Dominican Scholar Faculty Authored Books and Book Contributions Faculty and Staff Scholarship 8-2004 The Past from God's Perspective : A Commentary on John's Gospel Scott Gambrill Sinclair Department of Religion and Philosophy, Dominican University of California, [email protected] Survey: Let us know how this paper benefits you. Recommended Citation Sinclair, Scott Gambrill, "The Past from God's Perspective : A Commentary on John's Gospel" (2004). Faculty Authored Books and Book Contributions. 1. https://scholar.dominican.edu/books/1 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Staff Scholarship at Dominican Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Authored Books and Book Contributions by an authorized administrator of Dominican Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Past from God’s Perspective--A Commentary on John’s Gospel by Scott Gambrill Sinclair Dedicated to the monks of New Camaldoli Hermitage, Big Sur in thanksgiving for their friendship over so many years Table of Contents Preface Commentary on John’s Gospel Works Cited and Bibliography Preface This continues my series of volumes attempting to demonstrate that a critical scholar can affirm that the books of the New Testament are true and highly relevant. Most works on the New Testament seem to fall into one of two categories. First we have conservative books that fail to engage mainline scholarship. Such books simply assume the truth (usually the literal accuracy) of the New Testament. They fail to deal with the challenge of critical scholarship, or else they respond to that challenge defensively and unconvincingly. Then we have the more liberal books. A few of these attack the accuracy or relevance of the New Testament outright. Most of the others present detailed information and basically ignore the global question of whether the New Testament is true and meaningful today. I began this series a decade ago with an examination of that most difficult and abused New Testament book--the Apocalypse. In this initial study I presented a “mainline” scholarly understanding of what the book of Revelation meant when it was written. Then I argued at length that this message remains true and relevant. I subsequently produced study guides to the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Romans that made essentially the same points about these important sections of the New Testament. The Gospel of John presents a special challenge to this series because the gospel claims to give us a trustworthy account of who Jesus was and yet critical scholars know that John is not as historically accurate as the other gospels. John’s picture of Jesus--both of what he said and did--differs profoundly from that in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These other gospels are earlier than John and fit much more closely with conditions in Palestine when Jesus lived. Nevertheless, the Gospel of John explicitly asserts both that its principal author knew Jesus personally and that what he wrote is true (John 21:24). In the following book I will essentially make two points. First the Gospel of John self-consciously attempts to present history from God’s perspective, and this claim is plausible if one accepts the gospel’s basic understanding of what God did to save the world through Jesus. Thus, the gospel of John is ultimately based on historical facts, but it interprets those facts through a theology. The gospel is not concerned with what people during Jesus’ lifetime thought he was doing but with what the church later concluded God had done through Jesus. If we accept this larger interpretative framework, the gospel’s presentation of what “actually happened” becomes plausible, even compelling. The second point I wish to make is that thanks to the work of an editor the Gospel of John shows us step by step how we can verify in our own experience that its understanding of what God did in Jesus is true. In his 1987 book, The Mystical Way in the Fourth Gospel, L. William Countryman argued that the structure of John’s Gospel parallels the structure of the ideal Christian life. Just as the Christian life ideally begins with conversion and goes on to baptism, first communion, and more advanced stages of spiritual growth, so the Gospel of John has a section on conversion, then one page - 4 on baptism, then one on eucharist, and so forth. My own work has persuaded me that Countryman’s analysis is basically correct but that it was a later editor who imposed this structure on a preexistent gospel. The editor made this rearrangement so that later readers could discover in their own experience the truth of the gospel step by step. As we read it, the gospel reminds us of what we can learn in each stage of Christian life. By the time we get to the most advanced stage we achieve certainty that what the gospel claims that God did through Jesus is in fact true. The rise of inclusive language poses special problems for a translator and writer, and I have responded to them as follows. When the original Greek of John’s Gospel uses “he” inclusively, I have in the translation either substituted “they” or otherwise rewritten the sentence. In my own commentary I have likewise avoided “he” for “anyone” and instead resorted to “they.” In line with the usage of John’s Gospel itself, I have retained masculine pronouns to refer to God. I have elected to use feminine ones for the Spirit. The Old Testament–which John’s Gospel regards as divinely inspired–uses feminine pronouns for the Spirit, since the Hebrew word for spirit is grammatically feminine. In Greek the word for spirit is neuter, and John’s Gospel, not surprisingly, observes the grammatical conventions of the language in which it was written. Unfortunately, however, in English the use of “it” implies that something is subhuman and is singularly inappropriate for the Divine Spirit. It is to be noted that the images John’s Gospel uses for the Spirit, such as water and dove, tend to be archetypically feminine (Gelpi 219-20). I have also indulged in a literary inconsistency: In the translation I have chosen to use the word “student,” but in the commentary I have frequently returned to the standard word “disciple.” Despite the awkwardness of this shift, I think it is helpful. The word “disciple” has taken on a special meaning in religion and academia and gives a somewhat stilted feel to the Fourth Gospel. The gospel is talking about Jesus’ followers or students–those who cast their lot in with him. On the other hand, the term “disciple” is standard in scholarly circles and is more appropriate when in the commentary I interact with the work of other researchers. Finally, I ask readers to be patient with the repetitiveness of this commentary and to feel free to “skim.” John’s Gospel is itself repetitive. The evangelist felt that his own message was too profound for his audience to absorb it at once. Hence, repetition was essential. In commenting on the text I had to be repetitive also, in part as a courtesy to those who may consult this book solely to study a single passage. Once readers have gotten the gist of what I am claiming about the gospel as a whole, I invite them to skim. To facilitate skimming, I have summarized each paragraph in its opening sentence. It remains my pleasant duty to express gratitude to all those who helped make page - 5 this volume possible. Donald Gelpi, S.J. read a draft and made valuable corrections and suggestions. My students have read various drafts and helped me improve the literary style. Ms. Hellen Knapp went through the entire typescript and caught typographical errors. I remain indebted to all the teachers I had as a seminarian and as a doctoral student. A special thanks must go to John Boyle, S.J., Prof. L. William Countryman, and Prof. Wilhelm Wuellner. page - 6 Chapter 1 (1:1) In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) This one was in the beginning with God. (3) All things came into existence through him, and without him not one thing came into existence which came to exist. These opening words echo the opening words of the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament). In Genesis, the Bible starts with “in the beginning” (Gen. 1:1) and goes on to describe how God created the heaven and the earth and all that is in them. The first thing God brings into existence is the light (Gen. 1:3), and God then separates the light from the darkness (Gen. 1:4). So too the Gospel of John opens with “in the beginning” and goes on to describe the creation of all things. As we shall see in a moment, John also stresses the shining of the light and emphasizes that the darkness did not swallow it up (John 1:4-5). Consequently, the opening of the gospel makes it clear that its message is in continuity with that of the Hebrew Bible and cannot be understood apart from it. The story that the gospel tells is an integral part of the story of the Bible as a whole, and the reader must place the gospel in this larger context in order to understand what is happening. Yet, at the same time, the opening of the gospel suggests that the Old Testament cannot itself be fully understood without the gospel. In Genesis “the beginning” is the creation of the world.