Gospel Narrative to Gospel Theology

The narrative shape of a Gospel reveals the theology of the Gospel.

As the semester finishes up in my Gospel of John course, students have completed the major project for the  called the “Synthesis of John”. Basically the synthesis assignment requires students to think about the meaning of every episode in John’s Gospel and then relate those meanings to the one before and after, building up from the ground of the narrative the message of the whole Gospel. At the end of the project students are able to give the idea statement of the whole Gospel in one sentence and show through the structure of the story how the Evangelist presented that message. On Thursday of this week, we had students present both their idea statements and their understanding of John’s structure. These presentations are always interesting, and perhaps more so this year than in the past.

During the presentations it became apparent that how one understands John’s structure contributes to how one  understands his theology. (Admittedly, one must also reckon that it could also go the other way – the way one understands John’s theology will determine how one structures the Gospel).

Here’s a graphic example of just what I’m talking about. The standard way of outline the Fourth Gospel is in four or five parts:

I. Prologue (1:1-18)

II. Book of Signs (1:19-12:50)

III. Book of Glory (13:1-20:31)

IV. Epilogue (21:1-25)

Sometimes commentators create a middle transitional section (chs 11-12) to make five major sections instead of four.

This year some of the students reduced this to only three divisions:

I. 1:1-18

II. 1:19-10:42

III. 11:1-21:25

What this effectively accomplishes is to place the commission of the disciples for mission in ch. 21 in complete continuity with the mission of Jesus and with the gospel itself. Rather than the gospel story concluding in ch. 20 (as is traditionally thought; often this is a historical critical decision in view of the apparent conclusion of 20:30-31), ch. 21 becomes a part of the gospel’s story itself.

From this perspective the mission of the church extends the mission of Jesus without discontinuity. While the more traditional division would not exclude this kind of continuity, it doesn’t reflect it as clearly. I think there are compelling literary reasons to go with this three-fold division. What’s more, the so-called prologue should not be understood in a sequential sense as coming before the two major sections, but as the container, the setting, within which the two sections exist and have their ultimate frame of reference.

It is a profound methodological reminder that how the gospel writers told their stories of Jesus reveals their understanding Jesus significance.