Category: John (Page 15 of 24)

Mystical Jesus – From the Daily Office – March 1, 2014

March 1, 2014 / eric / 0 Comments

From John’s Gospel:

Now among those who went up to worship at the festival were some Greeks. They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and said to him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip went and told Andrew; then Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – John 12:20-22 (NRSV) – March 1, 2014.)

Single Grain of Wheat This is such a great set up! Here are these Greeks (whether gentiles or Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora is unclear) who want to meet Jesus. They come to Philip who apparently speaks Greek and make their request. He goes to Andrew (another unclear thing: does he take the Greeks with him?) The two of them go see Jesus (with the Greeks?)

Now, how will Jesus respond?

If the Greeks are gentiles, will he respond as he did to the Syro-Phoenician woman: “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” (Matt. 15:26)

Will he respond as he did to the centurion who sought healing for his servant: “Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith.” (Matt. 8:10)

If they are Jews, will he remind them of the Law as he did the rich young man who asked about eternal life: “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” (Mk. 10:21)

Will he welcome them and invite them to eat with him as he did the tax collectors and sinners? (Luke 15:1-2)

Uh . . . no. Not John’s Jesus. John’s Jesus goes off on some entirely self-centered tirade about glorification and grain dying and eternal life and his soul being troubled! John’s Jesus doesn’t respond to Andrew or Philip or the Greeks at all! I swear, there are times when Jesus as portrayed in the Fourth Gospel seems to be somewhere on the autism spectrum; his answers to inquiries are so far removed from the subject of the question one wonders if he even heard what was asked, or knows or cares who is asking. (This is one of those times!) Is this an accurate portrayal of the way Jesus interacted with people? Can this be historically factual?

So here’s my thought: the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel is not the historical Jesus. This Jesus is John’s attempt to communicate the spiritual nature of the resurrected and ascended Lord; this Jesus is a mystical reality not an historical portrait. L. William Countryman in The Mystical Way in the Fourth Gospel called Jesus’ strange, almost non-responsive, frequently offensive dialogs “obnoxious.” Although that’s a good description, I think they are almost hallucinatory. They twist the reader’s understanding of reality and open the reader’s mind to new possibilities. Would you see Jesus? Then consider a kernel of grain and how its life increases even though it dies? Would you see Jesus? Then follow Jesus, do as Jesus does, do what Jesus teaches. Would you see Jesus? Then listen for the voice of the Father. Jesus’s answers seem non-responsive, but they are gateways to new appreciations.

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Political Calculation – From the Daily Office – February 26, 2014

February 26, 2014 / eric / 0 Comments

From the Gospel of John:

You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – John 11:50 (NRSV) – February 26, 2014.)

Broken Glass The words of Caiaphas the high priest are reported by John as a prophecy that Jesus’ death would be an atoning sacrifice, that he would “die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God.” (vv. 51-52) But I read them this morning as nothing more than political calculation.

More years ago than I care to remember I took a college class in political history. One of the things I learned is that nearly all decisions of government include two major components: political calculation, which is always based on past experience, and profound ignorance of current conditions and future potentials. Despite prodigious amounts of fact finding and data gathering, that ignorance remains a factor. There is always “one more fact” that could have been learned. And, more often than not, a “known fact” is not appreciated because prejudice, preconception, or inexperience blinds the decision-maker to its importance.

I suspect the lawmakers in Kansas and Arizona, where legislation has recently been enacted by one or both houses of the state legislatures permitting service providers, both private and public, to refuse service to gay, lesbian, and transgendered persons on the basis of “sincerely held religious belief,” have been surprised by the responses their actions elicited. They may have expected some reaction from the political left. It’s possible they anticipated some objection from more liberal religious bodies (such as the Episcopal Church). I don’t think they had a clue that the business community, represented by Apple, Delta, American Airlines, and other corporations, would oppose their action. I don’t know what data gathering they did before enacting those proposed laws, but they either failed to get the business data or failed to understand the data they got.

