“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Johannine Sayings (Jn 8:28)

John 8:28

The next Johannine “son of man” saying is found in 8:28. The depth and complexity of the great Sukkot-Discourse (chapters 7-8 [excluding 7:53-8:11]) creates many challenges for commentators. As in the case of the Last (Farewell) Discourse (13:31-16:33), the Sukkot-Discourse is properly a Discourse-complex, comprised of a number of shorter, interconnected Discourse-sections. For each such section, the typical pattern for the Johannine Discourses is generally followed:

    • Principal statement/saying by Jesus
    • Response by his hearers, reflecting a misunderstanding of the true meaning of his words
    • Exposition by Jesus

The Discourse-section containing the “son of man” saying is 8:21-30. The principal saying by Jesus occurs in verse 21:

“I lead (myself) under—and you will seek (for) me, but you will die away in your sin!
(The place) where I lead (myself) under, you are not able to come (there).”

The verb u(pa/gw means “lead under”, i.e., go under cover, put (oneself) out of sight, be hidden, etc. It can be used in the very general sense of “go away”, but it would be rather misleading to translate it so here; it is important to preserve the aspect of being “under cover”, i.e., not able to be seen. The verb is used with frequency in the Gospel of John, and often in the special Christological sense of the Son’s departure back to God the Father (in heaven). That is how the verb is being used here in the Sukkot-Discourse (8:21-22, cf. earlier in 7:33; 8:14), anticipating a similar usage in the Last Discourse (13:3, 33, 36; 14:4-5, 28; 16:5, 10, 16).

Those who hear Jesus’ words without trusting in him—or, even worse, in hostile opposition to him—will not be able to follow him to God the Father in heaven. Indeed, they will die off in their sin, and will have no experience of the Divine (eternal) life that comes through trust in Jesus.

This is the thrust of Jesus’ saying. In the remainder of the Discourse-section, the pattern of Response/Exposition is repeated, producing a dialogue exchange. The first response by Jesus’ hearers is in verse 22; clearly they have not understood the meaning of his words, which he then restates, expounding the saying with greater Christological clarity:

“You are of the (thing)s below, (but) I am of the (thing)s above; you are of this world, (but) I am not of this world. So I said to you that you will die away in your sins—for, if you would not trust that I am [e)gw/ ei)mi], (then) you shall die away in your sins.” (vv. 23-24)

Jesus’ hearers cannot follow him to the Father (in heaven) because they do not belong to the Divine/heavenly things (“the [thing]s above [a&nw]”), but belong, rather, to the things below [ka/tw], in “this world”. This above/below contrast is part of the Johannine dualistic manner of thought and expression. Believers are “from above” (3:3ff), having come to be born from above, from the Spirit of God. On the contrast between believers and “the world” (o( ko/smo$), cf. throughout the Last Discourse, and also the great Discourse-Prayer of chapter 17 (where the noun ko/smo$ occurs 18 times); the theme also features prominently in 1 John (2:15-17; 3:1, 13; 4:1-5, 17; 5:4-5, 19).

Verse 24 contains an “I am” (e)gw/ ei)mi) saying by Jesus, an example of the essential predication that occurs throughout the Gospel (and Letters) of John. This, however, is one of the few instances where a predicate nominative is omitted, leaving only the Divine subject (Jesus, “I”) and verb of being (ei)mi). There are three such occurrences in the Sukkot-Discourse—here in v. 24, again in verse 28 (see below), and finally, at the conclusion, in verse 58: “Before Abraham’s coming to be [gene/sqai], I am [e)gw/ ei)mi]”. The lack of a predicate nominative places the emphasis squarely on the verb of being, which, here in verse 58, is contrasted with the verb of becoming (gi/nomai). This is an important theological distinction, reflecting the way that the Johannine writings tend to distinguish the verb of being from that of becoming. The verb of being tends to be applied to God (or to a Divine subject), as is reflected by the essential predication formula. By contrast, the verb of becoming properly applies to created (human) beings. Humans come to be, but only God is. The distinction between ei)mi and gi/nomai is most notable in the Gospel Prologue (1:1-18). The other absolute “I am” saying is found in 13:19.

Thus, for Jesus to say simply “I am” (e)gw/ ei)mi), it represents the ultimate attribution of Deity (on the Old Testament background for this Divine self-predication, see, e.g., Exod 3:14; 6:7; 7:5; Isa 43:25; 45:18; 51:12; 52:6; Hos 13:4; Joel 2:27; cf. the summary in Brown, pp. 533-8)—a point that Jesus’ opponents clearly recognized, based on their response (v. 59, compare 5:18). It is therefore strange that so many commentators are unwilling (or reluctant) to read the simple e)gw/ ei)mi here in v. 24 (and 28) the same way. This will be discussed further on verse 28, below.

Another exchange, between Jesus and his hearers, occurs in vv. 25-26. Jesus’ claim that he belongs to “the (thing)s above”, and that he is “not of this world”, leads them to ask “who are you? [su\ ti/$ ei@]”. Again, the use of the verb of being here is significant, even if the speakers do not understand its significance (in the Johannine context). The question represents the very essence of the Johannine Gospel—the identity of Jesus, who he is. As direct as the question might be, Jesus will not give to them a direct answer—at least, not in wording that they would clearly understand. Indeed, the Greek phrasing Jesus employs is suitably ambiguous; in answer to the question “who are you”, he replies:

“The beginning, that which even I speak to you.”
th\n a)rxh\n o% ti kai\ lalw= u(mi=n

For a concise summary of the various ways this line has been interpreted, see Brown, pp. 347-8; von Wahlde, p. 382. The most plausible explanation is (to paraphrase): “What I have been saying to you from the beginning”. However, it is possible to read it in an even more banal way, as an expression of frustration by Jesus: “Why do I even speak to you at all?”. Whatever the intended surface meaning to be conveyed by Jesus, there can be no real doubt that the statement contains a much deeper theological meaning—one which echoes the opening words of the Prologue—identifying Jesus as “the beginning”, i.e., as the Word/Wisdom (and Son) of God who was with the Father “in the beginning”. On this theological use of a)rxh/, couched in the expression a)p’ a)rxh=$ (“from [the] beginning”), cf. 1 John 1:1 and 2:13-14 (cp. 2:7, 24; 3:8, 11; 2 Jn 5-6).

The message regarding his identity is central to his mission, the purpose for which God the Father sent Jesus (the Son) to earth. Having come from God the Father, having been with Him from the beginning, Jesus naturally speaks the very words of God (v. 26):

“I hold many (thing)s about you to speak and to judge, but the (One hav)ing sent me is true, and I speak to the world the (thing)s that I (have) heard alongside Him.”

Not surprisingly, Jesus’ ambiguous and provocative answer leads to another response by his hearers (v. 27), presented by the Gospel writer as a simple summary, to the effect that “they did not know that he said (this) to them (about God) the Father”. This expression of their lack of understanding prompts Jesus to offer a further exposition of his words:

“When you would lift up high [u(ywshte] the son of man, then you will know that I am [e)gw/ ei)mi], and (that) from myself I do nothing—but (rather), just as the Father taught me, (so) I speak these (thing)s.” (v. 28)

The initial statement of verse 28 is a “son of man” saying that resembles (and echoes) the earlier one in 3:14:

“And, just as Moshe lifted high [u%ywmen] the snake in the desolate (land), so it is necessary (for) the son of man to be lifted high [u(ywqh=nai].”

This saying informs the use of the expression “the son of man” here, and so the earlier study (on 3:14) must be consulted.

As noted above, commentators have been strangely unwilling to recognize the ‘absolute’ use of “I am” (e)gw/ ei)mi) here in verse 28 (and in v. 24, cf. above), in spite of its clear use in v. 58. Many translators render e)gw/ ei)mi here as “I am he”, either as a reference to Jesus’ identity as the Messiah, or as “the Son of Man”. According to this line of interpretation, Jesus is using the expression “the son of man” here as a Divine (or Messianic) title, referring to the heavenly figure of Daniel 7:13-14. The translation of the first part of the verse, then would be:

“When you lift up high the Son of Man, (then) you will know that I am he…”

In my view, such a reading is wholly incorrect and thoroughly distorts the Johannine theological (and Christological) message here in the Gospel. The expression “the son of man” is, principally, a self-reference by Jesus, as if he were to say: “When you lift me up high, (then) you will know that I am…” —that is, you will know that I am the Son of God, who was with the Father (in heaven) from the beginning. The remainder of the verse clearly confirms that Jesus’ identity as the Son is being emphasized, essentially reiterating the point made in v. 26 (cf. above).
The possible influence of Dan 7:13f on the use of the expression “the son of man” (by Jesus) in the Gospel Tradition has been discussed in the earlier studies on the Synoptic sayings (esp. Mk 13:26; 14:62 par). It will be treated in more detail as this series comes to a close.

While the expression “the son of man” is principally used as a self-reference by Jesus here in v. 28, it certainly carries with it the Johannine theological associations we have discerned from the prior studies:

    • The heavenly origin of the son of man
    • The descent (vb katabai/nw, “step down”) of the son man
    • The authority of the son of man, given to him by God the Father, which includes the authority to give life to those who believe
    • The incarnation of the Son, whose mission on earth culminates in his sacrificial death, which serves to confer life to those who believe

On the latter point, in particular, I think that one may admit an allusion to the incarnation (and Jesus’ impending death) in the concluding verse 29:

“And the (One hav)ing sent me is with me; He did not set me forth alone, (in) that I do the (thing)s pleasing to Him at all times.”

