Disclaimer: By “low Christology” I in no way mean to degrade Christ or imply that John had a degrading view of Christ. I mean this in the sense that Jesus existed first as a human and was exalted from that position, as opposed to “high Christology” which means that Jesus existed first as a divine being and became a human (or took on a human nature). These are technical terms and do not mean that Christ’s current position as Lord of all is in any way lessened.
The gospel of John is typically thought to have a higher Christology than the other three canonical gospel accounts. Whereas the first three gospels tend to emphasize the humanity of Jesus, saying little to nothing about his divine attributes, John is thought to focus much more on the divinity of Jesus, based on statements like “the word was God,” “before Abraham was, I am,” and “I and my Father are one.” However, it’s my conviction that John does not have a higher Christology than the other three gospels — at least, not to the extent that John believed that Jesus was God. In this post, I will defend this view by examining the statements about Jesus in the gospel of John (including Jesus’ own statements).
‘Low’ and ‘High’ Christologies
In the study of the New Testament, a distinction is often made between ‘low’ and ‘high’ Christology. On this scheme, ‘low’ or exaltational Christology is the belief that Jesus was only a human who was exalted to become son of God at some point, whether at his baptism or resurrection. For example, the early creed in Romans 1:3-4 displays a low Christology:
God... promised beforehand... concerning His son, who was born of the seed of David, according to flesh, who was appointed son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.
On the other hand, ‘high’ or incarnation Christology is the belief that Jesus was an angel or otherwise divine being who became a human, and was subsequently exalted back to his former position (or even higher) at his resurrection. A common example of high Christology is the early hymn in Philippians 2:5-11:
Let this understanding be in you which was also in the Messiah Jesus, who existing in the form of God considered it not something to be grasped to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. Being born in the likeness of humans, and having been found in appearance as a human, he humbled himself, becoming obedient until death (even death of a cross). Therefore God also over-exalted him, and gave to him the name over every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow (in the heavens and on earth and under the earth) and every tongue confess that Jesus the Messiah is Lord (to the glory of God the Father).
However, an alternate interpretation of Philippians 2:6-11 sees the first stanza of this hymn as referring not to the pre-existence of Jesus, but to his human life, parallel to the second stanza. [1] This being the case, a better example of incarnational Christology may be found in the Logos theology of the later second-century church fathers such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.
The question here is, does John espouse a low/exaltational or high/incarnational Christology? Typically, the gospel of John is considered to be one of the best examples of incarnational Christology, with its claim that the word existed since creation and “became flesh” in Jesus the Messiah (1:1-18). However, as I will show, the gospel of John has a low, or exaltational, Christology. In fact, the gospel of John emphasizes the humanity of Jesus even more than the other canonical gospels.
For one, John refers to Jesus as “a man” far more than the other gospel accounts. Matthew refers to Jesus as “a man” three times (9:8; 26:72, 74), Mark does so only twice (14:71; 15:39), and Luke does so four times (23:4, 6, 14, 47). In contrast, John refers to Jesus as “a man” no less than fifteen times (4:29; 5:12; 7:46; 8:40; 9:11, 16, 24; 10:33; 11:47, 50; 18:14, 17, 29; 19:5). In fact, Jesus refers to himself as “a man who has spoken to you the truth that I heard from God” (John 8:40). Throughout the Johannine literature, there is a repeated emphasis on the fact that Jesus came “in the flesh,” that is, as a human being (John 1:14; 1 John 4:2, 3; 2 John 7).
In addition, John continually emphasizes the fact that Jesus is the agent of God, far more than the other gospels do. According to John, God has placed His spirit on Jesus, setting His seal on him like the prophets of old (3:34; 6:27). Jesus does entirely what God wills (4:34). Jesus does nothing on his own authority, but even speaks the very words of God (3:34; 5:19; 7:16; 8:28, 40; 12:49; 15:15). All of his miracles are done in the authority of his Father, God (5:19-30; 10:25). Because Jesus is the agent of God, whoever accepts and believes in Jesus also accepts and believes in God, in the same way that anyone who accepts Jesus’ disciples accepts Jesus himself (13:20).
