Gospel of John: Introduction
Bible
Study, 27 Sept 2012
Faith Mennonite Church, Twin Cities, MN
Introduction:
A.
Characteristics
and Relationships to the Bible and other Gospels
John is the fourth book of the New Testament. The Bible is divided into two major groupings
– the Old Testament, which is commonly thought of as the old covenant between
the Lord Jehovah and the Jewish nation out of which would be born the Messiah (Mashiah) or savior of the Jewish nation,
and through the Mashiah, a blessing
to the whole world.
The Old Testament covers the history and
theology of mankind from the creation of the world in Genesis, to the formation
of the Israelite nation, its successes, struggles and occasional disappearance
from history as the result of wars often believed to be the result of
unfaithfulness or turning away from following the Lord God. For thousands of years, the descendants of
Abraham through Isaac had persevered waiting for the Messiah who would restore mankind
to his and her proper relationship to God and Nature. Most recently, the Kingdom of Judea had
survived exile of her population into Babylon, a foreign nation. During this exile, it must have seemed that
the thousands of years of history and perseverance as recorded in the Old
Testament might have been for naught.
The Jewish people were no longer in the land God had promised to
establish them in and to allow them to prosper, but they also no longer had
access to the Temple Mount – the center of their cultural and religious lives,
the key to their relationship to God and the means by which they both made
restitution for their sins via animal sacrifices and preserved their
relationship to God. The Old Testament
follows this entire history ending with the hopeful return of the Jews from Babylon
to rebuild Jerusalem and the holy Temple.
But – still, no Messiah.
Martin De Haan II writes:
“God had been silent for 400 years. The devout of Israel had waited in vain for
God to speak again and for their anticipated Messiah to come. But nothing had been revealed since the
prophet Malachi put down his pen, finishing the Old Testament. The in sudden, bold, broad-sweeping strokes,
God revealed Himself in two ways: (1)
through the coming of Jesus Christ, His Son, and (2) through the writing of the
New Testament,” (De Haan, p 4).
Within the New Testament, the story of the
coming of Jesus Christ, the Messiah who would restore both the people of Israel
and heal the world’s broken relationship with God – a relationship that had
been broken by sin, disobedience and a lack of faith since the story of Adam
and Eve being kicked out of the garden of Eden for having disobeyed the Lord,
is recorded in the four Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Taken together, these gospels form the
biography of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose death would pay the penalty
for all of our sins from the beginning of time to the present, and whose
teachings the Christian church around the world would seek to follow. The Gospels explain how all of this comes
about.
De Haan sums up Christ’s biography as follows
(the following are quotes):
1.
In
Jesus’ birth, we see the mercy of God as He humbled Himself to come to our
rescue (Matt. 1:21-23).
2.
In
Jesus’ teaching, we see the wisdom and goodness of God as He tells us what to
believe and how to live (John 12:49,50).
3.
In
Jesus’ miracles, we see the unlimited power of God to control nature, disease,
and death (Mark 4:35-41; Luke 7:11-18; 9:37-42).
4.
In
Jesus’ training of the Twelve [disciples], we see God’s desire to work through
His people (John 14:12).
5.
In
Jesus’ death, we see how far God would go to redeem us from our sins (John
3:16).
6.
In
Jesus’ resurrection, we see the supernatural power of God to conquer death
(Mark 16:1-8).
In response to the Great Commission, the
writers of the Gospels had to tell the story of Christ in a way that would be
meaningful and understood not only by the Jews, to whom Christ had been sent in
fulfillment of prophecy, but also to the Gentiles. Gentile means the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians,
Indians and all other peoples who were not Jews, to whom Christ had also been
sent. This is a concept which we will
learn more about as we progress through the study.
Part of the way the Gospels accomplish all of
this is by focusing on different aspects of Christ’s personality, his story and
the relationships he established while on earth. De Haan has created the following chart which
is helpful to understand the differing focuses and themes of the various
Gospels.
[insert
chart]
Yet another way to remember the differences
between the Gospels is to look above one’s head anytime one enters into a major
historic Roman Catholic Church. Before
people were generally educated to be able to read, they were able to remember
the differences between the four gospels through the use of symbols that were
often built into the church (most often painted or laid in mosaic on the
central apse or central ceiling joint of the church).
As you can see from De Haan’s chart, the
Gospel written by John focuses on revealing Christ as God (we will discuss this
in depth in the first lesson). While the
other Evangelists wrote their Gospels to be most meaningful to certain groups
of people, to certain nations and distinct audiences, John’s gospel is universal, meaning that he is writing to
everyone in a way that everyone would be able to understand (lucky for
us). Yet, John’s gospel is also the most
theological and philosophical or academic, meaning that while certain parts of
it are very easy to understand by everyone, such as John 3:16, others portions
are more philosophical and more difficult to understand without a lot of
thought and discussion and probably a little bit of prayer.
