« The Next 100 Years | Main | Deep Ancestry »
March 02, 2010
The Gospel of John
This is a fairly narrow study of the gospel of John. My interest is in New Testament theology; in issues like the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and theories of atonement such as the idea that Christ died in order to pay for our sins. I want to understand their scriptural basis. The gospel of John certainly seems to speak to these issues. The very beginning, the Prologue, equates Jesus with the word of God, which is God. Later in chapter 1 John the Baptist is quoted saying, "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."
The gospel goes beyond what is offered in the other three gospels. Its Christology is much "higher" that is to say Jesus is portrayed to a greater degree with characteristics of divinity. The gospel of John does not contain the words "Trinity" or "godhead" or the phrase "God in three persons" nor does it say the crucifixion "paid for" our sins. Nevertheless it contains statements such as Jesus saying, "before Abraham was, I am" (Chapter 8 verse 58); also the disciple Thomas, speaking to Jesus, says "My Lord and my God!" (20:28); and there are a number of other verses which indicate Jesus' divinity. The book goes far enough beyond the other three gospels that it can be considered a milestone on the church's journey to develop doctrines such as the Trinity.
Using the tools of modern Bible scholarship, what can we say about theological truths expressed in John? First let me discuss broad explanations for John having a "higher" Christology than the other 3 gospels. There could be a number of reasons but I will look at two widely accepted ones then my own.
I. Explaining the High Christology
A. The first explanation is the text means what it says and conveys the plain meaning of the words to anyone who is reading. If the prologue equates Jesus with the Word and says the Word was God, then Jesus is God. End of story. The details of explaining how a flesh and blood human being can also be the God who created the universe can be left to church theologians to explain at a later date.
Such a straightforward approach has the virtue of faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6) so this approach starts out on the right foot. Having said that, this approach needs to be used with some caution because the text is coming to us across 20 centuries, from perhaps 8000 miles away, written in a different and ancient language, from a very different culture.
You might argue the Holy Spirit dictated this text, and the Holy Spirit is fully capable of transcending time, distance and so forth. My view is the text resulted from an interplay between the Spirit who inspired it and a human who expressed what the Spirit placed in his heart. To be sure we understand a text one of the things we need is understanding of the human element in the process.
Scholars who are committed to the inerrancy of scripture (a shorthand way of saying, it means what it says and says what it means, and the plain meaning is the meaning) still take a number of steps to be confident of their understanding. There are many things all scholars, even inerrantists, take care about, for example getting the best text, the closest to the original words. Another is making the best translation. For example, John evidently was written in the kind of Greek that was in common use during the 1st Century. I am told the meaning of the Greek phrase in verse 1:1 which our Bibles translate "and the Word was God" is actually "and the Word was of the same nature as God." [I can't prove it myself but two different seminary professors have said that.]
Context is vital. Even the most conservative scholars insist on this. You can find a statement in the Bible, "there is no God" (Psalm 14:1) but be sure to get the context: "The fool says in his heart 'there is no God'." Context can involve a lot - a verse, a passage, a chapter, even a whole book. It may refer to the type of literature; poetry, prose, prophecy, history... For example Hebrew poetry often uses synonyms for the sake of style. Psalm 91 starts off referring to "the Most High", "the Almighty" and "the LORD". They all refer to God and you need to be cautious if you want to make a big deal out of the differences.
Context certainly includes the historical setting. Jeremiah was written (mostly) during a time of grave international crisis and threats to the existence of the state of Judah. Ezekiel was written during the Babylonian exile. We know something about the historical setting from the text of these books themselves but we also learn a lot from other books of the Bible, other historical sources, and archeology. With New Testament books it is very helpful to understand the life setting, the circumstances of the community for which the book was written. As much as we would like to think each book was written for us, originally it was written (at least in the mind of the human author) to address the concerns, questions and needs of his / her specific community.
So while I agree the Bible is truth and the text means what it says, I do not assume a text means whatever strikes me as obvious, as a 21st Century American reading a passage in English.
B. A second explanation for the high Christology of John has a different starting point. The second explanation comes from the academic study of comparative religion. Christianity is compared with other religions who have a founder or key early leader, such Judaism (Moses), Islam (Mohammad), and Buddhism (Buddha). They all have stories showing the founder performing miracles and becoming in some sense supernatural. Comparative religion assumes the founder started out as a relatively normal person, but his reputation grew into the realm of the mystical. This increasing exaltation of a religious founder over time is a process that is part of the normal development of any religion. The supposed divinity or other exalted traits of a founder are the result of predictable sociological forces and there is no need to concern oneself with any underlying reality of what is being described. The implication is if you actually believe the stories you are credulous and unsophisticated.
The comparative religion approach is great if you want to feel sophisticated and skeptical about things relatively uneducated people believe. The problem with it, at least in my view, is it does not grapple with the text. Other than taking note, in a very general way, of the higher Christology in the gospel of John, it does not attempt to understand and explain what is going on in the gospel; what issues were of vital importance to the writer and the community, and the answers the gospel text gives to the questions those issues raise.
C. The third approach, which I like and I use below, is not original with me. The approach is to understand the vital issues of the community which the human author was addressing, then to examine the higher Christology in terms of how it contributes to the author's objectives. (I also use the approach to deal with other questions I have of the text.)
I was first exposed to this approach in a class on the gospel of Mark taught by Prof. Ron Allen at Christian Theological Seminary. Instead of starting at the beginning of Chapter 1, Prof. Allen first explained major theological issues for Jews at the time of Christ, then began In Mark chapter 13, which talks about the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and all sorts of difficult trials that were coming.
What Prof. Allen was doing was giving us an understanding of the concerns and vital issues of the Markan community, the issues the human author was inspired to address in the gospel. They were shocked by the destruction of the Temple. All their hardships caused consternation because Jesus was the Messiah and he was expected to return in triumph at any moment. The community needed reassurance and understanding.
