IntroductionIn regard to authorship, I would include other possibilities like John the Elder, Lazarus, or Mark. I would also mention talk of a "Johnnine School" as written by a committee of immediate disciples of John. I would also bullet a few more reasons why John the Apostle is the most likely author. 1. John the son of Zebedee is not mentioned by name in the fourth gospel. A glaring omission if the "beloved one" and John bar Zebedee are not the same person. 2. The author claims to be an eye witness from the beginning, at the last supper, and at the foot of the cross. Who else does this fit? 3. As mentioned, the apostle was given the immediate and nearly universal credit for the gospel. In regard to dating the fourth gospel, I would mention the fragment of papyrus of John found in Egypt and reliably dated to the mid second century. Allowing for migration, this would certainly exclude anything after 120 AD. I think that both the early and late dating could be correct. John could have taken notes in the 50s to 70s, then composed and redacted around 90 AD. In regard to purpose, I would also quote 20:31: "that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ". I would also mention to balance the SG, maybe more than to supplement the SG. This gospel is private teaching while the SG is more public ministry. In regard to History vs. Theology, I would suggest that both are possible with the understanding that this is not a biography but a proclamation of the good news. In regard to dislocation, I especially liked the proposition that because chapter 21 is obviously a postscript, it may be that chapters 1 to 20 were completed by the author years earlier and that when he tacked on chapter 21 he also reworked some of the earlier material. That makes sense to me. In reciting chapter 14, I have always noticed how the last verse "Arise, let us go hence" seems so dislocated. Finally, I wish that the authors of either text would have considered the Gospel of John in the context of John's three epistles and Revelation. In what order were these books written? Do John 1 and the gospel of John show enough similarities to suggest a common author?
|
Chapter 3&4Al, overall this is a complete and thoughtful response. I appreciate the way you prayerfully consider the scripture on your own and then evaluate the commentaries by R&M. In regard to Nicodemus, I agree with most of your observations. However, I do think that the 4th Gospel includes Nicodemus in part to show his spiritual growth. The bold Nicodemus of chapter 19 appears different from the sneaky Nicodemus of chapter 3. My other comment is about the way the gospel writer became aware of Nicodemus. All 3 encounters appear to exclude the writer. It appears likely to me that John was later acquainted with Nicodemus and artfully weaved his Jesus encounters into his overall narrative. Maybe Nicodemus is a source for John. Another student (David) makes clear the point about Jesus speaking. Where exactly should the red words of Jesus end and the back words of the narrator begin? Between verse 15 and 16 is as good a guess as any. Jesus' comments about the double birth are most difficult. I can sympathize with Nicodemus not understanding. R&M provide abundant speculation, but "born of water and spirit" is no clearer to me than to Nicodemus. I liked your contrast between Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman. I had not considered the question of these two in contrast until I read R&M. You are right, both kinds of people are important to Jesus. He is perfectly comfortable with Nicodemus (an R&M type of the 1st century). He is also fully at ease with lowest of the low, represented by a "half-breed", apostate, immoral, woman. There is room for all in His kingdom, as long as we come seeking. This point was surly missed by his disciples. Inferring from their grumblings (4:27), it appears that the biggest objection of the disciples toward Jesus' encounter at the well involved the gender of the Samaritan. (Oddly this is the same hang-up among certain 21st century disciples!) Your overall reflections were right on track. The new birth is critical to chapter 3 and living water is central to chapter 4. It encourages me that the precious words of Jesus are not just spoken to his loyal disciples but to ordinary seekers of every kind. Blessings, Chris James, I liked your interaction with the scripture as well as your reaction to R&M. I am not sure that the "red words" of Jesus in chapter 3 are so obvious. To me there does seem to be a sight break between verses 15 and 16. I would stop the quotation of Jesus at verse 15, but certainly not be dogmatic about it. I am also not so sure about your claim that "Jesus knew all" while in human flesh. It seems that he purposely limited himself while on earth. As God, he could have certainly know all, but did he choose to be omniscient around his disciples? He was genuinely surprised at times. He was genuinely angry at times. He was genuinely weeping at times. These could only be human emotions if he purposely limited his knowledge. I regard to Nicodemus, I think that Jesus was genuinely surprised that this leader and teacher could not grasp what he was explaining to him. I especially like the words of John the B. in 3:30: "He must increase, but I must decrease". James, even as I write these words to you I want this as my aim. Just before I preach in front of a group this is the mediation on my heart. "Oh, Lord, let the people see you and let me be transparent. May You increase, and may I decrease". I have been be studying the proper way to worship God. There is so much teaching in 4:20-24 that most people pass over. In all of the NT, this is the only place where "true worship" is addressed so explicitly, and by Jesus himself. As I worship, I sometimes see the tension between "spirit" and "truth". For a long time I worshiped in a Pentecostal style with an abundance of spirit. I sensed a under-appreciation of "truth" in worship. In my present Baptist setting, there is plenty of truth in worship, but I do sometimes miss the exuberance of the spirit. True worship needs that balance between heart (emotive) worship and head (intellectual) worship. We must worship God with our hearts, soul and mind. I thought that your summary of Samaria, its background and significance was well outlined. I would have liked to see more of your own opinion in Chapter 4. I think that would have enjoyed it. Blessings, Chris
