The central emphasis of all four Gospels
is the identity of Jesus (“Who do you say that I am?” Mt 15:16). For John’s
gospel, however, Jesus is many things.
God
(1:1; 20:28)
|
The
Bridegroom (2:1-11; 3:29; 4:16-30; 19:34)
|
Adam
(2:1-11; 9:12; 19:5, 34)
|
The
Tabernacle (1:14a)
|
The
Light (1:8)
|
The
Eternal Word (1:1; 14)
|
The
Lamb of God (1:29; 19:36)
|
Solomon
(2:19; 5:17)
|
Bethel
(1:51)
|
The
Door / Gate (10:9)
|
Only-begotten
Son (1:14c; 3:18)
|
The
Good Shepherd (10:10)
|
Jacob
(4:1-15)
|
The
Temple (2:19)
|
The
Vine (15:5)
|
The
Christ (1:26-27)
|
Moses
(6:14, 28-34)
|
The
Way, the Truth, and the Life (14:6)
|
||
The
Prophet (6:14)
|
Joshua
(6:16-21)
|
The
Bread of Life (6:35)
|
||
The
Rock (19:34; 4:13-14)
|
Jesus’ identity (Christology) is
intrinsically linked to the identity of the Church (ecclesiology). The aim of
this article, therefore, is to draw out some of the ecclesiological
implications of Christ’s identity and thus present a thoroughly Johannine ecclesiology.
Outline:
I.
Jesus
the New Tabernacle
a) The Upper Room as a Type of the OT
Tabernacle
b)
The
Institution of the Priesthood in the Upper Room
c)
The
Upper Room as a type of Eden
II.
Jesus
the New Bethel
a) The Upper Room as a type of Bethel
III.
Jesus
the New Temple
a) The Upper Room as a type of Temple
b)
Connection
between the Temple and Eden
IV.
Jesus
the Bridegroom
a) The Church as the Bride of Christ
V.
Jesus
the New Adam
a)
The
Church as the New Eve
VI.
Christ
the Head of the Church
a) The Church as the Body of Christ
VII.
Visibility
of the Church
VIII. The Structure of the Church
IX.
The
Role of Baptism in Ecclesiology
X.
The
Petrine Ministry and the Eucharist
XI.
The
Role of Mary in Ecclesiology
I.
Jesus
the New Tabernacle
The implicit identification of Jesus as
the Tabernacle in 1:14a is often overlooked. The Greek term ἐσκήνωσεν
(eskēnōsen, tabernacled) is unique to Johannine literature (not found anywhere
else in the New Testament). As Tim Gray & Jeff Cavin note in their study of
the bible, the OT Tabernacle “perpetuates God’s presence in the midst of
Israel, functioning as the portable mountain of God based on the heavenly
pattern shown to Moses on the mountain.”[1]
They continue, “The purpose of the tabernacle and its liturgy is to perpetuate
God’s presence on Sinai with God’s people wherever they go.”[2]
The connection between the Sinai
episode and the OT Tabernacle is reinforced by a lack of reference to the
Levitical priest’s footwear. As Tim Gray & Jeff Cavin note,
Another
link between Sinai and the liturgy of Israel is found in the detailed account
of the priestly vestments and clothing. In Exodus 28-29 eight articles of
priestly clothing are described in minute detail. What is striking is that this
account which covers everything from underwear to turbans, never mentions
footwear. Just as Moses was commanded to take off his shoes before God’s
presence, the priests serving in the tabernacle will be standing on holy
ground.[3]
a) The Upper Room as a Type of the OT
Tabernacle
Most of the
ecclesiological allusions in John’s Gospel occur in the context of the Upper
Room (13:10; 14:2-3; 20:19-23). The implicit identification of the Upper Room
with the OT tabernacle is indicated in the foot washing episode (13:1-20). Jesus’
act of washing the disciples’ feet parallels Mary’s act of anointing Jesus’
feet (12:1-8), which not only reveals Jesus’ kingship (ordinarily the head
would be anointed), but also his identity as the New Tabernacle. According to Catholic
theologian Mary
L. Coloe,
Prior to the giving of instructions for
the tabernacle, God's glory is present on Mt. Sinai for six days (Exodus
24:16). On the seventh day the revelation begins. Echoes of the building of the
tabernacle and Temple pervade the episode in John 12. As "the hour"
approaches, God's glory, now to be seen in the flesh of Jesus (1:14), will be
present with the disciples for six days, leading up to the full manifestation
of his glory on the cross. As part of the preparation for this full
manifestation, Mary repeats the actions of Moses. Just as Moses took specially
prepared oil and anointed the tabernacle, Mary anoints Jesus, whose flesh is
the tabernacle of God's presence. The wiping of the feet with Mary's hair also
carries an allusion to Exodus. The tabernacle was covered with curtains made
from goats' hair (Exodus 26:7), woven by those of "generous heart"
(Exodus 35:6) and made by women whose hearts were moved to use their skill
(Exodus 35:26). Mary covers Jesus' feet with her own hair as she wipes away the
perfumed oil poured out in generous abundance. The extended discourse we find
in John 13-16, when Jesus instructs his disciples who will be formed into the
new dwelling place of God (19:25-27), has some parallel with the extended
instructions given for the building for the tabernacle (Exodus 25-31).
