THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
& THE FIRST "MYSTERY SCHOOL"Stan Ousley, Jr.
© Symphony of Love Ministries
Santa Fe, NMINTRODUCTION
The Apostle John may or may not have "written" the Gospel account and three epistles bearing his name. Eusebius in the 300's mentioned doubts about the authorship. Contemporary "liberal" scholars such as "The Jesus Seminar" editors refer to the teachings as the product of a "school" of early Christianity. And so do some conservative or "evangelical" scholars such as Fuller Seminary professor and researcher Arthur G. Patzia, in his 2001 book entitled The Emergence of the Church: Context, Growth, Leadership and Worship (Inter Varsity Press). Patzia thinks that: "Although scholars debate issues of authorship related to the Johannine corpus most agree that this correspondence emerged from a Johannine school, community. or circle consisting of a number of house churches in and around Ephesus." He adds that: "Early church traditions locate John's ministry in Asia, specifically in Ephesus" (p. 130). And he correctly comments that "It is somewhat ironic that the traditions of John's connections with the Ephesian church have almost completely eclipsed the significance of its earliest leader, the apostle Paul" (pp. 130, 131). Indeed, this is another "mystery" regarding John's mystery school or community. In Acts of the Apostles, John is associated with the more "Jewish" wing of primitive Christianity headquartered in Jerusalem, where he was one of the "pillars" on "The Jerusalem Council" that examined Paul's ministerial approaches to the Gentiles. And certainly Paul is the one credited with the establishment of a congregation in Ephesus. Paul does not mention John in his epistle to the church at Ephesus. So perhaps John (and Mary, the mother of Jesus) settled later on in that important city maybe sometime in the early 60's when Paul was imprisoned in Rome prior to martyrdom. Or perhaps the "school" was established there. The Ephesus church is mentioned in the statements addressed to "the seven churches" in Revelation (they had "fallen from their first love"), but there is really nothing about John having a pastoral ministry to the church located in that community. Was there a "school" in addition to a church in Ephesus?
One of the leading orthodox scholars studying John is Raymond E. Brown, a Roman Catholic priest and Bible professor, who wrote under the approval of the Church's Magisterium. In his definitive 1988 book The Gospel and Epistles of John - A Concise Commentary (The Liturgical Press), he mentions a Second Century tradition that St. Irenaeus around 180 A.D. identified the writer as the original disciple John, based on a recollection of a statement he heard in his boyhood from Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who had known of John in his own childhood. Father Brown writes:
"Today, it is recognized that such late second-century surmises about figures who had lived a century before were often simplified, and that authorship tradition was sometimes more concerned with the authority behind a biblical writing than with the physical writer. Accordingly it is doubted by most scholars that any of the canonical Gospels was written by an eyewitness of the public ministry of Jesus even though (as the Roman Catholic church teaches) the Gospels are solidly rooted in oral traditions stemming from the companions of Jesus. The beloved disciple was one of the latter. The role of the beloved disciple was as a witness to Jesus and as the source of the Fourth Gospel tradition." (Brown, pp. 9-10)
This study focuses on the "Gospel of John" as presented in the NLT or New Living Translation, with occasional references to the lexicons by Spiros Zodhiates found in the KJV edition of The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible which he edited for AMG Publishers. The Gospel of John is a favorite among "metaphysical" or New Thought Christians, and is seen as an early example of a symbolic and metaphorical interpretation of Jesus' life and teachings. Episcopal Bishop John Spong, in his book Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, points out that even many Biblical "literalists" do not try to interpret John's writings literally. In John's Gospel, we do not find the "historical Jesus," but rather we are exposed to symbols and motifs (some quasi-mystical) that are loosely intertwined around a series of stories and events in which Jesus is a central character. We encounter an "esoteric" Gospel that is not presented as a coherent or sequential history.
Raymond Brown writes about the differences between the other canonical Gospels and John's Gospel:
"A comparison of the Fourth Gospel to the first three Gospels shows obvious differences. Peculiarities of the Fourth Gospel include: setting of much of the public ministry in Jerusalem rather than in Galilee; the significant absence of the kingdom of God motif (only in 3:3, 5); long discourses and dialogues rather than parables; only some seven miracles, including the unique Cana changing of water into wine, healing a man born blind, and the raising of Lazarus." (Brown, p. 12)
The historical value of John's Gospel is that it reveals an early "alternative" presenting interpretations and interpretive nuances that were, perhaps with ecclesiastical editing, accepted as (canonically) legitimate though somewhat variant in later times by the early church in its first four centuries. The theological value is that we see that such interpretations other than literal or Pauline ones were co-existing with (and within) the early theology. We also see that someone besides Paul had something significant to say theologically. I would suggest that even today, many Christians and Christian groups may be covertly defined by the degree of emphasis placed on their interpretations of either Paul (the moralist) or John (the "mystical lover" and "beloved disciple" of Jesus). The metaphysical value is that New Thought interpretations are certainly within the parameters of a metaphorical-symbolic interpretive tradition begun in John's Gospel and part of a mystical lineage that in many ways is peripheral but not diametrically opposed to the more accepted interpretations of the "orthodox" theologians.
John's views and symbols can themselves be interpreted in various ways along a line from orthodoxy to heterodoxy and perhaps even beyond!
THE BASIC COSMOLOGY - THE LOGOS AND THE LIGHT
Muslims talk about "Allah" as God, but the mystical Sufi-Muslims, such as Rumi, have always had another more esoteric concept: Allah-HU. The "HU" is the "God beyond God" - a power or pre-existent reality that is "the Beyond the beyond." John and his mystery school disciples or "community" were in some ways the early Sufi-Christians, though it is a somewhat stretched historical analogy! In addition, the "love motif" is evident in both traditions.
Unlike the synoptic Gospels, John or pseudo-John begins his Gospel in a pre-Creation time, with the Word, or Greek Logos, which Zodhiates translates as "intelligence, a word as the expression of that intelligence," and "formulation of thought in the mind." Zodhiates adds that: "Jesus Christ, being sent of God, speaks exactly God's utterances" (NT Lexicon, p. 1734). Throughout the Gospel, John's Jesus emphasizes that he, himself, is saying what the "Father" tells him to say. Recent spiritual physicists such as Peter Russell and religious theorists such as Huston Smith think that the components of Creation are Consciousness as intelligence and Light as energy both expressed within forms, but also with invisible properties. Thus, Light can be either a wave or a particle. The Word was both with God and was and is God. It is this Word that has "created everything there is" (NLT, verse 3 of chapter 1) and in it (the Word) is "life [that] gives light to everyone" (verse 4, NLT). The Greek word used in these verses for "God" is Theos related to the verbs to place or dispose, and to form (NT Lexicon, p. 1722). The more personalized (and anthropomorphic) paternal word "Father" is not used in this segment. The word used for "life" is zoe, which refers to "the principle of life in the spirit and soul" (NT Lexicon, p. 1720), and not to the word bios, referring to biological life. The "true Light, which lighteth every man" (KJVverse 9) refers in the Greek to a spiritual state: "to enlighten, give life to, in a spiritual sense" (NT Lexicon, p. 1767).
Raymond Brown wrote that: "The prologue is a hymn, a poetic summary of the whole theology and narrative of the Gospel, as well as an introduction." (Brown, p. 21) Mentioning that in pre-Christian mystery traditions, wisdom was personified as a woman [as it is also in the OT Book of Proverbs, I would add!], Brown suggests the idea that God's Creative Word is joined with Wisdom. The result is that "we have a union of wisdom and God's word, a divine person uncreated and existing with the Father." (Brown, pp. 21-22)
This again is a concept not found in the other Gospel accounts.
In verses 6 to 9, it is emphasized that Jesus was the messenger of this Light, but beyond this, is the concept in verse 14 that "the Word was made flesh" (KJV), or (NLT) "the Word became human and lived here on earth among us." In a way, these interesting verses provide a "metaphysical" explanation of the Virgin Birth story found in Matthew and Luke. At a spiritual level, Jesus was born of (or into the expression of) the Divine Idea the Word fully expressed in his consciousness, and as "Son of God," Jesus was (and is) the enlightenment of humankind. This relates to the concept "only begotten Son" only begotten in nature or spiritual expression. The KJV translation of verses 12 and 13 is: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God [not "children" as in the NLT and other translations], even to them that believe on the name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." The NLT translation of verse 13 reads: "They are reborn! This is not a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan this rebirth comes from God." The Greek for "sons" and "Son" is teknon not huios or "son" in a biological sense, and the term is used in the context of "denoting relationship of [spiritual] character with the Father-God" (NT Lexicon, p. 1761). But we, likewise, can also become spiritual "sons of God" just as Jesus was Son. A nuance is that Jesus is not the biological son of God but expresses the "Son of God" consciousness as the Light of the world the Logos in form through the Spirit of God. Jesus as a "Son" expressed Consciousness and a "power" rather than a miraculous birth. And as "son of Man," he is the Divine Idea of humankind in expression - the Way-shower of Divine Son-ship. Verse 14 (KJV) reiterates the role of the Word as flesh: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." The Greek monogenes may be translated, according to Zodhiates, as being generated rather than begotten physically: "of the same stock [characteristics or qualities] in the relationship of the Son to the Father" or the son or offspring in spiritual rather than biological character (NT Lexicon, p. 1738).