The “sending” (vb pe/mpw) and “setting forth” (or “sending away”, a)fi/hmi) of the Son certainly involves his incarnation (1:14) in the person of Jesus. But the incarnate mission of the Son on earth is not done alone, apart from God the Father; rather, the Father remains with (meta/) him. This may allude to the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus at his baptism (1:32-33), suggesting that the Father’s presence is realized for Jesus through the Spirit. However, the Johannine writings say surprisingly little about how the Son’s relation to the Father was realized, in the incarnate ‘state,’ during Jesus’ earthly ministry.

In any case, the Son’s earthly mission culminates in the death of Jesus, and his death is certainly to be included as a principal component of the “lifting up high” (vb u(yo/w) of the Son. The verb u(yo/w (“lift/raise high”) is a principal Johannine verb for the exaltation of Jesus. This exaltation encompasses his death, resurrection, and return to the Father. It does, however, begin with Jesus’ death, and that is the primary point of reference both in 3:14 and here in 8:28. In this regard, the verb u(yo/w is specifically associated with the expression “the son of man”, occurring also in 12:32, 34 (to be discussed). This is not surprising, since, in the wider Gospel Tradition, the expression was frequently used in the context of Jesus’ suffering and death, as we saw in our study on the Synoptic Sayings (esp. the three Passion predictions, Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33 par). The formulation using the verbal particle dei= (“it is necessary [for]…”) is very much reminiscent of the Synoptic Passion predictions.

In 3:14 and 12:32, 34, the verb u(yo/w occurs in a passive form, but here in 8:28, it is active (“when you lift up high…”). It indicates the people’s role in putting Jesus to death. The passive form, by contrast, could be read as an example of the so-called Divine passive (passivum divinum), with God the Father as the implied actor. This would tend to emphasize the aspect of giving honor to the Son, parallel to the use of the verb doca/zw for the exaltation of Jesus.

The Discourse-section 8:21-30 concludes with the narrative summary in v. 30: “(With) his speaking these (thing)s, many (people) trusted in him”. This concurrence of the use of the expression “the son of man” with an emphasis on trusting in Jesus is significant, both in relation to the earlier use of the expression in the Bread of Life Discourse (cf. parts 1, 2, and 3 of the previous study), and to the next occurrence, in 9:35. It is this reference which will be examined in our next study.

References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel According to John I-XII, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 29 (1966).
Those marked “von Wahlde” are to Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John. Volume 2: Commentary on the Gospel of John, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (2010).

 

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Johannine Sayings (Jn 6:62)

John 6:62

The third occurrence of the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) in chapter 6 is the saying by Jesus in verse 62. The first two occurrences (in vv. 27 and 53) were discussed in parts 1 and 2 of this study. Verses 60-71 are an integral component of the ‘Bread of Life’ Discourse, even though they are outside of the Discourse proper (vv. 22-59).

The relationship of vv. 60-71 to the main sections of the Discourse can be debated, on historical-critical and source-critical grounds. However, from a literary standpoint, there is no question that they are connected with the Discourse proper. This means that the ‘grumbling’ response by the disciples in verse 60f, refers back to Jesus’ words and teaching in the Discourse. The lo/go$ (“account, word”) they speak of—viz., “this lo/go$ is harsh, who is able to hear it?” —must refer to the sayings by Jesus in the Discourse (and their exposition).

In this regard, the response by the disciples mirrors the earlier responses by Jesus’ hearers (in vv. 28 [also 30-31], 41-42, and 52). This follows the typical pattern for the Johannine Discourses:

    • Principal saying/statement by Jesus
    • Response by his hearers, indicating that they have misunderstood the true meaning of his words
    • Exposition by Jesus

Sometimes, in the longer Discourses, the Response/Exposition portion of the pattern is repeated.

Which aspect of Jesus’ saying(s) are the disciples responding to when they call it “harsh” (or “hard, tough,” sklhro/$)? It is worth comparing their response to that of Jesus’ hearers in the Discourse. The sayings in Parts 2 and 3 of the Discourse, each of which relates back to the principal statement in v. 27, are “I am” sayings of Jesus:

    • I am the bread of life
      the (one) coming toward me shall not (ever) hunger,
      and the (one) trusting in me shall at no time thirst.” (v. 35)
    • I am the living bread (hav)ing stepped down out of heaven—
      if any(one) should eat of this bread, he shall live into the Age…” (v. 51)

The saying in verse 51 contains both points of objection raised by Jesus’ hearers:

    • Jesus has “stepped down” (i.e., come down) from heaven
      “…(they) muttered about him that he said ‘I am the bread having stepped down out of heaven’ … how can he say (this)…?” (vv. 41-42)
    • It is necessary to “eat” Jesus—specifically, his “flesh”
      “How is this man able to give (us) [his] flesh to eat?” (v. 52)

Since the third section (vv. 51-58) immediately precedes v. 60, it would be natural that the “harsh” word be identified with the saying in v. 51, and with the idea that one must “eat” Jesus’ flesh (and “drink” his blood). However, what follows in vv. 61-62 suggests rather that it is the idea of Jesus’ heavenly origin that is the main point of difficulty for the disciples. Here is how Jesus responds to them:

But Yeshua, having seen that his learners [i.e. disciples] muttered about this, said to them: “Does this trip you up? Then, if you could view the son of man stepping (back) up to where he was (at) the first…?” (vv. 61-62)

Syntactically, the question posed by Jesus is incomplete, containing only the conditional clause (the “if” portion), but missing the apodosis (i.e., the “then” portion). He asks, “if you could view the son of man stepping (back) up to where he was (at) first…?” Most translators and commentators attempt to fill out the question, but there is some uncertainty regarding how Jesus intends it. I am inclined to interpret the question as a rebuke to the disciples, along the lines of:

“Then, if you could view the son of man stepping (back) up to where he was at first, would that help you to trust in my word?”

The point at issue is the heavenly origin of Jesus, as the Son sent from heaven by God the Father. This is the fundamental Christological point of the entire Gospel, and it can only be grasped through trust, not by physical sight. Throughout the Gospel, these two levels of sight/seeing are juxtaposed: physical sight (i.e., ordinary seeing with the eyes) vs. spiritual sight. In the Johannine theological idiom, the latter represents the true meaning of the various sight/seeing verbs used in the Gospel. Through the eyes of faith, given to the believer by God Himself, one is able to recognize the truth of who Jesus is—viz., the Son of God, sent from heaven by the Father. Seeing Jesus in the ordinary sense (with one’s eyes) is meaningless if it does not lead to trust in him. This is the thrust of Jesus’ famous rebuke to Thomas in 20:27ff (see esp. verse 29). The juxtaposition of these two levels of seeing is perhaps most clear in chapter 9, the episode of the Blind Man. At the beginning of the narrative, the focus is on physical sight (and blindness); however, by the end of the episode (vv. 35-41), the focus has shifted to trust in Jesus. The one who sees, trusts in Jesus, while the one who is truly blind is unable/unwilling to trust.

The sight/seeing verb used in verse 62 is qewre/w, meaning “look (closely) at, view, observe, perceive”. It occurs quite frequently in the Gospel of John—24 times (out of 58 NT occurrences), compared with 16 in the Synoptics. It was used earlier in the Bread of Life Discourse (v. 40), where it is parallel (and synonymous) with the verb pisteu/w (“trust”), referring to trust in Jesus (as the Son). That is also the meaning, for example, in 12:45. In the Last Discourse, Jesus (and the Gospel writer) plays on the dual-meaning of the verb—that is, the two levels of “seeing” (cf. above)—14:17, 19; 16:10, 16-17ff.

The force of Jesus’ rebuke here in v. 62 is that his disciples should not need to see him go back up to heaven in order to trust in his heavenly origin. Their response in v. 61 suggests that, at least at this point in the narrative, they are not yet able to recognize the full truth of who Jesus is. It is only at the end of the Last Discourse (cf. 16:30ff) that they truly begin to understand. The confession by Peter here in vv. 68-69, like the fuller declaration by Martha in 11:27, anticipates the moment when Jesus’ disciples will finally recognize the truth regarding his identity.

How, then, shall we explain the use of the expression “the son of man” in this context? First, it is clearly used by Jesus as a self-reference. He could just as well have asked, “what if you were to see me stepping (back) up to where I was at first…?”. More important is the use of the expression earlier in the Discourse (vv. 27, 53)—particularly, in the initial saying of verse 27. Throughout the Discourse, Jesus identifies himself as the “bread from heaven”; and when he (“th[is] son of man”) gives the bread, he is actually giving himself. Thus, the emphasis is on the fact that he has come down from heaven.

The important Johannine verb katabai/nw (“step down”, i.e., come down) occurs seven times in the Discourse (vv. 33, 38, 41-42, 51-52, 58), while the corresponding verb a)nabai/nw (“step up,” i.e., go up, ascend) is used here in v. 62. Both of these verbs were used in the “son of man” sayings of 1:51 [study] and 3:13-14 [study], and thus reflect important thematic associations for the expression within the Gospel of John:

    • The heavenly origin of Jesus
    • That Jesus (the Son) came down to earth, sent by the Father

A third, related theme, is the incarnation of the Son in the person of Jesus. This was discussed in the second part of this study (on verse 53, in the context of vv. 51-58), and is alluded to again in verse 63 (see below). The idea of the Son’s incarnation (as human flesh [and blood]) cannot be separated from the motif of the Son’s descent from heaven. Moreover, both the Son’s incarnation, and the mission for which he sent down to earth (by the Father), relate specifically to Jesus’ death. This, indeed, is the emphasis in vv. 51-58, and must be regarded as part of the “harsh word” that the disciples find difficult to accept. Jesus’ teaching in the Discourse entails a double difficulty—stemming from the very expression “the bread out of heaven”:

    • “out of heaven” —the heavenly origin of Jesus
    • “bread” —that it is necessary to “eat” Jesus (that is, his “flesh”)

If Jesus’ question in verse 62 addresses the first difficulty, his words in verse 63 would seem to address the second:

“The Spirit is the (thing) making alive—the flesh does not benefit anything! The utterances which I have spoken to you are Spirit and are Life.”

