This paper is work in progress offered for critique within the
Online Conference of the Constructs of Ancient History and Religion Group of AAR/ASOR/SBL 1997. As a thought experiment of a biblical scholar trespassing fields where she claims no expertise (law, historical theology and critcal theory) it is not for publication and may not be reproduced in any form without the author's permission
Christology as Law in John 5:17-23:
To Honor Jesus just as God, a Question of Social Control
Mary Huie-Jolly
Knox College, Dunedin
Aotearoa/New Zealand
I. Introduction
The statements of Jesus' identity with God, from a position of superior authority and power, are statements well suited to dominance. Claims of absolute superiority maintain their sway over subjugated peoples through the colonial process of persecution, conversion, crusades, and mission; the colonizing christological claims are supplied by the creeds of Nicea and Chalcedon which, says Kwok Pui-Lan, were shaped in their own time by an imperial culture. {I borrow the term "post-colonial Christology" from Prof.Kwok Pui-Lan's lectures on her visit to the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 18-19 August, 1997; subsequent citation of Pui-Lan refers to my notes of her lectures. Responsibility (and culpability) for the use of the terms "colonial and post-colonial christology" in developing this paper is my own.}
They presupposed the deity of Christ by relying on concepts of johannine logos christology, which served the imperial councils and creeds as "the highroad of developing Christian orthodoxy" (Dunn 1989:xxx-xxxi). John's 'high christology' was written earlier in a context that countered criticism for linking Jesus with God, by solidifying expressions of Jesus' divine authority in superior absolute terms. Later, in an imperial context its exalted image of Jesus as the unique Son, God from above, from the beginning resonated with the culture of subsequent imperial rule and later Western colonial subjugation. This paper looks at colonial christology through one johannine text, John 5, and asks, what is its social impact on ecclesial practice?
A post-colonial perspective, a new phase in christological reflection, focuses upon the imperial character of western strategies in order to destabilize western culture for a liberating alternative; it resists imposition of universal claims to authority and superior power; it resists exclusion of all who refuse to conform to imperial/colonial christological norms. (Pui-Lan 1997)
Many late twentieth century Christian churches are governed by creedal statements of Western colonial christology. Dunn acknowledges that
These creedal formulations have stamped a clear and lasting impression on Christian thought of subsequent generations up to and including the present day. So much so that it is generally taken for granted, axiomatic, part of the basic definition of what Christianity is, that to confess Jesus as 'the Son of God' is to confess his deity....(Dunn 1989:13).
Christological statements construct an internal norm to regulate thinking on the relationship between Jesus with God. Assent to the norm, functions as criteria for inclusion in Christian community.
My investigation will focus upon creedal statements such as:
We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God....of one substance with the Father (the creed of Nicea (AD325). Like the creed, John 5 declares a principle of equity between Jesus and God:
...The father raises the dead and creates life
so also does the son...,
and the father does not judge anyone
but he has given all judgment to his son
so that all may honor the son just
as they honor the father,
whoever does not honor the son does not honor the father... (5:21-23)
In the process of christological formulation scripture and tradition do not function as two separate sources of christology, but as a "unitary yet differentiated process...." (McDermott 1993: 31). That which is accepted as tradition defines the memory of a community; yet tradition and its boundaries need investigation from a multi-cultural perspective, lest the claim of universalism by the Western church be assumed as a norm for all (Pui-Lan).
Dunn (1989:xxx-xxxi) maintains that in the internal christological debates over docetism and modalism the deity of Christ is already presupposed, indicating that johannine logos christology had already become the dominant christological concept. Due to its regularity with creedal norms, I presuppose that John 5:17-23 continues to be normative for colonial Christianity.
Two analytical tools support my critical post-colonial perspective investigation of John 5.
First, I ask how knowledge and power are structured into institutional practice by borrowing insights from Michael Foucault's Archaeology of Knowledge. {I make no attempt to represent Foucault's work as a whole.} He defines a statement as a text which, using a metaphor from archaeology, is like a monument; it orders practice in a discourse (1972:138). Traditionally historians distinguish between the original (the earliest text) and subsequent expressions derivative of, or regular it. But in archaeology the distinction between the original statement and those regular with it is not a significant distinction (Foucault 1972:144). For example, John 5:17-23 functions as a statement that orders practice, because it is consistent with creedal norms. The text is the "original" and the derivative is the creed "the son is one substance with the father" which is regular with it. Because the creed is regular with John 5:17-23, text and creed function as one unitary norm: the statement ordering colonial Christian discourse.
Secondly, because legal analysis deals with questions of authority and social control, I explore legal dimensions of John 5, both forensic elements explicit within the text itself, and the law-like authority it constructs in the church as a norm for practice. The legal analysis includes both twentieth century anthropology of law, and ancient conventions of Hellenistic forensic rhetoric.
II. Christology as Law in Church Practice
Foucault uses "archaeology" (1972:74,95-97,138,139) as a metaphor. In archaeology artifacts which represent a particular habit of use and reuse are associated with a social practice; a text which is normative within an institution performs the same role. Such a text within the life of an institution is not inert, a trace of another time stored away in a library. Rather, it shapes a continuing practice.