Prof. Allen's approach was to give us context for the overall gospel, not just any single passage. It is a challenge to do this. Just as gospel writers didn't sign their name to their book, they did not begin with a statement "Here's the problem I'm going to address, and here's how I'll do it." [Well, maybe Luke does that to some extent.] The careful reader has to piece together clues to understand the community the gospel was originally written for, and what were their issues and concerns.
So before I mine the text for answers to my questions, I am going to try to figure out what kind of community the gospel was written to / for, their time and circumstances, their ethnicity and background, threats and problems they faced, their major concerns, and so forth. I will look at general knowledge about the text (for example John is believed to be the last gospel written), things the author assumes his audience already knows about (they're generally familiar with Jerusalem and Jewish customs), differences from the other 3 gospels (in the other 3 Jesus has problems with Pharisees and lawyers, in John his problems are with "the Jews"), and so on.
The basic idea is that the message of the gospel, the truths expressed in the gospel, are first and foremost intended to address particular concerns and problems the community was facing - not to express universal and timeless truths. Before we conclude anything about the universal and timeless, we must understand the specific message to a particular time, place, and group of people.
II. 20th Century Bible Scholarship
At this point most readers must be thinking, why bother with this third approach? Surely you can find the meaning of the text without all this searching for the life setting of the original community, the big issues they cared about, and so on. The gospels are histories of Jesus' ministry and records of his teaching. Don't go off on some tangent.
A. The Woman Who Anointed Jesus
I think there is more going on in the gospels than a history of Jesus' ministry and a record of his statements. Consider for example the woman who anointed Jesus. The story is found in all four gospels; Matt 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, Luke 7:36-50, and John 12:1-8. If you've read the gospels you remember the general outline of the story; a woman anoints Jesus with expensive ointment and with her tears, people nearby condemn her, but Jesus defends her and her actions.
If you look at the story really carefully, questions arise. At first it seems it is the same story told four times. Jesus is in Bethany (Matthew, Mark & John say so, Luke is silent on which town). There is an "alabaster flask" (per Matt, Mark & Luke) with "very expensive ointment" (per Matt, Mark & John) which we learn later in the story is worth 300 denarii (again Matt, Mark & John). The woman is rebuked by the disciples (Matt & Mark) and John tells us the specific disciple, namely Judas. Three of the stories end up with Jesus saying something to the effect, "the poor you will always have with you" (Matt, Mark & John).
You may have noticed Luke is often the odd gospel out. It is pretty different; the event occurs early in Jesus' ministry whereas in the other gospels it is a short time before the crucifixion. Uniquely, it takes place in a Pharisee's house, and it is various Pharisees rather than the disciples who rebuke the woman. Only in Luke Jesus tells a short parable, or asks a long question, regarding forgiveness (in verses 41-43), and only Luke portrays Jesus forgiving the woman of her sins.
Is Luke describing a completely separate incident? If you say so that preserves the inerrancy of the Bible because different, although similar, events would be described differently. But the similarities then are a little troubling, such as the overall flow of the story, and similar vocabulary, phrasing, and detail such as the alabaster flask of ointment (also in Matt & Mark), and the woman wiping the feet of Jesus with her hair (also in John).
To preserve inerrancy we now have two events, the one in Luke and the one the three other gospels describe. But are the other three all consistent? Matthew and Mark place the event in the house of Simon the leper, but John describes it in the house of Lazarus, Martha and Mary. Mary is the woman who does the anointing and she anoints the feet of Jesus, not his head. You could say John is just more specific than Matt and Mark, describing Judas as the one who objects rather than "the disciples" but the difference in location is problematical. Should we again say there were two anointing events to add to the one in Luke? If so, the many similarities between Matt and Mark, on the one hand and John on the other, are troubling.
If you stick to your initial assumption that the text of the Bible is an accurate recording of events and words, and descriptions of the same event must be consistent, then you end up with the counter-intuitive situation of women anointing Jesus three times. It's possible but problematical.
B. Synopsis of the Four Gospels
20th Century scholarship looked very, very closely at the Bible. One pair of German scholars, Kurt Aland and his wife Barbara, produced a book entitled Synopsis of the Four Gospels. They took the entire texts of all four gospels and put passages side by side, in columns, wherever the texts seemed to describe the same events. When you open their book the page on the right has the text in German while the page on the left has the same text in Greek. The Greek has many, many notations so other scholars can see what the Alands thought was the most authoritative ancient text but the scholars can compare with other texts to form their own opinion.
Fortunately you can buy The Synopsis of the Four Gospels in English (or English and Greek if you're scholarly). It is available fairly inexpensively from the American Bible Society.
I am not an expert page flipper; what I wrote above about the woman who anointed Jesus came from reading a couple pages in Aland's book. If you study the book, and scholars do because it is a great tool, the kinds of issues I describe jump out at you again and again. Similarities in narrative, vocabulary and phrasing convince you stories are indeed related, but differences in detail convince you the main point is not a precise recording of events.
You are likely to come to the same conclusion I did, that most stories in the gospels have a point and truth is found in the point made rather than in precise details which are peripheral to the point. In general I call this narrative theology, where telling a story makes a valid point about Jesus and his purposes. For example, in the story about this anointing, Luke seems to want to express disapproval of self-righteousness and to say much can be forgiven if you turn to Jesus and humbly take him as your lord.
Perhaps John is making a point that followers of Jesus have close interpersonal connections and in a sense make a new family relationship. I'm not sure; knowing more about the overall purposes of this gospel would help me be more confident about the lessons of this passage.
The Synopsis of the Four Gospels and the story of the woman who anointed Jesus is just one example of how modern scholarship gives greater insight and new perspective on scripture. I hope to give more below. For now, I want to develop a sense of John's community and its concerns.
III. Uniqueness of the gospel of John and the community for which it was written
Much of what I will say in the rest of this blog results from a superb class on John taught by Prof. Holly Hearon at Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis.
Developing an idea of what the gospel is generally trying to express is a repeated, iterative process where you take passages and pieces of information, construct a theory of what Is "going on" in the book, then test it against the text to see if your theory is viable, and modify your theory as needed. First I'll try to identify a few facts.
