The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (76 page)

Taken as a whole, John's programmatic, methodical presentation of Jesus as the fulfillment of typology associated with Jewish religious festivals and sacred space makes the powerful point that Jesus has become the one and only proper object of worship subsequent to his resurrection and exaltation with God the Father. All previous sanctuaries, including the tabernacle and the temple, have now been replaced and rendered obsolete by Jesus; all previous religious festivals have been seen to point typologically to Jesus and have been fulfilled in him. To speak in the language of the writer of Hebrews, those who insist on
continuing to worship following the OT ritual are dealing in “shadows” and “copies” of the reality that has come in Jesus.

Realized Eschatology
John's teaching on the end time, while not in conflict with that of other NT documents (including the Synoptic Gospels), is distinctive in that it accentuates more keenly than some of the other NT writings the extent to which the end of time has already begun in and through Jesus. This does not mean that the future is entirely swallowed up in the present or that John denied the second coming of Jesus in the future, as some have claimed. Yet John did point out the way in which the future has invaded the present through Jesus.

For John, eternal life is not merely a matter of the future life after death; it begins and is experienced already in the here and now (a teaching called “realized eschatology,” indicating that aspects of the
eschaton
or “end time” are becoming a reality already in the present). Thus when someone believes in Jesus as the Messiah, that person at that moment possesses eternal life (3:16) while simultaneously possessing future life (6:40). Already, he “has eternal life and…has passed from death to life” (5:24).

Nevertheless, this “Johannine dualism” (as it is often called) is not the same as the gnostic dualism of matter and spirit but is more akin to the Jewish distinction between “this age” and “the age to come,” which flows from the Jewish understanding of redemptive history. John's theology of the end time roots the future in the present or has the present anticipate the future, but John also stressed the necessity for believers to persevere in their commitment to Christ (see 8:31; 15:4–8).

Relationship with the Synoptic Gospels and the Other Johannine Writings

The relationship between John's Gospel and the Synoptics is a vast and complex topic that cannot be treated exhaustively here. The relationship has been described in terms of mutual independence or varying degrees of literary dependence.
⁹³
Despite efforts to demonstrate literary dependence, it seems hard to establish on purely literary grounds that John knew or used one or several of the Synoptic Gospels. Historically, however, it seems difficult to believe that the Fourth Evangelist had not at least heard of the existence of the Synoptics and read some portions of them. But whether the author of the Fourth Gospel knew these other Gospels, he clearly did not make extensive use of them in composing his own narrative. Apart from the feeding of the 5,000, the anointing, and the Passion Narrative, John did not share any larger blocks of material with the Synoptic Gospels.
⁹⁴

Unlike the Synoptics, John's Gospel has no birth narrative, no Sermon on the Mount or Lord's Prayer, no transfiguration, no Lord's Supper, no narrative parables, no demon exorcisms, and no eschatological discourse. Clearly John has written his own book. But this does not make his a sectarian work apart from the mainstream of apostolic Christianity.
⁹⁵
Rather, John frequently transposed elements of the Gospel tradition into a different key.
⁹⁶
The Synoptics' teaching on the kingdom of God corresponds to the Johannine theme of “eternal life”; narrative parables are replaced by extended discourses on the symbolism of Jesus' signs. Moreover, all four Gospels present Jesus as the Son of Man and as the Messiah fulfilling OT predictions and typology. Thus the differences between the Synoptics and John ought not to be exaggerated.
⁹⁷

With regard to the relationship between John's Gospel and the Letters of John and the book of Revelation, in all probability John the apostle was not only the author of the Gospel but of the Letters and Revelation as well.
⁹⁸
This is indicated, among other things, by the numerous verbal and conceptual parallels between these writings.
⁹⁹
The differences, such as the lack of OT references in the Letters and the symbolic nature of Revelation, are likely attributed to the different purposes and genres of these writings. Most likely, John's Gospel was written first, and the Letters dealt with issues and challenges that arose subsequently. The designation “elder” in the Johannine Letters (2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1) may refer both to John's old age and his stature among the congregations he addressed.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE CANON

• Jesus as the preexistent Word made flesh (1:1,14)
  
• Jesus as the One and Only Son of the Father (1:14,18 ; 3:16,18)
  
• Jesus as the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world (1:29, 36)
  
• Jesus as the glorified, exalted Lord who directs the mission of his followers through the “Other Counselor,” the Holy Spirit (14:12–18)
  
• Jesus as the Messiah who performed a series of startling signs (20:30–31)
  

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. Who is “the disciple Jesus loved”?
   
