First of all, a note on my approach:
This series uses a literary/narrative approach to John, along the lines proposed by scholars like Adele Berlin, Frank Kermode, Robert Alter, or Charles Talbert, to name just a few. I assume that the author/narrator of John-- who I call "AJ"-- had total control over how he tells the story of Jesus. He includes the details he does because they are important for his message. And the most convincing explanation of the text, is the one that best accounts for all the details.
The Gospel of John already has several great examples of this approach-- notably, the works of Charles Talbert, Rodney Whitacre, Gail O'Day, and Francis Moloney. My approach differs in four main ways.
First, I use narrative criticism more conservatively than some. You won't hear me talking about the "Johannine Jesus," for one thing.
Second, I write from a charismatic perspective. I used to have terrible allergies, year round. A traveling evangelist laid hands on me, rebuked my allergies in Jesus' name, and I was healed. The most remarkable thing about this, possibly, was that I felt the healing. There was a tingling, electric sensation, only in my sinus cavity. Since then, what I've found is that what God did for me, He will also do through me. I have seen God do dozens of miracles through me, in the name of Jesus. None of these, so far, would qualify as "greater works" (John 14:12). But I'm pressing in to it, and we will see where it goes from here. But my life is based, in large part, on believing that what Jesus actually says about healings, and signs, and wonders, are possible today. I'm living proof.
Third, related to this, I have a more positive perspective on signs than many scholars. What signs do, is bring people part of the way to Jesus. They are no guarantee that people will come all of the way to Jesus. But they create openings, and they move people closer. Signs, and healings, and wonders, work the same way today that they did back then for Jesus.
Fourth, I try to use discourse analysis, along the lines proposed by Steven Runge ("Discourse Analysis of the Greek New Testament"-- a brilliant, life-changing book). I use it imperfectly, and somewhat sloppily, and the reader will see the areas in the Greek I'm still wrestling with. A running dialogue with Runge can be found in the footnotes (which don't carry over online). But it is a huge help.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
Most of you know that I actively dislike doing introductory explanations of biblical books. I'd rather dive in, and explain things as I go. That's not going to work for this series.
The gospel of John is maybe the most difficult book in the NT. Andrew Lincoln describes it as a 2 story story. At the surface level of the text, the gospel of John has a straightforward meaning. People say things, and do things, and those things make sense at a surface level. But throughout the gospel of John, words and actions also often have a higher level of significance. And those of us who have been born "from above" are expected to hear these words, and read these stories, and catch this higher meaning. You are expected to read into things in a way that you wouldn't in other gospels. Matthew and Luke in particular are more straightforward. And until you get a feel for this 2 story story, you're maybe going to think I'm reading into things too much. But if I don't do this, I'll finish working through an episode, and you'll shrug your shoulders, and you'll say, "So?" You'll have this sense that something else is going on, but won't be able to explain it, maybe.
The end result of this is that reading John is a tricky business. It's like trying to catch vapor in your hands-- you read a passage, and think you've pretty much got it, and then suddenly you find that it somehow slipped away from you. And you're never quite content with the end result.
What that means, concretely, is that when people try to teach through John, it's frustrating. You have to try to catch the higher meaning when it's there, but only when it's there. And then you have to figure out a way to teach the higher meaning of the text in a way that grabs people, the way it's supposed to. And explain it well enough that people maybe believe you about all of this. And that's hard. Reading John, and teaching John, feels like learning how to break every rule you've ever learned about how to read the Bible.
Normally, I try not to rely on commentators very much. I try to translate a passage, and then reflect on it, and put together something rough before I spend much time reading other people. But in the gospel of John, I know I need a lot of help. I read John, and I know I don't understand it. So I've been reading lots of people-- Brendan Byrne, Rodney Whitacre, Raymond Brown, Andrew Lincoln, David Rensberger, Rudolf Schnackenburg, Francis Moloney, Marianne Thompson, Jouette Bassler, Craig Keener, Gail O'Day, and (old school) J.C. Ryle. Each of them has a slightly different perspective on the book as a whole. Each of them reads individual stories in sometimes quite different ways.
The other thing I should say is that there are lots of details in the gospel of John that people (wildly) disagree about. Some people see the higher level in more places than others, and understand it differently. But when I teach, I'm usually not going to get into any of that. I'm going to make my decision about what and who is right, and just run with that. I'm teaching, not writing a seminary paper. And part of what that means is mostly hiding the interpretive decisions I'm making from you. I don't do this to be dishonest, or nasty, or deceitful, but in the interest of making something that will move you and not be boring.