John 5:17-23 has been studied as a key christological text because it elaborates the johannine conception of the relationship between God the father and Jesus the son. In commenting upon John 5, C. H. Dodd (1953:328) remarks on the "immense importance of this careful definition" of the relationship of father to son as a concept that is "regulative" (Dodd 1968:31) for the entire johannine conception. The discourse advances, "at least in explicit statement," beyond any claims made previously in the Gospel (Dodd 1953:324). J.B. Phillips (1955:199) entitles the subheading of its translation, "Jesus makes his tremendous claim." "This section is one of the most profound in the whole Gospel" maintains Schnackenburg (1968:99), because its explanation of Jesus' calling himself 'Son' is fundamental to the whole discourse: the Son carries the function that belongs to God alone. Morris (1971:311) describes it as a discourse of "critical importance" because, as he quotes from Ryle "nowhere else in all the Gospels do we find our Lord making such a formal, systematic, orderly, regular statement of his own unity with the Father, his divine commission and authority and the proofs of his messiahship." It is in John 5, says Kennedy (1984: 112), that Jesus begins a theological exposition of the assertions of equality to God which had been set out in the Prologue. In John 5, ideas from the "Johannine keryma," which Schnackenburg (1968:99) designates as John 3:16-18, are developed christologically, illuminating the mission of the son by explaining the relationship between father and son.
I suggest that John 5 is seen as "crucial" and "christological" because it elaborates a rationale already normative for the belief and practice of the commentators themselves. It is the primary source, for colonial christological method even today. Dunn maintains that
"[John's Gospel] sets the terms and provides the norm for the subsequent discussion on the Christian understanding of God and of Christ.... [who] is both one with the Father (10:30) and less than the Father (14:28)....the history of christological controversy is the history of the church's attempt to come to terms with John's christology -- first to accept it and then to understand and re-express it" (Dunn 1989:250).
In section III I will show that John 5:17-23 is unitary with the creed; it reinforces the same divisions and structures as the creedal affirmation that the son is uniquely one with the Father. First however, I assume that this unitary statement is central and normative. It underlines the practice of baptism, and confirmation within Christian community. The statement of unity between God and Jesus governs institutional practice. As a result creed and sonship text together delineate boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable thought about Jesus, structuring what is normative, what is approved or rejected, within the ecclesial social order.
What Foucault calls the enunciative dimension of texts occurs when a text has the status to structure the boundaries and possibilities within an institution. In a superficial sense scripture is enunciated each time in preaching one reconstructs the message of the text for a new context, each time hearers seek from scripture to reorder the discourse of their own lives. The enunciative attitude is cultivated in ritual response to the reading of scripture, such as: "the word of the Lord, thanks be to God." With its authoritative status vociferously acknowledged, all that is read appears to construct the liturgical present, suggesting that scriptural sources of christology are not limited to absolutist texts such as John 5:19-23.
However, only the texts that are consistent with the existing structures of power within the institution are given support to go beyond liturgical speech, to be enunciated in the structure of the practice of the institution. In liturgy texts are not inert, as words on a page in a library. However only the texts which are regular with the structure of power have significance as a statement (a rule or norm). Only they actually define possibilities, structures, boundaries for practice.
The "enunciative" function of a statement is its way of structuring divisions within the practice to which it refers (Foucault 1972:97-105). As an example Foucault cites the enunciative function of discourse which uses the Latin verb amare:
amo
amas
amat
It is the "atom of discourse," a statement which is the rule which orders possibilities for reuse in the discourse that it structures (Foucault 1972:80). In the conjugation of the verb above, the statement is not just another unity eg. "sentence, proposition, lists, tables, chance series) it characterizes not what is given in them, but the very fact that they are given" (Foucault 1972:110).
Similarly, the christological affirmation, the "son one substance with father," functions as a statement; it orders the boundaries of acceptable practice. As an atom of discourse, it structures divisions, possibilities, status, in the practice of the institution. Though the creedal christological statement is derivative, it is regular with the structure of John 5:17-23. Foucault challenges traditional historical critical distinctions between the [highly valued] original earliest occurrence, and subsequent [imitative] statements that are derivative of the original text (1972:141-145). Archaeology establishes no hierarchy of value between original formulations and a sentence repeated years or centuries later; creative and imitative statements are equally regular within the discursive field. Regularity specifies an effective field of appearance; it seeks neither new thought nor common opinion but rather the regularity of discursive practice (Foucault 1972:144-145).
John 5:17-23 and creeds affirming the unique father/son relationship enunciate the same structure in practice: honor to Jesus just as to God. As a statement structuring institutional practice, the creed has a dominant influence over interpretation of John 5; John 5 as a text which is regular with the creed, likewise functions as a rule structuring practice:
"The son acts just like the father" is paradigmatic.
Thus "honor Jesus just as God" defines honor to God.
Refusal to honor Jesus defines failure to honor God.
