Acknowledgements

I count it such a privilege to be able to take part in this morning tea. It is so impressive, this enormous effort being made by the Cancer Council to eradicate this horrible disease.

I’m sure each person in this room has been touched by cancer in one way or another. I can count at least 5 or 6 people I know who have suffered from cancer. A very good friend of mine who recovered from a cancer of the knee. My wife’s uncle is right now suffering from a brain tumour. And there are so many others.

There are many things we could say about cancer and sickness and suffering in general. But Pam has asked me to speak briefly this morning about Jesus and his own teaching and experience of disease and death recorded for us in the Bible. We’ll look at some of those experiences and teachings from Jesus. I hope you will agree that if there’s anybody who’s qualified to talk about sickness and death, it’s Jesus! For Jesus came into such close contact with so many suffering people, some of whom had those long-drawn out battles with sickness, perhaps even cancer (although the word itself doesn’t appear in the Bible). And of course, Jesus himself suffered. He himself went through the suffering of immense pain and death.

When it comes to suffering, Jesus is somebody who knows, who sympathises, who cares.

Jesus knows that sickness and death is dreadful

The first passage records the actions of Jesus, when he came to the tomb of his friend Lazarus, who had died of a terminal illness. Here we see how much Jesus knows that sickness and death is dreadful:

When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. “Where have you laid him?” he asked. “Come and see, Lord,” they replied. Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”

Do you notice how Jesus reacts to the sickness and death of his friend here? He doesn’t avoid it, does he? He wanted to see where Lazarus was laid. He doesn’t try to minimize the enormity of it.

Why are you here at this morning tea? I suspect it’s because you know that cancer is dreadful. You know that to deal with it, we need to do more than just change the subject, or close our eyes, or escape into entertainment. You’re here because you want to help to face up to it, and deal with it. Well, Jesus faces up, fair and square, to the dreadfulness of disease and death. He doesn’t try to sweep it under the carpet. And he doesn’t offer empty words of comfort. No, he is deeply moved in spirit and troubled, he weeps. The words are even stronger in the original language: it’s not that Jesus just felt a bit disturbed and shed a little tear. He’s furious and stirred up! When asked to come and see the grave, he bursts into sobbing tears! Jesus knows that sickness and death, including cancer, is dreadful.

But why does he think it is so dreadful? Part of the answer comes in that last sentence:

‘See how he loved him!’

Jesus wept Because of his love for his friend Lazarus.

When we are touched by cancer and other drawn-out illnesses, it often clarifies and crystallises our priorities, doesn’t it? Cancer can give us the opportunity to ask ourselves what is truly important. Just recently, a colleague of mine called Byron Smith was writing about his own experience of cancer. He wrote of the shock, the sadness, the pain; but also those moments of insight, and joy at the love of family and friends. What makes life worthwhile? So often, the answer is love: relationships, friendships. They make life worthwhile. And when we realize that, it can really give us deep joy in relationships, as friends and family gather around and we express true care for each other. But sadly, it can also deepen the grief; as broken or neglected relationships in our lives make us sad beyond measure. And even more acutely, we face the possibility of our good relationships being broken by death. That’s why Jesus’ love caused him to burst into tears in the face of death.

Jesus says there is something even worse than sickness and death

And because Jesus knew that relationships are what makes life worthwhile, Jesus also taught that there is something even worse than sickness and death. Jesus says,

‘I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.’ (John 8:24)

Jesus spoke again and again about a problem that he called ‘sin’. ‘Sin’ means a broken relationship with God. And a broken relationship with God is even worse than sickness and death. The Bible teaches that sin is, in fact, the root cause of all our death and sickness. The reason we live in bodies that are subject to cancer (and so many other terrible diseases) actually stems from our broken relationship with God.

When I say the word ‘sin’, I’m not just talking about wrong actions I don’t mean just things like drinking too much or swearing or lying. I’m talking about a whole attitude of life. Our desire to live life our own way without God. Our uncaring lethargy towards our loving maker. Our betrayal of his goodness to us by using his world and other people for our own selfish purposes.

The reason our bodies are subject to sickness and death in the first place is because we are living in a world that has turned its back on God. Sin is like cancer, but far more pervading. It eats away at us from the inside, and spreads through our whole bodies. It affects each one of us in different ways. But sin is, in fact, the root cause of all our other problems. So when Jesus wept at death and sickness, his tears were not just because of the suffering he saw right in front of him. It’s because this particular death crystallized for him the underlying problem: people with a broken relationship with God. People trapped in sin. People ultimately facing God’s judgment for rejecting him.

