Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Friday, February 28, 2014 Read John 5, 7-8 again It might be well to reflect back over the whole section of John’s gospel that we have been reading since Jesus arrived in Jerusalem for the Feast of Booths. The whole section reflects a growing hostility between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders. We witnessed that growing hostility before – in Mark’s gospel as Jesus enters Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. A question we might ponder is whether or not Mark and John are speaking about the same encounter. Students of John’s gospel have noticed that once Jesus enters Jerusalem in the fall of the year for the Feast of Booths he will not travel far from the area again until he is crucified just prior to Passover in the spring of the next year. From chapter 5 on there is a growing controversy between Jesus and the religious leaders of Jerusalem. That controversy would have lasted for over five months culminating in the death of Jesus. As mentioned above Mark tells of a similar time of controversy that last for only one or two days. While the episodes are not the same the growing controversy is. When you stop and think about it, Mark’s storyline seems too compressed. A close reading of Luke’s use of Mark reflects that perhaps Luke was aware of a much longer controversy but chose to stick with Mark’s compression. All of this has led students of both John and Mark to wonder if they are not reflecting the same time in the ministry of Jesus. For most of those students John’s storyline is more realistic than Mark’s. Mark had his reasons for compressing it all into a couple of days. Mark’s goal was getting Jesus, the crucified Messiah, to the cross. His storyline which has Jesus exclusively in Galilee and entering Jerusalem only once works for him. If John and Mark are reflecting the same historical time in the ministry of Jesus, then it seems likely that Jesus came to Jerusalem in the fall, did battle with the religious authorities for about five months in which hostilities grew eventually to the point of Jesus being killed through the actions of those religious leaders. John’s chronology is more likely the accurate depiction of what happened. Mark has compressed that chronology for theological reasons. I think this way of thinking about things makes a good deal of sense. In the end, however, there is no way to make a definitive choice about any of this.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Thursday, February 27, 2014 Read John 8:48-59 Jesus has accused the Jews (religious leaders) of being children of the devil. They fire right back accusing Jesus of being possessed by a demon. They even throw the Samaritan slur at Jesus. We need to recall the brutal hatred between Jews and Samaritans. To call someone a Samaritan was about as low as a Jew could go. The battle of words rages on. When Jesus tells them that whoever believes in him will never taste death, the religious leaders become even more convinced that Jesus is possessed by a demon. Abraham died. Who does Jesus think he is? When Jesus tells them that Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Jesus, in typical fashion, they misunderstand. Since they know that Jesus is less than fifty years old how can Abraham possibly have seen Jesus? And now the whole controversy comes to a head. Jesus makes another bold claim. The words, as well as others in the whole section are highlighted by Jesus’ use of the phrase, “Very truly, I tell you …” We have met that phrase earlier and know it a way in which John want to alert his readers that what is about to be said is critically important. Jesus’ claim is once again that he is none other than the “I am” of the OT. His words are, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Appropriately this time the English translation leaves off the usual “he” that has been inserted at other times. English reading does not require it. The claim of Jesus that he is “I am” leads to an attempt to stone him. Stoning is the appropriate punishment for blasphemers. While no accusation of blasphemy is vocally spoken it is what lies behind the attempted stoning. But they will not succeed. Jesus “hour” has not yet come. And so John tells us Jesus “hid” himself and went out of the Temple. Just exactly what John means by the word “hid” is ambiguous. Perhaps we need not make much effort to explain it. The point is that Jesus will not meet his death until the appropriate “hour” the time of his own choosing. John is consistent in portraying Jesus as being in control. Jesus controls his destiny. The whole scene has turned into an ugly one. Those who we are told “believed” suddenly become violent opponents – children of the devil. There is not much to rejoice about in this story. Ugly words are hard to take back. Animosity between Jews and Christians lives even today. John reflects and time of deep woundedness and harsh division between believers in Jesus and those who do not believe. Such woundedness reflects a sad time of pain and hurt. The irony in all of it is that, in the earliest years of the Christian movement both Christians and non-believers in Jesus were Jews. But sometimes internal battles within the family can be the worst. As we reflect upon this text in our own time, we need to careful not to simply perpetuate hostility. Can there be constructive dialog between Christians and Jews? Difficult as that dialog is we can hope that more constructive conversation might emerge.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, February 26, 2014 Read John 8:39-47 At this point the conversation gets nasty. The confrontation is a high as at any other point in any of the gospel writings. Accusations fly back and forth. The words of Jesus are harsh and pointed. We may wonder why and how things could have gotten so out of hand. The issue hinges on the legitimate children of Abraham. The Pharisees claim that Abraham is their father. Jesus responds by questioning their legitimacy. If they were legitimate children of Abraham they would not be seeking to kill him. Jesus accuses them of having another father than Abraham. The response of the Pharisees is to claim that they are not illegitimate children but that they have one father who is God himself. There is at least a veiled accusation in their response that it is in fact Jesus who is the illegitimate child. John has not told us anything about the virgin conception of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke speak of Jesus being conceived by the action of the Holy Spirit. Mary is his mother but Joseph is not his father. One can only imagine the scandal that must have raged about all of that. There are plenty of rumors in other sources that speak of the illegitimate birth of Jesus. John may was have known them. John may even have known of the traditions that rest behind Luke and Matthew. He is silent about all of this. But it is not unlikely that he knew more than he has shared with his readers. The veil of illegitimacy hangs over the story. Jesus knows his own identity and origin – he is from God who has sent him. The Pharisees neither know nor accept this as the origin of Jesus. They will not believe this. In frustration Jesus asks them why they refuse to understand. And then the harshest accusation is spoken. Jesus accuses them of being children of the devil. They are children of the devil because the refuse to accept God’s word. Instead they choose to do the desires of the devil who is a murderer and a liar. These are indeed harsh words. They reflect a relationship that has deteriorated to a level of hopelessness. One question worth pondering is whether or not these words reflect the situation of Jesus’ own time or of the time of the final version of John’s gospel. Perhaps we could argue that they reflect both. We have already pondered a bit the situation as reflected by Luke in the book of Acts. There the relationship between some Christians and Jews is viewed much more cordially. To be sure there was hostility at the time of Jesus, but whether or not that hostility rose to the level of this text is debatable. At any rate we can’t help but grieve over the harshness of this text as we find it in John’s gospel.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, February 25, 2014 Read John 8:31-38 Our reading for today may well be familiar. This gospel reading is the text assigned for Reformation Sunday each year. As was mentioned yesterday, it appears that many were believing in Jesus. The hopefulness of that response is dashed in today’s reading. We sometimes miss the fact that Jesus is here speaking to those who “believed in him” (John 8:31). But is their belief genuine or is it only “skin deep?” John has told his readers that Jesus knows what is in every person. Apparently Jesus knows the shallowness of the belief in those who are said to believe in him. Jesus’ proclamation to these people seems clear and non-confrontational. “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth and the truth will make you free.” What could possibly be offensive in that? Yet, it is apparent that these would-be believers are offended. They are offended by the possibility that they are not truly free. They ask Jesus what he means when he says they will be made free. Aren’t they free already? Their claim is a bit ridiculous given the state of Roman occupation under which they are living. How can they possibly claim that they have never been slaves to anyone? What about Egypt? What about Babylon? What about Rome? Yet they do not understand their bondage and consequently they cannot recognize that they really need to be made free. Jesus’ response to these protesters is harsh. They are not free because they are slaves to sin. And as slaves to sin they do not have a permanent place in God’s house. Only the Son has such a place. To receive a place in God’s house will happen only when the Son makes one free. By now it is apparent that the “belief” spoken of in John 8:30 is inadequate. Hopefulness is dashed. At this point Jesus reminds the “Jews” to whom he has been speaking and with whom he has been debating that even though they are children of Abraham they have been looking for a way to kill Jesus. They seek to kill Jesus because there is no place for Jesus’ word in them. And so the hostility grows.