The theme of judgment is a theme of medium priority in John’s Gospel overall, but the amount of space devoted to the theme of judgment is surprisingly large all the same. Of greatest polemical significance is the idea that Jesus has a special role to play in God’s work of judgment. Even though the Father is both King and Judge, he has “given all judgment to the Son” (John 5:22). This corresponds to Paul’s teaching that on the day of judgment each person will be called to stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of what they have done (2 Cor 5:10).
According to John 5:27, Jesus has received this “authority to execute judgment” from the Father, because he is the Son of Man in fulfillment of Dan 7:13–14. This judging function would not, however, be taken up in earnest until the day of judgment. Before this time, Jesus’ role is to bring salvation more than judgment per se. Thus, John’s Gospel teaches that “God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:18). Jesus himself teaches that he “did not come to judge the world but to save the world” (John 12:47). Even though Jesus’ primary purpose for coming into the world was not that of judgment, nevertheless Jesus also taught that he had come into the world “for judgment … that those who do not see may see and that those who see may become blind” (John 9:39). In other words, even though Jesus primary purpose in his first coming was that of salvation rather than judgment, because judgment is the flipside of salvation, we can say that Jesus also came “for judgment.” Jesus denied that he would judge the person who heard his sayings yet did not keep them, but at the same time this person will be judged “on the last day” in relation to the words of revelation that Jesus had spoken while in the world (John 12:47–48). Jesus also taught that through his death and glorification “the judgment of this world” had already come (John 12:31).
Also of polemical significance in the historical context of John’s day is the idea presented forcefully in the Gospel that a person’s faith in Jesus determines whether or not he or she will be condemned in the day of judgment. The person “who believes in [Jesus] is not condemned,” but “he who does not believe is condemned already” (John 3:18). Those who reject Jesus will be judged for loving darkness rather than the light of Christ (John 3:19). Jesus taught that “he who he hears my word and believes him who sent me … does not come into judgment but has passed from death to life” (John 5:24). Such people will participate in “the resurrection of life” rather than “the resurrection of judgment” that is reserved for “those who have done evil” rather than “good” (John 5:29).
The theme of judgment also applies in John’s Gospel to the issue of Jesus’ identity, which was a matter of serious debate between Jesus and his Jewish opponents. Jesus occasionally talked of his witness about himself as being his “judgment” (John 5:30). Jesus made the claim that “[his] judgment is just” in his opinion about himself, for he was only following his Father’s will in so judging (John 5:30). Jesus said to the Pharisees that he had “much to say about [them] and much to judge” (John 8:26). On another occasion, when debating with the Pharisees, Jesus said that he “judge[s] no one” (John 8:15). At the same time, however, Jesus’ judgment is not his alone but also the judgment of the Father who sent him (John 8:16). Thus, Jesus’ judgment or opinion about himself is not ultimately his but his Father’s.
John’s Gospel is also concerned with the issue of right judgment. Jesus accused his opponents of judging “by appearances” (John 7:24) and “according to the flesh” (John 8:15) rather than “with right judgment” (John 7:24). Jesus was judged by the Jews according to the Mosaic law but unfairly so (John 7:51; 18:31). Pilate adjudged Jesus to be innocent of crime (John 18:38; 19:4, 6), but he nevertheless delivered Jesus over to be crucified (John 19:16).
John’s Gospel also speaks of a role for the Holy Spirit in the work of judgment. The Spirit would “convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8). This is best understood as a kind of argument based on the order of events in salvation history. The coming of the Spirit upon Jesus’ disciples at Pentecost implies the fact of Jesus’ ascension, which in turn proves the truthfulness of Jesus’ claims about himself. This argument is similar to Peter’s salvation-historical logic in Acts 2 (see especially Acts 2:32–33, 36). In this way, the coming of the Spirit would convict the world of the sinfulness of rejecting Jesus Christ (John 16:9), vindicate Christ by proving his righteousness in all that he said and did (John 16:10), and prove that through Jesus’ death and resurrection “the ruler of this world has been judged” (John 16:11) and “cast out” (John 12:31–32).
Showing posts with label John. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John. Show all posts
11 November 2010
08 November 2010
The Eucharist in the Gospel of John
Even though John’s Gospel provides an account of the Last Supper in chs. 13–14, it is somewhat surprising that there is no account of the actual institution of the Lord’s Supper in John’s Gospel, unlike the situation that is found in the Synoptics. This detail has led some scholars to speculate that John’s Gospel was written in part to de-emphasize a sacramental theology in the early church that had elevated the sacraments to a point where the reality of Christ behind the sacramental signs was in danger of being obscured.
It has also been argued that Jesus’ teaching in John 6 that he is the bread of life also functions to de-emphasize such an overly elevated view of the eucharist. It is argued from John 6:35 in particular that the language of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking Jesus’ blood is merely to be understood as a combined metaphor for coming to Jesus and believing in him. In addition to this, the teaching in John 6:63 that “it is the Spirit who gives life” and that “the flesh is of no avail” has been taken as a possible critique of the view which emphasizes the physical dimension of the eucharist to the detriment of the spiritual reality to which the physical signs are supposed to point.