Various commentators have drawn certain
themes from John.
De Haan focuses on the relationships of
Christ – finding that the gospel reveals the relationship of Christ to God, to
the world, to the disciples and to the enemy, both to explain who Jesus is and
as an example for Christians to follow in their own lives. (see image)
Eusubius drew the following explanation from
Clement of Alexandria, “Last of all John,
perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the gospel, urged by his
friends and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual gospel,” (Gross, p
548).
Gay Bible Comentator, Robert E. Gross, S.J.,
focuses on the book of John as the Coming
Out experience of Christ, whereby God comes
out as God through the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, wherein Christ comes out as the Son of God and as God
(as in the Trinity), and whereby God, as the Trinity, comes out as the lover of humanity and the individual Christian.
Gross’ model is not unlike many traditional
evangelical Mennonite perspectives which would see Christ as coming out both as
God but also as the Law – being the embodiment and fulfillment of the Law –
hence the necessity of His death on the Cross and His ability to meet that
penalty once and for all, for all time and for all that believe. Being the embodiment of the Law and having
paid the terms of the Law, Christ was then able to institute a new era of Grace
that now supersedes that Law. The Law
and Death still exist but their power, sting and necessity have been broken.
Norman Pittinger, a LGBT Studies scholar,
helps clarify the term or process of “coming
out”:
“… Very simply, it [coming out] means both accepting one’s homosexuality
as a fact, accepting oneself for what one is; and also letting other people
with whom one lives or works or plays know that in fact [one] is
homosexual. In effect, it is an avowel
of one’s true sexual drive, made both privately and publicly. Many gay men and women believe that it is the
honest thing to do, not so much to oneself (for after all to acce3pt oneself
requires only a modicum of self-awareness) but more to others, so that no
longer is one hiding behind some mask or pretending to be what one is not, or
worst of all talking and acting as if one were heterosexual, even making jokes
about the gay world and gay people,” (Pittinger, p 89).
Indeed, one would have to see obvious
parallels between the coming out
experience as such and both John’s agenda for revealing the true nature of Christ in order for the Christian disciple
to understand and embrace his or her true
nature. How similar this process seems
also to the Mennonite or Anabaptist process of presenting one’s public
testimony to the church prior to membership.
Merely switch out the term homosexual
for Believer.
In Goss’ words, God’s coming out in John provokes a responsive internal coming out for the believer “discovering the grace of their true selves
and integrating the message of God’s coming out in Jesus,” (Goss, p 548).
Feminist Bible scholar Gail R. O’Day focuses
on John’s attempts to answer the basic question, “Who is Jesus?” while pointing out that John’s unique style and
focus seem to facilitate and encourage the sense of having and building a personal relationship with Christ/God
(O’Day, p 293).
O’Day also points out the importance John
places on Christ’s relationship with women and their role in the Gospel story:
“Women play significant roles in the Gospel
of John. This significance is evident
both in the number of stories in which women appear and in the theological
importance of those stories. … Men do not have a monopoly on witness and
discipleship in John; rather, the Gospel of John narrates a faith world that
would not exist without women’s participation in it,” (O’Day, p 294).
In The New
Covenant, a Hebrew-oriented translation of the Gospels, Greek and literary
professor Willis Barnstone focuses on the themes of creation and Christ’s
divinity in the book of John and conveys the thought that John wrote in part to
separate the early Christian church and its beliefs from the old, passé
fellowship and beliefs of the non-believing Jews. Barnstone unites these themes in noting that
the ancient Hebrew act of creation
was seemingly less a sense of making something out of nothing than it has to do
with separating and ordering the cosmos.
Genesis reveals the story of creation of the earth and cosmos. John is the story of spiritual creation – a
process which continues through the act of Christ’s redemption and in the
personal redemption of each Christian to this day.
Jesuit scholar Jerome Neyrey, S.J., focuses
not on the content of John as much as on its structure. Noting that past scholarship has examined the
book in a manner of types – studying the characters of the narrative as either
symbolic figures or representative archetypes (Neyrey, p 3), he focuses on the
structure of the book as an encomium
or Classical form of memorial of praise or vituperation (blame) (Neyrey, p
6). (Interestingly, leaving room to
speculate a bit more as to exactly why the Gospel was written (to praise
Him, out of love and affection, for the edification and training of the
Christian community in faith, to distinguish Christians from other faiths
including Judaism…).
Neyrey explains that an econium was a rhetorical argument to
praise or cast blame on the life of a public figure. He provides the following outline of the
contents of a typical Classical economium
and as a theoretical structuring of the first part of the Gospel of John
(chapters 1 – 12), (Neyrey, p 7).
I.
Origin
a.
Geography
and Generation: country, race,
ancestors, parents
b.
Birth: phenomena at birth (stars, visions, etc.),
oracles
II.
Nurture
and Training
a.
Education: teachers, arts, skills, laws, mode of life
III.
Accomplishments
a.
Deeds
of the Body: beauty, strength, agility,
might, health
b.
Deeds
of the Soul: justice, wisdom,
temperance, courage, piety
c.
Deeds
of Fortune: power, wealth, friends,
fame, fortune
IV.
Comparison
V.
Noble
Death and Posthumous Honors
Neyrey goes further to indicate that John
is possibly playing a small game of Gnosticism
or hidden knowledge by showing how John’s econium
is both a blaming or putting down of Christ and a praise. In Neyrey’s thinking, John is inverting the econium by showing how the details of
Christ’s life were seen by traditional Jews and the Roman power structure as sinful,
shameful, baseless boasts and even outright blasphemy. These outsiders did not know Christ intimately
nor understood His true nature. What
seemed as base or blameful to outsiders was really part of a hidden positive
nature. So in Neyrey’s understanding,
John not only adopts the rhetorical model of the econium, but does so in a way that shows both the divinity of the
human Christ and how the truth, though perfectly and openly evident, is at the
same time hidden from those who do not know Christ as Saviour but see through
the lens of the Old Testament and are blinded by the darkness of their fallen nature
rather than enlightened by the Light of the Word, (Neyrey, p 13, 17).
B.
Authorship
There is much debate regarding the
authorship of this Gospel. The NIV Study
Bible quotes historical testimony and references to the Gospel to indicate its
authenticity, its date and its authorship by John as testified by early
Christian teachers such as Eusubius, Ireneus and Origin. More certain is the books probable origin in
Ephesus, a center of the early church.
Barnstone finds doubt that John is the
actual writer but has no issue seeing the potential of the book having been
actually written by the disciples and students of the Apostle John, a sort of
School of John, (Barnstone, p 303).
Other Biblicists have ventured further
afield. While not having an issue with
John being identified as the “Disciple whom Jesus Loved,” some gay and lesbian
commentators leave room for the Gospel potentially being attributed to others
such as Lazarus. The Gospel narrative
can be read to see Lazarus as a gay man, even a potential lover of Christ. Was the gospel written by Lazarus as a
potential intimate portrait of and testament to love? Using the same reasoning, could the book have
even been written by a beloved woman
– namely Mary Magdalene?
To my mind, I find the strongest argument
and traditional validation to lie within Matthew Henry:
“It is not material to
enquire when and where this gospel was written; we are sure that it was given
to John, the brother of James, one of the twelve apostles, distinguished by the
honourable character of that disciple whom Jesus loved. The
ancients tell us that John lived longest of all the twelve apostles, and was
the only one of them that died a natural death.
Some of them say that he wrote this gospel at Ephesus in opposition to
the heresy of the Ebionites, who held that our Lord was a mere man. It
is clear that he wrote last of the four evangelists, and, comparing his gospel
with theirs, we may observe, 1. That he relates what they had omitted; he brings up the rear, gleans up what they had passed by. 2.
That he gives us more of the mystery of that of which the other evangelists gave us only the history.
Some of the ancients observe that the other evangelists wrote more of
the bodily things of Christ; but John
writes of the spiritual things of the
gospel, the life and the soul of it.” (MHC, p 1506).
C.
Who
was John?
Though John is the only disciple to have
died a natural death, the known and traditional details of his life are
contained within Theileman van Braght’s Martyrs
Mirror as a leader of the early church (recall that the Mirror was written
as an apologetic history of the living church and its refinement and
preservation despite persecution, and not merely a catalogue of past wrongs
done against the Anabaptists) and as one who also endured tribulation and
persecution for the sake of the Lord Christ:
An annotated account from The Martyrs Mirror:
“ John, the apostle and evangelist, was a son
of Zebedee, and brother of James the Greater; he was born at Nazareth, and by
occupation was a fisherman. Matt.
4:21. He was called by Christ, when
engaged with his father and brother in mending their nets for fishing. Verse 22.
As soon as he heard the words of Christ, he immediately left the nets,
the ship, and his father, and, together with James, his beloved brother,
followed Christ. Chrysost. Homil. 1., in
Joh.
… He was greatly beloved by the Lord, so
that at the Supper he reclined on Christ’s bosom, and leaned, or rested, on His
breast. John 13:23; 21:20. The Lord, moreover, had accepted him as one
of His three most special friends, to bear testimony of his works, not only in
His conflict and suffering in the garden of Gethsemane, but also in His glory,
in the raising of the daughter of Jairus as well as in the showing forth of His
majesty, when, on the holy mount, His face shone as the sun, and His raiment
became white as the light. Matt. 26:36;
Luke 8:51; Matt. 17:1-4.