Jesus says there is something far greater than just staying alive

If you have been touched by cancer, you yourself may have discovered afresh that relationships are what makes life worthwhile. If cancer has taught you to savour the joy of love and friendship, and to weep at the bitterness of broken relationships, then Jesus wants you to know how much more significant is a relationship with God. Because in knowing that, in facing up to that, there is the true hope of a solution, a cure. Jesus knows that there is something worse than sickness and death. But Jesus also says the there is something far greater than just staying alive. And that is the real possibility of a restored relationship with God. This is the thing that makes life truly worthwhile. Do you see these words of Jesus?

Jesus said to [Martha], “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” “Yes, Lord,” she told him, “I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.” (John 11:25-27)

What did Jesus mean when he said, ‘I am the resurrection and the life’? That’s a strange thing to say, isn’t it? Resurrection means coming back to life from the dead. Life beyond death, beyond sickness, beyond suffering. Jesus is saying that in him is the cure, not only to sickness, but to the problem of death itself. To the problem of our broken relationship with God.

Mary and Martha and Lazarus and Jesus knew the pain of this world; the unfairness of death, the dreadfulness of disease. But Jesus is claiming to be the ultimate cure for all death and suffering. Jesus claims that his own death and resurrection means that he has dealt with sin once and for all. That he has brought forgiveness for us, and enabled us to be back in a relationship with God. Jesus’ own death and resurrection is a radical treatment for a radical problem.

And if you trust him, if you put your life into his hands, you can be forgiven, completely. And you can look forward to everlasting life! You can have a certain hope of life, truly free of sickness and pain. That is Jesus’ promise: an eternity with him, in a new creation, free of any disease and death. Yes, life is good, but there is something far better than just staying alive.

I would so love to see a cure for cancer, wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t it be wonderful? Let’s try to enable it to happen. But we actually need more than a cure for cancer, don’t we? We need a reason to live. Life is more than the absence of disease, isn’t it? It is the things that make life worthwhile: relationships with people, the joy of family and friends. And most of all, a relationship with God. The great news of the Bible, is that Jesus has actually given us the cure for the underlying cause of sickness and death. He has restored our relationship with God.

I don’t know exactly why you are facing your own personal struggles today. There are no promises in the Bible that you won’t be affected by cancer in this life. But there is a promise far more satisfying and profound for those who trust in Jesus. It’s called resurrection, life in new bodies, in a new and wonderful creation, living forever in a perfect relationship with God. And it’s a promise that gives meaning even to our suffering now. In fact, Jesus could have kept Lazarus from dying, just as Mary had said. But in this instance, Jesus even allowed Lazarus to die so he could demonstrate that there was something far better than even life in this world. He allowed Lazarus to suffer further pain and death, so that he could bring him back from the dead, and show everyone his power to do that for each one of us. Jesus did that, because he knew how important it was for people to see the cure he offers: forgiveness, a relationship with God, resurrection.

I myself first heard of the forgiveness that is available in Jesus through a lady called Reta Round. Reta just recently passed away at the age of 89 after a long battle with throat cancer. In the last stages of her life it was painful for her to speak. I attended the funeral, and let me say, though it was tinged with deep sadness, it was a funeral full of joy and hope. For I know Reta trusted in Jesus—it was obvious to all. Like Martha, she knew that Jesus was the Son of God, come into the world. She knew that her life here on this earth had its share of suffering. But she had that firm hope of forgiveness, of everlasting life, based securely on the man who died and was raised to life, to cure our sin, to give us perfect forgiveness, and to remove death and suffering forever. And we know that we will see her again at the resurrection – a relationship restored and made perfect forever. It gave her joy that outshone even her dreadful suffering. And I do pray that you know this certain hope as well.

Like to know more?

You can find the whole touching story of Jesus’ encounter with sickness and death in the Bible, in John 11.

The book, Making the Most of the Rest of Your Life, by John Chapman, will help you to think about important issues of life, death, and life after death (57 pages. Published 2007 by Matthias Media, Sydney).

If you have access to the Internet, look at Byron Smith’s website. A young Christian man who has suffered from a carcinoma in the chest, Byron has many helpful insights for those who are affected by cancer. For example:

there are things that are worse than death. There are things more important than simply staying alive. And so while I have always wanted to do things that help me survive, I don’t want that effort to dominate my life and thought.

Why do I think there are things worse than death, things better than life? Because Jesus seems to have thought so too. He loved life as God’s good gift, but for Jesus, trusting and obeying the giver came before preserving the gift. When faced with the choice of obedience or survival, he prayed ‘not my will but yours be done’. He could have run. He could have kept his head down. He didn’t have a death-wish – he knew that death sucks. But he also knew there was something worse than death: a life that failed to trust God.

Death is bad, but untrusting anxiety, apathetic lethargy, bitter regret, faithless betrayal: these are the real enemies of God and humanity. These will blunt and bleed the soul, poison the spirit, and stop the heart more surely and grievously than the cessation of brainwaves and breath.”

