Criswell
Theological Review 3.1 (1988) 17-29.
Copyright © 1988 by The
APPROACHING THE
FOURTH GOSPEL*
MOISES SILVA
I. Fluctuating
Perspectives on John
Depending
on the story-teller, the development of modern biblical
scholarship can appear unbearably dull or altogether
engrossing. It
would take some effort, however, to review the
vicissitudes of the
Gospel
of John during the past two centuries without succumbing to
the fascination of this subject.
Consider the question of historical
value. How does one account
for the fact that, while at the beginning of the
19th century the Fourth
Gospel
was almost universally regarded as the most valuable source
for the life of Jesus, few critics by the end of
the century thought that
it provided any significant historical information
at all? And what has
caused scholars in the 20th century to move in a more
conservative
direction, so that it is no longer disreputable to
argue that this docu-
ment contains some amount of
independent, reliable material?
Or take the related issue of date of
composition. The traditional
view that the Gospel was written toward the end of
the 1st century
gave way to a remarkable theory that pushed the date
well into the
middle of the 2nd century. The well-known discovery in
1933 of the
Rylands Fragment (papyrus 52, containing only a
few verses from
John
18), which can be dated firmly no later than A.D. 135, seemed
magically to restore the Gospel to its traditional
setting. Yet more
recent research has suggested, to at least one
prominent scholar, that a
* A few portions of this article
(especially the first section) are reproduced from
"The
Present State of Johannine Studies," to appear
in a future volume of The New
Testament Student (ed. J. H. Skilton;
18
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
date prior to A.D. 70 is reasonable, and that
therefore the Gospel of
John
may well be as ancient as Mark!1
And what does one do with the wild
divergences that have
characterized modern explanations
regarding the origin of this docu-
ment? The old and
straightforward view that the Apostle John, as
eyewitness of the events, composed it in
his life was displaced by attempts to attribute the
work to a non-
Palestinian,
Hellenistic author deeply influenced by gnostic
thought.2
The
discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls showed that many features
used as evidence for a Hellenistic background did not
at all contradict
a Palestinian setting, and alternate theories
have surfaced in the last
several decades. Particularly influential has
been the attempt to see
the Fourth Gospel as the product of a 1st-century
Christian commun-
ity, somehow or other related
to the Apostle John perhaps, though
this theory comes in many variations.
The controversy does not end here.
Did the author (or redactor?)
use the other Gospels for some of his material or
was his composition
quite independent of the synoptic tradition? Was his
work character-
ized by bringing together
earlier sources or by composing an original,
unified document? Did he address unbelievers in
order to evangelize
them or did he rather have in mind strengthening the
faith of those
who already believed? Did he emphasize the miracles
of Christ as
signs that lead to faith or as obstacles on the way
to faith? The issues
appear to continue on indefinitely.
As far as the ancient church was
concerned, the answers to most
of these questions were not in doubt, and while we
are under no
obligation--historical or theological--to accept
the views of 2nd-
century believers, it would be foolhardy to
ignore the evidential value
afforded by certain aspects of that consensus. In
short, one must
recognize that the external evidence attesting to the authorship of
John
is ancient, clear, and explicit. Even in the midst of serious
debates in the early church, no real evidence
can be found for some-
one other than John the Apostle having written it.
Irenaeus,
for example, begins his discussion of the origins of this
Gospel
(in a passage where he argues that it was written to combat
Cerinthus and his heresy) with a straight
reference to John, that is,
1 See J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM, 1976)
chap
9.
On p. 307 he suggests that a primitive form of the Gospel of John had taken
shape in
year 55, and that it was given final form in the late
60s. In a posthumously published
work, The
Priority of John (ed. J. F. Coakly;
these ideas more fully.
2
This approach can best be seen in R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A
Com-
mentary (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1971 [orig. 1950]). See further below.
Silva: APPROACHING THE
FOURTH GOSPEL 19
without attempting to defend that view or even
suggesting that it was
disputed by anyone.3 Roughly contemporary, but proceeding from a
very different geographical setting (and thus
providing broad and
independent testimony), is Clement of Alexandria's
comment that
"last of all John, aware that the external facts [ta> swmatika<] had been
made plain in the [synoptic] Gospels, was urged by
friends and
inspired by the Spirit to compose a spiritual
Gospel."4
Other early quotations could be
adduced, all of which point in
the same direction. For most scholars of antiquity,
the uniform
character of such early testimony could not be set
aside except by
alternate evidence of the most persuasive sort;
curiously, mainstream
biblical scholars tend to place much less
confidence on the weight of
external data than do their colleagues in
classical scholarship.5 True,
the 2nd-century testimony for the authorship of
John is not consistent
in every respect--one of the key quotations
contains a puzzling
ambiguity.6 But the appeal to these
variable elements misses the
central point: the ancient church does not
appear to have debated the
issue of Johannine
authorship. Considering especially the theological
divisiveness that centered on the
interpretation of the Fourth Gospel,
the question must be asked why we find no attempts
to defend the
Johannine
authorship of this book against specific attacks. The only
viable answer is that by the middle of 2nd century
John's authorship
was universally recognized: there was no competing
figure and no
alternative theory.
Throughout the centuries, therefore,
it was taken for granted that
the Fourth Gospel had special value not only as a
theological docu-
ment but also as a
historical source for the life and teachings of
3 lrenaeus,
Against Heresies 3.11: This section contains his well-known analogy of
the Gospels (four corners of the earth, four winds,
four living creatures, and four
covenants), which does reflect some kind of
theological controversy, but not with
regard to authorship.
4 Quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.7. Elsewhere
(3.24.7-8, LCC
translation) Eusebius reports: "John, it is
said, used all the time a message which was
not written down, and at last took to writing for
the following cause. The three gospels
which had been written down before were distributed
to all including himself; it is said
that he welcomed them and testified to their truth
but said that there was only lacking
to the narrative the account of what was done by
Christ at first and at the beginning of
the preaching. The story is surely true."
5 Cf. G. Kennedy,
"Classical and Christian Source Criticism," The Relationship
among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue (ed. W. W. Walker, Jr.;
6 In particular, the
earliest witness (that of Papias, quoted by Eusebius,
Ecclesi-
astical History 3.39.3-4) can, but need not, be interpreted as
making a distinction
between John the Apostle and another John. See
especially the analysis by R. H.
Gundry,
Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and
Theological Art (
Eerdmans,
1982) 611-16.
20
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Jesus--a
work written by an eyewitness to supplement the synoptics.
In
modern times isolated arguments against the Gospel's authenticity
began to appear, and most of these were collected in
1820 by a
certain K. G. (C. Th.) Bretschneider,
though with little effect, since
F.
Schleiermacher's heavy dependence on John proved
quite influen-
tial. The work of D. F.
Strauss, however, dealt a heavy blow to the
Gospel's
credibility, and this new viewpoint was thought to be con-
firmed by the Marcan
hypothesis of synoptic origins.7 By the end of
the century, it was commonly assumed that the
Fourth Gospel could
not have been written by an apostle or by an
eyewitness at all, and
the rise of the History of Religions school further
encouraged many
scholars to attribute the Gospel's composition to
an unknown theo-
logian who lived in the 2nd
century. Combined with a concern with
the possible sources used by the evangelist, the
view that the Gospel
of John is a late Hellenistic document was given
definitive expression
by R. Bultmann.8
As already pointed out, the second
quarter of this century began
to witness a significant shift that led to the
so-called new look on the
Fourth
Gospel.9 By the phrase is not meant a return to apostolic
authorship, nor to complete historicity, but a
viewpoint that allows
for the strong possibility that genuine Johannine tradition lies behind
the Gospel. The term Johannine
tradition (or community) becomes
the pivotal issue, and scholars have been devoting
.their energies to
reconstructing the historical
situation at the end of the 1st century that
gave rise to the Gospel-a subject that will occupy
us again shortly.
II. General Purpose
Misjudging a writer's (or a
speaker's) intention can very easily
lead to a distortion of the material being
interpreted. It is therefore
valid and essential for scholars to inquire into the
purpose of biblical
writings, and for this task we are usually
dependent on internal
evidence, since explicit statements are rare.
True, the Gospel of John
provides an explicit statement of purpose
("that you may believe,"
20:31),
yet ironically there is more controversy on this issue than there
is perhaps with regard to the purpose of any other
NT book! Indeed,
not a few scholars disregard the significance of
20:31 altogether.10
7 Cf. A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (
1969
[orig. 1906]) 85-87, 12.5-28.
8 See
above, n. 2.
9 J. A. T. Robinson,
"The New Look on the Fourth Gospel," SE 1. (1959) 338-50.
10 Cf. R. Kysar, The Maverick Gospel
(Atlanta: John Knox, 1976) 14-15, Following
Fortna, Kysar thinks that
the statement belonged to a signs source but becomes
inadequate as a description of the whole book.
Silva: APPROACHING THEE
FOURTH GOSPEL 21
The basic concern among scholars is
that the Gospel, as it stands,
looks much too complicated to be viewed as an
evangelistic docu-
ment: unbelievers could not
possibly understand the numerous subtle
nuances in the text. Many scholars who do wish
to take 20:31 seriously
find it possible to deny a missionary motive in the
book's composition
by leaning on the present tense of pisteu<hte:
"Since here the present
would mean 'keep believing,' it would imply that the
readers of the
Gospel
are already Christian believers."11
Correlating this idea with
1
John 5:13, R. E. Brown and others interpret the statement as indicat-
ring the goal of deepening the faith of the
disciples.
The controversy has been vitiated by
three problems. (1) In the
first place, we have a serious textual ambiguity. The
decision between
the present and the aorist variant is sufficiently
difficult that it would
seem folly to build a case on either reading.12
(2) But even if one could be sure of
the text, it would still be rash
to draw any conclusion from that, since the use of
the tenses (i.e.,
aspects) resists any neat categorization,13
In the Gospel of John itself
11 R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (2 vols.; AB 29, 29A;
Doubleday, 1966-70) 2.1056. Brown adds that the
aorist, attested by most witnesses,
"could be translated 'may come to faith,' implying that the
readers are not yet Christian."
Similarly,
L. Morris (The Gospel According to John
[NICNT;
1971]
855-56) states that if the aorist is correct, then an evangelistic aim "is
beyond
reasonable doubt." This kind of argument is
rightly criticized by D. A. Carson, "The
Purpose
of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered," JBL 100 (1987) 639-51, esp.
640-41.
12 Discussions of this
textual problem have failed to do what would appear to be
the first order of business, namely, isolate those
instances of iva plus the subjunctive of
pisteu<w where there is no textual variation. The
relevant passages are 1:7; 6:30; 9:36;
11:15,
42; 14:29. In all of these cases the aorist is used, and so we may infer that
the
aorist is the characteristic Johannine
usage. We can hardly deduce from this fact,
however, that the aorist should be preferred in
those cases where we do encounter
textual variation, for scribes would naturally
have tended to assimilate an original
present to the characteristic Johannine usage. We should indeed note that there are at
least three passages where the original reading is
almost certainly the present (17:21
corrected to the aorist by P60 x2 A C3 D fl,13
and Maj; 19:35; 6:29; probably 13:19
belongs here too, though only B and C have the
present). The aorist perhaps made
better sense to the scribes in these passages. In any
case, there is no comparable
evidence to support the view that an original
aorist was changed to a present in spite of
many opportunities to do so. With some doubts, I
would choose the present at 20:31.
13 Not surprisingly,
several writers qualify their statements with "strictly inter-
preted" or a similar
remark. (Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According
to
ed.;
Greek New Testament [
assume the textbook distinction between "keep
believing" for the present and "start
believing" for the aorist (which in any case
is doubtful), we would have to recognize
that a writer's usage may vary from that pattern:
see especially Mark 5:36 mo<non
pi<steue, which hardly means "keep believing" (is Luke
8:50 a stylistic "correction"?)
and 13:21 mh>
pisteu<ete, which cannot suggest
"stop believing" (contrast Matt 24:23).
22
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
we should note 6:29 (contrast v 30) and 17:21,
where the present is
more clearly attested even though Jesus is speaking
to unbelievers. On
the other hand, at least one passage where the
aorist is uncontested
(11:15)14
makes plain that John's usage is not determined by the
question whether faith is or is not already
present. One needn't be
troubled by these apparent
"inconsistencies"--no Greek speaker or
writer was likely to let an important point hang on
such subtle
differences. In spite of some grammarians and many
preachers, aspec-
tual distinctions do not a
sermon make.
(3) But there is a third and more
substantive question--the nature
of faith. Most writers appear to assume
(consciously or not) a polari-
zation between initial and
continuing faith, but such a conception can
hardly find support in the text of the Gospel itself.
This point has been
seen clearly by Bultmann,
who comments: "So far as the Evangelist is
concerned it is irrelevant whether the possible
readers are already
'Christians,'
or are not yet such; for to him the faith of 'Christians' is
not a conviction that is present once for all, but
it must perpetually
make sure of itself anew, and therefore must
continually hear the
word anew."15
Taken at face value, 20:31 does
suggest a distinctly (though not
exclusively) evangelistic aim, in contrast to 1 John
5:13, which ex-
plicitly assumes the presence of
faith among the readers. Church
history would seem to bear out this
understanding of the Gospel. Its
theological difficulties notwithstanding, the Gospel
of John has always
been a primary tool of evangelism. Probably no other
book of the
Bible
is more frequently suggested to unbelievers as a means of
becoming acquainted with the basic facts of
Christianity. And is it a
coincidence that new Bible translations are
characteristically intro-
duced with a sample from the
Gospel of John?
What needs emphasis, of course, is
that John has not written a
book to be discarded (like an elementary Greek
grammar!) the minute
we have acquainted ourselves with its contents.
The author surely
viewed his material as a source for continued
instruction, inspiration,
and renewal. In fact, his artistry and uniqueness
lies precisely in this,
that the Fourth Gospel (to use the oft-quoted
characterization) is like
a pool in which a child may wade and an elephant
swim.16
14 Cf. also 13:19 (see
above, n. 12) and note what the textual tradition has done to
10:37-38.
15 Bultmann, John,
698-99. Of course, whether Bultmann's own
existentialist con-
ception of faith corresponds to
John's is a different question altogether.
16 This description,
attributed to a variety of writers, is apparently ancient, but I
have not been able to ascertain its origin.
Silva: APPROACHING THE
FOURTH GOSPEL 23
III. Specific Occasion
Even after insisting that the Gospel
has in view both evangelism
and edification, we have certainly not exhausted
all the elements that
may have motivated the author and thus played a
role in the composi-
tion of this document.
Unfortunately, these more specific and, I think,
subordinate elements cannot be identified apart from
a careful exe-
gesis of the book as a whole.
Here we are faced with an important
example of the so-called hermeneutical circle:
our understanding of a
particular passage depends on our ability to place
that passage within
its proper setting or context, yet we cannot
confidently describe that
context prior to some interpretive work on the
text.
To complicate matters, most
discussions regarding the origins of
the Fourth Gospel come with a heavy dose of
speculative ingredients.
While
some students may justifiably feel put off by this free flow of
scholarly imagination, we would make a mistake to
ignore the theories
altogether. As long as they are understood for what
they are--working
hypotheses only--they can provide a base for
responsible exegesis. At
the very least, they will prove stimulating!
Rather than survey the whole
landscape, however, it will be
worth our while to review briefly what is probably
the best known
and most influential conjecture. After completing
his very detailed
and useful commentary on the Gospel of John, and in
the midst of
preparing a massive commentary on the Johannine epistles, Brown
published a popularized synthesis of his
conclusions.17 Brown, who
views the Gospel as the result of several stages
(from an independent
tradition to a distinctive Johannine
presentation and then to an actual
written Gospel, subsequently revised more than
once), associates the
final product with a well-defined Christian community
that was inter-
acting with six distinct groups:
*Christians of apostolic churches
generally: though their Christology was
perceived
by the Johannine community as insufficiently
developed, unity
with them
was both possible and desirable (cf. John 17:22-23).
*Jewish Christians who depended
heavily on signs and who did not
accept
Christ's deity: the Johannine community did not
regard them as
true
believers (cf. John 6:60-66).
*Crypto-Christians: Jews who, though
considering themselves to be Chris-
tians, had not even broken with the synagogue
(Nicodemus is considered
by some,
though not by Brown, a prototype of this group).
17 R. E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (
1979);
note especially the chart on pp. 168-69. Also influential has been J. Louis Martyn,
History and Theology in
the Fourth Gospel
(2d ed.;
24
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
* Adherents of John the Baptist:
disciples who viewed the Baptist as more
important
than Jesus (cf. the "polemic" in John 1:8 and 3:30).
*"The Jews": unbelieving
members of the synagogue who persecuted
members of
the Johannine community and who excommunicated those
professing
faith in Jesus (cf. John 9:34).
*The world: those who reject the
message of Jesus (Jews included).
