Women and The Word: Studies in the Gospel of John
Last Spring when the first copies of the new Horizons Bible Study were
available, many of us were anxious to see the approach the author, Frances
Taylor Gench would take with this Gospel. Would our Presbyterian Women’s
leadership have provided us with a theologically balanced, solid
presentation of the Biblical witness to the deity of Christ and his Word and
work as this Gospel presents it? To what extent would the influences of
radical feminist theology and interpretation prevail? The Gospel of John is
rich and beloved; would the breadth of the Presbyterian Women be able to
enjoy its riches through this Bible study? Or would we once again find the
focus on women to become the main agenda, rather than a witness to the Holy
God, Father Son and Holy Spirit, whom alone we worship and serve?
The first reactions were ones of surprise and thankfulness…*This is a good
study!* The author has been careful and true with the Scripture, while
taking a creative and insightful approach in singling out ‘women and the
Word.” And VOW is pleased to have decided that there is no need for a
lesson-by-lesson supplement this year. The content, and the study questions,
provide a good exploration of the Gospel of John that should enrich the
women of our denomination and our congregations.
There were, of course, a few things we would like to have seen different. So
we offer these few points for Study Leaders and participants alike to
consider as you begin your year in the Gospel of John.
*I. Regarding the Language in John*
The issue of inclusive language for God is a complicated one, brought to a
head in the language of this Gospel. Indeed, as Gench notes, ‘John refers to
God as Father far more than any other New Testament document (more than 100
times)…”(p.3) which she sees as ‘problematic.” Yet she acknowledges that
the relationship represented in the term, an intimate relation between God
and us, makes substituting ‘God” for ‘Father” problematic. The issue of
the name Jesus gives to God in the Book of John is deeper than ‘simple”
inclusive language. While it is important not to discount the difficult
lives of many women at the hands of men, how we handle the name ‘Father”
for God goes to the deeper issue of our understanding of the inspiration and
authority of Scripture, the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, and other
related issues. Clearly, this is the trickiest spot in the Study. For
further help in looking at both sides of this issue, the VOW website offers
a number of articles Particularly, Professor Elizabeth Achtemeier’s article
titled _Exchanging God for ‘No Gods”: A Discussion of Female Language for
God. _ (To locate these articles, start at the VOW Homepage; click ‘Women’s
Issues”; click ‘Radical Feminism and Re-Imagining.”
*II. Regarding Lesson Three’s ‘Suggestions for Leaders”*
This study guide section is troubling. It is another place in which the
idolizing of ‘diversity” in our culture and then in our Church has overcome
the Scripture’s clear meaning.
A separate author, Sarah Covin Juengst, prepares this section of each
lesson. Her ‘Applying the Lesson” section in this lesson needs to be very
carefully handled; indeed, revised. The question, ‘What should be our
attitude toward people of other faiths?” is an important one. Jesus came
into the world as light, says John, to expose and illumine the truth as
distinct from all false understandings of the Creator God. Juengst instead
leads us to the diversity and tolerance road, which obscures the distinct
offer of salvation in Jesus Christ alone.
The use of Native American tradition as positive example of ways we can look
at God and people of other faiths is dangerous. The author has chosen not to
set apart the quote in any standard manner to clearly show it is not her own
thoughts. This passage should be used only to discuss how Jesus’ revelation
of God the Father corrects this pantheistic view. ‘We should know that the
Great Spirit is within all things” is a contradiction of the Reformed
doctrine of sovereign creation. God spoke, and the land was created out of
nothing. Not, as implied here, out of a part of God, held then as nucleus of
the new thing. Nowhere does Scripture attribute God’s presence ‘in the
trees, the grasses…” Quite the opposite, ‘The heavens declare the glory
of God; the firmament displays His handiwork…” Jesus said, that if his
followers did not praise Him, the very rocks would cry out in acknowledgment
of the glory of God. These statements attribute to the creation, the
recognition and laud and honor they owe to their Creator.
See the following passages in the Book of Confessions:
The Scots Confession 3.01
The Westminster Confession of Faith 6.022-024
In using this Application section, the answer to Question One, ‘Do you
identify with these ideas?” can bring about opportunity to recognize the
tendency today to accept such pluralistic inclusive ideas, and to use
Scripture and our Confessions to correct that wrong. The answer to that
question is, ‘ We shouldn’t! But we sometimes do, or want to.” The next
question, ‘How are [these ideas] similar to Jesus’ words in John 4:24?”
