Challenges of keeping philosophy, belief and daily struggle in constant conversation

The Gospel of John is considered as one of the significant literary masterpieces that appeals to Indian Culture in multifarious ways. The Gospel has unique features as a universalistic Rhetoric that encompasses feelings and aspirations of Indians. The character of Jesus in Gospel and His assimilative power to contemporary realities reverberate the situation aspects of Indian communities¹. The fourth gospel begins with a well-known rhythm as follows. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God (1:1). There are parallels between the fourth Gospel and the Chandogya Upanishad² of Hinduism. In the Chandogya Upanishad, the sage begins his teaching with the words, in the beginning, being (sat) alone existed, one without a second. In that sense. Jesus as the Word as fully God. The word becoming flesh and dwelling among humanity is one of the incarnational aspects of the fourth Gospel. While Jesus is portrayed as the incarnation of God in the gospel, a similar concept, such as avatara, is used in Hinduism. The word ‘avatara’ comes from the root meaning “to descend” and Rama and Krishna are considered as avatara of Vishnu. The accommodative spirituality of Jesus as one who descends and saves is the hallmark of the Johannine Christology.

Religion and Politics: Changing in their Belief and struggle of common people

For twenty-first-century people, words like temple and priest suggest religious places and personnel separate from politics and economics. That separation was not true for the first century. Religion was much more public, civic, and political. It recognized that religious places and personnel were embedded in the political-economic structures of the Roman imperial world. Although temples conducted worship, they also often provided religious or divine sanction for the political order and they were instruments of elite economic and societal control. Some were priests by descent, members of the elite in cities across the empire assumed priestly roles for periods of time as part of their civic involvement, providing political, economic, and societal leadership through managing temples and leading or sponsoring celebrations. These realities present another dimension of early Christian negotiation of Rome’s world³.
The temple occupied a central place in Judean life as a center for worship and of national identity. Temple worship involved daily sacrifices, prayer, and perhaps readings and teaching from Torah (John 18:20). To be a priest or Levite required descent from a priestly or Levite family. The high-priestly families supervised personnel responsible for the temple’s worship (priests, Levites); economics (provisioning the temple, administering funds); administration; and order (temple police, maintaining buildings). Lower-ranked priests like Zechariah traveled to Jerusalem from rural villages periodically to serve in the temple (Luke 1:8)⁴.
From its beginning, the Jerusalem temple was deeply embedded in the politics, economics, and societal structures of its world. When King Solomon built the first temple in the tenth century BCE, he used taxes to purchase supplies (1 Kings 4:7-28; 5:1-11; levied in kind), and he conscripted labor (1 Kings 5:13-18)⁵.
But in the 1st century, the Temple was under the control of Roman Emperor. the temple leaders also had to accommodate Roman demands for loyalty and cooperation. Emperor draws local religious observance into supportive relationship with the empire and exert some control over it. Rome commonly ruled through mutually beneficial alliances with local elites who would maintain the Roman-dominated status quo⁶.
· The Roman governor appointed the chief priest (Josephus, Ant. 18.33-35, 95).
· The Romans kept the chief-priestly garments in Jerusalem in the Antonia fortress, releasing them for festivals (Josephus, Ant. 15.403-8; 18.93-95).
· Sacrifices were offered in the temple for but not to the emperor and Rome (Josephus, JW 2.416)⁷.
The temple was part slaughterhouse in offering sacrifices, part warehouse in storing supplies, and part bank with storage chambers for wealth. Various Roman officials, the governors of Sabinus in 4 BCE, Pilate looted the wealth in the temple. Priests exercised and benefited from economic power. Josephus notes that priests became rich from tithes and offerings; archaeological discoveries in Jerusalem confirm wealthy priestly dwellings. Jerusalem priests at times violently seized tithes even if poorer local priests starved. The temple also collected a tax, which included those outside of Judea. The emperor Vespasian co-opted this tax after 70 to rebuild the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome. These taxes and tithes, plus those exacted by Rome and by local landowners, often amounted to perhaps 20 to 50 percent of a peasant farmer’s yield⁸.