It is in this context that John says that Jesus was “sent” and “came into the world.” [3] Although these statements are often taken to mean that Jesus pre-existed his birth, the fact is that these were common idioms to refer to God’s commissioning of the prophets. In Jewish literature from this time, a prophet “comes into the world” when they are born, and they are “sent” when they are chosen by God to give a message. [4] John even explicitly states that this is what he means by saying that Jesus was sent:
Jesus spoke these things, and having looked to heaven, he said... “Just as You have sent me into the world, so also I sent them [the disciples] into the world.” (John 17:18)
With the blinders of incarnational Christology on, it is all too easy to see this language applied to Jesus as implicitly referring to his pre-existence, but when Jesus says that he sent his disciples into the world, it’s obvious that he means he commissioned them to preach the gospel. Saying that Jesus was sent into the world simply identifies him as an agent of God — indeed, the anointed agent of God, the Messiah.
In addition to the emphasis on Jesus’ humanity and identity as the agent of God, the gospel of John also highlights Jesus’ subordination to God more than the other canonical gospels. This is based on the principle that “no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him” (John 13:16). Given that Jesus was a messenger sent by God, the Father, it follows that “the Father is greater than [Jesus]” (John 14:28 cf. 10:29). Jesus refers to the Father as “my Father and your Father, my God and your God” (John 20:17).
Thus, in some ways, John’s Christology is lower than the other three gospels, not higher. John emphasizes the humanity much more than the other three gospels do; in fact, his is the only gospel in which Jesus refers to himself as “a man” (John 8:40). He also tends to emphasize the fact that Jesus is subordinate to God, the agent of God, and that he can do nothing apart from God’s command. Indeed, as Thomas Gaston says, “The Gospel of John contains some of the most explicit subordinationist statements in the whole NT.” [5] But does the gospel of John indicate that Jesus pre-existed his birth?
Pre-existence in the prologue of John?
One passage that is almost always appealed to by those who claim that the gospel of John teaches pre-existence is the first chapter of John. This passage states, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was fully-divine. This one was in the beginning with God... And the word became flesh... Jesus the Messiah” (John 1:1-2, 14, 17).
Looking at this passage from a modern perspective, it seems to clearly state that Jesus existed as a conscious being before his birth. However, this interpretation of the text actually involves a hidden assumption that is rarely acknowledged by commentators — namely, that “the word” has always been a conscious being. There are three different ways to view this passage:
- That “the word” was a conscious being before “the beginning” — this is the assumption made by trinitarians.
- That “the word” became a conscious being at “the beginning” — this is the assumption made by Arians.
- That “the word” became a conscious being when “the word became flesh” — this is the assumption made by Socinians / adoptionists.
The text of the prologue itself does not support any one of these views over the others. John does use masculine pronouns to refer to “the word,” but this is merely an artifact of the original Greek grammar, as the word logos is masculine in Greek. These pronouns could be translated into English as either “he” or “it,” and in fact two early English translations used “it.” [6]
The question of pre-existence — whether “the word” was a conscious being before he/it “became flesh” — cannot be answered from the text of John 1:1-18. The context of this prologue must also be taken into account. As it happens, the prologue of John contains dozens of allusions to Jewish wisdom literature (both canonical, like the Psalms and Proverbs, and non-canonical, like Philo’s writings). See the references in the table below.
