Glory and Temple in Johns Gospel With Pa

Glory and Temple
in John’s Gospel
with particular reference
to John 1:14
A thesis submitted to the Australian College of
Theology in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
the award of Master of Theology
David Balzer
Presbyterian Theological Centre, Sydney
2008
2
Certification
I certify that the substance of this thesis of approximately 35000 words

(including footnotes and excurses but excluding the bibliography and any
appendices), has not previously been submitted for any degree and is not
currently being submitted for any other degree.
I also certify that any assistance received in conducting the research embodied in
the project, and all quotations and the sources of significant ideas and
paraphrases, have been acknowledged in the text or notes.
Signed………………………………………..
Date ………24/11/08 ……………………….

3
Abstract
In the decades after the destruction of the

Jerusalem temple, and the widening rift between
Judaism and Christianity, the temple could no
longer serve as the locus of God’s people meeting
with their God. The Apostle John writes his
gospel in response to this situation, and presents
Jesus to Jews, both Christian and non-Christian,
as the shekinah glory of God – God’s glorifying,
revelatory, tabernacling presence, the antitype of
both the tabernacle, and the temple, fulfilling the
festivals focussed on it. This glory is revealed
through Jesus’ teaching, principally in the temple,
and through his signs. Ultimately, the hour of his
glory is his lifting up on the cross, the definitive
means of revealing the glory of the Father. This
portrait is primarily found in chapters 1-12 of the
gospel.
In chapters 13-21 glory and temple are redefined

in terms of Christian believers. Those who behold
Jesus’ glory believe in him, and following his
glorification become God’s temple, the Father’s
house (household) in whom Jesus dwells, through
his Spirit, fulfilling the Ezekiel 43 prophecy of the
new temple. The believers’ task is to continue to
reveal the glory of God, and serve as the means by
which the presence of his Spirit flows to the
world.
4
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction and Thesis 6
Chapter 2 Authorship, Dating, Provenance, Purpose, Audience and Jewish 10

Background
2.1 Authorship 10
2.2 Dating 14
2.3 Provenance 16
2.4 Purpose and Audience 18
2.5 Jewish Background of the Fourth Gospel 21
2.5.1 The Jewishness of John’s gospel 21
2.5.1.1 John’s Use of the Old Testament 22
2.5.1.2 The Influence of Qumran on John? 24
2.5.2 The Jewish Milieu as Revealed in John’s gospel 26
2.5.3 The Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple 30
2.5.4 Jewish Coping Strategies for the Destruction of the Temple 31
2.5.4.1 Pharisees 33
2.5.4.2 Jewish Apocalyptic 35
2.5.4.3 The Dead Sea Community 37
2.5.4.4 The Christian Response 40
Chapter 3 The Conceptual Background of Johannine do/ca Usage 42

3.1 Glory 42
3.1.1 New Testament 43
3.1.2 Hebrew Old Testament 43
3.1.3 Septuagint 45
3.1.4 Targum Teaching on Glory 45
3.1.5 Qumran’s Teaching on Glory 47
3.2 Shekinah 48
3.3 Memra 52
3.4 Specific references to dovca and docavzw in the Fourth Gospel. 54
Chapter 4 Glory of God, and Related Themes, in the Old Testament 59

4.1 Creation 59
4.2 Exodus 60
4.2.1 The Tabernacle 61
4.3 The Temple 64
4.4 Psalms 64
4.5 Isaiah 65
4.6 Ezekiel 68
4.7 Minor Prophets 70
4.8 Temple Replacement 71
Chapter 5 John’s Portrait of Jesus: Glory and Temple – John 1-12 73

5.1 The Prologue 73
5.1.1 Glory in the Prologue 74
5.1.2 Structure and Composition of the Prologue 75
5
5.2 John 1:14: The Word Became Flesh 79

5.3 Signs and Glory 86
5.4 John’s Lack of a Transfiguration Account 87
5.5 The Hour of Glory – John 12:20-50 88
5.6 Glory and the Temple 95
5.6.1 Glory as Self-Revelation, and the Temple – Jesus and Teaching 95
5.6.2 Glory as Dwelling Presence, and the Temple – John 7-8 96
5.7 Jesus’ Replacement of the Temple 98
5.7.1 The New House of God - John 1:51 98
5.7.2 Replacing Jewish Purification Rites with the New Wine of 100
Jesus – John 2:1-11
5.7.3 Replacing the Temple Building with the Temple of Jesus’ Body 101
– John 2:13-25
5.7.4 Place Replaced by Person - John 4:19-26 103
5.7.5 Jesus Replaces the Temple Feasts 105
5.7.5.1 Passover 105
5.7.5.2 Tabernacles 107
5.7.5.3 The Feast of Dedication/ Hanukkah – John 10:22-42 111
Chapter 6 John’s Portrait of the Disciples: Glory and Temple – John 13-21 114
6.1 In My Father’s House – John 14:2-4 114
6.2 The Vine and the Branches – John 15:1-17 120
6.3 Glory through the Disciples 121
Chapter 7 Conclusions 123

Bibliography 125
6
Chapter 1: Introduction and Thesis

With the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, Jewish Christians and non-
Christians alike were faced with a crisis. Where was God now to be met? They
longed for a richer experience of God and a greater recognition of his presence.
This thesis contends that John wrote his gospel to address these questions, and to
present Jesus as the locus where people now meet with God, the one who replaces
and fulfils the earthly temple as the glory-presence of God himself, tabernacling
among his people.1 Further, Jesus promised his continued presence among his
people as the new temple, despite his physical departure, by his Holy Spirit
poured out for all who believe. This theme is summarised in 1:14.
Much has been written on the theme of the temple in John’s gospel,2 in particular
Jesus’ replacement of it,3 and less frequently on the theme of tabernacle.4 A theme
commonly noted, though less frequently investigated in depth, is that of glory. 5
Many commentators have interpreted the Gospel’s literary structure in terms of
1
Such a purpose and setting have been proposed by Mary L. Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple
Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2001); W.D.
Davies, "Reflections on Aspects of the Jewish Background of the Gospel of John", in Exploring
the Gospel of John: In Honour of D. Moody Smith, (ed. R. Alan Culpepper; and C. Clifton Black;
Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1996); Alan R. Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body:
The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John, JSNTSup 220 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002);
Andreas J. Köstenberger, "The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Composition of the
Fourth Gospel," TrinJ 26 (2005): 205-42; Peter W. L. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City: New
Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1996).
2
Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, J. A. Draper, "Temple,
Tabernacle and Mystical Experience in John," Neot 31, 2 (1997): 263-88; Kerr, The Temple of
Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John, Köstenberger, "The Destruction of the
Second Temple and the Composition of the Fourth Gospel," 205-42; Judith Lieu, "Temple and
Synagogue in John," NTS 45, 1 (1999): 51-69; John C. Meagher, "John 1:14 and the New
Temple," JBL 88 (1969): 57-68; Stephen T. Um, The Theme of Temple Christology in John's
Gospel, LNTS 312 (London: T&T Clark, 2006).
3
W.D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine,
(Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 289-318; Paul M. Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the
Gospel of John, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006); Benny
Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth: An Exegetical Study of John 4:19-26 and a Theological
Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel, (Leuven: Peeters, 2007).
4
Craig R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, vol. 22, CBQMS
1989), 100-15; W. Wiley Richards, The Witness and the Glory: The Tabernacle and the Gospel of
John, [cited 31 March, 2007]. Online: www.tren.com, 1-12.
5
George Caird, "The Glory of God in the Gospel of John: An Exercise in Biblical Semantics,"
NTS 15, 2 (1969): 265-77; W. Robert Cook, "The 'Glory' Motif in the Johannine Corpus," JETS
27, 3 (1984): 291-97; Gordon D. Kirchhevel, "The Children of God and the Glory that John 1:14
Saw," BBR 6 (1996): 87-93; Meredith G. Kline, "Creation in the Image of the Glory-Spirit," WTJ
39, 3 (1977): 250-72; Margaret Pamment, "The Meaning of Doxa in the Fourth Gospel," ZNW 74
(1983): 12-16; Paul E. Robertson, "Glory in the Fourth Gospel," TE 38, 3 (1988): 121-31.
7
glory.6 Others have drawn connections between Jesus’ revelation of glory and the
shmei=a,7 or the crucifixion.8
Four recent works of particular relevance to this thesis are those of Mary L.
Coloe, Alan R. Kerr, Stephen T. Um, and Paul M. Hoskins.9 Um’s work, though
entitled “The Theme of Temple Christology in John’s gospel”, focusses
exclusively on John 4:1-26, a passage the other works see as only one of a number
of passages that contribute to the theme. 10 Hoskins’ distinctive contribution is a
clarification of the nature of typology. He defines typology as “the study which
traces parallels or correspondences between incidents recorded in the Old
Testament and their counterparts in the New Testament such that the latter can be
seen to resemble the former in notable respects and yet to go beyond them.”11 The
logical conclusion of this is that the New Testament antitype “abundantly fills the
role of the type in a way that makes the type unnecessary and effectively
obsolete.”12 Kerr sees Jesus as fulfilling the temple in many of the passages this
thesis identifies, but fails to recognise the extension of the temple theme to the
indwelt disciples in chapter 14. While Coloe sees that John was written as a
response to the destruction of the temple, she fails to undergird her thesis with any
consideration of the historical situation among various Jewish groups of the time.
6
Bultmann divides the Gospel according to ‘The Revelation of do/ca before the World’ (chs 2-12)
and ‘The Revelation of do/ca before the Community’ (chs 13-20). See Rudolph Bultmann, The
Gospel of John: A Commentary, ed. R.W.N. Hoare and J.K. Riches, trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), vii-xi. Brown uses the same division under the titles ‘The Book
of Signs’ and ‘The Book of Glory’. See R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, 2 vols., vol. 1,
The Anchor Bible (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966), xi-xii. Silva uses alternate titles for the
same division ‘Jesus reveals his glory to the world’ (chs 2-12) and ‘Jesus reveals his glory to the
disciples’ (chs 13-20), as does Kysar: ‘Jesus reveals glory’ and ‘Jesus receives glory’. See Moises
Silva, "Approaching the Fourth Gospel," CTR 3, 1 (1988): 27; and R. Kysar, John, the Maverick
Gospel, (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/ John Knox, 1993).
7
Matthew S. Collins, "The Question of Doxa: A Socio-Literary Reading of the Wedding at Cana,"
BTB 25 (Fall, 1995): 100-09; R. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative
Underlying the Fourth Gospel, (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1970); Peter Riga, "Signs of
Glory: The Use of Semeion in St John's Gospel," Int 17, 4 (1963): 402-24.
8
Edward Donnelly, "Glory and Suffering in the Fourth Gospel: A Paradox of Discipleship," RTJ
18, 4 (2002), 3-13; Dale Harris, The House Was Filled with His Glory: Johannine Temple-
Christology and the Death of Jesus, [cited 15 Jan, 2008]. Online: http://www.ccws.ca/theology/.
9
Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, Hoskins, Jesus as the
Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John, Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple
Theme in the Gospel of John, and Um, The Theme of Temple Christology in John's Gospel, LNTS
312 (London: T&T Clark, 2006).
10
Um, The Theme of Temple Christology in John's Gospel, v.
11
Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John, 19.
12
8
Her attention is focussed primarily on the internal evidence of various passages

that reinforce the connection between Jesus and the temple, and then between
believers and the temple.
No extended investigation has been made however, to this author’s knowledge, of

the connection between the twin themes of glory and temple. 13 These themes
coalesce in 1:14 where Jesus, the Word, tabernacles among his people and reveals
his glory. John’s distinctive use of dovca and docavzw has been shaped by the Old
Testament concept of the glory of the LORD, hwhy dwbk, as a visible radiant self-
revelatory presence of God himself, frequently found in the tabernacle or temple,
symbolising God’s presence with/ in/ among his people. Such an understanding
has been shaped by the post-Hebrew Scripture intensification of this theology in
the concept of shekinah (hnyk? - Aramaic shekinta atnyk?) in the Targums.
Ultimately, Jesus most completely reveals the character of God (i.e. glorifies him)
in his crucifixion, thus revealing his own glory (12:23; 13:31; 14:13; 17:1).
The structural division of the gospel into two sections with the break at the end of
John 12 has been widely recognised.14 It will be shown that such a division is also
significant for the themes of glory and temple. In John 1-12 it is Jesus who reveals
the glory of God, and who replaces the temple. In John 13-21 the emphasis shifts
towards the disciples. Following Jesus’ glorification, it is the disciples who will
reveal the glory of God to the world (15:8; 17:10), and who replace the temple as
the locus where God meets with his people through the Holy Spirit (14:1-4).
We will now turn our attention to an investigation concerning necessary questions

of authorship, purpose and audience to determine a Sitz im Leben. We will then
turn our attention to the conceptual background for John’s distinctive use of
13
Hoskins does discuss the lifting up, or glorification, of Jesus in connection with the temple, but
makes different connections via the theme of the temple’s lifting up in Isaiah (Hoskins, Jesus as
the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John, 147-59).
14
See George Mlakuzhyil, The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel, vol. 117,
Analecta Biblica (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1987), 17-85, who surveys twenty-
four different criteria for determining the structure of John. Representative of this wide range of
criteria, he cites the following commentators who each see a major division at the end of ch 12:
J.H. Bernard, D. Mollat, A. Guilding, E. Lohmeyer, H. Sählin, M Boismard, B. Prete, C.H. Dodd,
B.F. Westcott, H. van den Bussche, I. de la Potterie, J. Caba, M. Gourgues, V. Pasquetto, G.
Segalla and R. Brown.
9
docavzw and dovca, focussing on relevant word studies in the Old Testament,
Septuagint, New Testament and Aramaic Targums. Chapter 4 will focus more on
the thematic development of the theology of glory through the Old Testament.
With these foundations in place, chapters 5 and 6 will investigate John’s portrait
of Jesus, and then of the disciples, as glory and temple.
10
Chapter 2: Authorship, Dating,

Provenance; Purpose, Audience
and Jewish Background
In this chapter we investigate questions of authorship, dating, provenance, purpose
and audience. The Jewish character of John’s gospel will be discussed, supporting
the view that the likely audience of the Fourth Gospel were Jews, both Christian
and non-Christian. The Jewish milieu of the second half of the first century will
also be described, with particular emphasis on Jewish attitudes to the destruction
of the temple in A.D. 70, and the resonances this has produced in the Fourth
Gospel.
2.1 Authorship
The position of this thesis is that the Fourth Gospel was written by the Apostle
John, son of Zebedee, the “beloved disciple” (21:24), as an eyewitness of the
historical events of Jesus (19:35, cf. 1:14; 1 Jn 1:1-3), within two decades of the
destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70. Many scholars today hold that John
authored the Fourth Gospel (some allowing for degrees of subsequent
redaction).15 As Keener comments, “The extant historical evidence for the Fourth
Gospel’s authorship is hardly certain, but the evidence is more than adequate to
question the dogmatism with which many scholars have opposed it.”16
15
Craig L. Blomberg, "To What Extent Is John Historically Reliable?" in Perspectives on John:
Method and Interpretation in the Fourth Gospel, National Association of the Baptist Professors of
Religion Special Studies Series 11 (ed. Robert B. Sloan and Mikeal C. Parsons; Lewiston, New
York: Mellen, 1993), 27-56; F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes,
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1983); D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John,
(Leicester, England: IVP, 1991); E. Earle. Ellis, "Background and Christology in John's Gospel",
in Perspectives on John: Method and Interpretation in the Fourth Gospel, National Associations
of the Baptist Professors of Religion Special Studies Series 11 (ed. Robert B. Sloan and Mikeal C.
Parsons; Lewiston, New York: Mellen, 1993), 1-25; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A
Commentary, 2 vols., vol. 1 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2003), 114-15; Bruce Milne,
The Message of John, ed. John R. W. Stott, BST (Leicester, England: IVP, 1993), 15-19; G.
Lacoste Munn, "An Introduction to the Gospel of John," SWJT 31, 1 (1988): 7-11; H. W. Watkins,
The Gospel according to John, ed. Charles John Ellicott, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1957); David Wenham, "A Historical View of John's Gospel," Themelios 23, 2 (1998): 5-21.
16
Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 81.
11
Various arguments are presented by those who hold that the Apostle John did not
write the gospel that bears his name. Against those who argue that the Gospel
cannot be from one of the Twelve because it differs too markedly from the
Synoptics, the question could rightly be asked, who but a remaining apostle might
have the status to diverge from the Synoptics? Second-century pseudepigraphic
works claim apostolic authorship precisely because such validation was necessary
for acceptance. The lack of an implicit internal claim to apostolic authorship does
nothing to weaken the case for Johannine authorship, and may even strengthen
it.17
Others argue that the Apostle John would not have referred to himself as the
disciple whom Jesus loved (13:23; 19:26; 20:2-10).18 Such a judgment at this
distance is unlikely. While it may not appear a natural self-identification, Morris
notes correctly that it is not a very natural way of describing someone else
either.19 The title appears congruent with a fairly obvious desire for anonymity on
the author’s part. It is not easy to think of a reason why an author other than John
would not have mentioned his name anywhere in the gospel. In a Gospel where
people are consistently distinguished (6:71; 11:16; 13:2, 26; 14:22; 20:24; 21:2),
we do not read of ‘John the Baptist’ as in the Synoptics, but simply of ‘John’. This
is most easily accounted for if John the Apostle were the author.
As Westcott argues, internal evidence points to a Jewish author, specifically a

Palestinian Jew who knew local geography and customs.20 That the gospel favours
17
Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 85. Keener goes on to make the point that, with
respect to the authorship of the Fourth Gospel “Implicit pseudonymity is a literary category for
which other examples are conspicuously lacking” (89).
18
Archibald M. Hunter, Introducing the New Testament, (London: SCM, 1945), 40.
19
Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, ed. Gordon D. Fee, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 8.
20
Examples include the use of stone vessels for purifying (2:6); the refusal of Jews to share
drinking vessels with Samaritans based on mutual enmity (4:9); the geographical conjunction of
Sychar, Joseph’s field, Jacob’s well and Mt Gerizim (4:4-6, 20); the manna Haggadah underlying
the ‘bread of life’ discourse (6:1-59); the debate over circumcising on the Sabbath, where Jesus
employs the rabbinic ‘lesser to the greater’ argument (7:22); the Pharisees’ contempt for ‘this
people who do not know the law’ (7:45-49); references to water and light at the Feast of
Tabernacles (7:37-39; 8:12); the refusal of the Jewish leaders to enter Pilate’s Praetorium for fear
of becoming unclean on ‘the day of preparation for the feast of Passover’ (18:28; 19:13-14); the
‘custom’ of releasing a prisoner at the Passover (18:39); and the burial customs of the Jews
according to which Jesus was interred (19:40). See Paul Barnett, "Indications of Earliness in the
Gospel of John," RTR 64, 2 (2005): 2-3.
12
Galilee over Judea suggests the author was Galilean rather than Judean in origin,
although he knew Jerusalem well. Further, the author claims to be an eyewitness,
and must have been one of the Twelve, given the scenes to which he was an
eyewitness. These scenes and the disciple’s role further narrow him down to the
three closest disciples. Since Peter is contrasted with the beloved disciple, and
James died early in the century (Acts 12:2), this leaves John as “the disciple
whom Jesus loved”.21 Westcott’s approach is still valuable, and though his
position requires nuancing, “no full-scale refutation of Westcott has ever
appeared.”22 Keener concludes, citing Westcott, “If John’s record is at all
compatible with that of the Synoptics, then the internal evidence suggests none
other than John son of Zebedee.”23
As far as external evidence goes, there is no good reason to ignore the ancient,
clear and explicit evidence of the church fathers. The first unambiguous quotation
from the Fourth Gospel that ascribes the work to John is from Theophilus of
Antioch c. A.D. 181 (Theophilus 2.22), but even before this Tatian24 (a student of
Justin), Claudius Apollinaris (bishop of Hierapolis),25 and Athenagoras26
unambiguously quote from it as an authoritative source. Irenaeus, the bishop of
Lyon, wrote his Against Heresies c. A.D. 175-185, and notes that John, “the
disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a
Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia” (3.1.2). Eusebius reports that
Irenaeus received this information from Polycarp, martyred in A.D. 156 aged
eighty-six, who was appointed the bishop of Smyrna by the apostles themselves. 27
It was Polycarp who, to Irenaeus, had “reported his converse with John and with
the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, … having
21
B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St John: The Authorised Version with Introduction and
Notes, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 [1881]), vi-xxi.
22
Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues and Commentary,
(Downers Grove: IVP, 2001), 27-28.
23
Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 91; Westcott, The Gospel according to St John:
The Authorised Version with Introduction and Notes, xxi-xxv.
24
Tatian freely quotes John in his Diatessaron, a single narrative compiled in about A.D. 150 from
New Testament gospels in Syria. In his apologetic Oratio ad Graecos he quotes Jn 1:5 (Ch xiii)
and Jn 1:3 (Ch xix).
25
Apollinaris, c. A.D. 170 in The Book Concerning Passover quotes Jn 19:37 in describing Jesus’
death: there “poured forth from His side the two purifying elements,(4) water and blood, word and
spirit.”
26
Athenagoras, in his Plea for the Christians, written from Athens in 177 to Emperor Marcus
Aurelius, discusses the logos at length, arguing for a Trinitarian understanding (ch 10).
27
Eusebius, Church History III. xxxvi.
13
received them from eyewitnesses of the 'Word of life,' Polycarp related all things
in harmony with the Scriptures.”28
Clement of Alexandria, referring to John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, provides

support from another geographical setting, also in the second-century; “last of all
John, aware that the external facts had been made plain in the [Synoptic] gospels,
was urged by friends and inspired by the Spirit to compose a spiritual gospel.”29
That much of this evidence comes from Eusebius is telling, “since it was his
concern to discuss the doubtful cases.”30 He had access to many works now lost,
and “speaks without reserve of the Fourth Gospel as the unquestioned work of St
John.”31 Hill summarises the early external evidence: “The surprisingly wide and
authoritative use of the Fourth Gospel in particular, and of the Apocalypse and the
First Epistle secondarily, and their habitual attribution to a common apostolic
origin, point to a very early and seemingly instinctive recognition of authority
which befits some authoritative source.”32 Carson agrees: “Certainly from the end
of the second century on, there is virtual agreement in the church as to the
authority, canonicity and authorship of the Gospel of John.”33
After surveying all the evidence, Morris acknowledges, “Plainly the evidence is
not such as to enable us to say without the shadow of a doubt, ‘This is the
solution.’… Many recent scholars make telling criticisms of the view that John
the Apostle was the author. But when we turn to their own views we find little to
inspire.”34 Edwards agrees, “The alternative suggestions seemed far too
complicated for them to be possible in a real world where living men met and
talked.”35 On this basis, the thesis will hold a traditional position that the Fourth
Gospel was written by the Apostle John, son of Zebedee.
28
Eusebius, Church History V. xx. 6.
29
Eusebius, Church History VI. xiv. 7.
30
Carson, The Gospel according to John, 28.
31
Westcott, The Gospel according to St John: The Authorised Version with Introduction and
Notes, lix.
32
Charles E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church, (Oxford: Oxford University, 2004),
475.
33
34
Morris, The Gospel according to John, 24.
35
R. A. Edwards, The Gospel according to St. John, (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1954), ix.
14
2.2 Dating
As far as external evidence goes, by c. A.D. 180 Irenaeus can quote what seems to
be the orthodox position that there are four Gospels recognised as Holy Scripture
(Against Heresies 3.11.8). The discovery of P52, a fragment of John’s gospel
dated to the first half of the second century,36 in a location distant from the likely
origin of the Fourth Gospel, pushes the Gospel’s terminus ad quem at least a
quarter of a century before this to the turn of the first century. 37 In terms of how
far before this date the Gospel was written, there is solid tradition that it was
written under the reign of Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81-96), the last of the gospels
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1).38
This date is supported when we turn to internal evidence. Martyn,39 followed by

others,40 argues that both the concept and term a)posuna/gwgo$ (9:22; 12:42;
16:2) portrays a period after the Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90). While there has
been much critique and re-evaluation of Martyn’s argument, his basic observation
supports a later date. 41 Further, John has little interest in the Sadducees, who
contributed much to the religious life of Jerusalem and Judea before A.D. 70, but
had become of marginal importance after that date.42
36
R. Alan Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend, ed. D. Moody Smith,
Studies on Personalities of the New Testament (London: T & T Clark, 2000), 108.
37
“The consensus has come in recent years to regard A.D. 125 as the later limit, so that P52 must
have been copied very soon after the Gospel of John was itself written in the early 90s A.D.” See
Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, trans. E. F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1987), 84.
38
See also Eusebius, Church History VI. xiv. 7, III. xxiv. 7.
39
J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968).
40
Including C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John, (London: SPCK, 1970), 108.
41
For a discussion see Köstenberger, "The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Composition
of the Fourth Gospel," 208-225. Other scholars who agree with a date in the mid-nineties include
Tasker; [R. V. G. Tasker, John, ed. R. V. G. Tasker, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
(Leicester: IVP, 1983), 20]; Barrett, who cannot narrow the date down any more than A.D. 90-
140; (Barrett, The Gospel according to St John, 108); and Carson, who identifies a consensus (of
sorts) “Many scholars today hold that the Gospel of John was written toward the end of the first
century to strengthen a church, probably in Asia Minor, that was either in dialogue with the local
synagogue, or had just broken off such dialogue”; (Carson, The Gospel according to John, 37).
MacGregor agrees with the date, citing internal evidence that “both Gospel and First Epistle leave
the impression they are the work of an old man”; [G. H. C. MacGregor, John, ed. James Moffatt,
The Moffatt New Testament Commentary (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928), lxii-lxiii].
Keener states that John’s literary freedom makes his Sitz im Leben more transparent than the
Synoptics, and dates it in the mid-nineties, during the reign of Domitian, a date favoured by “most
scholars”; Other pages also (Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 140).
42
15
The lack of specific mention of the temple in the Fourth Gospel, compared with
the Synoptics, is solid evidence for Robinson that it was written pre-A.D. 70.
However an argument from silence can never be conclusive. Robinson himself
provides a clue as to why the Fourth Gospel does not mention the fall of the
temple: “For all the capacity of this evangelist for overtones and double meaning
and irony, it is hard to find any reference which unquestionably reflects the events
of 70.”43 The very capacities Robinson identifies in John involve him making his
point with subtlety, not baldly. For Kerr, “John could very well be working with
the unexpressed, but universally known, presupposition that the temple had fallen,
in the interests of shrewdly presenting Jesus as the new Temple complex of
Judaism.”44 Trost also sees John’s subtlety with respect to the temple as evidence
of a post-A.D. 70 date of composition.
The Fourth Gospel shows sensitivity in handling the issue of the destruction
of the temple. The absence of mention of the demise of the second temple
shows triumphalism was not part of the Fourth Gospel…(It) was a wound
that had not fully scarred when the Fourth Gospel was composed and its
handling of the issue of the temple highlights this state of affairs.45
More recently, Barnett has argued for a pre-A.D. 70 date of composition. He

observes that the identification of Jesus as “the prophet” (1:21; 6:14; 7:40)
resonates with the appearance of various “prophets” in the decades immediately
after Jesus. 46 However, John’s purpose in this has more to do with fulfilment of
Old Testament typology than with a comparison with contemporary competitors.
Barnett’s observation of John’s unique interest in the extensive and long-term
involvement of the Roman authorities with the temple hierarchy has less to do
with a pre-A.D. 66 date than it does with John’s agenda of showing Jesus’
supersession of a corrupt temple (2:12-25).47 Barnett argues “all this author had
was his memory” and that “while memory can recapture things as they were, with
the passage of time it is increasingly difficult to do so,” and therefore he must
have written his account early. 48 This seems simplistic, ignores the reliable and
accurate transmission of written and spoken accounts of Jesus, and hardly adds
43
John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, (London: SCM, 1976), 276.
44
Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John, 24.
45
Travis Darren Trost, "The Fourth Gospel as Reaction to Militant Jewish Expectation of
Kingship, Reflected in Certain Dead Sea Scrolls", (DTh, University of South Africa, 2006), 241.
46
Barnett, "Indications of Earliness in the Gospel of John," 8-9.
47
Barnett, "Indications of Earliness in the Gospel of John," 9-10.
48
Barnett, "Indications of Earliness in the Gospel of John," 10.
16
weight to his case. His observation that Sadducees disappear from the theological
horizon after A.D. 70,49 combined with John’s relative lack of interest in the
Sadducees, seems to work against his own conclusion, and suggests a post-A.D.
70 date of composition. Further Barnett’s observation that John’s Jesus restricts
his ministry within the land of Israel says more about John’s Jewish audience than
about the “primitive feel” of his gospel. 50 No matter how early the gospel was
written it would still be well after Pentecost, the stoning of Stephen, Philip’s
Samaritan mission, Peter’s vision and the Jerusalem elders’ recognition of the
Gentile mission (Acts 11:18 – c. A.D. 43/44). Overall, his article does little to
undermine the widespread view of a post-A.D. 70 date of composition.
Daniel Wallace has argued that the use of the present tense in Jn 5:2 implies that
the pool and sheep gate were still standing when the Fourth Gospel was written,
and thus that the Fourth Gospel was written prior to AD 70.51 Such a weight of
responsibility in proving date of composition seems difficult to bear from the
tense form of a single verb in such a disputed verse (given a C rating by UBS4).
Against Wallace, John frequently uses the present tense to refer to past events (the
so-called ‘historic present’).52 With specific reference to the verb ‘to be’,
Köstenburger lists Jn 10:8 and 19:40 as other examples of the use of the present
tense form which may be referring to past events.53 Even if Wallace’s
grammatical arguments hold, it is quite possible that the pool of Bethesda
survived the sacking of Jerusalem, at least in some form, thus John could quite
correctly use e)/stin in describing it while writing post AD 70.54
This thesis will accept, on the basis of external and internal evidence, a date of
composition in the nineties.
2.3 Provenance
The traditional view is that the Fourth Gospel was written from Ephesus. Eusebius
49
50
51
Daniel B. Wallace, "John 5:2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel," Bib 71 (1990), 177-205.
52
53
Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 178.
54
E. Jerry Vardaman, "The Pool of Bethesda," BT 14, 1 (1963), 27-29.
17
(Ecclesiastical History III. i. 1) says that the Apostle John was responsible for the
region of Asia Minor when the apostles were dispersed from Jerusalem at the
outbreak of the Jewish War (A.D. 66-70). Irenaeus agrees, “John, the disciple of
the Lord … published the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia” (Against
Heresies 3.1.1). Although not proof, it is an early indication, and its weight is
increased by the fact that Irenaeus had personal contact with Polycarp, who knew
John personally. Also in favour of Ephesus, as Morris comments, is that “no other
name seems to be urged in antiquity.”55 Another argument in favour of Ephesus, if
as is likely the Apostle John also wrote Revelation, is that this work clearly
belongs to the area of Ephesus (1:1, 4, 9, 2:1-7). Morris,56 Carson57 and Brown58
all lean towards Ephesus. This thesis, while not being dependent on an Ephesian
provenance, will hold tentatively to it.59
While space does not permit a detailed discussion of Martyn’s and Brown’s
theory of authorship by a Johannine Community, recent scholarship has seen a
shift in thinking away from a slavish dependence on it. Robert Kysar, having
recently chronicled “the rise and fall” of the Martyn/ Brown-style Johannine
community hypothesis, says that too much is open to speculation, and expresses
personal regret for ever having endorsed it.60 “The fact that the reconstruction of
the Johannine community is based on historical and interpretive methods now
under siege and being dismantled piece by piece gives it a dim future, if not a total
demise.”61
Even if one abandons the theory of a community origin, one can still hold that the
Apostle John wrote with a certain group (or groups), in mind and that some
specifics can be determined about its situation. Although not foundational, this
55
Morris, The Gospel according to John, , 54.
56
57
58
Brown, The Gospel according to John, civ.
59
Social situations regarding relations between Christians and rabbis as they are reflected in John
would be widespread throughout Syro-Palestine and Roman Asia – Ephesus being similar to many
other Roman cities of the eastern Mediterranean. See Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary,
142-49.
60
R. Kysar, "The Expulsion from the Synagogue: A Tale of a Theory", in Voyages with John:
Charting the Fourth Gospel, (ed. R. Kysar; Waco, Texas: Baylor University, 2002), 237-46.
61
R. Kysar, "The Whence and Whither of the Johannine Community", in Life in Abundance:
Studies of John's Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown, (ed. J. R. Donahue; Collegeville, Minn.:
Liturgical, 2005), 67.
18
thesis will assume that John wrote all of his gospel with one or more specific
congregations in mind around Ephesus, while probably (following the epistle
model) expecting it to be copied and passed on, and eventually to be read
widely.62
With respect to hypothetical and non-verifiable theories of various sources and

levels of redaction, once again, space precludes any detailed discussion.63 This
thesis will assume that John produced essentially the gospel we have today for his
audience, including the prologue and chapter 21.64 Whatever position one holds
on sources or levels of redaction, the recent approach of literary criticism to focus
on plot and structure of the final product as we have it is a helpful one. “The
completed Fourth Gospel functioned for its first audience and most subsequent
audiences as a literary whole, and a piecemeal approach to it violates the text.”65
2.4 Purpose and Audience

The purpose of John’s gospel is a critical issue in Johannine research. 66 Hwang
“briefly” lists seven of the prominent proposals for John’s purpose. He concludes
that the multi-layered nature of the Gospel means that many of these proposals of
purpose have their own legitimacy.67
Most scholars agree that the Gospel explicitly states its own purpose or aim at
20:30-31 – to convince readers to believe, or to strengthen their existing belief. 68
Such didactic and evangelistic aims were common in ancient biographies,
62
Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues and Commentary, 47.
63
See Kare Sigvald Fuglseth, Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective: A Sociological, Historical,
and Comparative Analysis of Temple, and Social Relationships in the Gospel of John, Philo and
Qumran, ed. M.M. Mitchell, NovTSup 119 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 71.
64
Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1219-22.
65
Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, xxvi.
66
For a fuller treatment of the history of the interpretation of Johannine purpose along with
extensive bibliographies, see R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. Francis J.
Moloney (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 122-38, D. A. Carson, "The Purpose of the Fourth
Gospel: John 20:30-31 Reconsidered," JBL 108 (1987): 639-51; and Tasker, John, 24-38.
67
Won Ha Hwang, "The Presence of the Risen Jesus in and among His Followers with Special
Reference to the First Farewell Discourse in John 13:31-14:31", (Ph.D., University of Pretoria,
2006), 35-42. His list is only a paragraph long, but his extensive footnotes stretch to seven pages!
68
Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1057; Mlakuzhyil, The Christocentric Literary Structure
of the Fourth Gospel, 167; Carson, "The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:30-31
Reconsidered," 665; Morris, The Gospel according to John, 754-56; Blomberg, The Historical
Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues and Commentary, 271.
19
especially those originating in philosophical schools, and those that had certain
rhetorical aims to be achieved through the art of persuasion.69 The concluding
character of 20:30-31 is supported by the presence there of many of the same
Johannine terms already found in the introduction (cf 1:1-2:11).70
However, John’s aim that people might believe that Jesus is the Christ is not
as clear-cut as it first appears. The textual variants pisteu/shte ‘come to
believe’ (aorist subjunctive – indicating a missionary purpose) and
pisteu/hte “may continue to believe” (present subjunctive – indicating a
wish to build up existing faith) both have good attestation in the
manuscripts, and scholars take both sides.71 Carson shortcuts the debate by
showing that both expressions are used for both initial faith and continuing
in faith so that nothing can be solved by an appeal to one textual variant or
the other.72 Kysar agrees that it is not clear whether John used the tenses of
the subjunctive mood carefully and deliberately. 73
Carson is correct in his view that John’s gospel, rather than being
evangelistic in a broad sense, specifically aims to evangelise Jews and
Jewish proselytes.74 He argues, firstly, that the first purpose clause of 20:31
must be rendered “that you may believe that the Christ, the Son of God, is
Jesus”. This does not answer questions such as “Who is Jesus?” or “What
69
R. A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1991), 237.
70
For example zwh/ (1:4; 20:31), pisteu/w (1:7, 12, 50; 20:31), to\ o&noma au)tou= (1:12; 20:31),
Xri/sto$ (1:17, 20, 25, 41; 20:31), o( ui(o$\ tou= qeou= (1:34, 49; 20:31), shmei=a (2:11; 20:30), and
maqhth/$ (1:35, 37; 2:2, 11; 20:30). For this section as the introduction, see Mlakuzhyil, The
Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel, 143-51. Hwang highlights the connections
between 20:30-31 and the preceding narrative, Jesus’ appearance to Thomas and his subsequent
belief (20:24-29) (Hwang, "The Presence of the Risen Jesus in and among His Followers with
Special Reference to the First Farewell Discourse in John 13:31-14:31", 44-54).
71
For a good summary of the current state of play see Silva, "Approaching the Fourth Gospel," 20-
22.
72
Carson, "The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:30-31 Reconsidered," 640-41. For example
Jn 11:15 has the aorist subjunctive pisteu/shte with the sense of having faith corroborated; 1:7
has the aorist subjunctive pisteu/swsin signifying a coming to faith (cf. also 4:48). The present
subjunctive pisteu/hte occurs in 6:29 referring to the entire process of coming to faith and
continuing to believe.
73
R. Kysar, "The Gospel of John", in Anchor Bible Dictionary, (ed. David Noel Freedman; New
York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:917.
74
Carson, "The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:30-31 Reconsidered," 102-12. See also
John A. T. Robinson, "The Destination and Purpose of John's Gospel," NTS 6 (1959-60) 117-31;
and David D. C. Braine, "The Inner Jewishness of John's Gospel as a Clue to the Inner Jewishness
of Jesus," SNTSMS 13 (1989), 105-11.
20
does the category of Messiah mean?”. Instead it answers the questions a

Jewish inquirer with some sort of Messianic expectation would ask: “Who is
the Messiah?”, or “Who is the Son of God?” Secondly, while the translation
of Semitic words into Greek suggests a Gentile audience (e.g. 1:38, 41;
4:25; 19:13, 17), it reflects an audience’s linguistic competency, rather than
its race and religion. Thirdly, while explicit Old Testament references such
as snake in the desert (3:14) and manna from heaven (6:31-59) inform the
debate about the target audience, it is the implicit allusions that carry more
weight. There would be no need to explain to Jews such allusions as how
Jesus’ person and work are tied to elements in the Jewish feasts (7:1-52;
10:22-42), or the way Jesus replaces “holy space” (e.g. 2:12-25; 4:21-24).
No explanation is offered for the Hebraic/Aramaic titles of “the Son of
Man” (1:51), “the Prophet” (1:21, 25; 6:14), “the devil” (13:2) or “Satan”
(13:27). The story of Jacob’s ladder is presupposed (1:51) and the opening
words e)n a)rxh/ conjure up memories of the opening words of Genesis 1.75
John’s purpose, however, is not solely evangelistic. He has not written a book “to
be discarded the minute we have acquainted ourselves with its contents. The
author … viewed his material as a source for continued instruction, inspiration,
and renewal.”76 Jewish Christians were “almost certainly at the centre of the
audience” for whom John’s gospel was written.77 To find evidence for this ethnic
target audience one must move beyond 20:30-31 to sections such as the last
discourse and chapter 21, and investigate issues of vocabulary and culture, as well
as following broader structural and thematic progressions. 78 Van der Watt
concludes that there is ample evidence in the Gospel that it invites people to
believe, but equally convincing evidence that the Gospel wants to strengthen the
faith of believers. It is not a case of “either/ or”, but “both/ and.”79 An evangelistic
and edificatory purpose need not be mutually exclusive. An apologetic approach
75
Carson, The Gospel according to John, 90-92.
76
Silva, "Approaching the Fourth Gospel," 22.
77
Won Ha Hwang, and J.G. van der Watt, "The Identity of the Recipients of the Fourth Gospel in
the Light of the Purpose of the Gospel," HTS 63, 2 (2007): 688.
78
Hwang, "The Identity of the Recipients of the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Purpose of the
Gospel," 123.
79
J.G. van der Watt, "The Presence of Jesus through the Gospel of John," Neotest 36, 1-2 (2002),
93.
21
aimed at outlining the claims and heritage of Jesus, rooted in the Old Testament,
would serve both to convince Jews and to comfort believers. Kerr sees both
Christians and non-Christians as John’s intended audience. 80 “It seems very
plausible that a good deal of the content of this Gospel was constructed so as to be
making it suitable for use in the debate with opponents as well as possible
converts.”81
2.5 Jewish Background of the Fourth Gospel

The questions of audience and purpose become clearer when we consider
both the Jewish milieu of the time, as well as the Semitic origin of the
gospel itself.
2.5.1 The Jewishness of John’s gospel

The intrinsic Jewishness of John’s gospel provides strong support for the
contention of this thesis for John’s purpose and audience. If part of John’s purpose
was the conversion of Jews or Jewish proselytes, then we would expect him to use
categories and themes with which they were familiar – namely from the Old
Testament. His use of the Old Testament is more complex than that of the authors
of the Synoptics, who often use straight proof-texts. John’s whole structure and
themes are coloured with Old Testament hues – a richer and more detailed
portrait.82 “John’s gospel makes it very clear that it considers the Old Testament
to be a book about Jesus” (see 5:39, 46).83 Robinson regards the Fourth Gospel as
the most Hebraic book in the New Testament after Revelation.84 The influence of
the Old Testament has been “pervasive” in the composition of the Gospel.85
Davies asserts:
80
Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John, 25-33.
81
Hwang, "The Identity of the Recipients of the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Purpose of the
Gospel," 692. See also Ben Witherington III, John's Wisdom, (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster
John Knox, 1995), 30.
82
C.K. Barrett, "The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel," JTS 48, 3 (1947): 155-68; Silva,
"Approaching the Fourth Gospel," 27; Warren Carter, John: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist,
(Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2006), 131-40.
83
James Palmer, "Exodus and the Biblical Theology of the Tabernacle", in Heaven on Earth: The
Temple in Biblical Theology, (ed. T. Desmond Alexander, and Simon Gathercole; Carlisle,
Cumbria: Paternoster, 2004), 19.
84
John A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 82.
85
22
There can be no doubt, in the light of studies since Dodd, that by far the
dominant element in the tradition John inherited was the Judaism of his
people. This formed the ultimate background on which he drew. John did
not encounter Jesus and his movement with a clean slate but with a mind
enriched by the wealth of the Jewish religious tradition. 86
Evidence for this influence is found in John’s quotations of, and allusions to, the
Hebrew Old Testament (plus its translations and commentaries), the titles and
descriptions used of Jesus that John chose to record, structural markers such as
feasts and Jesus’ journeys to Jerusalem, as well as the presence of Semitisms in
the Greek language of the Gospel. “As the locus of the divine Word he mimics the
Torah, the locus of wisdom’s dwelling in Israel (John 1:14; Sir 24:8, 22). His
resurrected body is the new temple, the place where God dwells (2:21). His life of
public proclamation replicates the sacred liturgical cycle, and his death is in
various senses a New Passover.”87 In particular, this thesis is concerned with how
John uses the Old Testament/ inter-testamental theme of shekinah glory as a
means of illustrating the identity and mission of Jesus to his twin audience of
Christians and Jewish rejectors of Jesus.
2.5.1.1 John’s Use of the Old Testament

John views the Old Testament as a whole, a consistent witness to its fulfilment:
Christ. “For him the Old Testament was itself a comprehensive unity, not a mere
quarry from which isolated fragments of useful material might be hewn.”88 Barrett
makes many helpful observations about the unique way John uses the Old
Testament, yet reaches the wrong conclusion.89 Noting that John treats the Old
Testament as a unified whole testifying about Jesus rather than a source of proof-
texts, he concludes that John’s purpose was to present the story of Jesus “in new
terms to a new audience, which understood the language of Hellenistic mysticism
rather than the esoteric speech of Jewish Messianism.”90 This is to mistake a
86
Davies, "Reflections on Aspects of the Jewish Background of the Gospel of John", 45-46. This
is a consensus that has been growing in recent decades. See J.H. Charlesworth, "The Dead Sea
Scrolls and the Gospel according to John", in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honour of D.
Moody Smith, (ed. R. Alan Culpepper, and C. Clifton Black; Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster
John Knox, 1996), 65-97; Wayne A. Meeks, "Am I a Jew?: Johannine Christianity and Judaism",
in Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, (ed.
Jacob Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 1:163; Philip S. Kaufman, The Beloved Disciple: Witness
against Anti-Semitism, (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical, 1991), 27-28; Mark W. G. Stibbe,
John's Gospel, New Testament Readings (London: Routledge, 1994), 62.
87
Harold Attridge, The Gospel of John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Unpublished), [cited 10 Oct,
2007]. Online: http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/9th/papers/AttridgeAbstract.html.
23
different approach from the Synoptics as reflecting less interest in the Old
Testament’s relevance to his audience. More likely, however, is that his nuanced
and rich, thematic approach to Old Testament themes and fulfilment reflects an
audience (probably both Christian and Jewish) deeply interested in and conversant
with these ideas, and more able to deal in John’s complexities than an audience
more conversant with Hellenistic mysticism.
John’s direct quotations from the Old Testament are less frequent than the other
gospels, and he rarely uses the prophetic “proof-texts” by which the Synoptic
evangelists often sought to show that Jesus was the Messiah whose coming was
prophesied in the Old Testament. The comparative rarity of “proof-texts”,
however, should not be used to draw the conclusion that John had less interest in,
and a smaller knowledge of, the Old Testament than the other evangelists. Closer
examination shows that “the Old Testament themes, often crudely set forth in the
earlier gospels, have thoroughly permeated John’s thought, and appear, often
without reference to particular passages of the Old Testament, again and again.”91
Rather than undervaluing the Old Testament, its themes, images and teaching
thoroughly infuse the gospel, colouring John’s whole portrait with deep and rich
hues.92
John is less interested in Jesus’ fulfilment of individual passages of the Old

Testament than he is in Jesus’ “fulfilment” or “accomplishment/ completion”
(19:28) of “scripture” in general. “The witness of scripture for Jesus seems to be,
for John, independent from this or that particular passage.”93 Barrett adds that
88
Barrett, "The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel," 168.
89
Barrett, "The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel," 168-69.
90
91
Barrett, The Gospel according to St John, 24.
92
Comparing how Mark and John use Old Testament scripture in parallel passages can show this.
For example, in Mk 7:6-7 Jesus quotes Isa 29:13 in condemning the Pharisees for the hypocrisy of
their outward piety but lack of inner moral virtue. John does not make this quotation, but the theme
of the prophecy saturates the Gospel. “Everywhere we meet men on whose lips the praises of God
are heard, but who by their actions indicated that at heart they are aliens from him” (Barrett, "The
Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel," 159). For example, Jesus’ meeting with Nicodemus
commences with the ruler’s pious greeting (3:2), yet his shameful ignorance is soon exposed
(3:10). Other examples where people’s hypocrisy is highlighted include 5:31-47; 7:19-24; 8:39-44;
13:12-17 (the disciples!); and 16:28.
93
Johannes Beutler, "The Use of 'Scripture' in the Gospel of John", in Exploring the Gospel of
John: In Honour of D. Moody Smith, (ed. R. Alan Culpepper, and C. Clifton Black; Louisville,
Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 152.
24
John uses the Old Testament “in a novel manner, collecting its sense rather than
quoting.”94 It seems probable that such an understanding of the Old Testament
Scriptures by John reflects the controversy between church and synagogue around
the end of the first century, when the debate concerning Christ had become more
nuanced than simple proof-texting, but rather whether the whole Scripture found
its ultimate meaning either in a Christian or a Jewish perspective.95
2.5.1.2 The Influence of Qumran on John?