I say all of this, really, for two reasons. The first is that I don't expect you to agree with everything. Every time I teach, I'm making dozens of decisions, sometimes unconsciously, about what's right and wrong. I'm making decisions between brilliant scholars, who have spent their entire careers in Johannine literature. And I've been living in the book for a couple months, without having a very good sense of the book as a whole. So, just like I have to make decisions about who is right and wrong, so do you. Sometimes, you'll find me persuasive. Other times, you'll find yourself thinking that something sounds off. Or you're unsure. That's completely fine. Sometimes, I'm going to be wrong. And sometimes, you're going to be wrong. But it's not a big deal. I expect you to be like me-- making decisions about whether or not someone is convincing, and doing your best to take the good you hear, and leave the iffy.
This brings me to my second reason for saying all of this. I'd maybe suggest, as we start working through the Gospel of John, that you follow along using one commentary. That will give you two perspectives at least, and make you aware of some of the issues. You will get far more out of my teaching, if you do this.
If I could recommend only one book to you, it'd be Rodney Whitacre's commentary in the IVP NT commentary series. He's warm. He writes with a heart for God, and the church. And he asks the right questions.
[A second commentary I'd recommend is that of Francis Moloney, in the Sacra Pagina series. Often brilliant, and he again asks the right questions. But he's Catholic, and that'd be a stumbling block for some.]
HISTORICAL CONTEXT (for more on this, the first half of David Rensberger's book, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community is brilliant):
The gospel of John, more than the other gospels, seems to be written to address a very specific church, experiencing very specific problems. This is a church made of Christians, who were a mix of Jews and Gentiles. And this church was being persecuted by Jews.
Throughout the time reflected in the NT, the relationship between Christianity and Judaism was an awkward one. Jesus was a Jew. The apostles were all Jews. Paul was a Pharisee. And Paul always made a point, when he was on his missionary trips, to first go to the synagogues and try to persuade the Jews that Jesus was the promised Messiah. But even in the book of Acts, we see that the claims that Christians made about Jesus were offensive to Jews. Stephen got killed for a reason in Acts 8. By the time that John was written, this tension between Judaism and Christianity had reached the breaking point. If you were a Messianic Jew, you were no longer allowed to be part of the synagogue. You were cut off, and viewed as outsiders.
The clearest verses revealing this background are John 9:22, 12:42-43, and John 16:1.
John 9:22: 22 (His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess Jesus[b] to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.)
12:42-43: 42 Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.
16 “I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. 2 They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. 3 And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me. 4 But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you.
Throughout the gospel of John, this historical context is assumed. When John talks about "the Jews"--which I'm going to (better?) translate as "Judeans"-- they are consistently portrayed as being ignorant and stubborn. They should know the truth about Jesus (3:10), but they reject Jesus, and ultimately kill him.
John is written to Christians to encourage them that Jesus is, in fact, the Messiah sent from the Father. Jesus is superior to Moses (John 1:17) and Jacob (John 4:12), and offers a greater gift. And it's only through Jesus that we can find Light and Life.
Since that's the case, we have no choice but to give our allegiance to Jesus regardless of the cost (John 6:66). We can't abandon Jesus. And what we can't do, above all, is try to keep a foot in both worlds by being a secret disciple (John 9:22; 12:42-43; 19:38). Being a Christian means making a choice to follow Jesus, to abide in him and in his word, and to love each other, regardless of the cost.
So John is written to be an encouragement. Jesus is who he says he is. And if you want to be part of God's people, you can do that only through King Jesus.
A SECOND THING TO TALK ABOUT: "The Jews, Judeans, and Judea" [What follows is heavily indebted to the works of Jerome Neyrey and Jouette Bassler].
Especially to those who are sensitive to the persecution of the Jewish people-- the Holocaust, in particular-- the gospel of John often grates on their ears. For most of the gospel, "the Jews" are people who are hard-hearted, who aren't open to the truth, and who say stupid things as they misunderstand Jesus. And, it's the "Jews" who ultimately reject Jesus, and kill him.
Most recent commentators on the gospel of John are extremely sensitive about this, for understandable reasons. Some are willing to openly criticize the gospel on this point (Brendan Byrne). Others put quotes around "the Jews" throughout their whole commentary, to help their readers understand that what AJ says about "the Jews" shouldn't be simply applied to Jews now, living 2000 years later (Gail O'Day).