We should remind ourselves that we
have no explicit evidence
for such a reconstruction. The groups listed above
(as well as the
compositional stages undergirding the theory) are pure inferences
from the Gospel's text, which of course does not
directly address the
issues with which we are dealing. Moreover,
reconstructions of this
sort often suggest that the characters and stories
described in the
Gospel,
insofar as they represent a specific situation at the end of the
1st
century, do not necessarily correspond to realities at the time of
Jesus' ministry.
With those caveats in mind, we can
still appreciate the exegetical
value of formulating a plausible setting for the
composition of the
Gospel. One need not deny the historicity of,
say, the healing of the
blind man (John 9) to admit the possibility that John
recounted that
incident because it was distinctively applicable
to his situation. The
remarkable differences between John and the synoptics must be
accounted for in some way. We may fully accept
that the incidents
recorded by John really took place, but that fact
does not answer the
question, Why did John choose these incidents and
not others? None
of the NT books was written in abstraction.
Rather, they were com-
posed to meet real and specific needs. Telling the
story of Jesus was
not motivated by antiquarian interests but by the
need to apply that
story to concrete problems faced by later believers.
These considerations, incidentally,
raise the important question
whether the Gospel was written to supplement the
synoptics. That
John
knew and used the other Gospels was taken for granted through-
out the history of interpretation as late as the
1st half of this century,
though in recent decades such a view has been held by
a minority of
scholars.18 Affecting the debate, however, has been the
gratuitous
assumption that "knowledge of" =
"literary dependence on." Happily,
a few scholars have made the point that these two
elements must be
distinguished.19
18 The change in
perspective was the result primarily of P. Gardner-Smith's work,
commentary held out for the view that John at least
knew Mark, but few have
followed him.
19 See especially B. de Solages, Jean et les Synoptiques (Leiden: Brill, 1979). This
position, already anticipated by J. N.Sanders and B. A. Mastin (A Commentary on the
Silva: APPROACHING THE
FOURTH GOSPEL 25
Surely no Christian community at the
end of the 1st century
would have been unaware of the synoptic tradition.
Without precisely
using Mark, John may well have wanted to provide
information not
found in that tradition--as Eusebius's remark
regarding the content of
John
suggests.20 One can also argue that John supplements the syn-
optics theologically by combining several of their
themes into one
complete picture. Without placing undue emphasis
on the specific
relationship that may have obtained
between John and the synoptics,
we may legitimately assume some knowledge of them
on his part as
well as a desire to provide additional information
and interpretation.
IV. Literary Structure
How does the author go about
achieving his purpose? What tools
has he used in putting the material together? The
Gospel of John
almost seems to invite a distinctive approach in
answering these
questions: to a greater degree than most other
biblical books, this
work can be treated as a piece of literature in the
narrower sense.
Accordingly,
much energy has been devoted in recent years to the
analysis of its literary character.
Particularly impressive among
studies of this sort is R. A. Cul-
pepper's 1983 monograph.21 Using some
of the standard concepts in
the analysis of narrative (real/implied author,
implied reader, plot,
etc.),
Culpepper presents the Fourth Gospel as a carefully crafted
piece of art. Inevitably, the question arises whether
one may apply to
this document--or any of the Gospels for that
matter--categories that
have been developed for the description of fictional
writing. Culpepper
Gospel According to John [HNTC;
G.
R. Beasley-Murray (John [Word
biblical Commentary 36;
xxxvii, following D.Moody
Smith). The case for John's dependence on all three
synoptics is argued capably by F.
Neirynck (Jean
et les Synoptiques. Examen
critique
de l'exegese de M.-E. Boismard [BETL 49; Louven:
University Press, 1979]). On the
related question of possible sources used by
John, see especially the critique by D. A.
tions," JBL 97 (1978) 411-29, esp. 428-29.
20 Cf.
above, n. 4.
21 R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in
Literary Design
(Foundations and Facets: NT; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1983).
Different in approach is
G.
Mlakuzhyil, The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel (AnBib 117;
techniques of so-called structuralism, text
linguistics, etc., with questionable success.
No
more persuasive is M. J. J. Menken, Numerical Literary Techniques in John: The
Fourth Evangelist's Use
of Numbers of Words and Syllables (NovTSup 55;
Brill, 1985).