I could criticize what they did — these bills are, in my opinion, deeply flawed in several respects — but my thought today is that in our personal lives we do much the same thing. We make personal decisions on the basis of past experience in an atmosphere of profound ignorance; there is always something we don’t know. St. Paul was speaking of the eschaton, the end of time, about which we can know nothing when he wrote, “We see through a glass, darkly” (1 Cor. 13:12, KJV) but the truth is that our vision is always obscured. The glass through which we look at the present or the future is always darkened; there is always something we don’t see, some fact or bit of data of which we are ignorant either through lack or through misinterpretation.

So what does one do? Fail to decide? Fail to act? No, one cannot be paralyzed by fear. The only answer is to decide, to move forward in faith, to hope for the best. I don’t fault Caiaphas for his political calculation or for his ignorance; I am no different. I can hope I make better choices, but the process by which and environment in which human decisions are made has not changed in 2,000 years. Political calculation and profound ignorance are still the norm and probably will be until we get to the other side of Paul’s darkened glass.

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Get Wisdom – From the Daily Office – February 25, 2014

February 25, 2014 / eric / 1 Comment

From the Book of Proverbs:

Get wisdom; get insight: do not forget, nor turn away
from the words of my mouth.
Do not forsake her, and she will keep you;
love her, and she will guard you.
The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom,
and whatever else you get, get insight.
Prize her highly, and she will exalt you;
she will honor you if you embrace her.
She will place on your head a fair garland;
she will bestow on you a beautiful crown.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Proverbs 4:5-9 (NRSV) – February 24, 2014.)

Christa by Edwina Sandys My favorite thing in the Book of Proverbs is the personification of Lady Wisdom. Perhaps because of the further development of her portrait in Chapter 8, where she is said to have been with God in the moments of creation, “daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the human race” (vv. 30-31), I see her as young, slender, and athletic, her rejoicing being manifest as dance.

Many scholars have pointed out that in pre-Christian Judaism, wisdom (sophia) and word (logos) were nearly synonymous alternative descriptions of the creative and immanent power of God. Some have suggested that the Prologue to John’s Gospel could have been written: “In the beginning was Wisdom, and Wisdom was with God, and Wisdom was God.” However, John — as either proponent or victim of patriarchy (or both) — chose to use word rather than wisdom because of this personification of Lady Wisdom. Perhaps John felt it would have been awkward to speak of a female figure “being made flesh” in Jesus, a male.

Several years ago, the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City created quite a stir by exhibiting a crucifix displaying a nude female body as the Christ figure — Christa by Edwina Sandys. Parks Morton, the dean of the cathedral, said at the time, “Christa simply reminded viewers that women as well as men are called upon to share the suffering of Christ.” I think, however, that the sculpture did more than that. It challenged preconceptions and established theologies; it made graphically visible the inherent sexism in the notion that the Second Person of the Trinity is “eternally masculine” as some Orthodox theologians argue.

I’ve often wondered how the Christian faith might have developed if John had embraced that awkwardness and used the term wisdom, instead. He did not, but we still can. We can still “get wisdom; get insight,” and she will lead us “in the paths of uprightness.” (Prov. 4:11) Along those paths we still have much to see, much to learn.

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Context, Habit & Laziness – From the Daily Office – February 20, 2014

February 20, 2014 / eric / 1 Comment

From the Gospel of John:

The Jews gathered around Jesus and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered, “I have told you, and you do not believe.”

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – John 10:24-25a (NRSV) – February 20, 2014.)

Jan_Luyken_Jesus_Disputes_with_the_Pharisees It has been said that all human communication, even at its best, is an approximation of meaning. This is especially true of religious communication which is almost always analogic. When we try to speak of God we mean both more and less than we say; when we listen to others speak of God, we understand both more and less than we hear.

