Article 29 Vol 102 2021 Up

Pharos Journal of Theology ISSN 2414-3324 online Volume 102 - (2021)
Copyright: ©2021 Open Access/Author/s - Online @ http//: www.pharosjot.com
John’s prologue: Christological and doxological

significance for the Johannine narrative1
Nathan Hahn
Department of New Testament and Related Literature
Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Pretoria, South Africa
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4658-2523
Ernest van Eck

Department of New Testament and Related Literature
Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Pretoria, South Africa
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3810-4190
E-mail: ernest.vaneck@up.ac.za
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46222/pharosjot.102029
Abstract
This article presents a literary exegetical analysis of the prologue (John 1:1-18) of the Johannine
narrative with special attention to the author’s (narrator’s) point of view. The author sets the tone
of his gospel and writes with literary beauty while showing his theological points of view that will
be seen throughout his narrative to follow. He presents Jesus as the eternal λόγος of God, and
thus provides a unique point of view toward the Son of God of the Father who exists from eternity
past with God the Father. Merely by studying, reflecting on, and remembering the Gospel’s
prologue, the reader can understand and relate to the Christological and doxological significance
of the Johannine narrative.
Keywords: John; John 1:1-18; John’s prologue; Christology; doxology, narratology.
Introduction
The author of John most probably has written the prologue (John 1:1-18) to serve as an
introduction to his gospel. It contains a number of important themes consistent with the rest of the
gospel, including life (John 1:4), light and darkness (John 1:5, 7-9), witness (John 1:7-8, 15), world
(John 1:10), belief and unbelief (John 1:11-12), and grace and truth (John 1:14, 17). Thus, the
reader is able to see the connection between the prologue and the rest of the narratives.
The author’s subject of the prologue is ὁ λόγος (the Word). Most scholars propose the conceptual
background of ὁ λόγος into three sources, namely Greek philosophy (Stoicism, Philo), the
personification of wisdom, and the Old Testament.2
In Stoicism current at the time in Hellenistic philosophies, ὁ λόγος was conceived as a sort of
1
This article represents a reworked version of aspects from the PhD-thesis of Nathan Hahn, titled
Anonymous minor characters in the Johannine narrative: The Christological and doxological significance
of the characterization in John 4, 5, and 9, in the Department of New Testament and Related Literature,
University of Pretoria, with Prof. Dr. Ernest van Eck as supervisor.
2
Keener (2003:339–363) provides in-depth discussions of ὁ λόγος in Gnosticism, Hellenistic philosophy,
Philo, wisdom, word, and Torah, and the relationship between John’s ὁ λόγος and ὁ λόγος in the Torah.
1
cosmic reason. It gave order and structure to the operation of the universe as an impersonal
governing principle. According to the thought at the time, a bit of universal ὁ λόγος resided within
people who must live within it to attain dignity and meaning. It is doubtful, however, that this
definition constituted the author’s primary conceptual foundation (Köstenberger, 1999:52). Such
ὁ λόγος, Kim notes, “has no concept of a personal God, no place for historical divine acts in the
incarnation, no radical view of sin, no idea of ethical renewal through the ministry of the Word and
Spirit, and no hope of the resurrection and eternal fellowship with God in His kingdom” (Kim,
2009:425).
Another proposed meaning of ὁ λόγος is the personification of wisdom in wisdom literature such
as Proverbs 8:22-31, where wisdom is presented as a divine being. Wisdom claims preexistence
and participation in God’s creative activity. Late in the period of the Hebrew Scriptures and beyond
that period through the first century, Jewish speculation about wisdom related it to the Torah, the
written word of God. Likewise, it became identified with ὁ λόγος of God (memra, the Aramaic for
“word”). But despite the similarities, the use of ὁ λόγος in John 1 differs from personified wisdom
in several respects.3
The final possibility of ὁ λόγος is ‘the depiction of the Word of God in the Old Testament’, viewing
the prologue of John’s gospel with a Hebraic background rather than a Hellenistic one
(Köstenberger, 1999:54). This sees the origin of ὁ λόγος as the Old Testament and the Hebrew
term ‫( ָּדבָּ ר‬dabar). Further supporting the Hebraic background is the author’s possible deliberate
echoing of the Hebrew Scriptures by employing the phrase “in the beginning” to open the gospel,
as well as the use of ὁ λόγος in John 1:1 that ties the verse to Genesis 1:3 which describes God’s
creative acts by the powerful command of His word. The author’s adaptation of Isaiah 55:9-11 for
his Christological framework has also been proposed as the background of ὁ λόγος in his gospel
(Köstenberger, 1999:54).4
Moloney (1993:30) suggests that “the choice of the Greek expression ὁ λόγος, whatever its
background, allows the author to hint to the reader that from the intimacy between the Word and
God which has been described, ‘the Word’ will now be spoken. A word is essentially about
communication. The modality of that communication has not been indicated, but if there is the
Word, then it exists to say something”. Harris (1994:91) summarizes well:
Why did John choose to call Jesus the Logos in the prologue to his Gospel, and what
did he mean by it? As to why the term was used, the answer probably lies with John’s
audience. John gave no explanation of the Logos, apparently assuming his readers
would understand the idea. Greek readers would probably think he was referring to
the rational principle that guided the universe and would be shocked to find that this
λόγος had become not only personalized but incarnate (1:1-14). Jewish readers
would be more prepared for some sort of personalized preexistent Wisdom, but they
3
Köstenberger (1999:53) explains the differences in three points: 1) Wisdom literature presents wisdom
not as a second person of the Godhead but merely as a divine attribute already present as creation.
Jesus on the other hand is portrayed not merely as “with God” (John 1:1-2), but also Himself God (John
1:1); 2) Wisdom is not cast as a person, but merely a concept that is personified, a common literary
device. But in John the exact opposite is present: Jesus, a real person, is presented in conceptual terms
as ὁ λόγος; 3) The fact remains that John did not use the term σοφία (wisdom) but the expression ὁ
λόγος.
4
Köstenberger (1999:54) also argues that Isaiah 55:9-11 is God’s personified Word, not Wisdom. He
observes three parallels: 1) ὁ λόγος is sent by God to accomplish a particular divine purpose; 2) It
unfailingly accomplishes this purpose; 3) Afterward it returns to God who sent it.
2
too would be amazed at the idea of incarnation. John presented Jesus as the true
Logos as preparation for his own presentation of Jesus as the Son of God.
Thus, the thrust of the author’s prologue is that ὁ λόγος for the reader is a person. The author
claims that λόγος is not a category of religious experience, nor is it speculative religious mythology.
It is the person, fleshed, living, historical Son of God, Christ. Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the
preexistent ὁ λόγος. That the eternal life, light, and divine origin flows from an acceptance of the
story of the unseen God revealed by the incarnated λόγος. The reader has been told who Jesus
is and what He has done. The author tells how the action of God has taken place in history.
Literary structure of the prologue
Some scholars, in describing the literary structure of the prologue, follow a movement in time,
from preexistence (John 1:1-2) into creation (John 1:3-5), proceeding through the story of human
condition until the incarnation (John 1:6-14) and then the subsequent reception of the incarnate
λόγος (John 1:15-18). Other scholars proposed that there are various forms of chiastic structure
of the prologue. One proposed by Culpepper (1980:1–31) seems to be the most thorough, and
thus serves as a good model for discussion:
A. The Word’s activity in creation (John 1:1-5)