Opposing this view of an anti-sacramental theology in John’s Gospel, the majority of modern day scholarship has seen a positive link between John 6 and the Lord’s Supper. Raymond Brown is of the opinion that there are “secondary, eucharistic undertones” in John 6:35–50, and an explicit allusion to the Lord’s Supper in vv. 51–58 (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John I-XII: Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AB 29; Wimbledon: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971], 274). Rudolf Bultmann commenting on John 6:27–59 says that the concepts of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood “refer without any doubt to the sacramental meal of the Eucharist” (Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary [Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1971], 218).
C. K. Barrett also sees an allusion to the eucharist in John 6:51–58. He takes the addition of the words “drink his blood” in John 6:53 as pointing “unmistakably … to the eucharist” (C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John: An Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text [2nd ed.; London: SPCK, 1978], 299). At the same time, however, he makes the point that an allusion to the eucharist “does not in itself determine what John’s eucharistic theology was” (ibid., 297). He disputes that John 6:51–58 presents “the bread and wine to be a kind of medicine, conferring immortality by quasi-magical means” (ibid.). The “removal of the eucharistic allusion from the last supper” to the narrative in John 6 shows that John’s “intention” was “to set the eucharist in the context of the work of Jesus as a whole and to give it a strictly personal interpretation” (ibid.). Somewhat similar to Barrett, Leon Morris prefers the view that takes the teaching of Jesus in John 6:27–58 as being “primarily ... about spiritual realities” (Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John [Rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 313). At the same time, however, he “does not deny that there may be a secondary reference to the sacrament” (ibid.).
In all of this discussion, we should keep in mind that the immediate significance of the metaphors of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood in the context of Jesus’ dialogue with the crowd is definitely related to the need to become united with Jesus through faith so as to participate in the life-giving power of his sacrificial death. That is, the metaphors used by Jesus at this point speak of the need for faith in Jesus as the condition for eternal life. This is also the primary significance of the teaching in John 6:25–59 for readers of John’s Gospel today. Nevertheless, given that the New Testament testifies that the early church regularly participated in the Lord’s Supper whenever they met together (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7; 1 Cor 11:33), and that participation in the Lord’s Supper is itself a pledge of personal faith in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony—participation in the Lord’s Supper is meant to be viewed as involving a public confession of faith confirming the confession of faith made at baptism—it is reasonable to assume that Jesus’ knew and intended that these provocative metaphors would allow links to be drawn in the minds of the early Christians between his teaching in John 6 with the familiar practice of the Lord’s Supper. If this is true, then John 6:25–58 also speaks in a secondary way of the significance of what we do when we participate in the Lord’s Supper. When we come to Jesus in the Lord’s Supper with faith in our hearts, we are assured that the power of his lifeblood is at work in us. Given the anti-Baptist and particularly anti-Judaistic orientation of John’s Gospel, it is also reasonable to assume that the function of John 6:25–58 in the polemical contect of the day would have implied an assertion of the efficacy and necessity of the Lord’s Supper (by which the gospel is formally sealed to believers) over against the rites of the communities with which the John’s Christian community was in competition (i.e., the followers of John the Baptist, and the orthodox Jewish community).
Attention has also been drawn to John 15:1–11 as being another allusion to the eucharist. Given that John 15:1–16:33 seems to record the teaching that Jesus gave to his disciples on the way to the Kidron Valley just after the conclusion of the Last Supper, we are obviously meant to understand Jesus’ teaching in John 15:1–11 in the context of the Passover meal that had just been celebrated. Furthermore, given that this Passover meal provided the model for the Lord’s Supper, it seems that Jesus’ teaching in John 15:1–11 also functions as a reflection on the deeper significance of the Lord’s Supper. As we participate in the Lord’s Supper, we renew our faith union with Jesus, and commit ourselves to his service to bear fruit for him, and to the bond of love which Jesus would have us maintain with our Christian brothers and sisters. It is quite possible that the tradition of calling the Lord’s Supper a “love feast” (Jude 12) stems from this teaching of the Lord. Participation in the Lord’s Supper is not only meant to be a communion in the death and life of the Lord Jesus, but also a communion of love of Christians with one another.
It has also been argued that Jesus’ teaching in John 6 that he is the bread of life also functions to de-emphasize such an overly elevated view of the eucharist. It is argued from John 6:35 in particular that the language of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking Jesus’ blood is merely to be understood as a combined metaphor for coming to Jesus and believing in him. In addition to this, the teaching in John 6:63 that “it is the Spirit who gives life” and that “the flesh is of no avail” has been taken as a possible critique of the view which emphasizes the physical dimension of the eucharist to the detriment of the spiritual reality to which the physical signs are supposed to point.
Opposing this view of an anti-sacramental theology in John’s Gospel, the majority of modern day scholarship has seen a positive link between John 6 and the Lord’s Supper. Raymond Brown is of the opinion that there are “secondary, eucharistic undertones” in John 6:35–50, and an explicit allusion to the Lord’s Supper in vv. 51–58 (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John I-XII: Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AB 29; Wimbledon: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971], 274). Rudolf Bultmann commenting on John 6:27–59 says that the concepts of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood “refer without any doubt to the sacramental meal of the Eucharist” (Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary [Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1971], 218).