It is inconceivable that this statement, in the context of the chapter 6 Discourse, does not refer back to vv. 51-58, and to the apparent eucharistic language used in those verses. If so, then the noun sa/rc (“flesh”) here must refer to the use of the same noun (six times) in vv. 51-56. Just as one cannot recognize the truth of who Jesus is through ordinary (physical) sight, so also one cannot receive life through the ordinary (physical) eating of bread/flesh. The nature of both the seeing and eating is spiritual. Moreover, the Spirit is the source of the Divine (eternal) life, which one receives (and experiences) through trust in Jesus. By trusting in his word (“the utterances which I have spoken”)—the message regarding who he is—one both “sees” and “eats”. The emphasis in vv. 51-58 is not ritualistic (sacramental), but spiritual. For a more detailed study of verse 63, see my recent article and notes in the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”.

Returning to the use of the expression “the son of man”, there is, in v. 62, a two-fold emphasis—emphasizing two particular thematic associations which we have already highlighted:

    • As a self-reference by Jesus (viz., “th[is] son of man”), since the emphasis is on the identity of Jesus himself as the incarnate Son who has come down from heaven
    • That he has, indeed, come down from heaven—a Christological principle that entails both the incarnation of the Son, and the life that he is able to give as a result of his mission on earth

In the next study, we will turn to the next occurrence of the expression “the son of man”, in 8:28.

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Johannine Sayings (Jn 6:53)

John 6:53

There are three occurrences of the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) in the great ‘Bread of Life’ Discourse of chapter 6. The first of these (in verse 27), discussed previously, occurs within the first of the three sections (vv. 25-34) that comprise the Discourse proper (vv. 22-59):

    • Introduction to the Discourse (vv. 22-24)
    • Part 1—The Bread from Heaven [Passover/Manna theme] (vv. 25-34)
      • Encounter scene—Question from the crowd (vv. 25-26)
      • Saying of Jesus (v. 27)
      • Initial reaction by the people (v. 28)
      • Exposition (second saying) by Jesus (v. 29)
      • Reaction by the people (vv. 30-31)
      • Exposition by Jesus (vv. 32-33)
      • Concluding/transitional response by the people (v. 34)
    • Part 2—The Bread of Life [exposition of Bread from Heaven theme] (vv. 35-50)
      • Saying of Jesus (v. 35), with exposition (vv. 36-40)
      • Reaction by the people (vv. 41-42)
      • Exposition by Jesus (vv. 43-50)
    • Part 3—The Living Bread [exposition of Bread of Life theme] (vv. 51-58)
      • Saying of Jesus (v. 51)
      • Reaction by the people (v. 52)
      • Exposition by Jesus (vv. 53-58)
    • Narrative Conclusion (v. 59)

Each of these three parts builds upon the one prior. In Part 1, Jesus expounds the Scriptural tradition of manna as “the bread from heaven” (Exod 16:4; Psalm 105:40; Neh 9:15), implicitly identifying himself as the true “bread out of heaven”, which God the Father has sent down. In Part 2 (vv. 35-50), this identification is made explicit, utilizing the expression “the bread of life” (o( a&rto$ th=$ zwh=$), within an “I am” (e)gw\ ei)mi) statement by Jesus (v. 35). In Part 3, the identification is further refined in a second “I am” statement (v. 51), using the expression “the living bread” (o( a&rto$ o( zw=n).

The exposition in Part 2 can be divided into two sections (vv. 35-40, 43-50), separated by the questioning (and skeptical) response from Jesus’ hearers. This follows the basic pattern of the Johannine Discourses. Two main points are made in the first expository section: (1) Jesus has come down from heaven, having been sent by the Father; and (2) the purpose of this mission is to give (eternal) life to all who believe in him (viz., as the Son of God). This is basic Johannine theology, and it provides the theological explanation for the identification of Jesus as “the bread of life” (as “the bread out of heaven”). In the second expository section (vv. 43-50), in response to the audience’s questions (v. 42), Jesus further emphasizes the need for people to trust in him, and offers a measure of theological explanation as to how this trust takes place (vv. 44-46).

The fundamental expository development of the manna motif is thus two-fold: (1) that Jesus himself is the true “bread out of heaven”, and (2) that “eating” this bread means trusting in Jesus as the Son of God. There is not the slightest suggestion that the idiom of eating here has any other meaning.

This brings us to the third part of the Discourse (vv. 51-58), in which the “son of man” reference occurs. It is important to keep in mind that the entire Discourse is ultimately rooted in the first saying by Jesus, in verse 27, where the expression “the son of man” occurs:

“Do not work (for) the food th(at is) perishing, but (for) the food remaining into (the) life of the Age [i.e. eternal life], which the son of man shall give…”

The second and third sayings explain and elucidate (Christologically, note the “I am” formulation) the primary saying of v. 27:

    • I am the bread of life
      the (one) coming toward me shall not (ever) hunger,
      and the (one) trusting in me shall at no time thirst.” (v. 35)
    • I am the living bread (hav)ing stepped down out of heaven—
      if any(one) should eat of this bread, he shall live into the Age…” (v. 51)

The message is fundamentally the same in each of these sayings: the person who trusts in Jesus shall possess (and experience) eternal life. The parallelism of vv. 35 and 51 further confirms that “eating” the bread of life (Jesus) means trusting in him.

However, the second of these “I am” sayings (v. 51) is closer in form to the initial saying of v. 27. Note the parallel in the first portion of each saying:

    • “…(work for) the food remaining into (the) life of the Age”
    • “if any(one) should eat of this bread, he shall live into the Age”

And also in the second portion:

    • “…which the son of man shall give”
    • “…and the bread which I will give…”

The parallel makes clear that the expression “the son of man” is primarily used by Jesus here as a self-reference, interchangeable with the pronoun “I”. This confirms much of our analysis from the earlier studies on the Synoptic “son of man” sayings. The final words of verse 51 provide the essential expository information that will be further developed in this section:

“…and the bread which I will give is my flesh, over [u(pe/r] the life of the world”

That is to say, Jesus’ identity as the “bread of life” (or “living bread”) is specifically focused on his flesh (sa/rc). In verse 53 (see below), this is further expanded to include his blood (ai!ma); the preparation for this expository development is provided by the reference to both eating and drinking, in v. 35. Fundamentally, there is no difference between the motif of eating and that of drinking—in the Johannine theological idiom, they both refer to trusting in Jesus, and to the life that is conferred to the believer as a result of that trust. One only need to compare the “living water” (drinking) theme in the chapter 4 Discourse (vv. 10-14, cf. also 7:37-39) with the “living bread” (eating) theme here in chapter 6.

The statement by Jesus in verse 51 naturally leads to another questioning response (demonstrating a lack of understanding) by his hearers (v. 52). The difficulty expressed in vv. 42-43 had to do with the idea that Jesus had come down from heaven; here, the problem lies in the idea of eating his “flesh”. Jesus responds with a further exposition (vv. 53-58) of his saying. The “son of man” reference occurs in the initial statement of this exposition:

“Amen, amen, I say to you: if you should not eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you do not hold (any) life in yourselves.” (v. 53)

Here, the phrase “the flesh of the son of man” is precisely parallel with “my flesh” (in v. 51), demonstrating (again) that the expression “the son of man” is principally a self-reference by Jesus. This is also confirmed by the statement that follows in v. 54:

“The (one) devouring my flesh and drinking my blood holds (the) life of the Age [i.e. eternal life]…”

This represents the positive side of the negative statement in v. 53: the one who does eat Jesus’ “flesh” does have life, while the one who does not eat his “flesh” does not have life. This is typical of the dualistic manner of Johannine thought and expression. For stylistic variation (and dramatic emphasis), the verb trw/gw (lit. “wear away” by chewing), in the sense of “devour, consume”, is used in verse 54ff instead of the more general fa/gw (“eat”). The verb trw/gw is quite rare in the New Testament; of the six occurrences, four are here in vv. 54-58.
It is no less rare in the LXX, occurring only in the compounds e)ktrw/gw (Mic 7:4) and katatrw/gw (Prov 24:22e).

In verse 55, Jesus further emphasizes that his “flesh” and “blood” is true food and drink (just as he is the true “bread from heaven”). The natural consequences of this idiom of eating/drinking are developed in vv. 56-57. Just as a person takes in food and drink, and then the life-giving nutrients, etc, are assimilated and made active within the person, so the believer who consumes the “flesh” and “blood” of Jesus assimilates the Divine life (and life-giving power) of the Son. This is expressed in decidedly Johannine terms. First, in verse 56, the key verb me/nw (“remain, abide”) is utilized. This is the principal Johannine way of expressing the union of the believer with God—viz., the believer “remains in” God, and God “remains in” the believer. This abiding union with God the Father is achieved through the Son—that is, through trust in the Son (i.e., eating/drinking him):

“The (one) devouring my flesh and drinking my blood remains in me, and I in him.”

It is only by being (i.e. remaining) “in the Son” that we are able to be “in the Father”. In verse 57, the focus is on the life-giving power of the Son, which was given to him by the Father:

“Just as the living Father sent me forth, and I live through the Father, (so) also the (one) devouring me—that (one) shall live through me.”

This is another essential Johannine theme, one which featured prominently in the chapter 5 Discourse. Indeed, the theme is central to the “son of man” reference in v. 27, as it occurs within the overall context of vv. 19-30 (cf. the discussion in the prior study). Note, in particular, the statement in verse 26:

“For, just as the Father holds life in Himself, thus also He has given (it) to the Son to hold life in himself.”

