Why Do You or Don't You Believe Jesus Was the Messiah? | Carl's Blogged Bible Study--John 7

"My Friend Ivan..."

The name Ivan is of Slavic/Russian origin. It is a transliteration of the Hebrew name, John. In seminary, John became my favorite book of the Bible as I muddled through the unique and precarious balance of divinity and humanity in the fourth gospel (Check out Thompson's, The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel). I've discussed this here and there in recent posts, but in review of this chapter, in short fashion, I want to point out the humanity of the humans in John.

The seventh chapter of John comprises a debate...is Jesus the Christ. Keep in mind the Jews had just experienced a short breath of freedom from Greek kings before the Romans subjugated the known world (practically). Without going into a detailed history lesson, the Jews (particularly in Palestine--remember the diaspora) were anxiously anticipating the arrival of a messiah who would free them from Roman rule.

***Let me insert here a suggestion: Michael White's, From Jesus to Christianity. This book unravels the history from the Maccabean Revolt up through Christ. It is my opinion that anyone who calls themselves a Christian should be familiar with the socio-political condition in which Jesus Christ was birthed***

But Jesus was not the only messiah figure floating around at the time. There was Simon (4BC)--a slave of Herod who rebelled, and Athronges (4BC), Judas of Galilee, a Zealot (6AD) just to name a few. Many Jews believe that Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994) was the messiah, despite the fact he himself thought of himself as the one who would prepare the way for the true messiah.

Anyway, read through John 7. Listen to what the multitudes are saying. They all had a strong premonition that a messiah may have been walking among them, but which one was the right one? Davidic lineage, birthplace, and signs and wonders were brought up. Many believed, but most did not. I love reading this chapter. I take pity on the confused people in this chapter. They were trying so hard to decipher the truth!

And I have to ask myself...were I Jew living in Palestine who sat in the temple listening to the teachings of Jesus, weighing the evidence, listinening to the advice of my spiritual leaders and my peers...would I have believed that Jesus was the Messiah?

It is MUCH easier to believe that Jesus is the messiah here in America in 2008 AD than it was to in Judea in 28AD. It is much easier to believe in a figure from the past than the man standing in front of you, especially when others are making the same claims as him.

I do believe that Jesus was the Messiah...but why? I could spout off the historical evidence, the traditions of the Church, liturgy, etc. I could reference the scriptures of the Old Testament. I could regurgitate lectures from my professors. When it comes down to it I cannot absolutely tell anyone why I believe in Christ, I just do. Perhaps it is experiential, but I VERY rarely feel goosebumps; that is, the supernatural doesnot overtake my emotions that often. Like I said I just do, it is just a deep subconscious feeling. I guess it's faith.

If you were in the temple that day, would you have believed? Why do you believe today? Why don't you believe today?

John 4...Carl's Blogged Bible Study Samaritans

I rarely blog at 6am, but my wife and I woke up early to watch the Persoid Meteor Shower...which was fantastic. Watching the streaks of molten rock actually reminded me of the early use of John by the gnostics. Anyway, here are a few quick thoughts on the gospel.

This 4th chapter introduces the first believer in Jesus Christ other than Jesus' mother, cousin, and disciples. Whenever I come across a 'first' in scripture (or any other literary work for that matter) I take special note. As I mentioned before, John, being a Jew, thought more linearly and less chronologically therefore this 'first' conversion really should clue us in on the nature of Christ, since the whole gospel is Christological work.

There is not a whole lot of written history by those called 'Samaritans,' but we do know that Samaritans considered themselves Jews (heirs of God's promises) but every other Jew considered them half breed non-Jews. The Samaritans spoken of in John were certainly a mixed people group. Whenever an ancient power conquered another nation in ancient times they always took some of the conquered back home (i.e. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abendigo) while leaving some of their own colonists behind. This safeguarded against revolt. After the Northern kingdom of Israel (including Samaria) fell to Assyria, colonists (from Babylon and Mesopotamia) were left behind. The remnant of Jews intermarried with colonists--against Mosaic law--resulting in a mixed race unnaccepted by mainstream Judaism.