In the first decades after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, close parallels in
language, themes and outlook between them and John’s gospel led to the widely
held view of influence between the Scrolls and John (whether this be regarded as
indirect96 or direct97). There has been a broad consensus that:
The parallels between the Johannine literature ... and those texts from
Qumran which most likely express the community’s own theology are
probably the most impressive parallels between the New Testament and
Qumran, and are so impressive as to require an historical connection closer
than could be provided merely by the common Jewish milieu of late Second
Temple Judaism. 98
The similarities, while attention-grabbing, have proved complex to analyse and

explain.99 More recently, however, Attridge has reported that the initial
enthusiasm about the connections between John and the Scrolls has been met with
scepticism, and eventually a more cautious, balanced approach has prevailed.
Although parallels were recognised, “direct dependence of the gospel on the
94
95
R. E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, (New York and Ramsey, New Jersey:
Paulist, 1979), 67.
96
R.E. Brown, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament", in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls,
(ed. J.H. Charlesworth; New York: Crossroad, 1990), 7-8.
97
J.H. Charlesworth, "A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3.13-4.26 and the 'Dualism'
Contained in the Gospel of John", in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls, (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; New
York: Crossroad, 1990), 76-106.
98
Richard Bauckham, "Qumran and the Fourth Gospel: Is There Any Connection?" in The
Scrolls and the Scriptures, (ed. S.E Porter, and C.A. Evans; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1997) 267.
99
Pilgaard describes the difficulty well: “It is impossible to give an unambiguous explanation of
the similarities between a number of the Qumran writings and John’s gospel. The possibility of a
direct connection continues to exist, but convincing evidence… is still lacking. This uncertainty
stems partly from our inability to know for sure to what degree the world of ideas that we meet in
the Qumran writings, and primarily in their dualism, covers a wider circle than the Qumran
community itself. See Aage Pilgaard, "The Qumran Scrolls and John's Gospel", in New Readings
in John: Literary and Theological Perspectives. Essays from the Scandinavian Conference on the
Fourth Gospel Arhus 1997, (ed. Johannes Nissen and Sigfred Pedersen; London: T&T Clark
International, 1999), 127.
25
scrolls has generally been doubted.”100 For example, in response to

Charlesworth’s hypothesis of a direct link between John and 1QS,101 Frey asserts
that the term “eternal life” has its most important background in Daniel 12:3, as
well as in the Books of Enoch, the Psalms of Solomon, Joseph and Asenath, the
Second and Fourth Book of Maccabees, in Early Christianity and in Rabbinic
texts. Thus “the parallel in 1QS 4:7 cannot be used as an argument for a peculiar
relation with the Johannine literature.”102 Richard Bauckham, too, is unimpressed
with the hypothesis of Qumran’s influence on John. Focussing on the most-oft
quoted parallels to do with the light-dark dualism, he argues that parallels between
the two works have not been assessed with sufficient methodological rigour.
When this is done “the use of the light/dark imagery in the Fourth Gospel, on the
one hand, and in the Qumran texts, on the other, exhibits far more impressive
dissimilarities than have been noticed in the scholarly enthusiasm for drawing
conclusions from the comparatively unimpressive similarities.” 103
Attridge identifies an important impact that study of the Scrolls has had on
Johannine scholarship. There is “a general shift in the current assumption of
Johannine scholars, that, despite its bitter polemic against ‘the Jews’, it is in many
ways the most Jewish of the gospels… The Scrolls do illuminate the Jewish
background to the gospel. They may provide generic examples of the kind of
traditions with which the text worked, even if they do not provide the specific
stuff of which it was constructed.”104 Bauckham agrees – “it was the publication
of Qumran texts which effected a shift in Johannine scholarship towards
recognising the thoroughly Jewish character of Johannine theology.”105 For Frey,
the positive outcome for Johannine studies was that the discovery of the Dead Sea
Scrolls provided the evidence of a Jewish dualism that was much closer (to John’s
100
Attridge, The Gospel of John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Unpublished), [cited 10 Oct, 2007].
Online: http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/9th/papers/AttridgeAbstract.html.
101
Charlesworth, "A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3.13-4.26 and the 'Dualism'
Contained in the Gospel of John", 76-106.
102
Jorg Frey, John and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Recent Perspectives on Johannine Dualism and its
Background (Unpublished), [cited Sept 23, 2007]. Online:
http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/9th/papers/FreyAbstract.html.
103
Bauckham, "Qumran and the Fourth Gospel: Is There Any Connection?" 269-71.
104
Attridge, The Gospel of John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Unpublished), [cited 10 Oct, 2007].
Online: http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/9th/papers/AttridgeAbstract.html.
105
Bauckham, "Qumran and the Fourth Gospel: Is There Any Connection?" 278-79.
26
dualism) than the Gnostic background identified by many interpreters, and the
Mandaean and Manichaean texts adduced in Bultmann’s commentary.106
In the end, for the purposes of this thesis, the point is moot. To assert a direct
dependence between the Fourth Gospel and the scrolls is not required. It is enough
simply to show that the Dead Sea Scrolls are representative of the Jewish milieu
of late second temple Judaism. It was this milieu that John drew on to describe
Jesus, as lo/go$ and dovca, and his use of the various temple-based feasts to show
how Jesus fulfils and replaces them. Frey’s point is both balanced and helpful.
The parallels between Qumran and John show that the documents of Qumran are
“part of a broader Jewish heritage which is adopted in Early Christianity and also
in John… The parallels … are in fact important, not as proofs of a direct literary
or personal relation but as references to the variegated Palestinian Jewish context
in which the Early Christian tradition is rooted.”107
2.5.2. The Jewish Milieu as Revealed by John’s Gospel

John’s gospel bears evidence of the conflicts of a later time than that of Jesus’
ministry – a time contemporary with John himself. This is the basic premise of
Martyn and those following him.108 According to Martyn, the Gospel is foremost
an account not of Jesus’ earthly ministry, but of the history of the “Johannine
community”. This community wrote the Gospel as an account of its struggle with
the Jewish synagogue that had expelled it due to its belief in Jesus. Textual
evidence for this position is found in the Fourth Gospel with its references to
synagogue expulsion a)posuna/gwgo$ (9:22; 12:42; 16:2). For Martyn, historical
evidence for this conflict was found in the birkat-ha-minim, the so-called “curse
of the Christians”, allegedly added to Jewish synagogue liturgy around A.D. 90.109
106
Frey, John and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Recent Perspectives on Johannine Dualism and its
107
Frey, John and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Recent Perspectives on Johannine Dualism and its
108
Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, .
109
Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 54-66.
27
Recently, however, Martyn’s thesis has suffered from evidence for a later date for
the birkat-ha-minim in the middle of the second century, putting it later than the
likely composition date for the Fourth Gospel, from doubts about widespread
acceptance for the liturgy, and from evidence that messianic Christians were not
the main target, rather it was directed at Jewish heretics.110 Motyer shows that the
problems with Martyn's program run much deeper. He challenges Martyn's
hypothesis on four additional counts: (1) the lack of form-critical support for his
allegorization; (2) his uncontrolled use of inference; (3) his highly selective use of
both the Fourth Gospel and background texts; and (4) his lack of interaction with
the issue of function.111
Despite these concerns, Martyn’s basic approach is constructive  it is possible to

determine something of the Sitz im Leben of the Gospel’s composition from the
Gospel itself, albeit with more caution. Such insights will, in turn, inform our
discussion of purpose. Motyer, criticising Martyn’s highly selective engagement
with the text of John and with contemporary Jewish sources, and his failure to
interact with issues surrounding the destruction of the temple, asserts that
Martyn’s “reconstruction has now lost its heart” (the connection with the birkat-
ha-minim).112 Instead, following Dunn, his approach is to identify “points of
sensitivity” within the Johannine text, “points at which an effort is evidently being
made to clarify some confusion or to counter opposing views.”113 Motyer
highlights the temple-clearing in John 2, and in particular Jesus’ words: “Destroy
this temple, and in three days I will rebuild it,” as an instance that “rang with
nuances and connotations fed by the readers’ situation. Read within a post-70
situation, there would be no difficulty for any reader, Jew or Christian, in
110
Philip S. Alexander, "The Parting of the Ways from the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism", in
Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135, (ed. James D. G. Dunn; Tübingen:
Mohr-Siebeck, 1992), 7-11. See also William Horbury, "The Benediction of the Minim and Early
Jewish-Christian Controversy," JTS 33 (1982): 19-61; and Steven T. Katz, "Issues in the
Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 CE: A Reconsideration," JBL 103 (1984): 43-76.
111
Stephen Motyer, Your Father the Devil: A New Approach to John and the Jews, (Carlisle:
Paternoster, 1997).
112
Motyer, Your Father the Devil: A New Approach to John and the Jews, 27.
113
Motyer, Your Father the Devil: A New Approach to John and the Jews, 33, citing James D. G.
Dunn, "Let John Be John: A Gospel for its Time", in The Gospel and the Gospels, (ed. Peter
Stuhlmacher; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 318.
28
comprehending the claim made for Jesus in 2:21f: his resurrection constitutes a
rebuilding of the destroyed temple.”114
The strong contrast between Jesus and the superseded Temple cult, particularly to
do with Moses, 115 appears to reflect conflicts of post-A.D. 70 times, and begins in
the prologue (1:17). The comparison involves both continuity and sharp
disjunction. John 1:16-18 highlights both sides of this comparison. It was out of
God’s fullness that the law was given to Moses, and the coming of Jesus is even
more of a gift, a gift in place of a gift (xa/rin a)nti\ xa/rito$).116 The first gift was
the Law given to Moses, which constituted an incomplete revelation of God; its
replacement is grace and truth (h( xa/ri$ kai\ h( a)lh/qeia). “There is no sense that
the former gift is devalued; on the contrary this Gospel will draw on some of the
key symbols and rituals of Judaism even as it claims that Jesus now brings these
symbols and rituals to fulfilment.”117 The second gift is truth because it is the
complete revelation of the type which only the monogenh\$ qeo\$ o( w*n ei)$ to\n
ko/lpon tou= patro/$ could provide. The phrase h( xa/ri$ kai\ h( a)lh/qeia (also at
1:14) finds its background in the self-revelatory description of God’s character to
Moses in Exod 34:6 as the one who abounds in love and faithfulness  tmaw dsj,
drawing further points of both similarity and distinction between Jesus and
Moses.118
Beyond the Prologue we find the continuity between Jesus and Moses
emphasised. Jesus is the one about whom Moses wrote (1:45; 5:46). Moses lifting
up the snake as the means of salvation was typological for Jesus’ salvific work
(3:14). The people’s refusal to accept Jesus is closely connected with their refusal
to obey Moses (5:45-46; 7:19). Jesus recognises the continuity between his action
of healing on the Sabbath and that of the Jews who broke the Sabbath to
circumcise by highlighting that it was the law of Moses they were keeping when
they did so (7:21-23).
114
Motyer, Your Father the Devil: A New Approach to John and the Jews, 38-39.
115
E.g. T. Francis Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel, (London: SCM, 1963).
116
Ruth B. Edwards, "Karin Anti Karitos (John 1:16): Grace and Law in the Johannine Prologue,"
JSNT 32 (1988): 3-15.
117
Mary L. Coloe, "The Structure of the Johannine Prologue and Genesis 1," ABR 45 (1997): 50.
118
So Barrett, The Gospel according to St John, 139.
29
With respect to the disjunction between Jesus and Moses, John 6 paints Jesus as
the one who supersedes Moses, while in chapter 9 the negative portrait of the Jews
who would put out of the synagogue those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ
includes their comment that they are disciples of Moses, and is coupled with their
confident assertion that God spoke to Moses. Such confidence does not extend to
Jesus however (8:28-29).
While Moses is prominent, Jesus reserved his harshest words for those who see
themselves as Abraham’s descendants (8:31-47). “The Jews” who do not love or
obey Jesus are children of the devil, rather than children of Abraham (8:44). The
parents of the healed blind man are afraid of “the Jews” who had “already” (h&dh)
decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put
out of the synagogue (9:22). John’s explanation itself, as well as the use of h&dh,
implies that this was a relevant issue for the time of John and his readers. In 12:42
many even among the leaders believed in him but, because of the Pharisees, they
would not confess their faith lest they be put out of the synagogue. John gives an
explanation for their behaviour: “for they loved praise from men more than praise
from God.” This also appears to be an object lesson for concerns of John’s time.
During the last discourse (16:1-2) Jesus gives another warning to the disciples
concerning being put out of the synagogue, and even worse, of Jews killing
Christians under the mistaken belief they were offering a service to God. He gives
a reason for the warning, which seems to reflect a later situation, “I have told you
this, so that when the time comes you will remember that I warned you” (16:4).
Rather than the questionable dating of the birkat-ha-minim, and its disputed
influence on the composition of John’s gospel, the destruction of the Jerusalem
temple in A.D. 70 is “a secure, indisputable historical datum”, and one that is
“clearly recent” from the vantage point of the composition of the Fourth
Gospel.119 Motyer argues that the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and its
resultant trauma for the Jewish people is a more satisfactory point of contact with
119
Köstenberger, "The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Composition of the Fourth
Gospel," 214.
30
the Fourth Gospel.120 This thesis will present the argument that John’s gospel is
written, in part, as a Christian response to the temple’s destruction. John writes, in
light of its destruction, to highlight Jesus as the one who fulfilled and replaced all
that the temple symbolised. His audience included Jewish Christians and Jews,
both in Judea and the Diaspora.
2.5.3 The Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple

Despite the multiplicity of directions, opinions and groups among Jews during the
Second Temple period, and despite alternative and partly competing temples, the
temple was “doubtless what we today would call a religious, cultural and social
centre for most Jews.”121 Although geographically remote, the Jews of the
Diaspora continued, writes Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 BC- A.D. 50), to “hold the
Holy City where stands the sacred temple of the most high God to be their mother
city” (Flacc. 7.46). Sanders asserts that it is “almost impossible to make too much
of the Temple in first-century Jewish Palestine.”122 It was the administrative and
political centre, and with its large treasures and storehouses was almost like a
national bank and storage depot. It served as a base for the study and teaching of
the Law, a repository of funds, and, in times of siege, as a citadel. 123 Excavations
of first century Palestinian synagogues have revealed a basic architectural
orientation toward the temple.124 Dunn claims that the temple “stood at the heart
of the various Judaisms of the second Temple period, as embodying the common
conviction of Jews of the time that God had chosen Israel and given them the land
centred on Mt Zion, the dwelling place on earth of the name and glory of the one
God.”125
The destruction of the temple called into question God’s omnipotence and Israel’s
election. “Atonement could not be won upon its broken altars. Israel’s millennial
120
121
Fuglseth, Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective: A Sociological, Historical, and Comparative
Analysis of Temple, and Social Relationships in the Gospel of John, Philo and Qumran, 118.
122
E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, (London: Penguin, 1993), 262.
123
Fuglseth, Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective: A Sociological, Historical, and Comparative
Analysis of Temple, and Social Relationships in the Gospel of John, Philo and Qumran, 118.
124
Robert Kirschner, "Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of 70," HTR 78, 1-2
(1985): 27.
125
James D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and Their
Significance for the Character of Christianity, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 2006), 47.
31
faith was shaken to its roots.”126 By Josephus’ account, a Roman soldier in the
Flavian army in the grip of “some supernatural impulse” threw a torch that ignited
the temple chambers, likewise igniting a Jewish religious crisis (J.W. 6.4.5).
Rome’s determination to destroy the temple reflected its view that it was a source
of political rebellion, and underlined the strategic place it occupied for the Jewish
people.127 Graetz colourfully describes the scene:
On the 9th Ab… the hour of the city’s doom was about to strike, and in
striking, leave an echo that would ring through the centuries to come… One
of the Romans, seizing a burning firebrand, flung his terrible missile through
the so-called golden window of the Temple. The fire blazed up… There
were congregated clusters of trembling people from all the country around,
who beheld in the ascending flames the sign that the glory of their nation
had departed forever. Many of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, unwilling to
outlive their beloved Temple, cast themselves headlong into the burning
mass… The Temple was burnt to the ground, and only a few smouldering
ruins were left, rising like gigantic ghosts from the ashes.128
Following the temple’s destruction, and despite Roman restrictions on Jews

entering the temple mount, both Jewish and Christian records testify to a regular
stream of Jewish pilgrims who came to Jerusalem to pray, especially during the
three festivals in which pilgrimage to the temple was obligatory, mourning its
destruction and expressing their hope for its rebuilding.129
2.5.4 Jewish Coping Strategies for the Destruction of the Temple

Köstenburger highlights the universal impact on Jews in both Palestine and the
Diaspora of the destruction of the temple, and introduces the term “coping
strategies” for how the Jews dealt with its loss. 130 It was not merely “a distant
event of remote relevance… but an earthquake that reverberated powerfully even
among those Jews and proselytes… dispersed throughout the Graeco-Roman
world.”131 It provoked “a profound and far-reaching crisis in [the Jews’] inner and
126
Kirschner, "Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of 70," 27-28.
127
128
Heinrich Hirsch Graetz, History of the Jews: From the Reign of Hyrcanus (135 BCE) to the
Completion of the Babylonian Talmud (500 CE), vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society
of America, 1893), 307-308.
129
Rivka Gonen, Contested Holiness: Jewish, Muslim and Christian Perspectives on the Temple
Mount in Jerusalem, (Jersey City, New Jersey: Ktav Publishing, 2003), 77.
130
Gospel," 218-22.
131
Gospel," 218.
32
spiritual existence.”132 Goodman agrees; “There is every reason to suppose that

the razing of the Temple horrified Diaspora Jews as much as their Judean
compatriots.” For Josephus, living in Rome, “Judaism without the Temple seems
to have been unthinkable” at least initially (J.W. 7.8.7 published in A.D. 79).133 It
seems likely that most Jews expected the temple to be rebuilt.134 The Bar-Kochba
revolt in A.D. 132 is evidence that the hope for a third temple was kept alive for
many decades.135
The Epistle of Barnabas observes from a Christian perspective the Jewish interest
in the construction of a third temple. Most probably written between the
destruction of second temple and the Bar-Kochba revolt,136 it describes the second
temple as a mistaken hope (Barn. 16:1), and the activity of those seeking to
rebuild it as serving the enemy who destroyed it (Barn 16:4). 1 Enoch is alluded
to in Barn 16:5 as Scriptural proof that the temple’s destruction was according to
God’s will and plan.137 The Epistle goes on to describe that, instead, Christians are
the new temple in which God dwells. 138 Such interest from Christianity in the era
just before the Bar-Kochba revolt reflects that the Jewish hope for a third temple
remained, and that it was a matter worth combatting with the written word.139
132
Cited in Motyer, Your Father the Devil: A New Approach to John and the Jews, 77.
133
Martin Goodman, "Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple", in Jews and
Christians, (ed. James D. G. Dunn; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992), 27.
134
However Hogeterp sees this portrait as idealised, distorted and simplistic, citing rival temples in
Elephantine and Leontopolis in Egypt, as well as divergence among Jewish movements as
evidence against such a general picture. See Albert L.A. Hogeterp, "Paul and God's Temple: A
Historical Interpretation of Cultic Imagery in the Corinthian Correspondence", (Ph.D., University
of Groningen, 2004), 28-31.
135
Trost, "The Fourth Gospel as Reaction to Militant Jewish Expectation of Kingship, Reflected in
Certain Dead Sea Scrolls", 212-42.
136
Barn. 16:3-4 refers both to the second temple as having been destroyed, and the hope that the
Romans would help with the construction of the third temple: “3 Furthermore he says again, ‘Lo,
they who destroyed this temple shall themselves build it.’ 4 That is happening now. For owing to
the war it was destroyed by the enemy; at present even the servants of the enemy will build it up
again.” In A.D. 135 Hadrian built a Roman temple on the site, so Barnabas must have been written
before this.
137
VanderKam says “There is no doubt in these two places in chap. 16 the author is alluding to,
though not citing from 1 Enoch.” See James C. VanderKam, "1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch
in Early Christian Literature", in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, CRINT
(ed. James C. VanderKam, and William Adler; Assen: Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, 1996), 40.
138
Barn 16:8 “When we received the remission of sins, and put our hope on the Name, we became
new, being created again from the beginning; wherefore God truly dwells in us, in the habitation
which we are.”
139
So posits Trost, "The Fourth Gospel as Reaction to Militant Jewish Expectation of Kingship,
Reflected in Certain Dead Sea Scrolls", 226.
33
The loss of the temple confronted the Jews with the need to develop a variety of
coping strategies. During the exile, it had been the presence of Yahweh himself
who served as a substitute for the loss of the temple. In Ezek 11:16 he contends,
“Although I sent them far away among the nations and scattered them among the
countries, yet for a little while I have been a sanctuary for them in the countries
where they have gone.” By the time Josephus had published Antiquities in A.D.
92, he “had come to realise that his previous opinion had been mistaken and
Judaism could continue to exist without the temple.”140
Neusner discerns four responses to the destruction of the temple: the Pharisees,
apocalyptic writers, the Dead Sea community, and the Christian response. 141
2.5.4.1 Pharisees
While we have considerable evidence of the theology and practice of their
successors, the Rabbis,142 there is less direct, contemporary Palestinian Jewish
testimony concerning Pharisees. 143 Josephus’ apologetic purpose in defending the
respectability and antiquity of Judaism led to his presentation of a unified Jewish
religious culture, downplaying divergences between the schools, which may have
been misleading.144 In the time of Jesus the Pharisees were highly influential
among the people as the most accurate interpreters of the laws (J.W. 2.162). This
extended to determining the liturgy of prayer and worship (Ant. 18.15) and the
performance of holy services (ta\ i(era/) in relation to purity laws and offerings
(Ant. 14.227) in the temple as well as in synagogues.145 The temple’s destruction
was thus of major concern to the Pharisees.
140
Gospel," 220.
141
Jacob Neusner, "Judaism in a Time of Crisis: Four Responses to the Destruction of the Second
Temple," Judaism 21 (1972): 313-27.
142
See John Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish
Interpretations of Scripture, (Cambridge: The University Press, 1969); Kirschner, "Apocalyptic
and Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of 70," 27-46; Martin McNamara, The New Testament
and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, vol. 27, Analecta Biblica (Rome: Pontifical Bible
Institute, 1966).
143
The works of Josephus, on which we largely depend, were written from a post-war perspective
from Rome for a Hellenistic audience.
144
Hogeterp, "Paul and God's Temple: A Historical Interpretation of Cultic Imagery in the
Corinthian Correspondence", 34.
145
So Hogeterp, "Paul and God's Temple: A Historical Interpretation of Cultic Imagery in the
Corinthian Correspondence", 49-50.
34
According to Davies, the Pharisees, in the years subsequent to the temple’s

