‘Replacement theology’ and Jewish monotheism
We now consider the two other areas where John’s Gospel has been criticized as ‘anti-Jewish’, namely his ‘replacement theology’ and his depiction of Jesus as God. Ancient Judaism was not monochrome in its beliefs and practices; some authors prefer to speak of ‘Judaisms’ in the plural (e.g. Neusner, 1987). Nevertheless Jews were, and are, united, in a common ‘ethnicity’ and sense of election by God as a covenant community. They share common Scriptures understood as inspired revelation, monotheistic faith, and respect for Torah, embracing both oral tradition and written Law. ‘Torah’ includes moral injunctions and ritual (ceremonial) prescriptions, as well as liturgical materials and history written from a theological viewpoint. First-century Jews did not drive a wedge between moral and ritual prescriptions, as do many Christians. Among the latter are circumcision, Sabbath, dietary and ‘purity’ laws, observance of fasts and festivals, and a complex system of sacrifices based on the Temple cult with its priestly hierarchy (ended by the Roman destruction of the Temple). Prayer and Torah-study are taken for granted.1 How far does John depict Jesus as ‘replacing’ these beliefs and way of life?
Scripture
We begin with Scripture. For John, there is no idea that this might include Christian texts: ‘Scripture’ (Greek, graphē) for him is the Hebrew Bible (including the Septuagint), for which he displays the utmost respect, regarding it as fully authoritative. In words attributed to Jesus or the disciples, he assumes verbal inspiration (10.35); he presents Moses and the prophets as writing of Jesus and witnessing to him (e.g. 1.45; 5.39b). Jesus always speaks respectfully of Moses, reproaching ‘the Jews’ for not believing him and not keeping the Law which he gave them (5.46; 7.19). Jesus also refers positively to Isaiah, who ‘spoke of him’ (12.41), and Abraham, who ‘rejoiced to see his day’ (8.56), though John clearly presents Jesus as greater than Jacob, Abraham and Moses (cf. above, p. 4).
John’s scriptural interpretation is basically typological (Carson, 1988, pp. 249–51; Hanson, 1991, pp. 238f.). This was a Jewish method of exegesis whereby events or sayings from the past are interpreted as fulfilled in present experience (cf. ‘pesher’ interpretation at Qumran: Longenecker, 1975, pp. 38–45). Luke uses it when Jesus reads from Isaiah and then says, ‘Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your ears’ (4.21), and when Peter says in his Pentecost sermon (Acts 2.16–21), ‘This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel.’ No fewer than 12 of John’s Scripture quotations are introduced by phrases like ‘as Scripture says’ or ‘as it is written’ (e.g. 2.17; 6.31, 45; 12.14f.) and seven use the word ‘fulfil’ (Carson, 1988, esp. p. 246). Other passages directly quote biblical texts on the lips of individuals or groups (e.g. 1.23; 12.13) or cite them imprecisely (e.g. 7.38; 19.28). Scripture is ‘fulfilled’ in the Baptist’s ministry (1.23), Judas’ betrayal (13.18), the ‘triumphal entry’ (12.14f.), Jesus’ Passion (19.24b, 28, 36f.; cf. 2.17) and in his Resurrection (2.22; 20.9). Thus John, like Matthew (5.17), sees Jesus as coming not to nullify Scripture, but to ‘fulfil’ it (see Hamid-Khani, 2000; Köstenberger, in Beale and Carson, eds, 2007, esp. pp. 415f., 507).
Apart from direct quotations, there are numerous scriptural allusions. Jesus’ ‘lifting up’ on the cross is like Moses’ raising of the bronze serpent (3.14; cf. Num. 21.9), the point of the comparison being not just the physical lifting up, but also the healing of the Israelites, and Jesus’ bringing of life through the cross. Jesus’ feeding of the multitude echoes God’s provision of manna through Moses, just as his gift of ‘living water’ may echo the water from the rock (see above, pp. 66f.). ‘Moses’ was one of the bonds that held Jews together, especially in the Diaspora (Barclay, 1996, pp. 426–8), and John makes many subtle allusions to him. But Jesus’ gifts are superior to those of Moses: his water ‘wells up for eternal life’ (4.14); the food that he provides is ‘living bread’ that will enable people to live for ever (6.50f.). ‘The Jews’ search the Scriptures to find eternal life, but it is Jesus who brings it (5.39f.). Jesus alone has seen God (1.18).
