BIBLE STUDY -- NEW TESTAMENT GOSPELS

GOSPEL OF JOHN – PART 1

The fourth Gospel.

AUTHOR

At the end of this Gospel, we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Yeshua loved” {John 21:20, 24}, but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospels. The Gospel appears to have been written by one who knew the Jews and the Palestine of Yeshua’s day well. He was familiar with Jewish messianic expectations {e.g., John 1:20-21; 4:25; 7:40-42; 12:34}. He knew of the hostility between Jews and Samaritans {4:9} and the contempt the Pharisees had for “the people of the land” {7:49}. He knew of the importance attached to the religious schools {verse 15}. He knew the way the Shabbat was observed and was aware of the provision that the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day overrides the Shabbat regulations {verses 22-23}. Throughout the Gospel he moved with certainty in the vast range of Jewish ideas and customs. It is the same with topography. The writer mentioned many places, and his place-names all seem to be used correctly. He referred to Cana, a village not mentioned in any earlier literature known to us, which means that the reference almost certainly came from someone who actually knew the place. He located Bethany with some precision as about 15 stadia from Jerusalem {about 2 miles, or 3.2 kilometres, 11:18}. He had several references to places in or near Jerusalem, such as Bethesda {5:2}, Siloam {9:7}, and the Kidron Valley {18:1}. Of course, this does not rule out some contemporary of John’s, but it makes it difficult to think of the author as a much later individual writing at a distance from Palestine. The evidence as we have it indicates that the writer was a Jew in the Palestine of Yeshua’ day. To many careful readers, it seems that the Gospel bears the stamp of an eyewitness. For example, Yeshua was teaching “in the treasury” {8:20}. Nothing is made of the point; the incident could easily have been told without it. It looks like a reminiscence of someone who sees the scene in his mind’s eye as he writes. The fact that the house was filled with fragrance when the woman broke the perfume jar {12:3} does not materially affect the account but is the kind of detail that one who was there would remember. The author noted that the loaves used in the feeding of the multitude were barley loaves {6:9} and that Yeshua’s tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top to bottom {19:23}. He told us that the branches with which Yeshua was greeted were palm branches {12:13}, and that it was night when Judas went out {13:30}. Such touches are found throughout the Gospel, and it seems unjustified to treat them as no more than an attempt to create verisimilitude. They seem much more like indications that the author was writing about events in which he had himself taken part. The early church accepted Johannine authorship without question. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all see the apostle as the author. The first to quote this Gospel by name was Theophilus of Antioch, about AD 180. Those who object to Johannine authorship emphasize the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. The argument is that if Yeshua was anything like the Moshiach portrayed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he could not be like the Moshiach of the fourth Gospel. This is a completely subjective argument, ignoring the fact that any great man will appear differently to different people. The judgment of the church throughout the centuries has been that Yeshua was large enough to inspire both portraits. To put the same point another way, we have no reason for holding that the first three Evangelists tell us all there is to know about Yeshua. There is no contradiction. John simply brings out other aspects of Yeshua’ life and teachings. While we cannot prove beyond all doubt that John the apostle was the author, we can say that there is more reason for holding to this view than to any other.

DATE, ORIGIN, AND DESTINATION

It has been usual for conservatives and liberals alike to date this writing in the last decade of the first century or early in the second. Some liberal scholars have put it well into the second century, but this is not common, and it is remarkable that there has been such a considerable measure of agreement. It is said that this Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics, which means that it must be dated sometime after them. But this argument has been widely abandoned in recent times. There is so much in John that is without parallel in the other three Gospels, and conversely so much in the other three that John might have used had he known it, that it is very difficult indeed to hold that this writer had any of the other Gospels before him when he wrote, or even that he had read them. Such resemblances as there are seem better explained by common use of oral tradition. It is also argued that there is a very developed theology in John and that we must allow time for its development. Granted, the theology of this Gospel is profound, but this does not require that we must wait for it until the end of the first century. The theology of the Letter to the Romans is also profound, and there is no reason for dating that writing later than the 50s. On the ground of development, then, there is no reason for putting John later than Romans. Development is a slippery argument at best, for it usually takes place at uneven rates, and we have no means of knowing how fast it took place in the area where the author lived. Other arguments for a late date are no more conclusive. For example, it is urged that the ecclesiastical system presupposed by the Gospel is too late for the time of the apostle John, and that the sacramental system of chapters 3 and 6 must have taken time to develop. But John does not mention any sacrament. It is true that many scholars think these chapters refer to baptism and Adonai’s Supper, but the fact is that John mentions neither. It is not surprising in view of the way the traditional arguments have crumbled away that many in recent times are arguing that John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. If it were later, why does not John have some reference to it? Some of his language appears to be earlier. In 5:2 he says there “is” {not “was”} a pool called Bethesda. And he often refers to the Twelve as Yeshua’ disciples, or “his” disciples, or the like. In later times, believers usually said “the” disciples, for they saw no need to say who the disciples were. But in the early days, when believers were in contact with rabbis {each of whom had his disciples}, it was important to show that Yeshua’ disciples were in mind. It is important also that John makes no reference to any of the synoptic Gospels. The simplest explanation is that he had not seen them. They were not yet widely circulated. None of this enables us to date this Gospel with precision. But the weight of evidence points to an early date {before AD 70}. The author was John the apostle, a Jew. However, the writing gives evidence of contact with Greek thought, for example, in the reference to the Moshiach as “the Word” in chapter 1 and the translation of words like “rabbi” {1:38}. It is almost universally held that such considerations compel us to see the work as originating in a centre of Greek culture, and Ephesus has traditionally been favoured. Before the end of the second century, we have Irenaeus writing that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus. Some scholars point to similarities between John and the Odes of Solomon, which they think came from Syria. As there are also some resemblances in the language of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, this is held to show that John was written in Syria, probably at Antioch. Others again think that Egypt was the place, and they support this by pointing out that the oldest fragment of a manuscript of this Gospel was found there. There is no real evidence, and we are left with probabilities. There is much to be said for accepting the evidence of Irenaeus and seeing Ephesus as the place of origin, but we can scarcely say more. There is no real indication of the intended destination. From 20:31 we learn that the book was written that the readers might believe that Yeshua is the Moshiach, YHVH’s Son, and that by believing they might have life. The Gospel, then, has an evangelistic aim. But it is also possible that “believe” means “keep on believing” -- “go on in faith,” rather than “begin to believe.” That is to say, the book may have been meant from the beginning to build people up in the faith. Probably we should not distinguish between these aims too sharply. Both may well be in mind.

BACKGROUND

Several possible backgrounds to the Gospel have been suggested. The Greek interest is obvious, and this writing has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Hellenists. The suggestion is that we should look to Greek writings, perhaps the works of the philosophers or Philo of Alexandria, to find the right background against which to understand what John has written. This approach may be seen in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who thought specifically of Gnosticism. Indeed, for Bultmann one of the sources of this Gospel was a discourse source that he thought was taken from non-believer Gnosticism. Not many have been prepared to follow Bultmann, but a number of recent commentators have discerned some form of Gnosticism as the backdrop to John. While such views are put forward seriously, there are some substantial objections. One is that, despite the confident assertions of some scholars, Gnosticism has never been shown to be earlier than Christianity. In the form in which it comes before us in history, it is a Christian heresy, and of course, the Christian faith must appear before a Christian heresy is possible. Another objection is that there is a basic difference between the two systems. Gnosticism is concerned with knowledge {the very word is derived from the Greek word gnosis, “knowledge”}. Its “redeemer” is one who comes from heaven with knowledge. But John does not subscribe to the view that man is saved by knowledge. The Redeemer comes to take away the sin of the world {1:29}. Gnosticism tells people that life is an upward struggle; Christianity tells of a Saviour who came down to raise them up. It is not easy to see any form of Gnosticism as the essential background to Christianity. Much more significant is John’s Semitic background. Especially important here is the Old Testament, accepted as sacred Scripture by Jew and gentile alike. It lies constantly behind John’s statements, and it must be studied carefully if John is to be understood. It is plain that John knew and loved the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew Old Testament. Again and again, the Septuagint can be shown to lie behind what John says. In modern times important discoveries have been made at Qumran, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Among the scrolls unearthed in the caves of this area are several that have affinities with John. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about the scrolls is that they have more parallels with John than with any other part of the New Testament, a fact difficult to explain if John was written late and at a distance from Palestine. The resemblances to the Qumran writings must be viewed with care, for there is often a linguistic resemblance where the thinking is quite different. For example, both use the unusual expression “the Spirit of truth.” But where John means one of the persons of the Trinity, the scrolls speak of “a Spirit of truth” and “a spirit of error” striving in the souls of people. The connection is real, but John is clearly not dependent on the scrolls for his thinking. The contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they afford additional evidence that this Gospel is basically Palestinian and must be understood against a background of first-century Palestine. Other backgrounds have been suggested, such as the Hermetic literature. This is a group of writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus {“Hermes Thrice-greatest”}, a designation of the Egyptian god Thoth. There are indeed some points of contact with John, but they are few in comparison with those of writings rooted in Palestine. It is difficult to take such suggestions seriously. John is essentially Palestinian.

PURPOSE AND THEOLOGICAL TEACHING

The writer told us that Yeshua did many “signs” {or miracles} that he had not recorded, but “these are written so that you may believe that Yeshua is the Moshiach, the Son of YHVH, and that by believing in him you will have life” {John 20:31}. John wrote to show that Yeshua is the Moshiach. But he did not do this simply with a view to conveying interesting information. He wanted his readers to see this knowledge as a challenge to faith; when they believe, they will have life. John sought to bring men and women to the Moshiach; he had an evangelistic aim. That does not exhaust what he was trying to do, for his words have meaning for believers. It is important that believers have a right knowledge of Yeshua and that they continue to believe. The main theological teaching of this Gospel then, is that YHVH has sent his Moshiach, Yeshua. He is the very Son of YHVH, and he comes to bring life {3:16}. Though Yeshua told the woman at the well that he was the Moshiach, this is not often said so specifically. The avoidance of the term might well be because of the political overtones it had acquired among the Jews at large. They looked for a Moshiach who would fight the Romans. He would defeat them and set up a mighty world empire with its capital in Jerusalem. Yeshua was not aiming at anything like that, and it was important that he avoid the kind of language that would give that impression. But though the conventional messianic terminology is avoided, John left no doubt that Yeshua was YHVH’s chosen One. Again and again, he depicted Yeshua as fulfilling messianic functions. For example, in the long discourse in chapter 6 we see Yeshua as the bread from heaven, fulfilling the expectation that when Moshiach came, he would renew the manna; and in the giving of sight to the blind man {chapter 9} we have another messianic function {cf. Isaiah 35:5}. With this greatness of Yeshua, John also combined teaching about his lowliness. A continuing, though unobtrusive, strand of Johannine teaching is that Yeshua depends on the Father for everything. Apart from the Father, Yeshua said, he could do nothing {John 5:30}. His very food is to do the Father’s will {4:34}. He lives through the Father {6:57}. It is the Father who gives him his disciples {6:37, 44; 17:6}. It is the Father who bears witness to him {5:32, 37}. John insists that Yeshua is in no sense independent of the Father. In the mission of Yeshua, John sees the working out of the purpose of the Father.