Jesus’ Response:

Jesus’ direct confrontation with the temple leaders emerges from this mixing of religion and politics, and from the considerable political, economic, societal, and religious power exercised by the temple leadership. He thereby confronts their practices,
· He protests their insistence that honoring the Sabbath means no work, a practice that could cause hardship and impoverishment for the majority poor.
· He protests their encouragement of people to make gifts to the temple that remove valuable resources from the elderly.
· He is less concerned with purity than with greedy, sinful actions that destroy human communities.
· He condemns their emphases on tithing, external purity, and honoring past prophets, not because these practices are bad or unnecessary but because the leaders ignore justice, mercy, and faithfulness; practice extortion and greed; and do not receive challenges to their system (Matt. 23:23-36). He announces that they and their temple system are under God’s judgment (23:38)⁹.
In the present context also, over inclusion and participation of Church leaders into the Politics bringing the problems within the Church and Christian community which bought in the Johannine community also. The leaders misusing the power, imposing the struggle on the believers, dividing the church on the bases of community, like the priests who became rich under the governance of roman emperor, in the present context also the leaders becoming like that.
But the normal people did not have the power to reform against the authority. Like Jesus reformed and it became one of the reason for His death in the hands of authority. In the present Indian context also, instead of questioning the authority, correcting the authority like Jesus, the people are habituated to follow and obey the rules of the authority to make their lives safe.

Parallels in Johannine Philosophy, belief and Indian Philosophy

1. Mysticism in John and in the Indian Religions

The spirituality reflected in John’s Gospel has much in common with the mystical traditions of the Indian religions. The following aspects can be considered significant in that regard¹⁰:
· At, at the heart of Johannine theology we witness a union between God/Jesus and human beings,
· Jesus’ vertical and horizontal relationships are reflected through his mystical expressions such as “All that is mine is yours; all that is yours is mine” (17:10);
· As a Gospel of belief and love, the aspects such as believing in and loving God are emphasized to sustain the union between God and believers (3:16; 6:47; Chapters 14–16);
· The language John uses such as “‘having fellowship’ with the Father and the Son,” “to be born of God” or to be “children of God” (1:13), and “I know mine and mine know me” (10:14; 17:3) reveal the integral value of relationships;
· The “knowing,” “seeing,” and “believing” aspects of the Gospel make it more contemplative, as it demands a deeper level of reflection on the meaning of Christ for our lives;
· The imageries such as “light” (1:9; 8:12; 9:5), “vine and the branches” (15:1–15), and others express the intimacy of communion with Christ forcefully;
· The binding communion between the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the believer and the inseparable unity is emphasized through the formula of immanence¹¹.
These aspects of the Fourth Gospel resonate in several ways in the Indian thought-world.
The Johannine idea of oneness with God resonates with the Indian religious and philosophical traditions. While Hinduism expresses the view of “Atman is Brahman” (“the soul is one with God”), Mahayana Buddhism has the idea of tathata which can be described as “thisness of reality.” Shankara, one of the Indian classical proponents of Advaita (non-dualism) philosophy, see an eternal union between Brahma the Absolute and the Atman or pure consciousness. The Advaita interpretation of Shankara was later on modified by Ramanuja through his Vishishtadvaita (qualified non-dualism) interpretation of Vedanta. Ramanuja was critical of Shankara’s impersonal nirguna Brahman concept¹².
S. Radhakrishnan states that, “Shankara and Ramanuja were both great exponents of Vedanta, examined the same texts, and based their ideas on the same assumptions, yet reached different conclusions”. While Shankara emphasized God’s existence as the absolute reality over against the relatively real status of human beings and the world, Ramanuja concluded that a personal relationship between God and human beings is possible. John perceives God as the Supreme or Ultimate Reality; but the evangelist neither portrays God as nirguna nor present human beings as totally dependent to God. John teaches that human personality can either accept or reject God; but a union is possible between God and human beings through the initiative of knowing God, doing his work, and devoting oneself in faith¹³.
Though John sustains certain commonalities with the non-dualistic and the qualified non-dualistic trends of Sankara and Ramanuja, the narrator expounds his thought-world within a dualistic framework¹⁴.

2. Dualism in John and in the Indian Context

The Fourth Gospel is well-known for its dualistic framework. In John, this trend begins with the pair of light and darkness being placed at the outset. Other dualistic pairs in John include:
· above and below (8:23),
· spirit and flesh (3:6),
· life (eternal) and death (3:36),
· belief and disbelief (3:18),
· truth and falsehood (8:44–47),
· heaven and earth (3:31),
· God and Satan (13:27),
· and Israel and “the Jews” (1:19 and 47)¹⁵.
As in Judaism, John develops a modified dualism that affirms God’s sovereign rule as an overcomer of evil. Scholars, including Richard Bauckham, observe similarities between Johannine dualism and that of the OT (Gen 1:3–5; Isa 9:2; 42:6–7; 60:1–3), Qumran, and Gnostic writings. John’s trend of dualism has many parallels in the Indian context¹⁶.
Among the Indian religions, Zoroastrianism reflects a complete separation of good and evil at the cosmic and the moral levels. Cosmic dualism refers to the ongoing battle between Good (Ahura Mazda) and Evil (Andra Mainyu) within the universe. Moral dualism refers to the opposition of good and evil in the mind of humankind. In Zoroastrianism, good and evil are considered equal and opposite realities. In that sense, the propositions of three Indian religious/philosophical schools are noteworthy: Zoroastrianism follows an unqualified dualism; Sankara’s Advaita philosophy advocates an unqualified non-dualism; Ramanuja proposes a qualified non-dualism. John maintains a dualistic framework as in Zoroastrianism; but he distances himself from Zoroastrianism through his creativity of setting a qualified dualism¹⁷.
John interprets God as the absolute reality and suggests a union between God and the human beings, as it is in Advaita; but he considers neither a non-dualistic existence of God nor that God is nirguna or without attributes. John proposes a personal relationship between God and human beings and suggests a Bhakti Marga, as in Ramanuja; but John goes beyond the qualified non-dualism of Vishishtadvaita. In his propositions, John is closer in many ways to the principles of Madhava, a 12th century CE interpreter of Vedanta, who suggested a Dvaita philosophy. Madhava considered the supremacy of Brahman and the separate existence of human beings/the world. His dualism was not true dualism in the sense of two equal powers. Here we see a connection between the qualified dualism of John (1:5) with the qualified dual existence suggested by Madhava. This comparison of various religious and philosophical traditions helps us to understand John’s accommodation of ideas and his distinctive spiritual orientation and emphasis in relation to the Indian thought-world¹⁸.

Indian scholars and Johannine Philosophy and belief

A.J. Appaswamy was the only Indian theologian who identifies himself with the bhakthi tradition and uses its insights for exposition of the fourth gospel. Appasamy attempted to interpret the Christian gospel from the perspective of the bhakthi tradition of Hinduism, particularly within the framework of Ramanuja’s philosophy. And the goal of the bhakthi tradition is the clear realization of the presence of God. Appasamy states that, there is moral oneness, an intimate fellowship between God and Human being. He finds similarity between the union of Jesus with God and the union of believers with Christ. The quality if life which the Bible, particularly John’s Gospel, calls eternal life, appasamy calls it as Moksha. Moksha is a real harmony with God. Therefore, for him Christian life is a life of Moksha realized here and now could be describes as a life of Bhakthi¹⁹.
Panikhar thinks that a simple co-existence will never satisfy the essential claim if Christianity and Hinduism. Likewise, it will not agree with mere Co-existence. This is because the authentic religious urges of today can no longer overlooking the thirst for an open dialogue for mutual understanding. In the present context, a proud isolation without care for others would be impious selfishness would cause the ruin of one’s own religion. Therefore, meeting of different religion is necessary. According to panikhar, a true Hindu and a true Christian will not meet as two professors or scholars at an intellectual level. Rather, the meeting of religion must be carried out in a religious spirit considering ourselves as instruments of God, being moved only by His grace that calls men to Him. Thus, the true encounter between Hinduism and Christianity meets in Christ²⁰.

Conclusion

The Gospel of John has a global significance. It speaks equally to pluralistic Indian context, even though there are challenges in applying the philosophy and belief of Johannine theology in Indian Context, some of them are, having same philosophy and belief in both traditions, its messages of peace, love, faith-centered life, holistic salvation, and the mission of God have the potential to liberate and transform the societies across the Indian context. One of the ways is through a missional hermeneutic which crosses the traditional boundaries of interpretation and builds dialogical bridges between the world of John and that of our own time may be very effective. Such boundary-crossing and bridge-building will enable the Indian readers of John to direct their communities to a “third space” for dialogue. This should be paradigmatic for the Indians as a whole.

