Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as Symbol for James

Expand Messages
  • FMMCCOY
    ... From: Thomas W Butler To: Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 1 10:02 AM
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Thomas W Butler" <butlerfam5@...>
      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 3:10 PM
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as Symbol for James

      On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:30:36 -0600 "FMMCCOY" <FMMCCOY@...> writes:

      > > What I have found is evidence that *sometimes* (as opposed to
      > > *consistently*) Jesus appears to represent his (step?) brother
      > > James the Just.
      > >
      > > If this is the case, then, I think, James the Just was acknowledged
      > > by the Johannine community to be the legitimate successor to
      > > Jesus as the head of the movement founded by Jesus.
      > >
      > > If this is the case, then, I also think, James the Just was a
      > > revered figure to the Johannine community and, so, becomes
      > > the logical candidate for being the BD.
      > >
      > > Here are three examples of passages in which Jesus might
      > > symbolically represent James the Just.
      > >
      > > EXAMPLE 1 JOHN 4:35-38
      > >
      > > Let us look at 4:35-38: where Jesus, while near a Samaritan city,
      > > tells his disciples, "(Do) you not say that yet four months it is and
      > > the harvest comes? Behold, I say to you, 'Lift up your eyes and
      > > see the fields, for they are white already to harvest'. And he that
      > > reaps receives a reward and gathers fruit into eternal life, that both
      > > he that sows and he that reaps may rejoice together. For in this
      > > the saying is true, 'That it is one who sows and another who reaps.'
      > > I send you to reap on which you have not labored. Others have
      > > labored, and you have entered into their labor."
      > >
      > > I suggest that this relates to Acts 8:4-17, where a Hellenist named
      > > Philip goes to a city in Samaria and directs a missionary effort
      > > that converts many to Christianity. When the "apostles in
      > > Jerusalem" heard of this, they dispatched two of Jesus' former
      > > disciples, John bar Zebedee and Peter, to Samaria. Since the
      > > head of the "apostles in Jerusalem" was James the Just, it is the
      > > case that it was James the Just who dispatched John and Peter
      > > to Samaria.
      >
      > Are you not overlooking the distinct differences between these texts?
      > (1) In John, Jesus sends a Samaritan woman into the city to bring
      > her fellow Samaritans to him. In Acts, the evangelist is Philip, who
      > is not identified as a Samaritan. Why would the author(s) of the FG
      > use a female Samaritan character to represent Philip?
      > (2) The protagonist in the FG is a single (female) apostle (one who
      > is sent), while in Acts, there are two persons associated with James
      > the Just, (assuming that he is the unnamed head of the Jerusalem
      > community) who are sent.

      Dear Tom:

      It has long been recognized that 4:35-38 might have been written with the
      incidents recorded in Acts 8 in mind. In The Gospel According to John
      (p. 184), Raymond E. Brown narrates, "Whatever meaning the 'others' may
      have had in the context in which the story is placed, the whole passage
      takes on new meaning when we think of its being narrated in Johannine
      circles familiar with the story of the conversion of Samaria as told in Acts
      viii. Cullman, art. cit., has pointed out that there was a distinction
      between sowers and reapers in the christianizing of Samaria: the sower of
      the Christian faith was Philip, a Hellenist like Stephen and presumably an
      opponent of worship at the Jerusalem Temple; but the reapers were Peter and
      John who came down to confer the Spirit."

      If, as appears to be the case, 4:35-38 is written with the events narrated
      in Acts viii in mind, then this passage does not gel well with the narrative
      immediately before it and after it. This is, in my opinion, a clear "clue"
      that it is an interjection into the historical narrative. So, what you say
      above, actually, strengthens the argument that 4:35-38 is an interjection
      into the historical narrative by James.

      > (3) These two are sent by the community, not by James alone. Do
      > you hold open the idea that Jesus (in the FG) represents the whole
      > Jerusalem community, or at least more of its leadership than James?
      >
      As the head of the Jerusalem Church Council, James would have been the one
      to make the final decision to dispatch Peter and John to Samaria. Although
      James made the decision, he did so as the head of the community and, so, it
      was, simultaneously, the decision of the whole community.

