The low Christology of John (part 2 of 2)

Part 1: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/06/the-low-christology-of-john-part-1-of-2.html

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.

    “Making himself God”: The obedient Son in John

In two places in the gospel of John, the Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of “making himself God” (5:18; 10:33). Modern readers typically assume that this was actually what Jesus was claiming, and so John believed that Jesus was God. This is one of the reasons that John is thought to have a very high Christology, rather than an adoptionist Christology. But is this true? Let’s take a look at the first instance of the Jewish leaders’ accusation:

Because of this, therefore, the Jews were seeking more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God. (John 5:18)

The last part of this verse is typically taken to mean, “he was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.” However, this is an indefensible interpretation in light of the Jewish concept of sonship, which implies obedience, not equality (Deut. 21:18; Sir. 3.6-16; Philo, Decal. 118). [1]

    Furthermore, the title “son of God” was used by many non-God entities in the Old Testament, including angels, the Davidic kings of Israel, and Israel itself (Gen. 6:2; Exod. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; 32:8; 2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chron. 28:5-6; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psa. 2:6-7; 82:6; 89:6, 20, 26-27; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1). According to Second Temple Jewish texts, anyone who does righteousness is “the son of God” (Wisd. 2.13-18; Sir. 4.10; 51.10; Philo, Conf. Ling. 145-147). The same situation holds in the New Testament, in which the title “son of God” is applied to Jesus by virtue of his being the rightful king of Israel (Luke 1:32-33; John 1:49). In fact, elsewhere in the gospel of John (8:41), the Jewish leaders themselves claim that God is their Father!

    Thus, John 5:18 cannot be interpreted to mean, “he was calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.” This is simply not what the title “son of God” implied. Rather, it must be taken to mean, “he was calling God his own Father and making himself equal to God.” In contemporary Jewish thought, making oneself equal to one’s father was the act of a rebellious son. [2] Therefore, by accusing Jesus of this, the Jewish leaders were implying that he was a rebellious son, and thereby deserving of death (Deut. 22:18-21).

    To respond to the Jews’ assertion that he is a rebellious son, Jesus assumes the role of the obedient Son. He answers them by saying, “The Son is not able to do anything of himself, but only whatever he should see the Father doing; for whatever He does, the Son likewise does” (John 5:19). Jesus then explains that all of his authority and prerogatives have been given to him by the Father, and none of it is of himself (5:20-30; cf. Philo, Decal. 118). This is in line with John’s view of Jesus as the agent and subordinate of God (13:16; 14:28).

    Thus, John 5:18 does not show that John believed Jesus “made himself equal to God.” On the contrary, this was a false accusation by the Jewish leaders, who were trying to make Jesus out to be a rebellious son. However, John’s view of Jesus was as an obedient son who is subordinate — not equal — to God.

    The second instance in which the Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of “making himself God” is found in John 10:30-36:

“I and my Father are one.” Therefore the Jews again took up stones to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father; for which work do you stone me?” The Jews answered him, “We do not stone you for a good work, but because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture is not able to be broken, then why do you say, ‘You blaspheme,’ of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, because I said, ‘I am Son of God’? If I do not do the works of my Father, then do not believe me. But if I do, then even if you do not believe, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.”

In isolation, vv. 30-33 might indicate that John believed Jesus was God. However, in context, it is clear that this is precisely the opposite of John’s point. Jesus points out that in their own Scripture, non-God entities are referred to as “gods” and “sons of God” (Psa. 82:6). As such, his claim that “I am Son of God” is not blasphemous, precisely because he is not “making himself God” by claiming such.

    What, then, did Jesus mean by saying that “I and my Father are one,” and “the Father is in me and I am in the Father”? Later in the gospel of John, Jesus prays that all believers would become one with the Father in the same way that he is one with the Father (17:11, 20-23). Furthermore, in another Johannine text, it is said that “those who abide in love abide in God, and God in them” (1 John 4:16). Obviously, John did not believe that all believers are eternally pre-existent hypostases of God, so these statements imply a functional unity rather than an ontological unity. As such, Jesus’ statements in John 10:30-38 simply emphasize that he, as the obedient Son, does only what the Father does (cf. John 5:19).