Thanks

Thank you to David Ould, Sarah Powell, Ben Gooley, Pete Greenwood, Dave Philpott, Anthony Douglas, Lillian McKeown, Dan King, Linden Fooks, Lewis Jones, Glenn Hohnberg, Cameron Blair, Mike Greenwood, Andrew Mahaffey and Lee Turnbull who all provided helpful input to this talk.

Synopsis

The essay begins with the proposal by Barnabas Lindars that ‘The central aim of the Johannine christology is to expound the intimate relationship of Jesus and God. For this purpose John takes over the idea of the Son of Man, [. . .]’. Lindars’ case has some merit, but has isolated an important theme rather than a ‘central aim’. Loader’s attempt is also flawed because it is does not take into account the narrative nature of the Gospel. I propose that the central aim of Johannine christology is twofold: to expound the intimate relationship between Jesus and God, and to expound the saving relationship between Jesus and those who believe in him. This is demonstrated firstly from the Gospel in general.

Then we turn to the ‘Son of Man’, which is used to expound this twofold aim within the narrative structure of the Gospel. By analysing each of the occurrences of ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospel, we demonstrate that the important elements of revelation, judgment and life-giving are progressively shown by John to find their ultimate fulfilment in the cross. Chapter 12 is a climax in this regard.

Introduction

What did John the Evangelist want his readers to understand, first and foremost, about Jesus Christ? How does he achieve it? These two questions have been the subject of much debate in modern scholarship, with as yet little consensus.¹ Barnabas Lindars, in an attempt to come to grips with the Johannine ‘Son of Man’, wrote in 1973, ‘The central aim of the Johannine christology is to expound the intimate relationship between Jesus and God. For this purpose John takes over the idea of the Son of Man, [. . .]’.² He endeavours to demonstrate how the title ‘Son of Man’ is the Gospel’s vehicle for expressing the increasingly apparent unity of will between Jesus and God, culminating in his ultimate obedient act—the crucifixion. This is valid, as far as it goes. However, much more can (and has) been said, both about the central aim of Johannine christology and about the purpose of the Johannine designation ‘Son of Man’. We will argue, in the light of other scholars’ research and of John’s Gospel itself, that Lindars’ thesis only partly resolves these two issues.

A ‘central aim’?

Moloney concedes that Lindars’ analysis has some merit.³ John’s use of ‘Son of Man’ is not accidental, for it is used to express Jesus’ relationship to God particularly in the contexts of judgment, life-giving, passion and exaltation. Moloney also applauds Lindars’ search for the origins of ‘Son of Man’ in Daniel 7:15-27 and Isaiah 52-53, rather than in Gnostic myths. However, the article has both methodological and substantial flaws. The primary methodological problem is Lindars’ ‘two-edition’ theory of composition. This theory relegates chapter 6 to a later edition which ‘interferes’ with the rest of the Gospel.⁴ Because he does not deal adequately with this and much other Johannine material, he fails to demonstrate how the intimate relationship between Jesus and God is the central aim, either of John’s Gospel or of the designation ‘Son of Man’. As a result, many important christological themes are sidelined. For Lindars, the crucifixion is simply the ultimate demonstration of Jesus’ obedient intimacy with God. Belief or unbelief in this fact of theological intimacy is not central, but has ‘inevitable consequences’,⁵ which Lindars does not adequately relate to the eschatological resurrection, judgment and life-giving activity of the Son of Man.

These shortcomings raise two more questions for us: How might we search for the central aim of Johannine Christology? and If we find it, how do we know that it is the central, rather than a central or even a subsidiary aim? Culpepper warns against methodologies which try to isolate and systematise christological motifs on the basis of historical developmental theories or particular titles, arguing for a more holistic approach.⁶ Loader proposes objective criteria for isolating a ‘central structure’ in Johannine christology.⁷ His criteria call upon the interpreter to investigate the relative frequency and positional significance of motifs and patterns of motifs in the Gospel, with a further proviso that any postulated central structure must be able to integrate all other motifs. Applying these criteria, he finds that the central idea is the Son (of God) who has come, sent by the Father, and given all authority, makes the Father known and returns to the Father.⁸ The ‘Son of Man’ designation adds nothing to the central structure, but is simply John’s device to justify his use of the historical, incarnate, crucified Jesus in his portrayal of this otherwise divine ‘Son’. This approach, however, is unsatisfactory, for it separates structure from purpose. While Lindars’ approach suffers from being too focussed, Loader’s approach suffers from being too static.