B. John’s witness concerning the light (John 1:6-8)
C. The incarnation of the Word (John 1:9-14)
B. John’s witness concerning the Word’s preeminence (John 1:15)
A. The final revelation brought by Jesus Christ (John 1:16-18) 5
The Word’s activity in creation (John 1:1-5)
The first phrase of the prologue, ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1a), shows a parallel between the
opening of the narrative and the biblical account of the beginnings of history in Genesis 1:1. Before
the beginning of the history there was only God, but the author claims that even then ἦν ὁ λόγος
(Brown, 1966:4).6 The λόγος preexists the history and ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (John 1:1b). Its
‘existence is placed outside the limits of time and place, neither of which existed ἐν ἀρχῇ’ (Moloney,
5
Köstenberger (1999:57) agrees and adopts Culpepper’ suggestion, suggesting a chiastic structure in
which John 1:12 is the center of attention. Seo (2007:16) outlines his chiastic structure into seven units
according to Christological themes:
A - The Word was God (John 1:1-2)
B - In the Word was life (John 1:3-5)
C - Through the Word all men might believe (John 1:6-9)
D - To those who believed in the Word (John 1:10-14)
C’ - This was He (John 1:15)
B’- Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:16-17).
A’ - God the One and Only is at the Father’s bosom (John 1:18).
Meanwhile, although it is probable that the author designed a chiastic structure, some scholars, like Kim
2009:428) proposed the outline for the sake of the dividing passage according to a thematic analysis:
A - The origin and nature of the Logos (John 1:1-5)
B - The witness to the Logos (John 1:6-8)
C - The manifestation of the Logos (John 1:9-13)
D - The revelation of the Logos (John 1:14-18).
6
Brown (1966:4) argues that the word ἦν in John 1:1 conveys the notions of existence, relationship, and
predication contrasting ἐγένετο in John 1:3, 6, and 14.
3
1998:35). The λόγος preexists for a relationship with God. From the start the author chose the
Greek ὁ λόγος to express that from the intimacy of God a word will be spoken. The λόγος exists
to say God’s revelation. The term θεὸς is familiar to the reader or implied reader of the Johannine
narrative as a reference to the God revealed in the Old Testament, and the θεὸς occurs in Genesis
1:1 to refer to the Creator. The author’s favorite expression for θεὸς in his narrative is πατήρ of
Jesus (John 1:14, 18; see Köstenberger, 2004:28).
The θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1c) places the compliment θεὸς before the verb ἦν and does not
give it an article. This means that the author avoids saying that ὁ λόγος and θεὸς were one and
the same thing.7 It indicates that ὁ λόγος and θεὸς keep their uniqueness, despite oneness due
to their intimacy. Having distinguished ὁ λόγος from θεὸς, the author shows that they are God. Of
course, calling ὁ λόγος God extended the boundaries of Jewish belief in Jehovah God (see
Bauckham, 1998). It has been argued that John 1:1 identifies merely ὁ λόγος, ‘Jesus as a god
rather than as God because there is no definite article before θεὸς’ (Köstenberger, 1999:29).
However, this is unworthy discussion as Köstenberger explores for several reasons.8
The author uses a personal pronoun οὖτος for ὁ λόγος in John 1:2, while he essentially repeats
what has already been claimed in John 1:1. Now the reader understands more of the contents of
John 1:1, providing ‘closure as well as preparing the reader for 1:3’. (Carson, 1991:118). Who
might οὖτος be? The author insinuates an eventual revelation that will take place in history by
means of a story told by ὁ λόγος. The author intends that his narrative shall be read in light of
these first two verses (Barrett, 1978:156).9 So far he claims that as the incarnated λόγος, Jesus
alone is God who has come to the world. No other can stand alongside Him or take His place.
Jesus shares in the infinity of God. This does not mean that people cannot know Him, but they
cannot have complete knowledge of Him. He must always be in the center of the believer’s
approach to God, his thinking about God, and his relating to God (John 14:6).
The author uses the aorist ἐγένετο in John 1:3 and the shift from the imperfect of ἦν (John 1:1-2)
looks back to a time in the past when πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ (the Word) ἐγένετο. Moreover, οὐδὲ ἕν in
creation took place without ὁ λόγος. The author conveyed that in the beginning the revealing act
of creation took place through ὁ λόγος. Then he said, ὃ γέγονεν. The perfect tense indicates that
the creation took place in the past, but the significance of its plot continues into the present. 10
The λόγος speaks out of intimacy with God and makes God known, both in creation and in the
presence of the λόγος itself in history. This revelation provides ἡ ζωὴ for which human beings
need τὸ φῶς in John 1:4. The history of salvation is plotted from the preexistence of the λόγος to
ἡ ζωὴ and τὸ φῶς brought into the history through the presence of the incarnated λόγος, Jesus
7
In terms of relationship, not only does πρὸς establish a relationship between ὁ λόγος and θεὸς, but it
also distinguishes the two from each other (Brown, 1966:5, see also see Köstenberger, 2004:5).
8
After he states three reasons, Köstenberger (2004:28-29) continues: “Nevertheless, the force of the
anarthrous θεὸς is probably not so much that of definiteness as that of quality: Jesus shared the essence
of the Father, though they differed in person. Everything that can be said about God also can be said
about the Word.” MacLeod (2003:58–62) also argues strongly against the assertion Jesus is a god,
surveying many scholars’ theological, literary, and grammatical reasons.
9
Barret (1978:256) also states that “the deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God; if
this be not true the book is blasphemous.”
10
The emphasis of John 1:3 is to point to creation, not incarnation. The author asserts that πάντα
(“everything in creation”) owes its existence to ὁ λόγος (see Carson, 1991; Morris, 1995:71; Ridderbos,
1997:37).
4
(John 1:14). The author affirms that the revelation brought by the λόγος is coming into the world.
According to Schnackenburg both ἡ ζωὴ and τὸ φῶς are universal religious terms
(Schnackenburg, 1990:242–244), but Culpepper (1983:180–198) argues that they are rooted in
Old Testament teaching. At creation, τὸ φῶς was God’s first creative act (Gen 1:3-5). Later, God
placed lights in the sky to separate φῶς and σκοτίᾳ (Genesis 1:14-18; see Morris, 1995:74). The
φῶς makes it possible for ζωὴ to exist. The author asserts that ἡ ζωὴ was in Him, ὁ λόγος who is
the source of ζωὴ and φῶς.
The author tells that τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει in John 1:5a. He uses φαίνει, the present tense
which means τὸ φῶς continues to be present despite ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.11 The φῶς
came when ὁ λόγος incarnated in the world and now shines (Ridderbos, 1997:39). Thus, the
reader may recognize τὸ φῶς keeps shining in spite of the hostile reception it received. The author
