Just as it has become
apparent that it is a self-sacrificial love as supremely demonstrated in Jesus’
talk of Himself as the good shepherd that comes to undergird the life of the
church, and that the absence of self-sacrifice or a willingness to undergo
suffering and deprivation will be fatal to the Jesus movement, so also it can
be affirmed, as part of an approach to the Scriptures so as to hear them on
their own terms and in their own voices, the hearers of the Gospel of John will
know that pulling out isolated pieces and examining them independently of the
entire narrative, would be damaging to the story and to the message of the
Christ as a whole.
Clearly, the issues
of love, Jesus as the embodiment of Israel’s Creator God, miraculous signs, the
concept of eternal life (with its exile and exodus subtext that hinges on an
understanding of the history of Israel), sight and blindness, the idea of Jesus
being the prophet like Moses, Gentile inclusion, bread and water, and talk of
Jesus as possibly being demon possessed are to be held in mind while the story
is being told (whether it is being heard or read).
The narrative is
constantly building, and it is clearly designed to be consumed as a whole, rather
than treating passages in isolation, as this will lead to a consistent mis-construal
of the author’s intentions as it relates to his attempt to convey that which he
wants to be known about Jesus. As one considers how strange it seems that
the Gospels were originally designed to be heard as dramatic presentations for
an orally attuned community rather than read as part of a devotional
experience, one is also forced to confess that our post-Gutenberg press culture
is just as foreign to John’s author, as would be John’s author’s pre-Gutenberg
culture.
The Gospel reader
must subject himself to this reminder because it has a bearing on the entire
project of discerning love on John’s terms, related to the whole of the
Johannine corpus that does not explicitly reference an author by the name of
John (John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John). If one intends to understand the
ethic of love within the community of Christ-followers, which is an ethic that
would appear to be of paramount importance to this author and therefore the
community addressed by his composition, it is entirely necessary to take a
wide-angle approach to his story of Jesus, attempting to interpret the
presentation in a way that allows for an accurate glimpse of the issues with
which are being dealt in the early decades of the Christian movement
(presumably in the latter part of the first century) through this particular
telling of the Jesus tradition.
Not only must it be
said that individual scenes in John’s Gospel are not to be taken in isolation,
but it must also be said that histories are not created in isolation.
That is, there is no such thing as a truly objective representation of the
facts. In the process of doing history, and especially when one is doing
history that is heavily tinged with theology, as can be seen in the Gospel of
John, one is forced to realize that all facts and events are viewed through a
lens that is colored by the worldview with which one approaches a given set of
facts. There is nothing wrong with that, but the reader does himself a
disservice by failing to acknowledge such things. Along with that, any
creation of a historical narrative will be affected by a culture that is
constantly conditioning its members respond to events along certain
lines.
No comments:
Post a Comment