The Bible’s New Testament: The Gospel of John I – 3:16: God and Baseball?

Posted on October 8, 2013 by virgowriter

It is 1988 and the Windhausers are at the Brown’s house to watch game one of the World Series.  The Dodgers are losing to the Oakland A’s 3-4. It is the bottom of the ninth. Though hobbled by injuries to both legs, slugger Kirk Gibson makes his way to the batter’s box as a pinch hitter.  Who else would you want saving your team but the team leader in home runs (25) and with a batting average of almost .300? Well, presumably one who could run to first, if he got a hit. But the team doesn’t need a hit, they need a home-run, and that is why Tommy Lasorda put his man in, even though he hasn’t played in the game.

Dodger Stadium erupts; fans on their feet, hands waving, some praying. Somewhere, as the panning TV camera shows, a person foists his “John 3:16” high in the air. I had no idea who John was, and I was more than a little confused.  The people on whom the game rested at the moment were named Kirk and Dennis.

When the count had reached 3-2 you could feel the tension.  Not a word in the living room; all eyes glued to the TV. Gibson ripped the next pitch over the wall and the Dodgers won.

Few sports moments stand out so vividly as this one.  Part of the reason is that I was a Dodgers fan at the time. Once the celebration simmered down and we kept replaying the moment between us, there, in the living room, and at school in the days that followed, no one mentioned the fan’s sign in the stands—surely others had noticed it, right? I even forgot about it, although I remembered it as soon as I saw another one, and then another, and then another.  What was it doing there? I’d learned it was a Bible reference but not what the actual quote it pointed to.

I assumed–since I’d never read it–that this particular verse spoke to bravery or dedication or belief in one’s self… something inspiring related to sports in general or to baseball specifically. And why was it almost always in the stands of a baseball game over other sports?  When I began this project, I couldn’t wait to learn its connection to sports.

The Gospel of John, the last of the Gospels devoted to Jesus’ life/work is chock full of handy (and famous) quotes.  One of these is 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Okay, now I’ve heard this a number of times (at least the first half), but why is it invoked during professional sports games?? Perhaps some context for the quote helps:

Jesus mentions this line to Nicodemus, a ruling member of the Pharisees, who were a group that were none too pleased with Jesus (he was a threat to them). Impressed by what he’d heard of Jesus, Nicodemus seeks him out at night—he had to be covert about this—and wants to learn from him. Near the end of their conversation, Jesus utters this famous phrase to explain/support his assertions about God.

So why is this evoked in the context of a game of baseball? Perhaps if the sign is held up at a certain moment it suggests that the person who is able to turn the tide of a game is akin to Jesus? Not sure that comparison should be made. Aside from that, why even bring religion into the sports arena? I’m sure God and/or Jesus have better things to do than pull for the Dodgers, even if it seems that a player is able to pull off a miracle.

Posted in John, The New Testament | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Bible’s New Testament: The Gospel of Luke III – The Devil Is in the Details: Judas and Jesus’ Crucifixion

Posted on October 5, 2013 by virgowriter

I’ve used the expression “the devil is in the details” often.  I’ve also never given any thought to this expression’s origin though.  So I googled it.  Apparently, the phrase suggests that small details can make a big impact, and if one is careless with these, they can have a big impact down the road. There’s another interesting tidbit about this phrase: according to Wikipedia, the phrase was originally “God is in the details.” I’m not sure I trust Wikipedia, but there it is. There’s no mention of why the switch from God to the devil.

So, details matter, even seemingly small ones. This is most apparent when it comes to the words we choose to describe a thing or an event.  As Mark Twain asserted, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter–it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”

Clearly, a little difference here or there can completely change intended meaning.

As each Gospel has a slightly different take on the mostly same set of events involving Jesus, these differences are interesting to note.

Luke places emphasis on the trial Jesus faced in front of Pilate (23:13-25), skips the whipping/flogging at the hands of the Roman soldiers, and devotes more time to Jesus’ walk to the mountaintop where he was crucified. Perhaps Luke had less interest in the violence and more concern for the human interactions?

There are also some other subtle but perhaps rather significant changes while he is on the cross: in the ninth hour he calls out to God; however, unlike Matthew (27:46) and Mark (15:34), which both state that he asks why he is has been forsaken, Luke states that Jesus instead says, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (23:46). So Luke didn’t want to admit that Jesus had a doubtful moment but wanted him to appear confident throughout his ordeal? Perhaps this would have a negative impact on believers if they saw Jesus being human?