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, February 24, 2014 Read John 8:21-30 The conversation regarding the origin and the identity of Jesus continues. This is a conversation that has gone on for a long time now – it started way back in chapter 5. Earlier Jesus had spoken of his “going away” and the religious leaders had misunderstood. Jesus repeats his message to them – he is going away and though they search for him they will not find him because where Jesus is going they cannot come. This time the Pharisees speculate that perhaps Jesus is going to kill himself. Why they jump to such a conclusion is hard to figure out – but, ironically, they are getting closer to the truth. Jesus’ “going away” will have to do with death – his death. In spite of the fact that they are clueless, John has a subtle way of making them speak the truth. The reason why the religious leaders cannot perceive the truth is because they are from below. Jesus is from above. They belong to this world. Jesus does not belong to this world. When Jesus makes statements like these the religious leaders have no way of understanding. Yet, there is a way to understand and that way is to believe that Jesus is “I am!” Once again John confronts his readers with “I am” language. We have encounter this earlier in John’s gospel (John 4:26). Our English translations hide something from us. For the convenience of reading the translators have written “I am he.” But the “he” is missing in Greek. What Jesus really says in John 8:24 is, “I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am!” The Divine Name from the OT book of Exodus 3 is again on the lips of Jesus defining his identity. Jesus is “I am!” The religious leaders can neither comprehend nor accept this. They ask Jesus directly, “Who are you?” In frustration Jesus wonders why he is even speaking to such people. They will not understand. Because they think they know who Jesus is, that they know his origin and his identity, they are blind to the truth. John tells us “they did not understand that he was speaking to them about the Father.” Mistaken identity plagues the religious leaders. Now Jesus recalls something that was said in the encounter with Nicodemus – “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am.” Once again the “he” is added in English to provide ease in reading. In chapter 3 Jesus had said that just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so shall the Son of Man be lifted up (John 3:14). This image will be recalled once again in chapter 12 as the death of Jesus in immanently approaching. When “the hour” comes the Son of Man will be lifted up and then he will draw all people to himself (John 12:32). We noticed earlier that the word “lifted up” is one of those words that John uses which has a double meaning – it means both to be crucified and to be exalted. It is obvious that the religious leaders cannot understand what Jesus is saying. Once again Jesus claims that he does nothing of his own but only what his Father tells him to do. Jesus takes comfort in the reality that he is not alone – not abandoned – because God is always with him. One cannot help but think of Mark’s gospel and the last words on Jesus lips as he died upon the cross – “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” Of course it is unfair to mix Mark and John together in an attempt to harmonize things. Mark has his reason for portraying the crucified Messiah as he does. John also has his reasons for portraying Jesus fully in control and victorious upon the cross with words of triumph – “It is finished!” Yet it is good to hear the contrast and to know that God is speaking through both Mark and John. Our reading for today concludes with the comment by the narrator that many believed in Jesus as a result of hearing his words. The response to Jesus is once again mixed. But we are left wondering whether the “belief” spoken of here is genuine or not. Our hopes will be dashed with tomorrow’s reading.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, February 23, 2014 Read John 8:12-20 We return to the conversation that was left off at the close of chapter 7. We need to recall the overall setting for the conversation was the Feast of Booths. Earlier Jesus had participated in the water ceremony through which pitchers of water were brought to the altar and poured out as a symbol of the water of life flowing forth. Jesus had claimed that he was the Living Water and that whoever drank from him would have eternal life. In John’s gospel Jesus was once again replacing an OT tradition. But the story moves on. Not only was there a water ceremony connected with the Feast of Booths, there was also a light ceremony. Candles were used in the festival. Now Jesus makes the claim that his is the Light of the World. We have met these “I am” statements before. Here the “I am” has a predicate as in Jesus’ statement, “I am the bread of life.” Whenever we hear Jesus saying “I am …” we can know that John is claiming that Jesus is God, the Son. The Divine Name is used. This is a powerful claim by Jesus. And the Pharisees understand. Misunderstanding has often been a part of John’s technique. To be sure there will be misunderstanding in what follows – the Pharisees will not understand that Jesus truly is the light of the world. But the point here is that the do recognize Jesus’ claim – a claim no human could or ought to make. So they accuse Jesus of bearing testimony on his own behalf. In their opinion Jesus is making a claim he has no right to make. Jesus rejects their charges and then moves the encounter onto the stage of the origin of Jesus. This has been at the center of the conversation in chapter 7. Jesus knows where he has come from and where he is going – he has come from above, from God, and he is returning above to God. The Pharisees, on the other hand, do not know where Jesus has come from, though they think they do, and they do not know where Jesus is going. We have met this confusion earlier in chapter 7. The Pharisees cannot envision Jesus returning to God so earlier they speculate that perhaps Jesus is going to those who live in the dispersion among the Gentiles. They can only guess. Jesus knows his origin and his destiny. Jesus recites the OT dictum that two witnesses are always needed. The two witnesses listed here are Jesus, himself, and his Father. Jesus claim is that God testifies on his behalf. The Pharisees ask just who Jesus’ Father is. They think they know, of course. Joseph is Jesus’ father. They know his family of origin – or so they think. They are mistaken. And Jesus points out their ignorance. Because they do not really know God they do not know Jesus, the one whom God sent. If they really knew God they would know that Jesus comes from God, from above. Much of the discussion in this section of John’s gospel has been regarding the origin of Jesus. As readers we know his origin. We know that Jesus is from above. The Word became flesh. Knowing the origin of Jesus is crucial. Once again John tells us that Jesus is not arrested because “his hour had not yet come.” To be sure the “hour” is coming. The destiny of Jesus is not in the hands of people, however. Jesus controls his own destiny. Jesus is fully in charge. Only Jesus will determine “the hour” of his death, resurrection, and ascension.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Saturday, February 22, 2014 Read John 7:53-8:11 If we look forward in John’s gospel we make an interesting discovery. The conversation that we have been following in chapter 7 continues in chapter 8:12. It is apparent that this is the same conversation. The same themes are addressed and the context is the Feast of Booths. We can be nearly certain that the episode in John 7:53-8:11 has been inserted into the story that flows from chapter 7:52 into chapter 8:12. In fact the episode related in John 7:53-8:11 is not found in any of the oldest manuscripts of John’s gospel. Only relatively late manuscripts contain this episode. Some of them insert this story after John 7:36. Still others insert the story at the very end of John’s gospel following John 21:25. And still others insert the story into Luke’s gospel following Luke 21:38. All of this makes us certain that this story was not part of John’s original gospel even in its final form. That does not mean that we should ignore this story. It does mean that it will contribute nothing to our understanding of John’s gospel itself, but the story is in the Bible as we have it today and thus it is God’s Word. We simply need to interpret it on its own. It is an independent tradition not attached to any gospel. Two questions need to be addressed. The first is, “Why would some later scribe, probably a century or so after John’s gospel had been in circulation, insert this story here? Why did others insert the story where they did? How did this story get associated with Luke’s gospel?” All these questions are impossible to answer with any degree of certainty. To attempt to answer these questions would be to enter into pure speculation. We will just need to live without answers. The second question is to think about the meaning of this story. The story itself fits rather nicely with the other controversy stories we find in the synoptic gospels which take place in the final week of Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem – the Temple Controversy story. This story sounds like one of them. So that context will be helpful in interpreting this story. The religious leaders are attempting to trap Jesus. John never uses this language in the speaking about the relationship between Jesus and the religious leaders. The synoptic gospels do. This is one more reason why we should think of this story as not belonging to John. That’s probably why at least one scribe attached the story to Luke’s gospel at the end of the Temple Controversy stories in Luke. The religious authorities are seeking to trap Jesus and they think perhaps they have the perfect test case. A woman has been caught in the very act of adultery and the penalty according to the OT is that she should be stoned to death. In a way typical of the synoptic gospels controversy stories Jesus is placed in a dilemma. Either Jesus will condemn her to death and thus implicate himself in the same injustice that now reigns among the religious leaders. Or Jesus will release her which would be to go against the Law. We have noticed in the synoptic gospels how Jesus cleverly avoids the traps of his opponents – most often doing so with questions. Here Jesus also avoids the trap. In the presence of those who would trap him he gives no answer. Instead he engages in an act that has escaped interpreters. Jesus writes something in the sand. What Jesus writes is never revealed. To think that we can figure out what Jesus wrote is to move into pure speculation. Once Jesus has written in the sand he invites those who were seeking to trap him to cast the first stone at the woman. None do. In fact the all slink away. Jesus is left with the woman and now we do get Jesus’ answer – he releases her. This story presents us with a whole host of important questions. First of all, given the nature of the relationship between men and women at that time, we are left wondering just how responsible this woman was. Men owned women. Men were in control. Was this woman a willing participant in the adultery or not? We tend to view her negatively, but should we? Perhaps she was a victim. Even in our own time women tend to be blamed for bad and abusive behavior on the part of men. “She had it coming. She led him on.” Excuses like that abound. We can’t be sure this woman is as guilty as we likely imagine. Second, where is the man? Why is the man not held responsible? When we begin to think about it there is a dark element to this story that exposes the injustice of that time – and ours. There is good reason why Jesus released this woman. Jesus chose not to participate in the injustice of the situation. This little story is important because it confronts both our own expectations and those of that time. Most of the time “cut and dried” answers are insufficient. While the story does not belong to John’s gospel we can be thankful that it was preserved. Why and how this piece of ancient tradition was preserved and eventually inserted into an “accepted” gospel is a fascinating example of the way in which many of the traditions were maintained. God saw a use for this little story and so we have it in our Bible.