Spokane Friends Meeting

John 20:26-31

A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them.  Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.”  28Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

29Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.” 30Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.

Mary Magdalene’s experience at the tomb is the focus of the Gospel of John’s Easter narrative. She reported to two of the disciples that Jesus’ body was missing and she suspected that someone had taken it away and she didn’t know who or where it had been taken.  She actually may have thought that they had done it not wanting Jesus’ body to have fallen into the hands of detractors.   They ran to the tomb, looked in, went in and saw the linen wrappings and when Mary caught up with them they said that they believed. And the question was what did they believe?

We know what they didn’t believe and we know what Mary didn’t believe.  None believed that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.  It wasn’t on their screen.  It hadn’t even crossed their minds.  Those two disciples believed what Mary had told them, that Jesus’ body wasn’t there.

In Gospel of John the actuality of the resurrection isn’t question.  To the evangelist is seems of little importance.  God chose to resurrect Jesus.  It’s a testimony to God’s awesome and humanly unimaginable power.  So why does it seem to be so important to us?

Have been so thoroughly deluded by our own fearful agenda, our own fear of death and the mystery beyond that we’ve made resurrection the big question.  Or like the young earth proponents we’ve become fascinated by having faith in faith. God put things which look pre-historic into creation to test our faith.   Faith in faith is spiritual cyanide.  There’s a tragic story of a young couple so influenced by “word of faith” teachers that they withheld insulin from their diabetic son who predictably went into a diabetic coma. Their spiritual guides warned them about the impropriety of making a “negative confession,” so they continued to “positively confess” Wesley’s healing until the time of his death. And even after their son’s death — undaunted in their “faith” — conducted a resurrection service instead of a funeral. Eventually, they were tried and convicted of manslaughter and child abuse. Just believe….

The text doesn’t support those conclusions.  Of course, if you’re as convinced as am I that Lazarus was the source for the faith tradition found in the Gospel of John, we have one actually resurrected himself testifying to the fact that the question most on the mind of the evangelist is revealed in our scripture for today.

What kind of God do you have? For us it’s impossible to imagine resurrection.  For us as finite individuals, for whom each day is a step closer to death, resurrection is a really big deal.  I have to think that for God the act of resurrection was no big deal.

The issue for Thomas and for us has never been do you believe in the resurrection. Let’s go back to the moments recorded in this passage. Thomas is in the room with the gathered disciples. Jesus shows up – mysteriously—through the walls or locked doors. Recall that a week before, when Jesus had shown up just as mysteriously Thomas was absent and later reportedly said he couldn’t believe unless he touched the marks in Jesus’ hands and put his hand where the spear had pierced Jesus’ side.  Even then the question of what he did or did not believe wasn’t about resurrection.

With only Jesus’ preliminary remark of “Peace be with you” he gives Thomas license to do what Thomas had said he needed. He did it. And Jesus’ charge to him was ‘Do not doubt be believe’. Thomas’ response was “My Lord and my God.” In that moment Thomas believed – but the question is still the same: What did Thomas believe? Was it about the resurrection? He had witnessed Jesus’ death and here Jesus was close enough to him to be touched and evidently alive. “My Lord and my God “Thomas says.

Jesus asks him did he believe because he had seen Jesus and adding “Blessed are those who have not seen but believed.” Here is the important line: These things are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.

Oh, there’s the question answered. …that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.

This Easter season has caused me to re-think my understanding of who Jesus was.  There is a lot a speculations about that.  Before the council of Nicea and the Nicean creed, after which a lot of early Christian writings were burned, there was a multiplicity of beliefs as to who Jesus was, God or man, and the meaning of his teachings. For one large segment, the Gnostics, they didn’t care whether Jesus was a god or not, or what his life meant. The Gnostic core belief was that only the teachings of Jesus are important.

After the Nicean council, the Christian establishment ordered the heretical scrolls burnt, to create a unified belief. The most famous Gnostic text survived is the Gospel of Thomas. There are several key elements that differentiate Gnostic beliefs from the stream of Christianity which survived.  It focus on Jesus’ teachings. The God of the old testament was a separate entity from the true God. And the material world was a prison in which our souls were trapped and that the only way out of the prison of materiality into spirituality were secret teachings passed from member to member typified by Jesus. Gnostic metaphysics has strong undercurrents of Platonism. For them the spiritual world, the world of God, is the most pure and sublime, and as you descend into matter the spirit takes on increasing levels of grossness and corruption.  There was no way for the divine Jesus to be fully human.  According to Jewish belief the Messiah had to be human.  The challenge to belief raised in the Gospel of John is the question of Jesus being the long awaited Jewish messiah.   Thomas says ‘Yes’.

Believing, the text says, you have life in his name.

Where does all this go?  In Jesus’ absence, after his ascension, as he promise, we have his spirit bearing with our spirit.  Were Jesus not the Messiah that would not be the case.  We would be left still worrying about the end of the world and the end of time on it.  We wouldn’t be able to embrace the promise Jesus made that we quoted in the memorial service yesterday. But I will come again and receive you unto myself that where I am you shall be also.

Meditation on John 20:19-23

First Sunday after Easter 2014

Someone posted a recent quotation from Pope Francis.  You know he has gotten great reviews from folks outside Roman Catholicism and has run head long into establishment outrage within his church.  The statement reads: “I prefer a church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to is own security.”

In this brief statement he contrasts  a body suffering the blows of engaging the powers of the world to bring justice and equity with a morbidly obese couch potato church that looks out through its Plexiglas covered stained glass windows on a broken world and shakes it’s head and clicks it’s tongue at all that’s wrong.

I want to take the passage that Ken read for us line by line and see where it leads us.

It starts:
”When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week,”           That’s right – this is the evening of the day when early in the morning it was discovered that Jesus’ had been resurrected from the dead.  It’s difficult to involve people of other faith traditions in interfaith gatherings because they usually occur on weekends.  For Islamists their special day is Friday.  For the Jews it’s the Sabbath. And for most Christians it’s the first day of the week which we set aside for our worship – because it is a little Easter. We are people of a resurrected Christ.  Quakers used to be pretty obvious about that, calling Sunday ‘first day’ as a reminder of the significance of our choice of when we hold our announced times of worship.

Mary had awakened Peter and the other disciple early – before dawn– on that morning.  It had already been a long day for everyone when, in the words of the Gospel of John

and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews,

It wasn’t fear of the Romans or of the general public that the disciples had locked themselves into a house – it was the Jews they feared, which in John speak refers to the elite class, the professionally religious and those who enjoyed the protection and the economic benefits of Roman occupation.  Recall how they had threatened the family of the man born blind whom Jesus had cured.  They would be kicked out of the Temple, which for any Jew was to be ostracized, a social death sentence.  This group who had gathered in that house in the hopes of staying safe had every reason to think that as being followers of Jesus, they would be next in line for some form of persecution.

Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 

This had always been something of a fascination.  Like a disembodied spirit Jesus mysteriously appears among them.  Up to this point all they knew of Jesus resurrection was Mary’s report that she had seen the Lord!  Peter and the other disciple had believed her report that his body was gone – that they could testify to but the resurrection was still beyond their comprehension.

I can’t think of anything better for Jesus to have said that “Peace be with you”.  The presence of this disembodied person who wasn’t deterred by walls or locked doors would be unsettling.

After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side.

Those who had witnessed the execution knew about his hands and had they stayed long enough would be aware of the piercing of Jesus’ side.  As he had instructed Mary to not hold him, at this point no one touched him.  They looked and only then the Gospel tells us the next line:

Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.

