The Good Shepherd is the Messiah

John 10 centers on the singular suitability of Jesus to be the leader of God’s people on account of his self-giving actions. The climax of the discourse is obviously the ‘I am’ statements that ‘I am the Good Shepherd’ (10:11, 14). The shepherd metaphor concerns the intimate care and sacrificial protection that Jesus gives to the sheep as their leader. However, no one can escape the regal imagery because in the ancient near eastern sources and in Graeco-Roman traditions a ‘shepherd’ was primarily an image for kings. The Egyptian monarch Amenhotep III (1411-1374 BCE) was called: ‘The good shepherd, vigilant for all people, whom the maker thereof has placed under his authority’. The Homeric phrase ‘shepherd of the hosts’ referred to a commander of military forces.[1] In the Old Testament, the metaphor of a shepherd is applied to both Yahweh and to ancient kings. To give a few examples, first, concerning Yahweh, Isaiah contains the words, ‘See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him. He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young’ (Isa 40:10-11). The Lord of the nations guides them into the pastures of a restored land like a shepherd directing a flock. Second, it is interesting that Cyrus is labeled as ‘my shepherd’ in Isa 44:28 and then ‘my anointed’ in Isa 45:1. He was the anointed shepherd used by Yahweh to end the exile of the remnant in Babylon. Third, the quintessential shepherd king was David, the shepherd boy who became a king. At Hebron the tribes reminded David that, ‘The LORD said to you: “It is you who shall be shepherd of my people Israel, you who shall be ruler over Israel” (2 Sam 5:2). The hope for a new Davidic king was the hope for a new shepherd king to guide Israel into its day of restoration (Jer 23:1-6; Mic 5:1-9). In fact, Ezekiel 34 depicts of the coming of Yahweh as Shepherd in and through the raising up a new Davidic Shepherd-King (Ezek 34:16, 23-24).[2]

The upshot of this is that when Jesus says, ‘I am the Good Shepherd’ we are not confronted with merely a claim pertaining to his quality of pastoral care giving. It is a royal and even messianic claim. Jesus will be the restorer of Israel, exactly what is attributed to him elsewhere in the Gospel (1:11-12; 10:16; 11:47-52), and precisely what the Messiah was supposed to do. Furthermore, John 10 is analogous to the Animal Apocalypse found in 1 Enoch 89–90 that focuses on shepherding as a key metaphor for national restoration. In 1 Enoch the ‘Lord of the sheep’ leads Israel and bring them into pasture (89.42; 75; 90.29, 33) and also gathers them into a new Jerusalem (90.32-36). In imagery reminiscent of Jeremiah 23 and Ezekiel 34–37, Jesus as the Good Shepherd in John 10 is the true and benevolent shepherd who leads Israel into the pastures of restoration. Building specifically from Ezekiel 34, Jesus seems to take on the shepherding roles of both Yahweh and David. Jesus the Shepherd is contrasted with the false shepherds or the ‘hirelings’ – the Judean leaders and the Pharisees – who should have led people to their Messiah rather than hinder their faith and attempted to thwart Jesus’ ministry at every turn. What will prove the true nature of Jesus’ shepherding is when he lays down his life for the flock (10:15-18).[3]

---

[1] Chae, Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd, 19-25 (esp. 21-22).

[2] Cf. survey of the OT imagery for shepherds in Chae, Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd, 25-172.

[3] John A. Dennis, Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel (WUNT 2.217; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2006), 270-71.

Gospel of John and Christology Debates

The Gospel of John is a big link in the chain that moved christology towards Nicea. In the debates about subordination in the early church (Arius vs. Athanasius) and even in the modern church (Kevin Giles vs. Bruce Ware) the Gospel of John looms large for both sides. Those who stress equality or distinctive roles in the Godhead all appeal to the Fourth Gospel for support. I just came across a cute quote about this.

According to F.C. Conybeare: "If Athanasius had not had the Fourth Gospel to draw texts from, Arius would never have been confuted" and he adds "[I]f Arius had not had the Fourth Gospel to draw texts from, he would not have needed confuting."

Cited from James D. G. Dunn, ‘Let John be John – a Gospel for Its Time,’ in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien, ed. P. Stuhlmacher (WUNT 28; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1983), 311 n. 4.