C. K. Barrett also sees an allusion to the eucharist in John 6:51–58. He takes the addition of the words “drink his blood” in John 6:53 as pointing “unmistakably … to the eucharist” (C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John: An Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text [2nd ed.; London: SPCK, 1978], 299). At the same time, however, he makes the point that an allusion to the eucharist “does not in itself determine what John’s eucharistic theology was” (ibid., 297). He disputes that John 6:51–58 presents “the bread and wine to be a kind of medicine, conferring immortality by quasi-magical means” (ibid.). The “removal of the eucharistic allusion from the last supper” to the narrative in John 6 shows that John’s “intention” was “to set the eucharist in the context of the work of Jesus as a whole and to give it a strictly personal interpretation” (ibid.). Somewhat similar to Barrett, Leon Morris prefers the view that takes the teaching of Jesus in John 6:27–58 as being “primarily ... about spiritual realities” (Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John [Rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 313). At the same time, however, he “does not deny that there may be a secondary reference to the sacrament” (ibid.).
In all of this discussion, we should keep in mind that the immediate significance of the metaphors of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood in the context of Jesus’ dialogue with the crowd is definitely related to the need to become united with Jesus through faith so as to participate in the life-giving power of his sacrificial death. That is, the metaphors used by Jesus at this point speak of the need for faith in Jesus as the condition for eternal life. This is also the primary significance of the teaching in John 6:25–59 for readers of John’s Gospel today. Nevertheless, given that the New Testament testifies that the early church regularly participated in the Lord’s Supper whenever they met together (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7; 1 Cor 11:33), and that participation in the Lord’s Supper is itself a pledge of personal faith in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony—participation in the Lord’s Supper is meant to be viewed as involving a public confession of faith confirming the confession of faith made at baptism—it is reasonable to assume that Jesus’ knew and intended that these provocative metaphors would allow links to be drawn in the minds of the early Christians between his teaching in John 6 with the familiar practice of the Lord’s Supper. If this is true, then John 6:25–58 also speaks in a secondary way of the significance of what we do when we participate in the Lord’s Supper. When we come to Jesus in the Lord’s Supper with faith in our hearts, we are assured that the power of his lifeblood is at work in us. Given the anti-Baptist and particularly anti-Judaistic orientation of John’s Gospel, it is also reasonable to assume that the function of John 6:25–58 in the polemical contect of the day would have implied an assertion of the efficacy and necessity of the Lord’s Supper (by which the gospel is formally sealed to believers) over against the rites of the communities with which the John’s Christian community was in competition (i.e., the followers of John the Baptist, and the orthodox Jewish community).
Attention has also been drawn to John 15:1–11 as being another allusion to the eucharist. Given that John 15:1–16:33 seems to record the teaching that Jesus gave to his disciples on the way to the Kidron Valley just after the conclusion of the Last Supper, we are obviously meant to understand Jesus’ teaching in John 15:1–11 in the context of the Passover meal that had just been celebrated. Furthermore, given that this Passover meal provided the model for the Lord’s Supper, it seems that Jesus’ teaching in John 15:1–11 also functions as a reflection on the deeper significance of the Lord’s Supper. As we participate in the Lord’s Supper, we renew our faith union with Jesus, and commit ourselves to his service to bear fruit for him, and to the bond of love which Jesus would have us maintain with our Christian brothers and sisters. It is quite possible that the tradition of calling the Lord’s Supper a “love feast” (Jude 12) stems from this teaching of the Lord. Participation in the Lord’s Supper is not only meant to be a communion in the death and life of the Lord Jesus, but also a communion of love of Christians with one another.
03 November 2010
Baptism in the Gospel of John
Even though there is no specific command in John’s Gospel concerning the need for baptism, it is significant that John’s Gospel is the only gospel which records that baptism was an important part of Jesus’ public ministry. In John 3:22, the author records that Jesus “baptized” a large number of people, so much so that his ministry of baptism began to eclipse the widely popular ministry of John the Baptist. Even though this verse records that Jesus “baptized,” John 4:2 records that Jesus did not actually baptize anyone himself; rather he authorized his disciples to perform baptism on his behalf. But even though Jesus did not personally conduct baptisms, it is clear from the Gospel of John that baptism in water was important in the ministry of Jesus. This aspect of Jesus’ ministry is something that we do not see in the Synoptics.
The meaning given to baptism in John’s Gospel is also worthy of consideration. Baptism is linked to discipleship in the sense that submission to Jesus’ baptism was the initial formal step by which a person became a disciple of Jesus. This is clear from the wording of John 4:1, which says that “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples and John.” This link between baptism and discipleship is echoed in the theology of the Great Commission in Matt 28:19, where it is taught that disciples are formally “made” through baptism. Having been baptized, the disciple is then obligated to learn from his or her master, to follow his example (John 13:14–15), by keeping the master’s teaching (John 17:6), and obeying his commandments (Matt 28:20; John 15:10). By keeping the master’s commandments, the disciple remains in the master’s love (John 15:10).
There has been a great deal of debate over whether or not Jesus’ teaching concerning rebirth “by water and spirit” in John 3:5 is a reference to Christian baptism. It is best to take these words spoken by Jesus in his dialogue with Nicodemus as teaching about the need for conversion by the Holy Spirit, with water (as is usual in John’s Gospel) being a metaphor for the Holy Spirit. At the same time, however, this metaphor lends itself to seeing a close connection between physical water and the Holy Spirit. The practice of Gentile proselyte baptism, in which Gentile converts to Judaism were considered to become like newborn children makes it quite likely that the word water would have conveyed the idea of baptism, or at least some kind of ceremonial washing, to a Jewish audience. Ezekiel 36:24–27 also connects the future work of the Spirit with the image of water sprinkled upon Israel in order to cleanse her from her uncleanness.
