If you would like to catch up on some recent posts, here is a place where you can easily access some posts you might have missed. I hope it helps… enjoy.
Continue readingA quick look back
Featured
2
China and Taiwan – A Short History
The relationship between mainland China and the island known today as Taiwan has evolved over many centuries and is shaped by migration, imperial rule, colonialism, civil war, competing national identities, and modern geopolitics. The history is complex because both the mainland government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the government of Taiwan, the Republic of China (ROC), developed different interpretations of sovereignty and legitimacy.
Early Taiwan Before Large-Scale Chinese Settlement. For thousands of years, Taiwan was inhabited by Austronesian Indigenous peoples, culturally and linguistically related to peoples in the Philippines and Pacific islands. Imperial Chinese dynasties knew of the island, but for much of history it remained outside direct Chinese administration. Beginning in the late Ming period (16th–17th centuries), increasing numbers of settlers from Fujian and Guangdong provinces migrated to Taiwan, especially fishermen and farmers.
European Colonial Presence (1600s). In the early 17th century, European powers entered Taiwan. The Netherlands established a colony in southern Taiwan in 1624. Then Spain briefly occupied northern Taiwan from 1626–1642. There is much that can be said about this period but there is perhaps one lasting effect: the Dutch encouraged Han Chinese immigration to develop agriculture and trade. The indigenous people identity was, for all practical purposes, at risk of being absorbed into a Chinese identity.
Taiwan apart from China. In the 17th century the Ming Dynasty of China fell to the Qing Dynasty. In 1662, a Ming loyalist on Taiwan, Zheng Chenggong (Koxinga), expelled the Dutch and established a regime on Taiwan. It was an outpost of the now fallen Ming Dynasty. Koxinga hoped Taiwan could serve as a base to retake mainland China from the Qing. Even from this early date there was a strong sense of “other” from the mainland Chinese. This and the following years are a fluid time in the history of China, Japan and Korea.
Qing Dynasty Comes to Taiwan. In 1683, the Qing conquered Taiwan and incorporated it into the empire. Initially the Qing treated Taiwan as a frontier territory and limited migration, but over time millions of Han Chinese settlers arrived. During this period indigenous peoples were gradually displaced from western plains into mountainous regions, ethnic tensions sometimes emerged between settlers from different regions of China, and Taiwan became increasingly linked economically and culturally with the mainland Fujian province. In 1885 Taiwan became a full province of the Qing Empire and firmly part of mainland China. The Chinese Qing government was China’s last imperial dynasty.
But by this time the Qing Empire had fallen on hard times at the hands of the European colonial powers, especially Britain. The great lure of China had not only been for its exotic exports but the possibilities of exports to China with their population in the millions. In the mid-19th century Britain had a massive trade deficit with China, as they imported huge amounts of tea, silk, and porcelain but China wanted few British products in return. An import/product was needed that would balance the trade relationship. Unfortunately the British East India company began the importation of opium from India. It became the commodity that reversed the cash flow, paying for Chinese goods but causing widespread addiction in China.
Seeing the social and economic devastation, the Qings banned opium in 1839. They confiscated and destroyed over 20,000 chests of British opium in Guangzhou (Canton), the merchants demanded compensation, viewing it as an attack on property. Their demand was backed by the British government who further demanded “free trade” and an end to China’s restrictive Canton system which limited each foreign nation’s traders to one port and imposed strict rules for transactions. The conflict was fundamentally about sovereignty – China asserting its right to control its own internal affairs versus Britain’s assertion of international trade rights and extraterritoriality for its citizens. The First Opium War between Great Britain and China was fought from 1839 to 1842. The British crushed the Chinese and forced trade agreements that highly favored the British. Other colonial powers demanded equal benefits leading to what are called, “The Unequal Treaties.” A second Opium War was fought in 1857-1858.
The once great China was now a devastated nation subjected to colonial demands. Something that was not lost on Japan as it came out of its isolationist period and entered the Meiji Era of Japanese governance. You read about this movement within Japan that would ultimately greatly impact China.