John prologue | Wisdom literature parallels |
In [the] beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God… | Job 12:13 Proverbs 8:22–30 Wisdom 9:9 Sirach 1:1, 4 Philo, Leg. All. 3.175 Philo, Ebr. 31 Philo, Deus 31–32 |
…and the logos was God. [theos] | Philo, Somn. 1.229–230 Philo, QG 2.62 |
All things were made through it and without it nothing was made. | Jeremiah 10:12 Psalm 33:6–9; 104:24 Proverbs 3:19–20 Wisdom 7:22; 8:6; 9:1–2 Philo, Sacr. 8 Philo, Fug. 109 |
That which was made in it was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. | Psalm 36:9; 119:105–107 Proverbs 6:23; 8:35 Wisdom 7:26, 29–30 Sirach 4:12 Baruch 4:1–2 Philo, Post. 69 |
The true light, which enlightens every man, was coming into the world. | Wisdom 8:1 Sirach 24:5–6 |
It [the logos] was in the world, and the world came into being through it, and the world did not know it. | Proverbs 1:20–33 1 Enoch 42.1–2 |
It came to its own, and its own [people] did not receive it. | Psalm 147:18–19 Psalm 105:24 [LXX] Sirach 24:8 Baruch 3:37–4:1 |
Yet to whoever received it, it gave them authority to become children of God, to those believing in His name. | Proverbs 8:32–35 Wisdom 2:13–18; 5:5; 6:12–19; 7:14, 27–28 Sirach 4:10–14; 6:22; 51:10 Philo, Conf. 145–147 |
And the word became flesh and tented among us… | Proverbs 31:10–31 Sirach 24:8; 50 Philo, Leg. All. 2.82; 3.46
Philo, Congr. 116
Philo, Mos. 1.162; 2.4 Philo, Det. 124 |
…and we have beheld his glory, glory as of an only-begotten of a father, full of grace and truth… Out of his fullness we all have received grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus the Messiah. | Proverbs 8:1–7, 18 Wisdom 3:9; 7:22–25; 9:11 Sirach 6:31; 24:16 |
No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten son, who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him known. | Proverbs 8:30 Wisdom 9:4, 10 Philo, Conf. 97; 147 Philo, Somn. 1.239 Philo, QE 2.67–68
|
Every single claim made about “the word” in the prologue of John finds parallels in the wisdom literature. Throughout Jewish wisdom literature, the “word of God” and the “wisdom of God” were used interchangeably (Wisd. 9.1-2; Sir. 24.1-3), and the same is true in Philo (Leg. All. 1.65; Somn. 1.65-66). The clear parallels between John’s prologue and the wisdom literature have long been recognized by New Testament scholars. [7]
Although Wisdom is often personified in Jewish wisdom literature, just as the Word is personified in John’s prologue, neither the Word nor Wisdom are conscious beings. Throughout the wisdom literature, “the Word of God” is paralleled with “His command” and “breath of His mouth” (Psalm 33:6; 147:15; Wisd. 18.14-16), and “Wisdom” is paralleled with “understanding” and “knowledge” (Proverbs 3:19-20; Sir. 1.4). In Philo, as well, although the Logos (Word) is often personified, it refers to the impersonal reasoning capacity of God. [8] It is evident that the Word and Wisdom were not personal beings in Jewish wisdom literature, but personified attributes of God. There is no reason to think that it is any different in John’s prologue.
The statement that “the word became flesh and tented among us” (John 1:14) would not have been particularly revolutionary in the context of Jewish wisdom literature, either. In the book of Proverbs, the ideal wife is presented as wisdom personified (31:10-31). [9] Similarly, using dozens of textual connections, the author of Sirach 50 identifies the high priest Simon as Wisdom incarnate. [10] The Law was commonly considered to be the embodiment of God’s word and wisdom (Psa. 119; Sir. 24.23; Bar. 3.37-4:1), and it was in the Law that Wisdom “pitched her tent” (Sir. 24.8).
Philo, a first-century Alexandrian Jew, took this one step further and claimed that Moses, to whom the Law was given, “was himself long previously a living and reasonable law” (De Moses 1.162; 2.4). He also believed that Sarah was the embodiment of Wisdom, and referred to Sarah as “Wisdom” on at least three different occasions (Leg. Int. 2.82; Det. Pot. 124; Congr. 1.12-13).
The statement that “the word became flesh” in Jesus, then, does not mean that Jesus existed before his birth and was incarnated as a human, but that the ideal of the (impersonal) divine word and wisdom was embodied in Jesus. The idea that Wisdom could be embodied in a human being is not unique to John, but is found throughout Jewish wisdom literature. John’s objective in this prologue is not to describe Jesus’ pre-existence, but to show that Jesus is the embodiment of the Word, and consequently it is now through him that people become children of God (1:12-13).
