Conservative Friends Bible Study of The Gospel of John #20

John 12:1–19 

We read John 12 with an eye for meaning, moving from Mary’s costly anointing to a king on a donkey and the tension between literal history and spiritual truth. We sit with hard questions about Judas, poverty, symbolism, and what counts as essential belief.

• Why John’s timeline differs from the synoptics
• Anointing at Bethany as humility, burial, and honor
• Judas, the common purse, and ethics of the poor
• Diakonos as service rather than slavery
• Litra as possible burial measure and its weight
• Plotting against Lazarus as reaction to living proof
• Triumphal entry and Zechariah’s humble king
• Early Friends, James Naylor, and costly witness
• Remembering after glory as theology of insight
• Discerning essentials: resurrection, birth, and belief
• Physical–spiritual continuum and modern lenses

A complete list of our podcasts,  organized into topics, is available on our website.

To learn more about Ohio Yearly Meeting (Conservative) of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), please visit  ohioyearlymeeting.org.

Those interested in exploring the distinctives of Conservative Friends waiting worship should consider checking out our many Zoom Online Worship opportunities during the week here. All are welcome! 

We also have several Zoom study groups.  Check out the Online Study and Discussion Groups on our website.   

Advices read in these podcasts can be found on page 29 in our Book Of Discipline.

We welcome feedback on this and any of our other podcast episodes.   Contact us through our website.

Transcript

Opening Quote And Theme Of Meekness

Host 0:01

In sixteen sixty, as he lay dying after being beaten, James Naylor made the following statement. There is a spirit which I feel that delights to do no evil nor avenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things and hope to enjoy its own in the end. Its hope is to outlive all wrath and contention, and to weary out all exaltation and cruelty or whatever is of a nature contrary to itself. It sees to the end of all temptations, as it bears no evil in itself, so it conceives none in thought to any other. If it be betrayed, it bears it, for its ground and spring are the mercies and forgiveness of God. Its crown is meekness, its life is everlasting love unfeigned, and takes its kingdom with entreaty and not with contention and keeps it by lowliness of mind. In God alone it can rejoice, though none else regard it, or can own its life. It is conceived in sorrow and brought forth without any to pity it, nor doth it murmur at grief and oppression. It never rejoiceth but through sufferings for the world's joy it is murdered. I found it alone being forsaken. I have fellowship therein with them who lived in dens and desolate places of the earth, who through death obtained this resurrection and eternal holy life.

Henry Jason 1:47

This is the OIM Greek Bible study. This is session number 20, and we are reading the gospel according to John. And we left off at chapter 12, verse one. Are there any questions about what we covered last time from anyone or comments?

SPEAKER_03 2:10

Henry, I wonder if you would have anything to say about the uh chronology, which apparently is different in John than in the synoptics, as to what day these things were happening and how many years his ministry went. And maybe it doesn't matter. I just wonder if being written later, if there was more information that this gospel writer had.