Japanese Rule (1895–1945). The First Sino-Japanese War resulted from the collision of modern Japan’s strategy to be recognized as a great world power, China’s central government declining ability to extract tributes from regions and tribute countries, and increased instability in Korea as Japan and Russia strove to exert influence over this traditional Chinese tribute state. I leave the details of this period and the conflict to others. Japan won and extracted major concessions from China (Treaty of Shimonoseki) one of which was that China transferred full sovereignty of Taiwan (then called Formosa), the Pescadores (Penghu Islands) and the Liaodong Peninsula including Port Arthur, a warm water port. There were many other concessions. For the next 50 years Taiwan was a Japanese colony. Japan built railways, ports, and modern infrastructure; expanded education and public health; suppressed resistance movements; and encouraged Japanese cultural assimilation. The Taiwanese experienced both modernization and colonial subjugation during this 50-year era.
Return to Chinese Rule After World War II. After World War II, Japan surrendered Taiwan to the Republic of China (ROC) government led by Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang (KMT). However, tensions quickly emerged between local Taiwanese and mainland Chinese administrators. Corruption and economic disruption fueled unrest. In 1947 the February 28 Incident (often called the “2-28 Incident”) erupted after anti-government protests. The KMT violently suppressed the uprising, killing thousands. This became a foundational trauma in modern Taiwanese political memory.
Chinese Civil War and the Division of China (1949). The modern cross-strait conflict largely dates from the end of the mainland Chinese Civil War. In 1949 Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party established the People’s Republic of China (PRC; Communist China) on the mainland. Chiang Kai-shek and the ROC government retreated to Taiwan with roughly 1–2 million soldiers, officials, and refugees. From that point onward the PRC governed mainland China and the ROC governed Taiwan and several nearby islands. Both governments initially claimed to be the sole legitimate government of all China.
The Cold War and Modern Era. During the Cold War the United States supported Taiwan militarily and politically, while the PRC viewed Taiwan as a breakaway province that must eventually be reunified. Major crises occurred in the Taiwan Strait in the 1950s and again in 1995–1996 when missile tests and military exercises heightened tensions.
Taiwan under KMT rule was authoritarian for decades under martial law (1949–1987), a period known as the “White Terror.” Beginning in the late 1980s, Taiwan democratized: martial law ended, opposition parties were legalized, and free elections developed leading to modern Taiwan with its vibrant democratic and economic system.
Changing Identity
A significant development has been the growth of a distinct Taiwanese identity. Many residents now identify primarily as “Taiwanese” rather than “Chinese,” especially younger generations. At the same time, political opinion in Taiwan varies. Some support eventual reunification with China, some favor maintaining the current ambiguous status, and others support formal independence. Most polling shows strong support for maintaining the current de facto independence without provoking war.
The Current Situation
Today the PRC claims Taiwan as part of China under the “One China” principle while Taiwan operates as a self-governing democracy with its own military, currency, constitution, and elections. Most countries, including the United States, do not formally recognize Taiwan as an independent state, but many maintain unofficial relations with it. The Vatican does recognize Taiwan (ROC) as an independent nation. The PRC has stated it seeks peaceful reunification but has not ruled out force. Taiwan rejects PRC rule under the Communist Party. This issue remains one of the most sensitive geopolitical flashpoints in the world.
Taiwan and the United States
Here in 2026 the relationship between the United States and Taiwan is intentionally close but formally unofficial. Since Washington shifted diplomatic recognition of China from Taiwan/ROC to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the U.S. has recognized Beijing as the sole legal government of China under its “One China” policy, while simultaneously maintaining extensive political, economic, and military ties with Taiwan.
Politically, the United States supports Taiwan’s democratic system, its participation in international trade and selected international organizations, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Washington does not officially recognize Taiwan as an independent state, but it strongly opposes any attempt to change Taiwan’s status by force or coercion. Militarily, the United States is Taiwan’s principal security partner and largest arms supplier. The U.S. is committed to helping Taiwan maintain a sufficient self-defense capability by providing defensive weapons, training, and military support.
