JOHANNINE THEOLOGY. The teaching of the Apostle John as given by him in the NT books attributed to him—the fourth gospel, the epistles, and the Apocalypse.
Outline
It is generally supposed that Johannine theology has its own distinctive features sufficient to mark it out from other streams of theological thought current in the apostolic age. Because of the usual dating of the Johannine lit. at a time nearing the turn of the 1st cent., the Johannine theology is seen usually as the latest development in the NT. Yet a strong warning is necessary against the too ready assumption that this theology has no roots in the earliest Christian traditions. It is wrong to suppose that John is a development from Pauline theology, for instance, without giving full consideration to the possibility that both preserve an early stream of thought that developed collaterally and not dependently.
The following survey will consider the contribution of the Johannine lit. to the major aspects of Christian doctrine. In doing so, most attention will be paid to the gospel of John, although some relevant data may be drawn from the epistles of John. The Apocalypse, which may or may not have been written by the same author, will be included where applicable because it shares certain common theological features with the other lit.
I. Doctrine of God
Basic to any approach to early Christian theology is the doctrine of God, for all other aspects of doctrine are affected by it. It was a marked feature of all the various streams of Christian thought that they shared a strong view of God. This is particularly evident in the Johannine lit. In the gospel, both the recorded teaching of Jesus and the evangelist’s own comments bear testimony to this.
A. The Hebrew basis for the doctrine. It is almost an axiom of primitive Christian theology that the doctrine of God was basically taken from Judaism. The OT had presented a high ethical concept that was superior to the inadequate and often capricious deities of the Gentile world. Judaism, by the time of Jesus, had exalted God to such high transcendence that intermediaries were necessary for Him to maintain contact with men. This exalted notion of God made unique the revelation in Christ of a God who is at once unapproachably holy, yet condescendingly merciful. In the Johannine theology the more intimate aspect of God’s relationship with men is brought vividly to the forefront. The various ways in which this compares and contrasts with the Hebrew background of thought will be brought out in the course of the following discussion.
B. Aspects of God
1. God as Creator. Although John did not use the words “to create” in his prologue, he definitely assumes the creative activity of God. His purpose in drawing attention to the part played by the Logos in creation is to show that creation is a divine activity. For this there is ample support from the OT, not only from the creation account in Genesis, but also in many other books. At the same time there is no suggestion that the creative activity of God has ceased. The statement of Jesus in John 5:17 that the Father still works is basic to His whole teaching that God is active, esp. in His own mission. This concept of the continuing work of God is more dynamic than the rabbinic understanding of the Sabbath rest of God; according to the rabbis God’s work related to judgment not creation, that to them was completed. The distinction, therefore, is made between the physical and the ethical activity of God. Whereas in the teaching of Jesus the ethical is decidedly dominant, the physical activity of God is not absent.
In connection with the activity of God, John’s gospel draws attention to the works of Jesus as being works of God. So Nicodemus is recorded as saying, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him” (John 3:2). It is taken for granted that supernatural signs are directly attributable to the action of God. A man who does what is true shows that his works are wrought in God (3:21). Similar stress on the works of God is found in Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ query about the blind man (9:3). The unfortunate man was to be the means for the manifestation of the works of God, and the later deduction of the man himself that no one could do what Jesus did unless God were with Him (9:33) shows how clearly he had come to appreciate the continuous activity of God. To this may be added the challenge of Jesus when His Jewish opponents took up stones to stone Him, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?” (10:32). Good works are the direct result of the Father’s activity.
2. God as Father. No other book of the NT lays such emphasis on the Fatherhood of God as John’s gospel, and special attention needs to be given to its contribution to this aspect of the doctrine. The idea of fatherhood was not new. There was some appreciation of the personal fatherhood of God in Heb. thought, although the more dominant idea was corporate. God was father to His people Israel. There is certainly nothing to compare with the depth of personal relationship that is seen so clearly in the filial status of Jesus, which was divine Fatherhood on a new plane. It is in John’s account of the cleansing of the Temple that Jesus refers to the Temple as “my Father’s house” (2:16). One reason why the Jews sought to kill Him was because He called God “Father,” which in their eyes was tantamount to claiming equality with God (5:18). Therefore, they construed the Lord’s references to the Father in a different way from traditional Heb. thought. This comment by John on Jewish opposition leads into an extended discourse about the Lord’s relationship with the Father. Since the Son is seen to be not only dependent upon but also wholly in harmony with the Father, the Jewish claim that He was making Himself equal with God is seen to be justified. What the Jews regarded as blasphemy, the Christians recognized as revelation. The Father’s life-giving work and judging activity are closely reflected in the Son (5:21) The Son, in fact, is endowed with all the authority of the Father in judgment (5:27).
Another extensive Johannine passage reveals the Fatherhood of God prominently (8:18-59), when a comment by Jesus prompted the question, “Where is your Father?” The dullness of understanding in the hearers is vividly brought out. In spite of Jesus’ specific reference to the Father, John records that “they did not understand that he spoke to them of the Father” (8:27). Such teaching was unprecedented; nevertheless, the Jews themselves claimed to regard God as Father (8:41), although Jesus proceeded to disillusion them (cf. 8:44).