When we read the story of Jesus in the Gospels, we are given an informed (in fact, a nearly omniscient) outsider’s privileged position to overhear his interactions with the Jewish authorities. Because we are 2,000 years removed, through layer upon layer of exegesis and interpretation, we believe we know what Jesus has been telling them. We cheer for Jesus because we think he’s been telling them plainly. But do we know and should we be cheering? Would we be so certain if we were first-person, first-time participants in these conversations? I don’t think so! And I don’t think we should be so certain even now.

I’ve sort of come to the conclusion that there is no “telling plainly,” ever. The demand for “plain speaking” in religion or politics or whatever sphere of life is a plea for something that simply cannot exist, something that has never been.

We human beings are creatures of habit and we are essentially lazy. Because of our laziness, we seldom if every fully and completely say what we are hoping to communicate. Because of our habits, we don’t need to. When it comes to “speaking plainly,” both come into play. Take, for example, a simple declarative sentence: “You are going to die.”

If I were to say this to you, you might (and should) take it as a simple statement of the human condition. You are going to die; I am going to die; every body now alive is going to die. Plain, simple fact. But our habit of relying on context to supply meaning allows us to lazily use this simple declaration in differing ways.

Add one context: suppose I am a physician, an oncologist, and we are holding this conversation in a hospital room where you are in a bed. That plain and simple statement of fact takes on particularity and immediacy; the context supplies the implication of “soon” and demands some response, some action on your part. It’s time to “get your affairs in order,” if they are not already.

Add an alternative context: suppose we are at dinner, enjoying cocktails, and discussing the musical theater. You’ve just told me that you’ve gotten tickets to Monty Python’s Spamalot. I start laughing and exclaim, “You are going to die!” The plain and simple statement takes on the tone and character of hyperbole and metaphor; the context clearly indicates that I mean nothing of the sort. Not only am I not predicting your demise, I am suggesting that you are going to spend a very enjoyable evening filled with mirth and laughter.

We know, looking back from our privileged 2,000 years of exegesis and interpretation, that Jesus has told the Jewish authorities that he is the Messiah. In their context, filtering everything he said through habit and laziness, would they ever have understood? Could they have understood? Had we been there, in that context not our own, would we? Context, habit, and laziness. Nothing is ever “plain.”

====================

A request to my readers: I’m trying to build the readership of this blog and I’d very much appreciate your help in doing so. If you find something here that is of value, please share it with others. If you are on Facebook, “like” the posts on your page so others can see them. If you are following me on Twitter, please “retweet” the notices of these meditations. If you have a blog of your own, please include mine in your links (a favor I will gladly reciprocate). Many thanks!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Miss the Mark? – From the Daily Office – February 11, 2014

February 11, 2014 / eric / 0 Comments

From the Gospel of John:

[Jesus said:] “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – John 8:7 (NRSV) – February 11, 2014.)

Archery Target A very familiar sentence from a very familiar story. I am intrigued today by the way in which Jesus carefully phrases his invitation to stone the woman caught in adultery. He does not say, “Let anyone among you who has not sinned be the first . . . .” Rather, “Let anyone among you who is without sin . . . .” As Jesus has phrased it, sin is not something done; it is a condition possessed. Those who would condemn the woman are focused on actions and behavior. Jesus turns their attention and their consciences from human behavior toward human nature.

The Greek here is complicated: the word used by John to relay Jesus’ words is anamartetos. It is a negated form of a term borrowed from archery meaning “to miss the mark;” with the addition of the negating prefix a- the word means “one who cannot sin.” In a way, Jesus is saying, “Throw a stone if you are absolutely sure that you can never miss.” “Who among you,” he seems to be asking, “is perfect?” His focus is the human condition, not on human activity, and his point is that we all share an imperfect nature; all of us can, and eventually all of will, miss. Obviously everyone in that crowd knew him- or herself well enough to know that none was incapable of missing the mark!

Are any of us? Do any of us always get everything right?

