Letters of St. Catherine of Siena: Catherine Extols Mary Magdalene

I recently acquired new three of the four volumes of Suzanne Nofke’s wonderfully edited The Letters of Catherine of Siena at the ridiculously low price of $10 each.  These are each 600 hundred page scholarly, hardcovers for research libraries.  They should easily go ten or twelve times that each.  I have Volumes I, III, and IV.  I am missing Volume II.  Oh I would love to complete the set.  Right now Amazon lists available one used copy of Volume II for $250, and it is only in an “acceptable” condition.  I’m holding out for something more affordable, or at least in better condition.  You can read about Sr. Susan Nofke O.P. and her translation of the letters here.  

In honor of today, St. Catherine of Siena’s feast day—and bear in mind, she’s my patron saint—I want to post something from them.  Here’s is a paragraph from the very first letter, identified as “Letter T61/G183/DT2,” dated “Before May 1374” but one scholar dates this as early as 1365 or 1366.  That would make Catherine eighteen or nineteen years old. 

Some context to the letter.  The letter is addressed to Mona Agnesa Malavolti, a widow and a member of one of the leading families of Siena.  She is also a Montellate, which was a group of Dominican tertiaries which Catherine herself was a member.  The letter’s intent is to bring her order into unison with St. Mary Magdalene, who, as one of the first Resurrection preachers of Christ, holds a special place in the Dominican Order. 

Catherine in her letters has a habit of breaking into dialogue with a saint or God, and so the italicized sections of this paragraph are actually addressing the Blessed Virgin or Magdalene herself.

Oh sweet virgin, how well you imitated that devoted disciple Magdalen.  See, dearest daughters, how Magdalen knew herself, and humbled herself.  With what great love she sat at our gentle Savior’s feet.  And speaking of showing him love, we surely see it at the holy cross.  She wasn’t afraid of the Jews, nor did she fear for herself.  No, like a passionate lover she ran and embraced the cross.  Indeed, in order to see her Master she was bathed in blood.  Surely you were drunk with love, oh Magdalen!  As a sign that she was drunk with love for her Master, she showed it in her actions toward his creatures, when after his holy resurrection she preached in the city of Marseille.  And, I tell you, she had the virtue of perseverance.  You showed this, dearest Magdalen, when you were seeking your beloved Master after not finding him in the place where you had laid him.  So, oh Magdalen, love, you were beside yourself; you had no heart, since it was buried with your dearest Master and our dear Savior.  But you took it upon yourself to find your dear Jesus.  You didn’t give up; you didn’t stop grieving.  How commendably you acted!  For you found out by your persevering you were able to find your Master.

Legend has it that Mary Magdalene, after the Gospel accounts, traveled to southern France (Marseille) to preach and convert.  That’s part of why the Dominican order hold her as one of their patronesses. 

In many ways Magdalene is almost a stand in for Catherine herself here.  She seems to be projecting herself into Magdalene’s situation.  It’s Catherine who is always embracing Christ crucified and his blood.  I am also amazed that a eighteen or nineteen year old girl speaks in this manner to someone above her in experience and station.  My dear Catarina was not shy.

Today, April 29^th, is the feast day of St. Catherine of Siena, my patroness.  Pray for us St. Catherine of Siena.

Literature in the News: Why Read?

There is a fascinating article in Dominicana, which is a student publication of one of the Dominican provinces; actually the one in the Northeast of the US, the St. Joseph Province.  The article should be of interest to we lovers of reading.  The article is called "Why Read?" by Br. Simon Teller, O.P.  You can read it here.

The article addresses the new nature of reading that the internet has created and then reflects on the implications of reading sacred scripture.  Brother Teller first brings up a quote from a Rhodes Scholar that characterizes this new reading culture:  "I don't read books ... I go to Google, and I can absorb relevant information quickly,” as quoted in The Shallows.

First in good Dominican fashion (per St. Thomas Aquinas), Br. Teller provides substance to the opposing argument:

To our Rhodes Scholar's point: power-reading has its advantages. Why waste time reading a book cover-to-cover, when the same information can be found by a few deft Google Books Searches? Does it really matter how we read, as long as we are coming away with the same information?

But to the good Brother of the Order of Preachers it does matter when it comes to reading sacred scripture.  Here he presents the counter argument, which is the thesis of his argument:

TO THE CONTRARY, "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them" (Dei Verbum, 21).

The way we relate to words matters, because God has chosen to reveal himself in writing. In a sense, God is "incarnate" in the words of Scripture.

I'm not going to quote the entire article, but I think Brother Teller's main thrust is this:

But God's revelation of himself through the Scriptures can't be reduced to the mere communication of data. Revelation doesn't just mean that God has told us about himself, but that God is inviting us into a personal relationship with him. When you read the inspired words with faith, you step into an ongoing dialogue. For God speaks to each of us personally through the Scriptures.

I completely agree with Brother Teller.  There is very little argument against his point when it pertains to sacred scripture.  I think we could all agree with that.  But frankly I think that Rhodes Scholar's point is preposterous.  To say one gets the same knowledge from a three page Wikipedia entry that one gets from a three hundred page book is obviously fallacious.  Just consider the context of the subject that isn't developed, the counter-arguments, secondary sources, and so on.  Because I read a Wikipedia entry (and I do rely on them and love them) does not mean I understand the full issue.  I've absorbed nuggets and nuggets without full context are like nuggets that are too small and will wash away through a sieve.  Yes, you may get some information, but it is not knowledge.  If this is what scholarship has evolved to, I'm flabbergasted. 

Kerstin on Goodreads Commented:

I don't think this Rhodes "Scholar" is much of a scholar. It looks like someone who has perfected the way of cutting corners. As you say, data collection doesn't equal knowledge. But this is how in a reductionist and materialist world our young people are taught to think. It is all part of simply consuming what others have written or presented without critically diving into the subject matter yourself. Being stuffed to the brim with only facts makes for a sorry human being when knowledge, wisdom, virtue and morals are missing.

My Reply to Kerstin:

I know. He isn't much of a scholar. I wonder how wide spread that is. I could see myself in college doing it too, but I wouldn't be bragging about it.

After I posted my original comment, I thought of a perfect example. Remember when we did the Divine Comedy last year? Now how could anyone get the same understanding of the work by just reading the Wikipedia entry? Yes, the internet summaries might help to enlighten on something that just didn't sink in, but you would never pass on the actual text and claim you read it and understood it

Music Tuesday: Lee Konitz, RIP

One of the tragedies of the Coronavirus is the death of Lee Konitz who passed away from the contagion last week on April 15^th.  He was 92.  Konitz was a jazz legend, one of the remaining artists from the bebop and cool jazz styles of the forties, fifties, and sixties.  The NY Times had a wonderful obituary.  Let me pull a few quotes.  First the facts:

Lee Konitz, a prolific and idiosyncratic saxophonist who was one of the earliest and most admired exponents of the style known as cool jazz, died on Wednesday in Manhattan. He was 92.

Next, what made him great:

Mr. Konitz initially attracted attention as much for the way he didn’t play as for the way he did. Like most of his jazz contemporaries, he adopted the expanded harmonic vocabulary of his fellow alto saxophonist Charlie Parker, the leading figure in modern jazz. But his approach departed from Parker’s in significant ways, and he quickly emerged as a role model for musicians seeking an alternative to Parker’s pervasive influence.

Where modern jazz in the Parker mold, better known as bebop, tended to be passionate and virtuosic, Mr. Konitz’s improvisations were measured and understated, more thoughtful than heated.

“I knew and loved Charlie Parker and copied his bebop solos like everyone else,” Mr. Konitz told The Wall Street Journal in 2013. “But I didn’t want to sound like him. So I used almost no vibrato and played mostly in the higher register. That’s the heart of my sound.”

Although some musicians and critics dismissed Mr. Konitz’s style as overly cerebral and lacking in emotion, it proved influential in the development of the so-called cool school. But while cool jazz, essentially a less heated variation on bebop, was popular for several years — and some of its exponents, notably the baritone saxophonist Gerry Mulligan and the trumpeter and singer Chet Baker, both of whom he sometimes worked with, became stars — Mr. Konitz for most of his career was a musician’s musician, admired by his peers and jazz aficionados but little known to the general public.