All-in-all, U.S. policy is “strategic ambiguity,” meaning Washington deliberately avoids stating explicitly whether American forces would directly defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. While supplying Taiwan with arms the U.S. also avoids provoking open conflict with China.
Being Born
This coming Sunday is Holy Trinity Sunday. While in the earlier post we dedicated some time to “anōthen,” what about the significance of being “born,” whether it be again or from above. Every reference to gennao (“give birth”) in John 3 are passive (vv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). A good grammatical question to ask here is “who is the one who gives birth?” Mary gave birth to Jesus – clearly here, Mary is the “actor.” But in v.3 there is no clearly stated actor because the verbs are passively stated. The word gennao is used in John 1:12-13 where the “actor” is clearly defined: “But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God.” The “actor” is God.
This quick grammar lesson indicates that being “born from above” is not something we do. It is something done to us (by God). In a similar way, being born the first time was not something we did. Our physical births were caused by powers far beyond our being. Being born is something that happens to us from powers outside of ourselves. We have to take that image seriously. The problem of some who claim to be “born again” is that it often becomes something they do. The etymology, grammar and the imagery of birth indicate that gennēthē anōthen is something God (the one “from above”) does to or for us.
Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh write about the importance of birth as status in Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John [p.82]:
“It is critical to recognize that the topic here is birth. Birth status was the single, all-important factor in determining a person’s honor rating. Ascribed honor, the honor derived from one’s status at birth, was simply a given. It usually stayed with a person for life. … To be born over again, born for a second time (one meaning of anōthen ), however unthinkable that event might be, would alter one’s ascribed honor status in a very fundamental way. A new ascribed honor status would derive from a new birth.
Thus, a second birth, especially if it differed substantially in honor level from the first birth, would be a life-changing event of staggering proportions.
Then they comment specifically about the transformation indicated in our text:
“To be born ‘from above’ — that is, to be born of the sky, of the realm of God — is to belong to that realm, to become a veritable child of God. This, of course, is to acquire an honor status of the very highest sort. … Thus, whatever honor status a person might have in Israelite society, being born “from above” would recreate that person at a whole new level. In addition, since all children of the same father share that father’s honor status, differences in status among “the children of God” obviously disappear, except for the firstborn.”
All that being said, in our day, “Have you been born from above?” or “Have you been born again?” are asking the right question.
How is all this relevant to the celebration of the Solemnity of the Trinity? As tomorrow’s post will make clear when the dialogue continues, the expression “born of water and Spirit” (v. 5) interprets the phrase “to be born anōthen.” One can begin to see how the larger gospel passage, just beyond the boundaries of the actual text that will be proclaimed, speaks directly to the Trinitarian life of a believer.
Image credit: Rublev, Trinity icon, 15the century, Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, Moscow, Public Domain
Born anōthen
This coming Sunday is Holy Trinity Sunday. Jesus’ response to Nicodemus’ opening greeting is bold, challenging and begins with the solemn “Amen, Amen…”
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born gennēthē anōthen .”
The expression gennēthē anōthen can be translated as “born again” or “born from above.” Some bibles opt for the “again” (TLW), some opt for “again” with a footnote to explain there is an alternative (RSV, NIV, TEV, NASB, ESV, KJV). Others opt for “from above” without explanation (NAB, NJB) or with explanation as to the alternative (NSRV, CEV).
This double meaning is possible only in Greek; there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word with a similar double meaning. Jesus’ words to Nicodemus in v.3 are unavoidably and intentionally ambiguous because of the inherent double meaning of anōthen. It also fits a Johannine pattern of using such ambiguous language. The ambiguity of meaning is lost in English translations because the translators have to pick – and this favors – one meaning of anōthen in the text. At best they relegate the second meaning to a footnote. Translations have their limitations.
