BIBLE STUDY -JOHN
An Introduction to the Gospels
JOHN’S GOSPEL
1. Introductions and outline evening and discuss participation
2. What’s special about John’s Gospel? Clement of Alexandria in the second century described John’s as “a spiritual Gospel”. It is clearly widely different in style, construction and language from the other three Gospels, which are often known as the synoptic Gospels (meaning there is a basic similarity about them), whereas John’s Gospel seems set apart from the others. There is considerable debate as to whether the author of John’s Gospel was aware of the other Gospels and intentionally altered them, or whether the author was using independent traditions about Jesus. Each of the gospel writers is constructing a distinctive kind of building. John may be constructing a cathedral. Mark’s creation is a much more modest house which also has its place. Luke may construct a university college; Matthew a church. Each structure has an extraordinary attractiveness of its own.
3. Who wrote it? Like all the Gospels, John is an anonymously written document. “The Gospel according to John” is a heading first appearing in the second century. The “John” of this title is presumably John, the fisherman and disciple, brother of James and son of Zebedee. From the mid second century this John was identified by church theologians as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. This identification can be conjecture at best and is based largely on the desire to ascribe apostolic authorship to this Gospel. It is widely believed that the three letters of John originated within the same faith community that produced the Gospel, but may have been from the same author. It is unlikely that the John of the book of Revelation is the apostle John, the writer of the gospels or of the letters. The author of the Gospel, particularly in 21:24 claims eyewitness authority for the accounts in the Gospel, but points to another, the beloved disciple, as the source of that witness. The beloved disciple, therefore, is not the author of the Gospel, but is presented as the authorising voice of the traditions that are recounted in the Gospels. The beloved disciple would not have been a fictional creation but was probably known to the first readers of the Gospel. Because he is never named and is always portrayed as the recipient of Jesus’ love, this disciple also emerges as a symbolic figure who embodies the ideal relationship with Jesus that the Gospel hopes to make available to its readers. Although a lot is unknown about the author of this Gospel what is known is that he understood himself to be connected to the tradition about Jesus through the eyewitness testimony of the beloved disciple, that he held the disciple’s testimony to be true, and that he regarded the transmission of that testimony to be an act of faith 19:35.
4. When? An Egyptian papyrus fragment that dates from the early second century contains part of the text of John 18, suggesting that the Gospel was known in Egypt by the year 100. It also seems to have been in wide circulation by the middle of the second century. All this suggests that the Gospel was completed no later than the year 100. This would make it later than Mark’s Gospel, but not necessarily later than Matthew or Luke’s. It may have been written as early as 75-80. It may well be contemporaneous with Matthew and written in response to the same struggles within the Jewish faith community.
5. Who was it written for? The author of the Gospel and those for whom he wrote believed themselves to be a persecuted religious minority, expelled from the synagogue (their natural religious home) because of their faith in Jesus. It was written by a Jewish Christian for and in a Jewish Christian community that was in conflict with the synagogue authorities of its day (like Matthew’s). The traditional identification of Ephesus as the place of the Gospel’s composition fits this description, because Ephesus had a large and active Jewish community. However Antioch and Alexandria, two Mediterranean cities with large Jewish populations, have also been proposed as the location of this Gospel. Nor is it possible to rule out a location in Palestine. John’s language about “the Jews” arises from conflicts between two different groups of first century Jews-the Christian Jews and the synagogue authorities. It is language spoken by one group of Jews to another, not by Gentile Christians about Jews.
6. Why? The author gives his own reasons in John 20: 30-317.
7. How? John’s Gospel includes seven signs, seven Feasts and seven longer “I am” sayings. For the most part the signs and feasts closely parallel each other.
8. What’s it about?
9. Let’s look at it together.
Enter with awe the cathedral of John’s gospel to see the drama which will take place there.
(1:1-18) The drama begins with a prologue, setting out its major themes. The prologue itself is a work of art, a creation of great literature. Whereas Mark was consciously relating good news about Jesus, John is consciously writing scripture. This is a work which is intended to last. Its language and approach set it apart from the other gospels. Its starting point is not with John the Baptist, nor with Jesus’ ancestry nor his birth, but with the pre-existence of Jesus with God “from everlasting to everlasting.”
