The Fourth Gospel

by John Shelby Spong

Bestselling and controversial bishop and teacher John Shelby Spong reveals the subversive, mystical teachings of the writer of the Gospel of John and how his teachings point us forward in the 21st century

In The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic, Spong turns his attention to the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel in the Bible. Contrary to what is most often believed, he writes that this gospel was misinterpreted by the framers of the fourth-century creeds to be a literal account of the life of Jesus. In fact, it is a literary, interpretive retelling of the events in Jesus' life through the medium of Jewish worship traditions and fictional characters, from Nicodemus and Lazarus to the "Beloved Disciple."

The result is not only to recapture the original message of this gospel, but also to provide us today with a radical new dimension to the claim that in the humanity of Jesus the reality of God has been met and engaged. This book offers a fresh way to read the Gospel of John and a unique primer about how to be a Christian in the post-Christian twenty-first century.

Genres: Religion, Christianity, Spirituality, Theology, Nonfiction, Christian, Philosophy

368 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 2013

About the author

John Shelby Spong was the Episcopal bishop of Newark before his retirement in 2000. As a leading spokesperson for an open, scholarly, and progressive Christianity, Bishop Spong has taught at Harvard and at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. He has also lectured at universities, conference centers, and churches in North America, Europe, Asia, and the South Pacific. His books include: A New Christianity for a New World, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? Why Christianity Must Change or Die, and his autobiography, Here I Stand.

Reviews

[Lee Harmon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Spong has never warmed to the historicity of the Fourth Gospel. In fact, he never warmed to that gospel much at all, until the last few years, when he decide to make a study of it. I’m glad he finally did; I thoroughly enjoyed reading Spong’s analysis.

He begins his book by admitting that the older he gets, the more he believes, but the fewer beliefs he holds. I quoted Spong in my own book about John’s Gospel (published just three months ago) as saying “I do not believe I can make a case for a single word attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel to be a literal word actually spoken by the historic Jesus.” Knowing that we were researching our projects simultaneously, I contacted him to make sure he hadn’t developed a new “belief” about the Gospel before I printed that. Nope, he still doesn’t believe Jesus said any of the words in John’s Gospel, and more than that: Spong believes none of the miracle stories are real, few of the characters are historical people, and certainly the author wasn’t an original apostle of Jesus. Nicodemus, Nathanial, the woman at the well, the beloved disciple, the mother of Jesus (who remains unnamed in this Gospel)—all purely symbolic. The Gospel is a late-first-century mystical work, allegorically telling the history of the Johannine Community and the development of the Jesus movement, and it was never meant to be read like a history book.

I can’t go quite that far, yet it’s fascinating to read the Gospel as a mystical lesson book. The “mother of Jesus” in John’s Gospel, for example, was never a woman named Mary, but a symbol of Israel. The wedding of Cana was Jesus’ own wedding. Not literally, of course, but symbolically. The incarnation was never about a foreign visitor from heaven, but about a new and mystical way of experiencing life in abundance. I reach similar conclusions in my own book, but if this is the correct way to read John’s Gospel, then there remains one miracle Spong doesn’t explain: how did a book with so many contributing authors, going through so many stages, wind up coherently spiritual? Were none of these contributors literalists?

Yet Spong’s book just gets better as it goes along. I would venture a guess that he finds the most poignant moment in the Gospel of John to be at the foot of the cross, where the beloved disciple is joined to mother of Jesus. Spong’s parabolic understanding of the Gospel climaxes in symbolic meaning here, and I think it would be a spoiler to explain exactly what the moment describes.

Perhaps my favorite part of the book was Spong’s treatment of the final chapter in John. Written by an unknown author, it is often referred to as the appendix of the Gospel. So contrary is the “appendix” to the rest of the Gospel that I pretty much left it out of my own book. Spong, however, while recognizing that it doesn’t fit with the rest, still has a great appreciation for this story of Jesus appearing to the disciples in Galilee. He considers it probably founded on an earlier tradition than the rest of the gospel … indeed, possibly earlier than any of the gospels’ resurrection stories! Still treating even the appendix as a mystical writing, Spong brings this final chapter alive in a way that made me, for the first time, appreciate it.

Fascinating and fresh, this is John’s Gospel the way nobody has read it for 1900 years.

[Donnal Walter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Except for when I am traveling by air, I read few books these days, but a few weeks ago I received The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic by John Shelby Spong. It was intended for my bedside table along side half-a-dozen other volumes awaiting my attention. I decided, however, to read the Preface, which turned out to be Chapter 1, and by then I was hooked. I read the book in two days. Absolutely spellbinding. No, it was more than (or other than) captivating, it was liberating. For the first time in a long time I can clearly state why I am still a Christian.

Unlike Bishop Spong, I have always been partial to the Gospel of John, but like Spong I have found this gospel troubling, albeit for different reasons. For example, changing water into wine has always seemed impossible to me, as unlikely as either Jesus or Lazarus literally being raised from the dead. These would not be miracles in my mind, they would represent a complete repudiation of my entire worldview. This is not to say that my worldview is closed or static (and physicist Lee Smolin has recently expanded my views), but a literal interpretation of these stories is simply incomprehensible to me. For the learned bishop to state, therefore, "that literalism can never be applied to this book and the author(s) tell us, on almost every page, that a literal approach to the reading of this book is worthy only of ridicule," is a breath of fresh air to me. Amen. Whew. Finally.

For me to say any more about the particulars of this book would be to sell it short, but I would like to say a little more about its style and my personal response. I have read a number of other books by Spong, and while I have generally found them to be intellectually stimulating and spiritually uplifting, at the same time I have had the uneasy feeling that his scholarship may not always be as rigorous as I might have hoped. Not being a scholar in these topics myself I cannot be any more explicit than that. I've been sympathetic to his writings, but uncertain about how much authority to ascribe to them.

This book is different, not because I am any more of a scholar in this area than any of the others and not because the scholarship behind this book is any more compelling than that of the others. It is different because of the way it speaks directly to my own experience. It has the ring of truth on every page. It is a poem that speaks deeply to my soul. It is a poem on many levels. The Book of John is so poetic, and the way Spong opens its meaning is nothing short of a poem. For example, to read Jesus' farewell discourses to his diciples as John's encouragements to the (mystical) community at the end of the century is beautiful, and by the time Spong finishes it all fits together as a unified whole. (For what it's worth, the scholarship also seems more robust this time around, but honestly I am in no position to judge.)

