Does John have a Deeper Meaning?
There are essentially two ways of reading the gospel of John. For the casual observer, John is a mere historical account of Jesus words and deeds. John’s meaning is straightforward and uncomplicated, what the gospel says is what the gospel means. Meaning exists on the surface. But for those who take a second look, John's gospel appears to be more than a literal account of Jesus ministry and message. One begins to get a sense of this through a careful comparison of the gospels.
A cursory glance at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reveals that they have much in common. Each narrates the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth in apparent biographical detail. Each record his ministry and message, as well as the miracles he performed. Each of them slows down and zooms in on the events of Christ’s crucifixion and above the reports of his resurrection. But a more detailed inspection we find that the four Gospels of the New Testament group themselves into two distinct groups.
Matthew, Mark and Luke possesses an interrelationship that is absent from the gospel of John. It has been estimated that 92% of Mark's gospel, the scenes he uses, the order in which he uses them, as well as his very wording, can be found in Matthew and Luke. Luke and Matthew also share a great deal, possessing some 200 versus in common. For this reason the first three gospels have been dubbed the Synoptic Gospels, meaning "to see with or together." John, on the other hand, does not partake of this interrelationship. As Peter Ellis so eliquently states, "John deals with the same revealed truth as Matthew, Mark (and) Luke... His way of speaking about that truth, however, is different. Like waters from the same source, the Johannine... and synoptic traditions all come from the same historical Jesus but flow through different lands, pick up different textures, and emerge as observably different rivers."
Lets look at some of John's unique features. Matthew, Mark and Luke each tell us that Jesus cleansed the temple one week before his crucifixion. In John, however, Jesus cleanses the temple at the beginning of his ministry. Did it happen at the beginning or the end? Some have tried to reconcile the two accounts by stating that Jesus cleansed the temple twice. However, this appears to be an addition to what the scriptures are saying.
Another example of how the Synoptics and John disagree is in there presentation of the Christ's temptation in the wilderness. The synoptics each state that after his baptism, Jesus went into the desert to be tempted forty days and forty nights. After the temptation he returns to Galilee. John on the other hand never mentions the forty day period. Instead he gives a specific day by day account of Jesus baptism by John and his return to Cana of Galilee. In John there are only three days seperating Jesus' baptism and his return to Galilee. Thus, in John there is no room for the temptation.
The question becomes how are we to deal with these contradictions. If we take the gospels in these instances as straight forward historical/biographical accounts they clearly disagree. Origen, the third centuray Christian teacher, provides us with our options in dealing with this dilemma,
"The student, staggered at the consideration of these things, will either renounce the attempt to find all the Gospels true, and not venturing to conclude that all our information about our Lord is untrustworthy, will choose at random one of them to be his guide; or he will accept the four, and will consider that their truth is not to be sought in the outward and material letter."
Should we abandon the inspiration of scripture? By no means. The answer to this dilemma is in how we interpret these accounts. The truth of John's gospel is not to be sought in the outward and material letter but rather in its deeper meaning. In my next post I will show how John creates a two layered story, possessing both surface and sub textual meaning.
A cursory glance at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reveals that they have much in common. Each narrates the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth in apparent biographical detail. Each record his ministry and message, as well as the miracles he performed. Each of them slows down and zooms in on the events of Christ’s crucifixion and above the reports of his resurrection. But a more detailed inspection we find that the four Gospels of the New Testament group themselves into two distinct groups.
Matthew, Mark and Luke possesses an interrelationship that is absent from the gospel of John. It has been estimated that 92% of Mark's gospel, the scenes he uses, the order in which he uses them, as well as his very wording, can be found in Matthew and Luke. Luke and Matthew also share a great deal, possessing some 200 versus in common. For this reason the first three gospels have been dubbed the Synoptic Gospels, meaning "to see with or together." John, on the other hand, does not partake of this interrelationship. As Peter Ellis so eliquently states, "John deals with the same revealed truth as Matthew, Mark (and) Luke... His way of speaking about that truth, however, is different. Like waters from the same source, the Johannine... and synoptic traditions all come from the same historical Jesus but flow through different lands, pick up different textures, and emerge as observably different rivers."
Lets look at some of John's unique features. Matthew, Mark and Luke each tell us that Jesus cleansed the temple one week before his crucifixion. In John, however, Jesus cleanses the temple at the beginning of his ministry. Did it happen at the beginning or the end? Some have tried to reconcile the two accounts by stating that Jesus cleansed the temple twice. However, this appears to be an addition to what the scriptures are saying.
Another example of how the Synoptics and John disagree is in there presentation of the Christ's temptation in the wilderness. The synoptics each state that after his baptism, Jesus went into the desert to be tempted forty days and forty nights. After the temptation he returns to Galilee. John on the other hand never mentions the forty day period. Instead he gives a specific day by day account of Jesus baptism by John and his return to Cana of Galilee. In John there are only three days seperating Jesus' baptism and his return to Galilee. Thus, in John there is no room for the temptation.
The question becomes how are we to deal with these contradictions. If we take the gospels in these instances as straight forward historical/biographical accounts they clearly disagree. Origen, the third centuray Christian teacher, provides us with our options in dealing with this dilemma,
"The student, staggered at the consideration of these things, will either renounce the attempt to find all the Gospels true, and not venturing to conclude that all our information about our Lord is untrustworthy, will choose at random one of them to be his guide; or he will accept the four, and will consider that their truth is not to be sought in the outward and material letter."
Should we abandon the inspiration of scripture? By no means. The answer to this dilemma is in how we interpret these accounts. The truth of John's gospel is not to be sought in the outward and material letter but rather in its deeper meaning. In my next post I will show how John creates a two layered story, possessing both surface and sub textual meaning.
posted by Matthew Miller at 11:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home