Christological confessions and titles for Jesus
The Christology implied by Jesus’ miracles is developed and made explicit by confessions of faith from those who encountered him. These acts of witness, often involving christological ‘titles’, begin already in the Prologue; they feature prominently in John’s dramatic dialogues, and culminate in the acclamations of Mary Magdalene and Thomas in the Resurrection Narrative. They are complemented by what Jesus says about himself, by indirect statements about him, and by controversies, questions and comments from Jesus’ opponents, often used with dramatic irony (e.g. 7.41, 52; 9.29; 11.50; 19.3). The ‘titles’1 would convey different ideas to different readers. Most of them have a complex and controversial background in Judaism which can here be treated only in outline; most are also part of the common stock of Christian thinking about Jesus articulated in varying ways by the New Testament writers. This chapter concentrates on how the titles in John’s christological confessions might have been understood by his first readers.
‘Rabbi’ or ‘Teacher’
‘Rabbi’ is an Aramaic address of high respect for a religious teacher,2 which John explains, presumably for Gentile readers (1.38), by translating it as didaskale (vocative of the Greek for ‘teacher’). In the Synoptics, Jesus is twice addressed as ‘Rabbi’ in Matthew (both times by Judas), four or five times in Mark, but never in Luke. In John, he is called ‘Rabbi’ six times by disciples or would-be disciples (1.38, 49; 3.2; 4.31; 9.2; 11.8), and once by a crowd (6.25). The lengthened form ‘Rabboni’ (more deferential and possibly caritative) occurs once (20.16; cf. Mark 10.51, most manuscripts). John’s comparatively frequent use of ‘Rabbi’ underlines both the Jewish flavour of his Gospel, and the importance for him of Jesus’ role as teacher. In his programmatic ‘Testimony’ (1.19–51), the disciples are gathered following a rabbinic model whereby pupils seek out a teacher and find fellow-disciples, rather than by the Synoptic ‘Follow me’ (Philip in 1.43 is an exception); Jesus is here already twice addressed as ‘Rabbi’. Later John stresses that Jesus taught publicly in synagogue and Temple (6.59; 7.14, 28; 8.20; 18.20). Teaching to individuals and disciples constitutes a high proportion of this Gospel.
Sometimes ‘Rabbi’ is seen as an inadequate faith-confession, since the address is also applied to other teachers (cf. 3.26). Barrett claims that it is put on the lips of ‘imperfect or mistaken disciples’ (1978, p. 180); Moloney thinks that it illustrates the ‘poor quality’ of the first disciples’ initial understanding of Jesus (1998b, p. 60); Keener describes it as an ‘honorable title’ but ‘christologically incomplete’ (2003, p. 469); it is hard to think of any single title which can be ‘christologically complete’. While ‘Rabbi’ may occasionally be followed by a remark revealing an imperfect grasp of Jesus’ mission (4.31; 11.8), too much should not be made of this. In 1.49 Nathanael follows it by acclaiming Jesus as ‘Son of God’, and ‘King of Israel’, both terms with very positive connotations. Nicodemus does not just call Jesus ‘Rabbi’ (3.2); he also acknowledges him as ‘come from God’ (an important theme for John). At the footwashing Jesus calls himself ‘Teacher and Lord’ (13.13), indicating a high understanding of the status of teacher, while giving an example of humble service. In early Judaism, pupils were urged to revere their teachers even more than their parents (Schürer, 1979, p. 327).
Mary Magdalene’s ‘Rabboni’ (20.16) is especially intriguing. Some scholars argue that to call the risen Jesus merely ‘Teacher’ must indicate limited faith. Brodie sees her as representing ‘unbelieving Israel’ (1993b, p. 567); Carson attempts a psychological explanation: ‘It may not be the highest Christological confession … but at this point Mary is enthralled by the restored relationship, not contemplating its theological implications’ (1991, p. 641). By contrast others, seeking to find a nicely balanced parallel with Thomas’ acclamation, ‘My Lord and my God’ (20.28), suggest that Mary’s address implies divinity (so Hoskyns, 1947, p. 543; Marsh, 1968, p. 637). This idea is not supported by John’s simple translation of ‘Rabboni’ as ‘Teacher’ (20.16).3 In fact, Mary’s ‘Rabboni’ is neither an ‘inadequate’ confession, nor a climactic acknowledgement of Jesus as God. It is a cry of recognition: she calls Jesus by the term by which she has always known him, ‘Teacher!’ Compare Martha’s words to her sister: ‘The Teacher is here and is calling you’ (11.28). Jesus’ role as teacher is of the profoundest significance for John’s theology: his teaching is not his own, but that of God who sent him (3.31–34; 7.16; etc.). He is the Word of God, God’s ‘exegete’ or interpreter (1.1, 18). To call him ‘Rabbi’ or ‘Teacher’ is not to belittle his status, but to express one of its most vital aspects.