    Therefore, in John’s gospel, Jesus never “makes himself God.” This is an accusation made against him by the Jewish leaders, yes, but in both instances he rejected this charge. John did not believe that Jesus was a rebellious son who made himself equal to his Father. On the contrary, the gospel of John presents Jesus as the obedient (and subordinate) Son.

    “I am”?

In several places in the gospel of John, Jesus refers to himself by saying “I am” (4:26; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5). Many trinitarian apologists claim that, by saying “I am” (ego eimi), Jesus was attributing to himself the divine name “I am what I am” (Exod. 3:14) or, alternatively, that ego eimi echoes several statements in Second Isaiah (43:10, 25; 48:12; 51:12; 52:6).

    However, in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT used by first-century Jews and early Christians, the name in Exodus 3:14 is translated as ho on (“The One Who Is”) rather than ego eimi, so this connection would not have been made by the original audience of John. Nor can Jesus have been claiming to be the God of Isaiah, because the same God who calls himself ego eimi in Second Isaiah also refers to the Messiah as “my servant” (43:10; 52:6, 13). Furthermore, Jesus repeatedly emphasizes his obedience to God throughout this discourse (8:16, 26, 28, 29, 38, 42, 50, 54), and “it is simply intolerable that Jesus should be made to say, ‘I am God, the supreme God of the Old Testament, and being God I do as I am told.’” [3]

    Instead of reading the divine name into the ego eimi statements of John, we should look at the gospel of John itself to determine what it meant to the author. Let’s look at each of these statements in turn:

In John 4:25-26, a Samaritan woman tells Jesus, “I know that the Messiah is coming, and when he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus responds, “I am he [ego eimi], the one speaking to you.“ In this context, ego eimi clearly means “I am the Messiah.”

In John 8:24, Jesus states, “If you do not believe that I am he [ego eimi], you will die in your sins.“ At the end of the gospel of John, we are told that in order to have life, one must believe that “Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (20:31). Therefore, ego eimi here must mean “I am the Messiah, the Son of God.”

In John 8:28, Jesus states, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he [ego eimi].” Based on the closest antecedent, ego eimi most likely means “I am the Son of Man.”

In John 13:19, Jesus says, “I know whom I chose, but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘The one eating my bread lifted up his heel against me.’ From this time I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it comes to pass, you may believe that I am he [ego eimi].” In this context, ego eimi clearly means “I am the one who was prophesied.”

In John 18:4-5, several soldiers come to arrest Jesus, and say that they are looking for Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus responds, “I am he” (ego eimi). Here, ego eimi clearly means “I am Jesus of Nazareth.”

In all of these instances, the context shows that ego eimi isn’t a proper name like Yahweh. Rather, throughout the gospel of John, ego eimi is developed as a Messianic claim — “I am the Messiah.” In addition, there are several instances in which ego eimi is simply used as a self-identifier, such as “It is I” or “That’s me” (John 6:20; 9:9; 18:5). 

    But what about John 8:58, in which Jesus says, “before Abraham was, I am”? This verse is read by almost all commentators as a straightforward claim to literal pre-existence. But let’s look at the context:

Then the Jews said to him, “Now we know you have a demon! Abraham died, and the prophets, and you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, they shall never taste death for the age.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself?”

Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who is glorifying me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ And you have not known Him, but I know Him. Even if I say that I do not know Him, I will be like you, a liar. But I know Him and keep His word. Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day, and he saw and was glad.” 

Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and yet you have seen Abraham?”

Jesus said to them, “Verily, verily I say to you, I have been [5] before Abraham came into being.” Then they took up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (John 8:52-59)

Jesus’ claim is a reply to the Jews’ incredulousness at the statement, “Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day.” It’s important to note that the Jews’ question is a misunderstanding of what Jesus had said; he didn’t say that he had seen Abraham, but that Abraham had seen his day. This follows the motif of misunderstanding throughout the gospel of John, in which the Jews repeatedly interpret Jesus’ teachings too literally and he has to correct them. [6]

    When Jesus said that Abraham had seen his day, he was not claiming that he had seen Abraham, contrary to the Jews’ misinterpretation of his statement. Rather, he was saying that Abraham had seen a prophetic vision of the Messiah, which is a concept found in canonical and non-canonical writings from this time (Gal. 3:16; Heb. 11:8-10, 13; 2 Esdras 3.13-14; Gen. Rabbah 44.22). Therefore, when Jesus says, “I have been before Abraham came into being,” he was not saying that he literally existed prior to Abraham, but that he existed in the foreknowledge of God as the Messiah [7] before Abraham. This concept of figurative pre-existence in the foreknowledge of God was common in ancient Jewish thought, and can even be found in the Old Testament (e.g. 2 Kgs. 19:25; Jer. 1:5).