The twofold aim of Johannine christology

We must look for more than a central static ‘structure’ for Johannine christology. The way forward is rather to analyse the Gospel’s total dynamic narrative flow to find a central ‘aim’, without unduly focussing on any particular title. Along these lines, I propose that the central aim of Johannine christology is twofold: to expound the intimate relationship between Jesus and God and to expound the saving relationship between Jesus and those who believe in him (life for those who believe, judgment for those who do not). Although the first theme is logically and ontologically prior to the second, John is aiming to expound both themes equally. The crucifixion is the logical basis for both of these themes: it is both the ultimate act of expression of the intimate relationship between Jesus and God, and the means by which believers can enter into a saving relationship. Each theme in this twofold aim is inextricably bound to the other such that they may be distinguished, but cannot be separated: the intimate relationship is fulfilled in the salvation of believers, and the basis of salvation is in the intimate relationship. Furthermore, ‘Son of Man’ is a revelatory title which has a significant part to play in expounding both themes. In other words, John’s soteriology is inseparable from his christology, and ‘Son of Man’ expounds both of them.

Most scholars will emphasise each of these two themes, to a greater or lesser extent. The relationship between Jesus and God is seen from John 1:1-2 onwards, with the pre-existence of the Logos forming the fundamental presupposition of the Gospel’s christology.^9,10,11 Jesus’ relationship with God is particularly on view in the first half of the Gospel. The title ‘Son of God’ means a great deal for the evangelist, much more than simply ‘king of Israel’ or the Hellenistic ‘God-man’.¹² The close relationship between Father and Son (John 3:16-17; 3:35; 5:20, 22, 26; 10:38) means that the Father glorifies the Son, who in turn glorifies the Father (John 3:36; 5:21, 23, 6:40). Jesus is Son of God in an exclusive sense (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18), exercising the divine functions of judgment (John 5:22, 30; 8:16; 9:39) and giving life (John 4:14; 6:40, 47, 54; 10:28). Jesus alone has seen (John 6:46, 8:38), speaks for (John 3:34, 8:26-8) and works for (John 10:32, 37) his Father.¹³ Jesus being ‘sent’ by God has a Jewish legal flavour in that the sent one can fully represent the sender,¹⁴ but Jesus’ relationship with the Father goes beyond simply being the ‘sent one’ (John 3:17, 34; 4:34; 5:23-24, 30, 36-38; 6:29, 38-39, 44, 57; 7:16, 18, 28-29, 33; 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; 9:4; 10:36; 11:42).¹⁵ John 8 is structured like a paternity suit to determine the Fatherhood of God with respect to Jesus.¹⁶ John 10 climaxes in the idea of the perfect unity of will between Jesus and the Father (John 10:30, 36, 38).^17,18 The relationship is stressed but not elaborated in chapters 13-17 (John 13:3, 20, 31; 14:6-11, 16, 24, 28; 15:10, 15, 21; 16:5, 28, 30; 17:3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 21-22, 26). In the crucifixion we see the consummation of Christ’s predictions that there he would manifest the full glory of God (John 12:23, 13:31, 17:1).¹⁹

The relationship between Christ and believers is also emphasised in John. It, too, appears in the prologue (1:12-13) and is elaborated in the first half (e.g. 3:3, 5, 16; chapter 6). It is the focus of the farewell discourses (chapters 13-17). Indeed, Sproston believes that ‘John is not a study of Jesus, but a study in human reaction to Jesus’.²⁰ He sees the humanity of Jesus as fundamental to the relationship between human believers and God, mediating God’s appearance (1:18, 6:46, 14:9) words (8:28, 12:49) and glory (17:22), so that the disciples participate in the Jesus/God relationship in terms of unity (10:30), knowledge (10:14-15), love (10:17), obedience (8:29), works (14:12) and filial bond (20:17).²¹ In addition, the emphasis upon present eschatology in John serves to highlight the life-and-death importance of belief in the Jesus whom we meet in John, rather than bypassing him in our vision of the eschaton (which is nevertheless a future reality).²²

True as these observations may be, the genius of John’s christology is that both of these themes usually occur together. Furthermore, there are a number of places in John where the two themes are inextricably intertwined. In 6:37-40, the salvation of the believer (masculine gender, i.e. personal) is, in fact, the Father’s purposeful, inexorable, gift (neuter gender) to the Son. In 14:13, the Son will grant the requests of believers in order that the Father should be glorified in the Son. The egw eimi sayings carry the connotation of eternal divinity (e.g. 8:58, cf Exo 3:14; Isa 41:4; 43:10, 25; 45:18; 47:8, 10; 51:12 LXX), yet when used with a predicate, egw eimi normally points to an aspect of the saving relationship between God and his people: the bread of life (6:35, 41, 48, 51), light of the world (8:12), gate/door of the sheep (10:7), good shepherd (10:11, 14), resurrection and life (11:25), way, truth and life (14:6), vine with branches (15:1, 5).²³ Jesus’ prayer in chapter 17 is a marvellous interweaving of the relationships between the Father, the Son and believers. The post-resurrection climax of 20:17 is that God is ‘My Father and your Father; My God and your God’. Thus the twofold purpose of 20:31: ‘But these things are written in order that you may believe that Jesus is The Christ, The Son of God, and in order that, because you believe, you may have life in his name.’²⁴

