Posts Tagged ‘Nicodemus’

God in three persons

May 25, 2024

Trinity Sunday –  2024

John 3:1-17

Marian Free

 

In the name of God, Source of life, Sharer of our humanity, Fire in our hearts.  Amen.

 

Have you ever wondered about the gospel readings set for Trinity Sunday. In Year A (this year) the reading set for the day is Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus which appears to have little to tell us. In Year B the gospel consists of Jesus’ commission to the disciples in which Jesus commands the disciples to baptise in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Year C gives us a reading from John which is part of the reading for Pentecost Sunday (read last week). Here in his teaching on the Spirit of truth, Jesus also refers to the Father – all three members of the Trinity are present.

 

It is difficult to develop a theology of the Trinity from these references. Indeed, it is difficult to find a direct reference to the Trinity in the New Testament. There are hints and allusions on which theologians later built a doctrine, but, apart from Matthew 28 and 2 Corinthians 13:13, there are no specifically Trinitarian statements. Given that there are no direct references to the Trinity, the lectionary struggles to find gospel readings for Trinity Sunday. Jesus doesn’t provide any teaching on this subject. He merely suggests that the nature of the one God is Triune. Unlike St Patrick Jesus  doesn’t reach for a three-leafed clover to make his point. He leaves it to the early church to make sense of his language about himself, God and the Holy Spirit.

 

That said, theologians were not working in a vacuum when they developed the concept of a God in three persons. In Romans 8 for example, Paul speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit interchangeably if they were one and the same entity. Likewise John’s gospel refers to the Father, Son and Spirit as if they are one and the same. In the fourth gospel Jesus iterates over and over again that he and the Father are one. When the Spirit is formally introduced it is clear that the Spirit is indistinguishable from Jesus. So, without using the explicit language of the Trinity the early church clearly thought of God in Trinitarian terms. That is, while believers remained monotheistic, they were able to think of this one God as three persons.

 

As I’ve suggested, finding a gospel reading that is specifically Trinitarian has its difficulties and at first glance it is not easy to see what the story of Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus has to add. Holly Hearon sheds some light on this. She states: ‘The Gospel of John is rich with language exploring the relationship between God, the Son and the Holy Spirit.’ She continues: ‘it’s goal however is not to establish doctrine; it is to tell a story about God’s love for the world. In the story of Nicodemus, the language of God, Son, and Spirit reveals unity of purpose in the full expression of God’s interaction with the world.’

 

The encounter between Nicodemus and Jesus exposes the former’s complete lack of comprehension about the nature of Jesus, about the religious experience and about the nature of God. As Jesus makes clear, despite being a teacher of Israel, Nicodemus has a limited, intellectual, earthly understanding of God.  Nicodemus’ faith is not informed by or energised by the Spirit, it is head-based not heart-based. He has recognised that Jesus is empowered by God but he has failed to understand that Jesus is God and he has no understanding of the Spirit, and no concept that a relationship with God requires a complete transformation, a willingness to be reformed and renewed, a desire to hand over one’s heart and one’s head.

 

By using the imagery of rebirth, Jesus reveals the possibility of fully immersing oneself in heavenly (spiritual/Godly) things, of entering the kingdom of heaven while remaining on earth and of forgoing intellectual understanding for the possibility of being informed by the Spirit. At the same time, Jesus indirectly reveals the threefold nature of God. All three members of the Godhead are actively involved here. God is a given, Jesus reveals God and the Spirit enlivens and equips.

 

As is the way with John’s gospel, we are left wanting more. Jesus reveals more than can be absorbed so early in the gospel, Nicodemus exposes his partial understanding and we have been given a tantalising glimpse of the threefold nature of God.

 

Perhaps this is how it should be. Tomes have been written with a goal of establishing the doctrine of the Trinity, but this tantalising glimpse gives us all that we need to enter into a relationship with the One whom we know as Source of life, Sharer of our humanity and Fire in our hearts. God who enters into our very being and brings us to new birth.

 

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in John's Gospel, Trinity | Comments Off on God in three persons

Not seeing the wood for the trees – John 3

March 4, 2023

Lent 2 – 2023
John 3:1-17
Marian Free

In the name of God who cannot be confined or contained by our limited imaginations. Amen.