destruction, were “vigorously adjusting to the new conditions prevailing among
Jewry.”146 They sought to fend off both disintegration within Judaism itself and
the attraction of outside forces, including paganism, Christianity and Gnosticism,
by emphasising the centrality of Torah, by underscoring the synagogue as a
symbol of Jewish unity replacing the temple and by minimising the differences
between rabbinic schools. Pharisees, and later the Rabbis, developed Torah
obedience from a coping strategy into a positive means of atonement in its own
right. Guttman sees this as a deliberate political move on the part of the Pharisees
against Sadduceen leadership.147 Dunn agrees, but sees the re-emphasis as
genuinely religiously motivated.148 The comments of Rabban Yohanan ben
Zakkai are reflective of the attitude that developed concerning the temple’s
destruction:
Once as Rabban ben Zakkai was coming out of Jerusalem, Rabbi Joshua
followed after him, and beheld the temple in ruins. Woe unto us, Rabbi
Joshua cried, that this place, the place where the iniquities of Israel were
atoned for, is laid waste. My son, Rabban Yohanan said to him, be not
grieved. We have another atonement as effective as this, and what is it? It is
acts of loving kindness, as it is said, “For I desire mercy and not sacrifice”
(Hos 6:6). 149
The process of escalating Torah obedience into a means of atonement culminated

in the codification of the Mishnah in the early third century. By the time of the
codification of the Talmuds of Palestine (ca. A.D. 400), the “mortal wounds of 70
had been cauterised by centuries of foreign rule.” Rather than expecting the
imminent in-breaking of God’s rule into the present, “worldly subjection was
acknowledged as, if not a permanent condition, an abiding fact.” 150 The resulting
practicalities were that “the mantle of the priesthood was now conferred upon the
rabbis; the holiness of the Temple was now transferred to the entire community of
Israel, whose life was sanctified by Torah study and deeds of loving kindness.”151
The possibility remained open that, since the destruction of the first temple and
146
Davies, "Reflections on Aspects of the Jewish Background of the Gospel of John", 43-64.
147
A Guttman, "The End of the Jewish Sacrificial Cult," HUCA 38 (1967): 147-48.
148
Dunn, The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for
the Character of Christianity, 303.
149
Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John, 54. Quoted from
The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan, trans. J. Goldin, vol. 10, Yale Judaica Series (New
Haven: Yale University, 1995).
150
Kirschner, "Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of 70," 45.
151
Kirschner, "Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of 70," 44.
35
the exile were attributable to the sins of the people, repentance and godly living
could prompt the rebuilding of the temple.
2.5.4.2 Jewish Apocalyptic

The second Jewish response to the temple’s destruction, not exclusive of the
Pharisees’ emphasis on Torah, was the emergence of merkabah mysticism and
apocalypticism. “With the elimination of the temple, the meeting place with God,
it is not surprising that individuals sought God through mysticism and visions of a
heavenly temple.”152
The Apocalyptic 4 Ezra, written around A.D. 100 in the wake of the destruction of
A.D. 70, contains seven visions said to have been received by Ezra thirteen years
after the destruction of the temple in 587 BC. In reality, it represents concerns
about the recent crisis projected back onto the prior temple destruction. The
book’s justification for the tragedy is that it is according to God’s will. God’s
transcendence is emphasised (4 Ezra 4:10-11). Israel’s wickedness was the cause
of her reproach before the Gentiles (4 Ezra 8:26), justice executed by God himself
(4 Ezra 3:27). The pseudepigraph in the name of Jeremiah’s secretary, Baruch,
likewise blamed the present situation on Israel’s sin (Bar 3:10-13).
The writer of 2 Baruch sets out his theodicy concerning the events of A.D. 70.153
Charlesworth thinks it possible that he sought to correct the pessimism of 4
Ezra.154 The tragedy was the work of angels rather than Babylonians/ Romans, 155
showing God’s control and removing their grounds for boasting, 156 and was
caused by God’s abandonment of his temple: “A voice was heard from the midst
of the temple after the wall had fallen, saying: enter, enemies, and come,
152
153
“Undoubtedly the most probable supposition of all is that it (2 Baruch) was composed not long
after the destruction of the holy city, when the question 'How could God permit such a disaster?'
was still a burning one.” See Emil Schurer, The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of
Jesus, ed. Nahum Glatzer (New York: Schocken, 1972), 91.
154
He bases his opinion on numerous and striking literary parallels between the two works. J.H.
Charlesworth, "Baruch, Book of 2 (Syriac)", in Anchor Bible Dictionary, (ed. David Noel
Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992).
155
“And after these things I heard that angel saying unto those angels who held the lamps,
‘Destroy, therefore, and overthrow its wall to its foundations, lest the enemy should boast and say,
"We have overthrown the wall of Zion, and we have burnt the place of the mighty God"’ (2 Bar
7:1).
156
Charlesworth, "Baruch, Book of 2 (Syriac)", 234.
36
adversaries, because he who guarded the house has left it” (2 Bar 8:1-2). He even
causes the ground to swallow up the temple vessels and furnishings to avoid their
capture (2 Bar 6:6-10). Something of God’s purposes is revealed: it is in order to
hasten the day of judgment that he has allowed the temple to be destroyed, 157
presumably as it vindicates his justice when he returns to punish the wicked and
exalt the righteous. This rationale is shared by 4 Baruch, where emphasis is laid
on the fact that God destroyed the city before the Chaldeans (that is the Romans)
did (1:6-8; 3:4; 4:1-3). The reason for this is given in 4:8-9: “Do not let the
outlaws boast and say, ‘We were strong enough to take the city of God by our
power’; but because of our sins it was delivered to you.”
The pseudepigraphic Ezra admonishes the reader to wait patiently for a new
age,158 a hope shared by the writer of Baruch. 159 In the meantime, the solution for
the writer of 4 Ezra to the loss of the temple is a renewed adherence to, and focus
on, Torah.160 For the writer of Baruch, returning to seek God with tenfold zeal will
speed the coming of the day (Bar 4:25-30). This aspect of the Apocalyptic
response is similar to that of the Pharisees.
Apocalyptic is literature of despair and hope in equal or greater measure.161 The

Jewish Apocalypticists, beaten down by successive waves of foreign oppressors,
157
2 Bar 20 1-2 “Therefore, behold! the days come, And the times shall hasten more than the
former, And the seasons shall speed on more than those that are past, And the years shall pass
more quickly than the present (years). 2 Therefore have I now taken away Zion, That I may the
more speedily visit the world in its season.”
158
“The righteous therefore can endure difficult circumstances while hoping for easier ones; but
those who have done wickedly have suffered the difficult circumstances and will not see the easier
ones" (4 Ezra 7:18).
159
“My children, endure with patience the wrath that has come upon you from God. Your enemy
has overtaken you, but you will soon see their destruction and will tread upon their necks… For
just as you purposed to go astray from God, return with tenfold zeal to seek him. For he who
brought these calamities upon you will bring you everlasting joy with your salvation.” Take
courage, O Jerusalem, for he who named you will comfort you.” (Bar 4:25-30).
160
“Therefore if so be that you will subdue your own understanding, and reform your hearts, you
shall be kept alive and after death you shall obtain mercy” (4 Ezra 14:34).
161
“The apocalyptic literature is … essentially a literature of the oppressed who saw no hope for
the nation simply in terms of politics or on the plane of human history. The battle they were
fighting was …in terms of spiritual powers in high places. And so they were compelled to look
beyond history to the dramatic and miraculous intervention of God who would set to rights the
injustices done to his people Israel. The very urgency of the situation emphasized the nearness of
the hour. … It is often said that apocalyptic is a literature of despair. But this at best is only half-
truth. With equal appropriateness it can be described as a literature of hope; God would vindicate
his people once and for all and bring to its consummation his purpose and plan for all the ages.”
37
had abandoned any hope that God would intrude into the present historical reality.
The enemy, though wicked, was too powerful, and hope for deliverance and
restoration of Jerusalem and the temple was quashed. Deliverance would only
come in the Age to Come. Such an outlook is reflected in the loss of hope for
many Jews after A.D. 70.162 John’s message for such Jews is that the Age to
Come has broken into the present in the coming of Jesus, the replacement and
fulfilment of the temple longed for by Ezekiel, and the means by which the Spirit,
the sign of the new age, would be given.
2.5.4.3 The Dead Sea Community

The history of the Qumran sect anticipated the situation faced by post-A.D. 70
Judaism in that the sect, following its voluntary withdrawal from the temple
around 150-140 BC, 163 had to develop coping mechanisms for the loss of the
temple. The most widely adopted view has been that the Qumran community was
a breakaway group from the larger Essene movement.164 This is based on
similarities between traits of the group from sectarian scrolls at Qumran such as
the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus Document, and those found in other
ancient accounts of the Essenes such as Josephus’ Jewish War (esp. 2.119-61) and
Jewish Antiquities (esp. 13.171-73; 18.18-22), and in two treatises by Philo of
Alexandria, Every Good Man is Free (75-91) and Hypothetica: Apology for the
Jews. The position of VanderKam and Flint after assessing the evidence for an
Essene identification, which this thesis will follow, is that “the Essene hypothesis
is consistent with the evidence and provides the most economical explanation. All
other identifications come face-to-face with too much counterevidence.”165
Following their withdrawal from temple attendance, the inhabitants of Qumran

concentrated largely on establishing that degree of holiness that was counted
necessary for winning God’s favour, and establishing themselves as the elect out
D.S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964),
16-18.
162
It provoked “a profound and far-reaching crisis in (the Jews’) inner and spiritual existence.”
163
Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, (New York: Penguin, 1997), 58.
164
For a comparative survey and a discussion of other theories see James C. VanderKam, The
Dead Sea Scrolls Today, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 71-98.
165
James VanderKam, and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, (New York: Harper
Collins, 2002), 238.
38
of the “official” Israel. They regarded themselves as a priestly community,

although they consisted of both priests and laymen. There is an exposition of Ezek
44:15 in the Damascus Document (CD 4.1 ff; also CD 5.5) in which the
expression “the sons of Zadok”, the family line from which the high priest was
drawn, is made to apply to the whole community. In other places a number of the
characteristics of the temple priests that distinguished them from laity are applied
to the whole community, such as a lack of physical blemishes (e.g. 1QSa 2:3ff).
“The temple priests had to be ‘perfect’ before the face of Yahweh: the members of
the Qumran community were commanded to be ‘perfect’ in the exercise of their
cultic functions.”166
Because of the community’s focus on priestly purity, it rejected the priests of its
time in Jerusalem, making serious accusations against them (CD 4:18 ff; 5:6ff;
6:12f; 1QpHab 9:4f; 11:12ff). The community had withdrawn from the cult (CD
20:22ff) even refusing to send offerings to the temple, since the altar had been
polluted (CD 11:19f.). The temple had been defiled by “the Wicked Priest”
(1QpHab 8.8-9; 12:9; CD 15:5-7; 4QFlor 1.3f), and the current priesthood was
illegitimate, not drawn from the sons of Zadok.167
While there is no evidence of sacrificial rites at Qumran, the community viewed

itself as a virtual temple, a “new temple”, 168 “in which, through purity regulations,
prayer and the study of God’s law, it was possible to achieve the spiritual
connection with the divine which had been vouchsafed to Israel in God’s central
sanctuary according to the Bible.”169
The community did not consider itself to have broken with the temple and its
cultus in all its forms: instead it transferred the cult’s whole complex of ideas to
the community, albeit with some “spiritualisation” of temple worship into the
form of the community’s observance of the law and its own liturgy and cultus. In
using the term “spiritualisation”, Gärtner points out:
166
Bertil Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1965), 7.
167
Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, (London: Penguin, 1987), 30-33.
168
Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament, 16-46.
169
Gospel," 219-20.
39
It must not be taken to mean that the ‘temple’ which was the community was
thought of any less realistically than the Jerusalem temple, or that the
community’s life of obedience to the law was considered to be any less real
than the blood sacrifices. The word is used to indicate the transference of the
concrete entity, the temple building, to a more ‘spiritual’ realm in the living
community, and of the sacrifices to deeds in the life lived according to the
law. 170
There had been a transfer of meaning, from the carrying out of blood sacrifice to
the living of a life according to the law, thus making a sacrifice of deeds and lips.
The life of the community was “a spiritualization of the cult and the temple
(which led) members to consider the community as the only place where expiation
and adoration were now possible.”171 For example, the Florilegium states that God
has commanded “that a sanctuary of people be built for Himself, that there they
may send up, like the smoke of incense, the works of the law (4QFlor 1.6-7).172
The focus of the Community was not simply on the present. For Dunn, the
Essenes “constituted themselves as the place where true worship of God could be
maintained only as a temporary measure, until the reconstitution and rededication
of the Temple proper.”173 The Community cherished the expectation that in the
end times they would be restored to lead sacrificial worship in the Jerusalem
temple (see especially 1QM, the War Scroll, and 11QT, the Temple Scroll). This
would take place in the eschaton, with the arrival of the messianic seed of
David. 174 Their response to this was to be the "remnant" that "shall put into
practice all the law" (4QFlor 1−3ii2), of which ritual purity was tantamount. They
saw themselves as this house that God would rebuild, to be “built up by the
process of exclusiveness, by the avoidance of contact with the unclean and the
170
Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament, 18-19.
171
Florentino García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic : Studies on the Aramaic Texts from
Qumran., (New York: E.J. Brill, 1992), 206.
172
Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 493.
173
174
In the Florilegium (4QFlor), an anthology of biblical passages with messianic expectations, the
community looks forward to the fulfilment of God’s promises to restore the fallen tent of David
(Amos 9:11) and to build him a house (2 Sam 7:11-14) through sending the awaited Messiah often
described as one who will defeat Israel’s foes and execute justice. See Millar Burrows, Burrows on
the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Omnibus of Two Famous Volumes: The Dead Sea Scrolls, More Light on
the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978) 401; and VanderKam, The Dead
Sea Scrolls Today, 118.
40
preservation of ritual purity within the community.”175 Brooke adds that this
temple of people, spoken of in Fragment 1 line 6 of 4QFlor “is not conceived
apart from the waited heavenly building; rather it is that building in
anticipation.”176
Qumran’s strategies for coping with the loss of the temple, isolated as the
community was, would not have had widespread influence. Their hope that God
would intrude into history and restore a purified temple was one shared with the
Jewish apocalypticist. Qumran’s replacement of temple sacrifice with the sacrifice
of obedience to Torah, however, anticipated the strategy developed following the
temple’s destruction by a much more influential group within second temple
Judaism, the Pharisees (2.5.4.1). It is to Jews influenced by just such a group that
John presents his portrait of Jesus as the locus of God’s presence, replacing the
temple.
2.5.4.4 The Christian Response

The question of the purpose of John’s gospel becomes clearer when we recognise
how a significant amount of it answers the particular historical situation
surrounding the destruction of the temple. For Köstenberger, the destruction of the
second temple is clearly recent from the vantage point of the composition of the
Fourth Gospel in the 80s or early 90s.
The Fourth Gospel’s emphasis on Jesus as the fulfilment of the symbolism
surrounding various Jewish festivals and institutions – including the temple
– can very plausibly be read against the backdrop of the then-recent
destruction of the second temple as one possible element occasioning its
composition … John would have formulated his Christology at least in part
in the context of the crisis of belief … the religious vacuum which resulted
from the temple’s destruction by pointing, not to the temporary, but a
permanent solution: Jesus’ replacement of the temple in the religious
experience of his people by himself.177
Davies asserts that for John to point to Jesus as the replacement of the fallen
temple and of the sacred holy places (like Bethel) at a time when the Jews had
been deprived of their land and temple so that their loss was constantly and
175
Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament, 32.
176
George J. Brooke, "Florilegium", in Anchor Bible Dictionary, (ed. David Noel Freedman; New
York: Doubleday, 1992), 2:217.
177
Gospel," 215.
41
painfully present, was “to touch a most raw nerve.”178 On a more positive note,
Kerr sees that Jesus is “John’s answer to the urgent question following the fall of
the temple in A.D. 70, ‘What now?’”179
John wrote his gospel, commending a permanent solution in this crisis of belief,
namely faith in Jesus the Messiah as the one who fulfilled the underlying
symbolism, not only of the temple, but also of the entire Jewish festival calendar
centred on the temple. “To most, the loss of the temple must have seemed to be a
permanent loss of the presence of God with his people.”180 John’s solution is that
not only was Jesus the visible glory-presence of God himself tabernacling among
them (1:14), but that through the paraclete, Jesus would continue to abide with his
people (14:2).181 Not only has Jesus replaced the Jews’ religious pillars, the
Christians themselves replace (or at least fulfil) “the Jews” as the children of
God.182 John’s message was that “the true people of God survived the ruin of the
Jews: the ordinances of a new society replaced in nobler shape the typical and
transitory worship of Israel.”183
This chapter has argued that the Apostle John has written a thoroughly Jewish
gospel for the dual purpose of evangelism and edification – that his readers might
know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (20:31). The destruction of the
temple was a crisis which caused Jews to re-evaluate on what basis God could be
worshipped. John writes with the shadow of that event looming large – Jesus
replaces the temple as the place where God dwells.
178
Davies, "Reflections on Aspects of the Jewish Background of the Gospel of John", 56.
179
180
Draper, "Temple, Tabernacle and Mystical Experience in John," 285.
181
See ch 5 of this thesis.
182
This is because Jesus came to his own (ta\ i&dia) (place/ land), and his own (oi( i&dioi) (people)
did not receive him (1:10-13). By claiming the designation ‘the children of God’ John was
identifying ‘we’, his community or all Christians, as “the heir to a role and standing which Israel
had abdicated by her failure to receive the Son of God. ” See R. Alan Culpepper, "The Pivot of
John's Prologue," NTS 27, 1 (1981): 31.
183
Westcott, The Gospel according to St John: The Authorised Version with Introduction and
Notes, xxxvii-viii.
42
Chapter 3: The Conceptual Background

of Johannine dovca Usage
3.1 Glory
The concept of glory plays a prominent role in the Fourth Gospel. 1 Both the verb
docavzw and the noun dovca occur significantly more frequently there than in the
Synoptics.2 Beyond a simply increased frequency of usage, however, it is the
unique way in which John uses these words which is the interest of this thesis.
Commentators have identified this emphasis and interpreted the Gospel’s literary
structure in terms of “glory”. Bultmann divides the Gospel according to “The
Revelation of do/ca before the World” (chs 2-12) and “The Revelation of do/ca
before the Community” (chs 13-20).3 Brown uses the same division under the
titles “The Book of Signs” and “The Book of Glory”.4 Silva concurs with the
division, using instead the titles “Jesus reveals his glory to the world” (2-12) and
“Jesus reveals his glory to the disciples” (13-20),5 while for Kysar, the same
divisions are entitled “Jesus reveals glory” and “Jesus receives glory”. 6
John sometimes uses dovca and docavzw in the sense of honour or praise (only at
5:41, 44; 7:18; 8:50; 9:24), but his distinctive emphasis is tied to the concept of
the glory of the LORD, hwhy dwbk from the Old Testament, and its post-Old
Testament development, shekinah. Most often John’s use can be shown to arise
from an understanding of dovca as the radiant self-revelatory divine presence
1
Caird, "The Glory of God in the Gospel of John: An Exercise in Biblical Semantics," 265-77;
Cook, "The 'Glory' Motif in the Johannine Corpus," 291-97; Kirchhevel, "The Children of God
and the Glory that John 1:14 Saw," 87-93; Kline, "Creation in the Image of the Glory-Spirit," 250-
72; Pamment, "The Meaning of Doxa in the Fourth Gospel," 12-16; Robertson, "Glory in the
Fourth Gospel," 121-31.
2
The noun dovca occurs eight times in Matthew, three times in Mark, thirteen times in Luke, but
nineteen times in John. The verb docavzw occurs four times in Matthew, once in Mark, nine times
in Luke, and twenty-three times in John. See Ferreira for a list of studies of the philological aspects
of docavzw and dovca in the Fourth Gospel: Johan Ferreira, Johannine Ecclesiology, JSNTSup 160
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 138.
3
Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vii-xi.
4
Brown, The Gospel according to John, xi-xii.
5
6
Kysar, John, the Maverick Gospel, xii.
43
beheld in the incarnation, “the presence of God with his people for salvation.”7 It
will be argued that for John, overwhelmingly, to glorify means to reveal glory.8
3.1.1 New Testament