Johannine Eschatology

There other day I was describing the Gospel of John to my students. I described it kinda like the town of Nimbin in New South Wales (Nimbin is known for its hippie culture). Everyone there is chilled, they like to talk about love, its a reflective atmosphere, and it's very different to the hustle and bustle of city like in the Synoptics. That's an intro to my summary of Johannine eschatology:

The Fourth Gospel clearly favors the realized component of Jesus’ work. John sees in Jesus the coming of God’s revelatory light, the incarnation of divine glory, and the life of heaven made manifest (John 1:3-4, 14; 3:31). The final resurrection expected at the end of the age (see John 11:24), is burgeoning in the spiritual life that Jesus imparts to followers (John 5:25; 11:25-26). Eternal life becomes intractably bound up with, almost collapsed into, the act of knowing and believing in the God who sent Jesus (John 17:3). The Johannine Jesus can even aver that “Now is the time for judgment on this world” by virtue of the presence of the judge (John 12:31; cf. 5:22, 27, 30; 8:15-16; esp. 9:39). Still, John has not forfeited all sense of the future as he refers to a future judgment and resurrection (John 5:28-29; 6:39; 40, 44, 54; 11:23-26). The demonic “prince of this world” is still yet to be fully driven out (John 12:31). The kingdom of God is something that one must yet enter into (John 3:3-5). The Fourth Evangelist also knows that Jesus is preparing a place for where his disciples and will one day return to take them there (John 14:1-3). Putting this together, in the Gospel of John an absolute distinction between this age and the coming age has become fluid so that believers can experience real blessings, even eternal life, in the here and now. The Johannine Jesus brings a “rift” between evil and good, darkness and light, belief and unbelief, future and present. John knows of the cosmic “hour” that already has come and is yet to be, an hour that brings judgment as well as life, unity as well as division, it is the hour of salvation and reprobation that exudes form Jesus’ person (John 5:25). Contra much scholarship, John is not for the abandonment of a future apocalyptic kingdom for an existential present experience, rather, “John’s sense of time – his eschatology – is shaped by his recognition that in the coming of Jesus the light has made a decisive difference between the past and present. But John also knows that the present is the scene of conflicting claims. True life is a current reality, yet so is death; some people can now see; yet others have become blind. These truths grate against each other like a dissonant sound pressing for resolution. The Gospel assumes that there is no going back, as if Jesus never came. There can only be going forward to the point where the dissonance resolves into harmony,” and for John that harmony transpires at the future judgment.[1] John offers a summons to believe in Jesus as the light, life, and judge of the present hour and so avoid condemnation “at the last day” (John 12:44-50).

---

[1] Craig R. Koester, The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 176.

John: The Scarlet Pimpernel

Mark Stibbe in an article entitled, "The Elusive Christ: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospels". Stibbe writes:

"Jesus is an elusive figure. Even when Nicodemus finds him, Jesus proves opaque to his understanding. When the crowds seek Jesus, he only allows them to find him when he is ready for them. And as for the Jewish authorities, I am reminded of Baroness Orczy's Scarlet Pimpernel: 'they seek him here, they seek him there, those Jews seek him everywhere'".

John Calvin on the Fourth Gospel

Thanks to Andreas Kostenberger (A Theology of John's Gospel and Letters, 5) I found this quote from Calvin about John's Gospel:

"And since they [the four Gospels]

had the same object, to show Christ,

the first three exhibit His body,

if I may be permitted to put it like that,

but John shows His soul."

Monday with J. Ramsey Michaels

In John 20:31 the debate has been over the textual variants whether "these [things] were written" so that "you might believe" (Aorist subjunctive) or "you might continue to believe" (Present tense). Is the Gospel of John written to convert non-believers (first option) or to strengthen believers (second option). Michaels splits the horns of the dilemma by saying: "[T]he point is rather to encourage readers -whoever they may be - to emulate the faith of those mentioned in the narrative, the anonymous witness at the cross in the first instance, Thomas and his fellow disciples in the locked room in the second. In this way, readers are invited to claim the mantle of honor as 'those who did not see, and believed' (v. 29)."

