The next few weeks entries are sooooo long that I have done some cutting and I will still break them into smaller pieces. I feel compelled to remind everyone that these are my thoughts of nearly two years ago, and things have changed in those two years. But I had to go through this part in order to get where I am today, which is why I'm posting this all up here. Once these old entries are here, there will probably be many fewer posts, and much shorter : ) Anyone who reads them, though, will know where I am coming from in a way they could not have, without this history.
August 1
I’m feeling a little bad about how I’m treating Matthew. Not approaching it with an open heart. There are a lot of wonderful passages in it, but the truth is that I don’t trust its accuracy. It just feels like it is trying too hard to sway me to a particular interpretation. I wonder how people who become Christians as adults respond to it. I can see taking great comfort in the beatitudes, for example, but there are so many other places where Jesus seems angry and judgmental, divisive. Not the compassionate healer predominantly, though there is some of that, of course.
To me Matthew feels like someone who has been hurt and is angry. He’s preoccupied with wanting justice. He wants the Messiah to punish the wrongdoers who have hurt him. It reads to me as the author really focused on and made central everything Jesus said that could be construed that way. And certainly he seems to have been hurt by the Jewish establishment, and thus directs his ire their way.
Reminds me – yesterday Jim told me that Mel Gibson had been arrested for driving under the influence, and while being arrested ranted about how the Jews have started every war since time began, how they are in control of the world, and are running it, and accused the police of being Jews. Totally off the deep-end, which is no surprise considering his Passion portrays Jews in a very negative light, and all the hype about it eventually put his father on the air. Whoa! He’s a little Nazi. My point is that people like that have been using Matthew to justify their hatred and racism for a long time, and now I can see why.
When Jesus walked on water and stilled the storm, it certainly made them wonder. In Mark, it just says they were astonished. 6:52 “for they had not gained any insight from the incident of the loaves, but their heart was hardened.” In Matthew, it says (14:33) “And those who were in the boat worshipped Him, saying ‘You are certainly God’s Son.’”
15:24 he refuses to help a Syropheonician woman because “I was sent only to the sheep of the house of Israel.” As in Mark, he calls her a dog to her face – you don’t take the children’s bread and feed it to dogs. But she convinces him and he relents and heals her daughter. Seems pretty clear that his message was, at least initially, meant only for Jews. Need to look for when he changes his mind, if he does.
Matthew’s version of Jesus asking the disciples who they think he is doesn’t seem as much as in Mark that he doesn’t know, himself. He seems instead to tell Peter he’s right that he is the Son of God, 16:13-20. But he again tells them not to tell anyone.
In 17:12-13 it is clear that Jesus meant John the Baptist was Elijah, whom the scriptures say must come again before the Messiah. And he did come, and was killed. So also will the Son of Man. And when the disciples are unable to cast out the demon, Mark has Jesus say, “This kind only comes with prayer and fasting., or at least, that is in some mss. In Matthew, some of the mss have that verse, but all have Jesus saying it is their own fault – they didn’t have enough faith. 17:20.
Divorce 19:9. He also seems to say that celibacy is best, but not everyone can do it. An acknowledgment of the power of the sex drive. In 19:16, with the young ruler, the way Matthew reads is different. He does not have Jesus say he isn’t God, as does Mark. And in 19:23, Jesus promises the disciples thrones of their own in heaven.
August 2
Here are my latest thoughts about Matthew.
Regarding the triumphal entry, Matt also has Jesus orchestrate it by telling the disciples to steal a colt. But he does so in order that a prophecy be fulfilled – 21:4. Jesus was certainly familiar with the scriptures, so was a human trying to fulfill the prophecies, trying to convince people? Sort of like those people trying to breed a red goat, or whatever, on a particular mountain in Israel in order to initiate Armageddon?
Then again with the poor fig tree, 21:18-22. It is in the parable of the landowner, 21:33-44, that Jesus first says clearly that his message, intended for Jews but rejected by them, will now be for others, who will be given “the fruit of it.”
His words about whether or not there is a resurrection of the body, or whose wife the woman married to 7 brothers will be, in 22:23-33. God is the God of the living, not the dead, he says, and the people were astonished. But what does it mean?
Then Matthew has the Pharisees ask him what the greatest commandments are, and has them be amazed when he says love God, and love your neighbor, 22:34-40. But why would they be amazed? That is their own teaching! Hillel and Gamaliel, anyway, were teaching that before and during Jesus’ life.
Then the passage about the Christ being the Son of David has a different meaning than in Mark. In Matt 22:41-45, Jesus seems to be saying the Christ is not the son of David, since David calls him Lord, and everyone is stumped. In chapter 23, Jesus gives a diatribe against the Pharisees, saying they are hypocrites. “woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,” he says, SEVEN times.