Again the answer is, they are not. But the why of that discussion is
important, so that women recognize what we are being lulled into saying and
believing.
*III. Regarding the perceived ‘anti-Jewish rhetoric” in John*
In Lesson Four, page 24, the author includes a sidebar note addressing what
she teaches as a ‘vigorous anti-Jewish invective” in the Gospel of John.
‘Indeed, John’s anti-Jewish rhetoric is dangerous and must be repudiated.”
As a child raised to respect and trust the written word, with a very real
reverence for books, I have had to learn a very difficult lesson, made even
more pointed in these decades now of diversity of theological positions in
our own denomination. No longer can I assume that if it is written, it is
true. (Obviously, that was never true!) Now more than ever, we must as
Scripture admonishes, weigh every teaching AGAINST SCRIPTURE ITSELF so as
not to be tossed to and from by every wind of doctrine… ‘…that we may no
longer be children , tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of
doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles….:
(Ephesians 4:14) As the Beoreans were commended in Acts 17: ‘…they
received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see
if these things were so…”
Such is the case here. For an in-depth study on this false assumption of
‘anti-Semitism in John, we have included a study prepared for this
Supplement by VOW Board Member Tracee Hackel, Biblical Scholar and
soon-to-be-ordained Presbyterian pastor. Because of its length and depth, it
will be found at the conclusion of this supplement.
Again, this a case in which the commitment to diversity and tolerance has
overtaken good sense and careful reading of the text. Though some sensitive
to the issue could be concerned, for the most part this note is the author
taking the chance to advance society’s decision to identify anything
exclusive or confrontive in nature in the Gospel as hateful and therefore
unacceptable, and to be answered away.
*IV. Regarding the ‘I Ams” of Lesson Four*
As the author acknowledges, p. 22, ‘…some of the most memorable words in
all of the Gospel of John are the vivid images…that illuminate who Jesus
is and what he represents in the lives of believers: the rather dramatic ‘I
am” statements.”
Clearly, we realize that no study can cover every rich nugget in any part of
Scripture. Yet, the ‘I Am” statements of John are often considered in toto,
referencing the interrelationship among the many images. Nowhere does the
author comment on her choice of which ‘ I Ams” to look at, or that she is
leaving out, even by reference, one of the most powerful, Jesus’ statement,
‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by
me.”
By its extreme claim, this ‘I am” would seem in some ways the most
‘dramatic.” Yet it is also a passage of Scripture that clearly affirms the
exclusive nature of Jesus’ work of salvation. This ‘I am” challenges
head-on the assertion widely accepted in our denomination and the Church in
America today that we must tolerate many ways to God, many understandings of
God.
Many women studying this Lesson will actively miss this ‘I Am” statement.
Be ready to include it and discuss its significance, using commentaries such
as Interpretation or Word Communicators Commentary on John by Fredrikson to
enhance your discussion.
*V. Regarding the phrase ‘reformed and always reforming” *Lesson Eight page
49
This phrase is found on the sidebar Question 3 of Lesson eight, quoted as a
tenet of our Presbyterian teaching. This phrase is found in our Book of
Order, G-2.0200: ‘Yet the church, in obedience to Jesus Christ, is open to
reform of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church
affirms Ecclesia reformata, et semper reformanda,’ that is, The church
reformed, always reforming,’ according to the Word of God and the call of
the Spirit.” (Emphasis mine.)
This phrase occurs in G – 2.0200, the section describing our Presbyterian
and Reformed understanding of the purpose of the Confessions ‘as subordinate
standards” declaring the church’s ‘convictions.” The phrase is most often
quoted in short part, ‘…reformed and always reforming” as an rationale
for change, without holding the principle to account for the source of
change and the yardstick for change, the mandate of the Word of God and the
call of the Spirit….” The Word of God and the call of the Spirit in
combination are the spoken voice of God. And no decision, no change, no
reform can be justified if it contradicts the Word of God written and
attested to by the call of the Spirit. The call of the Spirit cannot be used
to override what has been revealed in the authoritative written Word of God,
the Bible. The Word and the Spirit will never contradict one another. The
preceding ground for the use of this often-abused phrase is the Book’s call
to ‘obedience to Jesus Christ.”