The Greek word do/ca is derived from the verb doke/w that has a range of
meanings. The word doke/w can have a transitive meaning of “to think”, or
intransitive meanings of “to appear” or “to be of repute.”9 By comparison do/ca
has several meanings. In all non-biblical Greek it has a basic meaning that shows
its links to doke/w namely, “what one thinks” or “opinion”, or in a secondary sense
“reputation” – the opinions which others have. Within the New Testament the first
usage has disappeared, while the second is still found (e.g. Lk 14:10; 1 Cor 11:15;
1 Thess 2:6; Eph 3:13). It is “a word in transition as it moves from secular to
Biblical usage.”10 There is no extant instance of do/ca meaning “opinion” in either
the New Testament or the post-apostolic fathers. However, to the meaning of
“reputation” a new meaning is added: “radiance” or “glory” (e.g. Mt 4:8; 6:29; Lk
12:27; Rev 21:24). When applied to God, the word denotes “divine and heavenly
radiance”, and the “loftiness and majesty” of God in character and act. For
humanity to give glory to God means to “admit and acknowledge God’s divine
excellence (Rev 11:13). Humanity glorifies God by recognising his glory.”11
There is no non-biblical Greek analogy for this meaning of radiance or glory.12
The explanation for the introduction of this new meaning comes as we look at the
Old Testament word dwbk. Dodd has said about the New Testament use of do/ca:
“it does not bear this meaning anywhere except where Jewish influence is
probable.”13
dokew
3.1.2 Hebrew Old Testament
7
Ferreira, Johannine Ecclesiology, 151.
8
See Caird, "The Glory of God in the Gospel of John: An Exercise in Biblical Semantics," 265-77.
9
Gerhard Kittel, "dokew", in TDNT, (ed. Gerhard Kittel; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans,
1964), 2:232-33.
10
Cook, "The 'Glory' Motif in the Johannine Corpus," 291.
11
John Navone, "Glory in Pauline and Johannine Thought," Worship 42, 1 (1968): 50.
12
Kittel, "dokew", 237.
13
C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1953),
206.
44
The Hebrew word dwbk most commonly renders the concept of “glory”. It comes
from the root dbk that has the meaning “to weigh heavily.”14 It can mean rich
(Gen 13:2), honourable (Gen 34:19), distinguished (2 Sam 6:20), fierce (Judges
20:34), heavy (1 Sam 5:6; 1 Ki 12:10), grave or grievous (Gen 18:20), even dim
(Gen 48:10).15 In its verbal form dwbk can mean to glory (to bask in the renown of
a victory for example) (2 Ki 14:10), to boast (2 Chron 25:19), to honour (Exod
20:12), to harden (Exod 8:15), to prevail (Judges 1:35), or to burden (Neh 5:15).
Our interest, however, is glory as it relates to God – the glory of the LORD, hwhy
dwbk. Its meaning is connected with the character of a God who reveals himself:
hwhy dwbk is “the manifestation of God’s being, nature and presence, in a manner
accessible to human experience.”16 Kittel emphasises the effect on humanity of
this revelation:
If in relation to man dwbk denotes that which makes him impressive and
demands recognition, whether in terms of material possessions or striking
gravitas, in relation to God it implies that which makes God impressive to
man, the force of his self-manifestation... a manifestation which makes on
man a highly significant impression… The more seriously religious
reflection took the idea of Yahweh’s invisibility and transcendence, the more
this expression for the impressive element in God became an important
technical term in Old Testament theology. 17
The hwhy dwbk is frequently a visual phenomenon – a physical representation of

God himself. The physical phenomenon of a thunderstorm or a fire appears
frequently in Old Testament passages that describe hwhy dwbk (Psalms 29; 97:1-6;
Exod 24:15-18; Ezekiel 1). The hwhy dwbk does not come unveiled, but is always
surrounded by a cloud (Exod 16:10; 24:15 ff; 29:43). The dwbk in Exodus is a
radiant, fiery substance; fire proceeding from it consumes the waiting sacrifice.
After speaking with God, Moses’ face radiates a glow that dazzles the people
(Exod 40:34-38). The prologue to the Fourth Gospel draws on these connections
between glory and tabernacle, visible presence and light, when it describes the
14
15
Strong suggests that ‘liver’ is a good translation since it is “the heaviest of the viscera.” James
Strong, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, (Maclean, Virginia: MacDonald, 1961), 54.
16
Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 206.
17
Kittel, "dokew", 238-39.
45
Word as light that shines in the darkness (1:5), tabernacling among us, and we
have beheld his glory (1:14).
There is also a personal aspect to the self-revelation of the glory of the LORD. In
Exod 33:18-22 the glory of God is closely related to his goodness (bwf). Ferreira
concludes “God’s dwbk, therefore, is seen in his goodness; and in the book of
Exodus God’s goodness is his saving activity on behalf of his people… The hwhy
dwbk had thus become a technical term already in early biblical tradition to denote
the presence and revelation of God.”18 More will be said in Ch 4 of the Old
Testament’s contribution to our understanding of glory.
3.1.3 Septuagint
As in the New Testament, the LXX uses do/ca very differently from the prevailing
Greek world. The word do/ca is frequently used; 280 times translating 25 different
Hebrew words; 180 of these occurrences render the Hebrew dwbk.19 The use of
do/ca to convey the meaning of “reputation” is very rare, instead timh/ is often
used to convey this meaning.20 “In the LXX and therefore in the Bible generally
do/ca acquires its distinctive sense as a term for the divine nature or essence either
in its invisible or its perceptible form.”21 The Greek translator of Isaiah gives
do/ca a soteriological significance, adding do/ca to the text, thus making do/ca and
swthri/a complementary terms (Isa 12:2; 40:5; 44:23; 63:12-14). God’s
manifestation is seen to have a purpose: salvation (Isa 40:5; 44:23).22 Cook
concludes: “The LXX, then, becomes a significant background of influence on the
New Testament in the use of do/ca to refer to the visible brightness or splendour
issuing from God’s presence or to the honour and glory that come to him through
the manifestation of his character.”23
3.1.4 Targum teaching on Glory
18
19
20
21
22
Pamment, "The Meaning of Doxa in the Fourth Gospel," 12-16; L.H. Brockington, "The Greek
Translator of Isaiah and His Interest in Doxa," VT 1 (1951): 23-32.
23
46
Written versions of the Targums (Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament

Scriptures) were extant by the time of Gamaliel 1 in the middle of the first century
A.D.24 By the third century, two officially sanctioned Targums, translated in
Palestine and later revised in Babylon, were in use: the Targum of Onkelos on the
Pentateuch, and the Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets.25 Other Palestinian
Targums include Pseudo-Jonathan, Fragmentary, and Neofiti 1. There is wide
divergence of translation style among the Targums, ranging from paraphrastic to
literal, indicating that their text was never fixed, and probably changed
considerably over the centuries reflecting historical and literary specifics. Metzger
concludes that there are no reliable data as to authorship or editorship, nor under
what circumstances they were written, compiled or transmitted.26 However, we
can be reasonably confident that the Targums reflect the situation within the
synagogues of the first century A.D., the milieu out of which John’s gospel is
written. Chilton concludes that the Isaiah Targum “reflects developments from
just prior to the destruction of the temple.”27
In the Targums the dwbk of God is rendered by arqy, (honour, worth or

splendour). The use of arqy, however, goes beyond that of dwbk in that arqy is
often added to avoid an anthropomorphism for God in the original. 28 Kravitz sees
in the Targums evidence of tension “between the notion of God’s dwelling in a
particular place and the notion of divine incorporeality.”29 The very act of
translating can be seen as a significant factor in this growing awareness. While the
Rabbis had been content to read in Hebrew, for example, that Israel “saw the God
of Israel” (Exod 24:10a), the Targum translation reads “they saw the glory (arqy)
of the God of Israel.” Rabbi Judah ben Ilai (end of second century A.D.) explains
the problem for translators: “He who translates (this biblical text) quite literally is
a falsifier; (while) he who adds anything thereto is a blasphemer” (Tos. Meg.
24
This was a Targum on the book of Job that Gamaliel refused to recognise [Fr. Schuhlein,
"Targum", in Catholic Encyclopaedia, (ed. Charles G. Herbermann, Edward A. Pace, Condé B.
Pallen, Rev. Thomas J. Shahan, Rev. John J. Wynne; New York: Robert Appleton Company,
1912), 14:234-38].
25
Bruce M. Metzger, "Important Early Translations of the Bible," BibSac 150, 1 (1993): 40.
26
See Metzger, "Important Early Translations of the Bible," 41.
27
Bruce D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenance of the Isaiah Targum,
JSOTSS 23 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1983), 12.
28
29
Leonard Kravitz, "Shekinah as God's Spirit and Presence," Living Pulpit 5, 1 (1996): 22.
47
4.41), and explains that the verse must not be translated literally since no one can
be said to have seen God.30 To insert “angel” would be blasphemous as a creature
would then be substituted for the Creator. Inserting arqy was thus seen as the best
compromise that aided the understanding of the hearers.31
Further examples can be seen below:32

MT Targum Onkelos
Gen 17:22 And <yhla went up from Abraham And yyd arqy went up from
Abraham
Exod 3:1 And he came to the mountain of And he came to the mountain on
<yhla , to Horeb which the yyd arqy was revealed, to
Horeb
Exod 3:6 For he was afraid to look at <yhla For he was afraid to look upon the
manifestation of the yyd arqy
Exod 20:20 <yhla has come to you yyd arqy is revealed
3.1.5 Qumran’s Teaching on Glory

As might be expected from a community that had voluntarily withdrawn from a
temple and society they perceived as corrupted, the understanding of God’s dwbk
at Qumran is frequently tied to God’s future display of justice in restoring the
righteous. In The Community Rule (1QS), dwbk has a decidedly futuristic
orientation.33 Rule (a) 2.14-21 describes the position of members of the
community who will all receive glory according to their standing. In 1QS 4.7 one
of the rewards of those who walk in the ways of the spirit of truth is a crown of
glory. The book concludes with a contemplation of the final glorious habitation of
the righteous (1QS 10.3, 9, 12; 11.7, 20). A similar orientation is found in the
Damascus Document (CD) that asserts that those who have been unfaithful in the
community will be judged “at the time when God’s glory is made manifest to
Israel” (CD 20.26).34
30
See Michael Klein, "Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique," Bib 57 (1976): 515-37; and
Etan Levine, The Aramaic Version of the Bible, (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), 33-36 and 151-66.
31
As noted in McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 41.
32
Adapted from C.F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, (Oxford: Clarendon,
1922), 37.
33
Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 97-117.
34
48
The term dwbk occurs frequently in The Thanksgiving Scroll (1QH).35 It is

used as an attribute of God (1QH 5.20; 9.16; 10.11, 12; 16.9), and as a
reward for the righteous (1QH 7.24; 9.25 – where the reward of suffering
for the psalmist will be the crown of glory (cf. 1 Peter 5:4; 11.27; 13.11;
17:15). By contrast, God’s future display of dwbk means the judgment of the
wicked (1QH 2.24; 3.35; 15.20). The dwelling place of God and the angels
is described as a place of dwbk (1QH 12.30). The works of God in creation
are also described as glorious (1QH 1.10; 13.6 cf. Psalm 19.1).
In the War Scroll (1QM) the future orientation of dwbk is even more
obvious (1QM 1.9; 12.12; cf. 19.4). 36 The final battle between God and
Belial will usher in the era of dwbk. In 1QM 13.8 dwbk is a synonym for
God’s saving acts in history for his people. “In the War Scroll the term dwbk
has come to denote the future revelation of God’s majesty and power in the
battle over Belial.”37
The Thanksgiving Scroll connects the idea of salvation with dwbk (1QH
6.12, 14; 12.15, 22; 16:9). In 1QH 6.12 God has acted for his dwbk so that
“the law may come to fruition… that all nations may know your truth and
all peoples your glory.” This dwbk of God’s work in salvation is not as
obvious as that of creation. It is hidden – only the enlightened are able to see
it (1QH 3.4; 15:17; 18.22). Since the author of the 1QH has been illumined
to see the glory of God he describes himself as the revealer of that glory to
humanity (1QH 4.29). He exhorts those who have gained insight into God’s
truth to tell forth his dwbk which is displayed in his counsel and deeds for
their salvation (1QH 1.30; 6.12, 14; 10.27; 11.6,8).
Such an outlook of God’s glory, as only being available to the enlightened,

shares much in common with apocalyptic literature contemporary to
Qumran. Both must look beyond their impoverished and hopeless present
35
36
37
49
circumstances to a heavenly intrusion into history. In the Fourth Gospel,

John quenches such a thirst in his presentation of Jesus as the glory of God
(1:14), who, though no one has ever seen God, makes him known (1:18) to
those who receive him and believe in his name (1:12).
3.2 Shekinah
A Hebrew term closely-related to “glory” is the post-Old Testament word hnyk?,
(Aramaic atnyk?) meaning dwelling or presence. Although not appearing in the
Bible, the word hnyk? is taken from passages which speak of God dwelling (the
root /k?) often in the Tabernacle (/k?m – from the same root) or among the
people of Israel (Exod 25:8; 29:45-6; Num 5:3; 35:34; 1 Ki 6:13; Ezek 43:9). God
dwells in Jerusalem (Zech 8:3; Psalm 135:21; 1 Chron 23:25), on Mt Zion (Isa
8:18), on Mt Sinai (Exod 24:16), in the temple (Ezek 43:7), and even in the
burning bush (Deut 33:16). He promises that his dwelling place (/k?m) will be
among his people when he establishes his covenant of peace with them (Ezek
37:26-27). Frequently, this was a visible dwelling (/k?) of God, as cloud (/nu) or
fire, and was either among or in front of his people (Exod 13:21; 14:19; Num
9:17), before Moses (Exod 19:9), within or over the Tabernacle (Exod 33:9-10;
40:38), and later the temple (1 Ki 8:11 || 2 Chron 5:14). The cloud is described as
looking like fire (Num 9:15), or that fire was in the cloud at night (Exod 40:38).
There is also a close connection drawn between this cloud and the glory of the
LORD. In some places the glory of the LORD appeared in the cloud (Exod 16:10 -
/nub harn hwhy dwbk). In other places the glory of the LORD appears to be
synonymous with the cloud itself (Exod 40:34; Num 16:42; 1 Ki 8:11; Is 4:5;
Ezek 10:4). Exod 24:15-16 links cloud, glory and dwelling – the cloud covered
the mountain, and the glory of the LORD dwelt on Mt Sinai (hwhy Ádwbk /k?yw).
Exod 40:35 also links these three concepts – Moses could not enter because the
cloud was dwelling (/nuh wylu /k?) on the tent of meeting and the glory of the
LORD filled the Tabernacle (/k?mh Áta alm hwhy dwbk). Other references make
the connection between God and the cloud even more explicit. Exodus 13:21
describes the LORD going ahead of the people in a pillar of cloud. In Exod 24:16
50
the LORD himself calls to Moses out of the midst of the cloud (/nuh iwtm). In
Exod 34:5 the LORD came down in the cloud (/nub) – see also Num 11:25; 12:5.
In Lev 16:2 God says that he appears in the cloud over the atonement cover of the
Ark. In Ezekiel’s vision in ch 43, the return of the glory of the LORD to fill the
temple (43:2-5), presumably in the form of the cloud from 10:3-4, is synonymous
with God’s declaration that the temple was the place of his throne, and the place
where he would dwell (/k?a) among the Israelites forever (43:7, 9).
These close connections between glory, cloud, and dwell to describe the visible
presence of God dwelling among his people led to the post-Old Testament
development of hnyk? (Aramaic atnyk?). The word hnyk? or atnyk? was used
by Rabbis in place of using the name of God, along with the Aramaic arqy (=
dwbk and do/ca) and armym (Aramaic: meaning “word”), where anthropomorphic
expressions about God in the Bible were considered no longer appropriate.38
Niebuhr calls these words buffer words that attempt to reconcile the transcendence
and immanence of God.39 Streeter calls them reverential paraphrases, “a kind of
verbal smoke-screen to conceal the difficulty presented by the anthropomorphic
language of the original.”40
Of hnyk? Donaghy says: “It was used as a periphrasis by these writers when they
wished to speak of God as dwelling among his people … To give then a more
specific definition of this word: it is a special presence, a localisation, so to speak,
of his power in a given time and in a given place.”41 Thieme explains what the
concept of hnyk? was able to achieve:
It becomes possible to place in perspective the awesome, transcendent
Creator of the universe as the imminent God of a particular people, the Jew.
Hence, the Shekinah stresses not only the incomprehensibly magnificent
presence of God, which mortal man can never fully see, but also it serves to
limit spatially and temporally the medium of Yahweh’s self-manifestation, a
38
Ludwig Blau, "Shekinah", in The Jewish Encyclopedia, (ed. Isidore Singer; New York: Funk &
Wagnalls, 1905), 258.
39
Ursula Niebuhr, "Glory (Kabod)," BTB 14, 2 (1984): 53.
40
B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition,
Sources, Authorship, and Dates, 4th impression, revised. ed. (London: MacMillan, 1930), 374.
41
Henry Donaghy, "God with Us," Worship 31, April (1957): 277.
51
means by which an omnipresent God made his personal presence visible to

his own.42
A number of examples will serve to show what the Targum writers were
attempting to achieve. Where the Hebrew text states that God dwells in the temple
(Hab 2:20; 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 1 Ki 8:12; 14:21; Ps 74:2), or that God has been
seen (Isa 6:6; Exod 3:6; Ezek 1:1; Lev 9:4), the Targum Jerusalem has atnyk?.
The temple is called “the house of the atnyk?” by Targum Onkelos (Deut 12:5;
Pss 49:15; 108:8).
In passages in which Yahweh is said to dwell, or causes his name to dwell, in the
midst of Israel, the Targumic phrase is He caused his atnyk? to dwell there.43
Examples are:
Hebrew Targum
Lev 26:12: And I will walk among you And I will cause my atnyk? to dwell
among you
Exod 25:8 That I may dwell among them That I may cause my atnyk? to dwell
among you
Exod 29:45 Then I will dwell among the Then I will cause my atnyk? to dwell in
children of Israel the midst of the children of Israel.
This also holds true for the withdrawal of God’s presence.

Isa 57:17 I hid myself I caused my atnyk? to ascend from them
Ps 44:9: You no longer go out with our And you do not cause your atnyk? to
armies dwell with our armies
Ps 88:5: the dead … are cut off from your The dead … are cut off from the face of
care your atnyk?.
The term occurs in connection with arqy “glory” in Targum Onkelos (Ruth 2:12;
Cant. 3:6; 4:6; 5:6; Pss 58:19; 115:16; Jer 19:18).44 The phrase the shekinta of the
glory (arqy tnyk?) is found in some places:45
Isa 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle He causes the atnyk? of his arqy to dwell
of the earth in lofty strength.
Ps 44:24 Why do you hide your face? Why do you cause the atnyk? of your
arqy to depart?
42
Robert B. Thieme, "The Panorama of the Shekinah Glory," TREN Theses and Dissertations. A
thesis submitted to the faculty of Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, Portland, Oregon in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Theology (1997), 14.
43
Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, 36.
44
See Blau, "Shekinah", 259.
45
Table adapted from Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, 37.
52
It is also found in inverted order – the glory of the shekinta:

Isa 6:5 For my eyes have seen the King, the For my eyes have seen the arqy of the
Lord Almighty atnyk? of the King of the ages
In some passages the term is used instead of God (Targum to Exod 33:15; 34:9),
while in others it is used in connections where it “cannot be identical with God,
for example in passages which declare that ‘the shekinah rests’ or more explicitly,
that ‘God allows his shekinah to rest’.”46 For Kravitz, “it is clear that the Aramaic
translator found a difference between God’s dwelling in a physical locality and
God’s causing something else to be there. The shekinah was God’s presence and
yet not God.”47
Such use of the periphrases atnyk? and arqy show that at least the Jewish
scholars, and perhaps those in the synagogue in general, were puzzled with the
notion of how a transcendent God could be immanent among his people. John taps
into this debate with his portrait of Jesus, the God-man, eternal yet finite, who
tabernacles among his people, revealing the glory of God.
3.3 Memra
The third and most frequent Targumic buffer word, attempting to reconcile the
transcendence and immanence of God, is the Aramaic armym, the Word of the
Lord, (yyd armym).48 The origin for this understanding of armym should be traced
back to Old Testament passages in which rbd ‘Word’ is used in a way that
suggests personal presence.49 At the same time, it could be understood as distinct
from God. The word, heard and announced by the prophet, often became “an
efficacious power apart from God, as was the angel or messenger of God.”50
46
Blau, "Shekinah", 259.
47
Kravitz, "Shekinah as God's Spirit and Presence," 22.
48
Niebuhr, "Glory (Kabod)," 53.
49
E.g. “He sent forth his word and healed them” (Ps 107:20); “By the word of the LORD were the
heavens made” (Ps 33:6).
50
Kaufmann Kohler, "Memra", in The Jewish Encyclopedia, (ed. Isidore Singer; New York: Funk
& Wagnalls, 1904), 464. For example, “He sends his command to the earth; his word runs swiftly”
(Ps 147:15). “The Lord has sent a word against Jacob; it will fall on Israel” (Isa 9:8). The
personification of the word is especially strong in Wis 18:15 “Your Almighty Word leaped down
from heaven out of your royal throne as a fierce man of war.”
53
For the Targum writers, “memra occurs repeatedly… in passages where the
Hebrew represents God as speaking, acting, or manifesting himself in a manner
which seemed too anthropomorphic to Jewish thought in later times,”51 armym
features constantly “as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God’s
messenger in place of God wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the
dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.”52 For example:
Hebrew Targum
Gen 3:8: they heard the sound of the LORD They heard the sound of the armym of the
God as he was walking LORD God walking
Gen 3:10: I heard you I heard the sound of your armym
Gen 6:6: The LORD was grieved that he The LORD repented in his armym that he
had made humanity had made humanity
Gen 8:21 The LORD said in his heart, The LORD said in/by his armym, I will
Never again will I curse never again curse
Gen 9:12: This is the sign of the covenant I This is the sign of the covenant I am
am making between me and you making between my armym and you
Exod 33:22 I will cover you with my hand I will cover you with my armym
2 Sam 6:7 God struck him down The armym struck him down
Isa 45:25 In the LORD all Israel shall be Through the armym of the LORD all Israel
justified shall be justified
Jer 39:18 You trust in me, declares the You trust in my armym, declares the LORD
LORD
Although most occurrences of armym are periphrastic for God, at times armym is
clearly an independent agent from God.
Tg. Hab. 1:12: Your Word (armym) endures forever. O LORD, you created it to
administer judgment
Tg. Amos 4:11: My Word (armym) loathed you just as the LORD loathed Sodom
and Gomorrah
The concept of armym satisfied the hunger of the Jews to know their transcendent
God more intimately.53 It was a desire that looked to the future for satisfaction:
Hebrew Targum Jerusalem
Isa 66:13 As a mother comforts her child. My armym will comfort you
So will I comfort you
Lev 26:11-12 I will put my dwelling place And I will set the atnyk? of my arqy
(ynk?m) among you… I will walk among
51
52
Kohler, "Memra", 464-65.
53
“The armym brings Israel nigh unto God, and sits on his throne receiving the prayers of Israel”
(Tg. Yer. to Deut 4:7). The armym shielded Noah from the flood (Tg. Yer. to Gen 7:16), is the
guardian of Jacob (Tg. Yer. to Gen 28:20-21), works all the wonders in Egypt (Targ. Yer. to Exod
13:8), hardens Pharaoh’s heart (Targ. Yer. to Exod 13:15), goes before Israel in the wilderness (Tg.
Yer. to Exod 13:8), and battles for the people (Tg. Yer. to Josh 3:7; 10:14; 23:3).
54
(ynk?m) among you… I will walk among among you, and my armym shall not abhor
you and be your God and you will be my you, but the arqy of my atnyk? shall
people dwell among you, and my armym shall be
to you for a redeeming God, and you shall
be unto my Name for a holy people.
Chilton, in his study of the Isaiah Targum, sees armym as achieving more than
simply avoiding anthropomorphisms: it is both revelation, and invitation for
response. For the Targum writers of Isaiah armym “represents God as he responds
to and addresses Israel, and as such it also provides the occasion on which Israel
might react.”54 Such an emphasis is important for John as he presents Jesus as the
lo/go$ come from God. He does not just communicate God, but expects and
demands a response to that communication: to understand (1:5), recognise (1:10),
receive (1:11-12), believe (1:12; 2:11; 3:16; 14:1), worship (4:24), obey (14:15),
see (1:14), love (14:23), remain in (15), and glorify (15:8; 17:10) him.
Craig Evans presents a strong case that the exegetical and theological background
of John’s Prologue can be found in the tradition of the synagogue, as represented
in the later Targums and midrash.55 A key plank of his evidence is that lo/go$ is
derived from Targumic armym rather than Hellenistic sources.56 In addition, two
other buffer words from the Targums, arqy and atnyk?, are prominent in the
prologue (translated as do/ca) – all three are found in 1:14. Middleton goes
further, suggesting that armym, arqy and atnyk? are found behind the whole text
of the Fourth Gospel at regular intervals. Although only offering the structure
tentatively, he asserts “that if the writer of the Fourth Gospel did not plan his
gospel to develop the conceptions of memra, shekinah and yekara his thought was
certainly permeated through and through with these conceptions, and that they
show themselves at every turn.”57 It seems likely that both John and his audience
were familiar with the concepts of armym, arqy and atnyk?, and the debate
54
Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenance of the Isaiah Targum, 56.
55
Craig A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John's
Prologue, vol. 89, JSNTSup (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993).
56
Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John's Prologue,
124-29. In the nineteenth century John’s lo/go$ was frequently compared with the Targumic
armym. See B. F. Westcott, An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 4th ed. (London:
Macmillan, 1872), 147-48.
57
R. D. Middleton, "Logos and Shekinah in the Fourth Gospel," The Jewish Quarterly Review 29,
2 (1938): 130-33.
55
behind their use within the synagogues. The concepts suit John’s purposes well.
He presents Jesus as the true armym / lo/go$ of God who achieves all that the Jews
were longing for: a transcendent God who was immanent among his people
(atnyk?), revealing himself (armym / lo/go$) and involving himself with power
and salvation (arqy), distinct yet one with God himself.
These word studies serve as an introduction to a more thorough consideration of

how these concepts developed through the Old Testament (see ch 4). It is this
developed understanding of how God interacts with his creation that John builds
on to convey the uniqueness of the incarnation.
3.4 Specific References to dovca and docavzw in the

Fourth Gospel.
With this background in mind, we turn to specific uses of dovca and docavzw in the
Fourth Gospel.58 A number of these verses will be investigated in more depth in
chs 5 and 6 in a more thematic way. John occasionally uses dovca and docavzw in
the sense of honour or praise (5:41, 44; 7:18; 8:50; 9:24); however, his distinctive
use occurs when he refers to seeing glory (1:14; 11:40; 17:24), or revealing glory
(2:11), evoking an understanding very similar to that of hwhy dwbk in the Old
Testament. Isaiah is said to have seen Jesus’ glory in 12:41. For Jesus to have
given glory (th\n do/can h^n de/dwka/$ moi de/dwka au)toi=$) to his disciples (17:22)
means that he has mediated God’s glory, or caused it to be revealed to them.59
That this is what Jesus means is clear in a parallel phrase (17:26), “I have made
your name known to them.”
That this visible aspect of dovca is what John has in mind can be perceived at 1:14
where dovca is combined with skhno/w, revealing a background of the Exodus
glory-cloud of God’s presence dwelling among his people in the tabernacle. For
John, the incarnate Word was a physical manifestation of the glory of God.
58
Cook, "The 'Glory' Motif in the Johannine Corpus," 291-97; Navone, "Glory in Pauline and
Johannine Thought," 48-52; Riga, "Signs of Glory: The Use of Semeion in St John's Gospel," 402-
24.
59
So Carson, The Gospel according to John, 569.
56
“Those who have seen Christ have seen in him the manifestation of the presence
and power of God.”60
When Jesus or the Father are mentioned as being glorified, doca/sqh, or an event
glorifies, docavzw, them (7:39; 8:54; 11:4; 13:31-32; 14:13; 15:8; 16:14; 17:4,
17:10; 21:19), rather than meaning to “be praised” or “praise”, in light of John’s
distinctive use of dovca and docavzw it is preferable to see this as shorthand for
referring to their glory being revealed as in 2:11, which is tagged as the first sign
(a)rxh\n tw=n shmei/wn) Jesus performed, thus revealing his glory (e)fane/rwsen
th\n do/can). This verse, as the first sign, can be seen as paradigmatic for how we
are to understand John’s other uses of docavzw. Schnackenburg says, “even those
(uses of doca/zein) which perhaps invite a translation with ‘honour’ or ‘praise’,
form part of the conceptual field of Jesus’ glorification.”61 Thus John intends the
word to carry the full weight of Old Testament revelations of hwhy dwbk, as well
as inter-testamental notions of the self-revelatory presence of God’s shekinah
hnyk?.
In 11:4 Jesus comforts Mary and Martha with the words that Lazarus’ sickness is
for (u(pe/r) God’s glory. Rather than meaning ‘so that people might praise God’, it
is preferable to see that John uses u(pe/r as shorthand to mean ‘for the purpose of
God’s glory being revealed, or seen’: the method of which is explained in the
purpose clause which follows – (11:4b) it is through the revelation of the glory of
the Son (i%na docasqh=| o( ui(o$\ tou= qeou= di' au)th=$). This is in keeping with both
the Old Testament use of glory, which is always about God’s self-revelation and
its comprehension by humans, and with the purpose of Jesus’ signs, revealed in
the first sign, the wedding at Cana – “This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus
performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory (e)fane/rwsen th\n
do/can au)tou=) (2:11).”
60
Robertson, "Glory in the Fourth Gospel," 128.
61
Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, trans. Cecily Hastings, Francis
McDonagh, David Smith and Richard Foley SJ, 3 vols., vol. 1 (London: Burns & Oates, 1980),
402.
57
In a number of passages it is clear that Jesus’ glorification refers to his crucifixion

(12:16, 23, 28; 17:1). In 12:28 Jesus prays that his Father would glorify his name,
presumably through the crucifixion, to which a voice from heaven replies: “I
glorify it (e)do/casa), and will glorify it (doca/sw) again.” Such a prayer to glorify
God’s name is a prayer that the glory of God’s character and actions might be
revealed through Jesus’ death. The passion reveals God’s glory most clearly since
it is here that we see “the most concentrated revelation of the moral perfections of
God.”62 John 17:5 records Jesus’ request that God glorify Jesus with the glory he
had before (do/caso/n me su/, pa/ter, para\ seautw=| th=| do/ch| h!| ei‚xon pro/). This is
a request for God to reveal the Son’s glory to beholders through the Passion, so
that it might be of the order of Jesus’ pre-incarnate glory.
It is only Jesus and the Father who reveal glory. Judas’ betrayal in 13:30 leads to
the proclamation from Jesus: “Now is the Son of Man glorified (e)doca/sqh)”
(13:31). This does not mean that Judas reveals Jesus’ glory, but that his betrayal
begins the process by which Jesus reveals his own glory through the cross.63
Judas’ action simply starts the clock ticking on the hour (w%ra) of Jesus’ glory
(12:23). It is Jesus, rather than Lazarus, who reveals God’s glory in 11:4. In 17:10
Jesus notes that, referring to his disciples, “I am glorified (perfect passive) in them
(dedo/casmai e)n au)toi=$).” Although the NIV, rather unhelpfully, translates this
phrase “glory has come to me through them”, the preceding verses make clear that
it is through the work of the Son in the lives of the disciples that Jesus’ glory has
been revealed, rather than the result of any work by the disciples themselves. The
Son gives eternal life to those the Father gave him (17:2). The Son brings glory to
the Father by completing the Son’s work (17:4), the work of revealing the Father
to those the Father had given the Son (17:6) with the result that they accepted
Jesus’ words and believed that he had been sent by the Father (17:8). Two final
references are noteworthy. In 15:7-8 it is only by remaining in Jesus, through the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that believers can bear much fruit and thus the
Father is glorified. Secondly, 21:19 notes that Peter would reveal the glory of God
through his death; an event that occurs after Peter receives the Holy Spirit. It is
62
63
58
only because Jesus himself indwells the believer that he is able to reveal God’s
glory.
This chapter has shown how John’s distinctive use of docavzw and dovca has arisen
out of the Old Testament concept of hwhy dwbk, as well as contemporary
synagogue attempts to understand the immanence and transcendence of God, as
reflected in the Targum’s use of armym, arqy and atnyk?. Such precedents suit
John’s purposes perfectly as he describes Jesus, the lo/go$, whose arqy and
atnyk? we have beheld, and who was both with God in the beginning, and was
God.
59
Chapter 4: Glory of God,

and Related Themes, in the Old
Testament
This chapter will look at how the theology of the glory of God (hwhy dwbk) is
developed in the Old Testament. At various places in his gospel John reveals that
this Old Testament understanding has shaped his thinking about Jesus. John
chooses to use these concepts as shadows and types of the one whose glory those
who believe can see (1:14). The visible dwelling presence of God, of which his
shekinah glory-cloud was but an appetiser, became a complete reality in the
incarnation.
4.1 Creation
Meredith G. Kline makes much of the Spirit of God hovering over the water as
being the “glory-Spirit” of God’s creative and salvific presence who re-appears in
many places throughout the Old Testament.1 However dbk in the sense of the
visible radiant presence of God is not found in Genesis. For Kline, Moses
understands the glory-cloud who led Israel through the wilderness to be the Spirit
of God of Gen 1:2.2 Further, Kline identifies this glory-Spirit with the pre-
incarnate Son of God who was the Word there in the beginning (1:1), and through
whom was life that was the light of humanity (1:4).3 “What Genesis 1:2 identifies
as Spirit, Hebrews 1:2,3 identifies as Son; God is one. Heb 1:2b attributes to the
Son the creation of the world. Then, in Heb 1:3 (the Son is) identified as the
image and glory of God.”4 While it is not denied that the second person of the
trinity was with the Father in the beginning, it is his unique revelationary capacity
at the incarnation that is the interest of this thesis – what was veiled in the Old,
God has revealed in the New.
1
Kline, "Creation in the Image of the Glory-Spirit," 250-72.
2
Note the verbal similarities between Gen 1:2b and Deut 32:11, as well as the functions performed
by the glory-cloud are attributed to the Spirit (Neh 9:19-20; Isa 63:11-14; Haggai 2:5). See Kline,
"Creation in the Image of the Glory-Spirit," 252.
3
Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980),
24.
4
Kline, "Creation in the Image of the Glory-Spirit," 253.
60
4.2 Exodus
Niebuhr makes the observation that in the pre-exilic biblical texts the glory of
God, as a visible manifestation, was always in the context of a call. “Thus, Moses
and his calling as a leader; the vocation of the people of Israel as Yahweh’s
people; the calling of Isaiah, the prophet; their stories all involve the mention of
glory.”5 A self-revelation of God is always designed to produce a response in his
people – for his people to see his glory, and to respond with repentance and
obedience. This is no different from the purpose of John’s portrait of Jesus as the
glory of God – so that people might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God, and that by believing they may have life in his name (20:31).
The visible dwelling presence of the LORD among his people first appears
following the Exodus as a pillar of cloud (/nu dwmu) by day and a pillar of fire
(?a dwmu) by night leading the people (Exod 13:21). Following their complaints
about food, the glory of the Lord appears in the cloud (/nub harn hwhy dwbk)
(16:10). Presumably the hwhy dwbk was something in addition to the regular cloud
– perhaps a radiant brilliance – and was God’s answer to the people’s complaint
that the lack of food was because God had abandoned them.
Although dwbk is not used, when Moses receives the Ten Commandments, the
signs of God’s presence on Mt Sinai were thunder, lightning, thick cloud, smoke
and fire. In addition, the mountain trembled violently, and there was a sound like a
very loud trumpet blast (Exod 19:16-20). Exodus 24:15-17 correlates all of these
terms: the cloud and hwhy dwbk are parallel. To the Israelites the hwhy dwbk looked
like a consuming fire on top of the mountain.6 In a remarkable passage (Exod
24:9-11), Moses and Aaron and the elders saw the God of Israel (lar?y yhla ta
waryw), ate and drank, but God did not raise his hand against them. Somehow,
God was manifest among his people. This was seen as extraordinary by the
Targum writers on this verse who added a further distancing phrase: Targum
5
6
See Ferreira, Johannine Ecclesiology, 141-12.
61
Pseudo-Jonathan notes that they saw the glory of the shekinah of the LORD, while
Onkelos simply adds rqy.
4.2.1 The Tabernacle

As astonishing as this encounter is, the location most closely connected with the
presence of the glory of the LORD was the tabernacle (/k?m), or the tent of
meeting7 (duwm lha) (Exod 27:21; 38:8, 30; 40:12; Num 3:7-8). The LORD
declared to Moses, “Let them make for me a sanctuary (?rqm) that I may dwell
(ytnk?) among them” (Exod 25:8), expressing his desire to be sought and found
at a particular place. Glory is closely connected to dwelling (/k?) in the
tabernacle (Exod 29:43-46; 33:7-11), and led to the development of the post-Old
Testament term of shekinah hnyk? (Aramaic shekinta atnyk?).8
With the building of the tabernacle we move from the occasional appearance of
God to his ongoing presence with the community. 9 Prior to this, earlier references
to God’s house (<yhla tyb) (Gen 28:17; Exod 23:19), mountain (Exod 4:17), or
sanctuary (?dqm) (Exod 15:17) indicate that although God cannot be
geographically bound, there were certain places where he could be met (see Num
17:4).10 For John, such a localised presence is important – albeit in a man not a
place since Jesus is the new Bethel (la tyb) where God and humanity meet
(1:51).11 With the coming of Jesus, worship of God is no longer confined to a
place such as Gerazim or Jerusalem, but is to be in Spirit and truth (4:19-26).
When the tabernacle is completed, the glory of the LORD fills the tabernacle, and
thus God is seen to dwell with his people (Exod 40). In fact, the book of Exodus
reaches its culmination and goal at this point. “The purpose for the exodus from
7
While some see the tent of meeting of Exod 33:7-11 as a second tent of God’s presence being
found outside the camp (Exod 33:7) rather than in the midst of it as the tabernacle was (Exod 25:8;
Numbers 3), it seems to have been a small temporary structure only in use until the tabernacle
itself was completed.
8
See chapter 2.
9
Tremper Longman III, Immanuel in Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel's Worship, ed. Tremper
Longman III, and J. Alan Groves, The Gospel According to the Old Testament (Phillipsburg: P&R
Publishing, 2001), 26.
10
James M. Hamilton Jr., "God with Men in the Prophets and the Writings: An Examination of the
Nature of God's Presence," SBET 23, 2 (2005): 166-93.
11
Jerome H. Neyrey, "The Jacob Allusions in John 1:51," CBQ 44 (1982): 586-605.
62
Egypt was so God could dwell in the midst of his people. The coming of God’s
glorious presence into the newly constructed tabernacle forms the climax of the
Book of Exodus (40:34).”12
Prior to the completion of the tabernacle, Moses had erected a small tent, also
called a tent of meeting (duwm lha), outside the camp for the purpose of meeting
with the LORD (Exod 33:7-11), primarily for himself.13 When Moses entered the
tent the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance while the LORD
spoke with Moses face to face (<ynp Ála <ynp) as a man speaks with a friend
(Exod 33:11). It seems to be from within this tent that God promises that “my
presence” (lit. my face – ynp) will go with Moses (Exod 33:14). Moses asks of
God, “Show me (cause me to see) your glory” (idbk ynarh) (Exod 33:18). In
response God promises to cause his goodness (bwf) to pass in front of Moses (lit.
before your face – iynp) and to proclaim his name (<?), Yahweh, in his presence
(lit. before your face iynpl), reasoning: “You cannot see (har) my face (ynp), for
no one may see me and live.” He promises to hide Moses in the cleft of a rock
covered with his hand when his glory passes by Moses, then to allow Moses to see
his back, but his face must not be seen (Exod 33:2-23). Later, when Moses returns
to the mountain with the new stone tablets, God comes down in a cloud (/nu) and
stands there with Moses and proclaims his name (<?). He passes before Moses
(lit. before his face wynp Álu), proclaiming himself as, among other things, the one
who abounds in love and faithfulness (tmaw dsj -br) (Exod 34:5-6).
These accounts seem to present a contradictory picture of God’s dealings with

Moses, since they describe God meeting with Moses face to face (Exod 33:11; see
also Num 12:8 and Deut 5:4; 34:10) and whose face goes with Moses (Exod
33:14), but also note that God’s face cannot be seen even by Moses (Exod 32:20,
23; see also Gen 32:30; Judges 6:22-23; 13:22). Palmer, after dismissing such
explanations as the two verses coming from different sources, and that one verse
is ‘literal’, while the other is ‘non-literal’, notes the anthropomorphic metaphor
12
B. T. Arnold, and B.E. Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999),
114.
13
Although Miriam and Aaron in Numbers 12, and Joshua in Exod 33:11, also enter it.
63
and unsatisfactorily concludes, “the intention was to point to the reality and
intimacy of Moses’ knowledge of God whilst at the same time stressing its limits
and the fact that knowledge of God is not straightforward.”14 A better alternative
involves studying the metaphor more closely. The distinction seems to be in
relation to seeing – the nature of the revelation, as well as with different ways of
understanding <ynp. Moses’ request was that God would cause him to see (ynarh)
his glory (Exod 33:18), requesting a greater degree of revelation than Moses was
capable of receiving. Although no one could see God’s face and live, it was
possible for Moses to speak to God described with the idiomatic “face to face”
(<ynp Ála <ynp) (Exod 33:11), for God’s face to go with Moses (Exod 33:14), for
Moses to see God’s back (Exod 33:23), and to perceive his goodness and name
(Exod 33:19) – presumably all lower levels of revelation than that which Moses
had requested.
John’s use of dovca in the Fourth Gospel, especially in 1:14, is heavily dependent
on these chapters of Exodus. For John, dovca is more than honour or renown – it is
something to be revealed and seen, something related to God’s self-revelation in
making himself visible and in tabernacling (e)skh/nwsen) among his people. The
verb to dwell, skhno/w, in close proximity with dovca calls to mind the tabernacle
filled with God’s glory-presence. John claims that “we have seen his glory
(e)qeasa/meqa th\n do/can au)tou=), the glory of the one and only, who came from
the Father, full of grace and truth” (plh/rh$ xa/rito$ kai\ a)lhqei/a$) (1:14). This
final phrase echoes Exod 34:6 where God, in answer to Moses’ request to be
shown his glory, describes himself as abounding in covenant love and truth (tmaw
dsj -br).15 Not only does John compare Christian believers with Moses, he puts
them in an even more privileged position than Moses – no one has ever seen God
(including Moses), but we have seen his glory (1:14), since God the One and Only
has made him known (1:18).16 For John, Moses and increased adherence to his
14
Palmer, "Exodus and the Biblical Theology of the Tabernacle", 17-18.
15
Lester J. Kuyper, "Grace and Truth: An Old Testament Description of God, and its Use in the
Johannine Gospel," Int 18, 1 (1964): 3-19; Henry Mowvley, "John 1:14-18 in the Light of Exodus
33:7-34:35," ExpTim 95, 5 (1984): 136. John seems to be strongly alluding to this passage rather
than quoting it since the LXX usually translates dsj as e)/leo$ rather than xa/ri$ (Koester, The
Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, 104).
16
64
Torah is not the answer to the loss of the temple. The solution to that crisis is faith
in the one who truly makes known the Father, who is the location where we meet
him, and the one who gives the right to become true children of God (1:12).
4.3 The Temple