      (snip)

      > > Therefore, I suggest, in 4:35-38, "Jesus" is James and he is alluding
      > > to the time when, after Philip directed a successful missionary effort
      > > in a Samaritan city, he dispatched two of Jesus' former disciples to
      > > that city to incorporate the new converts to Christianity there into
      > > the sphere of influence of the Jerusalem Church Council--with these
      > > disciples of Jesus, thereby, reaping where they did not sow.
      >
      > Are you not reading meaning into the text in order to make your point?
      > I ask this question being fully aware that it can be asked of me as well.
      > I can see how this pattern (in the FG) can be APPLIED to this text
      > (in Acts), but how do you prove that it has been DERIVED from it?
      >
      Certainly, I might be reading more into the text than was intended by
      its author, although I don't think so.

      Also, to clarify my position, what I envison is not that the author of FG
      was aware of the narrative in Acts viii, but that, rather, (s)he was aware
      of the incidents recorded in Acts viii. I actually think that Acts was
      written later than FG..

      10:1-5
      > >
      > > Let us look at the Second Apocalypse of James (55), where Jesus
      > > tells James,
      > > "And those who wish to enter, and those who seek to walk in the
      > > way that is before the door, open the good door through you. And
      > > they follow you; they enter [and you] escort them inside, and give a
      > > reward to each one who is ready for it. For you are not the redeemer
      > > nor a helper of strangers. You are an illuminator and a redeemer of
      > > those who (are) mine, and now of those who (are) yours."
      > >
      > > This directly relates to John 10:1-5, where Jesus states, "Amen.
      > > Amen. I say to you, he that enters in not by the door into the fold
      > > of the sheep, but climbs up elsewhere, he is a thief and a robber;
      > > but he that enters in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To
      > > him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and his
      > > own sheep he calls by name, and leads them out. And when his
      > > own sheep he puts forth, he goes before them; and the sheep
      > > follow him, because they know his voice. But a stranger in no
      > > way should they follow, but will flee from him, because they know
      > > not the voice of strangers."
      > >
      > > Obviously, the author of the Second Apocalypse of James under-
      > > stood that, in 10:1-5, Jesus symbolically represents James: thereby
      > > making it a declaration, by James, that he, rather than being a thief
      > > and a robber, is the shepherd of the sheep--these sheep being his
      > > in the sense that they are the sheep of Jesus entrusted to his care.
      >
      > It seems to me that you have it backwards. It seems more obvious to
      > me that in the Second Apocalypse of James, James represents Jesus,
      > and that James is the shepherd of the flock belonging to Jesus. Is
      > that not how this text is usually interpreted?

      How, in the excerpt from the Second Apocalypse of James, can
      James represent Jesus when it is Jesus speaking to James? Please clarify.

      > >
      > > Further, there is good reason to believe that, in fact, James
      > > should be understood to be the true speaker in 10:1-5. That
      > > is, in this case, we can readily determine the nature of the door
      > > and the identity of the strangers who are thieves and robbers.
      > > So, in The History of the Church (Book 2, Sect. 23), Eusebius
      > > thusly quotes Hegesippus, "Representatives of the seven
      > > popular sects described by me asked him (i.e., James) what
      > > was meant by 'the door of Jesus', and he replied that Jesus
      > > was the Saviour." Thus, if James be the true speaker in 10:1-5,
      > > then, in this passage, the door is Jesus in his role as the Saviour
      > > and the strangers (who are thieves and robbers) are the non-
      > > Christian Jewish religious leaders.
      >
      > Doesn't the interpretation in your last sentence hold true if you
      > assume that the true speaker is Jesus, as the reader is lead to
      > believe, rather than James as you suggest? What evidence
      > requires a contradiction to what the text says? My mind is
      > not closed to the possibility that you could be right, but I am
      > not following your reasoning to the conclusion that you draw.

      If, as you say, it is Jesus speaking in 10:1-5, then he is both the shepherd
      who leads the sheep through the door and the door. How can this be? Isn't
      it more plausible to assume that it is James who speaks in 10:1-5? In this
      case, the shepherd and the door, as one would expect, are two different
      things: with the shepherd being James and the door being Jesus.