In John's Gospel, there is explicit oneness with God, and everyone has the potential to be a "son" of God. But the orthodox view and the Pauline view were that Jesus the Christ "died for our sins" as a blood sacrifice for original sin and not our innate ignorance ("darkness" or non-enlightenment) -- and in later sections, John includes this "majority" viewpoint of atonement, which can be interpreted as at-one-ment. There is a theological tension that is kept implicit rather than explicit, and not resolved. It is almost as if the Gospel writer is saying "Most believe this way; we see it this other way instead and use similar terms but with different meanings; we choose not to create tension or interpret our view as being opposed to the other viewpoint." Brown states that "The Fourth Gospel presents an independent tradition with its own purpose and witness." (Brown, p. 13)
It is apparent that the interpretations are spiritual and symbolic rather than concrete or literal. John and his school are coming from a different perspective. In verse 29, Jesus is presented as "the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." An interpretation is that Jesus sacrificed his ego life or personal nature, and in pure spiritual consciousness, takes away our "sin" or collective separation from God's Divine Nature of Love.
A COLLECTION OF SYMBOLS REVEALING GOD
At the end of chapter 1, Jesus says (NLT): "The truth is, you will all see heaven open and the angels of God going up and down upon the Son of Man." This sets the theme for most of John's Gospel. Heaven is the abode in consciousness of the Divine Ideas; angels are messengers of these Ideas in the individual awareness; and Son of Man is the anointed consciousness in the world.
In chapter 2, Jesus (symbolically) transforms the water of worldly-based thought into the wine of Spirit at the wedding at Cana. Brown summarizes the symbolism: "The prophets had foretold an abundance of wine in messianic days; and the abundance of wine at Cana would bring these prophecies to mind and point to Jesus' mission." (Brown, p. 29) In the next symbolism, Jesus "clears the temple," which represented established religion and religious practices, and the physical house of Spirit. In verses 19 to 21, it is clear that symbolic interpretations are intended for this segment and most of John's Gospel. The "temple" is Jesus' body, or by extension, the symbol of the resurrection in consciousness from the realm of the dead. In chapter 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus, a Pharisee leader and "secret" inquirer, that he must be "born again" of Spirit. This more esoteric interpretation of baptism as a spiritual cleansing of thoughts is presented as the concept that "the Holy Spirit gives new life from heaven" (NLT) or the abode of the High Consciousness. Nicodemus came to Jesus (symbolized as "the Light of the world" or the illumined consciousness) "by night" or in a state of lack of illumination. The NLT version of John 3:16 is "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." An alternative and less orthodox extrapolation from the Greek would be that the Principle of God sent its "only begotten" Son or the pure offspring of the Divine Idea into the world of expression, and Jesus was the fullness of the expression. And in the form or likeness of its eternal nature and qualities expressed as the "Son of God" consciousness, all who believed its revelation through Jesus would be redeemed from error and "sin" or separation from the Source and would have fullness of life in its eternal qualities.
Speaking to the Samaritan woman in chapter 4, Jesus says (NLT), "Believe me, the time is coming when it will no longer matter whether you worship the Father here [Mount Gerizim] or in Jerusalem." This is because "the time is coming and is already here when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth." This theme is reiterated in John's First Letter: "God is a spirit." The emphasis on invisible aspects of spirituality continues as Jesus states (NLT): "I have food you don't know about. My nourishment comes from doing the will of God, who sent me, and from finishing his work." In verse 26 of chapter 4, Jesus acclaims (NLT) "I am the Messiah" in response to the Samaritan woman's statement "I know the Messiah will come; the one who is called Christ. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."
Christos in the Greek (from the verb chrio "to anoint"), refers to the term "anointed" as "used in the OT applied to everyone anointed with the holy oil, primarily to the high priesthood" and "a name applied to others acting as redeemers." In the NT, with the article ho as "the" Christos, it is used in connection with Jesus' "Jesus who is called Christ" -- as in Matthew 1:16 (Zodhiates, NT Lexicon, p. 1769). In the DS textbook, we read "Christ is the indwelling perfect pattern of the divine idea of Man Christ, the perfect idea of MAN is coexistent with eternal Mind, and is the only begotten Son."
In chapter 5, the Source of Jesus' works is revealed: "I assure you, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing. Whatever the Father does, the Son also does." In verse 24, Jesus teaches that those who "listen to my message and believe in God who sent me" have eternal life. They dwell in the eternal consciousness, not the passing temporal world of appearances and "sin" or separation from God thinking. Thus in verse 25, "even the dead" in consciousness, upon hearing "the voice of the Son of God" or Eternal Word-Logos, will live. This is because (verse 26, NLT) "The Father [Source] has life in himself, and he has granted his Son ["only begotten" of The Word or Logos] to have life in himself." From verses 28 and 29, we see in symbols that from the "grave" of separation and error thinking ("sin" in New Thought) we can "hear the voice of God's son" and rise in our consciousness. This also extends the symbolism of being "born again"; the spiritual rebirth is a Second Coming and leads to a new life in the Spirit.
