THEOLOGY OF ST. JOHN IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL

A Term Paper

in

BIBLICAL THEOLOGYRST 5212

Submitted to:

Dr. Nancy TanProfessor of Biblical Theology

Divinity School of Chung Chi College

CUHK

Submitted by:

Pau Lian Mangs0706944

7 December 2007

Theology of John in the Fourth Gospel

Introduction

The Fourth Gospel has been widely read by devoted

Christians for their spiritual life, and studied carefully

by Christian scholars for theological insights. The Early

Church Fathers gave it the name “Spiritual Gospel” in view

of the way it presented Jesus Christ in a deeper spiritual

truth in compare with the Synoptic Gospels. In the writings

of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Fourth Gospel is the most cited

among the Gospels.1 Traditionally, the Fourth Gospel has

been considered to be written (or at least, dictated) by St.

John, an original disciple of Jesus Christ; hence, the

Gospel according to St. John.

1 Matthew L. Lamb, “Eternity & Time in Aquinas’s Lectures on St. John’s Gospel” in Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas: Theological Exegesis and Speculation Theology. ed. Michael Dauphinais and Matthew Levering (Washington D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005), p. 127

1

There have also been Christian scholars who argued that

the Fourth Gospel was not the work of an individual, but of

a Christian school or a community separated from the society

because of the harsh treatment which they suffered as a

result of their faith in Jesus Christ. As for the date,

Christian tradition and most scholars have shared the same

view, i. e., the late part of the first century while there

have been other proposals for different dates.

In this paper, the authorship or the date of the Gospel

will not be put under discussion at length. Rather, as is

the topic, the theological concepts expressed in the Gospel

will be put on the fore. Even in doing this, this paper will

not be able to deal with all the theological concepts.

Scholars agree that the main theological concern of the book

is Christology,2 and all other concepts such as soteriology,

eschatology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, etc. are built and

related each other on Christology. Therefore, Christology

will be the main subject of this paper, and soteriology and

eschatology will also be discussed briefly as inseparable

themes of Christology.

Christology in the Fourth Gospel

St. John, or whoever wrote the Fourth Gospel,

deliberately arranged the contents of the book, not to be a

mere record of events, but to be a book presenting the man

Jesus as the Christ. To express the nature and the work of

2 George R. Beasley-Murray, “John” in Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 36, p. lxxxi

2

Christ, the writer appropriated many different titles in the

book such as the Word (1:1), the Lamb of God (1:29, 36), the

Son of God (with various nuances, 1:34; cf. 1:49), the

Messiah (1:41; 4:29 etc.), King of Israel (1:49; cf. 6:15),

the Son of Man (1:51), the Son (3:17, 36), Paraclete

(14:16), the “I am” sayings, etc.

If some of the titles are studied, then the picture of

Christ that the Fourth Gospel writer wanted to present will

be clear enough. For this, a selective study on three of

these titles, viz., the Word, the Son of God, and the Son of

Man, will be made in this paper.

(1) The Word

The Gospel begins with a Prologue (1:1-18), and in it

the term “Word” is vividly expressed as the key word.3 In

fact, the whole contents of the Gospel are grounded in the

Word. The Word in the Prologue, therefore, is not only the

introduction but the main key to understand the theological

concepts in the Gospel.

Here, the Word is said to be with God since the

beginning, and at the same time, to be God (v.1). This

implies the paradoxical relationship between God and the

Word – the identification with God and distinctive

individuality. Moreover, the Word already existed before the

Creation, and even the work of Creation was accomplished

3 Wilbert F. Howard, “The Gospel according to St. John” in The Interpreter’s Bible. vol. 8, Luke-John, printed in 1991.

3

through the Word (vv.2-3). This conveys the truth that life

is in the Word, and that life is the light of humanity

(v.4).

He (the Word)4 gave humans the power to become the

children of God, on the basis of their acceptance and belief

in His name (v.12). And the Word became flesh (v.14) in the

man called Jesus, and the writer of the Gospel bore witness

that they saw his glory as of the Son from the Father. Jesus

the Incarnate Word brought grace and truth, and He alone was

the only human to whom God made Himself known (v.18).

