It is not news that there are themes woven through John's Gospel which clearly and obviously for the reader have great theological significance: light, truth, Father/Son, "I am ..." and so forth. Recently some reading through the Gospel opened up for me the various and manifold ways in which "water" features in many chapters.
1: John says "I baptise in water."
2. Water is turned into wine at Cana.
3. Jesus to Nicodemus: "... born of water and the spirit."
4. The woman at the well and much talk about water, thirst and quenching.
5. Healing at the pool of Bethesda.
6. Stilling of the storm on the lake; Jesus walking on water.
7. Streams of living water.
8.
9. The blind man will see after he has washed his eyes in the pool of Siloam.
10.
11. Jesus wept.
12.
13. Taking a bowl of water, Jesus washes his disciples' feet.
14 - 18.
19: On the cross, Jesus is thirsty (though is given sour wine to sip) and when a spear is thrust into his side, water as well as blood pours forth.
20. Mary weeps.
21. The third encounter by the (male) disciples with the risen Lord takes place beside the Sea of Tiberias.
What are we to make of this?
Maybe not that much. We cannot live without water so the appearance of water in an account of a life and associated lives interacting with that life may be nothing extraordinary. "We all gotta eat and drink and some of us should wash" :).
On the other hand, John does like repeats to make a point. Another example of repetition of a theme is the manner in which John invokes key titles for Jesus - with the point being that every such invocation builds the case for the purpose of the Gospel being fulfilled, that is "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that through this faith you may have live by his name" (John 20:31).
So, we find:
1. Jesus is, inter alia, Messiah / Christ, Son of God, and Lamb of God, Son of Man, the Word, Rabbi.
4. The Samaritan woman (and her townsfolk) testify to Jesus being Messiah / Christ, the Saviour of the World.
6. At the end of this chapter, after the Feeding of the 5000, the Stilling of the Storm and the provocative discourse about the bread of life, Peter confesses, "We believe and know that you are God's Holy One."
9. As the story of the blind man who is healed progresses, the blind man moves from identifying Jesus as "from God", perhaps a "prophet" to declaring, "Lord, I believe."
11. Martha, challenged by Jesus as to whether she believes he can raise Lazarus from the dead, confesses, "I do, Lord ... I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God who was to come into the world."
John pushes the case, though such repetitions (and, also through many discourses not cited above which argue the toss on the question of who Jesus really is), that Jesus is the Messiah / Christ, the Son of God and so, finally, in 20:31, the application of the case is made, that we the readers should believe in this Jesus.
Back to water: if at least some of the water themes in John's Gospel are intentional repetition to make a point, what might the point be?
John Ashton in his beautiful, breathtaking Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991) says,
"Bread and water, the staple necessities of life, are natural symbols of supernatural life." (p. 219).
Through some of the "water" references in John's Gospel, water is not the symbol but the occasion (e.g. the lake/sea, stored in stone jars, tears) for the supernatural, i.e. for signs to be displayed which reveal the glory of God in the life of the Son.
Other references lift water as a natural staple of life to express the supernatural: water as symbol of the Spirit, water as sign of life, life which is in-spired by the Spirit.
Water as a sign of life?
Yes, because the Gospel of John is the Gospel of Life.
"I have come that they may have life and have it abundantly." (10.10)
"But these [signs] are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name." (20:31)
The Gospel of John continues to challenge me because it is so different to the other gospels. How to make sense of it in relation to the Synoptic Gospels? Currently I am re-reading Ashton's book and a number of things are (finally) making (more) sense. There may be some forthcoming posts on this Gospel!
But what does make sense today is that John announces with laser like focus through his gospel that what - who! - gives true, lasting, abundant life to human beings is Jesus Christ.
There is also an intriguing question of the role of the life giving Spirit/water and the believer in the continuing mission of Jesus Christ to give life.
In John 7:38 re read (NRSV):
and let the one who believes in me drink. As[a] the scripture has said, ‘Out of the believer’s heart[b] shall flow rivers of living water.’ ”
Footnotes
Now he said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
13 Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14 but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.”
12 comments:
"beautiful, breathtaking Understanding the Fourth Gospel"
High praise! I'm wondering if this'd be a good one for me to get hold of. Sadly there's no kindle version on Amazon-Australia, paperback's ~$65, so I'm figuring my best bet is to try inter-library loan. Do you think it's a book I'd probably cope with ok and one that would be good learning at my level?