Torah
On the moral side Torah includes the Decalogue (‘Ten Commandments’), teaching on loving God and neighbour, and many instructions on generosity and kindness. For Casey (1996, esp. p. 133), John’s Jesus replaces ‘the Old Testament commandments to love God and do the Law’ with his new love command. But Jesus in John assumes that God must be honoured (e.g. 5.23). His ‘love command’ affirms Torah’s teaching on human relationships by summing up its essence (cf. Mark 12.28–34 par., quoting Lev. 19.18), just as the rabbis Akiba and Hillel are reported to have done.2 He gives it a new grounding in his own love (13.34; 15.12, 17), but it is still the ‘old’ commandment (cf. 1 John 2.7). John takes Torah’s moral prescriptions for granted, including its teaching on lying, murder and theft (8.41, 44; 12.6) and, presumably, faithfulness within marriage (4.16–19; see further Carson, 1981, p. 163). He also assumes its doctrines of God as life-giver and judge (5.26f.), holy and righteous (17.11, 25), loving and caring for humanity (3.16; cf. his use of ‘father’ for God), and as having sovereign authority that he can delegate (e.g. 17.2).
John’s statement that ‘the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ’ (1.17) is sometimes read as depicting an opposition between Torah and Jesus. But 1.17 contains no adversative; rather it explicates 1.16, ‘from his fulness we have all received one gracious gift instead of another’ (charin anti charitos; cf. above, p. 110). John acknowledges Torah as God’s gracious gift; but he sees the revelation provided by Jesus as even greater. God’s revelation through Moses is still valuable, as Christians recognize in using Jewish Scripture as their ‘Old Testament’.3
Circumcision and covenant
For men, circumcision (peritomē) was the mark of being Jewish. John never disparages the rite,4 nor does he ‘spiritualize’ it (as in Col. 2.11) or depict it as a matter of indifference in Christ (as Col. 3.11; Gal. 5.6; cf. 1 Cor. 7.19). He does not suggest that baptism replaces it as a sign of the covenant community. He makes no allusions to the controversy over whether Gentiles should be circumcised, mentioning the rite only twice, in a single passage (7.22f.), where Jesus describes it as given by Moses, or rather ‘the fathers’ (a Jewish expression for the patriarchs). Jesus says that it was given ‘to you’ (i.e. his interlocutors) rather than ‘us’, not because it is ‘an alien custom’ (so Casey, 1991, p. 29), but to bring home to ‘the Jews’ the inconsistency between their seeking to kill him (7.19) and membership of the covenant people. Like John the Baptist in Matthew (3.7–10), Jesus argues that being Abraham’s descendants does not in itself bring salvation. That depends on ‘knowing’ God, through spiritual birth (3.3–5) and his emissary Jesus (17.3). The fact that Jewish Law permitted circumcision on the Sabbath is also part of Jesus’ defence against criticisms for his healing on that day. Although John nowhere uses the word ‘covenant’ (diathēkē), the concept is not far beneath the surface (cf. Pryor, 1992).
Sabbath
Some scholars claim that John’s Jesus abrogates Sabbath: for example, Casey (1991, p. 29) claims that it is ‘explicitly removed’ in 5.18. But the words in question, eluen to sabbaton, are not given as John’s own views, but those of Jesus’ opponents; and eluen clearly means ‘was breaking’ (the Sabbath) rather than ‘destroying’ it (cf. RSV, NEB, GNB, etc.). The passage resembles a Synoptic ‘controversy story’, though Jesus’ defence is different (cf. above, p. 64). It is not about ‘abrogating’ the Sabbath, but rather an intra-Jewish dispute about how its laws are to be observed. The same applies to Jesus’ healing of the man born blind, when the Pharisees accuse him of not ‘keeping’ the Sabbath (tēreō; 9.16). By treating restoration to full health as an appropriate Sabbath activity, Jesus offers a humane alternative to more rigid scribal and pharisaic interpretations of Torah. He is concerned with its heart, not its letter (7.21–24). There is no hint in John of the replacement of Sabbath by the Christian Sunday.