The Word is in Greek logos, and Robert Kysar describes

the Prologue as Logos Christology.5 In fact, this idea of logos

is not strange to many of ancient people in terms of

philosophical and religious understandings. The Stoics had a

concept of logos in connection with a cosmic reason. For

them, logos was the dominant principle in the universe, and

it was the center from which the whole universe operated and

functioned. Every human being possessed a small portion of

the logos, and therefore, every human being had a relation

to the center of the universe.

The Hebrew people also had the concept of logos in

their religious tradition. Logos for them was the Word of

God – dabar Yahweh. God created the whole universe with His

Word (Gen. 1), and spoke to the Hebrews through the prophets4 Here, masculine pronoun is used for “The Word” in this context

as it is appropriated to present the man Jesus as Christ.5 Robert Kysar, John, the Maverick Gospel. rev. ed. (Louisville, KY:

Westminster/John Knox, 1993), p. 29

4

by giving His Word. Later, logos gradually became the

personification of the wisdom which the Hebrew people put

much interest beginning from the late period of the Hebrew

Bible down through the first century CE. Wisdom was

identified with the Word of God.

From the information mentioned above, one can

understand that logos was a concept which carried a rich and

varied meaning in terms of religio-philosophical thoughts.

The writer of the Fourth Gospel must, therefore, have a

particular intention in appropriating this idea of

logos. The writer of this paper agrees with Kysar who says

that the Gospel writer’s intention was to present the man

Jesus as the Christ who fulfilled all kinds of the many

traditional views of the universe.6 He was the Logos in the

Stoicism, the Word in the Hebrew Bible, and the Wisdom in

the Hebrew tradition. He was everything, he was the cosmic

Christ.

However, it is a hard work, or even impossible, for us

to figure out how this preexistent and creative Logos was

related to God. The Prologue goes as this: “In the beginning

was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was

God” (1:1). In the first part of the verse, the Word was

pre-existent; in the second, He was with God; and in the

third, He was God. The preposition “with” (pros) before

“God” in the second is missing in the third.

6 ibid., p. 30

5

Kysar interprets the Word (Logos) in this verse as a

distinctive being, yet identical with God. In saying this,

he wants to mean that the relationship between God and the

Word (or Logos, or Christ) is both individuality and identification

(italics: Kysar).7 He, however, admits that the writer of the

Fourth Gospel does not explain how individuality (two-ness)

and identity (oneness) can stand at the same time. So he

suggests an explanation, using an analogy of human nature

which is with two dimensions – the outer dimension that

reveals oneself to others and the inner dimension that does

not, or seldom, express one’s being. The Logos-Christ is

God’s revealing outer dimension with outward-directed

activity.

As for this matter, it is interesting to see, and good

to know, how Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Christian thinker

in the Middle Ages, explicated this verse; his words are put

by Matthew L. Lamb as follows:8

You say that the Word was in the beginning, i. e.,before all things. But before all things there wasnothing. So if before all things there was nothing,where then was the word? This objection arises due tothe imaginings of those who think that whatever existsis somewhere and in some place. But this is rejected byJohn when he says, “with God”…not in some place, sincehe is not circumscribable (italics mine) but he is with theFather, who is not enclosed by any place…From whom isthe Word if He exists before all things? The Evangelistanswers: “the Word was with God”, i. e., although theWord has no beginning of duration, still he does not

7 ibid., p. 32 8 Lamb, Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 134

6

lack a principium or author, for He was with God as HisAuthor.

To give a clearer picture of Christ in the Fourth

Gospel, Kysar recounts the three kinds of Christological

concepts seen in the New Testament, labeling them as this:

adoptionistic, agency, and incarnational.

The Adoptionistic Christology sees Jesus as a human,

but believes him as the one who is adopted as the Christ.

This concept is mainly based on these passages: “...God has

made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ”

(Acts. 2:36); “…the God of our fathers, has glorified his

servant Jesus” (Acts. 3:13); “…regarding his Son, who as to

his human nature was a descendant of David, and who…was

declared to be the Son of God…” (Rom. 1:3-4). This adoption

is possible because of his obedience to God even to the

point of death.