When, then, did the word become flesh in John’s view? According to the prologue, it was John the Baptist who “bore witness” to the word (1:6-8, 15). Later in the same chapter, the Baptist “bore witness and said, ‘I have beheld the spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and it remained upon him’” (1:32). This refers to Jesus’ baptism, when the spirit of God descended on him (cf. Isa. 42:1; Mark 1:9-11). According to John, the special status of Jesus is because God has “given of the spirit without measure” to him (3:34).
It makes sense that John would equate the word becoming flesh with the spirit descending on Jesus, because in the Jewish wisdom literature, the word/wisdom of God was occasionally equated with the spirit of God (Psa. 33:6; 147:18; Isa. 11:2; Wisd. 9.1-2, 17; Sir. 39.6). Therefore, in John’s view, it was at the baptism of Jesus — not his conception or birth — that the word became flesh. [11]
______________________________
[1] Under this interpretation, the statement that Jesus existed “in the form of God” simply means that, like Adam, he was made “in the image of God” (cf. Gen. 1:26; 5:1). According to R. P. Martin, “morphe [’form’] and eikon [’image’] are equivalent terms that are used interchangeably in the LXX.” [2] This being the case, “existing in the form of God” is probably parallel to the first line of the second stanza, “being born in the likeness of humans.”
The second stanza of the first line, “he considered it not something to be grasped to be equal to God,” simply means that Jesus did not sinfully grasp at equality with God as Adam did (cf. Gen. 3:5, 22). Consequently, he “emptied himself... humbled himself” and “took the form of a servant” by emulating the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and “becoming obedient until death.” This exegesis of the Philippians 2 hymn has the advantage of making the first and second stanzas entirely parallel to one another, and does not have an incarnational Christology.
For academic publications espousing this interpretation of Phil. 2:6-11 see: Charles H. Talbert, “
The Problem of Pre-Existence in Philippians 2:6-11,”
Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1970), 141-153; George Howard, “
Phil 2:6-11 and the Human Christ,”
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40, no. 3 (1978), 368-387; Scott A. Deane, “
Obedience and Humility of the Second Adam: Philippians 2:6-11,”
A Journal from the Radical Reformation 7, no. 1 (1997), 4-12.
[2] R. P. Martin, “Morphe in Philippians 2:6,” Expository Times 70, no. 6 (March 1959), 183-184.
[3] “Sent”: John 3:16, 17, 34; 4:34; 5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 16:28; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21.
“Come into the world”: John 3:17, 19; 6:14; 9:39; 10:36; 11:27; 16:28; 17:18; 18:37.
[4] “Sent”: Exod. 3:14-15; 7:16; Judg. 6:8; 1 Sam. 25:32; 2 Chron. 36:15; Isa. 6:8; Jer. 35:15; 42:21; 43:1; John 1:6; 2 Cor. 2:17; Gal. 1:1; Tobit 14.4; Judith 11.16; Baruch 1.21; 1 Esdras 1.48-49.
“Come into the world”: John 16:21; 2 Esdras 7.21, 132; 8.5; 9.20.
[5] Thomas Gaston, “Does the Gospel of John Have a High Christology?,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 36, no. 2 (2014): 133.
[6] See the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles from the sixteenth century.
[7] Henry R. Moeller, “
Wisdom Motifs and the Gospel of John,”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 6, no. 3 (Summer 1963), 92-100; John Ashton, “The Transformation of Wisdom: A Study of the Prologue of John’s Gospel,”
New Testament Studies 32, no. 2 (April 1986), 161-186; James D. G. Dunn,
Christology in the Making, 2nd ed. (London: SCM Press, 1989), 239-247; Sheri D. Kling, “
Wisdom became flesh: an analysis of the prologue to the gospel of John,”
Currents in Theology and Mission 40, no. 3 (June 2013), 179-187.
No comments:
Post a Comment