:30).  He reminds them that “the Lord has taken you…out of Egypt, to be a people of His own inheritance” (4:20), and references the “trials…signs…wonders…war…mighty hand…outstretched arm…deeds of terror…which the Lord your God did for you in Egypt” (4:34), to bring them “out of Egypt with His own presence, by His great power” (4:37).  Moses reminds them again of the very words of the Lord, which had been “I am the Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (5:6), before recounting for them the “Ten Commandments.”  To these, he then adds, “take care lest you forget the Lord, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (6:12).  In association with these commandments, the people were instructed to tell their children, “We were…slaves in Egypt.  And the Lord brought us out of Egypt...And the Lord showed signs and wonders…against Egypt” (6:21-22).

Moses speaks of God’s faithfulness to His people, telling them that “it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that He swore to your fathers, that the Lord has…redeemed you from the house of slavery…of Egypt” (7:8), adding a reminder of “the evil diseases of Egypt” (the plagues) that did not come upon Israel.  The people are charged to remember “what the Lord…did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt” (7:18).  As we move forward, we find Moses warning the people against unfounded pride in their prosperity, prophesying that their hearts will “be lifted up,” and that they would “forget the Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (8:14).  He tells them to “Remember and do not forget how your provoke the Lord your God to wrath…From the day you came out of the land of Egypt” (9:7), as a reminder of His longsuffering nature. 

With that, Moses has them call to mind their rebellion, and informs them that even when the Lord speaks, He reminds the people what has been done for them, speaking to Moses of the “people whom you have brought from Egypt” that “have acted corruptly” (9:12).  With that said, when Moses speaks to God, he even takes it upon himself to make mention of Egypt in connection with His people, turning that around and calling them the people “whom You have brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand” (9:26).  These very people, whom God brought out, were the evidence of God’s covenant faithfulness, as they “went down to Egypt seventy persons,” and “the Lord” made them “as numerous as the stars of heaven” (10:22).  Even when they thought of their vast multitudes, they were made to remember Egypt.