Is salvation in John's Gospel through belief alone?

[Difflugia]

A little bit ago, Mithrae was engaging with me about whether Matthew 7:13-14 and John 3:16 could be harmonized without changing what one or both authors meant. I stopped to think about one of their posts and never responded, so I figured I'd pick it back up again. Since the original thread was mostly unrelated to that discussion and the digression was my fault, I decided to start a new topic. The "question" is Mithrae's last response to me:

John never ties eternal life to loving him, keeping the commandments, or being a loyal Christian, but only to belief in him. Those that love Jesus and keep the commandments are counted as disciples, will be able to perform miraculous deeds, and have the comfort of the Paraclete, but Jesus came to remove the sin of the whole world. Mere belief in Jesus is enough to secure everlasting life. John explicitly makes that point by comparing Jesus himself to the serpent staff that Moses made in the wilderness. Those afflicted by sin must believe (3:16) in the same way that those bitten by the fiery serpents only needed to look upon the staff to be saved (3:14, Numbers 21:8). If one turns the "believe in" of 3:16 into some sort of active discipleship, then I don't think the analogy with the serpent makes sense.

Does it make sense to "believe in" the Jesus the Word of God while ignoring all of his teaching and example... or that in John's binary world of darkness and light, there was nevertheless a big group in the middle who "believe in" Jesus but don't love him or one another? If we're forced to choose between a nonsensical analogy of the serpent or a nonsensical theology as a whole, I'm thinking it's the analogy which would have been flawed. But the Israelites who were saved by looking at the serpent weren't then free to go off and do whatever they pleased, were they? They were bound to obey; in fact it was because of their reluctance to obey - not even active disobedience but mere complaints - that the serpents were sent in the first place!

Seems to me that John simply starts at the beginning (very much so at the beginning, in his prologue) first with the invitation to "come and see" (ch1), then with believing, then with commitment, obedience and love. If we applied the approach that most Christians (and it seems you) are taking towards John 3:16 elsewhere - say to the story in which Jesus exclaims "salvation has come to this house" after Zacchaeus' declaration of intent - we might conclude that merely saying you'll give a bunch of money to the poor and those you've wronged is sufficient for salvation... no need to actually follow through. Presumably Zacchaeus' declaration would be meaningless without follow-through even though Luke doesn't explicitly describe the follow-through. John's gospel does emphasize the follow-through of love and obedience, so how can anyone imagine that he taught salvation through some kind of empty 'belief'?

Edit to add:

John never ties eternal life to loving him, keeping the commandments, or being a loyal Christian, but only to belief in him.

Just thought I'd better fact-check this a little more specifically:

• 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure God’s wrath.
  6:54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;
  12:25 Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
  12:47 I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my word has a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge, 49 for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.

[JehovahsWitness]

John never ties eternal life to ... keeping the commandments

JOHN 10: 10

If you observe my commandments, you will remain in my love

[JehovahsWitness]

Mere belief in Jesus is enough to secure everlasting life. John explicitly makes that point by comparing Jesus himself to the serpent staff that Moses made in the wilderness. (3:16)

John doesn't say belief is enough to secure everlasting life,he says ...

JOHN 3:16 NEW

For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son,+ so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

Biblically, faith and belief are not the same things.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I'm not sure what to add other than what has already been said. If you believe in someone (truly), how can you not believe what they say - including what they say about their Father - and then do what they say to do?


Peace again to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Difflugia]

Does it make sense to "believe in" the Jesus the Word of God while ignoring all of his teaching and example... or that in John's binary world of darkness and light, there was nevertheless a big group in the middle who "believe in" Jesus but don't love him or one another?

I think it does. The picture that I think John is painting is of Jesus as a spiritual altruist, but John's vision is clouded by whatever "the Jews" did to him (I'm going with kicked the Johannine Christians out of the synagogue, but it mostly doesn't matter). I think John would have been universalist if he could have got over his grudge against "the Jews." The question is if that grudge leaves enough room for a reasonable interpretation in line with salvation for the select few disciples of the Synoptics.

