Near Emmaus


3 Comments

Pentecost 2013

Coptic icon of Pentecost

Coptic icon of Pentecost

Pentecost Sunday! 

Some thoughts:

- I am hesitant to speak of Pentecost as “the birth of the church,” since this seems foreign to the Lukan message. If by “church” we mean followers of Jesus, then there have been followers before Pentecost. If by “church” we mean one group including Jews and non-Jews, then we are finding something in the narrative that doesn’t occur until several chapters later. It seems more appropriate to see Pentecost as the full inauguration of the New Covenant as depicted by the availability of the Spirit to all people, not a select few.

- It should be observed that this is not the first time people are filled with the Spirit. In Luke 1:15 John the Baptist is filled with the Spirit in his mother’s womb. In 1:41 Elizabeth is filled with the Spirit. In 1:67 Zacharias is filled with the Spirit. Old Covenant figures such Bezalel (Exodus 31:3; 35:31), Joshua (Deuteronomy 34:9), and Micah (3:8) receive the Spirit before Pentecost. This doesn’t detract from Pentecost, because Pentecost is the “democratization” of the Spirit (if you will). Moses imagined a day when all the people of God might be prophets (Numbers 11:29). In some sense (not to ignore that the New Covenant seems to include a new role of prophet distinct from that of the Old Covenant) Pentecost does make all the people of God a prophetic people. Similarly, as the prophet Joel foresaw, the Spirit would be poured out upon all sorts of people, many marginalized by society, including daughters and slaves (2:28-29). The apostle Peter interpreted the Day of Pentecost to be the fulfillment of Joel’s vision (Acts 2:16-21, though the exact nature of Peter’s interpretation is not as clear as we might like in that he includes much of the apocalyptic imagery).

- If we read Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4; 2:33; 13:23, 32 we find that Pentecost is a fulfillment of the Old Covenant: the Spirit has been “poured out” upon people; the Messiah have been revealed (through the resurrection). Pentecost is connected to the resurrection of Jesus as the two stage beginning of the “already, but not yet,” the eschaton before the eschaton.

About these ads


41 Comments

The Trinity in Jewish Times

I picked up a brief book by Daniel Boyarin titled The Jewish Gospels. I am about a little under halfway through and find it engaging. Boyarin points out that post-exilic, pre-rabbinic Judaism was complex. There was not a single Judaism but a variety of Judaisms. Boyarin highlights this when he says:

. . . [T]here were many Jews both in Palestine and outside of it, in places such a Alexandria in Egypt, who had very different ideas about what being a good, devout Jew meant. Some believed that in order to be a kosher Jew you had to believe in a single divine figure and any other belief was simply idol worship. Others believed that God had a divine deputy or emissary or even son, exalted above all the angels, who functioned as an intermediary between God and the world in creation, revelation, and redemption. . . . Thus the basic underlying thoughts from which . . . the Trinity . . . grew are there in the very world into which Jesus was born and in which he was first written about in the Gospels of Mark and John. (Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ [New York: The New Press, 2012], 5–6)

The idea of the Trinity then is not, as some have argued, something that is foreign to the thought of the biblical writers. Sure, the creedal formulations of the fourth and subsequent centuries have a more Greco-philosophical feel to them but the content that they express are biblical and not un-Jewish.

To take it a step further, the two contrasting groups that Boyarin mentions are likely similar to those in the historical situation that Paul N. Anderson finds in 1 John 2:18–25. This passage describes two sets of antichrists: strict monotheists Jewish Christians and docetists. Applicable to this discussion is the first set that sought to revert back to a strict version of monotheistic Judaism, similar to that of the first group mentioned by Boyarin, because they claimed that the Christians who believe in the Father and the Son, the belief of Boyarin’s second group, actually believe in ditheism.

For those who would like to further pursue the subject, you may find of interest Daniel Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” Harvard Theological Review 94, no. 3 (July 2001): 243–84.

You may read Paul Anderson on the antichrists in 1 John and on Revelation in Paul Anderson on Revelation — Session 1.

___

UPDATE: Boyarin’s “The Gospel of the Memra” is available here, courtesy of his webpage at University of California Berkeley.