A. One thing we're pretty sure about is John was the last gospel written. Estimates are it was written 60 to 70 years after the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. As time passed Christians had a troubling question, why had Christ not yet returned? Christianity was rooted in the Jewish expectation that God would send an anointed one, the messiah, to conquer evil and establish God's rule. Jesus was that agent of God. It was hard to understand why he didn't establish the rule of God over the world in his original ministry. After the resurrection it was expected he would come soon to complete his work. As time went on and Jesus did not return, that too was hard to understand.
This Jewish expectation of the reign of God to be established by the messiah was captured in the phrase Jesus used to describe his ministry, "the kingdom of God." If you look at the other three gospels, when Jesus launches his ministry he proclaims the kingdom of God. See Matthew 4:12-17, Mark 1:14-15 and Luke 4:43. The kingdom of God involved an expectation that everything would change, that evil would be vanquished, the enemies of God would be subdued, and God's designated agent, the messiah, would rule with unchallenged authority.
That was not happening. The communities for whom the other gospels were written, particularly Matthew and Mark, evidently could be satisfied with the hope that Christ would return soon, even though none could know in advance God's timing. For John's community too much time had passed and more of an explanation was needed. That is the perspective from which I discuss John's treatment of the kingdom of God theme in John chapter 3 [later in this blog], and its implications for John's whole message.
B. John's community seems to have been ethnically Jewish but familiar with Hellenistic culture, probably situated outside the holy land in a primarily Greek-speaking area. Readers are assumed to be familiar with the general geography and customs of the Jewish homeland, such as "the Jordan where John was baptizing" (1:28) or references to the Passover and the Temple (2:13-14). Hebrew words, which show up as place names, are translated into Greek for the benefit of the reader. See John 5:2, 19:13 & 19:17. The community did not know Hebrew, even place names which people living in proximity to those places would surely have known.
One piece of early church writing puts John's community in Ephesus. Polycarp, a prominent early church leader in the 2d Century, when he was a young man knew a number of disciples, people who followed Jesus during his ministry. Polycarp saw John the disciple in Ephesus, when John was an old man. Unfortunately Polycarp didn't write this down. The record was made by Irenaeus, a bishop active two generations later, who was describing a conversation with a Roman pope who spoke with Polycarp earlier.
Ephesus was a port city on the Aegean Sea in Asia Minor, what is now Turkey. Twenty centuries ago it was in the heart of a large Greek-speaking region, and part of the Roman Empire.
At the start Christianity was a Jewish "denomination" so it's not surprising the community was mostly Jewish. Evidence for this is found in the text itself. The gospel starts, "In the beginning..." which immediately brings to mind the beginning of Genesis. In the 1st Century gentiles were not familiar with Jewish scriptures. The first few verses talk about the word of God, and you will recall Genesis chapter 1 where God repeatedly speaks his creation into existence.
The content of the text makes it plausible that John's community was Greek-speaking and influenced by Greek culture. To the best of anyone's knowledge the gospel itself was originally written in Greek. The Prologue, John 1:1-11, talks about the logos, Greek for "the word". Of course that resonated with Jews familiar with the beginning of Genesis where God speaks and creation occurs, but it also had powerful symbolism from Greek philosophy. Stoicism was a popular philosophy in the Hellenistic world and the Roman empire. It had great prestige. One of its tenets was that universal reason, for which stoics used the word logos, pervades and animates the universe. In addition Jews themselves developed philosophy in the Greek manner. Philo, a thoroughly Hellenized Jewish philosopher living in Alexandria at about the time of Christ, and writing in Greek, reasoned that there was a logos that bridged the enormous gap between God and the world.
So if you were an ethnic Jew immersed in Greek culture, John's prologue with its discussion of the logos resonated on many levels. John - I believe - wanted the reader to respond emotionally (because the ideas are not exactly consistent if you get picky about it) to the sense that Jesus is incredibly important on many levels, as an agent in creation, as an intermediary between God and the world, and as a forceful organizing principle of universal reason.
C. Some parts of the gospel of John are quite different from anything else in the New Testament. Those passages can give insight into John's community. Chapters 14 - 17 are unique. When I page through the Synopsis of the Four Gospels most of the pages have text in at least two of the four columns, that is, most passages found in one of the four gospels have some similar material in at least one of the other gospels. Not so with this final discourse and prayer by Jesus at the last supper.
There are three chapters of discourse and one of prayer. In the discourse Jesus interweaves three general themes; do not be distressed that Jesus has gone away and not yet returned, understand how to live in these times by staying very close to Jesus and loving one another, and be warned that trials will come. The prayer is that the Father would protect Jesus' followers from the evil one, and for their sanctification.
To counter being distressed Jesus says, "Do not let your hearts be troubled" (14:1) because he goes to prepare a place for them. Jesus also says, "I will not leave you orphaned" (14:15) because he is going to send the Holy Spirit / the advocate / the spirit of truth to be with them. Jesus says, "Peace I leave with you" (14:27). He further says it is to the disciples' advantage that Jesus goes away, so that he can send the advocate to them (16:7) and this spirit of truth will guide them (16:13). Jesus further reassures them that they will have joy and "if you ask anything of the Father in my name he will give it to you" (16:23).
To understand how to live in the interim before Jesus returns, Jesus says, "I am the way and the truth and the life" (14:6). The path to heaven is not a literal path at all but a way of living, with Jesus at the center. "If you love me you will keep my commandments" (14:15). This would seem to require Jesus' followers to live perfect lives but in fact the chief commandment is "to love one another" which is said repeatedly in these chapters. In addition Jesus will be present with his people and they will see him even though the rest of the world cannot. Verses 14:19-23 say this and the meaning is ambiguous to me, but evidently Jesus will be present spiritually in the lives of Christians so they will be aware of him.
Perhaps the most famous instruction on how to live is found in 15:1-10, with the key phrase, "Abide in me and I will abide in you..." (15:6). Followers will have a personal relationship with the risen Christ, and they must be connected with him as a branch to the trunk of a vine.
