{"id":6457,"date":"2019-02-04T04:00:40","date_gmt":"2019-02-04T04:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/artiosmagazine.org\/?p=6457"},"modified":"2023-08-29T11:23:53","modified_gmt":"2023-08-29T17:23:53","slug":"christology-john","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/baonline.cog7engage.net\/christology-john\/","title":{"rendered":"John: High Christology of the Gospels – Part 4"},"content":{"rendered":"

Background and Scope<\/h4>\n

The purpose of this series is to explore a supposed rift in how Jesus is depicted in the Gospels. As many scholars have noted, John’s Gospel proclaims a majestically high Christology. Indeed some have seen in John a Christology that finds no parallel in the other Gospels.[ref]See e.g. Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, New Updated Edition, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 29-32.[\/ref] To put it simply, \u201cIf Jesus was as He is depicted in Matthew and Mark and Luke, He cannot have been as He is depicted in John. The two are incompatible.\u201d[ref]Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament, Gen. Ed. F.F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdman\u2019s, 1971), 45.\u00a0Morris states the maxim though he disagrees with it.[\/ref]<\/p>\n

Previously we examined the opening scenes in the Gospels of Matthew<\/a>, Mark<\/a>, and Luke<\/a>\u00a0and found that each presents not only an exalted Christology but an incarnational<\/em> one. The Synoptics clearly present Jesus as the Christ, the Son of David, the Son of God, and the fulfillment of God’s Old Testament promises.\u00a0Jesus is God\u2019s salvation incarnate, He is God\u2019s glory incarnate, He is God\u2019s holiness incarnate.<\/p>\n

To conclude this series we will now explore the opening scenes of the final Gospel. John’s exalted Christology is made all the more rich and meaningful when seen as a unifying theme between the Gospels rather than a point of discontinuity.<\/p>\n

John<\/h2>\n

John opens his gospel with one of the most stunning statements in Scripture; \u201cthe Word was God\u201d (John 1:1). More incredible is that this Word became flesh in the person of Jesus (John 1:14ff).\u00a0In a sense, all that John says after this revelation is just commentary.[ref]As Morris (76) points out, \u201cNothing higher could be said.\u201d[\/ref]\u00a0Thus, John\u2019s depiction of Jesus as creator, life, light, glory, grace, truth, Messiah, Son\/Chosen of God, Holy Spirit baptizer, and Lamb of God is essentially falling action relative to the revelation that Jesus is God made flesh.<\/p>\n

In the Beginning was the Word<\/h3>\n

John 1:1-18 introduces and summarizes the theological content of the gospel.[ref]Gary M. Burge, John<\/em>, The NIV Application Commentary, Ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 52.\u00a0Morris (71) and Bruce (28) concur against Brown, who claims that the Prologue has a different history and theology than the remainder of the Gospel. F.F. Bruce, The Gospels & Epistles of John<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdman\u2019s Publishing, 1983), 28. Compare: Raymond S. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii)<\/em>, The Anchor Bible, Ed. William F. Albright and David N. Freedman (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1966), 6.[\/ref]\u00a0John\u2019s opening words \u201cIn the beginning\u201d[ref]Greek En arche<\/em>.[\/ref] are identical to Genesis, and reveal that the logos<\/em> existed before creation.[ref]Brown, John<\/em>, 4.\u00a0C.f. Burge, 54.[\/ref]\u00a0\u201cThe beginning\u201d also anticipates the themes of life, light and darkness, all of which were integral to the creation account and are developed in relation to the logos<\/em>.[ref]Bruce, 28-29.[\/ref]<\/p>\n