6 Comments

Good Friday: Jesus and Pilate

ecce-homo-pontius-pilate-movie-banner

Antonio Ciseri’s 1871 Ecce Homo

The narrative of John 18:33-38 is fascinating to me. It is a short dialogue between Pontius Pilate, the Roman Prefect of Judea, and Jesus of Nazareth, a candidate for the role of Jewish Messiah. The Jewish rulers want Jesus crucified, but according to the narrator the decision to procede with capital punishment is Rome’s alone. Pilate had told the Jewish ruler to judge Jesus according to their Law, but the narrator seems to suggest that this would limit their options. Pilate is presented as somewhat bothered that he must focus upon this insignificant man at such a tense time as Passover. Since Pilate represents Rome he must procede with making a decision about Jesus.

Jesus is brought before Pilate. The reader comes to this scene with knowledge given by the narrator earlier (14:6): Jesus is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” The reader knows this. Jesus knows this. Pilate does not know this.

Pilate enters the room and his encounter with Jesus begins:

Pilate: YOU are the King of the Judeans?

Jesus: Are you saying this from yourself or did others tell you about me?

Pilate: I am not a Judean, am I? Your people and chief priest handed you over to me. What have you done?

Jesus: My Kingdom is not from this world. If my Kingdom was from this world my servants would be fighting in order that I not be handed over to the Judeans. But now, my Kingdom is not from here.

Pilate: So then, you are a King?

Jesus: YOU say that I am a King. For this I have been born, and for this I have come unto the world: in order that I testify to the Truth. Everyone who is from the Truth hears my voice.

Pilate: What is Truth?

Jesus and Pilate are engaged in an intense discussion here. Neither commits much by way of answering. Both begin by asking questions of the other. Pilate seems a bit surprised that this man is being called a King by some: “YOU are the King of the Judeans?” Seriously, you?

Immediately, Jesus aims to make Pilate uncomfortable: is this something you think yourself based on your own evidence and observations or did you listen to the Jewish rulers then take their word for it?

Pilate is aware of Jesus’ rhetorical strategy, so he matches Jesus’ question-for-a-question with his own: I’m not Judean, right? Your people disliked you enough to bring you to me, so what did you do?

Jesus doesn’t answer with another question here, but he is indirect: My Kingdom doesn’t emerge from this world–see, my servants don’t fight to establish my Kingdom. You know a bit about establishing a Kingdom through warfare, right?

Pilate wants to end this conversation. Are you a King or not? Jesus doesn’t say: “YOU say that I am a King.” The dialogue began with Pilate’s emphatic response to Jesus: “YOU are the King of the Judeans?” Jesus ends it the same way: “YOU say that I am a King.” Then Jesus tells what he was born to do: testify to Truth. Pilate becomes Socratic: “What is Truth?”

These questions are aimed for the reader though the dialogue is between the two characters. Pilate will disappear from the narrative soon, but if the reader continues to read then the question remains: What is Truth? Good Friday asks us this question: What is Truth?

Who is Truth?

In 19:5 Pilate will tell the crowd: “Behold, the man!” The narrator asks you to do the same: Behold, this man, who embodies the Truth. What will you do with him?

__________

For a helpful commentary on the use of questions in this narrative see Douglas Estes, The Questions of Jesus in John: Logic, Rhetoric, and Persuasive Discourse, 118-123


Leave a comment

Maundy Thursday: beloved and secure

url

The Beloved Disciple has been depicted in imagery of Jesus’ Last Supper as leaning against Jesus’ chest. This presentation of intimacy and security is derived from John 13:21-28. In this scene Jesus tells his disciples that he will be betrayed (v. 21). There is panic in the room as each disciple begins to suspect the other (v. 22). Then, as if a spotlight shines on one character while the rest of the stage goes dark, we are introduced to the Beloved Disciple’s state-of-being-in-crisis: leaning, reclining, secure (v. 23).

My pastor-friend Jeff Garner was the first to help me see the beauty of this scene. This unnamed disciple is known throughout the Fourth Gospel by titles that relate to Jesus’ love for him. Not his name. Not his family or tribe. Not the disciple’s love for Jesus. Not the disciple’s fidelity to Jesus. No. Jesus’ love for him.

To be beloved is to accept the love that is there already. That is it.

The disciples in the room that panic do not recline. These disciples do not relax. These disciples are as loved as the beloved, but the difference is that these disciples are not presented as secure in that love. Each begins to turn against the other. Isn’t this our posture toward one another when we fail to find our identity in Christ’s love for us? When we fear our place at the table?

Peter the great disciple, the apostle, the rock has the good sense to motion toward the Beloved: “Tell who it is of whom he is speaking.” Peter knows the Beloved’s relationship to Jesus allows him access to the answer that the rest of the disciples seek (v. 24). The Beloved turns to Jesus, asks Jesus who it is, and receives an answer: “…the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him.”

