Johannine Discipleship as a Covenant Relationship.

Johannine Discipleship as a Covenant Relationship. By Rekha M. Chennattu. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006. Pp. xxiv + 256. Paper, $29.95.

This revised doctoral thesis is a welcome contribution to understanding the development of Hebrew traditions in John's Gospel generally, and particularly, to the discernment of Hebrew covenantal motifs underlying the discipleship paradigm in John 1:35-51, 13-17 and 20-21. I am not, however, so convinced by the attempt and need to locate the function of this discipleship paradigm in a so-called Johannine community (see below).

In the first chapter the need for this study is firmly established and contributions from previous research are identified. With this in mind 1:35-51 is examined through identifying Hebrew covenantal motifs. The disciples abiding in and knowing Jesus as Messiah is read alongside the covenantal theme of Israel abiding in and knowing God. The 'witnesses' of the disciples is understood in the light of the covenant theme of Israel testifying to what they have seen and experienced of God's actions. 'Name giving' and 'renaming' in the Hebrew covenant underlies the renaming of Peter and points to an election motif. Jesus' promise in 1:51 is understood in the light of the Hebrew covenant promises. Chapters 2 and 3 are devoted to examining John 13-17 in terms of the relationship between discipleship and covenant, concluding again that the paradigm of discipleship must be seen in terms of a covenant relationship. In other words, the call to discipleship like the election of Israel is a gift from God and receiving this gift means that the new Israel is accountable to God to keep his covenant. Such faithfulness to the covenant is motivated by the hope that God's promise of his reign of shalom may be fulfilled. In chapter 4, motifs such as promise and fulfilment are seen to be particularly central to John 20-21 in explaining, for example, the empty tomb and the fulfilment of Jesus' predictions that he is going to the Father. Crucially John 20-21 expounds theologically what was promised in John 13-17. The renewal and consecration of the new Israel in 13-17 is realized in John 20-21. In the book's final chapter 5, the presentation of discipleship as a covenantal relationship, it is argued, was motivated by both the centrality of the covenant motif for first-century Judaism, i.e. covenantal nomism, and for maintaining a distinctive community identity in its conflict with the Synagogue.

Generally, the arguments are clear and well made with helpful summaries and conclusions at strategic points. However, the extensive although appropriate quoting of Hebrew and Greek will make this a difficult read for those not equipped with such linguistic tools. There is no separate reference index for John, making it difficult for the reader to cross-reference particular verses with other Johannine texts and more relevantly Hebrew Bible references.

More precisely, as with any intertextual study, the parallels that one scholar sees are not always seen by another. Maybe a short section on methodology, delineating how we identify covenantal themes in John, would have been helpful. This is particularly so given the debate that flares up from time to time regarding the excessive and apparently undisciplined identification of Hebrew parallels to explain New Testament texts. For example, is it not possible that we might also see similar covenantal themes in the other Gospels? Seeing parallels, for example, between the footwashing narrative and a covenant relationship will not be so obvious to all. Surely the more obvious reading is that this is an act of self-sacrificing humility to be imitated by the disciples.

Creative and original as the intertextual study is, I am not totally convinced by all the arguments. Although washing may be associated with covenant relationship, there is no convincing explanation for why there is just the footwashing. While I agree with the conclusion of the final chapter, I question why there is a need to hypothesize such a distinctive Johannine community to strengthen the overall thesis. This assumes that the precise Sitz im Leben of a community behind John can be established. Might we not also find such tradition underlying Matthew's Gospel? Therefore, such covenantal themes function for Christians generally.

This seemed to be an issue when Wayne Meeks is quoted: "No one ... is in a position to write an empirical sociology of Johannine Christianity" ("The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism" Journal of Biblical Literature 91 [1972]: 49). (196). I agree. But following the Meeks quote, Chennattu writes: "Nevertheless, it is now widely accepted that the 'gospel's literary history' reflects the 'community's social and theological history'" (196). Is this widely accepted? The collection of essays edited by R. Bauckham (The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998]), questions the explanatory value in proposing a particular Sitz im Leben behind the Gospels.

While this is a much-disputed area, the conclusions drawn in this final chapter do not have to presuppose a Johannine community. Surely all we can say is that the Gospel addressed Christian groups in various places on general issues and such groups would have identified with the covenant themes. Further, conflicts with the Synagogue cannot be significant to just one Gospel; this was an issue that dominated Christian communities throughout the Roman Empire.

Mark Bredin

Cambridge University 

Cambridge, UK, CBI 3UD