|
Chapter 7&8Hello Terri, I liked your answers to most questions. Some were short, but in the context of writing just four pages that was fine. Plus, you included all the questions and some took up a lot of space that could have been used for a response. I'm glad to see that you covered the tradition of the "feast of the tabernacles". In addressing his unbelieving family, their behavior coincides with the SG in that a prophet is without honor among his own. As for not leaving town with his brothers, Jesus has his own internal clock that slows him and speeds him toward Calvary. Sometimes it seems like he hurries, at other times he tarries. I liked your discussion of the "alternate punctuation" in 6:37-38. I agree about Nicodemus. The three snapshots of him in John, show a pilgrimage from unbelief to belief. I wish we could linger more with Jesus as he addresses the woman in adultery. I love to exegete this passage as we speak of such current issues as homosexuality. I believe that this is our Lord's message to all dwelling in personal sexual sin. "neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more". If only the Pharisee side of me could say "I do not condemn you." If only the indulgent side of me could say, "sin no more." Such wisdom, such balance is His words! You did a good job in addressing the I AM statements of Jesus in the limited space. Jesus does indeed identify himself with the God of Moses. I also agree with on the continuing mis-communication. Jesus is broadcasting in Kingdom-of-God language, while his listeners have their ears to a Kingdom-of-this-world channel. Even as He speaks from the cross, his words are mis-understood. I enjoyed your words. Blessings, Chris
Al, I liked your responses to the questions. For question one, perhaps I would have added something about the origin and even the continued observance of the feast of the tabernacles. For question two, I agree that it is not surprising that members of his own family did not believe. We learn later that his brothers James and Jude did become believers (and letter writers), but what about the others? Are they experienceing eternity outside of Jesus (their half-brother)? For question 5, I liked your explanation of the mystery of Christ's origin. I am sure that the evangelist knew of Bethlehem, but was coy not to bring it to the front. Throughout your report you showed a good grasp of the finer points in both R and M. Yes, there is a big problem with the text of the woman caught in adultary. I agree with you and the two authors on both points: first this is a true incident in the life of Jesus, but second, it is out of place in chapter 8. Maybe this little snippet was free floating around 100AD when someone arbitarily inserted into John's gospel. I like your summary of the "I am" statements of Jesus. Because this topic is so big, there was not enough space for your discussion (nor for my response). I have no doubt that the evalgelist understood perfectly the significance of peppering his Gospel with I AM statements. This is certainly a clever, coy, yet absolute claim to diety: something like the "son of man" self naming. I enjoyed the reading. Thanks. Chris |
Chapter 11&12Brad, I enjoyed reading your response to John 11 & 12. In Chapter 11, I agree with your view (and the view of Morris), that Lazarus was most likely dead when Jesus got the news and that Jesus moved through his ministry with his own internal eschatological clock. I agree that John presents Martha as a completely believable character. Like us all, she both doubts and believes. I think that question VI was getting at the odd situation we find in the words of Caiaphas. Can anyone say something and mean more than what they said? Maybe his words were foreshadowing or ironic, but did Caiaphas himself mean more than what he said? Moving on, I agree with your conclusion that John had a different agenda in writing his gospel. He chose to include the miracle of Lazarus while the others did not. In regard to chapter 12, I thought your 8 points covered the tradition of Passover well. In reference to Judas' words, we can see John looking back in retrospect - like with the Caiaphas comments. The passage of time gave clarity to the events, not obscurity. I had one additional thought on the ointment that Mary used. Let me try out this speculation on you (and on whoever else may read this). Why did Mary just happen to have a pound of ointment used for spicing up the dead? I bet that the family was going to use this precious ointment on the body of Lazarus! Remember, he was stinking in the last chapter. Maybe no ointment was applied to his body in anticipation of Jesus healing him. Just maybe the ointment that was intended for the body Lazarus was instead applied to the feet on the one that healed him -- as a token that it was no longer needed for its original purpose. Just a thought. In the reflection on verse 37, how about tying in the parable of Lazarus and rich man: Luke 16:31 "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Isn't it odd that although the SG do not mention the raising of Lazarus from the dead, Luke includes this strange parable about a fellow named Lazarus who speaks about someone rising from the dead? Is there any connection? Chris