John deliberately imitates Genesis 1. The language and philosophic framework of this gospel is Greek as well as (more than?) Jewish. John’s style is repetitive, sometimes cyclical, but in the first verse the repetition has a cumulative effect. The Word (only identified with Jesus in verse 17-another instance of a cumulative build up to a significant conclusion) is alongside and is identical to God. He seeks to draw out the repercussions of this tremendous statement, emphasising that Jesus is the creator of all and therefore the origin of all life. The key words, “Life, Light, Darkness” will be central themes to the whole gospel.
John’s language is highly memorable and profound, uttered with a depth of solemnity requiring reflective thought.
As with Mark’s gospel, John the Baptist is mentioned early on. Added key words are “testify” (John’s essential function in this gospel), “believe” and “true”.
As with Mark’s gospel the rejection of Jesus is hinted at early on. The image of birth in verse 13 is one John will return to in chapter 3.
Other key words are “grace” and “glory”.
In his cumulative style, John makes it clear that the Word who was with God and was God from the beginning became flesh in Jesus Christ, God the only Son. As with Mark’s gospel a confession of faith in Jesus, “the Son of God”, comes early in this gospel. “Father” is another key word. The invisible God is revealed in Jesus.
In this hugely impressive prologue, with the drama of the life of Jesus about to unfold, the scene is set for us, the readers, to encounter, in flesh and blood, the invisible God.
(1:19-28) The prologue has finished. Enter John the Baptist (as in Mark’s gospel). John explains why he baptises; is at pains to point out that he is not the Messiah; and gives testimony to “the one who is coming after me”.
The “opposition” to Jesus and John has not yet been shown to be opposing. They simply ask questions. They are given the collective name “the Jews”, highlighting more this sense of John’s gospel as essentially a Greek drama. They consist of priests and Levites (not mentioned by Mark). Both groups have “been sent from the Pharisees”.
As in Mark’s gospel, the opposition constitute a number of different groups, but the central, controlling group, the ones Jesus most constantly runs up against are the Pharisees.
John’s style of writing is already emerging. He produces set-piece dialogues. The geographical setting is not of any particular importance. What matters is the nature of the dialogue itself.
The essential continuity and solidarity of John the Baptist’s movement with “the one who is coming after” him is made very clear.
(1:29-34) John the Baptist’s testimony is explicitly to Jesus, who has universal significance. What Jesus will do is for the world.
On the stage of John’s gospel, John the Baptist is virtually supplying a prologue of his own. At the moment he is a very central figure. Apart from an incident described towards the end of chapter 3, (when his role is again that of testimony to Jesus,) the Baptist is about to exit the stage; his task as a herald completed.
(1:35-51) A receding echo of John the Baptist’s testimony results in two of his disciples following Jesus. The Baptist echoes his own phrase, describing Jesus as “the Lamb of God.” The Baptist’s role in this gospel is, not only to bear testimony to Jesus, but, at the cost of his own following (made very clear in chapter 3), to encourage people to follow Jesus.
John uses language at different levels. Questions like “What are you looking for?”; responses like “Come and see” can be read as purely everyday basic language or as that which prompts deeper reflection. This gospel has a way of obliquely addressing the reader. “What are you looking for?” becomes a question we need to answer.
“Come and see” is an invitation to us, not only to read further, but to do so in an attitude of open minded expectancy.
It is difficult to see the immediate relevance of telling us that “it was about four in the afternoon”, unless John wants to link temporal, concrete happenings with events that have eternal significance, as he is doing in his use of language.
As in Mark’s gospel, the first two named disciples are Andrew and Simon, though Andrew has a much more important role in this gospel, significantly as one who brings others to Jesus. In this he acts as a model disciple.
Already Andrew is convinced that Jesus is the Messiah. There is no gradual build up of realisation of who Jesus is, as in Mark’s gospel. It is Andrew, not Peter, who makes the leap of recognition. He does so, not with a question, “Could this be the Messiah?”, but as a definite statement of fact, “We have found the Messiah.” Again, there could be an implicit challenge to the reader, “And you, have you found the Messiah? Are you looking? Keep your eyes on Jesus and you will find the Messiah, too.”
Jesus provides Simon with a new name and nature upon first seeing him.
As in Mark, Jesus calls another two disciples. This time it is Jesus taking the initiative and doing the calling. Unlike Mark, the disciples are not James and John, but Philip and Nathanael.
Jesus made a statement about Simon’s possibilities on seeing him; he makes a statement about Nathanael’s potential on meeting him, although even before their actual meeting he had “seen” Nathanael.