The idea in chapter 14 that followers will see Jesus is picked up again in chapter 16, verses 16-24. Jesus' followers will weep when he is crucified but they will have joy in his spiritual presence after he "goes to the father."
To warn his followers Jesus says, "If the world hates you, be aware it hated me before it hated you" (15:18) and "If they persecuted me they will persecute you" (15:20). 16:1-4 has a series of warnings; "they will put you out of the synagogues" ... "an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God" ... and "when their hour comes you may remember that I told you about them." And see 16:33 "In the world you will face persecution. But take courage. I have conquered the world." Jesus foresees the community's circumstances, and John's community is in great distress.
I have a couple observations about these three chapters of discourse. First, the author has a very different way of making his points from me. I have tried to organize this blog entry in logical sequence, with a numbered outline, arguing one point fully before going on to the next. The gospel of John makes the same points repeatedly, in slightly different ways and in slightly different contexts, spread through a discourse covering several other topics as well. You might say I try to proceed in a straight line to the conclusion while the gospel of John loops around and around trying to draw the reader (or listener) close, causing the reader to agree not through force of logic but through repetition, through drawing the reader in to share the point of view. It is a different way of making an argument, trying to persuade emotionally rather than by logic.
Secondly, John can be pretty vague. I would go so far as to say he is comfortable with vague and imprecise. "I am the way, the truth and the life" (14:6). I guess that means following Jesus and doing his will is the way to live, but whole books could be written on what it might mean. Consider: "I will not leave you orphaned. I am coming to you. In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you" (14:18-20). Huh? I don't think John is talking about the second coming, but about the Christian life when Jesus is in heaven before he returns. This is hard to pin down. My guess is that John is trying to make an emotional impact with his words and he is trying to describe life led by the holy spirit, which is understandable only to those who have experienced it. These are only two examples of many passages which are less than clear to me.
Chapter 17 is a long prayer for protection (17:11) specifically protection from the evil one (17:15). But the protection has a purpose, and it is not to prevent hardship or pain, hunger or disease, death or persecution, or any of the things I would fear. Rather it is a prayer to protect the disciples from falling away, from being separated from the community of people following Christ. Verse 11 is a prayer for protection "so that they may be one as we are one."
Jesus prays "not only on behalf of these [referring to the disciples with him at the last supper] but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that all may be one..." (17:20-21). This is the only place I know in the four gospels which directly addresses the needs of Christians generations after the resurrection.
I think these four chapters, especially the concluding prayer, expose the core issues John's community was facing. They were struggling with the long delay in Jesus' return. They had to invent (or rather, be inspired by the spirit to understand) what Christianity should look like when the delay in Christ's return went on for generation after generation. But the challenge was not primarily theological; they faced hardships, they were persecuted, they were a small group in a much larger society (in fact a minority within a minority, a sect within Judaism). The great challenge was to keep the community together, to keep any members from being "lost." The response to the challenge was to tighten the bonds of community, to love one another, and to "be one" with the Father, with Christ, and with one another.
D. John's community was in great distress. I know the early church was persecuted, and my initial assumption regarding John's community was the Romans were the persecutors. But an internet search of the history of persecution indicates the Romans did not engage in major campaigns of persecution until the mid 2d Century. There was one episode in 64 - 68 AD in Rome. Emperor Nero was rumored to have caused a terrible, destructive fire. To deflect suspicion he blamed a convenient scapegoat, the Christians. That persecution was limited in time and geography. John's community was living around 90 AD, far from Rome. So who was doing the persecuting?
The Book of Acts gives clues. In Acts 8:3 it tells of Saul of Tarsus (at the time a zealous Jew although he later converted) dragging off Christians to prison. In 9:1-2 Saul obtains letters from the high priests giving him authority to go to Damascus and bring back (Jewish) Christians as prisoners. I think of this as a fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy in the discourse, that people who persecute Christians will think they are serving God (16:2 & f). But the actions of Saul / Paul come too early, by something like 40 or 50 years, to be what John's community was worried about.
It is interesting that the high priest in Jerusalem had authority over Jews in Damascus, in a separate province from Judea, all within the Roman Empire. The Romans dealt with their non-Roman subjects not as individuals but as members of established groups. The Romans interacted with the leaders, and the leaders were expected to keep their people in line.
Acts 18:12-17 tells us more. Paul was in Greece teaching, as was his habit, first in the synagogues, then to others. The local Jewish leaders dragged Paul before Gallio the proconsel. a high Roman official, accusing Paul of "persuading people to worship God in ways contrary to the law". Gallio threw them out of court. He refused to get involved in a dispute between Jews about religion. The story is an indication of Jewish desire not just to reject Christianity but to reject Christians, that is to treat them as if they were not truly Jews and even to drag them into pagan courts.
In this case the Roman attitude worked to Paul's advantage, but there was a potential for big problems. If Romans eventually thought Christians were not part of Judaism, then the Christians were a sect without status or recognition, a group that had no place within the Roman scheme of things, a group subject to suspicion and official disapproval. As a naive American I used to think, why would Romans be worried about a new religious group? Religion and politics are miles apart. Osama bin Laden has shown me that is not the case. Romans had good reason to worry about new religious movements.
These passages in Acts point to an additional danger for communities of ethnically Jewish Christians. If the rest of the secular community thought of them as Jews, but the Jews didn't accept them, that had big consequences in real life. Jewish community leaders could decide whether or not you could do business, practice your profession, where you could live... all sorts of things that affected your everyday life. If you were banned by the community leaders it could even sever relationships with family and restrict who you could marry. Jewish elders decided on a great many things and in the Roman system, everybody else backed them up. An ethnic Jew who was "no longer" Jewish could be virtually alone, have zero status in society, and a tough time making a living.
There is a word which appears 3 times in John but nowhere else in the New Testament, aposynagogos [my transliteration] (see 9:22 , 14:42 , 16:2), which is translated being thrown "out of the synagogue." Perhaps it's something like excommunication in the medieval church. Evidently John's community was facing severe problems because of rejection and antipathy on the part of Jewish community leaders.
