Sorry – this is long —but good :O)

                                                     THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH ???

                                                                 

                                                       

          Years ago, there was a quasi-science fiction movie with the above title. It portrayed a mysterious visitor from a far-away planet who was looking for a way to bring his family to earth because his planet was dying for a lack of water. The opening scenes were mostly silent and eerie as the visitor made his way from the desert of New Mexico to the busy streets of New York. From there on everything went downhill. David Bowie’s portrayal of this visitor from space was at first quite captivating, as was the very idea of a mysterious visitor from outer space on earth.

            Over the years, both as a Christian and as a student of the New Testament, I have been intensely interested in how to correctly understand the New Testament Gospel narratives and I am increasingly disappointed, as well as often amazed, by the simple-minded understandings of Jesus from both the extreme theological right and the everyday, run-of-the-mill supposedly educated public. In what follows I shall try to explain how I think the Gospel stories ought to be understood. I shall be focusing on the interpersonal and spiritual dynamics at work in the conversational stories Jesus is said to have told during his ministry, among both the everyday people and the religious leaders of his day.    

            I am working with the New English Bible, but the revised Standard Version works just as well. Most other versions are far too committed to a narrow theological perspective or are a mere paraphrase with a one-sided theological point of view. What I find most revealing in the Gospel stories is Jesus’ manner of speaking and dealing with those with whom he is conversing. In what follows I shall be considering a number of Gospel passages that reveal what I take to be most instructive with regard to the real significance of the notion of the Incarnation. In my view, Jesus turns out to be neither someone who “fell from the sky (Heaven)” nor merely a wise religious teacher.

            Perhaps the most obvious place to begin is with the so-called “Sermon on the Mount” found in Matthew’s Gospel, chapters five through seven. Here is a whole range of Jesus’ teachings about life, both here on earth and later on after death. What I find remarkable about these by now familiar teachings is that they contain a number of “radical” ideas, such as “Love your enemies and those that persecute you.”  Some of these teachings are repeated in one form or another in the other Gospels, but not usually in the same stark manner as they are expressed here in Matthew. Indeed, the Sermon contains a number of statements of Jesus which scholars have designated as “hard sayings” because they seem to run directly counter to what would be considered “blessed” sayings or advice.

            Most notable of these are those that seem run directly counter to the way most of us think, such as the above: “Love your enemies and do good to those who would persecute you.” At the same time, it must be noted that some of the things that Matthew attributes to Jesus are perplexing in the opposite way, since they seem to say that Jesus’ “way” is “easy”. Even later on Matthew quotes Jesus as saying: “Come to me all whose work is hard and whose load is heavy, and I will give you relief. Bend your necks to my yoke and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble-hearted: and your souls will find relief. For my yoke is good to bear, my load is light.” (Matthew 11: 28-30). In short, the teachings of Jesus are not as simple as they are often said to be.

            In addition, toward the close of his Gospel, Matthew focuses on Jesus’ final teachings to his disciples but has absolutely nothing to say about his up-coming crucifixion nor its significance for the lives of his followers. Likewise, the Gospel of Mark, which most scholars date prior to the others, has very little to add to Mathew’s much more lengthy accounts, and has surprisingly nothing to say about any sort of resurrection.  On the other hand, the Gospel of Luke contains a good many accounts of Jesus’ conversations with various country folks, together with his concern for them. Both Mathew and Luke contain numerus examples of Jesus’ teaching his disciples by means of simple parables about both everyday life, as well as “spiritual” life.

The Gospel of John, on the other hand, is chock full of accounts of Jesus’ direct encounters with both disciples and enemies. We shall get to several of these passages shortly. Suffice it to say at this juncture that John’s Gospel is by far the most “theological” and dialogical of all the Gospels. What is more, in my opinion John’s Gospel provides us with a different, yet richer presentation of who Jesus was and what he had to say about himself. As we shall see, most of this stands in direct contrast to the “official” view of Jesus’ identity offered by the first Christian Church in the early years of its existence. At the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE the Trinitarian creed was officially formulated by affirming that the Son, the second person of the Trinity, is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. This view became overall the official doctrine of the Christian Church down through the ages.