Different actors have come onto the stage. We will see Andrew, Simon and Philip again. This is Nathanael’s one appearance. Jesus, “Lamb of God”, “Messiah”, “only Son of God”, “Word of God”, with appropriate divine knowledge of people, invites us, the audience, to “come and see” further.
(2:1-12) John describes what he calls “the first of (Jesus’) signs”. It is an incident unique to his gospel. Jesus’ mother is a central figure in the story and there would seem to be some tension between Jesus and her (which also comes through in Mark’s gospel.) Timing is an important element in the story. The sign happens on “the third day” and it seems very likely that there is a deliberate parallel between this sign and Jesus’ resurrection later on. His mother’s observation “They have no wine” is seen by Jesus as a challenge to create anew. He says, “My hour is not yet come” (a recurring theme in this gospel relating to the full revelation of Jesus in his passion when he will be lifted up and draw all humanity to himself). Despite saying this, Jesus actually acts on the situation. It is as if his mother ignores Jesus’ objection and primes the servants to be ready to act on what Jesus says to them. Verse 6 with mention of “Jewish rites of purification” tends, again, to set the narrator as someone apart from the Jews, rather than being one of them. At the least, the narrator is describing a situation to a non-Jewish readership.
Jesus is one who brings out the best; who surpasses expectations; who transforms situations; who renews and refreshes. John does not elaborate or explain the purpose of this sign. He does not take up any of the images from the story later in his gospel. Some later stories (such as the man born blind and the conversation with the woman at the well do lead to images which recur in the gospel and receive some interpretation at the time.)
John mentions that Jesus is revealing his glory (this was one of the keywords from the prologue). His disciples believe in him.
Capernaum was the centre of Jesus’ early ministry according to Mark. The indication here seems to be that Jesus’ family have a home there, as both his mother and brothers are with him, as well as the disciples.
(2:13-25) In Mark’s gospel, the only time Jesus is reported as going to Jerusalem is for the last week of his life. That journey becomes the climax of his destiny in Mark. In John’s Gospel, journeys to Jerusalem are more frequent. This incident belongs in the last week of Jesus’ life according to Mark; John places it here, at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, following his first sign. This is not described specifically as a sign, even though it is clearly a prophetic action. The incident receives much more detailed description than in Mark’s Gospel.
Again it is at Passover time, described here as “the Passover of the Jews”, implying that the Jews are a distinctly separate group from John and his readership. John supplies an extra Scriptural quotation in verse 17 as a further link between Jesus’ actions and the Scriptures. Interestingly it is introduced as “his disciples remembered that it was written”. The Jews collectively are Jesus’ opposition. The disciples’ memory of what Jesus has said as well as of the Scriptures becomes part of the testimony of witness to him.
Irony and misunderstanding are part of John’s technique of developing dialogues. The Jews’ misunderstanding of Jesus’ saying in verse 19 and their tendency to interpret what has been said very woodenly and literally is an important feature of this conflict story.
John is already directing his readers to the passion and resurrection in verse 22. He does not, however, introduce a determined plot to kill Jesus at this stage. Jesus is very much the controlling centre of things.
The word “signs” is now plural.
Jesus’ highly advanced perceptive understanding of people’s nature is stated in verses 24 and 25.
(3:1-21) This is the first of the one to one encounters through which John pours his depth of theological insight.
Nicodemus is one of “them”, a leading Jew, a Pharisee. He comes by night; and darkness and light are such powerful and repeated symbols in this gospel that he can only be identified with darkness. (Yet later in the gospel, 19:39 he is identified as helping with Jesus’ burial. Is his a covert discipleship, or had there been movement since this encounter and Jesus’ crucifixion? Did the words Jesus spoke to him here find their connections for Nicodemus when he saw Jesus “lifted up”?) It is a scene of “them” and “us”. Nicodemus speaks about “we” and thus comes as a representative of the whole group.
Jesus’ language can be interpreted on two levels (a further example of John’s use of irony and misunderstanding). Jesus intends to talk about being born “from above”, that is, spiritually by God. (This picks up a reference from the Prologue 1:13). Nicodemus interprets the words as being born “again”, and his literal mind cannot understand how such a thing can happen.
Jesus’ imagery of water and the Spirit will occur again in the next chapter.
Nicodemus again fails to understand Jesus’ words about the sovereign freedom of the Spirit. Jesus’ mystical words find no resonance in the very literal, practical, materialist understanding of Nicodemus.