The description of the spices used to make the
anointing oil for the tabernacle emphasizes their purity and abundance.
"Take the finest spices... (Ex 30:23). John 12 similarly emphasizes the
purity of the ointment ("pure nard"), the large amount, and its expense
(12:3, 5). Finally, the expression unique to the Fourth Gospel, "and the
household was filled with the fragrance of the ointment," recalls the
description of God's glory filling the tabernacle (Exodus 40:35) and
particularly the description of the Temple in Chronicles, where "the house
of the LORD was filled with the cloud of glory." These words also extend
the anointing beyond the person of Jesus to include the entire household. The
house and its household are enveloped in the pervasive aroma of perfumed oils,
in marked contrast with the pervasive odor of death feared when the tomb of
Lazarus was opened (11:39). In these various echoes of Exodus, the scent of the
anointing continues to allude to the Christological imagery of tabernacle and
Temple presented earlier in the gospel (1:14; 2:19-21).[4]
b)
The
Institution of the Priesthood in the Upper Room
Granting the validity
of Coloe’s interpretation, we should interpret Jesus’ act of foot washing in
John 13 in light
of his identity as the Tabernacle in John 12:1-8. In other words, we should see
the foot washing as a kind of ordination ceremony (13:14-15),
in which the disciples are consecrated as priests to service in the New
Tabernacle. This coincides with Mosaic Law concerning the ritual purity of Levitical
priests (Ex
30:17-21). Catholic theologian, John Bergsma, comments
on the priestly character of the foot washing scene,
The foot washing episode in John 13 is
full of motifs from the Day of Atonement and priestly ordination rituals. The Day
of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, when the
High Priest entered the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem Temple and made
atonement for all the people. Theologian Leroy Huizenga, himself a convert from
Protestantism, notes the following:
In John 13 we find parallels to
Leviticus 16, the Day of Atonement ritual. Leviticus 16:23-24 reads, "Then
Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall..." Observe the
pattern: The high priest undresses, bathes, dresses, and offers sacrifice. In
John 13, Jesus undresses (v. 4), washes the disciples' feet (v. 5-11), dresses
(v. 12), and will soon offer himself in sacrifice. Whereas in Leviticus the
high priest washes all of himself, in John, Jesus washes the feet of the
disciples. Jesus is sharing his high priesthood with the disciples; he must
wash them -- ordain them as priests -- lest they have "no part" in
his priesthood.
The washing of feet also connotes the
role of the priesthood, because the priests had to wash their feet to perform
any ministry in the sanctuary (Exod 30:19-21). Prior to this, at their
ordination, they had a full bath (Lev 8:6). We see Peter and Jesus discussing
the full bath versus the washing of the feet in John 13:6-10. In the same
passage, Jesus insists Peter must submit the washing in order to have a
"part" (Greek meris) in Jesus. This word meris is used several times
in the Pentateuch to refer to the fact that the Levitical priests have no
"part" in the land because their "part" is God alone (Num
18:20; Deut 10:9, 12:12, 14:27, 29; Josh 18:7). The analogy is clear: Peter is
being prepared for a new kind of priesthood wherein his "part" is
going to be God alone, that is to say, Jesus alone.[5]
Bergsma continues,
Jesus' prayer in John 17 is also full
of Day of Atonement and priesthood motifs. We read in Leviticus 16:17 that the
Day of Atonement ritual consisted of three parts: atonement for the High Priest
himself, for his house (i.e., the rest of the priests), and for the entire
people. We find that John 17 is structured the same way: first Jesus prays for
himself (vv. 1-5), then the apostles (i.e., the rest of the priests; vv. 6-19),
and then for the entire church (vv. 20-26).
Finally, Jesus speaks of
"consecrating" or "sanctifying" the apostles in John
17:17-19. This is the Greek word hagiao, which is applied to male human beings
in the Old Testament almost exclusively in the context of priestly ordination.
The sense is that the apostles are being "ordained" to serve as
priests of the New Testament. Thus, the beginning and end of the Last Supper
Discourse in John is marked by themes of the Day of Atonement and of priestly
ordination and service. Then, Jesus and the apostles leave the Upper Room and
the Passion ensues. When they reconvene in the Upper Room after the
Resurrection in John 20:19-23, Jesus completes their "ordination" by
bestowing on them the Holy Spirit, which will empower them to perform the
priestly role of the mediation of forgiveness of sins.[6]
c)
The
Upper Room as a type of Eden
As Bergsma notes, the theme of priestly
ordination is also found in Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to his
disciples in the Upper Room (20:19-23), the same room he washed his disciples
feet. However, the priestly element of the resurrection scene is only
observable in light of its Edenic backdrop. When we place Jesus’ act of
breathing in John 20:22 in relation to Yahweh’s creation of Adam in Genesis
2:7, the Upper Room serves as a type of Eden. The Edenic allusions are
reinforced by the mention of “closed doors,” (20:19) which depicts the Upper
Room as a sanctuary (much like the Garden of Eden). The authority to forgive sins
(20:23), therefore, should be interpreted in this Edenic context.