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Friday, February 21, 2014 Read John 7:37-52 The last day of the Feast of Booths has now arrived. It is an important day complete with a water ceremony in which pitchers of water are brought to the altar. On this day Jesus again reinterprets the meaning of an OT festival. Jesus is the Living Water and to drink from him means eternal life. Readers of John’s gospel are reminded of the story of the Samaritan woman at the well. In that story John has spoken at length of the meaning of Jesus as Living Water. That story stands behind this one. Consequently John is much shorter in his proclamation of Jesus as the Living Water that wells up to eternal life. John tells us that in his interpretation of the new meaning that Jesus has bestowed upon the water ceremony of the Feast of Booths, Jesus quotes from scripture. The reference is veiled at best – we will find no direct quotation like that in the OT. The closest we can come it to the Messianic Promise made in Ezekiel and Zechariah that in the New Jerusalem rivers of living water shall flow out of the Temple (Ezekiel 47:1 and Zechariah 14:8). It is likely that John had these images in mind. On the last day of the Feast of Booths water was poured on the altar and flowed down “out of the Temple” in Jerusalem. The image in the actual celebration and Jesus’ reinterpretation of it, work together to help us understand John’s intent in this passage. John has added an important piece of information for his readers. The river of living water is the Holy Spirit. John has not spoken of the Holy Spirit prior to this. He will say much more later on in his gospel. It is clear that it is only John’s readers who are privy to this information. Characters in the story will be given this information later. John makes a statement that has been troubling for some when he says, “for as yet there was no Spirit.” Later on the church will develop the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and certainly all three persons of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are co-eternal. John is helpful in coming to that conclusion when he tells us that the Word was from the beginning with God. That Word, of course, will be identified with Jesus, the Word made flesh. John does not speak of the Holy Spirit in the same way. John was not thinking of the Trinity. We will hear more about the relationship of the Holy Spirit and Jesus later. That discussion will help us. We should not be overly troubled by John’s language in this text – he was not trying to make a theological statement but rather to foreshadow the presence of the Holy Spirit who will be an important part of his gospel later on. The language in this story also looks forward to the death of Jesus when blood and water will flow from Jesus’ side (John 19:34). There is a subtle foreshadowing involved in John’s telling of this story. We can marvel at how so many things are held together. John is indeed a brilliant writer. John’s story concludes with two statements about the reaction that Jesus’ actions brought about. As we have seen before, what happens in this text causes a division among the people. Some began to understand that Jesus was “the Prophet” – the one who Moses said would come. Others come to understand that Jesus is the Messiah. Both of these estimations are correct and mean essentially the same thing. But not everyone agrees. For some, once again the origin of the Messiah proves to be a stumbling block – they think they know that Jesus is from Galilee and that the Messiah will not come from Galilee. They know that the Messiah will come from Bethlehem. John has not told us the story of Jesus’ birth. But, perhaps John is not unaware of that tradition. He simply chooses not to tell us everything he knows. Or perhaps he really was unaware of the birth stories of Jesus. In either case the true origin of Jesus according to John is that he is from above – he is from God. Whether he was born in Bethlehem or not is unimportant to John. The misunderstanding regarding the origin of Jesus continues in John’s story. Once again an attempt is made to arrest Jesus, but this is not his “hour” so no one can lay a hand on him. John had told us earlier (John 7:32) that the Pharisees, the religious leaders had sent the Temple police to arrest Jesus. Now John tells that they return empty-handed. Apparently they were impressed with Jesus to such an extent that they do not carry out their duty – they don’t arrest him and tell the religious leaders that they have never heard anyone speak like Jesus. In anger the Pharisees respond by asking, “Has any one of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him?” To this point none have. And, craftily, John brings Nicodemus back on stage. Nicodemus was “one of them” – a religious leader. Now he is really put on the spot. Readers are reminded that Nicodemus has had an encounter with Jesus. It ended in confusion for Nicodemus. But had he really heard anything? Nicodemus does not profess belief in Jesus. But he does not totally abandon Jesus either. He vaguely stands up for Jesus enough to suggest that he deserves a proper hearing before he is condemned. Nicodemus’ suggestion is not well received. In fact, Nicodemus is put even more on the spot. A question is asked of Nicodemus that demands a negative response – “You aren’t from Galilee, are you? Search the scripture and you will see that no prophet is to arise from Galilee.” Again the question is about the origin of Jesus. Nicodemus has heard something from Jesus that the other religious leaders have not heard. He has heard that Jesus is from above. We can imagine Nicodemus pondering his previous encounter with Jesus. Once again it is important to say that Nicodemus does not profess belief in Jesus at this point in the story. We are still left wondering how things will turn out for Nicodemus. John also does not tell us that Nicodemus joins in the condemnation of Jesus. We are once again left hanging in the air when it comes to Nicodemus. From simply a storytelling point of view John is a wonderful craftsman – he knows how to tell a good story! He leaves his readers wondering about Nicodemus.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Thursday, February 20, 2014 Read John 7:32-36 So far in the story it has been the crowd who has been talking about Jesus. At this point the real opponents are identified as the religious leaders seek to take action. They attempt to arrest Jesus, but they are not successful. Once again misunderstanding and irony are at the heart of the story. Jesus tells them that he will only be with them a little longer and then he will go back to the one who sent him. At that point it will be impossible for the religious leaders to go where Jesus has gone. Similar language will be spoken to the disciples later in John’s gospel and they will also misunderstand. When Jesus says that he will be going to the one who sent him he is really talking about his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension – they are of one piece for John. So, Jesus’ death is not a defeat but rather an accomplishment. His death is not something that others will do to him but something that Jesus will control – as we will soon hear, Jesus will “lay down his life so that he can take it up again.” The religious leaders do not understand any of this. They think perhaps that Jesus will be leaving the country to go to the Jews living outside of Israel. As readers, we have no clue where they would get that idea from. But there is irony in the suggestion of the religious leaders. The whole world will indeed be open and reached by the ministry of Jesus. Perhaps the religious leaders are speaking sarcastically. Yet, ironically they speak the truth. This will not be the last time that John will have religious leaders say much more than they think or mean. The whole episode is reminiscent of the encounter with Nicodemus. The Nicodemus encounter ends with Nicodemus yet in the dark, clueless about what Jesus is saying. The religious leaders in this story remain clueless too. There is hope for Nicodemus and we will watch him grow. There is no hope for the religious leaders. They will remain in the dark.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, February 19, 2014 Read John 7:25-31 It is apparent that Jesus created quite a stir when he came to Jerusalem for the Feast of Booths some five or so months before he would be crucified just prior to the Feast of Passover. As we have noted, for all intents and purposes Jesus does not leave the area of Jerusalem again after his attendance at the Feast of Booths. In fact, the implication is that Jesus has been in Jerusalem a good deal of the time – enough to cause an uproar when he returned for the Feast of Booths. All of this, of course, is quite different from the picture painted by the synoptic gospels in which Jesus comes to Jerusalem only once at the very end of his ministry and is crucified. Of course we are tempted to ask, “Which one has it right – Mark or John?” While a final answer to that question escapes us it is more likely that John’s scenario is more accurate than Mark’s. In fact it makes sense to think of the encounter of Jesus with the religious authorities in Jerusalem to have been much longer than the single short week portrayed by Mark – in fact for Mark it is only a couple of days. The case for John’s storyline of a longer time of dispute in Jerusalem is stronger than Mark’s storyline. This leads to an interesting time of pondering why Mark told the story as he did. But that pondering is for a study of Mark. In our reading for today the question really is the origin of Jesus – where does he come from? The people are wondering if the religious authorities really know that Jesus is the Messiah since he does such great signs. They answer their own speculation by concluding that Jesus can’t be the Messiah because they know where he comes from. There is great irony flowing in John’s gospel at this point. The people think they know where Jesus is from but, ironically, they don’t have a clue. Readers of John’s gospel know that Jesus is “from above,” that he comes from God the one who sent him. Jesus says as much but the crowd does not hear him. Misunderstanding again occurs. Unable to hear and understand what Jesus is saying, the crowd turns on Jesus to arrest him. But they are not able to do so because Jesus “time has not yet come!” The whole experience leads to a dispute – some of the crowd “believe” in Jesus and some don’t. The same division that has emerged before happens here. We need to be caution, though, about the report that some “believe” in Jesus. We have seen how apparent belief can vanish. We’ll have to wait and see whether this belief is authentic or insufficient.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Read John 7:10-24 Jesus had refused his brother’s suggestion that he go to the Festival in Jerusalem. Now he goes, on his terms and not theirs. John tells us that already Jesus has created quite a stir. People are wondering where he is. His appearance has led to a division – some complain about him that he is deceiving the crowds while others think he is a good man. It is significant that John tells us that no one was willing to speak openly, though, because they were afraid of the Jews. This is the first time that we have encountered the idea of “fear of the Jews.” It will become a prominent feature in the gospel. What does it mean? I suppose we could say the obvious – that in Jesus’ time the Jews were violently opposed to him and would harm anyone who demonstrated any allegiance to Jesus. There is some measure of truth in that. However, as we listen more carefully to the other gospels and especially to the book of Acts we discover that the relationship between Christians and Jews was likely not quite as cut and dried. Luke will tell us in Acts of many Christians who were devoted to the Temple and to all appearances looked like other Jews. The relationship was not one of violence – at least not at the beginning. When we consider this other evidence we may more likely come to the conclusion that this business of the “fear of the Jews” spoke more about the time when the gospel of John was coming into its final form than about the time of Jesus. We will need to examine that possibility later as we read more of John’s gospel. Like the other festivals, the Feast of Booths lasted eight days. John tells us that in the middle of the festival Jesus makes a public appearance teaching in the Temple. John tells us that the people are astonished at Jesus’ teaching. Mark had said something like that early in his gospel too when the people remark that Jesus teaches with authority and not like the scribes (Mark 1:22). The question here is also about authority. By what authority does Jesus teach? Jesus claims that he only teaches what the one who sent him has told him. Jesus is from above. They think