“Whatever He Hears He Will Speak”

Anyone who reads the New Testament carefully notices the striking differences between the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and the Gospel of John. If the first three are termed “synoptic,” it is because there are close similarities between them that suggest that they represent a stream of tradition very different from the one that lies behind what is often referred to as the Fourth Gospel.

One element that stands out is the difference in tone and content between these two traditions, Synoptic and Johannine, regarding the words of Jesus. These differences have led biblical scholars, especially since the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, to try to determine the ipsissima verba Jesu, the words Jesus actually spoke. Countless books and articles have been written to assess the question. Some scholars, like those associated with the “Jesus Seminar,” draw extremely skeptical conclusions: Jesus actually uttered practically nothing that is recorded in the Gospels; almost everything from His parables to His condemnation of Pharisaical hypocrisy actually stems from the “post-Easter Church.”

We don’t want to enter here into this contentious debate. There is one aspect of the matter, though, that might be useful to take up briefly, since it is one that troubles many of our laypeople, and even some of our clergy who have been exposed in seminary to both the good and the less good in historical criticism as applied to the Bible. This is the matter of Jesus’ teaching as it is presented by the Gospel of John. If the tone and content of that teaching are indeed very different from what we find in the Synoptics, what explains that difference? And how can we trust the biblical witness if in fact that teaching derives more from the theological reflection of the early Church than it does from Jesus Himself?

To clarify the matter somewhat, it is first necessary to say a word about the way biblical tradition originated. Most readers of the Bible initially assume that all words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by Him during the course of His earthly ministry. Subsequently, they notice that in fact a saying attributed to Jesus might have one setting in one Gospel and another setting elsewhere. Then again, different Gospels present similar teachings in different forms. When we compare the Synoptics with John’s Gospel, we are struck not only by differences in teaching, but even in chronology. In the Synoptics, for example, the cleansing of the Temple occurs at the end of Jesus’ ministry, whereas in John it occurs at the beginning (compare Mark 11:15ff and parallels with John 2:13ff). Then again, the Synoptics present the Last Supper as a Passover meal, whereas in the Fourth Gospel it takes place on the eve of Passover, the day of Preparation (Mk 14:12ff and par.; Jn 13:lff).

These chronological differences cannot be ironed out; the two traditions cannot be harmonized. There was only one Temple cleansing, and Jesus shared the Last Supper with His disciples either on the Day of Preparation or on Passover itself. What explains these differences? Although biblical scholars are not in agreement on the issue, I believe there is a very simple explanation: the author of the Gospel of John (the apostle John or, more likely, one of his disciples working with the apostle’s tradition) modified the chronology for theological reasons. By setting the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of his account, he creates a parallel with the crucifixion of Christ, recounted in chapter 19. John alone relates Jesus’ words after the cleansing that prophesy the destruction of the Temple. Jesus associates this with the destruction by crucifixion of His own body, the true Temple or jcus of worship. The parallelism between these two passages, John 2 and John 19, is part of an overall structure that character- ides the Gospel as a whole.¹

John has also modified the date of the Last Supper to make a significant point. According to his chronology, as the Jews are slaughtering the lambs in the Temple in preparation for the Passover meal, Jesus—the true Lamb of God—is being slaughtered on the Cross outside the Holy City of Jerusalem. Chronology, what we consider historical accuracy, in other words, is less important to the Gospel writers than the theological message they wish to convey.

Something similar occurs with regard to Jesus’ words as recorded in the two major Gospel traditions, Synoptic and Johan- nine. John, more than the others, modifies Jesus’ teaching. He amplifies it in certain respects, while nevertheless preserving certain elements even more faithfully than did the Synoptic authors (it is well known that some of John’s tradition is older and more accurate than that of the other evangelists). The point is not to determine which tradition is most historically accurate, which one most faithfully reports what Jesus really said. The point is to grasp the purpose of the evangelists’ modifications and amplifications of the tradition, and—equally important—to understand just how they could justify such changes.

The answer is provided by the Fourth Gospel itself. During the Last Supper, Jesus delivered essential teaching to His disciples, including words about the role within the Christian community to be played by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. When the Spirit comes, He declared, “He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak…” (Jn 16:13).

If the author of John’s Gospel felt free to modify both Jesus’ teaching and the chronology of the events of His ministry, it is because he knew himself to be guided into “all the truth’’ by the Spirit of Truth. The Gospels, once again, are not primarily accounts of history (although they are grounded thoroughly in historical events); they are essentially works of theology. They were written “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (Jn 20:31).

John may have modified the tradition he received; but the Synoptic authors did so as well, each in his own way. They could do so—in fact they had to do so—because they were conscious of being guided by the Spirit into that truth which Jesus incarnated. Ultimately, then, it does not matter whether a word in the New Testament ascribed to Jesus was spoken by Him during His earthly sojourn, or whether it was “spoken” through the Spirit of Truth after the Resurrection and Ascension.

In either case, the evangelists were under the power and authority of the Spirit. Whatever the Spirit “heard” from the Risen Christ, He transmitted to the Church through the evangelists and other witnesses. What the Spirit heard, He spoke. In their hearing of that message, the inspired evangelists were led to convey through their writings the very Word of Jesus Himself.

1. This structure, referred to as “chiasmus” or “concentric parallelism,” is discussed by Peter Ellis, The Genius of John (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1984) and by John Breck, The Shape of Biblical Language (Wadmalaw Island, SC: Kaloros Press, 2008). ↩︎