In John 12:31, Jesus says that the time
has come for the ruler of this world to be cast out. This is fulfilled in John
13:30, when Judas immediately leaves the Upper Room after Satan enters him. So
we have a twofold movement here: On the one hand, we have Satan and his
followers leaving the Upper Room (which is a type of Eden); and on the other,
we have God granting entry into Eden once again through the forgiveness of sins
(20:23). This is a complete reversal of what occurred in the Mosaic account of
creation. Let us remember that it was because of sin that Adam and Eve were
forced to leave the garden, but now it is through the forgiveness of sins that
we are granted entry into paradise once again.
Catholic professor of theology at Seton
Hall University, Jeffrey Morrow, also establishs a link between the priestly service
of the Levites in the Tabernacle with the role of Adam in the garden,
Adam, for example, is told to “till”
(from the root ‘bd) and “keep” (from the root šmr). When šmr and ‘bd occur
together in the OT (Num. 3:7-8; 8:25-26; 18:5-6; 1 Chr. 23:32; Ezek. 44:14)
they refer to keeping/guarding and serving God’s word and also they refer to
priestly duties in the tabernacle. And, in fact, šmr and ‘bd only occur
together again in the Pentateuch in the descriptions in Numbers for the
Levites’ activities in the tabernacle. Such an association reinforces the
understanding of Adam as a sort of priest-king, or even high priest, who
guarded God’s first temple of creation, as it were. In light of this
discussion, therefore, what we find in Genesis 1-3 is creation unfolding as the
construction of a divine temple, the Garden of Eden as an earthly Holy of
Holies, and the human person created for liturgical worship.[7]
Much like Adam and Eve (Gen 1:28), the
disciples are also given a divine commission (20:22) to go out into the world
loosening the sins of others (20:23). The divine authority to forgive sins
could not have been limited to the apostles because the intrinsic relationship
between the authority to forgive sins and the Church as the New Eden on earth
necessitates against it. To suggest that only the apostles were granted the
authority to forgive sins would imply that the Church (as New Eden) lasted only
the lifetime of the apostles.
Genesis 1-3
|
John 20:19-23
|
1.28:
Commission to “fill the earth and subdue it”
|
20.21: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
|
2.7: the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
|
20.22: And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them,
“Receive the Holy Spirit...”
|
3.8: they heard the sound of the Lord God
walking in the garden in the cool of the day
|
20.19f: Jesus came and stood among them
|
3.10:
“I heard the sound of thee in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was
naked; and I hid myself.”
|
20.19d: for fear of the Jews
|
3.24: at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a
flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
|
20.19c: the doors being shut where the disciples were
|
II.
Jesus
the New Bethel
Jesus’ identity as the New Bethel is implied
in his discourse with Nathaniel (1:51). According to Benny Thettayil CMI,
In
the revelatory plan of the Fourth Gospel, Nathanael and the other disciples now
come in contact with a new Bethel, a new house of God, the revelation of God in
real life -- Jesus, in whom the traffic between heaven and earth is localised
(1:51). The house of God (2:16), the meeting place between heaven and earth is
no longer the temple of Jerusalem, where the glory of the presence of God
dwells, but Jesus, in whom the divine glory is made visible (1:14). According
to Y. Congar, in John 1:51 Christ is seen as the new and only mediator between
God and humans, replacing the holy place sacred to the Jews.[8]
Jesus
also alludes to his identity as Bethel in his discourse with Nicodemus, “No one
has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man”
(3:13). Although Jesus came from God,[9] he will go back to God (13:3; 20:17),[10]
to prepare a place for his Father’s children in heaven (cf. 14:2-3; 20:17).
a) The Upper Room as a type of Bethel
The concept of the Church as the house
of God has both mediatorial and familial dimensions. The house of God is first
and foremost the place where we come to encounter the presence of God.
Historically, the house of God was synonymous with the Jerusalem Temple (Is
56:5-7). However, as the discourse with the Samaritan woman indicates, we will
no longer have to worship in Jerusalem to encounter God’s presence, because
Jesus is the proverbial Temple, who mediates God’s presence to the world. The
church, therefore, assumes this mediatorial role in meditating God’s presence
to the world through Word and sacrament.
The familial dimension is also alluded
to in John 14:2-3:
In my Father’s house are many rooms; if
it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And
when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to
myself, that where I am you may be also (14:2-3).
The Greek phrase οἰκίᾳ τοῦ Πατρός
μου (oikon tou Patros mou, my Father’s house) is only used one other instance
in the John’s Gospel and that is in reference to the Jerusalem Temple (2:16).
