John Part Three

1Jesus crossed the Kidron Valley with his disciples and entered a grove of olive trees. 2Judas, the betrayer, knew this place, because Jesus had often gone there with his disciples. ... 4Jesus fully realised all that was going to happen to him, so he stepped forward to meet them. .. “5I am he,” Jesus said. “8And since I am the one you want, let these others go.”...11Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back. Shall I not drink from the cup of suffering the Father has given me?”

15Simon Peter followed Jesus, as did another of the disciples. That other disciple was acquainted with the High Priest, so he was allowed to enter the courtyard with Jesus. 16Then the disciple...spoke to the woman at the gate and she let Peter in. 17The woman asked Peter, “You’re not one of that man’s disciples, are you?” “No,” he said, “I am not!”... 26a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Didn’t I see you out there in the olive grove with Jesus?” 27Again Peter denied it. And immediately a rooster crowed.

The Evangelist does not record Jesus time of prayer in the grove, but concentrates instead on Peter’s role in first slashing the ear of one of the High Priest’s slaves and then on Peter’s denial of knowing Jesus when in the High Priest’s courtyard. The author describes how ‘another disciple’ who was acquainted with the high Priest was able to let Peter into the courtyard. The author also tells us that Jesus was first interviewed by Annas (a former High Priest) before being sent on to Caiaphas (the High Priest for that year) who presumably was not staying in his official house that night.

All the Gospels recount Peter’s denial of knowing Jesus; however the Evangelist has knowledge of some details that the Synoptic Gospels do not give and this reflects that he had available the eye-witness testimony of that ‘other disciple’ who was acquainted with the High Priest. It may be that the author gives intimate detail of Peter’s role (by then widely known across the Roman world as a Christian leader), in order to demonstrate the authenticity of this last Gospel account, however he includes the details of Peter’s denial because he later intends to show how Jesus restored Peter after his resurrection. In my view this careful account shows the author’s respect and admiration for Peter.

Food for thought: It is curious that there is no account of ‘the other disciple’ being put in a position of acknowledging or denying Jesus. The text indicates that he was known to be acquainted with the High Priest (this may have been Annas rather than Caiaphas) and consequently it is likely that he normally resided in Jerusalem. The fact that the household slaves accuse Peter of being a Galilean (hence a likely follower of Jesus ~ Matt.26 v.23) adds weight to the conclusion that the ‘other disciple’ was not a Galilean.

Challenge: Whatever our nature maybe we need to pray lest we enter into temptation to deny Christ one way or another.

top

John 18 v.28 to 40 ~ Jesus before Pilot

28Jesus’ trial before Caiaphas ended in the early hours of the morning. Then he was taken to the Praetorium (headquarters of the Roman governor). His accusers didn’t go inside because it would defile them...so Pilate, the governor, went out to them. ... .33Pilot went back into the Praetorium and called for Jesus to be brought to him, and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

37Jesus responded, “You say I am a king. Actually I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth...” “38What is truth?” Pilate asked. Then he went out again to the people and told them, “He is not guilty of any crime.”

The other disciple (John the Elder?) had been a witness at the High Priest’s house when Annas questioned Jesus before sending him on to Caiaphas. The Evangelist doesn’t give us any detail of Jesus trial before Caiaphas (although this is given in Synoptic Gospel accounts). It could be that the ‘other disciple’ didn’t have access to the Jewish council meeting (and had possibly fallen asleep by then). However it is conceivable that the next morning, the ‘other disciple’ would have followed the Jewish delegation that marched Jesus to the Praetorium (this was at a time that the governor would be available to pass sentence).

None of the Jews would have accompanied Jesus into the Preatorium, Roman soldiers would have conducted him in and out, and so it is not apparent as to how the supposed conversation between Pilot and Jesus came to be recorded. It could be that one of the Roman soldiers later became a Christian and provided some notion of the conversation that took place, or the Evangelist may have authored the sort of conversation that he believed had taken place. Luke’s Gospel account provides a more realistic account of what the Jewish leaders would have told Pilot outside the Praetorium and this included the fact that Jesus claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, which the governor would have understood as meaning king. In any case according to Luke at this point Pilot sent Jesus on to Herod who was in Jerusalem for the Passover. Herod then sent him back to Pilot in mockery dressed as a king in one of his discarded royal robes.

The discussion between Jesus and Pilot would have centred on what kind of a king Jesus claimed to be, and it is clear from all accounts that Pilot did not consider from this conversation that Jesus was any threat to Rome. He pronounced Jesus innocent of any kind of insurrection against Roman occupation. We know from Roman sources that this province was rife with anti-Roman feeling and insurrection plots, hence Barabbas was in prison. It is very unlikely that Barabbas had killed any Roman, since if he had, he would have been promptly crucified as an example to others. However the Jewish delegation demanded that Berabbas be released and that Jesus (whom Pilot had found not guilty) be crucified, and this presented Pilot with a problem for Roman justice for which he was responsible.

Food for thought: The older and wiser we get we tend to realise that nothing is black or white. Is that how Pilot thought about his dilemma that morning? Letting the Jewish leaders have their way would be letting Roman justice down since an innocent man should not be condemned let alone to death; however not taking action might send out the wrong message in a situation where Rome believed they were fully in the right to occupy and subjugate Palestine. The governor must be seen to be firmly against any hint of insurrection, so Pilot may have reasoned that even though Jesus was no threat to Rome, the Jewish leaders had it in mind and were clearly voicing their belief that Jesus was a threat to Rome. Even if the Jewish leaders had their own motives for wanting rid of this innocent man, the fact that they had articulated their case in the way they did meant that there was a case to be made for crucifying Jesus despite his being innocent in Pilot’s mind. This was a case of political justice.

How often does political justice prevail in the modern world? All too often this is the case in countries where either discriminatory law is made, or where the rule of law can be easily influenced by politics or by a mob culture. The UK does well to guard the total independence of the legal process.

Challenge: Do we ever act as prosecutor, judge and jury?

top

John 19 v.1 to 16 ~ Jesus sentenced to death

12Pilot tried to release him, but the Jewish leaders shouted, “If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who declares himself a king is a rebel against Caesar.”

14It was now about noon ... Pilot said to the people, “look, here is your king!”

“15Away with him,” they yelled. “Away with him! Crucify him!” “What crucify your king?” Pilate asked. “We have no king but Caesar,” the leading priests shouted back. 16Then Pilot turned Jesus over to them to be crucified.