Cleansing The Temple And Spiritual Priority

Henry Jason 2:37

I think the chronology didn't matter to the writers of the four canonical gospels. If you just look at the three synoptic gospels, that is Mark, Matthew, and Luke, it would appear that everything just occurred in one year as to the ministry of Jesus. However, if you look at the feasts that are mentioned in John, it's clearly at least three years, which to me would indicate that it probably was at least three years. It didn't really matter what the chronology was in terms of the writers of the synoptic gospels. Of course, Luke and Matthew used the gospel according to Mark as their primary source, and they basically added material to that gospel which they already had available to them. There are a lot of what you would call discrepancies in time that obviously did not matter to the writers of these gospels. One in particular is the cleansing of the temple. If you read the three synoptic gospels and you compare it to a gospel according to John, one says that it occurs at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, and the other says it occurred at the very end before Jesus was arrested. And the reasons for that probably had to do with the focus of what was in the mindset of the writers as to what they were presenting and how they wanted to present it, rather than paying attention to the chronology. I don't have it on my screen, but if I could go back to what Origen said there, that the spiritual sense of what they wanted to say was more important than the literal sense. And even as to when uh the Last Supper was and the crucifixion differs looking at the Gospel according to John compared to the other three Gospels. So there are spiritual reasons for that. I think we moderns would just have to say, we'd have to give the exact, accurate chronological time as to when these things happened. That didn't matter to these writers, but it drives us crazy, us more materialistic scientific people. We have to have those exact dates and times. That wasn't a concern to these writers. And that's important to understand because you'll find people who are opposed to Christianity pointing out these differences. These differences never seem to matter in early Christianity when you're reading, looking at early Christian writings of the first 200, 300 years. Today, of course, uh, with more scientific mind, more reductionist kinds of philosophies and whatever, people get annoyed and angry as you Christians, hey, it says this here, and here's something very different. That wasn't a concern. And I don't think it should be a concern of us if we really understand that they were trying to get across a spiritual sense, and that was more important than a literal sense. I hope I've kind of answered some of the question. Okay. Uh, any other questions or comments? Now, I should say what I just said, of course, would be argued, it'd be a huge argument between what I'm saying here as a conservative friend and perhaps more fundamentalist evangelical Christians as to how they understand what I've just said. But these are my beliefs, and these were the beliefs of early friends and early Christians. Any other comments, questions before we go on? Okay. So let's go to chapter 20, I'm sorry, chapter 12, verse 1. And here we have Martha and Mary again. Okay, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him. Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus' feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas, Iscariot, one of his disciples, the one who was about to betray him, said, Why was this perfume not sold for 300 denarii and the money given to the poor? He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief. He kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it. Jesus said, Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me. In verse 1, where it says Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead, again, this verb raise is the verb, one of the Greek verbs that means to raise or to resurrect. It actually means to get up, more literally, to get up from sleep when you wake up in the morning. Or sleep is a euphemism, I should say, for dying. This is a raising from death or a raising from a getting up from sleeping. There they gave a dinner for him, for Lazarus. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him. Ah, Martha is in her usual mode of well, I don't know how to describe her. I feel this way often myself. I've got to do the physical kinds of things that need to be done first, but here she is serving them. And this word I've mentioned before, there's a word serve that in servant that often means slave. This is not the word for slave. This is the word that means to serve, like serve a meal or to be um a part-time kind of servant. Okay. And throughout this passage, when you get the word servant or serve, it's that word uh the noun is diaconos, which is uh literally a servant, but not a slave.

SPEAKER_03 9:17

Well, isn't that where we get our word uh for the diaconite?

Beginning John 12: The Anointing At Bethany

Henry Jason 9:21

And also the word deacon. Deacon, yeah, and also the word dean, d-e-a-n. And what else? I'm thinking, let's see, deacon, deaconite, dean. Yeah, so that's the word for servant. Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus' feet. Okay, she rubbed it onto Jesus' feet and wiped them with her hair. I've wondered about what this actually means in terms of wiping it with her hair. I've not really read anything that seems to indicate the symbolism of that, or is it was it actually such? Uh a human hair, I understand, if you let it grow on the head, it usually is about three feet long. It will end somewhere down your back about three feet for the average person, sometimes longer or shorter. So it's clearly a sign of humility because it was a slave who would wash the feet, or a servant that would wash the feet of someone coming into a home and having a meal or whatever, if you recall what Jesus did in washing the feet of his disciples at the Last Supper. That is clearly something a servant or a slave would do, uh, not someone's teacher, not someone's rabbi. Um I forgot to look up this word litra, which they translated as pound. Does uh some other translation have a different figure there instead of a word instead of pound?

SPEAKER_00 11:20

Uh mine has uh a pint.

Henry Jason 11:22

Pint, okay. Oh, okay. I I have I see it's uh it's a Roman pound, 327.45 grams. And the question is does the quantity suggest a royal burial? That's the question here in my dictionary, but it's the word litra, and we get our word liter from that. A litra might have been a quantity used for a burial. The house is filled with the fragrance of the perfume, but Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, the one who was about to betray him, said, Why was this perfume not sold for 300 denarii and the money given to the poor? Now, 300 denarii would be a huge sum of money, several thousand dollars, if that's meant literally here. Because if you recall elsewhere, the a laborer's wage was one denarius for a day's wage out in the fields, and this is three hundred. So we're talking about several months' worth. If this were the case or anything like it, it would indicate that Mary had money. Mary and Martha were from a wealthier family, if this were the case. Well, let's go on. He, Judas, he said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief. He kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it. Now that's a very interesting comment because if he was like the treasurer for the twelve apostles, he held a very high position in the group. And that's important to think about. That he was entrusted with any money they had together. We kind of aren't aware of that uh that he held any high position except indirectly from comments like this, that he was the one that held the money, the money box for a common person, but he would steal from it. Jesus said, Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me. Any comments on that phrase? You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.