‘Prophet’
This term would be readily recognized by Gentile, Jewish and Christian readers as denoting a spokesman for the gods or God. Already in the Synoptics, people speculate whether Jesus might be a prophet (Mark 8.28 par.); he is acclaimed as such after the ‘triumphal entry’ (Matt. 21.11), and after the raising of the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7.16): ‘A mighty prophet has arisen among us.’ Jesus indirectly alludes to himself as a prophet when he wryly quotes a proverb about a prophet not having honour in his own country (Mark 6.4; Matt. 13.57; Luke 4.24), a saying given a puzzling new twist by John (4.44). He is explicitly acknowledged as ‘prophet’ by the Samaritan woman (4.19)4 after he has given her details of her life that no stranger could possibly have known (prophets were popularly supposed to have supernatural knowledge of events past and present, as well as future). She later speculates whether he is ‘messiah’, and helps bring others to faith in him (4.29). The newly sighted man also acknowledges Jesus as ‘prophet’ (9.17); Barrett sees this acknowledgement as merely revealing awareness ‘of the presence of an unusual person, who excites wonder and respect’ (1978, p. 360). But the context suggests much more: Jesus has just effected an incredibly difficult cure – restoration of sight to a man blind from birth, an action revealing that God is powerfully with him. The appellation ‘prophet’ would align him with the great prophets of old – Moses, famed for his wonders at the Exodus, and Elijah and Elisha, both workers of healing miracles (cf. above, Ch. 6).
The anarthrous (indefinite) use of ‘prophet’ should be distinguished from that with the definite article. Twice Jesus is unambiguously acclaimed as ‘the prophet’: in Galilee after his feeding miracle, when the people say, ‘This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world’ (6.14), and in Jerusalem after his call to the thirsty (7.37–40), echoing Isaiah 55.1 (cf. Rev. 22.17). In these two places the definite article implies a specific prophet,5 most likely the ‘prophet like Moses’ predicted in the words: ‘A prophet I will raise up for them from among their brethren, like you [Moses], and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak to them everything I shall command him’ (Deut. 18.18). This text may have referred originally to a succession of prophets who would teach the people faithfully, but it became understood as foretelling an eschatological (end-time) prophet. This belief is attested already at Qumran, where the Community Rule speaks of the coming of ‘the Prophet and the Anointed Ones of Aaron and Israel’ (1QS IX.11; Vermes, 1998, p. 110). Early Christians identified ‘the Prophet’ with Jesus (Acts 3.22; 7.37), an identification seemingly accepted by John, who has earlier referred to Jesus as the ‘one of whom Moses wrote in the Law’ (1.45; cf. 5.46). The theme is especially apposite in John 6 with its further reference to Moses and its echoes of Exodus themes (6.32). Just as the Deuteronomic prophet will speak what God tells him, so does Jesus (7.16f.; 14.24; cf. 17.14).
Immediately after acknowledging Jesus as ‘the Prophet’, the people try to take him by force to make him king (6.15). Many scholars assume that ‘the Prophet’ is here understood as a political ‘royal messiah’, and that Jesus withdraws to avoid a popular uprising. This may be John’s intention, though contemporary Jewish evidence for a ‘messianic’ understanding of ‘the Prophet’ is lacking (in 1QS IX.11 ‘the Prophet’ is clearly distinguished from ‘the Anointed Ones’).6 But Josephus attests that some messianic claimants were called ‘prophets’ (Ant., 20.97f., 169; cf. Acts 5.36; 21.38).7 Perhaps we are to imagine the people’s reaction in John 6.15 as a mistaken response to the proper recognition of Jesus as ‘the Prophet’ (Schnackenburg, 1980, p. 19).