Mondays with J. Ramsay Michaels

Michael's commentary on Jn 1:51 (a verse near and dear to the heart of my former student David Kirk) says this:

"In simplest terms, 'the angels of God going up and coming down over the Son of man' represent the 'glory' (doxa) to be displayed in Jesus' ministry (compare v. 14), from the wedding at Cana (2:11) to the raising of Lazarus fro the dead (11:4, 40) - all of it preliminary to the Son of man's final 'glorification' in the passion narratives ... As to the term 'Son of man' ... [i]n its strategic context here, it trumps all the other [titles] - even 'Son of God' - as the defining title for Jesus in this Gospel. This is appropriate because, unlike the others, 'Son of man' is not a title someone else gives to Jesus, but one that he claims for himself, just as in he other Gospels. (137-38).

Michaels on Faith and Works in John

I'm reading bits of J. Ramsay Michael's massive and magisterial John commentary in the NICNT series (though secretly it breaks my heart to see anyone replace Leon Morris on "John"). For me, the verse I always turn to first to see how a commentator handles the text is John 5:28-29:

Do not be amazed at this, for a time is cominga when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

Michaels comments that: "The second problem [in addition to the futurist eschatology that seems out of whack with the rest of John] is that good works, not faith, seem to determine salvation ... But again the problem exists only for modern readers, who have learned from centuries of biblical interpretation to set faith against works. It is not noticeably a problem for Jesus' hearers on the scene, nor for the implied readers the author has in mind ... Coming to the Light, or to Jesus, and 'hearing my word' (v. 24) or 'voice' (v. 25) amount to the same thing. Either way, believing in Jesus is what counts. Those who 'do good things' or 'do the truth' are those who believe" (322).

Book Notice: Craig Koester - The Word of Life

Craig Koester
The Word of Life: A Theology of John's Gospel
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.
Available at Amazon.com

There are a number of good introductons to the Gospel of John (e.g. W. Carter, J. Ashton, R.E. Brown, R. Kysar, G. Burge), but my favourite for the moment is Craig Koester's new book The Word of Life. The TOC is viewable here. My favourite part is the final section on "Jesus as the Way in a Pluralistic World":

"The Fourth Gospel presents a particular message with a universal scope. At the beginning of our study we noted that the evangelist wrote in a world of varied religious traditions. The people depicted in this Gospel have different ideas about God, and their viewpoints conflict. John is no stranger to interreligious controversy. In this context, he seeks to show that God is known in a definitive way through what God has done in Jesus. John can speak to the pluralistic world in which his readers live because he has something particular to offer. To make the message less particular would mean making the love of God less radical, since the evangelist understands that divine love is definitively conveyed through the crucified and risen Messiah. At the same time, John understands that God's love is given in this particular way for the sake of the world (3:16). This means that the Gospel writer cannot say, 'Jesus is the way for me but not for you.' To say that would be to say that 'the love of God is for me but not for you,' or that 'Jesus went the way of the cross and resurrection for me but not for you.' The Jesus of John's Gospel sends his followers into the world. There they meet human beigns who, like themselves, have no innnate ability to generate relationship with God. What the followers of Jesus bring is what they themselves have received: the message of the cruciform love of God that calls any and all to faith and life. This is the purpose for which John's Gospel was written (20:31)." (page 214).

If I were teaching a course of the Gospel of John, I would probably set my materials as:

1. Introduction: Craig Koester, The Word of Life (though Burge and Kysar are quite tempting).

2. Commentary: Andreas Köstenberger, John BECNT series (but with D.A. Carson, Leon Morris, C.K. Barrett, Craig Keener on a reading list).

3. Other: The Gospel of John on DVD which I ordinarily watch over 13 weeks with my NT 102 students and it is most beneficial.

4. Further recommended reading would have to based around M. Hengel, R. Brown, R. Bauckham, and D. Moody Smith and their assorted works.

Revelation Bonanza - Part 3: Gospel and Apocalypse

What relationship does the Apocalypse have to the Fourth Gospel? Both are clearly in the Johannine "school" (if such a thing existed) as they share a similar christology on Jesus as the Messiah, Son of Man, Lamb of God, etc. Yet obviously the Apocalypse is fully into apocalyptic eschatology while the Fourth Gospel emphasizes a distinctively realized eschatology. The links between the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse of John are probed by Jorg Frey in an appendix to the revised edition of Martin Hengel's Die Johanneische Frage. John's Gospel is not necessarily a rejection of apocalyptic thinking since the main thrust of it has an affinity with an apocalyptic theology. In both books the revelation of heavenly mysteries is found in Jesus. Likewise, the Gospel's emphases on dualism, determinism, election, messianism, revelation, hostility with the world, wisdom, and judgment all have points of contact with apocalyptic writings like the Apocalypse of John.

