Gnosticism and docetism and Platonic dualism, Oh No!

Why I don't like John's writings

Germany

Fair warning! If you keep going you're going to read things you probably aren't going to like.

I don't like John's gospel. It is too philosophical and too emotional. If he wrote after 70AD, which is likely, it is understandable that he lived in a different age than the other writers (Jerusalem was destroyed, tens of thousands had been killed and taken into slavery), but John seems to be in a different universe altogether. He is philosophical. Far too philosophical. Even if he did write later and even if the enemies of the Church were different from those faced by Paul and Peter, I don't agree that he should have conformed his writings to these outside forces.

John's Gospel is so much a reply to Hellenistic philosophy and Gnosticism and docetism and Platonic dualism and mysticism and the Ebionites that John himself becomes philosophical. Why devote his Gospel and three epistles to it? A few paragraphs is enough to explain the truth and expose the error. Paul also takes these problems, in 1 Corinthians, but dismisses them in chapters 1 and 2. He reminds them that he did not use lofty words or wisdom, but came to them in weakness, so that their faith would not be grounded in human wisdom but on the power of God. He says Greeks desire wisdom and admits that Christ crucified is foolishness to them. But that's not a deal-breaker! It's just the way it is. Make an effort, then wipe the dust off the soles of your shoes and go on.

Paul scorns those who consider themselves wise by saying that God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom. In chapter 5 he scolds the Corinthians for confusing his instructions on the sexually immoral person by telling them they are not to judge people outside the church: that is God's area.

So that is the question for John is: Why are you so obsessed with them? Why devote your entire Gospel to this, plus three letters? Why attack the darkness? Just live in the light.

It's a distraction and John fell for it. They dangled a heresy in his face and he took it: hook, line, and sinker. There is no account in Scripture of John doing anything useful after Acts 8. He had no church in Greece or Rome or in any other Gentile area (neither did Peter or James) and it is not so certain that he even had a church in Jerusalem. The problem with being a Pillar is that a person tends to enjoy it. They regard the people in the trenches as being down there for a reason: they're not able to see the big picture and make big decisions. Having convinced themselves that they do see the big picture, they call meetings with other big-picture people to make big decisions. And so they got together, Peter and John and James, to talk about problems throughout their empire. How they were going to deal with Paul was a constant sore point. What were they going to do with this man who keeps making churches all over the place?

John needed to be seen as important and wise. Paul had no problem being considered the fool. Paul wanted to know Christ and wanted to share his sufferings. John was already the one Jesus loved. It was enough.

People say they love John 1.1-18. I doubt it. I think they like the high-mindedness of it. The philosophy appeals to people who think it takes them to a higher plane. But they can't explain it. A person can like John 1 and John 3 and John 15 and the Lord's Prayer and Rom 8 and 1 Cor 13, and they make nice wall hangings, but what good are they if you can't explain them?

John bookends his Gospel with "this is the testimony" (the Baptist in 1.7-34 and himself in 21.24) and at other times inserts statements insisting that he is writing the truth (19.35 and 20.30-31), which raises doubts: he doth protest too much, methinks. 44 times he says "testify" or "testimony". 26 times he talks about "truth". 76 times he uses the word "see". Yes, that's from the NRSV, but the point is valid nevertheless: his Gospel is saturated with claims that he saw and he knows. (But why then the strange statement in 5.33 that Jesus doesn't accept human testimony?) John is not satisfied until he has told us 150 times that he is telling the truth. Yes, people need to know the truth, and yes, people who were there are the best sources, but John hammers from front to back that all this is true and then... well, he doesn't convince.

