I Finished the Work

            In the synoptic gospels Jesus’ healings and exorcisms are called dúnamis. English versions translate this term as “wonder”, “virtue”, “miracle”. The Greek word means “strength”, “power”. The words “dynamo” and “dynamite” are derived from it.

            In According to Mark we also read that the Pharisees, wishing to test Jesus, asked him for a “sign from heaven”. Finding himself under attack, Jesus quite disturbed said: “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation” (8: 11). Apparently, his visit to Dalmanutha consisted of this brief and terse encounter. On the other side of the Sea of Galilee Jesus had fed four thousand with seven loaves of bread and a few fishes. We do not know whether the people of Dalmanutha knew about the miracle. Of course, the fact that the Pharisees were “testing” or “tempting” Jesus by asking for a sign from heaven may explain Jesus’ sharp negation. That they sought a sign, a semeia, and not a dúnamis, does tell us something. It would seem that a distinction is being made between a demonstration of power and a sign.

            This saying of Jesus is also recorded, under different circumstances, in According to Matthew 12: 39 – 40 and in According to Luke 11:29. In these versions of the saying Jesus makes an exception: “but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Johan” (Mt. 12: 39). In According to Luke the context gives the impression that the sign of Jonah is that of the preacher who announces judgment to Gentiles. According to Matthew points out that Jonah survived three days in the sea protected by a great fish used by God for this purpose. Of course, the sea is the source and the power of evil and death. In the apocalyptic literature the powers that rise against God come from the sea. Here it says that, like Jonah in the belly of the great fish in the midst of the sea, the Son of Man is to spend three days protected by God “in the heart of the earth”. The sign of Jonah, evidently, has to do with his death and resurrection.

            In the gospel According to John the miracles of Jesus are not called dúnamis, but semeia. They are signs. We already noticed in a previous column that the transformation of water into wine is identified as the first sign. In the second half of this chapter (2: 13 – 22), Jesus makes a great demonstration of power expelling from the temple the merchants and money changers. The reaction of “the Jews” is to ask, “What sign have you to show us for doing this?” Jesus’ answer is: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Another Johannine saying with double meaning that is misunderstood. The narrator explains, “But he spoke of the temple of his body.” He then says that the disciples remembered this saying when he was raised from the dead. This would seem to be a different version of what in According to Matthew is presented as the sign of Jonah. In this case, the details show that by asking for a sign “the Jews” were revealing their blindness before the sign they had witnessed. But in both cases the request for a sign is answered by a reference to his passage through the realm of death.

            In According to Mark the miracles (dúnamis) are demonstrations of power that cause the witnesses to recognize that their doer has a special connection with God. In the Old Testament there are prophets who distinguished themselves more for their miracles than for their oracles. The best example is Elisha. Jesus is recognized as a prophet because he performs miracles in the tradition of Elijah and Elisha. The Jewish literature of Jesus’ times tells of contemporaneous thaumaturges who also actualized this tradition.

            In According to John, however, the whole narrative is an argument that Jesus is not a prophet, a human being with a double portion of the Spirit and a special connection with God. He does not perform miracles. He gives signs. The difference is to be noticed. The miracle has significance in itself. The sign points to what is important. In According to Mark the expulsion of the merchants from the temple causes the chief priests to decide to kill Jesus. The story is framed by the cursing of the fig tree, the symbol of Israel (11: 12 – 22). In According to John the expulsion of the merchants has nothing to do with the decision to kill him. It signals to a change of the cosmic center (the temple) from a building in Jerusalem to the body of the Risen One. It is a sign that points to the new life of the one who will spend three days “in the heart of the earth”. It is the sign of Jonah.

            As the transformation of water into wine means the transformation of the religion of rites to the religion of life, the expulsion of the merchants means the transformation of a material cosmos into a spiritual one. A new temple is a new cosmos. The relationship of human beings with God from now on takes place in a structure different from the temple of Jerusalem. Both signs point to the radical transformation of the universe in which human beings live thanks to the glorification of the Son of Man.

