|
Some Greek words and
some thoughts on the passages in Epiphany C
In the appointed readings for the Sundays of Epiphany in January, I have chosen to explore two of the Luke passages from Year C of the Lectionary, the John passage and a passage in Corinthians. Some key phrases and some thoughts on them are as follows: Kalou oinou. Kalou oinou - good wine, wine that has come to the fullness of age and taste. Ancient Palestine through New Testament times was renowned for its excellence in wine. Although some wines were made of fig and dates, most came from grapes. “oinon” (oinon in Greek) can only mean wine. The notion that it was grape juice is a noble attempt by those who view the destructive impact of alcohol on society. The passage where this appears is in John 2, the Wedding at Cana. This is the first of the “signs” that John has in his gospel. If John is using a signs source—that is, a written text that speaks of the acts of Jesus—it appears he edits these signs and orders them in a peculiar and quite challenging way. Often we read this story without noticing its quirks, near absurdities and fissures! First among them, and this is often discounted or softened, is Jesus’ way of addressing his mother—who remains unnamed in the whole gospel. He calls her gunh— "gunh " —not itself a sign of disrespect, but when used for one’s mother at least a mark of distancing. The word is translated as “woman”. The importance of family relationships in the Jewish culture would seem to indicate that the use of “woman” indicates Jesus is not comfortable with his mother’s words. There is tension between mother and son, even though the son acquiesces and performs the miracle. The gospel portrays a real reluctance on the part of Jesus to be identified through this sign. John uses the sign to highlight the significance of Jesus, but also to comment on a theology that requires “signs” for faith. It may be that John’s theology of Incarnation is in contrast to a theological view that is more dualistic. The separation of Spirit and Body, and of God from human experience, is the ground upon which John draws his argument. It would appear that the denial of the Incarnation as truly involving all the ambiguities and realities of human experience is a denial that John’s gospel attempts to interrupt. It may be that given the nature of this first sign, John is engaged in a theological argument with those who deny the implications of the Incarnation. It is in some ways an absurd and trivial sign. The wedding guests had already gone through a significant quantity of wine—much more than the host expected—and the search is on for more, so that the feast may continue. The text seems to indicate that in fact the company is in various states of drunkness, and that the wine miraculously produced might go unnoticed despite its superior quality as anything but more of the same. The first “sign” of Jesus as a Divine figure is thus the somewhat absurd production of a quantity of wine well beyond expectation—some have suggested the equivalent of thousands of gallons—for a party already in a state of inebriation. We might ask ourselves why this is chosen as the first of the signs that introduce the Divinity of Christ. One might speculate that John is de-emphasizing the miraculous in order to point out the importance of the Incarnation as “fully in the flesh and blood of human experience. “ The somewhat startling use of sarx (sarx, or flesh) –in the prologue of John, coupled with his use of language that sees Jesus as “The Bread of Life”—“He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. (6:56)”, indicates John’s theology as it moves beyond Hebraic notions and uses the religious language of cultures outside the Torah and Israelite religion. The use of these images and this language is consistent with John’s theological argument that affirms the real embodiment of God in human flesh and blood. It is provocative language and indicates that the emerging Church is developing a “theology” that integrates elements beyond Hebraic understandings and scriptures. Paul uses the word soma (soma), a general term for body or physical reality. A number of years ago (1952) John A.T. Robinson's classic "The Body: a study in Pauline theology" argued that Paul’s use of “soma” language rooted his understanding in the non-dualistic Hebrew and in an early Christian tradition conversant with the wider Greco-Roman religious world. The soma/body may be a term of general usage, but it does not necessarily indicate a non-material form. Paul’s use always implies the physical reality of inter-connection between Spirit and Form. Paul clearly indicates in many places in his writings that the gospel involves the body as a physical reality, and not merely a spiritual metaphor. In I Corinthians 12 he sees the Body of Christ as having human members that collectively make up the physically resurrected presence of Christ. Two other words of significance for us are: Paul’s use of the term pneumatikou (pneumatikou), spiritual matters, those things beyond the capacity of the eye to see. The first part of the word is pneuma (pneuma), which literally means “breath" or "wind," that invisible thing that gives life and the inner life of human beings. This is not disconnected from flesh and body, but is that which gives life, meaning and the “ultimate significance or purpose” (telos or telos) of the flesh. Often, we tend to separate spiritual things from political, practical or economic matters. What is referred to in the all passages is a life of pneumatikän (pneumatikän) that gives not a disembodied experience, but rather a new and life giving way of being embodied. Finally there is (((agaphsau (agaphsau), a beloved one, one who is of particular and unique significance. Here is the term for God’s intimate relationship with Jesus, but also the intended relationship with all of creation. We are God’s beloved, and our “vocation” is to be the beloved one’s of God. |