At his best, Lee Konitz seems to put out a dream like melody and rhythm.  As I’ve grown older, I appreciate it more so that the hard bebop sounds where you sometimes can’t pick out the melody.  Let’s start with this lovely tune, “When You’re Smiling.”

Personnel: Lee Kontiz- Alto Sax, Billy Bauer- Guitar, Henry Grimes- Bass, Dave Bailey-Drums.

Here in “Topsy” he joins Warne Marsh who is on tenor sax.  The subtle distinction between the two saxes, which at times are interweaving, is what makes this so interesting.  The contrast is subtle.  Personnel: Lee Konitz (alto sax), Warne Marsh (tenor sax), Billy Bauer (guitar), Oscar Pettiford (bass), Kenny Clarke (drums)

Konitz doesn’t hit you over the head with style.  He’s so subdued.  Here is a live piece, “Just Friends,” with Knonitz coming in at the 1:50 mark.  Personnel: Lee Konitz (alto sax), Art Farmer (fluegelhorn), Ake Persson (trombone), Pim Jacobs (Piano), Stu Martin (drums).

Here in an interview, Lee articulates what makes beautiful music for him.

Finally a lovely ballad, “Lover Man,” with Lee on alto sax and Paul Bley on piano. 

That might be the quintessential Lee Konitz piece.  Beautiful music, indeed.  Eternal rest in peace, Mr. Konitz.

Notable Quote: Jerusalem Laments, From the Book of Baruch

Background:

The Book of Baruch was written by the scribe of the prophet Jerimiah after the Israelites were enslaved during the Babylonian captivity.  I will only speak of the first five chapters.  The sixth chapter is apparently an addition which calls itself “A Letter from Jerimiah” and appeals to the Israelites to not succumb to the idolatry of their Babylonian masters.  As the Introduction to the NAB edition states at the USCCB website http://usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Baruch&ch= the Book attempts to encode the captivity in “Deuteronomic cycle: sin (of Israel), punishment, repentance, and return (cf. Jgs 2; also Dt 28–33).”  The Book uses two voices throughout, that of the scribe and that of a personified Jerusalem.  The Book speaks in prayer, in poetry, in appeal, and in lamentation.  It is quite beautiful in places.  I’m going to quote a section where the author speaks in the voice of Jerusalem addressing the subjugated and captive Israelites.

Jerusalem Addresses Diaspora

¹⁷ What can I do to help you?
¹⁸     The one who has brought this evil upon you
    must himself deliver you from your enemies’ hands.
¹⁹ Farewell, my children, farewell;
    I am left desolate.
²⁰ I have taken off the garment of peace,
    have put on sackcloth for my prayer of supplication;
    while I live I will cry out to the Eternal One.

²¹ “Take courage, my children; call upon God;
    he will deliver you from oppression, from enemy hands.
²² I have put my hope for your deliverance in the Eternal One,
    and joy has come to me from the Holy One
Because of the mercy that will swiftly reach you
    from your eternal Savior.
²³ With mourning and lament I sent you away,
    but God will give you back to me
    with gladness and joy forever.
²⁴ As Zion’s neighbors lately saw you taken captive,
    so shall they soon see God’s salvation come to you,
    with great glory and the splendor of the Eternal One.

-Jerusalem Addresses the Diaspora Baruch 4:19-22, NABRE

In the language, one gets echoes of the coming Savior.

You can read more on the Book of Baruch at these websites:

From New Advent: 

From Wikipedia: 

Gospel of John, Part 5

Part 1 on this series on John’s Gospel is here.    

Part 2 is here:   

Part 3 is here.    

Part 4 is here. 

One last post on the Gospel of John, this on the resurrection scenes.  What is marvelous is the physicality of the resurrected Christ.  When He appears to Mary Magdalene and she finally realizes it is Him, she embraces Him.  He has to say, “Stop holding on to me” (John 20:17).  In the Vulgate Latin, it’s “Noli me tangere” or literally “Do not touch me.”  I don’t know which is the more accurate translation, I assume the more modern one, but both emphasize touch.  Well, one doesn’t touch a spirit.  One touches a body. 

And when Jesus appears to Thomas and He has Thomas put his hands into Christ’s wounds, we can sense along with Thomas Christ’s physicality.  Despite Jesus being able to go through walls, He is corporeal.  He is of a special type of flesh.