he is from below like every other teacher. But the issue is not so much the teaching of Jesus but his actions. The last time Jesus was in Jerusalem we heard a story about Jesus healing the man at the pool of Bethzatha. The real issue is that Jesus had healed the man and that he had done it on the Sabbath. So Jesus gets at the real issue by pointing out to people that male children are circumcised on the Sabbath if the eighth day after their birth happens to come on a Sabbath. Jesus says that Moses gave the law about Sabbath rest and that law is broken every time a circumcision happens on the Sabbath. The Law is not so simple. The text also implies that Moses gave the people circumcision which supersedes the Sabbath law which is not true because circumcision came through Abraham. The editor makes the correction just as he made a correction earlier about Jesus baptizing. All of this is more evidence that in John’s gospel we are dealing with a final form that has the hand of an editor present. Jesus’ defends his healing of the man on the Sabbath on the basis of the supersession of circumcision over the Sabbath law. It is significant that in John’s gospel Jesus does not say that he is Lord of the Sabbath like he does in Mark’s gospel and the other synoptic gospels. In effect the outcome is the same but in John Jesus lives within the law. Before we leave this section one more thing should be noticed. It was back in chapter 5 where John tells the story of the man healed at the pool of Bethzatha. A whole chapter has intervened but here in chapter 7 we are linked back to chapter 5. This has led many interpreters of John’s gospel to speculate that in an earlier version of the gospel chapter 7 followed immediately after chapter 5. A credible case can be made for this observation. In fact, as the story begins in chapter 5 we are told that Jesus has come to Jerusalem for a festival. That festival is not named. Could it be that this unnamed festival is the very same Festival of Booths that is referred to in chapter 7? If that is the case then the healing of the man at the pool of Bethzatha would have taken place much closer in time to the dispute that irrupts in chapter 7 about it. While we can’t be certain, it likely means that chapters 5, 7, and 8 should be read together. That, of course would lead to another question – Why did John place the Galilean ministry about the feeding of the 5000 and the walking on the water along with its interpretation here in the middle of the episode at the pool of Bethzatha? Attempting to answer that question is really difficult. One possibility is that John was aware of a second Passover happening in the ministry of Jesus – in fact that there were three Passovers in all. The first Passover was when Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of the cleansing of the Temple in chapter 2. The second Passover happened prior to Jesus’ return to Jerusalem at the time of the Feast of Booths as reported in chapter 7. There will be a third Passover at the time when Jesus is crucified. Since John has connected the second Passover with the feeding of the 5000 and the multiplication of bread he would need to tell that story before Jesus’ attendance at the Feast of Booths in chapter 7. One thing that we need to notice is that once Jesus comes to Jerusalem for the Feast of Booths in the fall of the year, he does not leave the area again until he is crucified just prior to the Passover in the spring of the next year. Thus the only place to insert the story about the feeding of the 5000 is between chapters 5 and 7 even though that seems to make the sequence a bit rough since it is not likely that remembering the sign of the healing of the man at the pool of Bethzatha would be fresh in the memory of people so many months later. All of this suggests to us that we need to be careful when we are attempting to equate the storyline of John’s gospel with the actual sequence of events. The same, of course, is true with Mark and the other gospels. Storylines are the creation of the authors.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, February 17, 2014 Read John 7:1-9 The occasion for Jesus to return to Jerusalem comes as the Jewish Festival of Booths is approaching. The OT Law specified that every Jewish man was to visit Jerusalem for three major festivals (Exodus 34:23) – The Festival of Passover, the Festival of Harvest, and the Festival of Booths. The Passover happened in the spring of the year as a way for God’s people to remember God’s deliverance of them from bondage in Egypt. The Feast of Harvest occurred in the summer at the beginning of the harvest. And the Feast of Booths was in the autumn of the year to help the people remember that they lived in tents when God brought them safely through the wilderness. Both Passover and Booths are mentioned in the gospel of John – the Festival of Harvest isn’t. We will soon hear of another feast – the Feast of Dedication which took place in the winter. We’ll wait to comment about that later. At any rate, it is the coming of the Feast of Booths that prompts Jesus to return to Jerusalem. We have noticed before that John tells a story of someone making a request of Jesus only to have Jesus refuse their request and then, surprisingly, do what they had requested. That pattern happens in this story. This time it is the brothers of Jesus who make the request. We have not met Jesus’ brothers before in John’s gospel. We hear of them in the synoptic gospels but they play no role other than as supportive characters in their mother Mary’s attempt to bring Jesus home because she has come to the conclusion that he is out of his mind (Mark 3:21). Their role here is no more flattering than the role they play in Mark. They act as tempters, enticing Jesus to go to Jerusalem knowing that he is in danger there. John tells us plainly that they do not believe in Jesus. They tell Jesus to do his works (really what they are looking for is signs) more widely and to show himself more plainly if he wants to gain a following. We should remember now in John’s storyline that Jesus has lost most of his followers after the sign of the multiplication of the bread and Jesus’ interpretation of that sign through which Jesus was making the claim that he is the bread of life and that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to receive eternal life. That his brothers should have suggested that Jesus do more works (signs) is to have missed the point. Jesus refuses to go to the Festival – and then he promptly does go. Jesus’ reason for not going is that “his time has not yet come.” This is the same reason why he refuses to do what his mother, Mary, had suggested in Cana – “his hour had not yet come.” Jesus will not be controlled by the wishes of others. Jesus is in control! So his going to Jerusalem is by his own will – and will not result in his death because this is not the hour of his death. Perhaps it is becoming just a bit clearer why John tells these stories of someone making a request of Jesus which is denied only to have Jesus do what was requested. He is attempting to emphasize that Jesus is in control of his destiny. We will encounter this later and say more then. We may have wondered why Jesus told his mother that his “hour” had not yet come. What does this “hour” mean? In this narrative Jesus says his “time has not yet come” which means the same as the use of “hour” earlier. Jesus’ “hour” and “his time” refer to his death, resurrection, and ascension all of which will happen later at the time that Jesus specifies. John’s use of the term “hour” is a bit clearer.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, February 16, 2014 Read John 7:1-52 As chapter 7 begins John tells us that the ministry of Jesus continues in Galilee because the Jews, who are associated with Judea, are seeking to kill him. But, the opportunity to remain in Galilee will not last long. John provides no specifics about this ministry in Galilee. It is striking that John tells us so little about the ministry of Jesus in Galilee. There are really only two episodes from that ministry that he relates – the multiplication of the bread and Jesus walking on the water. John is silent about all the other events that make up the heart of the synoptic gospels and their picture of Jesus. Did John not know any of those episodes? Did he choose to remain silent about them even though he was aware of them? Of course, we could ask the same questions of Mark and the others – why is there so little in them outside of Galilee? These are questions that we finally cannot answer. Making note of these differences is important though. That John centers so much of his gospel in Jerusalem and in the territory surrounding Jerusalem says something about John. And as we have said before, we can be thankful John has preserved what he has. Our vision of Jesus is made more complete. Before we look more specifically into the next major unit of John’s gospel, it will be good to hear it as a whole.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Saturday, February 15, 2014 Read John 6:60-71 John has told us that Jesus came to his own people and his own people did not receive him (John 1:10-11). The reaction to Jesus’ interpretation of the sign of the feeding of the 5000 is swift and tragic. Many of Jesus’ disciples now complain and are offended by Jesus’ words. And they leave him. The sign has not produced adequate belief in them. Jesus is unrelenting in his challenge to them. In words that are reminiscent of Jesus’ comments to Nathaniel that he will see the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man, Jesus alludes to his death and resurrection – they will see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before. Jesus is from above and the only way to know him is to recognize that. Jesus contrasts flesh and spirit. The flesh is useless, only the spirit gives life. Jesus repeats his comments that only those who are drawn by God can come to him. Of course later on in the gospel Jesus will remark that when he is lifted up he will draw people to himself. It is apparent that at this point there are not many who believe in Jesus or continue to follow him. In words that are reminiscent of Jesus’ question to the disciples in Mark’s gospel – “Who do people say that I am?” Jesus turns to the few who are left and asks, “Do you wish to go away?” As in Mark’s story, it is Peter who responds on behalf of the others. His words are not the same but the intent is – “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” In Mark, Peter’s words were, “You are the Messiah.” Perhaps John and Mark are referring to the same moment of crisis in the lives of the first followers of Jesus. We have noticed that “the Twelve” have little importance in John’s gospel. He never names the Twelve. We cannot identify twelve disciples in John’s gospel. But here the Twelve are mentioned for the first time. “Did I not choose you, the Twelve?” As with other things, John is aware of the tradition of the Twelve – he simply does not choose to make it a dominant theme in his gospel. Here the Twelve are mentioned mostly because one of them, Judas, son of Simon Iscariot is identified as the betrayer. In the listing of the Twelve in the synoptic gospels, Judas is identified as the betrayer as well.