Pilot was playing for time. He didn’t want to be seen as giving way to the Jewish leaders he despised, yet they made a shrewd case. Caesar was considered to be a god as well as being the emperor, so any king (whether of this world or another) was a potential threat to Caesar. So Pilot cleverly turns the situation round to his advantage. He gets the Jewish posse (slowly growing larger as the morning progresses) to eventually bay for Jesus death and to get the Jewish leaders to publically pronounce that the people have no king but Caesar. When they did this, Pilot had won. He was not giving way to the Jewish leaders, he was rather getting them to rub into the populace the fact that Roman occupation was legal, that Rome was there to stay. That was sufficient to reward them with the death they demanded, in any case the victim was also a Jew.

Food for thought: The Evangelist includes some further conversation between Jesus and Pilot (verses 9 to 11), taking place in private inside the Praetorium, where Jesus apparently stated, “You would have no power over me at all unless it were given you from above. So the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.” In my view Pilot is unlikely to have made any sense of such a statement, since if he believed in the gods, then he had already accepted that the gods had given the Jews (including Jesus) into Roman hands, and if sin meant ‘displeasing the gods’, then if Jesus death were by chance to displease a god, it would be the Jewish god who would be unhappy and that would be a Jewish matter rather than a Roman matter, since clearly the Roman gods were superior to the Jewish god.

Challenge: Do we keep a cool head when faced with an angry confrontation? As the Proverb says, ‘A soft answer turns away wrath!’

top

John 19 v.17 to 27 ~ Jesus is crucified

17Carrying the cross by himself, he went to the place called ‘Place of the Skull.’ 18There they nailed him to the cross. Two others were crucified with him, one on either side...19And Pilot posted a sign over him that read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” 20The place that Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek, so that many people could read it.

25Standing near the cross were Jesus mother, and his mother’s sister... and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother standing there beside the disciple he loved, he said to her, “Dear woman, here is your son.” 27And he said to his disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from then on this disciple took her into his home.

Pilot felt it necessary to vindicate his death sentence on Jesus by ensuring that the message that Jesus the ‘king of the Jews’ had now been crucified by the Romans, was heard as widely as possible, hence he posted that message in three common languages. Jesus in character used some of his agonising last breaths to ask a disciple (that he loved) to care for his mother and commend his mother to that disciple’s care. The evangelist tells us that disciple from then took her into his home. It is reasonable to conclude from the Biblical text that this disciple was a resident of Jerusalem rather than Galilee, which further points to this disciple as not being a full time follower of Jesus during his earthly ministry (hence why he was not one of the ‘Twelve’).

The fairly rapid relocation of the Apostles may have been facilitated by the few who came from Jerusalem, but mostly by the many converts following Peter’s Pentecost sermon.

According to the Acts of the Apostles, following Jesus crucifixion and resurrection, the Apostolic band (men and women, both those named and those un-named in the Biblical texts) a majority of whom probably came from Galilee appear to have relocated to Jerusalem. This may have been partly because the Jewish Diaspora was centred on Jerusalem (the heart of Judaism), but it also because the initial church growth exploded with converts from Judaism in Jerusalem rather than in Galilee. It would seem that Mary the mother of Jesus lived with the disciple (v.26) in Jerusalem.

Food for thought: The place of the Skull is most likely named after a striking local rock formation that remains to this day, though further weathered over the past two thousand years (it is otherwise known as Gordon’s site after General Gordon identified it in the last millennium). The dramatic looking rock really does look like a giant skull (about 15m in height) with eye sockets formed by the weathering process in a section of rock where the bedding has undergone some complex localised geological twisting and fracturing that has rendered the particular nodule unsuitable for building stone due to severe local fracturing. It is credible that the surrounding formation was quarried in ancient times, but that the particular nodule was left untouched due to its unsuitability.

Challenge: To what extent are you prepared to practice brotherly and sisterly love towards fellow believers?

top

John 19 v.28 to 42 ~ Jesus dies and is buried

31It was the day of preparation (for the Jewish Passover festival), and the Jewish leaders didn’t want the bodies hanging there the next day, which was a very special Sabbath. So they asked Pilot to hasten their deaths by ordering that their legs be broken. 32So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men crucified with Jesus. 33But when they came to Jesus they saw he was already dead..34One of the soldiers, however, pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water flowed out. 35This report is from an eyewitness giving an accurate account. He speaks the truth so that you can believe.

38Afterward Joseph of Arimathea, who had been a secret disciple of Jesus..., asked Pilot for permission to take down Jesus body. When Pilot gave permission, Joseph came and took the body a way. .. He brought 100 litras (33 kilos) of perfumed ointment.. 40Following the burial custom, they wrapped Jesus body with the spices in long sheets of linen cloth. 41The place of crucifixion was near a garden, where there was a new tomb, never used before. 42And so, because it was the day of preparation... and since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.

Not until the nineteenth century when science finally unravelled the internal biological functions of the human body, did the significance of the eyewitness testimony that blood and water flowed from Jesus side become apparent. John the Evangelist makes it clear that these details came from an eyewitness testimony, his reason for recording it being merely to give weight (wherever he could) to the authenticity of his Gospel. However this accidental detail is of great benefit to us today, since it gives us clear scientific evidence that Jesus died from a ruptured heart valve no doubt brought on by the stress of crucifixion.

Joseph of Arimathea happened to own the garden nearby the place of execution and according to the Evangelist it was out of convenience that Jesus was place in this new tomb. There is a hint in the text that Joseph may have intended to move the body to a more permanent tomb after the Passover celebrations were done.

In recent centuries an ancient garden with a tomb has been excavated from under many tons of rubble nearby Gordon’s crucifixion site. The tomb (known as the garden tomb) is cut into an ancient quarry face and dates to the early first century. The garden contains an ancient water cistern (in which early Christian symbols have been discovered inscribed on the sides). The garden and the tomb were most likely filled in during the Roman sacking of the city and surrounds in 70CE, which would explain why Queen Helena did not identify it in 300CE when she was rediscovering ‘Christian sites.’ The tomb itself has a fracture to the side of the door entrance that may have resulted from the occasional earthquakes the strike those parts. The collapsed side had been repaired with dressed stone in ancient times. Furthermore there is clear evidence that the tomb site was used as part of an early first century Christian church building. The quarry rock face shows signs of roof purlin sockets cut in the rock to support a barrel shaped roof construction (that an Israeli guide informed me was an early Jewish architectural style) positioned so that the quarry face formed a gable wall with the garden tomb centrally placed. The site has various evidences of being Christian. In the floor of where the church stood there is evidence of a baptism pool is carved in the rock; also my guide pointed out the faint lines of an anchor (a Christian symbol) carved high in the rock face. Also a ‘window’ has been cut high into the tomb to let daylight filter in, probably to facilitate it as a place of pilgrimage after it became a Christian church site in the early first century.

