NO GREATER LOVE: THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

​

Pope Benedict discusses the Gospel of John separately in Jesus of Nazareth. The first question is that of who is the author of John’s Gospel. Since the time of Irenaeus of Lyon (d. ca. 202), Church tradition has unanimously regarded John, the son of Zebedee, as the beloved disciple and the author of the Gospel. This fits with the identification markers provided by the Gospel, which in any case point toward the hand of an Apostle and companion of Jesus from the time of the Baptism in the Jordan to the Last Supper, Cross, and Resurrection. Yet we still need to know who was Zebedee. We know that Zebedee was a fisherman. (Mt 4:21-22, Mk 1:19-20, Lk 5:9-11) Pope Benedict believes that Zebedee was a priest. Therefore, John was the son of a priest. How could a fisherman in Galilee also be a priest ministering in the Jerusalem Temple? The priests discharged their ministry on a rotating basis twice a year. The ministry itself lasted a week each time. After the completion of the ministry, the priest returned to his home, and it was not at all unusual for him also to exercise a profession to earn his livelihood. Furthermore, the Gospel makes clear that Zebedee was no simple fisherman, but employed several day laborers, which also explains why it was possible for his sons to leave him. "It is thus quite possible that Zebedee is a priest, but that at the same time he has his property in Galilee, while the fishing business on the lake helps him makes ends meet. He probably has a kind of pied-a-terre in or near the Jerusalem neighborhood where the Essenes lived" ("Johannes," p. 481). "The very meal during which this disciple rested on Jesus' breast took place in a room that in all probability was located in the Essene neighborhood of the city"--­in the "pied-a-terre" of the priest Zebedee, who "lent the upper room to Jesus and the Twelve" (ibid., pp. 480, 481). Another observation Cazelles makes in his article is interesting in this connection: According to the Jewish custom, the host or, in his absence, as would have been the case here, "his firstborn son sat to the right of the guest, his head leaning on the latter's chest" (ibid., p. 480).

​

The fact that the priests of the Old Covenant served as a priest by offering sacrifice for only two weeks out of the year is very important to notice. The sacrifices were to be offered in one place only which was Mount Gerizim in Jerusalem, (Deut 11:29) which is where the Jerusalem Temple was built. The priests were to be descendants of Moses’s brother Aaron. Since by the time of Jesus, there were many people descended from Aaron, being a priest was a part-time job. This explains why Zebedee’s son John and his brother James would be familiar both with Galilee and the workings of the Jerusalem temple. Since John’s father was probably a priest, then John was eligible to be a priest. If John had not been a disciple of the Lord and one of the twelve apostles, he may have, like his father, Zebedee, become a priest. He would have ministered in the Jerusalem temple to 70 A.D. until the temple was destroyed by the Romans and the temple priesthood came to an end. Instead, John and the other Apostles were ordained by the Lord to the New Covenant priesthood at the Last Supper when the Lord said “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” (Lk 22:19)

​

The part-time nature of the Old Covenant priesthood also relates to the issue of celibacy of New Covenant priests. In the book Pope Benedict wrote with Robert Cardinal Sarah, From the Depths of our Hearts, Pope Benedict discusses the issue of celibacy in the Church. Commenting on the early beginning of the regular and even daily celebration of the Eucharist in the early Church, he then affirms the continuity between the New and Old Covenant priesthoods with regard to celibacy. Very quickly---we do not know exactly when, but in any case very rapidly---the regular and even daily celebration of the Eucharist became essential for the Church. The "supersubstantial" bread is at the same time the "daily" bread of the Church. This had an important consequence, which is precisely what haunts the Church today.

​

In the common awareness of Israel, priests were strictly obliged to observe sexual abstinence during the times when they led worship and were therefore in contact with the divine mystery. The relation between sexual abstinence and divine worship was absolutely clear in the common awareness of Israel. By way of example, I wish to recall the episode about David, who, while fleeing Saul, asked the priest Ahimelech to give him some bread: "The priest answered David, 'I have no common bread at hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women.' And David answered the priest, 'Of a truth women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition'" (1 Sam 21:4-5). Since the priests of the Old Testament had to dedicate themselves to worship only during set times, marriage and the priesthood were compatible.

​

But because of the regular and often even daily celebration of the Eucharist, the situation of the priests of the Church of Jesus Christ has changed radically. From now on, their entire life is in contact with the divine mystery. This requires on their part exclusivity with regard to God. Consequently, this excludes other ties that, like marriage, involve one's whole life. From the daily celebration of the Eucharist, which implies a permanent state of service to God, was born spontaneously the impossibility of a matrimonial bond. We can say that the sexual abstinence that was functional was transformed automatically into an ontological abstinence. Thus, its motivation and its significance were changed from within and profoundly.

​

John’s Gospel is very different from the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. First of all, it contains no parables. Also, most of the events in the Gospel take place in and around Jerusalem with only a small part of it taking place in Galilee. In the Synoptic Gospels, the events take place in Galilee and only Holy Week takes place in Jerusalem. John’s Gospel assumes his readers are familiar with some or all of the other three Gospels. While all the Gospels endeavor to inspire faith in the Lord, John wanted to deepen his reader’s faith and understanding of Jesus Christ. For example, John does not relate the Institution of the Eucharist (Mt 26:26-29, Mk 14:22-25, Lk 22:14-23). However, in John’s Gospel, the Lord explains the meaning of the Eucharist. (Jn 6:22-70). This is especially clear when the Lord says “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” (Jn 6:53-58) What the Lord says here makes no sense at all apart from the institution of the Eucharist as narrated in the Synoptic Gospels.

​

In the Synoptic Gospels the Divinity of Christ is strongly implied but not openly stated. For example, often Jesus is called by his disciples “Lord”. This is a name which the Jews used for God. However, John’s Gospel asserts the Divinity of Christ much more openly. For example, we read “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” (Jn 1:1) John is saying that the Word (Jesus Christ) was “with God” and “was God”. Jesus Christ is not “the Father” and yet he is also God. In Jn 14:15-31 and Jn 16:5-15, the Lord describes the coming of the Holy Spirit and the work of the Holy Spirit who is also Divine since He “proceeds from the Father”. (Jn 15:26) Although the word “Trinity” is not used in scripture, these and other verses explain that the Trinity is Three Divine Persons in One God.

One might wonder why the Divinity of Christ is veiled in the Synoptic Gospels and openly proclaimed John’s Gospel. According to tradition, St Peter was martyred around Rome in the mid 60’s AD. John’s Gospel refers to this martyrdom in Jn 21:19. John’s Gospel must have been written after this time since Nero’s persecution of Christians started in the mid 60’s AD. The Synoptic Gospels were probably written earlier then this before the first persecution of Christians by Rome. They did not want to be too plain about the Divinity of Christ since the Roman emperor was considered to be Divine. When John’s Gospel was written, there was no longer any reason to veil the Divinity of Christ. Those who say that the Divinity of Christ was a later embellishment of the human Jesus do not make sense. Christians were martyred and driven to the catacombs because of the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ. They were willing to die for the truth.

​

John wrote his Gospel, the last Gospel, for the sake of the truth. So many of the doctrines presented in the Synoptic Gospels are deepened and explained. While all the Gospels provide much food for contemplation, John’s Gospel can be described as a feast. Of course, it should be read and studied after the earlier Synoptic Gospels. Commentaries provided by Pope Benedict and many others are also helpful and even necessary. Because we need help to feast does not mean that we should not partake of God’s Banquet. –Jim Nugent, CFP