The Father’s house, therefore, not only alludes to heaven, but concretely to
the Christian ecclesia which consists of all those who have born from heaven
(i.e., begotten of God) (cf. 1:12-13; 3:3-6).
III.
Jesus
the New Temple
There are three primary texts that deal
with the concept of Jesus as the Temple in John’s gospel (2:19; 7:37; 19:34). To
quote Scott Hahn,
In
John 2:13-25, we see Jesus, recently hailed as king of Israel (see John 1:49),
showing his solicitude for the well-being of the Temple. Driving out the
merchants and money changers, he rebukes them for making his "Father's
house" (oikon tou patros mou) a "house of trade" (oikon
emporiou). Jesus' actions and words here should be understood in light of
Zechariah 14:21, which says of the eschatological Temple: "there shall no
longer be a trader in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day." The
Judeans question Jesus, "What sign will you show us, since you do these
things?" to which Jesus responds, "Destroy this Temple and in three
days I will raise it up." They misunderstand, but the evangelist
clarifies: "He spoke about the Temple of his body."[11]
He continues,
We
also see a dramatic identification of Jesus and the Temple in John 7--10:21.
There, the backdrop is the festival celebrating the building of the Temple
(Tabernacles), during which the priests daily poured out water from the Pool of
Siloam on the alter steps and kept the Temple courts illuminated twenty-four
hours a day in anticipation of the eschatological prophesies. In the midst of
this, Jesus claims himself to be the true source of water and light, and brings
light to a blind man through the waters of Siloam, thus supporting his claim to
be the true Temple.
In
John 10:22-42, during the Feast of Dedication, which commemorates the
re-consecration of the Temple by the Maccabees, Jesus describes himself as the
one "consecrated" by the Father and sent into the world -- that is,
he calls himself the new sanctuary. In John 14:2-3, Jesus again refers to his
"Father's house," a Temple reference alluding to John 2:16 and supported
by other Temple references -- the house with many "rooms" is probably
the many-chambered Temple of Ezekiel 41-43; and the place he goes to prepare
connotes the "sacred place" of the Temple. In the final analysis,
this passage describes Jesus' departure to be prepared as a Temple wherein his
disciples will "dwell."
Finally,
in the climax of this Temple symbolism, in John 19:34, the evangelist records
the flow of blood and water from the side of Christ, which is to be understood
against the background of the river prophesied to flow from the eschatological
Temple as well as the blood and water which flowed from the Temple altar in
Jerusalem.[12]
a) The Upper Room as a type of Temple
The most explicit reference to the
Upper Room as the New Temple is found in 14:2, where Jesus says, “In my
Father’s house, there are many rooms,” connecting this passage with Jesus’
statement in 2:16. A less obvious reference to the Temple is found in the
Farewell Discourse, specifically 15:1-17. According to Andreas Köstenberger, “Some
have suggested that Jesus' vine metaphor was occasioned by the golden vine
overhanging the main entrance to the temple.”[13]
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus describes the golden vine overhanging the
main entrance wall in his Jewish Wars,
“But that gate which was at this end of
the first part of the house was, as we have already observed, all over covered
with gold, as was its whole wall about it; it had also golden vines above it,
from which clusters of grapes hung as tall as a man's height.”[14]
b) Connection between the Temple and Eden
The connection between the Temple and
Eden is brought to light in Jesus’ implicit reference to the Upper Room as his
Father’s house (14:2; cf. 2:16). According to Tim Gray & Jeff Cavin,
Many modern readers bypass the
architectural details of the Temple … which contribute to an important
dimension of Israel’s understanding of the Temple… Large quantities of cedar
and cypress go into the walls, ceiling, floor, and altar. And there is a
dominant floral motif throughout: palm trees, pomegranates, lily-work on the
main pillars. These three architectural features combine to present the Temple
as a model of Eden. The wood and floral motif, taken together with the carvings
of lion and oxen on various panels, suggest a garden, the first garden. The
gold recalls the land of Havilah, which was irrigated by the river of Eden (Gen
2:11) and was known for its gold. There are depictions of cherubim in the
Temple, recalling the cherubim guarding the gates of Eden (Gen 3:24). Adam and
Eve were to fellowship with God and relation in their avodah (work); Israel is
now to fellowship with God and creation in the avodah (worship of the Temple
liturgy).”[15]
IV.
Jesus
the Bridegroom
In his book, Jesus and
the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, Brant Pitre argues that the Jewish
people had three different kinds of messianic expectations. [16]
Some thought he would be a political leader that would liberate Israel
from the tyranny of the Roman Empire and establish a perfect society. The
second expectation was that the messiah would lead the people into a new exodus
(i.e., deliverance from sin). And the third messianic expectation was that
messiah would inaugurate the messianic banquet feast. The Gospel of John
depicts Jesus as fulfilling the latter two messianic expectations (2:1-12;
3:29; 6:16-21). In this section, however, I want to simply focus on the Jewish
expectations of a messianic marriage feast.