In the first chapter of John’s Gospel the Second Person of the Godhead is described as “The Word”, the “Logos” of God who was with God from the beginning and participated fully in the Creation of the world, giving life to all that lives, including humans (John 1: 3-5). Then John says: “The Word became flesh: he came to dwell among us and we saw his glory, such glory as befits the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14) Clearly these verses do not equate the Son and the Father of the Trinity, nor do they separate them. The mystery of the Trinity remains intact here, with the emphasis being on its unity.

What is of special interest here is not the question of membership or equality, but the issue of God’s glory shown in Jesus as he “dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14). The concern of John is not with identifying the different members of the Trinity, nor with ranking them. Rather, his focus is on the “quality” of the person embodied in the man Jesus, namely that he was “full of Grace and Truth.” In short, Jesus did not “fall to earth from the sky” as a purely supernatural or other-worldly being. Rather, he came into the world, “among his own”, but his own did not receive him. What is emphasized here is not Jesus’ Divinity, not his supernatural origin, but the quality of his person, of his character, “full of grace and truth.”

I submit that what John is saying here slips between the horns of the traditional dilemma about the nature of Jesus’ being, whether divine or human. The whole point of John’s approach to the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation is to emphasize, not the supernatural or the natural, but simply to focus on the quality and character of Jesus’ person as he was experienced by those with whom he had to do. The emphasis here is on the “grace and truth” with which Jesus shared himself with those whom he encountered. In short, according to John Jesus neither “fell to earth” as a supernatural being nor did he simply grow up as a normal human being. Rather, he came as a loving, unique human person.

The author of John’s Gospel goes on to relate a number of stories in which this uniqueness revealed itself amidst Jesus’ interactions with both friends and foes. In the third chapter Jesus has a clandestine conversation with a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a “member of the Jewish Council called the Sanhedrin”. The latter expresses his admiration for Jesus and Jesus replies by using the metaphor of birth to explain the human need for a “fresh birth” in order to become a part of God’s family. Nicodemus, a very learned scholar, feigns puzzlement over this turn of the phrase “second birth” and Jesus gently and humorously scolds him for not grasping his pun involving the term “born again.”

This jocular tone between these two men of mutual respect should not mislead the reader. Jesus is likening how one comes to understand a new life with God to the rich life that comes to a human when he or she opens up to God’s love by means of a commitment to a life of the Holy Spirit. Jesus admits that this new life in God’s spirit is as mysterious as the movement of the wind around us. Jesus gently joshes Nicodemus concerning his lack of understanding of such basic things about a relationship with God. It should be remembered that Nicodemus appears two later times in John’s Gospel, both times indicating that this conversation with Jesus had borne fruit.  

It is often said that John’s Gospel is the most spiritual and profound of the four and here we have an account of the person of Jesus, yet here we also see that what impressed John most powerfully about Jesus was that his life and teachings were “full of grace and truth.” Clearly John did not see Jesus as one who had “fallen to earth” directly from heaven as a supernatural being. Nor did he see him as just an especially wise human teacher full of insight about human and divine life.  Later in his Gospel John records that Nicodemus entered into Jesus’ life near its end. In 7:50 he speaks up on Jesus’ behalf in a Sanhedrin meeting and at Jesus’ burial he participates in the funeral proceedings. He obviously seems to have become a disciple of his earlier conversational partner.

Over the centuries scholars have had a good deal of identifying and differentiating the author of John’s Gospel. He seems to have become a primary leader among others of the very first Christian church in Jerusalem and is most likely the author of the three letters of John and the Book of Revelation in the New Testament, although many scholars doubt both of these claims. The tone of the three letters is decidedly against much of Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, warning against the teachings of heretics, etc. The Book of Revelation, however, for many good reasons, definitely seems not to have been written by the Apostle John. Its Greek language and negative views of all who disbelieve seem opposed to those of the author of the Gospel of John.

