Third Sunday of Easter

April 14                       NOTES FOR REFLECTION                         Third Sunday of Easter

Texts:  Acts 9:1-20; Revelation 5:11-14; John 21:1-19

Theme:  A number of possibilities present themselves this week.  I had originally gone for "Do we truly love him?" for fairly obvious reasons.  More traditional might be "The Re-instatement of Peter", but for reasons given below, I wouldn't go there myself.  Finally, I am plumping for "Love and Truth": it seems to me that these readings offer us a fairly rare Sunday opportunity to reflect on Peter and Paul together.

Introduction.  We open with a fairly full account of Saul/Paul's 'conversion experience' on the Road to Damascus.  Once again we should note what is not there: there is no hint of rebuke or criticism from the Risen Christ.  Last week we noted his attitude as he appeared among his disciples on Easter Evening: no word of rebuke or even disappointment at their weakness and failure.  Here he confronts an arch-persecutor of his followers, not with complaint, but with a simple question: "why?"  Peter faces a very different question in our gospel passage: "do you truly love me?"  No questions are necessary in our reading from the Book of Revelation: in the end all will be revealed and there will be no more questions.

Background.  There is little doubt that what we know as chapter 21 of John's Gospel was not part of the original version, but is an addendum written sometime later.  (One obvious clue is found in chapter 20, verse 30, which was almost certainly the original ending of the book. There is a rather jumbled version of this at the end of chapter 21: verse 25.  Which, of course, gives rise to the question, why was this bit tacked on?

In one sense verses 1-14 seem to be just another resurrection appearance, combining many of the elements of the other accounts. There is, for instance, initial difficulty in recognising the Lord: verse 4; the structure of the narrative is very similar to the story in Luke 5:1-11; and the distribution of the bread and fish in verse 13 harks back to the Feeding of the Multitude, but also accords with the breaking of the bread in the Emmaus story.  If these verses stood alone, the explanation might simply be that another resurrection story had turned up, and someone simply added it to the collection.

But they don't stand alone.  We have two other little episodes to ponder as well, one concerning Peter, and the other concerning the disciple whom Jesus loved; and these two little passages together may tell us something of what is going on here.  First, there is some support for the belief that there was tension between the community that produced the Fourth Gospel and the rest of the Christian community, symbolised in alleged rivalry between the camps supportive of Peter and the camp supportive of this other disciple.  The first hint of this is given, perhaps, in the famous "footrace" between the two to the empty tomb in John 20:1-10.  John got there first, but didn't go in, whereas Peter charged past him and into the tomb.  Peter saw everything, but the other disciple "saw and believed".  Perhaps it's no accident that in today's passage, it is the other disciple who recognises the Lord, and Peter only gets this revelation second-hand from him: verse 7.  And for real conspiracy buffs, the clear reference to the story in Luke 5:1-11 may also be to remind everyone that Peter was a self-confessed sinful man unworthy to be in Jesus' presence.

Verses 15-19 of today's passage are generally summarised as the "reinstatement of Peter", a view which I accepted for many years, but now I have my doubts.  Yes, the structure supports the traditional interpretation: just as Peter famously denied knowing Christ 3 times when put on the spot in the High Priest's garden, so now he is led to affirm his love for Christ 3 times, to blot out, as it were, each of his denials.  But as I pondered all this again, something began to rankle.  Isn't this view inconsistent with Jesus' complete acceptance and forgiveness of Peter and the other disciples, as expressed in that wonderful phrase, "Peace be with you"?  Doesn't such a reading of this short passage portray Christ as some sort of barrister in full 'cross-examination mode'?

And there is another problem.  Jesus, we are told, knew the hearts of people, knew what was in their minds.  How much more likely it is that the Risen Christ has this faculty, too.  Peter alludes to this in verse 17.  So surely, this persistent questioning of Peter is not for Christ's sake, and nor is it intended as a way of rubbing Peter's nose in his shameful loss of nerve.  It seems to me to make much more sense to read this as being for Peter's sake: perhaps in his shame and disgrace he had questioned his own love of Christ.  ["How can I love him and deny I even know him?"]  So here Christ is pushing Peter to recognise that he does deeply love Christ, despite his failings.  And because he loves Christ truly, he is fit to be the pastor of the flock, despite those failings.

But the question remains, why add this bit to the Fourth Gospel, particularly if this community had no great love of Peter or his followers?  One possibility is simply to address the obvious question: if Peter flunked out so badly, if he was so hopeless, how come he emerged almost immediately as the leader of the flock?  Or perhaps this passage was an attempt to lay the ground for reconciliation between the two groups: the Lord himself reinstated Peter, so it is alright for us to accept his leadership or that of his successors.