Another passage reveals the Fatherhood of God (10:31f.). Again, there was a clash with Jews, whose intention to give vent to violence was challenged by Jesus with comments about the Father. Most significant about this incident is that it was prompted by the claim of Jesus to be one with the Father (10:30), and was followed by the equally astonishing statement that “the Father is in me and I am in the Father” (10:38). There is no denying that John desired to bring to the fore in his gospel the predominant part played by the filial consciousness of Jesus in the pursuance of His mission. After describing the incident in the upper room when Jesus arose to wash the disciples’ feet, John comments that Jesus knew that the Father had given all things into His hands (13:3). In the subsequent discourse, Philip made the request “Show us the Father” (14:8), to which Jesus answered with a further question that presupposed that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father. The Father desired to communicate knowledge of Himself in the person of Jesus. The whole Farewell Discourse contains constant references to the Father. Most illuminating in this respect is John 17, which records the prayer of Jesus to the Father. In this section alone Jesus used descriptive adjectives with the title. God is addressed as both holy Father (17:11) and righteous Father (17:25). Nowhere else is the close relationship between Jesus and the Father seen as in these petitions, offered mainly on the behalf of others.
The major difference between the gospel and 1 John in references to God is that the idea of Fatherhood is much more prominent in the gospel (119 times) than in the epistle (12 times), although God is mentioned 64 times in the epistle. The difference is due to the difference of purpose, but the fundamental concept of the divine Fatherhood is common to both. There are few references to this theme in the Apocalypse, although those that do occur (all but one in the letters to the churches) are consonant with the usage in the gospel and epistles.
3. God as Spirit. The spiritual nature of God is specifically asserted (4:24) in Jesus’ discussion with the Samaritan woman. It is not introduced as a new revelation; it is rather the deduction from it that appears to be new. Men must worship in accordance with the nature of the object of worship, which entails spiritual worship in view of the nature of God. It is important to note, as W. F. Howard, Christianity According to St. John, points out, that “the initiative is with God, who seeks such worshipers, and himself bestows the Spirit of truth.” The teaching of Jesus on the subject of man’s approach to God assumes this spiritual nature of God.
4. God as Light. In the prologue to the gospel the metaphorical use of light is introduced and is also used as a self-description of Jesus later in the gospel (cf. 1:4ff., 8:12f.). It is more specifically applied to God in 1 John 1:5 and a similar idea is found in Revelation 21:23; cf. 22:5. The idea is not unique to Christian thought. C. H. Dodd claims parallels with the Hermetica and Philo (cf. BJRL 21 [1937], 149; cf. Dodd’s The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [1953], 201f.). If the imagery used may be paralleled, there is not the same depth of insight in the Hermetica and Philo as is found in 1 John, where the whole concept is brought into the sphere of human relationships as the readers are exhorted to walk in the light. Fellowship is possible only if some agreement exists between the natures of those communing.
5. God as Love. There is much on this theme in both the gospel and the epistle, but it is in the latter that the definite assertion is made that God is Love (1 John 4:16). A marked distinction must be drawn between this Christian concept of love and the contemporary Gr. concept, which did not distinguish between love and lust (cf. Nygren, Agape and Eros [1953], I, 118ff.; E. Stauffer, TWNT I, 34ff.; C. Spicq, Agape in the New Testament I [1963]). Moreover, in view of the inferior character of their notion of love, the pagans could not conceive of God loving men, for as E. K. Lee points out, “Such love would imply a downward movement, from the level of divine perfection to a lower level” (The Religious Thought of St. John [1950], 54). The statement in John 3:16 that “God so loved that he gave his only Son” concisely sums up the uniqueness of the Christian approach. The spring of divine action in salvation was love. Such love is poured out toward men (cf. 1 John 4:7ff.).
6. Other aspects of God. In the prologue, the invisible nature of God is brought into focus (John 1:18) to be modified by the knowledge that He has become revealed in Christ. This God who is so revealed is true (3:33), which means both true or real in contrast to no gods, and true in contrast with false. The former is nearer to the Heb. idea of truth, the latter to the Gr. idea. God is not only faithful but is eternally real. In the concluding statement of the epistle (1 John 5:20) this characteristic of being true is applied to God who has been revealed in Christ.
God is seen not only in His redemptive activities, but also in His work of judgment. John does not hesitate to speak of the wrath of God abiding on those who disobey the Son (John 3:36). His work in judgment already has been mentioned.
The Johannine presentation of God may be summed up as exalted and yet loving, as holy and yet merciful, as Father and yet Judge. The other aspects of doctrine must be considered against this background.
II. Jesus Christ
In examining the Christology of John, the obvious point of departure must be the prologue, although some discussion will be necessary concerning the extent to which this can be regarded as normative for the whole gospel. It may be regarded as detached from the main body of the gospel, as it is by those who see it as an essentially Hellenistically-orientated introduction. If, as others maintain, its basis is Sem., it may more readily be treated as an integral part of the gospel (cf. the discussion in W. F. Howard’s The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism [2nd ed. 1955], p. 57). Others regard the major part of the prologue as originally a hymn on the Logos that has been adapted for the purpose. Whatever the origin of the Logos material, this prologue bears witness to an early Christology and is of great importance in any estimate of Johannine theology.