But what is this logos<\/em>? After the prologue John does not use logos<\/em> like this again in his gospel.[ref]Revelation 19:13 is the only other place in the New Testament where Jesus is called logos<\/em>.\u00a0C.f. Morris, 71-72.[\/ref]\u00a0Many agree with New Testament scholar Leon Morris that the source of logos<\/em>[ref]Hebrew, Greek, other?[\/ref] has not been conclusively identified, and therefore its precise meaning for John is in question.[ref]Morris, 74.\u00a0For an extensive survey of the various proposed backgrounds for logos<\/em> see Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Volume I<\/em> (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 339-362.[\/ref] Morris believes logos<\/em> was understood as a \u201csupremely great Being or Principle\u201d.[ref]Or perhaps the \u201cexpression or thought\u201d of God.\u00a0Morris, 75.[\/ref]\u00a0Craig S. Keener sees logos<\/em> as the incarnation of Torah.[ref]Keener, John<\/em>, 360-362.[\/ref]\u00a0For Raymond Brown it is \u201cdivine communication\u201d, harking back again to Genesis where God\u2019s voice is His action, indeed in a sense His very person.[ref]Brown, John<\/em>, 24.[\/ref]\u00a0Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce\u2019s explanation is the most appealing. For him logos<\/em> should be understood in relation to the Old Testament \u201cword of God\u201d which denotes, \u201cGod in action, especially in creation, revelation, and deliverance.\u201d[ref]Bruce, 29.[\/ref]<\/p>\n

Word was with God\u2026Word was God<\/h3>\n

These two phrases present a number of problems for both translators and theologians. The Greek construction of \u201cThe Word was with God\u201d[ref]Greek ho logos en pros ton theon<\/em>.\u00a0Brown (John<\/em>, 4-5) argues that we ought to translate, \u201cThe Word was in God\u2019s presence.\u201d Morris (76) prefers the more literal Greek rendering, \u201cThe Word was toward God.\u201d[\/ref] is difficult, and the notion of logos<\/em> simultaneously \u201cbeing with God\u201d and \u201cbeing God\u201d seems contradictory. Despite the questions it seems clear that John intends to communicate the personal nature of the logos<\/em>, the logos<\/em>\u2019 intimate relationship and connection with God,[ref]Bruce, 30.[\/ref] and the logos<\/em>\u2019 unequivocal identity as God.[ref]Burge, 55.[\/ref]\u00a0\u201cThe Word was God\u201d should not be softened to read \u201cthe Word was divine\u201d, indeed the Greek does not allow it.[ref]Morris, 76-77.\u00a0C.f. Brown, John<\/em>, 6.\u00a0Later Brown (John<\/em>, 24-25) argues that the anarthrous use of theos <\/em>in this phrase is possibly a softening of the term that would accommodate early Christian hesitancy to call Jesus \u201cGod.\u201d\u00a0His arguments along these lines are hardly convincing.[\/ref]\u00a0Rather, this phrase is an affirmation of the complete Johannine Christology that \u201cJesus is deity.\u201d[ref]Keener, John<\/em>, 281.[\/ref]\u00a0At the same time John\u2019s words are set against the backdrop of fierce monotheism. Thus, John is not introducing a second god; rather he is signaling that the One true God is revealed in the incarnate logos<\/em>.[ref]Morris, 78.\u00a0C.f. Koester, Craig R. The Word of Life: A Theology of John\u2019s Gospel<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdman\u2019s, 2008), 103-107.[\/ref]\u00a0This revelation sets the stage for the entire gospel. For if the logos<\/em> is not God, then John\u2019s portrait of Jesus is blasphemy.[ref]Bruce, 31 following C.K. Barrett.[\/ref]<\/p>\n

All things came into Being through Him<\/h3>\n

The God of the Hebrews was the Creator God of Genesis. John has identified the logos<\/em> as God, now he makes explicit that through the logos<\/em> all things were created.[ref]Or literally, \u201ccame into being.\u201d\u00a0This refers not only to what was made at creation, but all things that have come into being throughout history (Morris, 82-82).[\/ref]\u00a0By stating explicitly that everything that has come into being[ref]Greek egeneto<\/em>.[\/ref] did so through the logos<\/em>, it is made obvious that the logos<\/em> did not come into being.[ref]Burge, 56.[\/ref]\u00a0Thus the logos<\/em> is eternally existent.[ref]\u201cIt is fundamental to John that the Word is not to be included among created things,\u201d (Morris, 74).[\/ref]\u00a0\u201cThere can be no speculation about how the Word came to be, for the Word simply was.\u201d[ref]Brown, John<\/em>, 4.[\/ref]<\/p>\n

Life and light<\/h3>\n

We can leave aside the disagreement over the translation of John 1:4;[ref]For a discussion of the possibilities see Brown, John<\/em>, 6-7.[\/ref] whatever the case it is obvious that the evangelist intends to convey that the logos<\/em> is the harbinger of life and light.[ref]Bruce, 32-33.[\/ref] As Craig R. Koester writes, \u201cThe hallmark of God\u2019s Word is the ability to give life\u2026This was true at creation where God spoke and gave life to the world.\u201d[ref]Koester, 98.\u00a0The notion of Jesus bringing life and light emerges as a consistent theme for the evangelist as Jesus reveals Himself as both life (John 11:25; 14:6) and light (John 9:5; 12:35-36).[\/ref]\u00a0For our discussion it is important to note that in connecting life and light John harks back to Old Testament descriptions of God[ref]E.g. Psalm 36:9.[\/ref] and anticipates the identification of Jesus as \u201clife-bringer\u201d and \u201clight-bearer.\u201d[ref]Morris, 84.\u00a0C.f. Brown, John<\/em>, 26-27.[\/ref]<\/p>\n

John and the Light<\/h3>\n

The introduction of John the Baptist allows him to \u201ctestify\u201d[ref]For John the evangelist the Baptist functions primarily as a witness to Jesus (Morris, 90).[\/ref] to the identity of the Light; this is the eschatological light of God that was prophesied to come into the world.[ref]Brown, John<\/em>, 28.[\/ref]\u00a0Already John \u201cthe Baptist\u201d is juxtaposed with Jesus \u201cthe Light.\u201d Jesus \u201cwas\u201d in the beginning, John \u201ccame.\u201d[ref]Greek egeneto<\/em>.\u00a0Thus John \u201ccame into being\u201d by Jesus\u2019 action.[\/ref]\u00a0John is \u201ca man sent from God\u201d, Jesus is the logos<\/em> that \u201cis God.\u201d[ref]Burge, 54, c.f. Brown, John<\/em>, 8.\u00a0However, while the evangelist contrasts the two in striking terms, and \u201cinsists more than any of the other Evangelists on the subordinate place of the Baptist,\u201d he also \u201cfully recognizes the greatness of the forerunner,\u201d (Morris, 88-89).[\/ref]<\/p>\n

The Right to Become Children of God<\/h3>\n

In the face of rejection from the dark world that the Light enters He lovingly offers the privilege of becoming God\u2019s children to those who receive Him. Thus the grace of God is expressed in giving the authority and right[ref]Greek exousia<\/em>.\u00a0Not to be understood as \u201cpower\/might\u201d, but \u201cauthority\/right\u201d.\u00a0C.f. Brown, John<\/em>, 11.[\/ref] of divine adoption.[ref]Morris, 91-92.[\/ref]<\/p>\n

The Word Became Flesh<\/h3>\n

\u201c’Flesh’ stands for the whole man\u2026the Word became man.\u201d[ref]Brown, John<\/em>, 13.\u00a0Thus, in the face of Docetist claims John is \u201cclear on the deity of the Word.\u00a0But he is just as clear on the genuineness of His humanity,\u201d Morris, 102.[\/ref]\u00a0This is the awesome mystery of the incarnation, that \u201cWhen \u2018the word became flesh\u2019, God became man.\u201d[ref]Bruce, 40.\u00a0So Morris (93) and Burge (59) who point out the tragic irony that in the incarnation God became man and man would have nothing to do with Him![\/ref] \u201cHe dwelt among us\u201d literally means, \u201cHe pitched His tent among us,\u201d[ref]Brown, John<\/em>, 13.[\/ref] a phrase that recalled images of the tabernacle of God in the Hebrews\u2019 wilderness wanderings. This tabernacle was home to God\u2019s glory.[ref]Morris, 102-103, c.f. Koester, 99.[\/ref]\u00a0Thus, when John says \u201cwe saw His glory,\u201d we are to understand that to see Jesus is to see the Shekinah<\/em> glory of God.[ref]Morris, 104, c.f. Bruce, 40-41.[\/ref]<\/p>\n