SPEAKER_03 14:14

After any comments on that, I want to go back to the previous paragraph.

Henry Jason 14:21

I I've heard some strange comments on this phrase that it seems to say, since we're always going to have the poor with us, that we don't need to focus on the justice that really they deserve as human beings. It's some very strange comments you can read elsewhere. I don't know where that comes from. Anyway, David, what was the other thing you wanted to comment on?

SPEAKER_03 14:50

It has to do with the use of the perfume. I think that the synoptics have the woman who I don't believe is is named Mary, just a woman, putting the expensive perfume on Jesus' head. And I've been in a different group in which this led to some very heated and emotional exchanges as to what that means and what the role of women is. And there was one friend who had said, Well, in the old testament, only a man could do that. In into the chat, this friend in another group quoted from the feminist theologian Elizabeth Schlussler Fiorenza who said, Since the prophet in the Old Testament anointed the head of the Jewish king, the anointing of Jesus' head must have been understood immediately as the prophetic recognition of Jesus. But it was the woman who named Jesus by and through her prophetic sign action. It was a politically dangerous story. I realize this goes beyond what John says, but it is in our total tradition. Uh, and whether it's the feet or the head, it the common element is that it's a generous, self-giving expression of love and adoration, whether there's a prophetic symbol in it or not, and whether the main point is uh anointing for burial or anointing for kingship, that's a debate. But it's interesting that John has it just on the feet, and nothing about the messianic symbolism.

Judas, The Common Purse, And The Poor

Henry Jason 16:39

Yes, um that's an important point. Let me just speak first, Sarah. One always needs to remember what I was saying at the beginning of this session about whatever the focus is of the writer. Perhaps the head, the shoulders, other parts of the body were this perfume rubbed onto it as well. But whatever the symbolism was with regard to the feet is what he focused on. So often, in so many places in the gospels, we just get a little snippet, a little bit of the action that's happening happening at any place, and all the rest is understood, perhaps was understood by many of the listeners to hearing these gospels read to them in that first century. So we just have to accept what we have there. So okay, Sarah.

SPEAKER_07 17:28

I was only going to mention that in the Gospel of Mark 144, it's the same question about wasting the oil, but at this time um they were in the house of Simon the Leper, and the woman came in and poured the oil on his head. So there's it's very similar. And Jesus saying also, let her alone, why do you trouble her? I'm thinking also if this was passed down from oral tradition, it's understandable why it might be different, you know, as stories.

Henry Jason 18:04

Okay, good point. You brought up another kind of possibility here that actually there was one particular anointing, but things are changed to pull out some spiritual meaning that the individual writer of that gospel wanted to do. And that's why you have this variation. If it's there was just one, just like I'm thinking of the multiplication of the loaves of bread, you have all four gospels recorded, but in one gospel, is that John? You have two multiplications, two times. Is that due to there were two oral histories or two written histories that were a bit different and referring to the same instance or not? But it clearly when it's when those two are talked about, they are talked about as different, and there's even a they even point to the differences in terms of the meaning. And I do recall that the numbers that are used there have different symbolic meanings. So the question is what was the purpose of the writer of that particular gospel in saying what he wanted to say and how he changed and used the material he had available to him? See, I mean, we kind of think of truth and lies, they weren't thinking in those categories, they these were teaching documents, and they were trying to teach spiritual truths through language, both literally, as I want to go back to origin, and spiritually, but of course, the spiritual was more important than the literal, and that we have to kind of think that way today, too, uh, as well as early friends did. They clearly at times talk about other Christian opponents to Quakers as being literalist in a negative sense, where they should not have been. They they miss the deeper spiritual uh meaning, signification of things, and that's still an issue today, and it's something I think is important when I'm dealing with some other Christian literalist fundamentalist understanding, it's going getting to the deeper spiritual sense, going beyond what words mean, to something much deeper within us.