Food for thought: Today the site of the Garden Tomb is managed by the Baptist Christian denomination and the Pace of the Skull that formed a side to an ancient quarry now forms one side of an Israeli bus station. The more ancient Christian denominations (Armenians, Catholic and Greek Orthodox) continue to venerate the ‘traditional’ sites identified by Queen Helena as the places where Jesus was crucified, died and was buried.

So it could be asked, ‘Is there any point in Christian pilgrimage to the places where Jesus Christ lived and died?’ The answer must surely be, ‘Not really, unless it allows the pilgrim to better appreciate the geography (physical, social and political) of the Biblical records’. Since the Christian faith is that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, he is not here (viz., at the ancient sites), but rather he is spiritually with the believer wherever in the world she/he lives and witnesses today. So there is no general call on the Christian to go on pilgrimage.

Challenge: Let today be your spiritual pilgrimage with Christ into your contemporary world!

top

John 20 v.1 to 19 ~ Jesus raised from death

1Early on Sunday morning, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and found the stone had been rolled away from the entrance. 2She ran and found Peter and the other disciple...She said, “They have taken the Lord’s body out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

3&4Peter and the other disciple ran to the tomb, but the other disciple outran Peter. 5He stooped and looked in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but didn’t go in. 6Then Simon Peter arrived and went inside. He also noticed the linen wrappings lying there...8Then the disciple who had reached the tomb first also went in, and he saw and believed – 9(for until then they still hadn’t understood the Scriptures that said Jesus must rise from the dead). 10Then they went home.

11Mary was standing outside the tomb crying, and as she wept, she stooped and looked in. 12She saw two white robed angels, one sitting at the head and the other at the foot of the place where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13”Dear woman, why are you crying?” the angels asked her. “Because they have taken away my Lord,” she replied ...14She turned to leave and saw someone standing there It was Jesus, but she didn’t recognise him. ...”sir,” she said, “if you have taken him away, tell me where you have put him.” “16Mary!” Jesus said. She turned to him and cried out, “Rabboni!” ... “17Don’t cling to me,” Jesus said, “for I haven’t yet ascended to the Father. But go find my brothers and tell them I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

The brief and somewhat differing Gospel accounts of Christ’s resurrection appearances need to be pieced together to try and get the best picture of what may have happened. John is the only Gospel that has Mary running to Peter before herself having any experience of the risen Christ. This does seem to me to be more credible than the Synoptic Gospel accounts of Mary’s role.

Peter and the other disciple (whose eyewitness material John the evangelist is using here, probably together with that from Mary Magdalene) ran to the tomb. Peter went straight in. The evangelist states that the other disciple believed that Jesus had risen from the dead and that following this brief visit, both he and Peter went home.

Up to this point according to John’s Gospel neither, Mary, Peter or the other disciple had seen any angels or the risen Christ or received any external message from God. Mary and possibly some of the other women then probably returned for a second time that morning to the tomb. The women’s first reaction at the empty tomb had been to run and inform Peter: we can suppose that they slowly followed Peter back to the tomb where after Peter and John had left, Mary (at least) stayed and grieved. It is only when she was quiet and grieving outside the empty tomb that Mary experienced her meeting with the risen Jesus and receives his message to the disciples. According to the Evangelist, she then returned and told Peter and the other men that she had ‘seen the Lord.’

It might reasonably be asked how the dramatic account of an earthquake, soldiers fleeing and a brightly shining triumphant angel sitting on the rolled stone and speaking to Mary and her companions (Matthew’s account), can be squared with John’s gentle non-dramatic account of apparently the same event. I don’t believe it is possible to square these two versions, however both accounts may plausibly have arisen from different testimonies and by acquiring different embellishments as a result of retelling, in the case of Matthew’s Gospel over the 20 or so years, and in John’s Gospel over the 40 or so years between the event and the account we have being written down. Interestingly we might have expected John’s account to have held more embellishments than Matthew’s: the fact that it contains very much less and possibly none at all, might reflect the character of the author, and the particular eyewitness he selected to give their accounts. Luke’s account has less embellishment than Matthew’s (whereas Mark’s barely mentions the resurrection - except in later added summary). The authors of both Luke and John’s Gospels contend their belief in the importance of trying to find and write down specific eyewitness testimony, rather than merely writing handed down accounts of events. But that does not mean they were totally successful in doing so.

Food for thought: I have met a few credible people (living in the twentieth century) who have met with the risen Jesus Christ at one point in their lives and heard similar testimony of a few others. There is nowhere in Scripture that would indicate that the resurrection appearances were or are restricted to the forty days between Christ’s resurrection and the Ascension. However clearly it is not the norm nor should it in the least be an expectation for Christians to meet with the risen Christ either to bring them to faith or to encourage them as believers. I suspect the same to be the case in respect of angelic visions.

Many Christians might think that resurrection appearances are not the same as visions, but have these Christians ever had the experience of a resurrection appearance? If not, how can they be so sure? Do they suppose that the difference between a vision and an appearance is one of its physical nature (e.g. in verse 17, Jesus says to Mary, “don’t cling to me”, or again, in the Old Testament accounts of angelic visitations and visions, the angels do physical things)? The testimony I have received and which I believe is totally honest from the believers concerned, was that, as far as those experiencing an event were concerned, there was physical action involved. For example, a man in his 30’s who had been a second world war fighter pilot and fought in the Battle of Britain, was struggling with the challenge of the Gospel, viz., to surrender his life to Christ, when he had the experience of seeing, in his shaving mirror, the risen Christ standing behind him. He turned and held a conversation with Jesus, before falling on his knees in worship and if I recall correctly holding his feet. That experience changed his life. I met and worked with him many years later (in the 1960’s), and testify to his obvious love for Christ and his tireless and unselfish love for other people. He gave many hours each week as a Salvation Army man, visiting patients in the city hospital, and praying for those who asked for prayer. He looked after his family and gave his time in the service of his Lord. Was there any difference between his experience and that of Mary Magdalene? In reality, I think not; however I would not like to claim there was any difference between their experiences of the risen Christ and those of others who have had various visions (usually, while they are fully awake) that involved no physical contact/ awareness.

Challenge: Jesus said to Thomas, ‘Blessed are those who believe without seeing me (Jn.20 v.29)’

top

John 20 v.19 to 29 ~ Jesus appears to Thomas

24One of the disciples, Thomas, was not with the others when Jesus came (Jn. 20 v.19 to 23). 25They told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he replied, “I won’t believe it unless I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my finger into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side.” 26Eight days later, the disciples were together again, and this time Thomas was with them. The doors were locked; but suddenly as before, Jesus was standing among them. Peace be with you,” he said. 27Then he said to Thomas, “...Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!”