The Son of Man and the twofold aim

This analysis is still rather static. But when we turn to the Son of Man, we find a vehicle which John uses to expound his twofold christological aim within the narrative flow of his Gospel. On the use of the motif itself, Morris observes,

In the Fourth Gospel [. . .] the term is always associated either with Christ’s heavenly glory or with the salvation He came to bring [. . .] “the Son of Man”, then points us to Christ’s conception of Himself as of heavenly origin and as the possessor of heavenly glory. At one and the same time it points us to His lowliness and His sufferings for men. The two are the same.²⁵

Moloney puts this in more dynamic terms: we only know the Son of God through the Son of Man, and we are judged for how we act on the basis of this knowledge.²⁶

Part of the OT background to the ‘Son of Man’ motif is most likely Daniel 7, where one ‘like a son of man’ comes with the clouds of heaven, is presented before the Ancient of Days and given universal, everlasting dominion and glory.²⁷ He appears to represent the persecuted and consequently vindicated people of God, though to what extent this representation motif is present in Jesus’ ministry and/or in John’s theology is debated.²⁸ Since the Son of Man is usually associated with being ‘lifted up’ (υψοω) , it is reasonably clear that the suffering Servant figure of Isaiah 52-53 (see especially Isaiah 52:13) has been used to exegete Daniel 7 in a new way, prompted by Jesus’ words and actions, as we shall see.^29,30

John 1:51

John’s first mention of the Son of Man occurs in John 1:51, as the climax to a series of identifications of Jesus—Lamb of God (John 1:29, 36), Elect of God (John 1:34), Messiah (John 1:41), Son of Joseph (John 1:45), Son of God i.e. King of Israel (John 1:49). Jesus predicts ‘greater things than these’ (John 1:50) and then predicts in John 1:51 that ‘you’ (plural, therefore generalised) will see ‘heaven opened’ and ‘the angels of God ascending and descending upon The Son of Man.’³¹ This last part of the verse is a direct verbal parallel with Genesis 28:12, with cases and tenses changed only to transform the past narrative of Jacob’s dream at Bethel into a future vision. This vision of the Son of Man is clearly significant, but what does it mean? Brown sets broad parameters when he says that ‘the Son of Man is the locus of divine glory, the point of contact between heaven and earth’ (cf John 2:11).³² Walker sees it as a Hegelian synthesis between two unresolvable contradictory statements – Jesus as the human, earthly Son of Joseph and as the divine, heavenly Son of God.³³ Morris and Moloney see heavenly revelation as the sole meaning of the verse.^34,35 However, given the earlier part of the verse which speaks of ‘heaven opened’ in the perfect tense³⁶ and the OT antecedents to this idea which involve judgment (Gen 7:11, Isa 24:18), life-giving (Deut 28:12, Psa 78:23) and revelation (Ezek 1:1), it is best to see this vision foreshadowing all three themes.

John 3:13-14

More information is added to the Son of Man motif in John 3:13—the ascent (and descent) of the Son of Man himself. The perfect tense of ‘ascended’ (αναβεβηκεν) has caused scholarly consternation, for at the time of speaking, Jesus had not yet ascended to his Father (John 20:17).^37,38 Painter believes that these words must be spoken from the point of view of Jesus’ ascension,³⁹ yet the strong verbal and conceptual connections with Jesus’ own words in the previous verse argue against this. It is better to see this as a ‘perfect of Scriptural application’, denoting a Scriptural passage which was written in the past but which has ongoing application—in this case, future application.⁴⁰ Such perfects are common in John (John 1:18, 2:17; 6:31, 32, 45; 7:19, 22; 8:17, 33, 41; 10:34; 11:52; 12:14, 16, 40; 15:25 and possibly John 1:51). Jesus demonstrates that nobody in Scripture ascends to heaven, even though some try (e.g. Isa 14:12ff, Prov 30:1-4),⁴¹ except the Son of Man in Daniel 7 (which future vision). But, he adds, the only one qualified to ascend to heaven is the pre-existent one who descended from heaven. Hence Jesus, the Son of Man, can impart heavenly revelation to Nicodemus (cf John 3:12). Descent may not be a natural element of the Son of Man motif,⁴² but Jesus, through drawing out the consequences of Daniel 7, can now identify the Son of Man with the one who descended. Thus ‘Son of Man’ reveals the pre-existence of Jesus, and hence his relationship to God.