SPEAKER_09 20:37

I think that the uh other story where Jesus is anointed, he follows it with something like wherever this story is told, this will be a testament to me.

SPEAKER_02 20:50

Yeah.

SPEAKER_09 20:50

Um, and so what he's emphasizing is the importance of the carryover into the future of his uh his role in position, and that this will be a testament to that. So, in a way, this is simply affirming the same idea that you've been saying is that the spiritual is more important than the material. That's what he was saying is that this the spiritual gesture of being anointed has uh a greater significance than using the money in a way that would be dissipated, even though there would be some advantage to the poor, but it would disappear. I mean, there would there would be no residue of the uh importance of his mission in that action. But this the this this is a story that is told and uh it it's retained in many, many million.

Head Or Feet Anointing And Symbolism

Henry Jason 22:00

minds since that time and it's had a a very very enriching influence on on mankind in a way that spending that 300 denarii i guess for the the poor would not have had so it's a again it's sort of looking at the spiritual as opposed to the material advantage there these reminding me also about the various gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus what happened after the disciples or Mary Magdalene or the women or whatever went to the tomb there are variations there where you know they see two angels there's Jesus I mean and they you can't match them I mean it's there's just we're not to worry about that sort of thing that was not what early Christians were concerned about. They had these stories handed down to them they understood the spiritual import of them and that's what really matters. And today I think it's even harder for us modern English speakers to get to that because our culture is so literalist and demands a literal understanding.

SPEAKER_09 23:14

And yet we we have fiction all the time which speaks to uh something that is you know truth is or fiction is more true than fact I guess is the cliche about it so that in a way that these are stories that tell us about spiritual reality rather than telling us about history.

SPEAKER_02 23:37

Yes that's what you know the facts the facts I would like to speak up for the woman because in the synoptic gospels the story seems to end with this is going to be remember she is going to be remembered this is a memorial to her to her generosity in praise of her so uh it to me just gives the idea of this as community not only generosity but recognition of the what she was doing.

Henry Jason 24:11

I'm again thinking of something I've mentioned in the past I remember once many years ago in Cambridge Massachusetts driving right by the hospital I was born in Mount Auburn Hospital and the there was a bumper sticker on the car in front of me that said concrete people are mixed up and set in their ways and um it's it's breaking into that concreteness that I think is where we as potential ministers of the true gospel somehow need to break into that with God's help and with them allowing themselves to be open to God's grace to get beyond literalness it's so easy to be literal you just have the literal meaning there.

SPEAKER_11 25:01

But then there are problems when you get variations in these gospels but still it's it's the spiritual content that matters that's it's it's such an uh intangible thing or it's very fluid like clouds in the sky you know but that's the important thing the spiritual the non-material the non-physical but the reality just like our thoughts in our heads are non-material the brain is doing whatever it's doing electrically and chemically but the thoughts are what matter it seems to me that people in those days might have not had as much of a differentiation between the real world and the spiritual world to begin with. We have a hard time you know looking at that because we're so focused on science and what is actual fact that it's hard for us to think about the spiritual values that float in the air around the physical things that we see.

Henry Jason 26:12

But people in those days didn't have science all they had was what they saw and their faith well I would say they had a very primeval form of science what they would have called knowledge I mean actually our word science goes back to a Latin word sheo scio which means no K N O W knowledge it's it's expanded a little bit over the last 2000 years.

SPEAKER_10 26:40

There were philosophers who tried to describe the nature of the world in a non-religious well in not such a religious way like Confucius.

Spiritual Sense Over Literalism

Henry Jason 26:52

And I think the last chapter chapter 11 in John shows us Martha being very much that mindset of being very literal minded very uh she's very focused on on using numbers to sort of explain what's real and what isn't you know he's been dead four days or there's a reliance on this sort of numerical scientific mind way of thinking I think Mary is is shown in contrast to that so I think that that way of thinking was probably you know it was there then too yeah we are such materialistic uh reductionists we reduce everything down to a concrete material understanding that's the way of our current world that may not have been that way 2000 years ago in the Roman Empire but so many people think that way I mean we're trained that way in the world today to think that way I think unfortunately I can even say that of those Christians who think that way and use Christian language to speak in those terms. Again I I just want to stress as early friends and traditional friends have stressed the spirit and the world are two separate things the material world is the material world the spirit the Holy Spirit the spirit of God is something above and beyond but also in that material world and that's what that is truth that is the reality that what is really true I guess there's a lot more we could say about this but I'm not can I chime in here I am on board with getting the spiritual message but I still don't know that it's entirely like self-evident to me and maybe I would like to discuss what people think about that right maybe I'm too much of like my social ethics are so strong it seems odd to me Judas we find out he's got arguably position of power is sort of Judas is obviously a problematic moral or spiritual character in the narrative he's the one advocating for you know helping out the poor which of course is a huge part of the sort of the justice vision of the Jews in particular then and also like it's confusing Jesus says Mary had to keep this perfume for the day of my burial but she just used it I'm like confused by that it's not the day of his burial of course literally but what the heck does that mean when she just used it also like my translation is different you had for Toreo or whatever in Greek um seven Jesus therefore said leave her alone she had to buy both times your translation had either buying or purchasing earlier in as well mine takes that as just keeping that yes okay I mean my trans the English my English translation added that to make it clearer it the in the Greek does not have buy it just says that she may keep it so in short I think I have a bunch of mysteries that don't really make sense to me okay so does anointing with perfume mean that we just worship God does that mean what does it sort of mean right it's not clear to me and again I'm sorry if I'm dense let me say something about this litra this Roman pound that's a lot of perfume to put on one person at one time I can't imagine it all going on this it would be you know overwhelming if you had a a pound of quartz or a I don't know a liter of uh cologne put on you it'd be over it'd be just too much so I'm not even sure if we're just talking about some of that that she had but what would that say about Jesus if he just got doused with like a bath of perfume and he was into it.

SPEAKER_05 31:14

I mean seriously I don't know what that means that just really seems like a mystery to me. That's that's not at all obvious or clear I I certainly know the fundamentalist things like oh don't worry about the poor just pray to God. But on the other hand I don't know what that means that's all all those things it really doesn't make sense to me.

Henry Jason 31:33

I have to agree uh with thee Pat I mean sorry Chris in part because with so many of these passages we don't have the full context and we can fill it out sometimes by knowing from other sources what would happen here. This was written for people of their time who understood all of these meanings denotative connotative meanings of these words in the Greek as to just what was happening and they could more easily get to what the intention of the author was in in saying whatever he said here.

SPEAKER_09 32:12

Well one one of the things that these verses tell us is that Jesus is alerting people that he's going to be dying I mean we know that already that's the main narrative but the people he's speaking with there don't know it. And uh he is uh not only bringing that forward for them but he perhaps is also accepting that himself and it's it's leading up to the to the time when he's arrested and crucified. So this is one of the first acknowledgments that that's going to be happening. And uh having it associated with this ointment is making it concrete both for him and for the others it's a it's a gesture that his death will be occurring. It's an act that affirms that he he's going to die and he knows he's going to die and he's telling people he's going to die through this what he says right here.