The evangelist tells us that the first experience that the Apostles had of the risen Jesus was when they were together (Sunday evening of the resurrection day) in a locked room for fear of the Jewish authorities (20 v.19 to 23). In this experience Jesus showed them the (no doubt semi-healed) wounds to his hands (wrists) and feet. He gave them his blessing and bid them receive the Holy Spirit. He commissioned them to go and spread the Good News and assured them that when they pronounced anyone’s sins forgiven, their sins were indeed forgiven by God. There was power in the Gospel message he was giving them to preach.

Food for thought: It is clear from the Gospel testimony that God at least intended the disciples to believe the truth the Jesus’ life and witness had been vindicated; that he had died so that anyone could be forgiven by God and come to be a true friend of God, a citizen of God’s spiritual kingdom! For the disciples to really believe this truth, it is also apparent that they needed to have visible experiences of the risen Christ. Hence it was also necessary that Jesus' bodily appearance was not a mere fleshly body otherwise they would have doubted their visual experience in the long term.

Clearly from Gospel testimony Jesus’ resurrection ‘appearances’ did not involve his literal fleshly body (as we would have known it) – otherwise he would not have honestly been able to ‘suddenly appear’ to them in a locked room. Some modern Christians claim that somehow Jesus’ fleshly body was transmuted into one that could come and go from this universe (a sort of science fiction ‘beaming himself up and down’ experience). But to make a doctrine of the necessity to believe this, is in my view erroneous. You might believe that Jesus’ original flesh is able to come and go, so that for example if people in the twenty first century were to experience the risen Christ, they would during that experience be seeing the same (but non-perishable) fleshly body of Jesus twenty-one centuries later, but this is not the Christian doctrine of Christ's resurrection. St. Paul states that ' Christ is the first of a great harvest of all who have died (1 Cor.15 v.20)' and that our ' bodies will be buried as natural human bodies but will be raised as spiritual bodies (1 Cor.15 v.44)'. So the evidence of Christ's resurrection points our faith and our reason to perceive Christ's and our own resurrection bodies to be spiritual in nature (i.e. not of this material universe). This does not discount the possibility God re-creating us in some kind of non-perishable new temporal existence, however by my understanding our Christian faith does not support the notion that our human bodies as such will be transmuted into such a new universe.

All we can say for sure is that God intends us to respond to the Good News that Jesus has brought, viz. that God wants to enable all people to enjoy eternal life with him starting in this universe. How this will be worked out in the spiritual future is not ours to comprehend at this time. So as long as we believe that Christ saves us from our sins, we will find and walk in this transforming experience with the help of God’s Holy Spirit.

It is not essential to that faith that we come to believe Jesus body was transmuted out of this universe, it is merely necessary that we are assured that Jesus is the first fruits of that resurrection that is promised to us by our creating and redeeming God. We can’t now comprehend what that will be like, but we can trust him to fulfil his promise!

Challenge: If you ever wonder how it might be scientifically possible for Jesus bodily resurrection to have happened, stop! You have missed the point which is to believe in the risen Christ who reveals God’s eternal love for you and calls you to work with him in the here and now! The kingdom is coming through the exercise of our faith now as much as in the promise of our future resurrection.

top

John 20 v.30 to 31 ~ The Purpose of John’s Gospel

(I reflected briefly on the purpose of John’s gospel in the introduction to these reflections, however here I will extend what I said there. Back reference to:-The Purpose of John’s Gospel )

30The disciples saw Jesus do many other miraculous signs in addition to the ones recorded in this book. 31But these are written so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life by the power of his name.

The Evangelist’s intended readership was the scattered Christians (whether nominal or not) who needed their faith strengthened and who otherwise may have been in danger of falling away from the core beliefs of the early Christian church.

In his Gospel, the Evangelist has recorded three particular instances where God attested to Jesus being his Son (viz., at his baptism, facing his death and at the cross). However it seems to me that the Evangelist does not consider this eyewitness experience that he records, would be sufficient proof for believers who had not been eyewitnesses. Hence I think that in ch.20 v.31 he stated his hope that the wider catalogue of miraculous signs that he has recorded throughout the Gospel will enable the believers to continue in their faith.

This verse appears to have initially intended to be the conclusion of John’s Gospel, however the author then appears to have added an epilogue.

Food for thought:

What convinces modern Christians that Jesus is God’s Christ? By enlarge it is Christian testimony to the reality of Christ changing someone’s life for the better together with the work of God’s Spirit convincing that person of their need to accept Christ into their lives, that motivates people to become Christians. It is not the miraculous that convinces them but the evidence of spiritual power. Christians then tend to believe the Gospel records inclusive of their miraculous content since these records hold the written source of Christianity. The evidence of and logic for the record of Jesus resurrection is apparent not only in the life of believers, but also in the New Testament records.

What convinced John (i.e., bar Zebedee or the Elder) that Jesus was God’s Christ

I believe it is evident from the New Testament letters of John and the testimony recorded in John’s Gospel that the Evangelist believed the un-named disciple that he speaks of (whether or not that was John bar Zebedee or John the Elder refer to the Introduction) came to a vital personal faith not so much as a result of seeing particular miracles (inclusive of the resurrection), but more as a result of three transforming experiences:-

 When the Holy Spirit gave witness to Jesus being God’s unique son: John may have experienced this while watching Jesus baptism in the river Jordan (Jn.1v.36,37)

 John’s experience while being with Jesus as he anticipated crucifixion (Jn.12v.20to36).

 John’s experience while he witnessed Jesus death on the cross (Jn.19 v.25-37).

For the ‘disciple who Jesus loved’, this ‘proof’ would have resonated from his personal witness to, and experience of the events of Jesus life and death. It is not unreasonable to assume when Jesus was baptised in the river Jordan by John the Baptist, that the two of the Baptist’s disciples mentioned in the Gospel were in fact Andrew and either John the elder (a resident of Jerusalem) or John bar Zebedee (a resident of Galilean fishing village). Assuming this, we can surmise that this disciple, John, experienced a supernatural sign confirming John the Baptist's prophecy that Jesus would en-flesh God's sacrificial love for humanity (Jn.1 v.29-37).