Dietary laws
John’s Gospel says nothing about dietary observances. This contrasts with Mark (7.19b), where Jesus is said ‘to make all foods clean’, and with the disputes in Acts (e.g. 10.9–16; 15.28f.) over whether Gentiles should keep Jewish food laws (cf. also 1 Cor. 10.25–28; Rom. 14.14f.). John presumably takes them for granted, or else sees them as irrelevant to his message. It is improbable that he writes so late that Jewish–Christian controversies over dietary laws are past and forgotten.
Purity laws
In his story of the Cana miracle John says that the water-jars were there for ‘the Jewish purificatory rites’ (2.6). Some commentators have interpreted this water as representing ‘ritualistic’ Judaism being replaced by the splendid ‘new wine’ of Christianity; but there is no need to read the narrative this way (cf. above, p. 62). This incident cannot be taken as a rejection of the entire holiness code, any more than Jesus’ foot-washing (13.10) and cleansing through the ‘word’ (15.3) can be seen as replacing Jewish purity prescriptions with Christian ones (pace Casey, 1996, p. 114). John’s Jesus never teaches that purity laws are superseded, and, in contrast to the Synoptics (where he touches a leper and a funeral bier, and is touched by the haemorrhaging woman), he never incurs ritual ‘uncleanness’.
Festivals
John’s Jesus regularly observes the Jewish festivals (which feature far more often than in the Synoptics). He is present at Jerusalem for Passover (2.13; cf. 12.12), an unnamed feast (5.1), Tabernacles (7.10) and Dedication (10.22); but in 6.4 he is in Galilee near Passover time, when commentators think he should have left already for Jerusalem.5 John mentions Passover to facilitate his typological interpretation of the feeding miracle; Jesus could have gone up later (but that is outside the story). In 7.10 he goes up ‘privately’, after his brothers, for Tabernacles, appearing publicly at the feast (7.14, 28, 37). John nowhere mentions fasting (a controversial issue between Jews and Christians).
The festivals are occasions for significant actions, miracles or special teaching by Jesus (see Daise, 2007; Felsch, 2011). Some scholars have interpreted them as John’s way of showing that Jesus superseded these feasts (e.g. Brown, 1966, p. 104; Dunn, 1991, pp. 93–5; Casey, 1996; Kerr, 2002, ch. 7). Yee speaks of him ‘nullifying’ Jewish liturgical institutions (1989, p. 26); Motyer of him ‘hijacking’ each festival in turn for the Christian faith (1997, p. 124). Is this really John’s intention? In 5.1 the feast is not even named: it is simply a means of getting Jesus to Jerusalem, enabling John to describe the controversies with the Jewish authorities generated by the Sabbath healing. Nor can it seriously be argued that Jesus ‘replaces’ Passover simply because Passover motifs appear in the crucifixion narrative (cf. above, p. 94) and Jesus is called ‘Lamb of God’ (see above, p. 81). This is typology, not supersession (Hanson, 1991, p. 239).
Some scholars understand Jesus’ promise of rivers of living water at Tabernacles (7.37), and his saying about ‘the light of the world’ (8.12), as ‘taking over’ this festival. Motyer describes Jesus as proclaiming himself ‘the centre of an alternative Tabernacles’ (1997, p. 127, his italics). But this reads too much into the text. It is true that according to the Mishnah (c.200 CE) the rituals included fetching water from the pool of Siloam, pouring it out before the Temple, and filling the Women’s Court with lights (m. Sukkah 4.9—5.2). But John nowhere refers to these rites. He simply develops the theme of ‘living water’ featuring already in 4.10–14. Nor can the image of ‘light’, used by John about 20 times, be tied to Tabernacles symbolism. In describing Jesus as ‘the light of the world’ (8.12; 9.5) John probably draws on Isaiah’s metaphorical use of light for ‘salvation’ (42.6; 49.6; etc.; Williams, 2000, p. 266). It is not even clear that John intends these ‘light’ sayings to be understood as uttered at Tabernacles. He makes no mention of other prominent motifs, including the temporary shelters (sukkoth), from which it derives its Hebrew name, or palm-waving (which John uses on another occasion: 12.13). Nor does he take advantage of Tabernacles’ Greek name, skēnopēgia, ‘tent-pitching’ (7.2), to develop his theme of Jesus’ tabernacling among humankind.