Brad, Overall I liked your response to Chapter 11 & 12 of John. In chapter 11, I think that you may have been a bit harsh on Ridderbos in response 2. Perhaps when Jesus purposefully shrunk himself into human form, he also deliberately limited himself as far as the attributes of God go. I believe that Jesus-in-human-form did ask questions without knowing what the responses would be. Christ always remained "all good, but maybe when he took on human flesh he accepted a limitation to "all powerful, when he took on human mind, he accepted a limitation to "all knowing". Just a thought. I liked your response to Caiaphas' prophecy. As Jesus says in Luke 17:1 "Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!" Like Judas, Caiaphas had a role to play in Jesus' death. I thought you handled the historicity of Lazarus' resurrection well. In chapter 12, I thought you did fine with the story of Jesus' foot washing by Mary. I am always amused at the way critics handle gospel events. If something happens in one gospel (like Lazarus), it cannot be true because why would the other writers omit it? If an event occurs exactly the same in the gospels, then there is deceit because the writers must be coping each others work. If accounts of same events differ in detail, then someone is not telling the truth. The crux of the foot washing is true, while the fine details might be fuzzy. This adds credence to the event for me. I liked your comments about the thunder from heaven. We all hear the sound of God. We must be spiritually attuned to discern the voice in the sound. Good work. Chris
|
Chapter 13Brad, I liked your responses to the questions in chapter 13. In question one, you detailed the SG in regard to the Passover. This was good. The texts also include the possibility, that John did not mention the Passover because he had a negative attitude toward it or was even ignorant of it. I find these possibilities unlikely. There were three questions about Judas: his role, his deliberate actions, and his night departure. Your response does indicate that Judas' betrayal was a collaboration between himself and the devil. This seems right. The proportions culpability are difficult to judge. Like you, I am not surprised that Judas acted even when given an opportunity to remain loyal. The fact that Judas left in the dark is both actual and symbolic. John does this throughout his gospel: a true incident but at the same time a metaphor for something else. I liked the way you handled the foot washing and Peter's reaction to it. There are multiple layers to each event. It was indeed a parable in action. Peter's recoiling from the foot washing, then his later boast, demonstrate that Simon Peter needs "remedial training before he can lead the apostles. Are you sure that Jesus is just using the foot washing as a symbol for us? He uses similar language when He instituted the Lords Supper. He says "You ought to wash one another's feet" and "I have given you an example". I almost seems that this should be an ordinance of the church. What do you think? Good Job. Chris
Ken, I can see that you spent some time answering the matters in John Chapter 13, but I am surprised at some of your responses. In the first question you respond that the meal took place on the day before Passover, then you cite verses from the SG. Of course this question means, ACCORDING TO THE 4TH GOSPEL when did this meal take place. What words are there in John that point to an evening Passover meal? I am also surprised that you take issue with the need to interpret scripture. Do you have a bumper sticker that reads "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it"? I do believe that we do have the inspired scripture that God intends for us to have, but our Holy Scripture did come to us through human personality. Any honest reading of the biblical text will yield what appears to be inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions. As a "master of divinity" our job will be to deal with these issues honestly. That's one of the reasons why I am taking this on-line course. What do you mean by saying this?: "Because he was not directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to include it. Of this one thing only can we be sure. Everything else becomes absolutely subjective posturing." Ken, why are you taking this online class? Why are you in seminary at all, if a bumper sticker can answer all questions? When I was a senior in college and a skeptic, I had lots of questions about the Bible. I was a real sharpshooter. I knew lots of people who would get frustrated at my questions and finally just quote the bumper sticker. I was so glad when I finally met a mature Christian who took my questions seriously and was patient with me. Some of us have real questions about scripture that require real answers. God gave each of us sense and the Word of God must make sense to us. Ken, maybe it is sufficient for you to say "because John was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, that's why!". For many of us this kind of answer is just an non-answer. By taking this online John class, I am preparing myself to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" 1 Peter 3:15 . In meekness and fear, Chris P.S. Is a Big Mac truly the moral equivalent of internet pornography?