Hi Liz
It is a demanding book - mostly written on presumption that the reader has some understanding of the 19th and 20th century scholarly critique of John’s Gospel - so I hesitate to say “buy it” but if you could get it on inter-library loan … at least then if you really like it, you would know what you are buying!
Hi Liz
Although Understanding the Fourth Gospel is his magnum opus, you already have these by John Ashton--
https://www.scribd.com/book/463586315/Discovering-John-Essays-by-John-Ashton
https://www.scribd.com/book/240870288/The-Gospel-of-John-and-Christian-Origins
Personally, I am more persuaded by those scholars of Second Temple Judaism (Alan Segal, Daniel Boyarin, Peter Schaefer, etc) for whom incarnation was already plausible to at least some Pharisees, Jesus's mission emerged from their movement, and the tugging apart of the rabbinical and patristic branches of Judaism into separate religions was a process lasting centuries. This framework, often advanced by historians of early Judaism, agrees reasonably well with what scholars of the Early High Christology Club (Martin Hengel, Larry Hurtado, Richard Hays, Richard Bauckham, etc), often Evangelicals, have reconstructed about the earliest recognition of the divinity of the Lord.
It is simpler to imagine that Jesus catalyzed pre-existing tradition around his mission than that the most startling and complex innovations came long after his earthly life. The alternative supposes that Second Temple Judaism was less imaginative and more stagnant that the sources allow us to believe.
But commentary is an art. I have never been sorry to spend an hour in the work of John Ashton.
BW
Bowman, I'm indeed reading The Gospel of John and Christian Origins and enjoying it.. except I got distracted with natural law.. I'll get back to it.
From NZ it's not uncommon to find myself restricted because of territory. In the case of Written on the Heart/J. Budziszewski and the Discovering-John-Essays-by-John-Ashton that you mentioned above, they're not available for me until May 13.
I'm glad you shared all those names.. I don't recognise any of them :o
~thanks!
"High Christology" was present in Jesus's ministry from the very beginning, if we are to believe Mark's Gospel (which I do) as an accurate testimony of Jesus's words. Professor Simon Gathercole of Cambridge argued a few years ago that the 'I have come' sayings really point to pre-existence (as do the opening verses of "dialogue" in Mark 1.1-3). If you search the internet, you can find mp3s of his lectures making this argument.
Paul's incarnational Christology affirming the pre-incarnate existence of Christ (Philippines 2 etc) is really very similar to John and Hebrews 1. It's a shame that James Dunn got this wrong in his convoluted attempt to deny Incarnational thought in Paul. Richard Bauckham's little book "God Incarnate" is a succinct discussion of the meaning of the Shema for incarnational Christology.
Pre-AD 70 Judaism was certainly pretty diverse in its beliefs but after the disastrous wars with the Romans it became more uniform.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
I do confess I went down the ‘water’ rabbit hole when I wrote a sermon about the blind man washing in the pool of Siloam recently. It was a very interesting rabbit hole mind you. Now I do imagine most of you commentating here will already be well aware of and probably more so of what I write
My first thought did go to the verse in Ezekiel about water flowing from the temple albeit my understanding became deepened. I looked into the backdrop of the pool of Siloam which said it was a ritual cleansing poor mostly used for women after their menstruation to be clean again. What also came up was the cleansing had to be done in ‘living water’ meaning spring water which flow is endless and constant. At which my clogging brain went ohhh right menstruation would have been associated with death of a ‘potential’ child so the women was unclean because they had touched death, and living water is flowing water with a single source and therefore constantly life-giving.
Jesus telling the blind man to go and wash in the pool of Siloam suddenly became more illuminated. He was told his blindness was so the glory of God might be revealed, “the glory of God in the face of Christ”. With the passage itself being a highlight of spiritual blindness to who Jesus was the going to wash in the pool symbolically and perhaps literally is akin to the recognition of the blind man and all others being ‘dead’ and needing to wash in the living water to become ‘alive’ and hence the association with Baptism. Those who are blind will see, notwithstanding after this he did come to see or recognise who Jesus is. As Jesus said he was to become the temple that would be re-built in three days the possibility of metaphorical correlation between the temple in Ezekiel and Jesus and living water coming out of that temple for the healing of the nations and turning what was dead into the sea alive entered my brain space.
So as you can see I had a lovely time but didn’t have the space for much of it to enter my sermon lol. That being said I do concur with the understanding of living water relating to the Holy Spirit with it’s source as Jesus flowing from Him as the temple of the living God but also, as Peter raises the question over, out of us if we are in relationship with Jesus; ‘But we have this treasure in jars of clay so people will know that the all-surpassing power comes from God and not from us.”
Incidentally there is a fountain on the side of St Peter's in Rome with that inscription from Ezekiel.
One of the many nice things about Rome is that it has plenty of free fountains for the thirsty and footsore tourist.
I haven't read Boyarin yet though I have a couple of his books and have read a number of reviews. Sone think he's wonderful and innovative, others don't think he's that original. They think he has misunderstood Jesus on kashrut and doesn't appreciate the significance of the Resurrection, nor the continuing Easter-Passover connection. I'll reserve my judgment until I have read some more. One thing that is clear is that by the early second century (Pliny's Letter to Trajan) the Roman authorities were clearly distinguishing Christians from Jews, and were spasmodically persecuting the former. If you're interested in sub-apostolic Christianity (and who isn't?), it's good to read The Apostolic Fathers and Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew to see how the "parting of the ways" progressed in the late first and early second centuries.
Personally, the idea that NT teachings about Incarnation and Trinity were already present in germ at least in BC times would be congenial to me, for after all that is how the Church Fathers read Genesis 1 ("Let us make men in our image") and the OT appearances of the Angel of the Lord: as theophanies of the pre-incarnate Christ. Of course "critical scholarship" has dismissed such readings, mais tant pis.
But I will say that the idea that everything Jesus taught was just "catalyzing pre-existing traditions" and "the startling and complex innovations came long after his earthly life" is a bit of a stretch. Jesus knew himself to be God's unique Son and the Son of Man who taught divine truth with an authority that surpassed Moses. Jesus understood his death to be 'a ransom for many', and above all Jesus understood himself to be the Son of Man of Daniel 7.13 *and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Sometimes historians have to reckon with originality!
High Christology (and soteriology) began on the lips of Jesus himself.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Jean, a fascinating contribution! I've learned new info plus I love how you've woven various strands together and it's helped me see how certain things relate to each other that I wouldn't have realised otherwise. And more perspectives on the death/life theme are always really interesting for me.. thanks!
Agreed, Liz. For years, Jean has been + Peter's most consistently interesting commenter. She always opens a window.
BW
"She always opens a window."
Love this! so searched "window" at Bible Gateway. Windows of heaven(s) got my attention.
Gen 7:11 "the windows of the heavens were opened"
Gen 8:2 "the windows of the heavens were closed"
Mal 3:10 "Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing."
Wow! Enjoyed finding these :)
Hi Moya
At the link, Christine Hayes reads between the lines-- Exodus xxxii 7-8, 9-10 --with the rabbis.
"Moses at Sinai: God's Partner or Adversary?" https://youtu.be/Sl2wsYIhg-E
Her Masoretic text with English translation and Rashi's commentary on v 10 is here--
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9893/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-32.htm
Rashi? The acronym and nickname for RAbbi SHlomo Yitzhaki, the preeminent medieval rabbinical commentator on the scriptures and Talmud. All serious students in the subsequent tradition consult the commentaries he wrote in the C11.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi
In the rabbinical tradition of Hayes's audience in Jerusalem, the meaning sought is not necessarily a reconstruction of the intention of the human author. A passage from the Gemara, Menachot 29b, 3-5 takes this up with respect to Moses on Sinai.
https://www.sefaria.org/Menachot.29b.3?lang=bi
What of the divine Author? Is at least his intended meaning the goal of their study? A famous if sad story from the Bava Metzia 59b answers this question.
https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.59b?lang=bi
Hayes's response to a question at the end is another introduction to her survey of midrashim and maybe to the Jewish way of reading the scriptures.
https://youtu.be/Sl2wsYIhg-E?t=3365
I sometimes wonder how far a desire for feminine language for God is simply impatience that he does not reconsider or negotiate.
BW
Hi Liz thanks for your comment, I am afraid my brain holds far too many stranded thoughts together (a bit like a braided river!) and my ability to express them in a way others can comprehend encounters variable success … : ) …. The depth of meaning discovered when delving into scripture is endlessly fascinating…..
BW you are too kind.
William that is interesting about St Peter’s in Rome.
Post a Comment