Neither understandings are meant to be primary or secondary but are meant to be heard simultaneously. Jesus’ expression “to be born anōthen, to be born from above/again” challenges Nicodemus to move beyond surface meanings to a deeper meaning. When English translations resolve the tension in Jesus’ words by reducing anōthen to one of its meanings, the challenge to Nicodemus (and to the reader) is lost. The intentional double meaning of anōthen must be kept in mind when reading this verse in order to discern Jesus’ full meaning and the nature of Nicodemus’s misunderstanding.
So – which is the better translation? This is a way of asking what is the answer Jesus intends as he asks the ambiguous question? Let’s take a look. As to the word anōthen , the prefix ana (adverbial form: ano) generally means “up”. As in anabaino = “to go up” in contrast to katabaino – “to go down”. The adverb ano is used three times in John all in reference to something “up”.
- 2:7 – They filled the jars with water to the brim (top)
- 8:23 – “You belong to what is below [ek ton kato], I belong to what is above [ek ton ano], You belong to this world, but I do not belong to this world [ek tou kosmou].
- 11:41 – Jesus raised his eyes up and said…
The suffix -then generally means “(motion) from (a place)”. It is used in pothen in v. 8. pou- = where? + -then = from — “You do not know from where the Spirit comes.” So, most literally, anōthen means “from up”. Besides its use in our text (vv. 3 & 7), it always has the sense “from up” in John.
- 3:31 – The one who comes from above is above [epano] all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven is above [epano] all.
- 19:11 – You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.
- 19:23 – The garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.
As you might infer, I favor “from above” as a primary meaning. But then language is fluid. In the context of Greek, as in English, there are idioms such as the phrase “from the top” which can mean “start from the beginning” or “do over”. So anōthen can also mean, “again” or “anew.” Depending on how you understand the context will lead you to take one meaning as primary. But that is from the hearer’s perspective. From the speaker’s point of view, the very use of the word may well intend neither, but rather is the “bait” which will reveal the listener’s heart and understanding. What will Nicodemus hear? Did Jesus mean/did Nicodemus understand “from above” (= from God) or “again” (= a second time, starting over)?
As will (hopefully) become clearer, I understand this passage as Nicodemus being offered a choice – a spiritual choice or a more secular one – to be born again. Given that, while I understand and accept the question, “Have you been born again?” It is ironic (to me) that this question is rooted in Nicodemus’ misunderstanding. Such are the limitations of translation and the power of the accepted narrative and popular expression.
Image credit: Rublev, Trinity icon, 15the century, Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, Moscow, Public Domain
Holy Living
Our first reading today, 1 Peter 1:10–16, comes near the beginning of the letter and follows Peter’s reflection on the living hope Christians have through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It has some expressions that might strike the modern listener as odd and so I thought it worth exploring a bit as it is a passage that moves from wonder at God’s plan of salvation to a practical call for holy living. Also, like today, Peter is writing to Christians facing trials, uncertainty, and social pressure. He reminds them and us that what we have received in Christ is the fulfillment of God’s long-awaited saving plan.
Here are the major points of the passage
- Salvation is part of God’s long plan – the Old Testament points toward Christ and finds fulfillment in him.
- Christians live within a privileged moment of salvation history – what prophets longed to see has now been revealed in Christ.
- Christian faith requires transformation – belief is not merely intellectual; it reshapes life.
- Holiness is the goal of discipleship – Christians are called to reflect God’s own life and character.
Peter says: “Concerning this salvation, prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and investigated it…” Peter teaches that the salvation revealed in Christ was not accidental or newly invented. The prophets of the Old Testament had already glimpsed it, though only partially. Folks like Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel spoke mysteriously about things such as the coming Messiah, suffering, redemption, and future glory. Yet they did not fully understand the timing or fullness of what God was preparing. Peter says the “Spirit of Christ” was already at work in them, pointing ahead to: the sufferings of Christ and the glory that would follow. They received glimpses but as the letter to the Hebrews says, “In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets” (Heb 1:1) And they weren’t alone in their waiting and anticipation. These were “things into which angels longed to look.” (1 Peter 1:12) The author of Hebrews goes on to note what a privilege we have because “in these last days, he spoke to us through a son” (Hb 1:1-2) We got the whole message. A message that reveals the depth of God’s mercy in a way creation had never fully seen before.
This emphasizes the immense dignity and privilege of Christian faith: believers are living within the fulfillment of God’s saving mystery. And knowing that Peter says:“Therefore…” If this is your identity, then you belong to Christ and are called to live differently from the surrounding culture. “Therefore, gird up the loins of your mind, live soberly, and set your hopes completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” This ancient expression referred to gathering up long robes in preparation for action, work, or battle. Peter applies the image spiritually: Christians must prepare their minds for disciplined, attentive discipleship. This means clarity, vigilance, self-control, and spiritual seriousness. Faith is not passive or sentimental. It is an active on-going call to holiness. “Be holy, because I am holy” (cf. Leviticus). Holiness in Scripture at its root means: belonging to God … and so live like it. Live in a way in which the world sees your life
Peter reminds Christians remember who you are, remember what God has done, and let that shape how you live. This is your privilege, your mission,… your destiny.
St Peter Preaching in the Presence of St Mark | Fra Angelico, 1433 | Galleria Ufizi, Florence | PD-US
China, Taiwan, and the U.S. Strategy in the Indo-Pacific
Recently folks have been asking me about the U.S. Navy and what do I think about the current state of the fleet in the context of China, Taiwan, the Straits of Hormuz, and a host of related topics. And this is just a portion of fleet operational areas. There are current operations not only in the Indo-China theatre, but also in the Mediterranean, Caribbean, North Atlantic, and the western Pacific. It is a world-wide fleet as regards operations. It is also a fleet that is stretched thin and likely over extended. The USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group just returned to Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia after a deployment lasting 11 months (326 days). This marked the longest U.S. aircraft carrier deployment since the Vietnam War. The crew was deployed to the U.S. 4th (SoCom – Caribbean), 5th (Bahrain – Persian and Arabia Gulf), and 6th Fleets (Mediterranean) where they traveled over 57,713 nautical miles and participated in operations spanning Venezuela to the Middle East.
Because I graduated from the Naval Academy and served in the Pacific submarine force people assume I remain current about “things Navy.” My time of service was last century. Things have changed. I suspect there is some assumption about my continued knowledge of the Navy and the Pacific given that this year I wrote 130 or so posts on the Asia-Pacific War (1937-1945) but that too was writing about things from the last century. But people also know I remain interested in such things – and so they ask me what I think about China, Taiwan and the U.S. Strategy in the Indo-Pacific. There is a wealth of open source information on all these things and so I have recently been researching facts, opinions, and think-tank publications to see the state of things. And now you know the genesis of this new series: China, Taiwan, and the U.S. Strategy in the Indo-Pacific.
When thinking about what I needed to know and what might be interesting and relevant, I came up with a preliminary list of topics that might become posts:
- A brief history of China, its relationships to Formosa/Taiwan, and an attempt to place that history in the context of key events of the 16th through 20th centuries. Just like the U.S., all nations have long memories of events and perceptions of those events – and that shapes current and future expectations and actions.
- An introduction to the South China Sea, a body of water I suspect people are not familiar with. The “northern border” extends as far north as Taiwan where it connects to the East China Sea and its neighbor, Japan. The “eastern border” is Taiwan and the Philippine Islands. The “western border” is China and Vietnam. The “southern border” is Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and Brunei. Simply put, these are disputed waters in terms of sovereignty, economic zones, international waters and transit zones, and The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
- What are the economic stakes of the above for the bordering nations and what does all of this have to do with maritime trade, supply chains, fishing rights, and security issues.
- What is the state and readiness of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) naval forces (PLAN)?
- What is the state of China’s shipbuilding capability? Sneak peak: it is massive, modern, and a mechanized tour de force.
- What is the state of U.S. shipbuilding? Sneak peak:…let’s just say it ain’t what it used to be. And that is being kind.
- What is the state and readiness of the U.S Fleet?
- What are China’s and the United States’ interest in the Indo-China theatre? What about the interests of Japan and Korea?.. And Russia is not without interests in the region as regards maritime routes.
- …and what about Taiwan? Officially we do not recognize Taiwan as a nation apart from China, but we are their major supplier of advanced weaponry – and Taiwan is our major supplier of advanced microchips… China’s too.
All of that goes into the “stew” of the mission. There are political goals and objectives that may or may not translate into concrete, definable mission and mission parameters. From a naval perspective the first question is the meaning of sea power. The late 19th century guru of such things was Alfred Thayer Mahan and his 1890 treatise, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660–1783. He posited that national prosperity and global dominance are fundamentally tied to maritime supremacy, arguing that control of the seas determines the economic strength of a nation, leading to the rise and fall of empires. In World War II Japan based its entire war strategy, in large part, on Mahan’s concepts. Even 80 years ago, his theories were starting to show their age. He was a man of his age, and in his age, the dreadnought (battleship, heavy cruiser) was the apex predator of the oceans. During the War in the Asia-Pacific command of the seas was inextricably linked to aircraft carrier air superiority and intelligence operations. Coupled with logistic and manufacturing capability, the Allies were able to project land-sea-air dominance more than 5,000 miles from the west coast of the U.S. to the doorstep of Tokyo.
That was then. What about now? Long and short-ranged ballistic missiles and satellites fundamentally alter sea control. And that is just one part of the equation. Today, command of the seas is inextricably linked to controlling the sea, the air above it (all the way into space), and the ocean below. Surface-centric doctrines are incredibly vulnerable to modern anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities used by adversaries – adversaries who are peers in terms of fleets, technology and perhaps an order of magnitude more capable in terms of ship and weapon building.
Prior to WW2, Japan was well aware that it needed to achieve an early decisive battle, not to defeat the U.S. but to get them to the bargaining table. It always knew it would lose a war of attrition. They were correct. What would we say about the China-U.S. options at the start of any conflict?
So, what do I think about the current state of our Navy in the context of China, Taiwan, the Straits of Hormuz, and other topics? I am not the best one to ask, but I am curious. I’ll let you know what I discover.
By the way if you are interested in the Asia-Pacific War\ series, the easiest way to access the series is through these two links:
Nicodemus
This coming Sunday is Holy Trinity Sunday. In John 3:1-21, the focus shifts from the interaction of the many with Jesus to Jesus’ interaction with a single individual, Nicodemus. What follows seems to naturally divide into two parts: vv. 1-10, the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus; and vv. 11-21, a discourse/commentary by Jesus. This text is the first instance of a common Johannine pattern of a central event, in this case a dialogue, followed by a discourse that draws general theological themes out of the particular event.
The opening verses (vv.1-2) present both positive and negative images of Nicodemus. On the positive side, Nicodemus, a Jewish leader (v. 1), seeks out Jesus. To seek Jesus, as noted earlier (1:38), is one of the first acts of discipleship in John. On the negative side, however, Nicodemus hides his seeking under the cloak of night (cf. the night visit of King Zedekiah and Jeremiah, Jer 37:16-21). This reference to the time of Nicodemus’s visit is neither an incidental detail nor an attempt at historical reporting. Rather, it provides a clue to the significance of this story for the Fourth Evangelist. “Night” (nyktos) is used metaphorically in the Fourth Gospel to represent separation from the presence of God (9:4; 11:10; 13:30). The symbolic significance of this night visit is confirmed by 3:19-21, which condemns those who prefer darkness to light.
The dialogue is initiated by Nicodemus’s pronouncement about Jesus’ identity in v.2, but Jesus’ response in v. 3 shifts the initiative away from Nicodemus. As the dialogue unfolds, Nicodemus’s speech is reduced to questions (vv.4, 9), while Jesus’ speeches become progressively longer, leading finally to the discourse that begins in v.11.
Nicodemus’s opening words to Jesus in v.2b contain three positive acknowledgments of Jesus’ Identity.
- First, Nicodemus calls Jesus “Rabbi,” an address that acknowledges Jesus as a teacher (cf. 1:38, 49).
