March 16, 2014
Lent 2
Genesis 12:1-4a
John 3:1-17
(prayer)
Nicodemus is a prominent person in the story of Jesus in the Gospel of John. It is worth noting that this pharisaic member of the Sanhedrin is only mentioned in the fourth gospel - and (in John) only three times:
1. In the encounter we read this morning in chapter 3;
2. In chapter 7, during a Sanhedrin discussion about the popularity of Jesus, Nicodemus noted that the Law requires that people be given a hearing before the are judged.
3. After the crucifixion (chapter 19), Nicodemus is mentioned as being among the people who helped prepare Jesus' body for burial. In fact, Nicodemus is credited with bringing the myrrh and aloe spices.
//
//
//
Typically, I'm not a big fan of Hollywood attempts to tell the Jesus story - because our narrative is complex: it is an amalgam of different unique sources, written to different early churches in different contexts. Screenplay writers usually have to pick one of these gospels as their main source - and then make the hard choices of what to add in from other gospels. For example, the Jesus Movie (which was the product distributed widely in an organized evangelical program about 20 years ago - I have a VHS copy in my desk) was primarily a Luke movie.
Godspell, although filmed in 1970s NYC, is a Matthew Movie.
Jesus Christ Superstar is based on... well, it was just cool with great music. Actually, parts of JCS are quite biblical. I'm not sure if any movie captures the inner struggle of Judas better than JCS.
My favorite, Jésus de Montréal, wasn't really a Jesus movie at all; the updated passion play (kind of based on Mark - when it protrays bible scenes) and the controversy it caused with the archdiocese was merely a metaphor for the state of the authentic theatre scene in an increasingly commercialized arts community. Even so, the resurrection scenes in Jesus of Montreal are (for me) filled with beautiful grace in the same way that Babette's Feast is an artistic representation of communion.
And, of course, Mel Gibson's uber-violent The Passion of the Christ chose to mainly focus on only two or three days of Jesus' life and does little justice to the Jesus known by his disciples.
//
Mark Burnett (Survivor) and his spouse, Roma Downey (Touched by an Angel), have made the most recent attempt at a Jesus movie, with Son of God, which is largely John based. I found it interesting to see some of the reaction to the movie.
· To many in the secular world, it was simply a tired old subject matter that has been done to death (so to speak).
· To religious cynics, the movie was yet another example of an evangelical attempt to shove religion down society's throat.
· Interesting, the progressive Christian community seemed to have a similar cynical reaction - we worried about how theologically palatable the movie would be (especially after Mel Gibson's blood fest).
· Even conservative Christians expressed concerns about what the movie didn't portray. The ultra-conservatives were very disturbed by the lack of any explicit mentions of sacrificial atonement in the movie (Jesus died for sin language). I read some reviews by some conservative bloggers (not all who had even seen the movie) proclaiming that the movie must not be seen. // More moderate conservatives seemed to feel that any advertising for Jesus is good advertising. They recognized (as long as it pointed people to the Bible) that it was okay that the movie took some liberties like expanding the roles of some characters beyond their biblical prominence and combining some biblical events to help the movie flow better - for examine the scene where Jesus calls Peter to be a disciple is a combination of things Jesus is quoted in the Bible of saying to both Peter and Andrew… with a time when all the disciples were in the boat and had a miraculous catch of fish (which in one gospel doesn't even happen until after Jesus is raised from the dead): pure biblical accuracy? no - biblical? kind of. That's nothing new, every movie condenses the script from the original source material. The movie Field of Dreams combined the characters of Ray and his twin brother (Richard) from John Kinsella's book (Shoeless Joe) into one person played by Kevin Costner. And the movie completely ignored the oldest-living Chicago Cub.
All of this internet buzz about the Son of God was enough to peak my curiosity to go see the movie last Sunday evening.