Wrestling With Ambiguities And Ethics

Plot Against Lazarus And The Crowd

Henry Jason 33:23

I would think if this is true that litra meant a Roman pound and if that Roman pound was the amount that would be used for a Roman burial the whole body would be covered with it that is clearly saying something about his death that was to come and that would be understood by those who are listening to this gospel being read to them in that first century. Was carrying the purse really such a was it really such a position of responsibility um Christ didn't seem to care so much about money and having Judas be the one in charge of it could make it seem that he cared even less about money than he well I would say that of Jesus but just heard this said that's why I'm repeating something here but I think there's some truth to it that among the 12 apostles he would have given this to someone who had the ability or the knowledge of how to deal with money and use it wisely and whatnot so that he was trusted in a certain way although what's actually being said is that he he was pilfering from the money box even though he had that position I mean we don't hear much else you know because of what Judas did we really don't know much about his position and his history and everything else less so than some of the other apostles actually there are a number of apostles we don't know much about at all there's there are legends about them but they're they're not in these gospels. Okay I'd say let's go on a little bit more okay verse nine when the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there they came not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus whom he had raised from the dead so the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus they were putting their confidence in what Jesus was saying in his spiritual understandings and overall ministry. All right let me go on Henry could could you make a comment on this apparently uh grammatical construction about putting Lazarus to death yeah okay it's in uh in teno lazaros apo apocteo all right it's in ten yeah it it uses that same word twice uh okay yeah it's uh that's the uh subjunctive mood apoctenosin that they might kill that they might kill Lazarus let's see they thought among themselves so they planned they were making plans that the chief priests were making plans in order or so that they might kill Lazarus because many were going away many of the Jews were going away on account of him and were putting their trust in Jesus I I don't know how the Greek functions grammatically there and why that verb is used twice. Where is it twice on either side of Lazarus I only have it once at the very end of 10 in the Greek the one verb they may kill him they might kill him in order or so that they might kill the Lazarus kill Lazarus well maybe it's different uh versions of Greek then Henry if I could just ask a question um in verse 10 I have but the chief priests plotted to put Lazarus to death also also so is that saying that they their intention at that time was also to put Jesus to death they had made up their minds at that time one second let me just look at 12 I'm looking to see if there are variations in this 1210 I don't see any variations in the textual commentary one more place it just might be a different manuscript that's all I'm thinking no I don't see anything there no no I don't know why you have it twice it's only once it's only once okay let me continue here verse 12 the next day the great crowd that had come to the festival heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem so they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him shouting Hosanna blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord the King of Israel Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it as it is written Do not be afraid daughter of Zion look your king is coming sitting on a donkey's colt his disciples did not understand these things at first but when Jesus was glorified then they remembered that these things had been written of him and had been done to him so the crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to testify about that. It was also because they heard that he had performed this sign that the crowd went to meet him. The Pharisees then said to one another You see you can do nothing look the world has gone after him let me see here in verse 13 blessed is the one coming in the name of the Lord the King of Israel and Jesus finding having found a donkey a little donkey a young donkey sat down on it just as it was written had been written don't fear do not be afraid daughter of Zion look the king your king is coming sitting on a donkey's colt okay now this is amazing because number one kings would never sit on a donkey a donkey was an ordinary everyday poor man's kind of beast kings royalty and the Roman army would sit on horses that's a big difference and here you've got someone being called king and he's on this poor man's beast of burden a donkey something clearly is very different here the one who comes in the name of the Lord one who comes in the power the name of course is that basic essence of God and as friends understood it and early Christians and that's the power of God that enormous power that that runs the universe the world and of course do not be afraid daughter of Zion well if it were a king on a horse leading an army of soldiers on horses and whatnot you should be afraid but look your king is coming sitting on a donkey's colt a very different kind of king there's a cross reference to Zechariah Zechariah 9 and I I haven't looked it up but I just wonder why does Zechariah say that the king is coming on a donkey oh can we read that well I'm just seeing a cross reference to Zechariah 9 rejoice rejoice daughter of Zion shout aloud daughter of Jerusalem for see your king is coming to you his cause won his victory gained humble and mounted on an ass on a foal the young of a Shias that's uh new English translation yeah well what was that verse again nine nine yes nine nine okay let me just see what this translation says ah yeah this is the humility rejoice greatly O daughter Zion shout aloud O daughter Jerusalem lo your king comes to you triumphant in victorious as he and then quote humble in riding on a donkey on a colt the foal of a donkey it's that humility we're talking about here sitting being you know sitting on a donkey rather than on a horse as a king of course we miss this because we don't have that sense of the difference there we have to have this explained to us why this has this meant something to the original hearers of this that we've lost because donkeys horses we we don't see the difference in what they did in their donkey the donkey was the Tacoma pickup of its day it was the what coma pickup of its day so you can think about hundreds of them walking all over the Middle East carrying their burdens donkeys were cheap well I've never sat on either so I don't know and I don't think I've ever been to Tacoma as well.

SPEAKER_05 43:56

They still are humble animals 20 some years ago I kind of took a And ended up in rural Mexico, and I named uh a pretty poor person. I was hanging out in a very small town, and I named the donkey. And uh Gringo heard of that, I named the donkey and was like, stop, don't do that. You don't name donkeys. It's insulting to the to people.

SPEAKER_11 44:21

You know, presidents don't ride Tacoma pickups.

unknown 44:27

Okay.

SPEAKER_11 44:28

Neither does the mayor.