Or perhaps not!  For the last little episode again tends to cast Peter in a bad light.  Here the aim seems to be to explain why the other disciple has died before Christ's return, when it was apparently believed that he would live to see Christ return.  The passage shows that the belief was in error – and, incidentally, that Peter should learn to mind his own business!

Acts.  What a wonderful passage this is!  The Lectionary suggests that we might want to cut it short, just using verses 1-6.  May the authors be cast into the fires of Gehenna  for such an outrage!  Apart from anything else, that would rob us of another example of Luke's comedic genius in verse 13, when Ananias assumes the Christ is not quite up with the play, and gives him a briefing!  In fact, the whole story is wonderfully told.  Notice the opening verse, in once sense just straightforward reportage; but what drama Luke inserts with the phrase "still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord".  But Paul is no vigilante: he is a man of the Law, following correct practice and procedure.  He seeks and obtains a warrant from the proper authority, before setting off in pursuit of his prey.  Then comes the encounter, again told simply, in a straightforward way. 

The question put to Saul is a psychologically acute one: "why are you doing what you're doing?  What is your real motivation?"  That is just the sort of question that can open us up to new insights and learnings because it can lead us to question our present stance.  Cynics say that Saul had some sort of epileptic seizure or other neurological episode: St Luke says those with Saul heard the same voice Saul heard (verse 7).  One of the reasons it's good to have this passage in this Season of Easter is because of the significance it gives to that little phrase "three days" in verse 9.  He had no sight, mobility or appetite: he was "dead" for three days.  And, of course, verse 15 is the key: Saul, even less likely than Peter, has been chosen by Christ – end of questions and debate.  Baptism and anointing with the Holy Spirit seals the deal.

Taking It Personally.

·         Another opportunity to reflect on your own path to faith.  Have you had a dramatic conversion experience, as Saul/Paul did; or has it been much more gradual, with twists and turns along the say, as it was for Peter?

·         Are you inclined to brief God on a situation where it seems he might not be up with the play?

·         Can you recall an occasion when you thought God had got things wrong – had chosen the wrong person for the job?  Would you speak up in such a situation?

 

Revelation.  Given the length and importance of our readings from Acts and John today, it would be easy to let our second lesson disappear between the cracks.  After all, who really would miss the Book of Revelation if we abandoned it altogether?  But in this Easter Season it is surely good to look up every now and then and see where we are going, and in this context "we" means every creature "in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea".  The whole of creation is being brought together and back to God for an eternity of praise.  And if that sounds boring to us, that's because we lack the vision to see what God has in mind for us all!

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• A time for praise and worship!  A time to get things into perspective.  What is bothering you at this time?  Write out a list and put it alongside this passage.  Then revise your list!

 

 

 

John.  Most of what I wanted to say about this reading has already been said above; but here are a few more jottings that have come to mind.  First, we are given a specific list of which disciples were there on this occasion, including 2 unnamed ones.  I'm not sure of the significance of that, but it's good to see Thomas made it this time!  It's interesting that Andrew seems to be missing.  I'm also struck by the final words spoken to Peter: "Follow me" (verse19).  There is a certain closing of the circle here, recalling Peter's original call to follow Jesus, which also occurred among the boats on the shores of Lake Galilee.  The prediction of Peter's martyrdom may be another aspect of this community recognising Peter's real merit.

 

And one final outrageous thought for anyone who might be on the Board of Nomination, or a Parish Nominator, or seeking to determine whether someone has or has not received a call into ministry.  Ask the candidate three times, with minor variations to maintain interest, "Do you love the Lord?"  As I read this passage again it struck me as rather odd that I was not asked this question by an Examining Chaplain when my possible ordination was under consideration; nor by any parochial nominator or Member of the Board of Nomination when being considered for a parish appointment.  And to be fair, when I was on the Board of Nomination, I never asked anyone this question either!  Yet, when you stop to think of it, isn't it rather fundamental?

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• It's bathroom mirror time!  Ask yourself this question (or, even tougher, imagine someone else asking this question, or even tougher still, imagine the Lord asking this question).  What is your answer?
• Focus on verse 22, and in particular on the words "what is that to you?"  Is that the answer to those who wonder what will become of atheists, agnostics, people of other faiths, or anyone else for that matter?  Should we rather concern ourselves with our own salvation?  But where does that leave our mission to others?