Let's read John 1:11:
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
This verse is talking about "the Jews." Jesus came to his own, but his own didn't "receive" him. And this theme, is one that runs through the length of the gospel.
In my own translation, when AJ talks about "the Jews," I've tried to always translate it as "the Judeans." This has four main benefits:
(1) This is closer to what it actually sounds like in Greek.
(2) This keeps me from having to soften AJ's criticism of the Judeans. I can echo him, without worrying about offending people unnecessarily or being called a racist-- because no one today, as far as I know, self-identifies as being a "Judean." [And if you do, know that I'm describing people who lived 2,000 years ago.]
(3) Let's turn to John 12:10-11:
(10) Now, the chief priests resolved that also Lazarus they would kill,
because many on account of him were leaving from the Judeans,
and they were giving allegiance to Jesus.
How can you "leave from the Judeans"? What we will see throughout the gospel of John, is that "Judean" is not a term that defines people by their race or nationality. "Judeans" are people who are characterized by their rejection of Jesus. And when people give their allegiance to Jesus, they stop being "Judeans." They become "Galileans" (John 7:52), or Jesus' disciples.
(4) Translating "Jews" as "Judeans" also helps us understand geography. As we get further into the gospel of John, what we will see is that "Judea" is a place of danger (John 11:8, 16). When Jesus goes to "Judea," it's always temporarily, for the feasts. He never "abides" there. By contrast, "Galilee" and "Samaria" are places of safety where Jesus does abide (1:38-39; 2:12; 4:40; 7:9). It's where people are open-minded, willing to listen to witnesses testifying on Jesus' behalf, and become Jesus' disciples (contrast 11:31 with 11:40-42). Any time Jesus leaves these safe places, and goes up to Judea, bad things happen. Because that's where "Judeans" live.
A THIRD THING TO TALK ABOUT: "FAITH/ALLEGIANCE/BELIEF in the Gospel of John"
The last thing I want to talk about is the way that John talks about "faith" and "belief" in his gospel.
One of the key ideas in the gospel of John has to do with "believing." The verb is found 98 times in the gospel of John, compared to 11 in Matthew, 14 in Mark, and 9 in Luke (Schnackenburg, 1:558).
There are three main expressions using "believe" in the gospel of John.
(1) "Believing that..."
The first is believing "that." "believing" ?t? ("that"): 4:21; 6:69; 8:24; 11:27, 42; 13:19; 14:10, 11; 16:27, 30; 17:8, 21; 20:31
4:21: "Jesus said to her, Woman, believe in (dative, no preposition) me, that the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem."
6:69: "And we have believed and have known that you are the Holy One of God."
8:24: "I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am.
11:27: "I have believed that you are the Christ, the Son of God, the one coming into the world."
11:42: I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me."
13:19: "I tell you this now, before it occurs, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am.
14:10: "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me?"
14:11: Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me."
16:27: For the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God."
16:30: "By this we believe that you came from God."
17:8: ..."and they believed that you sent me."
17:21: "in order that the world may believe that you sent me."
20:31: "These things are written in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and in order that, believing, you may have life by his name."
So what we see from this construction is that "believing that" almost always has to do with correctly understanding who Jesus is. People have to believe that Jesus is from God, in God, sent by God, the Christ, and the I AM. There are things that people have to correctly believe about who Jesus is, in order to have life.
Theology matters.
2) "Believing into/toward..."
The key phrase is "believing e?? ("into/toward"). Normally, English Bibles translate this as "believing in Jesus." And when Christians read this expression, they assume that it means roughly the same thing as "believing that" certain things are true about Jesus.
But does it?
We hear the word "believe," and we assume it has to do with intellectual assent to something. But in the Greek, the standard lexicons (BDAG, BRILL, Liddell-Scott) all have entries for it meaning something far more than that. To "believe" means something more like "to trust, to rely, to give fidelity, to give allegiance."
BDAG, meaning 2:
? to entrust oneself to an entity in complete confidence, believe (in), trust, w. implication of total commitment to the one who is trusted. In our lit. God and Christ are objects of this type of faith that relies on their power and nearness to help, in addition to being convinced that their revelations or disclosures are true.