The broad analogy that I'm thinking of is political liberalism. Even conservatives (according to liberal rhetoric; I'm not arguing whether they're actually right or not )will benefit from such things as universal health care because the benefits aren't rewards for political loyalty, but are inherent features of the system itself. Sin is what prevents the light from reaching the world and Jesus will remove all sin, full stop. I think the requirement of belief is sort of an acknowledgement (or fear) that the idealism doesn't quite match reality. In politics, there's at least the notion that enough opposing voters can prevent the bringing about the new kingdom. There's theoretically no such impediment to Jesus bringing about the kingdom of God, but then that leaves no incentive to even be nice to the Johannine Christians. The Johannine church is in the position of trying to recruit members and gain support, but "help us even though it doesn't matter in the long run if you do or not" is hardly a compelling sales pitch. I honestly think John's insistence on belief is itself a bit of a concession to reality and is a dent in a universalist ideal.

Now, none of that is an argument for why I think John means that and is more of an overall thesis, but I think from that point of view, it does make sense that mere belief is the only requirement for gaining the benefits of the kingdom.

If we're forced to choose between a nonsensical analogy of the serpent or a nonsensical theology as a whole, I'm thinking it's the analogy which would have been flawed. But the Israelites who were saved by looking at the serpent weren't then free to go off and do whatever they pleased, were they? They were bound to obey; in fact it was because of their reluctance to obey - not even active disobedience but mere complaints - that the serpents were sent in the first place!

I'm not sure that the analogy is flawed and it may be the only apt analogy to universal salvation in the entire Old Testament. If we take Numbers 21:6 as a consequence of 21:5 (it reads to me like a redactional non sequitur, but I've no way of knowing how John read it), then we still just have that the problem (not even necessarily a punishment as such) came about because of an attitude of sin (as you said, "not even active disobedience"). The bronze serpent has then completely removed the threat of death, merely be being available to look upon. Whether they had to obey or act in any other specific way after that, the threat of death by snakebite was gone. That, I think, is the analogy that John 3:14-15 is making and explicitly so as the lead-in to the verse that is the very proof-text for universal (or near-universal) salvation. The job of Christians is to lift up Jesus as Moses lifted up the serpent that all who merely see the light will be spared the corresponding death. This isn't just some verse pulled out of context, but is explained in several different ways:

As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only born Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God didn’t send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him.

The following verses (18-21) are often seen as walking this back, but I don't think that they can be read that way without creating a contradiction:

He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn’t believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only born Son of God. This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light and doesn’t come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God.”

In light of the earlier verses, I don't think this can be read as a requirement to be a Christian or do Christian things. Those that are so inveterately evil that they would rather perish than have their past deeds cast in the light of Jesus are of the same mold as someone that would rather die of snakebite than look upon the bronze serpent and acknowledge the divine sanction of Moses.

Seems to me that John simply starts at the beginning (very much so at the beginning, in his prologue) first with the invitation to "come and see" (ch1), then with believing, then with commitment, obedience and love. If we applied the approach that most Christians (and it seems you) are taking towards John 3:16 elsewhere - say to the story in which Jesus exclaims "salvation has come to this house" after Zacchaeus' declaration of intent - we might conclude that merely saying you'll give a bunch of money to the poor and those you've wronged is sufficient for salvation... no need to actually follow through. Presumably Zacchaeus' declaration would be meaningless without follow-through even though Luke doesn't explicitly describe the follow-through.

I'm certain Luke would agree with you and that's my overall point. The message of John is incompatible with each of the Synoptics.

John's gospel does emphasize the follow-through of love and obedience, so how can anyone imagine that he taught salvation through some kind of empty 'belief'?

Those are all attributes that Christians should have, but eternal life isn't contingent on being a Christian beyond mere belief.

Edit to add:

John never ties eternal life to loving him, keeping the commandments, or being a loyal Christian, but only to belief in him.