Amazingly, if we let the narrative guide us, at this point it could be the Beloved. The Beloved could betray Jesus. Jesus doesn’t say “you,” “Peter,” or even “Judas.” For a brief moment if we stop reading, let the scene pause, and wait, we realize it could be anyone in the room. It will be Judas, but it could have been the Beloved (v. 26).

As the narrative unfolds Judas is identified, but according to the Evangelist it is the Beloved who knows what is happening. Jesus knows. The Beloved knows. Everyone else remains insecure.

This Maundy Thursday as we remember Jesus’ commandments to love one another, and as we share the meal that symbolized his act on our behalf, let us remember that our love toward one another comes from recognizing our being loved (passive) by Jesus. The Beloved’s identity is grounded in Christ’s love for him. I pray that we may all experience this reality: beloved and secure.


Leave a comment

Sundays in the Fourth Gospel: The Prophet-Son

This is the context in which we need to read the conclusion of the prologue to John’s Gospel: “No one has ever seen God; it is the only Son, who is nearest to the Father’s heart, who has made him known” (Jn 1:18). It is in Jesus that the promise of the new prophet is fulfilled. What was true of Moses only in fragmentary form has now been fully realized in the person of Jesus: He lives before the face of God, not just as a friend, but as a Son; he lives in the most intimate unity with the Father.

(Pope Benedict XVI [Joseph Ratzinger], Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, trans. Adrian J. Walker [San Francisco: Ignatius Press],6.)


15 Comments

Sex for survival and Jewish women disciples as research topics

51BlXK%2BkO0L._SY300_Last week I mentioned how Douglas Estes suggests in his book The Questions of Jesus in John: Logic, Rhetoric, and Persuasive Discourse that the the function of questions (non-declaratives) in Paul’s writings or the Synoptic Gospels may be ripe for further research (see Questions and question-asking as a potential thesis/dissertation focus). I have two more ideas for students needing guidance. Both come from Joan E. Taylor’s The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism.

First, Taylor notes in a discussion on Matthew 21:31-32 that Jesus speaks of toll collectors and prostitutes entering the Kingdom ahead of the chief priests and elders. She investigates whether or not John the Baptist would have been known to tell prostitutes to reform certain behaviors like he told soldiers while not telling prostitutes that their profession was to be abandoned completely. She writes of prostitutes encountering John (p. 120),

“Prostitutes would have had to indicate in some way that they had borne good fruit worthy of repentance. Were they also to continue being prostitutes? This is an interesting question. The rabbis clearly considered prostitution sinful, but in ancient Israel prostitution was not unlawful under all circumstances. A father was not to prostitute his daughter (Lev. 19:29), though he was allowed to sell her as a concubine (Exod. 21:7). A priest was forbidden to marry a prostitute or a divorced woman, and a priest’s daughter who became a prostitute was to be burned (Lev. 21:7-9), but the rule for priests was not the rule for everyone. Prostitution was certainly frowned upon (Tob. 4:12; Prov. 7:9-23), but there was no specific law forbidding it. Certain noble prostitutes appear in Scripture–Rahab,for example (Josh. 2:1; 6:25). Samson visited one (Judg. 16:1). Prostitutes could appeal to the king for judgment (1 Kgs. 3:16-18), and they walked openly in the streets (Isa. 23:16). There were probably large numbers of prostitutes in Israel near to Roman military garrisons (Josephus, Ant. 20.356; cf. b. Sabb. 33b; b. Pesah. 113b). The idea that prostitutes could be righteous would nevertheless be shocking. The saying of Jesus in Matt. 21:31 is designed to play on the shock value of the statement. Yet would John, whose ethical standards were extremely high, have allowed that such women could be accepted by God upon immersion, if they, somehow, ‘bore good fruit’? Did he advise ethical conduct within their profession? What kind of advice would have have given to these women, if indeed we are to imagine that he objected only to abuses within their profession?”