26
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
himself, whatever his views on the historicity
of John,22 treats the
material as though it had no historical
significance and leaves the
impression that the real value of the Gospel is the
artistry with which
the author communicates his message, whether or not
there is any
factual basis for that message.
Such a conclusion, however, would
appear to undermine the
author's avowed desire to instruct his readers
concerning actual events
(John
20:30), to say nothing of the intensity with which he affirms the
historicity of his account (see especially 19:35).
Of course, we cannot
assume that literary techniques used to enhance the
dramatic effect of
a narrative are the exclusive property of
fictional writers. Certainly
many of Culpepper's insights shed light on the
significance of the text
without compromising its historical basis--though
we may indeed
need to grant the evangelist a greater amount of
literary flexibility
than we have been accustomed to.
In any case, we may accept that the
evangelist has exercised
special care in the composition of this Gospel.
Can we proceed to
determine whether it can be "outlined"?
The task of outlining a book
should be seen as an effort to place passages in their
proper context,
since ascertaining the connection of a statement to
what precedes and
follows it is essential to its proper
interpretation. Accordingly, a good
outline does not merely describe contents but
reveals the progression
of the argument. And although we aim to
approximate the author's
own thought, several different outlines may be
"equally" valid--though
perhaps not equally helpful.
Now one finds, with regard to the
Gospel of John, almost uni-
versal agreement (a) that a
prologue and an epilogue should be
recognized as discrete sections and (b) that a
major break occurs
between chaps 12 and 13. Among points of
disagreement we should
note the question whether the body of the book
begins at 1:19 or 2:1
and the debate whether chaps 18-20 constitute a
third major section.
Another
issue that deserves comment is the well-known observation
that chaps 2-12 appear to contain seven signs (2:1-12;
4:46-54; 5:1-15;
6:1-15,
16-21; 9:1-14; 11:lff.) and
seven discourses (3:1-21; 4:1-26;
5:16-47;
6:22-59; 7-8; 9:35-10:21; 12:20-36). Indeed, some scholars
(e.g.,
Morris) have tried to structure the Gospel by using either or
both of these sets, though one can argue that such a
move obscures
other, more fundamental, themes. Using C. H. Dodd's
important
analysis as a point of departure, we may suggest
the following outline.
22 Culpepper explicitly
states that he does not wish to deny "any historical core or
matrix of the gospel" (ibid., p. 11), and at the
end of the book he deplores the common
divorce between fiction and truth (pp. 234-37).
Silva: APPROACHING THE FOURTH GOSPEL
27
Note
in particular the significance of geographical notes in the first
sections and the contrast between chaps 9-12 and
chap 20.
Introduction (Chap 1)
Prologue (1:1-18)
Testimony (1:19-51)
Jesus Reveals His Glory to the World
(Chaps 2-12)
The New Order (Chaps 2-4)
Jerusalem/Judea
(2:13-3:36)
The
Life-Giver (Chaps 5-8)
The World's Unbelief
(Chaps 9-12)
Blind and
faithless leaders (Chaps 9-10)
The raising
of Lazarus (Chap 11)
Life through
death (Chap 12)
Jesus Reveals His Glory to the
Disciples (Chaps 13-20)
The Last Evening (Chaps
13-17)
Lowly
service and Jesus' comfort (Chaps 13-14)
Final
instructions (Chaps 15-16)
Intercessory prayer (Chap 17).
The Passion (Chaps
18-19)
Arrest and
trials (Chap 18)
Crucifixion
and burial (Chap 19)
The Disciples' Faith
(Chap 20)
Epilogue (Chap 21)
V. John and the Old Testament
Careful attention to the literary
character of the Fourth Gospel
will quickly reveal how pervasive has been the
influence of the OT in
its composition.23 The point is
particularly significant in that the law-
gospel polemic is prominent in it as well. The strong
and well-known
antithesis of 1:17 ("the law was given through
Moses; grace and truth
came through Jesus Christ") has to be
understood in the light of 5:46
23 In addition to
numerous specific studies, cf. the synthesis by E. D. Freed, Old
Testament Quotations in
the Gospel of John
(Leiden: Brill, 1965).
28
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
("if you believed Moses, you would believe me"). The new
order
instituted by Christ must be seen as a fulfilment, not a rejection, of the
OT message.
