Theological shifts in John's Gospel relative to the Synoptic Gospels

For the past 25 years I have had a deeper interest in the four gospels than in my preceding years of adult engagement with faith, theology and spiritual life in Christ. 

Among questions significant for me to explore has been the question of the relationship with John's Gospel to the Synoptic Gospels. (That is, to Matthew, Mark, and Luke which have their own differences from each other, but have much common material, and essentially present Jesus in a similar manner, as a wandering Galilean rabbi who is only engaged with Jerusalem at the end of his life.) 

There are many differences between John and the Synoptics - so many that many scholars think John's Gospel was composed without knowledge of the other three gospels. My own estimation is that, actually, John did know at least one of the other gospels well, and is precisely different because he chooses to be different - different through theological/christological/pneumatological development of ideas and themes in the Synoptic Gospels so that a deeper meaning or (taking up an ancient word used to describe John's Gospel in distinction from the other gospels) or a spiritual meaning is presented in John's narration of the story of Jesus' life and teaching.

Some of this development is pretty obvious as we read through John's Gospel. For instance, within John 3 we encounter the last times the phrase "the kingdom of God" is used, henceforth to be replaced by the phrase "eternal life." In John 6 there is teaching on the meaning of the bread and wine of communion to an extent and to a depth found nowhere in the Synoptics. Throughout the whole Gospel, the meaning of the relationship between Jesus the Son and God the Father is a recurring theme, presented in a variety of ways, well beyond any talk in the Synoptics of Jesus as "the Son of God", God as "Father" or "Our Father", and Son in relationship to Father and vice versa. The whole of the Gospel of John, from the perspective of Father/Son is a development of a verse common to Matthew and Luke (Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22).

Recently I thought of another shift. (I am not claiming to be the first to have thought of this shift - only claiming it is the first time I have thought of this particular shift.)

That shift is from Jesus talking in ways which categorise his disciples as "servants" (we could think, for instance, of passages such as Mark 10:33-37 // Matthew 18:1-5 // Luke 9:46-49; Matthew 25:14-30 // Luke 19:11-27) to "friends" (John 15: 13-15). This shift is reinforced by Jesus having special friends: Lazarus (John 11:3, 11) and "The Beloved Disciple" (John 13:23 etc).

This shift to talk of the disciples in more intimate human relationship terms than "servant" is at one with the themes in John's Gospel of the intimacy between God and Jesus (Father/Son) and the role of the Spirit as indwelling the disciples.

And, for me personally, I have been gently challenged: do I think of myself as a "friend" of Jesus (and vice versa) rather than as a "servant"?

Conferencing to encourage our living faith

Between a lovely day off on Monday (public holiday here in NZ) and a busy day yesterday (travelling to Auckland for a day and evening meeting) this week's post is delayed till ... it's Wednesday already!

On Saturday we held a day long diocesan conference with the theme, Living Faith.

About 400 people participated (thanks be to God) and we heard from a variety of plenary speakers and panellists, the lead three of whom were Bishop Eleanor Sanderson (Hull, England, formerly of Wellington, NZ), Dallas Harema (Christchurch), and Grant Norsworthy (Nelson, with music background years in Australia and the USA).

 Everyone was great; the music was excellent, the organisation was superb; the venue was amazing (CBHS auditorium) ... and the weather was lousy (wet, cold, miserable) but at least no one was sitting there thinking about what they could have been doing in the garden (Labour Weekend being an excellent time in Christchurch for planting things outdoors such as tomatoes). Again, thanks be to God!

What were the takeaways from the conference? There were many but they (in my summary view) boiled down to this: all we have to offer a questioning, cynical, indifferent community beyond the church is our Jesus-shaped lives. Discipleship - discipleship which multiplies - disciples making disciples - Jesus-shaped people encouraging Jesus-shaped people is critical to the present and future of the church.

We who have a living faith long to see others also have what we treasure and what shapes our lives for good. When we look to Jesus to see what he did, we see Jesus making disciples who make disciples.