If you consider this situation for a moment you can see the complex pressures members of John's community were under. Members faced powerful "carrot and stick" incentives. The "stick" was all the difficulties being in a disapproved, unaccepted sect entailed. The "carrot" was, if you returned to standard Judaism all your problems went away.
At this point you may be thinking, "what terrible people those Jews were," but in fact the Jews were doing what any established group does with heretics and members who refuse to accept the established leadership; they throw them out, and appeal to some to return to the fold. This is not unusual. The strident anti-Jewish rhetoric in John is due to the very strong threat the "carrot and stick" pressure posed to John's community and its ability to retain its members.
E. Literary studies provide insight
Looking closely at discourse and vocabulary can give insight into the purposes of the author and the mindset of the Johannine community. In chapter 6 Jesus is talking to a large crowd and describes himself as the bread of life (6:35). He adds that he "came down from heaven" (6:38). "The Jews" who are in the crowd express doubt (6:42) and Jesus' response is confrontational, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh" (6:51). In following verses he reinforces the point about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Many disciples turned away and stopped following him.
Only later with the remaining disciples did Jesus explain that he was talking about spiritual things, not literal flesh (6:63). It seems that Jesus was perfectly comfortable letting the Jews, and even his own disciples somewhat on the periphery, misunderstand him and reject him in disgust. It occurs to me the Johannine community perceived itself (and the Christ they worshiped) to be misunderstood and wrongly judged, and that it was fruitless to explain the truth to skeptics outside the community.
Another thing about the gospel text is there are a great number of opposites and dichotomies: light / darkness (1:4-5 , 3:19-21 etc.), children of God / your father the devil , flesh / spirit (3:6 , 6:63 etc.), heavenly things / earthly things (3:12), saved / condemned & judged (3:17), one who comes from heaven / one who is of the earth (3:31), resurrection of life / resurrection of condemnation (5:29), bread of life / food that perishes (6:27 vs 35), light of life / walk in darkness (8:12)... I could go on.
The author paints a picture of a world of stark choices , the most important one being to remain loyal to Jesus (and the community) or to fall away.
Words take on special meanings in John. "Bread" means something spiritual, something providing essential daily sustenance yet intangible. Light and darkness are not descriptions of ambient light levels but rather the condition of having the correct or incorrect viewpoint on the lordship of Jesus Christ and other issues vital to the community. The word "life" becomes imbued with new meaning, indicating something more than metabolic process, meaning living the right way, the most meaningful way, living in harmony with God with Christ as your lord. In the story of the Samaritan woman at the well (chapter 4) water takes on symbolic meaning, and it is up to the woman to grasp the meaning. Many common, everyday words take on special meaning.
These words with new meanings - life, bread, water, etc. - often deal with the same reality, the need to follow Jesus, to put him first, and to belong to the community of Jesus-followers.
Another feature of John is that, more than the other gospels, it emphasizes the interpersonal. Many passages begin with a one-on-one encounter, such as Jesus and Nicodemus, Jesus and the woman at the well. The story of the woman who washes Jesus' feet, told in all four gospels, in John is depicted almost as a family setting, with Jesus visiting his very close friends Mary, Martha and Lazarus. Yet people outside the community are faceless, part of a mass, such as "the Jews".
One of the outside readings in the class I took on John was Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John by Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. In chapter 2 pages 46-48 they review these various characteristics - many words for the same reality, words filled with new meanings, emphasis on the interpersonal, social contrast with the out group - and identify the gospel as an example of a document written in an "anti-language" for an "anti-society."
The authors have encountered other literature with these features. Literature of this type is written by/for a small, tightly knit community struggling to survive in a hostile social environment. John is exactly the sort of text written for a close knit group which exists in opposition to the dominant society.
The purpose of literature of this type is survival of the community by means of strengthening the connections that hold the small community together. Focus is on the interpersonal, to facilitate interpersonal bonding. In John becoming "children of God" means developing kinship-like loyalties to God, Jesus and the group members. Mutual trust, a shared view of the world, and group loyalty are essential for such communities. In comparison, ideological propositions, statements of doctrine and academic truths are insignificant. It is not a significant purpose of the literature to express such propositions, doctrines and truths.
I'll mention one more insight from literature, from the book Literary Form in the New Testament: A Handbook by James L. Bailey and Lyle D. VanderBroek, pages 172-177 on "Johannine Discourse." Repeatedly when Jesus talks in John he makes long statements to reveal some profound point about his divine nature and mission. He often begins with, "truly I tell you," and he frequently uses the introductory phrase "I am..." which to Jews had an echo of the divine name (see Exodus 3). Jesus the speaker is explicitly aware of his divine status.
This literary form is unique in the New Testament. The other gospels generally (there are exceptions) present Jesus as speaking of the things of God rather than focused on himself. In Matthew he is portrayed as a prophet like Moses only greater, teaching about righteousness and fulfillment of the law. In Mark Jesus is a man of action, rarely quoted although it is noted he speaks with authority and not as one of the scribes. In Luke Jesus teaches about the kingdom of God, and focuses on God rather than himself. It is rare in the other gospels for Jesus to say something that expresses a claim to his own divinity.
In John we find Jesus saying things like, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever..." (John 6:51). "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life (8:12). In response to Jewish leaders he said, "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I am" (8:58). And so on.
The authors of Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook say regarding Johannine discourse, "The Johannine gospel offers far more profound levels of truth than simply a historical factual one." That's a nice academic way of saying they don't think many of the quotes and to a degree even the stories in John are factual, but rather the author is using what was by 90 AD (thereabouts) a well-established narrative literary form, the gospel form, to express ideas and arguments.
People of faith may reject that position, but what if biblical truth lies in the points made rather than the factual details recited? The gospel of John is urgently trying to persuade people to stay loyal to Jesus and stay within the Christian community. Why not present Jesus in his majesty, as the risen Lord, crowned by God to rule over the kingdom? It was anachronistic of the author to portray Jesus during his ministry as the Jesus of 90 AD who ruled from heaven. Yet the risen Jesus of 90 AD is exactly who the followers needed to stay loyal to.