Solomon built the temple (2 Chron 1-4 || 1 Kgs 5–9), the account of which
climaxes with the glory of the LORD filling the temple during the Feast of
Tabernacles (2 Chron 5:13-14 || 1 Kgs 8:10-11). Solomon recognises that God had
said he would dwell (/k?) in a dark cloud (lpru) and that Solomon had built a
magnificient house (lbz Átyb) for him to dwell in forever (<ymlou itb?l) (2
Chron 6:1-2 || 1 Kgs 8:12-13), but that God’s presence could not be contained in a
human-built house (2 Chron 6:18 || 1 Kgs 8:27). Throughout these chapters the
temple is described as a house (tyb), rather than a temple (lkyh). Both lkyh and
tyb are used when describing the construction of the temple,17 but once the Ark is
carried in, and the glory-cloud of God’s presence enters the temple, only tyb is
used since God is now in residence (e.g. 1 Kgs 8:6, 10, 11, 13; 2 Chron 5:1, 7, 13,
14; 6:2, 5, 7).
In the Fourth Gospel Jesus refers to the temple as “my Father’s house” (2:16) (to\n
oi‚kon tou= patro/$ mou). Jesus also refers to destroying “this temple” (to\n nao\n
tou=ton), which John explains involves a reference to Jesus’ body and his
forthcoming crucifixion (2:19-22). Jesus, the incarnate word, declares himself to
be the locus of God’s presence among his people (1:14), thus replacing the
temple.18
4.4 Psalms
The particular emphasis of the Psalms is that the glory of the LORD is associated
with his power and might (Ps 145:11). The heavens declare his glory (dwbk), the
work of his hands (Ps 19:1; also Ps 104:31). Psalm 24 describes the LORD mighty
in battle, the LORD Almighty, as the king of glory (dwbkh ilm) (Ps 24:8-10). In
17
2 Chron 3:17; 4:7, 8, 22; 1 Kgs 6:3, 5, 17, 33; 7:21, 50.
18
See ch 5.
65
Psalm 29 David exhorts the mighty ones to ascribe glory (to recognise and give
praise) to the LORD that is due his name because the voice of the LORD (hwhy
Álwq), the God of glory (dwbkh Ála), thunders over the waters with power. The
response is that all in the temple cry, “Glory!” (Ps 29:9). The Psalmist pleads, in
Psalm 57, for God’s justice (his love [tma] and faithfulness [dsj] – v3) to be seen
in the earth against his oppressors, for God’s glory (dwbk) to be over all the earth
(Ps 57:5, 11), thus drawing a connection between glory, love and faithfulness
echoed in Jn 1:14. Psalm 85:9-10 draws the connection between God’s salvation,
which is near to those who fear him, and the dwelling of his glory (dwbk /k?l) in
the land, where his faithfulness and love (tmaw Ádsj) meet. This also finds
echoes in Jn 1:14, adding the idea of dwelling (/k? / skhno/w) to those of glory,
love and faithfulness. In a more general sense it is the ways (ird) of the LORD in
protecting the humble which reveal his glory (Ps 138:5).
Glory is a visible expression of God’s power and character. For the Psalmist
God’s glory is always something to be perceived and recognised, then declared,
an emphasis echoed by John for whom Jesus glorifies the Father by revealing his
glory (13:31-21; 14:13; 17:1, 4, 22) to those who see and believe.
In addition, God’s glory (and power) can be beheld in his sanctuary (Ps 63:2), and
his house (tyb) is the place where his glory dwells (idwbk /k?m) (Ps 26:8),
echoing the emphasis and understanding of Exodus and Kings/ Chronicles where
God’s glory-presence was centred on the tabernacle and temple.
4.5 Isaiah
In Isaiah dwbk carries the twin emphases of God’s self-revelation in salvation,
power and judgment, and of his immanent dwelling. It frequently occurs in the
context of such a revelation expecting a response from God’s people. These three
aspects find expression in John’s portrait of Jesus as the glory of God.
The connection between the hwhy dwbk and his salvation, power and judgment is
seen in passages such as Isaiah 60 which foresees the day the hwhy dwbk will
66
return to Jerusalem, appearing over it, likened to light shining on God’s people
(Isa 60:1-2, 19-20). In Isa 35:2 the expectation is of the day God will turn the
desert into a fertile land, and his people will see the hwhy dwbk in restoration and
judgment, a call echoed in Isa 40:3-5 where all humankind will see the hwhy dwbk
revealed as he makes straight paths through the desert (also Isa 59:19). “The
eschatological action of God” is portrayed here “as the manifestation of God’s
glory.”19 In several places the Greek translator of Isaiah gives do/ca a
soteriological significance, adding do/ca to the text, thus making do/ca and
swthri/a complementary terms (Isa 12:2; 40:5; 44:23; 63:12-14). God’s
manifestation is seen to have a purpose: salvation (40:5; 44:23).20
The understanding of hwhy dwbk as immanent presence is seen in Isa 58:8 with
God’s promise that hwhy dwbk will be a rear guard for those of his people who
deal justly with their fellow humans. Isaiah 4:2-6 looks beyond the forecast
destruction of Jerusalem to the day when the branch of the LORD (the Messiah –
see Isa 11:1-5) would be glorious (dwbk), and when, following his purifying
judgment, the LORD would create a cloud by day and fire by night over the temple
mount, and over all the glory (dwbk) there would be a canopy, a shelter/ tent (hks)
from the heat. This recalls the glory-cloud during the Exodus, as well as the Feast
of Tabernacles (twks) when the people were commanded to celebrate and to
remember God’s provision and protection in the wilderness (Lev 23:33-43; also
John 7-9).
God’s self-revelation for the purpose of human response is seen most obviously in
his call to Isaiah (Isaiah 6). Isaiah is in the temple when he sees (har) the Lord
(ynda) high and exalted (a?nw <r). While in the MT Isa 6:1 says that the train of
his robe (lw?) filled the temple, the LXX says that the temple was full of his glory
(plh/rh$ o( oi@ko$ th=$ do/ch$ au)tou=), tying it more closely to a nearly identical
phrase from the lips of the seraphs in Isa 6:3 with respect to the whole earth
(plh/rh$ pa=sa h( gh= th=$ do/ch$ au)tou=). Isaiah declares that his eyes have seen
19
Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003), 386.
20
Pamment, "The Meaning of Doxa in the Fourth Gospel," 12-16; Brockington, "The Greek
Translator of Isaiah and His Interest in Doxa," 23-32.
67
the King, the LORD Almighty. John refers to this vision as Isaiah having seen
Jesus’ glory (12:41), suggesting he was referring to the LXX. Even though Isaiah
records for us that the LORD will not give his glory to another (Isa 42:8; 48:11),
John makes the connection between Jesus and the Father. “Jesus was the Lord
(LXX to\n ku/rion Heb. ynda) seated in glory in Isa 6:1.”21 Not surprisingly given
the extraordinary nature of the revelation, the Targum of Isaiah 6:5 declares that
Isaiah saw “the glory of the shekinah of the King of the ages”
(aymlu ilm tnyk? rqy),22 perhaps making the connection even more obvious for
John in 12:41. While a comparison with Moses’ revelation in Exodus 33-34 is
prominent in John’s mind in 1:14-18 (no one has ever seen God, but God the One
and Only has made him known), the common themes of glory, and seeing the
LORD make a comparison with Isaiah’s vision also likely.
Chilton’s thesis is that additions to the Isaiah Targum involving atnyk? suggest
that the Targum writers are projecting back onto the temple crisis of Isaiah’s time
the crisis involving the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70. Such
passages “reveal the hand of the meturgeman for whom the cessation of temple
sacrifice is a pressing concern,” particularly troubling was “the removal of the
divine presence, because this is what made the cult efficacious.”23 If this is the
case, then John addresses their concerns in his gospel in presenting Jesus as the
shekinah of God’s presence, who no longer needs a temple.24
Also significant is the LXX translation for Isa 52:13 describing the suffering
servant’s disfigurement as being lifted up (Heb. a?n LXX u(yo/w) and highly
exalted (Heb. hbg LXX docasqh/setai). 25 Jesus makes use of the double
meaning of u(yo/w in John 12:32-34 to show the paradoxical nature of how lifting
up on a cross to death is also the means by which the Son is lifted up/ glorified.
For Isaiah, and John, the suffering servant is the instrument of God’s salvation,
and thus the means by which his glory is made manifest.
21
Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, 379.
22
23
Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenance of the Isaiah Targum, 69.
24
See evidence for this setting and purpose for the Fourth Gospel in ch 2.
25
David Hill, "Request of Zebedee's Sons and the Johannine Doxa Theme," NTS 13, 2 (1967):
282; Pamment, "The Meaning of Doxa in the Fourth Gospel," 16.
68
4.6 Ezekiel
In the visions of Ezekiel, the hwhy dwbk attained “a more sophisticated spiritual, if
not apocalyptic, meaning.”26 The prophet is overwhelmed by his transcendent
vision of God, which reached its highest point with the figure like a man on the
throne – a remarkable development from the inanimate likenesses of cloud, light
and fire, even if the vision is only “the likeness of the appearance of the glory of
God” (1:28). Noteworthy for this study of glory in John is that glory is connected
with God made visible. The vision is doubly significant in that it appears to the
prophet in Babylon, dissociated from a connection to either tabernacle or temple.
In ch 10, the prophet sees the glory of the LORD (hwhy Ádwbk) departing from the
temple on account of Israel’s apostasy (ch 8, 11) in the first of three stages:
moving from the inner sanctum to the threshold, “as if the LORD is reluctant to
leave and is almost pressurized into moving further away from the idolatrous
epicentre that was once his dwelling place.”27 In 10:18-19, the second stage of the
abandonment, Ezekiel describes the glory moving from the threshold, then
hovering over the cherubim at the entrance of the east gate of the temple, which
he unusually calls hwhy Átyb in these chapters, instead of just tyb, which draws
attention to the movement of the LORD’s glory from the LORD’s house. Jesus
echoes this terminology in Jn 2:16-17 calling the temple “my Father’s house”
emphasising its significance as God’s dwelling place.28 The third stage of the
abandonment occurs in 11:23 where the glory of the LORD went up from the midst
of the city, not just from the temple, then hovers above the mountain east of it, “as
if to reflect some continuing concern, a watching brief.”29
26
27
John B. Taylor, "The Temple in Ezekiel", in Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology,
(ed. T. Desmond Alexander, and Simon Gathercole; Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster, 2004), 67.
28
Hoskins cites William Fowler’s work that makes a case for the influence of Ezekiel, especially
Ezekiel 40-47, upon John’s conception of Jesus as the new temple (Hoskins, Jesus as the
Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John, 12). This author was unable to view Fowler’s
thesis. Gary T. Manning surveys the use of Ezekiel in John’s themes of shepherd (John 10), vine
(John 15), water and breath, but fails to mention the theme of the temple. See Gary T. Manning,
Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second
Temple Period, (London: T&T Clark, 2004).
29
Taylor, "The Temple in Ezekiel", 67.
69
God also uses the language of glory to signify the promised return of his presence.
“I will place my glory within the nations … and they shall know that … no longer
will I hide my face from my people, for I have poured out my spirit upon the
house of Israel” (Ezek 39:21-29). God’s visible presence, his glory, is connected
with his invisible presence, his Spirit. Further, in Ezekiel 36 God connects his
Spirit with the washing of water. He promises to sprinkle clean water on his
people to cleanse them from their impurities, give them a new heart and put his
Spirit in them, moving them to follow his decrees (Ezek 36:24-27).30 This triple
identification of glory with both water and spirit in the context of temple is
important background for our understanding of how John uses these themes to
describe Jesus as the fulfillment of both glory and temple who offers the water of
the Spirit to those who believe in him (4:13-14; 7:37-39).
In ch 43 Ezekiel foresees the glory returning again to fill God’s new temple (43:1-
5 also 44:4), which though resembling a city (40:2) is called a tabernacle (/k?m)
because God would dwell (/k?) with Israel forever (43:7). God promises that the
northern and southern kingdoms would be reunited and the people would dwell in
the land, and that his “tabernacle (/k?m) shall be with them… my sanctuary
(?dqm) is in the midst of them for evermore” (Ezek 37:27-28). The city itself
receives a new name befitting this new level of God’s immanence, hm? hwhy “the
LORD is there” (48:35).
This promise of return was not fulfilled in either Solomon’s or Zerubbabel’s

temple. Haggai and Zechariah nowhere relate a fulfilment of the returning glory to
the second temple. Ferreira asserts: “The shekinah glory is never mentioned in
connection with Zerubbabel’s temple, so that temple cannot be the fulfilment of
what is predicted here. These visions of Ezekiel, with their future anticipation,
provided the fertile soil for the development of the dwbk imagery in later Jewish
literature.”31
30
This is the promise Jesus refers to with Nicodemus in Jn 3:5, connecting being born of water and
the Spirit. He berates Nicodemus who, as Israel’s teacher, should have recognised this. See
Carson, The Gospel according to John, 191-95.
31
70
In fact, the fulfilment of the Ezekiel 43 prophecy does not happen until Jesus, the
glory of God tabernacling among his people (1:14), enters Herod’s temple in John
7-8 during the Feast of Tabernacles (see ch 5). There is further fulfilment of
Ezekiel’s glory and temple prophecy for John. In ch 47 Ezekiel sees the life-
giving river of God’s Spirit flowing from the temple bringing life and healing. 32
For John, those who believe in Jesus are the new temple in whom God dwells by
his Spirit (14:2, 23), poured out by the Son (4:14; 7:37-39; 16:7), for the healing
of the nations (Ezek 47:12 cf. Rev 22:2).33
4.7 Minor Prophets

Joel, predicting the Day of the Lord, proclaims God’s promise that he will pour
out his Spirit on all people (2:28). When God comes in judgment, he will be a
shelter for his people (3:16), and will dwell (/k?) in Zion, his holy hill (3:17). A
fountain will flow out of the LORD’s house (hwhy tyb) and will water the valley of
acacias (3:18).
In Haggai 2:1-9, after comforting the people concerning the insignificance of the
new temple, God encourages them to be strong for he is with them, that his Spirit
remains among them, promising that in a little while he will fill this house with
glory (dwbk hzh tybh) so that the glory of the present house will be greater than
the glory of the former house.
Writing around the same time as Haggai, Zechariah records a vision of an angel
declaring God’s promise to be a wall of fire around Jerusalem, and its glory within
(2:5). Many nations will come to her, God will dwell (/k?) among his people, and
they will know that “the LORD Almighty has sent (jl?) me to you” (2:11-12).
In John’s portrait of Jesus, Jesus fulfils these promises, as the sent one (9:4),
dwelling (skhno/w) among his people (1:14), replacing the temple in Zion, his
32
See the connection between water and Spirit in Ezek 36:24-27.
33
Um investigates the connections between Ezekiel 47 and John 4, and sees the river as
representing God-given life, with connections to rivers issuing from the Garden of Eden (Gen
2:10-14; cf. 2 En. 8:1-8; Apoc. Abr. 21:6; 1QH 16:4-26) (Um, The Theme of Temple Christology in
John's Gospel, 148-49).
71
Father’s house (to\n oi‚kon tou= patro/$ mou) (2:16-22), offering the living water
of the Spirit to all who would believe in him (4:14; 7:38-39).
4.8 Temple Replacement

The Old Testament and Jewish literature contain several pieces of evidence that
point to the limitations of the temple, and suggest its replacement.34 Solomon
notes, even as the glory of the LORD fills the temple, that it can only be said to be
God’s dwelling place in a qualified sense (2 Chron 6:18). His dwelling place is
more properly described as ‘heaven’ (Pss 20:6; 33:13-14; Isa 66:1). Even so, God
can abandon the temple (Ezek 10:18-19; 11:22-23), or the tabernacle (Ps 78:60;
Jer 7:12-14), as a special place of his presence whenever he chooses. God himself
is able to be the sanctuary for his people during their exile in Babylon (Ezek
11:16), thus a temple is not required for him to dwell among his people. Ezekiel’s
new eternal temple, replacing the one God abandoned because of his people’s sin,
remained unbuilt since God’s eternal dwelling place could not be firmly
established in the midst of sinful people (Ezek 43:7-11). Furthermore, the Old
Testament contains the suggestion that it is the faithful, obedient people of God,
and not the temple, that is the most significant locus for the presence of God.35 In
Isa 66:2, God, after highlighting the inadequacies of human-made houses as
suitable resting places, esteems the one who is humble and contrite and who
trembles at his word. In Lev 26:11-12 God promises that the reward for obedience
will be that he will put his dwelling place among his people and will walk among
them, the hint of more than simply a physical tent. God’s promised sanctuary and
dwelling place would be eternal (Ezek 37:26-27), also hinting at something more
than a building.36
34
G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place
of God, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 17, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downer's Grove, Illinois:
IVP, 2004), 347; Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John, 103.
35
The Qumran community, out of necessity, developed a similar perspective regarding the
community’s temporary replacement of the temple (1QS V, 4-7; VIII, 4-10; IX, 3-6) – see section
2.5.4.3.
36
Some support might also be found in the psalmists’ desire to be permanently in the temple (27:4;
52:8; 92:12-14) as the place where God dwells, and the ideal place to experience him. “Hence the
locus of God’s presence (i.e. the temple) and the place where his righteous ones are would ideally
be the same.” See Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John, 104-106.
72
Thus the Old Testament draws to a close with the expectation that a new locus for
God’s presence is needed. Extra-biblical Jewish literature then builds on this hope,
seeing God,37 or his Messiah,38 as the one who would build his eschatological,
eternal temple. The temple is not the ultimate dwelling place for God; the locus of
his presence is his people. God then steps into the gap, satisfying the longings of
his people for his presence by sending Jesus as the glory of his self-revelatory,
dwelling presence, replacing the temple.
This chapter has discussed the rich theology of do/ca / dwbk developed through the
Old Testament which lays the foundation for John’s portrait of Jesus. Thus,
having prepared the way in terms of John’s purpose and conceptual background,
the following chapters will look at John’s portrait in his gospel of glory and
temple as they relate to Jesus, and to the disciples.
37
1 En. 90:29; Jub. 1:17; 11QTa XXIX, 9.
38
Sib. Or 5:414-434; Tg. Zech 6:12; Tg. Isa 53:5.
73
Chapter 5: John’s Portrait of Jesus:

Glory and Temple – John 1-12
This chapter will investigate a number of key passages in the Fourth Gospel that
reveal two inter-connected Johannine themes of Jesus being glory and temple. The
two themes are connected on the basis of their Old Testament roots. The hwhy
dwbk, understood as both God’s self-revelation and his dwelling presence was
most commonly experienced in the temple, or its predecessor, the tabernacle. But,
in Ezekiel’s vision, the glory departed the temple and did not return until the
ministry of Jesus. For John’s contemporaries, Herod’s temple lay in ruins. John
answers the crisis of where God was to be met by using temple and glory
typologically to draw attention to the more complete antitype of both, the person
of Jesus.1
5.1 The Prologue

The underlying influence on John’s prologue, in particular his use of lo/go$, has
been the topic of much debate.2 Recently, Craig A. Evans has persuasively argued
1
For a discussion of typology with respect to John, see Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the
Temple in the Gospel of John, 18-37.
2
Some have tried to trace its origin back to ancient India e.g. F. W. Dillingstone, Christianity and
Symbolism, (London: Collins, 1955) 142; or to the Iranian Avesta, see Lawrence H. Mills,
Zoroaster, Philo and Israel: A Treatise upon the Antiquity of the Avesta, (New York: AMS, 1977).
Kim even suggests ancient Egypt as a possible source. The “Memphite Theology” inscription,
which may date back to the third millennium B.C., claims that a ‘thought’ concerning the universe
came into the heart of the god Ptah, and it was this ‘thought’ which was expressed into a ‘word’.
This ‘word’ of a god held all created things together in proper order and ensured their harmonious
functioning. Kim simply notes the idea without supporting it, and gives no indication of how it
may have arrived in John’s prologue. See Chul Hae Kim, "The Logos-Christology in the Prologue
of the Gospel of John as a Bridge Concept between the Old Testament Shekinah Events and
Johannine Christology", (Ph. D., An unpublished dissertation presented to Concordia Seminary,
1991), 5. F. C. Baur and his followers, including Rudolph Bultmann saw it, as well as the entire
Gospel itself, as springing from Mandaean Gnosticism. See Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A
Commentary, 17-18. However, as Carson points out, the difficulty with this assertion is that
Mandaean Gnosticism is a late phenomenon (Carson, The Gospel according to John, 31-32). C.H.
Dodd, and Adolph Harnack before him, saw the introduction as Hellenistic. More recently Gesine
Robinson has taken up the Gnostic banner, with her assertion that John shows dependence on the
tradition of the Trimorphic Protennoia, an undated, unascribed Gnostic Coptic text found at Nag
Hammadi. See G. Robinson, "The Trimorphic Protennoia and the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel",
in Gnosticism and the Early Christian World, (ed. J.E. Goehring et al.; Sonoma, CA: Polebridge,
1990), 37-50. However, Denzey has convincingly argued for the independence of the two works.
See Nicola Frances Denzey, "Genesis Traditions in Conflict?: The Use of Some Exegetical
Traditions in the Trimorphic Protennoia and the Johannine Prologue," VChr 55, 1 (2001): 20-44.
For possible connections between Qumran and John’s gospel, see ch 1.
74
that the exegetical and theological background of John’s prologue can be found in
the tradition of the synagogue, as represented in Targums and midrash:
Virtually every element of the Johannine Prologue is paralleled in Targumic
and midrashic materials. Moreover, there are many significant parallels
between the Targumic memra and the Johannine logos. It appears that every
assertion regarding the asarkos logos in the Prologue’s opening five verses is
true of the Targumic memra.3
Such a background fits this thesis of the purpose and setting of John’s gospel –
written to non-Christian and Christian Jews to encourage them to believe in Jesus,
the glory of God, who replaces the functions of the temple as the locus of God’s
presence and worship of him by his people.
5.1.1 Glory in the Prologue

As a result of its key place in the prologue, much attention has been given to the
title of lo/go$.4 However, the term is only used four times in the prologue in only
two verses, and Jesus is not recorded as using lo/go$ to characterise himself, and it
is not used again in the Gospel beyond the prologue. In comparison dovca is more
foundational to the Christology of John, the term with the deepest and richest
foundations in the Old Testament, and the one anchored most strongly to the
structure of the whole gospel. 5 The background of John’s theological thinking to
do with glory is most obvious at 1:14 (Kai\ o( lo/go$ sa\rc e)ge/neto kai\
e)skh/nwsen e)n h(mi=n, kai\ e)qeasa/meqa th\n do/can au)tou=). This verse brings
together three aspects of the Targumic understanding of God’s dwelling presence
3
Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John's Prologue,
120.
4
Kim is indicative, but overstates his case when he comments, “The most important title for John
is o( lo/go$, eventually becoming the subject of the whole prologue and the whole Gospel. The
lo/go$ is the starting point, the origin of all other titles of Jesus Christ” (Kim, "The Logos-
Christology in the Prologue of the Gospel of John as a Bridge Concept between the Old Testament
Shekinah Events and Johannine Christology", 15). For a useful summary together with helpful
bibliographies, see Morris, The Gospel according to John, 102-11; and Elizabeth Harris, Prologue
and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist, ed. Stanley Porter, JSNTSup 107 (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1994), 196-201.
5
The incarnation is seen in terms of a revelation of glory which can be beheld (1:14), and it is in
this sense that we are primarily to understand lo/go$ - the one who communicates the Father by
means of a visible, dwelling presence. For John, to behold his glory is to understand the light (1:5),
to receive him, to believe in his name, to become a child of God (1:12). In fact, the lo/go$ is in a
unique position to reveal the Father in this way as the monogenh/$ who came from the Father
(1:14) and who is now at the Father’s side (1:18). Thus monogenh/$ in this context is specifically to
be understood in terms of revelation, rather than in helping us to understand the eternal
relationship between the Father and the Son. “We” have beheld his unique glory – glory of the
kind/ magnitude that only the monogenh/$ of the Father can have and reveal (1:14).
75
among his people: the Aramaic buffer words memra (armym) (word), shekinta
(atnyk?) and yeqara (arqy) (glory), as well as the specific verb to dwell or
tabernacle (skhno/w) from which shekinah is derived.6
5.1.2 Structure and Composition of the Prologue