###

Finally I noticed something in chapter 21 that I never noticed before.  After that marvelous scene where Jesus has Peter commit three times his love, and Jesus forecasts Peter’s death, Peter asks about the beloved disciple.

Peter turned and saw the disciple following whom Jesus loved, the one who had also reclined upon his chest during the supper and had said, “Master, who is the one who will betray you?”  When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?”  Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me.”  So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just “What if I want him to remain until I come? [What concern is it of yours?]”  (John 21:21-23)

Of course I’ve read that passage many times, but I never noticed that John, who we know as the Beloved Disciple, was following Jesus.  Where is he going?  Does he disappear from the disciples?  We know that John is the only apostle who is not martyred.  We know he forms a community in Asia Minor, and he does disappear from the apostles in Acts.  What is strange is that Jesus asks Peter to metaphorically follow Him but it is John who physically follows Him here.  I don’t have an answer for that.  But it caught my attention.

Gospel of John, Part 4

Part 1 on this series on John’s Gospel is here.  

Part 2 is here. 

Part 3 is here.  

With the closing of chapter 12, we have come to the end of Jesus’ ministry and we come to what amounts for the last supper in John’s Gospel.  John doesn’t narrate the institution of the Eucharist as the other Gospel’s do at the last supper, but he does narrate two striking scenes.  Let’s look at the second scene first.  I find interesting that we see Jesus handing bread out in John’s last supper, only the bread is not His body and He hands it only to Judas Iscariot.  When Jesus announces that one of the disciples will betray Him, and they ask Him who it is, Jesus uses bread signify the guilty one.

“It is the one to whom I hand the morsel after I have dipped it.” So he dipped the morsel and [took it and] handed it to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot.  After he took the morsel, Satan entered him. So Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”  (John 13:26-27)

What to make of it?  Perhaps if you approach the Eucharist with an unworthy heart, it actually becomes the inverse of the body of Christ.

Any thoughts on why John doesn’t narrate the institution of the Eucharist?  Obviously he knew about it.  The fact that there’s a last supper, that he goes to great length in chapter 6 on eating the  body of Christ, and this “inverse” morsel of bread He gives to Judas shows John’s knowledge of it.  My hunch is John doesn’t narrate it because it’s been done already.  He seems to go to great length not to repeat the other Gospels, and I think he doesn’t feel the need to repeat the institution narrative.

The other striking scene is the foot washing scene. 

So, during supper, fully aware that the Father had put everything into his power and that he had come from God and was returning to God, he rose from supper and took off his outer garments. He took a towel and tied it around his waist.  Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and dry them with the towel around his waist.  He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Master, are you going to wash my feet?”  Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing, you do not understand now, but you will understand later.”  (John 13:3-7)

Later Jesus explains the significance.

So when he had washed their feet [and] put his garments back on and reclined at table again, he said to them, “Do you realize what I have done for you?  You call me ‘teacher’ and ‘master,’ and rightly so, for indeed I am.  If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet.  I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.  Amen, amen, I say to you, no slave is greater than his master nor any messenger greater than the one who sent him.  If you understand this, blessed are you if you do it.  (John 13:12-18)

He calls Himself “teacher” and “lord” but that doesn’t quite do it justice.  He is King of the universe, God Himself who will come to judge the living and the dead, and He lowers Himself to do the lowest menial task, the washing of people’s feet.  And He says, this is the model we are to follow.  To follow Jesus then is to be servant to each other, to find dignity in what appears to be undignified.

This is another example of Jesus inverting the norm.  The poor become exalted, a slave becomes king, love becomes power, the dead come to life.

Every parish recreates the foot washing scene every Holy Thursday.  Have any of you had the honor of being selected to be one whose feet get washed?  I was selected a few years ago.  It was a great moment. 

###

All the narrative scenes and the chapters of the signs in John’s Gospel are memorable, from chapters one through thirteen, and then the passion narrative of chapters eighteen and nineteen are extremely engaging as are the resurrection scenes of twenty and twenty-one.  But the chapters in between the signs and passion narrative, fourteen through seventeen, become a blur.  They are filled with discourse and Jesus’ prayer, and so I think become indistinguishable.  At least for me.  As a unit, it is referred to as Jesus’ Farewell Discourse.  I put together this little table to capture the gist and highlights of those four chapters in the hopes of them being more distinct in the mind.