There is even less to commend the idea that Jesus ‘replaces’ Dedication (Hanukkah; Greek, ta enkainia or ‘Renewal’).6 John makes nothing of its processions with palms and other leafy branches, or its use of lights; rather Jesus repeats his earlier ‘shepherd’ theme (10.1–18), and contends with ‘the Jews’ by speaking of his unity with the Father. There is only one possible, oblique allusion to a Hanukkah motif, in the reference to the Father’s ‘consecrating’ Jesus (hagiazō; 10.36); but this theme features much more prominently in John 17 (set in a different context). To sum up: the idea that John’s Jesus ‘replaces’ every major Jewish festival is unfounded.7
Temple and worship
Loyalty to the ‘Temple’ was another identity factor for pre-70 CE Jews (Dunn, 1994, pp. 441f.).8 Many scholars see John as portraying the abolition of its sacrifices in Jesus, and its replacement with his person and/or the Church (e.g. Moloney, 1993, p. 101; Coloe, 2001; Kerr, 2002, esp. p. 374; Hakola, 2005, esp. pp. 110f.). Both Dunn (1991, p. 95) and Casey (1996, p. 10) speak of the Temple being made ‘redundant’ in John. In the Synoptics Jesus had foretold its destruction (Mark 13.2 par.; cf. 14.57f. par.), but in John the ‘Temple saying’ takes a different form: ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it’ (2.17). ‘Destroy’ here has conditional force, ‘If you destroy’. John makes it clear that Jesus speaks of ‘the temple of his body’, i.e. foretells his own death and Resurrection (cf. above, Ch. 7). Sometimes Jesus’ driving out of the traders (2.15f.) is taken as symbolizing God’s rejection of Jewish worship (so Nereparampil, 1978, p. 18), or as portending the Temple destruction as an act of divine judgement (so Sanders, 1985, pp. 61–71, with critique of other views). But is this John’s interpretation?
Traditionally this incident is known as ‘the cleansing of the Temple’, and this is how John presents it. Money-changers and animal vendors were defiling the Temple precincts; Jesus, moved by zeal for his Father’s house, drives them out (2.17, citing Ps. 69.9). By so doing, he does not ‘abolish’ the sacrificial system (the coins could have been exchanged and the animals sold elsewhere); he acts out of concern for the cult’s purity (cf. Mark 11.16). John probably saw this cleansing as ‘messianic’ (cf. above, p. 78): ‘house of trade’ (2.16) recalls Zechariah’s prophecy that ‘on that day’ (i.e. in the end-time), ‘there shall no longer be a trader in the Lord’s house’ (14.20f.). It may also fulfil Malachi 3.1–3: ‘The Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his Temple’; ‘but who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire … and will purify the sons of Levi’. Ezekiel (40—47) also hoped for a new, purified cult, as did the Qumran covenanters (cf. the ‘New Jerusalem Scroll’: Chyutin, 1997; Crawford, 2000).
Unlike some Church Fathers, John never attacks Jewish worship as idolatrous. Rather Jesus contrasts it favourably with Samaritan worship, saying to the Samaritan woman, ‘You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation comes from the Jews’ (4.22) – notice how Jesus associates himself here with ‘the Jews’. But he also foretells a new eschatological worship, taking place neither in Jerusalem nor ‘this mountain’ (the site of the Samaritan temple), but in spirit and in truth (4.21–24).9 By at least the later stages of John’s writing, the Jerusalem Temple had been destroyed (see above, Ch. 5); like his Jewish contemporaries he had to cope with a situation when sacrifices could no longer be performed there. Something new was required. Some Jews took refuge in apocalypticism; some, like Johannan ben Zakkai, emphasized the need for repentance and deeds of kindness; some sought to apply the Temple purity rules to the home. John saw the possibility of new ‘spiritual’ worship through Jesus, the symbol of God’s abiding presence. His understanding coheres remarkably with Revelation’s picture of the heavenly city where there is no Temple, for ‘God’s dwelling [skēnē] is with humankind’ and ‘its Temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb’ (21.3, 22). What the seer saw in a vision of the future, the Evangelist finds already happening.
Ethnicity
There is little to add here. John depicts Jesus as a Jew; he appears to write from a group including many Jews, and for a broad audience of Jews and Gentiles (see above, Ch. 5). A hope of Judaism was that one day the Gentiles would come to acknowledge Israel’s God (cf. Isa. 11.9f.; 49.6f.; Tob. 14.6).