That experience would have been formative for the un-named disciple; he changed his allegiance and became a companion of Jesus (at least initially) rather than of the Baptist (John 1 v.29-37). John also witnessed Jesus ministry and brutal crucifixion and the gospel author records the eye-witness testimony (Jn.19 v.34, 35) that water and blood flowed from his side when he was pierced by a soldier's spear. The Evangelist was not aware of the medical significance of this, but nevertheless records the detail because it fitted with his vision that 'water, blood & Spirit' are the ‘signs from God’ that prove Jesus to be the Christ (1 John 5 v.6-9), i.e., the water of his birth and baptism, the blood of his sacrificial death and the testimony of God’s Spirit to those first witnesses who believed and to subsequent believers in every age.

Challenge: Are you convinced Jesus was the coming of God’s Christ for you?

top

John 21 v.1 to 25 ~ John’s epilogue

4At dawn Jesus was standing on the beach, but the disciples couldn’t see who it was. 5He called out, “Fellows, have you caught any fish?” “No,” they replied. ..

7Then the disciple Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” ... “10Bring some of the fish you have just caught,” Jesus said. .. “Now come and have some breakfast!” .. 14This was the third time Jesus had appeared to his disciples since he had been raised from the dead.

15After breakfast Jesus asked Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me ...?” “Yes Lord,” Peter replied. Then feed my lambs,” Jesus told him.

18bBut when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will ... take you where you don’t want to go.” 19Jesus said this to let him know by what kind of death he would glorify God.

The Evangelist adds this epilogue to answer a the question probably on the minds of many older members of the early church, viz., since they were expecting Jesus to have returned quite soon after Pentecost, why has Peter been martyred and the disciple the Jesus loved now dying of old age? There was already a verbal report circulating of Jesus conversation with Peter following the resurrection, in which Jesus commissioned Peter to pastor the church and prophesied what would happen to both Peter and the disciple Jesus loved. John the Evangelist states that the circulating verbal report had got it wrong. The Evangelist who was a close disciple of the disciple Jesus is said to have loved (whether this is Bar Zebedee or the Elder) corrects this report by writing that Jesus only said to Peter, ‘What is it to you, if I allow John to live until I return?’ So if John dies before Christ’s return (which was by then highly likely), the church should not feel let down, they just needed to re-adjust their erroneous expectation that Jesus would return during the lifetimes of some of his early disciples. We now know that God had never intended Christ’s return in glory for the last two millennia at the very least.

Food for thought: The church has grown all sorts of doctrines over the last two millennia that relate to the prophesied return of Christ in glory. Clearly many of these doctrines must be wrong since they are quite incompatible with each other. Since it is also apparent that the church is over-inclined to take texts as literally true rather than metaphorically true, it would seem that most such doctrines will cause more heat than light.

Challenge: Keep faith simple!

top

Appendix

1 Further discussion on the authorship of John’s Gospel

The Bible is a collection of books written by different human authors and editors some 2000 years and more ago, and it is of importance to know when each book was first written down and if possible to know something about each author before we attempt to read and assimilate what he/she wrote.

The earliest fragment we have of John’s gospel (dates ~ 120CE) was found in Egypt and all the various current historical and manuscript evidence points to the gospel being written between 75-90CE. Confidence for this dating by experts is based on the distribution and dating of the surviving fragments and of early manuscripts.

Although John’s Gospel is not a letter, but rather a theological treatise based on an account or story of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, we still need to know from which group or person the account derives in order to relate to it and to best assess its reliability especially where it claims historical content. There exists today a significant body of scholarship that has assessed the authenticity of the text and the likelihood of each saying being either original to Jesus or derived from his teaching. The results of such scholarship cover a spectrum of conclusions as to both authorship and authenticity dependent on the presuppositions of the researchers.

The Gospel has been traditionally accredited to John, whom we assume to be the younger of the two brothers whom Jesus called to be his disciples and who were the sons of a Galilean fisherman named Zebedee, so we could call him John-bar-Zebedee (i.e. John the son of Zebedee). However given their background it is very unlikely that James and John were literate since literacy was rare. According to Jewish research, literacy rates at the time were generally much less than 1% in the Roman Empire, but in Israel may have been as high as 1.5%. According to research by Bar-Ilan university (accessed Oct.2011, faculty.biu.ac.il, Mer-Bar-Ilan) the literacy rate in Israel in the first century CE was certainly less than 3% and probably about 1.5% of the population.

‘Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%. This literacy rate, a small fraction of the society, though low by modern standards, was not low at all if one takes into account the needs of a traditional society in the past’ (ibid).

The torah was taught to most children by oral tradition, but there was not considered to be any general need to teach children to read or write. Rabbinic rules of that time indicate that it was not expected there would be more than one literate person in a town capable of reading the Law. The fact that Jesus was asked to read in the synagogue indicates that he was literate and this probably derives from the fact that the local carpenter was likely to be better off, since he would probably have earned more than the subsistence farmers and fishermen who needed his skills, and could thus afford for his son to take the extra time required to learn to read and write.

What we can readily discern from the Biblical texts is that of the books ascribed to John, ‘Revelations’ is the only New Testament book to commence with the salutation ‘from John to the churches of...,’ which was the traditional first century cultural style that authors used. Further ‘Revelations’ is grammatically dissimilar to the Gospel and letters. However an early second century Christian tradition originating from Justin Martyr held that the Apostle John became the bishop of Ephesus and was exiled to Patmos (where it was assumed he wrote or had a scribe write the book of Revelations) and was later released to return to Ephesus where he died in about AD100. It was early assumed that the author of Revelations and of the fourth Gospel were one and the same disciple.

This tradition has been challenged and notably Richard Bauckham has argued from the few fragments we have of the writings of Papias (who lived before Justin Martyr) that there was a disciple of Jesus not one of the twelve Apostles called John the Elder who was the author of the Gospel and the letters and who became the bishop of Ephesus. However none of these traditional accounts can explain stylistic (word use) differences between Revelations and the Gospel noted by modern scholars.

Some of these early Christian traditions might support the notion that John the son of Zebedee was illiterate, but we can’t be certain whether or not he is the same John to whom tradition refers. Adelle Collins writes (quoted from Wiki Jan 12):-

"Early tradition says that John was banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities. This tradition is credible because banishment was a common punishment used during the Imperial period for a number of offenses. Among such offenses were the practices of magic and astrology. Prophecy was viewed by the Romans as belonging to the same category, whether Pagan, Jewish, or Christian. Prophecy with political implications, like that expressed by John in the book of Revelation, would have been perceived as a threat to Roman political power and order. Three of the islands in the Sporades were places where political offenders were banished." (Pliny Natural History 4.69-70; Tacitus Annals 4.30)[7]

It is reasonable to argue that the Gospel of John and the letters accredited to John were written (or dictated) by the same person since the letters and Gospel bear some similar unique characteristics (for example the ‘signs’ of ‘water, blood and spirit’ are spoken of as proving Jesus to be the Son of God). However neither the letters nor the Gospel actually name an author (which I understand was unusual in first century cultural practice), and this is in stark contrast to Revelations. This fact may indicate that the authors were not the same. Since early tradition gives that Revelations was dictated by John bar Zebedee, it may well be that the Gospel and letters were not authored by him.

