John, the Mystical Gospel

We’ve all seen it during an NFL game or a major league baseball game on TV—someone holding a large sign that says, “John 3:16.” The person holding the sign perceives what he/she is doing as an evangelistic act. In evangelical circles the sixteenth verse of chapter three of John is called ‘the gospel in a nutshell.’ (Not-so-nice non-evangelicals have said that it is the ‘nut’ who is holding the sign.) For Evangelicals John’s gospel is the gospel of choice. Ask them why and their answer is, “It’s the simplest gospel.” That’s where the trouble begins.

The truth is: John’s gospel is the most difficult of the four. It is a different animal than the other three. Scholars refer to Matthew, Mark and Luke collectively as the Synoptic Gospels. ‘Syn-optic’ literally means ‘to see together.’ Matthew, Mark and Luke are similar in many ways. They have similar structures, chronologies, vocabularies and themes. They present Jesus in much the same way, with variations of course.

The Gospel of John is off in another world. Here are some differences:

• A different chronology; Jesus is in Jerusalem more often; his ministry lasts longer; the cleansing of the temple takes place at the beginning instead of at the end.
• The major teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics is the Kingdom of God; in John it is eternal life.
• The death of Jesus in the Synoptics takes place on Friday; in John it is on Thursday.
• In John there is no Last Supper as such; and only in John does Jesus wash the disciples’ feet.
• There is no baptism of Jesus in John.
• The Synoptics have miracles (or marvels); John has ‘signs.’
• In the Synoptics Jesus teaches with parables; in John there is not one parable.
• In Matthew and Luke we find the stories of the birth of Jesus; in John there is no birth story.
• The Synoptics are based in historical events and persons with purposeful elaboration and embellishment; John’s gospel is virtually a complete fiction. (The first three gospels might be compared to historical fiction; and John might be called epic poetry.)
• Much of the narrative of Matthew, Mark and Luke are written to be understood literally, though symbolism is frequent, and parable is non-literal form; but the Gospel of John is totally symbolic.

I’m sure that somewhere in my seminary education I read that John’s gospel was referred to as a ‘mystical’ gospel. But it didn’t sink in. What I remember is years later attending a lecture by the Catholic theologian David Tracy and hearing him say that the Gospel of John is understood as a mystical gospel. That stuck with me. And ever since then, I have thought about that.

Here are some historical references: In the second century, Clement of Alexandria, seeking to distinguish John’s gospel from the other three, referred to the fourth Gospel as a ‘spiritual gospel.’ The third century theologian named Origen called John’s Gospel a ‘mystical gospel.’ In the twentieth century the Jungian analyst John Sanford wrote a commentary on John titled, Mystical Christianity: A Psychological Commentary on the Gospel of John. The New Testament scholar L. William Countryman wrote They Mystical Way in the Fourth Gospel: Crossing Over into God.

In 2001 Demetrius R. Dumm, O.S.B. published A Mystical Portrait of Jesus: New Perspectives on John’s Gospel. A monk, priest and professor of New Testament Theology, Dumm does a contemplative reading of John’s Gospel, stressing the symbolic nature of its content and the mystical thrust toward union with God.

Bishop John Spong has persisted in scholarly work in the Biblical materials to update the Christian Faith for contemporary seekers after truth. His recent book The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic has clarified for me what I have suspected about the Fourth Gospel for a long time. Spong’s approach to John’s Gospel will not be accepted by much of the mainstream scholarship, but its basic premise resonates with my reading of John.

(to be continued)