            In According to John the signs are not intended to cause the witnesses to believe that Jesus is a prophet with supernatural powers that allow him to communicate the word of God or to do things that break the limits of nature. He is not a wonder worker. He gives signs, and their function is to bring about the recognition of the crucified as the glorified, the only one who has ascended to heaven because he is also the only one who descended from heaven. Informing his Father that he has fulfilled his mission, Jesus declares that his disciples “know in truth that I came from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me” (17: 8).

            The signs point to THE SIGN. The crucifixion and the resurrection, the events of the three days, comprise the object needed by faith, and as such the way by which the Son returns to the Father, and the way in which those of faith live in the presence of God. On this account the narrator, conscious that the cross and the life of the Risen One change the cosmic reality, explains: “When therefore he was raised from the dead, the disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed” (2: 22). Was it impossible to believe in Him before the resurrection? -- that is, to believe that he was the one sent by the Father, the one who descended from heaven.

            We are told that the signs were meant to produce faith, even if indirectly. The transformation of water into wine, identified as the first sign, caused the disciples to believe (2: 11). The expulsion of the merchants from the temple, when later remembered, caused the disciples to believe (2: 22). The healing of the Roman official from Capernaum, identified as the second sign, caused the official and his household to believe (4: 53). At the end of the gospel the narrator affirms that he provided enough signs to cause the readers to believe (20: 30). For the members of the Johannine community, surely, the signs were arrows that pointed to “the third day”. Those who see the “sign of Jonah” are true disciples.

            Obviously, however, before his glorification on the cross (I can’t think of a greater oxymoron), the signs were ambiguous. They did not automatically produce faith. The narrative of this gospel is characterized, among other things, by not introducing the reader to the story little by little, opening up the plot and its meaning in a way that the reader can reasonably follow to the desired conclusion. The way the material is here presented, from the very beginning the reader must have full knowledge of the symbolic universe of the plot if understanding of the story is to be gained at all. Only those who believe that the crucified has been glorified by the Father can see the signs for what they are.

            The consequence of the expulsion of the merchants from the temple was that “many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did” (2: 23). The narrator warns us, however, that Jesus did not trust their faith (2: 24 – 25), and Nicodemus, who comes to Jesus attracted by the signs but in the night so as not to be seen by “the Jews”, is their representative. He recognizes that only one who has a special connection with God can perform them (3: 2). When Jesus instructs him not to give importance to earthly things (miracles), however, Nicodemus becomes disoriented, asks “How can this be?” (3: 9), and disappears into the night from whence he came. “Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe” (6: 64).

Later in the story we read that a multitude was following Jesus because they had seen signs and healings, and therefore declared him to be “a prophet” (6: 2 -4). This reaction, undoubtedly, is not sufficient. After the raising of Lazarus, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council concerned by the fact that “this man performs many signs” (11: 47). Their decision, of course, was not to believe. Rather, they decided to kill him.

            Those who joyously receive him in Jerusalem, while the authorities are seeking to kill him, have been influenced by the sign of the raising of Lazarus (12: 18). They had heard of his resurrection and wished to see him as he was coming to Jerusalem with Jesus (12: 9). The chief priests now planned to put Lazarus also to death (12: 10). The curiosity of the multitude, for sure, was not faith.

            As in chapter six so also in chapter twelve we read that the signs do not produce faith. Chapter six begins reporting that “a multitude followed him because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased” (6: 2). Jesus reproves those who ate of the bread and the fish on the other side of the Sea of Galilee and followed him to Capernaum, declaring, “You seek me not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves” (6: 26). Their reaction to the miraculous feeding was to wish to make him king (6: 14 – 15), a misguided endeavor. Of those who know of Lazarus’ resurrection and receive Jesus triumphantly into Jerusalem, the narrator comments that even though Jesus had done “so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him” (12: 37).

            To give the picture another twist, According to John says that Jesus told those who did not believe in him that at least they should believe in his “works” (erga), again avoiding the word miracle, or wonder (dúnamis). His works give testimony of who he is. In his heated polemic with “the Jews”, Jesus affirms, “The works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness to me” (10: 25). “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?” (10: 32). “If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, . . . believe the works” (10: 37 – 38). It would seem, then, that the works, like the signs, produce the opposite of what is intended.

            In his Farewell Discourse, Jesus explains to his disciples that the reason why “the Jews” hate both him and his Father is because they have seen his works. If they had not seen his works, they would be without sin, but because they have seen the works he does in his Father’s name, they are condemned (15: 24). This judgment, however, leaves us somewhat perplexed because in this gospel it is made clear that only those whom the Father has delivered into his hand can come to him. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (6: 44). And those who have been delivered to him by his Father cannot be snatched out of his hand (10: 28 – 29). The narrator also tells us that those who saw the signs did not believe so that the Scripture might be fulfilled (15: 25). If this is the case, how can those who do not believe be held responsible?

            When “the Jews” accuse him of breaking the Sabbath by ordering the paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda to carry home his bed after having been healed, Jesus informs them that the Father shows the Son everything he does, “and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel” (5: 20). The greater works he does perform is that of giving life and of judging, two exclusive divine prerogatives (5: 21 – 30). Both works are accomplished by Jesus when he provides on the cross the object of faith.

            The ministry of Jesus reaches its climax in his final prayer. In it Jesus affirms, “I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do” (17: 4). He had long before announced to his disciples by the well of Jacob, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work” (4: 34)). That he did accomplish the will of the Father who sent him is confirmed by the last word pronounced by Jesus on the cross, “Tetélestai” (“It is finished”, 19: 30). That is, it has been accomplished. His signs do not make prominent the virtues, the powers of a thaumaturge. They signal the consummation of his work, which he described as his food, what sustained his life. His work was consummated when Jesus was lifted up, on the third day, on the cross.

            It is, therefore, somewhat disconcerting to read the promise Jesus makes to those who believe in him: “He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and even greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father” (14: 12). The work of Jesus was to enact the sign of Jonah by living to do the will of God, something that Jonah had much difficulty in understanding and accepting. At the end he was able to truthfully say “It is finished”. What greater work can be done by the one who believes in him? I don’t think the members of the Johannine community supposed that they would be performing greater miracles (dúnamis). Aparently, they saw themselves as witnesses to The Truth whose hour would also come. At that time they would have to work out the sign that points to the work of the one glorified on the cross. Their food, what sustained their lives, was the determination to transpose the words that Jesus had spoken to them into life giving works. For them, his words were “spirit and life” (6: 63) when incarnated into their lives. They were to give signs that called attention to the one who was for three days in “the heart of the earth”. In the lives of the faithful the connection of their works to the sign of Jonah was not to be ambiguous.

Deliss Charo - Thu, 01/12/2012 - 13:14

Harold,

Why did you reference the gospels as According to Matthew or According to John? You didn't use the usual Book of John or John or The Gospel According to John. I might not have thought much of it, but you wrote the titles in AP style which indicates you're actually referring to a book of the Bible called According to Matthew. This is why initially I thought you were referencing a book other than the gospel of John. What was your reason for this unusual way of referencing the gospels?

Tom Zwemer - Thu, 01/12/2012 - 13:19

Herold

Few within Adventism find their core beliefs in the Glory of the Cross. They would rather rely on Dan. 8 and Rev. 14. They insist on defining the Christ Event as a model and not as a finished work.

The Everlasting Covenant is viewed not as a pledge of love but as a blueprint, ignored by all but a few of the final generation.

Instead of Jesus standing at an open door, they would demand entrance on their own accord to receive the reward for the vindication of God.

I call their mistaken theology as: "It ain't over until the fat lady sings!"

I for one accept the finished work of Jesus's earthy ministry as both necessary and sufficient and well as aboundantly clear.

A New Gospel did not arise out of the ashes of Oct. 22, 1844.

Imagine the faith prior to the cross. Now so near the appearing--we keep hearing a drum beat
"All that Thou sayest we will do!"
Tom Z

Uniformity First - Thu, 01/12/2012 - 17:35

Near the end of The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter the main character, Singer the deaf-mute, after finding out his dear friend is dead, walks into a cafe where a group of deaf-mutes are playing pool (if I recall). They are having a great time, signing back and forth. This is something Singer would have loved to have been part of, but in his devotion to his friend, who could not be bothered to learn sign, he has missed all that. Singer is so distraught at his loss, he can't see how he could be rescued from the pit of despair.
Oh well, I guess that book is just another on the proscribed list at SdA institutions.

Philip Giddings - Thu, 01/12/2012 - 21:00

I enjoyed the article Mr. Weiss, thank you.

It is amazing what spiritual food we can find at the cross of Jesus.

Why do we lose our attention so?

Herold Weiss - Thu, 01/12/2012 - 21:47

Deliss:

Thank you for your question. There are several reasons for giving the gospels their titles as I do. Most important is that the gospel manuscripts from antiquity, and the Greek New Testaments printed today have as the title of the gospels: Kata Maththaion, Kata Markon, Kata Loukan, Kata Ioannen. "Kata" in Greek means "According to". This fact points out that the gospels received their titles when they were published together in order to identify them. Originally they had been published anonymously.

Donna Haerich - Sat, 01/14/2012 - 04:36

I have found it interesting, Dr. Weiss, that the writer of John brackets the stories of Nicodemus and the Woman at the Well with these texts: John 2:23-25 and John 4:39-42. The first text says that the Jews in Jerusalem believed when they saw the signs... But the Samaritans according to the second text believed without seeing signs but because of his word only.

Aage Rendalen - Sat, 01/14/2012 - 09:04

"In his Farewell Discourse, Jesus explains to his disciples that the reason why “the Jews” hate both him and his Father is because they have seen his works. If they had not seen his works, they would be without sin, but because they have seen the works he does in his Father’s name, they are condemned (15: 24). This judgment, however, leaves us somewhat perplexed because in this gospel it is made clear that only those whom the Father has delivered into his hand can come to him. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (6: 44). And those who have been delivered to him by his Father cannot be snatched out of his hand (10: 28 – 29). The narrator also tells us that those who saw the signs did not believe so that the Scripture might be fulfilled (15: 25). If this is the case, how can those who do not believe be held responsible?"

It intrigues me that not only did the various early Christian communities arrive at different interpretations of who Jesus was and what his life and death signified, but in the case of the Gospel of John, you also discern a struggle to present a coherent view of its community's own Gospel, as illustrated in Dr Weiss's paragraph above. To me it seems to indicate that Jesus was a circle that the NT never quite succeeded in squaring.

Also, I have never before seen such a direct line drawn between John and the Reformers with respect to election, and the philosophical problems inherent in such a position.

Aage

Aage Rendalen - Sat, 01/14/2012 - 19:04

Dr Weiss
"In According to John, however, the whole narrative is an argument that Jesus is not a prophet, a human being with a double portion of the Spirit and a special connection with God. He does not perform miracles. He gives signs. The difference is to be noticed. The miracle has significance in itself."

Are you comfortable with a definition of "sign" as an "ergon" or a "dúnamis" that momentarily removes the earthly disguise worn by Jesus?

To me, John's theology of the 'semeion' seems muddled. Ultimately, the author seems to say that the mighty works of Jesus only make sense retrospectively, viewed from the perspective of faith in his resurrection. Only when you know the truth about Jesus, are you in a position to see the significance of what he did. As you point out, John's Jesus faults people for not believing in him on the mere basis of his mighty works, but then turns around and declares that that kind of faith can only be had as a divine gift. To me, there seems to be a chicken and egg quandary at the heart of this Gospel.

Aage

Herold Weiss - Sun, 01/15/2012 - 09:58

Aage:

Your observation is, I think, correct. As I said, the narrative assumes from the beginning that the reader is fully familiar with the symbolic universe in which the gosple operates. I hope to take a closer look at this in a future column.

Herold

Donna Haerich - Sun, 01/15/2012 - 10:27

Dr. Weiss, you say, "the narrative assumes from the beginning that the reader is fully familiar with the symbolic universe in which the gospel operates." How does a reader today, who is unfamiliar with the understanding that the original readers brought to the narrative come to a correct understanding - or at least the understanding intended by the writer?