Some recent Biblical scholarship has suggested the possibility that John’s gospel is complied (like Matthew’s Gospel) with early church oral material added to an original eye witness account. For example Richard Bauckham writes in his book ‘Jesus and the Eye-witnesses’ (Eerdmans Publishing, 2006), that John’s gospel may have been written by ‘John the Elder’ who may have been a partial eye-witness disciple of Jesus ministry, but who was not one of the twelve. Bauckham argues for the possibility that the ‘disciple that Jesus loved’ was not John the son of Zebedee, but rather another disciple (later known as John the elder) who was present at the last supper (along with other un-named male and female disciples) and who witnessed Jesus crucifixion and who subsequently looked after Jesus’ mother Mary.

However two verses in the Gospel of John text would suggest that the author was not a direct eyewitness. John 21 v.24 is translated as ‘This disciple is the one who testifies to these events and has recorded them here and we know that his account of these things is accurate.’ If the text didn’t have the added words ‘and we know that his account is accurate,’ we might suppose the gospel to have been penned by an eyewitness to Jesus ministry.

John 21 v.24 is unlikely to have been written by an author about himself and is more likely to have been written by a complier (e.g. a disciple of an eye witness) about someone whose direct testimony he has employed in the text. The verse also suggests that the final complier-author of the gospel came from the early (Apostolic) church tradition, but was not an eye-witness to Jesus ministry. This would rule out both John-bar-Zebedee and John the Elder as the final author if we are to assume (as Bauckham suggests) that the latter was an eyewitness, however the author could have been a disciple of either man.

Further evidence that the author was not in fact the eye-witness whose account he is using, can be seen in the text of John 19 verse 35, where the author includes the verse in order to emphasise what was clearly significant to the author, viz. that the ‘water and blood’ he records as flowing from Jesus’ spear wound to the heart was an account given by an eye-witness to the crucifixion. It seems to me this verse either indicates that John the Elder was not an eye-witness as Bauckham has supposed, or that the gospel we have received was written or substantially re-written by a disciple of John the Elder. It is also significant that most of the miraculous signs that the Gospel records were not previously recorded in the Synoptic Gospels (written down at least 25 years earlier). This would indicate that the author had access to another independent eyewitness source who was probably not available to the three Synoptic Gospel writers.

Assuming that John’s Gospel was written by a disciple of John the Elder does not preclude the possibility that the Gospel author had also heard some of John bar Zebedee’s eye witness accounts directly and later wrote the gospel including some of this material as if writing in the place of John. This style of authorship could also explain why the author does not name himself.

In the text of John 21 verse 24, the author appeals to his readers (Apostolic church Christians) as contemporaries of one of Jesus disciples (either John-bar-Zebedee or possibly of John the Elder) who may have been still alive and whose testimony was very credible for them. This adds to the credibility that the gospel was penned by a literate disciple of ‘John the Elder’ (or possibly by the Elder himself if he was both literate and not an eyewitness) using direct eyewitness accounts as told by Jesus’ close disciple John-bar-Zebedee (brother of James who was likely illiterate) together with other eyewitness accounts (inclusive of the Elder if he was the eyewitness that Bauckham supposes). In this case we have to assume that the balance of the material of John’s gospel was written by the author inspired by God’s Spirit and/or drawn from the oral tradition of the twelve Apostles in which he was immersed. The whole structure of the gospel may have been skilfully put together by the Elder’s disciple or by the Elder himself for the clear purpose that he records in John 20 verse 31 viz. that the early converts would continue in the Apostolic Christian faith.

top

2 A wider discussion of the authorship of the four Gospels:

The identity of some of the Biblical authors is more obvious than for others, for example the ‘Letter to the Romans’ commences with the salutation, ‘This letter is from Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, etc.’ And what we know of Paul’s life from the Acts of the Apostles gives added credibility to the personal letter we find in Romans. This knowledge helps us relate to what Paul writes. However the authorship of other books including the Gospels is not known and not easily deductable. This was of concern to the early Christian church and especially the second century ‘church fathers’ and then later to those major church councils which met to work out which books should be placed in the canon of New Testament scripture (i.e. to decide which books were sufficiently authentic at that time to be put in the Bible).

It seems that the Gospel authors or their final editors were not minded to lay claim to authorship, either because this detail was not important to them (which is unlikely) or because the accounts we have received were heavily edited. We also need to note that although it is apparent from non-Biblical texts that generally first century writers were not averse to completely re-writing the texts of sources they quoted, there was also a strong reliance on eye-witness testimony where this could be obtained (ibid). Historically where the authorship of a Biblical book was not clear, authorship was credited to particular figures by traditions that stem from the time of the early church fathers.

The New Testament contains several books which authenticate each other. For example it is clear that the author of the two books, ‘Luke’ and ‘Acts’ is the same person since he addresses his work to a dignitary named ‘Theophilus’ and in the book of ‘Acts’ he refers back to and then continues from the account of what we know as the Gospel of Luke, or as Luke’s Gospel. That the author’s name was most likely Luke, we can only surmise from St. Paul’s letters where a physician called Luke is named as one of Paul’s travelling companions (physicians then and now were educated people and could as now be expected to read and write); it is also apparent that the author of Acts was one of Paul’s companions based on the eye witness content of the book of Acts; and Acts is clearly written by the same author as Luke’s Gospel.

It is clear that Luke was not himself an eyewitness to any of the content of his Gospel, however he describes in his introduction (Luke’s Gospel chapter one) how he has carefully investigated the content of what he was about to pen and states that his work is derived from eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. Further, as Bauckham demonstrates (ibid), in first century times it was important to Greek and Roman history writers of the time to obtain eyewitness reports when writing credible historical accounts. Hence it is unsurprising that Luke commences with reference to eyewitnesses.

This gives us the confidence to accept that what we read in Luke and Acts comes from the pen of a close companion of St Paul and that the historical accounts of Jesus given in Luke’s Gospel, can be reliably accepted as accounts of the life of Jesus that both Luke and St. Paul had received from the core of the early Christian believers and leaders and which were in turn derived from eyewitness accounts. Luke is careful not to claim that he had spoken directly with any eyewitnesses, but rather that he had checked that the accounts he incorporated were derived from eyewitnesses who were amongst the early disciples of Jesus.