It’s like Matthew gathered together all the times that Jesus dressed people down, and attributed them all to the Pharisees. But it seems very likely that Jesus had been trained as one, as Paul was too. So maybe he was fed up with some of the things he saw and didn’t like, but this incredible anger just doesn’t feel right. “You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?” he asks, in 23:33, and prophesizes that he will send them more prophets, whom they will kill and persecute, and he makes all scribes and Pharisees accountable for every sin, really, of humanity thru time. Pretty broad strokes.
August 3
There is some pretty scary stuff in chap. 24 about the end times, and v. 37-51 suggest the Rapture. He does make it all sound imminent, like he expects the end very soon.
The statement about those having more will be given more makes more sense here, because it follows a parable of “the Talents,” in which a man gives his slaves 10, 5, and 1 talent; the first 2 invest and double their money for him, while the last one buries his to keep it safe, and makes no investment. He’s cast into the “outer darkness” for that. The moral seems to be that we shouldn’t be lazy or fearful, but should take risks in attempts to increase God’s wealth. It is still kind of inconsistent, because what would have happened to the slave if he had invested and lost the money? Wouldn’t he have been punished?
If God is the landowner – this one is pretty greedy. He is a man who is “hard, reaping where he doesn’t sow and gathering where he spread no seed.” V.24. How is that even possible for a creator god, since all seed is his seed? But the larger point – cast into outer darkness for doing what one was asked to do? I guess we are supposed to read God's mind.
25:31-46 is a beautiful passage about the Judgment, in which we are taught to feed the hungry, visit prisoners, clothe the naked, take in the stranger, etc., just as if each human is Jesus himself. Makes me want to e-mail it to all the self-righteous jerks who deny immigrants water in the desert because they are “breaking the law.” And these are the very same people who feel they are better than the Pharisees, (whom they equate with all Jews), and thus more deserving of God’s love.
Also the story of the night in Gethsemane is very moving. We see Jesus fearful, grieved, praying that he not have to be crucified. But willing, if that is what God wants. Like all Jewish heroes, he is utterly human. Again, though, it is “a great multitude . . . from the chief priests and elders of the people.” 26:47 who come to arrest Jesus. Jesus himself says hey, you saw me in the temple, so why didn’t you arrest me there? V.55. So why do they need Judas to identify him? Jesus answers in v.56 that it is only to fulfill the scriptures. So I read that as support for the Judas gospel.
Now, in 26:64, when Jesus is before Caraphas, not answering the charges, Caraphas asks him, “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus answers, “You have said it yourself.” And Caraphas finds that such blasphemy that he sentences Jesus to death. There are a lot of issues here. Why does Matthew have C. equate “Christ” with “Son of God”? Unless I am very much mistaken, Jews did not equate the two at all. They expected a human Messiah, not a divine one. There was no concept of God having an actual son, just the notion that we are all his children and that those with whom God is pleased may be given that honorary title.
So is this a later interpretation creeping in? Or is C. outraged because Jesus has been preaching that God has a son, like the nasty Greek and Roman gods? But we don’t see any evidence of that previously in Matthew. Or is C. just mad because Jesus is saying he is the chosen one? That doesn’t fly – people don’t get accused of blasphemy for that – just ignored, usually.
Obviously, Jesus really made people angry. He keeps telling them they are wrong, and does it so well that they can’t answer back. He points out all the ways they aren’t following the scriptures. If Matt is to be believed, he’s also calling them names and insulting them regularly. He violates their code, breaks their laws. He’s stirring people up. None of that seems worthy of a death sentence, does it? But somehow it is. Will see what Armstrong says about it. Matthew wants us to believe it is because Jesus has claimed divinity, but I’m just not sure he actually did that.
In 7:1-10 we learn that Judas returned the silver to the high priests and hanged himself, and that the priests used the money to buy the “Potter’s Field” as a burial place for strangers. From all accounts it seems clear that Jesus accepted the title “King of the Jews,” if he didn’t propose it himself. Or is that just more of his patience with their lack of understanding what he really meant?
Barrabas is a “notorious person” 27:16 – not a crime suspect.
At the crucifixion, Matt has the people saying Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (27:43), and challenged him to save himself. He reports the women there as Mary M., Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of (James and John), the sons of Zebedee 27:56.
28:1, Mary M. and “the other Mary” went to the tomb first. Just realized that in neither Mark nor Matthew has Mary Magdalene’s presence been explained, except I think Mark says “she who had been exorcised of demons,” or something like that. No, now I can’t find that. But Jesus did not save a woman from being stoned in either of these gospels.
In Mark, there was a “man” in the tomb, who said Jesus was gone. Here, 28:2-8, an angel descends from heaven before the women, shows them the empty tomb, and sends them to report it. Then Jesus himself meets them and they touch his feet and worship him, 28:9.