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Friday, February 14, 2014 Read John 6:35-59 The crowd has asked Jesus to give them the bread that comes down from heaven. But were they asking for the right bread? Did they understand what Jesus was saying? Jesus now makes a bold proclamation – “I am the bread of life.” We have met the words “I am” already in the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman. There it was clear that the name of God “I am” from the story of the burning bush was claimed by Jesus – Jesus is “I am.” Here the claim is not as clear since Jesus adds a predicate to the words, “I am,” but the connection should not be missed. This is the first of several descriptive instances of who “I am” is. Who will be willing to receive Jesus, the bread of life? Jesus promises that whoever comes to him will never be hungry again and whoever believes in him will never thirst again. The idea of drinking is now brought into the conversation. There had been no mention of drinking earlier in the narrative. But, Jesus knows that they are still thinking about their bellies. One can almost hear them saying, “What do you mean that those who come to Jesus will never be hungry again. Of course, those who eat will be hungry.” But Jesus is speaking of something far different from digesting food. Jesus knows that the people who have seen this sign do not believe. The next portion of John’s gospel struggles with the ultimate question of why some come to Jesus and believe and others do not. That is a question we struggle with too. And the answer that Jesus gives in John’s gospel is both comforting and troubling. Jesus says that no one can come and no one can believe unless one is drawn to Jesus by God. Human beings cannot take the initiative. Jesus makes it clear that it is God’s will that all come but they must come on God’s terms not their own. It is God’s work to draw people to himself. Belief happens only because God makes it happen. John now tells us “the Jews” started complaining about Jesus because he says that he is the bread of life. Aren’t all the people in this story Jews? At least in this context they are. This is not Samaritan territory. There are plenty of Gentiles in Galilee but the context does not lead one to think that Jesus has been dealing with Gentiles. So why does John use the term “Jews?” It is most likely true that the use of the term “Jews” has more to do with the circumstances of the final author of the gospel of John than the contemporary time of Jesus. There is evidenced sprinkled throughout John’s gospel that a painful break has occurred between the followers of Jesus in John’s community and those Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. We will look at this more closely later. John’s gospel has a distinct bias again “the Jews” even though at the time of Jesus’ ministry they were all Jews. So it is “the Jews” who do not believe in Jesus who are said to complain here. The Jews who complain think they know who Jesus is. He is the son of Joseph. They know his father and mother. They claim to know the origin of Jesus. But they are mistaken. And soon the conversation begins to sound a little like the conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus. Jesus claims to be from above. They think he is from below. And so the classic misunderstanding that is so much of John’s gospel unfolds once again. As the conversation moves forward Jesus ups the ante. In words that clearly refer to the sacrament of Holy Communion, Jesus not only says that he is the bread of life but that in order to have life one must each his flesh and drink his blood. Blood has not been a part of the narrative until this point. The allusion is crystal clear. The allusion is to Holy Communion. We have mentioned earlier that John does not tell the story of the bread and the wine in the upper room on the night in which Jesus was betrayed. There is no celebration of Passover and thus no transforming of Passover into Holy Communion in John’s gospel. But it is clear that John is aware of Holy Communion – “eating Jesus flesh and drinking Jesus blood!” There are those who suggest that the event in the upper room and the words spoken by Jesus then have been modified by John and brought forward to this place in his gospel – much like the cleansing of the Temple has been brought forward early in John’s gospel. John would need to move story of the institution of Holy Communion to another place in his storyline because he has deemed it critically important that Jesus – the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world – dies just as the Passover lambs are being slaughtered during the day in preparation for Passover that evening. Whether or not this is John’s version of the Lord’s Supper is debatable, but it is clear that he is referring to Holy Communion here. We have thought about John’s use of the metaphor that Jesus replaces OT feasts and places where God is present. Jesus replaces the Passover Lamb – he is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Jesus replaces the Temple – the Temple is his own body. Here Jesus replaces the bread (manna) in the wilderness – he is the bread of life. Throughout this section John has been providing his interpretation of the multiplication of the loaves by Jesus. That event for John is far more than a miracle. It is a sign that rightfully seen points to Jesus and the salvation found in him. It’s not about getting your belly full. It’s about receiving life through believing in Jesus. John has added so much more to the story that Mark, Matthew, and Luke also told. His understanding of the feeding of the five thousand is far more profound than theirs. And while Mark, Matthew, and Luke, do allude to Holy Communion in their telling of the story, John makes all the connections much firmer. What will be the reaction of those who have now heard Jesus’ words – Jesus’ interpretation of the feeding of the five thousand as the sign that Jesus is the bread of life – that he gives life in the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood?

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Thursday, February 13, 2014 Read John 6:22-34 The location where Jesus multiplied the loaves is not given by John. Neither Mark nor Matthew provides a location either – just that it was a deserted place. Only Luke provides a place where the multiplication took place and he says it was at Bethsaida – which is the destination of the disciples in the boat provided by Mark and Matthew following the multiplication. In Mark and Matthew, Jesus winds up on the other side of the lake at Gennesaret. John tells us that when the people realize that Jesus is no longer with them and that they had seen Jesus’ disciples leave in a boat without Jesus they leave for Capernaum hoping to find Jesus there. In John’s gospel, when they find Jesus at Capernaum, a conversation begins. It is a conversation similar to many in John’s gospel marked with misunderstanding. The initial question of the crowd is avoided by Jesus. Once again the formula, “Very truly I say to you,” is used alerting the reader that what is about to be said is very important. Jesus gets at the motive for why the crowd has come looking for him – they have had their fill of bread and they want more. Jesus refers to the multiplication of the bread as a sign. The sign should have produced belief but it has not. Once again the ambiguous nature of signs is at the heart of this discussion. Jesus tells his hearers not to work for food that perishes, but to do the work of God that endures for eternal life which the Son of Man will give you. The crowd does not understand. They ask Jesus what that work might be, and then they make a request that seems far beyond reason – they ask Jesus to give them a sign so that they might believe in him. Jesus has just given them a powerful sign – he multiplied the bread. Irony plays an important role in the story. The crowd claims that their ancestors ate manna in the wilderness and quote from scripture – “He gave them bread from heaven to eat.” Likely this scripture quotation is from Psalm 78:24 which in turn recalls the story in Exodus 16 which tells of God providing his complaining people with manna. Even though the crowd does not specifically say that it was Moses who gave their ancestors the bread, Jesus makes it clear that it was not Moses but his Father who gives the true bread from heaven. It is significant that John changes the tenses of the verbs in the middle of the sentence – “it was not Moses who gave… it is my Father who gives.” We have noticed before how John plays down Moses over against Jesus. Jesus is greater than Moses. And we should not miss the clear statement that the God who gave the bread in the wilderness and the God who now gives the bread of life is the Father of Jesus – Jesus is the Son of God, God the Son. The bread that Jesus gives comes down from heaven and gives life. The crowd responds by asking Jesus to give them this bread. Their statement is a lot like the Samaritan woman who asked Jesus to give her the water that wells up to eternal life. Perhaps the crowd is on the right track. We’ll have to wait and see.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, February 12, 2014 Read John 6:22-77 The narrative that follows the incident of the multiplication of the bread and the walking on the water is a long and somewhat repetitive reflection on the meaning of the multiplication of the loaves. It follows that pattern that we have been observing. An incident happens and then the author engages in theological reflection about it. As we have observe before that reflection often morphs from the words of Jesus to words about Jesus – Jesus’ own reflection on the incident and the author’s reflection on the whole incident. Here the words are mostly the words of Jesus. At times the author will make comments but it is Jesus himself who reflects on the meaning of the multiplication of the bread. It is good to read the whole narrative as one piece. Once we have done that we will return to it and listen to smaller pieces, always being mindful that those pieces are part of a longer whole.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, February 11, 2014 Read John 6:16-21 Likely because it was in the tradition that stood behind John’s gospel John tells the story of Jesus coming to his disciples on the water as they struggled in the boat in the middle of the Sea of Galilee. It is clear that John’s story is the same story that Mark told. John’s version; however, is much shorter. Matthew’s story is even longer than Mark’s and both Mark and Matthew invest much more in the story. John does not. One might even say that he has told the story just because it was in the tradition underlying his gospel. Once the story is told, John will leave it and make no more mention of it. This is not an important story for John. If it has any function it is simply to provide space between the actual multiplication of the bread and the theological reflection about that multiplication. Jesus needs to be removed from the scene and the episode of the walking on the water conveniently does that.