Notes from John 2:13 - John 3:20

The setup

Although there’s a chapter break separating them, I think that the story covered in John 2:13-3:20 reads as one piece.  Jesus had just busted up the temple courts and made a big splash in Jerusalem around passover, claiming to be able to rebuild the temple in three days, etc.  

I think that the cleansing of the temple is actually a preface to the story of Nicodemus.  It sets up the circumstances of his visit, as does the statement that Jesus knew what was inside a man (John 2:25).  

That’s the opening statement to Nicodemus’ story.  Jesus knew what was in his heart, and spoke to that, rather than to the surface of how he approached Jesus.

Nicodemus: seeker or pharisee?

John 3:1-2
Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

John 3:2 has been commonly interpreted to mean that Nicodemus was a seeker that came to Jesus on his own, to interact privately with Jesus despite his role as a Pharisee.

Some time ago I was reading John, and was greatly frustrated by how incoherent this passage of scripture was.  The traditional focus on being ‘born again’ didn’t bring the pieces together, everything Jesus said was disconnected from everything else, and I didn’t recognize Nicodemus the seeker at all.   

Nicodemus speaks in the first person, plural...Greek: oidamen - ‘we know’.  I hesitate to make a huge deal of that, but who is ‘we’?  On whose behalf is he speaking, if not the Pharisees?  

More importantly, (and not requiring any knowledge of greek) Nicodemus doesn’t approach Jesus as one who has a question, or who wants to know more.  His words in vs. 2 are bold and declarative - ‘Rabbi, we know...’

Lastly, the placement of this story comes right after Jesus cleared out the temple - just as his public ministry began and the miracles had started.  

So Nicodemus claims to know that Jesus is a teacher who has come from God, based on the miracles Jesus did.

Those aren’t the words of a disciple looking to be taught - that’s the assessment of a religious leader - an authority - which is exactly what Nicodemus was.  He came to offer Jesus his stamp of approval.  

Nicodemus wasn’t a seeker that snuck off to inquire of Jesus, he was an envoy from the Pharisees, offering Jesus political credibility.  I think it’s likely the next thing Nicodemus would have done was ask Jesus to tone it down some, try not to be so destructive, etc.  He didn’t get a chance to do that, though...

That’s pretty different from the traditional telling of this story...but I think Jesus handles Nicodemus in a way that bears this interpretation out.

Divine confusion

So how does Jesus respond?  By thanking Nicodemus?  (What would your response to flattery be, if approached by an important church official?)

Does Jesus agree with Nicodemus?  Disagree?  Actually, Jesus did neither.  Instead of responding to what Nicodemus says to him, Jesus abruptly changes the subject.

John 3:3-8
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

Instead of ‘Thanks, but I’m not just a teacher...’, or ‘My miracles aren’t the important thing...’, Jesus says ‘you have to be born again’.  Nicodemus takes him literally, is confused, and instead of really explaining what he means, Jesus chides him for being suprised.  

Then Jesus changes the subject yet again.  He equates those born of the spirit to the wind, as if that might somehow help to clear things up.  It seems Jesus is intentionally confusing Nicodemus - but why?

On the face of it, all of this seems totally disconnected - to me, there’s no flow to this conversation, no logic, no thread you can follow to understand what’s happening.  

It especially does not follow from the conversation Nicodemus attempted to have with Jesus in the first place - ‘Teacher, we know you come from God...’ but it is connected, if you know the subtext that hides behind Jesus words.

Why babies and wind?

Assuming that Nicodemus came to Jesus as an envoy of the Pharisees, and was full of pride in his role as one with religious authority, Jesus had a hard task to accomplish.  Nicodemus came to talk, not listen - Jesus had to short-circuit Nicodemus’ agenda, soften his hard heart, and move past his preconceptions to bring him to a place where he could hear from Jesus.

Jesus did that by using the thing that I think Nicodemus prized the most - his own knowledge of scripture.  By this, he cleverly redirected the conversation in a way that disarmed Nicodemus’ authority and gave Nicodemus the chance to be taught, if he would listen.

The key to all this is found in Ecclesiastes 11:5 -
As you do not know the path of the wind,
  or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb,
so you cannot understand the work of God,
  the Maker of all things.

Assume for a minute that Jesus and Nicodemus both knew this verse.  Jesus first says ‘you have to be born again’ - and Nicodemus is confused.  But he closes off his ‘born again’ discussion by comparing those born of the spirit with the wind...I think Nicodemus had a sudden dawning when Jesus said that.