- Second, Nicodemus acknowledges that Jesus is a “teacher who has come from God.” Although “from God” is a traditional way of speaking of religious figures as God’s emissaries (e.g., John the Baptist in 1:6), that Jesus’ origin is from God is also a crucial Christological affirmation in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., 1:1, 18; 3:31; 6:38; 7:28-29). Nicodemus’s words here are like Caiaphas’s words in 11:50: the full truth is unwittingly told.
- Third, Nicodemus speaks to Jesus in the first-person plural (“we know”). Nicodemus does not speak to Jesus simply as an individual, but as a leader of his community, who at this point has a positive view of Jesus.
While Nicodemus’s words are positive, they are however based on Jesus’ signs (v.2b). From 2:23-25, the reader knows that Jesus will not entrust himself to those whose faith is based on signs. Nicodemus’s confident assertion of who Jesus is (“we know”) is thus immediately called into question by the warrants he offers for that knowledge: Jesus’ signs. Moreover, Nicodemus assumes that he can explain what Jesus does through his preconceived categories of the possible (“no one can do these signs” v.2). This certainty about what is and is not possible with God will be challenged as the dialogue with Jesus unfolds.
What unfolds is a leader of the Jews has come to Jesus – albeit timidly – to begin a dialogue. But this is Jesus who understood human nature and so he does not respond directly to Nicodemus’s acknowledgment of him. Instead, he challenges Nicodemus with a teaching – one that directly challenges Nicodemus’ world view. It is as if Jesus is saying “You want to see heaven? You think you ‘know’ what is necessary? Hardly, you must be born anōthen (more on that later).” Each of Jesus’ teachings in John 3:1-11 begins with the introductory formula “Amen, amen” (here in v. 3, later in vv.5, 11). Jesus’ teaching here combines the traditional image of the kingdom of God with a new metaphor, “to be born anōthen”.
Image credit: Rublev, Trinity icon, 15the century, Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, Moscow, Public Domain
AI, the Terminator, and a Papal Encyclical
In the original Terminator movie (1984) – a somewhat Orwellian year to make such a movie – the Terminator, a cybernetic assassin has been sent back in time from 2029 to 1984 to assassinate Sarah Connor, whose not-yet-conceived son will one day save humankind from extinction by Skynet, a hostile artificial intelligence, in a post-apocalyptic future. Kyle Reese is a soldier sent back in time to protect Sarah. He has to explain the machine’s absolute ruthlessness to Sarah:
“Listen, and understand! That Terminator is out there! It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop… ever, until you are dead!”
In his just-released papal encyclical, Pope Leo writes:
“So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean, nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom.” (#99)
The Pope warns that artificial intelligence needs to be “disarmed”. He notes: “The word is strong, I know, but deliberately chosen because this moment needs words capable of attracting attention.” From a moral perspective it raises the question whether an AI-lead war at the strategic or tactical level can ever be considered a “just war” from the perspective of Catholic moral theology.
It has been 42 years since I first saw “The Terminator.” Skynet seems a lot less fictional these days.
The Moral Task
The HISTORY Channel docuseries World War II with Tom Hanks begins today, Memorial Day. It is a 20-episode series premiering this Memorial Day. It was developed in collaboration with the National WWII Museum in New Orleans (an awesome museum – visit it if you ever get the chance!). When asked about his ongoing connection to WWII (Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, The Pacific. Greyhound) and why he returns again to these projects, Hanks commented:
We’re not talking about Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones or the Star Wars universe. We are talking about what, at the core of it all, is flesh and blood and the stasis of years asked of an entire generation—plus some—to say, “Put the present on hold. Your future doesn’t mean anything right now, because there is a moral task before us.”
It is that commitment of the men and women of our nation’s armed forces that remember and on this Memorial Day, we remember those who gave their lives because of the moral task before them.