My review may be criticized as little more than a subjective response to finding an argument to shore up a personal worldview that may or may not be valid. I have no way to objectify Bishop Spong's conclusions or my own empathetic response, but when page after page my every response is "yes, exactly" something must be said for the inter-subjectivity that is at play.

[Jon Stout · Rating 5 out of 5]

A summer Zoom Bible Study was the occasion for my reading Bishop Spong’s book on the Gospel of John. In general my approach to the study of the Christian Gospels is to prefer the Gospels which were written earlier in time, because they may be more likely to portray the historical Jesus. My bias is that the later Gospels are more likely to have an overlay of theological interpretation, especially in terms of Christology (the status of Jesus in relation to God). The earliest Gospel, that of Mark, was written about 70 CE, and Harold Bloom, the literary critic, observes that on the basis of that book alone, Jesus would fall squarely into the Old Testament prophetic tradition. The Gospel of John was written probably later than 100 CE, and has the greatest degree of elaboration and speculative embroidery.

A friend of mine (a rabbi) suggested that the first words of the Gospel of John, “In the beginning was the Word,” might show the influence of Greek thought. The original Gospel was written in Greek, and the word for “word” is “logos,” a word with a weighty Greek heritage going back at least to Plato. That is the only time the word “logos” occurs in the Gospel of John. My friend pointed out that Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 CE), a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, wrote extensively on how Hebrew scriptures could be interpreted in the light of Greek philosophy, and even argued that Greek thinking borrowed from Jewish thinking. Josephus (37-100 CE), a Hellenistic Jewish historian, referenced Jesus, his brother James, and John the Baptist in his historical writing. Both Philo and Josephus, though living in Alexandria, spent time at the Temple in Jerusalem where some of the early Jewish followers of Jesus, such as Peter and James (and maybe John), also circulated. So there was an excellent chance that some of Philo’s ideas about Greek interpretation of Jewish scriptures could have been taken up by the earliest Christians.

I like my friend’s idea, especially since I am interested in the layers of interpretation of Jesus, and also because I admire Plato’s insight into the nature of good in the world, and I would like to see it made compatible with Jewish insight. Bishop Spong, however, entirely disagrees. He argues that the Gospel of John should be interpreted in terms of the wisdom literature of Jewish tradition, instead of in terms of “a Greek dualism that suggested that there was an external realm of God to which Jesus belonged and that he left that realm to enter the realm of flesh and blood.”

While one can argue that there is a dualism in Platonic thought (and Bishop Spong even recognizes some dualism in Hebraic thought), it can be exaggerated. Real metaphysical dualism didn’t come into play before Descartes. The Greeks had a more integrated view of reality. Though there is a hierarchy in Plato’s theory of Forms, it is a dynamic hierarchy in which one moves from the cave into the light, and can return again to the cave. It describes aspects of this world, not two different worlds entirely separate from each other. I will go on to describe Bishop Spong’s interpretation of the Gospel of John, but my opinion is that both of the opposing views described can be true at the same time, that the wisdom literature of Hebrew scriptures and the Platonic influence on Jewish thought in the first century could arrive at a similar place in understanding Jesus.

Bishop Spong starts out by arguing that all of John should be understood in allegorical terms. Since the Gospel of John was written probably in the second century CE, it is unlikely that new factual information would have come to light. John was part of a community (often called the Johannine community) of mostly Jews following Jesus, which had suffered a traumatic expulsion from the local synagogue (perhaps in Ephesus). He was articulating, according to Bishop Spong, a vision of Jesus which was in the mystical wisdom tradition of Jewish scriptures, exemplified in the Old Testament book of Proverbs. In this tradition wisdom is personified as a woman, and is figuratively said to have aided God since the beginning of time. The tradition arose from the experience of the Jews in the Babylonian captivity, when they were frustrated from thinking of God as a national patron, and were forced to think of God in terms of personal wisdom and love. The “mystical” part of wisdom literature is not supernatural or other-worldly; it is seeing God in human interactions, in wisdom and in love.

Bishop Spong argues that the Johannine community had a vision of Jesus as someone giving up his life in love for others, someone through whom God shone in the form of love. This is in contrast to the other (synoptic) Gospels, in which Jesus is portrayed either as the Jewish messiah, a national savior, or as someone who died to redeem sin, an exemplar of sacrificial redemption. The Gospel of John, according to Bishop Spong, presents a new vision of Jesus as someone who, in his life, revealed a “mystical” way of being in the world, that of giving one’s life to others in love.

Bishop Spong interprets the stories of John as allegorical presentations of the new conception of Jesus. For example, when Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, the idea of a decaying corpse being revived is not to be taken literally. It is rather an allegory for Jesus’ ability to bring new life to people through love. When Jesus asks Thomas to touch his wounds, it is an allegory for the disciples, who have experienced Jesus, in contrast to those who have not yet experienced the life of love which Jesus exemplifies. My objection that the Gospel of John has the greatest overlay of theological interpretation is true because, as Bishop Spong says, it makes no pretense of historical accuracy, but rather articulates a particular way of understanding who Jesus was to his followers.

I could go on with details, but the main point is made. To paraphrase one of Bishop Spong’s conclusions: If you give up your life to others in love, then your life cannot be taken from you. This is a way of understanding Jesus’ resurrection, that he conquered death, without taking physical resurrection literally. On the face of it, Bishop Spong’s conclusion seems like an artful play on words. But as I think on it, there is unexpected depth. One who gives away everything in loving service to others has gotten over his fear of losing anything.

[Joel Hubbard · Rating 1 out of 5]

The Right Reverend John Shelby Sponge has shown himself to be, once again, both a lunatic and a ravening wolf in this remarkable book of his entitled "The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic."

To begin, I stopped reading his book on page 80 as he is trying to persuade us (unsuccessfully) that Our Lord's mother was nothing but a literary creation invented for the purpose of telling the "christ"-experience in order to write this rather short review. Here are my assumptions formed from The Right Reverend "Lunatic"'s book:

One: He would have us believe that in order to read the Gospel of John as it was originally written and read -- without a theistic, "Nicene", "literalistic" view, as he cautions us -- we must, for the lack of a better word, "regress" back into Judaism, or more specifically, back into Jewish mysticism.