‘Messiah’ or ‘Christ’
‘Messiah’ (Hebrew mashiaḥ; cf. mashaḥ, ‘anoint’) would be unfamiliar to Gentiles; hence the usual Christian rendering christos, ‘anointed’ (cf. Greek chriō, ‘anoint’), a term found already in the Septuagint. For Jews it would suggest somebody specially chosen by God, though some might be puzzled by its titular use by Christians. In the Hebrew Bible mashiaḥ is an adjective rather than a title, being used of kings who were anointed as a sign of their divine appointment (e.g. 1 Sam. 15.1; 24.6). It is also applied to the High Priest and other priests (e.g. Exod. 28.41), occasionally to prophets (1 Kings 19.16; cf. Isa. 61.1, where it is metaphorical). Christian readers would be well familiar with the term, which is applied to Jesus in virtually every book of the New Testament. For them it would denote Jesus’ role as saviour and redeemer, fulfilling a whole range of Scripture prophecies, including some where the word mashiaḥ is not used (e.g. Isa. 7.14; 9.2–7; 11.1–10; Mic. 5.2).
John is the only New Testament writer to use the transliterated Semitic form messias, explaining it both times (1.41; 4.25). He uses ‘Christ’ or ‘the Christ’ no fewer than 19 times (cf. Mark, 8 times; Matt., 17 times; Luke, 12 times), beginning in the Prologue with the formula ‘Jesus Christ’ – a solemn Christian usage where ‘Christ’ is almost a proper name (cf. 17.3). The phrase ‘the Christ’, presuming the identification of God’s ‘Anointed’ with one particular individual, comes in debates about Jesus’ identity (7.26, 27, 31, 41, twice, 42; 10.24; 12.34; cf. 9.22), in confessions of faith by individuals (1.41; 4.29; 11.27; cf. 4.25), in the Baptist’s denials that he is ‘the Christ’ (1.20; 3.28; cf. 1.25), and in John’s conclusion on the Gospel’s purpose (20.31).
What sort of ‘messiah’ is Jesus in John? It may be helpful to consider some Jewish post-biblical developments, bearing in mind that beliefs varied, and that the dating, interpretation and sometimes even the readings of texts are disputed, with the result that exact knowledge is hard to attain. It is clear that, by the time John wrote, many Jews expected a ‘royal messiah’, from the tribe of Judah, who would liberate his people from Roman rule and usher in a period of peace, justice and prosperity. Creatively interpreting scriptural texts which spoke of God’s blessings on David’s royal successors (e.g. 2 Sam. 7.11–16; Ps. 89.3f., 33–37), a ‘shoot’ from the stump of Jesse (Isa. 11.1, 10), and ‘a righteous Branch’ (Jer. 23.5), they began to look for a specific figure descended from David who would liberate Israel. Like David he would be a ‘shepherd’, a prince who would feed and care for his united ‘flock’ (Ezek. 34.23f.). Important evidence comes from the Qumran texts (before 70 CE), which look for a triumphant, royal figure, called ‘the Branch of David’ and ‘Anointed One of Israel’.8 Other non-canonical Jewish texts fill out the picture. The Psalms of Solomon (also before 70 CE) describe the massacres and desecration perpetrated by ‘the Lawless One’ (Pompey), and give glowing descriptions of the ‘Son of David’, the ‘Lord Messiah’ (or ‘Lord’s Anointed’), who would purify Jerusalem and reign as king (17, esp. 11–32; cf. 18.5–9). A little later, 4 Ezra (= 2 Esdras) tells how the Most High has kept the Anointed One from the posterity of David ‘to the end of days’. Like a lion roused from the forest he will first reprove and then destroy the ‘eagle’ (symbolizing Rome) and deliver his people (4 Ezra 11—12, esp. 12.31–34).