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, February 10, 2014 Read John 6:1-15 At this point in John’s gospel we abruptly find ourselves once again in Galilee. There is a rift in the reading between the theological reflections in Jerusalem that we have just been considering and this story. It begins with the words, “After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee…” Clearly the reference implies that something has happened on this side of the Sea of Galilee, but that part of the story is never told. The reference to which the words, “after this” refers is missing. We have noticed these ragged edges in John’s gospel before and we will encounter them again. It is these ragged edges that lead many readers of John’s gospel to conclude that the work of an editor has been involved in the final form of the gospel as we have it today. I think that is a correct analysis. While it may complicate matters it does not hinder the authority of this gospel. We just need to know that when we are dealing with this gospel we are dealing with a very human product through which God chooses to work and speak. The concept of the inspiration of Scripture is made more complex but not invalidated. Upon further reflection, it ought to dawn upon readers of John’s gospel that we are now dealing with an episode that has also been reported in the synoptic gospels in the very same order. Two familiar stories are linked together – the story of Jesus feeding the five thousand and the story of Jesus coming to his disciples walking on the water. We can find this same pair of stories in this order in Mark 6:30-52, Matthew 14:13-33, and Luke 9:10-17, although Luke has omitted the part about Jesus walking on the water. Mark and Matthew will also tell another story about Jesus multiplying the bread to feed four thousand (Mark 8:1-10 and Matthew 15:32-39). Neither Luke nor John tells of this second feeding. Aside from the cleansing of the Temple narrative, we have for the first time all four gospels telling about the same incidents in the ministry of Jesus. What are we to make of this? Some have used this as evidence that John actually was aware of at least one of the synoptic gospels and most likely Mark or Matthew since Luke omits that story of walking on the water. Such a conclusion does not hold up very well. While there are many similarities there are also striking differences. A more likely explanation is that John and Mark were independently relying on a common older tradition in which these two episodes were already joined. As one reads John’s story carefully it becomes clear that he is using material from both of Mark’s two stories of the multiplication of the bread. The implication this leads to is that Mark has told the same story twice with minor modifications. In the older tradition that both Mark and John relied upon, there was only one story of the multiplication of the bread. That causes us to ponder why Mark did what he did, but that is a question that is better addressed in a study of Mark. That Luke only tells one story of the multiplication of the bread lends support to the theory that Mark has duplicated one story since the implication is that Luke knew there was only one story in the first place. While John’s story is quite similar to Mark’s there are a few differences we should notice. John uses his language of “signs” to talk about the event. John does not speak of miracles. He speaks of signs which often have the same meaning as a miracle though not always. We have already heard John’s contention that signs can lead to at least some measure of belief – though it may be inadequate. We have also heard of John’s skepticism about signs. They may or may not lead to proper belief. This is a sign that we shall see has something of both in it. The main difference between John’s story and Mark’s is that at the end of John’s story we are told that the people who saw the sign sought to make Jesus their King. Jesus is indeed the King, but they were seeking to understand him as king in the wrong way. And so Jesus withdrew from them. He will be King on his terms not theirs. The synoptic gospels really make no more of this story than the simple telling of it. John will make much more of the story – in fact, after relating the paired story of the walking on the water, John will spend the rest of the chapter reflecting on the meaning of the multiplication of the bread. John also connects this multiplication of bread with a second Passover festival. The first Passover had been when Jesus cleansed the Temple. Now a second Passover is arriving. One of the features of the Passover observance was the use of unleavened bread. This is a story about bread. John connects that multiplication of the bread with Passover with a purpose. Jesus will claim for himself that he is the bread of life – Jesus is the Passover Bread. When we compare this connection between the multiplication of the bread and Passover with the synoptic gospels we discover that they make no such connection. In fact, Jesus only celebrates one Passover in the synoptic gospels and that is at the end of his life and ministry. Before we leave the story of the multiplication of the bread we should notice the hint of language relating to the Lord’s Supper. “Jesus took the loaves and when he had given thanks …” The connection with the Lord’s Supper is far less than it is in the synoptic gospels, but nonetheless there is a connection. This is significant because John does not tell the story of the Lord’s Supper in the upper room. We will need to think more about that later.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, February 9, 2014 Read John 5:30-47 The theological reflection begun in yesterday’s reading continues in today’s reading. And once again we have the blending of words of Jesus spoken to the religious leaders who have not believed in him and in fact have sought to kill him because of the healing of the man at the Pool of Bethzatha and words about Jesus. At times Jesus is addressing the religious leaders and at times the author is reflecting about Jesus. Two things are at stake here. One is the testimony that supports Jesus and the other is the place of the scripture and of Moses in the witness to Jesus. Who has testified in support of Jesus? We are reminded of John the Baptist whose main role in John’s gospel is to be a witness for Jesus that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. John the Baptist was faithful in that witness. It is significant that John tells us John the Baptist was a shining lamp. But he was no more than a lamp. Jesus will be identified as the light of the world. The importance here is the witness of John the Baptist for Jesus. But there is something greater that is also testifying in support of Jesus. Jesus works testify in support of his claims. And the work of Jesus is the work that God has given him to do – the reason that God has sent him into the world. Readers are reminded of John’s reflection in the third chapter where he proclaims that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son. The work of Jesus is the work of God. And his works bear witness in support of the belief that Jesus is the Son of God – in fact, God the Son. We have already heard from John that Jesus is superior to Moses. Once again that is the theme here. John makes the claim that in fact Moses bears witness in support of Jesus. The religious leaders want to fall back on the scripture and claim it as their own. But Jesus will have none of that – the scripture, if they truly listened to it, bears witness to Jesus. Readers are reminded of the claim that Jesus is “the prophet” like Moses who would come at the end of time. John the Baptist had assured his hearers that he was not “the prophet.” He and others have witnessed that Jesus is that prophet. We have seen how a narrative describing an event has morphed into a theological statement by and about Jesus. This is a pattern John will repeat. Often his theological reflections are difficult to read, but they are powerful in their proclamation about Jesus. Clearly John wants his readers to know that in Jesus, the very presence of God has come into the world. Jesus is God the Son.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Saturday, February 8, 2014 Read John 5:19-29 Our reading today belongs with the story of the man who was healed at the Pool of Bethzatha. John has established a pattern through which he relates a narrative of an event. That narrative is followed by theological reflection, some of which is conversation within the event, and some of which is simply the elaboration of the author. We saw this in the story of Jesus encounter with Nicodemus. There we were really unable to determine when the theological reflection moved from Jesus words to Nicodemus to words about Jesus. The same happens here. The story begins with Jesus addressing those who have become his opponents through the episode of the man’s healing. But shortly it becomes evident that what we are reading is the author’s comments about Jesus and the meaning of who Jesus is. Once again the writer uses the formula, “Very truly I tell you...” This is to alert the reader that something critically important is about to be said. This follows the pattern in the Nicodemus story. We reflected on the possibility back in the Nicodemus story that the theological reflections about Jesus found in stories like that one and this one might just be the proclamation of the eye-witness who lies behind this gospel. Of course we can only speculate about that but perhaps what we have is this eye-witnesses testimony about Jesus. Clearly these theological proclamations make high claims for Jesus. He is the one who works the works only God can do. He is the one whom God honors and loves. To honor God means one must honor Jesus. John has told us that no one has seen God the only Son has made him known. That Son is Jesus – God the Son. Our reading today climaxes with resurrection language. Jesus has the power of resurrection. And the promise is made that all who believe in the Son will hear his voice and rise from their graves. In fact, all will be raised – some to resurrection life and others to condemnation. And it all depends on believing in Jesus.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Friday, February 7, 2014 Read John 5:1-18 With chapter 5 we find ourselves back in Jerusalem. This gives us a great opportunity to reflect up the location of Jesus’ ministry in John’s gospel. So far there have been two very brief visits to Galilee by Jesus, both to the city of Cana. Otherwise the rest of the ministry of Jesus has been in the territory of Jerusalem. This is very different from the storyline that Mark has produced which has been followed for the most part by both Matthew and Luke. In Mark’s storyline once Jesus leaves for Galilee following the arrest of John the Baptist Jesus remains there. The location of the ministry of Jesus in Mark’s storyline is confined mostly to the towns around the Sea of Galilee. Mark never mentions Cana and the two stories told about Cana are unique to John. In John’s storyline, Jesus has made a brief visit to Capernaum but nothing is reported to have happened. John and Mark paint very different pictures of the location of the ministry of Jesus. We need to be thinking, “why is that?” At this point we simply need to note the vast difference. We have also noticed that John has shared only one or perhaps two stories with the writers of the synoptic gospels to this point in his story. The story John certainly shares with the synoptic writers is the cleansing of the Temple (a story that John has moved from the end of Jesus’ ministry to one of the earliest events) and perhaps the story of the healing of the royal official’s son which John may share with Matthew and Luke though there is credible doubt that this is the same story. If it is not then John has essentially shared nothing with Mark and the others since the cleansing of the Temple belongs much later in the story. John is weaving a different storyline than Mark and the synoptic writers did. All of this is very interesting. And, of course we can be very thankful because John is providing us with a number of events in the ministry of Jesus that we would not have if he did not write his gospel. Again, we need to pay attention to what John is doing and attempt to figure out why he has constructed his gospel in the way that he has. As we listen to the story in our reading today, it is set in Jerusalem just to the north of the Temple area. Archeologists have uncovered the pool of Bethzatha which adds credibility to the story. John is reporting an event that happened in the ministry of Jesus in Jerusalem. This, of course, leads us to the conclusion that Mark’s scenario of Jesus visiting Jerusalem only once at the very end of his ministry is not “historically accurate” but reflects Mark’s theological plan for his gospel. Mark gains much impact by telling the story in the way that he does. We need to recognize that it is for that reason that he created the storyline in the way that he did. In the end Mark was not simply trying to report what happened to Jesus in the order in which it happened and in the places in which it happened but to proclaim a message – the message of the crucified Messiah. It is also