Likeamo
amas
amat
it is an atom of discourse. It is a statement that structures christological status and, on that basis, the possibilities and boundaries dividing what is definitive as Christian from what is not.
In communities which honor Jesus just as God, this text is not words on a page in the library, not revisiting a ruin, momentarily assessing a trace of a bygone worldview. From within the church governed by colonial christology, this text is a construct of authority over the reader.
Post-colonial christologies are funded by diverse sources not governed by father son imagery, not limited to structures of dominance and submission. For example, organic scriptural imagery of hen's wings, of the vine and branches is used in post-colonial christianity to nurture christologies related to indigenous cultures not in spite of them (Pui-Lan 1997).
Diverse scriptural traditions associated with Jesus undermine the controlling edifice of colonial christology: the first is last/the first last, do this to least of these/do this to me; in Christ there is no Jew Greek, slave free, male and female. These -stand in stark contrast to the colonial christological priority on conformity to declarations of Jesus' divine status. The non-colonial images, which undermine dominance of the oppressive elite, find liturgical voice even in colonial christological churches. However, they will never structure the social order unless normative church practice is structured in response to them. "Discourse and system produce each other...." (Foucault 1972:76). Unless a christological trajectory is consistent with the structures of ecclesial practice, its power is limited.
One can try to live in response to alternate christologies: to honor Jesus just as we honor those in prison, naked, thirsty. However to attempt to do so is to operate outside the norm and structure of the imperial/colonial institution. Colonial christology prioritizes worship of divine majesty and universal acknowledgement of Jesus' divine prestige. Thus it marginalizes scriptural resources outside of the father\son dominance structure. The unique oneness of Jesus and God underlines unbridgeable boundaries between divine and earthly perceptions, structuring priority on worship of Jesus as God.
What is the social impact on thought systems that do not conform? Colonial christology drives a steamroller over indigenous traditions. It models institutional thought control. In its priority on "belief about Jesus' status" it is inadequate to address the situation of women and children exploited in prostitution, cheap labor, and domestic servitude.
...[Discourse] appears as an asset __ finite, limited, desirable, useful __ that has its own rules of appearance, but also its own conditions of appropriation and operation; an asset that...poses the question of power; an asset that is, by nature the object of a struggle, a political struggle. (Foucault 1972:120)
The question is not whether a formulation is original or derived, early or late, but rather, "is it systematically normative of practice?"
III. Law as christology in John 5:17-23
Legal discourse acknowledges its role in social constructions that consolidate power and control practice. For social control is at the core of the law concept (Pospisil 1984:124-125). Christology in a similar way uses normative (albeit transcendent) statements to establish ecclesial authority and exercise control over belief and practice. Yet, perhaps because the subject matter of christology is in part transcendent, studies in christology, while they acknowledge its role as a norm rarely take responsibility for its damaging social impact as an agent of thought control within the institution.
Reading John 5 retrospectively within a colonial christological construct one looks for, and finds christological concepts linking Jesus with God. This paper aims momentarily to suspend that connection. Instead it asks how the text elicits thought and behavior conforming to the authority it structures. Below, using tools of legal reasoning, I will explore the text's potential for social control by asking in what sense John 5 both does, and does not function as law.
According to Leonard Pospisil's Anthropology of Law,
The essential feature of law is its existence in concrete legal decisions. Rules for behavior that are not applied in legal decisions and consequently not enforced, although appearing in codifications in the form of dead laws, do not belong to the realm of law proper for the simple reason that they do not exercise social control (Pospisil 1984:124-125).
By definition law presupposes the potential for social control exercised by an authority holding jurisdiction over and respected by both litigants in a dispute; to be enforceable litigants and the authority must all belong to the same group (Pospisil 1984:125). Further, law defines the relationship between two parties in a dispute, has regularity of application (the intention of universal application), and a sanction (Pospisil (1984:8).
In what sense is John 5 law? In what sense is it not?
I will raise this question on three levels, first in its literary context, secondly historically concerning the time of writing, and last hermeneutically, in terms of its ongoing status in Christian practice.
a) Forensic rhetoric on a literary level in John 5
Set within the legal frame of a trial, the father/son discourse functions as an answer to accusations. The narrative explains the issue dividing the two parties in the dispute using literary trappings of forensic speech. The sonship speech is carefully elaborated as a reasoned defense in a thesis argument, a form originally developed in the law courts. In 5:30-47 the defense is confirmed by witnesses. {The forensic rhetorical analysis, summarized in this section, is explained in more detail in Huie-Jolly 1997b.}
The forensic dimension appears first in the narrative background that clarifies the division between the two parties in the dispute. John 5 begins with a healing which the narrator expands into an explanation of charges against Jesus. At a feast in Jerusalem a paralyzed man responds to Jesus' command "rise take up your mat and walk." Next the Judeans, enter. {To distinguish between the first century residents of Judea and adherents of later Judaism, I use the term "Judeans" for the former, and "Jews" for the latter.} They warn the man in a way that presupposes an authority holding jurisdiction over both parties: "It is the Sabbath it is not lawful to carry your mat."