Is John's Gospel Sectarian?

According to the most usual definition, a sect is a religious group that rejects the social environment in which it exists. In that sense, the whole New Testament can be typified as sectarian to some degree (I would put Revelation on one end of the spectrum and Luke-Acts on the other). Given that the Gospel of John is largely salvific and missional towards the world (e.g. 3.16; 20.31) on the one hand, to what extent is it sectarian on other other hand. Bob Gundry provides an answer:

"John paints the world in very dark colors. It is full of darkness Those human beings who make up the world are children of darkness. They do not belong to the light. They do not comprehend the light. Their deeds are evil. They do not acknowledge God, God's Son Jesus, or God's children, who believe in him and in Jesus. Moreover, they hate God, God's Son, and God's children. They murdered God's Son, rejoiced over his death, and excommunicate and kill God's children as well. Satan dominates worldlings. He is their father. God loved the world; but because of their unbelief his wrath rests on them already, so that they are headed for a resurrection of judgment. And only God is said to love the world. Though John often portrays Jesus as loving those who believe in him, he never says that Jesus loved the world."

Robert H. Gundry, "Is John's Sectarian?" in The Old is Better (WUNT 178; Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2005), 316.

The Gospel of John and the OT

"While John does quote the Old Testament to speak of promises fulfilled in Jesus, more often he draws out the significance of Jesus' deeds or words by explaining them in terms of motifs and imagery drawn from the pages of the Old Testament and from Jewish interpretive traditions".

M.M. Thompson, 'The gospel according to John,' in The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels, ed. Stephen G. Barton (Cambridge: CUP, 2007), 185.

Jesus as Messiah in the Fourth Gospel

According to Tom Thatcher:

"John's Christology, his image of Jesus, emerges at the intersection of three currents: the recall of things that the historical Jesus presumably did and said; a post-resurrection understanding of Jesus' ultimate destiny; and a messianic interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, not only specific passages but the entire text taken as a whole. The interplay of memory, faith, and Scripture may therefore be viewed as John's christological formulae, the generative matrix through which he developed statements about Jesus' messianic identity"

Tom Thatcher, "Remembering Jesus: John's Negative Christology," in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. S.E. Porter (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 173-74.

Book Review: John, the Maverick Gospel

Robert Kysar
John, the Maverick Gospel
Third Edition
Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox, 2007.
Available from Amazon.com in the USA
Availabe from Alban Books in the UK

Robert Kysar's update of his well known introduction to John is much welcomed (first published in 1976) and it attests to a lifetime of learning in the Fourth Gospel. The Introduction covers the usual matters including the language of the Fourth Gospel, relationship to the Synoptics, structure, purpose, destination, and date. Then Kysar examines Johannine Christology which focuses on the Father-Son relationship (chapter one). What is covered next is the Johannine Dualism where Kysar is concerned mainly with John's Gospel and the problem of evil (chapter two). Johannine concepts of faith (chapter three) comes up for discussion as does John's eschatology which takes into account also views of the Spirit, Church, and Sacraments (chapter four). Finally, in the conclusion Kysar looks at the "Future of the Maverick Gospel" including modern and postmodern interpretations.

This is a good introduction to John's Gospel. I appreciate the way that Kysar has changed his mind and he rejects reading John in light of the so-called birkhat ha-minim and he acknowledges the weight of Bauckham's Gospels for All Christians perspective. Some parts I cannot embrace as I do not share Kysar's enthusiasm for postmodern perspectives on John. Kysar is right that John is maverick Gospel but I would hardly call it a "heterodox form of Christianity" since its reception was very positive (with a few exceptions) in the early church. The only way this volume could be improved is with a chapter on the reception-history of John. If you're teaching on John or preaching on John this is a user friendly book (with many diagrams) that can help.