The Son, in turn, gives life to whomever he wishes—that is, to all those who trust in him.

These themes and points of emphasis are summarized in v. 58, at the close of the Discourse, as Jesus returns to the manna tradition with which he began the Discourse:

This is the bread (hav)ing come down out of heaven; and (it is) not at all as our fathers ate and (then) died away—the (one) devouring this bread shall live into the Age!”

Conclusions

The use of the expression “the son of man” in verse 53, as noted above, functions primarily as a self-reference by Jesus. Its meaning and significance, in this Johannine context, follow the points of emphasis that we have already outlined from the prior studies (on the sayings in 1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27, and 6:27):

    • The heavenly origin of the son of man
    • The descent (vb katabai/nw, “step down”) of the son man
    • The authority of the son of man, given to him by God the Father, which includes the authority to give life to those who believe

If there is anything distinctive which is to be added to these theological themes, based on the saying in v. 53 (in the context of vv. 51-58), it relates specifically to the motif of Jesus’ flesh (and blood). These two idiomatic terms— “flesh” (sa/rc) and “blood” (ai!ma)—carry a correspondingly two-fold significance:

    • “flesh” —the incarnation of the Son in the person of Jesus (cf. 1:14; 1 Jn 4:2; 2 Jn 7)
    • “blood” —the life-giving power of Jesus’ death (19:34 [cp. verse 30]; 1 Jn 1:7; 5:6, 8)

The nouns sa/rc and ai!ma hardly occur at all in the Johannine writings outside of this theological-christological nexus.

As we have seen from our studies on the Synoptic sayings, the expression “the son of man” was particularly used by Jesus in connection with his suffering and death. This applies to the three Passion-predictions (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33 par; cf. also 9:9, 12), but the expression also occurs a number of times in the Passion narrative (Mk 14:21, 41 par; Matt 26:2; Lk 22:48), in dramatic anticipation of Jesus’ suffering/death. Especially notable, as a parallel to Jn 6:53, is the saying in Mark 10:45:

“For the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his soul, (as) a loosing (from bondage), in exchange for many.”

This resembles the thought expressed by Jesus at the Last Supper:

“this is my blood…having been poured out over many” (Mk 14:24 par)

The symbolism of the bread and wine—as Jesus’ “body” and “blood” —relates to his impending death, which will function as a sacrificial act, enabling human beings (viz., those who trust in him) to be set free from bondage (to sin).

Nearly all commentators recognize that there is eucharistic language present in vv. 51-58. The inclusion of flesh and blood, even though “flesh” alone would make a more natural parallel to “bread”, strongly suggests that there is an intentional reference (or allusion) to the eucharist (i.e., the Lord’s Supper ritual) at work in this section. Indeed, the wording in v. 51 (“…which I give over [u(pe/r] the life of the world”) seems to echo that of Mk 14:24 par (“…having been poured out over [u(pe/r] many”).

The precise relationship of vv. 51-58 to the eucharist has been (and continues to be) much debated by scholars and commentators. I have discussed the matter in earlier notes and articles, most recently as a supplemental note in the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament” (cf. the article on Jn 6:63). I will not repeat those discussions here. In any case, with regard to the specific use of the expression “the son of man”, the principal point is that, as in the Synoptic Last Supper account, Jesus’ “flesh” (or “body”) and “blood” refer to his death. Only secondarily, by way of symbolism, do they refer to the (eucharistic) elements of the Lord’s Supper rite.

As a result of our study on verse 53 (in context), we may expand our list of Johannine themes associated with the expression “the son of man” to include four fundamental themes:

    • The heavenly origin of the son of man
    • The descent (vb katabai/nw, “step down”) of the son man
    • The authority of the son of man, given to him by God the Father, which includes the authority to give life to those who believe
    • The incarnation of the Son, whose mission on earth culminates in his sacrificial death, which serves to confer life to those who believe

In the next part of this study, we shall turn our attention to the “son of man” reference in verse 62.

July 1: 1 John 5:18

1 John 5:18

“We have seen that every(one) having come to be (born) of God does not sin, but (instead) the (one hav)ing come to be (born) of God keeps watch (over) him, and (so) the evil does not touch him.” (5:18)

This is the final Johannine passage to be examined, dealing with the theme of the birth of believers as the children of God. It happens to be the most difficult of all the Johannine references dealing with this theme. The difficulty has to do with the grammatical ambiguity in the verse—rather typical of Johannine syntax, and particularly so in 1 John. Our author regularly leaves the subject of verbs, and the referent of pronouns, unspecified, in such a way that it is not always clear whether they refer to God the Father, Jesus the Son, or, on occasion, the believer. This verse is rife with such ambiguity.

We may divide the verse into three parts, corresponding to three clauses (abc). The first clause is straightforward enough:

“every(one) having come to be (born) of God does not sin” (18a)
pa=$ o( gegennhme/no$ e)k tou= qeou= ou)x a(marta/nei

This statement essentially repeats those of 3:6 and 9 (discussed in earlier notes); verse 9 is closest:

“every(one) having come to be (born) of God does not do the sin”

In that instance the author uses the verb poie/w (“do”) + the noun a(marti/a (“sin”, with the definite article); here the author uses the verb a(marta/nw (“sin”), as in verse 6:

“every(one) remaining in him does not sin”

The statement in 5:18 essentially combines these two, summarizing the message of 3:4-9.

Serious difficulties arise in the second clause:

“but the (one hav)ing come to be (born) of God keeps watch (over) him” (18b)
a)ll’ o( gennhqei\$ e)k tou= qeou= threi= au)to/n

The substantive participle here differs in tense (aorist) from that of the first clause (perfect). The expression o( gegennh/meno$ e)k tou= qeou=, using the perfect tense, is always used of believers; but is the same true here with the aorist tense? This would be unusual, and the difference in tense has led some commentators to posit that the reference in this clause is to Jesus (the Son). This would be fully consonant with both the message of 3:4-9 and of the Johannine theology as a whole. It is by abiding/remaining in the Son that believers can be free from sin. The power of sinlessness, and of removing sin, comes from the Son; thus, it would be quite proper to say that the Son “keeps watch over” the believer, protecting him/her from sin and evil (see below on Jn 17:12). Moreover, the Son, quite clearly, could be described as being ‘born’ of the Father.

The problem with this interpretation, is that the idiom of the verb genna/w + e)k (“come to be [born] of [God]”) in the Johannine writings always applies to believers, not to Jesus. The verb genna/w is used of Jesus in Jn 18:37, but in reference to his human birth (i.e., incarnation) on earth. If applied to Jesus here in v. 18b, this would be the only instance where the verb referred to Jesus’ Divine birth (as the Son) from God.

If the expression with aorist tense is a variation of the typical expression (with the perfect), referring to the believer, then the object pronoun au)to/n (“him”) must be understood reflexively:

“but the (one hav)ing come to be (born) of God keeps watch (over) himself”

Some manuscripts make this explicit by using the reflexive pronoun (e(auto/n).

This line of interpretation is also in accord with 3:4-9, and the Johannine theology as a whole. Indeed, verse 3 clearly emphasizes the need for the believer to “make himself holy/pure” (a(gni/zei e(auto/n), and the exhortation to “remain” in the Son (and in the truth, and in love), fulfilling the great duty (e)ntolh/) required of all believers, is a central theme. Moreover, the verb thre/w (“[keep] watch [over]”) is usually applied to the disciple/believer, in just such a context—viz., of remaining in Jesus (in his word and love), and of fulfilling the e)ntolh/; cf. 2:3-5; 3:22, 24; 5:3; Jn 8:51-52ff; 14:15, 21, 23-24; 15:10, 20; 17:6.

Another possibility, though less plausible grammatically, is that the clause should be read as:

“but (as for) the (one hav)ing come to be (born) of God, (God) keeps watch (over) him”

The participle refers to the believer, but God is the subject of the verb thre/w. In favor of this interpretation is the fact that the closest parallel to 5:18f, with its use of the verb thre/w, is found in John 17 (vv. 11-12, 15), where the reference is to God the Father “keeping watch (over)” believers; verse 15 is particularly close:

(Jesus praying to the Father, on behalf of his disciples):
“I do not request that you should take them out of the world, but that you would keep watch (over) [thrh/sh|$] them out of [i.e. away from] the evil.”

In verse 12, it is the Son (Jesus) who watches over the disciples (during his earthly ministry). But, with his departure from earth, the Son asks the Father to watch over them, in his place. In the Last Discourse, this role is given to the Spirit-Paraclete (cf. my earlier notes on the Paraclete-sayings).

Thus, there are three ways to explain the subject of the verb thre/w in 5:18:

    • The believer keeps watch over himself/herself, viz., by remaining in the Son, and thus keeping free from sin [3:3, and most occurrences of the verb thre/w]
    • The Son keeps watch over the believer, keeping him/her free from sin [Jn 17:12, and the context of 3:5, 8]
    • The Father keeps watch over the believer [Jn 17:11, 15]

To this, a fourth option can be added. In a few manuscripts and other witnesses (including the Latin Vulgate), instead of the participle gennhqei/$ (“[hav]ing come to be [born]”), the reading is the noun ge/nnhsi$ (“coming to be [born]”, i.e., “birth”):

“but the coming to be (born) keeps watch (over) him”

That is to say, the birth from God itself watches over the believer (and keeps him/her from sin); it is because the believer has been born (as the offspring of God) that he/she is able to be free from sin (3:9, see above).

In the next daily note, we will continue this discussion on 5:18.

