When reading any piece of literature, specifically the Bible or a book of the Bible, it has come to my attention that when I learn something new or different which I deem as relevant regarding a specific pattern or word, it suddenly appears everywhere and seemingly leaps off the pages as I read; and I’m instantly struck by the fact that I missed that key feature in previous readings. This could be likened to someone who buys a new car that is a specific color, make, year and model, then while driving, they suddenly notice many other vehicles like their own all over the roads and highways—but never noticed them before. Now it wasn’t because those vehicles weren’t there, its just that you weren’t looking for them and now it’s blatantly obvious just how many people drive this vehicle. I have read the Gospel of John many times and like many other people, I have missed some important key features that were always there, but were hidden in plain sight. So for centuries, the Church has attributed authorship of the gospel of John to the son of Zebedee, a Galilean fisherman and close disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. However, some modern scholars who are both conservative and liberal have challenged John the son of Zebedee’s authorship in place of another John, John “the Elder” who also later reportedly lived in Ephesus, Asia Minor. And the evidence for this claim could perhaps be right on the pages of the gospel itself; but so many times we aren’t looking for these subtle words or phrases which give us clues that someone other than John son of Zebedee may have written this beautiful gospel. So we will examine both internal and external evidence for this claim to see if it is persuasive enough to conclude that there is a high degree of probability that John “the Elder” wrote this gospel.
The gospel of John is very different from the synoptic gospels, (Matthew, Mark and Luke) but why? One ancient proposed theory was given by the greatest Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea who stated that the synoptic gospels came into the hands of John the son of Zebedee; and he concurred regarding their accuracy, however, he stated they left out parts of the beginning of Jesus’s ministry. While there may be some accuracy to that claim, the gospel of John is almost entirely different from the synoptic gospels. Not in the sense that it contradicts the other gospels, because it actually dove tails the synoptic gospels quite nicely. It is different in the sense that the material provided in it is different or all together missing from the other gospels. For example, there is no mention of the baptism of Jesus, no last Supper, (although it describes the events surrounding it) no miracles, no transfiguration and no parables. It is also different in that there are many characters and events otherwise unknown to the synoptic gospels. For example, the woman at the well, the wedding at Cana, Lazarus (re-animating him), Nicodemus, Malchus and the disciple whom Jesus loved—to name a few. These differences make sense if John possessed copies of these gospels and there was material the other evangelists omitted because of space or memory lapse, in which case John felt it necessary to mention. Of course, John was using hyperbole when he said, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” (John 21:25) NIV. Here is good evidence to state that while on earth, Jesus did many tremendous things that aren’t contained in the synoptic gospels (because there were so many) but were picked up and added by John. This is also likely an illusion to Jesus’s infinite and uncontainable knowledge. So one of the questions we have to ask when we read John’s gospel is, why is it so different? In the opening of the gospel of John like the synoptic gospels, John the Baptist is the forerunner of Jesus and is calling upon the people of God to repent and be baptized. Although Jesus’s baptism is not mentioned, after the Holy Spirit descends upon Him, two of John the Baptist’s disciples follow Jesus (Andrew and an unnamed disciple) while Peter is added shortly thereafter; then we meet Philip and Nathaniel. What is striking about this unnamed disciple if you’re not paying attention is, he sort of disappears from the gospel after chapter one. So here you have one of Jesus’s first disciples to be called, who is unnamed, and easily forgotten about if you’re not paying close attention. However, as the narrative goes on and you get deeper into the gospel, an individual is introduced as the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’. This could be none other than the unnamed disciple that was with Andrew at the beginning of the gospel. Of course he couldn’t be the disciple whom Jesus loved at the beginning of the gospel, that wouldn’t make sense because Jesus didn’t yet know him. But by John 15 during the Last Supper discourse, this unnamed disciple or the disciple whom Jesus loved must have been there from the beginning (1) because he was at the Last Supper (2) it would be strange for this disciple to claim witness to the events of Jesus’s ministry and include himself as one of the disciples if he wasn’t there from the beginning because Jesus said, “And you must also bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.” (John 15:27) ESV.