    It was thought in ancient Judaism that particularly important people and things existed in the mind of God even before the world was created (Pes. 54a.8; Ned. 39b.4; Gen. Rabbah 1.1, 4). This was true of Abraham and Isaac, who were “created before any work” (Pr. Jos. 1.2); it was true of Moses, whom God “designed and devised... prepared before the beginning of the world” (Test. Mos. 1.14); it was true of Israel, which God “chose before all things were made” (Jos. and Aseneth 8.9); it was true of Jerusalem, which “was already prepared from the moment [God] decided to create Paradise” (2 Baruch 4.1-5). Most importantly, it was also true of the Messiah (Tg. Zech. 4.7; Pes. 54a.8; Gen. Rabbah 1.4).

    This concept is also found in early Christian thought: “the Messiah was indeed foreknown before the foundation of the world, yet manifested in these last days for your sake” (1 Pet. 1:20). In fact, it was thought by early Christians that all things were ‘created’ in some sense in God’s mind before they were created in the world (Rom. 4:17; Rev. 4:11; cf. 1QS 3.15-16), including people, such as the patriarch Levi and even all believers (Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9-10; Heb. 7:9-10).

    Thus, Jesus’ claim that he was before Abraham does not mean that he literally existed prior to Abraham’s birth, but that he was already the Messiah (ego eimi) in God’s foreknowledge before Abraham. This statement carries with it the implication that Jesus is himself greater than Abraham, which was apparently a blasphemous claim to the Jews who thought that he was a false Messiah (John 8:53), causing them to try to stone him. As New Testament scholar J. T. Robinson has said,

To say that Jesus is “before” [Abraham] is not to lift him out of the ranks of humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence. To take such statements at the level of “flesh” so as to infer, as “the Jews” do that, at less than fifty, Jesus is claiming to have lived on this earth before Abraham (8:52, 57), is to be as crass as Nicodemus who understands rebirth as an old man entering his mother’s womb a second time (3:4). These are not assertions about the ego of the human Jesus, which is no more pre-existent than that of any other human being. [8]

    Another passage in John that uses figurative pre-existence is John 17:5, in which Jesus says, “And now, Father, glorify me with Yourself with the glory that I had with You before the world existed.” In Jewish thought, anything pre-existing in God’s foreknowledge could be said to exist “with God” or “in heaven” (Job 23:14; Isa. 49:4; Matt. 5:12; 6:1, 20; 19:21; Luke 12:33; 2 Cor. 5:1; Col. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:4; 2 Baruch 4.2-6; Gen. Rabbah 1.13). Jesus’ glory was in God’s foreknowledge before the world existed, because God already loved the future Messiah Jesus at that time (John 17:24). The fact that John did not believe Jesus to literally have God’s glory at that time is shown by John 7:39, which says, “the spirit did not yet exist, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.”

    “My Lord and my God”

One last passage in the gospel of John that is thought to exemplify high Christology is John 20:24-29. In this pericope, Jesus’ disciple Thomas sees him after his resurrection and declares, “My Lord and my God!” It is typically thought that Thomas was declaring Jesus to be God (in an absolute sense), and therefore that John had a high Christology. Here is the passage in question:

Yet Thomas called Didymus, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “If I do not see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my fingers in them, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

And after eight days, the disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. The doors having been shut, Jesus came in, and he stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Bring your finger here, and see my hands, and bring your hand, and put it into my side; and do not disbelieve, but believe.”

And Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed.”

Considered by itself, Thomas’ exclamation seems to be a clear declaration of Jesus’ deity. However, in light of John’s theology as a whole, it is very unlikely that John would consider Jesus to be God in the absolute sense that the Father is God. Elsewhere in the gospel of John, it is said that the Father is the God of Israel (8:54; 20:17) even “the only (true) God” (5:43-44; 17:3) and as God He is distinguished from Jesus (8:40; 17:3). Furthermore, Jesus in John’s gospel consistently rejects the charge that he is “making himself God,” instead claiming only to be the obedient Son of God (see above).