Nicodemus thinks ‘Babies...wind...’ and finishes the statement for himself.  “...Just as I don’t understand these things, I don’t know the work of God?”  And what he says in response to that dawning realization is ‘How can these things be?’

I don’t think he was amazed by the comparision of the born again believer to the wind - I think he was amazed that Jesus implied that he could not understand the work of God.  This brings into question his credentials, his authority, and I think Nicodemus really felt that, caught in a trap made perfectly for him.  He was disarmed in a way that Jesus knew would leave him questioning and ready to hear more.

The rest of the passage (John 3:10-21) is Jesus teaching him about what the work of God actually is, now that he’s ready to listen.

Some Thoughts and Application

When I discovered this, I had spent about three weeks puzzling over Nicodemus and Jesus with no solution in sight. I was frustrated and bothered - strongly bothered - over this passage, as I am with most of John.  I personally find that in the book of John, Jesus speaks in riddles, circles and non-sequiturs, and there’s often not much to go on to understand what’s really going on.

I was frustrated and just couldn’t understand...and I asked God at that time for something that would unlock it - I knew there must be something that could help me make sense of it.  In frustration, one day I grabbed a spare bible off the floor at church and flipped it open to Song of Songs - on the facing page was Ecclesiastes, and my eye fell on verse 5.  Bingo - there it was! Babies...wind...work of God!

So I feel like from a personal standpoint, even finding an answer to my questions was nothing short of a miracle - it took actual revelation and a divine moment, using someone else’s Bible, to bring me to understanding.  If I was reading my same old Bible the same old way, I'd never have found it.  


So if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God.  He might not show up right away, but He loves to give revelation if you’re hungry for it.  

Proverbs 25:2 - It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
  to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

We all have a mandate to search out the things of God.  So I’m praying for more love of scripture, more holy frustration and hunger, and more revelation to match.  

Finally...let Jesus change the subject

Another application, perhaps less personal and more practical, is that Jesus is the same person now as He was then with Nicodemus.  He still knows what’s in your heart, and he still knows how to sidestep your agenda and change the whole framework of a conversation.  

Like with Nicodemus, Jesus is not afraid to leverage our own confusion if need be to get us in a position where we can listen.  If we come to him with an agenda (which is most of the time) we can count on him disarming us in love, and then speaking to us about what’s really at issue.

In Nicodemus case, what was at issue was his misplaced pride, and the assumption that he knew what God was about.  For me it might be different - believing some lie, some compromise or sin in my life, or any of the other things Jesus might want to talk about with me.  

It’s a frequent occurrence that He wants to talk about a different subject than I do - and He knows how to change the subject and get me listening.  If i'm smart, I'll come to him without an agenda. If not, he is able to lovingly adjust the conversation and uncover what’s in my heart - as long as I’m willing to hear.

Jesus is the word of God

I've been thinking about Jesus and his title 'The Word of God', for a while now...here's some notes.

I was first introduced to this as a serious angle of study and major theme of the New Testament ( rather than a nice verse in John 1 ) when I read 'Prayer' by a German theologan named Hans Urs von Balthasar.  http://www.amazon.com/Prayer-Hans-Urs-von-Balthasar/dp/0898700744  This is probably as difficult a book as I've ever read - but it was transformative for me in a variety of ways.  I need to go back and find a copy and see if it stands up after 10 years.

Jesus is represented in scripture as the Word of God - a title that needs to be understood 'as the scripture says', not from the definition our church culture has put on it.  Good evangelical protestant types tend to worship the Bible like it's part of the trinity (usually replacing Holy Spirit).

When we say 'The Word of God' we usually are referring to the Bible.  Now, the Bible is a great gift to us, but if we pay attention to how the Bible uses that phrase 'The Word of God', it's not used as a reference to scripture anywhere (that I'm aware of, at least.  I'm probably wrong...)

Word of God often refers to the spreading of the Gospel, but it's highest, most important usage is in reference to Jesus himself.

Two major passages unpack Jesus identity as the Word - Everyone knows John 1, but Hebrews ch. 1 and 2 are a parallel rendering of the same thoughts.  Hebrews expands upon and elaborates what is a pretty compact presentation of these ideas in John 1.

Here's a map of the relationship between those two passages:

Jesus is the Word, God's primary means of communicating to us
John 1:1
Hebrews 1:1-2

Jesus is God, and the Son of god
John 1:1
Hebrews 1:3

Jesus made the universe
John 1:3
Hebrews 1:2
Note - God SAID let there be light...and it's implied in John, Hebrews, and elsewhere that Jesus was the one that went and did it, performing the activity of creation.