During the last week, Bishop Jeremy posted the following on Facebook: “How would the Church deal with the phrase ‘the cat sat on the mat’ if it appeared in the Bible?
The liberal theologians would point out that such a passage did not of course mean that the cat literally sat on the mat. Also, cat and mat had different meanings in those days from today, and anyway, the text should be interpreted according to the customs and practices of the period.
This would lead to an immediate backlash from the more fundamental wing. They would make an essential condition of faith that a real physical, living cat, being a domestic pet of the Felix Domesticus species, and having a whiskered head and furry body, four legs and a tail, did physically place its whole body on a floor covering, designed for that purpose, and which is on the floor but not of the floor. The expression “on the floor but not off the floor” would be explained in a leaflet.” (Methodically Reordered) It continued with suggestions for the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and for the C of E.

That would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. Whenever there is debate within or between churches, there is a tendency to fall into the trap of focussing on a single detail, rather than exploring the broader picture.

This is particularly true when it comes to our reading of John’s gospel and chapter three, which we have just heard, is a good example of the temptation to focus on a single point instead of trying to discover how this chapter, (how Nicodemus) fits into the gospel as a whole. Like much of John’s gospel, chapter three is dense and includes many different points of interest – being born again, snakes on poles, our most loved scriptural quote and commentary on the contrast between those who choose the light and those who choose the dark. It is easy for a preacher (or reader) to focus on one small sub-theme, rather than to look at the chapter in its entirety, let alone to examine its relationship to the gospel as a whole. (Many of us are very familiar with the imagery of being born again, but know less about the rest of the chapter.)

John is unique among the gospels. Not only is the content very different from the Synoptic gospels but so too is the way in which the gospel is written. The author of the fourth gospel is very explicit as to his purpose: “these [things] are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the anointed, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name” (Jn 20 31). In order to achieve this goal, the author of John’s gospel employs a number of literary techniques that are intended to draw the readers into a deeper relationship with Jesus.

Among the strategies that John uses are the following. Symbolism. Many of the words and phrases in the gospel have more than one meaning – bread of life, light of the world and so on. Dualism or contrasts. The author of the gospel presents two different forms of existence between which listeners must choose – light/dark, life/death, spirit/flesh, above/below. Dialogue and discourse. In the Synoptic gospels, Jesus’ teaching is presented as sayings or parables. In the fourth gospel, teaching occurs through discussion or through a speech. That is, Jesus draws another person into conversation – which causes bewilderment, but which through the course of the conversation may lead to deeper understanding on the part of the conversation partner. (Think for example of his. conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well – chapter 4.) At other times, a question might lead to a longer discourse such as we see after the feeding of the five thousand when Jesus launches into a dissertation on the meaning of bread (chapter 6).

Repetition of issues, themes and even characters. This has the effect of keeping certain ideas in front of the reader or enabling the elaboration of a theme over the course of the gospel. (When a character reappears, his or her role in the overall story is what is important, not who they are as a person.) In the case of the Beloved Disciple his repeated appearances reveal his similarity to Jesus, and mean that we are not at all surprised when he is asked to take Jesus’ place as Mary’s son.

Coming to faith. Whether it is through discussion with or exposure to Jesus, whether it is immediate or gradual, the various characters in the gospel move from bewilderment to understanding, from inquisitiveness to faith OR from scepticism to unbelief.

Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus provides an illustration of these techniques. This is why it is important to see the chapter as a whole and not to be distracted by detail (to be worried about what sort of cat is sitting on what sort of mat).

In this chapter, we see that Nicodemus coming to Jesus at night – the darkness symbolising ignorance and revealing Nicodemus’ fear of discovery. Nicodemus’ confusion begins a dialogue with Jesus and also provides a teaching opportunity for Jesus – primarily about the distinctions between flesh and spirit, light and dark and above and below. Nicodemus aopears twice more. In chapter 7 his role is to illustrate the division between the Jews (and to let us think that he is on Jesus’ side – he has moved towards belief. His third and last appearance is at the tomb where he provides 100 pounds of ointments to prepare Jesus’ body for burial and at the same time fulfills a legal need for there to be two witnesses to the fact that Jesus was buried. Overall then, Nicodemus provides an illustration of a person who moves from indifference and confusion, through neutrality, to commitment and understanding.

In this and every gospel, the detail is important, but so too is the overarching theme, the broad sweep of the story, a story that is intended to bring the readers to faith in Jesus and through faith to life in Jesus’ name. In the end, we don’t want to be guilty of not seeing the wood for the trees, of allowing the detail to obscure the complete picture.