    The immediate context of John 20:28 also undermines the interpretation that Thomas is calling Jesus “my God.” Throughout this passage, Thomas does not doubt that Jesus is God — this isn’t an issue under consideration at all — but rather that Jesus was resurrected. A declaration of Jesus’ deity would be wildly out of place, and Jesus’ response to him doesn’t indicate that this new issue has been brought into consideration by Thomas’ exclamation. In addition, if this were a declaration of Jesus’ deity, it would be tremendously downplayed by John’s statement just three verses later: “These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (not God).

    With these considerations in mind, it is very unlikely that Thomas was declaring Jesus to be God, nor that the John would endorse such a declaration (in view of his theology elsewhere). Instead, this passage is very likely alluding back to the discourse in John 14:

“Do not let your hearts be distressed. You believe in God, believe also in me.” (v. 1)

Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus answered, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have also known my Father. From now on you do know Him, and have seen Him.”

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be content.” Jesus answered, “Have I been with you so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The one who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father abiding in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; otherwise, believe because of the works themselves.” (vv. 5-11)

“Yet a little while and the world will not see me, but you will see me; because I live, you too will live. In that day, you will know that I am in the Father and you in me and I in you.” (vv. 19-20)

In both John 14 and 20:24-29, there is an emphasis on seeing Jesus (and thereby seeing the Father) and believing him (that the Father is in Jesus). Furthermore, these happen to be the only two passages in the gospel of John in which the disciple Thomas plays a key role, and in both instances he fails to believe something — in John 14, that the Father is in Jesus, and in John 20, that Jesus has been resurrected.

    Therefore, when Thomas exclaimed, “My Lord and my God,” he was echoing Jesus’ commandment in John 14:1 to believe in God and believe also in Jesus. He finally believed that the Father was in Jesus, and so by seeing Jesus (his Lord) he was also seeing the Father (his God; cf. John 20:13, 17). Thus, this verse does not show that John believed Jesus was God. On the contrary, it continues the theme that Jesus reveals God, a theme which is found all throughout the gospel of John (1:18; 5:19; 10:38; 14:9-11; 17:26).

    Conclusion

The gospel of John does not have a high Christology, and it does not teach that Jesus pre-existed his birth, nor that he was anything more than a human being who was chosen, anointed, and exalted by God (as in the other three canonical gospels). In fact, John emphasizes the humanity of Jesus far more than the other three gospels, as well as his subordination to God as the obedient Son of God. The prologue to John’s gospel, rather than teaching that Jesus pre-existed his birth, teaches that the divine word “became flesh” and was embodied by the human Jesus after his baptism, when the spirit of God descended on and “remained upon him.” Jesus also consistently rejects the charge that he “makes himself God,” instead claiming only to be the obedient (and subordinate) Son. The supposed pre-existence passages in John should be understood as referring to figurative pre-existence in the mind of God, when read in light of contemporary Jewish literature (including biblical texts).

______________________________

[1] James F. McGrath, “John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology,” Ph.D. diss. (University of Durham, 1998), 120-123.

[2] Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Chicago: Argonaut Publishers, 1929), 203.

[3] C. K. Barrett, Essays on John (London: SPCK, 1982), 12.

[4] “I heard the voice of the Holy One speaking, and He said, ‘Go, Yahoel [lit. “Yahweh God”], and by means of My ineffable Name raise [Abraham] and strengthen him’” (Apocalypse of Abraham 10); “And He called me [Enoch] ‘the Little Yahweh’ in the presence of all His heavenly household, as it is written, ‘For My name is in him’” (3 Enoch 12.5).

[5] Here, ego eimi should almost certainly be translated as a historic present, that is, “I have been” rather than “I am.” This is a typical Koine Greek construction in which a present tense is modified by a past time indicator (Luke 15:29; John 15:27; 1 John 3:8). See especially Testament of Job 2.1: “For I have been Jobab [ego eimi Iobab] before the Lord named me Job.”

[6] John 2:19-22; 4:10-14, 31-34; 6:41-45, 51-53; 7:33-36; 8:31-33, 51-53.

[7] Because, as explained earlier, ego eimi is developed as a Messianic claim throughout the gospel of John.

[8] J. A. T. Robinson, The Priority of John (London: SCM Press, 1985), 384.