Just thought I'd better fact-check this a little more specifically:

• 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure God’s wrath.

The strongest argument that I see here is that "(he) disobeys" (ἀπειθῶν, apeithon) here means to not follow the commands of Jesus, but the same verb can also mean "disbelieves" in the sense of being unpersuaded. It's used both ways (and often ambiguously) in the New Testament. Acts 19:9, for example, is pretty evenly split among translations between variations of "...became hardened and disobedient..." and "...became hardened and didn't believe...."

• 6:54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;

To "eat my flesh and drink my blood" is to believe (vv. 61-65). The one that didn't "believe" was Judas, who actively betrayed Jesus (vv. 70-71).

• 12:25 Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

As one of the quotes that appears in some form in all four Gospels, I'm guessing that it's one that John felt that he had to keep in some context in order to be accepted as presenting Jesus. I think it's significant that John moves it from early in Jesus' discourse with his disciples to just before the last supper, where it becomes a statement about Jesus' own life. He keeps the overall form of the saying that the Synoptics have (variations on "hate this life; give it up for my sake and be rewarded"), but turns it into a kind of non sequitur. "If anyone serves me, let him follow me." Into death? It's not clear, perhaps intentionally. Verses 27-28, though, turn the statement back onto Jesus. Jesus is the one that must give up his life to glorify God. It may be implied that one must emulate Jesus in offering one's life for God to receive salvation, but whereas it's explicit and explained in the Synoptics, it seems to me that John makes it as vague as possible without dropping it altogether.

• 12:47 I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my word has a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge, 49 for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.

Let's say that "keep them" is used in the sense of "keeping" a commandment. If that's the case, then the only commandment Jesus gives in John ("this is my commandment") is to "love one another." Note that in 12:49, Jesus says that the Father gave him the commandment (rather than Christians). In 15:8-14, he makes the specific distinction between commandments from the Father, which he himself must keep, and from himself, which the disciples must keep. In 15:12, he is specific that there is just the one commandment ("This is my commandment...") to love one another. As an aside, I suspect that John adapted a more "synoptic" story, since "commandments" is everywhere plural except for 15:12, where he specifies his "one" commandment. I'm not arguing what Jesus originally taught, though, only what John has made of it.

Now, let's say that I agree that in order to receive salvation, one must love others as Jesus did. I still don't think that bridges the gulf between John and the various hells full of rich people that the Synoptics imagine.

[Difflugia]

Biblically, faith and belief are not the same things.

Prove it.

[Difflugia]

I'm not sure what to add other than what has already been said. If you believe in someone (truly), how can you not believe what they say - including what they say about their Father - and then do what they say to do?

In John, what did Jesus say to do?

[Mithrae]

Does it make sense to "believe in" the Jesus the Word of God while ignoring all of his teaching and example... or that in John's binary world of darkness and light, there was nevertheless a big group in the middle who "believe in" Jesus but don't love him or one another?

I think it does. The picture that I think John is painting is of Jesus as a spiritual altruist, but John's vision is clouded by whatever "the Jews" did to him (I'm going with kicked the Johannine Christians out of the synagogue, but it mostly doesn't matter). I think John would have been universalist if he could have got over his grudge against "the Jews." The question is if that grudge leaves enough room for a reasonable interpretation in line with salvation for the select few disciples of the Synoptics.

I don't think the synoptics teach salvation for a select few disciples, specifically; in Luke and Matthew, the parable of the good Samaritan implies that religious affiliation doesn't really matter much if at all and in the parable of the sheep and the goats the sheep seem genuinely mystified what they'd done in service to Jesus. Both gospels pretty clearly teach that loving actions are ultimately what God/Jesus are going to be looking at, and likewise both gospels teach that saying "Lord, Lord" to him means nothing at all. I'm not too sure about Mark - no relevant passages spring immediately to mind - but for Luke and Matthew I'd say it's pretty clear that the 'narrow gate' passage/s don't refer to religious affiliation but rather to a high bar for the kind of loving actions that Jesus wants.

The synoptics, like John (and Paul for that matter) also pare their core message down to more or less one commandment; in fact Matthew places his 'one commandment' immediately before his 'narrow gate' warning: "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets" (Matt. 7:12). Paul has it as "the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”" (Gal. 5:14), and while Mark (and Matthew/Luke elsewhere) put love for God alongside and in front of that as the 'greatest commandment,' we're still obviously sitting on the idea of love as the all-encompassing theme of Christian morality. But as Hillel noted of the Torah, these authors presumably would have emphasized of their gospels too; the rest is commentary which should be learned. I think Luke puts it most simply in the mouth of John the Baptist, "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise" (Luke 3:11), as does John the Apostle himself "How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother in need and yet refuses help?" (1 John 3:17). Besides perhaps 'hating' your family, probably the most radical of Jesus' commands in the synoptics is to sell all your possessions and give to the poor; but it follows directly and logically from the idea that, as long there are people who lack and you own even a spare shirt to help them out with, to truly love your neighbour means giving up pretty much everything but the clothes your back. Something similar might be said of pretty much all of the other, less radical synoptic teachings about humilty, sincerity, anger, impure thoughts and not least spreading this good news to others; presumably the authors would have said that they all come back to loving your neighbour and loving God.

Now as I've already hinted I think that John teaches pretty much the same thing; a little less conspicuously, granted, but more importantly he comes at it from a different angle. We've all at times seen Christians encouraging nonbelievers to essentially just 'give it a try.' "Go on, ask Jesus into your heart; besides feeling a little silly, what have you got to lose?" Taste and see that the Lord is good; they're confident that God will do the rest. I think that's what John is doing, and once you look at it that way I think it's fairly clear. John is possibly the biblical author who ascribes the most active work to the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-15, 1 John 2:27 etc.); his opening chapter is a repeated invitation to "come and see." Perhaps most poignantly for our discussion, his prologue says "to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God" (1:12). Coming and seeing, or 'receiving' Jesus or 'believing in his name' are not the end-point, they're just the simplest of steps that readers can take for themselves: Becoming the children of God requires power from God, in response to that first and tiniest step of faith. Note that this is not far removed from the parables in Mark 4 describing the good news as a tiny seed planted in hearer's hearts, and under the right conditions "the seed would sprout and grow, he does not know how" eventually producing a bountiful harvest or a great shrub etc.

Even if we looked only at John 3 I think you'd have a hard time arguing that the author's message is "just believe and you'll have eternal life." The opening dialogue about being 'born again' already implies a profound change, and the end of the dialogue with Nicodemus clearly notes the importance of one's deeds, good or bad. But as I've highlighted various other passages in the gospel explicitly tie eternal life to much more than just believing. Not least, I think you may have glossed over chapter 6 far too easily when it equates (as you noted) belief with eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood; how on earth can that be read as a message that all you need is intellectual assent or a profession of faith? Whatever it may mean it's obviously very intense imagery, perhaps even moreso than being 'born again.' Is it mere coincidence that these two passages (the two which discuss 'belief' most extensively?) are also the only passages in John which perhaps allude to the rituals of baptism and eucharist? With its references both to bread and to consuming Jesus' flesh and blood, probably the most obvious interpretation of chapter 6 is that it's ultimately equating belief in Jesus to ongoing membership/fellowship in the eucharistic Christian community. As I noted earlier, John may ultimately be the least inclusive of the gospels; if (as seems likely) consuming Jesus' flesh and blood does indeed refer to the Christian eucharist, then John implicitly asserts that non-members "have no life in them" (6:53). I'm not sure there's anything like that in the synoptics!

[tam]

Peace to you,

I'm not sure what to add other than what has already been said. If you believe in someone (truly), how can you not believe what they say - including what they say about their Father - and then do what they say to do?

In John, what did Jesus say to do?