Usually a purely human figure is expected; but some texts picture ‘the Anointed’ (or ‘Chosen One’) as pre-existent, present before the Lord of the Spirits, and as sitting in glory on God’s throne ready to judge (so 1 En. 48—519). Another expectation was for ‘the Anointed of Aaron’ (e.g. CD XII.22; Vermes, 1998, p. 141), a priestly figure of Aaronic descent, a teacher who would interpret Torah, bringing true enlightenment (CD VII.18; Vermes, 1998, p. 133; cf. T. Levi, 18). One Qumran text describes this priestly ‘Anointed One’ as begotten (yalad) by God (1QSa II.11; Martínez, 1996, p. 127; Vermes, 1998, p. 159). The same text simultaneously looks forward to a royal ‘Anointed One’, while another (1QS IX.11, already cited) refers to the coming of ‘the Prophet’ as well as ‘the Anointed Ones of Aaron and Israel’. Some Jews thought that the messiah’s origin would remain unknown until his appearing.10 To return to John’s presentation: unlike the Synoptics he never uses the title ‘Son of David’ of Jesus. This may be because he wishes to avoid depicting him as a political or national liberator; but he knows the belief that the Christ would be a descendant of David, born in Bethlehem (7.41f.; cf. Matt. 2.5, citing Mic. 5.2). He also shows himself familiar with the concept of a ‘hidden messiah’ when he depicts a crowd as saying, ‘We know whence this man comes; but when the Christ comes nobody will know his origin’ (7.27; cf. 9.29). He shows awareness of the idea that the ‘messiah’ will work miracles (7.31). In this he may have been influenced by Christian interpretations of passages like Isaiah 35.5f., ‘Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame leap like a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing’ (see further Brown, 1966, p. 313; Barrett, 1978, p. 323; Schnackenburg, 1980, pp. 39f.).
John recognizes Jesus as a royal figure (1.49; 12.13–16; 19.19–21), but stresses that his kingdom is ‘not of this world’ (18.33–37). Whether he also saw Jesus as a priestly ‘messiah’ is debatable. Jesus refers to his ‘consecration’ by the Father for his work (10.36, using hagiazō; cf. hagios, ‘holy’), and in his ‘High-Priestly Prayer’ when he intercedes for the disciples and future believers (17.17, 19); John’s unique description of Jesus’ seamless robe (19.23) may also suggest a priestly role. In 6.68f., in a passage comparable to Mark’s version of Peter’s confession of Jesus as ‘the Christ’ (Mark 8.29), Peter confesses Jesus as ‘God’s Holy One’, who has ‘the words of life’.11 The title ‘Holy One’ is not specifically associated with the ‘messiah’ in first-century Judaism, but was given to Aaron, the archetypal High Priest (Ps. 106.16); holiness was also seen as characteristic of priests generally and of prophets (2 Kings 4.9 Septuagint; Jer. 1.5; Wisd. 11.1). John’s use of this term would suit an understanding of Jesus either as a prophet, acting as spokesman for God, or as a priestly teacher of the type envisaged at Qumran. Jesus’ action in ‘cleansing’ the Temple (John 2.13–22) could also readily be interpreted as the deed of a priestly (or royal) ‘messiah’ (cf. Mal. 3.1–4; Zech. 14.20f.; Pss. Sol. 17.26–30); an eschatological purification of the Temple cult was also expected at Qumran.
‘Son of God’
This designation is used in apposition to ‘Christ’ in both 11.27 and 20.31, and may be intended to help explain that term for Gentiles. But it would again suggest different things to different readers. Few living in the Graeco-Roman world could be unfamiliar with the claims of Hellenistic monarchs and Roman emperors to be ‘sons of God’; those with a Greek education would also be aware of numerous mythological figures like Herakles and the Dioskouroi (literally, ‘sons of Zeus’) to whom divine paternity was ascribed. However, for traditional Jews (and Christians familiar with the Jewish Scriptures) ‘Son of God’ would have rather different overtones. In Semitic languages ‘son of x’ is often used to indicate character, an idiom imitated in semitizing Greek, e.g. ‘son of Gehenna’ (Matt. 23.15), ‘sons of light’ (John 12.36; cf. Eph. 5.8). In the Hebrew Bible (including the Septuagint) ‘sons of God’ is used for angels as God-like beings (Job 38.7; Dan. 3.25), and for righteous people as sharing God’s character (Ecclus. 4.10; Wisd. 2.17f.; cf. Matt. 5.9). Additionally, the Davidic king was pictured as God’s son (cf. Ps. 2.7), an idea extended to his royal ‘messianic’ descendant (2 Sam. 7.11–14; cf. Ps. 89.19–37). By the first century CE God’s son seems to be directly equated with ‘messiah’ (4 Ezra 7.28f., etc.; cf. 4Q174; 1QSa II.11; cf. Keener, 2003, pp. 295f.). Christians familiar with Paul’s writings, or the Letter to the Hebrews, or the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, would find still more significance in the designation ‘Son of God’.
