Across Solace and for all Lent, we're all considering the Gospel of John and also looking at the Glenferrie Gospel by our very own Stuart Davey. When I looked at John in preparation, I was most struck by how different it is compared to the other Gospels. If you asked me why look at John, then my answer is 'because John was a bit different'.
John has the whole 'logos' ('word of God') theme, especially in the prologue, which is a real difference to the other gospels. It appears that John was addressing his gospel to Jewish people of the day who were adopting Greek philosophical ideas into the Jewish story. John’s assertion that Jesus was both spirit and man was a really vital part of the theological debate of the time and remains a vital concept today.
John is also different because the gospel is missing most of the stuff the other Gospels talk about. Check out this list at Wikipedia of omissions in John's Gospel. Some big differences for me is the relative absence of 'the Kingdom of God' language, no mention of forgiveness, no mention of loving enemies - important stuff for me. Why wouldn't John have it?
John is a long gospel and full of unique things: Jesus delivers long essay-style speeches in various parts (there are no parables as such); Jesus talks about himself a lot and; Jesus asserts himself as a God a lot more. The emphasis in John is different from the other Gospels; my understadning is that there is more about Jesus as a timeless revelation of the loving creator.
Given that John is so different from the other Gospels, why wouldn’t we simply discard it? After all, John seems to contradict the other Gospel’s reports of what Jesus did and said. I think John is a fantastic addition to the bible because of two things. First, it shows us how the early Christians were doing theology; they were wrestling with the meaning of Jesus and creating rich ideas and stories as part of that. Secondly, John connects the Jesus story to a broader philosophical conversation about meaning and hope, which is still relevant to each of us today.
John has the whole 'logos' ('word of God') theme, especially in the prologue, which is a real difference to the other gospels. It appears that John was addressing his gospel to Jewish people of the day who were adopting Greek philosophical ideas into the Jewish story. John’s assertion that Jesus was both spirit and man was a really vital part of the theological debate of the time and remains a vital concept today.
John is also different because the gospel is missing most of the stuff the other Gospels talk about. Check out this list at Wikipedia of omissions in John's Gospel. Some big differences for me is the relative absence of 'the Kingdom of God' language, no mention of forgiveness, no mention of loving enemies - important stuff for me. Why wouldn't John have it?
John is a long gospel and full of unique things: Jesus delivers long essay-style speeches in various parts (there are no parables as such); Jesus talks about himself a lot and; Jesus asserts himself as a God a lot more. The emphasis in John is different from the other Gospels; my understadning is that there is more about Jesus as a timeless revelation of the loving creator.
Given that John is so different from the other Gospels, why wouldn’t we simply discard it? After all, John seems to contradict the other Gospel’s reports of what Jesus did and said. I think John is a fantastic addition to the bible because of two things. First, it shows us how the early Christians were doing theology; they were wrestling with the meaning of Jesus and creating rich ideas and stories as part of that. Secondly, John connects the Jesus story to a broader philosophical conversation about meaning and hope, which is still relevant to each of us today.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment