Eastern Orthodoxy and the Gospel of John

[Roguish]

I recently watched a video where someone explained that as far as scripture is concerned, the Orthodox view Christianity primarily through the “lens” of (1) the Gospel of John, (2) the epistles of John, and (3) the Church Fathers, especially St. John Chrysostom. The implication seemed to be that the other gospels, Acts, and the other epistles are, in the Orthodox view, of somewhat lesser stature than the aforementioned three sources.

Are there any Orthodox Christians here that could comment on this?

 

[Roguish]

Bump.
(min 10 chars)

 

[Mary888]

I am in EO, I am not a scholar, but this information sounds not real to me. There are daily readings in EO from all the New Testament. One is from the Apostles and the other from the Gospels. One is called “the Apostle of the day” and the other “the Gospel of the day”. The first one is from the letters written by the Apostles and the other one from the Gospels recording events and words of Jesus Christ himself. There is no emphasis on either Apostle or book of the New Testament.
In EO synodality is a key concept, the fact the Apostles were united in the Holy Spirit even if some are important to us than others because they were more active they were equal in God’s eyes. So the idea that John would be above others is strange. Also they are depicted all 12 equally on the same level on the Altar rood. Above them are St. John the Baptist and Virgin Mary.
The epistles of Peter and Paul are definitely quoted most frequently in Church.
If there is one John who gets more attention and reverence is St. John the Baptist for obvious reasons.
Maybe St. John Chrysostom himself studied and gave more examples from the writings of John.

 

[pacloc]

It has to do with clarifications that St. John made that the others left out. It is not that his Gospel is better, but that since it is more specific on some things, it is used in those cases. For example the calling of the disciples is shown to have been after already knowing Jesus instead of kind of out of the blue in the synoptic Gospels. The 3 year ministry is only clear in John’s Gospel. The date for the mystical supper being before the Passover is clear only in John, so the bread was leavened. I’m going off of memory, but I think most Christians really put emphasis on the Gospel of John whether or not they realize it. It begins and ends clearly explaining Christ’s Divinity.

 

[dochawk]

A better description of the difference is that the West places relatively more weight on the Crucifixion, while the East places relatively more weight on the Resurrection.

This would indeed be enough to place relatively more emphasis on John, I suppose.

hawk

 

[Roguish]

A better description of the difference is that the West places relatively more weight on the Crucifixion, while the East places relatively more weight on the Resurrection.

Interesting… I never realized that, but it makes sense. “Christ is risen” is a very common greeting among Orthodox around Easter time, isn’t it? There is no equivalent expression among Romans. And perhaps more significantly, the most common depiction of Jesus in the RCC is the crucifix, be it small or very large; and the dying Jesus on a crucifix is nearly always a highly naturalistic statuette. In the Orthodox Church, as far as I know, the victorious Christ is the most common depiction, isn’t it? And even when Christ is depicted on the cross, in the OC it is never a naturalistic depiction; it is always in the traditional icon style, as far as I have seen. Actually when I was younger I went through a phase where the rather “explicit” depiction, on a crucifix, of the physcial injuries done to Christ, didn’t quite feel “right” to me. I didn’t scare me, but it seemed unnecessarily explicit to me.

I wonder also if perhaps in the OC Christ is seen to save us primarily by means of his Resurrected Presence, whereas in the RCC Christ’s salvific work seems to consist primarily of his suffering and death on the cross.

Any thoughts on this? Thanks.

 

[pacloc]

I think most Orthodox Saints placed emphasis on both His death and resurrection. The difference has more to do with the Orthodox view of Christ’s Divinity. The RCC seems to emphasize the humanity of Christ so much so that people forget that He was still fully God, governing all things simultaneously as he walked the earth and was crucified. The Orthodox on the other hand, see His Incarnation purely as something for us and does not change the Son’s function as God. In writing, both RCC and Orthodox agree that God is without change, but in practice it seems to differ a little. So in the death and resurrection we see God’s plan as destroying death by death and being Victor over death. God taking on humanity, divinizes humanity, so we see the incarnation not only as a restoration to what it was before, but actually elevated higher to that of becoming sharers in God’s energies. So all the things that Christ did correctly, to us cures the wrongdoing that we all have done, and death and suffering become ways of entering into eternal rest in the Kingdom of God. The view that somehow sins can literally be paid for with death is not really taught in Orthodoxy, it is more like God’s forgiveness depends on our conversion which means death to this fallen way of living. We must share in Christ’s death to this world and die to it ourselves, and God will forgive us and make up what is lacking in us because we have Faith in Him and long to do His will.