In fact, when the temple in Jerusalem was being rebuilt (around the time of Nehemiah) the Samaritans offered assistance, but their offer was rejected. The Samaritans then built their own temple on Mt. Gerazim and developed a very conservative form of Judaism. They only accepted the first five books of the old testament (the Samaritan Penteteuch), were rigid monotheists, had their own set of prophets and Rabbis, and were anticipating a messiah.

The animosity was so intense between Jews/Samaritans in 128 B.C. John Hyrcanus (Hasmonean Jew--Maccabean) destroyed the Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerazim. In 9 A.D. the temple at Jerusalem was desecrated by the Samaritans at the passover. In John 8:48 the Pharisees insult Jesus by saying he, "is a Samaritan and has a demon."

All that to say, in John 4, Jesus shouldn't be speaking with a Samaritan, and most certainly a woman. What's interesting to note is that the woman at the well, while being somewhat promiscuous, knows her stuff...she even questions Jesus on whether Jerusalem or Mt. Gerazim is the correct place to worship. She doesn't act very surprised when Jesus starts talking about "living water," which certainly sounds weird to me; but read what this Samaritan philospoher wrote:

"3 There is a Well of living water dug by a Prophet whose like has not arisen since Adam and the water which is in it is from the mouth of God. Let us eat from the fruit that is in this garden and let us drink from the waters that are in this well. There is no need for us to see it in a place we cannot get to. "It is not in heaven" and it is not in crossing the sea (Deut 30:12-13). "In the mouth and in the heart" it is done (Deut 30:14). And woe to us! For we do not do it; it is far from us. We do not learn it though we came down from heaven! It was given to us and we believed in it. It was with them; it was within the Light. And the glory was around, for it was the word of God. His hand wrote and the Prophet received it with signs from on high. And YHWH came down and dwelt with him. --- Marqah, Memar 6.3"

Jesus was speaking her language not his. After this woman believed, she spread the word and many others believed (Jn. 4:39). In verse 42, after Jesus stayed with the Samaritans for a couple of days, many believed in him and they told the woman that they no longer believe because of her word, but becasue of Jesus'. I imagine that must have been disheartening for her. Listen to what John Calvin had to say about this incident:

"...and the Samaritans appear to boast that they have now a stronger foundation than a woman's tongue, which is, for the most part, light and trivial. "

After I take all this in, I am amazed at Jesus sensitivity in dealing with this woman. I am impressed that he contextualized his message and catered it to her undestanding. I am amazed that John's first example of response to Jesus' message was the lowliest of the low: an adulterer...a margianalized religious reject...a woman.

*the image is a pic of Jacob's Well

A Political Moment with a Pharisee

"Love work; hate domination; and seek not undue intimacy with the government."

So said Shemayah, from the Talmudic book, Avot-Ethics of the Father. This ancient Pharisee might as well have been my political counselor. Maybe a Ron Paul supporter?

I wonder what Jesus Christ thought of these words?

Ten Ideas that are Changing the World

A recent Time cover article sports 10 ideas that are changing the world. I was pleasantly surprised at the singularity of each item, having expected to see the usual suspects; think green, socialism, the global market, etc. I was most intrigued with idea #1o: "Re-Judaizing Jesus." How did this ides blip across Time's radar?

The article, objectively well written and intelligent, states:
Ben Witherington is a Methodist New Testament scholar, and Rob Bell a rising Michigan megapastor. Yet each regards sources like the Mishnah and Rabbi Akiva as vital to understanding history's best-known Jew: Jesus.
This is seismic. For centuries, the discipline of Christian "Hebraics" consisted primarily of Christians cherry-picking Jewish texts to support the traditionally assumed contradiction between the Jews — whose alleged dry legalism contributed to their fumbling their ancient tribal covenant with God — and Jesus, who personally embodied God's new covenant of love. But today seminaries across the Christian spectrum teach, as Vanderbilt University New Testament scholar Amy-Jill Levine says, that "if you get the [Jewish] context wrong, you will certainly get Jesus wrong."