The Agency Christology believes Jesus as the agent sent

by God to perform a revelatory and saving function. This

concept has its root in some passages, such as: “…he who

receives me receives the one who sent me” (Matt. 10:40); “…

by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a

sin offering…” (Rom. 8:3). Even in the Fourth Gospel, there

are some passages expressing this concept. An instance is a

passage that describes “For the one whom God has sent speaks

the words of God…” (3:34).

7

The Incarnational Christology holds that the divine

Christ has become a human. This concept is mainly grounded

in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel (1:1-18). It is the

basis for the expression of the dual nature of Jesus Christ

– divinity and humanity. A similar tone of expression can

also be found in Col. 1:15-20 and Phi. 2:6-11, though the

latter is not accepted in one accord among scholars for the

expression of the dual nature of Jesus Christ.

Among the three Christological concepts, Adoptionistic

Christology lacks divine initiative in the birth of Jesus,

and thus, there is no preexistent Christ. Agency Christology

does not express the nature of the sent agent – whether he

is an ordinary human with a special mission appointment or

an extra-human with supernatural power. Therefore, the

picture of Christ these two concepts present is not that

clear, not much satisfactory if it is to be a component of

sound Christian theology.

It is only the Incarnational Christology that clearly

articulates the dual nature of Jesus Christ. Moreover, the

literal meaning of the verb “made dwelling”(NIV) or “lived”

(NRSV) in 1:14 is “to put up camp for a while”.9 It

therefore not only claims “the Word became flesh” but

suggests that the Word is on his journey, camping out in

this world for a time as a part of his mission.

9 Kysar, The Maverick Gospel, p. 35

8

Only in this, the picture of Christ is clearly exposed;

in this, the main core of Christian gospel is understood.

The human person Jesus is the Christ, the cosmic Logos, and

this is the truth which cannot be proved scientifically and

not even necessary to do so. This is what St. John, or the

writer of the Fourth Gospel, wants the readers to know and

believe and enter Eternal Life (20:31).

(2) The Son of God

A striking feature of the presentation of the Son is

seen in the Fourth Gospel. The word “Son” is one among the

titles which are most frequently used for Jesus Christ --

with “the Son” seventeen times, “Son of Man” thirteen times,

“Son of God” eight times, “only Son” three times, and “only

Son of God” once.10 It therefore is clear that the son

titles play the key role in the Fourth Gospel writer’s

presentation of Jesus as Christ.

The Son of Man, rather than the Son of God, is

mentioned more frequently and it probably had a stronger

sense in the first century Christian context. But for the

second century Christians it became to denote the human

sonship, rather than the divine sonship, of Jesus Christ. On

account of this, the title “the Son of God” will be dealt

with first in this paper.

10 Robert Kysar, “The Gospel of John” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol3, H-J

9

Jesus is portrayed as the Son of God in different

occasions. John the Baptist claims that Jesus is the Son of

God (1:34). Nathaniel confesses to Jesus, saying “Rabbi, you

are the Son of God” (1:49). Jesus himself argues with the

Jews, saying that they should not accuse him of blasphemy

because of his claim as God’s Son (10:36). Martha expresses

her belief in Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God

(11:27). The Jews insists that Jesus must die because of his

claim to be the Son of God (19:7). Certain words and deeds

of Jesus are selectively recorded in the Fourth Gospel so

that the readers may believe him as the Christ, the Son of

God (20:31).

The Son of God in the above passages has the sense of

messianic designation, and the title in two other passages

has eschatological sense. One is concerned with judgment, “…

whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he

has not believed in God’s one and only Son” (3:18); and

another with resurrection, “…the dead will hear the voice of

the Son of God…will live” (5:25).

The sonship of Christ in the Fourth Gospel conveys the

sense of the intimate relationship between God and one who

is identical with God in being. The application of “the Son”

also features the Father-Son relationship, which, according

to Schnackenburg, is “the key to the understanding of Jesus

10

as portrayed by the writer of the Fourth Gospel, and His

words and actions as interpreted by him.”11

If Jesus is the Son of God, then God is his father. The

Father loves the Son (3:35), bestows on him the power of

judgment (5:22, 27), and grants him divine function to give

eternal life (3:36; 6:44). The Father and the Son are one

(10:30; 17:11, 12) and all authorities are given to the Son

(17:2), but the Son is dependent on and obedient to the

Father (5:30, 36; 8:25; 10:15, etc.). The Son is portrayed

as saying, doing, and imparting only what he has heard,

seen, and received from the Father (3:11; 5:19; 8:26; 20:

21).

