Nicodemus as a Boundary Crosser:
Ambiguity, Deconstruction,and Performativity in John (3:1-15; 7:45-52; 19:38-42)
Sung Uk Lim
Introduction
Let me introduce my personal story to invite me,asa “flesh-and-blood reader,”[1]critically to engage with the Gospel of John.As Fernando Segovia suggests, meaning arises out of“an encounter between a socially and historically conditioned text and a socially and historically conditioned reader.”[2] Now, I should like to introduce an “ambiguous” father-in-law who was strictly educated under Confucianism and converted into Christianity after marriage. I had a chance to live with him for one year and more. During my stay with him, I was confused with his religious identity all the time. Sometimes, he tried to be very faithful to the teachings of Christianity. At other times, he complied with some of the virtues of Confucianism, such as, filial piety and loyalty. For instance, he used to transform a Confucian ritual for the deceased ancestors into a Christian one. So far, I have had difficulty in identifying my father-in-law in the category of binary relations, or, Confucianism andChristianity. He would also find it even harder to classify himself as either a Confucian or aChristian. With the aforementioned in mind, I could call him a man of two religions with one foot in Confucianism and the other in Christianity.At this point, it is worth noting that the binary category never allows for such ambiguity. In this vein, oppressive to my father-in-law is the either/or choice ofthe binary category as a mechanism of exclusion.To make matters worse, almost all the Korean churches grounded on the either/or logic of “belief or unbelief”never permit a Christian simultaneously to be a Christian, insisting that a “pure” Christian cannot be mingled with any Confucian elements. Thus, I come to realize that an either/or decision ensuing the binary opposition serves to repress such an ambiguous Christian as my father-in-law in the Korean context, with the result that he becomes the marginalized in the binary exclusion.
On top of it, I can trace the case of my father-in-law back to the earliest period of Korean Christianity during the late 18thand early 19thcentury. Around the turn of the 19th century, there came to pass the martyrdom of Korean Christians under the Chosun dynasty consolidated by Confucian doctrines in the KoreanPeninsula. For many Christians of the Chosun Dynasty, there was no starkly-drawn boundary between Confucianism and Christianity: they were Confucians during the daytime; they were Christians at night. However, the Chosun Dynasty did not admit of the ambiguity ofbeing both a Confucian and a Christian, therefore forcing them to decide either a Confucian or a Christian. The reason is that the rulers of the Chosun Dynasty feared that the coexistence of Confucianism and Christianity might undercut the traditional social hierarchy. Remember that it is a form of binary exclusion thatsustains hierarchical social structure. Just as contemporary Korean churches on the part of Christianity suppress the ambiguity of being both a Confucian and a Christian, so did the Chosun Dynasty on the part of Confucianism through martyrdom as a politics of exclusion. Taken altogether, the binary exclusion pervasive in Korean Confucianism and Christianity has thus far marginalized and victimized the voices of those ambiguous in one foot with each religion. My Erlebnis lived experience leads me to conscientize the matter of marginalization in terms of globalization.[3]
In this respect, one of the most puzzling, enigmaticminor characters in the Gospel of John is, for me, Nicodemus. The reason for this is: he is too ambiguous a figure to be identified.[4] Even though he appears three times (3:1-15; 7:45-52; 19:38-42) throughout he Gospel, I as a reader cannot determine who Nicodemus really is. Is Nicodemus, on the part of Christianity, an outsider/unbeliever or insider/believer? Some may portray him as an outsider or unbeliever who stays in the boundary of Judaism from beginning to end. Others may consider him as an insider or believer who gradually progresses into Christianity, eventually becoming a Christ-follower. Despite all the effortsto identify him, Nicodemus still remains elusive in the sense that he, I argue, resists being classified in terms of the binary opposition, Judaism andChristianity. Rather, Nicodemus remains, even in the end, highly obscure, blurring the clear-cut boundary between the two worlds. More importantly, Nicodemus, as Jouette Bassler notes, is also one of the marginal characters, who are “neither outsiders nor insiders nor even in transition from outsider to insider.”[5]As an ambiguous and marginal figure, Nicodemus is not able to fit into any category.[6]
Along this line, one of the most marginalized, victimized minor characters can also be found in Nicodemus. In regards to Nicodemus, the most salient marginalization or victimization is to represent him as a man of misunderstanding and incomprehension through a literary device of irony. As Alan Culpepper makes it clear, “The Jews and those associated with them (the Pharisees, Nicodemus, Caiaphas, and so forth) are the most frequent victims of John’s irony. Their inability to comprehend Jesus’ glory sets up most of the irony, since the reader is able to see both their blindness and Jesus’ glory through the eyes of the evangelist.”[7] (italics mine) In a word, Nicodemus falls into one of the “victims of irony”[8] who lacks ability to comprehend the word of Jesus. If this is the case, Nicodemus can be seen as negative in terms of the binary opposition of belief or unbelief. Observably, it isthe binary category of understanding and misunderstanding that oppresses Nicodemus. Hence, Nicodemus is a victim of the binary opposition.