Since conversion or baptism by the Holy Spirit is paralleled in John 3:15–16, 18 with believing in Jesus, the obvious conclusion that must be drawn is that the new birth (i.e., baptism in the Holy Spirit) begins (for the adult convert) when one confesses faith in Jesus Christ. For the early church, the Christian confession of faith consisted of a public confession of belief in Jesus as Messiah using the formula (in a Jewish context) I believe that Jesus is the Christ (John 20:31), or I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Acts 8:37), which became in a Gentile context the confession that Jesus is Lord (Rom 10:9). The practice of the early church was that a person’s confession of faith in Jesus would be formally sealed in the act of baptism, which was performed immediately upon confession of faith. The book of Acts records no less than nine instances of converts being baptized immediately (or “at once” according to Acts 16:33) upon confession of faith. These are: the 3,000 converted at Pentecost (Acts 2:38,41); the Samaritans (8:12); the Ethiopian eunuch (8:37–38); the Apostle Paul (9:18; 22:16); the first Gentile converts (10:47–48); Lydia (16:14–15); the Philippian jailer (16:31–33); the Corinthians (18:8); and the twelve disciples of John the Baptist (19:3–5). This indicates that the early church thought of baptism as an integral part of conversion (hence, Peter could teach in 1 Pet 3:21 that “baptism … saves you”). Furthermore, it was the belief of the early church that the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit was ordinarily received through Christian baptism (Acts 2:38, 41; 5:32; 19:2; 1 Cor 12:13; Tit 3:5), following the model of Jesus’ baptism, in which there was a conjunction of water and the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:21–22). Exceptions to the rule of the conjunction of water and the Holy Spirit in baptism only happened at special stages in God’s plan of salvation, such as at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4) and upon the conversion of the Samaritans (Acts 8:14–17) and the first Gentiles (Acts 10:44–48).
Because this concept of the conjunction of water and the Holy Spirit in baptism was prevalent in the early church, it is most likely that John’s Christian audience, and non-Christians acquainted with Christian religious practices, would have understood the phrase of water and spirit as having some kind of link with Christian baptism. Thus, Jesus’ teaching in John 3:5 can be understood as an implied call for non-believers to convert to Christianity, i.e., to be baptized and to become disciples of Jesus Christ, similar to the teaching of the early church that is recorded in Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.”
In sum, it is best to take the primary reference of the words of water and spirit on the lips of Jesus as referring to conversion by the Spirit, but at the same time this implies the necessity of Christian baptism, because baptism in water and the Spirit were ordinarily viewed in the early church as happening together as part of the process of conversion.
The meaning given to baptism in John’s Gospel is also worthy of consideration. Baptism is linked to discipleship in the sense that submission to Jesus’ baptism was the initial formal step by which a person became a disciple of Jesus. This is clear from the wording of John 4:1, which says that “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples and John.” This link between baptism and discipleship is echoed in the theology of the Great Commission in Matt 28:19, where it is taught that disciples are formally “made” through baptism. Having been baptized, the disciple is then obligated to learn from his or her master, to follow his example (John 13:14–15), by keeping the master’s teaching (John 17:6), and obeying his commandments (Matt 28:20; John 15:10). By keeping the master’s commandments, the disciple remains in the master’s love (John 15:10).
There has been a great deal of debate over whether or not Jesus’ teaching concerning rebirth “by water and spirit” in John 3:5 is a reference to Christian baptism. It is best to take these words spoken by Jesus in his dialogue with Nicodemus as teaching about the need for conversion by the Holy Spirit, with water (as is usual in John’s Gospel) being a metaphor for the Holy Spirit. At the same time, however, this metaphor lends itself to seeing a close connection between physical water and the Holy Spirit. The practice of Gentile proselyte baptism, in which Gentile converts to Judaism were considered to become like newborn children makes it quite likely that the word water would have conveyed the idea of baptism, or at least some kind of ceremonial washing, to a Jewish audience. Ezekiel 36:24–27 also connects the future work of the Spirit with the image of water sprinkled upon Israel in order to cleanse her from her uncleanness.
Since conversion or baptism by the Holy Spirit is paralleled in John 3:15–16, 18 with believing in Jesus, the obvious conclusion that must be drawn is that the new birth (i.e., baptism in the Holy Spirit) begins (for the adult convert) when one confesses faith in Jesus Christ. For the early church, the Christian confession of faith consisted of a public confession of belief in Jesus as Messiah using the formula (in a Jewish context) I believe that Jesus is the Christ (John 20:31), or I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Acts 8:37), which became in a Gentile context the confession that Jesus is Lord (Rom 10:9). The practice of the early church was that a person’s confession of faith in Jesus would be formally sealed in the act of baptism, which was performed immediately upon confession of faith. The book of Acts records no less than nine instances of converts being baptized immediately (or “at once” according to Acts 16:33) upon confession of faith. These are: the 3,000 converted at Pentecost (Acts 2:38,41); the Samaritans (8:12); the Ethiopian eunuch (8:37–38); the Apostle Paul (9:18; 22:16); the first Gentile converts (10:47–48); Lydia (16:14–15); the Philippian jailer (16:31–33); the Corinthians (18:8); and the twelve disciples of John the Baptist (19:3–5). This indicates that the early church thought of baptism as an integral part of conversion (hence, Peter could teach in 1 Pet 3:21 that “baptism … saves you”). Furthermore, it was the belief of the early church that the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit was ordinarily received through Christian baptism (Acts 2:38, 41; 5:32; 19:2; 1 Cor 12:13; Tit 3:5), following the model of Jesus’ baptism, in which there was a conjunction of water and the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:21–22). Exceptions to the rule of the conjunction of water and the Holy Spirit in baptism only happened at special stages in God’s plan of salvation, such as at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4) and upon the conversion of the Samaritans (Acts 8:14–17) and the first Gentiles (Acts 10:44–48).
