John 6 and lightbulbs

What do those two have in common?  Well it happened today and the look from the front of the room was priceless as nearly 20 faces, eyes, mouths, and heads moved in sudden recognition as if I had run some kind of psychology test with electric wires connected to their seats.  How, you ask, did that happen?  It wasn't planned I can tell you that much.

We began John 6 with the traditional, boring introduction such as "to my knowledge more books have been written about John 6 than any other single chapter in the Gospel," and "John 6 is one of the most important passages in the entire Gospel."  These preparatory remarks were followed by an outline indicating the flow of the chapter: miracle, transition, water, transition, discourse in 3 parts, response.  Then we began looking at 6.1-13. I worked my way through the themes of the section in perfunctory fashion: the multitude, they were following him because of his signs on the sick and the relationship to John 5. Then I introduced the Passover and the idea that Jesus wasn't in Jerusalem this time, as he should have been. But neither were the multitude!

Then somewhere out of the blue I asked a simple question: "Why is Philip mentioned?" That led to another question, "What was the context of Philip's previous appearance." Within about 10 seconds the faces at tables, previously trying not to look bored, sleepy, or otherwise preoccupied at 1:20 pm on a beautiful, sunny Friday afternoon in March started to be illuminated!  Someone said something about Nathaniel, another 'the one about whom Moses wrote' and that was all it took.  I didn't have to say a word, they knew and recognized on their own in wonderfully magical amazement that this event was relating Jesus to Moses.

It may have helped that they had just written their 6th paper of the semester, this one on chapter two of my book Moses as a Character in the Fourth Gospel, but they learned.  Information that was randomly placed inside their cerebral cortex (or some other more technically described location) suddenly collided and a new trail was forged between disparate pieces of knowledge. LEARNING had taken place, in far more potent form than anything I could have planned.

The lightbulbs were floodlights!

Waiting with baited breath.

I know all 9 of my readers are waiting with baited breath for a report on what I learned from my class today regarding their assignment to read with new eyes.  I am too!  Out of 20 students, 3 admitted to actually doing the assignment, 3 were not there on Wednesday and most acted as if they couldn't recall the instructions!!!  Was I surprised? No.  Was I disappointed? No. Why not?  Well, as the parable says, you can lead a horse to water . . .

Learning is a personal trait.  Even today as I provided, in my terms, a tantalizing analysis of Jn 5:31-47 and the critical relationship of several of the points to previous elements of the Gospel account, they didn't really learn.  If anyone learned, it was I. By teaching the elements, I was reinforcing my own previous learning.  Some took notes through pencil or iPad.  My words may come back to haunt me in the future, as they have in the past. But I am not certain that any of them learned in the 50 minutes I engaged with them.  I can hope, I can pray, I can even anticipate that someone did.  But only they can indicate that they learned by processing change in their thinking, believing, and acting.

So here is to learning.  May we all take it to heart!

Reading Between the Lines, or not?

What happens when you change how you read?  Now I don't mean that you begin to obtain visual images through your left or right ear, although that may actually help.  But what happens when you change how you process information?  I suppose that I may be preempting, but that is exactly what I asked my class to do yesterday, to read with new information.  How did I get there, you might ask?  Let me describe it.

Looking at John 5:19-30 and breaking it into various sections (boring to repeat here) uncovered a chiastic patten that revolves around various themes.  Every theme is repeated except for what I called A5.  (Someone else may also have called it A5 but I think I broke it down myself for the class without consulting any other text).  By theory, A5 should be critical for understanding the passage.  The problem is that it is stuck in the middle and so forgotten by those who read all the way through, and never noticed by those who just glance over the passage.  But it is still critical.

So I asked my class to go home and read John 5:31-47 with A5 in mind.  I want them to tell me what a difference it makes when they read differently.  Unfortunately, I won't know until tomorrow.  So, I'll let you also do the assignment.  Read John 5:31-47 with A5 in mind, "in order that everyone might honor the Son just as they honor the Father. The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent the Son."

What happens when you change how you read?  Any comments?

The Problem with (Un)Voiced Assumptions

What happens when you ask a relatively obvious question in a room where everyone is under a false assumption?  Well, usually not what one would expect.  Consider the scenario, a crowded room, many tables and chairs with not one available. Other people milling around, standing, leaning on the wall or room pillars, while there is a gentle haze above their heads from the exhaust of their breath. Throughout the crowd, uniformed attendees pass seeking to provide service in exchange for payment.  From outside one single word is heard, "FIRE."

What happens next?  That depends on whether you the reader assumes that the crowd hears a noun or a verb.  If a noun, the room will empty as people rush madly for the exits.  If a verb, the room will be a mad rush of falling bodies trying to get on the floor as quickly as possible.  The assumption predicates the response.

In class this week the question was asked, How did Jesus know that the man had been lying there a long time? The first voiced response was the typical Sunday School answer that originates in a semi-gnostic view of Jesus, "Because He was God."  While that may be part of the response, there are other possibilities if the respondent will only change their assumptions.

First Assumption: Jesus had never been to Jerusalem before.  With this assumption in mind, it is only possible for Jesus to know this fact from divine knowledge.

Second Assumption: Jesus was a law practicing Jew who went to Jerusalem throughout his lifetime in accordance with the customs of the festival celebrations.  With this in mind, it is entirely possible that Jesus had encountered the man before this time.

Third Assumption: The accounts of the miracles are only there to provide reports of actual, historical events.  With this assumption in mind, the reader misses the entire message of John 5, that Jesus is not threatened by external factors that could affect his ritual purity through association with pollutants. Nor is Jesus limited by the restrictions of the cultural practices of Sabbath.  Instead, Jesus enters the Temple compound in complete control of his surroundings, his actions, and his behaviors, so that those who are limited by cultural restrictions are unable to recognize what they have encountered.

SO then, what assumptions of cultural restrictions are preventing you from the encountering the  Jesus of the Gospels?