speaks of how human beings respond to the revelation of God that takes place in the λόγος,
Jesus Christ. The σκοτία is the world estranged from God in Johannine narrative, spiritually
ignorant and blind dominated by Satan (Schnackenburg, 1990:245.)
It is evident that John used the opening verses of his narrative to firmly set in place the
Christological planks of the framework for a worldview. As the incarnated λόγος, Jesus Christ is
God, and He created all things. To reject this worldview is to choose darkness. Those who choose
darkness do not want Christ as their Creator and Sovereign.
John’s witness concerning the light (John 1:6-8)
The author gives a more narrative description of the figure and role of John the Baptist in John
1:6-8. Although many scholars consider it a secondary addition to the prologue, this section is
essential to the prologue’s structure and message. As the λόγος’s involvement in the events of
history is found in John 1:3-5, the author continues to introduce another historical figure who
ἐγένετο the narrative (John 1:6). John the Baptist was not just any man, as we can see from the
narrator’s point that ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ. This phrase, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ is
reminiscent of the ‘Old Testament description of a prophet’ whose ‘role was a spokesperson for
God’ (Brown, 1966:8). This is a very unique claim, since nobody else in Johannine narrative is
described as having been sent by God except Jesus. It is thus God’s plan that μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ
τοῦ φωτός, ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ (John 1:7). Because of his testimony people might
come to believe through the ζωὴ giving presence of the φῶς, Jesus Christ.12 Through the λόγος,
all things were created (John 1:3). Now it is God’s purpose that people might believe through John
the Baptist’s testimony (Brown, 1966:8-9; see also Carson, 1991:121; Barrett, 1978:159).).
Köstenberger states well in regard to the witnesses, “This role of eyewitness is both vital and
humble. It is vital because eyewitnesses are required to establish the truthfulness of certain facts.
Yet it is humble because the eyewitness is not the center of attention. Rather, eyewitness must
testify truthfully to what they have seen and heard – no more and no less. The Baptist fulfilled this
task with distinction” (Köstenberger, 2004:33).
John the Baptist was not the light, but ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός (John 1:8). His role was to
11
The translation “overcome” of the verb κατέλαβεν would be better than “understood,” as asserted by
many scholars such as Morris (1995) Moloney (1998), and Schnackenburg (1990). Carson (1991:138)
thinks the author might have both meanings in mind.
12
Although it is not actual ultimate outcome, the desired result of John the Baptist’s witness is that all
might believe in Jesus (see Barrett, 1978:159; Carson, 1991:121).
5
give a witness to the light. Therefore, the reader must not be confused. John the Baptist was a
great man, but he was not the light. While he is cast in a positive light as a witness to Jesus, John
the Baptist is not the light, but rather a lamp (John 5:35; see Brown, 1966:28; Morris, 1995:81;
Ridderbos, 1997:42; Keener, 2003:393). Moloney (1998:37) states: “The Prologue is now firmly
anchored in history and, like vv. 1-5, its second section (vv. 6-14) opens with a description of the
Word and a careful separation of the role of the Baptist from the role of the Word.”
This section of the prologue has significance both theologically and practically. The author claims
again Jesus alone is the true light of divine revelation. John the Baptist is a role model of a witness
for Jesus. Dodd argues that a threefold schema in this section controls the subsequent sections
of John 1 that deal with John the Baptist.13
The incarnation of the Word (John 1:9-14)
The author now states the incarnation of the λόγος, the true and authentic light who φωτίζει πάντα
ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον in John 1:9.14 The author’s view of the human condition in
his narrative is recapitulated in the term κόσμος. Smith explores that the author uses the term
κόσμος as a virtual synonym for creation, πάντα (John 1:1, 10) with no negative connotation;
however, κόσμος is neutral in John 1:10 where it simply signifies the place in which the λόγος was
incarnated, it is positive in John 1:2 where God created the κόσμος through the λόγος, and it is
negative where the κόσμος rejects the revelation in the incarnated λόγος, Jesus Christ (Smith,
1995:80–81).
As τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, Jesus is presented as the source of φῶς that enlightens people. The
incarnation of the λόγος has been portrayed in the first section of the Prologue (John 1:1-5) and
is reiterated here in John 1:9-10. This of course does not suggest the universal salvation of all
people, because the author does not speak of internal illumination in the sense of special
revelation, ‘but of external illumination in the sense of objective revelation requiring a response’
(see Brown, 1966:9; Köstenberger, 2004:35). Not all people accept the light, ‘though it was
available to all through Jesus’ presence’ and His words (Borchert, 1996:113). The λόγος was in
the world that has its existence through Him, (John 1:10), but ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω. The
author uses κόσμος seventy-eight times in his narrative. The term usually refers to sinful humanity
(see John 3:16). The phrase ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον is used to describe ‘Jesus as the One who
enters the world from the outside’ and returns to His place of ‘the presence of God the Father’
(Köstenberger, 1999:121-123; see John 13:1, 3; 14:12, 28; 16:28; 18:37).
In John 1:11, the author specifies the place and the people who have not known Him nor received
Him. He came to τὰ ἴδια and οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν, and here the reader understands the meaning. Many
in Israel, especially the Jewish religious leaders, οὐ παρέλαβον the λόγος, Jesus. They failed to
recognize Jesus as the Messiah. They rejected the light including all of the signs He performed
which demonstrated His deity and messiahship. Schnackenburg argues that the author’s
reference ‘is not to Jesus’ earthly ministry but to Israel’s history prior to the incarnation’ of Jesus
(Schnackenburg, 1990:256). 15 However, the reference is more likely anticipating the λόγος’s
13
First, John the Baptist was not the light in (John 1:19-27). Second, John came to give witness to the
light (John 1:29-34). Third, through John’s agency all might become believers (John 1:35-37; see Dodd
1953:248–249).
14
Carson (1991:122) opines that ἀληθινόν in John 1:9 delivers a sense of fundamental ultima: in Jesus
‘God has revealed himself in an escalated, eschatological sense’.
15
Brown (1966:30) agrees with Schnackenburg, citing the parallel of Wisdom in 1 Enoch 42:2.
6
incarnation in John 1:14 (Culpepper, 1980:13-14; Carson, 1991:122; Ridderbos, 1997:43;

Moloney, 1998:37). Anyway, the author underscores the irony of the world — His own people —
rejecting the One through whom it was made. They reject ‘Jesus’ claim of equality with God and
His revelation of the God the Father’ through the words He spoke and the signs He demonstrated.
Brown points out, “The basic sin in John’s gospel is the failure to know and believe in Jesus”
(Brown, 1966:10). The entire Johannine narrative is taken up with the story of the confrontation
between the Jews and Jesus as it appears in narratives of the anonymous minor characters of
John 4, 5, and 9.
The message of a negative response was found for the first time in John 1:5. However, the
negative response from those to whom the λόγος came (John 1:11) is complemented by the
positive response of others, and results of such a response (John 1:12-13). The author places the
verbs λαμβάνω and πιστεύσω in parallel in John 1:12, ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν to τοῖς πιστεύουσιν
εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. That is, to receive the λόγος means to believe His name. Comparing the
rejection of the λόγος in John 1:5, 11, the right way of λαμβάνω the λόγος is to πιστεύσω in His
name. The results of belief in the name of the λόγος are narrated in the past tense, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς
ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι. The authority given is not a promise but an achieved fact for those
who receive and believe. The aorist verb γενέσθαι indicates that people do not have to wait for
the end times to become God’s children. The authority to become God’s children is available now
to the believers. It can be realized and confirmed.
God’s children οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς but
ἐγεννήθησαν by God (John 1:13). ‘Spiritual birth is not the result of human initiative’ (Moloney,
1998:38), but ‘of a supernatural origin’ (Schnackenburg, 1990:263). The author expresses natural
procreation in three different terms: αἱμάτων, σαρκὸς, and ἀνδρὸς. First, the opposite of being
born of God is born by αἱμάτων. The natural descent renders a blood relationship. The author’s
point is that being a child of God is not a result of blood relations, like a Jew who could simply
presume to be a descendant of Abraham. Rather, by His sovereign grace it ‘must be sought and
received from God on the basis of faith’ in Jesus, the Messiah (Borchert, 1996:118). Second, the
natural descent renders the θελήματος σαρκὸς. It relates to what is physical/natural as opposed
to what is spiritual/supernatural. Third, the natural descent renders θελήματος ἀνδρὸς. The
reference to θελήματος ἀνδρὸς implies the Old Testament ‘concept of male headship, in the
present context perhaps with reference to the initiative usually taken by the husband in sexual
intercourse’ resulting in parental determination or will (Borchert, 1996:118).
The author gives his readers the opportunity to see the world in its rebellion, as illustrated in the
Jews, εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον (John 1:11). Having seen this rebellion,
the readers of the Johannine community are challenged to receive and believe Him as they admit
their sin and be saved.
Now, the author announces formally the incarnation of the λόγος in John 1:14; that the λόγος was
coming into the world has already been mentioned in John 1:3-4, 9. Now it is thus restated,
describing Him in whose name people must believe as μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός. While Jesus is
the only begotten Son of God, God is the Father. The πατήρ is a more personal term than θεός.
The author prefers πατήρ in referring to God in his narrative. As anyone who believes in Jesus
becomes God’s children, Jesus taught his disciples to call God πατήρ as well (Matthew 6:9).
The preexistent λόγος who was intimately with God has now σὰρξ ἐγένετο. The σὰρξ denotes “all
of human person in creaturely existence as distinct from God” (Ridderbos, 1997:49; see also
Barret, 1978:164; Borchert, 1996:119). The ἐγένετο does not mean “change into” in the sense that
7
Jesus ceased to be God by becoming a human being (Köstenberger, 2004:40). Nor does it mean
He “appeared human or even took on humanity” (Morris, 1995: 90-91).16 The narrator’s point is
that God has now ‘chosen to be with His people in a more personal way than ever before’ (Carson,
1991:127). By emphasizing that Jesus σὰρξ ἐγένετο, John communicates and reveals God in the
human form, the form in which He ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν. The verb σκηνόω may be linked to the
Hebrew verb sakan used of the dwelling of YHWH in Israel (Exodus 33:9; 40:34-35) and root of
an important word in Judaism to speak of the resting of the kabod (glory) of YHWH over the
tabernacle. In the New Testament it is used outside of this instance only in the Book of Revelation
7:15; 12:12; 13:6; 21:3. The phrase ‘suggests that in Jesus, God has come to take up residence
among His people’ in a way more intimate than when He dwelt in the tabernacle. People now may
‘meet God and hear Him’ in the incarnated λόγος, Jesus, who took the place of the temple
(Mowvley, 1984:136).
By speak of “His dwelling,” the author points to the experience of the Johannine community that
can declare to have observed, in Jesus, τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ. It reveals that John saw, together with
the believing community, the δόξα of God. The δόξα is a very important concept in the Johannine
narrative, introduced by the author in the Prologue. In the Old Testament, the δόξα of God was
said to dwell first in the tabernacle. As the author makes clear, the δόξα of God now has taken up
residence among His people once again in Jesus. The author’s doxological point of view in his
narrative is that Jesus’ supreme purpose is to bring glory to God, shown even in the anonymous
characters in John 4, 5, and 9. As Jesus brings δόξα to God, δόξα also comes to Jesus. This
‘continues what was already true of Jesus prior to His coming’, for δόξα ‘characterized both Jesus’
eternal relationship with God’ (John 17:5; Carson, 1991:128), and His pre-incarnate state (John
12:41). While in the world, Jesus’ δόξα is manifested to His disciples through His signs (cf. John
2:11; Carson, 1991:128). What is seen is σὰρξ in the σὰρξ of Jesus Christ. The visibility of the
σὰρξ is precisely the point. Of course, the reader sees the δόξα spiritually, but physical sight was
also required. In the author’s word, unlike Thomas who needed to see for himself before he would
believe, the fact that Jesus speaks to those who do not see yet are still able to come to believe
demonstrates that people can believe without seeing (John 20:29). That said, people who must
believe without seeing need the testimony of those who saw, which is the reason given by the
author for having written his gospel.
The author asserted that that the λόγος and God have had an intimate relationship from the
beginning of history (John 1:1-2), enabling him to proclaim that observing the incarnation of the
λόγος was the same as seeing God’s revelation in history. Hegermann (1994:348) notes that the
author defines the glory of the the λόγος who has become human by taking up the Old Testament
conceptual pair “grace and truth” with which the nature of the glory of Jehovah is summarized.
The narrator than goes on to proclaim that the glory of God seen was δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ
πατρός (John 1:14). The intimate relationship of the λόγος and God is now declared as that
between the only begotten Son and Father, a relationship foundational for the Johannine narrative
which is about to begin. The author, however, carefully maintains a distinction between the only
begotten Son and the Father, as shown in John 1:1-2. Moloney (1998:39) opines: “The glory that
the Son had with the Father before all time (cf. 17:5) is unknown and unknowable to the human
situation (cf. 1:18). The author states that what the human story can see of the divine has been
seen in the incarnation of the Word, the only Son from the Father.” Believers cannot see the δόξα
of the Father in the Son, but rather δόξα ὡς.17 His δόξα fully reflects the δόξα of the Father.
16
However, Witherington (1995:55) suggests that Jesus took on humanity.
17
Ridderbos (1997:53; see also Schnackenburg 1990:270) renders ὡς as “in keeping with his nature as”,
8
The author adds the description of the incarnated λόγος, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας (John
1:14b). The phrase πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας is a precise Greek equivalent of the phrase in
the Old Testament Exodus 34:6, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow
to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness.” In this expression, both refer to God’s ‘covenant
faithfulness to His people Israel’ (Laney, 1992:44). But it is also possible that the χάρις in the
Prologue retains its original meaning of an undeserved favor. The reader or implied reader of the
Johannine community has observed the visible manifestation of God, the incarnated λόγος, the
only begotten Son from the Father, the fullness of the χάρις that is τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν. According
to the author, God’s covenantal faithfulness found ultimate expression in God’s sending His only
begotten Son, Jesus (Laney, 1992:44).
The δόξα is the shining of God’s character, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας which the Johannine
community has seen in the incarnated λόγος, Jesus Christ, and in His life. It is intimately
connected with His revelation. The author is directly alluding to the divine aspect of His being and
to its revelation as such. When Jesus Himself says that the hour has come for the Son of Man to
be glorified (John 12:23), He is pointing to His own death and to His death understood as the
revelatory event, Пάτερ, δόξασόν σου τὸ ὄνομα (John 12:28a).
The last time the author uses the word δόξα in his narrative is in Jesus’ prayer in John 17, and
again the reference is to Jesus’ disciples seeing His δόξα (John 17:24). Thus, Jesus’ disciples
who have seen His δόξα in His public life in the world will see Him in His manifest δόξα in heaven.
It will include the Johannine community and, of course, all believers.
John’s witness concerning the Word’s preeminence (John 1:15)
In John 1:15 t thee author turns to the witness of John the Baptist. The first description of the
λόγος (John 1:1-2) comes to mind as John the Baptist proclaimed that ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος
follows him in terms of the time sequence of events (John 1:15a), but, in terms of His place in
God’s providence He ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν. John the Baptist explains how this could be
happened, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν (John 1:15b).
John the Baptist serves as the prototype of the Old Testament prophetic witness to Jesus ‘which
makes his testimony an integral part of the salvation history’ unfolded and described by the author
(Brodie, 1993:143). In this regard, that Brodie states John the Baptist appears to be the
embodiment of the Old Testament is ‘far from being an illogical interpolation’, but instead is
altogether appropriate. ‘It is as though, when the incarnation finally arrived, full of covenant love,
the OT stood up and cheered’ (Brodie, 1993:143).
John the Baptist was ‘six months older than Jesus’’ (Luke 1:24, 26) and began his ministry before
Jesus did’ (Luke 3:1-20; ). Like much of Eastern culture, the Old Testament supports ‘the notion
that rank and honor is tied to one’s age’ (Kruze, 2003:791); thus, even a six-month difference
implied preeminence (Harrison, 1988:791). Because of John the Baptist’s age and earlier ministry,
the author shows that Jesus was really πρῶτός him, and therefore legitimately to be honored
above him.
John the Baptist may have simply intended to affirm that Jesus ἔμπροσθέν him. If so, he spoke
better than he knew (Kruse, 2003:72). Interestingly, John the Baptist’s witness is anticipated here
while Brown (1966:13) renders it as “in the quality of”.
9
prior to its actual narration in John 1:19-34 (Ridderbos 1997:55).
The final revelation brought by Jesus Christ (John 1:16-18)
The author leads the readers to a final revelation of people’s reception and response to the gift of
the incarnated λόγος, Jesus Christ. To the readers of Johannine community, the author explains
ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος (John 1:16). For the
Johannine narrative the believers receive His πληρώμα within their hearts. They receive a χάρις
that completes a former χάρις.18 The πληρώμα can be found in only the χάρις of God displayed
in Jesus, ‘whose purpose was to bring life abundantly’ (John 10:10; Borchert, 1996:123).
The author explains these two graces and their relationship in John 1:17. These two graces have
been special gifts of God to the salvation history. At first, God ὁ νόμος διὰ Mωϊσέως ἐδόθη.
Secondly, God gave another gift which is already mentioned in πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας (John
1:14b) and χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος (John 1:16b) which is the truth. The two nouns, χάρις and ἀληθεία
reappear in John 1:17b, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ ἐγένετο in which they are joined
by καὶ. The χάρις that is truth supersedes and completes the first χάρις given through Moses, and
it διὰ ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ ἐγένετο. The author portrays the incarnated λόγος, Jesus’s coming, in terms
of the giving of χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος, affirming that the ‘grace given through Moses was replaced by
the grace bestowed through Christ’ (Mowvley, 1984:137). This does not mean to nullify the first
χάρις, rather it respects it. The author claims that the first χάρις is now completed in the final χάρις
of the truth that came through Jesus Christ. The incarnated λόγος, Jesus Christ, is now described
as the perfection of God’s gifts. The author tells the reader or implied reader πλήρης χάριτος καὶ
ἀληθείας, the perfect grace is ‘found in Jesus Christ. Jesus’ ministry is superior to that of Moses’
(Mowvley, 1984:137). However, the Jewish religious leaders such as the Pharisees, calling
themselves disciples of Moses (John 9:28), are furiously against the author’s claim. Jesus
counters by noting says that Moses wrote of Him (John 5:46-47). Although the law is God’s
gracious revelation, it is not adequate as an instrument of the truth, the ultimate grace that came
through Jesus Christ.
The author makes one more point before he turns to the narrative as he concludes the prologue.
Although the Johannine community may claim to have seen the revelation of God’s δόξα in the
incarnated λόγος Jesus Christ (John 1:14), Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε (John 1:18a) since no
one can see the face of God and live, as Moses and others in the Old Testament narratives
learned. That is, no one except the One who has told the story of God’s way ἐξηγήσατο, and is
μονογενὴς Θεὸς. The incarnation of λόγος is not fatal to those who saw Jesus because God is
manifested in flesh. The glory that was hidden in the cloud in the Old Testament narratives remain
hidden, now veiled in flesh, but the veil is of a kind that permits a visible form of revelation.
John 1:18 constitutes an inclusio with John. 1:1 (Keener, 2003:335-338). There it was said that
the λόγος was with God and the λόγος was God. Here in John 1:18, it is similarly said that the
μονογενὴς Son was God and that He was εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς which is in the closest way
possible He could be with God (Louw, 1968:38).
The reason human beings cannot see God is that God is spirit, and all human beings are sinners,
18
καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος has generally rendered the sense of “grace upon grace” by translating the
proposition ἀντὶ as “upon,” so its meaning of an abundance of grace. However, it has been questioned by
some scholars, and Moloney, for example, renders χάρις as “a gift” that allows ἀντὶ to keep its meaning of
“a gift in place of a gift” (see Moloney, 1998:46).
10
in direct contrast to God as holy and sinless. However, the incarnated λόγος, Jesus, is Himself
God, and He became a human being so that people could see God in Him (John 1:14). Although
He became a σὰρξ just as a human being, He was yet without sin and died for people so that
their sinfulness no longer prevents them from having fellowship with God (John 1:29). As the
author shows later in his narrative, Jesus’ claim of deity brought Him into conflict with the Jewish
religious leaders. This results in His crucifixion under the charge of blasphemy (John 19:7).
Bauckham (2015:50) summarizes well this last section of the prologue in which the author
presents the incarnated λόγος, the Son Jesus Christ as “the eschatological fulfillment of the Sinai
covenant, a revelation of glory that fulfills the Sinai covenant by qualitative surpassing it.”
The author conveys that the incarnated λόγος, the Son of God, will focus on the Father throughout
his narrative to follow. The preexistent relationship between λόγος, the Son Jesus Christ, and God
is continually εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς. This relationship is presented as the very ‘important
reason’ why the incarnated λόγος ‘was able to overcome’ the immeasurable chasm that had
existed between God and man up to that point despite the law. This utmost intimacy of Jesus’
relationship with the Father enabled Him to reveal the Father in an unprecedented way (Brown,
1966:36).
Köstenberger (2004:50) states that the author makes the important point that the entire narrative
to follow ‘should be read as an account of Jesus “telling the whole story” of God the Father’ as he
concludes the Prologue.
Conclusion
The author of the Johannine narrative in his opening prologue sets for a range of theological point
of views, consisting of mainly Christological themes such as λόγος preexisted creation with God,
becomes flesh, the incarnation of God, equality with God but personal distinction between them,
the ultimate intimacy in relationship with God the Father, the true light of divine revelation and the
Savior of the world.
The One of the purposes of the prologue is to indicate to the readers how they should read the
life story of Jesus within a context that begins with the Old Testament, as seen with the near literal
repeating of the opening words of Genesis in the gospel of John. The author presents the
incarnation of the λόγος Jesus Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant, a
revelation of glory that fulfills it unprecedentedly. He affirms that the Johannine community has
access to the perfection of the former gift. They can see the revelation of the glory in His Son,
Jesus Christ. Thus, the reader can also see the author’s doxological point of view in the midst of
his Christological themes. With the prologue the author wants to make clear that God has been
made known in and through Jesus Christ. “Only the Son, Jesus Christ has ever seen God, and
the story of His life will tell the story of God’s loving action within the human history” (Moloney,
1988:41). Culpepper comments with regard to the relationship to the rest of the narrative, “In the
Prologue, the narrator speaks, introducing the reader to the protagonist (Jesus), clarifying His
origin and identity, and foreshadowing the plot and the themes of the story, that is about to be
told.” (Culpepper, 1998: 116-17).
References
Barrett, C.K. (1978). The gospel according to St. John: An introduction with commentary and
notes on the Greek text, SPCK, London.
11
Bauckham, R. (1998). God crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament, William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids.
Bauckham, R. (2015). Gospel of glory: Major themes in Johannine theology, Baker Academic,
Grand Rapids.
Borchert, G.L. (1996). John 1-11: An exegetical and theological exposition of Holy Scripture,
Broadman & Holman Publishing Group, Nashville.
Brodie, T.L. (1993). The gospel according to John: A literary and theological commentary, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Brown, R.E. (1966). The gospel according to John I-XII, Anchor Bible, Garden City.
Carson, D.A. (1991). The gospel according to John, Inter-Varsity Press, Grand Rapids.
Culpepper, R.A. (1980). ‘The pivot of John’s prologue’, New Testament Studies, 27(1), 1–31.
Culpepper, R.A. (1983). Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, Fortress Press, Philadelphia.
Culpepper, R.A. (1988). The Gospel of John, Fortress Press, Philadelphia.
Dodd, C.H. (1953). The interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Harris, W.H. (1994). ‘A theology of John’s writings’, in R.R. Zuck (ed.), A Biblical theology of the
New Testament, 99. 167-242, Moody Press, Chicago.
Harrison, R.K. (1988). The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 1, Baker Academic, Grand
Rapids.
Hegermann, H. (1994). ‘δόξα’, in H. Balz & G. Schneider (eds.), Exegetical dictionary of the
New Testament, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, vol.1, p. 348.
Keener, C.S. (2003). The gospel of John: A commentary, vol. 1, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody.
Kim, S.S. (2009). ‘The literary and theological significance of the Johannine prologue’, Bibliotheca
Sacr, 166(664), 421–435.
Köstenberger, A.J. (1999). Encountering John: The gospel in historical, literary, and theological
perspective, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
Köstenberger, A.J. (2004). John, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
Kruse, C.G. (2003). The gospel according to John: An introduction and commentary, vol. 4, Inter-
Varsity Press, Leicester.
Laney, J.C. (1992). John, Moody Publishers, Chicago.
12
Louw, J. (1968). ‘Narrator of the Father: ἐξηγεῖσθαι and related terms in Johannine Christology’,
Neotestamentica, 2, 32–40.
MacLeod, D.J. (2003). ‘The eternality and deity of the Word: John 1:1-2’, Bibliotheca Sacra,
160(637), 48–64.
Moloney, F.J. (1993). Belief in the Word: Reading the Fourth Gospel: John 1-4, Fortress Press,
Minneapolis.
Moloney, F.J. (1998). The gospel of John, Liturgical Press, Collegeville.
Morris, L. (1995). The gospel according to John, Revised, William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, Grand Rapids.
Mowvley, H. (1984). ‘John 1:14-18 in the light of Exodus 33:7-34: 35’, The Expository Times, 95(5),
135–137.
Ridderbos, H.N. (1997). The gospel according to John: A theological commentary, William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids.
Schnackenburg, R. (1990). The gospel according to St. John, Crossroad Publishing Company,
Spring Valley.
Seo, Y.H. (200). Analysis of the New Testament structure II, transl. N. Hahn, vol. II, Gyung Hyung
Press, Seoul.
Smith, D.M. (1995). The theology of the gospel of John, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Witherington, B. (1995). John’s wisdom: A commentary on the Fourth Gospel, Westminster John
Knox Press, Louisville.
13