Owing to these facts, the Father-Son relationship is

the key to the understanding not only of Jesus Christ but of

the Father, for the presentation of Christ in the Gospel is

in a sense the presentation of God the Father as well. Paul

W. Meyer points out this by quoting some of Jesus’

statements, such as “The Father and I are one” (10:30),

“Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (14:9b), etc.12

The relationship of the Father and the Son, mentioned

in the Fourth Gospel, conveys the sense of oneness of the

two. This can be looked alongside the Logos that has two

dimensions — of the cosmic Christ and of the human Jesus.11 Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John. 3 vols. (London:

Burns & Oates, 1980), 2:172; quoted by George R. Beasley-Murray in Word Biblical Commentary. vol. 36 “John”, p. lxxxii

12 Paul W. Meyer, “The Father: the Presentation of God in the Fourth Gospel” in Exploring the Gospel of John. Ed. R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black (Louisville, KY: Westminster / John Knox, 1996), p. 255

11

The Father and the Son are two individuals, two in terms of

individuality; but they are one in identity, one in being

and in action.

At this point, the study and the arguments made by

James Dunn must be given an important role in the discussion

on the title “the Son of God”.13 He traces the use of “the

Son of God” back to the ancient world and points out that

the phrase “son of God” and other phrases having the same

sense, such as “sons of God”, “sons of Zeus”, “son of

Helios”, “son of god”, were widely found in the Jewish and

Greek writings.

James Dunn finds that the title in the Greek tradition

did not necessarily mean a deity, a celestial being, but it

was used to mean great humans like heroes, rulers, and giant

philosophers. Moreover, Stoicism regarded Zeus, the Supreme

Being, as the father of all human beings, and this would

imply that all humans were sons, or children, of God.

Again, in the Jewish tradition, the title could be used

in several ways. Angels or heavenly beings were called the

sons of God. Referring to Israelites as a nation, God said

“Israel is My first-born son” (Ex.4:2; Jer.31:9; Hos.11:1),

this would also mean that Israelites were sons of God. A few

passages in the Old Testament tell that God called certain

13 James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WB Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), pp. 12-22

12

kings, especially David, “My Son” (2 Sam.7:14; Ps.2:7;

89:26ff).

On the basis of these historical study results, James

Dunn argues that there is a noticeable degree of similarity

between the Greek and the Jewish writings in the use of “the

Son of God” and neither side had a concept of a celestial

Son of the Supreme Being. Besides, in the first century AD,

‘son of God” and “god” were mostly used in reference to

particular individuals, and this would have been familiar

also to people of Jesus’ time.

The above argument can be considered somewhat negative

to the divine sonship of Jesus Christ. James Dunn, however,

continued to explicate that there is little or no good

evidence in all the ancient writings that they had the idea

of a god or son of god coming down from heaven to human

world, taking the form of human, in order to bring salvation

to humanity. This idea, or belief, is distinctively present

in the Christian biblical writings. Moreover, the word

“abba” (Father) used by Jesus in his prayers to address God

is a characteristic of Jesus’ approach to God and this also

is that distinguished Jesus from other great people of his

time.

Therefore, one may probably conclude that Jesus, in the

light of the ancient understanding of the Son of God, was

simply a human who could expose some greatness in his life

so as to be called the Son of God. But at the same time,

13

relying on the distinctive idea of the Son of God present in

the biblical writings, one can confidently claim that Jesus

truly has a special Father-Son relationship with God, or at

least, he is a human person whom God allows to function as

the divine Son of God in fulfilling the will of God.

(3) The Son of Man

Any careful reader of the Fourth Gospel will

immediately come to notice that the presentation of the Son

in the Gospel is closely connected to the Son of Man. The

term is thought of as having its origin in Dan.7:13-14 where

“One like the son of man” (NKJV)14 was given dominion, glory

and kingship over all peoples. Actually, the Son of Man is

not absent in the Synoptic Gospels, but the significance of

the Fourth Gospel is that it provides the link between the

synoptic sayings on the mission of the Son of Man and the

glorious function of the Son of Man mentioned in Daniel.

Jesus, in the meeting with the young man who was born

blind but now has received his eyesight by him, expresses

himself to be the Son of Man (9:35-38). To Nicodemus, he

talks about the Son of Man coming from heaven, which can be

inferred that he is the Son of Man. Similar statements can

also be seen in other passages. In fact, this claim – the

claim to be the Son of Man -- is the core of Christology in

14 Here, NRSV simply puts the word “a human being” and that ismore likely to be a correct translation, but this matter will not befocused in this paper; hence, the Son of Man.

14

the Fourth Gospel and it is much problematic among the Jews

as well. And this problem is not without reason.

In the light of the Jewish interpretation of the

apocalyptic description in Daniel,15 the “Son of Man” can be

understood as the Messiah (Christ) whose coming as the King

and Conqueror has been long expected by the Jews. Therefore,

when Jesus makes a claim to be the Son of Man and other

claims such as the Bread of Life coming down from heaven to

do the will of the Father who sent him, these claims provoke

serious disputes and debates among the Jews (e.g. 6:25-52).

The main reason why the Jews cannot accept Jesus as the

Son of Man (Messiah) is that Jesus does not meet the

requirements and the qualifications they have set in their

mind to be of the Messiah. They know where Jesus comes from,

they know his parents, and they do not believe that the

Messiah would come from an ordinary carpenter’s family in

Galilee.

It is worth to thank John for letting his readers know

about the unbelief of the Jews, not even omitting their

sharp arguments and attacks against Jesus. Instead of

avoiding the problematic matter, the writer takes decisive

steps in articulating the inherent truths concerning the Son

of Man. The Son of Man is divine origin, descending into the15 At this point, James D. G. Dunn in his book, Christology in the

Making (p. 72) argues that there is no firm evidence for pre-ChristianJewish interpretation or understanding of “one like the son of man” inDan. 7 as the pre-existent, the Messiah. The Danielic Son of Man, hesays, was developed only in the end of first century and the beginningof second century AD (p. 81).

15

human world, sent by God to offer his life that those who

believe may have Eternal Life, and he will go to the Father

to prepare a place for believers.

Among these, the truth about the Son of Man connected

to the verb “lifted up” is interesting and worth studying.

Jesus says to Nicodemus that the Son of Man must be lifted up

so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life

(3:14-15). On another occasion, he says to the Jews, “When

you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I

am the one I claim to be…” (8:28). Later, he speaks out a

strange, a rather paradoxical statement, saying “I, when I

am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself”

(12:32).

The Greek word of the verb “lifted up” can have two

different meanings – crucifixion, i. e., lifting the

criminal up onto the cross as an act of judgment, and

exaltation, i. e., honoring of a person.16 It is surprising

enough to know that both meanings can, and must, be applied

in the interpretation of Jesus’ words. He will be lifted up

(crucified) that eternal life may be available to whoever

believes (3:14-15), but in this crucifixion his true

identity as the Son of Man will become clear (8:28), and

when he is lifted up (exalted) by being taken into heaven,

all will believe him and worship him (12:32). This verb has

the sense of both soteriology and eschatology.

16 Kysar, The Maverick Gospel, p. 41

16

In the discussion on the use of the phrase “the Son of

God”, the arguments made by J. Loius Martyn are also

interesting and worth considering. Martyn labels John’s way

of presenting Jesus a “two-level drama”.17 What he means

here is that, in John’s two-level drama, Jesus ministers to

a group of Jews who are excommunicated from synagogues. He

performs the role of a Jewish-Christian preacher who is

subjected to arrest or trial as a false teacher. He himself

takes part in the debates on his own identity as the Mosaic

Messiah. But, at the same time, he is also the Risen Lord

who puts these debates to an end with his inspired “I am”

sayings.

If the first type of Jesus in the drama is taken into

account for Christology, says Martyn, that this would be a

rather “low” one. If Jesus can be compared with certain

individuals, then the Risen Lord will seem to be a figure

approachable, as if his dwelling place is not outside the

human world. However, the Christology of the Fourth Gospel

can be considered “high” as a whole, Martyn says, because

Jesus’ identity is not something that can be decided by

asking who he was. According to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is

there, he is present, and he makes his presence known by

making extreme high Christological claims, to mention one of

them is, “I am the bread of life, coming down from heaven”

(6:35, 38).

17 J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 3rd ed. (Louisville/London: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2003), p.124-125

17

Martyn continues to describe that there are many

problems about the Jesus in the two-level drama, there are

certain verses which, when put together with the two-level

drama, are highly paradoxical. Put 14:12 for instance, in

this verse Jesus promises the believers that they will

continue to do his works and this will take place because he

is going to the Father. In this place, Martyn points out the

inconsistency with regard to the present locale of the Son

of Man. It is not sure, he says, whether Jesus as the Son of

Man is now with the Father or with the believers on earth.

While pointing the problematic statements of Jesus as

the Son of Man, Martyn also provides helpful information to

solve the problems. To solve the above mentioned verse 14:12

for example, he continues to articulate the role of “the

Paraclete”, which is roughly understood as “Helper”.

Discussions on “the Paraclete”, however, will not be made in

this paper. The point is that any title found in the Fourth

Gospel, be it Logos or the Son of God or the Son of Man or

the Lamb of God, is meant for the presentation of Jesus as

Christ, in whom alone humans can have access to the proper

relation with God their Creator. This is the sole purpose of

the writer of the Fourth Gospel.

Soteriology in the Fourth Gospel

One main inseparable stream of theology in the Fourth

Gospel, which is closely connected to Christology, is

18

soteriology. Leander E. Keck seems much right in making

simple definition of Christology and soteriology as “who

Jesus is” and “what Jesus does” respectively.18 From

dogmatic point of view, it is Christology that makes

soteriology possible. Conversely, according to Leander, it

is soteriology that makes Christology necessary.

Passages which have soteriological sense are found

everywhere in the Fourth Gospel, e.g., John the Baptist’s

claim which comes after the Prologue, the phrasal verb

“lifted up”, the well-known passage of 3:16, the words like

“life” and “eternal life”, to mentioned a few. The

crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ are the

main soteriological themes. In fact, the presentation of

Jesus as Christ in the Fourth Gospel is to claim that the

free gift of salvation is made available through the

salvific work of Jesus Christ.

There were times when scholar got involved in the

debates on the issue of historical Jesus. Since the purpose

of the Fourth Gospel is to announce the availability of

eternal life, the problematic question of “historical Jesus”

seems to be fading away. Marianne Meye Thompson argues that

the Fourth Gospel account of Jesus’ life, which is put in

the cosmological framework, does not make that account

“unhistorical” as long as the readers are able to see the

18 Leander E. Keck, “Derivation as Destiny: ‘Of-ness’ in JohannineChristology, Anthropology, and Soteriology” in Exporing the Gospel of John, p.276

19

overall portrait of the account by distinguishing between

traditional and historical elements.19

Eschatology

The purpose of the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, and

the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is that whoever believes in

him may have life or eternal life (e.g., 3:14-16; 5:24;

10:10; 17: 3-4; 20:31). The words “life” and “eternal life”

are found in several passages of the Fourth Gospel, and the

two words are interchangeably used in these passages. Based

on the passages in which the two words are mentioned, one

can see that there are more than one aspect of eschatology

in the Fourth Gospel. Kysar divides the aspects in three

categories: futuristic expectation, present reality, and

heavenly perfection.20

The first aspect, i. e., the futuristic eschatology,

can be taken from the passages describing the future events,

such as the resurrection of the dead on the last day (6:39-

40, 54), the judgment to be occurred on that day (12:48),

the second coming of Christ (14), the tribulations to be

undergone by true believers (15; 16). The resurrection and

the judgment have an immediate connection to each other

(5:28), and the tribulations will be a sign for the last

day, the end of this age.

