John #6

As well as the Gospel and letters of John this Bible study uses the book “Written that you may believe: Encountering Jesus in the fourth Gospel” by Sandra M. Schneiders (2003) Crossroad Publishing Co. New York, NY.

Background reading to study #6- Written that you may believe chapter 5.

John and Commitment - 05/20/10

Commitment is a key theme in John, one that is linked to the early church’s relationship to “the Jews”. In this Gospel there is the most tension between the emerging faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God and traditional Judaism. Judaism was beginning to define itself over and against this emerging faith. The gospel message had already moved into the Gentile world –apparent in the Synoptics, where the Jewish question is present but not as intense. In many ways they had already moved beyond this, focusing instead on the Greek and Roman world. In John, however, it remains a central question – and there is great pain in it.

Unlike the Synoptics and most of the Pauline works, the Jews are called “the Jews” rather than the more specific “chief priests”, “scribes”, or “people of Jerusalem”. Rather the whole body of the Jews is named. In our contemporary world this is very controversial. John’s Gospel, more than any other Biblical text, has led to claims anti-Semitism. There have even been calls to delete these passages in the text.

Schneider argues that John’s reference to “the Jews” is only to the chief priests and Jewish leaders. It is hard to make this claim from the text however. Judaism in Jesus’ time was a pluralist movement made up of many different sects. Among these were the Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees and the early Christians in Jerusalem who originally attended temple - Messianic Jews. As the years went by opposition between Jews and Christians became more definite. It became even more emphatic after the destruction of Jerusalem following the Jewish rebellion (66-70 AD) when over a million Jews lost their lives. The Christians were making enormous claims about Jesus. He substituted for everything of importance to the Jews – Law, Temple, Land. As this became increasingly obvious Christians were forced out of the Synagogues. At the turn of the century there was a parting of the ways.

In John the person of Jesus is central to everything. He came from Judaism, yet the Jewish community rejected his message. “The Jews” in John refers to the body of people who are denying these Christian claims. It does not refer to a particular subset. In some ways Christianity created the current Western definition of “Jews” (i.e. the ones who are not Christians). The tension develops out of the emergence of Christianity. Christians and Jews have become like warring siblings. They cannot get away from each other, are in fact dependent on each other, because they are defined by each other. This is part of the sorrow and the trial of Christianity and Judaism. Contemporary pluralism tries to gloss over this--and is valid as far as it goes--but root tensions remain.

More than any other writing it is the gospel of John which launches this drama into the world. In John’s Gospel Jesus did not intend to set up something separate from Judaism – all Jews were called to follow Jesus. Many did not choose to do this. Those who refused Jesus were associated in John’s time with the “world”. They became the bad guys. The intensity of the Gospel leaves no room for middle ground. Being a true Israelite for John was not a matter of biology, but of faith. John’s Gospel has intensified the violence in Christian history because the text can be (and has been) interpreted in a violent way. John did not intend his gospel to be a manifesto against all subsequent generations of Jews, rather simply a definitive statement of the meaning of Jesus. This tension can only be resolved through complete fidelity to Jesus’ non-violence.

The clearing of the temple is placed at the beginning of John. It is his first public act (whereas in the Synoptics it is his last). John sets the scene by clearing the ground. Humans have always used sacrifice as a way of communicating with God and discharging violence. By clearing the Temple Jesus dismantles this mechanism, breaking the cycle of violence. He points to something new. Placing the clearing of the temple at the beginning of the narrative shows the enormous confidence of John. If you get rid of the temple then Jesus can take center stage.

The absolute importance of Jesus, what he means for the world, is made clear in the following passages:

In Jn 5:19-20 there is a visual communication with the Father: “The Son can do nothing on his own, only what he sees the Father doing”.

Jn6:42-45 “No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father”. Any relationship with Jesus is initiated by the act of the Father. The Father moves directly to put you in relationship to Jesus. The initiative is with the Father.

Jn 7:16 “My teaching is not mine but his who sent me”. The validity of Jesus’ teaching will be evident to all who seek to do the will of God.

Jn 7:27-29 “I know him because I am from him and he sent me”. There is a direct link between Jesus and the Father.

Jn 8: 29 “I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me”. This shows a great intimacy, a unity of heart between Jesus and the Father. There is an intimacy and communion between the two. Jesus is “close to the Father’s heart”,(Jn1:18).

This language can sound metaphysical but this intimacy is always in connection to Jesus being “raised up” – his crucifixion and pouring himself out as breath and Spirit. His equality with the Father is only in this context.

This is illustrated after in the Gospel. As the crucifixion draws nearer, the initiative shifts from the Father to the Son. In Jn 14:6-7 Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No-one can come to the Father except thru’ the Son. By knowing Jesus you know the Father.

In Jn 14:9 whoever has seen Jesus has seen the Father and in Jn15:23 whoever hates Jesus hates the Father. In Jn 16:15 “All that the Father has is mine”. And in v.23 “If you ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you”. These passages build up the privileged relationship between Jesus and the Father. This relationship is often understood ontologically (an essentialist understanding). The Father and Son are of the same “substance” (Greek “homoousios”). Later the Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, would be included. It becomes an intellectual doctrine to explain three persons, one God.

The oneness that Jesus had with the Father is better understood anthropologically as resulting from a relationship without violence (without denying a final ontological truth—although intellectually this remains mysterious). There was no violence between them, only confidence, intimacy and peace. With everyone else some violence exists within the God relationship – a suspicion that God cannot love us absolutely. God is used against people. People fear God. Our relationship with God is implicated in violence. It is the relationship that Jesus had with the Father that enabled him to do what he did and is at the heart of John’s description of Jesus.

So the call to commitment in John is to jettison the old ways, the ancient traditions, in favor of this new relationship. It is this decision that the “Jews” were being asked to make. The price of this choice was religious rejection and persecution and having to leave behind beloved and familiar traditions. For Christians today any commitment that stands in the way of this relationship to Jesus becomes idolatry.