The Christ of the Christian religion never came to Earth -- rejecting the weak argument that He was a "god-in-the-sky"; the early Christians, Jew and Gentile, never thought like that -- to preach a modernistic Middle-eastern, Buddhism-like "faith" that was completely foreign to both the Juaistic and Hellenistic religions of the day. He came for the express purpose of sacrifice upon the Cross, to redeem the fallen race of humankind from our futile shortcomings and failures (*leh gasp!*), and transform us into His holy and royal Bride the Church Universal.

Two: He contradicts himself many, many times, as in another book (Jesus for the Non-Religious). He says he believes in Jesus, also calls Him the "son of God", whatever that means, also believes that He was a literal Jesus of history, whomever that is, and also believes that the Christian faith, whatever that means to him, is the way Jesus has given us (there may be others) so that we can go to God-hood.

Then, he turns right around and says, smack in your face, that he does not believe in Jesus -- the traditional Jesus, preferring to use instead a John Shelby Sponge patented "Jesus" --; that he does not believe him to be the "son of God" -- to Sponge, that is the divine nature present within us all, without the silly notions of "sin", "the devil", and "hell" because those represent a dualistic universe and are incompatible to "modern" civilization --; that he does not believe that he was a literal Jesus of history (literal as in the Jesus Christ of the ancient Nicene, Apostles, and Athanasian Creeds, also the entire canonical New Testament, and is the Savior promised by the Jewish scriptures, also known as the Old Testament); and also does not believe that the Christian faith is the fulfillment of every religious expression in the world since the Fall of Man. Have I left anything out?

Three, and finally: Sponge is but a product of his times, where scholarly atheism is the only prerequisite to authentication in biblical circles and that they are the only ones worth listening to. I've noticed that on the back cover of his book there are many, many names of atheistic or agnostic authors who're pretty much from the same mold; who're hardly expected to be unbiased in his favor, because, most certainly, they have admitted that they do not believe Christianity, her Founder or the One who sent Him to Earth.

Like all fads and heresies which have distressed the Church since from the time of Christ Himself (starting with the same Jews whom Sponge suggests we become in order to be "christian"), this one shall fade away into the dusts of time like Gnosticism and Arianism -- of which this heresy seems, most probably to this reviewer's mind, a compendium of the two --, and the true faith will go marching on "with the Cross of Jesus, going on before!" (Onward Christian Soldiers, a 19th century hymn)

This here is my two cents.

--

EDIT: After thoroughly reading (and finishing) through "The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic", I have come to the conclusion that, if The Right Reverend reverses his stance on the Christian faith -- and no longer attempts to deconstruct the so-called "Jesus-myth" which he (and many others of his stamp like him) believe limits the "Jesus experience" and expression of our enlightened and emancipated civilization -- John Shelby Sponge would be, after C.S. Lewis himself, one of our best apologists. I admire his wit and brilliance in drawing parallels between and juxtaposing the Scriptures with the Four Gospels; but, because of his hardened, unbelieving heart (and I think he refuses to believe), he will, unfortunately, be relegated to the dustbin of history.

[Fred Kohn · Rating 5 out of 5]

After reading this book, my opinion of it hovered between three and four stars. But one should never read a book such as this without immediately checking its assertions against the scripture it is discussing. After rereading John's gospel, I couldn't help but enthusiastically rate this book as a five star book.

One who expects this book to be solely exegetical will surely be disappointed with it: there is a lot of bishop Spong's personal theology injected into this book. Some of his minor theories I found to be simply wild speculation But the major ones are backed up with a lot of sound research. I was quite surprised to hear that there is nothing in John of original sin, and hence nothing of the need for atonement. In my rereading of John, I found that this is indeed the case. Instead, John explains his theory of the crucifixion in these verses: "Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, 'You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.' He did not say that on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one." (John 11:49-52) Thus the purpose of the crucifixion for John is to bring about unity- a theme reiterated throughout that gospel and even put upon the lips of Jesus: "If I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all people to Myself." (John 12:32) A possible connection that I personally find fascinating is that this all may be an echo of an earlier communion formula in The Didache:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.

If atonement is not in sight in John, then the famous and misused quotation of Jesus: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6) needs to be rethought. This scripture is usually understood as "Christianity is the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Christianity," complete with its atonement theology and all that jazz. Thanks to Shelby Spong I have rethought John 14:6, but as this review has gone on way too long anyway, I'll just let you all read this book and decide for yourself what it means.

[Marfita · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hoo-boy!
I had never read anything by Spong before so I thought I'd try this one, which I purchased along side of Ehrman's book, Did Jesus exist?. I seem to have the same problem with John that he did. Spong avoided this gospel and attacked any antisemitism or other weirdness he thought was caused by it. After 36 years of also avoiding Bultman's commentary on it, he finally sat down to wrestle with it and this is the result.

In a nutshell: this gospel is in no way literal, it's all mystical ... stuff, such as symbolism, metaphor, invented characters, litotes (okay, maybe not litotes). Spong has finally reconciled this book with his own view of Christianity - and good on him! Somehow he is able to believe in the greatness and wonder of God's love without a creed nailing it down. Once you have a creed, he asserts, you draw a line in the sand and it will inevitably lead to violence.

The backstory of the book of John is that it was written by Jews excommunicated from the synagogue for insisting that Jesus was messiah. This explains the onus placed on "The Jews" for the crucifixion. Spong says "The Jews" is a code word for the hierarchy of the synagogue. And, of course, Pilate is given special velvet glove treatment to curry favor with the Roman overlords. But, rest assured! this is a Jewish book by Jews for Jews loaded with Jewish liturgical symbolism and mysticism.

Footnotes are few, and most of them just refer the reader to the bibliography for "information" (usually one of his other books, on sale at bookshops everywhere, but sometimes the works of others), and are designed to keep him on topic and not wander off on something else that's just terribly interesting.

Spong intentionally annoys the literalists early in the game by listing all the things that Just Plain Never Happened and people that Never Existed.