Now, Taylor herself concludes, “It is highly unlikely that John thought professional prostitutes capable of living righteously while still keeping to prostitution.” She observes that the word זנה was used to described harlots and זונה is used of women who have committed a variety of sexual sins. The word πόρνη is used to translate these idea in the LXX and it appears in Matthew 21:31 (αἱ πόρναι). There is a connection between Jesus’ words and this OT concept of prostitutes, or women identified primarily by sexual sins committed outside the marriage covenant. This leads Taylor to ask (p. 121),

“Even if professional prostitutes are referred to in relation to John, it should be remembered that in a country of extreme poverty, in which women were a vulnerable group, prostitution proper might have been the only way of surviving for women who were divorced, widowed, or somehow on their own in need of money. The word could also refer to a woman who, though living with a man, was not married to him, that is, to a woman who was maintained by a man without a formal marriage contract. A woman could very easily earn the reputation of being a “prostitute,” even if she were not actually earning money for sex. In the story of Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan women [sic], he refers to the man she is living with as her “husband,” to which she replies she has none. He then notes that indeed she has had seven “husbands,” though in fact the one she is living with now is not her real husband (John 4:16-18). In common appraisal, this unmarried and sexually active woman would have been considered a prostitute. Interestingly, in this story, Jesus does not advise her to go and “sin no more” (cf. the adulterous women [sic] of John 8:1-11). This subject is clearly one that requires more study…”

A few observations:

(1) One could study the role of women who had negative reputations based on their sexual activity among first century Jews. What differentiated prostitutes/harlots from unmarried, sexually active women who depended upon a man for their survival. In the patriarchal culture of the time there were few options for a woman who did not have a husband or another man to care for her.

(2) How did Jews handle the ethical problem of telling a woman to stop having sex for money if that was her only option?

(3) How does this impact our reading of early Christianity’s emphasis on caring for widows?

Second, Taylor observes (pp. 122-123),

“…Matt. 21:31-32 is the only specific mention of women among the disciples of John. This is important, because discipleship in later Judaism and in Graeco-Roman philosophy was typically a male preserve. Two key exceptions to this norm were found elsewhere in Judaic culture, in the community of Therapeutae living by the Mareotic Lake near Alexandria (Philo, On the Contemplative Life) and in the community of disciples of Jesus (see, e.g. Acts 8:3; 9:2, 36). Again, this subject requires greater study, but it should be noted here that women were probably among the disciples of John, and were, like the men, immersed after undergoing a period of instructions

I should clarify that Taylor establishes that people who came to be baptized by John were likely taught by John for some time as concerns fidelity to the Law prior to returning to their communities. If prostitutes came for baptism then these women received instruction making these women disciples.

A couple more observations:

(1) One could research Taylor’s claim that baptism is connected to discipleship in the community of the Baptist.

(2) Another area worth exploring would be the uniqueness of being a woman disciple in the ancient world. What did this do to the early Jesus movement? How would it have been perceived by the surrounding culture? What does it mean to be a woman disciples in juxtaposition with being a male disciple?


11 Comments

The Great Commission from the Son of Man

imgresCraig A. Evans on Matthew 28:18-19 in Matthew (NCBC), 483:

“Jesus states, ‘All authority on heaven and earth have been given to me” (v. 18). Reference to being given authority in heaven and on earth recalls the Son of Man in Dan 7:13-14, who in heaven was given ‘authority’ and authority later claimed ‘on earth’ (cf. Matt 9:6, ‘the Son of Man has authority on earth’; Matt 21:23, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?’; Matt 7:29, ‘he taught them as one having authority’). The heavenly authority of Jesus is such that he even commands angels (cf. Matt 16:27, ‘the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of the Father’; 24:31; 25:31, ‘the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him’).

“The ‘authority’ here in Matt 28:18 probably alludes to the authority granted to the ‘Son of Man’ in Dan 7:14: ‘And royal authority was given to him…his authority is an everlasting authority’ (NETS). The risen Jesus can speak of his authority ‘in heaven’ because that is where the authority was granted –in heaven and in the very presence of God. The claim to have authority ‘on earth’ recalls Jesus’ earlier demonstration that he indeed does possess this authority, which he announced on the occasion of healing the paralyzed man (cf. Matt 9:6, ‘the Son of Man has authority on earth’).”

Quite the imagery: the Son of Man figure receives authority from the Ancient of Days and authoritatively commissions his disciples to make disciples of all the nations. In Daniel 7 the Son of Man figure is given the Kingdoms. Jesus has been given the Kingdoms, so he instructs his disciples to inform the Kingdoms that there has been a change. This seems to be underpinned by Psalm 2 as well where God choses his King and the nations prepare their defense against him, yet in this Gospel the King expects his disciples to find loyalist among the nations who will declare their allegiance to the King.