      > > Indeed, in line with this, in 10:7-8, Jesus (now speaking as
      > > himself) declares himself to be the door of the sheep and
      > > speaks of the Jewish religious leaders before himself as
      > > being thieves and robbers,
      > > "Amen. Amen. I say to you, that I am the door of the sheep.
      > > All whoever came before me are thieves and robbers; but
      > > the sheep did not hear them."
      >
      > Frank, how do you determine when the speaker is actually
      > Jesus and when it is James speaking as though he were Jesus?

      To perhaps over-simplify a tad, my SOP is to assume that the speaker is
      actually Jesus unless there are one or more clues indicating otherwise.

      In the first example of 4:35-38, the basic clue that the speaker might be
      James rather than Jesus is the indication that it was written with the
      events related in Acts viii in mind. In this second
      example of 10:1-5, the basic clue that the speaker might be James rather
      than Jesus is that an early Christian (i.e., the author of the Second
      Apocalypse of James) interpreted it to be an utterance
      by James. Perhaps, I suggest, (s)he had some knowledge regarding the FG
      that, in the intervening centuries, has been lost.

      > > EXAMPLE 3 JOHN 3:10-21
      > >
      > > Let us look at John 3:10-11, where Jesus tells Nicodemus,
      > > "Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?
      > > Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak what we know, and bear
      > > witness to what we have seen, but you (plural) do not receive
      > > our testimony."
      > >
      > > As can be seen, this passage begins with Jesus as an individual
      > > speaking to Nicodemus as an individual. However, it ends with
      > > Jesus speaking on behalf of others (the "we") to a group ("you"
      > > in a plural sense).
      > >
      > > What I suggest is that we have, here, a shift in the identity of
      > > Jesus. In the beginning of this passage, he is himself. However,
      > > by the end of it he symbolicaly represents James the Just as the
      > > head of the Jerusalem Church Council (the "we").
      >
      > Frank, as I'm sure you know, you are not the first to recognize
      > this shift from the nominative singular to the nominative plural as
      > Jesus speaks, and the dative singular to the dative plural with
      > regard to Nicodemus. If I recall correctly, Brown interprets
      > this shift to mean that Jesus encounters Nicodemus first as two
      > individuals, then as leaders (Jesus of his disciples and Nicodemus
      > as the great teacher of Israel with his own disciples). What
      > evidence to you see that suggests that this "we" means that
      > James the Just is now speaking as though he were Jesus?
      > Doesn't Jesus have reason to use "we" without having to be
      > James?

      Shortly thereafter, in 3:13-15, "Jesus" states, "No one has ascended into
      heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses
      lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted
      up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life (RSV)."

      As far as I know, neither of these two doctrines are ascribed to Jesus in
      any of the other gospels. Therefore, I suggest, they are two doctrines
      formulated in a post-crucifixion sitz em leben. This lends support to the
      idea that "Jesus" becomes James in 3:10-11 and that this continues to be the
      case through 3:21. In this case, these two doctrines were formulated by
      the Jerusalem Church Council headed by James--thereby explaining why they
      are nowhere else attributed to Jesus.

      (Note: The first doctrine might be incorrectly rendered in the RSV. In The
      Johannine Son of Man (pp. 54-55), Francis J. Moloney states, "A more
      satisfactory solution is suggested by Bernard. Westcott and Lagrange. Jesus
      does not say that *he* has ascended, but that no one (oydeis) has
      ascended....The first part of John 3,13, then, is a denial of the
      possiblility of any human agent for the revelation of the things from above.
      To act as a revealer a human would have to ascend to heaven to learn these
      things. This possibility, in accordance with orthodox tradition, is denied.
      There is one exception to this--the Son of Man. The point made is not that
      the Son of Man has ascended (which he has done, and this is duly noted by an
      early commentator who adds: 'he who is in heaven') but that he descended."
      Even as rendered this way, the first doctrine is not attributed to Jesus in
      any of the other gospels. In particular, in none of them does he speak of
      the Son of Man as having descended from heaven in the person of himself.
      So, even as rendered this way, the first doctrine appears to be a
      post-crucifixion creation and, so, might have been formulated and preached
      by the Jerusalem Church Council.)

      (snip)

      > > As a result, I suggest, 3:10-11 ends with James the Just,
      > > acting in his role as the head of the Jerusalem Church Council,
      > > telling Nicodemus that he and the other teachers of Israel do
      > > not receive (i.e., understand and accept) what is taught by the
      > > Jerusalem Church Council.
      >
      > Frank, do you have some information that what was taught by
      > the Jerusalem Church Council was different from what Jesus
      > taught? If so, what different things did the JCC teach than JC?
      > If not, how do you draw the conclusion that the speaker is
      > really the head of the JCC and not JC himself?
      > >
      Tom, see above--the two doctrines enunciated in 3:13-15 appear to be
      different from what Jesus taught and, so, might be doctrines formulated and
      taught by the Jerusalem Church Council.

      > > The speech by Jesus to Nicodemus continues, uninterrupted,
      > > until 3:21. I suggest that, in this continuation of the speech,
      > > "Jesus" continues to symbolically represent James the Just.
      >
      > Why? Why would this interpretation be necessary? What is
      > it about the text in Jn. that doesn't work or that works better
      > with your interpretation? The only difference that I can see is
      > that your thesis is supported with your interpretation and it is
      > not without it. How can I determine that the meaning that
      > you have found is not simply your meaning imposed upon the
      > text?
      >
      > Let me repeat that I am aware that such standards apply to
      > my ideas as well as to yours. Like you, I must be able to show
      > that the interpretation I suggest is necessary to better understand
      > the text itself, not only or even primarily to support my theory.

      It is widely recognized that, at some point in the monologue found in
      3:10-21, the speaker ceases to be Jesus. It is most commonly thought that
      the switch occurs either in verse 13 or else in verse 16. It is also most
      commonly thought that, after the switch, the speaker is the author of John.

      What I am suggesting is that the switch occurs right away, in verses 10-11
      and that, after the switch, the speaker is James. That there is no evident
      "seam" in either verse 13 or verse 16 lends support to the idea that the
      switch takes place earlier than either verse. That there are other passages
      where, it appears, Jesus represents James means, I think, that the speaker,
      after the switch, is more likely to be James than to be the author of John
      speaking in his own name.

      > >
      > > If so, then it is James the Just who proclaims, to us, the
      > > entrancing words of 3:16, "For God so loved the world that
      > > he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in
      > > him should not perish, but have everlasting life (KJV)."
      >
      > While I can concede that Jn. 3: 16-21 may well be the narrator
      > of the Gospel, rather than Jesus, speaking, I see no reason to
      > conclude that this narrator (actual or implied) is James the Just.
      >
      I'm glad that, you recognize, at some point in 3:10-21 the speaker
      likely ceases to be Jesus. As pointed out above, I suggest that the
      transition occurs right away, in 3:10-11--with, thereafter, "Jesus"
      representing James. You say that the transition, if it occurs, does so
      later, in 3:16--with, thereafter, "Jesus" representing the author of John.
      What reasons do you have for this conclusion? Are there other examples of
      where, in the midst of a speech of Jesus, there is an invisible seam
      separating the speech of Jesus from an addition to it by the author of John?

      Tom, you actually begin your post with this:

      "Dear Frank,
      Thank you for clarifying your theory re: the relationship between
      Jesus, James the Just and the BD.

      It seems to me that your theory requires a revisionist approach,
      suggesting that the FG was written in light of what most historians
      have understood to be historically later events. How do you deal
      with the possibility that these *historically later events* may have
      been influenced by the gospel, rather than, as you suggest, the
      other way around? I see the correlation that you see (I think),
      but I'm not convinced that the order you suggest has been proven."

      Tom, I need more information before responding to you. Please amplify on
      what you mean by "a revisionist approach". Also, what is the historical
      event that immediately precedes what you refer to as *historically later
      events*?

      Regards,

      Frank McCoy
      1809 N. English Apt. 17
      Maplewood, MN USA 55109
    • Thomas W Butler
      Dear Frank, Obviously I am way behind in our dialog. I regret not responding to your message sooner. ... Frank, the symbolism here is derived from the role
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 13 12:46 PM
        Dear Frank,

        Obviously I am way behind in our dialog. I regret not responding
        to your message sooner.

        On Nov. 23 I asked:
        > How, in the excerpt from the Second Apocalypse of James, can
        > James represent Jesus when it is Jesus speaking to James? Please
        > clarify.

        To which you replied:
        >
        > If, as you say, it is Jesus speaking in 10:1-5, then he is both the
        > shepherd who leads the sheep through the door and the door.
        > How can this be? Isn't it more plausible to assume that it is James
        > who speaks in 10:1-5? In this case, the shepherd and the door,
        > as one would expect, are two different things: with the shepherd
        > being James and the door being Jesus.

        Frank, the symbolism here is derived from the role that shepherds
        took in guarding their flocks when the sheep were gathered in the
        sheep fold. The fold was a corral of stones, piled about three feet
        high, with a single opening. At night, the shepherd lay across the
        opening, effectively preventing sheep from exiting or wolves from
        entering. (How effective this was, I don't know.) At any rate, the
        shepherd was both the shepherd and the door.

        You continued:
        >
        > Indeed, in line with this, in 10:7-8, Jesus (now speaking as
        > himself) declares himself to be the door of the sheep and
        > speaks of the Jewish religious leaders before himself as
        > being thieves and robbers,
        > "Amen. Amen. I say to you, that I am the door of the sheep.
        > All whoever came before me are thieves and robbers; but
        > the sheep did not hear them."
        >
        I understand Jesus to be contrasting his symbolic role as the
        shepherd with the symbolic role of the priests who offer sacrifice,
        using the sheep as a symbol for the people of God. The shepherd
        guides the sheep into the sanctuary (sheepfold) and back out again,
        while the priests guide the sheep into the temple in order to take their
        lives. The sheep that enter the temple never leave it alive. Jesus
        expands upon the idea that as their shepherd, God's people hear and
        trust his voice, but they are not listening to the priests.

        I asked:
        > > Frank, how do you determine when the speaker is actually
        > > Jesus and when it is James speaking as though he were Jesus?

        You replied:
        > To perhaps oversimplify a tad, my SOP is to assume that the
        > speaker is actually Jesus unless there are one or more clues
        > indicating otherwise.

        I agree with that assumption.

        You said:
        > In the first example of 4:35-38, the basic clue that the speaker
        > might be James rather than Jesus is the indication that it was
        > written with the events related in Acts viii in mind. In this second
        > example of 10:1-5, the basic clue that the speaker might be James
        > rather than Jesus is that an early Christian (i.e., the author of the
        > Second Apocalypse of James) interpreted it to be an utterance
        > by James. Perhaps, I suggest, (s)he had some knowledge regarding
        > the FG that, in the intervening centuries, has been lost.

        It appears that you are placing more trust in the author of the
        Second Apocalypse of James, assuming that this author had some
        sort of knowledge that is now lost, than you are in the author(s)
        of the Fourth Gospel. Is it not more likely that this author of
        the Second Apocalypse of James borrowed from the FG rather
        than the other way around?

        In reference to your considerations of Jn. 3:10-21 I asked:
        > What evidence to you see that suggests that this "we" means that
        > James the Just is now speaking as though he were Jesus?
        > Doesn't Jesus have reason to use "we" without having to be
        > James?

        To which you replied:
        > Shortly thereafter, in 3:13-15, "Jesus" states, "No one has ascended
        > into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
        > And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the
        > Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have
        > eternal life (RSV)."
        >
        > As far as I know, neither of these two doctrines are ascribed to
        > Jesus in any of the other gospels. Therefore, I suggest, they are
        > two doctrines formulated in a post-crucifixion sitz em leben.
        > This lends support to the idea that "Jesus" becomes James in 3:10-11
        > and that this continues to be the case through 3:21. In this case,
        > these two doctrines were formulated by the Jerusalem Church
        > Council headed by James--thereby explaining why they are
        > nowhere else attributed to Jesus.

        I have not found it useful to compare the FG to the Synoptics.
        They are different kinds of gospels. It generally does not work to
        use the tools of historical criticism on the FG (at least I have found
        the results of doing so to be more confusing than helpful).

        While it would seem accurate to claim that all of the gospels
        come from "a post-crucifixion sitz em leben," the doctrines you
        have selected do represent a more highly developed Christology
        than is found in the Synoptics. I fail to see, however, how that
        leads to the conclusion that they were formulated by the Jerusalem
        Church Council headed by James.

        You continued:
        (snip)
        > The point made is not that the Son of Man has ascended (which
        > he has done, and this is duly noted by an early commentator who
        > adds: 'he who is in heaven') but that he descended."
        > Even as rendered this way, the first doctrine is not attributed to
        > Jesus in any of the other gospels. In particular, in none of them
        > does he speak of the Son of Man as having descended from
        > heaven in the person of himself.
        > So, even as rendered this way, the first doctrine appears to be a
        > post-crucifixion creation and, so, might have been formulated and
        > preached by the Jerusalem Church Council.)

        The symbolism from the Jacob's Ladder Dream (Gen. 28: 10) is
        used in Jn. 20: 12 (where the sign is given that angels sit where
        the head and feet of Jesus would have been). I have shown that
        ascending and descending language is a sign pointing the reader
        to the Mosaic understanding of the temple which Jesus is
        reestablishing. (This goes much further than this single passage,
        of course. The typology of "head, hand, side and feet" is used
        in both the Mosaic texts and in the FG with reference to the
        temple, the priesthood and the rituals of sacrifice.

        Your point seems to be that this is not likely, from a historical
        point of view, to have been one of the teachings of Jesus, but
        was, rather, a lesson of the early church community from which
        the FG came. It seems to me that the entire gospel is a midrash-
        like commentary on the Jesus tradition. It is a theological treatise,
        expounding upon the stories of Jesus that were widely known
        within the Christian community and for the most part found in
        the synoptic gospels. The relationship is a theological one,
        however, not a historic one IMO.

        You said:
        > I'm glad that, you recognize, at some point in 3:10-21 the speaker
        > likely ceases to be Jesus. As pointed out above, I suggest that
        > the transition occurs right away, in 3:10-11--with, thereafter,
        > "Jesus" representing James. You say that the transition, if it occurs,
        > does so later, in 3:16--with, thereafter, "Jesus" representing the
        > author of John.
        > What reasons do you have for this conclusion? Are there other
        > examples of where, in the midst of a speech of Jesus, there is an
        > invisible seam separating the speech of Jesus from an addition to
        > it by the author of John?

        Well, of course the soliloquy of the narrator is one of the qualities
        of the FG that deserves all of the attention it is currently getting
        through reader-response analysis. Culpepper, in his Anatomy
        of the Fourth Gospel, does a better job of answering your question
        than I can. (I'm sorry I don't have a copy of his book right now or
        I would cite particular pages.) My recollection of his analysis is
        that he sees the interruption by the narrator as a means of allowing
        the implied reader an opportunity to know more than the characters
        in the stories know, for example what Jesus is thinking or knowing.

        I had said to you previously:
        > > It seems to me that your theory requires a revisionist approach,
        > > suggesting that the FG was written in light of what most historians
        > > have understood to be historically later events. How do you deal
        > > with the possibility that these *historically later events* may
        > > have been influenced by the gospel, rather than, as you suggest,
        > > the other way around? I see the correlation that you see (I think),
        > > but I'm not convinced that the order you suggest has been proven."

        You replied:
        > Tom, I need more information before responding to you. Please
        > amplify on what you mean by "a revisionist approach". Also, what
        > is the historical event that immediately precedes what you refer to
        > as *historically later events*?

        The revisionist approach to history (or tradition) suggests that the
        commonly held understanding of events in the past is incomplete
        and probably inaccurate. The revisionist sets out to offer more
        information, details that may not have been known by previous
        historians, in an effort to support a different understanding of the
        events than the traditional or generally accepted one.

        I am suggesting that you are offering a revised view of history,
        suggesting that the passages that you have considered from the
        Gospel of John are actually records of something that tradition
        (the book of Acts) has accepted as happening AFTER the
        historical context of the Gospel of John.

        Hey, Merry Christmas!

        Yours in Christ's service,
        Tom Butler
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.