However what do we make of the other Gospels? Do they cross reference? Mark’s Gospel does not read as a personal eyewitness account, but clearly if authentic, is a third party account derived from one or more eyewitnesses. Mark was another companion of St Paul mentioned in both Acts and Paul’s letters, and early Christian tradition (drawn from Papias who lived 60-135AD) quotes John the Elder, "And the Elder said this also: ’Mark, having become an interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered (ref: Catholic Encyclopaedia, NewAdvent.org, extract on line 2011)’. Both Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels clearly draw some material from Mark’s Gospel, so we may take it that Luke at least held that Mark’s Gospel was derived from an authentic eyewitness account.

Reliable scholarship has found that Matthew’s Gospel is a compiled account (i.e. not directly from the hand of Matthew the tax collector as some might suppose) that includes historic narrative from early sources such as Mark’s Gospel and also includes authentic early church teaching and tradition passed down from the Apostles and other eyewitnesses to Jesus ministry. Archaeological evidence points directly to Matthew’s Gospel being penned at the latest by CE65 so the sources were very close to the lives of Matthew the tax collector and the other disciples of Jesus.

When a book was written can be a helpful consideration when assessing authorship. Recent archaeology and historical research demonstrates that most of the books & letters of the New Testament were first penned between CE50-65, i.e., within some 30 years of Jesus death. For example a recent article about New Testament manuscripts refers to a papyrus fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls as contemporary to the compiler-author of Matthew’s Gospel:

‘The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analysed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book ‘The Jesus Papyrus’. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy which was written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers! (Christian-Muslim debate website accessed Sept 11).’

John’s Gospel was likely penned some 30 years later than the Synoptic Gospels and shows a significant development in the confidence of the author and his contemporary Christian circle to expound the deity of Jesus Christ. The Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus as God’s promised Messiah (Christ in the Greek language) who calls us to repentance, forgives our sins and will come again in his Father’s glory; whereas, John’s emphasis is very much on Jesus being the incarnated Word of God who is ‘God our Saviour’ in person.

The sources the author draws on include fresh eyewitness accounts and only records two miraculous signs previously recorded in the Synoptic Gospels.

top

3 Discussion on the occurrence of miracles

In addition to the comments I have already made above on the subject of miracles (Food for thought Jn.5 v.1-18), I would refer you to the excellent book on the subject by CS Lewis who examines the subject from a philosophical view point and who challenges with clear intellectual arguments those modern sceptics in particular who claim the impossibility of miracles based on their own limited presupposition that the universe is merely natural. If you come from the presupposition that we are more than natural, also possessing supernatural aspects to our existence, then the occurrence of miracles can’t be ruled out.

I will first define natural as all that physically exists in our space-time or cosmos (any other definition will be too woolly). Any other existence must then logically be defined as super-natural. Clearly the evolved cosmic universe as we know it depends on certain fundamental physical constants, which of themselves must be super-natural. Another non-natural entity is logic, which self evidently is not confined to space-time. Logic is the truth that reason recognises as emanating from factual precepts. Logic is fundamentally different to the truth that emanates from the natural (i.e. space-time) process of cause and effect.

Clearly humans represent the most advanced end of the scale of what can be described as natural in that we not only have ‘physical life’, but also ‘intelligent’ life. Someone may ask what part of us is natural and what part supernatural? A nervous system is an advanced stage of biological evolution and the development of emotions and of our thinking ability are in themselves probably no more than advanced natural developments. I would argue that ‘reason truth,’ ‘moral truth’ and ‘personal identity’ each in themselves are more than what can reasonably be described as natural. These entities in themselves are above what is natural and maybe described as super-natural. So biological receptors such as the human brain and human emotions are merely receptors (picture/ radio sets) that are developed to be automatically tuned into super-natural entities such as reason and the existence of personal identity.

Identities are free to use reason to find evidence for belief in the existence of the super-natural and to recognise the existence of the supernatural un-created personal identity we call God. We are also able to see by means of reason that all that is natural has a ‘first cause’ and logically this cause is the supernatural. Processes such as space-time cause and effect are natural processes limited by space-time, whereas all that is supernatural is not subject to space-time laws such as cause and effect.

Thus by these definitions, supernatural entities exist that are not derived from the ‘natural’ cosmos and these are:- Reason; Fundamental constants; Logic; God and other personal identities.

Reason can also tell us that God being the first cause of personal identities, must be defined as ‘good.’ Hence human beings are physically natural but given personal identity by God and self evidently are also free to love or hate goodness, utilising natural emotions and drives together with the use of our mind. I say self evidently since it is clear to all that we are a mix of self-centred and altruistic values and drives. My essay on mind-body harmony explores how our natural brain and super-natural mind can be of one essence and exist harmoniously in time. Human beings have natural bodies (including brains and emotions) that are able to tune into the supernatural entities of reason, logic and God using our minds. We are thus able to use reason to not only believe in the supernatural but also to believe in and anticipate the past, present and future goodness of God and to draw on the very supernatural essence of God to love all that is good.

As an empiricist philosopher David Hume believed it was unreasonable to believe in miracles. As a naturalist it was for him, but he might have accepted that it would be quite reasonable for a theist with personal evidence of a miracle to believe in miracles. The same goes for the existence of angels. The point I am making is that if you accept the existence of the super-natural over and above the natural, then either you can accept the miraculous on the basis that the supernatural is common (as CS Lewis did) or you can accept miracles based on good testimony together with personal experience of a miraculous event.

Top

Discussion on the Meaning of Trinity God

From the beginning the Gospel of Jesus Christ was highly effective in bringing both religious and irreligious people into a personal faith in the eternal creator God and in Jesus Christ whom God had raised from the dead. This faith was not merely intellectual, it was powerful to transform lives, perform miracles and fill believers with joy, hope in hard circumstances and sacrificial love as well as the various gifts of God’s Holy Spirit. The New Testament writings contain a record of Jesus Christ’s life and teaching to his first disciples as well as the subsequent letters and teachings of the early apostles of Christianity.

All these teachings spell out the Christian view of the revelation of the Christian God, including God’s purposes for humanity and the need for individual response. The New Testament effectively provides the reader with three pictures of the revelation and experience of God; viz. A personal God who creates and loves us for the purpose of relationship in God’s family; A God who sacrificially gives himself to us as brother and redeemer; An enabling God who empowers us to live daily in his presence and to exemplify his character. And in presenting these facets of the divine revelation of God, the New Testament nowhere suggests there is any other than the one and only God revealed in the Old Testament, but neither does it spell out the precise nature of the existence of God, i.e. it leaves unanswered the question of the philosophy of the existence of the God of the Christian revelation, i.e. how these three realities of revelation (Father, Son and Spirit) coherently exist.