*VI. Regarding the List of Books for Additional Reading and Study, p. 60*
The books and authors an author suggests as supplemental material are very
telling. Our Study’s list of resources for additional reading and study are
not suggested with any annotation, to suggest that they hold challenging
views or should be read with any particular care. On the contrary, one could
reasonably expect a list in a study like this to commend those titles
included, as this is the kind of study an author knows is used by a variety
of leaders and groups, most with very limited time for research and study.
For that reason, this list needs careful identification.
The following texts are consistent with the Reformed theological
understanding of the Scripture:
· Barclay, William. _The Daily Bible Study Series:_ The Gospel of John.
· Sloyan, Gerard. _John_. _Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching
and Preaching._
My additional suggestion for very usable commentary of the Gospel of John
would be:
· Fredrikson, Roger L. _Word Communicators’ Commentary NT Vol.4: The
Gospel of John._ This is very hands-on, readable and applicable.
Problematic:
· Crossan, John Dominic and Richard G Watts. _Who Is Jesus? Answers to
Your Questions About the Historical Jesus._
Crossan is a former Catholic priest who is one of the leaders of the JESUS
SEMINAR, an ongoing project of scholarship from outside the parameters of
faith which seek to determine the ‘historical Jesus” apart from the
‘predetermined bias” of faith. Though Crossan identifies himself a
Christian, it is clear in his extensive work and writings that his
definition of Christianity is apart from a divine Jesus. For more
information on Crossan and the Jesus Seminar, see their Website,
particularly Crossan’s article ‘Almost the Whole Truth: An Odyssey.”
‘Jesus became the Christ by a series of mental steps in the developing
thought of the first-century Christians, as they began to evaluate what
he meant for them in ever higher terms. The process by which Jesus
became God is not an event which happened to Jesus but a developing
change in human thinking.” (Emphasis mine.)
This supposition, basic to Crossan and the Jesus Seminar ‘methodology” is
in direct contradiction to the statement in John 1: ‘In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…” Crossan’s
life work is to prove wrong the premise the Gospel of John in particular was
written to attest to: The very divinity of Jesus. That is one reason why
John includes so many references Jesus makes to his identification with the
Father: ‘He who has seen me has seen the Father….” (John 14: 8-11); ‘I
and the Father are one…” (John 10:30 ).
Crossan is a very suspect author to be suggesting to lay leaders with little
time to research, at best. _At worst, I do not believe this body of work
satisfies the denomination’s requirement that resource materials must
conform to the theological standards of the Reformed faith._
· Sharon Ringe and Carol A. Newsom, _The Women’s Bible Commentary with the
Aprocrypha, revised edition_
Likewise, this is material that brings the radical feminist approach to
biblical interpretation. _The Women’s Bible Commentary_ is described this
way in an advertisement: ‘The editors [Ringe and Newsom] have gathered the
work of outstanding female scholars who read the texts _through the eyes of
women’s experiences_ in ancient and modern religious cultural
contexts.”(emphasis mine.) In other words, they put experience over and
above biblical authority. This is radical feminist literature, and again I
do not believe it conforms to the theological standard of the Reformed
faith, therefore it is _inappropriate_ on this reading list.
The remaining authors and books need to be carefully researched before they
are used, since the list clearly represents the theological diversity abroad
in our denomination.
*ADDENDUM*
‘The Jews” in John’s Gospel
by Tracee Hackel
M.Div, Dubuque Theological Seminary
Throughout the course of John’s Gospel ‘the Jews” are the primary
antagonists. They are the ones who question Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah,
they plot to kill him, eventually condemn him to death, and instigate the
Romans to crucify him.
It also has to be said that throughout the course of church history
Christian relations with Jews have often been strained and even violent. For
example, Martin Luther made comments about Jewish people that have proven to
be one of Protestantism’s greatest embarrassments, and the German church’s
capitulation to Nazi ideology in World War II was reprehensible.
However, to cite John’s Gospel as the source of Christian Anti-Semitism, or
even Anti-Judaism is to oversimplify history, misunderstand the Gospel, and
read back into a first century document our own post World War II
sentiments.
A simple read through of the Gospel will dispel much confusion about who
‘the Jews” were that John wrote about. Here are some things to note as you
read about the Jews’ in John’s Gospel:
· The term seems to have a geographic designation. The Jews’ are always in
or around Jerusalem. John does not appear to use this term to designate
all Jewish people in and around Palestine.