No rejoicing before this – it’s hard to rejoice when you are in the presence of a being that exhibits the characteristics of this one who has come among them.  Up until now they had not ‘seen’ this presence in their midst as “the Lord.”  They didn’t recognize Jesus for his beauty or his love and compassion.  It was in seeing how he had been broken and abused that he was recognizable.  I wonder how important that is for us today when we look to see Jesus in others what is it that we are looking for?

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you.

This experience was wholly new to his disciples.  They thought they knew Jesus but in this they weren’t prepared.  Peace be with you. Jesus repeats.  This was in preparation for the next thing that happened.

As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”  According to the Gospel of John this is the is the great commission.  It’s is much more precise than what we read in Matthew 28.  It raises for us the question how did the Father send Jesus into the world?  For what did God send Jesus into the world to do?  To be a sacrificial lamb – pay a ransom to Satan, placate God’s sense of injustice, simply to die… that’s not an adequate response?  To be a blood sacrifice to satisfy an offense of God’s righteousness?  To balance the scales of divine justice?  If that’s the case it clarifies that to which we are called.  But that can’t be it. The text says “As the Father sent me, so I send you…”  We are called to live in the world not to die for it.  It may require sacrifice but I think maybe Pope Frances’ quotation has some merit here when he said ““I prefer a church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets,…”

Jesus came and pointed humanity to a loving God and offered compassion and care, refused judging others and offered forgiveness and companionship.

When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. What he did next was to acknowledge that this wasn’t something we could do on our own.  Like, in the Genesis creation story when God blew his breath, his spirit into creation Jesus in the same way breathes on those gathered there and invites them to “Receive the Holy Spirit”.  I appreciate that it’s an invitation not a demand.  Remember, Jesus said unless he went away the promised spiritual companion could not come to lead, guide and direct.  In the tradition of the synoptic Gospels we have to wait forty more days for this gifting of the Holy Spirit, but in this Gospel it comes on the first day – the day of resurrection.

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” And this may be the hardest part of the whole unexpected post resurrection visit.  Reading commentaries on this line of text is fascinating.  No one wants to step up the plain language of the text.  It’s clear, we are pretty sure we do not want this obligation, to pronounce absolution – to actually forgive the sins of any.  Maybe that’s why the phrase begins with an “If” and why the second half of the line shows us the result of our not offering forgiveness.  Forgiveness is a horrible leveler.  If every one stands forgiven there are no unrighteous and thus undeserving.   There are no pedestals for the supposed righteous to stand on so as to look down on others.  And think of how this second part is translated: “if you retain the sins of any”  like if you have this container into which you store up the trespasses, the slights, the hurts caused by others – you take them into your self.  You retain them.  Why would you want to do that – to make yourself feel more righteous.

Jesus already made it clear that that to which we are called is not something we can do on our own but only in the Power of God, the Holy Spirit which, if we open ourselves it comes to be our comforter, guide, counselor, companion and director.  Only in that power can we step up to the task Jesus put on his closest followers on the first Easter.

The best news in all of this is found in the first words Jesus spoke to that gathering “Peace be with you.”

The resurrection story in the Gospel of Matthew and of John begin some what the same but immediately go in dramatically different directions.

One sentence in, Matthew pours on the pyrotechnics. Suddenly there is a great earthquake and an angel descends from heaven and rolls away the stone before their very eyes of the gathered Marys. The angel’s appearance is like lightning, his clothes glow, the guards are so afraid of this angel that they start shaking and become like dead men. Before their bodies hit the floor, the angel is laying everything out for the Marys—I know you are looking for Jesus, he’s been raised from the dead, look, he is not here—now go tell the disciples he has been raised from the dead. He will meet you all in Galilee. The Mary’s take off running to tell the disciples when suddenly, Jesus appears out of nowhere and says surprise.  They recognize him immediately and grab hold of his feet. Jesus repeats the instructions the angel gave them and the Marys are off again. The women in Matthew’s resurrection narrative are passive.  They stand back, they watch, they run. The glowing, lightening, earthquake producing, shake inducing angel seems to be at the center of this narrative.

The Easter narrative in the Gospel of John forms around the solitary figure of Mary Magdalene.  She has no special powers or abilities—just regular human abilities, like being present and feeling grief. She doesn’t witness the stone being rolled away, like the big reveal at the end of a magic trick. Her first words to Peter and the unnamed disciple is not—“He is risen!” It is, “He is gone.”  Matthew’s story is all about power. What we read in the Gospel of John is about being present.

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” 3Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb. 4The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. 8Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 10Then the disciples returned to their homes.

11But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; 12and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. 13They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” 14When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” 16Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni!” (which means Teacher). 17Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” 18Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her. John 20:1-18

The focus of the Gospel of John is on one lone distraught woman, so much so that she ignores the requirements of keeping the Sabbath. She didn’t wait until day break to seek out the tomb where Jesus’ body had been laid. Somehow having gotten directions from either Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea, it was still dark when she was trying to find her way to the tomb.  She didn’t come to anoint Jesus’ body. That wasn’t necessary given the elaborate burial provided by the Joseph and Nicodemus. She came because she was unable to let Jesus go. This was Mary of Magdala.

We know a couple of things about her. Luke names her among the followers and financial supporters of Jesus’ ministry. We are told that she had been freed from the power of seven demons. That seems to indicate an especially aggravated or violent form of possession. Three Gospels name her as a witness to Jesus’ crucifixion and all four Gospels make her a witness to Jesus’ resurrection.

Formalized by Pope Gregory the Great the western church intentionally tarnished her reputation by identifying her as the unnamed anointer and adulteress whose ointment used on Jesus’ feet was once used to scent her marketable body. There is no justification in Scripture for such slander. Jesus called her by name and told her to give the news of his resurrection to the other disciples. There is no evidence that she was anything other than the apostle to the apostles as the Eastern church has revered her. Mary was the first evangelist.

When in the pre dawn darkness she locates the tomb, the stone that covered the entrance had already been removed and it was empty. She makes the sort of assumption you or I might make: Some others had taken Jesus’ body. She ran and found Peter and the unnamed disciple and told them what she had discovered and then followed them as they ran to tomb.

The unnamed disciple got to the tomb first. He looked in but didn’t go in. He observed that the linen wrappings were there but no body. Peter went directly inside. He saw the linen wrappings and noted that the head wrapping was rolled up and sat aside. Then the first of the two went in “and” the narrative says, “he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples returned to their homes.

But what did they believe?  Both men evidently “believed” Mary. They believed that the body was gone and they did not know where it was. They could, simply, confirm what Mary had said as indeed true.  Like Mary, they probably believed that someone had stolen the body of Jesus so that his place of burial could not become a shrine for his followers. “For they did not yet understand the Scripture that he (Jesus) must rise again from the dead”.  They did not yet believe in the Resurrection. The men went home broken, depressed and defeated.

I wonder about their lack of care for the safety and lack of compassion for this colleague of theirs who, clearly distraught, had awakened them to the changed situation. They leave her there alone, in tears, in the burial grounds, and it was barely dawn.

Standing outside the tomb Mary bent over to look in. Instead of linen burial wrappings she sees an angel on each end of where Jesus’ body would have been laid. They speak. “Woman, why are you weeping?” In answer she said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.”  She doesn’t yet understand what has transpired. She still believes that Jesus’ body has been stolen. She has no expectation that Jesus would be resurrected.  For her it was simply insult added to injury.