This presented some difficulties as the Gospel message came up against the non-Christian (mainly Greek) philosophies of the ancient world. The Christians (just as the Jews) worshipped the one and only eternal God. But they claimed a revelation of ‘Father God’ who is the universal creator whom Jesus loved, worshipped and obeyed while on earth (at least); and of ‘Jesus, God’s Divine Son;’ and of the ‘Holy Spirit of God’ who is sent to believers by both the Father and the Son. How could these three distinct realities of NT revelation be equated to the belief that there is only one eternal God and not three separate personal Gods (a notion common to Greek and Hindu religious thought)?

In English parlance we recognise a ‘person’ as a distinct individual being, i.e., a ‘centre of personal being and will’ who generally has a single private and non-repeatable experience of life and a single personal identity and who is generally held by others to be responsible for their own will and actions. To use this human description in any way about the eternal God is deficient on several levels. As St. Augustine first recognised, the one and only creator God is the creator of time and so descriptions of God that smack of descriptions of human persons who live in time, must inherently be deficient. But if God in some sense might be described as personal then this personal God totally relates to the centre of God’s own being and is totally responsible for God’s creation. In this sense God can’t be equated to three separate centres of being, i.e. the ‘one and only God’ can’t be equated to three God-persons, even in one supposed God-head. And this is precisely one of the heresies that the Church Fathers fought against; the notion that the Gospel might be seen as presenting three Gods (Father, Son and Spirit) albeit working together in perfect harmony and intimate relationship with each other.

On the other hand the Church Fathers also had to fight against the Christian tendency to produce Christian philosophies that explained the Gospel revelation as modal, i.e. that Christ and the Holy Spirit were simply modes of God (e.g. that Jesus was part of the essence of God and had merely flowed out from the Father, as did the Holy Spirit). This line of teaching was propounded by Christians in the third century who became known as Monarchian (Jesus was a mode of God existing in time) and was later known as Modalism. This opposite idea to the heresy of Father, Son and Spirit existing as three God ‘persons,’ later on equally came to be recognised as heresy as did another earlier idea espoused by Jewish Christians that Jesus was first fully man and then was adopted into the God-head.

It was in reaction to Modalism that the church Father Tertullian first propounded the doctrine of the Trinity. He was a bishop in North Africa who spoke in Latin and coined the Latin phrase which is most accurately translated into English by the words, God (Father, Son and Spirit) exists as ‘three persona (Ln. Personae) of one essence (Ln. Substantia).’ The Greek speaking bishops in the third century refused to translate this into the Greek equivalent because they were concerned that the word ‘persona’ was too likely to be seen as Modal in meaning, nor did they want to use the word for ‘person’ as we understand it today for the very reason that it smacked of saying that God existed as three gods. Instead the orthodox Greek speaking Christians formulated the words best translated today as ‘three realities (Gk. hypostasis) of one essence (Gk. ousia).’

So the non-heretical orthodox middle line in the third and fourth centuries was based on the understanding that can be expressed in today’s English as; ‘God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are three co-equal and co-eternal Realities (or Personas) of One divine essence’. This doctrine opposes heretical Christian philosophies that on the one hand propound the Christian God to exist as ‘Father, Son and Spirit where each are three ‘God persons’ or God personalities, whether or not these are seen as co-equal or adopted (in the case of Jesus) or holding different a rank over each other, and on the other hand heretical Christian philosophies that propound ‘Father’, ‘Son’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ as terms that describe three different ‘modes’ by which the One and Only God has chosen to reveal himself to us. Neither of these two opposing philosophies were judged by the Church Fathers to properly explain and contextualise the teaching of the New Testament. But the doctrine of the Trinity as it became known was thought to be the best formulation that we can have albeit inevitably an imperfect philosophy of the existence of the Holy God who is beyond human understanding!

So how come today’s Christians recite the Christian creeds along the lines ‘we believe in one God in three co-equal persons’ if this is not what the church Fathers understood or meant? The answer lies in the natural process of the change of language. All words in English, Latin, Greek or any language gradually come to mean more than when first used or to change and sometimes even to reverse their original meanings. According to evangelical Biblical scholar Professor FF Bruce (The Spreading Flame, 1958 p.257) using the word ‘person’ today as a translation of the Latin ‘persona’ is misleading in common parlance, since it has changed its common meaning from that which the Latin speaking people of the third century meant by it. At that time it meant ‘persona’ or ‘role,’ but did not mean ‘person’ at all. By the time the Bible and creeds came to be translated into English, they were seen as so central to our English history that people were burnt at the stake for supposed heresy (as well as for attempting to translate the Bible into our mother tongue) and that was only four centuries ago. So it is small wonder that the church has been slow to address the updating of creeds that have changed their meanings such that the English expressions could in my view now be seen as heretical from historical mainstream Christianity.

Personally I can live with the Greek speaking early church Fathers language of the doctrine, viz., Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three eternal realities of God. That said we must remember that Christianity is not about philosophies of God’s existence, but is rather about coming into a living relationship with the God of the Bible and particularly of Jesus Christ and of living in the power of God’s Spirit.

So has Christian theology moved on from the creeds that were formulated in the forth century? The answer to this is, ‘Yes it has.’ The Christian church’s understanding of Trinity God has developed since medieval times. Tertullian had first formulated a doctrine of Trinity, and according to Baxter Kruger, Ph.D (Shack Revisited ch.10, Hodder, 2012) in the middle ages Richard of St. Victor had first argued that ‘no one is properly said to have love on the basis of his private love of himself. And so it is necessary that for love to be love that it is directed toward another. Therefore where plurality of persons is lacking, love cannot exist (book three of the Trinity, written c.1100).’ However the New Testament affirms that ‘God is love (1 Jn 4 16)’ and so for this to be true and by Richard St. Victor’s logic, the eternal God must somehow comprise eternal relationship.

Hence a modern understanding of Trinity God is that somehow the three realities of God that the NT reveals and that were affirmed in the creeds must be in an eternal love relationship. The weakness of this argument is that it employs time-based logic, but that said we have no other means by which to reason, and so we must accept that understanding God as essentially relational and revealed to us as three particular realities of what we can only describe as one God essence, is the best Christians can ever come up with this side of the resurrection!

Back to part 1

Back to part 2

Home | Contact

mikereflects.com