Because this concept of the conjunction of water and the Holy Spirit in baptism was prevalent in the early church, it is most likely that John’s Christian audience, and non-Christians acquainted with Christian religious practices, would have understood the phrase of water and spirit as having some kind of link with Christian baptism. Thus, Jesus’ teaching in John 3:5 can be understood as an implied call for non-believers to convert to Christianity, i.e., to be baptized and to become disciples of Jesus Christ, similar to the teaching of the early church that is recorded in Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.”
In sum, it is best to take the primary reference of the words of water and spirit on the lips of Jesus as referring to conversion by the Spirit, but at the same time this implies the necessity of Christian baptism, because baptism in water and the Spirit were ordinarily viewed in the early church as happening together as part of the process of conversion.
31 October 2010
The Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist in the Gospel of John
The issue of the sacraments in the Gospel of John has received a lot of attention in Christian scholarship. Some scholars have even argued “that John was written to oppose people who gave too much place to the sacraments or those who gave too little place to them” (Leon Morris, “John, Gospel according to” in International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 2:1107). There has also been debate over whether or not John 3 refers to baptism, and whether or not John 6 refers to the eucharist. The extent of this debate is rather remarkable considering that, as C. K. Barrett has noted, “the Fourth [Gospel] contains no specific command of Jesus to baptize, and no account of the institution of the eucharist” (C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text [2nd ed.; London: SPCK, 1978], 82).
I agree with Don Carson that John’s Gospel “is neither sacramentarian nor anti–sacramentarian” (D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, [Leicester: IVP, 1991], 99). Carson views these categories as being inappropriate, and he is right to do so, but he argues this on the basis that the language of the Gospel “drives people to the reality, to Christ himself, refusing to stop at that which points to the reality” (ibid.).
The problem with Carson’s argument at this point is that baptism and the Lord’s Supper (in Reformed tradition at least) are not merely signs that point to Christ; they are signs that actually communicate the reality of Christ. Furthermore, while it is true that the Gospel of John is primarily a call for people to be committed to Christ and his teaching, given that early church placed great importance on baptism and the eucharist, it is highly unlikely that John and his readers would not have drawn connections between Jesus’ teaching in John 3, 6 and the important Christian rites of baptism and the eucharist. The book of Acts shows that baptism was treated as an integral part of the gospel (e.g., Acts 2:38; 8:36), and that the eucharist was an important activity in Christian worship and fellowship (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7).
Furthermore, if it is accepted that John’s Gospel was written with an evangelistic purpose in mind (primarily for confirming the belief of Christians, and secondarily to promote the conversion of unbelievers), then the issues of baptism and participation in the Lord’s Supper would naturally be present by way of implication. These were the key rites that defined initiation and continuation respectively in the Christian community.
It is valid, therefore, to allow for a deeper significance to Jesus’ words in John 3 and John 6 in the context of John’s day, where Christians (and possibly some non-Christians) would have understood Jesus’ teaching in these chapters in the context of the important Christian rites of baptism and the eucharist, allowing them to draw connections between Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel and Christian doctrine regarding the sacraments. I will pursue some of these connections in my next couple of posts.
I agree with Don Carson that John’s Gospel “is neither sacramentarian nor anti–sacramentarian” (D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, [Leicester: IVP, 1991], 99). Carson views these categories as being inappropriate, and he is right to do so, but he argues this on the basis that the language of the Gospel “drives people to the reality, to Christ himself, refusing to stop at that which points to the reality” (ibid.).
The problem with Carson’s argument at this point is that baptism and the Lord’s Supper (in Reformed tradition at least) are not merely signs that point to Christ; they are signs that actually communicate the reality of Christ. Furthermore, while it is true that the Gospel of John is primarily a call for people to be committed to Christ and his teaching, given that early church placed great importance on baptism and the eucharist, it is highly unlikely that John and his readers would not have drawn connections between Jesus’ teaching in John 3, 6 and the important Christian rites of baptism and the eucharist. The book of Acts shows that baptism was treated as an integral part of the gospel (e.g., Acts 2:38; 8:36), and that the eucharist was an important activity in Christian worship and fellowship (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7).
Furthermore, if it is accepted that John’s Gospel was written with an evangelistic purpose in mind (primarily for confirming the belief of Christians, and secondarily to promote the conversion of unbelievers), then the issues of baptism and participation in the Lord’s Supper would naturally be present by way of implication. These were the key rites that defined initiation and continuation respectively in the Christian community.
It is valid, therefore, to allow for a deeper significance to Jesus’ words in John 3 and John 6 in the context of John’s day, where Christians (and possibly some non-Christians) would have understood Jesus’ teaching in these chapters in the context of the important Christian rites of baptism and the eucharist, allowing them to draw connections between Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel and Christian doctrine regarding the sacraments. I will pursue some of these connections in my next couple of posts.