 

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Johannine Sayings (Jn 6:27)

John 6:27, 53, 62

There are three occurrences of the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) in the great ‘Bread of Life’ Discourse of chapter 6. Like the chapter 5 Discourse (see the previous study), the Bread of Life Discourse is built upon the historical tradition of a miracle episode—the Miraculous Feeding episode (6:1-14ff), known also from the Synoptic Tradition (Mk 6:30-44; 8:1-10 pars). In many ways, the chapter 6 Discourse is better integrated with the miracle episode than is the chap. 5 Discourse. The manna-theme of “bread from heaven”, featuring in the Exposition sections of the Discourse, provides a natural fit to the feeding miracle (with its multiplication of the bread-loaves).

The Discourse proper (vv. 22-59) may be divided into three parts, each of which further expounds the previous section:

    • Introduction to the Discourse (vv. 22-24)
    • Part 1—The Bread from Heaven [Passover/Manna theme] (vv. 25-34)
      • Encounter scene—Question from the crowd (vv. 25-26)
      • Saying of Jesus (v. 27)
      • Initial reaction by the people (v. 28)
      • Exposition (second saying) by Jesus (v. 29)
      • Reaction by the people (vv. 30-31)
      • Exposition by Jesus (vv. 32-33)
      • Concluding/transitional response by the people (v. 34)
    • Part 2—The Bread of Life [exposition of Bread from Heaven theme] (vv. 35-50)
      • Saying of Jesus (v. 35), with exposition (vv. 36-40)
      • Reaction by the people (vv. 41-42)
      • Exposition by Jesus (vv. 43-50)
    • Part 3—The Living Bread [exposition of Bread of Life theme] (vv. 51-58)
      • Saying of Jesus (v. 51)
      • Reaction by the people (v. 52)
      • Exposition by Jesus (vv. 53-58)
    • Narrative Conclusion (v. 59)
John 6:27

The principal saying/statement by Jesus that opens the Discourse is in verse 27:

“Do not work (for) the food th(at is) perishing, but (for) the food th(at is) remaining into (the) life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life], which the Son of man will give to you…”

Jesus adds the following statement regarding “the son of man”:

“…for (on) this (one) God the Father (has) set (His) seal.”

There are thus three main points made by Jesus in this saying:

    • There is food, different from ordinary physical food, that remains (vb me/nw) into the (eternal) life to come.
    • The “son of man” gives people this food.
    • God the Father has His seal on this “son of man”

In turn, these points reflect key Johannine theological themes or principles:

    • Use of the verb me/nw (“remain, abide”) to express the Divine (eternal) nature and character of the union between God and the believer, in parallel here with the equally important motif of life (zwh/, i.e. eternal life).
    • The Son (Jesus) gives life to the world, to those who trust in him (i.e., to believers).
    • Jesus (the Son) is the authoritative representative of God the Father, having been sent by Him, and carrying His message.
      The seal-motif, however, is not typically Johannine (cf. 3:33), though it does occur repeatedly (in a different context) in the book of Revelation.

How are we to understand the use of the expression “the son of man” here in verse 27? At the historical level, as a saying of Jesus, apart from the Johannine literary context, it would be most natural to regard it primarily as a self-reference by Jesus, such as in many of the examples we looked at in the Synoptic Gospels. The most natural parallel would be the saying in Mark 10:45 par, which also relates to the three Passion-predictions (8:31; 9:31; 10:33 pars). Though the initial saying in verse 27 is not clearly connected with Jesus’ death, that association will be developed over the course of the Exposition sections that follow (cf. the next part of this study).

Thus, as a self-reference, the phrase “…which the son of man will give” is essentially equivalent to “…which I will give”. And, indeed, Jesus later uses this formulation with the first person, in verse 51: “…and the bread, indeed, which I [e)gw/] will give”. This is very much in keeping with the distinctive usage of the expression by Jesus, which could perhaps be effectively translated as “th(is) son of man” —i.e., this human being, this person, namely Jesus himself.

However, there can be little doubt that the Gospel writer intended the expression to be understood in light of the earlier occurrences—in 1:51, 3:13-14, and 5:27. Three thematic aspects of that earlier usage would seem to be relevant here:

    • The heavenly origin of the son of man
    • The descent (vb katabai/nw, “step down”) of the son man
    • The authority of the son of man, given to him by God the Father, which includes the authority to give life to those who believe

All three of these themes are developed by Jesus (and the Gospel writer) throughout the Discourse. The themes are summarized concisely in the initial exposition by Jesus in verse 29, which reads like a Johannine confessional statement; he defines the “work of God” (v. 28) as: “…that you should trust in the (one) whom that (One) sent forth”. Jesus is the Son sent (from heaven) by God the Father, and thus possesses the authority of the Father, to speak and act. In the second exposition (vv. 32-33) of this first portion of the Discourse, Jesus utilizes the Scriptural tradition of the manna as “the bread from heaven”(Exod 16:14; Psalm 105:40; Neh 9:15), introduced by his audience in v. 31. Through this motif, Jesus identifies himself as the “bread from [e)k] heaven”, though he does not make the identification explicit right away, but instead prepares the groundwork for it through an exposition of the Scripture:

“…(it was) not Moshe (who) has given to you ‘the bread out of heaven’, but (rather) my Father gives to you the true ‘bread out of heaven’; for, the bread of God is the (one) stepping down [katabai/nwn] out of heaven and giving life to the world.”

The perceptive reader/hearer of the Gospel would immediately recognize the Christological use here of the verb katabai/nw, as referring to the descent of the Son of God from heaven, and his incarnation on earth in the person of Jesus. The expression “the son of man” was used in this context in 3:13 (note), and was alluded to earlier in 1:51 (note).

In the next part of this study, we will look at how the Johannine themes, associated with “the son of man”, are developed in the second part (vv. 35-50) of the Discourse, as well as their unique application in the third part (vv. 51-58), including the apparent eucharistic context of the “son of man” saying in verse 53.

June 12: John 11:52

John 11:52

The Johannine keyword te/knon (plur. te/kna, “offspring”), used in reference to the believers as the children of God, occurs with some frequency in the Letters (nine times, five in 1 John), but only three times in the Gospel. We have already discussed two of the occurrences, in 1:12 (note) and 8:39 (see the previous note). The third is in 11:52; interestingly, however, it is not spoken by Jesus, but by Caiaphas—as an opponent of Jesus. This is an example of the irony that we find in a number of places throughout the Gospel. An opponent of Jesus unwittingly speaks using Johannine theological terminology—regarding Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and believers as the children of God.

We saw something similar in the Discourse-section 8:31-47 of the Sukkot Discourse (chaps. 7-8), discussed in the previous note. In verses 33 and 39a, some in the audience make the claim of being children of Abraham, to which Jesus responds, in v. 39b, using the noun te/kna (“offspring”). His point is, that they cannot truly be the te/kna of Abraham, since they are opposed to him, and even wish to see him put to death—something which Abraham never would do. The implication is that they are actually children of the Devil. To this, Jesus’ opponents respond further by claiming to have God as their Father—drawing upon Old Testament and Jewish tradition that defined the relationship between YHWH and Israel (and especially the righteous ones of Israel) as that of a Father to his son. In doing so, they unwittingly use the Johannine theological idiom genna/w + e)k (“come to be [born] of”), implying that they are the offspring (te/kna) of God. This, of course, is not possible, since they do not trust in Jesus as the Son of God, a point made clear by Jesus in the exposition of vv. 40-47.

The episode in 11:45-53 also involves opponents of Jesus. It follows the great Lazarus episode of chapter 11 (vv. 1-44), which is at the center of the entire Gospel narrative (cf. the central confessional statement in verse 27). Largely in reaction to the raising of Lazarus, the religious authorities in Jerusalem—that is, the high Council, or Sanhedrin—gather together, in order to determine what action they should take. Eventually, they decided that Jesus must be put to death, and made plans to achieve that goal (v. 53). As presented in the narrative, key to that decision was the advice given by the high priest Caiaphas (vv. 49-50), advising that “…it bears together (well) for us, that one man should die off over [u(pe/r, i.e. for the sake of] the people, and that the entire nation should not perish”.

Here Caiaphas unwittingly describes the salvific character of Jesus’ death, using terminology found elsewhere in the Gospel. For example, the preposition u(pe/r (“over”, in the sense of “on behalf of, for the sake of”) occurs on a number of occasions in reference to the sacrificial, atoning nature of Jesus’ death—6:51 (cp. Mark 14:24 par); 10:11, 15; 17:19; cf. also 13:37-38; 15:13. Also, the idea that the entire nation “should not perish” echoes the wording in 3:16 (cf. 6:39; 10:28; 17:12).

According to the information provided by the Gospel writer, Caiaphas’ advice is in line with a prophecy he had apparently spoken some time earlier, in which he predicted that:

“…Yeshua was about to die off over [i.e. for the sake of] the nation—and not over the nation only, but (so) that also the offspring [te/kna] of God, having been scattered throughout, might be gathered together into one.” (vv. 51b-52)

This is perhaps the supreme example of Johannine irony, and also of the lack of understanding by Jesus’ opponents (presented so frequently in the Discourses). Here, Jesus’ opponents do not even understand the true meaning of their own words. Caiaphas’ prophecy is an unwitting prophecy of the effect of Jesus’ mission (and his sacrificial death)—that it would unite together all of the “offspring of God”. Caiaphas meant this expression in the manner of Jesus’ opponents in 8:39 (see above), as a reference to the Israelite/Jewish people; however, from the Johannine standpoint, it refers to believers in Christ.