In the next verse, however, there is more on view than the revelation of Jesus’ pre-existence. The Son of Man does not merely ascend, he must be ‘lifted up’ (υψωθηναι) like Moses’ lifting up of the snake in the wilderness. The use of  δει indicates a Scriptural fulfilment; the most natural place to look (in addition to the obvious reference to God’s provision of salvation from death in Numbers 21:4-9) is Isaiah 52:13ff which speaks of God’s suffering servant who is ‘raised and lifted up and highly exalted’ yet suffers dreadfully as a sin offering for the people.⁴³ John’s implied play on the word υψοω to mean either ‘exalt’ or ‘crucify’ (which is quite possible for the Aramaic equivalent) will become more obvious as the Gospel progresses.⁴⁴ The themes of judgment and the giving of life to believers are expanded directly in the subsequent discussion (verses 15-21). Lindars wants to subordinate judgment and life-giving to the overarching theme of revelation: the ‘inevitable consequences’ of one’s response to the revelation that Jesus is united with God are life or judgment.⁴⁵ However, we have seen that all three themes are present in equal measure. Certainly, we are judged for how we respond to the revelation of the Son of Man (and saved, or ‘given life’, by believing), but more is going on than the ‘inevitable consequences’ of belief or unbelief. Jesus, like the servant, is to be lifted up as a sin offering. His actions have more than revelatory value.

John 5:27

Indeed, judgment is the overarching theme in John 5:27. Jesus may work on the Sabbath, because God has delegated all of his authority to Jesus: to give resurrection life (verse 21) and to judge as ‘Son of Man’ (verse 27). The anarthrous form may be making explicit the reference to Daniel 7:13.⁴⁶ If so, it enhances the future eschatology which is present in verses 26-30 and which complements the realised ‘revelation’ eschatology of verses 19-25.⁴⁷ Lindars and Moloney both wish to subordinate judgment to revelation, but again this is unwarranted.^48,49

John 6

Lindars’ analysis of the next three references to the Son of Man in chapter 6 is marred by his assumption that the discourse is an addition to the original Gospel, and so must be analysed apart from the narrative flow. He sees the second edition adding an element of consistent (i.e. future) eschatology to the idea of Son of Man.⁵⁰ However, John 6 is entirely consistent with the rest of John as it develops its twofold christology. The intimate relationship between Jesus and God is seen in the ‘certification’ of Jesus by the Father, which is the reason that he can give food which endures into eternal life (verse 27). The necessity of believing in the suffering, crucified Son of Man for present and future life is expressed in the vivid terminology of eating his flesh and drinking his blood (verse 53). These sayings may be hard, but what if you see the Son of Man ascending ‘to where he was before’ (verse 62)? The apodosis is uncertain: is he speaking of the scandalous ‘lifting up’ of the cross⁵¹ or Jesus’ rise to glory which resolves the tension?⁵² Perhaps the ambiguity is intentional at this stage of the drama.

John 8:28

In John 8:28, the revelation of Jesus’ unique relationship with his Father is prominent. The whole chapter is concerned with light (i.e. revelation) and the Fatherhood of God with respect to Jesus. It is held together by repeated occurrences of εγω ειμι ⁵³ Jesus is the light (John 8:12), the one who testifies about himself (John 8:18), and finally, simply εγω ειμι without predicate—with its associated connotations of divinity (John 8:28).⁵⁴ Significantly, the place in which this unique relationship with the Father will be most clearly seen is in the ‘lifting up’ of the Son of Man (verse 28). Jesus is forecasting the passion, which is ‘the decisive act, whereby Jesus’ heavenly origin is revealed and the unbelieving world is judged’.⁵⁵ Nevertheless, the saving relationship between Jesus and those who believe in him is not absent; rather it is expressed negatively in chapter 8: ‘if you do not believe that εγω ειμι you will die in your sins’. Hence the necessity, in the context of light and judgment (chapter 9), to believe in the ‘Son of Man’ (John 9:35, 38).

John 12

Chapter 12 is immensely significant for a number of reasons. Verse 23 is a hinge verse in the Gospel, the turning point where Jesus’ ‘hour’ has now come (cf John 2:4; 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20).⁵⁶ It does not mention ‘the Son’, so the whole chapter must be understood with reference to the title ‘Son of Man’.⁵⁷ Chapter 12 makes explicit what has been implicit about the Son of Man—that his ‘lifting up’ involves both glorification (John 12:23) and death (John 12:34). The crowds understand that Jesus is the dying Son of Man, but they do not understand how this Son of Man can also be the Christ.⁵⁸ Yet in this chapter, the twofold aim of Johannine Christology is brought to a climax. Jesus’ intimate relationship with God is nowhere more apparent than when the Son of Man who descended obediently submits to the Father’s will to go to the cross (John 12:27), and thus simultaneously glorifies the Father and is glorified (John 12:23, 28; see also John 13:31).⁵⁹ Moreover, the saving relationship between Jesus and believers is equally pushed to the fore. His death will bear much fruit (John 12:24), those who follow and serve Jesus and hate the world will be honoured by the Father (john 12:25) and when he is ‘lifted up’, he will draw all men to himself (John 12:32). The reference to Isaiah 53:1 (John 12:38) in a Passover context (John 12:1) serves to further highlight the vicarious servant-style suffering which Jesus is about to undergo, and the tragic unbelief of many who miss out on the opportunity for life.