· The term is always associated with the leaders of Israel. Notice how
John uses the term with other names for Jewish leaders, or
interchangeably with the Pharisees,’ the Chief Priests,’ and especially,
The Council.’
· In perhaps only one instance is the term ‘the Jews” used to designate
the entire race of people living in first century Palestine and that is
Pilate’s reference to Jesus as ‘the King of the Jews.” Nevertheless, it
is clear that the Jews’ who are accusing Jesus are those of the ruling
class, who have access to the ear of the Roman Government. In John’s
gospel it is this elite group of Jewish people who cry ‘Crucify him!”
in distinction from ‘the crowd” who had honored Jesus’ entrance to
Jerusalem the day before.
· Note how careful John is to point out that Jesus himself is a Jew, i.e.
he observes all the customs and festivals and preaches and teaches only
in synagogues or the temple.
· Note John’s special attention to two prominent Jewish leaders who follow
Jesus, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. Even those who belonged to
‘the Jews” were not without hope.
· Note that John himself was well known among the Jewish leaders. He can
enter the courtyard of the Chief Priest himself without fear during the
questioning of Jesus (18:5) and throughout the Gospel appears to have
access to many conversations of the Jews’ among themselves (i.e. 5:9ff;
9:13ff, 11.45ff)
· Note John’s extensive understanding of the Old Testament. He does not
necessarily quote the OT, but his writing is shot through with allusions
and echoes of the OT (note this especially in regard to the ‘signs”).
Notice how it is John’s goal to show how Jesus fulfills the OT and hence
is the fulfillment of Judaism. Rather than being Anti-Judaism, Jesus is
the way, the truth, and the life’ of Judaism. He expects the
well-schooled ‘Jews” to know better who he is than those who are part
of ‘the crowd.” What he is angry with is not their being Jewish, but
for their not being Jewish enough to recognize their own Messiah when he
shows up!
· Note that John calls the feast of Passover ‘the Passover of the Jews”
except for the Passover on which Jesus was crucified–this is ‘The
Passover.” This may indicate John’s understanding of Jesus as the
fulfillment of the Jewish feast of Passover, Jesus is the true and final
Passover Lamb. This is consistent with the fact that John’s Gospel is
the only one to record Jesus being called, ‘the Lamb of God.”
· Note that John is not merely ‘depicting” the Jews’ in a bad light, or
using them for a polemical device, he is reporting what happened. In the
same way we might report today on ‘the Americans” trying to bring about
peace in the Middle East. All Americans are not over in the Middle East
and not all present at the summits, American leaders are the ones who
engage in these activities, and there are many Americans who would not
endorse what these leaders are striving for in such talks. When we use
the term ‘The Americans” in this manner we all know what is meant. To
say that John is Anti-Judaism is like saying that a news agency is
Anti-women because they report on women who have planned and carried out
the murder of their husbands.
· As far as history is concerned: note that at the time John’s Gospel was
written the Jewish leaders, such as Saul, before he became Paul, were
persecuting those who followed Jesus. It is unlikely that John was
exaggerating the opposition to Jesus, if later church history is any
indication. It is much more likely that the Gospel of John should be
blamed for those Christians who took a stand against the Nazi regime
because of their biblical convictions; rather than for those who, in the
name of Christianity, substituted radical Social Darwinism for the
message of the Gospel. The people who tried to adapt Christianity to the
prevailing culture arbitrarily selected from the Scriptures that which
would justify their own vain imaginings of a perfect society, rather
than submit themselves to the whole counsel of God. Our own PCUSA
constitution contains ‘The Theological Declaration of Barmen”
(8.01-8.28) which was the statement of the German Confessing Church who
opposed the Reichskirche and their false gospel. It must not be
forgotten that many Christians lost their lives in the Holocaust for
their hospitality to Jewish families trying to escape destruction.
Corrie Ten Boom’s family is a good example. These Christians did not
arrive at a biblical stance against the Holocaust by repudiating any
part of the New Testament. It was because of their faith in God and the
trustworthiness of his Word that they were led to act, even if it meant
losing their lives. Not all of our church history, where relations with
Jewish people is concerned, is something of which we need to repent.