Brant Pitre argues that in order to see the Cana narrative
as a fulfillment of messianic expectations,
It is important to emphasize not just
the miraculous nature of the transformation of water into wine, but the amount
of wine produced. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus goes far beyond just
solving the problem of the lack of some wine for the wedding guests at Cana. In
carrying out the miracle, he specifically instructs the servants to fill to the
top the "six stone jars" used for the Jewish rites of purification,
"each holding twenty or thirty gallons" (John 2:6). If we do the
math, it totals up to somewhere between 120 and 180 gallons of wine! Even in
our own day, when wine is cheap and accessible, that’s a lot of wine.
From an ancient Jewish perspective, the
sheer amount of wine provided by Jesus would call to mind the fact that in
Jewish Scripture, one of the marks of the future age of salvation is that it
would be characterized by superabundant wine (cf. Amost 9:11, 13; Joel 3:18).[17]
Brant Pitre continues,
Indeed, according to ancient Jewish
tradition outside the Bible, one of the ways you would know that the Messiah
had finally arrived would be the miraculous abundance of wine:
And it will happen that ... the Messiah
will begin to be revealed. And on one vine will be a thousand branches, and one
branch will produce a thousand clusters, and one cluster will produce a
thousand grapes, and one grape will produce a liter of wine (2 Baruch
29:1-2).
When Jesus’ miracle is interpreted in
the light of these ancient Jewish expectations of the superabundant wine of
God's banquet, and ancient Jewish hopes for the future, we can see that in
providing hundreds of gallons of wine for this small country wedding at Cana,
Jesus is signaling to those who have the eyes to see that the ancient Jewish
hope for the superabundant wine of the age of salvation is beginning to be
fulfilled in himself.
Second, by agreeing to provide the wine
for the wedding, Jesus also begins to reveal the he is not just the Messiah; he
is also the Bridegroom. As a guest, Jesus was not responsible for providing the
food and drink for the wedding party. This would have been the duty of the
bridegroom of Cana and his family. This is another reason that Mary's implicit
request is so odd. The logical person to whom she would naturally bring the
problem would be the host, the bridegroom himself. But she doesn't. She goes to
Jesus with the problem, and he solves it. However, because he does it secretly,
he leads the steward of the feast to react to the miracle in a way that reveals
its deeper meaning (cf. 2:9-10).
Although we don't know much about the
details of the office of "steward of the feast," he seems to have
been the ancient Jewish equivalent of a kind of headwaiter or modern-day
wedding caterer. (In Greek, his name is architriklinos, which literally means
"ruler of the table.) It would have been his responsibility to oversee the
quality and purity of the food and during at the wedding banquet, something
very important to Jews because of the biblical laws of ritual purity (cf. Numbers
19:14-22; Sirach 32:1-2). When the steward at Cana tastes the water that has
become wine, he does not call Jesus over to thank him, because he has no idea
that the wine was provided by him. Instead, the steward calls "the
bridegroom" (Greek nymphios) -- whose name is never given -- in order to
praise him for having saved the "good wine" for last (John 2:9-11).
The irony is that it was the bridegroom's responsibility to provide the wine,
but it is Jesus who has actually done so.
In light of the steward's reaction, all
of the pieces of the puzzle begin to fall into place. When Mary implicitly asks
Jesus to provide wine for the wedding, she is not just asking him to solve a
potentially embarrassing family problem. In a Jewish context, she is also
asking him to assume the role for the Jewish bridegroom. As New Testament
scholar Adeline Fehribach puts it: "When the mother of Jesus says to
Jesus, 'They have no wine' (2:3), she places him in the role of the bridegroom,
whose responsibility it is to provide the wine."
If Mary's implicit request is not just
about the wine at Cana, but also about the wine of Jewish prophecy, then the
implications of Jesus' action run even deeper. For, as we have seen already, in
Jewish Scripture it is God himself who provides the wine of the banquet of
salvation. And even more, as we saw in chapter 1, in Jewish Scripture it is God
who is referred to as "the Bridegroom" of his entire people (e.g.,
Isaiah 62:4-6). When we combine the prophecies of the wine of YHWH with the
prophecies of YHWH the Bridegroom, Jesus' actions at Cana lead us to conclude
that by transforming the water into wine and assuming the role of the Jewish
bridegroom, Jesus is also beginning to suggest that the prophecies of the
divine bridegroom are being fulfilled in him... In other words, by means of the miracle at
Cana, Jesus is beginning to reveal, in a very Jewish way, the mystery of his
divine identity. [18]
a) The Church as the Bride of Christ
In John the Baptist’s third and last testimony
of Jesus, he declares Jesus to be the Bridegroom of Israel (3:29). However,
Jesus’ discourse with the Samaritan woman indicates that the Bride would not be
confined to the nation of Israel but would extend to the whole world (Jn
4:16-18; Is 56:3, 7).
V.