A few interesting crumbs I gleaned from the corpus:

There's no town Magdala, so why is Mary Magdalene, Mary Magdalene? [Obvious answer: there are two other Marys easily identified by their relationships, Mary-mother-of-Jesus and Mary-sister-to-Martha.]

Why was the crippled man crippled specifically for 38 years? Answer: No one knows. Oh, well.

Who was the Beloved Disciple who gets to lie with his head on Jesus' bosom (symposium-style, for dinner) blocking Peter from asking questions? Well, after tantalizing us with the idea that the risen Lazarus was beloved by Jesus, [Spoiler Alert] Spong tells us it isn't anyone. The Beloved Disciple is a made-up character that represents the person that "gets it." It is merely a device which I read as a placeholder for the reader/listener. You are the beloved disciple. There is room for you in that spot. What a nice thought! [This reminds me of the entrance to the children's room in our library. On either side are characters from The Wizard of Oz, but not Dorothy. That's because (sighs and rolls eyes) the child entering the children's room becomes Dorothy. The early Christians listening to this book being read become the Beloved Disciple. Gosh, High Concept drives me nuts.]

Isn't it amazing that Spong somehow retains his belief in God and the open-ended non-creed of "Jesus Is Messiah" despite the Fourth Gospel (Is it called that the same way one refers to "Macbeth" as "The Scottish play"?) being made up almost totally of whole cloth? He hopes to lure us non-believers back this way. It hasn't really done that for me, but it has made me pity the literalists even more. How sad that they wait for the God that they control with their picayune creeds to come and solve all their problems and punish those they envy or hate when He never went anywhere to come back from. Jesus keeps saying, You're looking at Him, He's in me.

This God is as big as the universe and as light as the space between atoms. In trying to define Him, they make Him look ridiculous* instead of a source of the superpower of love, love for everyone and everything, that will set them free here and now.
At least according to John as interpreted by Spong.

*If God is all-powerful, can He make a rock that He Himself can't lift?
If Jesus is God, then God sacrificed His own Self to save humanity from His own judgment. Wouldn't it be easier to just forgive them directly?
Or is Jesus just His son that He filled with His Holy Spirit, which is also Him?

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Much like John's Gospel itself, Spong's meditative investigation of the 4th gospel is intriguing, often beautiful and, in equal parts, frustrating.

John's gospel has long been recognized as a work significantly different in content, style, and presentation of Jesus than those by Mark, Matthew, and Luke -- identified, because of their numerous similarities, as the Synoptic accounts.

Mark's was the earliest, perhaps even written before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70. Matthew and Luke follow, composed somewhere in the next couple of decades, and clearly use Mark's account as the basis for their own, while also adding elements not found in Mark, some from a source known to them both, and others from sources unique to themselves. It is only in Matthew and Luke's gospels that we find accounts of Jesus' birth and they also add post-resurrection information not found in Mark.

John's version is very different for a couple of apparent reasons: 1) His was the only account apparently written after the expulsion of Jewish Jesus-followers from Jewish synagogues; and 2) he was writing to, and from within, a mystically inclined community that was likely itself but a small minority within Jesus-followers, an increasing number of whom were now Gentiles who had little or no acquaintance with Judaism and its long historical and scriptural history.

Spong writes that he can discern at least two different authors in the gospel and notes that other scholars think there might have been even more. There is evidence in our extant text of editing, including possible rearrangement of segments. The lovely tale of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, for instance, is not found in the earliest texts of John, and actually has more of a Lukan "feel" to it. Also, at one point in Jesus' very long "farewell discourse" on the occasion of the last supper he (Jesus) says, "Come, let us rise and go from here," yet the text then goes on with another segment of the discourse.

Spong's central thesis is that the mystic author (or authors) has written an account of Jesus that is largely symbolic, that is, filled with symbols, figures and images crafted to echo in Jewish memory of their beloved Scriptures and of some of their most memorable heroes and events, including Moses, Joseph the son of Jacob, Elijah, and the Exodus liberation. Furthermore, most of his key characters are "inventions," if not entirely drawn from fictive cloth -- and he includes Jesus' alleged father Joseph, the important figure of Lazarus, and even John's famous "beloved apostle" in this category -- then vastly expanded from what is known about them elsewhere, and here he means Jesus' mother and other figures like the apostle Peter.

The result is an often beautiful, if sometimes quite puzzling, interpretation.

Mary, for example, is, from Spong's viewpoint, John's symbol of Jesus' people -- the Jews, from whom Jesus came, in whom Jesus believed, and to whom he tried to communicate the fulness of life in God. (God, Spong notes here as he has elsewhere, is not some "being in the sky, removed from us or outside our world" but, rather, is -- and always has been -- in "everything" because God is the essence of creation itself. Therefore, each of us is "permeated by God" even if we choose to behave in non-Godlike ways; Spong affirms John's view that "God is love.")

In any case, this Mary is one who, despite having given birth to Jesus, remains filled with doubt, and perhaps some misgivings, because of him. (Spong corectly notes how little Mary appears in any of the gospels, a point worth noting because the attention subsequently given to her by Catholicism in particular is hard to reconcile with the insignificant role she actually plays in the gospel accounts.) So, in John, this Mary, while clearly knowing that her son possesses mysterious powers -- recall the first "sign" reported in John's gospel, the changing of water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana, an act done at his mother's request -- she appears uncertain about the direction his teaching is taking him. In a sense, Spong writes, she "stands aside" from Jesus, apart, but not severed, from him.

And the unnamed "beloved apostle," Spong believes, represents those persons who have come to understand Jesus' message of "life=fullness of living love." When, therefore, John pictures the two of them -- Mary and the beloved disciple -- standing at the foot of Jesus' cross (a "fact" not mentioned in the Synoptic accounts), he is attempting to say that the Jesus-followers who truly "got it" are to take unto themselves -- for protection and honor -- Jesus' people, the Jews, until such time as his people could come to understand his message about the essence of God as well.

Despite the horrific way John's use of "the Jews" in his gospel as a shorthand reference to those among the Jewish community who were opposed to Jesus has been used to justify anti-Semitic acts over two thousand years, Spong argues that John's actual message is that Jesus-followers -- very much including the now majority Gentiles among them -- were not to abandon but to embrace the Jewish people!

Spong may be "right on" with all of this, and I do encourage those among you who are persistent inquirers about "the truth of Jesus" to read his book for yourself.

However, there are aspects of his work -- this book and in his others -- that I find puzzling, even a tad unsettling.

For one thing, I think he has fallen into the kind of trap all of us can get into when we think that "aha, I've got the missing piece," or, "I've found the interpretive key." That is, we fit the "evidence" into our framework, and whatever does not "fit" is ignored or dismissed.

For example, when Spong writes about how Matthew's and Luke's versions differ from Mark's, he attributes those variances solely to the incorporation of "myths" that have grown up among the various Christian communities in the years since Mark wrote his account, even thought he notes that both Matthew and Luke had sources available to them that Mark did not. While I agree with him that both Matthew's and Luke's birth narratives are likely highly imaginative (that is, non-literal), I am much less certain about other aspects of their gospels that largely agree with Mark's content.

As I have written elsewhere, I found Dr. Timothy Luke Johnson's course on the gospels for the Teaching Company enlightening for several reasons, and chief among them was his stressing that we must remember that this was a pre-literate society, that is, one in which the vast majority of the populace were not literate. As a consequence, they retained memories of significant people and events through the utilization of memory skills that have largely atrophied in our own time, given the plethora of books and electronic data retrieval devices. Johnson argues that the gospels, in fact, are composed of a series of "memory units" passed down from original eye-witnesses to others that accurately retain the most important -- or, to those individuals, most striking -- words and deeds of Jesus.

(Even today, those of us who were alive when JFK was assassinated, or when the Columbia shuttle blew up on its way to orbit, can recall with immense detail where we were and how we felt when we learned of those things. Heck, I still remember shaking hands with JFK when he was campaigning for office in 1960, even though most of the details of that event have become blurry -- the others who were with me, the faces of those nearest me, etc. Certainly, an encounter with Jesus would have triggered a like memory response!)

I accept that, over the relatively few decades between Jesus' death and the gospels assuming written form, some details might have been slightly expanded as well as forgotten. But the deliberate creation or incorporation of myth? I hesitate to affirm that.

Furthermore, as Spong relates in some detail his thesis of how John is using symbol to convey meaning it becomes very difficult to discern where -- or even if when -- his account of a portion of John's gospel morphs from symbol/myth to remembered fact or conversation. Is ALL of John's gospel a symbol? Are there any "real" events or words remembered or recounted?

This, of course, is the very question that has deeply bugged many over the centuries who have found Jesus' teachings powerfully beautiful but who have balked at some of the more miraculous or theological implications. A few hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson famously published his edited version of the gospels in which he attempted to identify Jesus' words and deeds apart from material he deemed more suspicious.

And so we continue to do this even today! (As, I confess, do I.)

But since Dr. Spong's book is so well-written, and his interpretation so worth pondering, I do recommend it to any and all serious students of Jesus.

More than 2,000 years after his death, there clearly remains many things about this extraordinary man that intrigue and attract us still!

[Rod · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoroughly enjoyed this study of the Gospel according to John by a writer who has been hugely influential in how I approach the Christian and Jewish Scriptures ever since I read Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism many years ago. His introduction explains all of the reasons that I've shied away from studying John much, and then he proceeds to walk the reader through his speculation/interpretation of what John is really about. John's Jesus is very unlike the Jesus found in the other Gospels. He doesn't use parables. He speaks in long, self-referential speeches. "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." Spong reminds me that "I" has a very different connotation in mysticism than in everyday usage.
Great stuff. I'm only sorry that this could be Spong's last book.

[Teri Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sure to spark discussion, that's for certain!
Some great thought provoking moments, and some moments of "really, you're going to reiterate *again*?" And a few of "that's all you have to say about this one?" But overall I think Spong opens up John to a breath of fresh air.

The parts most likely to cause trouble are in the Easter narrative. I'm pretty darn liberal and I'm not sure i'd go for his conclusions. I enjoyed the treatments of the characters and learning why they would be written as they are--what they point to both in history and theology.

Bonus: short chapters make for easy use in an adult class at church, as long as people are prepared that Spong may feel outside the norm and they need to read with a mind open yet ready to ask questions and dialogue.

[Jeffrey Tooke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful reorientation to Jesus and the Scriptures

Spong reintroduces us to Jesus, Christianity and Scripture through the eyes of the Jewish mystic who is thought to have written John's Gospel. Through this transformation, one can better understand the symbols, the characters and their meaning as Jesus and the early Christians would've understood and used them, unlocking new insights that have been hidden under the Church's tradition and creeds that has encrusted them with more dogmatic themes instead of symbols and meaning as they would have been understood and used in the first Century. Spong's book has inspired me to read John and other Scripture with a more particular Jewish perspective.

[Jarkko Laine · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Sponge presents a compelling way of understanding the fourth gospel as a work of a Jewish mystic. In the first few chapters, he does a great job at presenting his case and (even though I still think I will have to think about this a little more) I buy it. As a book, though, this gets a bit boring after the first ten or so chapters: as Spong moves through the gospel chapter by chapter, most of the text just repeats the same ideas again and again.

In all, a great book, even if finishing it felt a lot like work...

[Sue Johannsen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought provoking and radical, Spong leads the reader into new Biblical territory. Thank goodness I read this. His wisdom and experience gives him the knowledge to share with his readers. the Bible is a story. It should not be taken literally. Often the "back story" is included in Spong's writings in contrast to the what is offered from the pulpit. Spong gives us the historical Jesus, the setting, and the circumstances to understand in a deeper way.

[Sally · Rating 5 out of 5]

Spong's interpretation concentrates on how the various episodes in the Gospel of John contribute to a unified mystical vision (as opposed to reporting historical happenings or biography), and also illuminates aspects that can make it difficult to read, such as its many negative comments on "the Jews."

[March · Rating 3 out of 5]

The last of the canonical gospels to be written, John's gospel is the one scholars of the New Testament believe is the least useful for reconstructing the historical Jesus of Nazareth. It includes stories, such as the wedding at Cana and the raising of Lazarus, recorded nowhere else; it contradicts earlier accounts, notably by having the crucifixion occur the day before Passover rather than on Passover itself; and it presents Jesus not as a Jewish moral teacher and parable-teller but as an otherwordly being concerned with proclaiming his own divinity.

Spong, renegade former bishop of Newark, says he previously found this gospel and its mythicized Jesus "almost repellent" (3). But his 2013 book argues for new relevance in the gospel for those, like himself, trying to figure out how to live a modern, evolved Christianity liberated from creeds and scriptural literalism. Spong agrees with scholars who believe that the gospel was produced by a community of Jewish followers of Jesus who had been expelled from their synagogue, possibly in Ephesus, around 90 CE, and he argues that the sayings it invents for Jesus can only make sense when they are understood as words of encouragement and comfort for a community trying to figure out how to live their faith apart from Judaism. Spong thus finds resonance in the gospel for those who, like him, are convinced that "the followers of Jesus today must learn how to live apart from Christianity" (18). In the gospel's indifference to literalism and willingness to invent incidents and mythical characters like Nicodemus and Lazarus to proclaim its evolving understanding of the Jesus message, Spong discovers nourishment for those who struggle to live an inclusive and modern Christianity that rejects fundamentalism and ancient creeds.

Spong's approach to the gospel is persuasive to the extent that it remains fairly close to consensus views about the Johannine community. Few will disagree with Spong's explanation for why this gospel, more than the synoptics, is so persistent in its vitriol against "the Jews," a quality that has played a toxic role in centuries of Christian antisemitism. Spong explains that the many scenes in which followers of Jesus are persecuted by Jewish leaders, who are in turn condemned by Jesus, are not authentic events from the life of the historical Jesus, but allude instead to a different historical event: the Johannine community's own expulsion from its synagogue. Seeing the gospel as concerned with a group of Jewish followers of Jesus trying to understand its relation to an orthodox Judaism that has rejected it leads Spong to credible reinterpretations of Nicodemus and of the scene where the dying Jesus entrusts his mother to the care of the beloved disciple.

But when Spong ventures beyond the scholarly consensus, his idiosyncratic readings can be quite forced, and his reasoning loose or circular. I think few will find persuasive his suggestion that the character of Nathaniel is based on the apostle Paul, for example (71-72). Some of his arguments rest on unproven assertions: Spong assumes that John knew the synoptic gospels, surely an open question, and he claims there is no reference to Judas Iscariot in Q, which is something nobody can know since Q is lost. Some of his claims are clearly wrong: e.g., he asserts that Mary is not a significant figure in any gospel before John, when in fact she features more prominently in Luke (and its companion book, Acts) than in John, where she isn't even named. And sometimes he contradicts himself, e.g. when he claims that the final chapter of the gospel was not originally a resurrection story, only to then immediately argue the contradictory position that it records the earliest and most "authentic recollection" of how Jesus' disciples came to understand him as having been raised (in a non-literal, non-physical sense) from the dead (312).

And however sympathetic one is to Spong's commitment to a less literal understanding of Christianity and the resurrection, I found his interpretation of the teachings of John's Jesus New Age-y and nebulous to the point of almost having no content. "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe," John has Jesus say to Thomas in an episode found only in this gospel (20:29). Such a powerful affirmation of the faith of later generations of believers who were not eyewitnesses to Jesus's resurrection would have been of obvious comfort to believers in Ephesus in the 90s CE. But for Spong, its meaning is this: "Blessed are those who experience an expanded humanity that comes through those who were themselves examples of that new consciousness" (304). Really? Readers may judge for themselves whether the Jesus of John's gospel, who proclaims his divinity on every page and who, in the opening verses, is said to have been present at the creation of the world, is really, as Spong contends, simply proclaiming that "the spiritual presence we call God permeates the universe, becoming audible from time to time in a particular person in whom 'the word of God' is heard to be speaking, and visible in that life through whom the 'will of God' is revealed" (114). While that may be an attractively modern way to think about the concept of divinity, one struggles to find that in the text of the fourth gospel.

[Stan Fleetwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting. A different interpretation of John's Gospel (at least to me). Highly recommended.

[Michael Canoeist · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four stars for this wildly careening, imaginative, exhortatory fantasia on the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel. Known for its poetic and mystical approach to the Jesus story, which John presents very differently from the other three gospels (the synoptics), John's gospel can grab your soul. However, former Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong admits that this was his least favorite of the gospels for much of his life, until he finally forced himself to analyze the book and his feelings against it.

That produced these 300 pages of high-velocity analysis, comparison, diatribe, invention, and elucidation. Spong comes to like John particularly because he concludes almost nothing in it is historical. Rather, he maintains, the gospel is a carefully arranged Christian presentation through a different prism than the doctrines that eventually came to represent the faith.

Spong, a controversial minister in his own day, has his own vision of Christianity with which he seems to align John's gospel. How much of the Jewish mystic John really may have been, and how much is the projection and fantasy of John Shelby Spong, it is hard to say. Hard to draw the line where Spong's legitimate textual knowledge and familiarity start to leave history and logic behind and take on their own inflated conceptual project.

But along the way he gives the reader a tremendous tour of the gospel, seen through different eyes. The Jewish material that many early and late Christians never noticed or understood makes some of Spong's reinterpretations pack an extra power.

In the end, the alternative Spongian John vision of Christianity comes out and leaves you a little flat. It's all about a "new consciousness" in which we will love and help each other be our best selves.

Is that it? Yes. But even with that greeting-card pop-psych, Spong does a lot to provoke your thoughts. I wish I could give a couple examples, but the textual analysis runs deep and it would have me writing for an hour or two on this review. One example is "the disciple that Jesus loved," the mysterious figure that may represent John himself, but who Spong argues is a fictional creation of the gospel author(s). Spong marshals just enough evidence to make a tantalizing case for his theories, but I often felt there were elements he was ignoring because they did not fit.

So, even though some of the book may disappoint, it is really worth reading for anyone interested in the exotic Gospel of John. The fourth in order in the New Testament, and the fourth to have been written down, the historians believe. That fact and the dating contrast to the earlier composition of the three synoptics makes those early Christian decades a fascinating place to try to reenter from nearly two millennia later. Spong does extremely well in that pursuit.

[Charlie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely loved this powerful book! I grew up as a Christian, believing in a literal interpretation in the bible. I studied theology at a liberal college, focusing especially on the New Testament, where, learning the historical origins of the text and that the stories it contained were more of a mythology/epic poetry, I began my journey away from Christianity to atheism then eventually to existential nihilism. John Shelby Spong's beautiful writing has me reconsidering Christianity and its place in my life.

Spong reaches deep into the origins of the Gospel of John to explain how and why it came to be written. He goes through each major story of the text, including the woman at the well, healing of the man born blind, the raising of Lazarus, the turning of water into wine, walking on water, feeding of the five thousand, Mary at the cross, etc, and explains them in historical context and suggests what symbolism and message the author of John was trying to convey. Spong conveys that the gospel of John (and indeed, the whole bible) was never meant to be interpreted literally, and those that do so are misreading the text and missing the point. Spong's interpretation of God is a loving consciousness that binds us all as humans, a very positive and uplifting message, and a universal one as well, that honestly, even an atheist could get behind. "The Fourth Gospel" is very friendly to those of us who do not see "God" as a guy in the sky with a beard and white robe, and the message is not at odds with things like evolution or science.

I will definitely be re-reading this book or looking for other of Spong's works. He is a revelation and I'm glad to have found his writing!

[Beth Nienow · Rating 4 out of 5]

John was always my favorite gospel, the English major’s gospel. I was affected by the literary, mystical first chapter, the alternative creation account, the concept of Logos—The Word—and its role (and identity!) in creating and ordering the universe out of primordial chaos. For Spong, John was never a favorite until he realized that it should be read through the lens of Jewish mysticism, and as an allegory for the time in which John was writing, many decades after the earthly life and death of Jesus, at the beginning of the Jesus Movement, or early Christianity. According to Spong, those colorful characters, Nicodemus, Lazarus, the Beloved Disciple, the woman at the well, et al., weren’t actual people of history but allegorical figures. Spong suggests that the resurrection itself wasn’t an actual physical resuscitation, but finds, in the seemingly tacked on epilogue of John’s gospel, the fullest account of the spirit of the resurrection. If you can read past Spong’s ego and bluster, there are some interesting ideas, the importance of Peter, the role of Lazarus; and tidbits (Peter was someone’s twin, but whose? Lazarus’s, Jesus’s?) and turns of phrase: If God is love, then it follows that Love is God, abiding in each of us.

[Tim Boone · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anyone who has been disappointed with the misogyny, Patriarchy, and exclusiveness of Christianity, should read this commentary on the Gospel of John and real meaning of Christianity... no heaven, no Hell..... God is Love and Love can set us free.....to reach full human potential. And change the world.

"What Jesus is describing here is not redemption of the fallen, but transformation of the open. There is and will be no separation in our oneness. God is part of you; you are part of God. The same life and love that flow from God through the vine of Christ will flow into God’s people, who are the branches. There is now a mystical and mutual indwelling that will create a new humanity. Mutual indwelling is not to be understood as an authority-subject, a master-slave or even a savior-sinner relationship. It is rather a startling new way by which we are to understand the divine. We have abandoned the God from above the sky. That God has now entered life. We met this God first in Jesus, and now the world will see that God in those who will someday call themselves the “body of Christ.”

[Thomas Nichols · Rating 1 out of 5]

The church study group decided we would read through and discuss John Shelby Spong’s book that he published when he was 82 or around that age, “The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic.” Reluctant to read the author based upon my understanding and knowledge of him when I was in my 20s and 30s back in the 1970s and 1980s, I agreed to discuss the book and actually was looking forward to hearing and discussing how this gospel could be viewed through the eyes of a mystic, how mystery might be celebrated. Instead I had to endure the author’s name-calling directed at those who disagreed with him and muddle through tenable but unsupported ideas of mythology and rogue additions to the scriptures, especially when compared to the other gospels or epistles. Perhaps the more accurate title should be “The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Heretic.” The challenges were taken in stride and I tried to remain as positive and interested as possible for the sake of the others in the group. I have no use for this book.

[Walter · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you don't know the author and his work, (retired Episcopal) Bishop John Shelby Spong can be a real headshaker: his take on most things spiritual and/or religious is typically unique and/or (far) outside of the mainstream. If you know the author and his work and are not a fan, then the title "heretic" would seem to apply quite easily (though there are those in this camp - misguided as they are in my view - who go all the way to "atheist"). If you know the author and his work and are a fan, then this latest volume will take you on another voyage of faith, discovery and revelation ... though, frankly, it strikes me as less controversial (and perhaps a bit less revelatory) as some (or even most) of his earlier work.

Simply put, The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic is vintage Spong, from his thorough re-reading of this gospel from a mystical perspective to his consideration of the characters introduced and/or more deeply developed in this book of the New Testament to his parsing of the Book of Signs, the Farewell Discourses, The High Priestly Prayer and the Passion Narrative to his conclusions about the Epilogue.

To me, this book seems a little different from the author's previous oeuvre in a couple of respects: First, I find that in this book, Bishop Spong at points seems to assume a familiarity with either his unique theological viewpoint and/or his previous work that new readers may find a little challenging. Having read about half of his catalogue now, I feel confident that I can catch his nuance and/or place many of his seeming minor observations - which, though often quite significant in import, sometimes seem tossed out without much fanfare or elucidation - in their proper context, though I am not sure that someone less familiar with his work could feel comfortable doing so. (Alternatively stated, the Bishop has a tendency to make startling observations and/or draw startling conclusions with little added context in an almost casual way with respect to points that are related to his major themes but, apparently in his view, critical to them.)

A second difference from his previous work is that - again, in my admittedly idiosyncratic, layperson's view - he relies less on conclusive proof and more on faith and/or the goodwill of the reader in drawing more of his conclusions. For example, at numerous points in the book, he refers to previous books and suggests that the reader go to them for a full elucidation of his point rather than summarizing it fully (or, at least, adequately). It feels less to me like cutting corners than that the Bishop is so far along in his thinking/has done this so many times/written so many books/etc. that he doesn't bother to teach the basics anymore, preferring to focus almost exclusively on his newest, most cutting edge work (rather than providing a more full background and/or context as he did in earlier works).

This being said, it is still a work of stunning insight and incredible inspiration. It's like being taken on a magical journey wherein the curtain is pulled back and what was once purposely obscured behind a mystical veil is now revealed in even greater splendor than one might expect. So, while his proofs are less convincing to me in this work, his conclusions are nonetheless powerful and leaving me shaking my head from a spiritual perspective because of their profundity.

A disclaimer: I have to admit that I don't like reading the Bible as much as I expect that I should given the depth of my spiritual commitment/faith, but, frankly, I find that it's so often conveyed in cloaked language, obscure and/or timebound symbolism, etc., that makes it relatively inaccessible to a lay reader like me. In short, I find that the Good Book is often written in a way that makes its wisdom unnecessarily hard to access for the non-professional. So one of the reasons that I have become such a big fan of the Bishop is that he revels in and excels at de-mystifying the Scriptures in a way that unlocks new and deeper meaning for his reader. This I believe to be one of his most important contributions: that he's opened the often unnecessarily dense and/or inaccessible aspect of the Christian (et. al.) religion and made the wisdom of the ages available in terms that are far more translatable and thus relevant to this age. And he does so repeatedly in The Fourth Gospel as well.

For example: His parsing of the symbolism (vs. historicity) of the characters in the Gospel of John is mesmerizing. It led me to a whole new understanding of this text and unlocked previously hidden (to me) meaning that has greatly increased my appreciation for this sacred work and measurably enhanced my spiritual belief set. Further, his take on the Crucifixion and Resurrection - and, ultimately, the meaning of Jesus's life - is as faith-deepening/-enhancing as it is revelatory.

I could go on with many more examples of why I found this book to be a most enjoyable, informative and worthwhile experience, but, in the interest of brevity and of avoiding having to share spoiler alerts, I'll simply say that I recommend this work to Spong fans and critics alike, to those who know his work and/or those new to it. In short, I recommend it to everyone who is willing to have his/her faith examined, question, tested and enhanced by a journey from the Bishop's unique - and, to me, compelling - perspective. The Fourth Gospel brought John back to me, as I had let it go many years ago when I felt that I couldn't "see" what it contained fully. Bishop Spong has returned this work of sacred art and wisdom to me in a wonderful way, a gift for which I am and always will be grateful.

[Micke Goteman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this author’s newer book, “Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy”, is better explained and provides a more clear foundation to help us understand the biblical texts, but part of that may be that the gospel is John is simply more complex and harder to explain. I’m not sure that I am in a good position to evaluate that, but I do find Spong’s treatment of the texts and his scholar perspective to be helpful. This is a way of reading the biblical books that I think most people are unfamiliar with if they were raised within the western church (particularly the evangelical church). And yet I believe it to be a really important perspective for anyone to wrestle with who aspire to take the Bible seriously.

[Don Heiman · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic” was copyrighted by author John Shelby Spong in 2013. Spong is a retired Newark, New Jersey Episcopal bishop, Church pastor, best selling author, and gifted scholar. His book discusses the importance of understanding the fourth Gospel of John from the eyes of Jewish Johannine Community mysticism. He also encourages readers to not use literalism in reading scriptures. Rather he encourages readers to focus on New and Old Testament linkages and storylines to more fully understand the deeper meanings of John’s Gospel’s text. His book is thought provoking and enlightening. It is a reading experience I will long remember. (L)

[Mark Bishop · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bishop Spong just passed away. He will be missed. His way of taking a unique, scholarly, and yet accessible approach for the modern rational scientific world opened up new ways of thinking about to the Gospel of John. While he may have taken his symbolic interpretation too far, insisting that there is nothing historical about the book; his way of opening up the Jewish symbolism was mind blowing and inspiring at many points. The long monologues of Jesus were illuminated in a very convincing way. I would recommend this book to anyone with an open mind to new approaches. Reading this book was a rich spiritual experience for me. Hope it is for you as well.

[mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Shelby Spong isn't your typical Episcopalian bishop: he doesn't believe in the virgin birth, in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, not in the miracles, and not even in God - at least not as God has been historically understood in Christianity. For Spong, Jesus's message was that God isn't in the heavens, isn't a being, isn't external to us in any way, but rather in accord with the ancient mystical belief that it is something that we all contain within us, that is, and Spong sees this inner quality as our ability to transcend the desire for survival at any cost. The book is a very interesting re-visioning of the New Testament that does not need recourse to any theistic beliefs.

[Bruce Joffe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spong is one of the front runners -- some say "heretics" -- in the intellectual approach to God and faith movement. He admits to shying away earlier from delving into his own special analysis of John's Gospel, the one (and last) of the four which is so different from the rest. Spong adds some excellent perspective on WHY this Gospel is so different ... attributing it NOT to a new movement among religious fanatics, but to well-documented research into the field and beliefs of Jewish mysticism. Tedious at times, but well worth the read!

[Linda · Rating 5 out of 5]

You come away thinking you can finally be comfortable with all the stories in the new testament that are midrash, ways to understand the unknowable. But your new found comfort and rejection of the literal is alien to the stories that Christians tell as if they were historical—the birth in a manger, the magi, the resurrection to name a few.

To summarize, Jesus came not to institute an orthodoxy, not to assure that we all follow a strict moral path, but that we live abundantly, without clinging to the material world, and we help others live abundantly as well,

[Jennifer Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Shelby Spong, where have you been all my life?! This book rivaled Richard Rohr (which are very BIG words for me!). It was hugely clarifying regarding where I sit theologically. Interpreting the stories in this gospel symbolically rather than literally opens up so many more possibilities for depth and richness to their meaning. This book was well-researched, insightful and could open up a whole new depth to the Christian faith if people would be open to reconsidering things from a different perspective.

[Gary Gomes · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent analysis of the Gospel of John. The author's description of the Gospel is very similar to my own. (I've often referred to the Gospel of John as a poetic story of the meaning and purpose of Christianity). Well understood to contain no trace of actual history this is the Gospel of a persecuted people in the late 1st century AD as told through the life of their savior. Highly recommend for anyone trying to reconcile John with the synoptic Gospels.

[Norman Weatherly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Often difficult to follow, often oblique and often dogmatic. I don't often give up on a book but this one forced me to. I could not follow his leaps of logic or leaps of faith and theology either. I didn't change my mind about anything that I believed and this book did not seal shut my belief in anything. It left me with less than I started with in fact. Sorry, but I can not recommend this as a good read.