Jesus came to bring many sons into the kingdom.
John 1:12-13
Hebrews 2:10-15

Jesus was God, but came as a man...
John 1:14
Hebrews 2:14

There's lots of cross-references that might inform this topic - Colossians 1:17 is one, another , 

Posted via email from dsayswhat's posterous

Mysteries...

My good friend Will commented on my last post, sharing 3 essential problems that make studying eschatology. I can't speak to the first without further study, can't argue at all with the second - but the third I have thoughts on. Here they are:

He said that regarding eschatology, it is the realm of mystery, and 'mystery remains mystery'.

Here's my response:

Mystery didn't remain mystery for Paul, who stated that the mystery of gospel which had been held since the creation of the world had been revealed, so that the Gentiles could share in the salvation that comes from Christ. See Romans 16 and Eph 3.

Daniel was told to seal up his the words until the time of the end - it's spoken twice in Dan 12, the second time affirming that the mysteries shown to Daniel would be sealed until that time. The use of the word 'until' indicates to me that those mysteries would be UNsealed when the time came.

It's consistent with the unfolding nature of divine revelation that as the time draws near, mysteries will be revealed. God makes a habit of unfolding his plan and showing off how awesome it is. Adam had less understanding than Noah, who had less than Abraham, who had less than David, etc. He likes interacting with us and displaying his personality, mind and plan to us.

So It is the glory of God to hide a matter, and the glory of kings to search it out. So I'd agree that the end times isn't a simple picture that you can come to by some numeric formula - this many years, that many days, times, time and half a time, etc. But by the spirit, it can be studied. Ya hear that? STUDY by the SPIRIT.

Daniel understood from the scriptures that the desolation of Jerusalem was to last 70 years...at some point, in the same way it will be revealed to the Body the revelation of these mysteries about the end of the age. As sure as he's coming back, that's going to happen, cause the Book says so.

None of that comes by reason alone, but reason enters into it, or else he wouldn't have posed these puzzles in spiritual words that can be read and studied - Paul heard things that were unutterable, and so didn't write them...similarly, John heard seven thunders, but was told not to write them down. Those will have to be re-uttered to the generation that sees the Lords return, in some form or fashion.

However, our record of prophecy about His return and the nature and shape of his kingdom at that time in history WAS uttered and written down...so study has to enter into it somewhere, as long as the Spirit isn't left out of the process. There are propositions, clauses, facts, numbers, and poetic language for us to sift, weigh, consider, marvel at and be perplexed by.

So I want to enter into the blessing of those who take to heart the words that are written in the book of Revelation - and I want the victor's crown of righteousness that's offered to those who have loved his appearing...plus it's super interesting.

The main reason I'm into this stuff is that the subject of the end times is the study of the kingdom, and especially of its King. It's the Revelation of Jesus Christ, not the revelation of some stuff that happened or will happen or might be all symbolic or whatever. When we study these things, Holy Spirit reveals Jesus to us. That's the best part.

the one they have pierced...

I'm a bit interested in Eschatology. For those of you who don't know what eschatology is, it's the study of eschat.

Really, no, I'm just kidding. I don't even know what eschat is...

But I heard some fairly convincing stuff from a preterist this last week. Preterists believe that the last days described in the Bible happened in the first century, and that it's all done.

Well, I don't think that's right. So I've been thinking on that. Here's a bit of it:

Preterists take the time words very seriously - the statements that are made in Matthew 24, Revelation 1-3, and elsewhere, where Jesus says that 'this generation' would see the kingdom, or that 'the time is near', or 'these things must soon come to pass'.

I was challenged to take those seriously as well - I had not given them as much thought as other elements of those same passages...but I find the strict preterist interpretation simplistic, as I understand it.

Based on the small amount of study I've done thus far, it appears they hang their hat on the 'plain meaning of scripture' selectively. Some passages get 'plain meaning', others get ignored because they don't fit the starting assumption and satisfy a first century interpretation.

I'm therefore challenged in my own self to try and harmonize those disparate pieces and make sense of the puzzle.

It's legitimate to say that Peter, Paul and John, and the writers of the gospels, all indicated Jesus was returning right away. And their assumption of the soon return of Christ made it into scripture, so you have to wrestle with the fact that He doesn't appear to have returned in any way we can see or hear or touch. The world continues on like it always has.

Another strong argument in favor of preterist thinking is that Revelation offers comfort to oppressed Christians, with words like 'a little while longer' and 'endure for 10 days'. If we apply the 'plain meaning of scripture' principle there, we're looking at the need to interpret at least Revelation 1-3 as being primarily a 1st century document - perhaps like we look at the epistles of Paul.