In 28:11-15, Matt has the chief priests pay the soldiers to spread the story that the disciples stole the body themselves. No story of Thomas or 2 men on the road. Instead, the disciples do as Mary M said Jesus asked and go to Galilee, where Jesus met them on a mountain top, “but some were doubtful.” He commissions them to go out and baptize all nations and make them disciples, and promises to be with them to the end of the age. And that’s it.
Charles Freeman says that the original Mark ended with the empty tomb, and the passages about Jesus’ later appearances weren’t added until the 2nd century, 100+ years later, p.103.
I think I’ve done enough with Matthew for now. It’s pretty clear how I feel about this gospel. I just find so much of what it says suspect, because it so clearly has an agenda beyond familiarizing others with the life and teachings of Jesus.
Luke thinks more like we do. He wants to set things out in an orderly, chronological fashion. He even begins with an introduction. Then he begins his story with the parents of John the Baptists, and John’s birth is as miraculous, nearly, as Jesus. Gabriel appears to his priestly father and clearly says John will be the “spirit and power of Elijah.” 1:17
Then Gabriel appears to Mary, a virgin engaged and gives her the news, which troubles her. It is a compassionate view of Mary, makes her a real person. Mary and Elizabeth are related, and Mary visits her, and John, in the womb, recognizes her with a leap, which causes Elizabeth to prophesy. Then Mary is given a beautiful speech. The mythology has really grown by this time, hasn’t it? Luke feels like a good author, who (maybe) gives words to his characters to make them more real.
Chapter 2 tells of Jesus’ birth and childhood, with all the Christmas stories – of a census that seems unlikely – see Freeman. Not that they didn’t do censuses, but they didn’t ask people to go to their birthplace. Angels appear to the shepherds, and tell them the Messiah is born. Then Simeon, at the temple at Jesus’ circumcision, recognizes him, and that he’ll be “a light to the Gentiles.” Anna the Prophetess agrees.
There is nothing at all about Wise Men, or Herod killing children, or the family fleeing to Egypt. They do, though, go home to Nazareth where the child grows with “the grace of God upon him.” 2:40. They travel to Jerusalem for the Passover every year, and at age 12 Jesus hangs out in the temple amazing everyone, and rebukes his parents, calling the temple his “father’s house.” 2:49.
I wonder where Luke got all this stuff, since it isn’t in the earlier texts. Q? Another lost text? Or is it oral tradition by then? The prophecy of Isaiah that they all cite, about John being the voice in the wilderness; also says “every mountain and hill shall be made low, and every ravine filled up.” Isaiah 40:3-4. It doesn’t really seem like a prophecy. It’s a hymn, more like, praising God. It adds to my feeling that the gospel writers keep taking scripture out of context, and applying it where ever the verse makes sense, regardless of whether the surrounding verses do. A mistake – will cause one to stumble?
Luke includes a lot more the teachings of John the Baptist, which are quite similar to Jesus: In 3;23-38, Luke gives a different genealogy of Jesus, again through Joseph, who shouldn’t matter.
In the temptations, Luke has the devil (or Satan) say, “If you are truly the Son of God.” 4:9. After, he goes directly to Nazareth, unlike the other two gospels, and Luke gives us the content of his sermon. He read from Isaiah, a passage about being anointed to preach the gospel to the poor, release the captives, etc., and says, “Today the scripture has been fulfilled.” 4:18-21. Interesting, the people are pleased with that, they have no problem with until he creates one by saying prophets aren’t honored in their hometowns, and Elijah had to go to Sidon, not Jerusalem, for succor. Then they get pissed, and run him out of town. They almost threw him off a cliff, but he miraculously escaped.
In 6:20-26, Luke gives the beatitudes, and follows with the woes that Matthew had him saying only to the scribes and Pharisees. And previously Jesus is having civil discussions with them, none of which begins with name-calling. Luke’s Sermon on the Mount is altogether more generous, compassionate and kind. Stresses mercy, not judgment.
Matthew’s verse reads as if Jesus were saying no one is wiser than he (can’t find it now) but Luke’s says, “A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher” 6:40. Gives more the idea that we all can be like him.
I love the story of the woman, a sinner, who washes Jesus’ feet. He allows it, but one sees great compassion in him, and love, and forgiveness. Plus he teaches a good lesson to the Pharisee 7:40-49. By the way, he is eating and visiting with the Pharisee, not spitting insults at him.
8:1-3 Luke describes the women, “Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom 7 demons had gone out, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who were contributing to their support out of their private means.”
Again, calming the storm, it seems like to Jesus, it is so obvious that humans can do such things if they have faith. But the disciples keep missing that point, thinking Jesus must be something special. Wasn’t it for this reason the Buddha refused to do miracles?
In 8:26-39, it isn’t any more clear why Jesus lets the demons go into the swine. What about the owners of those pigs? Was he(they) in need of punishment? Were the pigs diseased? Why not tell us?