With this in mind, this paper aims to liberate a minor character of Nicodemus from the prison of dualism such as insider/outsider, believer/unbeliever, and understanding/misunderstanding. According to the binary exclusion, Nicodemus would be undoubtedly characterized as outsider, unbeliever, and/or ignorant. As noted earlier, one should remember that he is rather a man of ambiguity who resists the category itself, however. The ambiguity of Nicodemus stresses that he is an other who crosses and obscures the binarism-drawn boundary. As Bassler rightly writes, “Nicodemus’s repeated professions and actions of faith have made him no more than a ‘proximate other,’ the other who is beginning to challenge the limits of otherness but who remains ‘other’ nonetheless.”[9]By refusing to adopt an either/or decision, a minor character, Nicodemus, plays a major role in destabilizing the dualism of the Johannine Gospel.[10]
Thus, the present study arguesthat an ambiguous character, Nicodemus, as a boundary crosser in the Fourth Gospel, is in a position to deconstruct the prevalent dualism of the Gospel and therefore, to subvert its structure and hierarchy. While the Gospel is embedded with dualistic elements, I do not assume that the purpose of it builds a world of dualism and hence, hierarchical structure. On the contrary, my assumption is that the Gospel reveals how ambiguous and fluid dualism is and how subversive to structure ambiguity is. My reading leans towards deconstruction and postcolonialism. Therefore, I contend that in the face of dualism and hierarchy, Nicodemus remains deconstructive and subversive.
In what follows, I shall make my statement argumentative in the order of the plot by first revealing how ambiguous the characters, Jesus and Nicodemus, are and their dialogue, seen through the concept of Homi Bhabha.[11] Then I shall show how deconstructive to the dualism of center and periphery Nicodemus’ speech is, with the help of Jacques Derrida. Last but more importantly, I shall highlight how subversive Nicodemus act is through the performative theory of Judith Butler.