A. Loisy on John 20.31

A. Loisy (Le Quatrième Evangile, p. 513 cited in Raymond E. Brown The Gospel According to John, vol. II, p.1061 ) gave this paraphrase of John 20.31:

‘The earthly existence of … Christ has served as a sign or as a series of signs, for which the Gospel discourses have supplied a commentary – the Johannine Christ revealing himself as light and life in his teaching and in his action. Once one has seen in Jesus the unique revealed of God, the only one who has an absolute right to the title “Son of God,” and once one has recognized the Father in Jesus, the one understands just what the name and quality of Son are and, in this understanding that constitutes faith, one possesses eternal life’.

David Kirk on the Purpose of John's Gospel

David Kirk has some thoughts on Jesus and the Gospels including the purpose of the Fourth Gospel.

The Messiah in John's Gospel

Late at night I have taken to watching two or three chapters from the Gospel of John Movie. Most enjoyable, and what I have noticed again and again is the importance of the is-he-or-isn't-the-Messiah motif that runs throughout. The big question of John is not: is Jesus God? But, is he the Messiah and what kind of Messiah is this?

In thinking over things, I have discovered that the studies that I have found the most helpful for wrestling with John's Gospel were ALL written by Australians (no surprises there):

Leon Morris, Jesus is the Christ: studies in the theology of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989).

John W. Pryor, John, evangelist of the covenant people: the narrative & themes of the fourth Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1992).

John Painter, The quest for the Messiah: the history, literature, and theology of the Johannine community (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993).

Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John (SP; Collegville, MN: Liturgical, 1998).

Robert Kysar on John 2-5

"What we have before us is a trial scene in which the defence is arguing that Jesus is not a traitor to the Jewish faith and the Hebraic tradition, but actually one who completes the meaning of that faith and tradition. But, like one of the signs of Jesus, all of this points beyond itself to additional themes to be fleshed out in greater details. The signs and speeches of John 2–5 only whet our appetites for more. And John intends to satisfy our needs, in part at least, with food of both the earthly and heavenly variety."

Robert Kysar, John’s Story of Jesus, 38.

An Evening with Johannine Scholarship

I do not have a TV license since I refuse to pay the extortionate fee for one (i.e. £150 = $300 USD = $400 AusD) and I was thus unable to watch the world club challenge between the Brisbane Broncos and St. Helens. Unlike American baseball's "The World Series", the "World Club Challenge" is a Rugby League match that actually includes more than one country. Instead, I spent my time contemplating the sublime mysteries and heavenly ministries of the enigmatic Fourth Gospel with a glass of Italian red wine and a dutch beer to nurture my mind for the task.

I had with me a copy of Andreas Kostenberger's volume on John (BECNT). The author's preface mentions some well-known bloggers such as Alan Bandy, Mark Ownens, and David Croteau (not to mention Kostenberger's own blog Biblical Foundations). I think Kostenberger gets John's Purpose correct when he says: "John's overaching purpose is the demonstration that the Christ, the Son of Ggod, is Jesus (20:30-31). The prologue places the entire Gospel within the framework of the eternal, prexistent Word made flesh in Jesus (1:1-18). The first half of John's narrative sets forth evidence for Jesus' messiahship in the form of seven signs (1:19-12:50; cf. 20:30-31). John also includes Jesus' seven 'I am' sayings ... and calls numerous (seven?) witnesses in support of Jesus' claim, including Moses and the Scriptures, the Baptist, the Father, Jesus and his works, the Spirit, the disciples, and the evangelist himself. Representative questions concerning Jesus' messiahship serve to lead the Gospels' readers to the author's intended conclusion: the Christ is Jesus (e.g. 1:41; 4:25; 7:27, 31, 52; 10:24; 12:34)." (p. 9).

A second book that I browsed through was Martin Hengel's scintillating work Johannine Questions. A summary of Hengel's view of the authorship and origin of John's Gospel and the Johannine Letters is found on pp. 102-8. Hengel says this: "Despite all the tensions and breaks, no New Testament thinker has such integrating, fusing power as the author of the Fourth Gospel. This power not only shaped his unique language but at the same time brings together in his work the threads of the history of religion from all sides: from Qumran, Jewish apocalyptic and wisdom literature; from rabbinic Midrash and from Jewish hekhalot mysticism to Philo, the Hermetica and - later - Gnostic texts. The Jewish element predominates, but the Hellenistic aspect is not absent" (p. 104).