//
You know, it wasn't horrible. It wasn't great, but it wasn't horrible - which by my expectations for Jesus Movies, is high praise. The main actor, Diogo Morgado, portrayed a wonderful kind, hopeful, compassionate Jesus. I appreciated the focus on Jesus’ words and actions from when he was alive more than attempting to try and explain the meaning of his death - like the Bible, Jesus in the movie really doesn’t come to terms with the reality of his fate until the night of his arrest (in the garden, praying “take this cup away from me”), I loved that Mary Magdalene was by Jesus’ side in practically every scene with a word of explanation, and that she was never called a sinner or a prostitute (neither description - of course - are biblical).
I really liked how the context of the Roman Empire’s occupation of Galilee and Judea was shown to affect everyone - in the general population, you get the sense of frustration - hints of revolutionary passion; and to the Temple officials a real fear that the Romans would just shut down the Hebrew Religious practices if there was any serious societal unrest.
Now, the movie frustrated me with its continuation of the pattern of classic Jesus-movie errors - wisemen at the manger; a condemned Jesus forced to carry a full cross (perfectly mitered and rounded off at the edges); having the tomb sealed with a thin, perfectly round stone - ideal for rolling away - although in this movie it seems to have exploded apart. And (of course) the classic tendency to cast Jesus to look like a model - white skin, Euro-North American features, and neatly parted, sandy brown hair that (in practically every scene before his arrest) looks freshly shampooed and blow-dried. To look at him on the screen, you almost expect him to say: “Like, ya know (shake out beautiful locks), if you are poor in spirit, you are totally blessed. I mean, like, you’re gonna get the Kingdom of Heaven!”
//
I’m not sure what theological significance to make of Judas puking up his first communion.
//
//
Anyway, how does this relate to the topics of the day? Well, I liked the way Son of God portrayed Nicodemus. The bible gives us very sketchy details about him and I liked the way the movie tried to make it believable that a member of the Sanhedrin could become a follower of Jesus.
In the movie Nicodemus learns about Jesus from a Pharisaic rabbi from Galilee and so when Jesus comes to Jerusalem, he makes the effort to pay attention. He concurs with some of the concerns that he had heard and he shares information with the high priests and the rest of the council. Nicodemus is encouraged to continue his research and report back anything he learns (as I said earlier, to the high priest, there is perhaps more worry about how the Romans will react to the crowds than the accusations of blasphemy).
The night-time meeting with Jesus (John 3) - in the movie - was part of Nicodemus' clandestine research.
And the audience gets to see the lights start turning on in Nicodemus’ mind as Jesus starts talking about a spiritual rebirth. After that meeting, Nicodemus is vocally opposed to the attempts to arrest Jesus quietly and try him at night (which Nicodemus claims is illegal).
//
The structure of John’s gospel is less chronological than the others - The author of John seems to not care if stories are told out of sequence - for the fourth gospel, the meaning and the impact of the overall story trumps attempts to relay history. For example, the story of Jesus chasing the money changers out of the temple is usually thought of as an event between Palm Sunday and Good Friday - the commotion is often cited as one of the reasons the Romans became concerned about Jesus in his final week. In John, Jesus clears the Temple in chapter 2: right after his first miracle (the turning of water into wine) - long before Holy Week.
The way John tells it, the next story after the wine (and a few short teaching stories) is Nicodemus’ visit.
Why does John do this? This gospel was written long after the other gospels (by some 20+ years in fact). If we assume that the author knows that the early churches are already aware of at least some of these other narratives, we can see that this new gospel is not so much about who Jesus was and what he did, but who Jesus is for the early Christian Church near the turn of the second century and what they believed about the nature of the Risen Christ. All of the gospels are written with Easter in mind from page one, but this is no more obvious than in the Gospel of John.
Having a member of the established religion of Jesus’ people seeing Jesus as having a legitimate place within the line of the faith makes a significant point right at the start of
the gospel narrative. Yes, there will be political and religious opposition to Jesus as the story unfolds, but John makes the point right near the start that this will not be universal.
the gospel narrative. Yes, there will be political and religious opposition to Jesus as the story unfolds, but John makes the point right near the start that this will not be universal.
