Tagged: John

John 1:6-8 – Why John the Baptist Came

The study for John 1:1-5 on the “Word” can be found here.

In verse 6, a new participant is introduced, a man sent from God whose name was John. This John is not the author of the book, the apostle, but rather John the Baptist. But the first glimpse into his ministry in this Gospel is not a narrative of what he was doing (as will come after John’s Prologue and we see in Matthew chapter 3 and Mark chapter 1), nor is it to do with his forecasted birth (as in Luke’s Gospel), but simply with his purpose in coming.

Why was John sent from God? He came as a witness to bear witness to the light, so that all might believe through him. Notice the purpose clauses: he came as a witness in order to bear witness to the light and the reason given for this bearing witness is in order that all might believe through him.

But, lest someone mistake John for the light or give him more credit than is due, verse 8 reminds us that he was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. John the author again uses a repetition in the negative as he did for creation and the Word in verse 3.

John’s entire ministry can be summed up here: to bear witness to the light and thereby see people believe in the light. And in this text, the light is not simply an abstract notion (though it ties into the abstract notion used throughout the Gospel) but is the Word introduced in the first few verses that we were told is the light of all people: the second person of the trinity, God’s divine self-expression, the revelation of God, Jesus himself. John was sent by God to testify about Jesus so that people would believe in him.

How he does this will be the subject of 1:15 and 1:19ff. in a few studies time.

Interview: Ian Hugh Clary

I have found something to boast about on the blog: the interview series is off to a great start thanks to my interviewees Stan Porter and now Ian Clary.

Ian Hugh Clary is a doctoral student in historical theology at VU Amsterdam where he is working on a dissertation on Alexander Carson as an evangelical response to the Enlightenment. Ian lives in downtown Toronto with his wife Vicky and their two children Jack and Molly. Together they are members of New City Baptist Church in the city core. I have asked him questions about historical theology and its relation to the study of the Gospel of John.

AR: What is historical theology and how does it differ from other related disciplines?

IC: The theological disciplines are often broken down into various parts. They include such things as systematic theology, biblical theology, practical theology, and historical theology. Of course this oversimplifies and leaves a lot out, for instance exegesis, which typically falls under biblical theology, or philosophical theology, which could be categorized with systematics. Ideally a good theology is grounded in biblical theology and exegesis, is informed by history, is summarized systematically, and is practical for the life of the Christian and the church.

Historical theology itself relates to how doctrine has developed across church history, looking at how different Christians in different periods understood theology, from specific doctrines, to theological method. R. Scott Clark and Carl Trueman explain that historical theology “is the discipline of fairly determining and describing what was.” Because it is description, historical theology is not taken up with evaluation, which is the task of dogmatics (or systematics). Clark and Trueman point out the disparaging, if not hilarious, complaint by Gerhard Ebeling who said that historical theology has become a refuge for “those who cannot manage theology.” For me, that’s like complaining about the bass player in Led Zeppelin—as though John Paul Jones couldn’t hold his own with the other genius’ in the band (This is a little like the Synoptic Problem applied to classic rock)!


AR: How would historical theology help us in our understanding of John’s Gospel?

IC: Biblical interpretation, to borrow a cliché, is not done in a vacuum. As important as current exegetical studies are today, to neglect what Christians in days past have had to say about a text is somewhat akin to saying that the Brits shouldn’t worry about what Lord Nelson had to say about naval combat. Sure, his methods reflect an antiquated era, but the man didn’t make the Royal Navy into what it was by being a bad admiral. Likewise, we need to know what greats like the Cappadocians, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Owen, or Bavinck had to say about any given doctrine, even if their methods aren’t always what we would today consider sound.

John’s gospel is especially interesting in this regard when one considers its place alongside the synoptic gospels. Since the rise of historical criticism, John has been relegated to a place of its own (though theologians before this method recognized the differences between John and the other gospels). While the events are often recorded differently, or appear only in this gospel, its high Christology has made it suspect. To understand why John is important not only for the canon, but also for the life of the church, we can turn to historical theology and text critics like Lightfoot, Westcott, Hort, etc. The high Christology matches the early church’s understanding of Jesus’ divinity, and the interpretation of John can be traced through the writings of fathers like John Chrysostom, who preached homilies on it. Chrysostom is especially useful, as Moises Silva has pointed out, because he preached in what we now call koine Greek. So when the “Golden Mouth” discusses the meaning of a word, we are getting it from the horse’s mouth so to speak. We can also learn how early apologists used it to combat heresies, like Gnosticism or Arianism, and how those same arguments were picked up in later periods against similar groups like the Socinians or Unitarians.