Angel’s evidently aren’t very bright.  They  knew Jesus had been resurrected. They can’t understand Mary’s tears in a time, at least for them, of celebration.  “Why are you crying lady?” She had come mourning. Tears were already there before she found the tomb empty.  Being unable to conceive of a resurrection she was obsessed with the where Jesus’ body had been taken.

She turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus.  Jesus’ resurrected body wasn’t recognizable to her. He asks her: “Woman, why are you weeping? For whom are you looking?” Still not recognizing him the scripture says that she thought him to be the gardener. “Sir, she asks, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”  This is the most profound moment. Here is the beginning of the Resurrection faith.  He speaks to her, calling her name. In that moment it was all clear to her. In turn, she responds, “Rabbouni!”  First, this expression shows sincere respect. Second, it acknowledges that she was not merely a student but a devoted follower. Her coming to his tomb early in the morning spoke to her commitment. And her tears when she thought his body had been stolen demonstrated her love for her teacher.

For Mary, the unthinkable could now be thought. Jesus has been resurrected from the dead. Jesus tells her “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father.  Jesus is in transition.  Later his followers will be able to touch him but not hold him.  Holding on to the incarnate Jesus would keep Mary in the past.  She had to let go in order to move into the future. The risen Jesus standing before Mary is not a Jesus who will stay forever. Neither she nor we can “hold on” to him. The permanent presence of Christ is through the Spirit whom Jesus and the Father will send after Jesus’ glorification. Jesus’ glorification involves being lifted up into heaven. The ascension is necessary for us to have the same relationship with God the Father as Jesus has with him — a relationship mediated through the Spirit.

The resurrection isn’t the conclusion. For most of Christian history the ascension has been downplayed because it forces us to refocus our understanding of the life and ministry of Jesus.  It’s the ascension that brings to fulfillment Jesus’ promise about the future shape of the Kingdom of God.

The resurrected Jesus gives Mary some specific instructions. Listen: But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” Jesus uses a term of endearment to those always known before as disciples or followers.  He calls them “my brothers.”

Mary Magdalene went and told Jesus’ brothers, “I have seen the Lord” This first of all evangelists doesn’t talk about what she believes.   She doesn’t try to convince others of the veracity of what she has to say.  Hers’ is a testimony of her experience.

Jesus’ resurrection did not return Mary and Jesus to the past. Rather it opened up a new future.  Jesus’ ministry as a human person ended. The scene was set for the ministry of the ever-abiding Christ to begin.  Recall how earlier Jesus said: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you”. He said that those who put their trust in him will do even greater works than Jesus did himself, “because I am going to the Father”. Jesus says to Mary Magdalene, “Do not hold on to me”.  Rather, she is to go and announce his resurrection and his ascension to the presence of God, from whose presence the Holy Spirit will come to lead, comfort, and empower the church.”

Easter is not a return to the past, but a movement to the future. Mary couldn’t nor can we hold onto the past.  Our calling is to walk, comforted and directed by the Holy Spirit, into the future that God has for us.

So they took Jesus; ¹⁷and carrying the cross by himself, he went out to what is called The Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew^* is called Golgotha. ¹⁸There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them. ¹⁹Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, ‘Jesus of Nazareth,^* the King of the Jews.’ ²⁰Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew,^* in Latin, and in Greek. ²¹Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, ‘Do not write, “The King of the Jews”, but, “This man said, I am King of the Jews.” ’ ²²Pilate answered, ‘What I have written I have written.’ ²³When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four parts, one for each soldier. They also took his tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top. ²⁴So they said to one another, ‘Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see who will get it.’ This was to fulfil what the scripture says,‘They divided my clothes among themselves,    and for my clothing they cast lots.’ ²⁵And that is what the soldiers did.

Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. ²⁶When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, here is your son.’ ²⁷Then he said to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.

28 After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfil the scripture), ‘I am thirsty.’ ²⁹A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. ³⁰When Jesus had received the wine, he said, ‘It is finished.’ Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

31 Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed. ³²Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. ³³But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. ³⁴Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out. ³⁵(He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows^* that he tells the truth.)³⁶These things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, ‘None of his bones shall be broken.’ ³⁷And again another passage of scripture says, ‘They will look on the one whom they have pierced.’

38 After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission, so he came and removed his body. ³⁹Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. ⁴⁰They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews. ⁴¹Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid. ⁴²And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation, and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

Interestingly enough, when the fourth Gospel tells us “So they took Jesus…”  the they to which it refers are the Jews, not the Romans soldiers, unlike the impression left by the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.  The Romans just provided the legality – and really couldn’t care less.  They didn’t hate Jesus nor did they fear him.  They thought it was all a ridiculous intramural battle within the religious community.

Each of the four Gospels is, in its own way, a valid portrayal of Jesus. And if that’s the case then we cannot avoid the fact that none is complete, that the perspective of each evangelist is just one perspective among several. Those who want literal, historical accuracy free of contradiction they will have to look someplace other than the Canonical Gospels.  That’s important to remember as we revisit the crucifixion and burial story as presented in the Gospel of John.  It embellishes things that are omitted or barely mentioned in Matthew, Mark and Luke.  It omits things that have become part of our recollections since we first heard the story as children.
For instance, there is no mention of Simon of Cyrene and only a brief reference to the criminals crucified with Jesus.  There is nothing of the mockery of Jesus by the crowd, the Jewish leaders or the two criminals. Jesus’ heart rending cry “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken Me?”; the three hours of darkness; the torn veil of the temple or the testimony of the centurion are not to be found in the fourth Gospel.

The inscription placed on the cross by Pilate has an important place in the Gospel of John.  It’s a highly visible sign and this Gospel is replete with signs. Pilate takes the opportunity to rub the noses of the Sanhedrin in this thing about Jesus being King of the Jews.  He has it posted in three languages so that all passersby would read it.

Matthew lists the women at the cross: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of Peter and John.  Mark adds Salome to that list.  The Gospel of John has a list too, but it’s different.  The text reads “his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.’  Depending on where you place a comma the list could be ether three women or four.  But what is most significant  is that only this Gospel tells us that Jesus sees his mother standing there. It is to his mother and his disciple the Jesus speaks for the first time: “Mother, there is your son; and to the disciple, ‘there is your mother’. “

The Gospel of John  intentionally relates the story so that the Scriptures are fulfilled. Up until the middle of chapter 12  the Scriptures are simply cited with the comment “… it is written”.  However, in the second half of the Gospel, and particularly in the passion narrative the Scriptures are often cited with the claim … ‘This was to fulfill the Scriptures’.  Fulfillment is an important theological theme for our evangelist. Scripture is not just a prop. Directly and indirectly Old Testament references are used to show again and again that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all that had been promised through the ages.  This material is woven into the narrative in a way which is totally consistent with its theological and christological perspectives. Jesus is the creative Word who was present at the creation of the world, the one who interacted with the great figures of Salvation History, and who now gives new life to the world.

The discussion among his executioners about this clothing and shooting craps for his tunic was told to fulfill the scriptures, specifically Psalm 22.  The text says that Jesus spoke a second time.  He said “I thirst” and even that was in fulfillment of scriptures. John identifies the rod used to hold the sour wine filled sponge as hyssop in an unmistakable reference to Exodus 12:22 and the first Passover.

Jesus speaks a third time.  “It is accomplished” he says and the next sentence says: “He bowed his head and gave up his spirit.”