Uniformity First - Sun, 01/15/2012 - 13:02

May as well ask how God "signs" himself to a person who is without sight and hearing.
What are those words and actions that bear the signature of God?
How many times in a life are we witness to the sign of redemption?

greg prout - Mon, 01/16/2012 - 07:18

if i may, here's my simple take: whenever i read John i cannot escape the Incarnation. it is the pivotal reality out of which comes the cross and our redemption. the Incarnation is the 800 pound gorilla in our cultural tent; without it there is no cross. its impact overshadows the impact of adam's (word means man and woman) fall, by which all of us without consent were sent straight to hell (figure of speech). the Incarnation comes along as says 'not so fast;' (i can almost hear the soundtrack to 'the lone ranger' playing in the background). :) in essence by becoming 'us' God embraced our world and culture and declared, 'nobody is going anywhere without first taking a look at Me dressed like you.' His 'reduction,' if you please, is His glory; His self-sacrificing love, (phil. 2), the full substance and core of what drives His kingdom. Jesus becoming us and coming to us is itself a message: Actual life, (genuine existence without illusion), is the real life of the kingdom: living/giving for others. though our culture is afflicted in so many ways and on so many levels, Jesus still showed up ready to live in just such conditions. He incarnated into the swamp in order to show us the lily. He painted Himself into His masterpiece and wrote Himself into his story about us. if i was to seek the lowest common denominator of the Incarnation, a baseline message, it would be this: we too need to incarnate deep into the lives of EVERYONE we meet, at least be willing to do so. Jesus grabbed my heart when i saw to what lengths (cross and death) He ventured to prevent adam's fall from remaining my fall. this is the life of the kingdom. and this is true glory: forgetting self and living for others. an age-old story, i know, but it seems every age needs to learn it all over again. and again. God like me and me like them, not participating in their sin, but not allowing their sin to keep me from incarnating into their lives and demonstrating regardless of their place, i'm here for them. john's gospel, besides guaranteeing (yes i said it) my future salvation because of what Jesus accomplished on the cross and in the resurrection, it also reveals the fundamentals of His Heavenly kingdom now on earth; or how i should live while waiting for the return of Him. oh do i love that little Baby (incarnation).

i know this is maybe too simple a take, but its profound reality is the truth that still moves me.
in a nutshell,
greg

Herold Weiss - Sun, 01/15/2012 - 21:51

Donna:

I take it that "According to John" was an in-house document for a Christian community that was not part of what eventually became mainstream Christianity. It, apparently, started primarily with former disciples of John the Baptist and Samaritans. This would explain your very good observation in your previous post. The way they told the story of Jesus to themselves was a way of both understanding the significance of Jesus and their own Christian experience, using the language that was "in" in this sectarian group. (Just like Adventists have their own vocabulary, and one must be "in" in order to know what is being said.) Those of us who read the gospel in the 21st century, can only struggle and try to penetrate the meaning that to the original hearers must have been quite plain. Of course, we have no guarantee that we have succeeded in our effort to capture the meaning of the whole. On the other hand, quoting texts out of the gospel and adapting them to whatever we like to teach is quite easy.

With the passage of time the community experienced some serious traumatic events and these were incorporated into the story in order to give them significance. In the second century Justin Martyr took the doctrine of the Logos from this gospel and eventually Christian discussion about the nature of Jesus as Savior centered on the Logos. This was especially helpful to counter charges that Christians worshiped a human being. This discussion culminated at the Council of Nicea, which had nothing to do abut the Trinity, but everything to do about what kind of a divine being was the divine being that was born of the Virgin Mary. This debate from the second to the fourth century placed the gospel on the mainstream of Christianity.

Donna Haerich - Mon, 01/16/2012 - 05:44

Thank you, Dr. Weiss, for your response. It is my understanding that the rift between the eastern and western branches of the church was early on, especially in regards to soteriology. Your title "I finished the work" posits that John's community saw Christ's incarnation as the sum of the work of God, his entering into the human experience and reflecting the character and nature of the divine - whereas the western church centered its soteriology mainly on the sacrificial substitution on the cross (and on the altar). I am glad that "incarnational theology" is having come back to balance the penal substitutionary models so much in vogue these days.