19 Marianne Meye Thompson, “The Historical Jesus and Johannine Christ” in Exploring the Gospel of John, p. 34

20 Robert Kysar, The Maverick Gospel, p. 100-102

20

The second aspect, i. e., the present eschatology, can

also be called realized eschatology. This means that all the

future expectations are already realized now in this present

time. This is possible as Christians have relationship with

Christ in this life. Eternal life is not something to enjoy

after death, but in this very life on earth, the life that

is quality-productive energized by the Holy Sprit through

the inner dwelling. Resurrection is not just of the dead, it

is the experience of those who are regenerated through faith

in Christ. The judgment also is not a future event, everyone

is already judged by her or his response to Christ (e.g.,

3:18).

The third, and the last, aspect of eschatology

entertains a futuristic view, but it has another hope that

is different from that of futuristic eschatology. Those who

hold this heavenly eschatology believe that there is a

heavenly home waiting for them, and there will be perfection

of relationships among Christians and between Christians and

God (17:23). There is no discussion on the resurrection and

the judgment. Christian will be taken to this heavenly place

by Christ (14:2-3).

It is theologically a hard thing to say with confidence

that one aspect is right and the others are wrong. Each

aspect has its ground in the passages of the Fourth Gospel.

Kysar, therefore, proposes a new aspect called “dialectical

21

eschatology” 21 and this seems much more to be in line with

what the Fourth Gospel writer wants to present.

He says that the Fourth Gospel does not make any

attempt to emphasize on a single aspect of eschatology;

rather, it insists that the true Christian eschatology is

not exclusively futuristic (not yet) or not exclusively

present (realized); it firmly holds both present and future.

Kysar, therefore, concludes that there are divine promises

which are already fulfilled in this present life, and the

same time, which are yet to be fulfilled in the future.

Conclusion

Christology in the Fourth Gospel, presented by the

Gospel writer as his main theological concern, provides a

wide range of information about the nature and the works of

Jesus Christ. Moreover, it helps Christians understand more

about God’s overall plan of salvation which is started and

accomplished in His Son Jesus Christ.

However, Christology in the Gospel is not without

problems as hinted in the paper. In fact, it contains

certain concepts which are paradoxical and problematic in

terms of continuity, consistency, and historicity. It must

be admitted that certain things are yet to be solved. Still,

21 Robert Kysar, The Maverick Gospel, p. 106.

22

amidst these problems the Fourth Gospel continues serving as

the spiritual resource for devoted Christians and as the

intellectual treasure for Christian scholars.

The Fourth Gospel will be a problem for Christians if

they follow the dictum claimed by Peter Abelard, which goes

“I try to understand so that I may believe”. The Christian

stance which I think true and crucial to me, however, is

what Anselm of Canterbury said, “I believe that I may

understand”. As the Logos, the Son of God, the Son of Man,

etc. Jesus Christ has worked, and is working, and will keep

working, with and in believers until the culmination of

God’s salvation plan.

*****

23

Bibliography

Beasley-Murray, George R. “John” in Word Biblical Commentary. vol. 36

Culpepper, R. Alan & Black, C. Clifton. ed. Exploring the Gospelof John. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1996.

Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry intothe Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids,Michigan: WB Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989

Howard, Wilbert F. “The Gospel according to St. John” inThe Interpreter’s Bible. vol. 8, Luke-John, printed in 1991.

Keck, Leander E. “Derivation as Destiny: ‘Of-ness’ inJohannine Christology, Anthropology, and Soteriology”in Exploring the Gospel of John, p.276

Kysar, Robert. John, the Maverick Gospel. rev. ed. Louisville, KY:Westminster/John Knox, 1993

Kysar, Robert. “The Gospel of John” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol 3, H-J

24

Lamb, Matthew L. “Eternity & Time in Aquinas’s Lectures onSt. John’s Gospel” in Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas:Theological Exegesis and Speculation Theology. ed. MichaelDauphinais and Matthew Levering. Washington D. C.: TheCatholic University of America Press, 2005.

Schnackenburg. The Gospel according to St. John. 3 vols. London:Burns & Oates, 1980, 2:172; quoted by George R.Beasley-Murray in Word Biblical Commentary. vol. 36, “John”

*****

25