25 October 2010
The Concept of Light and Darkness in John's Gospel
Consistent with the Old Testament teaching on light and darkness outlined in my previous post “The Old Testament Background to the Concept of Light and Darkness in John’s Gospel”, the Gospel of John clearly identifies Jesus of Nazareth as being the spiritual light of the universe.
For John, Jesus is “the light of humanity” (John 1:4). The allusions in John 1:1–5 to Gen 1 (“in the beginning” in vv. 1–2; “word” in vv. 1–2; the act of creation in v. 3; life in v. 4; light and darkness in vv. 4–5) suggest that just as the word of God brought about the existence of physical light at the beginning of the history of the world, in a similar way the Word of God (who is Jesus) is the spiritual light that brings safety and life into our world of darkness (John 1:4). By Jesus coming into the world, his light has shone into the darkness; and wherever his light has reached, there the darkness has irresistably been overcome (John 1:5). At the same time, however, there are evildoers who love the darkness rather than the light, who as a consequence refuse to come to the light (John 3:19–20). In the original context, this is a reference to those Jews who were viewed as having broken the covenant with God. On the other hand, those (Israelites) who do the truth (i.e., who are committed to the covenant with God) come to the light of Christ in order to show the genuine value of their obedience to God under the Mosaic covenant (John 3:21).
John’s Gospel strongly promotes the idea that Jesus is “the true light who illuminates all people” (John 1:9). Jesus has shone in the world in order to enlighten people, regardless of nationality. He has “come as a light into the world, in order that everyone who believes in him might not abide in the darkness” (John 12:46). Thus, Jesus himself claimed to be “the light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5). Following Jesus and his teaching is to avoid “walk[ing] in the darkness,” and results in a person experiencing “the light of life” (John 8:12). It is important to walk in the daytime rather than at night. Walking in the daylight is equated with seeing “the light of this world,” the benefit being the avoidance of stumbling (John 11:9–10). Consistent with the use of this imagery in the Old Testament, the person “who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going” (John 12:35). The danger with not seeing where you are going is that you will stumble so as to fall away from the pathway of salvation. Jesus viewed his earthly ministry as the short period of time (“a little while”) in which “the light is among you” (John 12:35; see also John 9:5). He called upon the Jews of his day to “believe in the light” while the light was still among them, “in order that you might become sons of light” (John 12:36). Rejecting the light would result in the Jewish nation being overtaken by darkness (John 12:35).
John’s Gospel is also concerned to make the point that John the Baptist, when compared with Jesus, is definitely “not the light”; instead, he only bore testimony concerning the light (John 1:8). At the same time, however, Jesus acknowledges that John the Baptist was “a lamp that burns and shines,” and that the Jews “were willing for a time to rejoice in his light” (John 5:35). John the Baptist was a light, but not the light. The “true light” who came into the world, “who illuminates all people,” is none other than Jesus of Nazareth. In him the Old Testament prophetic expectation of the coming of the glory of Yahweh has been fulfilled.
For John, Jesus is “the light of humanity” (John 1:4). The allusions in John 1:1–5 to Gen 1 (“in the beginning” in vv. 1–2; “word” in vv. 1–2; the act of creation in v. 3; life in v. 4; light and darkness in vv. 4–5) suggest that just as the word of God brought about the existence of physical light at the beginning of the history of the world, in a similar way the Word of God (who is Jesus) is the spiritual light that brings safety and life into our world of darkness (John 1:4). By Jesus coming into the world, his light has shone into the darkness; and wherever his light has reached, there the darkness has irresistably been overcome (John 1:5). At the same time, however, there are evildoers who love the darkness rather than the light, who as a consequence refuse to come to the light (John 3:19–20). In the original context, this is a reference to those Jews who were viewed as having broken the covenant with God. On the other hand, those (Israelites) who do the truth (i.e., who are committed to the covenant with God) come to the light of Christ in order to show the genuine value of their obedience to God under the Mosaic covenant (John 3:21).
John’s Gospel strongly promotes the idea that Jesus is “the true light who illuminates all people” (John 1:9). Jesus has shone in the world in order to enlighten people, regardless of nationality. He has “come as a light into the world, in order that everyone who believes in him might not abide in the darkness” (John 12:46). Thus, Jesus himself claimed to be “the light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5). Following Jesus and his teaching is to avoid “walk[ing] in the darkness,” and results in a person experiencing “the light of life” (John 8:12). It is important to walk in the daytime rather than at night. Walking in the daylight is equated with seeing “the light of this world,” the benefit being the avoidance of stumbling (John 11:9–10). Consistent with the use of this imagery in the Old Testament, the person “who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going” (John 12:35). The danger with not seeing where you are going is that you will stumble so as to fall away from the pathway of salvation. Jesus viewed his earthly ministry as the short period of time (“a little while”) in which “the light is among you” (John 12:35; see also John 9:5). He called upon the Jews of his day to “believe in the light” while the light was still among them, “in order that you might become sons of light” (John 12:36). Rejecting the light would result in the Jewish nation being overtaken by darkness (John 12:35).
John’s Gospel is also concerned to make the point that John the Baptist, when compared with Jesus, is definitely “not the light”; instead, he only bore testimony concerning the light (John 1:8). At the same time, however, Jesus acknowledges that John the Baptist was “a lamp that burns and shines,” and that the Jews “were willing for a time to rejoice in his light” (John 5:35). John the Baptist was a light, but not the light. The “true light” who came into the world, “who illuminates all people,” is none other than Jesus of Nazareth. In him the Old Testament prophetic expectation of the coming of the glory of Yahweh has been fulfilled.