Chapter 14:

Themes:

(1) Jesus as the way

(2) The Holy Spirit as the Advocate and Spirit of Truth

Key Sayings:

(1) No one comes to the Father except through me

(2) Whoever believes in me will do the works that I do

(3) If you love me, you will keep my commandments

(4) I am the way and the truth and the life.

Chapter 15:

Themes:

(1) Discourse on the vine and the fruit

(2) Discourse on being hated on account of Jesus

Key Sayings:

(1) I am the vine, you are the branches. 

(2) Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.

Chapter 16:

Themes:

(1) Discourse on the Advocate, the Spirit of Truth

(2) Discourse on Jesus Going and Returning

Key Sayings:

(1) I came from the Father and have come into the world. Now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.

(2) I have told you this so that you might have peace in me. In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world.

Chapter 17:

Themes:

(1) Prayer that His disciples may know the Father

(2) Prayer that His followers may be one

Key Sayings:

(1) Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are.

(2) I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you

I have found that chapter 17 to come up in debates.  Jesus prays that His Church be one.  All those who have splintered off from the original Church are really in violation of Jesus’ wish. 

I hope this summary helps as the readings from these chapters come up at Mass.

###

Two scenes have always caught my interest in John’s passion account.  First is the scene when the soldiers come for Jesus.

So Judas got a band of soldiers and guards from the chief priests and the Pharisees and went there with lanterns, torches, and weapons.  Jesus, knowing everything that was going to happen to him, went out and said to them, “Whom are you looking for?”  They answered him, “Jesus the Nazorean.”  He said to them, “I AM.” Judas his betrayer was also with them.  When he said to them, “I AM,” they turned away and fell to the ground.  So he again asked them, “Whom are you looking for?” They said, “Jesus the Nazorean.”  Jesus answered, “I told you that I AM. So if you are looking for me, let these men go.”  (John 18:3-8)

I always get a kick out of the way the soldiers fall to the ground when Jesus says the divine name, “I AM.”  It’s a little slapstick moment.  It shows that Jesus has the power to walk away from this if He so wished.  He is in control.  He commands the situation: “Who are you looking for?”  “That’s me.”  “Let these men go.” 

This recalls a moment earlier in John’s Gospel in chapter ten.  After the Good Shepherd discourse, Jesus says, “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again” (John 10:18).  He has the power.  His life is not taken from Him.  He freely allows them to take it.  So when they come to arrest Him, the soldiers falling down to the force of His words, it is a manifestation of His power.

The other scene that captures my imagination is the interrogation scene before Pilate. 

So Pilate went back into the praetorium and summoned Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”  Jesus answered, “Do you say this on your own or have others told you about me?”  Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?”  Jesus answered, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants [would] be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here.”  So Pilate said to him, “Then you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”  Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”  (John 18:33-38)

Here’s a bit of a confession.  Pontius Pilate is the person in the New Testament with who I most identified.  Pilate here is the model of efficiency.  Get to the facts.  Understand the situation, and come to a decision.  “What have you done?”  “Then you are a King?”  What is truth?”  He is a Roman officer ready to administrate.  Pilate is me in charge of an engineering project.  Figure it out, get the facts, find the truth, and make it work. 

But Pilate is baffled.  This criminal before him doesn’t behave like a criminal.  There is something mystical here.  He is trying to understand Jesus.  He can’t penetrate the situation.  He’s trying to calculate.  I’ve had that so many times in trying to figure what physics are doing in a design.  Why isn’t it working?  The design is talking back to me.  “There is a truth.”  And I say, “What is truth?  Truth is what works.”  That is the life of an efficient engineer.  But at least there isn’t a moral problem with what I’m doing.  It’s only an inanimate design, mere metal, electrical, or chemical parts.  Pilate has before him a human being.  He wants to do what’s moral.  But when the situation gets close to a riot, then the calculation becomes what’s moral is to keep stability.  And so Jesus has to die.  Efficiency finds an answer.