The theme of unity, expressed by Caiaphas’ final words (ei)$ e%n, “into one”), also has an important place in the Johannine theology. It is most prominent in the great Discourse-Prayer of chapter 17, where the adjective ei!$ (neut. e%n), “one”, occurs five times (vv. 11, 21, 22 [twice], 23). There is also an important occurrence in 10:16, where Jesus similarly uses it in the context of the unity of believers. Following Jesus’ death and resurrection, the proclamation of the Gospel message—the Christian mission—will result in uniting together all the “offspring of God”. Every one who belongs to God will respond to the Gospel, and through trust in Jesus, will come to be born (1:12-13; 3:3-8) as the offspring/children of God. Through the Spirit, all of these believers are united as one—in union with God the Father and Jesus the Son, but also with each other.

June 11: John 8:39-46

John 8:39-46

In examining the Johannine theme of the spiritual birth of believers, it is worth noting that the idiom of the verb genna/w + the preposition e)k (“come to be [born] out of”) can be applied not only to believers (see the previous notes on 3:3-8 and 1:12-13), but also to their opposite—to non-believers and those who are hostile/opposed to Christ. This reflects a starkly dualistic outlook (and mode of expression) that pervades the Johannine writings. All human beings belong to one of two categories, presented as dualistic opposites—light vs. darkness, above vs. below, believers vs. the world, God and Christ vs. the “chief of this world” (i.e., the Satan/Devil). By this manner of expression, if one is not of God (and His Spirit), then that person must be of the Devil.

This dualistic contrast, of children of God vs. children of the Devil, features prominently in the Sukkot-Discourse complex of chapters 7-8. The theme is developed gradually, throughout the Discourse-sections of 8:12-59. The Johannine message of Jesus as the Son, sent from heaven by God the Father, is expounded in vv. 12-30, with particular emphasis on the word spoken by Jesus, bearing witness to his identity as the Son. The true disciple is one who trusts in this word (see v. 30), but then also remains in it (vv. 31-32).

At this point in the Discourse, some of Jesus’ hearers unwittingly introduce the birth/sonship motif, by referring to themselves (Israelites/Jews) as the “seed of Abraham” (v. 33). Jesus plays upon this self-identification, pointing out that, because they oppose him (and even seek to kill him), they cannot truly be Abraham’s children—since Abraham would not act in such away (vv. 37, 39-40, 56). This logic follows an important Johannine theme—viz., that the Son (Jesus), as a dutiful son, follows the example of his Father, faithfully doing what he sees the Father doing, and saying what he hears the Father saying (v. 38). In this regard, the speech and conduct of a person reveals who his/her father is. By opposing God’s Son, and seeking to have Jesus put to death, these people reveal that the Devil is their true father (vv. 38, 41ff).

Prior to verse 39, the expression “seed [spe/rma] of Abraham” is used; however, now the important Johannine word te/knon (plur. te/kna, “offspring”) is introduced. This shift enables the contrast, between children of God and children of the Devil, to be established and expounded in vv. 39-47. The response of these people to the Son (Jesus) sent by God the Father, and to his words (which are God’s words), shows that they cannot be true offspring (te/kna) of Abraham (v. 40).

In verse 41, there is a further conceptual shift, from being the offspring of Abraham to being the offspring of God. Again, it is Jesus’ opponents who unwittingly introduce the theme, ironically using Johannine theological terminology:

“We have not come to be (born) [gegennh/meqa] out of [e)k] prostitution [i.e. sexual immorality], but we have one Father, God!”

The Johannine idiom of genna/w + e)k is here utilized; in a roundabout way, these people are claiming to be the “offspring [te/kna] of God”, even though they are clearly not believers in Christ. In the remainder of this section (vv. 42-47), the verb genna/w is not used, but the preposition e)k does occur repeatedly. In the Johannine terminology, the preposition alone can stand for genna/w + e)k, as a reference to the birth (of believers) as the offspring of God. Actually, the preposition has a range of theological meaning, with three specific semantic layers or aspects that are in play here:

    • Indicating origin (“from”), specifically of Jesus (the Son) coming from (lit. “out of”) God the Father
    • The idea of birth—of (believers) being born of God
    • The more general idea of “belonging to”, viz., of believers being of God

The first aspect occurs in verse 42, as Jesus affirms his heavenly origin, with the preposition e)k doubled: “for I came out [vb e)ce/rxomai] out of [e)k, i.e. from] God”. By contrast, Jesus’ opponents have their origin (or source, their ‘birth’) from the Devil: “You are out of [e)k] (your) father the Dia/bolo$” (v. 44). As children of the Devil, they think and act and speak as their ‘father’ does. God is the source of truth (a)lh/qeia), while the Devil is the source of that which is false (to\ yeu=do$), vv. 44b-46. The essential contrast is stated concisely, in the climactic verse 47:

“The (one) being of [e)k] God hears the utterances [i.e. words] of God; for this (reason), you do not hear, (in) that [i.e. because] you are not of [e)k] God.”

All three layers of meaning for the preposition e)k (see above) can be applied here:

    • Jesus as the Son who comes from God, and who hears God the Father speaking
    • Believers as those who are ‘born’ of God, and thus are able to hear the words of God (i.e., trusting in them)
    • Moreover, believers are truly of God, belonging to Him as His offspring

There are numerous parallels to this wording in the Johannine writings, most notably the statement by Jesus in Jn 18:37.

While the illustration of unbelievers as ‘children’ of the Devil may be useful, it should not be pressed too far. Unbelievers do not “come to be (born)” (vb genna/w) of the Devil in the manner that believers “come to be (born)” of God. The phrasing here in verse 47 is more proper, from a Johannine theological standpoint: a non-believer (or unbeliever) is, by definition, not born of God. This negation is fundamental to the distinction between a believer and a non-believer.

 

June 10: John 3:3-8

John 3:3-8

In the Johannine writings, the theme of believers as the sons/children of God is especially prominent, and is expressed primarily in two ways: (1) through the use of the noun te/knon (plur. te/kna), “offspring”; and (2) by the verb genna/w + the preposition e)k. The statement in 1:12b-13, discussed in the previous note, uses both of these elements.

The principal passage in the Gospel for this theme is the first section (vv. 3-8) of the Nicodemus Discourse in chapter 3. In these verses, the verb genna/w occurs eight times, four of which also use the preposition e)k (“out of”).

The verb genna/w is a verb of becoming, related to the more common gi/nomai, and with a comparable meaning. Both verbs can be used in the context of birth (i.e., coming to be born); however, this aspect of meaning is more regularly expressed by genna/w. The verb is relatively rare in the Synoptic Gospels, outside of the Matthean genealogy (1:1-16, where it occurs 40 times). It occurs primarily in the Matthean and Lukan Infancy narratives, in reference to the birth of Jesus (Matt 1:20; 2:1, 4; Luke 1:35), but also to the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:13, 57). Otherwise, it is used only rarely, in the context of an ordinary human birth (Mark 14:21; Matt 19:12; 26:24; Lk 23:29). The idiom of genna/w + e)k (i.e., “come to be born out of”) occurs only in Matt 1:20, in reference to the conception/birth of Jesus from the Holy Spirit. Elsewhere in the New Testament, outside of the Johannine writings, genna/w + e)k occurs only in Galatians 4:23 (cf. the earlier note on Gal 4:21-31).

As mentioned above, the verb genna/w occurs eight times in 3:3-8, the first section of the Nicodemus Discourse, in which the theme of birth is emphasized. Following the narrative introduction (vv. 1-2), the central statement by Jesus in verse 3 begins the Discourse:

“If one does not come to be (born) [e)ggenhqh=|] from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God.”

The Johannine Discourses of Jesus follow a basic pattern, which is outlined below (applied to the chap. 3 Discourse):

    • Statement by Jesus (v. 3)
    • Response by his hearer(s), reflecting a lack of understanding (v. 4)
    • Exposition by Jesus, in which he explains the true meaning of his words (vv. 5-8)
    • A second response by his hearer(s), again demonstrating a lack of understanding (v. 9)
    • Further exposition by Jesus (here, in two parts: vv. 10-15, 16-21)

In the initial exposition (vv. 5-8), Jesus explains the meaning of his statement in v. 3. Nicodemus, in his initial response (v. 4), has difficulty understanding Jesus’ use of the expression “come to be (born) from above [a&nwqen]”. He understands the adverb a&nwqen in the figurative/temporal sense of “again”, specifically in the context of a person coming to be born “a second time”, repeating his/her physical birth (from the mother’s womb). Jesus, however, explains that the ‘birth’ of which he speaks is a Divine birth, coming from God (“from above”). Since God Himself is Spirit (a point to be made in 4:24), a birth from God must be a spiritual, not a physical, birth. Jesus rephrases his initial statement in verse 5:

“If one does not come to be (born) out of water and (the) Spirit, he is not able to come into the kingdom of God.”

Being born “from above” is explained as being born “out of [e)k] water and (the) Spirit”, while “seeing” the Kingdom of God is explained in terms of “entering” (“coming into”) the Kingdom. In verses 6-8, the explanation of “from above” (a&nwqen) is further narrowed to “out of the Spirit”, without any mention of water. This has led commentators to debate the significance of “out of water” (e)c u%dato$) in verse 5. There are three lines of interpretation:

    • “water” and “Spirit” are essentially synonymous, perhaps in anticipation of the water-motif in the chapter 4 Discourse (vv. 10, 13-14; cf. vv. 23-24; 7:37-39)
    • “water” and “Spirit” are supplemental, referring (most likely) to the baptism ritual and its symbolism; “Spirit” is primary (vv. 6, 8), but “water” (i.e., baptism) is still essential for the believer (in order to “enter” the Kingdom)
    • the conjunction kai/ (“and”) signifies that in addition to being born out of water (i.e., one’s physical/biological), it is necessary specifically to be born “of the Spirit”.