0 Comments
I was recently in a dialogue with a hardcore Reformed individual, and the topic being discussed was, total depravity. This is a fundamental doctrine within Reformed circles which states that because of the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden, and the fall of mankind, all human beings are stained or marred by sin in such a manner that we are utterly incapable of doing anything good or from a pure motive. In the words of John Piper, “If you have a son, and you want him to do something. . . and he does, ‘the thing’ like unbelievers usually don’t kill people. So they’re obeying the Commandment, do not kill. But, why are they doing that? Are they doing it for the Fathers honor? Is God being magnified in what they do?” No! They are doing it for selfish reasons that are not glorifying God. “So, they are sinning for obeying.” So within this theological grid, there is nothing the unbeliever can do that is good, everything, literally everything they do is a sin before God—even when they do good. That is the doctrine of total depravity. I’ll address this teaching in further depth momentarily, but how far does this teaching go back? The individual I was in a dialogue with today made the appeal that this teaching of Reformed theology has been taught from the beginning, but was officially accepted by the Church during the second synod of Orange in 529.
Now in case you are not familiar with this, the second synod of Orange 529 A.D. was by and large a document containing 25 canons that were derived mainly from the teachings of Saint Augustine of Hippo (which do have some Reformed aspects to them). But the actual reason for the synod was to extinguish semi-Pelagianism (Pelagianism was formally condemned at the Council of Carthage in 418). Originally Introduced by Pelagius (a condemned heretic) was the idea that man is not tainted by original sin, and that grace is only needed to help the will do what it already can (apart from God). In the fifth century, Saint Augustine challenged this teaching stating that all humanity was in fact tainted by original sin and it is wholly by God’s grace alone that we come to Him. While not as extreme, semi-Pelagianism took a softer approach believing that faith was something that a person could achieve on their own, and the grace man receives from God could be merited by human effort (which the Church condemned). However, some Reformed groups have appealed to this synod to accuse the Catholic Church of embracing Semi-Pelagianism, especially those of the Reformed tradition. They look back at the synod of Orange in 529 A.D. by stating that Catholics are trying to earn their salvation apart from God’s grace alone. But this is simply not true, while the Catholic Church speaks about and affirms God’s grace alone; meaning God, by His grace, initiates salvation, and as free agents we respond to that grace in cooperation with it. In other words, unlike semi-Pelagianism, which teaches you can achieve God’s grace by human effort apart from God’s grace, the Church rejects that by saying we work in cooperation with God freely (it takes two to tango). Now was this synod a proto-type of the Reformation? No, it wasn’t. The Reformation came a thousand years later. Now I will admit, certain aspects of Calvinism are visible in the synod of Orange and in Augustianism, but Calvinism is a “package” that came much, much later. Is sola gratia (grace alone) affirmed at the synod of Orange? Absolutely! However, the big difference between Reformed theology and most churches today is, Calvinism denies all ability to do good in the unregenerate man, and the differences between Calvinists and non-Calvinists couldn’t be more blunt. For non-Calvinists, yes, man was severely injured by the sin of Adam, and all are fallen because of his sin, but the image of God was not entirely wiped out, meaning man can still do a measure of good by the grace of God, but he cannot save himself apart from God’s grace. And the synod of Orange agrees with the non-Calvinists or Catholics on this. In canon 8 it says, “free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man . . .” This is very straightforward and agrees with the non-Calvinist. Interestingly enough, this was Augustine’s position as well. And while Augustine held to predestination, it was rejected by the Church. The synod discusses other matters as well such as infant baptism regeneration, (which the Church and Augustine affirmed) predestination (which was also rejected) and free will as we discussed. Fast forward to our present state, Calvinism would not have any adherents if there were not at least some precedence for it found in the scriptures that seemed to affirm the doctrine of total depravity. I readily admit that there are certain passages, that on the surface, seem to imply the teaching of total depravity. But if one simply highlights a few passages and ignores all the counter-evidence i.e. (the Church, the Fathers and Scripture) then you can see why Calvinists get so mad at Catholics and non-Calvinists who disagree with them. But if you take a step back and read these passages, especially in their context, and ask questions, you will come to a much different conclusion. I don’t know where this quote originates from, but it is worth its weight in gold. A text without a context, is just a pretext for whatever you want it to be. This goes right back to my previous statement; we must not isolate a passage or ‘proof text’ by simply dropping a verse—like a mic drop. |
|