Be that as it may, what I find especially interesting in John’s Gospel is its inclusion of the story of the “woman taken in adultery.” Traditionally this story was included in the 8^th chapter of John, but because there is some discrepancy among the manuscripts of John, some scholars have placed it at the conclusion. Some of the manuscripts we have of this Gospel do not contain this story at all, while others place it in various spots around chapter seven. Most scholars agree that although this story may have become misplaced among the manuscripts, it clearly belongs in the official text only if because it is clearly in harmony with Jesus’ overall practice and teaching. For me it is the very epitome of Jesus’ overall approach to both theological issues and moral ones. More importantly, this story reinforces the view of Jesus presented above.

The story tells us about a woman whom the pharisees have seemingly caught in the act of adultery, and they ask Jesus if she should be stoned to death as the law of Moses requires. They hoped to catch him in the trap of teaching against the Mosaic law. When confronted with this dilemma, Jesus stalls a bit by scribbling in the sand and then suggests that the Pharisee among them that is without sin cast the first stone. Then he returns to scribbling in the sand. When he looks up he finds that all the accusers have left. He then asks the woman “Has no one accused you?” When she replies “No one, Lord”, Jesus declares “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

What I find most important here is that it should be perfectly clear that this whole situation is an obvious “set-up”, since the entire scenario could only have been contrived by the Pharisees involved. The woman probably need not have been involved at all. If this event actually took place, Jesus had clearly exonerated the woman at the Pharisees’ expense. My guess is that his final remark was meant as a joke, since there is no indication that the woman had even sinned at all in this escapade. The grin on Jesus’ face must have been quite wide, indeed. In my mind this fascinating episode clearly reveals Jesus’ true character, a loving human being sent from God, “full of grace and truth.”

Perhaps the most telling quality of this sort of remark from Jesus is his basic humanity. There are, indeed, frequent expressions of this deep humanity among the stories of his encounters with people throughout the Gospels. His fascinating conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well in John chapter 4 reveals a subtle but penetrating knowledge of and care for his dialogical partner. The text tells us that “Jesus, tired after his journey, sat down by the well”. (4:7) When the woman approached the well Jesus asked for her to give him a drink. She thus immediately bridled at the very idea of “You, a Jew asking a drink of me a Samaritan woman?”

Both the racial and the gender issues were involved here from the outset. Jesus replies: “If you knew what God gives and who it is that is asking you for a drink, you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” (vs.10) The long history of the conflicting relationship between Samaritans and Jews, and how much they hated each other, makes this exchange an especially charged one. Jesus is clearly cutting across both racial and gender boundaries in his puzzling yet insightful remark. There is some confusion in the woman’s mind because Jesus has introduced one of his metaphors, this time pertaining to different kinds of water, namely physical and “living”. Jesus quickly dissolves her confusion by indicating that he is talking about a spiritual kind of water that brings eternal life.

John, the author of this Gospel, clearly understands and relishes the use of metaphor when it comes to speaking of spiritual reality. His chapters are replete with such “earthy” metaphors involving water, birthing, vines, and foods. Here he likens life to the drinking of a kind of water, “eternal”, that sustains one beyond mere mortal years. This leads to a broader conversation about the history of the Jews and Samaritans, but eventually leads to richer relationship between Jesus and this woman, one where she eventually becomes the conduit between Jesus, his message, and the people of Samaria. I find John’s focus on Jesus’ creative use of metaphor in this dialogue especially fascinating and instructive.

            Throughout his Gospel John stresses the creative use of language to display Jesus’ down to earth concern to make a connection between everyday life and spiritual realities. He speaks of the relation between a vine and its branches (chapter 15), water and wine (chapter 2), and his bread as the staff of eternal life (chapter 6). At the Feast of Lights, he referred to himself as the “light of the world” (chapter 8), and so on. Also, in a slightly different vein, Jesus used a foot-washing ritual to focus the crucial role of servanthood in relation to being a follower of his. In chapter 15 Jesus speaks of the coming of the Holy Spirit as the arrival of an “advocate”, a legal metaphor, who will enable his followers to find their way in the world.

I find the author of John’s Gospel to be especially deep when it comes to speaking about how God was, in Paul’s words, “in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” He came not as a magic hero from heaven, but as an especially gifted puzzling being, teaching, loving, and healing those whom he encountered. He was a “person for others, full of grace and truth,” not some sort of Clark Kent.