Now Jesus speaks of “we” (we the Christian community as opposed to “you” the Jews, no doubt.)
The motifs of Jesus’ ascent to heaven and his descent from heaven, (already very powerfully anticipated in the noble language of the Prologue), are ones which will continue to make their appearance in the gospel.
The Son of Man (the same self-designation of Jesus that occurs in Mark’s gospel) will be “lifted up”- another strongly recurring image. “Son of God” is used interchangeably with “Son of Man”.
“Eternal life” is one of John’s key phrases as well as the importance of belief in Jesus. (1:10-13 of the Prologue is central to the understanding of this passage).
God’s motivation is love. God wants the world to be saved, not condemned. The invitation to believe is for everyone. The way to eternal life is through placing belief in Jesus.
The crucial words in 3:19 are a kind of summary of this incident where Nicodemus comes at night and fails to understand and therefore believe.
There is no formal ending of the story. The story is another dialogue which is concluded by statements Jesus makes. The majority of this story is theological content in the mouth of Jesus. Nicodemus speaks three times. The words attributed to Jesus set out John’s understanding of the purposes of Jesus and therefore of God (1:1).
(4:4-42) John now constructs an elaborate dialogue between Jesus and a Samaritan woman. During the dialogue John provides brief explanations (verses 8, 9b, 25b). The dialogue revolves around a number of interrelated themes- first Jesus’ gift of living water deep within which is perpetually renewed. This is in the context of asking the woman for a drink at Jacob’s well and occasions misunderstanding on the part of the woman. Her positive response in verse 15 probably still carries a measure of misunderstanding, but it is a response of faith and contrasts with the encounter Nicodemus had with Jesus. “The Jews” do not believe, while the Samaritans, through this woman’s witness, do.
The second theme moves to worship via the woman’s love life and relationships. Jesus again displays extraordinary perceptive knowledge about people (compare with 1:47-48; 2:24-25). Now when Jesus uses the word “we” he identifies himself with “the Jews”, who hitherto have only been described as being in opposition to him. The keywords for understanding Jesus’ mission merge as “living water”, “eternal life”, “spirit” and “truth”.
The entry of the disciples on stage brings this scene to an end, as the woman exits stage left to bear witness to her own people. “Come and see” are the words of invitation (compare with 1:39) she issues.
While only Jesus and the disciples are on stage they have a conversation which includes misunderstandings and is reminiscent of Mark 8:14-21. The misunderstandings are about food, but Jesus is directing his disciples to look at a different kind of harvest.
As the Samaritans enter the stage, Jesus’ words about the harvest take on shape. Jesus is not only of the Jews, but is “truly Saviour of the world”.
(5:1-47) As in 2:13 there is “a festival of the Jews” and Jesus goes “up to Jerusalem”. Cana has been the setting for some signs. Curiously this healing miracle is not described as a sign. Jerusalem at festival time is the setting for what? Controversy?
John provides explanatory background for this story. Jesus’ direct question and authoritative commands bring healing to the man.
The whole of the resulting dialogue is based on the brief statement “Now that day was a sabbath.” John often writes very memorable short sentences which are highly telling eg. “Jesus wept” in chapter 11 and “And it was night” when Judas goes out to betray Jesus. This incident has resonance with the events described in Mark 2 and 3. Jesus’ words to the man in verse 14 also connect with Mark 2:5, which is a similar incident to this insofar as a previously paralysed man is told to take up his bed and walk. This is the first time in this Gospel that the Jews’ intention to kill Jesus is made clear. The connections with Mark 2 and 3 thus become even stronger, because of the killing Jesus and the reasons given for that intention- breaking the Sabbath and making himself equal to God.
As in a later healing incident (chapter 9) “the Jews” directly criticise the person who has been healed.
Once Jesus takes centre stage there is not a dialogue but a monologue. Jesus’ defence is that he is the Son and acts as the Father does. Belief in Jesus becomes the key to eternal life. (This has already been made clear in 3:16-21). The language is of judgement and resurrection. The key theme of Jesus as life and resurrection (already hinted at in the Prologue and to be developed more fully in chapters 10 and 11) comes through very clearly. John the Baptists’ testimony to Jesus (from chapters 1 and 3) is referred to again. “Glory” and “love” and “Moses” are named again in a passage densely textured with John’s distinctive theological understanding and expression. John refers to key words, central themes, vital concepts many times, interweaving them into his whole narrative. The Jews’ disbelief is implied in Jesus’ speech. Moses is a witness to Jesus and, for all that the Jews claim to follow Moses, he is their accuser.