likely that John is not simply reporting what happened when and where, but is also committed to proclaim a message through the ordering of his gospel. The story itself is a mixed story. It is successful in that Jesus does heal the man. But the story is also a failure because the healing does not lead the man or anyone else to believe in Jesus. In fact the story leads the man and the religious leaders to seek to kill Jesus. They seek to kill him for two reasons. First, the act of healing happened on the Sabbath. And second, because Jesus is making himself to be like God – in fact to be God. The fact that Jesus got into trouble because he healed on the Sabbath is something that John shares with the synoptic gospels. It is almost certainly true that Jesus did in fact heal on the Sabbath and that his actions were a cause for his rejection. Mark makes clear that Jesus heals on the Sabbath because “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” and “the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.” John does not use that language. Instead John lays claim to Jesus’ ability to heal on the Sabbath because Jesus is doing the work of God. At any rate Sabbath breaking was an accusation against Jesus. The second reason why Jesus is now in trouble and why the religious leaders are seeking to kill him is unique to John. Jesus, by his actions and words is claiming to be God. None of the synoptic gospels ever make such an accusation. The closest they come is in the story of the man who is lowered through the roof in Capernaum and healed. That story does have some affinities with this story but the differences are so great that it is likely that they are not the same story. In Mark and the synoptic gospels Jesus does tell the man that his sins are forgiven and the religious leaders do wonder because they know only God can forgive sins. Jesus silences them by asking which is harder, to forgive sins or to heal the man, and the implication is that because Jesus can do the latter which is the harder he can also forgive sins. But, throughout the story there is never the accusation that Jesus thinks he is God. We have already heard a number of times that in John’s view Jesus is indeed God taken on humanity – “the Word became flesh and lived among us!” So the accusation is true. That Jesus is God incarnate is not hidden in John’s gospel. The whole story serves to set the stage for the accusation of Jesus and the questioning of his authority. The important thing in John’s gospel is that people come to believe that Jesus is God the Son and that there is life only in him (John 20:31). This story tells the crux of the matter. The religious leaders do not believe and so they do not have life.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Thursday, February 6, 2014 Read John 4:43-54 At the beginning of chapter 4 John had told us that Jesus was on his way to Galilee. That journey was interrupted by the story of the woman at the well. Now the journey to Galilee will be completed. It is interesting that, almost as an aside, John tells us that Jesus made the comment that “a prophet has no honor in the prophet’s own country.” Jesus is leaving Judea! We have heard these words of Jesus in another context in the synoptic gospels. You may recall that it is at Nazareth in Galilee, Jesus’ hometown, that Jesus says these words in the synoptic gospels. Nazareth is in Galilee. Of course Jesus might have said these words on more than one occasion. However, within the storyline of John it is significant that Jesus refers to Judea as his own country and it is important for John’s storyline that it is in Jerusalem where Jesus has no honor. Once again these differences give indication that the writers of John and the synoptic gospels do not have a direct connection with one another. They share older traditions with one another but often they shape those traditions to meet their own needs. John tells us that Jesus receives a warm welcome in Galilee. The reason for that warm welcome is that they had witnessed what Jesus had done at the festival. Keen ears may be wondering what festival John is talking about. It’s been a long time since we have heard anything about a festival. Within John’s storyline the only festival that can be referred to here is the Passover during which Jesus had cleansed the Temple. So John wants his readers to reflect back to that scene. We now learn that the destination of Jesus as he returns to Galilee is Cana, the city where Jesus did his first “sign” of changing the water into wine. Once again John is leading his readers to reflect back on that earlier story. As we left the story of the wedding in Cana, we left it with some confusion. The more we probe into that story the more complicated it becomes. Are “signs” the vehicle through which belief is bestowed? What is the meaning of the “sign?” We soon discover that the story that unfolds in Jesus’ return to Cana also has to do with signs. John tells a story of a royal official from Capernaum who comes to Jesus because his son is dying. Before we listen more closely to John’s story it is important for us to notice that Matthew (Matthew 8:5-13) and Luke (Luke 7:1-10) tell a very similar story of a centurion who has a slave/servant who is near death. In their story Jesus is in Capernaum where the centurion is stationed. Are these two versions of the same story? There are certainly enough similarities to lead one to think that is the case. There are also differences which may lead one to think we are dealing with two separate stories. This is one of those instances where making a final decision is impossible. There are other times when it is clearer that the same story is being shaped in different ways. Here cloudiness remains. At the very least, we should be keeping Matthew and Luke in mind as we hear John’s story. As we listen to the story, John’s concern clearly is that “signs” are not capable on their own to produce sufficient belief. The royal official comes pleading for Jesus to save his son from death. We expect Jesus will quickly respond with compassionate acts of healing. Jesus does not do that. Instead, as if in exasperation, Jesus comments that all the people are looking for are signs. The royal official persists. And Jesus does not perform a visible sign but simply tells the royal official that his son will live. At that “word” of Jesus the man believes and starts on his way back to Capernaum. On his way home he is met by others who confirm that immediately upon Jesus’ word and the man’s belief in that word the boy was healed at that very hour. The point John is making in all of this is that visible signs, as helpful and important as they might be, are not the source of sufficient belief. The word creates belief. Once again we are delving into John’s concern that faith is a process. Belief may be inadequate – especially if that belief is based on “signs.” Adequate faith is the product of the word. John will reinforce this theme throughout his gospel. The healing of the royal official’s son was a sign. John tells us that this was the second sign that Jesus did, the changing of water into wine being the first. But John has modified our expectation and understanding of signs. We will need to dig deeper to fully understand what John is saying. As a writing technique this story works together with the story of the wedding at Cana to form a unit. The two “signs” at Cana form bookends around the story. We are now ready to move deeper into John’s gospel.

Weekly Announcements Feb 9 2014

CLICK HERE

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, February 5, 2014 Read John 4:39-42 The story ends on a marvelously positive note! Many Samaritans respond to the woman’s testimony. She has been moved through the process of inadequate belief to belief that is complete. They believe “because of his word!” Jesus proclamation leads them to say, “we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world.” It is important that we hear this story of the woman at the well and of the faith of the Samaritans in contrast with the story of Nicodemus. The stories follow a similar pattern. One results in belief, the other in confusion. This is not the only time John wants us to see two stories in parallel with one another. Soon he will tell us two other stories, one of a man healed at the pool of Bethzatha and the other of a blind man healed in Jerusalem. Those stories will also be parallel stories with contrasting outcomes. John has selected stories purposefully to proclaim his message.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, February 4, 2014 Read John 4:27-38 At this point in John’s story the disciples make an appearance. We were told as the story began that Jesus was left alone because they have gone into the town to buy food. Now they return. And their response is one of astonishment. They know the rules. Jews do not talk with Samaritans. Men do not talk with women. The woman knew that Jesus had broken the rules. The disciples know it too. The story implies that they are not pleased with Jesus’ behavior but they say nothing. What they don’t know is that Jesus knows what they are thinking. Was it the arrival of judgmental disciples that moved the woman to leave Jesus and run into the town to proclaim her news – “had she found the Messiah?” Perhaps it was mere coincidence that the appearance of the disciples coincided with her leaving. Or maybe there was something more going on. The conversation is now between Jesus and his disciples. And once again one of John’s favorite techniques comes into play. John loves to tell stories of misunderstanding! The disciples urge Jesus to eat – after all they went all the way to town and back for that purpose. Jesus refuses their food and says he has “better” food to eat. The disciples misunderstand. This time there is no word with a double meaning but the effect is the same. The disciples are talking about literal food and Jesus is talking about doing God’s work. The Jesus in John’s gospel does not tell parables but the next image is as close as one might come to a parable. Jesus points to the harvest. When the grain is ripe harvest comes. And now Jesus tells his disciples that they are in the midst of a ripe field ready to be harvested. Whether or not the disciples understood the metaphor Jesus is using is not stated in the text but likely they did. And certainly John’s readers do! The field ready for harvest is the Samaritans – the very ones who are despised and looked down upon by the disciples and all Jews. These second-class Samaritans who can’t get anything right are the mission field. At this point understanding just who Samaritans were in the eyes of Jews is what makes the story powerful. And, most importantly, there is a warning for all of John’s readers in this story. Tragically, some of the most judgmental people in the world are Christians. Tragically, there are many people in the world who “feel” the heat of their condemnation. Who are the Samaritans in our lives? Are we open enough to see them as the mission field? John’s story makes his readers squirm. John does not tell us how the disciples responded. But we do know that the early Christians were pushed outside their comfort zones. Samaritans were welcomed! We are called to do likewise.