Conclusion: the cross and the twofold aim

The cross is of supreme importance for both themes in the twofold aim of Johannine christology. It is the primary act of obedience of Jesus to the Father. But it is not an arbitrary obedient act, as if the Son suffers simply because the Father wants him to. It is a purposeful obedient act, with the aim of dying for and saving sinners and thence glorifying both the Father and the Son. Consequently, we are not saved from judgment simply by believing that Jesus has an intimate relationship with God, which was revealed by his death. Rather, we are saved from judgment by believing in the Son of Man himself, the one who came down from heaven, who is in a unique relationship with the Father, and who died for our sins, thereby saving us from judgment and giving us life—now and forever. John has both a theology of the cross and a consistent eschatology,⁶⁰ but is concerned, above all, to relate everything to the historical person of Jesus Christ who ‘came in the flesh’ (cf 1 John 4:2, 2 John 1:7). He wants us to know two things about Jesus Christ: that there is an intimate relationship between Jesus and God and that there is a saving relationship between Jesus and those who believe in him. The ‘Son of Man’ is an important aspect of this christological revelation.

Bibliography

• Beasley-Murray, George. ‘John 12:31-34: The Eschatological Significance of the Lifting up of the Son of Man’. Pages 70-81 in Studien Zum Text Und Zur Ethik Des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift Zum 80. Edited by Heinrich Greeven. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986.
• Borgen, Peder. ‘God’s Agent in the Fourth Gospel’. Pages 137-48 in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough. Edited by J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
• Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. 2 vols. The Anchor Bible. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971.
• Burkett, Delbert. The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 56. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991.
• Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. London: SCM, 1959.
• Culpepper, R. Alan. ‘The Christology of the Johannine Writings’. Pages 66-87 in Who Do You Say That I Am?: Essays on Christology. Edited by Mark A. Powell and David R. Bauer. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999.
• Green, Joel B. ‘Death of Jesus’. Pages 146-163 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall. Leicester: Intervarsity, 1992.
• Hurtado, Larry W. ‘Christ’. Pages 106-17 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall. Leicester: Intervarsity, 1992.
• Lindars, Barnabas. ‘The Son of Man in Johannine Christology’. Pages 43-60 in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. Edited by Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley. Cambridge: University Press, 1973.
• Loader, William R. G. ‘The Central Structure of Johannine Christology’. New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 188-216.
• Marshall, I. Howard. ‘Jesus Christ’. Pages 592-602 in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. D. Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Leicester: IVP, 2000.
• ______. ‘Son of Man’. Pages 775-81 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall. Leicester: Intervarsity, 1992.
• Mealand, David L. ‘The Christology of the Fourth Gospel’. Scottish Journal of Theology 31/5 (1978): 449-467.
• Moloney, Francis J. The Johannine Son of Man. 2nd ed. Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose 14. Rome: Libreria Ateneo Salesiano, 1978.
• Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Michigan, 1971.
• ______. Jesus Is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
• Moule, G. F. D. The Origin of Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
• Painter, John. ‘Christology and the Fourth Gospel: a Study of the Prologue’. Australian Biblical Review 31 (1983): 45-62.
• ______. ‘The Enigmatic Johannine Son of Man’. Pages 1869-87 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck, C.M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. Leuvin: Leuvin University Press, 1992.
• Pryor, John W. ‘The Johannine Son of Man and the Descent-Ascent Motif’. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34/3 (1991): 341-51.
• Sproston, W. E. ‘“Is Not This Jesus, the Son of Joseph.?” (John 6:42): Johannine Christology as a Challenge to Faith’. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24 (1985): 77-97.
• Thompson, Marianne M. ‘John, Gospel of’. Pages 368-83 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall. Leicester: Intervarsity, 1992.
• Walker, William O. ‘John 1:43-51 and “The Son of Man” in the Fourth Gospel’. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 56 (1994): 31-42.
• Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Footnotes