Henry Jason 44:30

Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 44:31

I feel very moved by this, um by this passage. And and then reading this and thinking about the perfume again, and just um maybe it's because I I um I come from a more evangelical church when I was growing up and um and there was you know there was a song about this particular incident and and it was just kind of a rejoicing kind of song. Um and so when I I think when I read this now, I mean I mean I know that the crucifixion is coming, but but this crowd it is um is rejoicing, and it seems like Mary also seems to understand who um who Jesus is, and I just um and so it's just kind of it's very poignant, I think, knowing what's going to come, but also that's it feels like some people do understand. So I just feel very moved by by this by this scene that is unfolding.

Triumphal Entry And The Donkey’s Meaning

Henry Jason 45:56

These reminding me of the same scene among early friends with James Naylor reenacting the scene in the was it the city of Brighton or Bristol, one of the two, um, for which he was then I'm sorry? Bristol. Bristol, thanks. I've been to both. Um and uh he it we he was then declared a blasphemer for that very action uh at that time. It was considered, I gather, so shocking, at least to the anti-Qakers, that uh he was declared a blasphemer. And then, of course, he was horribly treated and was basically treated so that they thought he would die, but he didn't die, you know, with 311 lashes on his back and being bored with a hot iron in his tongue and on his forehead, be for blasphemer. It was amazing that he was able to survive that kind of punishment. It really is amazing. It's interesting because in our culture, if someone did that, no one would think twice about it, I think. But clearly at that time it was considered blasphemous, and it caused a great problem for Quakers, too, at that time. And there was a real split with George Fox and James Naylor over this that took a while, another year or two. Through uh, was it John Burniade or or William Dewsbury who had to intercede to have Fox and Naylor come together again over it? Of course, Naylor, a couple of years after this happened, was waylaid on a road and basically left to die. He did die. It's not clear whether it was incited by the government or it just happened to be a random kind of action.

SPEAKER_00 47:51

So and his quote uh that he gave before he died. I I think it was him, it was just so tender. And it just makes me think, oh, he went through all that torture, but then he writes this such a forgiving and loving statement, and I love that statement.

Henry Jason 48:14

It would be wise to get that and read that next time, actually. It's not very long.

SPEAKER_09 48:20

I think what David has said here is important, is that this this moment is sort of like everything is lifting him up and giving him the adulation that he deserves, and yet that will very quickly disappear. But this scene is is when he is is being acknowledged both by Mary and by the people in general.

Henry Jason 48:51

One other thing, too, before I forget, that uh the trial of James Naylor before Parliament, he was asked if he thought he was Christ, and he said, No, I am not Christ, but Christ is in me. And that is a pure Quaker understanding.

SPEAKER_02 49:11

Henry Nancy had her hand up a while ago.

Henry Jason 49:14

Oh, I never watched hands. Nancy, what did they have to say?

SPEAKER_08 49:18

Well, I wanted to point out that the followers of Jesus, it says, did not understand at first, but after he was raised to glory, they remembered, and I think that was true with throughout that many things they didn't understand at the time, if anything, really, yet later the Lord put it back in their remembrance, and it was clear to them, and also I I want to be careful that people don't think that we don't believe at all in the history or that these things were actually being lived out at one time, even though it seems to us that some things are contradictory, what they're not. And I I think it's helpful to see why that may have been, but even we don't understand the whole thing, and we don't want anybody to think that we do, it's just that he reveals it because he is alive today in our hearts.

Henry Jason 50:32

Thanks for that reminder that it's definitely so important to discern what needs to be taken, taken as literally or historically having happened, along with the deeper understanding of the spirit. I mean, you can't say, well, maybe Jesus didn't get crucified or wasn't resurrected, wasn't raised up by God the Father. No, I mean, if you are a true believer, you really believe these actual things happened and other things as well. You know, discernment is a serious, important thing to do. I want to put that in context, though, that if you look at all the hundreds of variations of Christian denominations all disagreeing over various points of how they interpret the Bible, that wasn't the case in early Christianity. You know, they didn't fight over these things as they've been fighting over them for the last four or five hundred years in Christianity. And I'm trying to put our mindsets back to an earlier type of mindset of early Christianity or early Quakers, but it is important to be able to discern what is really essential, what did historically happen. These aren't sort of uh made-up myths, fictional myths. No, they weren't writing that for that reason or in that way.