I am very much inclined toward the third approach, which seems to be more in keeping with the context of vv. 3-4, and the exposition by Jesus in verses 6ff. There is a clear contrast between an ordinary human birth (from the mother’s womb), and a Divine/heavenly birth from the Spirit of God. In this regard, “out of (the) flesh” (v. 6) seems to be parallel with “out of water” in v. 5. Moreover, I would maintain that this line of interpretation is in accord with the Jesus-John contrast that runs through chapters 1-3; in particular, John’s baptism with water is contrasted with Jesus’ baptism with the Spirit (1:26, 31, 33; cf. 3:22-23ff). This thematic contrast is undercut if the wording in verse 5 refers to the (physical) water of the baptism ritual.

The irony is that Nicodemus was not entirely incorrect in his understanding of a&nwqen as connoting “again, a second time”, because a second birth is indeed required.

In his initial exposition, Jesus does not explain how it is that one comes to be born “from above”, that is, “from the Spirit”. This is only expounded subsequently, in vv. 10-21. The final portion (vv. 16-21), in particular, implicitly declares that this spiritual birth takes place only when a person trusts in Jesus as the Son sent to earth by God the Father. The theological (and Christological) basis for this is established in the prior section (vv. 10-15), by way of the Johannine descent-ascent schema. The Son has descended (lit. “stepped down”) to earth from heaven (v. 13), and, when his mission on earth is completed (culminating with his death), he will ascend (“step up”) back to heaven (vv. 13a, 14). Both aspects (descent and ascent of the Son) are necessary for one’s trust in Jesus to be genuine (and full), enabling that person to both see and enter the Kingdom of God.

In comparison with his teaching in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus says very little about the Kingdom of God in the Gospel of John. In fact, there are only two passages where the Kingdom-theme is dealt with to any extent—here in 3:3-8, and the dialogue with Pilate in 18:33-38. Throughout the rest of the Gospel, it is not the Messianic kingship of Jesus that is emphasized, but, rather, his identity as the Son sent from heaven by God the Father. Similarly, in place of the Kingdom as an eschatological concept, we find the twin Johannine themes of judgment (kri/si$, vb kri/nw) and life (zwh/). And, indeed, these are the two key themes introduced and expounded in the conclusion of the Discourse (vv. 16-21). The one who trusts in Jesus, possesses life, having already passed through the Judgment, while the one who does not trust, has already been judged.

This aspect of what it means to be a believer in Jesus is stated succinctly in verse 15, in relation to the descent-ascent of the Son:

“…(so) that every(one) trusting in him would hold (the) life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life]”

The parallel between the idiom of “entering the Kingdom” and “entering life”, whereby the two can be regarded as largely synonymous, is reasonably well established in the Gospel Tradition, within the teaching of Jesus (Mark 9:43, 45, 47 par; 10:15, 17 par; Matt 19:17, 23-24 par; cf. also Matt 7:14, 21).

June 7: John 1:12-13

John 1:12-13

The theme of the sonship of believers is most prominent in the Johannine writings. Indeed, it is a key component of the Johannine theology, as expressed throughout the Gospel and Letters of John. In the Gospel, the theme is introduced within the Prologue (1:1-18), at verses 12-13.

As discussed in my recent study, and in an earlier set of notes, one theory regarding the composition of the Prologue, which has gained wide acceptance among commentators, is that the Gospel writer has adapted an existing Christ-hymn—presumably one which had been in use among the Johannine churches. There have been a number of plausible reconstructions, attempting to isolate the core hymn. While there remain differences of opinion regarding the portions that derive from an original hymn, there is general agreement that verses 6-8, 12-13, and 15 represent expository comments by the Gospel writer. These comments serve to integrate the hymn more fully into the Gospel narrative; in particular, the references to John the Baptist (vv. 6-8, 15) establish the important Jesus-John contrast that runs through chapters 1-3.

Far more essential to the message of the Gospel—and the Johannine theology—as a whole are the comments in vv. 12-13. Some commentators see verse 12a as part of the original hymn. Indeed, it does follow verses 9-11 quite naturally, and seems to provide a necessary climax for this portion of the hymn:

“He came unto his own,
and (yet) his own did not receive him;
but as (many) as did receive him,
to them he gave authority to become offspring of God”
(vv. 11-12a)

In my view, verses 9-11 refer primarily to the presence/activity of the Word/Wisdom (Logos) of God throughout history—particularly the history of the Israelite/Jewish people. While this section anticipates the incarnation of the Logos (in the person of Jesus), that is not the principal point of reference in these verses. To everyone who receives (i.e., accepts) the Word/Wisdom of God, the Divine Word/Wisdom enables that person to become a child of God. This is a theme of Wisdom literature (e.g., Wisd 2:13, 16-18; Sirach 4:10)—viz., that it is specifically the righteous person who is the true son/child of God.

Even if verse 12a is part of the original hymn, and refers primarily to the presence/activity of the Divine Wisdom generally, what follows in vv. 12b-13 definitely represents a Christological application of this tradition by the Gospel writer. Ahead of the actual reference to the incarnation of Christ (v. 14), the author introduces a key theme regarding believers in Christ—namely, that they/we are to be identified as the children (lit. “offspring,” te/kna) of God, on the basis of our trust in Jesus. The Johannine writings always use the noun te/knon (plur. te/kna) for believers, with the noun ui(o/$ (“son”) being reserved for Jesus (as the Son); believers are never referred to as the “sons [ui(oi/] of God” (cp. Gal 3:26; Rom 8:14, 19).

The continuation of verse 12 (including v. 13) reads:

“but as (many) as did receive him,
to them he gave authority to become offspring of God,
to the (one)s trusting in his name—
those who, not out of blood, and not out of (the) will of (the) flesh, and not out (the) will of man, but out of God have come to be (born).”

The qualifying phrase “to the (one)s trusting in his name” makes clear that the Gospel writer is interpreting vv. 9-12a specifically in terms of Jesus Christ as the incarnate Word/Wisdom of God (v. 14).

An equally important point of interpretation for the Gospel writer is that this ‘birth’ of believers is in no way an ordinary physical/biological birth. This is emphasized by the three-fold denial in v. 13:

    • “not out of blood” —that is, not the result of the biological/chemical processes involving blood; the plural of the noun ai!ma (lit. “bloods”) could be meant to include the contributions from both the father and mother.
    • “not out of (the) will of (the) flesh” —that is, the biological-sexual drive for intercourse and procreation.
    • “not out of (the) will of man” —that is, the human desire and intention (by both father and mother) to have children.

Instead, the birth of a believer is entirely spiritual, coming from God Himself.

There is an interesting (minor) variant reading in v. 13, which is notable for its Christological implications. Instead of the plural (“those who…have come to be be born” [oi^e)gennh/qhsan]), a few textual witnesses read the singular (i.e., “the [one] who…came to be born” [o^e)gennh/qh]). This reading occurs in no surviving Greek manuscript, but is found in one Old Latin manuscript (b), and is attested by several early Christian writings of the 2nd-3rd centuries—the Epistle of the Apostles §3; Irenaeus Against Heresies III.16.2, 19.2; and Tertullian On the Flesh of Christ §§19, 24. The singular reading, doubtless influenced by the preceding pronoun (“his [name]”) at the end of v. 12, makes the ‘birth’ in v. 13 that of Jesus himself—i.e., the incarnation, or, more specifically, his virginal conception and birth. There have been a few commentators, going back to Harnack and Schmid (cf. also Zahn, Blass, Loissey, Boismard, and others; for a thorough treatment, see Vellanickal, pp. 112-32), who have argued that the singular reading is original; however, the vast majority of scholars accept the overwhelming external evidence for the plural. On the significance of the singular reading in the context of the Christological debates of the 2nd-3rd centuries, see the discussion by Ehrman (pp. 26-27, 59).

The plural is certainly more in keeping with the Johannine theological idiom. And, indeed, the language in vv. 12b-13 is thoroughly Johannine—particularly the use of the substantive participle (with definite article), as a way of referring to believers, and the specific idiom of the preposition e)k (“out of”) + the verb genna/w (“come to be [born]”). Apart from the second occurrence (possibly) of the verb in 1 John 5:18, this theological use of genna/w always refers to believers. The verb is used of Jesus in Jn 18:37, but in reference to his human birth, not a Divine birth from God.

Verse 13 contains the first occurrence of this important genna/w + e)k (“come to be born out of”) idiom, referring to the spiritual birth of believers (and to the opposite, for unbelievers). It occurs nine more times in the Gospel (eight of which are in 3:3-8), and ten times in 1 John. The idiom is distinctively Johannine, reflecting the Johannine theology, and is virtually non-existent in the rest of the New Testament. In the next daily note, we will examine how this idiom is used to express the sonship-theme in 3:3-8.

References above marked “Ehrman” are to Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press: 1993).
“Vellanickal” refers to Matthew Vellanickal, The Divine Sonship of Christians in the Johannine Writings (Rome: Biblical Institute Press: 1977).

 

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Johannine Sayings (Jn 5:27, cont.)

John 5:27, continued

In the first part of this study, we examined the context of the “son of man” reference in verse 27. As part of this analysis, we noted the parallelism between vv. 21-24 and 25-29 in the first expository section of the chap. 5 Discourse. We may narrow the focus to the parallel units of vv. 21-22 and 26-27, in which the thematic emphasis is on the Father giving to the Son the authority/ability both to give life (to the dead) and to judge. Here, again, is how this is expressed in vv. 21-22:

“For, just as [w(sper] the Father raises the dead and makes (them) live, so also the Son makes live th(ose) whom he wishes.
For the Father judges no one, but has given all (power of) judgment to the Son”

And, in vv. 26-27:

“For, just as [w(sper] the Father holds life in Himself, so also He (has) given to the Son life to hold in himself.
And He (has) given (the) authority [e)cousi/a] to him to make judgment, (in) that he is (the) Son of man.”