There are multiple examples already given above (and in the OP).


The one example I was reminded of from my Lord is to follow the example that He has set for us.

John 13:13-15

“You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.


And there are a lot of examples that He has set for us: forgiving, showing mercy, obeying the Father (which means obeying the Son), loving one another as Christ loved us, etc. And that is just from what is recorded in "John".


**

He also says to His disciples to "come" and to "follow me" (throughout the book) and that His sheep will "listen to my voice." (John 10).

I am going to emphasize what Mithrae said above about the commandment to eat His flesh and drink His blood (deeds), especially since Christ linked this to eternal life:

John 6:53, 54
“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.


And touching upon some of what JW wrote above in her posts, regarding obedience to commandments and teachings:

John 8:31

“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free.”

John 8:51

"Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”


John 13:34
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

John 14:15

“If you love me, keep my commands."


John 14:21
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

John 14:23

“Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching.




**

So I would go back to the question from my previous post:

If you believe in someone (truly), how can you not believe what they say - including what they say about their Father - and then do what they say to do?




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Difflugia]

In John, what did Jesus say to do?

The one example I was reminded of from my Lord is to follow the example that He has set for us.

John 13:13-15

“You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.

Yep. To be honest, I've read that more times than I can count, but never took it as a literal expectation of Christians. Whether it was actually intended as such, it's written as though it is.

And there are a lot of examples that He has set for us: forgiving,

The only possible reference to forgiveness in John is in 20:22-23, where the power of the Holy Spirit as exhaled by Jesus apparently gives the disciples the power to forgive sins. They're not commanded (or even advised) to forgive sins, but there's a parallelism that suggests that whether sins are "released" (usually translated as "forgiven") or "held" is up to the discretion of the disciple.

As an aside, the grammar of that passage is weird and doesn't translate exactly into English. Despite the parallelism, the verb tenses aren't symmetrical. The verb tense for "release" is aorist subjunctive, which means an unrealized future potential action that happens once and is done (sort of a past tense from the point of view of a potential future; this doesn't exist in English). The verb for "retained" is present subjunctive, which is something that may happen repeatedly or continuously. Awkward in English, it would look something like this:

When you would have released the sins of anyone, they have been released of them; as you would hold them, they have been held.

Beyond the weird tenses, the word for "hold" or "retain" has the sense of holding by force. It's the word used when an army "holds" a conquered city, for example.

showing mercy,

Do you have a verse for this?

obeying the Father (which means obeying the Son),

Jesus obeys and does the works of the Father, but the only thing the Father asks of anyone else is that they believe in Jesus, love Jesus, and follow the commandment of Jesus, which is...

loving one another as Christ loved us, etc. And that is just from what is recorded in "John".

So, we have:

• Wash each other's feet
• Believe in and love Jesus
• Love each other

I am going to emphasize what Mithrae said above about the commandment to eat His flesh and drink His blood (deeds), especially since Christ linked this to eternal life:

John 6:53, 54
“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

I've read John 6 now a few dozen times since you and Mithrae mentioned it and it keeps reading to me as an allegorical Eucharist where "eating flesh" and "drinking blood" are metaphors for belief. I'm sure that John knew the Synoptics, so I'm aware that I'm saying that John is consciously redefining the "supper" ritual as it stands in Matthew, Mark, and Luke into something spiritual, beginning with 6:27-29:

Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him the Father, even God, hath sealed. They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

6:33-35:

For the bread of God is that which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the world. They said therefore unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

6:47-48:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth hath eternal life. I am the bread of life.

If you believe in someone (truly), how can you not believe what they say - including what they say about their Father - and then do what they say to do?

What is the difference for you between "belief" and "true belief?" I know plenty of people that believe that cigarette smoking is harmful, yet smoke cigarettes. I also know plenty of people that, as far as I can discern, truly believe that Jesus is their lord and savior, yet don't wash anyone's feet but their own. You're welcome to argue that they may not truly believe, but you'll have to do more than simply assert it.