They changed the words a bit, but Rod Steiger plays a great Pontius Pilate in Jesus of Nazareth.  Here’s that scene.

Always good to see that movie. 

Kerstin Replied:

I find it interesting that you identify with Pilate, Manny. I suppose as a German I fall into this category too ;-) I like efficiency. Right now I am thinking of re-arranging some stuff in my kitchen because the way I organized it doesn't quite fit the work flow...

Looking at your argument of efficiency, we do get carried away and push God out of the way. Pilate rightly calculates that a riot is never good, but he misses that by doing so he pushes God out of the way. How many times - despite the niggling feeling to the contrary - do we push God out of the way? Probably more often than we care to admit.

My Reply:

Haha, Germans have made some very good engineers over the last few centuries.

If I were in Pilate's shoes with Pilate's knowledge, I doubt I would have followed a different course of action. Pilate tries to get Jesus off, but it just got out of control. If I were to do something different, I guess I could have let Jesus go and lock down Jerusalem. But in all likelihood, the Romans would not have had enough soldiers to restrain the mob.

Gospel of John, Part 3

Part 1 on this series on John’s Gospel is here.  

Part 2 is here.

The introduction to the Gospel of John in the USCCB website states that the structure of the work is divided between the Book of Signs (through chapter 12) and the Book of Glory (through chapter 20) with a short prologue at the beginning and epilogue at the end. 

I might divide it a little differently.  I can’t do better than the Book of signs for the first twelve chapters, but I think the Book of Glory could be subdivided into chapters thirteen through seventeen as the Last Supper narrative (though no supper is actually discussed) and the Passion narrative. 

Another of the repeated phrases is that of being “lifted up.”  The first one comes in chapter three.  “And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” (3:14-15). But it continues with the famous statement of faith: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (3:16).  I do not think it a coincidence that it come right before why God sent Jesus into the world.  You can almost compress those lines into “God sent Jesus into the world to be lifted up.” 

The second instance of the lifted up saying comes in chapter 8.  It comes during an argument with the Jewish leaders: “So Jesus said (to them), “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I AM, and that I do nothing on my own, but I say only what the Father taught me.”  Here Jesus connects the lifting up with the “I AM” statement, what God said His name was to Moses.  You can compress this into “When I am lifted up, you will realize I am God.” 

Side note.  When Jesus refers to “The Jews” throughout this Gospel, I believe He is referring to the Jewish leaders.  Much has been made in this Gospel to justify anti-Semitism.  Referring to them as the Jews as if they are somebody different doesn’t make sense.  Jesus and the disciples are all Jews.  This Gospel doesn’t seem to distinguish between the different types of Jews, such as the Pharisees or the Scribes.  He does once or twice but mostly not.  That’s why I really believe the anti-Semitism is improperly interpreted.  Since there is no distinction, and since Jesus is Jewish as well as His followers, “the Jews” are His specific opposition, the leaders in the Sanhedrin. 

The third instance of the lifted up phrase comes in chapter twelve.  Jesus announces His coming glory after riding into Jerusalem on a colt of a donkey:

Jesus answered and said, “This voice did not come for my sake but for yours.  Now is the time of judgment on this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.  And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself.”

Commentary notes say the “ruler of this world that will be driven out” is Satan.  This can then be compressed to “When I am lifted up, I will drive out Satan and draw all to myself.” 

So take all three of these compressed “lifting up” statements and put them side by side:

(1) “God sent Jesus into the world to be lifted up.” 

(2) “When I am lifted up, you will realize I am God.” 

(3) When I am lifted up, I will drive out Satan and draw all to myself.” 

If you weren’t aware, this lifting up echoes Moses lifting up a serpent of a brass serpent in Numbers 21:4-9 as a form of redemption: “When I am lifted up, I will drive out Satan and draw all to myself.”  So this being lifted up connects with driving Satan out with a symbol of the serpent that was Satan in the Garden of Eden.  Christ being lifted up reverses the sequence in the Garden.  Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan and ate of the forbidden fruit and were cast out.  Christ on the cross lifted up becomes a redeeming fruit on a new tree (the cross) that drives Satan away and restores wholeness by drawing man back in.  Does that make sense?