AR: Are there any instances that come to mind where an understanding of historical theology aids us in interpreting John’s Gospel?

IC: While I’m sure that a whole dissertation could be, and probably has been, written on this subject, I can come up with a couple of examples. In terms of the early church, one thinks of Irenaeus of Lyons and his important work Against Heresies that is a major collocation and refutation of what we call Gnosticism. He is useful when it comes to the question of the authorship of John. Who the gospel writer was is subject to debate, and while internal evidence is unclear—though I think it affirms the traditional view—external evidence like the writings of Irenaeus indicate that it was the apostle John, the “beloved disciple” who was the penman (that is, unless he used a scribe!). Irenaeus validates for us that Polycarp, whom he knew, sat at the feet of John “who had seen the Lord.” Based on this, Irenaeus tells us that John, who “leaned on the breast” of Jesus, wrote the Gospel of John while he was in Ephesus.

Another example is a bit more basic to the task of sermon preparation. John Calvin is well-recognized as a sound interpreter of Scripture, and that his methods and conclusions remain relevant today. Calvin, as a humanist and reformer, embodied the best that scholarship had to offer in his day, and reflected the cream of biblical teaching from those theologians who went before him. Calvin was as in tune with Augustine or Bernard as he was with his Reformation colleagues like Bucer or Melancthon. So, when a difficulty arises in interpreting a passage from John, it is as useful to turn to Calvin’s commentary on John as it would be to turn to Don Carson. While Carson would be a first choice because he is more up to date, and would be able to point out flaws even in Calvin, it is still very important to meditate on and consider what the Genevan Reformer had to say—especially on major passages like the Prologue, where the richness of biblical Christology is encapsulated in the Reformer’s thoughts, or on the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 and the debated notion that it reflects John’s Eucharistic theology. Even being able to see where an interpreter from church history went wrong, as in the case with much of the allegorizing from the early church, is helpful as we think through the meaning of a passage.


AR: Are there any resources you’d recommend to help a reader of John’s Gospel become acquainted with the history of interpretation of the Gospel?

 IC: The first source I would recommend is the two-volume commentary on John in the Ancient Christian Commentary series that is edited by Tom Oden. The first volume, also edited by Oden, goes up to John 10, while the second, edited by Joel Elowsky, finishes the gospel. The whole commentary set that goes from Genesis to Revelation is worth owning. The two volume set is basically a collection of quotations from various church fathers on each verse in John. Because each verse is treated to a host of quotes, it is helpful to see the range of interpretive options available in the early church. You can see what Chrysostom said about a passage, and skip down a quote to read Augustine. While you might not agree with what is written, it is still helpful in your preparation. At the very least, you can find some great quotes to spice up your sermon. The danger is that if you use it in every sermon, your congregation might take you for a patristics scholar!

A book for the specialist in historical theology, and for one with a hefty wallet, is Craig S. Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century: The Johannine Exegesis of Wolfgang Musculus in the excellent Oxford Studies in Historical Theology series. The book is fantastic on many levels: it sets Musculus in his historical setting, so there is lots of discussion of medieval and Reformation exegesis; it deals with particular issues in John, like the wedding feast at Cana, the raising of Lazarus, etc.; and Farmer really shows Musculus as an important Reformation exegete who stands alongside others like Calvin. This is one of those books that makes me salivate when I think about it, but not all of your readers may be interested.

John 1:1-5 – The Word (Logos)

The first eighteen verses of John’s Gospel are usually referred to as the prologue to the work. I am choosing to focus on the first five verses to keep the study manageable and since the participant introduced in verse 6 is different from verse 1, it provides us with a good break in the text to separate into more than one study.

The Text

The focus of these first five verses is the Word. The Word (logos) is introduced in verse 1 with three clauses that each tell us something about this new and first participant in the book.

In the beginning was the Word,
And the Word was with God
And the Word was God.