John calls Jesus ‘Son of God’ about nine times and ‘the Son’ – a usage probably derived from this – about 18 times. ‘The Son’ occurs exclusively on the lips of Jesus (3.17; ‘his only Son’ may be either Jesus’ words or the narrator’s reflection). It conveys Jesus’ sense of familial relationship and unity with God, his subordination to God, and his authority to act in God’s name. ‘Son of God’ is used with the same connotations on Jesus’ lips (5.25; 10.36; 11.4; 12.23; cf. 3.18). It is also used quasi-messianically in faith confessions, as when Nathanael acknowledges him as ‘Son of God, the King of Israel’ (1.49). A similar meaning is probable when the Baptist testifies to him as the one on whom the Spirit descended and remained, the ‘Son of God’ (1.33f.);12 the messiah was often seen as the bearer of God’s Spirit.
In 11.27 Martha confesses Jesus as ‘the Christ, the Son of God, the one coming into the world’. While ‘the coming one’ could denote Elijah (cf. Mal. 3.1; 4.5) or the Deuteronomic prophet (cf. John 6.14), its juxtaposition with ‘Christ’ and ‘Son of God’ strongly suggests that it is intended here messianically (cf. Matt. 11.2f.; Luke 7.19). The idea of Jesus as ‘the coming one’ occurs also in the Baptist’s testimony (1.15, 27, 30), in speculations about the Christ (7.27, 31, 41, 42), and in the crowd’s shout as Jesus enters Jerusalem: ‘Blessed is he that comes in the Name of the Lord, even the King of Israel’ (12.13). To some, at least, it would suggest Jesus’ identification with a ‘royal messiah’. But for John it probably has deeper meaning: he has Jesus refer regularly to himself as ‘coming’ or ‘coming into the world’ (5.43; 9.39; 10.10; 12.46f.), hinting at both his mission and his pre-existence. Moloney argues that Martha’s confession, reflecting as it does contemporary messianic expectation, falls short of true Johannine faith, being at best partial (1996, p. 162; 1998b, p. 339). But no single formula can express the full profundity of Christian understanding of Jesus’ person and it is hard to see what more could be expected of her. John’s own Conclusion refers to Jesus as ‘the Christ, the Son of God’ (20.31). Martha’s words, then, should be seen as representing a real insight into his identity. Some scholars see it as ‘the most complete christological confession in the Gospel’ (Ling, 2006, p. 191; cf. Maccini, 1996, p. 149).
‘Saviour of the World’
In 4.42 the Samaritans confess Jesus as ho sōtēr tou kosmou, ‘the Saviour of the World’ (1 John 4.14 is the only other New Testament occurrence). This title also would have different connotations for different readers. Gentiles familiar with Graeco-Roman cults would be reminded of pagan ‘saviour gods’, like Asklepios, the god of healing, Isis or Zeus, all worshipped under the title ‘Saviour’. They (and others) would know that ‘Saviour’ was also applied to Hellenistic rulers such as Ptolemy Soter and Roman emperors for their exploits in saving people from their enemies and establishing peace (both Nero and later Hadrian were acclaimed ‘Saviour of the World’). In using this title John may be seeking to elucidate his idea of Jesus as ‘messiah’ for non-Jews by showing that Jesus deserves this appellation far better than political and military leaders, who may indeed not merit it at all (Cassidy, 1992, p. 35). Readers knowing the Jewish Scriptures might also recall God’s role as Saviour (Septuagint sōtēr) in texts like Isaiah 45.15, 21 and Psalms 25.5; 27.9. Christians acquainted with Luke’s Gospel would remember his calling both God (1.47) and Jesus ‘Saviour’ (2.11). Others might recall Matthew’s picture of Jesus as the one who would save his people from their sins (1.21), or Paul’s understanding of Jesus as Saviour (e.g. Phil. 3.20).