11 October 2010
The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John
The Gospel of John is packed full with important teaching about the Holy Spirit. John’s Gospel presents Jesus’ coming as being the key event for the accomplishment of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that had been prophesied about by the Old Testament prophets.
The view of the Holy Spirit presented in John’s Gospel fully accords with the teaching of the Old Testament in this regard. According to the Old Testament, all life whether physical or spiritual is a product of God’s Spirit (e.g., Gen 1:2; Ps 104:30; Ezek 37:14). John’s Gospel teaches that the Spirit gives life (John 6:63). The Spirit is “living water” (John 4:10). Those who drink of the Spirit live eternally (John 4:14). Rebirth by the Spirit is necessary for entering the kingdom of God (John 3:5), and for experiencing eternal life and immortality (John 3:6). In the new covenant age, this Spiritual rebirth is no longer limited to the traditional Israelite lines of covenant membership, but is open to people of all nations (John 3:8; 4:21, 23).
John’s Gospel presupposes the Old Testament teaching concerning the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament describes the old covenant age as a time in which there was a limited work of God’s Spirit writing the law on the heart. During the old covenant age, God’s law was not written in the hearts of the majority of the people of Israel. This meant that the nation of Israel viewed as a whole did not walk in the way of God’s law, thereby breaking the covenant with God. This led to the covenant curses coming down upon Israel, culminating in the exile to Babylon. Even though God had allowed the Jews to come back to Judea after the exile, the time of covenant blessing had not yet come. The Old Testament looked forward, therefore, to a new age when God would pour out his Spirit upon Israel and all flesh. This eschatological work of the Holy Spirit would result in Israel returning to God in covenant obedience (see Deut 30:6; Jer 31:31–33; Ezek 36:24–27).
As Jer 31:31–33 and Ezek 36:25–28 make known, the coming of the new covenant age would mark the beginning of a transformation in the comprehensiveness of the work of the Holy Spirit. Instead of the limited work of the Spirit under the old covenant (which led to the covenant failure and exile of Israel among the nations), the Holy Spirit would be poured out in a greater way such that the hearts of the people of Israel would be changed, with the result that Israel would return to God in true worship and obedience and, as a result, begin to experience covenant blessing instead of covenant curse.
John’s Gospel is concerned to link this Old Testament prophetic expectation of the eschatological gift of the Spirit with the ministry of Jesus. The Old Testament prophets understood that the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit would come about through the ministry of the Messiah (e.g., Isa 11:1–5; 44:1–5; and 55:1–4), through the work of the Spirit-filled suffering Servant (e.g., Isa 42:1–7; 49:1–6; 61:1–4). John’s Gospel proclaims Jesus of Nazareth as being none other than this Spirit-filled suffering Servant-Messiah who has come into the world to accomplish the promised eschatological outpouring of the Spirit of life.
Thus, Jesus is presented in John’s Gospel as being the one upon whom the Holy Spirit descended and upon whom the Holy Spirit remains (John 1:32). Jesus has received the Spirit without measure (John 3:34). Following the more likely interpretation of John 7:38, “rivers of living water” flow from within the Messiah, who is himself the eschatological temple, bringing life and blessing to the world, in fulfillment of Ezek 47:1–10. Because Jesus is the Spirit-filled Messiah and Spirit-filled Servant, he is the person who would (after his glorification) baptize people in the Holy Spirit (John 1:33). He gives the living water of the Spirit to those who ask of him (John 4:10, 14). But only those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah can receive this gift (John 7:37–39). In other words, the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit is performed by Jesus. The Spirit proceeds from God the Father, but would be sent by Jesus to dwell within his disciples (John 14:17; 15:26). The Spirit would be given to those who love Jesus and who keep his word (John 14:23), but not to the unregenerate people of the world (John 14:17). Jesus’ disciples would see the Spirit and know him (John 14:17). The Spirit would abide with them forever (John 14:16). This eschatological outpouring of the Spirit, however, would not take place until after Jesus’ glorification (John 7:39). In God’s plan, the comprehensive outpouring of the Spirit was reserved for the new covenant age, which would be inaugurated through the death and resurrection of Christ.
The coming of the Spirit would be beneficial for Jesus’ disciples in a number of ways. The Spirit would be their Paraklete, their Helper. He would mediate to Jesus’ disciples the presence of the Father and the Son (John 14:21, 23). As the Spirit of truth, he would help God’s people worship God in the proper way (John 4:23–24). He would also guide Jesus’ disciples into all truth (John 16:13), reminding them of Jesus’ teaching (John 14:26), and testifying about Jesus to them (John 15:26). He would receive revelation from Jesus to pass on to Jesus’ disciples (John 16:13–15).
The teaching in John’s Gospel about the Holy Spirit is concluded in 20:22 when Jesus breathes upon his disciples, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” There has been some discussion on the relationship of this incident with the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost, but it is probably best to understand this as a prophetic action on the part of Jesus intended to convey the important truth that the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit—which would be poured out after Jesus’ glorification (John 7:39), i.e., after his resurrection and ascension—would be mediated through Jesus himself, and also that the gift of the Spirit to be received by his disciples would be a sharing in the Spirit of Christ himself.