The first clause tells us that the Word existed in the beginning, “in the beginning was the Word.” The biblically literate person may hear an allusion back to the very beginning of the Bible where the exact same words are used, “in the beginning.” Here, in John’s opening, it is asserted that this Word was, in some respect not yet defined, “in the beginning.” What beginning John has in mind will be better understood as the verses unfold.

The second clause tells us that this Word was with God, or in some sense face to face with God or toward God. It posits a separation between God and the Word, the nature of the relationship as of yet also undefined.

The third clause is, to me, the most shocking in light of the second clause. The second clause posited some sort of differentiation between the Word and God but this clause says that the Word was God. Different and yet the same? How can this be? Time will tell.

Verse 2 then reiterates what was claimed in verse 1, connecting the ideas of the first clause and second clause above: “This one (the Word), was with God in the beginning.”

Verses 3 to 5 then continue the discussion of the Word, using pronouns and participant chains to refer back to “it” (we will refine who the Word is as the text unfolds).

All things were created through him… nothing was made that has been made without him… In him was life… The life was the light of all people… The light shines in the darkness… The darkness has not overcome it….

The Word remains the focus while other subjects are introduced to talk about the Word and flesh out who this Word is. Verse 3 brings up creation, helping us justify seeing an allusion to Genesis 1:1 in John 1:1 and helping us to read the first clause of the first verse as, “in the beginning of all things, the Word existed.” It says that everything that has ever had existence was made through the Word. In fact, it strengthens it by saying it again in the negative: nothing that has come into being was made without him. This Word has some participation in the very act of bringing all things into existence and so helps to show that this Word is itself uncreated. At this point we see that the Word existed in the beginning of all things, is different from God in some respect and yet is itself God, and has been at least a participant in bringing all things into existence, justifying the thought that the Word itself is uncreated.

Verses 4 and 5 continue to have the Word as the focus (argued above) but now bring new categories to bear upon it. The text says that “life was in him,” and that this “life was the light of all people.” The text goes on to say that the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it. Not much will be said on these two verses at this point as I believe the Gospel itself will begin to expound these life and light/darkness categories throughout. Be on the look out for them.

The Word

So, what is this Word? There are of course many prior associations with the use of logos that a first century reader might have since logos was not a newly invented term by John (see especially Craig Keener’s The Gospel of John commentary for a thorough look at all the possible backgrounds), but it is important to see how John defines this logos as we move throughout the book, noting simply for now that the word logos in Greek “can be summarized under the two heads of inward thought, and the outward expression of thought in speech” (Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 152), suggesting John has in mind that the Word is the divine self-expression. In this text the logos is personified and so we have a personal divine self-expression. Jesus, who is the Word, is God’s self-expression, his revelation. This is significant because it points out that Jesus is the revelation, he does not just bring revelation from God.

This word then disappears from the rest of the book as a referent for Jesus after the prologue. Perhaps this word was the best word to encapsulate all that John wanted to say of Jesus. Jesus is God’s self-expression, his divine revelation.

The peculiar language of verse 1, and really this whole text, begins our journey into the theme of the relationship of the Father and Son, though the terms do net yet arise in the text. It will form the basis of discussion of the trinity throughout.

Interview: Stanley E. Porter

I am excited for this inaugural interview here on the blog. Dr. Stanley E. Porter is President, Dean, and Professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He is recognized as an expert in many areas of research, especially in linguistics and Greek grammar. His publishing record is second to none and more can be read about him on his faculty page here.

Dr. Porter is also now a blogger! I highly recommend following his blog which can be found here.

As a student of his it is an immense pleasure to get to interview him for this and continue to learn from him. Since the current thrust of the blog is to work through the Gospel of John, I have tailored a number of my questions to this topic. I trust you will find it as interesting and helpful as I have.

AR: You’ve spent a good deal of your career studying and writing on linguistics and Greek grammar. What does the discipline of linguistics and the study of Greek contribute to our interpreting the Bible?

SP: Study of the Bible is first and foremost a language-based discipline. I know that there are those who are heavily promoting the so-called theological interpretation of Scripture and other attempts to ground interpretation in social backgrounds and various types of other criticisms–and some of these are very important and helpful–but at its heart when we read the Bible we are at the least engaged in a linguistic interpretive exercise, or at least first we are doing so. As a result, it stands to reason that we need to bring to bear the most important and recent advances in linguistic thought. I firmly believe that most of our interpretive difficulties have been caused by language and can only be solved by the interpretation of language, so we need to invest our efforts in such linguistic matters. I often get frustrated to see how neglectful contemporary biblical scholarship is of matters linguistic, whether this means making linguistic judgments (i.e. statements about language and how it functions) on the basis of no determinable linguistic basis, or simply invoking grammatical works now long superseded. Many of these works may well have been excellent for their day, but we have made significant advances in our linguistic thinking, and appealing to traditional grammar or some earlier paradigm is no longer sufficient–especially as some of these earlier models are incommensurable with our current understandings. In other words, to offer a short answer, I think that linguistics is fundamental to interpreting the Bible, and a necessary starting point for everything else we do, including responsible theologizing.

AR: Does understanding the genre of the Gospels help us interpret them? What can we say is the genre of John’s Gospel?

That is a very difficult question, as there is, I think, a lot of misunderstanding regarding the notion of genre. Genres tend to be treated as static, fixed and absolute, when they are essentially social-linguistic constructs that are useful for labeling and categorizing works from various time periods. So, in the sense that there is a set number of genres to invoke, no I don’t think such a concept is that useful. There is a tendency in biblical studies–and this has been demonstrated in a number of basic interpretive works–to use generic categories as the starting point of interpretation, and then impose them upon various works as if this holds the key to interpretation. We see this in books that break the Bible down into such genres as Gospel, letter, apocalypse, etc., and say that you would not want to read a letter the same way you would read an apocalypse, etc. This begs numerous questions, not least how one knows that any given work fits within the category that is being imposed. In order to use the notion of genre, I think that we need to qualify it and use it cautiously, by recognizing at least the following factors–that genres vary from language to language, time to time, culture to culture, and that they are not fixed; genres need to be seen as the relative, culturally based constructs that they are; genres must be seen in comparison and contrast to other genres within that particular socio-linguistic milieu; and one must always take into account how given works of literature are complexes that encompass what most would identify as multiple genres.
.
I prefer to use a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach in interpretation. Whereas a genre approach is top-down, I think that we should build our interpretive framework on the basis of strata of linguistic substance, and then formulate larger generalizations and patterns as we proceed. If we do this, then I think that we can generalize that there are some general literary or textual types grounded in the use of language. These would include narrative and non-narrative as a basis. Non-narrative would include expositional and perhaps poetic material. Beyond that, I am not sure how much you can say, without needing to move into a much more complex cultural specific analysis.
.
As for John’s Gospel, it is clearly for the most part narrative, or at least it utilizes a narrative framework, but within it, there are non-narrative sections, and there is a movement among these. However, I think that at this point a much more fruitful avenue for exploration, rather than typical genre analysis, might be register analysis from systemic-functional linguistics. I believe that register analysis is a useful means of creating a linguistic profile of a discourse, or even of sub-discourses within a discourse. These may be typical registers, but I think we also need to be open to individualized registers based upon the linguistic evidence.
.
This does not answer the question of the genre of John’s Gospel directly. However, let me give you a brief idea of how I would discuss that. Having done the kind of literary type and register analysis I indicate above, I would probably want to say that John’s narrative needs to be seen in relation to other types of narrative found in the Greco-Roman world. It clearly has many similarities to, as well as some differences from, the other Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), as well as a number of other narratives in the ancient world. Many of these are related to the “lives” category of writing. This is not the same as saying that John’s Gospel is simply an ancient biography, although that might be the best reductionistic answer.

AR: Do you have an opinion on when the 4th Gospel was written?

SP: I don’t have a firm opinion on when it was written, although I hope to have a firmer idea once I have written a major commentary that I am wishing to write in the next few years or so. At this time, I am convinced of several things, however. One of these is that developmental or evolutionary models of interpretation have had far too important a role to play in determining the date of John’s Gospel and its relationship to the other Gospels. Hence, many say John must be late because it has a more developed Christology than the other Gospels, or it must be late because it seems to have developed further material found in the Synoptics, or whatever. I think these developmental models assume far too much. I also think that John’s Gospel is related to the Synoptics as probably availing itself of common tradition. Other issues that push for a late date of John’s Gospel (such as synagogue expulsion, John 9) are not necessarily indicative of this when one considers other evidence. Many dates typically used for New Testament documents are less about firm evidence than creating compromises regarding supposed extreme positions (the date of Acts is a classic in this regard), so I want to rethink these. As a result, John may be relatively late (e.g. around 90), but I am very much open to it being much earlier as well, even before AD 70 and the fall of Jerusalem.