Only Begotten<\/h3>\n

This glory is of the only begotten[ref]Greek monogenous<\/em>.[\/ref] of the Father. Morris urges that we not understand \u201conly begotten\u201d in a metaphysical sense, it means simply \u201cunique\u201d or \u201conly.\u201d[ref]Morris, 105.\u00a0C.f. Brown, John<\/em>, 13-14 who prefers simply \u201conly\u201d rather than \u201conly begotten.\u201d[\/ref]\u00a0Thus it makes us aware of the unique Sonship of Jesus to the Father; \u201cNo other is or can be the Son of God as He is.\u201d[ref]Morris, 105 who sees Jesus\u2019 unique Sonship as the great theme of John\u2019s Gospel.[\/ref] This \u201conly Son\u201d is \u201cfull of grace and truth\u201d a phrase that Brown[ref]Brown, John<\/em>, 14.[\/ref] and Bruce[ref]Bruce, 42. At the same time Burge (60) is right that \u201ctruth\u201d is a prominent theme for John, indeed Jesus is \u201cthe truth\u201d (John 14:6).\u00a0Thus, Brown and Bruce\u2019s reading, while appealing, is not conclusive.[\/ref] agree should be read as \u201cloving-kindness\u201d in light of the contrasts drawn between Jesus and Moses.[ref]Jesus conveys a full revelation of the Father who Moses was not even allowed to look at (Burge, 60).[\/ref]\u00a0For through Moses came the Law, but through Jesus Christ[ref]John 1:17 is the first mention of Jesus\u2019 name in the prologue, and it is attached to the title \u201cChrist.\u201d\u00a0The term bears the same connotations as discussed in our treatment of the Synoptics (Morris, 134) and Bruce (44-45) thinks John may use the name-title here in a way that was so widely used among Greek-speaking believers at the time that it was treated as a proper name.[\/ref] has come the life-giving expression of God\u2019s character.[ref]Morris, 111-112.[\/ref]\u00a0Jesus\u2014the only begotten God[ref]In favor of this reading see Morris (113), Burge (60-61), and Bruce (44-45).\u00a0For a discussion of the options see Brown, John<\/em>, 17.[\/ref]\u2014is able to uniquely reveal the Father because He exists in intimate relationship with Him, in His very bosom.[ref]Bruce, 45, c.f. Brown, John<\/em>, 17.[\/ref]<\/p>\n

The Testimony of John<\/h3>\n

The Baptist said of Jesus, \u201cHe who comes after me[ref]The phrase could refer to Jesus\u2019 ministry following John\u2019s or could mean that Jesus was a disciple of John who inevitably surpassed him because He was \u201cbefore John\u201d in an ultimate sense (Morris, 108).[\/ref] has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me,\u201d thus testifying to the pre-existence of Jesus.[ref]Brown, John<\/em>, 35-36.[\/ref]\u00a0Jesus\u2019 superiority over John is not relative then, but absolute.[ref]Burge, 60.[\/ref]\u00a0The Baptist\u2019s further testimony is fully consistent with that of the Synoptics.[ref]Morris, 137.\u00a0The attempts to pit John\u2019s portrait of the Baptist against the Synoptics seem absurd to me.\u00a0In all four gospels the Baptist is 1) juxtaposed with Jesus in extreme terms by the narrative, 2) the eschatological voice in the wilderness, 3) the forerunner of Jesus the Messiah, 4) a witness to Jesus\u2019 identity, 5) the one who predicts Jesus\u2019 ministry of Spirit baptism, 6) unworthy to untie Jesus\u2019 sandal strap.[\/ref]\u00a0He makes clear that he is not the Messiah,[ref]Burge, 71.\u00a0In all four gospels Jesus is identified as Messiah before John begins to preach.[\/ref] and declares that he is not fit to untie the thong of Jesus\u2019 sandal.[ref]Bruce (51) quotes Rabbi Joshua ben Levi from the Babylonian Talmud<\/em>, \u201cEvery service which a slave performs for his master a disciple will perform for his teacher, except to untie his sandal-strap.\u201d[\/ref]<\/p>\n

The Lamb of God<\/h3>\n

John\u2019s identification of Jesus as \u201cthe Lamb of God who takes away[ref]Morris (148) believes that this phrase constitutes John\u2019s view of the atonement as \u201cbearing off\u201d sins.[\/ref] the sin of the world\u201d is difficult to decipher. \u201cLamb of God\u201d, while familiar in Christian parlance, is hardly a common biblical term. Bruce is likely correct that Jesus fulfilled each of the proposed Old Testament lamb references, and in fact exceeded them, as He did with the messianic expectations.[ref]Bruce, 52.\u00a0For discussions of potential Old Testament backgrounds see Morris (144-148) and Brown (John<\/em>, 58-63).[\/ref] Whatever the case, the Baptist is recalling an incident where it was revealed to him that Jesus was in fact the Lamb of God and he connects this with Jesus\u2019 ability to remove sins.[ref]Morris, 143.[\/ref]\u00a0The recalled incident appears to be Jesus\u2019 baptism, although John\u2019s gospel does not record the event, it makes reference to the descent of the Spirit[ref]The descent\/remaining of the Spirit on Jesus is very important to John (c.f. Burge, 74-75, Bruce 54-55).[\/ref] and the identification of Jesus as the Son\/Chosen of God.[ref]Some scholars have claimed that John knew nothing of Jesus being baptized by the Baptist.\u00a0However, the Johannine and Synoptic accounts make sense when harmonized, not pitted against one another.[\/ref]<\/p>\n

Son of God<\/h3>\n

A textual variant with significantly less attestation has John proclaim Jesus as \u201cthe Chosen of God\u201d, rather than \u201cSon of God.\u201d[ref]In John 1:34. Nathanael will call Jesus \u201cSon of God\u201d in John 1:49.[\/ref]\u00a0For various reasons this seems like the preferred reading.[ref]Primarily because it is harder to imagine why a scribe would write the unfamiliar \u201cChosen of God\u201d than the familiar \u201cSon of God.\u201d For a discussion see Morris (153-154), Burge (74-75), and Brown, John<\/em>, 57.[\/ref]\u00a0However, as Bruce points out either reading likely refers back to the baptism scene and demonstrates the connection between the descent of the Spirit and the identification of Jesus by the heavenly voice with allusions to Psalm 2:7, Isaiah 42:1; 61:1.[ref]Bruce, 55.[\/ref]\u00a0Thus, despite differences with the Synoptic accounts, \u201cJohn clearly understands the impact of the Spirit\u2019s descent on Jesus much in the same manner of the other Gospels.\u201d[ref]Brown, John<\/em>, 66.[\/ref]<\/p>\n

Summary<\/h3>\n

John\u2019s opening scenes portray Jesus as God incarnate, the divine logos<\/em> who acted as the agent of creation and the bearer of life and light to the world. Interestingly, John\u2019s explicit statement of Jesus\u2019 deity is held alongside His designation as \u201cChrist\u201d, \u201cLamb of God\u201d, and \u201cChosen\/Son of God\u201d, demonstrating that these Christological titles are complimentary, not mutually exclusive, with the notion of Jesus as God Himself in the flesh. John\u2019s Christology then is exalted and explicitly incarnational. God became the man Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

High Christology of the Gospels<\/h2>\n

Morris notes, \u201cEach of the evangelists in his own way brings out the deity of Christ at the beginning of the Gospel. Matthew and Luke do it with the birth stories, Mark with his reference to Jesus as \u2018the Son of God\u2019 in his opening sentence. John [does this] in the Prologue.\u201d[ref]Morris, 153.[\/ref]\u00a0If Morris is right then it is plain that each gospel presents Jesus in the highest possible Christological terms from the outset. This is evident in the uniformity of the evangelists\u2019 confession regarding Jesus. For each one He is the Messiah, the Son of God. All four know Him as the infinitely great coming One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit; the LORD for whom John is preparing the way.<\/p>\n

They also each communicate Jesus\u2019 deity in unique, yet complimentary ways. For John He is the logos<\/em>, God who became man. For Matthew He is \u201cGod with us\u201d, worthy of worship even as an infant. For John He is the Light, for Luke the Sunrise. John knows Him uniquely as the \u201cLamb of God\u201d, Matthew knows Him as the one who will \u201csave His people from their sins.\u201d For Luke He is the \u201cSavior\u201d, for Mark, He is simply \u201cJesus\u201d, the one whose name means \u201cYahweh saves.\u201d John and Luke both speak of those who beheld His glory; Matthew and Mark proclaim His glory in so many words. Thus exalted Christology is a point of continuity between the four gospels. Indeed, it is central to the message of all four evangelists who together proclaim, \u201cJesus is both Lord and God!\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
PDF Original Version<\/a><\/h5>\n

As a believer who has been\u00a0recreated to lead<\/a>\u00a0through Christ, it is important to recognize that\u00a0you are also a theologian<\/a>. Theology gives you the tools to examine your own beliefs about God, and also helps you communicate Christian beliefs in a meaningful way that others can understand. You can become better equipped in your daily influence for Christ by taking advantage of the following resources:<\/em><\/p>\n