The point is made doubly: the Father has given life-giving power to the Son; He has also given the Son the power/authority to act as judge over humankind.

Throughout the first division of the Discourse, vv. 19-30, the principal theme is how Jesus, as the Son (of God), does the work of God his Father. The broader thematic focus is on the relationship between the Son (Jesus) and God the Father. Because of this central theme that runs through the entire Gospel, Jesus regularly refers to himself (in the Discourses) as “the Son” (o( ui(o/$), by which is meant “God’s Son” (i.e., “the Son of God”). This is typical of the Johannine Gospel, compared with the relatively rare use of the unqualified expression “the Son” in the Synoptics. And, not surprisingly, given the thematic emphasis in 5:19-30, the expression “the Son” occurs quite often (9 times) in these verses. This makes the singular use of the expression “(the) son of man” in v. 27 quite significant.

Why does Jesus (and the Gospel writer) use “(the) son of man” in verse 27 (and only there)? The precise wording of the phrase containing the expression is important: “(in) that [i.e. because] he is (the) Son of man” (o%ti ui(o\$ a)nqrw/pou e)stin). This explicative use of the o%ti-clause offers the reason why God the Father has given the Son (Jesus) authority to judge humankind: it is because he is “(the) son of man”.

From a syntactical standpoint, the statement “he is (the) son of man” is an example of the sort of essential predication that occurs throughout the Gospel (and Letters) of John. These simple predicative statements contain three elements: (1) Divine subject, (2) verb of being, and (3) predicate noun or phrase. The statements give essential information about who the subject is. The formulation is basically limited to a Divine subject—usually Jesus Christ (the Son), but occasionally God the Father, while, in at least one instance (1 Jn 5:6), the Spirit is the subject. In a secondary application, the formula can also be applied to believers in Christ (viz., believers, the children/offspring of God, as the divine subject).

The “I am” (e)gw\ ei)mi) declarations by Jesus are the most famous examples of Johannine essential predication. Indeed, when Jesus, as both Divine subject and speaker, makes such statements, it is most natural that he would use a first person pronoun to express the subject. Here, however, he speaks in the third person (“he is”), as he typically does whenever he uses the expression “the son of man”, using it as a self-reference. The pronoun is not present in the Greek, but only implied (based on the form of the verb). The specific formulation is unusual (and unprecedented): Jesus uses one self-reference (“the Son”, i.e., “he”) to identify himself with another self-reference (“the son of man”). That is, “the Son is the Son of man”.

How is this essential information to be understood? There are two main lines of interpretation that commentators tend to follow. The first line of interpretation understands the expression “(the) son of man” here as a title, referring (principally) to the heavenly figure (“[one] like a son of man”) in Daniel 7:13-14. Thus, Jesus would be identifying himself (“the Son”) with this heavenly figure. The most relevant parallel, and perhaps the strongest argument in favor of this line of interpretation, is the fact that, in Dan 7:13-14, God gives to the “(one) like a son of man” a ruling authority over humankind:

“…and to him was given dominion [/f*l=v*] and glory [rq*y+] and kingship [Wkl=m^], and all the peoples, nations, and tongues shall give (diligent) service to him” (v. 14)
While Theodotion translates all three Hebrew terms, the LXX renders them under the single word e)cousi/a, as in Jn 5:27:
“…and authority [e)cousi/a] was given to him”

It is not specifically stated that the heavenly figure was given authority to judge; however, this would certainly be part of the ruling authority given to him, and the eschatological judgment (of the nations) certainly features in the passage (vv. 10ff, 22, 26-27). Moreover, in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), the heavenly figure of Dan 7:13-14, called by the title “th(e) Son of Man”, is more directly associated with the Judgment (46:2-4ff; chap. 62; 63:11; 69:27ff), the Danielic figure having been blended together with the figure of the Davidic Messiah. For more on the Jewish eschatological/Messianic background of this “Son of Man” figure, see Part 10 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

The second line of interpretation understands the expression in a qualitative sense—that is, “son of man” (without the definite article [see below]) means a human being. In other words, Jesus (the Son) is given the authority to judge humankind because he himself is a human being. In the Johannine theological context, this would refer specifically to the incarnation of the Son (1:14ff). It is as the incarnate Son that Jesus has the authority to act as judge over humankind and to render judgment.

On the whole, this second line of interpretation is to be preferred, particularly in the overall context of the Johannine Gospel (and its theology). Before developing this further, a word should be said about the lack of definite articles for the expression here (i.e., uio\$ a)nqrw/pou instead of o( uio\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou)—the only such anarthrous occurrence of the expression in the Gospels. In spite of the lack of the definite article, the expression can still be definite. Indeed, in the case of the word order here, on purely syntactical grounds, a predicate nominative (noun) that precedes the verb should probably be understood in a definite sense*.
* On this point, see the study by E. C. Colwell back in 1933 (Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 52, pp. 12-31; Jn 5:27 is discussed on on p. 14); cf. Moloney, pp. 82ff.
At the same time, anarthrous predicate nouns often carry a qualitative sense (cf. the article by P. B. Harner in Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 92 [1973], pp. 75-87). If both of these aspects of the predicate noun are present here in v. 27, then it would mean that the expression is particularly emphasizing that the Son is the human being with the authority to exercise judgment over humankind (cp. the expression in Mk 2:10 par, also 2:28 par). In terms of the Johannine theology, as noted above, this would refer to the incarnation of the Son—viz., the pre-existent (heavenly) Son who has come to earth as a human being. We have seen how the twin Johannine themes of the heavenly origin of the Son, and of his descent to earth, featured prominently in the prior “son of man” sayings (1:51 [study]; 3:13-14 [study]).

Of particular importance is how the thematic motif of judgment (kri/si$, vb kri/nw) is presented in the Gospel of John. Most relevant for consideration is the statement in 3:19, coming as it does in the expository section (of that earlier Discourse), vv. 16-21, immediate following the “son of man” references (vv. 13-14). The end-time Judgment is explained in terms of the ‘realized’ eschatology of the Gospel (see the discussion in the first part of this study). That is to say, the Judgment occurs now, in the present; and, specifically, those would fail or refuse to trust in Jesus are already judged:

“The (one) trusting in him is not judged; but the (one) not trusting has already [h&dh] been judged, (in) that he has not trusted in the name of the only [monogenh/$] Son of God.” (v. 18)

The nature of the Judgment, in this regard, is further explained in verse 19:

“And this is the judgment: that the Light has come into the world, and (yet) men loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds are evil.”

This corresponds to what Jesus says about the Judgment here in verse 24, and clearly relates to the idea that this judgment has been given to the Son (v. 22). Interestingly, in 3:17, Jesus seems to say the opposite—viz., that he has not come (as the incarnate Son) to render judgment:

“For God did not send forth the Son into the world (so) that he should judge the world, but (rather) that the world might be saved through him.” (cp. 8:15-16; 12:47)

The locus of the Judgment is whether or not one trusts in Jesus (as the incarnate Son). In that sense, the incarnate Son (Jesus) does not fill the role of end-time Judge as it might traditionally be understood. Instead, the Judgment occurs based on how a person responds to the message of the incarnate Son—the truth of who he is and what he has done. Compare the Judgment-references in 9:39 and 12:47-48. Later on in the Gospel, this aspect of the Judgment is tied more directly to the Son’s fulfillment of his earthly mission—that is, his exaltation (“being lifted up”), beginning with his sacrificial death (see the previous study on the saying in 3:14). This thematic development is expressed by the declaration in 12:31:

Now is the judgment of this world; now the chief (ruler) of this world will be cast outside!”

The implication is that Jesus’ Passion (suffering and death) initiates the Judgment of the world; this Judgment involves the punishment (expulsion) of the “ruler of this world” (i.e., the Satan/Devil). Much the same is stated in 16:11 (see my earlier study on the Paraclete saying[s] in 16:8-11ff). Again, this Judgment is tied to the world’s failure/refusal to trust in Jesus, defined (in Johannine terms) as the great sin (vv. 8-9).

How does all of this relate to the use of the expression “(the) son of man” in verse 27? Though there are definite allusions to Daniel 7:13-14 (see above) here in the passage, it would seem that Jesus (and the Gospel writer) has reinterpreted the traditional Judgment-association in light of the Johannine theology (and Christology). In particular, the whole theme of judgment has been radically interpreted in the Johannine writings. The Judgment is now defined primarily in terms of trust in Jesus as the incarnate Son of God. The one who trusts has already passed through the Judgment (v. 24), while the one who does not trust has already been judged (3:18-19, etc). The trust in Jesus specifically relates to his death (viz., the beginning of his exaltation), the fulfillment of the mission for which the Father sent the Son (from heaven to earth).

We may expand our understanding of the Johannine “son of man” references, based on the sayings we have examined thus far, to include the following points:

    • The heavenly origin of the Son (Jesus)
    • His descent to earth—entailing his incarnation as a human being (“son of man”)
    • The promise of his ascent (back to heaven), following the completion of his mission
    • This ascent (exaltation, “lifting up”) begins with his sacrificial death (3:14)—whereby the use of the expression “the son of man” has definite parallels to the Synoptic Passion predictions (and similar sayings)
    • The end-time Judgment, traditionally associated with the “son of man” (Dan 7:13-14; Mk 13:26 par, etc), is defined primarily in terms of how one responds to this Christological message of the Son’s descent/ascent.

In the next study, we shall turn to the “son of man” references in the chapter 6 (Bread of Life) Discourse.

References above (and throughout these studies) marked “Moloney” are to Francis J. Moloney SDB, The Johannine Son of Man, Second Edition (Wipf and Stock: 1978/2007).