Jesus in John's Gospel

Structure and Issues in Johannine Christology

William Loader

• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781467447034
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

The culmination of a lifetime of work on the Gospel of John, William Loader's Jesus in John's Gospel explores the Fourth Gospel with a focus on ways in which attention to the structure of Christology in John allows for greater understanding of Johannine themes and helps resolve long-standing interpretive impasses. Following an introductory examination of Rudolf Bultmann's profound influence on Johannine studies, Loader turns to the central interpretive issues and debates surrounding Johannine Christology, probing particularly the death of Jesus in John, the salvation event in John, and the Fourth Gospel in light of its Christology. The exhaustive bibliography and careful, well-articulated conclusions take into account the latest research on John, ensuring that this volume will be useful to scholars and students alike.

PART ONE

The Structure of Johannine Christology

1Identifying the Central Structure

1.1Issues of Method

In reviewing research into Johannine Christology since Bultmann I have shown that the major issues of dispute which have arisen, often against Bultmann, have concentrated on elements within the story which Bultmann saw as forming the centre of Johannine Christology. Bultmann’s interpretation of each element of the story sought to retain a consistency and coherence with the story as a whole. In discussing the major areas of dispute in Johannine Christology I want similarly to take into account the Johannine story as a whole, in particular, what I describe as the central structure of Johannine Christology. For it is only when we have been able to see the overall structure that we are able to gain a perspective for evaluating the role of individual elements.

The Fourth Gospel contains a wide variety of christological sayings, motifs and narratives. Most have been subjected to minute analysis, both for their role within the Gospel and for their background in Christian tradition and in the religio-historical traditions of the day. On the surface of the text of the Gospel we see rich and varied expressions of christological thought. The search for the central structure of the author’s Christology is the search for what holds these various motifs and images together. What structure or structures lie beneath the surface manifestations in the text?

In looking for the basic story of Johannine Christology I am not wanting to find a central structure which we can then use to rule out the significance of other motifs or into which we might force other motifs and patterns of thought on the assumption that the author’s Christology must be consistent and unified. It is rather that we seek an overall perspective, a christological map that will enable us to see the way particular motifs function within the whole. This is particularly important in a writing which contains a wide variety of christological themes and in which it is very easy to isolate a particular motif—like, for instance, Jesus’ death as an act of vicarious atonement—and elevate it to the major theme of the Gospel. Tracing the christological map that emerges from the text must not be undertaken on the presupposition that there is a single unified structure. That can only emerge from the text itself. We may assume consistency, but with caution.

Our concern at this stage is therefore not with individual motifs but with what integrates them or with the way they are related to one another. Similarly I am not interested at this stage in classifying the Johannine christological material into a systematic arrangement of, for instance, titles or themes. As far as possible I want to listen for structures and patterns that emerge from the text itself.

Some have presented Johannine Christology by identifying a key text or texts. The prologue with the Logos motif might, by its very position, be seen as an appropriate key or starting point for understanding the author’s christological thought. We may assume its meaning would have been clear to its first readers for whom it functioned as the overture or key to the Gospel,¹ unlocking its messianic secret, the directive for how the Gospel should be understood, the window through which it should be viewed, the script for its main character. But for us, as Bultmann points out, it is an “enigma” which only makes sense after we have read the Gospel as a whole.² Furthermore, many of its major motifs, including its chief motif, Logos, the theme of Christ and creation, the incarnation of the Word, to name only a few, do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel and it contains no direct reference to Jesus’ death and ascension. Nor can “the Word became flesh” (1:14a) on its own function as a summary of the author’s Christology, as it had for Bultmann, especially since Käsemann challenged its traditional interpretation and suggested that it intended little more than to describe how the glory appeared (1:14b).³ Similarly Haacker’s attempt to make 1:17, with its contrast between Moses and Jesus Christ, “law” and “grace and truth,” the centre of the author’s Christology⁴ proves an inadequate starting point, because it puts the focus too much on the salvation-historical perspective which is not dominant in John. Accordingly Haacker emphasises Jesus as “founder,” though his own expositions make the motif of revealer much more central.

Richter makes the christological formulation in 20:31, “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” into a criterion of the evangelist’s concerns and uses it, for instance, in arguing that 1:14a is a redactional addition,⁵ but this confession is also too narrow a base for such assertions. Numerous other passages have been described from time to time as embodying the essence of the author’s Christology. Stephen S. Smalley sees the Gospel as a kind of midrash based on the Son of Man saying of 1:51.⁶ Similarly the wedding at Cana (2:1–11), as the first sign and as one standing without interpretation, is seen by some as a programmatic statement of the evangelist’s theology.⁷ Ruckstuhl, arguing for the integrity of 6:51c–58, maintains that it contains within a confined space a summary of the whole Gospel in form and content,⁸ Hans Weder argues that John 6 as a whole should be seen as representative of Johannine Christology,⁹ and Anderson makes it the basis for his exploration of the genesis and development of Johannine Christology.¹⁰ Appold focusses on the brief statements in 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”) and 17:11–12 as abbreviations of Johannine Christology.¹¹ Some choose the briefer formulation, “It is finished” (19:30), as their centre.¹²

It is not our intention to dispute that these passages or formulations may reflect the centre of Johannine Christology. Many are, however, too succinct. They need expanding and this expanded outline or structure needs to be identified. In many ways scholars who have analysed the Christology of the Fourth Gospel, presenting systematic outlines, have also noted patterns and structures in the text.

