D. Moody Smith’s The Theology of the Gospel of John is a topical, but
unquestionably scholarly, survey of Johannine theology.
A brief summary of the content
will set the stage for the more detailed review to follow. Smith
begins, in the Introduction, by stating the most obvious, but
interesting of John’s uniqueness, “John more than any of the other
Gospel writers deals with theological matters.”[1] That is, John while
maintaining narrative form, includes a fair amount of theologizing; the
kind of stuff more familiar to epistles. Issues of authorship and
origin are treated only briefly enough to assert they are not central to
the aim of this book. What is central is the understanding that John
makes us “witness to a critical stage in the relationship between
Christianity and Judaism.”[2] What was once one entity, is now in the
early stages of clear distinction. In closing, Smith prepares his
readers with his perspective that given this crucial moment, nearly all
the themes of John ought to be considered in this light. In addition,
other New Testament thought will be considered, for contrast and for
continuity.
Chapter two addresses the setting and
sources of Johannine Theology. Hellenism, Gnosticism and Judaism are
considered, with right emphasis placed on the last. Section by section
the book is surveyed for narrative setting and source with several
insightful observations. One notes the climate of authorship which is
reflected by way of the fact that “more than once...the threat of being
put out of the synagogue is mentioned as something that might dissuade
people from confessing belief in Jesus.”[3] Judaism and Christianity in
general are further considered as settings for John. In summary, Smith
concludes that “the closer one gets to Judaism, as well as early
Christianity, the closer one is to John.”[4] He also highlights the
narrative nature of the book, as well as the two levels of drama within
it: that taking place in the world of Jesus, and that similar drama
inferable in the world of the author.
After nailing
six presuppositions in place, God, Scripture, Jesus, kerygma, church and
spirit, Smith tackles the themes of John in two categories: The
revelation of the glory to the world, and the revelation of the glory to
the community. Questions of Christology feature most prominently in
the first, Ecclesiology and the Christian life are the focus of the
later.
Smith’s final chapter deals with the
myth-mindedness of the New Testament context, Anti-Semitism and the
Nature of Christianity. This discussion of Christianity’s essence is
presumably meant to wrap up the preceding pages, but does so
unsatisfyingly.
On a three points I wish to applaud
Smith; on a couple I will offer my critique. To the extent that Moody
frames his observations in the understanding that John’s author is
attempting to adapt historical events to his contemporary context in the
nexus between sparring Christian and Jewish groups, he is extremely
helpful. With the question in mind of to whom the gospel is written,
and why, there can be little disagreement: it is written to Christians
at odds with their Jewish progenitors and still a bit fearful of
religious life apart from Judaism. John’s dualistic terms, in which you
are either with us who are of the disciples, or you are the world of
which Jesus warned “If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me
before it hated you” (15:18). Smith’s insight that John’s author and
audience are undoubtedly needing such affirmation invites us as current
readers to participate in dual narratives[5], that in which John’s Jesus
walks, and that in which John’s author does.
Flowing out of the observation that the narrative has two levels,
considerable attention is given to the nature of the community receiving
the Gospel. Given my own interest in ecclesiology, this was especially
enjoyable. And it is warranted. John’s Gospel very clearly assumes a
cohesive, defined non-Jewish (religiously) Christian community. With
attention to the place of the Beloved Disciple, as well as that of the
man born blind standing in for the Johannine community, the narrative
comes alive with relevance, not only to the blooming church, but also
for Christians today. Smith’s sustained discussion of the community
brings the text to life; seeing how it was once so relevant invites me
to see its relevancy to my own communities.
Also commendable, is
Smith’s comparisons of Johannine themes with those present in other New
Testament writings. John’s Gospel seems to take for granted knowledge
which comes to us through other writings, as Smith states in his final
paragraph: “there is a real an important sense in which John begs to be
read in light of the rest of the New Testament, particularly the
Synoptic Gospels”.[6] (182). Apparently unconcerned to connect all the
dots, John lacks narration of events he could hardly have been unaware
of,, including Jesus’ baptism and the institution of the Lord’s Supper,
with no apparent reason. So while exegetical scholarship has tended to
stress solely the importance of ‘letting the text speak for itself’ as
opposed to allowing other texts to fill in the gaps, John, it seems, at
times expects this foundation, though it builds from there, and presents
something in a new way.
Despite these dominant
strengths, Smith’s treatment is lacking in two notable areas. First, he
seems indecisive regarding the central theme of John. In one place, he
claims, “The fundamental question of the Fourth Gospel is the question
of God...”[7] while, in keeping with most other scholars, he spends the
majority of his pages discussing Christology, calling it a theme of
“severe concentration.”[8] To further the confusion, he states early
on that revelation is “precisely the theme of this Gospel”.[9] The
recognition that revelation is a dominant theme is refreshing, but
muddies the waters. So which is the predominant theme: Theology proper,
Christology, or revelation? The most helpful answer is a nuanced
inclusion of them all: The major theme of John’s Gospel is that Jesus
reveals who God is. Hence, emphasis tends fall on either the subject
(Jesus), the object (God) or the verb (revelation). Smith points in this
direction on the first pages of chapter three, but why he can not state
it succinctly, I do not understand.
My second,
and most severe, criticism is that which I mentioned in the opening: the
structure and flow of the book is much too difficult to follow. Even
for one in the midst of engaging Johannine themes such as myself,
keeping track of the flow of argument was a task. For one without
Johannine literacy, I can only think it would be a burdensome read.
Headings lacked helpful indentation and there are too few conclusive
summaries for sections, not to mention the absence of one for the whole.
As mentioned the Table on Contents proved to be very little help in
sorting out the structure. In sum, this book is not reader-friendly.
They say that cultural adaptation means learning to put the
same goods in a more accessible package. Smith as ‘got the goods,’ so
to speak, of solid scholarly insight and helpful analysis of the
relevancy of context on the Gospel of John. Smith brings helpful
attention to the developing distance between Judaism and Christianity.
He deals nicely with the Johannine community. He relates John’s Gospel
to the relevant context of other Christian writings. All these are
gems to the Johannine student. Sadly, it is the packaging, presently a
reader-unfriendly format, which serves as the greatest impediment to the
goods within.
________________________________
[1] p. 1
[2] p. 8
[3] p. 33
[4] p. 72
[5] p. 73
[6] p. 182
[7] p. 75
[8] p. 181
[9] p. 24
No comments:
Post a Comment