|
Chapters 16 & 17Jerry, I liked your responses. You covered a lot of territory. For chapter 16, question 1.4, are YOU saying that Jesus did not have the personal interests of the disciples at heart? Or is this one of several responses that are possible? Of course the interests of the disciples and for the world as a whole could be the same. I liked your response to "can not bear them now." With 12 hours all his disciples would abandon him. It would only be after the H.S. comes at Pentecost that the disciples become apostles and can "bear the entire truth". I think this is especially evident in Peter. I liked your list of 11 descriptors for the H.S. For chapter 17, I agree that the name is not so important. I have also heard this section called "the Lord's Prayer" and the other called "the Disciples Prayer". I agree that it isn't so remarkable that Jesus refers to himself in the third person (Jesus Christ). He often calls himself "Son of Man" which is also third person. As I read through chapter 17, I am struck with he theme of unity. I almost makes me wish that Luther hadn't split from the Pope (almost). Chris
Teresa, Good answers! Redemptive history culminates in Jesus' death as you say. I often wonder if this history includes a FATHER period (OT), a SON period (NT) and an H.S. period (church). Is that stretching the trinity to far? I liked your discussion of the term "Paraclete". This word seems to be the best descriptor that John can arrive at to call the third person of the trinity. I agree that that a role of the H.S. is to make Jesus real in our lives. The more Spirit we have, the more Christ we display. I think that part of the point in Jesus speaking plainly, rather than figuratively, was to demonstrate that either way the twelve would abandon him. I do like that promise at the end of 16. It is not one of those "precious promises" that you tape to the fridge door. We will have tribulation! It is a promise too. In Chapter 17, I agree with your labeling of the prayer. It is a prayer of consecration. I might almost call it "the prayer of unity". I agree that the reference to "Jesus Christ" is most likely a gloss. I do like the classical breakdown of chapter 17, prayer for himself, prayer for the 12, prayer for future believers (us!). The word Jesus uses [THEM] certainly implies that Jesus was already praying for me 2000 years ago. Amazing. Blessings, Chris |
Chapters 20 & 21Julius, you did a great job with these two chapters. Chapter 20 with its resurrection narrative, contains the eye-witness accounts that make the previous 19 chapters credible. I certainly agree with you that there are differences in the 4 gospels in regard to the resurrection account. Each has its own slant and contains different details. As I like to point out to my skeptical friends, do these differences make the resurrection more or less believable. I like the facts that the accounts are different. This shows that there was no collusion. These four accounts ring true to me: like four people writing down their remembrance of a traffic accident. The central fact remains in tact, while details are fuzzy. I liked the detail of your OT background. Mary M. didn't recognize Jesus for probably the same reasons the disciples did not recognize him (Jn 20:19, Jn 21:12, Lk 24:16). They were kept from recognizing him. It's interesting that Jesus' voice gave him away. Have you ever been a situation where you are not sure of he identity of a person until you hear the tenor of their voice? I still do have difficulties understanding the giving of the HS in chapter 20. Didn't happen at Pentecost? I do like the line that Jesus delivers in response to Thomas' doubt "Blessed are who have not seen, and yet do believe". That's us!!! Your review of chapter 21 was also excellent. I do view this chapter as an official addendum that the author himself furnished a good while after the first 20 chapters were written. Maybe during a question and answer period, John was getting lots of questions about Peter. Maybe they were like this "how could Simon Peter still be the leader when he denied Christ"? This chapter answers that question. I have heard numerous sermons preached on the distinction between the two "love" words: Jesus says avgapa/|j and Peter replies with filw/. . At first this seemed to have a deep meaning. Now, I am no longer sure. To respond to your question about the "fisherman interlude". It seems to me that between the resurrection and Pentecost, the fishers of men returned to be fishers of fish. Good job, Julius. Blessings, Chris
David, Good job with the chapters. I liked your emphasis on Mary Magdalene as a common woman. There was the woman at the well, the woman in adultery, now the woman at the tomb. (Sound like a three-fold sermon in the works). The part where the narrator sees and believes probably refers both the comment of Mary M: "they have take away the Lord" and the resurrection itself. John now believes the woman's words and the resurrection fact, but he cannot put them into a larger context. Isn't it neat that Mary M broke the news to the disciples twice? First telling them of the empty tomb, then telling them of the risen Lord. The words "don't touch me" appear in the Greek as imperative/present/middle indicating continuous action, like "don't keep clinging to me". I liked the idea you presented that "My Lord and my God" hints at the dual nature of Christ, fully man and fully God. In a recent Bible Study I applied John 20:21 as a reason (why?) for all four gospels being written - an evangelical purpose. I applied Luke1:1-3 as the "how" that applies to the four Gospels - gathering material from already written sources, oral sayings, first hand witness, and then redaction. I liked the idea you presented of the Thomas statement making a good parallel for the prologue. In chapter 21, the number of fish is interesting. It shouts out for allegorical interpretation. But the number 153? Maybe that is the sign of the cross, a counterbalance to 666 - sign of the beast. I liked the final words that Jesus spoke to Peter. I sometimes use this exchange between Peter and Jesus, when people ask me about fallen evangelicals (Jimmy Swaggert, Jim & Tammy Baker) . We like to ask "Lord, and what about these people? What will happen to them?" Jesus answers us: "I will do what I want to do with them. That is none of your business. You follow me!" And David, I think that you are right. Our Jesus is the Lord of 2nd and 3rd chances. Good Job. Chris |