If a member of the Sanhedrin could see the truth of Jesus’ ministry, then anyone could.
//
So let’s look at what Nicodemus learns. The first half of what we read is the concept of following up our natural birth (which we didn’t control or choose) with a chosen re-birth in the spirit. Nicodemus made the silly mistake of taking Jesus too literally, but after he understood that Jesus was not talking about re-experiencing a natural physical birth, he got the message.
In the Greek text of the New Testament, the word for Spirit [pneuma] is the same word for wind, and… breath (the same is true in Hebrew [ru’ah] and Aramaic [rukah]), Jesus, Nicodemus and the readers of the gospel 60+ years later would hear the word play at work - the spirit is the breath that blows life into us.
likely heard stories of a baby being spanked right after it was born. This was not some form of ‘original sin corporal punishment’ performed by a doctor, but an attempt to force the child to cry – to encourage it to take its first breath. For months, the fetus’ progress towards life is nurtured as part of the child’s mother until the time comes for it to exist as a new person, unique and wonderful.
Regardless of whether you believe that life begins at conception or not, everyone agrees that when there is a first breath life has begun, and we are sustained by a lifetime of new breaths – most of which will be so much a part of who we are that we will take in new oxygen and offer carbon dioxide back without any thought or worry.
Jesus invites Nicodemus (and us) to appreciate the gift that this life is – an expression of the love of God. We are to appreciate the new life that is always before us and to embrace it with hope and faith.
With each new breath, we can wonder at the presence of the Spirit in our midst.
//
The later part of the Nicodemus narrative is one of the most oft quoted passages in the NT - John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
Unfortunately, too many people stop the quote there because what Jesus is saying continues for one more verse - Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
What a shame it is that too many Christians over the years have gone against this passage and claim to be speaking of the Love of God and yet (in the same breath) speak words of harsh judgement. John 3:16-17 is about love and safety (salvation), not love and judgement (condemnation).
//
The Spirit – the wind or breath of God – brings life and love to the whole creation (God so loved the ‘world’ not just Jesus’ disciples or even just the church that would eventually spring up in Jesus’ name; the language is inclusive enough to say not just the human species, but that God loved the whole world - many of us used to sing it in Sunday School “He’s got the whole world in his hands…”).
The spirit brings life and love, but like the wind, it is not ours to control - it blows where it will.
When we accept the life of God as it blows through us and move with it - when we let it become our next breath and take the life it offers in this moment - we share in the love of the world, including the healing of the earth and the restoration of our relations with each other.
As we learn to trust in the movement of the Spirit, we can appreciate that we are blessed and (as importantly) we can become a blessing to others.
That brings up the $64,000 question, doesn’t it? How do we learn to trust in the movement of the Spirit? Perhaps, the attitude we need is the same one we use to manage the movement of air into our lungs: we let ourselves become so used to it, that for the most part, it takes no
conscious effort at all.
conscious effort at all.
Like that first breath that got us going in this world - there may have been need of a little initial coaxing (or like that baby humpbacked whale who is pushed to the surface to take it's first breath) - but most people learn to allow it become so much a part of us that. [I know it is not a perfect metaphor (there is no such thing: as Jesus found out with Nicodemus) - I acknowledge that, sometimes, we need help to draw our physical breaths - there is probably a sermon in that concept too.]
But think about how, when things are working well, we renew our breath millions and millions of times over our life times - without worrying about whether the next breath will be there: we simply accept the breath's gift of life as a wonder of our existence.
So, it is with the Spirit, when we let go into the grace and love of God.
//
Let us pray:
Creating God, you are the divine energy who brought order from chaos, mountains from the depths, living things from the dust of the earth. In the darkness, hidden and unseen, it was you who gave us life and made us flesh, and by the breath of your Spirit brought us to birth. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment