Over the years of study I have discovered that one of my favorite books in the New Testament is the Gospel of John. My reason for this preference has nothing to do with its usually acclaimed high “doctrinal” teachings about the Son of God, etc. Rather, I find myself increasingly drawn to several passages in this Gospel where we encounter Jesus in dialogue with certain interesting individuals. In my view these dialogues reveal a great deal about the crucial nature of the idea of the Incarnation, namely just what is meant by the idea of the cosmic Word becoming flesh.
One of the crucial passages where this issue is focused is Chapter Three where Jesus encounters the Jewish religious leader Nicodemus. We are told that Nicodemus? came to Jesus at night, perhaps to keep his interest in him a secret, acknowledging that Jesus is a “teacher sent by God”. Jesus abruptly states the now by well-known line: “Unless a man has been born over again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (3:3) Nicodemus replies by asking a question: “How is it possible for a man to be born when he is old? Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born?”
Now here we encounter the first puzzle at the heart of this passage. Clearly Nicodemus is not stupid. Indeed, he is a very learned man. So in my view his question must be seen as a kind of “tongue in cheek” joke, as a way of stimulating Jesus to be more specific. It is against this background that Jesus utters his most well-known statement about the necessity of being “Born Again” in order to enter the kingdom of God. (3:16) Jesus goes on to state that in order to participate in a life with God one must, as it were, start over, i.e. be born anew.
This metaphor of “new birth” of course lies at the heart of the Christian message. Jesus’ point is that somehow humans have got out of touch with the way God meant for them to live and thus they need to start over with a new “spirit.” Jesus tries to clarify his point by drawing an analogy between the life with God’s Spirit and the blowing of the wind. It should not go unnoticed that the same Greek word designates both “spirit” and “wind.” Thus, Jesus is saying that the new life in the Spirit of God is unpredictable and even perhaps a bit troubling.
Continuing to fain ignorance, Nicodemus asks “How is this possible?” Jesus chides him by asking: “Is this famous teacher of Israel ignorant of such things?” Clearly with his tongue in his cheek. This repartee between these two great teachers is as delightfull as it is revealing. The clear reference to Jesus’ sense of humor reveals a side of him that we not only rarely see, but one about which we almost never hear from religious leaders. Nonetheless, Nicodemus seems to play along even though, and perhaps because, he tacitly agreed with what Jesus was teaching.
Indeed, Nicodemus appears yet again in John’s Gospel when the main group of Pharisees were arguing about the significance of Jesus in relation to the Law of Moses. (7:50). Nicodemus questions the position of the mainline Pharisees for judging Jesus without actually hearing him out, where upon the Pharisees dismiss him sarcastically, and irrelevantly by asking if he too was from Galilee. Nicodemus necessary to include him as one of Jesus’ most loyal disciples. had emphasized the importance of getting the facts before rushing to judgment.
Finally, Nicodemus appears toward the end of John’s Gospel when Jesus is being buried in the tomb supplied by Joseph of Arimathea. Nicodemus supplied some of the appropriate ointments necessary for the burial. Clearly, one would have to judge Nicodemus as one of Jesus’ disciples by virtue of his overall behavior, especially at the end. He is also, in my view, one of the most interesting persons in all of the Gospels. His obvious honest humanity and sincerity make it

.

Way back around 500 BCE there was a Pre-Socratic philosopher named Heraclitus. He was from the city of Ephesus in present day Turkey and he did not fit easily into the various categories that we use to classify the various Greek thinkers of his day. While most of the latter sought to explain reality and its changes in terms of the interaction between various cosmic forces or various elements, Heraclitus simply focused on the nature and power of change itself. This cosmic process of change he described as the process of flux or change which he saw as symbolized by the phenomenon of fire.
He seems to have chosen fire as the basic symbol of reality. A flame at one and the same time flickers but while remaining the same entity it is always the same. The flame is always changing yet the fire itself remains as a single unitary reality. It is always the same fire, and yet it is always changing its appearance and character. Scholars have only been to come up with but a few scraps of what seem to have been Heraclitus’ own writings, but these, along with what thinkers who followed and sought to interpret him, give us a basic clue to what he must have been thinking.
One can, of course, interpret Heraclitus in a wide variety of ways. The fire as such is one thing, therefore all reality is one. Or, the fire is always flickering, so there is no such thing as stability and oneness. I can look at my life as one reality or as a long series of individual events. Which is it? Both? Or Neither? I think the central focus of what Heraclitus was getting at has to do with the idea of ongoing change itself. Time and events always move on – there is always a “next” after anything – at least for us while we are alive. Just when you think something is stabilized, it will most likely change.
And I think Heraclitus thought this is a good thing. At least it is how reality is, always subject to alteration and process. Stagnation is the only alternative. As long as there is change there is the possibility of life. Of course, even this point of view has a way of emphasizing stability- the stability of change itself. As my Grandfather might have put it: “The only thing that never changes is change itself.” Some people, depending on their circumstances, look forward to change. Others fear it. Or, once again to look to Grandpa, “Life is like the weather. It is what it is and most likely will before long change again.”
The only advice Heraclitus seems to have given us is that change is built into the very nature of things and needs to be respected. He seems to have been opposed to any philosophy that would try to overly stabilize our view of reality. It is not clear whether he ever started a school of his own, but his thought seemed rather clearly aimed to conflict with that of Parmenides who saw reality as essentially a great “One”. For Heraclitus there was only one pure being and that by nature was in constant flux.
The Greek philosophy scholar Eduard Zeller says of Heraclitus: “Heraclitus is the profoundest and most powerful of the pre-Socratic philosophers. ..His three fundamental ideas are unity, eternal change, and the inviolability of the laws of the world-order.” (Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy, p. 64)