Jesus
the New Adam
Besides the nuptial motif in the Cana
and Crucifixion narratives one can also find Edenic allusions as well (2:4;
19:26-27, 34). To appreciate these Edenic allusions one would need to
familiarize themselves with the Mosaic creation account that serves as its
backdrop. Here are just some of the textual and conceptual parallels between
the Cana narrative and the Mosaic creation account:
John 1-2
|
Genesis 1-3
|
1.1a:
In the beginning was the Word…
1:3a:
Through Him all things were made
|
1.1:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
|
1.4-5:
In him was light… and the darkness could not overcome it
|
1.3:
And God said, “Let there be light”
1.4:
and God separated the light from the darkness.
|
1.29
The translational phrase “Next Day” implies that John 1:1-28 constituted the first
day.
|
1.5:
And there was evening, and there was morning—day one (yom-'ehad).
|
1.32:
“I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him”
|
1.6-7:
“Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters…”
|
1.35:
Now the Third Day
|
1.8:
Second Day
|
1.42:
“You shall be called Cephas”
|
1.9:
“Let the dry land appear”
|
1.43:
Fourth Day
|
1.13:
Third day
|
1.51:
“Amen, Amen, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God
ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”
[n.b.
angels are referred to as stars in the book of Revelation (cf. Rev 1:16, 20; 8:10, 12; 9:1;
12:14)]
|
1.14
“Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens…”
|
2.1:
On the Third Day
|
1.31:
Sixth Day
|
2:1:
On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee
2.10:
“Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then
the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.”
|
2.23:
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’ she shall be called
Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
|
2.4:
“O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”
|
3.15: And I will put enmity between you and the
woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you
will strike his heel.”
|
The Johannine crucifixion narrative
also has several parallels with the Mosaic creation account:
John 19
|
Genesis 2-3
|
19.26: “Woman, behold, your son!”
|
2.23: “This at last is bone of my
bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken
out of Man.”
3.15: I will put enmity between you
and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”
|
19.30: “It is finished”
|
2.3: And on the seventh day God
finished his work
|
19.30: and he bowed his head and gave
up his spirit.
|
2.21: So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and
while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh
|
19.34: But one of the soldiers
pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
|
2.21: while he slept took one of his
ribs and closed up its place with flesh;
|
19.19: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King
of the Jews.”
|
1.28: have dominion over the fish of
the sea and over the birds of the air
|
19.23: But the tunic was without
seam, woven from top to bottom
|
2.15: The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to
till it and keep it. (cf. Num. 3:7-8; 8:25-26; 18:5-6; 1 Chr. 23:32; Ezek.
44:14)
|
The Edenic allusions in the Cana and
Crucfixion narratives ultimately highlight Jesus’ role as the New Adam. We can
also find other allusions to Jesus as the New Adam in the Gospel of John. For
example, Pilate’s unintentional double entendre in presenting Jesus as “the
man” (ho anthrōpos), alludes to his Adamic role. Also, when Jesus is praying in
the garden with his disciples, he fulfills the role of Adam, who was commanded
to protect the garden by confronting the approaching band of soldiers
(18:1-11).
a) The Church as the New Eve
In the Mosaic creation account, the sixth day represents the
pinnacle of creation, where man, formed from the dust of the ground (2:7), is
created to reflect the image and glory of God (Gen 1:26-28). Whereas Adam is
formed directly from the earth, the woman is taken from his side, reflecting
the subordinate relationship of the church to Christ (Jn 19:33-34; 1 Tim
2:12-14; Col 1:18). Likewise, the Cana story occurs on the sixth day of the New
Creation week (vv 29, 35, 43, 2:1), paralleling the nuptial and Edenic motifs of
the Mosaic creation account (Gen 1:26-27, 31; 2:20-25). Granting the Edenic backdrop
of the Crucifixion narrative, the church becomes a type of New Eve that
proceeds from Christ’s side (19:34). Since the church proceeds from the side of
the immaculate of Christ, she must bear the mark of sanctity.
VI.
Christ
the Head of the Church
There are two implicit allusions to
Christ’s role as the head of the Church in John’s Gospel. One is to be found in
the empty tomb narrative. The gospel author writes,
Then Simon Peter came, following him,
and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which
had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place
by itself (20:6-7).
This passage should be interpreted
in light of Mary’s anointing of Jesus’ feet (12:3). By anointing Jesus’ feet
with her hair, she is indicated the relationship between Christ and the church.
As St. Paul writes, “For
the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church,
his body, and is himself its Savior” (Eph 5:23). By placing her hair/head to
Jesus’ feet, Mary is indicating that Jesus is the head of the church
a) The Church as the Body of Christ
However, there are several passages
that allude to the Church as the body of Christ in the same gospel. When the
gospel author adds in John 2:21, “But he spoke of the temple of his
body,” this not only alludes to the resurrection of Jesus’ physical body, but
also the replacement of the Jerusalem temple with the mystical body of Christ.
John 19:34 is another implicit reference to the church as the body of Christ,
because the church is depicted as proceeding from the very substance of Christ
himself. The earliest precedent, however, is
found in John 1:14 and 6:53. As St. Paul argues in his first letter to the
Corinthians, we become the body of Christ through our participation in the
Eucharist. This last point will be more fully developed later on in the section
on the role of the Eucharist in ecclesiology.
VII.
Visibility
of the Church
The Church’s designation as the Tabernacle
(1:14a; 13:1-20), Bride (2:1-11; 3:29; 19:34), Temple (2:16; 14:2), Body (2:21;
19:34; 20:7), Sheepfold (10:1), Eve (19:34), and Eden (20:19-23) all imply its
visibility. In other words, the church is a visible structure in its essential
constitution; so it cannot exist merely as a spiritual entity. The analogy of
the church as a human body, which is a composite of matter and spirit (or to
use scholastic language, matter and form) highlights the inseparability between
the spiritual and visible dimensions of the church.
VIII. The Structure of the Church
The visibility of the church is
expressed in its sacramental life and hierarchy. In other words, the church has
a hierarchical structure which manifests its unity through sacramental sharing.
IX.
The
Role of Baptism in Ecclesiology
I expound upon the role of baptism in
John’s gospel in a separate article titled, “Johannine Baptismology.”[19]
Here, I will simply provide a brief summary of my article. The climatic point
of the prologue, surprisingly, is not the incarnation of the Word (1:14), but
our adoption as children of God (1:12-13). This is based on the chiastic
structure of the Prologue of John. Verses 12-13 carry an implicit baptismal allusion
given the parallelism displayed by these two passages and Jesus’ discourse with
Nicodemus (3:1-21). The gospel author places the Nicodemus discourse between
the Cana story (2:1-11), Temple Cleansing (2:13-25), and the testimony of John
the Baptist (3:22-36), which all carry an overarching Edenic-nuptial motif.
Baptism, therefore, serves as the instrument by which we are not only
incorporated into the Temple-Bride, but also made children of God (relational
view of the imago dei; cf. Gen 1:26; 5:1-3) and thus granted entry into Eden once
again (see section I. c).
X.
The
Petrine Ministry and the Eucharist
In this section, I will take for
granted the Eucharistic interpretation of John 6,[20]
and simply focus on the role of the Eucharist in Johannine ecclesiology. In
John’s ecclesiology, the Eucharist serves two primary purposes:
(1)
It reflects the unity of faith, not
only in the sacrament itself, but in all doctrines.
(2)
It plays a central role in reflecting
the unity of the church. In other words, it implies our submission to
legitimate hierarchy.
Here, I would like to expand on the
second point. In the Gospel of John, Peter is depicted as the Rock (1:42; cf.
Mt 16:18) and Shepherd of the universal church (cf. 10:11; 13:37-38; 21:15-17).
He is given the key (Is 22:22) to the gate (10:3) of the sheepfold (10:1), and
tasked with feeding the sheep (21:15-17). The Eucharistic allusions in the
rehabilitation of Peter are brought to light by the textual parallelisms
displayed by chapters 6 and 21 of John.
John
6
|
John
21
|
|
Sea
|
6:1,
16-19, 22, 25
|
21:1,
7
|
Boat
|
6:17,
21-22
|
21:3
|
Bread
|
6:5,
7, 9, 11, 13, 23, 26, 31, 32-35, 41, 48, 50-51, 58
|
21:9,
13
|
Small Fish
|
6:9,
11
|
21:6,
8-11, 13
|
Resurrection
|
6: 36, 40, 44, 54
|
21:14
|
In his article,
“Peter as High Priest,” James B. Jordan argues that Christ instituted Peter as
High Priest in his rehabilitation. [21]
Given the Eucharistic backdrop of the rehabilitation episode, Peter occupies
the place of Christ the High Priest over the universal eucharistic assembly.
Given the essential role of the Petrine ministry in the sacramental unity of
the church, it seems unlikely for the Petrine office to fall into disuse after
the death of the apostle Peter (a.d. 44). Also, it seems rather strange for the
gospel author to emphasize the importance of the Petrine ministry five decades
after Peter died, unless, of course, the Petrine ministry continued to play an
important role in the life of the church long after Peter’s death. And that is
exactly what we find in the historical testimony of the Patristic era. For
example, the writings of Irenaeus[22],
Cyprian,[23]
Tertullian,[24]
Hippolytus,[25]
Eusebius,[26]
Augustine,[27]
and Jerome[28]
all testify to the perpetuity of the Petrine office.
XI.
The
Role of Mary in Ecclesiology
Granting the Edenic backdrop of the Cana and Crucifixion
narratives, Mary serves as a type of New Eve (2:4; 19:26-27). She is the
“woman” of Revelation 12, who has a crown of twelve stars upon her head (12:1).
The symbolism of the twelve stars indicates Mary’s identity as faithful Israel.