Monotheism
Monotheism has been left until last, because it is the most complex issue. Several scholars (including Casey, 1996, p. 31) find John ‘anti-Jewish’ in breaching this by representing Jesus as ‘God’. It will be necessary to explore both the character of first-century Jewish monotheism and the ways in which John represents Jesus as divine. By ‘monotheism’ is understood belief in, and worship of, only one deity, being distinguished from ‘monolatry’ (worship of one deity, while recognizing the existence of other deities) and polytheism (belief in, and worship of, a plurality of deities). First-century Jews were clearly monotheists in this sense: the first clause of the Shema, recited daily by the devout, is ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one’ (Deut. 6.4; cf. Mark 12.29). But this monotheism did not preclude belief in the existence of other spiritual beings, both good and evil – angels, cherubim and other ministering spirits, Satan and evil angels/demons. In the Hebrew Bible God is sometimes pictured as having a heavenly court, with both good and evil spirits present (1 Kings 22.19–22; cf. Job 1.6). Angels are pictured as carrying out God’s commands in relation to mortals, and it can be hard to tell when an appearance is of God himself or of his angelic messenger. Sometimes the angel of the Lord appears to be YHWH himself (e.g. Gen. 16.7–13; 32.24–30; Exod. 23.20–22).
After the Exile, speculation about such spiritual beings grew, with angels being given individual names and functions. Michael was ‘the great prince’ and protector of Israel (Dan. 12.1); Raphael reportedly appeared as a man and travelled with Tobias to Ecbatana and back, only revealing his angelic identity after Tobias had safely returned to his aged father (Tob. 5.4—12.22). Other angels were identified with exalted patriarchs, like the angel Israel, who was identified with Jacob (Prayer of Joseph, fr. A: Charlesworth, 1985, p. 713) and ‘the heavenly prince’ Melchizedek at Qumran. The latter may be intended to be the same person as the mysterious priest-king of Genesis 14 (11Q13; Vermes, 1998, pp. 500f.) – described in ‘quasi-messianic’ terms as the one who will act as judge at the Jubilee, when atonement will be made. The text identifies him with ’ĕlohim and ’el (usually translated ‘God’), citing Psalms 82.1 and 7.7f., and saying that he will comfort the mourners and proclaim peace and salvation, exacting vengeance on the wicked. Some of the texts quoted concerning him are the same as are used of Jesus, notably Isaiah 61.1–3 (cf. Luke 4.18f.) and Isaiah 52.7 (cf. Rom. 10.15). Sometimes the ‘messiah’ or ‘Elect One’/‘Son of Man’ is seen as part of this heavenly company, having been chosen by ‘the Lord of the Spirits’ and given a name before the creation of the sun, moon and stars. 1 Enoch (46, 48, 51, etc.) describes him as ‘a light to the Gentiles’, and predicts that he will sit on God’s throne and reveal ‘all the secrets of wisdom’ (cf. above, p. 77, with n. 9).
Jews occasionally spoke of biblical patriarchs in quasi-divine terms, notably Adam, Abraham and Moses. The Bible itself calls Moses ‘god’ when YHWH says (Exod. 7.1), ‘See, I will make you god to Pharaoh’ (Hebrew ’ĕlohim; Greek theos). Commentators point out that Moses is not being given divine power, merely appointed to act towards Pharaoh as God or a god (many translators supply ‘as’ or ‘like’). But Philo took this text to mean that God had deemed Moses ‘worthy to be named god and king’ (Mos., 1.158). Alluding to Exod. 20.21, he describes him as entering into the darkness where God is, and beholding what is hidden from mortal nature, and then displaying in his life a model for human beings to imitate. For other texts treating Moses as divine see Jeremias (1967, pp. 848–73); Meeks (1967, p. 195), citing a midrash (on Deut. 33.1) describing him as ‘a man’ when he ascended on high, and ‘god’ when he descended below.
Jews who speculated about ‘the host of heaven’ and exalted patriarchs did not perceive themselves as ‘breaching’ monotheism. Their aim was to protect God’s transcendence and majesty by ascribing to him the service of numerous angels and spirits, who could act as intermediaries with mortals. Another way of expressing reverence for God’s transcendence was by avoiding the pronunciation of his Name (YHWH) by substituting periphrases like maqom (place), yeqara (glory), memra and shekinah (cf. above, pp. 104, 106). Creation was described as occurring through Wisdom or logos rather than directly by God. Angels were believed to have delivered the Law; Moses was said to have seen the logos, or an angel, at the burning bush. It is against this background that we have to understand John’s attribution of ‘deity’ to Jesus.