The tradition followed by the synoptics acknowledges that this all took place on the day of preparation for the Passover but only the Gospel of John tell us how anxious were the Jews that the bodies be taken down before night fall. This Gospel makes certain we know that unlike the two crucified with him, Jesus’ legs weren’t broken to accelerate his death.  This was in fulfillment of the scriptures. The evangelist tells us that he was pierced with a lance and we are told of the blood and water that flowed from his side.  And the text quickly says that this was vouched for by an eyewitness whose evidence is to be trusted…so that you may believe; for this happened in fulfillment of the scripture that ‘no bone of his shall be broken.’ And they shall look on him whom they pierced’ referring to Exodus 12:46 and Zechariah 12:10.  None of that makes it into the synoptic Gospel tradition.

Our Gospel introduces new players in the story, Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, both stealth followers of Jesus.  They took Jesus’ body and together wrapped it, fully intact, in linen cloth with myrrh and aloes according to Jewish custom.  No women were involved in the preparation of Jesus’ body.  Not in the Gospel of John.  Working together, these two men accomplished something that none of Jesus’ family or disciples could achieve—they had access to Pilate and were able to gain possession of Jesus’ body.  The two men came with a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. ⁴⁰They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews. Then these two men laid Jesus’ body in tomb that was conveniently nearby. What a story.  Two men come through when no one else could.  Our Gospel doesn’t tell us that again scripture was fulfilled – but it was. It’s found in the suffering servant passage of Isaiah 53.  The role that Scripture plays in the composition of this Gospel is a role that goes beyond the text. The ‘real Jesus’ is not in the texts but beyond the texts.

These last few weeks, being more fully immersed in the Gospel of John, my understanding of Jesus as the long awaited Jewish messiah has matured.  The account given in this Gospel, starting as it does with Jesus being identified as the creative Word of God, present from creation itself, put the life and ministry of Jesus is a wholly different light. The expectation of the Jews was that the Messiah would be a simply a human being, not a divine character masquerading as a human.  They couldn’t imagine a divine character divesting its self from divinity and becoming singularly human.  But so it was with Jesus.  Jesus lived and died as one of us, sensing all the emotions, facing all the conflicts that we meet in our lives.  In Jesus’ last few moments we see a son seeking to discharge his obligations to his mother.  In these last few minutes we see Jesus wrestling with the feelings of being  rejected and abandoned even while he is suffering the most excruciating physical pain that could be devised by humankind.  He mourned, and rejoiced just like us.  And he died.

The first to take Jesus were the Temple police who took him into custody.  Then Pilate took Jesus and tried to release him.  Next it was the Jews, the religious and economic leaders who took Jesus – to execute him.  Then it was these two stealth disciples, Joseph and Nicodemus who took Jesus, they took him to bury him.  And now it’s up to us – we’ve got to decide if we are going to take Jesus – and what we intend to do with him.

The good news is that his heavenly father, from whom Jesus had departed to experience humanity first hand, didn’t leave him that way.  But that’s next weeks message.

It’s really a bad time for a Messiah…

After viewing the clip that Thom Schultz showed of his upcoming documentary about a policeman who wants to start a ministry in a local pub, a man approached him and shared his discomfort with Christians who allow themselves to be seen in or near a bar. “What kind of witness is that?” he asked. “Especially when the Bible is so clear about the evils of alcohol.”  He reminded him that Jesus faced criticism for hanging out with those whom the religious establishment looked down upon. “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners’” (Matthew 11:19).   “I know,” he said. “And that bothers me.”    He toldThom how alcohol is the root of “all of society’s problems.” He said he seizes every opportunity to condemn those who drink. “We are called to confront sin whenever we see it,” he said. “And that policeman is not helping the cause.”  Before I could remind this man of Jesus” first miracle, he brought it up. “I know Jesus turned water into wine,” he said. “That’s always bothered me.”   I asked, “If Jesus were standing right here, what would you say to him?”  He said, “I’d ask him, ‘What were you thinking?!’”

Well that strikingly similar to the problem Annas and his son in law Caiaphas had with Jesus.

For the ordinary people of the Jewish homeland they might not see a Roman soldier on a day-to-day basis but the imposition of Roman power was certainly there. In the client kingdom of Judea Herod’s rule and Herod’s forces would have been the political entity. Everyone knew that Rome was the power behind the throne. Everyone knew that Rome was the source of both the wealth and also the source of some of the problems that occurred in the Jewish state. So the political reality of the day was of a dominant power overseeing the life on a day-to-day basis.

Herod the Great was probably one of the greatest kings of post-Biblical Israel, but you wouldn’t want your daughter to date him. He was ambitious, brutal and extremely successful. He brooked no opposition, either with family or with politics. Thanks to the political connections of his father he was able to marry into the ruling family in Judea. Under his leadership post-Biblical Israel rose to political and material heights unheard of since Solomon. Herod was a successful client king. He paid tribute to Rome and stayed on the correct side of any kind of Roman fracas.  He protected the political independence and liberty of Jews in Israel. He advertised the success and wealth of his own regime and the importance of his people by having an incredibly ambitious program of building.  Some of the most beautiful buildings that still exist in the land of Israel were done under Herod. Of course, his greatest gift was what he did with the Temple in Jerusalem.

The Temple in Jerusalem was the symbolic and political heart of the country. By rebuilding the Temple … refurbishing it … making it enormous and really one of the architectural marvels of the ancient world, he not only increased enormously the religious prestige of Judaism, but also enabled Judea to have a positive balance of trade. Jerusalem became one of the major centers of world trade and travel. It is one of the real untold ironies of Jewish history that this guy we love to hate really leaves the most indelible mark on the face of the land.

The situation of Judea at the time of Jesus was that its’ economy was robust. It’s a new world because of the arrival of Rome and because of the accomplishments of Herod’s rule. Herod had a long and impressive reign.  But, at his death, his kingdom, which was the largest extent for the Jewish state since the time of David and Solomon, was subdivided among three of his sons. One son, Archelaeus, took Judea, the most important of the three sub-divisions. But within ten years, he was removed by the Roman overlords, and replaced with a military presence posted there by the Roman administration to oversee the political activities of the state.

Pontius Pilate, is one of those posted to Judea. Archeology tells us that at Caesarea Pilate was building a Tibereum, a temple for the Emperor Tiberius, as part of the Imperial Cult.  At the time of Jesus there was a series of religious tensions, many of them focusing on the Temple. On the other side, there is the political and socioeconomic tension that we see reflected in the rise of social banditry. The historian Josephus actually mentions over a dozen of rebel bandit figures.  The political tension is fueled by religious ideas and expectations. And here again, Jerusalem and the Temple seem at times to be a kind of focal point of their ideas.

The Jews, as the Gospel of John calls them, knew they were walking a fine line of maintaining some level of freedom and prosperity  in their civic and religious lives so long as they didn’t upset the Romans.  But nor could they miss the signs that Jesus had done. He healed blind people and people with mental and physical ailments. He fed thousands distributing fragments of a few broken loaves and fish. Together the four Gospels record 37 miracles of Jesus interspersed with his teaching. The Gospel of John concludes by saying “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that ever the whole world would not room for the books that would be written.”

We know from John 6:15 that there was a popular movement to make Jesus king.  This culminates in the Palm Sunday narrative of John 12.  The people sang from the 118^th Psalm.  We contrast this with the story in John 10: 31ff. where the Jews, not the general population … took up stones again to stone him. 32Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?” 33The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.” 34Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ —and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” 39Then they tried to arrest him again,  The discussion among the Jews during their inquisition of the man born blind and his parents is a fascinatingly human moment:

Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not observe the Sabbath.” But others said, “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” And they were divided. 17So they said again to the blind man, “What do you say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” He said, “He is a prophet.” The man formally blind seems instructs his inquisitors: 31We know that God does not listen to sinners, but he does listen to one who worships him and obeys his will. 32Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. 33If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” 34They answered him, “You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?” And they drove him out.