Let it be so.

Using my reserved right to write about cricket ... and some serious religious stuff

What a weekend just past: NZ won the America's Cup [yachting] - not unexpected; and our Silver Ferns [netball] team beat the Australian Diamonds [it does happen]. But the "blows me away" factor for the weekend are two amazing cricket victories, happily, one for our women and one for our men.

The White Ferns beat South Africa to win their first ever T20 World Cup competition - and all the more surprisingly because in the run up to the tournament the team had lost 10 matches in a row!

A mere 10 or so hours before this wonderful triumph, the Black Caps beat India, in India, their first victory over India in India for 36 years (and just third victory there ever). Again, a very unexpected result, not just because a long time coming, but because recently, elsewhere in the Asian region [cricket pitches generally being a bit different there to here, favouring spin bowlers], the Black Caps had just lost two tests to Sri Lanka (not world champions, unlike India).

So, lots to smile about, read about and generally delight in.

Perhaps not quite the same if we look at religion in Aotearoa New Zealand through a "win/loss" lens.

On Saturday our local paper, The Press published an article on the currently rapid decline in religious allegiance as declared through the census. (See also here.) We are now at more than 50% of the population declaring they are not religious. The first two sentences of the article put the state of affairs bluntly:

"The deep Christian roots of New Zealand are disappearing, new census results show.

Aotearoa is becoming a more secular country as more Kiwis abandon the church."

The churches have known this for some time since our own attendance figures show decline.

If religion were a sport, the churches are currently on the losing side.

There is some news, we might call it "good", that religion may be being "replaced" by spirituality, including a new civic spirituality.

But, for Christians, who love our Lord Jesus Christ, that is not the Good News - not the news of the love of God experienced through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

We are in a tough period in our history. Whether or not this is the toughest time to be a Christian (aside from actual persecution), this is a new era for Christians, the post Christian era in which Western society, but very noticeably our Kiwi society, is collectively saying about the Gospel, "Been there, done that, no longer interested or bothered about matters of eternal significance."

From a different part of Western society, I noticed this on X/Twitter over the weekend:

The background here (I assume, as the article by Ross Douthat is behind a paywall) is the new interest in belief in God a la Tom Holland, Jordan Peterson, Russell Brand, and co. Even as "religion" declines, there can be a longing for what is lost ("a vague nostalgia for belief") but that - the argument appears to be - is insufficient for reclaiming what has been lost. [UPDATE: thanks to a correspondent I can now offer a link to another media site where the article is carried, here. At this point in time I have no time to engage with a very well considered reflection by Douthat.]

Either way, whether I am second guessing what Douthat is on about or not, there is plenty to think about in this article by Luke Bretherton.

One thing to think about is to be committed, through thick and thin, to the basics of the Christian life, including basic worship action: turning up to church regularly, which, for clarity, I propose is "at least weekly."

I suggest a challenge, putting all articles linked to here together, is whether we see the future of the church as the church - as the body of Christ, as the people of God united by belief in Christ and commitment to follow Christ - or as something else (for example, as keepers of a certain past of our society, or as useful guides and helps on the way to a new spirituality emerging).

Domestic bliss?

I had a lovely week on annual leave last week. Lovely because (a) the weather was good (b) I got to stay in comfy accommodation (c) I enjoyed some physical exertion (d) I achieved some goals. Or, in other words, I stayed home and sorted out some things that needed doing in the garage and garden :). But it was truly lovely - relaxing, undemanding, and with plenty of time to do what needed to be done.

Meanwhile, the world is burning up - with wars (nothing improved in the Middle East yet, nor Ukraine, nor Sudan), and with climate change (albeit the "burning" in the news was Hurricane Milton's devastation). And news for those with eyes to see and ears to hear on the NZ economic front is just terrible: ballooning government debt (despite best attempts to reduce spending) because, not to put too fine a point on it, we are not growing our economy so not growing our tax take. Singularly unhelpful for those of us who stay in NZ: increasing attractiveness of Australia as a place to live/work/make money and, one news item I listened too, the full, attractional effects of Australia's now easier path for Kiwis to secure Australian citizenship making their mark.

Last week, in my relaxed state of mind, with warm spring sunshine, there was no place I would rather have been, other than heaven itself - which is not to diss Australia (I have enjoyed every visit I have made there), just to say, I feel no pressing need to migrate. 

Funnily enough, at the end of this week of "domestic bliss" I came across this quote of C.S. Lewis on X/Twitter:

So, from that perspective, maybe the NZ government is doing its job :).

Clearly this is not the way the whole of the world is - not even the whole of NZ. There are many challenges to be overcome to ensure "domestic bliss", a la C.S. Lewis, for all citizens of our planet.

Of course, my domestic bliss, with a garage and garden to potter around in, may not be your domestic bliss, which may require the sea to sail in, mountain tracks to cycle on, theatres to see plays performed, or just a friendly neighbourhood pub where the darts fly well, the beer is fine, and the All Blacks always win on a Saturday night test. So, politicians have more than, say, provision of good housing for all, to aim for, and thus complexity in political life is introduced by our diverse wishes for the good life.

In this mixed bag of a world, the call of God to people is to seek more than domestic bliss, it is to seek eternal bliss in the presence of God. The church or gathered people of God are called to witness to the goodness and grace of God and to the permanence of God's faithful, everlasting love for God's people. For a large section of the world, the Western world, God's call on our lives is demanding because, despite our grumbles about our lives and our governments' deficiencies, we typically live a life of material, physical (good health) bliss, for a long number of years, beyond the wildest dreams of, say, our forebears just over a century ago. Hearts are hardened to the gospel message: why bother with God when the surf is up, there is snow on the slopes and my body feels fine?

Some recent published census stats about NZ religious allegiance (i.e. my willingness to not only attest in a census to generally being religious but to identifying as "Anglican" or "Catholic" or "Baptist") show further rapid decline in specific Christian identification in our nation.

As Christians we must be thankful - and there is much to be thankful for as we live lives of material, physical contentment - but as Christians we also cry out to God, When will revival of love and appreciation for the goodness and grace of God as both Creator and Redeemer come on our nation?

7 October 2023 - A Difficult Anniversary

Today is 7 October 2024, the anniversary of the attack on Israeli citizens (and other citizens of other countries) by Hamas terrorists on 7 October 2023. Terrible things happened that day and understandably, Israel retaliated against Gaza.

Harder to understand is why Israel's retaliation has involved killing, wounding and maiming so many Palestinians, including children. Similarly, since it was Hamas terrorists from Gaza who cruelly killed, wounded and raped people on 7 October 2023, it is difficult to comprehend why the West Bank has also suffered excursions and exploitations by Israel.

Now, Gaza is almost lost from the news as the conflict in the Middle East embroils southern Lebanon as the IDF engages with Hezbollah. Again, while this conflict is understandable (Hezbollah has rained down many rockets on northern Israel for a long time), innocent Lebanese people are suffering.

Somewhere in all the events, before, on and after 7 October 2024, Iran is a "great power" behind the attempts to obliterate Israel from the map, and Israeli Jews from existence. Can Iran be held to account?

What are we to say today? And, when we live far from the conflict zones and/or we as individuals feel literally powerless in the face of the real powers involved (e.g. nations supplying weapons), is there anything we can say which amounts to more than handwringing in the face of horrible, terrible, tragic human suffering?

Via a friend I have received the following talking points, provided by Palestinian Anglicans - the full set can be found here. There first three are:

I do not ask readers here to agree or disagree with these talking points in all their nuances and emphases: for example, on 7 October itself, we might put more emphasis on Israel's suffering a year ago, and on the continuing holding of hostages from that day.

Nevertheless, I am sure we all as Christians are concerned to stand with all people suffering in the Middle East (each is a person made in God's image) and to pray for peace which is lasting and genuine and thus can only be a peace which involves justice. (Our own "peace with God" always rests on God's just resolution of our conflict with God due to our sin, and resolved through Jesus' death on the cross. There is no peace which is actual peace without justice.)

Something often said is apt: there are causes in the world worth dying for, there are no causes worth killing for.

Can any of us say that true peace with justice in the Middle East is nearer because of the death and suffering these past 366 days have involved?

A tricky Bible passage

Yesterday, for a 150th celebration of a church, our readings included Epehsians 4:1-14 (i.e. not the usual lectionary epistle reading).

In this passage, verses 7-14 discuss the grace of God given to each of us, focusing on gifts that mean that some of us are apostles, prophet, evangelists, teachers and pastors, all for the purpose of equipping the saints so that the body of Christ is built up. If that were all there was to the passage it would be, in the light of passages about ministry gifts, such as Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12, unremarkable in its straightforward proposal that God helps the church through the gifts of the Spirit.

But Paul (or the disciple of Paul) who writes this passage introduces a Scripture-based reason for asserting that Christ gifts the church by writing in verse 8,

'Therefore it is said, "When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive; he gave gifts to his people".'

There is no dispute that Psalm 68:18 is being cited in this verse.

Therein lies the problem, the trickiness to which the title of this post refers, because this is how Psalm 68:18 reads:

"You ascended the high mount, leading captives in your train and receiving gifts from people, even from those who rebel against the Lord God's abiding there."

Even when we turn to the Greek Old Testament (LXX) where we find a version close to what is being cited in Ephesians (here citing The Bible translated by Nicholas King), we are still challenged:

"You have gone up on high; you have taken captivity captive; you have received gifts among humans; for they were disobeient in pitching their tents."

Paul says, citing this verse, that it talks proleptically about Christ giving gifts to humanity. The verse itself, in either the Hebrew or Greek versions familiar to New Testament writers, as far as is generally the case across New Testament writings, talks proleptically about Christ receiving gifts from humanity.

Giving does not equal receiving. This is a challenge for Biblical scholars to explain!

Look up any commentary and you will find interesting, clever attempts to explain how A = B. Essentially, the best explanation is that Paul is citing an unknown version of the passage (which does exist via the Syriac Peshitta or the Aramaic Targums, but these likely date later than Ephesians). If he is doing this, then there remains the oddity that he is "pick and mixing" his versions of the Psalms to suit his expositional cause. It is, incidentally, simpler to assume that Paul is simply making of Psalm 68:18 what he wishes - anticipating, so to speak, what later versions will also do (perhaps influenced by Paul's exegetical bravado?).

But in turn, this means, on any reckoning of how Paul got from "receive" to "give", that he employs the Old Testament in support of his "New Testament" theology in a fairly free manner (whether he himself is being free or he finds help from others who have been free) - where "free" means comfortable to adjust and adapt the text before him to suit current purposes.

Generally speaking in today's modern world we who count ourselves as respectable in respect of the role of serious biblical study in preparation of expositional materials such as sermons look in great askance at preachers etc who are as "free" as Paul himself seems to have been with scriptural texts!

Now we could, time permitting, which it is not, head down various interesting roads of reflection on Ephesians 4:8/Psalm 68:18 in respect of the Bible and how it came into being, reflecting on the Bible’s quirkiness if not its trickiness at various points in its creation and composition.

My one reflection in this post is that Scripture is a complex set of writings. We may need to both accept that as a fact and respect it as a fact with implications for how we understand Scripture as inspired, sacred writings.

Paul was human!

Evangelism is hard in the Western world

Recently I have had access to the Australian Church Record, specifically the [Sydney] Synod 2024 issue.

On pp. 3ff is an article "Attendance Decline Report."

It discusses a report going to the Diocese of Sydney Synod which addresses the matter of a decline in attendance across Sydney Anglican churches, summarised thus:

"The report itself is clear in its major findings. Across the 436 Church Centres that existed within the Diocese between 2013 to 2023, the overall adult attendance declined in raw percentage numbers by 6.7%, or by 14.4% when you consider population growth."

In part the article proposes the Synod is honest about the statistics. In part the article notes that statistics always need some delving into. In another part the article encourages ministry leaders to be faithful - God measures our faithfulness and not our attendance statistics. Amen. Amen. Amen.

But something the article does not reflect on is this. The Sydney Anglican diocese has good form, whether through its leadership boycotting Lambeth Conferences and the like, or leading individuals who tell the rest of the Anglican world whether it is "faithful" to the Gospel or not, "orthodox" or not, and truly "biblical" or not. Implied in such claims, of course, is that on the side of such claims is impressive attendance statistics: look, we're right and have the numbers to prove it; you're wrong and your attendance figures show what a lost (liberal/progressive/whatever) cause you are (mistakenly) following.

Now, it is very true that Sydney Anglicans have very impressive attendance figures relative to other Australian Anglican dioceses. It is also very true that there are forms of Christianity which are not cutting the attendance mustard in the modern or post-modern Western world: genuinely "liberal" or "progressive" congregations are hurting with falling numbers.

But this decline in Sydney Anglican attendances suggests a bit of reflection, beyond what the article envisages, as to what the nature of the Gospel is in the ever changing face of Western society. If the Sydney version is not growing the church, if its best claim is (say) that it is declining less rapidly than other dioceses hereabouts, then is there not a question whether we (Sydney as well as the rest of us) are all missing an acute, adept, adapted understanding of the Gospel which will win a hearing and secure a growing church in the 21st century?

Might we, further, continue our common quest to find what the Gospel is for this day and age without the rancour of lobbing claims about (un)faithful, (un)orthodox, (un)biblical, etc at each other. Instead of lobbing theological grenades, might we humbly continue dialogue within ourselves and, indeed, dialogue with our Western society as to the meaning of the Gospel for today?

Evangelism is hard in the Western world. The Sydney stats bear this out - they undergird what other dioceses know only too well. It is tough out there to share the Gospel in a post-Christian world - a world which operates on the basis that Christianity has come, produced mixed results in society, and thankfully is on its way out. (That same post-Christian world has not come up with anything which much improves on the Christian gospel as a basis for a just, kind and grace-filled society!)

Amidst all the turmoil in Western Christianity (e.g. how have we become so confused that we think Trump is a saviour and eschewing vaccines is cutting edge discipleship?) we need - as faithful, orthodox, biblical Christians - to continue working on what the Gospel is for our world.

In the first century, the earliest Christians managed to:

- change the Aramaic preaching of Jesus into four differing Gospel narratives written in Greek

- shift gear from agrarian Galilee oriented parables to engagement with Hellenistic philosophy (e.g. 1 Corinthians, Hebrews)

- reflect on what the Jewish Jesus's gospel's common ground with contemporary Judaism(s) was and what was distinctive about it as Jews and Jewish Christians worked through the meaning of Jesus Christ's teaching, life, death and resurrection (e.g. Romans, Galatians)

- rework Jewish apocalyptic literature such as Daniel, resisting the encroachment of Hellenism as a culture and Hellenistic imperialism as anti-Israel's God, into Revelation which resisted the encroachment of Roman imperialism in both economic domination and idolatrous practices by proclaiming the kingdom of God and Christ.

In the second and third centuries, the next generations of Christians took the engagement with and, as appropriate, adaptation of Hellenistic philosophy several steps further in the quest to spread the Gospel message.

Naturally there were many intra Christian disputes and dramas along the way of that working out of the meaning of the Gospel for the ancient world of the Mediterranean region (e.g. Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, the writings of (e.g.) Tertullian and Origen express such disputes). We are having disputes and dramas today. But, just maybe, recognising that we Anglicans are all struggling re attendances, we could turn the dial down a bit and work on dialogue as a way forward rather than dispute?