Liddell-Scott:
(p?st??):—trust, put faith in, rely on a person, thing, or statement,
Brill:
? act. ? to have faith, trust, confide ? t??? in s.o. or sthg. HDT. 1.24.2 THUC. 3.5.2 XEN. An. 1.9.8 MEN. Dysc. 285 etc.; ta?? ????e?a?? in the truth DEMOSTH. 44.3; p. t??? ?p?? t?? ???? to trust in, entrust oneself to s.o., in respect of everything,
One of the best examples of this broader meaning of "believe" is found in Romans 3:3. The ESV translates it like this:
3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
The word translated "faithfulness" at the end, is simply the noun form for "faith" or "belief." But the ESV recognizes that God doesn't have "faith." So here, it correctly translates it "faithfulness."
And then it recognizes, if God's "faithfulness" is in view, it should keep the same sense for the root throughout the verse. So it translates the verb "to believe" as "to be faithful."
Compare this to the NASB (which is indefensible):
3 What then? If some [a]did not believe, their [b]unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?
Romans 3:3 is probably the clearest verse in the NT, for showing that "believing" in Jesus (or God) means something like "being faithful to Him," or "showing loyalty," or "giving allegiance."
So when you read language about "believing" in God, or in Jesus, in the NT, how should you hear it?
You should recognize that "believing in Jesus" includes the idea of faithfulness, of trust, and reliance.
Now let's look specifically at the gospel of John, to see how it's used there:
1) Believing toward Jesus=receiving Jesus
John 1:12:
"Now, as many as received him, he gave to them authority, God's children to become-- to the ones "believing toward" his name."
Here, "believing toward" Jesus means roughly the same thing as "receiving" Jesus (cf. 5:43; 13:20).
"Receiving" someone means "welcoming them hospitably" or "treating someone well" (Liddell-Scott.).
2) Believing toward Jesus=obeying Jesus
John 3:36:
"The one "believing toward" the son has eternal life. Now, the one disobeying the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Christians are usually taught that the opposite of "believing toward" Jesus is good works, or self-righteousness, or legalism. But what does John think the opposite of "believing toward" Jesus is? Disobedience. So part of what it means to "believe toward" Jesus, is obeying him. We have to avoid reading the gospel through a Reformation lens.
(3) Believing toward Jesus=abiding in Jesus.
John 8:30:
8:30: While he was saying these things, many "believed toward" him. Then Jesus said to the ones "having believed"-- the Jews-- If you abide in my word, truly my disciples you are, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
Lots and lots of people give their allegiance to Jesus in the gospel, but there is something wrong with their commitment. There is something about it that's lacking (2:23). And part of what's lacking, is that some of these people aren't "abiding in Jesus' word."
What does it mean to abide in Jesus' word"? Let's turn to John 15:8:
8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. 15 No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. 17 These things I command you, (so) that you will love one another.
"Abiding in Jesus" means keeping Jesus' commands, and loving each other, and bearing fruit. That's what it means to truly "believe toward" Jesus-- to be faithful to him.
So, to sum everything up, what does it mean to "believe toward" Jesus? I'm hoping at this point you agree with me, that it's better to translate this expression as "giving allegiance" or "loyalty" to Jesus. Talking in terms of allegiance or loyalty make it clear that "faith" includes "obedience" and "abiding" and "commitment." Faith is a costly business. And in saying this, know that I'm well within mainstream Johannine scholarship. Craig Keener, Jouette Bassler, Marianne Thompson (who has a great journal article on this), etc., all make a really big deal about what "belief" means, in part because they know it's so badly misunderstood by the church.
The other places it talks about "believing e??" ("toward/into") are listed here:
John 1:12; 2:11, 23; 3:16, 18 (2x), 36; 4:39; 6:29, 35, 40; 7:5, 31, 38, 39, 48; 8:30; 9:35, 36; 10:42; 11:25, 26, 45, 48; 12:11, 36, 37, 42, 44, 46; 14:6, 12; 16:9; 17:20.
------------------------------------------------------
Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990–). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. 3, p. 96). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
"A series of partly metaphorical circumlocutions shows how the believer is bound to Jesus: ??ste?? can be replaced by: coming to Jesus (John 5:40; 6:35, 37, 44f., 65; 7:37), receiving him (1:12; 5:43), drinking of the water he offers (4:13f.; cf. 6:35; 7:37), following him (8:12), and loving him (14:15, 21, 23f.; 16:27). What John 11:25 says of the p?ste??? e?? ?µ? also applies in 8:51f. to the person who “keeps” his word (cf. 14:23; 17:6; 1 John 2:5). Since God’s eschatological revelation has come in Jesus, the believer already participates in eschatological salvation (John 3:18, 36; 5:24; 6:40, 47; 11:25f.; 17:3). Yet it is necessary to “abide” in Jesus (15:4, 7; 1 John 2:6, 28; 3:6), which means nothing other than to abide in his word (John 8:31) and thus in his love (15:9) and to keep his commandments (15:10; 14:15, 21; 1 John 2:3f.; 3:24). Since the knowledge bequeathed to faith is knowledge of God’s love, faith must necessarily lead to love (John 17:26; 1 John 3:23; 4:16), a love directed above all toward one’s brother."