Wetter, for instance, created a list of Johannine christological statements, above all, of the enormous variety of statements which I have classed under the heading: “The Son makes the Father known.” He speaks of an almost tiresome monotony in such Johannine material.¹³ Wilhelm Lütgert made similar lists, but tried to force them all into a theory according to which Jesus’ claims amounted primarily to a claim to be a man inspired by the Spirit.¹⁴ Bultmann also listed the variations before arguing that the author had a demythologising interpretation of the pattern of coming and sending.¹⁵ Forestell surveys the Gospel for statements illustrating the centrality of revelation,¹⁶ and lists motifs which follow the verbs to believe and to know: Jesus is sent by God, the Father; he comes from God; he is in the Father and the Father in him; and the enigmatic statement, “I am.”¹⁷ The sending sayings have been listed by many.¹⁸ Ibuki places 8:28; 12:49–50; and 14:10bc in parallel columns,¹⁹ texts which, as we shall see, reflect the central structure. He does the same for 3:32; 8:26; 8:40; 1:18; 6:66; and 15:15b.²⁰ Schnackenburg lists motifs associated with “Father” and “Son”;²¹ de Jonge and Moloney do similarly, the latter contrasting these with motifs associated with the Son of Man title.²² Bühner lists the elements which belong to the traditional motif of the envoy and finds the pattern expressed in 13:3 and 3:35.²³ Becker draws on Bühner in applying the pattern to the christological statements in the Gospel as a whole.²⁴ Bornkamm uses 3:31–36 and also 8:21–29 to trace a pattern of christological thought.²⁵

Much of the work done thus far has rarely gone beyond listing the elements or focussing upon particular elements (especially the sayings about sending). The work of identifying similar material and listing it is essential for any careful analysis of Johannine Christology, as is individual investigation of particular elements. But beyond that it is important to identify patterns or structures of thought which show the ways the various elements interrelate. It is particularly valuable if these structures can be shown to exist already within the text itself and not simply be a structure systematised out of the gathered material. This is the strength of the approaches like Bornkamm’s. Both the systematic review and the tracing of patterns in particular passages of the text itself are important for identifying the central structure of the author’s Christology.

In the investigation which follows I have sought to establish the basic structure of the author’s Christology by noting:

1. Motifs and images that occur frequently within the Gospel
2. Combinations or patterns of motifs and images that occur frequently
3. Summary statements, especially those within which the common motifs and groups of motifs occur
4. Motifs or groups of motifs made the subject of attention and development, especially in discourses of Jesus about himself

Any such posited underlying structure should be shown to integrate, or, at least, to relate coherently to the variety of motifs within the Gospel. As well as these general criteria there may also be indications of the author’s special christological interests in the way the author structures the Gospel, inasmuch as such structures are visible and generally agreed. It is also important to take into account not only the thematic statements in the sayings material, but also the way the narrative material functions.

I have spoken of the author’s Christology. Strictly speaking it is only the Christology of the text before us to which we have access and we assume it reflects that of the author. But a greater problem arises in the light of the question whether the text which we have should be treated as a whole or be seen as a multi-layered document in which we can detect a pre-Gospel or miracle source, the Gospel itself, and redactional expansions and additions. I want to treat the text as it stands as a unity and to take our readings of its Christology from the whole text. But we also want to be aware of the (to my mind convincing) view that the present Gospel text has behind it a history of development. Rather than frustrate the reader with a maze of “ifs” and “buts” in the light of the various source and redaction theories proposed, I shall press ahead with the text as we have it, and return to consider the author’s Christology in the light of source theories in 6.2 below. The viewing of the text for traces of the central christological structure will, in turn, raise questions of tradition and redaction, but they are not the primary subject of this study.

Frequency of motifs alone could be established on the basis of statistics; but then we should be in danger of losing the individual contours of the text which give each motif its setting and specific meaning. The ideal would be a careful sifting verse by verse and passage by passage of the whole Gospel from beginning to end, but this—which I have indeed done—will have to be assumed as background to what follows. Instead I propose to begin by looking at some sample passages and to examine what emerges as a common christological structure. The elements of this structure will be examined in the light of the criteria of frequency and combination outlined above, including occurrence in summary statements. In a further step, I shall review the Gospel as a whole for indications of particular attention and development of the structure and finally consider the way in which the structure integrates, or relates to, the various christological motifs of the Gospel. On this basis, I return in Part Two to the wider issues of Johannine Christology.

1.2Examining Select Passages

1.2.1John 3:31–36

I choose to begin with John 3:31–36. It comes at the conclusion of the first major dialogue and functions as a summary.²⁶

Schnackenburg considers the passage a piece of Johannine writing, probably by the author of the Gospel, which, together with 3:13–21, has been secondarily ...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part One The Structure of Johannine Christology
• Part Two Issues of Johannine Christology
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index of Modern Authors
• Index of Subjects
• Index of Ancient Sources