So how does John present Jesus as divine? He does so with delicacy and reticence, more by hints and suggestions than by brash or dogmatic statements. Jesus walks on water, recalling YHWH’s making his path in the deep (cf. above, p. 66), but also echoing the Israelites’ crossing the Red Sea and the Jordan dry-shod. He heals on the Sabbath, claiming to work as his Father does (5.17). He speaks like YHWH in some of his confrontational dialogues (cf. above, p. 138, on the rib motif); but in none of these incidents does he actually claim divinity. He also uses the phrase ‘I am’ (egō eimi), often supposed to depict him as God. But the ‘I am’ sayings are not all of the same type. The phrase itself is normal Greek, appearing on the lips of other individuals where identity is in doubt (9.9; and, in the negative, 1.20f.; 18.17, 25). In some of his ‘I am’ sayings Jesus reveals something about himself, e.g. ‘I am the bread of heaven’. Such ‘revelatory’ sayings are paralleled in Revelation (1.8; 22.13, 16, etc.), in Hellenistic religious literature, where, for example, the goddess Isis claims, ‘I am Isis, ruler of every land’ (Horsley, 1981, pp. 18f.), and occasionally in the Gospel of Thomas (e.g. 77.1). John may be employing the formula as a memorable way of presenting Jesus’ functions and enhancing his role as the dominant personality of his narrative (Ball, 1996, p. 255). More significant parallels are those from the Hebrew Bible, especially YHWH’s self-disclosure to Moses at the burning bush: ‘I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham …’ (Exod. 3.6) and ‘I am who I am’10 (Exod. 3.14; Septuagint: egō eimi ho ōn). God’s ‘I am’ is often linked to affirmations of his deeds: ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage’ (Exod. 20.2; cf. Deut. 5.6).11
But John is not ‘setting up’ Jesus as a separate ‘deity’, in rivalry with God, by attributing to him these sayings. Their basic message is that Jesus feeds his people, as God did through Moses (6.35, 48, 51; cf. 6.32). He cares for them like an ideal shepherd (10.11), as Moses and David did (Isa. 63.11 Septuagint; Ezek. 37.24) and as God does (Ps. 23.1f.). He shows them the way to God, as the prophets did before him, revealing truth and enabling salvation (10.7, 9; 14.6; cf. 8.12; 11.25). None of these revelatory ‘I am’ sayings equates him directly with God. They show him as acting like God.
Other ‘I am’ sayings lack a complement, consisting only of pronoun and verb. Some of these are ‘recognition’ or ‘identification’ formulae, such as ‘It is I; don’t be afraid’ (6.20; cf. Mark 6.50) and ‘I am [he]’, i.e. ‘the one you are looking for’ (18.5). The latter has been taken as indicating divinity, since those arresting Jesus fall to the ground; but similar reactions are recorded at appearances of angels (cf. Tob. 12.16; Bauckham, 1993a, pp. 121f.) and at other uncanny happenings (e.g. Luke 5.8). In 4.26 when Jesus says to the Samaritan woman, ‘I who speak to you am [he]’ (egō eimi ho lalōn soi), ‘he’ is readily understood as the ‘messiah’ about whom the woman has just been speaking (4.25). Possibly 8.24, 8.28 and 13.19 should be taken similarly (cf. Mark 13.6 with Matt. 24.5). But in 8.58, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am’, ‘messiah’ cannot readily be supplied. The present tense is also remarkable, implying that Jesus existed before Abraham, presumably as logos (cf. 17.5), and exists permanently (note the use of the verb ginomai, ‘become’ of Abraham, but eimi, ‘am’ of Jesus).12
This raises the question whether some or all of these sayings deliberately recall the Septuagint’s use of egō eimi to translate the Hebrew ’ani hu’, literally ‘I [am] he’. The formula, though occasionally used by human beings, is associated with God’s self-disclosure, sovereignty and saving presence in Deutero-Isaiah (e.g. 41.4; 48.12; cf. Deut. 32.39; Williams, 2000). The parallel between Isaiah 43.10, ‘so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am [he]’, and John 13.19 is striking. It has even been suggested that in 8.58f. John depicts Jesus as using the divine Name (cf. Exod. 3.13–16), and that this is why ‘the Jews’ are ready to stone him for blasphemy. But he has made no direct claim to be God, nor has he pronounced the ineffable Name YHWH. He says simply, ‘egō eimi’, ‘I am’, not ‘egō eimi ho ōn’.13 We conclude that, while John has Jesus speak in ways that recall divine pronouncements, Jesus does not identify himself with YHWH explicitly.
