The OT Treatment of 'Aliens' and the Fourth Gospel - A Theory

For several decades now, commentators across the theological spectrum have wrestled with what some believe is the bipolar nature of the Gospel of John. The Fourth Gospel, quite simply, is a conundrum on many levels. But ever since the evil of the Holocaust, the sharp delineations made in the FG between insiders and outsiders has become an urgent focus of post-Holocaust scholarship. While phrasing the problem in a variety of ways, the basic issue is this:

How can one document be so bipolar when it comes to the insider/outsider motif we clearly find? As one example of many that could be cited, how can John 4 provide one of the most startling accounts of inclusion anywhere in the Bible (the inclusion of the Samaritan woman (who herself represents two outsider communities - women and Samaritans) into the Kingdom), while John 8 provides one of the most bitter exclusionist exchanges between Jesus and 'the Jews'? The well documented polarities throughout the FG (light/darkness, life/death, above/below, good/evil, truth/lies, sight/blindness) all contribute to the development of a sharp line of division in the FG between 'insiders' and 'outsiders'. How can the same document both praise and condemn the world? How can one document offer us the ingrafting vine motif of ch 15 by the same Jesus who refuses to pray for the world in 17.9?

These are difficult questions, and commentators have offered a great variety of theories and reconstructions to try and explain these difficulties. Allow me to add my own theory to the mix.

Present scholarship is largely correct in reversing the older view that the Fourth Gospel was more a Greek-influenced document than Jewish influenced (this older was fueled in large part by the FG's use of 'logos' - The Word). The reigning view today is that the FG is heavily Jewish in its influence, and my theory, if at all valid, would definitely strengthen this case. In short, my theory about the insider/outsider polarities in the FG are driven very much by the OT's treatment of 'aliens'. Consider this:

In the Mosaic administration, the nation of Israel was repeatedly commanded to remember what it was like to be orphans in Egypt and how it felt to be strangers (Gen. 15:13; Ex. 2:22, 18:3) and then delivered by God their great Host, and to do likewise to the orphans around them (Ex. 22:21, 23:9; Lev. 19:33-34; Deut. 10:19, 23:7). The protections of the Law applied not only to Jews, but to the 'aliens' among them (Lev. 24:22; Num. 9:14, 15:16, 15:29; Deut. 1:16, 24:17, 27:19; Josh. 20:9). Importantly, Numbers 15:15 declares that because the same Law applies to both Jews and aliens, the Jews and aliens will be the same in God's sight. God loves the alien and provides for him (Deut. 10:18, Ps. 146:9).

But importantly, this idea stands side by side with the disdain of foreign practices that were hostile to God and the repeated OT admonition to have nothing to do with such things. It seems as if a distinction was made between 'aliens' who wished to become part of God's covenant community (Ex. 12:48-49) and were therefore hospitably embraced and treated well (Ex. 23:12; Lev. 19:10, 23:22, 25:35; Deut. 5:16, 14:29, 24:14, 24:19-21), versus those 'aliens' who not only stood outside the covenant community, but actively opposed God through their practices (Deut. 12:30-32, 18:9-14, 20:18, 29:16-18). Hospitality is not extended to the Canaanites or the Philistines, but rather, warfare and destruction.

This dynamic extends into the exilic and post-exilic eras of the OT as well. In Ezekiel 22:7, 29, God declares that Jerusalem's mistreatment of the 'alien' is one reason why he sent Babylon to destroy the city and send the people into exile (cf. Ps. 94:6, Jer. 7:5, 22:3). During the Second Temple period, Zech. 7:10 reiterates the desire of God to see his people treat the ‘alien’ well (7:10) and not oppress him, while Malachi 3:5 laments the renewed abuse of the alien. But as before, the post-exilic period also witnesses a renewed wariness of those outside the community who stand in opposition to God. Ezra 9 is a lengthy account of how hospitably fraternizing with those who oppose God's Law is frowned upon rather than celebrated. The literal building of the wall in Nehemiah 4 is also representational of the insider/outsider motif that I think we find in the Johannine writings as well.

The OT distinction between 'aliens' who desired to be loyal to God, versus 'aliens' who were actively opposed to God has strong similarities with the polarities we find in the FG. For OT 'aliens' who wanted to be a part of the covenant community, the Israelites were instructed to embrace them and incorporate them into the religious and social life of the community. But for OT 'aliens' who were opposed to God, the Israelites were warned not to associate themselves with such people. Put simply, fidelity to God was the standard by which 'aliens' were judged and treated.

To me, this is quite similar to what we find in the FG. Faith in Christ (which dominates the entirety of the FG) and obedience to his commandments is the standard by which people are judged and treated (14:15ff; this is a theme that is strongly picked up on again in 1 John). The love and acceptance offered to those seeking to love God and be obedient to him parallels the accepting instructions given on behalf of 'aliens' who wished to follow the one true God in the OT. The harshness and even condemnation offered to those who oppose Christ and his Kingdom (which is what 'world' often means in the FG, though not in every case) parallels the sharp instructions given in the OT to separate from foreigners and their practices. There is a continuity between the testaments that speaks to an ongoing battle between two kingdoms that has been raging ever since Genesis 3.15.

While such polarities and talk of warring kingdoms strike many as uncomfortable and archaic, Scripture demands that we affirm both and not water down either. There is a spectrum of thought on such things, with some wanting to chuck all harshness in favor of universally accepting love, while there are others who downplay love and acceptance and emphasize condemnation and separation. Scholars often use where they fall along this spectrum as a starting point for their commentaries on the FG. But both the OT and the FG (not to mention the rest of the NT) do not allow us to pick and choose based on what we're already predisposed to believe. We must emphasize both, because that's what Christ himself did, in fulfillment of the same principles given to the Israelites in the Mosaic law.

A theory for consideration.