Some have claimed that sōtēr in John 4.42 and the Samaritan woman’s earlier faith confessions reflect contemporary Samaritan theology; but this is very doubtful.13 John seems to use these dialogues to express his own ideas. For him Jesus is not just ‘Saviour’, but ‘Saviour of the World’, adding a universal dimension to Jewish messianic hopes. And for him the primary meaning of salvation is not physical security, but eternal life and preservation from judgement: ‘God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him’ (3.17; cf. 5.34; 12.47).
‘Lamb of God’
This designation occurs only on the lips of John the Baptist: ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world’ (1.29; cf. 1.34). Dodd (1953, pp. 231f., 236f.) and O’Neill (1979, 1997) interpreted ‘lamb’ as a ‘messianic’ title, citing the Testament of Joseph 19.8, where a virgin from the tribe of Judah gives birth to a lamb, which overcomes warring animals by trampling them underfoot (cf. also T. Benj. 3.8). This idea was also favoured by Beasley-Murray (1987, pp. 24f.). But such animal imagery, though at home in Revelation (e.g. 17.14), seems alien to John’s Gospel. There are suspicions of Christian interpolations into the Testaments and no evidence that an apocalyptic lamb (or ram) was expected to remove sin. Other scholars have suggested that ‘Lamb of God’ echoes Isaiah’s ‘Servant’, led like a lamb to the slaughter, who is said to have borne the sins of many (Isa. 53.7, 12). This text was certainly interpreted messianically by early Christians (e.g. Acts 8.32–35), though not, at this date, by Jews. One should, however, note that the same passage also compares Isaiah’s ‘Servant’ to a sheep which did not open its mouth before its shearers (53.7), whereas John’s Jesus is hardly silent before his accusers.
While some learned readers in John’s day might have detected allusions to an apocalyptic lamb or Isaiah’s Servant, more would probably understand the Baptist’s words as referring to the Paschal lamb as a symbol of deliverance (cf. the ‘slain lamb’ of Rev. 5.6; 7.14; etc.; 1 Cor. 5.7f.; 1 Pet. 1.19).14 Jewish and Jewish-Christian readers might also recall the tamid, a perpetual daily offering of two lambs in the Temple (Exod. 29.38–42), or the female lamb prescribed as a sin-offering (Lev. 4.32).15 These lambs were, however, killed to atone for the sin of Israel (or of individual Jews), whereas Jesus is said to take away the sin of the world, with universal reference (cf. 1 John 2.1f.; also John 4.42, cited above). The Evangelist most probably presents Christian theology rather than the historical words of John the Baptist.
‘Son of Man’
‘One of the greatest puzzles of New Testament theology and criticism’ (Barrett, 1978, p. 72), this title (ho huios tou anthrōpou) appears in all four Gospels exclusively on Jesus’ lips (except John 12.34, where a crowd echoes Jesus’ words, asking ‘Who is this Son of Man?’). The phrase is not normal Greek, but corresponds to the Hebrew ben ’adam, literally ‘son of humankind’, i.e. a human being or man, or its Aramaic equivalent, bar (e)nash(a), used idiomatically to mean ‘a man like myself’. One would expect it to emphasize a person’s humanity, or mortality, just as ‘son of God’ implies God-like qualities. In the Hebrew Bible it is not a title, but is normally used, in either the singular or plural without the definite article, as a general term for ‘man’ (i.e. ‘humanity’), often in poetic parallelism with ’adam or ’enosh, with similar meaning (e.g. Num. 23.19; Ps. 144.3; Job 25.6). It occurs some 70 times in Ezekiel (e.g. 2.1), when God addresses the prophet as ‘(you) son of man’. In a striking passage of Daniel (7.13f.), the prophet sees ‘one like a son of man’ coming with the clouds and being presented to the ‘Ancient of Days’; he is given glory and an everlasting kingdom. Probably an angelic being is intended, though he later seems to be identified with ‘the saints of the Most High’ (7.18, 22, 27).