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, February 3, 2014 Read John 4:7-26 The story as John tells it reflects accurately the animosity between Samaritans and Jews. The Samaritan woman is surprised that Jesus has anything to do with her. Jesus should have rejected her but he does not. In fact, Jesus asks her for a drink of water – a request that would have been unheard of on the part of a faithful Jewish man for two reasons. First, she was a Samaritan and that alone should have prevented Jesus from receiving a drink from her hand. And secondly, she was a woman. Faithful Jewish men would have nothing to do with a woman to whom they were not married or related. So Jesus breaks the rules. And the Samaritan woman knows it. But that is not the only thing going on in this story. As we have noticed before, Jesus and the person with whom he is conversing often talk past one another. Jesus means one thing by what he says but the person hears another. In that way this story is a lot like the story of the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus. In fact it is likely that these two stories have been placed near each other by John to play one story off on the other. In both stories Jesus is speaking on one level and the hearer is hearing on another. John skillfully uses the technique of misunderstanding to make his point. Here, after being rebuffed in a way by the Samaritan woman for asking her for a drink, Jesus says, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘give me a drink,’ you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” Once again John is using the technique of using a word with a double meaning. The word with a double meaning is the word, “Living water.” Living water can mean fresh, flowing water; or it can mean eternal life as Jesus will later explain. At first the woman misunderstands thinking Jesus is talking about ordinary water. But, contrary to Nicodemus who cannot get past his misunderstanding, this woman hangs in there with Jesus. When Jesus tells her the water he offers is “water that springs up onto eternal life” she is not put off thinking Jesus is offering the impossible (Nicodemus cannot get past the foolish concept that person is “born again/from above” by entering into his mother’s womb a second time) and she asks Jesus to give her this water. She is not fully aware of what is going on but she is open to what Jesus has to offer. Instead of simply giving her what she asks Jesus changes the subject. He asks her to go and bring her husband. This puts the woman in a bind. Is she to tell Jesus the truth or simply go and get the man with whom she is currently living with even though they are not married? We should remember that the relationship of marriage between a man and woman was very different at that time than it is today. The woman was actually the property of the man – her husband. Apparently the man with whom this woman was living was not even willing to “own” her – he was simply using her. We often jump to the conclusion that this is a “loose” woman, a sinful woman. But that need not be the case. Perhaps she has been a widow five times. Likely she has been abandoned and mistreated by those who previously “owned” her. Frankly we really don’t know much about this woman so it is wrong for us to condemn her. Likely she needs and deserves our empathy and compassion. The woman decides to be truthful with Jesus. She briefly tells her story and opens herself to whatever judgment Jesus might decide to make. Jesus does not condemn her. His response is one of compassion. Jesus already knew all about her. The Jesus portrayed by John is one who knows far more than is humanly possible. We have noticed before that if there is a challenge in John’s portrait of Jesus it is to understand his humanity. The Jesus who marches through John’s gospel is far more than merely human and this story is one that emphasizes that. If we did not have John’s gospel and only had to rely on the story that Mark, Matthew, and Luke tell us, we would likely conclude that the humanity of Jesus was the dominant view of those who knew him prior to the resurrection. Actually that is most likely how Jesus was experienced – as a human being anointed by God’s Spirit but as human as his contemporaries. John’s gospel modifies our view. And, after the resurrection, the people of God recognized that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. It’s okay for us to struggle with trying to understand this. It helps us to realize that God is far bigger than our minds can comprehend. As we move back to the story, we discover that Jesus’ response to this woman moves her one step closer to fully knowing Jesus. She now claims that Jesus must be a prophet. The process of coming to belief is at work. Now it is the woman’s turn to change the subject. She asks about worship and about the glaring difference between Samaritans and Jews. Jesus is a Jew and her response seems to indicate that perhaps she is open to worshiping in the Jewish way. Jesus presses the conversation to a higher level. Neither Samaritans nor Jews fully comprehend that God is worshiped in Spirit and not connected to a location. At this point it is important for readers of John’s gospel to remember the story of the cleansing of the Temple that has preceded this story. In that story Jesus has replaced the Temple. The Temple is no longer of much importance. Jesus is the Temple. John’s story holds together. It might be too much to say that John moved the story of the cleansing of the Temple forward to enable him to tell this story about the woman and that worship will now be connected with the Spirit and find its location in Jesus, but the flow of the story works. Once again the woman changes the subject. She brings up the concept of the Messiah. Both Samaritans and Jews had come to hope for a coming Messiah. Perhaps already this woman is wondering whether the man Jesus that she has encountered might be that promised Messiah. Jesus leaves no doubt. He tells her plainly that he is the Messiah. And the way in which Jesus says this is powerful. Jesus says, “I am.” The “he” that is inserted into our English translations is put there for convenience of reading. And now we are fully into the claim that Jesus is God. You may recall that in the story of the burning bush God told Moses that his name is “I am.” That “I am” and the “I am” that Jesus claims to be are exactly the same word! The “I am” of the OT has arrived in this “I am” who is Jesus. The Word became flesh! John will tell us that upon hearing this, the woman left her bucket behind – she no longer needs “water” – and she becomes an evangelist in her home town. There remains still a measure of uncertainly in her proclamation, “This man who told me everything I have ever done, can’t be the Messiah, can he?” But the very question demands a positive response. Yes, this one is the Messiah! And as the story ends it is clear that the woman and many Samaritans have come to believe in Jesus! We’ll look at that more fully in the next couple of days.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, February 2, 2014 Read John 4:1-6 As we begin to look at this long narrative, perhaps it will be helpful to make some comments about the Samaritans. Who were they? What was their relationship with Jews like? Knowing something about the Samaritans is helpful to understand this narrative. Samaritans were a group of people who had kinship connections with the main body of Jews. In one sense they were the remnant of the people who once made up the Northern Kingdom of Israel. But they were also not racially pure. The Northern Kingdom of Israel had once thrived as a rival to the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Shortly after the death of King Solomon ten of the tribes had broken away from Solomon’s son Reheboam. They formed their own nation and claimed to be the true descendants of Abraham. As the Bible tells the story, most of the kings in the North were terrible. That likely was mostly true, although the story was written from the point of view of the Southerners. Often the kings in the North and many of the people got caught up in worship of false gods, most prevalent being the god Baal. The story of Ahab and Jezebel belongs to the people of the Northern Kingdom. At any rate, the Northern Kingdom was destroyed by the Assyrians in about 722 BC. The Assyrians were brutal in the treatment of the people of the Northern Kingdom. Many were killed and many others were disbursed throughout the rest of the Assyrian Empire. Other non-Israelite people from throughout the Assyrian Empire were resettled in the territory that had been the Northern Kingdom. There is a rather strange story in the OT of how the Assyrians decided that they needed to bring priests from the Northern Kingdom back into the land to teach the people how to get along, but otherwise you can imagine the intermixing that happened over time. Of course some people, particularly those who were poor and unimportant likely simply remained behind instead of being deported. All of this makes for quite a mix. And over time this conglomerate of people became known as Samaritans. To the credit of the Samaritans, many people did seem to hang on to some semblance of Israelite faith. They claimed belief in the God of Israel. They had great esteem for Moses – in fact Samaritans only accepted the first five books of the OT – the books of Moses. In that way they were in agreement with the Sadducees. Samaritans did understand Mount Gerizim as the location where God had chosen to make himself present to the people instead of Mount Zion where Jerusalem was located. So, they built a temple there that rivaled the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The point is that Samaritans did have some connections with Judaism. At the time of Jesus the relationship between Jews and Samaritans was extremely stressed. From the Samaritan point of view, they thought the Jews were snobbish. On their part, the Jews looked down on Samaritans as half-breed, impure, and detestable people. They were the scum of the earth – untrustworthy and low-class. Needless to say the two groups did not get along with each other and for the most part sought to remain separate from one another. This animosity is what makes Jesus’ contact with Samaritans so powerful. The Samaritans were often the heroes in Jesus’ parables and stories – for example the parable of the Good Samaritan and the story of the Samaritan leper who returned to give thanks for his healing. Jesus crossed the barrier between Jews and Samaritans and in fact broke it down. It is likely that some of the first followers of Jesus were Samaritan Christians. The book of Acts tells of their conversion by Philip (Acts 8:4-25). There were likely Samaritans who were a part of John’s Christian community, as they were a part of Luke’s community. Getting this sense of who Samaritans were and how their relationship with the Jews was one of being despised is important as we approach this narrative of Jesus’ encounter of the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Saturday, February 1, 2014 Read John 4:1-42 Once again we are at a long narrative that is best read as a whole – in fact this is the longest narrative we have encountered so far. Once we have heard the whole story we can go back and listen to the smaller parts. The setting of this narrative connects it with the discussion of the concurrent ministries of Jesus and John the Baptist which preceded the theological insertion of 3:31-36. Earlier the narrator had left stand the comment that Jesus had also baptized. At this point the narrator interrupts to make the correction that it was not really Jesus who did the baptizing but only his disciples. Why he found it necessary to do that is hard to tell. There certainly would have been nothing wrong with Jesus engaging in baptism. As mentioned earlier this is one of the peculiar “glitches” in John’s gospel. A smoother presentation would have made for an easier reading – but we have what we have. The point of the narrative is less about the baptisms than it is about providing a motive for why Jesus begins to move back to Galilee. In some ways this story mirrors the stories in the Mark, Matthew, and Luke where we are told that after John had been arrested Jesus left for Galilee. There is no mention of the arrest of John the Baptist here but the timing parallels the other gospels. But Jesus will not go directly to Galilee. A stop in Samaria will happen first and that makes up the main narrative we will take up next.