I am fascinated by the apprehension of the “human condition” in various cultures. Not every human culture believes the problem of the human condition is “sinfulness,” as western culture influenced by the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, does. For example, Indian culture sees the problem as suffering; the traditional Chinese would see lack of social harmony to be the issue; Native American spirituality might focus on environmental harmony. Jesus’ invitation would make a different kind of sense in each of those contexts, but it would make sense. What I wonder is how his death makes sense, how the atonement makes sense, within these differing understandings of the basic human problem.

And I wonder if any 21st Century culture, west or east or Native American, sees sinfulness as the problem. What is the perceived problem of human existence in modern America? Boredom? Lack of meaning? Loneliness? No sense of personal value? How does Jesus’ death address that problem, whatever it is? What nature of atonement makes the act of atonement comprehensible in a new and different problematic context?

I won’t figure that out in an early morning meditation on the Daily Office, but today it seems to me that maybe this episode described by John, and Jesus’ careful phrasing of the invitation to stone the woman caught in adultery, might hold a key.

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Interviewing with Jesus – From the Daily Office – February 8, 2014

February 8, 2014 / eric / 0 Comments

From the Gospel of John:

[Jesus said,] “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – John 7:24 (NRSV) – February 8, 2014.)

Interview Cartoon My grandmother was a great fan of that old shibboleth, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” We all know what it means: you have to get to know someone (“read the book”) before you can make any judgment about them. “Appearances,” goes another, “can be deceiving.” Until you have worked passed and through the surface, you cannot know and make judgments about what lies underneath. Until, as the Native American teaching goes, you have walked a mile in another person’s moccasins, you have no basis on which to render judgment.

On the other hand, we all know how incredibly difficult it is to avoid doing exactly what Jesus here counsels against, how very hard not to do what the old sayings say we shouldn’t. Everyone makes “snap decisions” based on very little evidence, and everyone is influenced by their first impressions of others. I’ve been acutely aware of this during the past week while interviewing applicants for a part-time job at my church office.

Since the job is part-time (and not particularly well-paid), I’ve not done the same kind of extensive job-skills testing, or background and reference checking, that I would do with a full-time, high responsibility job. I’ve relied mostly on first impressions gained during the course of a brief interview and a quick review of resumes and letters of recommendation.

When I was first in the job market as a professional, I was counseled on the value of a good first impression. I learned about something called “the halo effect,” which is the psychological phenomenon in which our perception of positive traits about one aspect of a person gives rise to the perception or expectation of similar qualities in the individual as a whole. For example, you might be impressed with how tastefully and neatly dressed a person is and, thus, perceive them as organized and knowledgeable in their work; they may, of course, be nothing of the sort.

First impressions matter, but eventually substance will prevail. While dressing well may predispose an interviewer to think the applicant must be a good worker because she creates a competent first impression, the effect will wear off if she turns out to be a poor secretary. “Time will tell,” advises another old shibboleth.

So I have tried even more this week not to make judgments on first impressions. The person I hire will be working not just with me, but with every member of the congregation. It’s important that I choose wisely. A snap decision just wouldn’t be a good idea!

Jesus is quite obviously right to counsel against judging by appearances. But it’s awfully hard advice to follow! Sometimes Jesus says some really hard things: “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away” (Mat. 5:30), comes immediately to mind. I find, however, that his “hard sayings” are less difficult to follow than when he’s simply giving reasonable advice! It’s when Jesus sounds like my grandmother, that it’s hardest of all.

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Bread? Circus? – From the Daily Office – February 4, 2014

February 4, 2014 / eric / 3 Comments

From the Gospel of John:

[Jesus said,] “I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – John 6:48-51 (NRSV) – February 4, 2014.)

Bread and Circuses T-Shirt Sunday, February 2, was significant for three things. It was the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, also called the Purification of Mary, also called Candlemas, a principal feast in the Christian faith and one that rarely falls on a Sunday. It was Groundhog Day, a very silly secular holiday in the United States and the inspiration for one of the more profound movies about personal growth and maturity, 1993’s Groundhog Day starring Bill Murray. It was Super Bowl Sunday.

The National Football League’s Super Bowl is a really big deal. For reasons that have almost nothing to do with the quality of the football played in this alleged championship match, millions of people plan their lives (at least on that day) around this game even though it is typically not a very good game. This year’s match between the Seattle Seahawks and the Denver Broncos was no exception; Seattle beat the crap out of the Broncos 43 to 8. Almost from the very first minutes, it was no contest. Nonetheless, millions of dollars changed hands, millions of people paid attention, and millions of other people were inconvenienced.

For all of my life as an ordained person, I have been aware of the Super Bowl’s effect on church attendance. The first parish I served as a priest was in the Pacific Time Zone and there I learned very early on that one does not schedule the annual membership business meeting on Super Bowl Sunday; you might not have enough people in church to constitute a quorum! Even now, when I minister with a congregation in the Eastern Time Zone where the game isn’t shown until the evening hours, I have come to expect low attendance; people are preparing either to host or to attend a Super Bowl party and (apparently) it takes more than eight hours to do so.

In commentary about the game this year, it has been suggested that one-third of the American populace watched all or a significant part of the game at home, at a Super Bowl party, or at their local sports bar. That would be more than 100 million people! In many of those commentaries, the term “bread and circuses” has been mentioned. This is a reference to a Latin expression from ancient Rome, panem et circenses, a phrase coined by the satirical poet Juvenal, who wrote

Already long ago,
from when we sold our vote to no man,
the People have abdicated our duties;
for the People who once upon a time
handed out military command,
high civil office, legions — everything,
now restrains itself and anxiously hopes
for just two things:
bread and circuses.

The reference is to the Roman practice, both republican and imperial, of gaining political power and keeping the masses in check by providing free wheat to the citizens, as well as costly entertainments, such as the circus gladiatorial games.

I don’t know, and in this space do not want to opine, whether the Super Bowl is, in fact, a “circus” offered by the leaders of our society to keep the population docile. I don’t want to opine here about the means, or failure of the means, by which society provides bread to those in need. But I am struck by today’s gospel reading and Jesus claim that he, his flesh, is the Bread which will let one live forever; in light of Sunday’s low turnout, one would have to admit that the Bread lost out to the circus.

The immediate gratification of the NFL circus — the parties and bar gatherings, the fun of cheering on one’s team, the camaraderie of the fans, the food, and the beer — is clearly more attractive than the gospel of eternal life. Why is that? I truly wish I knew. I’m not a sports fan and I don’t understand the attraction. But someone in the church needs to figure that out for the rest of us. Please. Soon.

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Chaotic Water – From the Daily Office – February 1, 2014

February 1, 2014 / eric / 2 Comments

From the Gospel of John:

When evening came, his disciples went down to the lake, got into a boat, and started across the lake to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. The lake became rough because a strong wind was blowing. When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the lake and coming near the boat, and they were terrified. But he said to them, “It is I; do not be afraid.” Then they wanted to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the land towards which they were going.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – John 6:16-21 (NRSV) – February 1, 2014.)

Today, February 1, is the ancient Irish feast of Imbolc, considered the beginning of spring and sacred to the goddess Brigid; it has become the commemoration of St. Brigid of Kildare, sometimes called Ireland’s “other patron saint.” (The lesson from John’s Gospel, however, is simply the Daily Office reading, not specific to the saint’s day.) Among the traditions of Imbolc (and, thus, of St. Brigid’s feast) is the visiting of holy wells, walking around them in prayer, and taking some of their water to be used to bless people and things.

For ancient peoples, the sea and other large bodies of water were vast, chaotic, and frightening places. In the ancient middle east, the sea was deified as Tiamat, goddess of primordial chaos and mother of the gods. In Irish mythology, the chaotic and dangerous sea separates the land of the living from the Otherworld, called Tír na nÓg (“Land of Youth”). Holy wells are viewed as places where the chaotic, spiritual dimension breaks into the everyday world.

Jesus’ walking on the water is a story told in three of the Gospels: Mark, Matthew, and John — Matthew adds Jesus inviting Peter to join him. It is a demonstration of the Lord’s mastery over the chaotic; Matthew’s addition of the invitation to Peter and Peter’s being able to do so until, as writer Madeleine L’Engle put it, “he remembered he didn’t know how” is symbolic of the empowerment Christ offers us to do the same.

Quantum Space-Time In a sense, we walk on the surface of chaos all the time. One of the learnings from quantum mechanics is that things are not nearly as solid as they seem. The everyday world seems to “float” on what has been called a “quantum foam.” The Greeks posited that if we continue to divide matter we get to atoms; if we divide atoms, we get electrons, neutrons, and other subatomic particles; if we try to divide subatomic particles, eventually we get to get quantum fields and even multidimensional vibrating strings. At the quantum level, reality is a quivering mass of quantum chaos. We walk on the surface of chaos all the time!

The story of Jesus (and Peter) walking on the water and the reality of the quantum chaos beneath our everyday lives should remind us that we do know how to do this. Water as a symbol of blessing is also a reminder of that; when we bless water and then use it to bless other things, like the Irish use the water from holy wells, we are declaring that we have the power and ability to deal with the chaos and to control the chaos in our lives.

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Herding Cats – From the Daily Office – January 30, 2014

January 30, 2014 / eric / 1 Comment

From the Gospel of John:

[Jesus said,] “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – John 5:46-47 (NRSV) – January 30, 2014.)

The Church Today - Jesus Herding Cats Is it just me, or does this speech of Jesus (the verses are part of a long, long address to “the Jews”) just drip with frustration? And it makes me wonder – did Jesus really express such frustration? Or is it John who is frustrated and does his frustration color the way he presents the gospel story?

I’ll admit it . . . I have a problem with the Gospel according to John. I view it with suspicion. Its Jesus is at one and the same time too holy, too divine, but also too combative, too confrontational, and too given to these frustrated and frustrating condemnations of those whom he has not persuaded.

It’s not that I don’t think Jesus was divine; I believe that whole-heartedly. I am convinced that he was and is the incarnation of God. And it’s not that I don’t think the human Jesus had his moments (as the Rolling Stones’ devil put it) of doubt and pain, moments of sheer human frustration and anger. I’m certain that he did. It’s just that the way Jesus is presented by John is hard to understand.

He’s almost too hard to accept; he’s confusing and frustrating. I get as frustrated trying to understand this Jesus as he seems to get with his audiences. John’s Jesus is sublimely holy — the Logos of God (1:14) — who is also presented as just plain rude to his mother — “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me?” (2:4) He is compassionate to a woman caught in adultery — “I do not condemn you” (8:11) — yet dismissive, even condemnatory, of others — “There is no place in you for my word.” (8:37) He heals a stranger he happens upon in Jerusalem — the man at the pool of Beth-zaida (5:9) — but declines to help Lazarus whom he is said to love until after he’s gone through the pain of death just to make an example of him — “I am glad I was not there.” (11:15)

David Hayward, who blogs and draws church cartoons under the name “the naked pastor,” has done a drawing of Jesus attempting to herd cats (an expression which was a favorite of my late grandfather) with the caption “the church today.” In one simple picture, Hayward captures the frustrations of the modern pastor, but it seems to me he also depicts the difficulty I have of getting a handle on John’s Jesus! John’s Jesus is not one of the “cats” and he knows it; he can do and does things no “cat” could ever. He says as much at one point, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” (8:23) And sometimes he seems not to like the cats very much!

John’s Jesus is holy, rude, compassionate, condemnatory, dwelling in the world, not of the world, loving to strangers, using his friends . . . he’s confusing, contradictory, complex, and incredibly frustrating!