From an inward love, he followed the Lord
not only into the house of the priest Caiaphas, but also to Mount Calvary,
without the city of Jerusalem, where the Lord was put to death. There the Lord hanging on the cross,
addressed him, saying, “Son, behold thy mother!” (John 19:27).
He was so eager after the resurrection of
Christ that in running to His grave with his fellow apostle Peter, he outran
the latter, thus showing his affection for his Lord, who had died an
ignominious death, and was entirely forsaken by His other friends. John 20:4.
Some years afterwards, in order to refute
the errors of Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of Christ, he wrote
his Gospel, to the honor and magnifying of his Saviour, commencing thus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God. … “And the Word was made flesh,” etc., John
1:1-14. In these words he gives us to
understand the true incarnation of the Son of God, to whom be praise and glory
forever, Amen.
John is called throughout the Gospel the
beloved of the Lord, or the disciple “whom Jesus loved;” because the Lord so
especially loved him John 13:23; 20:2; 21:20.
But since it is the will of God to bring
His children to glory through much tribulation and distress, this beloved
friend of God, John, also could not escape, but was tried throughout his life,
with manifold tribulations, according to what the Lord had told him and his
brother James: Ye shall indeed drink of
the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall
ye be baptized,” that is, ye shall also
be subjected to my suffering and distress.
Mark 10:39.
This was afterwards fulfilled in him in
manifold ways; for, besides what ancient writers have recorded concerning it,
namely, that at Rome was put into a vat full of boiling oil, but was
miraculously delivered out of it, the merits of which account we leave
unquestioned; this much, according to the Scriptures, is certain, namely that
he spent a long time on the desert island of Patmos, whither he had been
banished, for the testimony of Jesus Christ. …
… But by whom, and in what manner he was
banished to that desert island, is not stated in the Scriptures, except that he
was in tribulation for the Word of God.
Some of the ancient writers, however, state that he was banished by
Emperor Domitian, about A. D. 97; …
… When the Emperor Domitian, who had
banished him to the aforesaid island, was dead, and Nerva reigned in his stead,
he was delivered and brought back to Ephesus, where he had previously been
bishop of the church. This occurred,
according to history, about A. D. 99; consequently, his confinement there
lasted two years. The ancients write
that he suffered much yet for the name of Christ, and was compelled to drink
poison, yet remained unharmed, according to the promise of Christ; and that he
finally died in peace at Ephesus, in the time of the Emperor Trajan, having
served in the holy Gospel for fifty-one years, and being eighty years old: and thus this great light rests in Asia. (Ref indicated Mirror, p 97).”
[Insert
photo p 97]
A further reference to the Apostle John
mentions him as an example to the suffering Mennonites in Ghent. Van Braght records that Mattheus Bernaerts ap
van Lincken was burnt at the stake in the Friday Market at Ghent, Flanders,
with three other believers 04 December, 1572.
Before he died, Mattheus wrote of John in a letter of encouragement to
his children Janneken, Joosken and Mijntken in the face of his martyrs’ death:
“… The disciple is not above his master, and the servant
above his lord. … My dear little
children, what I, your father, must now suffer for, will not be to your
disgrace, for it is for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence be not ashamed of it, for we cannot die
a more glorious death for the Lord, than for the Word of God. Peter and John departed joyfully from the
presence of the council, when they had been scourged, because they were counted
worthy to suffer to suffer shame for the name of Jesus. Acts 5:41. …” (Mirror, p 947,
949).
D.
Discussion
Questions
Two
Questions:
i. What is your understanding of
who Christ is?
ii.
What
is your understanding of who or what God is?
In this post-religious “age of Reason,”
concepts of God are complicated, refuted, confused or quite often out right
rejected. Many persons who still claim a
faith in God often seemingly believe in an ambiguous, less personal figure similar
to that of many of our Founding Fathers in the United States. As Deists,
many of the American founders seemingly believed in God merely as a primary
force, perhaps the primal creator who set things in motion and then abandoned
them to natural laws and regulation.
Most recently, the best-selling novelist
Dan Brown wrote of the discovery or hoped-for discovery of the boson, nicknamed
the god particle – that minute atomic particle believed to be potentially
responsible for giving mass to matter and thereby allowing the physical
universe to exist (creator and sustainer).
The great Jewish rationalist, Baruch
Spinoza, who engaged in conversation and friendship with the early Mennonites
of 17th Century Amsterdam, especially his good friend J. Jelles,
defined God at that time as:
“… By God, I mean a
being absolutely infinite – that is, a substance consisting in infinite
attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.”
(Spinoza, p 179).
Infinite essentiality meaning that the concept
of God contains all of reality, all of existence with no limits or end of those
attributes, (ibid).
We will review these questions again in our
final, concluding session to see how our concepts have evolved, improved or
changed.
No comments:
Post a Comment