Texts: 1 Kings 19:4-8; Ephesians 4:25-5:2; John 6:35, 41-51
One of the things that I touched on last week was some of the differences between the so-called synoptic gospels on the one hand, and the Gospel of St John on the other; and that's where I want to start this week. One of the delights of reading Scripture for me is that a lot of it comes out of the arguments and debates of the times in which it was written. The classic example of this is always said to be the letters of St Paul to the Corinthians. Reading them is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation and trying to work out what the other party to the call is saying. Throughout much of those letters St Paul is clearly responding to criticism levelled against him, and by reading his response it is possible to get a pretty clear picture of what that criticism was.
We can do something similar with the four gospels by asking ourselves a simple question: why were they written? And the first thing we can say about that is that none of them were written until about 35 years after the crucifixion, presumably because of the early Christian belief that Christ would return during the lifetime of the first generation of Christians, including the Apostles. When Christ returned the end of time would occur and all would be revealed. There would be no need for Scripture, gospels or anything of that kind. However, Jesus did not return, and that first generation started to die off. Without the Apostles, how were future generations to be told the story of Christ? The only alternative was to write it down before the last of the witnesses had died.
That's a good explanation in general terms, but what about the individual gospels? Can we say something about why each of them was written? Well, yes we can, by studying the differences between them, because they reflect the issues of their time. The first one, Mark's Gospel, was primarily concerned to get the basic story down on paper and published, so there is little theological argument in it, and pains taken to avoid giving offence to Rome. Then came St Matthew, and he is clearly anxious to convince his fellow Jews that Jesus is the promised Messiah. Hence he goes immediately into a genealogical account designed to prove that Jesus is from the House of David. He had to be if he were to be recognised as the Messiah. So St Matthew is arguing with those who did not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah.
Ten years or so later comes the gospel of St Luke, and we know what he was trying to do because he tells us in the opening verses of his gospel. He is writing for his Greek patron, and claims to have checked the whole story about Jesus very carefully so he can give Theophilus an accurate account. And there is no surprise that in his account we find an emphasis on Jesus reaching beyond the House of Israel to the Gentiles. (St Luke follows this theme up in his Book of Acts, of course, as he records the struggle by Jewish Christians to accept that the gospel is for Gentiles as well as Jews.)
So, when the first gospels were written, the argument was largely within the Jewish community, and over the issue of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the long-awaited Messiah. By the time St Luke was writing, the argument was between Jews and Gentiles; was the gospel for all people, or only for Jews and those who first converted to Judaism. Twenty or so years later, when St John's Gospel appears, the issue has shifted again. Now the central argument is about the divinity of Christ. Was Jesus simply a prophet, a very great one, certainly, but still a human being with a prophetic ministry? Or was he God incarnate?
That is the central issue to which the whole gospel is addressed; and one clue to that is to be found at the very beginning of the gospel, in what we know as the Prologue. St Matthew starts his gospel: A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham. Compare that with how St John starts his: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And we only have to wait until verse 14 to get the gist of whom John is talking about: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the Glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. It's all there really. If anyone ever tries to tell you that there is nothing in the Bible to support the view that Jesus is divine, just rub their nose in that verse 14!
And this is the issue that we've got to in our journey through this chapter 6; and it's very interesting how St John deals with it. The other three gospels all record Jesus coming to the synagogue in his hometown and being given a hard time by the locals. [Incidentally, they do not agree on the identity of his hometown: was it Nazareth or Capernaum?] But in those accounts we are told that the locals are astonished at the wisdom and authority with which Jesus is teaching them. Where is he getting this from? Isn't he merely the carpenter's son? Isn't Mary his mother, and don't we know his brothers and sisters who live among us? And they take offence against him for being too big for his boots! He seems to them to be claiming the authority of a Rabbi, or, worse still, a prophet, when's he's really just a local boy with the gift of the gab!
But look at what St John has done with this episode. He agrees with the circumstances – Jesus is in the synagogue in Capernaum; but now the issue is something much deeper than any claim by Jesus to be a prophet. Now, according to St John, what Jesus is claiming is to have come down from heaven. Clearly, by the time St John is writing his gospel, the issue of the day is the divinity of Christ. The congregation starts grumbling against Jesus over that claim, but their complaint is on the same grounds as before. The locals know Mary and Joseph and the rest of the family; how then can Jesus claim some heavenly origin rather than a normal human one? [We should note in passing John's clever use of the term "grumbling": it's what the Israelites were doing to Moses in the wilderness before the gift of manna from above.]
Jesus makes no attempt to soften his stance or change his language; on the contrary, St John has him stress the point over and over. "I am the bread that came down from heaven"..."No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God"..."here is the bread that comes down from heaven"..."I am the living bread that came down from heaven". All that would have been hard enough for his listeners to swallow; but, of course, worse was to come, as we shall see next week.
In preparation for that I want to close with one more observation about this gospel in general. St John is often accused of being anti-Semitic, because he often refers to Jesus' opponents as "the Jews". The claim is unfair; apart from anything else, St John was a Jew himself. But again we need to put this gospel in its historical context. By the time it was written, Christians had been kicked out of the synagogues, and the official Jewish stance was to label Christianity as blasphemous and heretical. When St John refers to "the Jews" it is against that background; he means the Jewish rulers of his time.
They would certainly have rejected any suggestion that Jesus was divine, because to them that would offend against the fundament teaching that God is One. And given their attitude to the consumption of blood, the Eucharist would have absolutely appalled them. It's no surprise that this is the topic to which St John turns our attention next week.
No comments:
Post a Comment