Trying to understand John’s Jesus, in all his contradictory complexity, is definitely like herding cats!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Punctuation and Spirituality – From the Daily Office – January 29, 2014

January 29, 2014 / eric / 0 Comments

From the Gospel of John:

[Jesus said:] “Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself; and he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out — those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.”

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – John 5:25-29 (NRSV) – January 29, 2014.)

Punctuation Saves Lives There are times when I’m reading one or another of the Gospels and I am pulled up short; I just have stop and say, “Really? Jesus said that? Really?”

This is one of those times! Did Jesus really say (and I paraphrase), “We’re going to get people up out of their graves just so we can punish them.” That’s what verse 29 is saying with that weird turn of phrase “the resurrection of condemnation”; all the dead will be raised, some to life and some to condemnation. (Whether that means an eternity of punishment or simply annihilation is another issue I’ve dealt with before and won’t address again today.)

Maybe what Jesus said ended before this verse; maybe this is John interpreting what Jesus said. Perhaps the quotation from Jesus should end with the words “because he is the Son of Man” and the part that starts “Do not be astonished” is John’s commentary. Could be. It’s an issue that could be solved by judicious use of punctuation. Unfortunately, John didn’t use punctuation and where to insert quotation marks, periods, commas, etc. is left to the “best guess” of modern translators based on noun declensions, verb tenses, and a colloquial understanding of the original language.

You see, punctuation is a modern invention. So are spaces between the words, although they have been around longer than colons, semi-colons, and full stops. Spaces were the bright idea of Irish monks working in early medieval scriptoria about 1400 years ago; punctuation marks came along about a thousand years later. They weren’t even all that common when the translators of the Authorized (“King James”) version made their estimations of where to put them in the biblical text in 1611.

The lack or improper placement of punctuation can lead to interesting misunderstandings. A popular t-shirt design noting that “punctuation saves lives” demonstrates its point with two similarly worded but radically different sentences:

“Let’s eat Grandma.”

versus

“Let’s eat, Grandma.”

Scripture itself contains an example of a misunderstanding which punctuation might have cleared up. In Mark’s Gospel, the writer applies a prophecy of Isaiah to John the Baptizer saying that his is “the voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,'” (Mk. 1:3) Isaiah, however, seems to have said something slightly different: “A voice cries out: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.'” (Isa. 40:3) Matthew and Luke, relying on Mark, repeat his slightly altered quotation — compare Matt. 3:3 and Luke 3:4. Is the voice crying out in the wilderness or is the way of the Lord in the wilderness? The gospellers and the prophet seem to have a disagreement.

So which is it in John’s Gospel? Should the quotation from Jesus be ended a sentence earlier and the bit about getting people out their graves only to condemn them be attributed to the writer instead? To do so would, I admit, fly in the face of centuries of understanding of Jesus’ words to the Jewish authorities when they confronted him in the Temple following the healing of the crippled man at the pool of Bethesda, from which this text is taken. But it’s at least a possibility to consider, and it highlights how carefully one must read scripture.

Punctuation, as the t-shirt says, can save lives. It can also have a significant impact one’s spirituality!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Category: John (Page 15 of 24)

Mystical Jesus – From the Daily Office – March 1, 2014

Political Calculation – From the Daily Office – February 26, 2014

Get Wisdom – From the Daily Office – February 25, 2014

Context, Habit & Laziness – From the Daily Office – February 20, 2014

Miss the Mark? – From the Daily Office – February 11, 2014

Interviewing with Jesus – From the Daily Office – February 8, 2014

Bread? Circus? – From the Daily Office – February 4, 2014

Chaotic Water – From the Daily Office – February 1, 2014

Herding Cats – From the Daily Office – January 30, 2014

Punctuation and Spirituality – From the Daily Office – January 29, 2014

Looking for Something …. ?

The Archive

Subscribe

Blogroll

News Sources

Administration

Copyright

Looking for Something …. ?

The Categories

The Archive

Subscribe

Blogroll

News Sources

Administration

Copyright