John doesn't just leave out Temptation, he makes it impossible by his "the next day, the next day, the next day, on the third day" cadence in chapters 1 and 2. It is impossible to squeeze a 40-day Temptation in there. But after his strict day-to-day chronology for the baptism, calling of the Twelve, and wedding in Cana, he moves the cleansing of the temple from the end of the story to the front. Why? Why require a strict chronology that excludes the Temptation and then bring the cleansing of the Temple three years forward? His fly-on-the-wall accounts of conversations that he could not have heard are troubling (Jesus and Nicodemus, Jesus at the well in Samaria, the man before the Pharisees who had been healed of blindness (ch 9), Jesus before Pilate). He makes early statements about Jesus' divinity that were not included by the other Gospel writers because those revelations came only late in his ministry (1.34, 41, 49; 3.35-36 and many others like it). He repeats long teachings of Jesus that could not have been recollected verbatim. John 2.24-25 is weird: what is it supposed to mean? Does anyone care to explain John 7.8-10 without changing the words? His correction of Jesus in 7.22 is ridiculous (who corrects the Word?!). Why not also correct 7.38? (The Scriptures don't say that ‘Out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water.’) What does 10.5 mean? If the sheep will not follow the stranger, what is the reason for John's Gospel? Can anyone explain 10.34 (‘you are gods’) without changing the words? The giving of Mary to John at the cross makes no sense. Mary had children and John had a mother. Why give John a responsibility that will keep him out of the work? If he took her into his home from that hour, where was she on Sunday? And a week later. And two weeks later, and three weeks later. And can anyone please explain what Mary was doing in the upstairs room in Acts 1.14 while her son was just a 20-minute walk outside the city? Okay, I've gotten carried away: that's not in John, but what is going on here?! If Mary was with John, why didn't she run to the tomb? If John went in, saw, and believed, would it not have helped things considerably for Mary to also run, look in, and believe? Why was she not with her son every minute for the next six weeks? Why did Jesus make it a point to appear to Thomas but not to his mother? Why did she let a stranger bury her son? Why did she let strangers go on Sunday morning to prepare his body? What was she doing praying in the upper room instead of with him at his final moment? Can you imagine such a thing?! I have a son who is 34. I cannot stretch my mind wide enough to understand Mary. This is not how a parent acts.

The seven "I Am"s that John uses for structuring the gospel story are strained, and even artificial, in their numbering and construction. The I Am reaches its peak in 8.58 (before Abraham was, I Am) and then in 18.6 with the soldiers and police falling to the ground. There is also Peter's confession after some disciples abandoned Jesus in 6.66 for saying they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. I'm not saying these things didn't happen; I'm just saying that these are rather spectacular events for the other Gospel writers to not mention.

And then we get to John's three letters. They are notoriously difficult to explain. I do not accept the explanation that John wrote at a high level. It is not a high level. It is just John, getting all philosophical. And he polarizes his readers: himself on one side; everyone who disagrees on the other. Like James.

He tops it off with this remarkable statement in 1 John 2.5-6: an astonishing instance of not reading what he's writing:

Whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says, “I abide in him,” ought to walk just as he walked.

John did not obey and he did not walk as Jesus walked! Not even close. For John to say we "ought to walk just as he walked" is outlandish. He was told to do it, didn't, and now he tells other people they must?

Jesus walked a determined, difficult path that led to the cross. John didn't get onto that path. His path was more of a hole than a path. He stayed. And stayed. And stayed. He left only when God tore the city down.

John somehow put himself in the spotlight without being spotted. My suspicion is he did that by copying James: keep the Gentiles at arm's length and the Jews to your breast. So long as you don't upset the Jews, you'll be okay.

Peter and John began well. They were literally Daniel being thrown to the lions and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego staring into the fiery furnace. Their first courage should have emboldened them for great things. John's last act is in Acts 8, when Peter and John went to Samaria. In chapter 9 Paul comes onto the scene and John disappears. He is not mentioned again by name; only as one of the apostles. And when he is included with the apostles, it is not to his credit. He was part of the Acts 15 debacle, did not oppose James' plan to expose Paul in Acts 21, did nothing to save Paul from the mob, and left Paul languishing in prison for two years (24.27). This is walking as Jesus walked?!

I understand that people will react strongly to this. John 3.7 (you must be born again) is literally the definition of who we are. John 3.16 is the first verse we memorize. John 15 ranks as one of the most beautiful passages of Scripture. The Good Shepherd, the Light of the World, the Bread of Life, the True Vine... all bright jewels in the crown of Christianity. I am the resurrection and the life; I am the way, the truth, and the life: our faith is nothing without these. All are treasures. Absolutely. I have given deeply satisfying Bible studies on the Gospel of John.

But, while you're admiring the beauty of John 15, did you notice the death? God will not force anyone, even the Twelve, to obey, but the not-very-subtle truth to them was that if they didn't, they would be thrown out and burned. The vine, the branches, and the vine-dresser are deadly serious truths wrapped in a pretty package. It's made memorable by Christ for a reason: they must do it! They cannot forget. They cannot misunderstand that he told them this on his last night, after Judas was gone. It could not have been more intimate. Or intense. Jesus can't make them do it, but he can tell them in words that can't be forgotten. This is their moment of decision: "choose this day whom you will serve".

Despite all that, despite remembering it all word-for-word, John didn't do it. He didn't abide in him, he didn't bear much fruit, he didn't keep his commandments, he didn't abide in his love.

