The Gospel Of John: An Introduction Series

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.