SPEAKER_02 52:03

Does it seem like part of the discrimination is deciding what's more important and less important? I'm thinking like it's pretty important what we believe about death, the death and resurrection, but is it so important that what we believe about virgin birth?

Henry Jason 52:21

I myself would think that way. That actually, if the resurrection didn't happen, then everything else doesn't matter as much. I mean, that is the number one, the most crucial thing in Christianity, as early friends understood it, as well as early Christians. Without that, Jesus was another good man, another prophet. But what was it that why did God raise him up from the dead? And that's the crux of everything. He was a human being, but the spirit of Christ was in him fully, and he didn't have to do what he did, because if he weren't human, if he weren't human and just God, he'd have no choice. But as human beings, we have a choice to do good or evil, to to obey God or not obey God, and Jesus obeyed God completely, and that's Paul says that in his epistles, and that's the model we need to follow.

SPEAKER_08 53:26

But the virgin birth is important because God was his father, he planted that seed. So that's important too.

Henry Jason 53:36

I mean, among Jews at that time they had a very different understanding of uh making babies and having babies and whatnot. It was understood that the women provided the body of a baby, but the man provided the spirit. You know, we're talking about the seed, the semen, but but it was the spirit that came from the man. Clearly, the spirit of Jesus was that total spirit of God the Father, and that's why God is his father. I mean, this whole virgin birth is we could spend a long time here talking about this, and I think we have to stop. It's already beyond our time, I think. Uh, that will come up maybe when we uh read Matthew or Luke. Those are the two gospel accounts that mention it. Mark and John do not mention it, again, for different reasons. Go ahead, George.

Early Friends, Naylor, And Costly Witness

SPEAKER_01 54:33

There's just been a thought tonight, as we on part of the discussion, I just want to comment on, and like I said, it's just sort of a thought process, but we talk about the spiritual realm, we talk about the physical as if there's a very distinct division or port between the physical world and the spiritual world. And then we also tend to think that there's a difference between the religious community and the science community that one looks at the spiritual, one looks at the physical. But to me, is it really possible to look at everything on a continuum? Because what we one dividing point between the physical and the spiritual may be limited by what our eyes can physically see. So what we can physically see is a physical world, what we can't see is a spiritual world. But to a chemist, in another set of eyes that we develop with technology, we see things, and I think on a molecular level. So I visualize a world of particles and molecules and atoms and all that we don't see, but is very real, that does exist, and is such a important part of our world. But then the question I would ask is what we're seeing there that chemists see is again limited by the set of visions or eyes that our technology has today. So with that being said, 100 years from now, we'll actually we maybe see another level of existence. So sometimes I think possibly as we we learn more about the human body, now we think of the human bodies as an ecosystem, and there's more microorganisms present than body cells. So it's a very vibrant ecosystem rather than a separate entity from a larger ecosystem. So with that being said, I wonder as we look at the spiritual, the physical, as we view life and the world and faith, if it may really exist in reality on sort of a continuum between what we physically see and what we spiritually experience. But I'm not too good with words, but this is some thoughts I had as we think about that. And I've always had a problem trying to draw the line at a certain point based on the capabilities we have to visualize things or say things, both in our physical being and in the technology and the world that we exist in.

Henry Jason 56:54

We are both. Okay. We should end now. I did want to say one last thing about the virgin birth. This came up with the Hicksite heresy, too, as to the interpretations there. I've not really studied that much, but that was one of the points. All the breakups in the 19th century had to do with theology, with beliefs, with doctrines, teachings. And this didn't happen in the same way with early Christianity. It did, in one sense, with the Gnostics, but I think we know I I we have to stop. We've gone way beyond time here. A lot of different uh things have been mentioned tonight that need to be mentioned again and further elucidated and talked about. So, okay, I think we'll end there. Next week, we'll see what those Greeks wanted to talk to Jesus about. So we will meet again next week. Okay. Thank you, everybody.

SPEAKER_07 57:48

Thank you, buddy. See you next week.

unknown 57:53

Okay.

Host 57:54

This podcast has been a production of Ohio Yearly Meeting. It was hosted by Henry Jason and edited by Chip Thomas, who also read our introductory quote and credits. We welcome feedback on this or any of our podcast episodes. We can be contacted through our website at Ohio Yearly Meeting.org.