What about Jesus’ descriptions of himself as ‘the Son’ and his references to God as his ‘Father’? Traditionally several of these have been treated as indicating Jesus’ ‘deity’, regularly appearing in patristic discussions (see, e.g., M. Edwards, 2004, p. 109; Elowsky, 2006, vol. 1, pp. 358−61). Most significant is Jesus’ claim: ‘I and the Father are one’ (10.30). But this must be read in context: Jesus has said that nobody can snatch his ‘sheep’ because God has given them to him, and he and God are one. It is by no means clear that a metaphysical unity is intended (Barrett, 1978, p. 382; 1982, pp. 24f.). The statement ‘the one who has seen me has seen the Father’ (14.9) may well mean that people can best perceive God’s character in Jesus. He may be ‘in’ the Father and the Father ‘in’ him (14.10 etc.) because to know God is to share his nature; mutual indwelling is promised also to believers who trust in Jesus (14.20; 17.21); compare Paul’s phrase ‘in Christ’ (see further Malatesta, 1978; Jerumanis, 1996). Jesus’ reference to ‘the Son’ being honoured like the Father (5.23) may arise from his role as the Father’s emissary, since in Jewish thought one sent with full authority was honoured equally with the sender (Borgen, 1986; on ‘honour’ and ‘equality’ see further Neyrey, 2007, pp. 107−11). One of the most striking features of Jesus’ references to God as his ‘Father’ is how often he stresses his subordination to God, and his executing the tasks entrusted to him by God (cf. above, pp. 64f.). This is part of his work as God’s ‘messiah’.
We turn now to the Prologue. Even here there is no one-to-one equation of Jesus with God. In 1.1 the logos is said to be god (theos), but is also described as ‘with God’ (pros ton theon), the repetition in 1.2 adding emphasis. The Word cannot therefore be identical with God. Moreover, god (theos) in 1.1c is anarthrous,14 reminding us of Philo’s distinction between ho theos – God in the absolute sense – and theos for others so called (Somn., I.229f.), a distinction also observed by Origen (Comm. Jo., II.2), citing John 17.3, where Jesus himself calls his Father ‘the only true God’. For English-speaking Christians this distinction is hard to grasp, because we are so accustomed to using ‘God’ (with a capital letter) for the Supreme Being/Israel’s God that we do not realize that Greek theos and Hebrew ’ĕlohim can be used in other senses. In the Graeco-Roman world Greek theos (also Latin deus/divus) was used in literary texts for philosophers and rulers, and in the East for Hellenistic monarchs and the Roman emperor. While Jews would reject such uses, ’ĕlohim (grammatically plural) appears in the Hebrew Bible (and the Dead Sea Scrolls) for beings other than YHWH. These include the ghost of Samuel (1 Sam. 28.13), pagan gods (e.g. Exod. 20.3), the king (Ps. 45.6), judges (e.g. Exod. 21.6), and angels/heavenly court (e.g. Pss. 82.1; 97.7; cf. 4Q400; Vermes, 1998, p. 322). This usage is often obscured in English translations (compare Ps. 8.5, AV, RSV). In John 10.34 Jesus defends himself against a charge of blasphemy by quoting Psalm 82.6 (81.6 Septuagint), where theoi is used for pagan gods (later interpreted as angels). All this suggests that John’s use of theos for Jesus would not seem so harsh or radical as it might at first appear.
To return to the Prologue, John does not say that God became a man, but that the logos became flesh (1.14). Some manuscripts do refer to Jesus as ‘God’ in 1.18, but it has been already argued that the reading ‘the only Son’ is to be preferred (see above, p. 111). Even if theos is read there, the more reliable sources lack the definite article, so that our earlier arguments apply. This means that the only place where Jesus is directly and definitely called ‘ho theos’ is in Thomas’ words to the risen (and possibly ascended) Jesus, ‘My Lord and my God’ (20.28). These may be a direct address to Jesus, with a Hebraistic use of the nominative with article for the vocative, or an exclamation (see Harris, 1992, pp. 106–9). But in either case Thomas gives Jesus a title belonging to YHWH (cf. Rev. 4.11, where ‘our Lord and God’ is used in heavenly worship). Yet even this is no dogmatic formulation of ‘deity’ for Jesus, but shows that Thomas has recognized in the risen Christ the one in whom he found God truly present (cf. Grayston, 1990, p. 170).15 It should be noted that John does not presuppose worship of Jesus (sometimes seen as evidence for acknowledgement of his divinity) except, doubtfully, in 5.23 and 9.38.