35Jesus heard that they had driven him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” 36He answered, “And who is he, sir? Tell me, so that I may believe in him.” 37Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he.” 38He said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped him.

When Lazarus was brought back to his sisters from beyond hope: Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, 26and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27She said to him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world.” That was the reason the story is told in the Gospel of John – for that clear declaration of Jesus’ Messiah-ship. In another instance, a bit earlier in John we read: Again he (Jesus) said to them, “I am going away, and you will search for me, but you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.” 22Then the Jews said, “Is he going to kill himself? Is that what he means by saying, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?” 23He said to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he.”                         Belief in the eventual coming of the Messiah is a basic and fundamental part of traditional Judaism. It is part of Ramban’s 13 Principles of Faith, the minimum requirements of Jewish belief. In the prayer recited three times daily Jews pray for all of the elements of the coming of the Messiah: ingathering of the exiles; restoration of the religious courts of justice; an end of wickedness, sin and heresy; reward to the righteous; rebuilding of Jerusalem; restoration of the line of King David; and restoration of Temple service.            Though the messianic concept is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Torah  traditional Judaism maintains that the messianic idea has always been a part of Judaism. The term “Messiah” literally means “the anointed one,” and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The Messiah will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a supernatural being.

Traditional lore has it that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the Messiah. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person’s lifetime, then that person will be the Messiah. But if that person dies before he completes the mission then that person is not the Messiah. Was Jesus this long anticipated figure?  In the face of all this the members of the counsel are reported to have asked “What should we do?”  Given our present prosperity, our freedom to practice our religion and control our civil life, maybe we should wait for a Messiah in a coming generation?   In retrospect, everything they feared might happen if they acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah happened within a generation.  Jerusalem was sacked, Herod’s temple was desecrated and destroyed, the economy was devastated as were there lives.  Early Asian Christian communities sent care packages to feed those who remained in Judah.Today it’s still the same question about Jesus that faced members of the counsel back then.  What should we do about Jesus?  We know what was their answer.

The Caiaphas Solution

John 18: 28ff Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate’s headquarters. It was early in the morning. They themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate went out to them and said, ‘What accusation do you bring against this man?’ 30They answered, ‘If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.’ 31Pilate said to them, ‘Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law.’ The Jews replied, ‘We are not permitted to put anyone to death.’

To get a grasp on what is happening in this passage we have to go back in John’s chronology to late in the eleventh chapter. (46 – 57).  It is right after Jesus restored Lazarus to life. The event was unprecedented and the news of it spread quickly and as a result many people came to believe that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah. The religious leaders already knew Jesus to be a genuine threat to the standards they felt should be carefully maintained. The bill of particulars against him was long.  He refused to keep himself separate from publicly profane people. He took lightly the fences built up over time to keep Jewish people from breaking commandments. His followers violated the requirement that no work be done on the Sabbath – they picked corn and to add insult to injury they didn’t wash their hands before eating. When Jesus had healed a person on the Sabbath he was accused of breaking the same rule.  Jesus’ messages seem to turn everything holy and righteous upside down. But this last thing, this bringing Lazarus back to life, was too much.  So let’s go back to John 11 and read what happened then.

But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what he had done. So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council, and said, “What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.”But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all! 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.” He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. So from that day on they planned to put him to death.

Here’s the important line: If we let him go on like this, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.”

There must have been someone in that community with the insight of Edmund Burke who penned the phrase: “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” That’s the underlying fear that inflamed Caiaphas.  Inflamed him enough to rationalize killing Jesus. He said: it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed. He was a student of Jewish history. He understood what was at risk for the Jews in breaking the covenant with God.

He was aware of the consequences of the often repeated refrain found in the Books of the Kings of Israel and Judah – “and they did what was evil in the sight of the Lord”. He knew that the prophets consistently tried to call Israel back to keeping the covenant God had made with them and how it was repeatedly violated and ignored. From the time of David through the last kings of Judah and Israel the prophets obediently spoke God’s word about covenant loyalty and the consequences of violation. Is it true that those who ignore history are destined to repeat it?

Let’s give Caiaphas his due. He lived in fear of violating the ritual requirements of covenant obedience. Disobedience had led to the destruction of the Temple, more than once. It led to national embarrassment as the leaders of the nation were carried off to exile, more than once.  I think we do Caiaphas a disservice if we discount his zeal for his faith and his faith community. Caiaphas was deadly serious.  He reminds me of the voice in our culture that continues to call our nation to never forget the lesson of Pearl Harbor. Caiaphas would want to scream the slogan “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Despite what you may have read or heard, there is no evidence that Thomas Jefferson ever spoke or wrote the phrase “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”.   It was American Abolitionist and liberal activist Wendell Phillips who spoke those words on January 8, 1852 to members of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society.  It was a warning that persons elected to public office can become corrupt and can become despotic. The quotation seems quite timely. It goes “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either from human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”  Someone ought to make a counted cross stitch of that one.

But back to Caiaphas.  Wouldn’t God do it again? That was his worry.  Because of the practices of Jesus and his followers were the Jews again guilty of a breach of covenant correctness?  Would God again reduce the Jewish nation to a mere remnant of their former glory as a people?  And Jesus, wasn’t he pushing at the boundaries and taking the gullible population with him. Jesus even had the audacity to leave the impression that he was the long awaited Messiah – that in itself was the worst blasphemy. Saving the whole people from certain destruction could certainly justify the taking the life of this one.  That’s what Caiphas thought and that’s what Caiphas did.  It should cause us to listen carefully to the rationale for resorting to violence prevalent in our own day and time.

Our Governor recently announced that during his term of office the State of Washington would not carry out sentences of death on convicted criminals.  As the State considers the death penalty it may be important to recall this story of Caiaphas.  

John 18: 12-27

So the soldiers, their officer, and the Jewish police arrested Jesus and bound him. ¹³First they took him to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. ¹⁴Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for the people.

Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, ¹⁶but Peter was standing outside at the gate. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out, spoke to the woman who guarded the gate, and brought Peter in. ¹⁷The woman said to Peter, ‘You are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ¹⁸Now the slaves and the police had made a charcoal fire because it was cold, and they were standing round it and warming themselves. Peter also was standing with them and warming himself.

Then the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. ²⁰Jesus answered, ‘I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. ²¹Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said.’²²When he had said this, one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, ‘ ²³Jesus answered, ‘If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?’ ²⁴Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They asked him, ‘You are not also one of his disciples, are you?’ He denied it and said, ‘I am not.’ ²⁶One of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, ‘Did I not see you in the garden with him?’ ²⁷Again Peter denied it, and at that moment the cock crowed.

It doesn’t take too much imagination to sense the under currents and mysteries presented in this short piece of scripture.  As early as the late second century the Gospel of John has been ascribed to John, the younger of the sons of Zebedee, and that’s as close as we can get. It’s tough to admit and unpopular to bring it up but we don’t know who wrote ‘The Gospel of John”. It reflects a tradition quite independent to that presented in Matthew, Mark and Luke.  It displays exact knowledge of Palestine and 1^st century Judaism. It is different in theological perspectives, in the arrangement of its contents and its distinctive use of imagery and symbols.