This twofold designation of Mary as New Eve and New Israel highlights her
status as the archetype of the Church. Here, I would like to
unpack some of the doctrinal implications of Mary’s threefold designation as
Eve, Israel, and the Church. In John 19:34, the piercing of Christ’s side
mirrors the nuptial account of Genesis 2:20-25. The water and blood represent
the two great sacraments of the church. So in reality, the birth of the church
is in view. Given that Mary serves as an archetype of the church, and that the
church proceeds from the immaculate side of Christ, it only goes to reason that
Mary must have been immaculately conceived. To suggest otherwise would be to
imply that the Word assumed a fallen nature.
In addition, if one accepts the
mediatorial role of the Church in dispensing God’s graces through the
sacraments, then Mary’s role as the archetype of the Church reaffirms Her
status as the Mediatrix of graces. Her designation as Mother in John 19:27 also
emphasizes her Queenship (1 Kgs 2:19-20), given the backdrop theme of Christ’s
kingship (Jn 19:20-22). Mary co-reigns with Christ (Rev 12:5), but always in a
subordinate position. This, in turn, has ecclesiological implications. If Mary
co-reigns with Christ as Queen, then the Church must also have coercive power
of her subjects, with regard to her right to define doctrine, institute laws of
her own making, as well as the authority to punish malefactors.
[1] Tim Gray & Jeff
Cavin, Walking with God: A Journey
through the Bible (West Chester: Ascension Publishing, 2010), 83.
[2] ibid., 85.
[3] Ibid., 85.
[4] Mary L. Coloe,
Dwelling in the Household of God:
Johannine Ecclesiology and Spirituality, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007)
[5] John S.
Bergsma, Stunned by Scripture: How the
Bible Made Me Catholic (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2018), 92-93.
[6] Ibid., 93.
[7] Jeffery Morrow,
“Creation as Temple-Building and Work as Liturgy in Genesis 1-3,” The Journal of OCABS, Vol 2, No 1
(2009), 12-13.
[8] Benny Thettayil, “In
Spirit and Truth: An Exegetical Study of John 4:19-26 and a Theological
Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel,” Contributions to Biblical Exegesis &
Theology 46, (Leuven: Peeters Publishing 2007), 380
[9] Using different terminology, Jesus comes from above (3:31; 8:21), or
descends from heaven (3:13).
[10] Jesus ascends back to heaven / the Father (8:21; 14:3)
[11] Scott Hahn,
“Temple, Sign, and Sacrament” in Temple and
Contemplation, God's Presence in the Cosmos, Church, and Human Heart (Steubenville: Emmaus Road
Publishing, 2008), 112.
[12] Ibid., 114. (reference note 49, "At the
south-western corner [of the altar] there were two holes like two narrow
nostrils by which the blood that was poured over the western based and the
southern base used to run down and mingle in the water-channel and flow out
into the brook Kidron." (Mishnah Middoth [Measurements] 3:2). For other
mentions of this drainage channel, see Mishnah tractates Yoma [Day of
Atonement] 5:6; Zebahim [Sacrifices] 8:7; Temurah [Exchange] 7:6; Tamid
[Always] 5:5. The same channel that was used to drain the blood into the river
was also used for pouring out drink offerings of wine. See Mishnah Meliah
[Sacrilege] 3:3. Texts in the Mishnah, trans. Herbert Danby (Oxford: Oxford
Iniversity, 1933); Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven:
Yale University, 1988). McCaffery, Kerr, Hoskins, and many other commentators
link John 7:37-39 with 19:34. Coloe demurs (God Dwells With Is, 208-209).
[13] Andreas J.
Köstenberger, John, (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2004), 446.
[14] Flavius
Josephus, Jewish Wars 5.5.4 §
210;
cf. Antiquities 15.11.3 §
395;
m. Mid. 3.8; Tacitus, Historiae 5.5
[15] Tim Gray & Jeff
Cavin, Walking with God: A Journey
through the Bible (West Chester: Ascension Publishing, 2010), 167.
[16]
Brant Pitre, Jesus
and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist (New York: Doubleday, 2011), chapters 1-3.
[17] Brant Pitre, Jesus the Bridegroom: The Greatest Love
Story Ever Told (New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2014), 42.
[18] ibid. 43-45.
[19]
http://holycatholicreligion.blogspot.com/2019/12/johannine-baptismology.html
[20] David P.
Scaer, “Once More to John 6,” Concordia
Theological Quarterly 78 (2014), 47-62.
[21] James B.
Jordan, “Peter as High Priest,” Biblical
Horizons 68 (1994).
[22] Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.3.3; Eusebius, Church History V.6
[23] Cyprian,
Epistle 51:8; cf. 75:3
[24] Tertullian, On Modesty 1,3; 21
[25] Lightfoot
attributes the first part of the Liberian
Catalogue to Hippolytus.
[26] Eusebius, Church History VI.20.22.
[27]
Augustine, Letter 53,2
[28] Jerome, Illustrious Men 61
No comments:
Post a Comment