John 11, Martha or Mary?

As I am hurriedly marching through John 10-13, it is making me focus on what I deem to be critical elements that need clarification.  In class I asked the simple question, "whom do you prefer, Martha or Mary?" Poor Martha, only one or two students timidly raised their hands. Mary seems to be the sister we have been conditioned to favour. (Yes that is the British spelling, but I chose to use it despite the Google spelling helper).  There is nothing wrong with the account in Luke 10.  It is a 'nice' story that fits Luke's presentation of Jesus' life.  Indeed, the first Google hit for Martha and Mary story is the Luke 10 passage. gbgm-umc.org starts with this "Luke's story, though only four verses long, has been a complex source of inspiration, interpretation, and debate for centuries. John's story, which says the sisters had a brother named Lazarus, spans seventy verses." Perhaps this fact alone should cause us to question our preference for SPIN and PHOTO OPS for a valid presentation of someone's character????  I digress.

Evidently the class had been indoctrinated into Lukan portraits to the extent that their reading of John 11 in preparation for class could not change their opinion??? (yes, that is a bit of sarcasm since when I mention having read in class they avert their eyes from making contact!!) In John's Gospel Martha and Mary are presented IDENTICALLY in their initial response to Jesus when he arrives at Bethany (11:21 & 32).  In order to drive out the Lukan dominance from the room I slightly (maybe more than slightly) elevated my voice to read 11:25-27, where 27 is translated interestingly by the NLT “Yes, Lord,” she told him. “I have always believed you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one who has come into the world from God.” (Thanks to Biblia.com!) 

After a brief exposition of the importance of these word in the mouth of Martha instead of Peter (again a synoptic influence) the student preferences changed dramatically.  Point of all this?  What you read influences how you think. 


 Thanks for reading.

John 9, a second look

After working through the obvious contrasts of the Pharisees and the blind man, new sight brings out the depth of the passage. One of the themes introduced is that this man is blind in order that "the works of God" might be revealed/displayed in him.  The typical reader of this passage will find a way to associate the words "the works of God" with a mental image based on their experience and perhaps take this to mean that he is blind so that Jesus can perform a miracle. The astute reader will not reach that conclusion!
The astute, informed reader will remember that "the works of God" is a theme that has previously been introduced in this gospel. In 6:26-30 Jesus engages in answering this question to a less than astute audience. His answer in 6:28 identifies the "work of God" as believing in the one God sent.  If this is the case, then the man is born blind so that belief in the one God sent will occur.
The question becomes, in the words of the disciples, 'who sinned, this man or his parents?' Jesus' response to the disciples that echoes throughout the ages remains the same, those under the power of sin are in such a condition so that they might believe in the one whom God sent?

Is that an appropriate understanding of sin? Sin is unbelief, people have only one way to go when they are under the power of sin, that is to burst its bonds and in a victorious shout yell, "MY DEBT IS PAID", "I BELIEVE IN THE ONE WHOM GOD SENT!"  Jesus is the victorious one, should our reading of the Bible not transform our thinking?

John 9 and "Be careful what you think!"

A brief outline of John 9 places the Disciples' question and Jesus' response in 9:1-5 in parallel with the Pharisees' question and Jesus' response in 9:40-41.  In short here are the two questions:
1) Teacher, who sinned to cause this man to be born blind, the man or his parents?
2) Surely you don't think that we are blind, do you?

Here are the two responses:
1) This man was born blind to cause the works of God to be revealed through him
2) If you were blind you wouldn't have any sin, but you have sin because you say that you see.

It appears to me that the teaching of this passage is relatively simple.  It revolves around the concept of reality.  Reality TV is anything but real.  Reality is admitting to the state of affairs as they actually are, not as we want them to be or think that they are.  Reality is when the perspective of God becomes the lens through which all things are seen.

We have two main characters here, the blind man (whom everyone but Jesus characterized as somehow being under the power of sin) and the Pharisees (whom everyone but Jesus characterized as not being under the power of sin).  In the eyes of Jesus the blind man was not under the power of sin because he willing permitted God to work through him while the Pharisees were under the power of sin (I am repetitive here but I can't presume that everyone can complete a parallel thought) because they would not allow the works of God to be revealed in them.

If that is the case, does it change how you think about sin?