The synoptic gospels suggest that Jesus’ ministry lasted only one year and concluded with a single fatal trip to Jerusalem.  The Gospel of John includes at least three trips for Jesus to Jerusalem and actually suggests that he spent quite a bit of time in the area and was a well known personality. He was no stranger to Jerusalem and the Temple.  It reinforces what Jesus’ said of himself in this passage –  ‘I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret.’  He was a well known voice that challenged calcified religious tradition and its adherents. It tells me that the Priestly caste’s fear that this popular  revolution would topple their rule meant a great deal of planning had gone into bringing the life and ministry of Jesus to an abrupt end. The author wraps up the intent of it being written wit these words “ that you may hold the faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that through this faith you may possess life by his name”. (20:31)

Our piece of the narrative identifies Peter and this unnamed other disciple who could be the only eye witness to what occurred that night in the courtyard of Annas.  Is this the author?  We are told that he was known to the high priest. Does it come as a surprise that there was someone known to the high priest among Jesus’ closest followers? He had such freedom of access that he went out and brought Peter back in with him.  Who was that masked man?  Evidently he went there without fear for his own life and was comfortable enough to invite Peter in as well.

This person has always been connected to the ‘disciple that Jesus’ loved’, again traditionally thought to be Zebedee’s younger son John.  But in John 11:5 we are told that Jesus loved Lazarus and his sisters.  Before that point the gospel does not mention a ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’. That leads me to think that this other disciple of our passage who was known to the high priest and felt confident enough to go in and out of the gates of Annas’ courtyard and to get Peter into the courtyard was Lazarus from Bethany in Judea.  Such a stir was made over his being raised from the dead by Jesus that there is little doubt that he would be known to the high priest and no one dare lay a hand on him.  Also being a Judean he would be far more likely to move freely in those more sophisticated circles than a rough Galilean fisherman.  It confirms our suspicion that Jesus had supporters among very influential people, people like the highly placed Pharisee Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea who had access to Pilate himself.  I don’t know what you might think but I think Lazarus a Judean from the Jerusalem suburbs, loved by Jesus and raised from death is the source of the tradition reflected in the Gospel of John.

If you’ve missed the political tension in the story the narrative in the Gospel of John makes it clear that while Son-in-law Caiaphas was officially the High Priest the functional High Priest was Annas.  The Jewish Encyclopedia reports that Annas held that office for over 18 years, much longer than his predecessors or successors through appointment of Valerius Gratus, the Roman Prefect of Judea under Tiberius.  He was replaced by Pontius Pilate.  Evidently while Ciaiphas performed the duties of the office the power of high priest officially lay in the hands of Annas.  In this instance, after Jesus was arrested, he was brought to Annas who questioned him privately.  Well into the story, after Jesus’ retort to Annas’ questioning in his courtyard, one of the Jewish police slaps Jesus in the face saying ‘Is that how you answer the high priest?’  It’s only after that that Annas sends Jesus to Caiaphas “the high priest.”  Bringing an end to the public ministry of Jesus was not to be left in the hands of the less experienced. The actual trial took place on the next day, the eve of the Passover, before twenty-three members of the Sanhedrin over whom Caiaphas presided.

Then we have the tiny vignette of the woman gate keeper who, saying nothing to the disciple known to the high priest, outs Peter as one of Jesus’ followers. It’s Peter’s first denial. Hers’ was just a simple question evidently based on her knowledge that the unnamed one was a disciple of Jesus.  I guess, to some degree, we are known by the company you keep.  The second denial comes out of a context of a group of people warming themselves around a fire in the early morning hours wondering why those around them weren’t still home in bed.  Why are you here?  Are you another of his disciples?  Peter protests that he is not.  But he couldn’t get away with it. One of the high priest’s servants who had been along for the arrest of Jesus said “Didn’t I see you in the garden when he was arrested?  Wasn’t it you who cut off my cousin’s ear ?”  Maybe the lesson there is that our impetuous actions have longer term consequences.  “No, not I” was still on Peter’s lips as the clarion cry of a rooster chased the shadows of the long night away.

What does denial of Jesus, or betrayal for that matter, look like today?  One preacher moved by alliteration listed seven ways people deny Jesus.  You might like the list for reference.  By our words, our walk, our works, our wickedness, our witness, our worship and our wealth.  I imagine there may be another “w” word that someone might find that could expand the list to eight – or remember there are 26 letters in the English alphabet.  I don’t think a list is a bit helpful.  I also think that no one but our selves have any business defining what denial of Jesus would mean for us. Judgment can become complex. For instance we have Judas Son of Simon Iscariot or Simon Peter to contrast – one, tradition has it, hung himself and the other is made head of the Church.  Close call.

I look for the good news in the narrative.  Of course the good news from Peter’s experience is that later he discovered grace at the hands of the one he disowned.  But I also see political intrigue, the careful plotting by the powerful to protect their privilege and authority.  I come away aware that both these things are true today.  Our daily news reports unscrupulous actions in places like the Ukraine and Syria.  Yet, good news, grace still abounds, even for those who in their distress deny the one who can offer grace.

What most astounds me in this story of two disciples in Annas’ courtyard is the role played by the disciple who isn’t named.  Known by the high priest, known evidently by Jesus, acknowledged by gate keeper and providing access to the seat of the real power, placing Peter in the place where his commitment to Christ is pushed to its limit and witness to what went on behind closed doors reminds me that faithfulness without credit or reward is still the standard for followers of Christ.

John 13:34-35

I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. 35By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

According to John, at least in this moment, Jesus doesn’t tell his disciples to love their neighbors, Gentiles or Samaritans, victims or others.  Jesus tells his disciples to love one another – those who are already in the community of Christ. In the context of John’s church, this was important and necessary advice. In order to bring the good news of Christ to the nations, it was necessary that the followers of Christ take care of one another. In the midst of disagreements around the formation doctrine and struggles in establishing the church the disciples of Jesus needed to love one another. The politics of a world beset against Christianity required it.

The advice of the Jesus of John’s gospel continues to be excellent advice – setting aside all our differences, as disciples of Jesus, we are called to love one another. This is immensely more difficult than a proclamation that we love everyone and everything in God’s creation.

In the various forms and the various circumstances in which it’s found itself, from the beginning the church has been grounded in a vision larger than itself. For John’s Jesus, this was showing the world the Light – what it meant to be a follower of Christ. This is different from what Luke would have us hear from Jesus. Luke’s Jesus showed the world aid and concern – he helped victims, ate with those different from him, ministered to whole households, not just the men but slaves, women, and children. Being a disciple of Jesus in that context meant loving into community the whole people of God – not simply loving those with whom one was already in fellowship.

This text reminds us that love within intimate relationships is tougher than loving the stranger, offering shelter to the homeless and food to the hungry. A woman once confessed that “I love strangers… why can’t I find grace for my own parents?” Strangers are easy. Most of us are bothered when we hear the phrase ‘love the sinner but hate the sin’.

Some years ago there was a heavy weight discussion over Joe Fletcher’s book entitled Situational Ethics. It was his experience that with love, one size didn’t fit all. There was no set of absolute standards to define what is and what is not love.  Relativism was the charge made by many with in the religious community.  But here’s the problem.

For instance: A Romanian Jewish doctor aborted 3000 babies of Jewish mothers in concentration camps because, if pregnant, the mothers were to be incinerated. This means that the doctor actually saved 3000 and prevented the murder of 6000. Was this the loving thing to do​?

Another: On an episode of the TV series MASH Hawkeye smothers a crying baby to prevent the bus load of patients from be discovered and killed.

Love decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively. Love does not prescribe in advance what specific course of actions should be taken. Love operates apart from a pretailored, prefabricated list of moral rules. Love functions circumstantially, it does not “make up its mind” before it sees the facts in any given situation.