It is in Luke 9:18-22 that Jesus asks the disciples who they and the people say that he is. John: Elijah, a prophet from old. Peter: “The Christ of God”. Not the Son – there is no implication of divinity. Jesus answers, “The Son of Man must suffer many things,” and predicts his death and resurrection. But he also predicts that some of those there will see the Kingdom of God before they taste death. V. 27. What did he mean? Was he wrong? What was his definition of Kingdom?
Luke says that during the transformation, Moses and Elijah were talking to him about what was going to happen to him in Jerusalem 9:31. Sorry – what he was going to accomplish. He is the agent, not the victim.
I guess all three gospels are trying to imply that Peter, in offering to make 3 tabernacles, has offended God by placing Jesus on the same level with Moses and Elijah. That’s why God speaks, calling Jesus his “Beloved Son.” 9:35. No, Luke says, “this is my Son, my Chosen One.” That does not imply divinity, necessarily.
Jesus does lose his patience a little, with the disciples when they can’t cast out the one demon (which sounds a lot like epilepsy, btw). “How long shall I have to put up with you?” he says 9:41. Again, its because they don’t believe they can do it. He tells them to remember what he has said, for he is going to be delivered up to the “hands of men”. “But they do not understand this statement, and it was concealed from them so that they might not perceive it.” 9:45.
Here it is again, this peculiar way of saying we aren’t totally responsible, for it will be “given” to us to understand, or “concealed” from us so we can’t.
I guess I don’t get what the purpose is of saying things to someone and then making it impossible for them to understand what you said. Maybe it is just the way people think in a culture in which prophecy is normal and an accepted part of daily life. People say things for posterity, not to be understood now, but later. Maybe its sort of like preventing paradoxes in time travel. If people understood, then they might change the future and thus nullify your prediction. But you, as the soothsayer, can point back and say, "See? Remember when I said such and such?"
Luke, like Mark, has it that “He who is not against you is for you.” 9:50. Only Matthew is vindictive. Go figure.
Whoa – totally new story. As the Passover was approaching, they begin heading for Jerusalem. And in a Samaritan village, the people won’t serve them, because they are Jews headed to the city. The disciples ask if they should rain down fire on the villages! So I guess they’d figured out their power! And Jesus says a moving thing, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” 9:35. Those are really interesting words. What kind of spirit you are of. Is he saying his essence is spirit, not flesh? Is he saying his spirit is physically in them; that they are in some way now a part of him? Is he suggesting that through their discipleship they have managed to find that Oneness? I highlighted that verse in my last attempt at Christianity, but I don’t remember it at all.
In the next bit, about exacting discipleship, Jesus’ words are pretty harsh. But maybe he said it in a compassionate tone, so that “You aren’t fit for the Kingdom of heaven” came across as “You are not ready to make the sacrifice of discipleship.”
One has to wonder about tone, about slight differences in nuance, in translation. Maybe some of what he said that sounds so brutal really wasn’t. Because if Matthew or the hardest bits of the others are accurate, it is hard to see how/why his followers would have spoken of him as loving and compassionate. I was going to say gentle, but I haven’t actually noticed anyone using that word to describe Jesus. I don’t get the feel of a gentle man. At times, yes, but not generally.
Huh, Luke has him send out another 70. And he’s like God here, cursing the cities that have not welcomed him. Hmm. In 10:18 he says, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven.” But the context is that of the 70 coming back exuberant because they have been casting out demons. So it doesn’t necessarily imply that it is literal, and definitely not that he was with God in the beginning, as I think I’ve seen it interpreted. He prays the same prayer, saying all things have been handed over to him, and that only the Father knows the Son, and the Son the Father.
In Luke’s version of “Ask, Seek, Knock” there is the implication that it might take persistence and repetition, because he precedes it with the story of a man waking a friend in the middle of the night, who first refuses him !!:
Satan, the devil, and Beelzabul are all equated by Luke’s time (11:18). Interesting, because I saw in 1 or 2 Kings references to the god Baal-zebul, the clear origin.
Now in 11:37-54, he gives a diatribe against the Pharisees. But he is eating with them in one of their houses, and he doesn’t keep calling them names. He lets the lawyers have it, too! None of them are too happy when he’s done.
He’s no clearer about what it means to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. 12:10. Slightly different context – in the middle of the sparrows and hairs speech. He gives a little more story to the “don’t lay up treasures on earth” speech, making it real for the people. The advice against worry is breathtaking in its simplicity and power. 12:22-34. What wonderful words: “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom!” 12:32.
The “be in readiness” parables that follow are also great. It is most certainly not a message of fairness or equality he is preaching. More responsibility and justice. Though justice is not always “fair,” if that makes sense. For not only will more be given to those who already have, but “from everyone who has been given much, shall much be required, and to whom they have entrusted much, of him they will ask the more.” 12:48. Who are “they”?
Jesus is moved to anger at the hypocrisy of the Pharisees when they berate him for breaking the law by healing on the Sabbath, though they would move their oxen – un-tether them or a mule, but they won’t un-tether a poor woman who is bound by Satan 18 years? 12:10-17. he keeps reminding them not to put the law over compassion.