Personally, I do not view this as opinion, or even idea; rather as unassailable historical fact--a blatantly obvious fact. The story depicted in Luke 2:49 does not place Jesus as having been left behind in a cathedral or seeker sensitive mega church, but in his Father's house (1 Chrn 17:5ff), the temple. The apostle would not have considered themselves Christians (although they did accept the label--Acts 11:26), they considered themselves Jews who had seen and embraced the Messiah.

Americanizing Jesus just doesn't work. Modernizing him is futile. Recently I was asked, in reference to the up and coming election, "how do you think Jesus would have voted?" Sighhhhhh. Besides the fact that Jesus, devoid of citizenship would not have voted, this is like me attempting to decipher whether Abraham Lincoln would have been a better president had he been given the opportunity to sleep on a waterbed rather than a corncob mattress; it is irrelevant and indiscernible.

Anyhow, the entire story is worth reading and can be found here.

"Romerica" or America, the Reincarnation of Rome

The period of Roman expansion began in the 3rd century BCE—but the height of their magnificent imperialism was cresting immediately proceeding and occurring during the life of history’s most famous carpenter, Jesus Christ. One cannot possibly begin to understand Jesus and His message without first familiarizing themselves with the religious/historical/political culture into which he was born.

As I was getting to know this setting via L. Michael White’s From Jesus to Christianity, I felt a strange connection with this ancient force. After contemplation, I realized I knew the Roman Empire in reincarnated form…America. I was excited. Keep in mind, I am no historian. So seeing this correlation was exciting to me. But alas, the bubble burst in conversation with a friend. As I shared my “findings,” my friend pointed out that a book had already been written on the subject—the book (unread by this blogger) will be the first book tackled by the up-and-coming Ivan’s Book club (see previous post).

A few initial observations:
The Romans insisted upon occupation of the “world.” The Greek term for the Roman Empire was oikoumene—lit. world. The US has more embassies than any other nation. Our present is felt nearly everywhere under the auspice of “keeping the peace,” rather than, “imperialism.”
The Romans allowed and encouraged syncretism of seemingly contradictory cultures (art, language, religion). Had the term “melting pot” existed at the dawn of the first millennia, the Romans would have cherished and employed as national policy.
Nothing solidified the correlation more than Roman foreign policy; at least the public portrayal thereof. What follows is an example of one of many inscriptions prominent throughout the Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus. These inscriptions were found on statues of the great leader. Consider them, “political ad campaigns,” or “the Emperor’s address to the nation,” in ancient form:

On land and sea I undertook wars, both civil and foreign,
throughout the whole world, and when victorious I spared all citizens who sued for pardon. Foreign nations what could safely be pardoned I preferred to save rather than destroy.

When I returned from Spain and Gaul, in the consulship
of Tiberius Nero and Publius Quintilius, after successful operations in those provinces, the senate voted in honor of my return the consecration of an altar to Pax Augustus in the
Campus Martius, and on this altar if ordered the magistrates and priests and Vestal Virgins to make annual sacrifice.
[The temple of] Janus Quirinus (gate keeper of “times’, so to speak) which our ancestors ordered to be closed whenever there was peace, secured by victory, throughout the whole imperium of
the Roman people on land and sea, and which, before my birth is recorded to have been closed but twice since
the very foundation of the city, the senate ordered closed three times while I was princeps.
I extended the boundaries of all the provinces that were
bordered by races not yet subject to our imperium. The
provinces of the Gauls, Spain, and Germany I reduced to a state of peace.
The Alps I brought to state of peace without waging unjust
war on any tribe.
When I had extinguished the flames of civil
war, after receiving by universal consent the absolute control
of public affairs, I transformed the republic from my own control the
will of the senate and Roman people. For this service I was given decree of the senate title Augustus, and the doorposts
of my house were covered with laurels by public act, and a civic crown was fixed above my door, and a
golden shield was placed in the curia Julia, the inscription on which
testified that the senate and roman people gave me this
recognition in honor of my valor, my clemency, my justice, and my
piety. (White, 43-44)

Wow. Read this. Reread this. Preemptive strikes to secure world peace and democracy? Stepping in to settle foreign civil wars? Extending boundaries unselfishly (enculturation of foreign races for their own good—for peace?

Sounds a lot like America, post industrial revolution! What a heritage...But Rome fell.