Most of us have made a valiant attempt to treat our children equally – even though they are different with different interests and desires.  On a very mundane level we function the way Joe Fletcher suggests.

The six fundamental principles

Only one thing is intrinsically good – love: nothing else at all.

The ruling norm of Christian decision is love: nothing else.

Love an Justice are the same, justice is love distributed, nothing else.

Justice is Christian love using its head, calculating its duties and obligations, opportunities, resources…(Justice is love coping with situations where distribution is called for.)

Love wills the neighbor’s good, whether we like him or not.

Only the end justifies the means, Actions only acquire moral status as a means to an end; for Fletcher, the end must be the most loving result. When measuring a situation, one must consider the desired end, the means available, the motive for acting and the foreseeable consequences.

Love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively.

In the final analysis the goal is to do the most loving thing – the pain we feel comes from acknowledging that we well may be wrong.

Finish the work Jesus began

John 11:1-44

It may come as a bit of a shock but there is nothing innovative or uniquely Christian about belief in resurrection. It was well established in Jewish society in the centuries before the time of Jesus. In our story Martha responds to Jesus’ assurance that Lazarus will rise again saying “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”

The main reason John tells the story of the Raising of Lazarus is Martha’s proclamation that Jesus is the long awaited Jewish Messiah.  Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, ²⁶and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” ²⁷She said to him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world.” 

I guess Jesus could afford to be cavalier about death – undoubtedly he does not qualify as a first responder. According to John the evangelist Jesus had fled Jerusalem to where John the baptizer had been doing his thing on the east side of the Jordan River, a good days leisurely walk from where Mary, Martha and Lazarus lived just outside of Jerusalem.   That’s where he was when word came to him that Lazarus was ill.  We read: “…though Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, 6after having heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.”

…after this he said to the disciples, “Let us go to Judea again.” 8The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews (that is those in Jerusalem) were just now trying to stone you, and are you going there again?” So he dismisses them, cavalier about the threats on his own life saying: “Those who walk during the day do not stumble, because they see the light of this world. 10But those who walk at night stumble, because the light is not in them.”

Jesus then plainly states, “Lazarus is dead. 15For your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”

Thomas wraps it up by saying to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” I guess that means that following Jesus requires a bit of the cavalier in all of us.

John tells us that by the time Jesus arrived Lazarus has been in the tomb for four days.  To understand what he is telling us we have to visit the ancient creedal statement that says of Jesus that on “the third day he rose from the dead.”

When most Christians recite the Apostles’ Creed and say, “the third day he rose from the dead,” most think that “the third day” refers to Easter Sunday following Jesus’ crucifixion. The problem with that is even children recognize that the forty hours between Jesus’ death and resurrection does not comprise three days. In first century Jewish culture a person was not considered to be truly dead until “after three days.” That is not really what the creedal formula is all about. The reality is that “the third day” is not a chronological measure, it’s symbolic.

None of the four Gospels use the formula “the third day” in their reports of the resurrection of Jesus. They say “the first day of the week” to describe when the risen Jesus appears. But older than the Gospels is the creedal formula found in Acts 10:40 and I Corinthians 15:4. Paul reports the tradition that “he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scripture” That is the language picked up and repeated in the Apostles’ and the Nicene Creed.

When we read the Old Testament we find few if any texts which seem to point to the resurrection of Jesus. Well, you can push the Hosea text but not so as to make any sense. So what’s this “in accordance with the scriptures” comment? The apostles were not scanning the Old Testament looking to proof text their message about Jesus. They were reading the Old Testament to discern how the God of Israel behaves. There are 30 places in the Old Testament where you find “after three days” or “the third day,” always the decisive day, the day when God acts and momentous events occur. The phrase is a way of expressing the anticipation of a turning point when a time of unfavorable things would finally pass and a new time of favorable outcomes would arrive.

This Scriptural tradition of the notion of “the third day” as God’s day of victory helps us to understand how Jesus viewed his coming suffering and made predictions of his passion reported in Matthew 16:21. As it became evident that forces were being arrayed against him, Jesus predicted the calamity that would befall him. Yet he had faith that he could rely on God’s “third day.” No matter what failure or suffering lay ahead, he trusted that God would have the last word on “the third day.”

Following the resurrection of Jesus, the apostles remembered Jesus’ own trust in God’s action on “the third day” and they searched the Scriptures and found promises of God’s ultimate victory “after three days” or on “the third day.” This motif provided the means for them to perceive how the new event of Jesus’ resurrection is anticipated in the Old Testament. They learned that God does not abandon the righteous ones but can be trusted to act on their behalf in the end, and that this confidence in God’s ultimate deliverance and victory acquired a rhetorical form as a promise of God acting on “the third day.” It is in this way that the formula appeared in the apostolic tradition that “he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.”

Before they ever left Bethany beyond Jordan told his disciples the brutal truth that Lazarus is dead. Martha knew that after four days entombed she didn’t want Lazarus’ body exhumed. Not just three days dead but four. This is a step beyond hope. At this point all human hope is superfluous. It is too late. Too late to fix, too late to call out, too late even to hope. It’s too late.

Have you ever felt how Martha felt? They had called for Jesus who was a days walk away, close enough to get to Bethany. Really close if your dear friend is dying! But Jesus, doesn’t seem too concerned. He sees a far bigger picture than those who are in a panic that he hasn’t yet arrived. Then suddenly, all too suddenly, it is too late.

He arrives on the fourth day. The day that is beyond all hope. Jesus arrives on the hopeless day, the fourth day.

He listens to  Mary and then to Martha, “If you had been here, my brother would not have died!”  Am I the only one who reads a silent sub-text from Martha, “Where were you?” Jesus himself weeps at his dead friends tomb… John tells us “So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, I thank you for having heard me. 42I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.” 43When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44The dead man came out…

He called forth life and liberation from the hopeless hole, on the hopeless day, amidst a hopeless crowd. He called forth life in the midst of certain confirmed, putrefied and stinking death.

In the dark of failed relationships, failed programs for happiness, failed dreams of beauty and happy endings.  In the entombed hopeless reality of life’s darkness we can hear a voice that calls my name and yours.  Just like Lazarus, for me life and liberation comes through the tears of Jesus and the torment of my hopelessness.

It is then we can understand Lazarus’s name. It means “God has helped.”  That standing against all the odds, “God has helped. ” No one else could have helped, but God has helped. On the fourth hopeless day, God has helped.

his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

To those who observed this event which challenged everything they ever considered absolute – death itself  Jesus tells them that the work he began was theirs’ to finish.   Lazarus was now alive but he was still bound, hands and feet, in the shrouds of death in which  those who loved him most had wrapped him. “Unbind him, and let him go!” Jesus commands. Free him from the trappings of death, take off what holds him back. Set him free.

Does that continue to be our challenge, to finish the work of releasing from the constraints of the trappings of death those who Christ as brought back to life?

John 9

As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him. 4We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work. 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” 6When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva and spread the mud on the man’s eyes, 7saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). Then he went and washed and came back able to see.

8The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar began to ask, “Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?” 9Some were saying, “It is he.” Others were saying, “No, but it is someone like him.” He kept saying, “I am the man.” 10But they kept asking him, “Then how were your eyes opened?” 11He answered, “The man called Jesus made mud, spread it on my eyes, and said to me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’ Then I went and washed and received my sight.” 12They said to him, “Where is he?” He said, “I do not know.”