He says many will strive to enter but still not be able; God will close the door. Abraham and everyone else will be inside, but you will be cast out [if you aren’t careful] 13:22-29. Doesn’t this contradict the ask and you shall receive? If you strive to enter, why would you be unable?
Hey! In 13:31 some Pharisees come and warn him that Herod wants to kill him. They are trying to protect him. So much for Matthew’s belief that they are al the evil enemy of God! 14:1-6, he’s eating with the Pharisees and lawyers again, and having an amiable discussion about healing on the Sabbath.
Oops! I skipped a page when I moved outside - In the next section he tells people not to think they are better than some notorious cases where people got terrible punishments. “Are they greater sinners? No, but unless you repent, you will likewise perish!” But then he tells a parable about a fig tree that produced no fruit for 3 years. The landowner says to cut it down, but the steward says let me give it some fertilizer and care, and see if it produces next year. 13:6-9. Is he saying he is the steward, begging for one more chance before God strikes them all down? Then why does he himself curse the fig tree? Are the two things connected? Was he saying, “That’s it! I’m done with you!”?
It doesn’t look like Luke even includes that. Back to where I was. Jesus at dinner with the Pharisees and lawyers, and they have a lot of discussion. He says many wise things, and they appear to be receptive and learning from him. Later, he speaks to those following about the effort discipleship requires, and that they need to calculate if they are willing to pay the cost. Don’t start things you can’t finish, in other words 14:25-35.
There are so many instructions to be humble, to consider and declare yourself unworthy, that it is no mystery why I got the idea that it was a good thing to purge every good thought I had about myself. Because if you are outwardly humble, but inside you have even one thought of “I’m okay,” how are you any different from the hypocrites Jesus berates? See 18:9-14.
Luke also has Jesus say that “No one is good except God alone.” 18:18, differentiating himself from God.
In Luke, the story of the 10, 5, and 1 pieces of money is different. They are minas, not talents, and its about a king who puts the first two in charge of cities and berates the last who buried the coin. But its also about how the people didn’t want him to be king, and he put them all to death. I really don’t get what he’s trying to say. 19:11-27.
He does give more explication about the Sadducees’ question re. resurrection. Luke has him say clearly that there is a resurrection of the dead 20:37. It isn’t clear to me, though. He says, “but that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the burning bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Now he is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to Him” 20:37-38. Is that what Moses meant? That to God there is no time, and all live at once? I really doubt it. I think Luke is just trying to make sense of it, whereas the others didn’t try.
And Luke has him say, when they ask about the future, that there will be wars and rumors of wars, etc., but “the end does not follow immediately.” 21:9. My question – is he talking about 70 AD, when the Temple is destroyed and the Diaspora begins? Or a later date, which would be in my future, since there was no Israel in-between. Sure sounds like the Diaspora in 70. Course, all the geological and astronomical signs (21:25-28) didn’t occur then. Plus no Son of Man in a cloud. [that we know of]
Satan enters into Judas and causes him to betray him! 22:3.
Garden of Gethsemane was pretty bad for him. “He was in agony, his sweat became like drops of blood” 22:44. At the council he does say he is the Son of God 22:69. Luke is more specific about the charges the Council brings to Pilate (though he doesn’t mention Caraphas) “He was misleading our nation, forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and calling himself Christ, a King.” 23:2. Pilate asks, “Are you the King of the Jews?” “It is as you say,” he answers 23:3. This makes more sense – it is a political claim.
Oh – Luke has Pilate send Jesus to Herod, who was in Jerusalem for the holiday. But Jesus won’t answer Herod, so Herod’s soldiers dress him in purple, mock him, and Herod sends him back to Pilate. Pilate and Herod become friends through this 23:12.
Barrabas – insurrectionist and murderer 23:19.
First time Jesus says, “Forgive them” 23:33. Always bugged me – he tells the thief he’ll be with him today in Paradise – but he’s supposed to go to hell? When did that get added? Haven’t seen it yet.
What is my general impression of Luke? He’s a better writer. He too moves things around to make order and sense. He strikes me as having a real sense of both the wisdom and the compassion of Jesus. In Luke’s hands Jesus is a caring teacher. He doesn’t try to tie Jesus to old prophecy that much (except when using Mark?), but I do have a sense that he added his own words and interpretations when things weren’t clear. He feels truer to the spirit of what I imagine Jesus was like – would had to have been like to make such an impression. But he also has mythologized him and his story. In some ways the gospel feels far from the real man – but in others, in feel, he’s closer (I imagine – it is just my impression.)
He does make a case for Jesus as the Christ, and maybe as Divinity, but its gentle, not pushy. As a companion of Paul’s, his view of Jesus is Pauline. Currently scholars put the writing of this around 70, so 40 years had passed. That is enough time for things to begin to gel, various interpretations – and for things, words, to get lost.