2. Jesus and Nicodemus (John 3:1-15): Ambiguity and Hybridity
Ambiguity and Hybridity: This section shall demonstrate the ambiguity of Jesus and Nicodemus and that of their conversation along with the concept of hybridity. In so doing, it is worthwhile to note that the ambiguity of binary divisions in the Gospel of John is closely connected to the “in-between” diasporic experience, an experience of the “diaspora of exile.”[12]There is a scholarly consensus that the Johannine Gospel was written around the first century after the Jewish War (66-70 C.E.). Apparently, the defeat of the Jewish revolt by the Roman soldiers caused the Jewish diaspora in the sense that many Jewish rebels were captured and sold into slavery and many others fled around the Mediterranean basin. From this one can without hesitation assume that the evangelist wrote the Gospel with the “in-between” diasporic experience between home and the world. For the Jews with the experience of in-between hybridity, there is good reason that the binary divisions were not clear, but ambiguous. By and large, the hybridity of the colonized, JesusandNicodemus, renders ambiguous the binary opposition by crossing the border line.[13]
Jesus’ Hybridity: Jesus reveals ambiguity through his hybrid identity both from above and from below. The journey motif related to Jesusoffers good reason for the reader to understand him from two different perspectives at the same time.As John 1:14 suggests, Jesus came from the other world and lived in this world, therefore containing two different elements of ‘descent’ and ‘ascent.” The travel of Jesus in the narrative proceeds to portray Jesus as crossing over two different worlds. As Segovia makes it clear, Jesus’ journey is “an overarching journey of the Word across the worlds of reality, encompassing the life of Jesus, through whom the Word becomes ‘flesh,’ and involving a ‘descent’ from the other-world into this-world and a corresponding ‘ascent.’”[14] In this vein, Jesus crosses over the boundary between the other world and this world. Jesus, the Son of man, himself insinuates his hybrid identity in the verse of 13: “No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man” (kai. ouvdei.j avnabe,bhken eivj to.n ouvrano.n eiv mh. o` evk tou/ ouvranou/ kataba,j( o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou) [Bold mine]. Jesus with “heavenly things” (ta. evpoura,nia) and “earthly things” (ta. evpi,geia) in mind renders ambiguous his words, too (Jn 3:12).
Ambiguity of Jesus’ words: Along with his hybrid identity, Jesus makes Nicodemus confused with the ambiguous words. I insist that Jesus ambiguous words are to be approached from the perspective of “from above” and “from below.”[15]Robert Kysar sets forth the ways in which Jesus triggers ambiguity in the mind of Nicodemus.[16]First, Kysar points out the ambiguity of the phrase “born anōthen”(gennhqh/nai a;nwqen). In his view, to be born anōthen means to be born either from above or born again.[17] On the contrary, I suggest that to be born means to be born both from above and born once again, given the fact that the way Jesus exists both “from above” and “from below” affects the way he thinks and speaks both “from above” and “from below.”[18]That is to say that tobe born from above is, for Jesus, also to be born once again. Wherefore, Nicodemus has good reason to be confused with what Jesus says about “born anōthen.”[19]
Next, the Greek term pneu/ma, Kysar agrues, also conjures up ambiguities in the mind of Nicodemus. Like the Greek phrase “born anōthen,” the Greek word pneu/macan refer to both wind and spirit in the light of “from below” and “from above,” respectively.[20]Even though Jesus illustrates the freedom of pneu/ma and the perception of the sound of pneu/ma, it still remains mysterious how it comes from and where it goes (Jn 3:8). Still, such mystery of the Greek termpneu/ma is not sufficient to explicate Jesus’ parallel between an anōthen birth and the birth out of water and spiritin the verses 5 to 8.
Lastly, the Greek verb u`ywqh/nai(“being lifted up”), rings ambiguous the ears of Nicodemus. In the opinion of Kysar, could refer to both being lifted up and being crucified/enthroned from the standpoint of “from below” and “from above,” respectively.[21] The verse of 14 comes enigmatic by saying that the Son of man will be lifted up in the same way that Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. In this verse, being lifted up, for Jesus, turns out to mean both being crucified and being enthroned in the whole narrative. William Grese remarks: “In John eternal life is coupled with the lifting up of the son of man, a lifting up that is both crucifixion and exaltation.”[22]Within the conversation of Jesus and Nicodemus, however, the references of u`ywqh/naistill remain ambiguous.