Harry Elliott - Mon, 01/16/2012 - 07:04

Speaking of signs, I believe that Bible authors used symbolic numbers (3,7,10,12,40 etc.) to signal that they were not writing literal history.

Harry

Donna Haerich - Mon, 01/16/2012 - 07:05

;-) shush, Harry, you may upset the saints!

Don Rhoads - Mon, 01/16/2012 - 07:12

I'd like to register my appreciation to Greg for his loving appreciation of John; to Donna for her minding us of the incarnational thread of soteriology--which was a new thought to me, steeped as I am in the sacrificial substitution of the cross.

Some of Herold's essays have caused me to want to stand up and cheer. Don

Jerry Jacques GPS - Mon, 01/16/2012 - 12:29

Masterfully written! Appreciate your articles!

Tim - Clement - Tue, 01/17/2012 - 07:55

Dr Weiss,

I always appreciate your essays. I particularly liked your thought that "A new temple is a new cosmos".

On many threads here there is ongoing discussion about Genesis 1 and 2, but I think you wrote on this before, about how the creation story is about God creating a place where he can dwell, where he can interact, and be in relationship with, his creation. Creation is God's temple, where he meets us.

However, things go wrong (the fall), we need a new temple, and a specific people (first the jews, and the just the Levites) to minister in that temple. But this is only a temporary fix. WIth the incarnation (as Donna so rightly points out) we have a new temple. As John tells us at the very beginning of his gospel, "The word became flesh and dwelt (literally tabernacled) among us". John tells us even here, that Jesus is the new temple, he is the new way in which God dwells with his people, is present with his people.

So linking this to the ideas of creation and temple, we have a new temple, a new cosmos, in short, a new creation. And we too are part of this new creation (as St Paul tells us), we too are temples of the Holy Spirit, because we are part of the body of Christ, the true temple.

So now we no longer worship on this mountain or in Jerusalem, but we worship in Spirit and in Truth, and we do so as the body of Christ, as the church universal, and we do so by receiving his body in the eucharist, for by eating his body, we become his body.

(OK the last sentence is a bit Catholic so feel free to ignore that of you want to, but the rest pretty ecumenical!)

With all good wishes,

Tim

Tim - Clement
-------------

Herold Weiss - Tue, 01/17/2012 - 09:13

Tim:

Yes, indeed. Christians live in a New Creation, the body of the Risen Christ. That is the gospel.

Before I started my series on the gospel "According to John" I wrote a series of columns about Creation in the Bible. In it I pointed out some of the points you make here. Those columns have been re-written and will come out as a little book, according to the publisher's schedule, next month. The publisher is Energion Publications.

Tim - Clement - Tue, 01/17/2012 - 10:06

Thanks Herold,

I will look up your book.

One other thought. The reason many people refer the Gospel "according to ...." is because there is only one Gospel. And we have 4 different tellings of that Gospel.

Tim

Tim - Clement
-------------

Robert Bryson - Tue, 04/24/2012 - 04:06

If Jesus is the temple, then how does that jell with the Adventist belief that Jesus is in the sanctuary now, busily cleaning it of our sins? He cannot be in Himself - that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Yes, I understand that He replaced the earthly temple, creating a divine presence in our lives, if we walk with Jesus, but the Adventist view of the sanctuary seems to be that it is sitting in the ether somewhere, with Jesus laboring away, still our divine cleaner. Now, don't forget that I am a neophyte, when it comes to Adventist beliefs but a willing learner.

Donna Haerich - Tue, 04/24/2012 - 04:52

Tim, all that is "Catholic" is not bad.

User login

Newsletter

Organizations

Fri, 08/31/2012 - Sun, 09/02/2012
Job Dybdahl, Sigve Tonstad, Harri Kuhalampi
Sat, 09/08/2012 | San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda University

Current Issue

Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!

Ads

Support Spectrum

Connect with Spectrum