The important test – if one followed Luke closely, based one’s life on its teachings, I don’t think one would go that wrong with God, either way, and one would have a peaceful, loving life that was of benefit to others. His gospel seems logical; it doesn’t contradict itself too much. I’ve benefited from reading it and would no doubt continue to grow if I read it more.
Well, I think I’m ready to leave the synoptic gospels and move on to John. Written last, maybe around 100-110 AD, it is quite different. Presents a theological argument, and argues definitively for the divinity of Jesus. I know this, and I know a lot more now about how that argument took shape, but like the others, I haven’t actually read John in ages. So let’s begin. For the record, it is now 7 pm and I’ve done nothing but this all day, and I’m in so much pain I can hardly stand it. Let John be a good distraction.
He begins with a bang – equating Jesus with the Logos. A philosophical argument - the true light, Logos, is like the breath, kind of, of God – giving life, or soul, or anima to man. Without it, man is not man. The true light came to its own – I.e. the humans it had caused to be, who were “like” it, and they did not receive it. But some did, and those he made his own.
1:14 The Word became flesh – Logos became man, God incarnated and dwelt among us. Boy, I wonder if this is clearer in the Greek. 1:16-18 “For the Law was given to Moses; grace and truth were realized thru Jesus Christ. No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God (some mss read Son), who is in the bosom of the Father. He has explained Him.”
Is he saying that God has 3 qualities, or has given 3 gifts to man? Law, grace, and truth? He is making a liar out of Abraham, Lot, and Isaac; not sure who else, but these all claimed to have seen God. Has explained Him – God explained Jesus through scripture? Jesus explained God through his life?
In the other gospels, Jesus implied John the Baptist was Elijah, but here John Baptist says he isn’t. Hmmm – no birth story here – as if John is stripping the myths back off. Freeman said that John used other, earlier texts than Mark and Q, now lost, and this may be the most historically accurate. However, John the Baptist is saying Jesus is the Son of God, and it really doesn’t seem likely that he said this, or at least, if he did he meant something different by it.
And there is no filling of boats with fish – Peter and Andrew were already disciples of John the Baptist, and switched when John told them Jesus was the Lamb of God 1:35-42. Oops, no. Andrew was John’s disciple, and as soon as he met Jesus he went and got his brother Simon, said, “We’ve found the Messiah!” and brought him. Jesus promptly renamed him Cephos. Do we have different apostles? Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, Nathaniel . . .
Wedding day at Cana – unique to John 2:1-13. And his mother knows full well he’s a miracle worker – has him doing household chores, essentially. And she and his brothers travel with him. John’s gospel has Jesus kick the money-changers out of the temple right off the bat, and he’s says he can destroy and rebuild it in three days. The other gospels all have people accusing him of saying that, but never show him saying it. Later his disciples realize (or decide) he meant the temple of his body 2:13-22.
So far - though it would anger many to hear me say it - he is coming off like a braggart.
Then there is Nicodemus, and being born again – all totally absent in the other gospels 3:1-20.
August 4
[long discussion of all the work that needs to be done] But I have long wanted to give serious attention to the gospels, and I’m glad I’m doing that.
Reading John last night, I just can’t believe I never noticed how different it is. I almost can’t believe it made it into the canon, it is so different and so contradicts the other three. But it is the only one to establish Jesus’ divinity, and it includes the only passages that really spell out what Christian doctrine came to be, so I guess they had to include it. What they do, like in my Bible, is say it was written to “supplement the others” so doesn’t have to cover what the synoptic ones do. My Bible attributes it to John, the youngest apostle, which stretches credulity, as it wasn’t written until at least 100 AD. Even if John was a teenager when Jesus lived, he would have been 70-80 years old. It’s possible, just not that likely.
We were up to chapter 3, which is a really beautiful passage about how God so loved the world, he sent his Son to save it. It has some mystical allusions to the nature of God – not flesh, but Spirit, which is like wind. We really get a different view of John the Baptist and his relationship with Jesus. In the other 3, its really a one-time thing, though Jesus continues to speak highly of John. Here, he spends time with him, takes some of his disciples, and in 3:22-25, preaches in the same area as John the Baptist. Rather than seeing him as a rival, John keeps saying, “That’s the guy I was talking about! He’s from God and baptizes in the Holy Spirit.”
Jesus had disciples baptizing more people than John – he himself wasn’t doing it 4:1-3. Then he heads into Samaria. In 4:7-38, we have the story of the Samaritan woman at the well (the one !Nai, the !Kung woman thinks is so scandalous), also unique to this gospel.