Overall, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John is very comprehensive. However, it cannot be fully appreciated without an understanding of the need for the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit which emerges from the story of the covenant rebellion of Israel in the Old Testament.
The view of the Holy Spirit presented in John’s Gospel fully accords with the teaching of the Old Testament in this regard. According to the Old Testament, all life whether physical or spiritual is a product of God’s Spirit (e.g., Gen 1:2; Ps 104:30; Ezek 37:14). John’s Gospel teaches that the Spirit gives life (John 6:63). The Spirit is “living water” (John 4:10). Those who drink of the Spirit live eternally (John 4:14). Rebirth by the Spirit is necessary for entering the kingdom of God (John 3:5), and for experiencing eternal life and immortality (John 3:6). In the new covenant age, this Spiritual rebirth is no longer limited to the traditional Israelite lines of covenant membership, but is open to people of all nations (John 3:8; 4:21, 23).
John’s Gospel presupposes the Old Testament teaching concerning the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament describes the old covenant age as a time in which there was a limited work of God’s Spirit writing the law on the heart. During the old covenant age, God’s law was not written in the hearts of the majority of the people of Israel. This meant that the nation of Israel viewed as a whole did not walk in the way of God’s law, thereby breaking the covenant with God. This led to the covenant curses coming down upon Israel, culminating in the exile to Babylon. Even though God had allowed the Jews to come back to Judea after the exile, the time of covenant blessing had not yet come. The Old Testament looked forward, therefore, to a new age when God would pour out his Spirit upon Israel and all flesh. This eschatological work of the Holy Spirit would result in Israel returning to God in covenant obedience (see Deut 30:6; Jer 31:31–33; Ezek 36:24–27).
As Jer 31:31–33 and Ezek 36:25–28 make known, the coming of the new covenant age would mark the beginning of a transformation in the comprehensiveness of the work of the Holy Spirit. Instead of the limited work of the Spirit under the old covenant (which led to the covenant failure and exile of Israel among the nations), the Holy Spirit would be poured out in a greater way such that the hearts of the people of Israel would be changed, with the result that Israel would return to God in true worship and obedience and, as a result, begin to experience covenant blessing instead of covenant curse.
John’s Gospel is concerned to link this Old Testament prophetic expectation of the eschatological gift of the Spirit with the ministry of Jesus. The Old Testament prophets understood that the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit would come about through the ministry of the Messiah (e.g., Isa 11:1–5; 44:1–5; and 55:1–4), through the work of the Spirit-filled suffering Servant (e.g., Isa 42:1–7; 49:1–6; 61:1–4). John’s Gospel proclaims Jesus of Nazareth as being none other than this Spirit-filled suffering Servant-Messiah who has come into the world to accomplish the promised eschatological outpouring of the Spirit of life.
Thus, Jesus is presented in John’s Gospel as being the one upon whom the Holy Spirit descended and upon whom the Holy Spirit remains (John 1:32). Jesus has received the Spirit without measure (John 3:34). Following the more likely interpretation of John 7:38, “rivers of living water” flow from within the Messiah, who is himself the eschatological temple, bringing life and blessing to the world, in fulfillment of Ezek 47:1–10. Because Jesus is the Spirit-filled Messiah and Spirit-filled Servant, he is the person who would (after his glorification) baptize people in the Holy Spirit (John 1:33). He gives the living water of the Spirit to those who ask of him (John 4:10, 14). But only those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah can receive this gift (John 7:37–39). In other words, the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit is performed by Jesus. The Spirit proceeds from God the Father, but would be sent by Jesus to dwell within his disciples (John 14:17; 15:26). The Spirit would be given to those who love Jesus and who keep his word (John 14:23), but not to the unregenerate people of the world (John 14:17). Jesus’ disciples would see the Spirit and know him (John 14:17). The Spirit would abide with them forever (John 14:16). This eschatological outpouring of the Spirit, however, would not take place until after Jesus’ glorification (John 7:39). In God’s plan, the comprehensive outpouring of the Spirit was reserved for the new covenant age, which would be inaugurated through the death and resurrection of Christ.
The coming of the Spirit would be beneficial for Jesus’ disciples in a number of ways. The Spirit would be their Paraklete, their Helper. He would mediate to Jesus’ disciples the presence of the Father and the Son (John 14:21, 23). As the Spirit of truth, he would help God’s people worship God in the proper way (John 4:23–24). He would also guide Jesus’ disciples into all truth (John 16:13), reminding them of Jesus’ teaching (John 14:26), and testifying about Jesus to them (John 15:26). He would receive revelation from Jesus to pass on to Jesus’ disciples (John 16:13–15).
The teaching in John’s Gospel about the Holy Spirit is concluded in 20:22 when Jesus breathes upon his disciples, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” There has been some discussion on the relationship of this incident with the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost, but it is probably best to understand this as a prophetic action on the part of Jesus intended to convey the important truth that the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit—which would be poured out after Jesus’ glorification (John 7:39), i.e., after his resurrection and ascension—would be mediated through Jesus himself, and also that the gift of the Spirit to be received by his disciples would be a sharing in the Spirit of Christ himself.
Overall, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John is very comprehensive. However, it cannot be fully appreciated without an understanding of the need for the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit which emerges from the story of the covenant rebellion of Israel in the Old Testament.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)