Why start with the Gospel according to John?

  • Thread starter Thread starter japhy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

japhy

Guest
I’m curious why the Gospel according to John is suggested as the starting place for reading the Bible, primarily by evangelicals. Is it simply because of a handful of chapters (3 and 4, in particular) that quite bluntly state that Jesus is the Son of God through whom we have eternal life?
 
I just asked an evangelical family member this, and her answer was “It’s the book of love.”
 
Funny that you would ask this and then quote John in your signature…Just an observation…🙂
 
It is easy to read, and it leaves no room for doubt about the Diety of Christ. It does give a perspective from a man who was taught personally by Christ Himself and also lived with the Virgin Mary after the crucifiction. He wrote it later in life around 90AD, after the other 3 Gospels had been written.
 
It is my favorite account of the four primarily because it deals greatly with the relationship between the Father and His Son. It is a very spiritual writing and with the high Christological format it leaves very little room for doubt as to who Christ is…teachccd 🙂
 
teachccd said:
Funny that you would ask this and then quote John in your signature…Just an observation…🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t think there’s a connection, sorry. 🙂

However, it’s funny that evangelicals can miss the Eve/Mary parallel (what with Jesus calling Mary “woman” all the time), the spiritual motherhood of Mary at the cross, the intercession of Mary in Cana, etc.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
He wrote it later in life around 90AD, after the other 3 Gospels had been written.
Click to expand...
teachccd said:
It is a very spiritual writing and with the high Christological format…
Click to expand...
That’s kind of my point here, that it’s very spiritual and highly Christological, and takes certain things for granted. It’s like starting out with calculus proofs before conquering simple alegbra.
 
If I were to be asked, I would suggest that anyone starting to read the Bible should start with Luke or Mark before going to John.
 
I think because once you read John (which is an easy read because of the poetic language and almost story-like quality of the writing) and you go read the other gospels, you see things explained that perhaps you didn’t see before (I know that constantly think about where I have encountered before).

But that’s just me.
 
japhy said:
I don’t think there’s a connection, sorry. 🙂

However, it’s funny that evangelicals can miss the Eve/Mary parallel (what with Jesus calling Mary “woman” all the time), the spiritual motherhood of Mary at the cross, the intercession of Mary in Cana, etc.
Click to expand...
They miss it because they see/read what they want to see/read. If they want to deny Our Lady’s place, then they will continue to deny it.
 
japhy said:
I’m curious why the Gospel according to John is suggested as the starting place for reading the Bible, primarily by evangelicals. Is it simply because of a handful of chapters (3 and 4, in particular) that quite bluntly state that Jesus is the Son of God through whom we have eternal life?
Click to expand...
You’d have to ask a protestant why they start with the non-synoptic gospel. The fact that it IS the “oddball” gospel is probably WHY they choose it. I have no idea why that would be.

Personally, my “path” was:
  • Luke
  • Acts
  • …then the chronological progression of St. Paul’s writings
  • …then, roughly, the chronological path through the other (non-Gospel) writings
  • …then Matthew, Mark, and John
  • …then Revelation.
I would HIGHLY suggest Jeff Cavin’s “Narrative” 14-book trek:
(( The Great Adventure ))
  • Genesis
  • Exodus
  • Numbers
  • Joshua
  • Judges
  • 1 Samuel
  • 2 Samuel
  • 1 Kings
  • 2 Kings
  • Ezra
  • Nehemiah
  • 1 Maccabees
  • Luke
  • Acts
 
I really don’t have a preference, but I can see myself starting with Mark because it is smaller and right to the point. But I think any of them are actually good to begin with. I remember when I did very first read the Gospels, I started off with Matthew and worked my way to John. It shocked me to find that they were the same account!🙂 That was 13 years ago.
That’s kind of my point here, that it’s very spiritual and highly Christological, and takes certain things for granted. It’s like starting out with calculus proofs before conquering simple alegbra.
Click to expand...
Just as long you don’t begin with St. John’s Apocalypse, that would be like starting with Fermat’s Last Theorem.
 
PatienceAndLove said:
I think because once you read John (which is an easy read because of the poetic language and almost story-like quality of the writing)
Click to expand...
And me. In my opinion Luke is the easiest read, but John is the best read. It brings a lot of spirituality that isn’t found anywhere else.

Besides, that’s where the Bread of Life discourse is. 🙂
 
teachccd said:
Does it matter where you start just as long as you start?
Click to expand...
Is it possible that reading certain books of the Bible without the proper background could skew your interpretation of Scripture? What if you read Ecclesiastes first and your perception of the rest… all things are vanity, after all!
 
Just a wild guess, but I would say they like to start people with John’s Gospel because it (seems like it) supports their distinctive brand of catechesis which they want to imprint on new Christians. The Gospel of John happens to contain many of the favorite “catch-phrases” that support their distinctive doctrines, such as:

**John 3:16, which (to them) suggests Eternal Security

John 5:39 supporting (they think) Sola Scriptura

John 6:28-29 which is erroneously thought to prove Sola Fide

John 6:63 which they try to interpret as a denial of the Sacraments

John 20:31 which (when you neglect to mention verse 30) also seem to prove (to them) Sola Scriptura.**

The list can go on, but you get the drift.

Not saying it’s necessarily so – just an idea. :whistle:
 
Fidelis said:
Just a wild guess, but I would say they like to start people with John’s Gospel because it (seems like it) supports their distinctive brand of catechesis which they want to imprint on new Christians. The Gospel of John happens to contain many of the favorite “catch-phrases” that support their distinctive doctrines, such as:

**John 3:16, which (to them) suggests Eternal Security

John 5:39 supporting (they think) Sola Scriptura

John 6:28-29 which is erroneously thought to prove Sola Fide

John 6:63 which they try to interpret as a denial of the Sacraments

John 20:31 which (when you neglect to mention verse 30) also seem to prove (to them) Sola Scriptura.**

The list can go on, but you get the drift.

Not saying it’s necessarily so – just an idea. :whistle:
Click to expand...
So, you up for a full blown lexical analysis? 🙂
 
japhy
Is it possible that reading certain books of the Bible without the proper background could skew your interpretation of Scripture? What if you read Ecclesiastes first and your perception of the rest… all things are vanity, after all!
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Introductions are wonderful, that is, if they are orthodox, not the liberal introductions like you find in the NAB. I feel that it is very important for serious readers to find out who the author is, who it is written to, and what the general theme of the book is about. I know that that approach did wonders for me when I began to take Bible study seiously.
 
This is a tradition that goes back to Martin Luther. Luther thought that the Gospel of John was the most important book in the Bible. After that came the letters of Paul. He didn’t consider the synoptic Gospels as important.

stolaf.edu/people/edwards/luthbibl.htm
In the introduction to his translation of the New Testament into German, Luther explicitly discussed “which are the true and most noble books of the New Testament.” According to Luther, the Gospel of John, Paul’s epistles (especially the one to the Romans), and Peter’s first epistle were “the true kernel and marrow among all the books.” Every Christian should be advised to read them first and most often, and through daily reading to make them as common as one’s daily bread. “For in these you do not find much described about the many works and miracles of Christ, but you do find masterfully depicted how faith in Christ overcomes sin, death, and hell and gives life, righteousness, and salvation, which is the true nature of the Gospel…”
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top