[This is a reference to an ethnographic film of a !Kung woman's life story. Part of it follows her to church, where the Afrikaans pastor preaches about this story. The !Kung are horrified by it. They listen to the scripture, shaking their heads throughout. When the minister tries to explain, he just makes it worse. The ethnographer later asks !Nai what she was thinking, and she says that first, a woman would never go to get water alone when there were strangers abou, and any man who approached a woman alone could not, by definition, be a good person. "He was just trying to have sex with her, that Jesus." That is the only sense they could make of the story at all. And it seemed especially terrible to them that someone would use water - the one thing all people must have and that San peoples NEVER deny to one another, even their enemies - as a tool to accomplish this seduction. Upon further questioning, !Nai says that the story helps to explain the white people's behavior - since even their gods behave so despicably.]
It isn’t really clear what he tells her. He says he has “living water,” which makes sense, has been interpreted as the Holy Spirit. He tells the woman her past, which impresses her. That part is all okay, but then she says, “you people,” meaning Jews, say only to worship in Jerusalem, and she says she worships on the mountain [a reference to Baal?]. He tells her a time is coming when people won’t worship the Father either on the mountain or in Jerusalem. Is he referring to the Diaspora and destruction of the Temple? He says she worships what she doesn’t know, he (Jews) worship what they do know “for salvation comes from the Jews” 4:22. But a time is coming, has come, when true worshippers shall worship the Father “in spirit and truth.” Have they not already been doing that? Is Judaism then not a true religion? “God is spirit,” he says, and people must worship in spirit. Maybe he’s alluding to the shift from temple worship with its material sacrifices, to the worship in small groups, filled with the Holy Spirit, leaving buildings and sacrifices behind.
The woman has heard of the Messiah, and seems to have heard that the Jewish Messiah will reach out to gentiles – she says, “He will speak to us.” And Jesus says, “I am he.” She tells her people and they all come, so John has Jesus teaching the Gentiles almost from the beginning of his career.
When the disciples bring him food, he says he doesn’t need it, that he subsists on a different substance. John is making him “otherworldly” right off the bat. Where is that very human Jesus of the first 3?
They accuse him of making himself equal with God, and he agrees. Reads very differently from the others. He makes himself distinct from the Father, but says they know all the same things, and that in fact the Father no longer sits in judgment – he’s give that all to the Son, plus the power of life and death, and says those who don’t honor the Son do not honor the Father who sent him 5;19-24. In 5:26, “Just as the Father has life in Himself (I.e. not given, nor able to be taken away), even so he gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.” He says the dead will soon hear his voice, and will be resurrected to either eternal life or to judgment. But he also says that he can do nothing on his own initiative – so not a completely free agent, as he has no choice but to do as God the Father wills 5:30.
From 5:33-47, he spells out the many witnesses he has that he is indeed God – the witness of John the Baptist, of the works he, Jesus has done and will do, of God Himself and of the scriptures. Whereas in the other gospels, the disciples don’t really get what he’s doing with the loaves and fishes, here 6:1-14, all the people recognize he’s a prophet. Huh. And in 6:15 it says that Jesus knew they were going to take him by force, to make him King, so he went to the mountain alone. Then Jesus walks on water, and there is nothing about Peter doing it.
. . .
The people follow Him and want more bread, and want to know what to do to please God (Believe in me, says Jesus 6:29), and then ask for a sign. Jesus gives a beautiful speech about him being the bread of heaven, and the water of life, and promises eternal life to all who follow him. 6:32-40. The Jews grumble and argue, but Jesus extends his analogy, saying no one has seen God but him. He is the living bread, and they must eat of him and drink of him to be saved. Recall, this is written after 60 years of reliving the Lord’s Supper. They are beautiful words, but did Jesus really say them? 6:54: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. The Jews have asked how they can eat him, and he really doesn’t say how, just that they must.
. . .
We have at least explanations of Judas’ betrayal now; he was possessed by Satan (Luke), or he never believed (John). Wow. In 6:66, it says, “As a result of this many of his disciples withdrew, and were not walking with him anymore.” Jesus sounds pretty depressed, asking his 12 if they want to go, too. Peter answers that he believes. People are leaving, the Jews want to kill him already, so he can’t go to Jerusalem for the Feast of Booths. He tells his brothers to go and preach for him 7:3-10. His brothers aren’t believing him, and tell him he needs to publicize himself if he wants to be known. Jesus does go, but in secret, and listens to what people are saying about him – some that he is a good man, some that he’s leading people astray.
He ends up speaking in the temple, saying he isn’t seeking his own glory, and defending his healing on the Sabbath. People figure out who he is, and accuse him, and he says he’ll only be with them a little while, then he’ll go where they cannot find him. 7:40 The people are really upset and divided over who and what he is. For the most part they reject his claims.
This all just is so different from the other gospels. Where is the humble servant, the compassionate healer and forgiver of sins, the wise story teller? We’ve had no parables, no advice, no real words of wisdom. Not a lot of healing, either. Mostly it is these strident claims of divinity, and threats, and “Why don’t you believe me?” His signs and miracles seem self-serving, rather than for the benefit of others.