What is also interesting is that while Matthew and Mark state that the Temple curtain tore in two AFTER Jesus died (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38), here, the curtain tears right before (23:45). There’s obviously a connection between Jesus’ death and the curtain—it represents the tearing down of a barrier between God and people—the timing seems important. If it happens after, the timing suggests the death caused it. If it happens before, it feels related but not the cause. Would this in any way diminish the impact of Jesus’ sacrifice?

Then there’s how Judas’ betrayal is handled.  In Matthew, he asked the chief priests how much they’d give him in silver to betray Jesus—it’s all very business-like and cold, calculated (26:14-15).  Obviously, this portrays an awful picture of Judas. Mark’s version is even more straightforward—no dialogue, just a summary of him offering up Jesus (14:10-11). Perhaps this humanizes Judas a bit? Luke, however, also vilifies Judas.  Yet unlike Matthew and Mark, he claims that Satan had possessed Judas, suggesting that Judas would not have betrayed Jesus otherwise (22:3).

Given how crucial Judas’ role in Jesus’ demise was, it’s strange that Luke would put this on Satan.  I get why—Satan is evil, right?—but that almost lets Judas off the hook. Matthew and Mark’s version avoids this, showing how the weakness of a man leads to a horrible choice for a little bit of money.

I’d been told by a number of people that the Gospels are meant to be read collectively, that they provide merely a different version of the mostly same series of events. But when these differences exist, which one are you to believe?  It seems significant what Jesus actually said in his ninth hour.  It seems significant whether or not Judas was possessed by Satan. At the end of the day, the plot is the same. But the real message lies in the manner in which this story unfolded.  This is the real function of studying history.  Here, it looks like if you want to add a little spice to a story or an expression, all you have to do is add the devil to it. I hope it wasn’t just done for effect, however.

Next up: The Gospel of John. Finally, will I get some clarity on why people hold up chapters from this section of the Bible at baseball games?

Posted in Luke, The New Testament | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Bible’s New Testament: The Gospel of Luke II – Jesus Born with an Innate Sense of His Identity

Posted on October 2, 2013 by virgowriter

I never had to think about being gay.  When I was in junior high and I had friends who droned on and on about a Playboy they’d managed to see, I didn’t see the big deal.  I also didn’t get as excited about trying to kiss any of the girls in our class at birthday parties during truth or dare or spin the bottle. When I was old enough to figure out why I was different, the only thing I had to accept was that my feelings for another guy were actually love (as opposed to lust).

No, like most people, I didn’t have to think about my sexuality, I just had to think about how to embrace it. My feelings have been there as long as I can remember; I just didn’t always know what they were. Some people who are not gay—most of society—have trouble accepting this. How could you just know? You would think that since they didn’t have to choose to be straight, this concept would make perfect sense.

Seriously, what do you mean “you just knew”?

As the Gospel of Luke demonstrates, Jesus also just knew his destiny: he didn’t read it in a book nor have it drilled into him by a number of different people. He wasn’t recruited nor did he choose to be someone who decided to rock the boat just because he could.

He just knew.

Luke contains the only section of the Bible devoting any space to Jesus growing up.  When Jesus was twelve, after his family’s yearly journey to Jerusalem for Passover, he stayed behind to take in teachings at the Temple, without his parent’s knowledge. After a day’s journey, the parents notice his absence and return to fetch him. After searching the city for three days, they find him in the Temple, listening to teachers, asking questions. When they ask why he freaked them out by staying behind, he responds: “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” (2:49)

They don’t understand what he’s saying to them—and there’s no mention of the conversation that follows.  He does return with them, however. Perhaps it did not occur to his parents that their son was anything but their son. After all, why would they assume they’d given birth to the son of God? (Even though they’d received an AWFUL lot of attention after he was born.) Also, why would they put stock in someone saying he just KNEW who he was, that he’d been born with the understanding of his identity?

If he’d said that he felt like he just knew he needed some spiritual info, they might have understood; after all, this is similar to someone saying he is hungry, something everyone comprehends because we’ve all felt it.  But when you convey a sense of understanding about a topic to someone who has no connection to that topic, this gets challenged.  Since they’ve never felt that, how could you?

What makes this an especially interesting section of the Bible is what it reveals: people are born with an innate understanding of who they are.  Therefore, people who balk at the notion that people are born gay, that we “somehow know” this innately, shouldn’t be all that surprised—and not just because they take for granted that they know the type of person THEY are attracted to. If they want an example of this happening, they only have to re-read this part of the Bible.  The Bib le provides so many examples which people often use to support their views on life, you’d think they’d consider the ones that seem to disprove their stance as well. That seems to be what Jesus would have done.

Posted in Luke, The New Testament | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment