Breaking boundaries 1 Sam 16:1b, 6-7, 10-13a; Ps 23:1-3a, 3b-4, 5, 6; Eph 5:8-14; Jn 9:1-41 There are many beautiful things about the Gospel of John. It presents readers with a vision of God who cares deeply about humanity, desiring so badly to be close to them that God sends Jesus to testify to God’s great love for the world. However, some aspects of the Gospel of John are difficult to read and have been the root of anti-Jewish and antisemitic attitudes in the church, and in Christianity as a whole. The author of John often singles out “the Jews” in general and presents them as the enemies of God and the children of the devil (8:44). Not all references to the Jews in the Gospel of John are as harsh as this, but the Jews are consistently shown to be unbelieving, scheming and even cruel. There are also times when the author of John singles out the Pharisees. Today’s Gospel story happens to be one that singles out the Pharisees and the Jews. It is one of the stories from John’s Gospel that has continuously suffered from problematic readings. So, today, we will do some more myth-busting to correct some of the ideas that Christians have been taught about first-century Judaism and Jews. Some of the animosity toward the Jews in John’s Gospel may be a result of tensions at the time the Gospel was written, rather than issues during the actual life of Jesus. However, we can also find things that are both anachronistic for Jesus’ time and have no evidence in later periods. For example, there is no evidence that Jews called themselves “disciples of Moses” (Jn 9:28). What is most significant for today’s Gospel is the claim that synagogue expulsion was a punishment for those who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah (9:22). It is very unlikely a punishment such as this existed given first-century Judaism’s diversity in belief and practice. Jesus was also not the only man believed to be the Messiah. The famous Rabbi Akiva made similar claims about Simeon Bar Kokhba, and this had no effect on his significant status. There is no corroborating evidence for a punishment of synagogue expulsion in any time period. Why would the author of John go so far to create such a strong image of division and difference between the Jews and those who followed Jesus? This seems to be a result of the author’s attempt at self-definition. One of the easiest ways to define oneself is to point toward what one is not, to create boundaries between oneself and “the other.” This type of self-defining is especially significant when trying to create boundaries between oneself and another group who is, in fact, very similar. While this certainly does not justify the harmful rhetoric in John’s Gospel, it at least helps us to understand it. From this understanding, we can move beyond the problems rather than fall into the trap that John’s rhetoric sets out for readers. It may seem wrong to point out problems in Scripture, almost as if we are denying that these texts hold the word of God. However, these texts were written by humans, and we know that humans do not always get it right. We also know that God does not require perfection but instead works with our human failings and weaknesses. It is important to be aware of and address these kinds of problems wherever we see them. This type of work also helps us to reflect upon our modern times because we are not that different from ancient peoples. We are still struggling with the same problems that have plagued humanity for millennia. This type of hostile rhetoric is all too commonplace in our society. While we cannot fix it all, we can make small changes within ourselves and our families that can ripple out into communities. We can use this sacred time of Lent to reflect upon the boundaries we have created. Which ones are healthy, and which are harmful? How can we help break the boundaries that pit us against each other?
About the Author Kate Oxsen is an assistant professor of Old Testament studies at Catholic Theological Union.