In the New Testament ‘son of man’ occurs for humanity collectively (e.g. Heb. 2.6, quoting Ps. 8.4; Mark 3.28, plural), once for Jesus standing at God’s right hand in glory (Acts 7.56, with definite article), and twice in Revelation (1.13; 14.14), describing the glorified Christ as ‘one like a son of man’, with echoes of Daniel’s vision. It also occurs 82 times in the Gospels as a self-designation of Jesus (Aune, 1988), a usage which many scholars believe may reflect the historical Jesus’ own speech patterns (e.g. Mark 8.31: ‘the Son of Man must suffer many things’). In the Gospels the phrase occurs with the definite article, and is often titular. There has been extensive scholarly debate about the origin, authenticity and meaning of these ‘Son of Man’ sayings. Traditionally the Synoptic examples are divided into three groups, where Jesus refers to (a) his earthly activities (e.g. Matt. 8.20), (b) his forthcoming Passion and Resurrection (e.g. Mark 9.31 par.), and (c) his future coming in glory (e.g. Mark 13.26 par.). Some examples in the first two groups may reflect Aramaic idiom and have a wider reference than Jesus alone (Lindars, 1983, esp. ch. 2); those of the third group may reflect Daniel 7.13f.
John uses ‘(the) Son of Man’ 13 times (details in Schnackenburg, 1968, p. 530), with little trace of the colloquial Aramaic idiom, except where he is dependent on the Synoptics (Lindars, 1983, p. 145; Casey, 1996, pp. 59f., denies any traces). These occur where Jesus refers to his heavenly descent and ascent (3.13; cf. 6.62), his ‘lifting up’, or ‘glorification’, on the cross (3.14, etc.), and his roles as heavenly revealer (1.51; cf. 3.12f.) and judge (5.27).16 Many of John’s first readers would find the term puzzling, though they would soon grasp that it was being used as a self-designation of Jesus. Some might imagine that John intended it in similar ways to Gnostic writings. Here phrases like ‘Man’, ‘First Man’, ‘Perfect Man’ and ‘Son of Man’ are used for a primordial human being made in God’s image, or a divine being in the ‘Pleroma’ (fulness of heavenly beings). But it is uncertain how far these ideas were current when John wrote; many of the texts are so abstruse that, even if known to John’s readers, they would offer little illumination.17 The Church Fathers assumed that ‘Son of Man’ referred to Jesus’ human nature in contrast to ‘Son of God’, denoting his divinity (Lampe, 1961, p. 1428); but John does not use the terms in this way. Rather he seems to draw on an understanding of ‘the Son of Man’ as a heavenly being, as illustrated in 1 Enoch (46–53, 61f., etc.), where this figure is pre-existent, and identified with both ‘the Elect One’ and ‘the Messiah’ (and in some way with Enoch), and is invited to sit on God’s throne;18 comparable ideas are also found in 4 Ezra (esp. 11—13). Readers familiar with such texts might well perceive John as depicting Jesus as a similar being.
John’s usage is complex and varied, but it seems fair to say that he uses ‘the Son of Man’ to denote both Jesus’ role as a representative human being who is ‘lifted up’, i.e. crucified, for the sake of humanity (3.14; 8.28; 12.23, 34c; cf. 13.31f.), and as revealer of heavenly things, because he was with God before Creation and is in constant communion with God (3.12f.; cf. 1.18, etc.). Like Jacob’s ladder, he links heaven and earth (1.51). It is precisely because he is the Son of Man that Jesus can act as judge (5.27), not merely as representative ‘man’, but as ‘humanity restored and vindicated by God’ (Barrett, 1978, p. 262).19
Sometimes Jesus is called simply ho anthrōpos, ‘the man’, without any special theological connotations, except perhaps in 19.5. Here Pilate displays Jesus, bleeding from his scourging, and wearing his purple robe and crown of thorns, and says, ‘Behold, the man.’ Scholars debate whether the words are uttered to mock or excite pity; they are probably a double entendre, meaning ‘poor fellow’ (a regular use of anthrōpos) and hinting at Jesus’ role as ‘Son of Man’, John having substituted a normal Greek expression for the Semitizing ‘Son of Man’, which would have sounded odd on Pilate’s lips.20
Kyrios (‘Sir’, ‘Master’, ‘Lord’)
This is probably the most ambiguous of the designations applied to Jesus. It can serve as a polite address for male persons, like the English ‘Sir’ (e.g. John 12.21), or as the equivalent of the Aramaic mari, ‘My Lord’, in deferential address to kings, teachers or social superiors. It was a title for the Roman emperor (cf. kyrios Kaisar, ‘Caesar is Lord’) and for pagan gods (e.g. ‘the Lord Serapis’); also a Greek rendering for ’adonai, standing for YHWH, in both Septuagint and New Testament (cf. John 1.23; 12.13). It is also a Christian title given to Jesus to express his exaltation and universal authority (e.g. Phil. 2.11). Its meaning must be determined by context, and different readers would obviously understand the term in varying ways.