Instead of nit-picking about the details (arguing about the cat on the mat, about gay marriage, about candles and robes, about prayer books. and hymnals), we as Christians, as church, should try to focus on the big picture – God’s love for us and God’s saving action through Jesus. When we grasp this, everything else will fall into place.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in John's Gospel, Lent | 2 Comments »

Seeing people for what they are

March 14, 2020

Lent 3 – 2020

John 4:5-42

Marian Free

In name of God who knows us, affirms us and trusts us. Amen.

During the course of my lifetime I have heard more than one exposition of this amazing encounter between Jesus and the woman of Samaria. My first memory is of a church camp that I attended in my teens. On this occasion, the account was used as an illustration of mission. The person leading the study pointed out that it was Jesus accepted the woman as she was and it was he who initiated the conversation. The study leader suggested that if we wanted to bring people to faith that we should take this as our example. Later, in the Eighties, when we began to try to identify the role of women in the early community, scholars picked up on the the unusual nature of the meeting between Jesus and the woman. It was pointed out that the woman must have been an outcast from her own society if she was coming to the well in the middle of the day. When Jesus asked the woman for water, Jesus broke a number of religious boundaries – he was speaking to a woman, who was also a Samaritan, and a sinner AND he was also suggesting that he share a utensil with her – all  of which were not only forbidden by Hebrew law but which would result in Jesus’ being ritually unclean.

At the same time scholars made an effort to rehabilitate the woman from the perception that she was a prostitute or a woman of loose morals. It was speculated that she was a victim of circumstances and this, not her impropriety, was the reason that she had had five husbands and was currently living with someone to whom she was not married. Had she, it was asked, been passed from one brother to another as husband after husband died – like the woman in the Sadducees’ question about  the resurrection (Luke 20:27f for eg)? Or, was she a victim of domestic violence who had been forced to flee for her life only to seek shelter in the arms of yet another abuser? Perhaps, it has been suggested, the five husbands are merely symbolic. In which case the woman could represent Samaria and the five husbands the nations whom the Assyrians brought in to settle the region when they conquered it in 721 B.C.E. (see 2 Kings 17:24).  It is also possible that the woman’s broken marriage was a symbol for the breach of covenant between the northern kingdom (that included Samaria) as God (a breach described as divorce in Hosea).[i]

It  is not by accident that Jesus’ meeting with the woman follows directly after that between Nicodemus and Jesus. The juxtaposition of the two encounters brings out a number of striking contrasts. Nicodemus meets with Jesus secretly, under cover of darkness whereas Jesus’ meeting with the woman of Samaria takes place in the full light of the day. Even though there is no audience (at first) the interaction between Jesus and the woman is out in the open. There is no secrecy here, no fear of being exposed. Furthermore, the two characters could not be more different. Karoline Lewis points out: “Nicodemus is a Pharisee, an insider, a leader of the Jews. He is a man, he has a name, but he comes to Jesus by night. The woman is a Samaritan, a religious and political outsider. She has no name and it is Jesus who comes to her, not at night, but at noon, in full daylight.” Despite his understanding that Jesus comes from God, Nicodemus remains confused and unbelieving after the encounter. He cannot move beyond his traditional way of thinking. The Samaritan, who does not have Nicodemus’ advantages and her different faith background, is equal to Jesus in debate yet she remains open to what Jesus has to say. Because Nicodemus is bound by tradition, he cannot acknowledge that Jesus is God. Contrast this with the woman who hears Jesus say, “I AM” (4:26) the name of God utters to Moses through the burning bush. Nicodemus’ question exposes his disbelief. The woman’s question leads not only her, but the the whole village to faith:  “He cannot be the Christ, can he?”

The contrast between the two encounters suggests that we need not worry about the woman’s background or about the symbolism (though they play a part in the story). What is important, or so it seems to me, is that the woman (despite her apparent disadvantages) is not a victim and nor does she appear to see herself as such. She is a woman of character, confidence and strength. Not only is she prepared to challenge Jesus on matters of religion but she is able to convince the people of her town that they should come someone who has, “told me everything I have ever done”.

Jesus sees beyond gender, colour, race, religion, status, income and education. He affirms, encourages, empowers and commissions the most unlikely of people. He challenges us to see beyond the externals and to follow his lead in identifying a person’s strengths and capacities rather than confine them to socially engineered norms.