Bibliography

Carter, Warren. The Roman Empire and New Testament: An Essential Guide. Nashville: Abingdon press, 2006.
Thomaskutty, Johnson. “Jesus and Spirituality: Reading the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Indian Culture”, Religions 12: 780, pdf.
[http://vedicheritage.gov.in/upanishads/chandogyopanishad/](http://vedicheritage.gov.in/upanishads/chandogyopanishad/) accessed on 14-08-2022.

Footnotes

1. Johnson Thomaskutty, “Jesus and Spirituality: Reading the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Indian Culture”, Religions 12: 780, pdf.
2. Chandogya Upanishad belongs to Tandya School under Kauthuma Samhita of the Samaveda. Out of the ten chapters of the Chandogya Brahmana, chapters third to tenth are considered as the Chandogya Upanishad.” [http://vedicheritage.gov.in/upanishads/chandogyopanishad/](http://vedicheritage.gov.in/upanishads/chandogyopanishad/)
3. Warren Carter, The Roman Empire and New Testament: An Essential Guide (Nashville: Abingdon press, 2006), 64.
4. Warren Carter, The Roman Empire and New Testament: An Essential Guide (Nashville: Abingdon press, 2006), 65.
5. Warren Carter, The Roman Empire and New Testament: An Essential Guide (Nashville: Abingdon press, 2006), 65.
6. Warren Carter, The Roman Empire and New Testament: An Essential Guide (Nashville: Abingdon press, 2006), 65.
7. Warren Carter, The Roman Empire and New Testament: An Essential Guide (Nashville: Abingdon press, 2006), 65.
8. Warren Carter, The Roman Empire and New Testament: An Essential Guide (Nashville: Abingdon press, 2006), 65.
9. Warren Carter, The Roman Empire and New Testament: An Essential Guide (Nashville: Abingdon press, 2006), 65.
10. Johnson Thomaskutty, “Jesus and Spirituality: Reading the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Indian Culture”, Religions 12: 780, pdf.
11. Johnson Thomaskutty, “Jesus and Spirituality: Reading the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Indian Culture”, Religions 12: 780, pdf.
12. Johnson Thomaskutty, “Jesus and Spirituality: Reading the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Indian Culture”, Religions 12: 780, pdf.
13. Johnson Thomaskutty, “Jesus and Spirituality: Reading the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Indian Culture”, Religions 12: 780, pdf.
14. Johnson Thomaskutty, “Jesus and Spirituality: Reading the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Indian Culture”, Religions 12: 780, pdf.
15. Johnson Thomaskutty, “Jesus and Spirituality: Reading the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Indian Culture”, Religions 12: 780, pdf.
16. Johnson Thomaskutty, “Jesus and Spirituality: Reading the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Indian Culture”, Religions 12: 780, pdf.
17. Johnson Thomaskutty, “Jesus and Spirituality: Reading the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Indian Culture”, Religions 12: 780, pdf.
18. Johnson Thomaskutty, “Jesus and Spirituality: Reading the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Indian Culture”, Religions 12: 780, pdf.
19. Johnson Thomaskutty, “Jesus and Spirituality: Reading the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Indian Culture”, Religions 12: 780, pdf.
20. Johnson Thomaskutty, “Jesus and Spirituality: Reading the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Indian Culture”, Religions 12: 780, pdf.

Friendly Note

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! We are deeply thankful for your visit to BD Materials. It is our mission and joy to serve Bible students, pastors, and believers with high-quality theological resources that strengthen faith and understanding of God’s Word.

At BD Materials, you’ll find study notes, articles, question papers, and valuable academic content designed to support your biblical and theological education. We are dedicated to helping you grow in knowledge, ministry, and devotion to Christ.

We also invite you to explore our partner sites: Telugu Gospel Lyrics, featuring inspiring gospel song lyrics in Telugu, and Theological Library, a hub for Christian book summaries and devotionals.

Your encouragement means a lot to us! We invite you to share your study materials, articles, or insights with our community. Thank you for being part of this mission—may God bless your studies and ministry abundantly!