Is this presentation of Jesus anti-Jewish? We have seen that Jewish ideas of monotheism were more flexible than often supposed (though certain texts cited may stem from esoteric groups). Some of the figures discussed above provide parallels to John’s usage (cf. Hurtado, 1998), but none is exact. John does not have an ‘angel Christology’ (except in the broadest sense that Jesus is sent by God and declares God’s message). The patriarchs who are identified as angels are human beings believed to have ascended into heaven, not pre-existing beings who came down from heaven to be incarnate.16 Angels who visit human beings in the appearance of men do so temporarily, not for a lifetime of 30 years or more. One angel (‘the angel of the Lord’/Yaoel) is said to have ‘God’s Name’ in him, but (pace Fossum, 1995, pp. 109–23) it is a far cry from this to John’s Jesus. Despite all attempts to find external parallels, John’s understanding of Jesus remains closer to that of other early Christians than it does to near-contemporary Jewish texts. This does not make it anti-Jewish; rather it shows John using Jewish categories of thought to explain what was, and still is, a mystery – how Jesus of Nazareth, a first-century Jew, could reveal God so fully that he came to be acknowledged as theos.
Conclusions
This chapter has focused on two related questions: is John anti-Jewish in his ‘replacement theology’? Is he anti-Jewish in ‘breaching’ Jewish monotheism? In response to the first we have argued that John does not have a programmatic ‘replacement theology’. The emphasis is on ‘fulfilment’. John presents Jesus as the realization of Judaism’s deepest hopes and beliefs, fulfilling Scripture in his role as ‘messiah’, ‘saviour’, ‘son’, ‘shepherd’, ‘king’, sent with authority to carry out God’s work and make God’s nature known to humanity (cf. above, Ch. 8). These roles of Jesus are not set out in ways antagonistic to Judaism, but build on traditional Jewish beliefs, using Jewish symbolism and categories of thought. While John sometimes explains terms for Gentiles among his intended audience, his main orientation is towards Jews. ‘Fulfilment’ may involve ‘supersession’: for example, if Jesus is the expected deliverer, then one does not need to look for another; but that is not its prime purpose.
As for ‘monotheism’, John does not set out to ‘breach’ this in his Christology, but to present Jesus in ways that are consistent with it. John’s Jesus never asserts his ‘equality’ with God, though he is accused of this. He prays to God, acts in unity with God, performing his Father’s will as an obedient ‘son’. As logos he is God’s heavenly agent and emissary, who became human to reveal God’s nature; as ‘messiah’ he acts for God on earth; by his life, teaching, death and Resurrection, he draws humanity to God. Jews who became Christians must have seen this presentation as falling within the constraints of Jewish monotheism; others evidently did not.17
John is not alone in the New Testament in calling Jesus ‘God’. Hebrews does so twice (1.8f., in a citation from Ps. 45.6f.); Philippians describes him as being ‘in the form of God’ (2.6); Colossians as ‘the image of the invisible God’ (1.15). Several texts may call him God, but are ambiguous (e.g. Rom. 9.5; Titus 2.13; 2 Pet. 1.1); Matthew describes Jesus as being worshipped (2.11; 28.9, 17) and may imply divinity in 1.23 and 28.19. If John is considered ‘anti-Jewish’ in treating Jesus as part of God’s identity, then these texts also must come under scrutiny. What cannot be denied is the effect of John’s Christology. Along with other texts it contributed to the much more explicit, closely defined recognition of deity for Jesus in later Trinitarian theology, just as his ‘fulfilment’ motif readily lent itself to Christian ‘supersessionism’. But it should not be seen as the root cause of the split between Judaism and Christianity. That separation had complex causes, including the controversial admission of the Gentiles (in which Paul played a large part), the development of worship of Jesus, and the emergence of Christianity’s own religious leadership, festivals, sacraments and sacred texts.