[i] Other imagery may be significant including that of Jacob’s well which in Hebrew lore represented the patriarchs but which also alluded to betrothals – especially that of Jacob and Rebekah.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in John's Gospel | Comments Off on Seeing people for what they are

Imperfect though we are, we are part of God’s story

March 11, 2017

Lent 2 – 2017

John 3:1-17

Marian Free

In the name of God overlooks all our shortcomings and believes that we have the potential to develop and grow. Amen.

As I said at Rodney’s farewell, none of us will forget Christina the Astonishing – who rose from her coffin and ascended to the ceiling of the church because she couldn’t stand the stench of human sin. Our hagiographies (our stories of saints) are filled with examples of apparently ordinary people who do extraordinary things or who bravely endure unbearable suffering. Think of Joan of Arc who not only led the armies of France in the 100 year war against England, but who with great courage faced being burned at the stake for heresy. Or of Francis of Assisi who gave up comfort, wealth and security to live a life of poverty. Or of Catherine of Alexander whose torture on a cartwheel gave the name to a whirling firework.

In our own time we have the examples of Mother Teresa who gave up everything and who untiringly worked with and for the poor and abandoned on the streets of India. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who saw the evil of the Third Reich and chose to risk his life to confront it. May Hayman and other New Guinea martyrs who chose to stay with their communities in the face of the Japanese advance in WWII rather than return home. Or Janani Luwum who was murdered by Idi Amin simply because he was an Anglican Archbishop.

While some of us might aspire to reach such exalted heights or believe that if it came to it that we would be prepared to give ourselves, our lives for our faith, most of us I suspect do not think that we will come anywhere near the deeds and courage of these and many other holy men and women.

The good news is that we do not have to be perfect to be part of God’s on-going story. We will encounter a number of characters during Lent who will prove that to be true. Nicodemus who is too afraid to meet Jesus openly, the woman who has had five husbands, the parents of the blind man, and the sisters of Lazarus who thought that Jesus had left his visit too late. These flawed, timid, unbelieving people have made it into the story of Jesus, into our Holy Scriptures despite, or perhaps because they are not perfect.

In John’s gospel Nicodemus is the first flawed person whom we meet. He is a leader of the Pharisees – a member of that sect within Judaism that placed weight on the oral tradition when it came to the interpretation of the law. There is a great deal of ambiguity in the account of the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus, but a few things stand out. In John’s gospel, the Pharisees are depicted as the enemies of Jesus. Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night that is at a time when no one can see him. We can’t be sure if this is because he is curious, or afraid or whether he has come to challenge or outsmart Jesus on a point of law or to learn from him. What we do know is that Jesus doesn’t turn his back.

Another element to the story is the imagery of night and darkness both of which are important symbols for the author of John’s gospel. If we read to the end of the chapter this becomes blatantly clear. Jesus says: “All who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed.” (3:21) In John’s gospel as elsewhere night symbolises “unbelief or the wrong kind of belief” and darkness (the opposite of light) represents the forces that oppose Jesus.

That Nicodemus comes at night suggests that he opposes Jesus or at the very least is an unbeliever. Apparently, he cannot see beyond the superficial, he is blinded by what he thinks he knows. He is stuck , he knows that there is something different about Jesus but his own training and expectations do not allow him to see what it is ,nor do they allow him to really comprehend what Jesus is saying.

This does not mean that Jesus rejects him or refuses to speak to him. Jesus sees not the timorous, unbelieving Nicodemus, but the potential for growth and understanding. The double meanings in Jesus’ conversation are intended to open Nicodemus’ eyes, to help him to see the distinction between the purely earthly and the spiritual. Like all of us, Nicodemus can choose to turn his life over to Jesus, to begin on a fresh page, to enter into a spiritual existence. Jesus does not judge or condemn Nicodemus, he does not refuse to engage in conversation and most importantly he does not dismiss or deride him, instead Jesus gives him the opportunity to see the world from another point of view.

Jesus does not reject or dismiss Nicodemus and we can be sure that he will not reject or dismiss us.

Last week we learned that love liberates us to be truly ourselves. Today we discover that we do not have to be perfect to be a part of God’s story. When we know that we do not have to be flawless we are set free to accept ourselves as we really are. If we accept who we really are, we can be authentic, stop pretending and recognise that we have nothing to hide. This in turn will enable us to let go of feelings of inadequacy or a lack of self-worth. We will discover that this in itself is healing and will create a more honest and open relationship with God that will deepen our faith and lead to our being born from above..

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in John's Gospel, Lent | Comments Off on Imperfect though we are, we are part of God’s story