Jesus' "teachings and miracles" offer "a greater witness" than that of John the Baptist; it is the teachings and miracles that "witness" to the power of Consciousness. Probably, this is an evaluation offered by those in John's school or community, and not the exact words of Jesus. In some ways, New Thought offers a "greater witness" of Christianity than the previous institutional church offered in the late nineteenth century. In verses 41 and 43-44 (NLT), Jesus observes: "Your approval or disapproval means nothing to me; For I have come to you representing my Father, and you refuse to welcome me, even though you readily accept others who represent only themselves. No wonder you can't believe! For you gladly honor each other, but you don't care about the honor that comes from God alone." The inner teaching is that Truth does not respond to untruth. The implication is that John's school or community did not concern itself with criticism from other early Christian factions. An application for New Thought Christianity would be that it does not need to concern itself with apologetics - responding to orthodox Christianity's "disapproval" of its more metaphysical interpretation.
In chapter 6, more symbols are presented. Jesus feeds the five thousand, illustrating that Sacred Source is not appearance dependent. Jesus has already explained his concept of food. The spiritual food satisfies hunger forever. Jesus' walking on water represents the anointed state of rising above the thoughts (waters) based on appearances and the beliefs of the collective consciousness. Jesus also teaches about "the bread of life" in verses 26 to 27 and states (NLT): "But you shouldn't be so concerned about perishable things like food. Spend your energy on seeking the eternal life that I, the Son of Man, can give you. For God the Father has sent me for that very purpose." Jesus further affirms "I am the bread of life." Verse 53 has Jesus saying that people must eat his flesh and drink his blood. But symbolically, these elements are symbols for "the true food" - the substance of Creation and the Life (blood) of the Spirit. In verse 58, Jesus states (NLT) "I am the true bread from heaven." This is contrasted to manna in the OT. The "bread" of the New Covenant is superior and more spiritually satisfying. In the DS textbook, we read that "Christ in the heart is the true bread and wine of our communion," and "We should receive all that we eat or drink as the divine Body."
In chapter 7, Jesus explains that "I'm not teaching my own ideas, but those of God who sent me." Jesus is not in his persona "the bread of life" - he is presenting it because he is the messenger or expression of The Word that is Light of the Divine Consciousness. In verse 12 of chapter 8, Jesus states "I am the light of the world." By following this enlightened state of consciousness, one does not "walk in darkness" or ignorance and lack of inner illumination, but has eternal spiritual light or "the light of life" (KJV). In verse 19, to know Jesus is to know the Father he expresses. Otherwise (verse 21), people will "die in their sin" and cannot go where Jesus is going in his anointed consciousness.
Of course, liberal theologians and The Jesus Seminar scholars concur that Jesus probably did not actually make many of these statements in John's Gospel. Actually, what we have is a representation of Jesus as the symbol of Christ (the Word made flesh) proclaiming "the light of the world" or the teachings of the Anointed Consciousness. Jesus in this Gospel is the personification ("only begotten Son of God") of the Divine Consciousness. The motif is almost surrealistic or "dreamlike" at times. Yet we all know that dreams can sometimes be more "real" than the "empirical" reality of appearances and conditions in the concrete world. The Divine Attributes or ultimate realities of Consciousness, Light-energy, and Love are essentially invisible, and are known within ("the Kingdom of heaven is within you"), and Science only partially defines these areas. Likewise, John's Gospel as the object of formal theological study can only mislead seekers, because in its content and essence, it transcends theology as it is practiced as a scholarly discipline rather than as "The Queen of Sciences" that Theology has the potential to be. Theology is more "of the academy" than "of the Spirit."
In chapter 9, Jesus "heals" a man who was born blind. He is blind (born in a state of darkness or ignorance) not because of sins or error thinking - a point New Thought practitioners may themselves not understand if they seek a "mental cause" for a specific effect or out-picturing. The blind man symbolizes a state or condition of innate darkness that is transformed by inner enlightenment "the power of God" that is "seen in him." Verse 39 underscores the symbolic interpretation as Jesus talks about spiritual blindness. The symbolic personification continues in chapter 10, as Jesus is described as "the shepherd" of the sheep. In verse 11 (NLT), Jesus points out that "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." The New Thought interpretation of Jesus as a "sacrifice" for "sin" is that he was condemned by our sinful (separation) thinking and actions (rejecting the Light) and crucified by our negative judgements. The Cross is a symbol of the relationship between the horizontal dimension of ego and worldly visible appearances as it intersects with the vertical dimension of Spirit and is "crucified" -- the ego-level selfish self "dies into Spirit" and is redeemed by Divine Self. Ego self-will must "die on a Cross" to be resurrected into Divine Consciousness. In New Thought, the Cross is also a symbol of a process.
CONTINUE * * * * *