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
Top Related