2. What three conclusive reasons do the authors provide for believing that John wrote the Gospel bearing his name?
   
3. What are the two major divisions that comprise the structure of John's Gospel?
   
4. How do these two major divisions fulfill the purpose statement of 20:30–31?
   
5. What is at least one major theological theme in John's Gospel that points to a late date of composition?
   
6. Who was probably John's general audience?
   
7. How does John 1:1–18 serve as a road map for the entire Gospel?
   
8. What is the major purpose of the signs included in the first half of John's Gospel?
   
9. What were the two major catalysts for the production of John's Gospel?
   
10. What is the major purpose of the “I am” statements?
    
11. Why do some reject the originality of John 21? How do the authors defend it?
    
12. What are the implications of Jesus' being the sent Son of God?
    

FOR FURTHER STUDY

Ashton, J., ed.
The Interpretation of John
. Studies in New Testament Interpretation. 2d ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997.

Barrett, C. K.
The Gospel According to St. John
. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.

Bauckham, R., ed.
The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Bauckham, R.
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Beasley-Murray, G. R.
John.
Word Biblical Commentary 36. 2d ed. Waco: Word, 1998 [1987].

Blomberg, C. L.
The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002.

Brown, R. E.
The Gospel According to John.
Anchor Bible Commentary 29A–B. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1966, 1970.

Carson, D. A.
The Gospel According to John.
Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Coloe, M.
God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel.
Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2001.

Culpepper, R. A.
The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

Culpepper, R. A., and C. C. Black, eds.
Exploring the Gospel of John. Fs. D. Moody Smith
. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996.

Duke, P. D.
Irony in the Fourth Gospel.
Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.

Harris, M. J.
Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of
Theos
in Reference to Jesus.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.

Hengel, M.
Die johanneische Frage
. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 67. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1993.

__________ .
The Johannine Question
. London/Philadelphia: SCM/Trinity Press International, 1989.

Hill, C. E.
The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Keener, C. S.
The Gospel of John: A Commentary.
2 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003.

Köstenberger, A. J.
Encountering John: The Gospel in Its Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective.
Encountering Biblical Studies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.

__________.
John.
Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.

__________. “John.” Pages 1–216 in
Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary
, vol. 2. Edited by C. E. Arnold. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

__________.
The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth Gospel.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

__________.
Studies in John and Gender: A Decade of Scholarship.
Studies in Biblical Literature 38. New York: Peter Lang, 2001.

__________.
A Theology of John's Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God
. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

Köstenberger, A. J., and S. R. Swain.
Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John's Gospel
. New Studies in Biblical Theology 24. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008.

Lee, D. A.
Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 95. Sheffield: JSOT, 1994.

Lierman, J., ed.
Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John
. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

Lincoln, A. T.
Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel.
Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000.

Moloney, F. J.
The Gospel of John.
Sacra Pagina 4. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998.

Morris, L.
The Gospel According to John.
New International Commentary on the New Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

__________.
Jesus Is the Christ.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

__________.
Studies in the Fourth Gospel
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

Motyer, S.
“Your Father the Devil”? A New Approach to John and “the Jews.”
Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1997.

Pollard, T. E.
Johannine Christology and the Early Church
. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 13. Cambridge: University Press, 1970.

Pryor, J. W.
John: Evangelist of the Covenant People: The Narrative and Themes of the Fourth Gospel.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

Quast, K.
Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 32. Sheffield: JSOT, 1989.

Ridderbos, H. N.
The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Schlatter, A.
Der Evangelist Johannes.
2d ed. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948.