Ambiguity of Dialogue: With this in mind, one can recognize that the puzzle game of hide-and-seek centering onthe hybrid identity of Jesus is persistently being played between Jesus and Nicodemus in the dialogue. The remark of Wayne Meeks sheds light on this puzzle game:
“Bultmann’s starting point was the observation that the symbolic picture of Jesus as the man who descended and ascended constituted a puzzle within the fourth gospel. It seemed to identify Jesus as revealer come from the heavenly world, and therefore able to communicate what he had ‘seen and heard’ in that world-but his promise to do so was never fulfilled in the Gospel. He revealed only that he is the revealer.”[23]
Throughout the whole dialogue, Nicodemus is characterized as both partially knowing and partially ignorant, while Jesus as both partially revealing and partially concealing. Nicodemus, in the verse of 2, partially reveals Jesus’ identity as a rabbi, a miracle performer, and more importantly, a teacher coming from God. In reply, Jesus does not unambiguously reveal an anōthen birth in conjunction in verse 3. One can sense that Nicodemus in verse 4 partially understands it, since he raises a question (v. 4) rather than makes a statement (v. 2). As Jerome Neyrey puts it, “The fact that he must now ask a question demonstrates that he does not possess certain knowledge.”[24]In response to the partial understanding of Nicodemus, Jesus in verse 5 ambiguously reveals the birth of water and the Spirit. The birth out of the Spirit in verse 8 is made more enigmatic with the comparable echo between the pneuma as wind and the pneuma as spirit. In the face of the conundrum of Jesus, Nicodemus reveals his inquiry into what Jesus both revealsand conceals by saying “How can these things be?” (pw/j du,natai tau/ta gene,sqai) (Jn 3:9). Finally, Jesus once again both partially discloses and partially hides his hybrid identity by saying “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up” (Kai. kaqw.j Mwu?sh/j u[ywsen to.n o;fin evn th/| evrh,mw|( ou[twj u`ywqh/nai dei/ to.n ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw,pou) (Jn 3:14). As a consequence, Jesus and Nicodemus, gradual by gradual, are turned into ambiguous figures since the first both reveals and conceals his identity and thereby Nicodemus both understands and does not understand it in the full sense.
Ambiguity and Dualism: As noted earlier, the ambiguous figures, Jesus and Nicodemus, obscures the binary opposition in such a way that the first crosses over the border line between revelation and hiddenness and the second that between knowledge and ignorance: Jesus partially reveals his identity and partially conceals it; Nicodemus partially understands it and does not partially understand it. In this light, the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in the Gospel shows how ambiguous and fluid the dualism of the Gospel is.
3. Nicodemus and the Jewish Leaders (John 7:38-42): Crossing Boundaries and Deconstruction
Deconstruction of Center/Periphery: Nicodemus’s Speech in John 7:38-42 how his ambiguity as both insider and outsider deconstructs such binary system as center and periphery. I shall make this point by leaning in the direction of Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction. In his view, the Western philosophy is grounded on the binary system such as male/female, presence/absence, and origin/copy. At this point, I would like to focus my attention to the binary opposition of center and periphery. Derrida attempts to undermine the binary system which has overtaken Western metaphysics. That is to say,Derrida deconstructs the binary opposition in structuralism as illusionary and blurry. In his view, the Western metaphysics consists of hierarchies and orders of subordination in a variety of dualisms.[25] To illustrate, metaphysics tends to prioritize presence over contingency in philosophical analysis. Such a binary opposition in metaphysics builds exclusive system, while privileging one over the other. Mark C. Taylor notes convincingly: “The guiding insight of deconstruction is that every structure-be it literary, psychology, social, economic, political or religious-that organizes our experience is constituted and maintained through acts of exclusion.”[26] To make matters worse, this exclusive structure of binary system becomes repressive, while prioritizing one and simultaneously marginalizing the other.
Center/Periphery of John: If this is right, one may well read the given text from the deconstructive perspective. In so doing, one can without question find the socially structured binary system of center and periphery. The most salient contrast exists between the chief priests and Pharisees as center and the crowd as periphery. This binary system between center and periphery is featured with social hierarchy and structure by excluding those in periphery from those in center. For instance, the crowd is excluded from the knowledge of the law, while the Jewish leaders of high priests and Pharisees are included in it (v. 49). As Francis Moloney rightly writes, “The authorities exclude themselves from all discussion over Jesus as Messiah, and regard those who engage in it as accursed, ignorant of the Law (v. 49).”[27]In this respect, the binary system turns oppressive by privileging the Jewish leaders, while at the same time marginalizing the crowd.