· It would be a good idea to study what the PCUSA does say about our
relationship with the Jewish community, and this is best done by
examining what our constitution says. Various studies commissioned by
the Office of the General Assembly are not the binding theological
standards of our church. For a definitive statement of what the PCUSA
believes in this regard we must look to the Book of Confessions. See for
example: 5.019, .129; .240; 7.301; and 9.18-.19, .31, .41-.42.
· Note that those designated, the Jews’ are those who claim their ancestry
from Moses or Abraham to be their salvation, and who in the end claim
the Emperor as their only Lord. They are, in short, people of Jewish
ancestry who look for their salvation outside of Jesus Christ. They
cling to the form and practice of Judaism without recognizing the
fulfillment of true Judaism in the person of Jesus Christ. Those who
believe and follow Jesus Christ are called ‘disciples.” In this way
John is a very inclusive’ gospel, and bears witness to the same truth
that the Apostle Paul does when he writes, ‘ There is no longer Jew or
Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and
female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3.28). Only
those who seek their salvation in their pedigree are named accordingly.
· Note that all the people in John’s Gospel are Jewish, except for the
woman at the well and her village who are Samaritans and the ‘Greeks”
who come to seek Jesus right before his crucifixion. Jesus clearly
asserts the rightness of Jewish belief over against Samaritan belief,
there is no Anti-Judaism in his dialogue with the woman at the well. At
the same time, both Jews and Samaritans are called from their shadows of
religion to worship in Spirit and in truth, the one Lord Jesus Christ
himself. Without Jesus the one religion is no better off than the other.
· We may worry about how Jewish people will react to John’s gospel. It
might be helpful to look at the reaction of the Jews to Peter’s
Pentecost speech (Acts 2). In his speech Peter directly accuses the Jews
of murdering their Messiah and Lord Jesus Christ. The reaction of those
in the crowd was to be ‘cut to the heart” to repent, and be baptized.
It is true that as the story of Acts continues there were many Jews who
were offended by the Christian message, and they become the chief
enemies of the Church, but there were many others who were saved by this
message, who saw their sinfulness, repented, and were baptized into the
body of believers. It is true for any person of any ethnic background
that acknowledgment of one’s sinfulness before God precedes repentance
and trust. It is a crucial part of the proclamation of the gospel to
confront sin in a forthright manner. Without such preaching we might go
on through our lives thinking that we are not so bad off as to need the
horrible, bloody, sacrificial death of Jesus Christ in order to save us.
Think about what it might mean to people who realized they had plotted
and instigated the murder of God’s only Son to hear from one of his
disciples that forgiveness was offered for them as well. As was
mentioned above, John calls these people Jews, as does Peter, Luke, and
Paul because that is who they were. If they had been Americans he would
have called them that.
From a careful study of the use of the term ‘the Jews” in John’s Gospel it
becomes plain that attributing the horrors of the Holocaust to this biblical
author is as ridiculous as saying he communicates that both Judaism and
Christianity worship the same God. All of the people who followed Christ in
John’s Gospel were Jewish, except for a few Samaritans, and Jesus himself is
clearly Jewish. The kind of Anti-Semitic rhetoric characteristic of Nazi
ideology is an evil from the hearts of people who did/do not understand
John’s Gospel nor any of the rest of the biblical text. At the same time,
Jesus is very frank, in more than one place, with those who would not
acknowledge him as their Messiah: ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you
knew me, you would know my Father also.”(8:19b), ‘If God were your Father,
you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here.” (8:42a), and ‘No
one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my
Father also.” (14:6b-7a). There is no good relationship with God outside of
Jesus Christ. Yes, it is true that the covenant made with God’s people
stands from Genesis to Revelation as one covenant, but it is a covenant
fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and outside of him it is null and void. The
covenant in Genesis was broader than one ethnic group–Israel was blessed so
that through them all the nations on earth might be blessed (Genesis
12:1-3)– and the fulfillment of that covenant written about in the Gospel
of John is for all nations. It is true, God has worked through a specific
nation, Israel, Jesus himself says it, ‘…salvation is from the
Jews.”(4:22b). It is at the same time true that their salvation comes from
no other than Jesus Christ. The covenant of the Old Testament was not made
apart from Christ, and apart from him there is no promise of salvation,
because he and he alone is that promise, he and he alone is our salvation
whether Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female.