-------------------------------------------------------------
CUT THIS OUT PROBABLY?:
Now, let me rabbit trail a little, and talk about how "faith" and "belief" language is used by the Jewish historian Josephus. In what we are about to read, Josephus describes his own role in the Jewish rebellion against Rome. One particular city, which was determined to stay loyal to the Roman emperor, tried to resist Josephus by asking a rebel (named Jesus, confusingly) for help. And notice how Josephus uses the word for "faith" or "belief."
22. (104) But the inhabitants of this city having determined to continue in their allegiance to the Romans, were afraid of my coming to them; and tried, by putting me upon another action, to divert me, that they might be freed from the terror they were in. (105) Accordingly they sent to Jesus, the captain of those robbers who were in the confines of Ptolemais, and promised to give him a great deal of money, if he would come with those forces he had with him, which were in number eight hundred, and fight with (ME: AGAINST) us. (106) Accordingly he complied with what they desired, upon the promises they had made him, and was desirous to fall upon us when we were unprepared for him, and knew nothing of his coming beforehand: so he sent to me, and desired that I would give him leave to come and salute me. When I had given him that leave, which I did without the least knowledge of his treacherous intentions beforehand, he took his band of robbers, and made haste to come to me. (107) Yet did not this his knavery succeed well at last; for, as he was already nearly approaching, one of those with him deserted him, and came to me, and told me what he had undertaken to do. When I was informed of this, I went into the marketplace, and pretended to know nothing of his treacherous purpose. I took with me many Galileans that were armed, as also some of those of Tiberias; (108) and, when I had given orders that all the roads should be carefully guarded, I charged the keepers of the gates to give admittance to none but Jesus, when he came, with the principal of his men, and to exclude the rest; and in case they aimed to force themselves in, to use stripes [in order to repel them]. (109) Accordingly, those that had received such a charge did as they were bidden, and Jesus came in with a few others; and when I had ordered him to throw down his arms immediately, and told him, that, if he refused so to do, he was a dead man, he seeing armed men standing all round about him, was terrified and complied; and as for those of his followers that were excluded, when they were informed that he was seized, they ran away. (110) I then called Jesus to me by himself, and told him, that “I was not a stranger to that treacherous design he had against me, nor was I ignorant by whom he was sent for; that, however, I would forgive him what he had done already, if he would repent of it, and BE FAITHFUL to me hereafter.”
Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1987). The works of Josephus: complete and unabridged (p. 7). Peabody: Hendrickson.
This story nicely shows the fuller meaning of "belief." "Believing" toward someone, is a matter of pledging loyalty, or faithfulness, or allegiance to someone.
3) "Believing" used absolutely/substantivally:
John also uses the verb "believing" to describe Jesus' disciples. They are called "the ones believing."
I'm going into this study assuming that this expression describes people who "believe that" certain things are true about Jesus, and also "give allegiance to" Jesus. "Believing" includes both knowledge, and commitment.
Now, in any given verse, one aspect of this might be more prominent than the other. So I'm going to play it by ear, and try to leave a footnote for you pointing you to "faith" language, when I'm faced with a decision about translating it "believe" or "give allegiance."
"believing" used absolutely/substantively: 1:7, 50; 3:12; 15:18; 4:41, 42, 48, 53; 5:44; 6:36, 47, 64 (2x); 9:38; 10:25, 26; 11:15, 40; 12:39; 14:11, 29; 16:31; 19:35; 20:8, 25, 29, 31.
(There's also a fourth category that I won't get in to:)
"believing" with a dative "in/into": 2:22; 4:21, 50; 5:24, 38, 46, 47; 6:30; 8:31, 45, 46; 10:37, 38; 12:38; 14:11.
All of this was a lot. I don't expect you to remember everything. But I think you'll surprise yourself, with how much comes back as we start working in the Gospel of John. And, as always, I'm happy to give a copy of this (the manuscript) to anyone who wants one.