• ¹ R. Alan Culpepper, ‘The Christology of the Johannine Writings’, in Who Do You Say That I Am?: Essays on Christology (ed. Mark A. Powell and David R. Bauer; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 66-87 has an intriguing explanation for this lack of consensus: ‘John’s Word will continue to elude our grasp. The light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness cannot comprehend it.’ (p. 86) Is he equating modern scholarship with the Johannine moral darkness?
• ² Barnabas Lindars, ‘The Son of Man in Johannine Christology’, in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (ed. Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley; Cambridge: University Press, 1973), 59.
• ³ Francis J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man (2nd ed.; Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose 14; Rome: Libreria Ateneo Salesiano, 1978), 14-15.
• ⁴ Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 44. See the critique by Moloney, Johannine Son of Man, 15.
• ⁵ Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 49.
• ⁶ Culpepper, ‘Christology’, 66-87.
• ⁷ William R. G. Loader, ‘The Central Structure of Johannine Christology’, New Testament Studies 30 (1984), 188.
• ⁸ Loader, ‘Central Structure’, 209.
• ⁹ John Painter, ‘Christology and the Fourth Gospel: a Study of the Prologue’, Australian Biblical Review 31 (1983), 48.
• ¹⁰ Culpepper, ‘Christology’, 72-73.
• ¹¹ David L. Mealand, ‘The Christology of the Fourth Gospel’, Scottish Journal of Theology 31/5 (1978), 450-52.
• ¹² Mealand, ‘Christology’, 459-60.
• ¹³ Marianne M. Thompson, ‘John, Gospel of’, in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall; Leicester: Intervarsity, 1992), 378.
• ¹⁴ Peder Borgen, ‘God’s Agent in the Fourth Gospel’, in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (ed. J. Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 1968), 137-48.
• ¹⁵ Culpepper, ‘Christology’, 74.
• ¹⁶ Culpepper, ‘Christology’, 74-75.
• ¹⁷ Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 43-60, 55-56.
• ¹⁸ Culpepper, ‘Christology’, 66-85, 74-75.
• ¹⁹ W. E. Sproston, ‘“Is Not This Jesus, the Son of Joseph.?” (John 6:42): Johannine Christology as a Challenge to Faith’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24 (1985), 79.
• ²⁰ Sproston, ‘Is Not This Jesus’, 89, emphasis original; although his study is flawed by an unwarranted dichotomy between faith and evidence.
• ²¹ Sproston, ‘Is Not This Jesus’, 79.
• ²² George Beasley-Murray, ‘John 12:31-34: The Eschatological Significance of the Lifting up of the Son of Man’, in Studien Zum Text Und Zur Ethik Des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift Zum 80. (ed. Heinrich Greeven; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986), 70-81.
• ²³ Thompson, ‘John’, 377.
• ²⁴ My translation and emphasis
• ²⁵ Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Michigan, 1971), 173.
• ²⁶ Moloney, Johannine Son of Man, 208-20.
• ²⁷ Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 57.
• ²⁸ Moloney, Johannine Son of Man, 2-17. G. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 11-22 sees a strong identification.
• ²⁹ Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (2 vols.; The Anchor Bible; London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971), 1.146.
• ³⁰ Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 57.
• ³¹ Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 45-46.
• ³² Brown, John, 1.91.
• ³³ William O. Walker, ‘John 1:43-51 and “The Son of Man” in the Fourth Gospel’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 56 (1994): 31-42.
• ³⁴ Morris, John, 170-71.
• ³⁵ Moloney, Johannine Son of Man, 40-41.
• ³⁶ Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 581-82, the ‘perfect of [OT] allegory’. cf 3:13 below.
• ³⁷ Morris, John, 223.
• ³⁸ Brown, John, 1.132, 1.145
• ³⁹ John Painter, ‘The Enigmatic Johannine Son of Man’, in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al.; 3 vols.; Leuvin: Leuvin University Press, 1992), 1878.
• ⁴⁰ Wallace, Grammar, 581-52 calls this a ‘perfect of allegory’ but acknowledges the shortcomings in his nomenclature.
• ⁴¹ Delbert Burkett, The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 56; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991). His thesis is that Proverbs 30:1-4 is actually behind 3:13, but his conclusions regarding the identification of the Son of Man with the Son of God are stretched too far.
• ⁴² John W. Pryor, ‘The Johannine Son of Man and the Descent-Ascent Motif’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34/3 (1991), 346-49.
• ⁴³ Brown, John, 1.146.
• ⁴⁴ Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 48.
• ⁴⁵ Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 47-49.
• ⁴⁶ Morris, John, 320.
• ⁴⁷ Brown, John, 1.220.
• ⁴⁸ Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 53.
• ⁴⁹ Moloney, Johannine Son of Man, 84-86.
• ⁵⁰ Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 58-59.
• ⁵¹ Morris, John, 384.
• ⁵² Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 59.
• ⁵³ Moloney, Johannine Son of Man, 125-38.
• ⁵⁴ Brown, John, 1.348.
• ⁵⁵ Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 53.
• ⁵⁶ Brown, John, 1.470.
• ⁵⁷ Moloney, Johannine Son of Man, 184.
• ⁵⁸ Morris, John, 599.
• ⁵⁹ Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 56.
• ⁶⁰ Beasley-Murray, ‘John 12’, 70-81.