Face-to-face with the Messiah
This coming Sunday is Holy Trinity Sunday. The fuller story of the gospel begins at the end of John 2 where we encounter the gospel writer’s closing statement (vv. 23-25). What seems clear is that a lot more than the temple cleansing took place during Jesus’ visit to Jerusalem for this first Passover festival. There is the one recorded sign at Cana; otherwise the record is silent. Yet, the evangelist, while recording no details, goes on to write “many began to believe in his name when they saw the signs he was doing.” Even though many began to believe in Jesus, “Jesus would not trust himself to them.”
These verses suggest that Jesus did not yet see a clear basis for an enduring relationship of faith with the people. They were enthralled by the signs, but Jesus knows they will always want one more – there will always be one more thing in the way of commitment. Only later does Jesus express the bases of that lasting, committed relationship: “You are my friends if you do what I command you. I no longer call you slaves, because a slave does not know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father” (John 15:14–15).
Jesus well understands human nature (2:25) – and that is perhaps the overriding narrative of this section of the Fourth Gospel: the response of human nature in coming face-to-face with the Messiah. The majority of John 3 describes Jesus’ encounter with the Jewish leader Nicodemus – a prestigious man “in the know” forms one response. John 4, the encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well, points to a different response of human nature.
One way these verses are connected is the double “we know,” uttered by Nicodemus in 3:2 and by Jesus in v. 11. The first person plural, “we,” indicates that both are representing groups – perhaps the distinction between Jewish and Christian leaders, perhaps the subtle difference between thinking that Jesus is just a “teacher who has come from God” or that Jesus is the one who has “descended from heaven,” who will be “lifted up,” and through believing him one has eternal life – the difference between Jesus as a human teacher or the divine savior.
Image credit: Rublev, Trinity icon, 15the century, Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, Moscow, Public Domain
Holy Trinity Sunday: History
This coming Sunday is Holy Trinity Sunday which is celebrated on the first Sunday following Pentecost in most of the liturgical churches in Western Christianity. It is a solemn celebration of the belief in the revelation of one God, yet three divine persons. It was not uniquely celebrated in the early church, but as with many things the advent of new, sometimes heretical, thinking often gives the Church a moment in which to explain and celebrate its own traditions; things it already believes and holds dear. In the early 4th century when the Arian heresy was spreading, the early church, recognizing the inherent Christological and Trinitarian implications, prepared an Office of Prayer with canticles, responses, a preface, and hymns, to be recited on Sundays to proclaim the Holy Trinity. Pope John XXII (14th century) instituted the celebration for the entire Church as a feast; the celebration became a solemnity after the liturgical reforms of Vatican II.
In the shadow of Pentecost and the dramatic coming of the Holy Spirit, the following week seems a fitting place to pause, as it were, and place it all in a context of salvation history. Perhaps that is why the second reading was selected and says it so well: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.” (2 Cor 13:13). It ties together the first reading and psalm which point to the working of God before the coming of the Christ as well as our gospel reading, a short passage from the John 3:16-18:
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 3:16 is perhaps one of the most promoted of all gospel passages. The University of Florida quarterback, Tim Tebow, wore this gospel passage as part of his eye-black during an NCAA national championship game. The next day “John 3:16” was the most single-day queried passage in internet history.
If one looks at the three readings for the solemnity, it is summary of salvation history with a
“capstone” provided by the gospel passage.
But part of a whole
When one does a commentary on a gospel passage, one of the first tasks is to mark the beginning and end of the cohesive unit that the gospel writer intended. Our gospel reading is but three verses of a much larger unit. The unit begins with John 2:23 “While he was in Jerusalem for the feast of Passover…” marking a shift from the Johannie scene in which Jesus cleanses the Temple of the money changers et. al. and preparing us for John 3, the first of the discourses: Jesus and Nicodemus. This unit stretches from John 3:1 through to 3:21. Our gospel is intimately connected to the scene of Moses lifting up the serpent in the desert – “So must the Son of Man be lifted up so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. (vvv.14-15). It is the dialog with Nicodemus that gives our gospel its fuller and context.
Note: there is a lot to cover and so some days there will be multiple posts.
Image credit: Rublev, Trinity icon, 15the century, Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, Moscow, Public Domain
friarmusings 