Other articles in the present issue
will develop some of the
theological themes in the Gospel of John and so we
need not pursue
this matter here. It may be useful, nevertheless, to
illustrate the impact
that the OT has had in the very structuring of
John's narrative. Chap 6
provides one of the best examples, since the
Exodus 16 background is
indisputable.
Exodus 16 itself is part of a larger
narrative (Exod 15:22-17:7)
that emphasizes the goodness of YHWH in providing
for his people.
Three
incidents are recorded here:
(1) In Exod
15:22-27 the people are thirsty and all the water they find is
bitter; God
was testing them, but they grumble in their trial; still, the
Lord provides drinking water for
them.
(2) In chap 16 the people are hungry and
they grumble again (vv 3, 7); this
incident is
also described as a time of testing (v 4), and the Lord pro-
vides manna
for their needs (vv 13-16).
(3) Chap 17 records another incident when
the people are thirsty; their
grumbling is
more serious, since now they turn the tables on God by
testing him
(vv 2-3); the Lord's generosity is even more dramatic, since
he, who is
the Rock, stands on the rock of Horeb, ready to be
struck so
that the
people may have water to drink (v 6).
Of course, the trial of the
Israelites in the wilderness corresponds
to Adam's temptation, a point made subtly in the
narrative by the use
in 16:15 of a phrase taken from Gen 1:29.24
Moreover, 16:23 appears to
connect the giving of the manna to the Passover
celebration by the
use of another phrase taken from Exod 12:6.25 Not surprisingly, the
Exodus
16 narrative became charged with eschatological expecta-
tions. Within the pages of
the OT itself, the giving of the Spirit
(mentioned in the corresponding passage in Num 11:17) is tied
to the
giving of manna and water (Neh
9:20). The apocryphal work 2
Baruch
promises that "the treasury of manna will again descend from
on high" (29:8), while the later rabbinic midrashim reflect an explicit
messianic interpretation.26
24 The phrase is
"for you for food" (hlkxl
Mkl). I owe these observations to the
important work of U. Cassuto,
A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (
Magnes, 1967
[orig. 1951]) 196, 198.
25 "For
you for keeping" (trmwml Mkl).
26 Note in particular the
Midrash on Eccl 1:9, "as
the first redeemer caused manna
to descend, so will the latter redeemer cause
manna to descend." For these and other
references see Brown, John,
1.265.
Silva: APPROACHING THE FOURTH GOSPEL
29
As we turn our attention to John, we
may wonder whether he
structured his narrative with a view to paralleling
Exodus 15-17. Just
as that passage speaks of God's providing
water-manna-water, so
John
presents Jesus (who was already identified as YHWH in 1:14,
alluding to Exod 34:6)
as the one who provides his people with water
(John
4:13-14), manna (6:32-35), and water (7:37-38). John makes a
point of advising us that the feeding of the five
thousand took place
near the time of Passover (6:4), when the Exodus 16
narrative was
probably read in the synagogues. Understandably,
their messianic
expectations may have been heightened-thus
their desire to make
Jesus king on the spot (6:15). John also exploits the
theme of the
people's grumbling (6:41,43,61,66), alludes to
the Adamic temptation
(6:37
= Gen 3:24; 6:50 = Gen 2:17 and 3:3; 6:51 = Gen 3:22),27
and
reminds us of the significance of the Spirit's
instruction (6:63; cf. also
v 45, a quotation from Isa
54:13).
One of the great climactic elements
in the Gospel of John comes
in 19:34, where the evangelist--e alone among the
Gospel writers-
tells us that Jesus was struck with the soldier's
spear so that blood and
water came out from him. Much effort has been spent
on the anatomi-
cal significance of this incident, but we may be
sure that John was not
at all motivated by medical questions. For him
this was a matter of
the greatest importance, as we may gather by the
strong affirmation in
the following verse (19:35). The allusion to Exodus
17 is too clear to
be missed. The long-suffering YHWH, abundant in
grace and truth,
was suffering for his people, that they might
receive the Spirit of
salvation.28
Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in thee;
Let the water and the blood, From thy riven side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure, Cleanse me from its guilt and pow'r.
27 Cf. A. Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and
Jewish Worship (
1960) 62.
28 I first heard this
approach from my teacher E. P. Clowney. For a recent
and
clear defense, see Gary M. Burge, The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in
the
Johannine Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1987) 93-95, 133-35.
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: