Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
It’s here, for the first time, that I have a serious problem with something that Anderson
asserts; and the assertion he makes comes as the opening sentence of the chapter:
Nicodemus came to Jesus “by night” making bold claims about what he
“knew” as a religious leader, while ironically revealing his ignorance of the
ways of the Spirit in the ensuing discussion (p. 239).
I’m not sure that the comments of Nicodemus can be categorized as ‘bold claims about
what he knew’. Nicodemus actually says very little in his encounter with Jesus in John 3:
2
οὗηος ἦλθεν πρὸς αὐηὸν νσκηὸς καὶ εἶπεν αὐηῷ· ῥαββεί, οἴδαμεν ὅηι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλσθας
διδάζκαλος· οὐδεὶς γὰρ δύναηαι ηαῦηα ηὰ ζημεῖα ποιεῖν ἃ ζὺ ποιεῖς, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ ὁ θεὸς μεη᾽
αὐηοῦ.
…
4
λέγει πρὸς αὐηὸν ὁ Νικόδημος· πῶς δύναηαι ἄνθρωπος γεννηθῆναι γέρων ὤν; μὴ
δύναηαι εἰς ηὴν κοιλίαν ηῆς μηηρὸς αὐηοῦ δεύηερον εἰζελθεῖν καὶ γεννηθῆναι;
…
9
ἀπεκρίθη Νικόδημος καὶ εἶπεν αὐηῷ· πῶς δύναηαι ηαῦηα γενέζθαι;
And that’s it. None of that strikes me as either bold; rather, I’ve always taken Nicodemus
to be quite sincere in his query and genuinely seeking to be taught rather than somehow
or other confronting Jesus by making ‘bold claims about what he knew’. ‘We know you
have been sent by God…’ A bold claim, true, but not in the sense that Anderson seems to
be suggesting (unless I have completely misapprehended Anderson here).
Still, one (Christians anyway) can’t help appreciating Anderson’s unapologetic and
forthright theological heartiness.
Taking the Fourth Gospel personally allows one to receive the gift of divine
love experientially as one welcomed into the family of God, while at the
same time acknowledging the underserved character of that gift. It is not
that we have loved God, but that God has first loved us that counts. This is
the gift of divine grace that transforms
the world, a gift at the heart of Hebrew Scripture, and it must be revealed
because it is contrary to the conventional ways of the world. In the world
people live by merit— deservedness. Deservedness, however, brings
judgment, which finally produces death. Therefore, the revelation of God’s
undeserved love is essential for the redemption of humanity, not because
God requires it, but because humans cannot conceive of it on their own (p.
240).
Would an Introduction to the Fourth Gospel really be an entree to its thought if the
profundity of its theological message were left aside and readers left only to the cold hard
facts of author, date, themes, and sources? How could that be the case? The Gospel (and
the Gospels) are theology; to ignore that or to refuse to include that theological viewpoint
in a volume like Anderson’s would simply make no sense.
Anderson’s final sentence is worth quoting in conclusion- (or almost conclusion, I still
have some observations to make) –
And finally
7- Even seasoned academics will learn from it- if they set aside their preconceptions and
really listen to what Anderson has to say.