But I'd like to look at Revelation 1:3 and 1:7.

Revelation 1:3
Blessed be the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

That sets the context for the rest of the letter to be a near and soon to be fulfilled occurrence.

Revelation 1:7
Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him.

So contextually, the time is near for Him to return on the clouds.

Other verses corroborate that.

Matthew 24:30,34
At that time the sign of the Son of man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will the Son of man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory [...] I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

That's a pretty strong time indicator, and pairs well with Revelation chapter 1. Plain meaning of the verses: Jesus is coming back right away - within a generation, however long that is.

The preterist viewpoint is that the scary stuff spoken of in Revelation and Matthew 24 was satisfied by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. And it's a pretty satisfying conclusion. It fits the facts described in Matthew and Revelation pretty well.

It's also important to note that 'all the nations of the earth will mourn' can also be translated as 'all the tribes of the land'. Nation is not 'ethnos' here, it's 'phule' - clan or tribe. And the earth is 'ge', which also translates as land, rather than 'oikoumene', which would more clearly indicate the gentile nations, the entire populated earth.

All that supports a local, Israel-and-Jerusalem-focused application of the passages listed above.

It's interesting to note another occurrence of these same ideas, this time from the Old Testament. It might even be suggested that Jesus and John were quoting Zechariah 12 when the reference 'all the nations of the earth will mourn', and 'look upon the one whom they have pierced'.

Zechariah 12:10-12
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. On that day, the weeping in Jerusalem will be great [...] The land will mourn, each clan by itself [...]

So Jesus and John were paraphrasing Zech 12 - and quoting Daniel 9 in reference to his coming on the clouds of heaven. Two huge eschatalogical passages are tied together in Matthew 24 and Revelation 1. It's clearly written or spoken to Israel and Jerusalem, both in Zechariah and Matthew.

Now we've got the case for a a localized, immediate ( within a generation ) fulfillment of Jesus' words. Common sense seems to back it up, it's simple, clear. Pretty convincing to me thus far.

This is where the Preterists take a left turn. They say that because Jesus is prophesying how bad it will be in Jerusalem at that time, and they equate that with the 1st century destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

The preterist position writes Israel off, calls them 'judged' and says that 'true Israel' came into the Church at that point. The Old Covenant is gone, and the temple destroyed. End of story. I heard it described last weekend as that generation's rightful judgement for the rejection of Jesus.

But here's the problem: When quoting Zechariah 12, Jesus was quoting from a narrative that shows Judah destroying the nations, Jerusalem receiving security from its enemies, and the tribes of Israel restored to their land from exile. It's entirely the opposite of the preterist position. A 'plain meaning of scripture' reading of Zechariah 12 puts it in the context of a repentant, victorious Israel, with a spirit of grace poured out on it.

That hasn't been fulfilled yet, and certainly stands opposed to anything that might indicate Israel is permanently rejected by God. That's one of the many weaknesses of the preterist viewpoint - it rejects the promise of Israel's restoration by lumping Israel in with the church, ignoring massive promises that the Old Testament prophets gave about God restoring Israel.

I find myself struggling to avoid using terms like 'weasel out', 'anti-semitic' or 'doctrine of demons' when I consider the implications of writing off Israel. I appreciate the preterist viewpoint, I'm challenged by it, there's much to learn from it.

However, it appears to be married to an anti-semitic doctrine of demons that weasels out of respecting God's plan for Israel by spiritualizing his promises to Her and making them irrelevant - or else excusing themselves from the table whenever Romans 9-11 comes up for discussion.

I was looking for supporting material for the Greek references I made in this post. and happened across a document supporting the preterist view. I encourage you to read it at http://www.allthingsfulfilled.com/pdf/EveryEyeSawHim.pdf.

By about the third paragraph, it becomes clear the author isn't actually reading Zechariah for what it says, since he seems to think that Zechariah is talking about a judgement on Israel. Read Zech 12:3.

Now, I'll admit to ONE verse in Zech 14 that looks kind of bad for Jerusalem - there's rape and exile mentioned in 14:2 - but then the Lord goes out and fights against the nations of the earth and rots their tongue in their mouths. So that turns out ok for Israel in the end.

You'd have to be seriously preoccupied with a foregone conclusion to read Zechariah 12 that wrongly. I think that a truth may be hidden in the preterist viewpoint, but it's obscured by their assumptions about the nature of God's relationship with Israel - Anti-semitism is a problem that goes back a long way in the history of the church, resulting in Sunday worship, rejection of Passover and introduction of paganism into the church. We're only starting to come out of it, none too soon.

