A Historical and Theological Investigation of John's Gospel PDF
Preview A Historical and Theological Investigation of John's Gospel
A Historical and Theological Investigation of John’s Gospel Kirk R. MacGregor A Historical and Theological Investigation of John’s Gospel Kirk R. MacGregor A Historical and Theological Investigation of John’s Gospel Kirk R. MacGregor Department of Philosophy & Religion McPherson College McPherson, KS, USA ISBN 978-3-030-53400-4 ISBN 978-3-030-53401-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53401-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland P reface The purpose of this book is to advance new and underexplored theses on a host of issues concerning the Gospel of John in order to generate fresh and creative lines of thought within Johannine scholarship. Owing to the diversity of these issues, the book draws upon a variety of methodological approaches, including historical criticism, literary criticism, source criti- cism, reception history, and logical analysis. Each chapter of the volume will challenge some commonly held historical and/or theological assump- tions about the Fourth Gospel and explain how these challenges can help reshape scholarly thinking about John. A brief description of each of the book’s major arguments and their value for future inquiry is pro- vided below. Chapter 1 challenges the majority view of anonymous authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the sizeable minority view of authorship by the Apostle John. Following Jean Colson, Martin Hengel, Claude Tresmontant, Maria-Luisa Rigato, and especially Richard Bauckham, I propose that a different John—John the Elder, an eyewitness of Jesus’ actions in Jerusalem—stands as the author of the Fourth Gospel. I suggest that this Elder John was a Temple priest who owned the house where the Last Supper was eaten. Hopefully these hypotheses will stimulate future research into the relationships between the Fourth Gospel and eyewitness testimony and between the Fourth Gospel and the Temple establishment. Chapter 2 begins by siding with the approximately 50 percent of schol- ars who posit the literary and epistemic independence of John’s Gospel from the Synoptics. I proceed to offer an innovative reconstruction of the v vi PREFACE Signs Source underlying the Fourth Gospel which differs considerably from that of previous scholarship. Further challenging the scholarly con- sensus, I suggest that the Signs Source was composed by the Elder John himself two decades before incorporating it into his Gospel. The theses in this chapter will hopefully prompt Johannine scholars to reexplore the structure of the Signs Source and the literary similarities between the Signs Source and material distinct to the Fourth Gospel. Chapter 3 defends the traditional theological view—often overlooked in Johannine scholarship—that the Fourth Gospel presents Jesus as onto- logically equal but functionally subordinate to God the Father. Based on an innovative exegesis of John 17, I propose that Jesus extends the rela- tional unity between Father and Son to everyone who pledges their alle- giance to Jesus and his Kingdom movement. These theses will hopefully provoke Johannine scholars, in an interdisciplinary vein, to consider how the application of philosophical categories regarding being, role, and unity might shed new light on the Fourth Gospel. Chapter 4 presents my original view that in the Gospel of John, the meaning of the phrase πιστεύω εἰς plus the accusative (believing in Jesus) is carefully crafted by the Evangelist to specifically denote personal com- mitment to Jesus analogous to a marriage. My identification of the double entendre in John 2.1–11 is central to this proposal. Accordingly, persons who “believe in” Jesus are those who enter into a spiritual marriage with Jesus, not those who simply believe certain ontological and soteriological facts about Jesus. This suggestion has the potential of inspiring scholars to investigate the relationship between the Fourth Gospel and its possible reception through the theme of spiritual marriage in the history of Christian mysticism and of the sixteenth-century Reformations. Chapter 5 challenges the majority view in Johannine scholarship that “believing in his (Jesus’) name” (πιστεύω εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ) constitutes an inferior and salvifically impotent assent to Jesus’ messiahship purely on the basis of his miracles. Rather, I postulate that πιστεύω εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ is equivalent to πιστεύω εἰς αὐτὸν and denotes allegiance to Jesus as the embodiment of Yahweh. I further suggest that, in its historical con- text, Jesus’ refusal to entrust himself to some who “believed in his name” following his Temple demonstration means not that he refused to bequeath such persons’ spiritual salvation but that he would not give himself over to be the political, military messiah they were longing for amidst their Roman oppression. These proposals will hopefully motivate future scholarship to PREFACE vii explore potential Johannine differences between spiritual and political redemption. Chapter 6 innovatively applies the doctrine of middle knowledge to the seeming Johannine paradox that, simultaneously, God the Father chooses only some persons to be saved, each person is able to freely choose between salvation and condemnation, and God the Father desires all persons to be saved. I reconcile these three Johannine claims by suggesting that, while God wants everyone to be saved, God middle-knows that there is no world of free creatures he can create where all would be freely saved. Different worlds of free creatures he can create offer different groups of persons who would be freely saved and freely condemned. God’s choice of which world to create simply is his predestination of every individual in that world whom God middle-knew would freely receive salvation. Along the way, I propose that the salvific inability the Fourth Gospel ascribes to those who fail to enter into spiritual marriage with Jesus is an inability in sensu composito rather than an inability in sensu diviso. These suggestions will hopefully stimulate Johannine scholars to consider, in an interdisci- plinary vein, how the philosophical concept of middle knowledge might illuminate other quandaries in the Fourth Gospel. Chapter 7 corroborates my thesis—rarely found in modern scholar- ship—that, in John 8.40 and 8.56, Jesus asserts not merely preexistence as Abraham’s contemporary but also to be among the three םישׁׅ֔ ָנאֲ (“men”) who comprised Yahweh’s theophany to Abraham. My exegesis stands fully in line with the Hebrew Bible interpretive schema of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers, especially Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, whereby the “angel of Yahweh” theophanies always included or specifically desig- nated the pre-incarnate Logos. This chapter’s thesis will hopefully prompt Johannine scholarship to investigate the Evangelist’s theology of the Angel of Yahweh and to reexplore the trajectory of angelomorphic Christology in earliest Christianity. Chapter 8 challenges the common understanding of John 14.6 that salvation only comes to persons who specifically believe in Jesus. Rather, I innovatively suggest that Jesus was claiming to be a person of such impor- tance in the calculus of salvation that all who ever experienced relationship with God as Father from the beginning of the world until his day only did so through Jesus, despite that the vast majority of such persons predated Jesus’ earthly life and so knew nothing about Jesus. Contrary to prevailing scholarly opinion, I propose that John 14.6 is an authentic saying of the historical Jesus. These contentions will hopefully spark interreligious viii PREFACE dialogue between Johannine scholars and scholars of non-Christian reli- gions regarding the possibility, according to the Fourth Gospel and per- haps Jesus himself, that non-Christian religions constitute valid avenues of salvation. Chapter 9 defends the traditional theological reading of the Fourth Gospel—often minimized in Johannine scholarship—that the Evangelist presents the Holy Spirit as a divine person, not an impersonal force, along- side of God the Father and Jesus himself. I suggest that John furnishes a proto-Trinitarianism, in which the Spirit is ontologically equal but func- tionally subordinate to both God the Father and Jesus. These suppositions have the potential to prompt Johannine scholars into new explorations of the Fourth Gospel’s pneumatology and role in shaping proto-orthodoxy. Chapter 10 proposes that the “doubting Thomas” narrative does not, contrary to contemporary scholarship, present a sincere Thomas simply needing sufficient evidence in order to believe and a Jesus who commends blind faith. I delineate the original interpretation that Thomas, utterly crushed and betrayed by Jesus’ crucifixion, absolutely refused to pledge his allegiance once again to Jesus, even after receiving more than sufficient evidence that Jesus had in fact resurrected from the dead. To underline his absolute refusal to have anything more to do with Jesus, Thomas insin- cerely listed what he regarded as absolutely impossible conditions, which would need to be fulfilled before he ever followed Jesus again. Upon Thomas’ seeing the resurrected Jesus (but never feeling Jesus’ wounds) and again pledging his allegiance to Jesus, Jesus chastised Thomas not for requiring evidence but for refusing to pledge his allegiance to Jesus upon receiving more than sufficient evidence. My interpretation will hopefully prompt creative reflection on the Fourth Gospel’s relationship between faith and reason. It is my sincere hope that this book, regardless of one’s level of agree- ment or disagreement with its theses, will serve as a springboard for several new avenues of inquiry in Johannine scholarship and stimulate the reader to deeper reflection on the Fourth Gospel. McPherson, KS, USA Kirk R. MacGregor a cknowledgments I would like to thank all my colleagues at McPherson College, who create an ideal atmosphere of care, congeniality, and nurture for me to flourish professionally and personally. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Dr. Michael Schneider, president, and Dr. Bruce Clary, vice president for aca- demic affairs, for their constant investment in my teaching, scholarship, and well-being. Thanks to Dr. Herb Smith and Dr. Tom Hurst, my peers in the Department of Philosophy and Religion, for their deep friendship and firm support of my academic endeavors. I am forever grateful to Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Professor Emeritus of History at Miami University, a life-changing professor who introduced me to the academic study of philosophy and religion when I was an under- graduate at Miami. Dr. Yamauchi opened my eyes to the world of profes- sional monographs and journals in biblical studies, a world in which I found myself quite at home. Through my senior capstone with Dr. Yamauchi, I found my calling in life as a scholar of philosophy and reli- gion. During my graduate studies and since earning my doctorate in 2005, Dr. Yamauchi has always kept in touch with me, attending papers of mine and graciously treating me to meals at professional conferences. He is a model academic advisor who genuinely cares about students following graduation. In addition, his exceptional teaching style serves as the pattern which I have attempted to emulate in the classroom. Thanks are especially due to my editors at Palgrave Macmillan, Phil Getz and Amy Invernizzi. Their firm support of this project and their patience in guiding me through the various stages of bringing the manu- script to publication proved invaluable. I am also deeply grateful to two ix x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS anonymous reviewers for their extremely incisive suggestions and critiques of earlier drafts of the manuscript. They are responsible for greatly enhanc- ing the quality of this book. Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank my wife Lara and my son Dwiane. I have deeper theological and philosophical conversations with Lara than with anyone else, and several of those conversations have centered on the Gospel of John. Dwiane’s perpetual energy and enthusi- asm give me great joy.
The list of books you might like