John uses kyrios some 46 to 50 times of Jesus (depending on manuscript readings, and the interpretation of ambiguous phrases). Some 30 examples are in the vocative, kyrie, usually translated as ‘Sir’: these are generally discounted in christological discussions. Moule (1977, p. 35) goes so far as to say that to include them is like counting a schoolboy’s ‘O Sir’ as evidence that the schoolmaster has been knighted! The comparison, though amusing, is misleading. John shows himself familiar with the standard Christian term ho kyrios (‘the Lord’) for Jesus (e.g. 6.23; 11.2; 20.2; 21.7, twice; 21.12). In dialogues he sometimes uses kyrie quite subtly to indicate a transition from politeness to faith, e.g. the newly sighted man’s address of Jesus in 9.36 and 38 (where the RSV quite properly translates kyrie first as ‘Sir’, and then as ‘Lord’). Martha twice addresses Jesus as kyrie in the context of faith professions (11.21, 27; rendered ‘Lord’ both times in the RSV, but only the second time in the NEB). Sometimes there is irony, as when Mary Magdalene addresses the risen Jesus as kyrie in the sense of ‘Sir’, presuming him to be the gardener, having just used the same word for him as ‘Master’ or ‘Lord’ (20.15; cf. 20.13). In 21.7 the ‘beloved disciple’s’ joyful cry, ‘It is the Lord’, represents his recognition of the mysterious lakeside figure as his beloved teacher or ‘master’ (cf. Dalman, 1902, pp. 327–31). It would also be understood by many as an acknowledgement of Jesus as ‘Lord’.21
‘My Lord and my God’
With this acclamation of Thomas (20.28: ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou) we reach ‘the supreme christological pronouncement of the Fourth Gospel’ (so Brown, 1966, p. 1047). Naturally the phrase would not have identical connotations for all readers. There is good evidence that the emperor Domitian demanded to be called ‘Lord and God’, a form of address unacceptable to many Romans (Suetonius, Dom., 13; Martial, Epigr., V.8.1, X.72.3; discussion in Aune, 1997–8, pp. 310f.). One can imagine how some readers might react to finding the same titles applied to Jesus! Some might, of course, interpret John’s use of the phrase as polemic against the emperor cult, as has often been suggested for Revelation, which uses the same phrase in its account of the heavenly worship (4.11).22
Others might see John’s use of this phrase as bestowing on Jesus the same titles as the Hebrew Bible ascribes to YHWH (cf. Pss. 30.2f.; 35.23; 88.1; Zech. 13.9 Septuagint). This does not, however, mean that John should be seen as simply equating Jesus with God, still less subscribing to the later doctrines of the creeds. This is one disciple’s faith confession, its individual character being heightened by the repetition of the personal pronoun, ‘My Lord and my God’ (see further below, Ch. 12).
Conclusions
The titles accorded to Jesus in confessions of faith contribute, each in its own way, to John’s overall presentation of Christology. Jesus is acknowledged in turn as Israel’s ‘messiah’ and king, as God’s Son and Holy One, as Saviour of the World, and as sacrificial ‘Lamb’. He comes as a teacher and prophet, in fulfilment of Moses’ promises, revealing God’s nature in life-bringing words and actions. He is ‘the Son of Man’ who came down from heaven and returns to the Father through the way of the cross, an example of love and conformity to God’s will. He is ‘Master’ and ‘Lord’, demanding obedience and loyalty, but also acts as a slave in washing his disciples’ feet. While several of the faith confessions effectively acknowledge Jesus’ character as like God’s, only Thomas’s acclamation actually calls him ‘God’. Thus John’s faith confessions themselves serve as ‘narrative theology’, reinforcing and developing the message of the ‘signs’. The next chapter will consider how John uses other actions, and especially Jesus’ Passion and Resurrection, to express his Christology.