I don't like John's Gospel or letters. I don't like 2 Peter. Or James, or Jude. The Pillars are troubling because they wrote only to Jews, remained Jewish, promoted themselves and one another to positions they had no business taking, kept the Gentiles as second-class citizens of the Kingdom (did they imagine there would be a Gentile area there?), battled Paul for insisting that in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, and never honored Jesus' last request: that they love his sheep.

I'm not going to say their writings should not be in the New Testament. They are. Full stop. But motives and beliefs and prejudices matter, and John, Peter, James and Jude had deeply entrenched beliefs that strongly determined who they wrote to and who they didn't, who they cared about and who they didn't, and what truths they accepted.

So when John (40, 50 years later?) sets out to battle Gnosticism and dualism and mysticism, but blithely overlooks the fact that he had never embraced Gentile believers as true heirs alongside the Jews, then his motive for defending Jesus becomes suspect. Jesus never asked John to defend him. He told John to do a lot of things, but defending him wasn't one of them. John had years to reflect upon how things had turned out. To conclude that Gnosticism and Hellenistic philosophy were the threats he needed to address was wrong, and yes, I'll say it: cowardly. He needed to do what he was told. If he had done that, he would not have had the slightest interest in philosophy.

The problem this makes for the Church is this: John was there. He was with Jesus from the beginning to the end. He was at the table when Jesus gave them his final instructions. He was there when Jesus told Peter three times: feed my sheep. He calls himself the disciple whom Jesus loved. He was at the cross. He took Mary into his house from that hour. He ran to the empty tomb. He knew the deepest, dearest final wishes of Christ: Feed my sheep. If you love me, you will keep my commandments. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am. I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

John wrote all of these things, with his own hand. Then he wrote:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these 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.

Then he wrote:

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.

John pondered these things for 40 or 50 years and then wrote them down: so we could come to believe and have life in his name. John wrote all these things down and put a final period at the end by saying his testimony is true. And yet, he didn't do it. If it was up to John, there would have been no church.

There is a significant lack in John's credibility when he continually reminds us he was there. A lot of people were there. Being there is not the significant thing. Being the one Jesus loved is not the significant thing. Jesus said, if you love me you will do what I say. That is the significant thing. But John didn't. He stood and watched. He didn't go, he didn't help those who went, he didn't even understand those who went. He stayed, thought things over, then wrote. That is far from fulfilling the command.

The problem is this: If Peter and John didn't have to do it, no one else has to do it either. It is not enough to say that God divided up the territories and it was right for the disciples to stay in Jerusalem. Peter tacitly had responsibility for the Gentile areas because so much effort was put into him to make sure he understood there was nothing unclean, the Gentiles received the Spirit as they did, and the Gentiles should be baptized. But Peter happily turned that over to Paul and then stayed in Jerusalem with John and James, not because it was their assigned area but because they were Jews and they did not consider it garbage. They protected it.

Look closely at the words of Christ. "Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned." Paul counted it as garbage and threw it away. Jesus gave them no choice: either throw it away or be thrown away.

If John could ponder these things for years and then write them down, with Paul squarely in his face doing what he would not, and more than that—interfering, then the blindness in chapter 9 was not confined to the Pharisees. John didn't leave Jerusalem until there was no Jerusalem.

If John didn't have to do it, then Jesus can require nothing of anyone. If John, after all he saw and heard and knew, was justified in staying home, then no one can be blamed for staying home. People today say that if Jesus came to them and told them directly to go, they would. It's a bad excuse and not the truth, but John is told directly by Christ to go and he didn't. So how can Jesus ask someone "why didn't you do what I said?" with John standing there? Peter asked, "what about him?" and Jesus hotly replied, "What is that to you? Follow me!” The whole of Christianity can now also ask that question, not just of Peter but also of John: "What about him?"

Jesus can still answer the same: "What is that to you? Follow me.” But it's a legitimate question. If the Twelve didn't go, why should anyone else?

How can Peter, who was asked three times and replied "yes Lord" each time, not feed his sheep? How can John, who writes "You are my friends if you do what I command you" not do what his friend commanded? How can the one whom Jesus loved think it's enough to be loved?

Sorry, but I don't get it. How could the one whom Jesus loved spend all those years watching the world turn (upside down) and decide to write letters instead of obeying? The truth was in front of his eyes—the Jew is no better than the Gentile—but he turned from that because he didn't want to be a fool, and instead attacked the philosophers, because he was a Pillar. He considered the treasure garbage and the garbage treasure. He, who did not come to the defense of Paul, comes to the defense of Christ instead. Two very bad choices.

James is what we get when someone who has no business being in charge is put in charge. John is what we get when someone who should have gone stays home. Peter is what we get when someone does go but leaves before the work is done.

Peter should not have left. John should have gone. James should have stayed home with his mother.