Article 29 Vol 102 2021 Up

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 29 Vol 102 2021 Up

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 29 Vol 102 2021 Up

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pharos Journal of Theology ISSN 2414-3324 online Volume 102 - (2021)

Copyright: ©2021 Open Access/Author/s - Online @ http//: www.pharosjot.com

John’s prologue: Christological and doxological

Ernest van Eck

Keywords: John; John 1:1-18; John’s prologue; Christology; doxology, narratology.

Literary structure of the prologue

A. The Word’s activity in creation (John 1:1-5)

The Word’s activity in creation (John 1:1-5)

John’s witness concerning the light (John 1:6-8)

The incarnation of the Word (John 1:9-14)

incarnation in John 1:14 (Culpepper, 1980:13-14; Carson, 1991:122; Ridderbos, 1997:43;

John’s witness concerning the Word’s preeminence (John 1:15)

while Brown (1966:13) renders it as “in the quality of”.

prior to its actual narration in John 1:19-34 (Ridderbos 1997:55).

The final revelation brought by Jesus Christ (John 1:16-18)

Culpepper, R.A. (1988). The Gospel of John, Fortress Press, Philadelphia.

Köstenberger, A.J. (2004). John, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

Laney, J.C. (1992). John, Moody Publishers, Chicago.

Moloney, F.J. (1998). The gospel of John, Liturgical Press, Collegeville.

You might also like