Whereas the others stress Jesus’ humanity, here he is depicted as somewhat ethereal, speaking in esoteric riddles rather than down to earth examples. He can hardly be understood by the philosophers, let alone the masses. Yet he’s very human in negative ways. He seems kind of whiny and petulant. Superior and haughty, incredulous that people aren’t rushing to serve him. Surely this isn’t what John intended.
But I think his attempt to demonstrate Jesus’ divinity, and all the times he has Jesus claim it, produces almost the opposite effect from his intention. He sounds more like a fake Messiah, deluded, maybe, but in it for his own gratification. Whereas the humility and the insistence on his humanity in the first 3 makes you think to yourself, “this man is so good, maybe he really is God.” This one makes you want to say, as the people do say to him, “Prove it!”
Flipping through it again, I see that almost the only things Jesus says in this gospel are “Believe me, I really am God, and if you don’t believe me bad things are going to happen.” And he promises good things to those who do believe and follow. He does save the adulterous woman, again unique to John. 8:1-11. but that isn’t in the old mss.
. . .
Hey, a parable! That of the good shepherd 10:1-18. After first putting himself as shepherd, he says he is the “door of the sheep.” If any enter through him, they are saved. Then the good shepherd attain, who protects his sheep, knows them, lays down his life for them.
Before, I’ve always read the gospels by reading all of them at once, going chronologically through them, following guides that put it all together for you. Doing it that way one encounters these passages from John with the other gospels’ news of his good deeds, so they make sense and are beautiful. But you really need the context the other books provide. 10:16 says he has other sheep, to merge into the fold. Gentiles? He next says he has authority (from the Father) to lay down his life and pick it up again.
Some say he’s crazy or possessed again, others that demons don’t heal people. In 10:30 he says, “I and the Father are One,” and they pick up stones to kill him. But Jesus answers them and throws the whole thing into confusion by citing scripture that says, “I said, you are gods.’ If he called them gods, to whom the word came, do you say of him whom the father sanctified and sent into the world ‘You are blaspheming’ because I said I am the Son of God?” 10:33-36. So which is it? Is he a Son in a different way than we are, or what?
. . .
John gives a reason for Judas; the priests have posted a reward. Mary (sister of Martha) is the one who anoints him with costly oils and perfumes (12:3) and it is Judas who objects, because he’s a thief! He pilfers from the money box they carry for the poor (12:6). Poor Judas. John says the priests are thinking about executing Lazarus, too, for having been raised from the dead and thus drawing people toward Jesus.
. . .
Also, John always has Jesus “crying out” instead of just talking. However, he does have Jesus wash the disciples’ feet, which is lovely 13:5-20.
He gives the new commandment – to love one another – in 13:34. It is only in John that Jesus says clearly (over and over) that the only way to the Father is thru him 14:6. Goes over his oneness with the Father again 14:7-14: “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” But then he says that those who believe in him will do the works he does and greater, and promises to do whatever they ask in his name.
He prays one part saying he “manifested Thy name to the men whom Thou gavest me” 17:6. And since those men are His, he asks they be given His joy made fuller and guard them and keep them, safe from the evil one. Then about their future glory 17:22-26. Is this to justify the apostolic church? Legitimize it?
Judas does not kiss him, only shows the mob the meeting place. And it is Peter who cuts off a soldier’s ear – soldier named Malchus. Romans are there - not just the temple priests. The priests take him to Pilate because they have no the right to put him to death 18:31. And his discussion with Pilate is different, and Barabas is a “robber” 18:40. The women present are Jesus’ mother (not named) and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas and Mary Magdalene, 19:25. Jesus asks for wine, to fulfill the scriptures. Side piercing – the only gospel with it, in 19:34.
Mary Magdalene comes alone to the tomb, and it is empty. Ran to Peter and “the other disciple Jesus loved” (I’ve see that one before), they go look, see it is empty, and go home. Mary stays, weeping, and 2 angels are sitting there. Jesus appears behind her, but she doesn’t know it is him. She doesn’t until he says, “Mary.” “Rabboni!” she cries. And he says, “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brethren . . . 20:17. So she goes.
. . .
21:1-11, Jesus does the miracle with the fish. Asks Peter if he loves him 3 times, tells him to tend his sheep. Then a curious thing. Jesus says, “Follow me.” Peter turns around and sees “the disciple whom Jesus loved” following and the one “who had also leaned back on his breast at the supper, and said ‘Lord, who is the one who betrays you?” Peter says, “Lord, what about this man?” Jesus says, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me.” What????? Because it goes on “This saying therefore went out among the brethren, that that disciple would not die.” But the disciple isn’t Judas. Is it John? Is John taken up to heaven? Or what?
And the gospel ends with a note from the author – “This is the disciple who bears witness of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his witness is true.” Has to be John. Imagine, tho, calling yourself, “the one whom Jesus loved.”
No comments:
Post a Comment