A. The Logos. There are various theories regarding the Logos which can only be touched upon. (See Logos.) The Stoics spoke of the Logos Spermatikos, which was the divine Reason that made nature function. It was what Howard called “theoretical pantheism” (Christianity According to St. John, 35). The term is used some thirteen hundred times in Philo and some suggestions that there are points of contact between him and John are natural enough, but the distinctive features of the Johannine use of the term are lacking in Philo. There can be no denial that John implies the distinct personality of the Logos. Indeed, his identification of the Logos with Christ is proof of this. In this he differed radically from Philo, who, although he used various terms to describe the part played by Logos in creation, never rises to the concept of a personal agent. Moreover, Philo never suggests what John asserts regarding the preexistence of the Logos. The most far-reaching contrast is in the absence from Philo of any idea of the incarnation of the Logos, whereas this is the key thought in John’s presentation. It is as if John were saying that all this theorizing about the Logos is finished now that the Logos Himself has come to dwell among men. It would be a fitting introduction to Christ for those accustomed to these Hel. modes of thought.
Other strands of Gr. thinking can be seen in the Hermetica, where the term is also used; but in this case communion with God is attained through nature rather than through Christ. The parallel in usage is only superficial.
Some have seen a correspondence with the Jewish concept of the intermediary Memra who spanned the gap between the transcendental God and the created order. Although the notion undoubtedly throws light on what might have been the Jewish understanding of John’s Logos—an important consideration if John’s gospel comes from a Jewish source—yet this would not exhaust the meaning.
B. The “I am” sayings. Throughout this gospel are sayings of Jesus beginning with “I am,” which present a wide variety of facets of His character and mission. “I am the bread of life,” which forms the main theme of the discourse in John 6, shows that the true spiritual nourishment that Jesus brings is nothing less than Himself. The key statement in the whole interpretation is in v. 51—“the bread...is my flesh.” Jesus declared Himself to be the Light of the World, as the source of all true illumination (John 8:12; cf. 9:5). The Shepherd discourse (ch. 10) contains two such statements—“I am the door” (10:7) and “I am the good shepherd” (10:11). Both draw attention to the uniqueness of Jesus in relation to His sheep. In the incident of the raising of Lazarus, Jesus said to Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life” (11:25), which is tantamount to claiming that all life finds its basis in Jesus Christ, a thought supported by the further statement, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (14:6). The concluding saying is “I am the true vine” (15:1). In all these sayings, Jesus made claims for Himself that would sound presumptuous if made by any other. It requires the exalted viewpoint of the prologue to make them intelligible. Some interpreters have further appealed to the OT name for Yahweh, “I am who I am” (Exod 3:14) as a basis for the fullest understanding of Jesus’ sayings. When used in the absolute, “I am” (ego eimí) would carry a weightier connotation than when used with a predicate. Nonetheless, there may well have been a significant connection in the mind of Jesus. The most extraordinary statement of Jesus involving an unqualified “I am” is John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I am,” which cannot be otherwise interpreted than as a claim to pre-existence. It is highly probable, therefore, that this usage bears relation to the exalted name for Yahweh.
C. The filial sayings. It has been pointed out already how frequently in the discourses in John’s gospel Jesus speaks of God as Father and of Himself as Son. This filial relationship is based on human analogy, but goes far beyond it, for the sonship of Jesus is unique. It is for this reason that the adjective monogenes (only-begotten) is applied to Jesus in John’s gospel four times (1:14, 18, 3:16, 18) and once in 1 John (4:9). The word focuses attention upon uniqueness. Jesus is Son in such a sense that He alone is the means whereby the Father reveals Himself. Throughout the gospel, the awareness of Jesus of His unique relation with the Father is self-evident. He frequently refers to Himself as one sent from God. He makes clear that He speaks on the basis of the Father’s authority and conceives all His actions as conforming to the divine will. The charge brought by His enemies (5:18) that He made Himself equal with God may be understood in the rabbinic sense of acting independently of God, a charge that Jesus refutes. (So H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel [1929], 203.)
This frequent use of the title “Son” in John’s gospel compares and contrasts in some respects with the synoptic title of “Son of man.” The latter title is not absent from John, but is infrequent when compared with the widespread and unqualified use of Son. Nevertheless, there are nearly as many occurrences of it in John as in Mark. In all of these there is an eschatological emphasis (see A. Correll, Consummatum Est [1958], 103, 104). This draws attention to a change of emphasis in John from the identification of Jesus with man to His filial relationship with God. The two emphases are not mutually exclusive but are complementary. It should be noted that John’s purpose was to lead the readers to faith in Jesus as the Christ and as Son of God (20:30, 31). An echo of this is found in Martha’s confession (11:27). To this evangelist, nothing was more important than that the readers should recognize the divine nature of Jesus. He had no intention of portraying Him as anyone less than Son of God.
D. Indications of the true humanity of Jesus. Although so much stress in John falls on Jesus’ divine aspect, it is significant that nowhere else is the true humanity of Jesus more clearly brought out. At the scene by the well at Sychar Jesus was both weary and thirsty. At the grave of Lazarus He was deeply moved with indignation and then weeps. In the account of the crucifixion John records the saying “I thirst” (19:28). In addition, he notes His essentially human condescension in washing the disciples’ feet (13:1f.).
The Jesus portrayed in John’s gospel is not remote; He is interested in people. He takes time to talk with the two disciples of John the Baptist (ch. 1). He concerns Himself with the domestic arrangements at a village wedding (2:1f.). He accepts an intrusion from Nicodemus at night time (3:1f.). He does the unconventional by talking with a Samaritan woman at midday (4:7). He seeks out the impotent man who had been healed to give him some moral instruction (5:14). A similar action follows the healing of the blind man (cf. 9:35). Such incidents bring out clearly the essential character of Jesus in His warm concern for people. Whereas this is not John’s major interest, it is indispensable to his total picture of Jesus Christ.
E. Messianic considerations. In John’s gospel the recognition of the Messianic status of Jesus occurs much earlier than in the synoptic gospels, and this has given rise to problems regarding the veracity of John’s references. The first of these comes when Andrew tells his brother Peter, “We have found the Messiah (which means Christ)” (1:41). The second evidence comes in Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman when He acknowledges the title Messiah (4:25). In the synoptic gospels, however, and particularly in Mark, there is reticence in allowing observers to publish any recognition of the messianic signs. This led Wilhelm Wrede to propose his theory of a “messianic secret,” by which he meant that Mark has imposed these Messianic hints upon his narrative. Such a theory has been resuscitated with modifications by T. A. Burkill. It requires, however, considerable reinterpretation of the evidence to excise from the gospels the Messianic consciousness of Jesus. Certainly John’s gospel presents a distinctive account of Messianic claims, as is stated in the purpose of the gospel (20:31). There is no need to suppose that his account shows any fundamental difference from the synoptists. There were many stages in the development of the disciples’ full understanding of Jesus as Messiah, and John does not imply that this had already happened in the earliest part of the ministry of Jesus. He shows occasions in His subsequent narrative when the disciples did not understand (cf. 2:22; 12:16; 13:36; 20:25). What John implies is that two of the disciples at least had an early flash of insight. The admission by Jesus of His messianic office to the Samaritan woman is in marked contrast to the synoptic restraint, but for Samaritans the Messianic concept was not, as with the Jews, inextricably bound up with nationalist ic aspirations.
Since John sets out his gospel in such a way that his readers might be led to believe in Jesus as Messiah, it is relevant to inquire how he achieved this purpose. The nationalistic motive is specifically rejected in 6:15. In this case Jesus Himself takes the initiative in avoiding the crowds. On more than one occasion he avoids mere popular acclaim. The messianism seen in John’s gospel is, on the contrary, essentially spiritual. Jesus is conscious of being the Sent One to do the will of God, and it is in this sense that the title Messiah must be understood. This explains why the Jewish nationalists found events unintelligible that for Jesus were fulfillment of a mission. The cross would be more than an enigma—a positive stumbling block—if the messianism of Jesus was understood in any other sense than spiritual.
The total Johannine Christology has many distinctive features, but there is a common basis with other streams of early thought about Jesus Christ. There are no grounds for the view that John’s Christology is a special and independent development of his own.
III. Teaching about the Spirit
It is in the sphere of teaching about the Spirit that John’s contribution is esp. noteworthy, for there is more about the activity of the Spirit in this gospel than in any other. It will be best to consider the references to the Spirit in order of mention and then to construct some summary of the whole teaching.
A. At the baptism of Jesus. The descent of the Spirit upon Jesus when He was baptized by John the Baptist closely follows the pattern of the synoptic accounts. John the Baptist’s testimony that he saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven and that it rested on Jesus (1:32) was strengthened by his (John the Baptist’s) inner God-given conviction that whoever received the Spirit in this way would baptize with the Spirit (1:33). All the synoptics mention the dove-like appearance of the Spirit, but John alone records the prior message given to the Baptist concerning its significance. Baptism by the Holy Spirit is clearly a major characteristic of the mission of Jesus, but the question arises as to when this activity happened. Does this refer to the baptism of the Spirit seen at Pentecost and thereafter, or is there any evidence of such baptism during the earthly ministry of Jesus? There can be no doubt that in the fullest sense the baptism of the Spirit did not take place until after the glorification of Jesus. This is specifically supported by the statement in John 7:39 (see discussion below). The close connection between the mission of Jesus and the work of the Spirit is basic to all the records. It suggests that the mission of Jesus could not be adequately applied apart from the activity of the Spirit, a conviction that is amply supported from the evidence in Acts.
B. The Nicodemus incident. The next allusion to the Spirit is in John 3:5, where Jesus in conversing with Nicodemus links the Spirit with water in emphasizing the necessity for new birth. Whereas there is dispute over the interpretation of “water,” whether or not it refers to baptism, there can be no dispute about the essential role of the Spirit in the process of regeneration. The fact that Jesus proceeded to contrast natural and spiritual birth (3:6) shows that the work of the Spirit cannot be conceived in any other than spiritual terms. A human analogy is in mind. Whatever comes from human parents shares the nature of the parents, and John uses this basic principle to maintain the spiritual nature of those born of God. It is as if Jesus knew how apt men would be to desire to track with precision the activity of the Spirit, for he shows how impossible this is by using the analogy of the wind (3:8). The statement emphasizes the absolute sovereignty of the Spirit in the processes of regeneration. There is no set pattern, no mechanization. The whole process is on an essentially personal basis.
In the same ch. John records another significant statement about the Spirit. “For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit” (3:34). Although there are other ways in which the sentence can be construed, e.g., with the Spirit as the subject rather than the object of the giving, the above rendering is the most probable. The words of God need the Spirit of God to interpret them, and the assurance is given that there will be no stinting in the supply of the Spirit. Again, the close connection between the mission of Jesus and the work of the Spirit is brought to the fore.
A parallel contrast between the Spirit and flesh is recorded later (6:63), where once again Jesus connects His words with the Spirit, if pneuma is here understood as the Holy Spirit. Even if it be regarded as the human spirit set in contrast to the flesh, it may still be treated as evidence of the essentially spiritual character of the teaching of Jesus.
C. At the Feast of Tabernacles. The important declaration of Jesus made at the Feast of Tabernacles concerned anyone who believed in Him—“Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water. Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:38, 39). The interpretation is a comment made by the evangelist, but it shows his own understanding, and presumably that of the Early Church, of the relationship between the glorification of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit. The analogy of running water as a symbol of the Spirit is suggestive, for it represents both what is essential to life and what possesses cleansing power, which are prominent aspects of the Spirit’s work. One important feature of the present statement is that the Spirit is in some way communicated through the agency of believers. The Book of Acts contains instances of the gift of the Spirit coming by means of the apostles, which serves as an illustration of this aspect.
D. The Paraclete sayings. The major passages about the Spirit in John’s gospel are all found in the discourses in the upper room. There are five sayings in which the Spirit is referred to as the Paraclete (a transliteration of the Gr. parakletos). The passages are John 14:15-17; 14:25, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:5-11, 12-15. Windisch treated these passages as separate from the rest of the discourses, but it is valuable to regard them as forming a group that supplies much information regarding the Spirit. First the meaning of the word paraclete should be noted. It is a legal term, but not exclusively so. Where it bears this significance it may be rendered “Advocate,” but it should not be confined to one who pleads another’s cause in a legal sense, for the help to be given is more general. The rendering “Counselor” as in RSV conveys this more general sense. The sayings in John are sufficiently explicit to show in what ways the Spirit counsels.
The first passage (14:15-17) identifies the Counselor as the Spirit of truth (cf. 15:26; 16:13). The idea of truth here is prob. twofold—reality and veracity. Since God Himself is truth it is to be expected that truth will be a characteristic of His Spirit. The main activity of the Spirit, which this present statement asserts, is His continual presence with His people. “He dwells with you and shall be in you” (14:17) focuses upon the Spirit’s function to continue the presence of Jesus among His people. It is in this sense that He is another Counselor. The second passage (14:25, 26) draws attention to His teaching ministry. When the Spirit comes, sent by the Father in the Son’s name, “he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (14:26). The close connection between the Spirit and the teaching of Jesus is to be observed, and the most significant feature is the Spirit’s part in restoring that teaching to the disciples’ mind. Jesus did not leave the transmission of His teaching to the faulty memories of men. The Spirit’s activity had fundamental importance in the establishment of true Christian traditions.
The third passage (15:26, 27) lends support to the view that the major objective of the Spirit is the glorification of Christ. He who is said to proceed from the Father “will bear witness of me” (15:26). Because the disciples were called to do the same, their possession of the Spirit is at once seen to be indispensable. There was never any question of the disciples witnessing in their own strength.
The fourth passage (16:5-11) is introduced as an assurance to the disciples in view of the coming departure of Jesus. It shows again that the coming of the Spirit depends upon the cessation of the earthly ministry of Jesus. The Spirit’s ministry will follow the ministry of Jesus. It would consist in bringing conviction to the world. It concerns sin, righteousness, and judgment—the two former on the ground of Christ’s position, the latter on the ground of the already pronounced judgment upon the prince of this world. Placed as they were in a hostile world, the disciples discovered later the reality of this promise.
The final passage (16:12-15) is the promise that the revelation of truth given thus far would be developed through the agency of the Spirit. The Spirit’s function in this was to glorify Christ. His authority was not His own. He was to declare not only things yet to come, but all that belongs to Christ. This ministry of the Spirit was therefore entirely Christcentered.
One remaining reference (20:22) to the Holy Spirit, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” contains the words of Jesus as He breathed on the disciples in the upper room after the Resurrection. This seems to be a foreshadowing of Pentecost. It is accompanied by a promise regarding forgiving or retaining of sins, which is clearly connected with the authority of the Spirit.
E. Summary of Johannine teaching about the Spirit. To sum up the Johannine evidence concerning the Holy Spirit it may be said that the essential ministry of the Spirit is assumed throughout. His activity is an integral part of the Johannine presentation of Christianity. Indeed, the writer must have been conscious of the fact that his own knowledge of the teaching of Jesus was derived from the Spirit’s leading. Christianity was a dynamic faith and the power was that of the Spirit. At the outset of Christian experience, the Spirit’s activity is dominant in the process of regeneration; so it is in the realm of faith. The believer is assured of the indwelling presence of the Spirit. The work of conviction cannot be achieved without His aid.