Now, I don't have a solid answer for the problem of Jesus' statements about a first century return - hopefully I can arrive at something that my heart will accept as the truth without resorting to some writhing shenaniganery - and hopefully I won't have to write off huge portions of scripture to do it.

Tuesday in DC

Hi to all

I'm sitting here in my hotel room, and thought I'd write a little about my trip so far.

I'm having a really good time.  When I'm on a trip by myself that usually meansI  wander wherever I feel like going until I'm ready to keel over. Here's a map of my wanderings today...

View Darren's Tuesday walk in a larger map

 

On the way home both yesterday and today, I emerged from the Metro just in time to get POURED ON by a huge thunderstorm.  I'm about 12 minutes or so from my hotel, so on Monday I waited the storm out.  But tonight, it was just drizzling, so I dropped into a 7-11 to buy some peanuts, and then about halfway home it turned into a cloudburst.  Yikes - thunder started happening more and more frequently, storm moved in closer, and I got SOAKED.  woo hoo.

 

So my jeans, socks, shirt and shoes are drying on the chair, and I'm relaxin'. 

 

Later...

Posted via email from dsayswhat's posterous

Tuesday in DC

Testing out posterous.com cross-post to blog and facebook

Posted via email from dsayswhat's posterous

Boil the Milk, Make-a the sauce...

Jennifer, Davin and I watched Julie and Julia the other day, just before Christmas. For those of you who don’t know, it’s a sweet movie about a woman who decides to spend a year cooking her way through Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking.

The film is about her self-discovery as she blogged her experiences cooking all these recipes, interleaved with biographical sections of how Julia Child wrote the cookbook during the 10 or so years she lived in France. It’s a neat movie, especially if you’re into food. Which I am.

I made the comment to Jennifer that I’d never really experienced Julia Child firsthand, either on television or via her books, so I didn’t know much about her. I knew she was a big deal TV chef, probably the first one ever, and that she had a big, high voice, but that was about it.

Well, Jenn went and bought me the cookbook for Christmas. Here’s my first status report:

I cooked a ham on Christmas day, on Christmas day, on Christmas day…and lo, there were leftovers. Apparently, I tip my head to the side when glazing ham. This was the best of the 4 pictures Jennifer took, and all of them had me in the same gnarled position. I’ll have to work on my technique. (I'm actually on the phone...)

So we wanted to do scalloped potatoes, since that’s a favorite leftover ham dish in our family. Sometimes I think we should skip the massive joint of meat and go straight to the leftovers….that’s another whole blog post, but you can read more in The Supper of the Lamb by Robert Farrar Capon.

He describes leftovers as ‘ferial’, or ordinary cooking, and proceeds to build an ethos around enjoying the everyday pleasures of God’s world all the time, as a matter of worship. I received it for Christmas last year, and I recommend it enthusiastically. But I digress…

Scalloped potatoes require white sauce. White sauce is basically fat and flour mixed in about a 2/3 ratio over heat until it bubbles.

This is called a roux ( pronounced ‘roo’…it’s french, naturally ) and is the basis for a number of saucy things, from country gravy to gumbo. You add liquid to the roux, and it becomes one thing or another, and then you eat it. Yum.

I’ve made white sauce before, and have had wise women from both sides of my family and Jennifer’s talk about roux, gravy, and all things lumpy. It has been my process to add liquid to the roux in small amounts to avoid causing lumps, which doesn’t always work.

Here’s where Julia Child comes in. In her chapter on sauces, she gives a recipe for white sauce, grandly titled Bechamel sauce, but it’s just roux and milk.

Julia says ( imagine finger pointed in the air, pronounced ‘JOOOO-leea says’ ) to boil the liquid while you’re prepping the roux, and then add it all at once, once the roux is ready. I hadn’t heard that one before, so I was interested to see how it worked.

Jenn was looking on as I grabbed the pan of milk, said ‘here goes nothing’ and dumped it all in. I expected lumps galore, cause when you add that much liquid to a roux, that’s what you get…but it came out perfect.

It’s hard to describe my child-like glee – HOLY MOLY! IT WORKED! ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I was grinning like an idiot over a suspension of flour, butter and milk. I was practically dancing around the kitchen. ( I know. I KNOW…It’s just gravy, man. Get a grip already… )

Anyway, it came out great, and now I can see why people push up their glasses, wave their index fingers in the air, and say ‘Julia says…’

There’s probably a lesson in that last sentence about the relationship between experience, trust, and faith…I’ll let you ponder or sermonize at your leisure…