Schnackenburg, R.
The Gospel According to St. John.
3 vols. New York: Crossroad, 1990.

Smalley, S. S.
John: Evangelist and Interpreter
. Exeter: Paternoster, 1978.

Stibbe, M. W. G. “The Elusive Christ: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel.”
Journal for the Study of the New Testament
44 (1991): 19–38.

__________.
John as Storyteller. Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel.
Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 73. Cambridge: University Press, 1992.

Thatcher, T., ed.
What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies
. Waco: Baylor Univ. Press, 2007.

Thompson, M. M. “John, Gospel of.” Pages 368–83 in
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
. Edited by J. B. Green, S. McKnight, and I. H. Marshall. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

Tovey, D.
Narrative Art and Act in the Fourth Gospel
. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 151. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Walker, P. W. L.
Jesus and the Holy City.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

¹
A. J. Köstenberger, “John,” in
New Dictionary of Biblical Theology
, ed. T. D. Alexander and B. S. Rosner (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 280–85. Taking their point of reference from the four beasts in Ezek 1:10 and Rev 4:6–15, the Fathers described John as an eagle. See Augustine,
De consensu evangelistorum 6
, cited in A. Volfing,
John the Evangelist in Medieval German Writing: Imitating the Inimitable
(Oxford: University Press, 2001), 45, n. 67: “John flies like an eagle above the clouds of human weakness and gazes most keenly and steadily with the eye of his heart at the light of unchangeable truth.”

²
See J. N. Sanders,
The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church
(Cambridge: University Press, 1943); T. E. Pollard,
Johannine Christology and the Early Church
, SNTSMS 13 (Cambridge: University Press, 1970); F.-M. Braun,
Jean le théologien
, vol. 1:
Jean le théologien et son évangile dans l'église ancienne
(Paris: Gabalda, 1959); A. Grillmeier,
Christ in Christian Tradition
, vol. 1:
From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451)
, trans. J. Bowden, 2d rev. ed. (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), especially 26–32.

³
On the Latin background, see Volfing,
John the Evangelist
, 11–59; cf. the works referenced in J. N. Sanders,
Fourth Gospel
; Pollard,
Johannine Christology
; Braun,
Jean le théologien
; and Grillmeier,
Christ in Christian Tradition
.

⁴
The Fourth Gospel's integrity is not compromised by the inimitable Johannine style enveloping narrative as well as discourse portions. For positive assessments of the historical reliability of John's Gospel, see A. J. Köstenberger, “John,” in
Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary
, vol. 2, ed. C. A. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 1–216; C. L. Blomberg, “To What Extent Is John Historically Reliable?” in
Perspectives on John: Method and Interpretation in the Fourth Gospel
, ed. R. B. Sloan and M. C. Parsons, NABPR Special Studies Series (Lewiston: Mellen, 1993), 27–56; id., “The Historical Reliability of John: Rushing in Where Angels Fear to Tread?” in
Jesus and Johannine Tradition
, ed. R. T. Fortna and T. Thatcher (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 71–82; and id.,
The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel
(Leicester: InterVarsity, 2002); contra M. Casey,
Is John's Gospel True?
(London/New York: Routledge, 1996). Note also C. E. Hill's groundbreaking work,
The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church
(Oxford: University Press, 2004). Nevertheless, there continues to be skepticism on the part of many; see the survey by R. Kysar,
Voyages with John
(Waco: Baylor Univ. Press, 2005), chap. 15: “The Expulsion from the Synagogue: The Tale of a Theory”; the largely positive assessment by M. M. Thompson, “The ‘Spiritual Gospel’: How John the Theologian Writes History,” in
John, Jesus, and History
, vol. 1:
Critical Appraisals of Critical Views
, ed. P. N. Anderson, F. Just, and T. Thatcher (Atlanta: SBL, 2007), 103–7; and the negative evaluation by H. W. Attridge, “Responses to ‘The Dehistoricizing of the Gospel of John’ by Robert Kysar” (presented at the annual SBL meeting, Toronto, November 23–26, 2002).