(7:1-52) Because of his awareness that the Jews wanted to kill him (compare with Mark 3:6), Jesus confines his movements to Galilee and avoids Judea.
Again John will concentrate on a major Jewish festival as the occasion for Jesus to make a proclamation (compare 2:13; 5:1; 6:4). There is no sign, no miraculous happening, simply proclamation. In this Gospel the sign and the event are the vehicle for the Jesus’ speeches. The speeches are the primary material of the Gospel. As a drama, John’s Gospel can sometimes be said to be short on action, but it is not short on words. Speeches by Jesus, packed with theological depth, are both the basic substratum and the essential highlight of this gospel.
As in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus’ brothers are depicted as being on the side of unbelief, rather than faith. Their advice is in terms of Jesus making a name for himself.
Jesus’ reply to them picks up on the motif of timing, the opportune, the right time. It was in conversation with his mother (2:4) that Jesus first referred to his hour coming. This whole dynamic is a thread running throughout the gospel.
The motif of hatred as the reverse of love occurs here. Jesus is hated by the world because he testifies that its works are evil. John establishes strongly contrasting motifs, including love and hate, light and darkness, belief and unbelief.
The enigmatic statement that Jesus is not going to the festival and then he does go to it belongs with the various levels of misunderstanding developed by John between literal and deeper meanings.
Jesus goes to the Festival secretly. His life is in danger. The crowds are divided in their opinions about him. John the dramatist puts contrasting opinions into the mouths of people in the crowds here and elsewhere in the gospel (eg. 12:29).
Then Jesus makes his presence overt, teaching in the temple. This activity was also described in Mark’s Gospel, as was the astonishment at the authority and learning of Jesus. The dialogues that develop are not always ones where Jesus is spoken to directly, but ones where he picks up on what people in the crowd are saying or thinking among themselves. He makes it explicit that his teaching is of divine origin and that he seeks God’s glory. This is a direct reply to his brother’s advice in verses 3 and 4.
Jesus attacks Jewish pretension; of those who have been given the law, but do not keep it.
In asking why people are seeking to kill him, it is the crowd who reply that Jesus seems to be suffering from the demon (of paranoia). The healing work he refers to is what took place on his last visit to Jerusalem in chapter 5. The hypocrisy of what was and was not permitted on the Sabbath recalls Mark 3:4.
John develops his dialogue with contrasting opinions being expressed within the crowd, not directed to Jesus. As we watch this drama unfolding, the stage is almost filled with a large crowd, talking together in groups, their backs towards Jesus. The crowd is in shadowed darkness. To one side of the stage, on a raised eminence, spotlighted, is Jesus who looks straight ahead to address us, the audience.
The Pharisees, chief priests and temple police enter at the opposite side of the stage; and their appearance heightens the sense of danger and conflict.
In all this, Jesus develops leading motifs of the gospel-his knowledge of the One who has sent him; his remaining “only a little while longer” before going to the One who sent him.
Is verse 34 intentionally reversing the sense of the verse in Jeremiah 29:13-“You will search for me and find me when you search for me with all your heart”, as a way of underlining the unbelief of the Jews of Jesus’ generation?
Jesus’ words are again misunderstood (verses 35-36).
Verses 37-39 echo the first part of Chapter 4 as well as 3:5. Jesus had presumably disappeared and now comes back onto the stage. Again the drama continues through internal dissensions in the crowd (40-43).
The temple police have not arrested Jesus because they are so impressed with the authentic authority with which he speaks.
The Pharisees make their disbelief in Jesus plain and write off those who should happen to believe in him for their lack of knowledge of the law. Nicodemus (first mentioned in 3:1) now returns centre stage. He is “one of them”, a Pharisee, yet he seeks to remind them of the understanding of the law that anyone, Jesus included, deserves a fair hearing. (Is this what his visit to Jesus was about, giving a fair hearing, to discover, with an open mind, what Jesus had to say for himself?) This intervention by Nicodemus prompts some personal abuse of him, some regional contempt of Galileans from those in Jerusalem, and a failure to understand Jesus’ true origins.
The essential drama of this chapter is concerned with the question of the origin of Jesus’ authority and has some echoes of Mark 11:27-33.
Acknowledgements- Gail R. O’Day