Does St John's Gospel contain non sequitur phrases?
Some phrases from the Fourth Gospel might seem surprising or mystifying – but once we understand the author's purpose, it all makes sense.
Some phrases from St John might seem surprising or mystifying – but once we understand his purpose, it all makes sense.
Editor’s Notes
The following is Fr Coleridge’s note, appended to his chapter on the Gospel pericope read on the Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost – that of the healing of the Nobleman’s Daughter.
In this note, he addresses what might appear as certain oddities in St John’s Gospel. In so doing, he explains recurring features of the Fourth Gospel, showing that these are not non sequiturs, but rather signs of how the Gospels were received in the early Church.
His explanation provides us with a way of making sense of what they find when they approach the four accounts of Christ’s life.
The Healing of the Nobleman’s Son
The Ministry of St. John the Baptist
Chapter XXV
St. John iv, 43-54; Story of the Gospels, § 27
(Read at Holy Mass on the Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost)
Burns and Oates, 1886.
See also:
On the Meaning of St. John iv. 44
Note VIII
“Now after two days, he departed thence and went into Galilee. For Jesus himself gave testimony that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.”
(St John, iv. 43-4)
It remains to explain St. John's language, for if the words refer to the rejection at Nazareth, it seems at first sight strange that he should give that as the reason for our Lord's return into Galilee. And yet it is entirely in harmony with St. John's method throughout his Gospel that he should do so.
To explain that fully would belong more properly to that part of the present work in which it is professedly treated of, but it may be well to mention here what may be sufficient for the understanding of the present difficulty.
St. John throughout his Gospel constantly refers to what he supposes to be already known to his readers from other Gospels, and particularly from that of St. Luke, and it is frequently his object to supply some piece of information which may be useful in order to the full understanding of what has been said before him, sometimes even to prevent a false impression as to facts.
His method is to introduce these supplementary narratives by some particle such as γὰρ or οῦν, which refers, not to what immediately precedes in his own narrative, but to what is already known to his readers. The most obvious instances of this method are to be found in his narrative of the Passion, as will be seen when that narrative is considered in relation to those of the three other Evangelists.1
The word ‘for’ or ‘therefore’ in such places means, what we should express by some such words as ‘as you know.’
Thus in this place his meaning is, Jesus went into Galilee, for, as you have been told, He Himself had to bear witness to the truth that a prophet is without honour in his own country. That is, He went to Nazareth and was rejected there.
Then follows what has been here called a supplementary narrative, inasmuch as it not only supplies a fact which had been omitted by others, and particularly by that Evangelist who had related our Lord's rejection by the Nazarenes, but also explains something in what St. Luke has related which needs explanation.
That “something” is to be found in the words of our Lord in the synagogue—‘You will no doubt say to Me that parable, Physician, heal Thyself; those great things which we have heard done in Capharnaum, do here in thine own country.’ Now, there is nothing in the narrative of St. Luke, nothing in that of St. Matthew or in that of St. Mark, which tells us of any mighty works wrought in Capharnaum before this time.
St. John therefore subjoins the account of the miracle of the healing of the nobleman's son which was accomplished at Capharnaum by our Lord when at Cana, and which must have made a great stir, inasmuch as it was followed by the conversion of the nobleman and his whole family, and may very well have been spread over the country from a central point like Capharnaum, so as to be fresh in the minds of the people of Nazareth on the Sabbath day on which His rejection took place.
It is, indeed, the earliest instance in which it is distinctly recorded that our Lord exercised His power in healing diseases, although we cannot doubt that most of the miracles which He had wrought at Jerusalem at the feast were miracles of healing, and the narrative here given by St. John explains at once the outburst of petty local jealousy in the Nazarenes, and the fury to which they were moved when our Lord told them that He was not going to work miracles in His own city.
The Healing of the Nobleman’s Son
See also:
Here’s why you should subscribe to The Father Coleridge Reader and share with others:
Fr Coleridge provides solid explanations of the entirety of the Gospel
His work is full of doctrine and piety, and is highly credible
He gives a clear trajectory of the life of Christ, its drama and all its stages—increasing our appreciation and admiration for the God-Man.
If more Catholics knew about works like Coleridge’s, then other works based on sentimentality and dubious private revelations would be much less attractive.
But sourcing and curating the texts, cleaning up scans, and editing them for online reading is a labour of love, and takes a lot of time.
Will you lend us a hand and hit subscribe?
Follow our projects on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Twitter (The WM Review)
The students of St. John's Gospel may perhaps be helped if we name a few of the passages in which this principle is exemplified. Such will be found in c. v. 16; xi. 2; xii. 1, 3; xiii. 1; xviii. 3, 28; xix. 1, 6, 21, 24, 28, 30, 31.