IV. Theology
Now I can start looking at the ideas and doctrines in John, although in fact the gospel is not concerned about the great theological issues for which the church finds support in John, like the trinity. John is concerned about holding the community together, and the ideas expressed in John are offered to encourage members to stay in the fold.
A. John responds to the Jewish arguments
John must respond to the Jewish appeal which calls on members of John's community to return to Judaism, to return to the faith of their fathers, to Moses, the law and the prophets, to the patriarchs, to a faith which had been centered on the temple in Jerusalem and a faith buttressed by numerous time-honored rites and practices.
The gospel does not argue against such things but instead insists Jesus offers something greater, something better.
1. Creation. The God Jews worship as the creator, the one who spoke the world into existence, who existed before there was anything else, is the God whose acts are described at the beginning of Genesis, the very beginning of the scriptures. So the gospel of John also starts with, "In the beginning..." specifically "In the beginning was the word [the logos]..." (John 1:1). In later verses John goes on to equate the word with Jesus. If you, a member of John's community, have been listening to your Jewish relatives and friends discount the importance of Jesus in comparison to the God of the Jews, well, the gospel assures you Jesus was right there with God at creation and God was working through Jesus. Jesus' credentials are unsurpassed.
How can the gospel writer make that assertion with any degree of credibility? I've mentioned previously that the logos evoked in Jewish minds God speaking the world into existence in Genesis 1, and the logos spermatikos of stoic philosophy, and the "word of God" in Philo's philosophy. It is not much of a stretch to imagine logos also corresponding to the notion of wisdom. After all logos is organized, thought-out speech; the Greeks had another word for idle chatter.
Jewish scriptures have extensive wisdom literature. Proverbs 8:22-31 states wisdom existed before anything else was created (8:22), and worked along side God in creation (8:30). Wisdom even speaks in the 1st person, which I take as a poetic technique rather than a claim that wisdom is a person, but nevertheless raising the possibility that wisdom is a being with an independent personality. So the notion of some principle, some system of thought, existing at the start of creation and participating with God in creation was not alien to Jews who knew their scripture. The innovation of John was to equate wisdom, the word, the logos with Jesus. So as Jewish scriptures start with, "In the beginning God..." John finds a way to begin by at least implying if not expressly saying, "In the beginning Jesus..."
2. Moses and the Law. What about comparisons of Jesus with Moses, arguably the greatest figure in Israel's history, who led them out of slavery in Egypt, founded the nation, and gave them the law? John says, "The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (1:17). Moses is not disparaged but Jesus offers something even better. To emphasize Jesus' primacy, John says Moses prophesied about Jesus. Early in the gospel when disciples are being gathered, Philip tells Nathaniel, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus..." (1:45).
We also see a comparison showing the superiority of what Jesus offers when Jesus justifies healing on the sabbath, telling the crowd that if Moses allows circumcision on the sabbath, how much better to heal a man's whole body on the sabbath? (See passage 7:19-24.)
3. Jewish rituals and customs. Jesus' first miracle is at the wedding at Cana where he turns water into wine, very good wine (2:1-12). The water Jesus changes is new water which he directs to be put into stone jars used for Jewish rites of purification (2:6). I think this fact is key to understanding the point of the miracle. It is not just that Jesus has the power to change water into wine, but that he can adapt or override Jewish rites and practices to make something incomparably better than what is normally produced or what is expected.
4. The Temple. The next story is about Jesus driving the moneychangers and merchants out of the temple (2:13-25). This action implies an assumption of authority over what happens in the temple and Jesus' awareness that the temple was his father's house. But there is more; in response to Jews objecting to his action Jesus says, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" (2:19). Jesus was misunderstood but the narrator explains he was speaking of the temple of his body (2:21).
The passage is just a few verses but it strikes me there are major claims being made. The temple was not just a building complex or a venue for religious rites. It was the center of religious authority, the office building if you will, of the high priest and religious officials. Ultimately these leaders derived their authority from God. In addition the temple was the dwelling place of God. God is so great he can be anywhere but he chooses to be especially present, to be immanent, in the temple. This was understood literally, for example see 2 Chronicles 5:13-14. When Solomon dedicates the new temple "the house of the LORD was filled with a cloud such that the priests could not stand to minister," and "the glory of the LORD filled the house of God" (5:13-14).
The implications of Jesus' statement are extraordinary. His body was now the temple. He was the center of religious authority derived from God. He was the dwelling place of God, the physical locus in this world where God chose to be present most powerfully, the place where God was immanent. That's a very strong counter position to take against Jewish traditionalists.
On the one hand, throughout the gospel the narrative gives many examples of God's spiritual presence in Jesus. On the other hand in this specific passage the gospel writer says very little to develop these concepts. John offers profound insights but he is not interested in theology as a scholarly pursuit. His focus is on persuading his people to stay in the fold.
5. The Patriarchs. Abraham was the first patriarch. Jews were proud to be children of Abraham and he had enormous prestige. In chapter 8 Jesus argues with "the Jews." Jesus makes a statement, "Whoever keeps my word will never taste death" (8:52). The Jews jump on that, "Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died?" (8:53) Jesus responds, "Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad" (8:56). The Jews scoffed, "You are not 50 years old and you have seen Abraham?" (8:57) To which Jesus responds, "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I am" (8:58).
This strikes me as a claim that Jesus has a more important role in God's plan for the world than Abraham, that he is of far greater significance than Abraham. Abraham lived at a point in time, Jesus is eternal. Abraham was a great man but he saw something even greater, God's plan and the agent of God's plan for eternity. Jesus is the more important person.
A couple notes in passing; the whole passage (8:39-59) revolves around a discussion of whose father is whom's. The Jews claim Abraham as their father and then "God himself" (8:39, 41). Jesus says their father is the devil (8:41). Jesus makes it clear God is his father (8:49, 54). So in spite of the very strong language (Before Abraham was, I am) Jesus is not claiming to be God but the son of God. Perhaps most Christians don't see a difference in the two claims, but I want to follow the text. Secondly, I think the "before Abraham I am" statement is not primarily a claim about time sequence. From the context the topic is the importance of Jesus, and his role and purpose as the son of God.
As I read I asked myself, what was Jesus referring to in Genesis that caused him to say Abraham saw Jesus' day? When Abraham was first called out of Mesopotamia the call of God included a promise, "in you will all the families of the earth be blessed" (Gen 12:3). Perhaps that's what Jesus was referring to.
In conclusion the gospel of John addresses the major pillars of the Jewish faith, Moses and the law, Abraham, the Temple, the rites and practices, and in each case shows Jesus as superior and as offering something superior.
B. The Prologue
The Prologue of John, chapter 1 verses 1-18, is well known, dramatic and much loved. Powerful symbols are woven together; the word, God, light, and life. I have already mentioned how "the word" must have evoked connections, in the minds of community members, to God speaking His creation into existence, to the logos of Greek philosophy, to the word of God in Philo's Jewish philosophy, and to wisdom which was covered extensively in the Jewish scriptures. "Light" is one of those words with special, enhanced meaning for John's community relating to enlightenment, truth and hope, pushing back darkness and evil. "Life", as I hope to demonstrate below, is a primary theme of the gospel, associated not just with respiration but with living as God intended and in relationship with God.
The brief story line is that the word and God jointly create, and the word brings light and life into being. There are a couple of asides relating to John the Baptist (1:6-8, 15-16) who was very prominent about the time of Jesus' early life. The world does not know or accept the word, yet the word brings people the power to become children of God. Finally the gospel makes it clear the word is Jesus, saying "the word became flesh and lived among us" (1:14). He is God's only son, he brings grace and truth, and he makes God known.
One observation is, at least in this passage, the point of Jesus' ministry is to give people the power to become children of God (1:12). Becoming children of God means coming into a close child-parent type relationship with God and a family relationship with God's other children, presumably meaning the community John was writing for. Other New Testament books may be more likely to talk about saving people from judgment or the wrath of God, or from their sins. We may find that message later in this gospel, but John's initial focus is on becoming children of God.
When you read an English translation of the Prologue things are clear; from the beginning Jesus = the word = God. In Greek it is not so clear. There are issues in translation which make it vague exactly at what point you can say Jesus = the word. Ancient Greek differs from modern English in that Greek nouns, articles and pronouns have gender. If you study Spanish, French or German you encounter this grammatical issue. English nouns and articles do not have gender, although many pronouns do.
Looking at the first few verses, "word" is masculine, life is feminine, light is neuter, and darkness is feminine. Every noun in Greek has gender and with the vast majority there is no discernible "sex" associated with the object described. If sex was what grammatical gender was about, virtually all objects would have the neuter gender in Greek, but they do not. A great number of nouns are either masculine or feminine. Furthermore there are three definite articles, one for each gender unlike English which just has "the".
Pronouns too have gender which must agree with the gender of the noun the pronoun refers to. If a pronoun refers back to a noun mentioned earlier in the sentence or paragraph, it will have the same gender as the noun. So a pronoun referring back to a masculine-gender object should be translated "it" in English, even though in Greek the pronoun must have masculine gender. After all, simply because a noun has masculine gender does not necessarily mean it is a male person. Most nouns refer to things, not people.
In the prologue Greek pronouns referring back to the word (the logos) are all masculine in gender. Following the gender, translators translate the masculine pronouns as "he". But in fact "the word" is an "it" because word is a thing, not a person. References back to "the word" should only be translated "he" after the word becomes flesh in verse 14. (Verses 10-13 are ambiguous. Accurate English translation of the pronouns is a bit problematical.)
I have experienced a minister citing the first few verses of John as proof that Jesus is God and as support for the doctrine of the trinity. He had forgotten his Greek classes.
In the Prologue the author is making a powerful claim that Jesus is the embodiment of something that existed with God before creation, that something being God's word, God's plan, God's intended communication, what God was going to bring about in connection with His creative act. But the author of John, at least in Greek, does not claim that Jesus, that is the man, the person, was present at the creation. Only translators to English under the weight of centuries of church theology, do that.
The ambiguity of the text enables John to make a very exalted claim about Jesus and to have an emotional impact on the members of his community. He strengthens their loyalty to Jesus because of Jesus' enormous importance. This is powerful appeal but it is not systematic theology, which is what I'm searching for.
C. The Atonement
Twice in chapter 1 John the Baptist refers to Jesus as "the lamb of God" (1:29, 36) and he says specifically, "Here is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" This is unique; John the Baptist is discussed in each of the four gospels but this is the only time the Baptist talks about Jesus being a lamb or taking away sin. The sacrifice of Jesus' life on the cross is at the heart of doctrines of the atonement so it appears the gospel of John will explain this doctrine clearly.
I hope so because explanation is needed. Although a lamb conveys an image of innocence (and Jesus was indeed without sin) there is no particular tradition of lambs being associated with sacrifice for sin any more than any other domestic animal. The Old Testament has hundreds of passages dealing with sacrifice for all sorts of reasons, for sin, for thanksgiving, for the ongoing operation of the temple, on and on. Lambs appear about as often as other animals.
The Day of Atonement is a very high holy day in the Jewish calendar. As set forth in Leviticus 16, after sacrifice of a bull and a goat (but no lamb) the high priest confesses all the sins of the people of Israel over another goat and sends it, the scapegoat, off into the wilderness to carry away the sins of the people. No lamb is used for atonement.
Acts 8, in the story about Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, (8:26-39) suggests one Old Testament passage in which a lamb is in a sacrificial role. The eunuch is reading the suffering servant passage, Isaiah 52:13 - 53:19, which is understood by Christians to be "messianic" that is, a prophecy about the messiah. However the gospel of John gives no indication that the Baptist is referring to Isaiah, nor does any reference to the passage come up elsewhere in the gospel.
It appears the gospel writer has chosen a compelling image, a lamb, for its emotional impact rather than for theological explanation of a doctrine. It turns out in the balance of the gospel that sin and judgment are mentioned roughly 20 times, but always as an aside or just a quick reference. In this gospel Jesus is often quoted at length. He can give a short speech at any time, e.g. in his encounter with Nicodemus (3:10-21) or the Samaritan woman at the well (4:21-26). The gospel writer does not choose to include any speech Jesus may have given on the atonement.
To understand the quick references to sin or judgment, which I will explore, some background is needed. Today you are likely to hear two theories of the atonement depending on the type of church you go to. Conservative churches say we are sinners. It can be explained two ways; our sins create a debt to God which must be repaid, or our sins are crimes and justice requires punishment. In either case we are inadequate to pay for our sins so we need a savior, someone who is so perfect as to have the capacity to pay on our behalf. Jesus is that personal savior, dying on the cross to save each one of us.
In liberal churches Jesus is the first and most prominent martyr to the causes which the liberal churches champion, such as the plight of the poor and disadvantaged, political correctness, socialism, marxism, opposition to racism - you name it, whatever ideologies or issues the pastor is focused on. God and Jesus are drafted to support the agenda of the left.
Historically it is a bit more complicated but still we only have 3 doctrines to explore. A Swedish Lutheran Bishop, Gustaf Aulen, published Christus Victor in 1931. That book explains the 3 theories.
The classical theory or ransom theory has the idea that there is a battle between Jesus and the devil. The devil took power over this world through deceit in the garden of Eden and now is the "ruler of this world" holding all mankind in bondage. As long as people sin they cannot escape from bondage. They need to be ransomed or redeemed. Jesus wants to win our freedom for us. He battles with the devil by refusing to sin, by rejecting temptation, by putting the Father's will above his own even when he faces death. The devil puts Jesus to death and thinks he has won, but God raises Jesus from the dead because Jesus is without sin, and has dramatically proved it. Jesus has superior standing to the devil and all who acknowledge Jesus as their king are freed.
Gustaf Aulen cites a number of early church authorities who support this theory and claims it was the dominant doctrine of the atonement for the first 1000 years of the church. It is the source of the title of his book.
The second theory was put forth about 1099 by Anselm, Bishop of Canterbury in his book, Why Did God Become Man? (Originally in Latin, entitled Cur Deus Homo?, this short book is still available on the internet in English or Latin.) Anselm offers the "satisfaction theory" of the atonement, the idea that God is offended by sin and must be satisfied by sacrifice. Originally sin was not equated with either a debt or a crime, but rather with feudal failure to honor a superior, with breach of loyalty to a lord or king. As feudalism died the theory transitioned smoothly to metaphors of debt and crime, and became the theory used by conservative churches today. The focus is on our personal standing with God and the need to correct our shortcomings. The satisfaction theory is also sometimes called the "objective theory" in contrast to theory #3.
The third theory, the "subjective theory" was proposed by Abelard, a theologian and professor at the University of Paris. Abelard lived about one generation after Anselm. He is most famous for his romance with Heloise, a young teenager whom he was hired to tutor. Abelard and Heloise fell in love, she became pregnant, her guardian was enraged, Abelard was castrated, Heloise became a nun, but they loved each other for the rest of their lives... one of history's famous love stories.
Abelard said Jesus' death was an expression of how much he loved us. Jesus' example should move us all to be more like him. The effect of Jesus' death then is supposed to be subjective, to operate by example to change our hearts and behavior. We must change our lives and love one another. I have not researched whether or if this theory evolved into the present liberal theory of Jesus as martyr for the causes of the left. I suspect there is a connection.
With this background, what does the text of the gospel of John say?
Chapter 8 is the next point after chapter 1 where sin is mentioned. Jesus is talking with Pharisees and tells them, "You will die in your sin" (verse 21) "unless you believe that I am he" (24). In plain English, you will die unless you believe Jesus is the messiah (and follow him). Later in the chapter Jesus tells disciples if they follow him, "you will know the truth and the truth will make you free" (31). They are confused because they are not slaves as far as their legal status in society is concerned. Jesus says, "Very truly I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin" (34).
Chapter 9 is about Jesus healing a man born blind. Toward the end Jesus makes a general point, "I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind" (39). Some Pharisees ask if they are blind. Jesus answers, "If you were blind you would not have sin. But now that you say 'we see' your sin remains" (41).
By chapter 12 the narrative has moved very close in time to the crucifixion. Jesus talks to his followers about his death, "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And when I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all people to myself" (31-32).
In chapter 15 Jesus is warning his disciples about the persecution they will face. Regarding these persecutors he says, "If I had not come and spoken to them they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin" (22).
In chapter 16 Jesus is promising his followers that after his death he will send the Advocate (the Holy Spirit) to them. "And when he comes, he will convict the world of sin and righteousness and judgment; about sin because they do not believe in me, about righteousness because I am going to the Father and you will see me no more, and about judgment because the ruler of this world has been condemned" (8-11).
My take on these passages - and you can make your own inferences - is that sin is a matter of being enslaved, being oppressed. The oppressor is the ruler of this world, the devil. Yes, people who are arrogant like the Pharisees, who have the chance to follow Jesus but reject him, are more culpable, but everyone is enslaved. If you don't believe in Jesus you stay in that condition. The resurrection of Jesus to the Father in heaven confirms that Jesus is righteous and is the agent to accomplish the Father's will. In life Jesus confronted evil and won each confrontation, but such small victories were inconclusive. By being killed but then raising from the dead, Jesus demonstrated complete righteousness and supremacy, and the devil was judged and condemned.
The gospel of John matches reasonably well with Aulen's classical theory.
--- At this point I have run out of space. Please go to Part 2, The Gospel of John ---
Posted by rob at March 2, 2010 09:21 AM
Comments
Posted by: Anonymous at March 2, 2010 09:21 AM