###

I think all the events with the various signs are fascinating in their own way.  In this read, the events with the raising of Lazarus particularly caught my eye.  We know the story.  The raising of Lazarus from the dead is a prefiguring of Christ’s being raised from the dead.  But I think the language John uses expands the meaning.  For instance, when Jesus first hears of Lazarus’ illness, He says: “This illness is not to end in death, but is for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”  Glory is the key word, and it doesn’t mean the reception of honor.  Glory in John’s Gospel is the manifestation of God’s presence, the revelation of His divinity.  It has deep roots in the Old Testament, going back to Exodus: "The glory of the LORD settled on Mount Sinai” (Exodus 24:16). 

We see Jesus intentionally takes His time in getting to Bethany, and when He gets there Lazarus has been dead.  But notice how long he has been dead.

“When Jesus arrived, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days.” (John 11:17)

Most numbers in the Bible tend to come repetitions.  Forty denotes a long period of time, Twelve (as in twelve tribes of Israel and twelve apostles) denotes a certain completeness, three (Trinity) is perfection.  Four is not common number.  If Lazarus’ death and being brought back to life is a foreshadow of Christ’s death and resurrection, then why wouldn’t Jesus have waited for three days rather than four?  Jesus seems to be in command of the time in the story. 

Here’s another interesting detail.  When Jesus gets there, He is met by Martha, Lazarus’s sister, the same Martha from the Martha and Mary event from Luke’s Gospel.  I am particularly struck by what Martha says.

When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went to meet him; but Mary sat at home.  Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.  [But] even now I know that whatever you ask of God, God will give you.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise.”  Martha said to him, “I know he will rise, in the resurrection on the last day.”  Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”  She said to him, “Yes, Lord. I have come to believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one who is coming into the world.”  (John 11:20-27)

What Martha says there at the end is very similar to what Peter says “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”  (Matt 16:16)  It is interesting that Martha is raised to such a high level.  The women in John’s Gospel are so diverse, from the Blessed Mother to the Samaritan woman to the woman caught in adultery and Martha and Mary Magdalene.  I thought Luke’s Gospel particularly spoke to women, but I think John’s is even more so.

And then we get Mary who comes out to cry to Jesus.

When Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”  When Jesus saw her weeping and the Jews who had come with her weeping, he became perturbed and deeply troubled, and said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Sir, come and see.”  And Jesus wept.  So the Jews said, “See how he loved him.”  But some of them said, “Could not the one who opened the eyes of the blind man have done something so that this man would not have died?” (John 11:32-37)

People are always quick to point out that Jesus wept here.  I think the presumption is that He wept for Lazarus’s death, but I don’t think so.  First He intentionally delayed so to ensure Lazarus died but He also knows He will raise Lazarus shortly.  I think Jesus wept because of the sadness and weeping around Him.  Mary runs out and falls on her knees weeping.  The Jews around her are also weeping.  He is witnessing the love for Lazarus and the pain of loss of that love to those who hold him dear.  I think Jesus is weeping for the hurt those living are feeling.  And Jesus then takes the action He intended all along.

So Jesus, perturbed again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay across it.  Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the dead man’s sister, said to him, “Lord, by now there will be a stench; he has been dead for four days.”  Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believe you will see the glory of God?”  So they took away the stone. And Jesus raised his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you for hearing me.  I know that you always hear me; but because of the crowd here I have said this, that they may believe that you sent me.”  And when he had said this, he cried out in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!”  The dead man came out, tied hand and foot with burial bands, and his face was wrapped in a cloth. So Jesus said to them, “Untie him and let him go.” (John 11:38-44)

Again the four days is emphasized.  Doesn’t the four days show a distinction between Christ’s resurrection and Lazarus’s return to life?  Is this a foreshadow of Christ’s resurrection or something more to teach us about man’s relationship to Christ?  When Jesus calls out Lazarus—some translations have it as “Lazarus, come forth”—isn’t that exactly what every person will hear on their death?  Notice that bands used for burial (I assume to prevent arms and legs from twisting under rigor mortis) are highlighted and still on, and Jesus says to untie him, an act of being freed.  I expect to hear one day, “Manny, come forth.”  May I be worthy to be untied.

It's always good to watch clips from Jesus of Nazareth.  I noticed though they changed the dialogue a bit.