Untitled Sermon

Scott Hahn, Temple, Sign and Sacrament

A Response to Christopher Maronde

I am in basic agreement with Christopher’s analysis that Hahn’s article has some genuinely helpful elements and exegesis, although he perhaps stretches his conclusions a little. This being said, I will comment on Christopher’s presentation under three categories: Agree, a question of clarity, and disagree.

Agree:I believe Christopher really understands Hahn’s argument, he has taken the time to develop it and think it through. His analysis helped me to understand the article better. Hahn’s argument for seeing Jesus as the New Temple in John’s gospel are convincing and helpful (p 111-114).Jesus' mystagogical dialogues moves from “sign” to “sacrament” is a discernible pattern in John’s gospel.Hahn’s argument for seeing the baptismal mystagogy in particular is clear and beneficial.I agree with Christopher, identifying the vine and the branches () as a “strong Eucharistic theme” is lacking, as in the analogy, the disciples are also part of the fruit, and therefore would be co-atoning.Like Christopher, I agree that one of the strengths of Hahn’s approach is to ground it in the narratives of the Old Testament and in the festivals of Israel. This has led to a relatively novel approach. While some of my disagreements will be noted below, uniting this liturgical rhythm with the “Jesus-as-temple” approach is quite helpful.I also with Christopher agree that Hahn probably takes the assertion of the ‘greater works’ (5:20, 14:21) as the ministry of the “forgiveness of sins” (20:23) further than needed.Like Christopher, I question the development of the Disciples as a temple in John’s gospel. The idea that the disciples are a continuation of the temple ministry of Jesus is not firmly enough supported.Like Christopher, I also agree that the strongest connection Hahn makes in his paper is the connection of Jesus’ death with that of the Passover lamb. ClarityFor some of Christopher’s statements, I would like to know why he believes this. In particular, Christopher seems to appear unsure about , would like to know why. Does he think this is convincing? What would have to be present for it to be convincing?I am also curious about Christopher’s statement that he has put Benedict’s proposal into action to an extent. In what ways did he fall short of Benedict’s proposal? In what ways did he succeed?I agree with Christopher that the liturgical year organization of John is a compelling one. However, I am not so sure that this does full justice to the organization of John’s gospel. I would be curious to see how the traditional organization of John’s gospel as the Book of Signs and the Book of Discourses fits in with the liturgical organization. At the very least, I would like to know why the liturgical organization is superior to the traditional one, or how the two fit into it. In my mind, this is an obstacle to a primarily sacramental reading of John’s gospel. Hahn discusses the traditional organization, but does not clearly explain how his sacramental reading relates to it.DisagreeI think the basic difference between Christopher and myself is he would basically agree that the Johannine Sacramentary serves to continue the theme of "Jesus as Temple” in John’s gospel, while I am unconvinced. The exegetical difficulties in both the Eucharistic and the Baptismal threads seem to lie precisely in his uniting them with the liturgical rhythms of Jesus as temple. I think there are both Eucharistic and Baptismal threads in John’s gospel, but I am unconvinced they can be so cleanly united with John’s development of Jesus as Temple.I disagree with Rev. Maronde in some of Hahn’s eucharistic exegesis. In particular, I believe Hahn’s exegesis of are relatively weak, although I do believe in points in a sacramental direction.Hahn’s connection of αἱμα to (p 134) is unconvincing for two reasons: first, he is just factually wrong. αἱμα does occur elsewhere in John’s gospel (). Secondly, αἱμα in is anarthrous, and thus any connection to αἱμα earlier in John’s gospel is tenuous at best. If there were a connection, we would expect it to have an article.Hahn completely neglects any mention of the Manna theme in . This leads to his mistaken identification with Jesus as the Passover Lamb in the second Passover (6:3), but more likely pictures Jesus as the sustaining Manna.However, this “sustaining Manna” mentioned in , removes it from the liturgical rhythm of ancient Israel, although it might legitimately be called a continuation of the Passover ().One of the relative weaknesses of this which I was surprised Rev. Maronde did not bring out was the paucity of discussion about John’s actual discussion of the Lord’s Supper. Shouldn’t the actual passover meal in rightly be considered part of the sacramental theme of John’s gospel? Yet it receives scarcely any attention other than a connection to baptism (p 131), and, in my mind, a tenuous one at that.BaptismIn general, I found his baptismal theology helpful, particularly his discussions of and .This being said, there is not a clear connection, from what I can see, between the cleansing of the temple (chapter 2) and between the discussion with Nicodemus (chapter 3) other than proximity. By contrast, the reference to the Passover Feast in seems to be a natural inclusio that signals the end of the Passover discussion.Further, Hahn completely neglects to mention the baptism of John the Baptist in , which would seemingly be important so near to the baptismal mystagogy in .Neither Hahn does not connect the baptismal mystagogy to . Which seems to me that even as strong as his concept of baptismal theology is in John’s gospel, Hahn has not “put a bow on it.”By way of conclusion, I think Hahn’s article is helpful for discussing the sacramental themes in John’s gospel and Jesus as the “new temple,” but it is difficult to see that these two are so tightly connected as Hahn wants to make them.