There is sufficient evidence in this gospel to show an exalted view of the Spirit. He proceeds from God, and He is sent by God. He is the gift accompanying the glorification of Jesus. His whole work depends upon what is essentially a continuation of the work of Jesus Christ. In a sense He is the other self of Jesus and called another Counselor. The personality of the Spirit in this gospel cannot be denied, for although some passages can be understood in a nonpersonal sense, others cannot, and these latter must be determinative. The basic idea of the Paraclete is personal. As a teacher He cannot be an impersonal influence or principle. If the Spirit is a fitting example of witnessing, His personality must be assumed. Indeed He cannot take the place of Christ unless He is a person. Moreover, the masculine personal pronoun is used in spite of the neuter gender of the word pneumatos (cf. 14:26; 15:26; 16:7, 8, 14). There is no doubt that the evangelist intentionally brought out the personal characteristics of the Spirit.
The question arises whether John presents any doctrine of the Trinity. If by doctrine one understands a formal doctrine, the answer must be in the negative. There is enough evidence, however, to show that the doctrine is here in embryo. The respective emphases on the different persons of the Trinity by John supply some of the data on which the Trinity came to be assumed.
In 1 John, the references to the Spirit of God are few, but what there are conform to the usage in the gospel. Knowledge of the indwelling Christ comes through the Spirit (1 John 3:24). It is the Spirit of God who enables men to confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, as contrasted with false spirits who deny this (4:2f.). The Spirit is a gift (4:13) and a witness (5:7, 8). In the Apocalypse, John writes of being in the Spirit (Rev 1:10; 4:2; 17:3; 21:10). There are various references to the seven spirits (1:4; 4:5; 5:6), prob. referring to seven aspects of the Spirit or to His perfection. A heavenly voice (14:13) is identified as the Spirit, while the Spirit is linked with the Bride in the closing exhortation (22:17).
IV. Facets of salvation
The Johannine lit. presents a picture of a world in need and then shows the means used to meet that need. It will be helpful therefore to discuss the Johannine doctrine of salvation under four sections: sin and judgment, atonement, faith, and eternal life.
A. Sin and judgment. Both in the specific teaching of Jesus and in the evangelist’s own comments is a distinctive presentation of the “world,” which is described as in direct contrast to the divine order. In John’s writings, the “world” is not the world of the created order, but rather the world of men in rebellion against God; it carries a moral connotation. For this reason Jesus spoke of the hatred of the world (John 15:18). There is a dualism in this approach; yet it is not a theoretical or speculative dualism, but an essentially practical dualism. It arises from the indisputable clash between truth and error, and between God and the world. Into such a world Jesus came, a world already alienated from God. Indeed, John makes this clear in the prologue, in the imagery of darkness used there. Whichever way the verb (1:5) is understood, (either as “overcome” or “comprehend”) there is no denying the fundamental antithesis between the light and the darkness. The world is opposed to the Word (1:9, 10). It is in fact under the dominion of the devil (12:31; 16:11; cf. 1 John 5:19). In 1 John the world is the domain of false prophets (1 John 4:1), is full of lust and pride (2:16) and it is the object of the Christian’s warfare to overcome it (5:4, 5).
This basically evil background of the mission of Jesus sets in right perspective the Johannine teaching on sin. It is important to observe how sin is to be understood. Some of the evidence suggests that it is to be confined to the rejection of Jesus. Jesus states (John 15:22, 24) “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin,” and “If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin.” The work of the Spirit is to convince the world of sin “because they do not believe in me” (16:9). This is not the only view of sin found in the Johannine lit. The concept of sin is applicable to believers but provision is made for forgiveness of recurring sin (1 John 1:9). Moreover, sin is specifically defined as lawlessness (3:4). Are there then two irreconcilable concepts? Clearly the people addressed will affect the definition of the term. In the passages cited from the gospel, Jesus is dealing not with the basic concept of sin, but with unbelief, and to make clear the serious character of the latter He includes it in the category of sin. But, to make sin equivalent to unbelief would restrict too strongly the category of sin. The Johannine view of the “world” demands a view of sin as distinctive, i.e., as a rebellion against God. Closely linked with this is the view of judgment. Salvation is contrasted with condemnation (John 3:17). In fact, it can be rightly understood only against the background of its antithesis. Sin had incurred condemnation, and because man could do nothing of himself to alter the position, the plan of redemption was necessary. The same antithesis is seen in the contrast between eternal life and judgment (5:24). Rejection of Christ will incur judgment (12:48). To this must be linked the reference to the wrath of God (3:36), which is dire cted against those who disobey the Son.
B. Atonement. Like all the evangelists, John sees the major mission of Jesus as dealing with man’s need. There are, however, many distinctive features in John’s presentation of that mission. Only the more important of these can be mentioned.
(1) John the Baptist announced Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (1:29), which at once linked the mission of Jesus with sin. But, in what sense? The figure of the Lamb is suggestive of a sacrificial interpretation, and the imagery used is reminiscent of Isaiah 53. The Gr. word for lamb used by John differs from the LXX of Isaiah 53 but this does not materially affect the sacrificial significance. The universal character of this sacrificial mission is clearly brought out. The Lamb imagery is continued in the Apocalypse where the whole sequence of visions is dominated by the figure of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, but now exalted in heaven. It need not be supposed that John the Baptist understood the significance of his own statement, for it is only in the light of the cross that its relevance to the mission of Jesus is fully appreciated.
(2) An important statement was made by Jesus following the cleansing of the Temple. “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (2:19). John comments that the temple was His body (2:21). The statement reveals the consciousness of Jesus that His mission would end in death at the hands of men, but that it would be crowned with the Resurrection.
(3) The promise that the Son of man must be lifted up as Moses raised the serpent (3:14, 15) is suggestive of the mode of His death. Faith is in some way related to this uplifted person, and eternal life depends on such faith.
(4) The statement regarding God’s love (3:16) is important because it grounds the divine giving in the divine love. There is more emphasis on love in the mission of Jesus in John’s gospel than elsewhere in the gospels. To this may be linked the saying of Jesus, “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (15:13). The connection between love and sacrifice is a key concept in the Johannine presentation of the Passion.
(5) In the discourse on the bread, Jesus spoke of men eating His flesh and drinking His blood (6:51, 53). Some see a direct reference to the sacraments and suppose that this was John’s attempt to counteract an excessive sacramentalism. Regarded as a statement of Jesus well before the institution of the Last Supper, the words may be understood in a preparatory sense. They provide the basic teaching that is essential for a right understanding of the words of institution. The giving of flesh and blood must again bear a sacrificial significance.
(6) The voluntary character of the death of Jesus is seen in the statement regarding the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep (10:11). This principle is more specifically stated by Jesus in relation to Himself—“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (10:18). In the same context Jesus revealed the necessity for His mission when referring to the other sheep that He must bring into the flock (10:16). This idea of necessity may be supported also from the serpent passage (3:14).
(7) When Caiaphas commented that it was more fitting for one to die rather than that the whole people perish (11:50), referring to the need to plot against Jesus, John recognized a prophetic voice, but understood it in an entirely different sense from Caiaphas’ own meaning. To him it possessed significance that the words were uttered by the high priest; but the most important aspect was the spiritual expediency of the death of Jesus for many. The idea of substitution is unmistakable. The purpose was to gather into one the scattered children of God (11:52).
(8) In answer to a quest from some Greeks, Jesus spoke of the necessity for a grain of wheat to fall into the ground and die if it is to produce fruit (12:24). He was clearly referring to His own death and once again the major emphasis is upon the necessity for that death. The future success of the entire mission of Jesus depended upon it.
(9) Throughout the gospel of John, the approach of the hour in which Jesus was to be glorified is specially marked. Its delay is noted earlier (as in 2:4), but in 12:23 this hour has come, and since this was the commencement of the passion week there can be no doubt that the hour was the hour of the Passion. There is a sense of inevitability; the death of Jesus fitted into a divine program. Nowhere is this so vividly revealed as in John’s gospel. This idea is echoed in the prayer of Jesus, “I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do” (17:4). The whole prayer shows that the mission of Jesus was directed toward the welfare of His people (ch. 17).
(10) The insistence by Jesus that even Pilate would have no power over Him unless that power were granted by God (19:11) again shows the divine pattern in the events of the Passion.
(11) The completeness of the work of Christ is strikingly brought out by His declaration on the cross, “It is finished” (19:30). This was more than the finish of His earthly life; this was the completion of His redemptive mission.
Although no systematic doctrine of the Atonement may be found, John’s gospel provides much data toward the formulation of such a doctrine. The first epistle also provides useful data. The cleansing of sins is specifically attributed to the blood of Christ (1 John 1:7). Christ is said to be an expiation (or more accurately “propitiation”) for our sins (2:2). The purpose of the incarnation was to destroy the works of the devil (3:8). The divine initiative in sending Jesus Christ for His work of expiation is made clear in 4:9, 10 (cf. also 4:14). In the Apocalypse, doctrine is not prominent, but where reference is made to the cleansing of sin (Rev 1:5, 7:14), this is through the blood of the Lamb. The anthem of adoration chanted by the twenty four elders (5:9, 10) centers upon the redeeming activities of the Lamb. It is important to note these features in a book so largely devoted to the theme of judgment and retribution. The new people of God are a redeemed people who stand out in vivid contrast to the agencies of evil that are finally to be overcome.
C. Faith. The provision of atonement is not enough without some knowledge of how its benefits may be appropriated, and the Johannine lit. is specially rich in drawing attention to the function of faith. It is the verb rather than the noun that constantly recurs, vividly emphasizing the active aspect. The gospel is written to inculcate faith. First John was written to bring knowledge to that faith. The teaching of Jesus is full of exhortations to believe and full of promises to believers. It is by faith that men enter into a living relationship with Jesus Christ. Faith leads to life, and unbelief to condemnation (cf. John 3:16-18). Of special significance is the often recurring preposition eis (into) after the verb “believe,” when Jesus is the object of faith; for this introduces the idea of personal trust that goes beyond the simple idea of belief (cf. J. H. Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek3 [1908], I. 68).
The close connection between knowing and believing is important in view of the Gnostic overemphasis on the former at the expense of the latter. Although the teaching of Jesus and the comments of John never propose that faith can exist without understanding, it is basic to Johannine Christianity that Jesus Christ came to do something more than merely to reveal truth.
D. Eternal life. The concept of eternal life is not unique to the Johannine lit., but it is specially characteristic of it. It is seen as the end result of the process of redemption. In some respects it takes the place of the synoptic emphasis upon the kingdom, but the two ideas are complementary. R. H. Charles (Eschatology [1899], 315), regarded eternal life in relation to the individual and the kingdom in relation to the community.
Eternal life is essentially a present possession (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 1 John 3:14; 5:11ff.). This corresponds with the present aspect of the kingdom in the synoptics. It also involves fullness of life in the future. Eternal life is inseparable from the person of Jesus Christ, who declared Himself to be the true life.
V. Eschatology
Much debate has surrounded the problem of eschatology in this gospel. Many scholars have set its teaching in antithesis to the apocalyptic type of eschatology found in the synoptic gospels. This has been mainly due to the belief that John is indebted to Hel. modes of thought, whereas the synoptics have been more influenced by Jewish concepts. The stress on the Hel. background for this gospel has somewhat lessened following the discovery of the DSS because of their testimony to the syncretism of Jewish and Gr. concepts in nonconformist Judaism. Clearly a right assessment of background is essential for a true appreciation of Johannine eschatology. It is certain that no true appraisal can come along the way of strong antithesis. There is enough evidence to demonstrate that teaching akin to the synoptic eschatology is not absent from John, as the following survey will show.
Before considering the evidence, it would be well to indicate the various schools of interpretation. Some (e.g., Bultmann, Dodd) concentrate on realized eschatology and dismiss the futurist elements entirely, either by resorting to a thesis of editorial additions (as Bultmann) or by explaining away the futuristic texts (as Dodd). Although interpreting rather differently what they mean by realized eschatology, both agree that eschatology has to do with the present rather than the future. The reverse position has been adopted by others who insist that present eschatology has no meaning unless it is inseparably linked with a future emphasis (so Stählin, Correll). There can be no doubt that the latter approach takes more account of all the data in the gospel. Within this general position there is, of course, room for much difference of opinion regarding the relationship between John and the synoptics over eschatology.
A. Relation to the OT. The firm belief of the Early Church that the life and teaching of Jesus are a fulfillment of OT prediction gives an eschatological emphasis. In a sense the hopes and promises of the past are now “realized.” They have ceased to be future. That this is implicit in John’s approach is seen in the prologue, where the benefits received through Christ, i.e., grace and truth, are compared with the law given through Moses (John 1:17). There is considerable emphasis in the teaching of Jesus on Abraham, and the superiority of Jesus to Abraham is specifically implied (8:53f.). A similar superiority to Jacob is evident (4:5, 12; cf. 1:50, 51). As far as the OT patterns are concerned, the advent of Jesus was the eschaton (end), but, however, since He Himself gave further predictions regarding His Parousia (Return), the final consummation is still in the future.
B. The use of the title “Son of man.”The main feature of the occurrence of this title in John is the context in which it occurs. It is almost as frequent as in the synoptics; in the latter it is used sometimes generally, sometimes in relation to the Passion of Jesus, and sometimes eschatologically, whereas in John it is uniformly used in the eschatological sense. It concerns the “lifting up” of Jesus, which although it refers to the event of the Passion, goes beyond it in conveying the idea of exaltation. The Son of man was to be glorified. This is the climax of His mission. In this is a rather different emphasis from that found in the synoptic usage, where apocalyptic imagery is used; but the difference is not a contradiction. John concentrates more on the state than the event. For him eschatology has a spiritual importance.
C. References to resurrection and to the last day. Statements of Jesus are recorded that have a future reference (John 5:25-29). The dead are to hear the voice of the Son of God. The Son has received from the Father authority to execute judgment. The time will come for a resurrection to life for some and a resurrection to judgment for others. These references are in the style of the Jewish apocalyptic (see Bernard, The Gospel According to St. John [1928], p. clvi) and cannot be explained in terms of realized eschatology. There is a finality about these concepts that is wholly out of keeping with the present. Similarly, the theme of the last day is essentially futuristic (ch. 6). In the discourse in which these references occur Jesus clearly assumed that His hearers would have some understanding of the “last day.”
D. Time references in the gospel. The words “hour,” “now,” “not yet,” “yet a little while” and similar expressions are frequent in John’s gospel and must be regarded as characteristic. One deduction from them is that the eschatological event is not entirely future. There is a strong present element. In Christ, and particularly in His death, the hour “has now come.” This sense of completeness is present (12:23) where Jesus announced that His hour had come, and (17:1) where He related the dawning of the hour to the accomplishment of the mission received from the Father. The major feature of these references, however, is not chronological but theological. The “hour” of Jesus was decisive for world history. Any future consummation must in some way be related to this.
E. The approaching judgment. Mention has already been made of the future judgment (5:25-28). Other references have given rise to a different idea. John 3:19 and 12:31 seem to refer to a judgment that has already taken place; the ruler of this world has been deposed through Jesus. According to C. H. Dodd this shows a conclusive reinterpretation of the eschatological idea of judgment. Although the action of Jesus in His Passion shows the effectiveness of the overthrow of the evil agencies, this does not exhaust the Johannine teaching about judgment. The gospel is not primarily concerned with this theme. Jesus makes clear that He came to save, not to judge, the world (12:47). Although the major emphasis is on the present, judgment is an indispensable part of the consummation of the present age.
F. References to the Parousia. In the farewell discourse, Jesus refers to His Second Coming in such terms that a future Parousia must be meant (14:3, 18, “I will come to you” and 16:16, “a little while, and you will see me”). These statements are not understood in the sense of a future eschatology by advocates of the realized eschatology school, who regard them as “realized” in the coming of the Paraclete (so Dodd). But this is not the mos