AR: What advice would you have for a reader of John’s Gospel in the 21st century church?

SP: I would recommend that a reader of John’s Gospel pay attention to the text, worry less about how John’s Gospel may “sound different” than the Synoptics, and observe and listen closely to Jesus as he speaks and acts throughout the book. John’s Gospel is a phenomenal narrative and exposition of the life and ministry and teachings of Jesus. Though the author used a restricted number of vocabulary items–in my mind because he chose to limit his lexical repertoire, not because of any personal linguistic shortcoming–he has created an expansive and inspiring portrait of Jesus as God’s divine son, from beginning to end. In many ways, there is no other account of Jesus that can compare with John’s Gospel. I think if you approach the text from this angle, questions of meaning and significance, then and now, etc., tend to dissolve into the direct presence of Jesus.

AR: Are there any books (commentaries/monographs/light studies/etc.) that readers of John’s Gospel might find helpful as they read along?

SP: Most commentaries today, I believe, are generally unsatisfying. They are often highly neglectful of linguistic matters (such as Michaels), and too often are simply compendia of other previous commentators’ thoughts (there are too many to mention here). This is a real problem in commentary writing–the commentary writer has to say something about everything, but that is an impossibility, so they often say something about what others have said before them. I think most commentary writers would be better served by spending much more time with their text than they have, and not write until they believe they have something new and fresh and insightful to say. Of course, publishers would hate this, because they need to sell books. But I think that there would be much better (and perhaps fewer) commentaries. For which we could all be thankful.
.
As for a book on John’s Gospel, I would recommend Ruth Edwards’ Discovering John (London: SPCK, 2003). I also have a forthcoming book, tentatively entitled John’s Gospel: A Public Gospel that should be coming out in the next year or so, and which covers many of the major issues in recent interpretation of John.

Authorship and Date

Authorship

The 4th Gospel is, formally speaking, anonymous. That is, the author never explicitly states his name. Even though we call the book “According to John” or the “The Gospel According to John,” it is not certain that these titles were original to the work itself (more on this below).

For this reason and others, many have tried to posit a different author than the apostle John, the son of Zebedee. Suggestions have ranged from an “elder” named John who lived after the time of the apostles to a Johannine community, established by John but operating past John’s lifetime. While not 100% provable, I do believe there is good reason to accept that John the apostle wrote the 4th Gospel himself.

Consider 21:24 where the author says: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” “This” refers back to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in verse 20. We know from this text and others that the author uses this phrase for the apostle John, one of the three apostles in Jesus’ inner circle (the others being Peter and James). It would seem that it is reasonable to accept what the text says (especially if one holds to the inspiration of the Bible): “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” a common phrase for the apostle John, is the one who wrote the book. For whatever reason (modesty?) he simply chose not to explicitly centre himself out.

In addition to this internal evidence, there is strong external evidence to support the authorship of John. I mentioned above the titles often given to this book. These titles are present in our earliest manuscripts. They may have been placed there once the four Gospels started circulating together (some hold that they are indeed original to the autographs) but this at the very least shows that early on Christians believed this book was written by John. The Early Church Fathers (with the exception of Papias, as recorded by Eusebius) are fairly unanimous in their testimony that John wrote the book.

For these reasons it appears quite reasonable to accept that John wrote the 4th Gospel.

Date

As far as the date of the Gospel is concerned, if the apostle John is the author, then we must place the date of writing within the 1st century, given that he died before the century elapsed. Indeed this is likely based on another piece of external evidence: we actually have surviving today a fragment of a manuscript of John’s Gospel that is dated to 125 A.D. Therefore the Gospel has to be earlier than this, and likely much earlier since this manuscript is probably not the original handwriting (known as the autograph).

From here, it becomes harder to be much more specific. Scholars vary on their dating of this Gospel, ranging from 55-95 A.D. (Carson, 82), if we ignore those who would disagree with the previous paragraph. Since I have not yet pinned down my opinion on the date, I am going to leave further speculation until after I have finished these studies (noting anything significant to the issue along the way if possible) and it will be interesting to hear from a scholar I am currently interviewing as to his opinion. Expect that interview early next week.