13They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. 14Now it was a sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. 15Then the Pharisees also began to ask him how he had received his sight. He said to them, “He put mud on my eyes. Then I washed, and now I see.” 16Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not observe the sabbath.” But others said, “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” And they were divided. 17So they said again to the blind man, “What do you say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” He said, “He is a prophet.” 18The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight 19and asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” 20His parents answered, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; 21but we do not know how it is that now he sees, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.” 22His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. 23Therefore his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.” 24So for the second time they called the man who had been blind, and they said to him, “Give glory to God! We know that this man is a sinner.” 25He answered, “I do not know whether he is a sinner. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.” 26They said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 27He answered them, “I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?” 28Then they reviled him, saying, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. 29We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.” 30The man answered, “Here is an astonishing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. 31We know that God does not listen to sinners, but he does listen to one who worships him and obeys his will. 32Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. 33If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” 34They answered him, “You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?” And they drove him out.

35Jesus heard that they had driven him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” 36He answered, “And who is he, sir? Tell me, so that I may believe in him.” 37Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he.” 38He said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped him.

39Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind.” 40Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not blind, are we?” 41Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.

According to John, Jesus is in Jerusalem walking with a group of people John describes as ‘Jesus’ learners.’ Clearly not just the twelve. He sees a man blind from birth. Later in the story John verifies that this man was known to the neighbors as a beggar and known by his parents to have been born blind. The encounter initiates a brief but serious colloquy.

“Rabbi”, they ask, “who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” The students view that those with physical disabilities were being punished either for their own sin or the sin of their parents was a common understanding for their time.  It was a fair academic question.  Today most introductory classes in the sciences are quick to point out that, “correlation does not necessitate causation.”  And perhaps the man’s parents were not the most exemplary human beings, we don’t know, but just because a man is born blind and his parents are sinners doesn’t mean that there is a direct cause and effect relationship between the two events.

Some have sought to strengthen the correlation between sin and disability with a particular reading of the Holiness Code in Leviticus chapters 17-26, where there is a frequent connection made between physical disability and impurity.  Jesus’ followers seem to be questioning him from this point of view.  Jesus listens to the question, then reframes the situation from a new angle.  He refuses to accept the false dilemma presented by his followers: Do you pick (a) this man is blind because of his own sin, or (b) this man is blind because of his parents’ sin?  If this were a multiple choice test, then Jesus did scribbled a third option in the margin and circling it: (c) “Neither this man nor his parents sinned.”  Then he offers another thought entirely, dangerous if taken as universally applicable to all who suffer disabilities, that this blind man in particular “He was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.”  For purposes of retelling this event John allows the reason for the man’s disability become a matter of promoting the importance of Jesus.  I doubt that Jesus would have seen a disabled person as an opportunity for self promotion.  I believe that instead of seeing an opportunity for enhancing reputation God weeps at other’s ills.  It’s Jesus’ act of compassion that storms through the narrative.  But the story does create an opportunity to consider how our understanding of the work of Jesus impacts the lives of people living with disability.

Nancy Eiesland who has been working on what she calls a “liberation theology of disability.”  writes: “Growing up with a disability, I could not accept the traditional interpretations of disability that I heard in prayers, in Sunday school, and in sermons. “You are special in God’s eyes,” I was often told, “that’s why you were given this painful disability.” Or, “Don’t worry about your suffering now—in heaven you will be made whole.”  This confused me. My disability had taught me who I am and who God is. What would it mean to be without this knowledge? Would I be absolutely unknown to myself in heaven, and perhaps even unknown to God? I was assured that God gave me a disability to develop my character. But by age six or seven, I was convinced that I had enough character to last a lifetime. My family frequented faith healers with me in tow. I was never healed. People asked about my hidden sins, but they must have been so well hidden that even I misplaced them. The theology that I heard was inadequate to my experience.”

For me it was good to hear Jesus rejecting the notion that a causal link exists between disability and sin.  Unfortunately that idea still seems to be in vogue. We find ourselves thinking that those for whom life has not gone well, must be, in some way, at fault, whether it is about a disability, unemployment or illness. There’s a comforting corollary that helps hold that notion in place: prosperous people are blessed; people who are blessed are good people. Other people are bad people.

It all ceased being a philosophical debate at verse 6.  I wonder what his students thought.  After an unmistakable declaration of his Messiahship Jesus spits on the ground and makes mud.   He didn’t ask whether the man born blind wanted to be able to see. He didn’t ask him so much as even for permission. And the act which brought about his healing occurred long before any statement of belief.  Jesus spread the mud on the man’s eyes and sends him to wash in the pool of Siloam.  He went. He washed and came back able to see.  And before he returned Jesus had absented himself.

The time of Jesus’ absence was no picnic for the man born blind.     In fact, the man born blind could have said understandably to himself more than once, “I never asked to be healed. If this is what it means to be blessed of God, I think I am willing to relinquish some divine favors.” No other story in the Bible so dramatically illustrates the truth that: God’s favor more often leads into than away from difficulties. People  who preach faith as the cessation of pain, suffering, poverty, restless nights and turbulent days are offering false comfort. Look at what happened to this poor man during Jesus’ absence.

First he tries to go home again but can’t.  So radical is the change in him that his reappearance in the old neighborhood generates no joy, no celebration, no welcome home, only questions and doubts. His insistence that he is the same man gains mixed responses. He was formerly well known among these people; his stumbling and hesitant walk, his dependence, his poverty were his identity, they defined his place in the community. Now he walks upright, assured of place and direction, quite independent, only to discover that he has no place anymore. Who are you? Who is this Jesus? Where is he? I do not know.

Then he gets hauled before the religious leaders. They are interested in all reported miracles, especially if performed by unauthorized individuals and most especially if done in violation of some law. Such is the case here; the healing occurred on the Sabbath. A quandary: if this man is truly healed, it was done by someone with the power of God, but if the healing took place on the Sabbath, then it was done by someone opposing God’s law. Are you sure you can see? Were you really blind? Who did it? Further investigation is needed.

Next his parents are grilled by the religious leaders. Yes, he is our son; yes, he was born blind; no, we do not know what happened; no, we do not know who did it. Whatever joy they may have had is drowned in fear. The prejudice was palpable.  The text says: for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.   Expulsion from the synagogue and social disgrace is a high price to pay for having a son especially blessed by God. They were unwilling to pay it.

One more time the man is grilled and this time more intensely. The authorities, faced with the irrefutable evidence of the healing, try to make the man denounce Jesus as a sinner. The poor man, armed only with his experience and sound logic, cannot believe a sinner could have the power of God. Anger and frustration rule: the man is denounced along with Jesus and expelled as a sinner.

First his life was blessed by Jesus and now his old friends disregard him, his parents reject him, and he is driven out from his old place of worship. What a blessing!

Jesus says:  “I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind.”    The religious leaders gathered around him are incredulous:  “Surely we are not blind, are we?”  Jesus replied, “If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.”

This story is not just about a blind man being healed once upon a time in a land far away.  This story challenges us to recognize the ways in which we can be blind and unable to recognize our blindness — and the ways in which we are wrong about the blindness of others. 

Obsession with observance, the disabilitiy of the Pharisees, is a characteristic of religion which makes it very dangerous, as many forms of fundamentalism illustrate. Such rigidity at the expense of people is not, however, limited to certain widely acknowledged types, but can flourish among the biblicists and among those serving other ideologies. It is also at home where people read John and the Bible as vehicles for propaganda for their Jesus and their God, to ‘win’, instead of a testimony to divine compassion which puts people first. As the blind man might have said: ‘Well I don’t understand much about all of that, but I know when I see people getting helped I know God is at work in that!”