Bultmann’s approach of seeing the prologue as based on a cultic hymn of the
Johannine community has proved influential. 7 Raymond Brown provides a table
in his commentary where he gives various reconstructions of an original hymn
made by J.H. Bernard, S. de Ausejo, P. Gaechter, H.C. Green, E. Haenchen, E.
Käsemann and R. Schnackenburg. Although these reconstructions have a good
deal in common, they also vary considerably, particularly after v5. Brown8 also
offers tentatively his own reconstruction.9 Unfortunately, all this does is to
highlight how speculative and open to interpretation the theories are.10 In the end,
Brown proves little.
On the other hand there are scholars who see the prologue as it stands as a literary
and theological unity from the evangelist’s own hand, closely tied to the gospel
which follows it.11 The prologue is programmatic for the rest of the gospel,
introducing the themes expanded upon in the following chapters, “the theological
matrix from which the themes of the gospel arise, the seed-bed of the gospel’s
teaching,”12 and the “window through which the author …intends the reader to see
6
See ch 3. The case that this is the background for John’s thinking on glory in the prologue is
strengthened when we also include the prominence of the concept of light fw=$ (1:4, 5, 7, 8, 9) in
the prologue, a common component of the Old Testament revelation of God’s glory (Exod 24:17;
Deut 5:24; 2 Chron 7:3; Isa 4:5; 58:8; 60:1, 19; Zech 2:5).
7
Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 13-18.
8
Brown, The Gospel according to John, 18-23.
9
Van der Watt criticises the whole approach: “In the historical-critical paradigm the text is
manipulated, changed, shortened and so on, until a satisfactory structure of the source behind the
text can be identified” (J.G. van der Watt, "The Composition of the Prologue of John's Gospel:
The Historical Jesus Introducing Divine Grace," WTJ 57 (1995), 313).
10
Stephen Voorwinde, "John's Prologue: Beyond Some Impasses of Twentieth-Century
Scholarship," WTJ 63 (2002): 17.
11
Barrett, The Gospel according to St John, 126; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 111-12;
Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 296; Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary,
333-34; John A. T. Robinson, "The Relation of the Prologue to the Gospel of St John," NTS 9
(1962-3): 120-29.
12
Simon R. Valentine, "The Johannine Prologue: A Microcosm of the Gospel," EQ 68 (1996):
293.
76
the gospel.”13 “John has woven his prologue and his gospel into a seamless
garment.”14
Theories of the structure of the prologue are equally numerous and diverse.
Borgen15 and Culpepper16 each propose different chiastic structures, neither of
which is convincing. More recently, Kerr has arrived at a chiastic structure,
agreeing with Culpepper that the centre of the chiasm is vv12-13.17 However, his
linking of vv3-5 (the Word and Creation, the Word and humankind) with vv16-17
(the Word and humankind, the Word and re-creation) seems forced: “there are no
verbal parallels, but the concepts may be parallel… xa/ri$ in v16 could perhaps
result in the gift of eternal life.”18 Against his scheme, grace and truth in 17 (and
14) refer to the nature of the revelation rather than the means of re-creating.
Surely vv12-13 better fit this theme of re-creation. Hooker sees two sections, each
chiastic, a “W” shape, the pivot for each chiasm being the reference to John the
Baptist (vv6-8, 15).19 However, this too relies on unconvincing parallels. Others,
such as Moloney,20 see waves, or spirals, of recurring and developing themes.
Moloney’s structure breaks down as it forms an unconvincing parallelism between
vv1-2 (God-lo/go$), vv6-8 (God-John-light) and v15 (John-lo/go$), each
describing the Word announced and described.
The stumbling block all complicated structures reach is the extent to which John
was aware of the structure as he composed the prologue. The lack of consensus
has seen recent writers suggest that the prologue contains several interrelated and
complementary structures.21 Voorwinde cautions: “Extreme care must be taken
13
Ferreira, Johannine Ecclesiology, 150-51.
14
James T. Dennison, Jr., "The Prologue of John's Gospel," Kerux 8, 2 (1993):6.
15
Peder Borgen, "Logos Was the True Light: Contributions to the Interpretation of the Prologue of
John," NovT 14, 2 (April, 1972): 115-30.
16
Culpepper, "The Pivot of John's Prologue," 16.
17
18
19
Morna Hooker, "John the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue," NTS 16, 2 (1970): 357.
20
Francis J. Moloney, Belief in the World: Reading John 1-4, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 26.
21
Such as van der Watt, "The Composition of the Prologue of John's Gospel: The Historical Jesus
Introducing Divine Grace," 330. Dumbrell proposes both a chiastic and a ring structure. See
William J. Dumbrell, "Grace and Truth: The Progress of the Argument of the Prologue of John's
Gospel", in Doing Theology for the People of God,, Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 1996), 106.
77
with any proposed structure that is overly rigid and /or lays claim to having
discovered the prologue’s central core”.22
Coloe’s analysis of the prologue’s structure is helpful in a number of areas. 23 She

sees it as based on Genesis 1, with strong connections in vocabulary and content
between 1:1-5 and Genesis 1. This would resonate for John’s likely Jewish
audience. Genesis 1 begins with the earth formless (wht) and empty (whb), and is
broken into two parallel sets of three days; the first three days give form to the
formless, days four to six fill up what was empty. Further, day 4 fills up what was
created on day 1, day 5 fills up day 2 and day 6 fills up day 3.24
Introduction: (Gen 1:1-2) In the beginning God
Formless Takes Shape Empty Becomes Full
Day 1 Light and dark (vv3-5) Day 4 Lights of day and night (vv14-19)
Day 2 Sea and sky (vv6-8) Day 5 Creatures of sea and sky (vv20-23)
Day 3 Earth and plants (vv9-13) Day 6 Creatures of the land (vv24-31)
(2:1-3) Completion and Day 7: Rest
Based on this structure, Coloe proposes the following structure for John’s
prologue: 25
Introduction: (John 1:1-2) In the beginning lo/go$ and qeo/$ in eternity
Story of the Word in creation Testimony to the Word’s presence and
and coming into history revelation in history
A. (vv3-5) Life and light that Seen A1. (v14) Word became flesh. We saw
shines in the darkness. his glory.
B. (vv6-8) John testified to the Heard B1. (v15) John testified “I said this was
light. he”.
C. (vv9-13) The light that Experienced C1. (vv16-17) From his fullness we have
enlightens everyone was in the all received fullness – grace and truth
world, but they did not receive came through Jesus Christ, in place of
him. Those who did receive him the grace of law, one blessing after
became children of God. another.
Conclusion: (v18) patro/$ and monogenh/$ in history. Though no one has ever seen God, the
Son, who is now at the Father’s side, has made him known
(as spelled out in the rest of the gospel).
22
Voorwinde, "John's Prologue: Beyond Some Impasses of Twentieth-Century Scholarship," 27.
23
Coloe, "The Structure of the Johannine Prologue and Genesis 1," 40-55.
24
Derek Kidner, Genesis, ed. D.J. Wiseman, Tyndale OT Commentaries (Leicester: IVP, 1967)
46, 54-58; Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis,
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 104; Andrew Reid, Salvation Begins: Reading Genesis Today, ed.
Paul Barnett, Reading the Bible Today (Sydney: Southwood, 2000), 4.
25
Coloe, "The Structure of the Johannine Prologue and Genesis 1," 45-46. The “seen, heard,
experienced” three-fold progression also finds echoes in 1 Jn 1:1-3, and emphasises the sensory
nature of the Christian experience of the Word become flesh.
78
John’s emphasis on the revelation and recognition of Jesus’ glory (1:14) is

reflected in Coloe’s three-fold development of seen, heard, and experienced.
John’s Epistles reveal that Docetists were influential in the Christian church (1 Jn
4:2; 2 Jn 7), denying the real humanity of Jesus,26 and the same three-fold
development is echoed in the introduction to 1 John (1:1-3).27 Both the prologue
and the introduction to the first epistle emphasise the sensory nature of the
community’s experience. The pre-existent Word of God became flesh and so is
accessible to ordinary human experience.
Further evidence for connecting Genesis 1 and the prologue is found in the
Targums. In Tg. Neof. God creates through his armym,28 representing God’s self-
manifestation in the world, the likely background to John’s understanding and use
of lo/go$.29 If the language corresponds then the case for a corresponding
structure is strengthened.
While in Genesis 1 the second half represents an intensification from the first
(formless to shape becomes empty to full), the second half of the prologue
represents an intensification from simply experiencing the story to testifying in the
first person about that experience. 30 The impersonal “light” of A has become the
self-revelatory “glory” of A1, the monogenh/$, God’s own testimony. Receiving
and not receiving the light in C intensifies to C1, receiving fullness, truth and
grace, in place of the grace of law.
Such a structure identifies v14, of principal interest to this thesis, as a crucial point
in the prologue. While prior to the incarnation God could be experienced as word
(1:1-3) and light (vv4-5) and the pre-testimony of John (vv6-9), it was only when
the Word became flesh that the fullness of God’s self-revelatory tabernacling
glory could be experienced. Bultmann calls this verse a solemn “turning point;”31
26
Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, 40-41.
27
Coloe, "The Structure of the Johannine Prologue and Genesis 1," 46.
28
For example “The first night, when the Lord was revealed over the world to create it, the world
was without form and void, and darkness was spread over the face of the abyss, and the armym of
the Lord was the light, and it shone” (Tg. Neof. Exod 12:42).
29
See ch 3.3.
30
Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, 23-24.
31
Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 60.
79
Schnackenburg calls it “the climax;”32 and Moloney regards it as a “synthesis” of

all that has preceded.33 For Coloe, it is “the basic credal statement of the
Johannine community. It expresses… the identity of Jesus as the enfleshed logos
(v14a, b), the nature of the community as witnesses (v14c), and the mission of the
logos… (v14d, e).”34
5.2 John 1:14: The Word Became Flesh

John 1:14 brings together three aspects of the targumic and midrashic
understandings of God’s dwelling self-revelatory presence among his people – the
Aramaic words memra (armym) (lo/go$), shekinta (atnyk?) (skhno/w) and yeqara
(arqy) (dovca).35 John uses these concepts to point towards their fulfilment in the
person of Jesus, the self-revelatory presence of God himself among his people.
Burney argues concerning this verse:
Any disciple of our Lord who had heard the Targumic rendering of the Old
Testament in the synagogue, and who was capable of recognising a
superhuman power shining through the Master’s Personality in his mighty
acts, of detecting the Divine voice in his teaching, and at length of
apprehending that in his presence on earth God had come to dwell among
people, could hardly fail to draw the inference that here was the grand
fulfilment of Old Testament conceptions so familiar to him through the
Aramaic paraphrase.36
This verse consists of five sections, each of which will be considered in turn.
a kai\ o( lo/go$ sa\rc e)ge/neto
b kai\ e)skh/nwsen e)n h(mi=n,
c kai\ e)qeasa/meqa th\n do/can au)tou=,
d do/can w($ monogenou=$ para\ patro/$,
e plh/rh$ xa/rito$ kai\ a)lhqei/a$.
a. The Word became flesh - kai\ o( lo/go$ sa\rc e)ge/neto

The repetition of lo/go$ ties this clause to v1. The divine lo/go$ shares fully in the
Father’s deity (1) and is also fully human (14a) – “one short, shattering
32
Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, 266.
33
Moloney, Belief in the World: Reading John 1-4, 40.
34
Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, 24.
35
See ch 3.
36
80
expression.”37 The use of the aorist e)ge/neto rather than the imperfect h@n of v1
moves from the language of eternity to the language of history.
The use of sa/rc instead of a&nqrwpo$ or sw=ma is striking, “unambiguous, almost

shocking”.38 One of John’s targets in writing a Gospel that focussed on the
question of Jesus’ identity (20:31) was the Docetic ex-members of John’s church,
as seen in John’s epistles.39 The divisive issue was Christology: “Every spirit that
confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh ( )Ihsou=n Xristo\n e)n sarki\
e)lhluqo/ta) is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not of
God (1 John 4:2-3).” In 2 John 7 he asserts that anyone who will not acknowledge
that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh ( )Ihsou=n Xristo\n e)rxo/menon e)n sa/rki)
is the deceiver and the antichrist. A characteristic feature of John’s gospel is his
insistence on Jesus’ full humanity.40
The paradox of the incarnation will be repeated as John unfolds the paradox of the
glory of the cross (3:14-15; 8:28; 12:23, 32-33). Lifting up (u(yo/w) to death means
exaltation and glory. Jesus reveals his glory because of his broken flesh not in
spite of it. It is “eating” Jesus’ flesh, like manna, which will result in resurrection
and being with him on the last day (6:43-59). Bultmann comments: “This is the
paradox which runs through the whole gospel: the do/ca is not to be seen
alongside the sa/rc nor through the sa/rc... it is to be seen in the sa/rc and
nowhere else. If a man wishes to see the do/ca then it is on the sa/rc that he must
concentrate his attention.”41
b. And dwelt among us - kai\ e)skh/nwsen e)n h(mi=n

As v14a asserts a change in the temporal mode of the lo/go$, sa\rc e)ge/neto, v14b
asserts a change in location from being pro\$ to\n qeo/n (v1) to e)skh/nwsen e)n
h(mi=n. The verb “dwelt” e)skh/nwsen / skhno/w is derived from skhnh/ or skh/nwma
“tent” or “tabernacle”, and draws attention to many older traditions of God’s
37
38
39
Wenham, "A Historical View of John's Gospel," 15.
40
For example Jesus became tired and thirsty (4:6-7; 19:28); he showed his emotions in his voice
(11:33), he wept (11:35), his spirit was troubled as he anticipated his death (12:27; 13:21), he
spoke of his flesh and blood (6:53), he called himself a man – a&nqrwpo$ (8:40).
41
81
presence dwelling in Israel.42 It has a strong connection to the Hebrew and

Aramaic words for dwell (/k?) tabernacle (/k?m) and shekinah (hnyk?), sharing
the same consonants. The LXX always uses skhnh/ or skh/nwma for /k?m, and
often uses skhno/w to translate /k? .43 John’s use of e)skh/nwsen is significant,
and reflects his thinking about Jesus as the glory-presence of God among his
people. God designed the tabernacle so that he might dwell in the midst of his
people, and it is a prominent place where God manifests his glory. But now
human flesh, that is, Jesus’ body, becomes the locus where comparable events
take place. 44 W. Robert Cook recognises the line of continuity in John’s thinking:
“In earlier days, God has manifested himself in a tent in the wilderness or in the
temple in Jerusalem; in the present day, he dwells in the sanctuary of the
believer’s body; but in the days of his flesh, he set up his tent in our midst.”45
The dwelling (skhno/w) of the Word among his people is the realisation of God’s
promise of his tabernacling presence, whose most recent prophetic expression
anticipated its fulfilment within a new temple building.
Zech 2:14[10]; "Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For I am coming,
and I will dwell among you (LXX kataskhnw/sw e)n me/sw|)," declares the
LORD.
Joel 3:17 'Then you will know that I, the LORD your God, dwell
(kataskhnw=n) in Zion, my holy hill.
Ezek 37:27 “My dwelling place (kataskh/nwsi$) will be with them.”
Rabbinic thought on the presence of God developed further in the second temple
period with the introduction of the concept of shekinah (hnyk?), the visible,
personal presence of God.46 In this verse, for Thieme “the Old Testament concept
of shekinah glory is distinctly linked to the incarnate Christ.”47 Hoskins, following
Koester, doubts the connection to hnyk? here on the grounds that the Targums
were written after John’s gospel, and he may not have come into contact with the
concept. Since John elsewhere translates Hebrew or Aramaic terms (1:38, 41-41;
9:7; 20:16), Hoskins thinks it unlikely John intends his readers to pick up on a
42
43
For example LXX Deut 33:12; 3 Ki 8:12 (= MT 1 Ki 8:12); Ezek 43:9.
44
45
W. Robert Cook, The Theology of John, (Chicago: Moody, 1979), 52.
46
See 3.2.
47
Thieme, "The Panorama of the Shekinah Glory," 46.
82
‘veiled reference’ to hnyk?.48 However, Hoskins is only interested in skhno/w.

John’s intent concerning hnyk? seems more likely when we consider it as one of a
theological cluster of Aramaic words in 1:14 armym (lo/go$), atnyk? (skhno/w)
and arqy (dovca). John’s message in using skhno/w is that while God manifested
himself in the tabernacle, the incarnate Word is the better hnyk?, the ultimate
manifestation of God among human beings.49
Koester suggests three purposes for the Exodus tabernacle: revelation, atonement
and sacrifice, and divine presence.50 Palmer, using 1:14 to connect Jesus to the
tabernacle, uses these same three categories to answer the question of what John
means when he says that Jesus tabernacled among us.51 Revelation and divine
presence are of greater interest to John than is atonement.52 The means of
atonement, the cross, for John serves instead the purpose of revelation of glory
(12:23-24, 27-33; 13:31-32).53
c. We have beheld his glory - kai\ e)qeasa/meqa th\n do/can au)tou=

Verses 14a and 14b hold the divine and human polarities in paradoxical tension,
thereby making the incredible claim of 14c possible. 54 If either polarity is denied,
there can be no true revelation. For John, do/ca here carries the full significance of
the Old Testament hwhy dwbk that was characteristically linked with verbs of
seeing (Exod 16:7; Isa 40:5) and appearing (Exod 16:10; Deut 5:24; Isa 60:1).55
Moses requested to see God’s glory (Exod 33:18), but God will hide him in the
48
Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John, 118-19. Following
Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, 106, 72.
49
Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, 41; Carson, The Gospel
according to John, 128; David J. MacLeod, "The Incarnation of the Word: John 1:14," BSac 161,
1 (2004): 77-78.
50
Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, 7.
51
Palmer, "Exodus and the Biblical Theology of the Tabernacle", 19-22.
52
The articulation of the atoning and sacrificial aspect of Jesus’ tabernacling presence is not well-
developed. Jesus is twice called the Lamb of God (Jn 1:29, 36), the Son of Man must be lifted up
like Moses’ snake so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life (3:14-15), and
Caiaphas misunderstands it as better for one man to die than for the whole nation to perish (Jn
11:50; 18:14; cf. also Jn 6:51; 10:15). Bultmann goes too far however in saying that the idea of
Jesus’ death as an offering for sin ‘plays no part’ in John’s understanding. Quoted and translated
from the German by Palmer (Palmer, "Exodus and the Biblical Theology of the Tabernacle", 21).
53
The double meaning of u(yo/w - to lift up- emphasises how Jesus’ being physically lifted up to
death can, somehow, result in his glorification (8:28; 12:20-36).
54
Kuyper, "Grace and Truth: An Old Testament Description of God, and its Use in the Johannine
Gospel," 3-19. Mowvley, "John 1:14-18 in the Light of Exodus 33:7-34:35," 136.
55
See 3.1.
83
cleft of a rock, only allowing him to see his back as his glory passes by (Exod
33:21-23). Not only does John compare Christian believers with Moses, he puts
them in an even more privileged position than Moses – no one has ever seen God
(including Moses), but e)qeasa/meqa th\n do/can au)tou=! Incredibly, God the
monogenh/$ has made him known (1:18).56 In the face of the temple’s destruction,
meeting God is not through following Moses and increased adherence to Torah.
God is met in the one who truly makes known the Father, who gives the right to
become true children of God (1:12).
d. Glory as of the one and only from the Father - do/can w($ monogenou=$ para\
patro/$
Verse 14c is followed by a two-fold apposition, both describing the nature of the
glory-revelation. John falls short of saying that it is God’s glory which has been
seen, but the equivalence he draws between the lo/go$ and God (1:1,18) means he
is very close to saying that the glory in 1:14 is really hwhy dwbk. 57 John’s emphasis
in using monogenh/$ is to comment on the unique character of the lo/go$, rather
than on his filial relationship with the Father.58 He is thus in a unique position as
revealer (1:18; 14:6, 9). The w($ does not express a comparison, but means “in
accordance with the fact that.”59 It is best to see para\ patro/$ as modifying
monogenou=$ rather than do/can.60 John’s point is to do with revelation rather than
Christology: that the monogenh/$ who comes from the Father reveals his glory like
no other – better even than Moses, as 1:16-18 goes on to explain. 61 In light of the
56
57
58
The word monogenh/$ is best understood as derived from gi/nomai rather than genna/w. See
Henry George Liddell, and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford: Oxford University,
1940), 349. Thus “the One and Only” or “unique” (NEB, NIV, RSV) is a better translation than
“only begotten” (ASV, KJV, NASB) or “only Son (ESV, TLB). Most modern-day scholars agree:
See Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:13-14; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 128;
Morris, The Gospel according to John, 93; Gerard Pendrick, "Monogenes," NTS 41 (1995): 587-
600. Others defend the addition of “son” because of the phrase para\ patro/$. The word
monogenh/$ relative to a father can hardly be anything other than an only begotten son. So
MacLeod, "The Incarnation of the Word: John 1:14," 82. For a defence of ‘only begotten’ see John
V. Dahms, "The Johannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered," NTS 29, 2 (1983): 222-32.
59
60
As does Barrett, The Gospel according to St John, 166; Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A
Commentary, 71; and Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:14. Jesus is said to come para\
patro/$ in 6:46; 7:29; 16:27; 17:8.
61
D. A. Fennema, "John 1:18: 'God the Only Son'," NTS 31 (1985): 124-35.
84
temple’s destruction, approaching God is not through greater Torah obedience,

but through beholding his incarnate glory.
e. Full of grace and truth

This is the second apposition following v14c, and describes the nature of the
glory-revelation. The phrase plh/rh$ xa/rito$ kai\ a)lhqei/a$ bears a remarkable
similarity, especially since the context of both is a revelation of glory, to Exod
34:6, where God, in answer to Moses’ request to show him his glory, describes
himself to Moses as abounding in covenant love and truth (tmaw dsj -br). What
is the relationship between the two verses? Some see Exodus 33-34 as a backdrop
to John 1, but deny that plh/rh$ xa/rito$ kai\ a)lhqei/a$ translates tmaw dsj -
br.62 Others see a connection to the more common tmaw dsj, but not specifically
Exod 34:6.63 Is John simply alluding to it?64 Or is it a deliberate citation?65 Those
who see no connection66 note that the LXX usually translates dsj as e)/leo$ rather
than xa/ri$.67 Only Esth 2:9 (LXX) uses xa/ri$ to translate dsj. However,
Hanson lists numerous examples of later Greek translations that use xa/ri$ in
rendering dsj and this may explain the variation.68 John’s addition of plh/rh$ for
br adds weight to the argument that he is quoting it, since Exod 34:6 is the only
place where the full phrase tmaw dsj -br is found (elsewhere one finds just tmaw
62
Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 82, 175-76; Zane C. Hodges, "Grace after
Grace: John 1:16," BSac 135, 1 (1978): 34-45.
63
Bernard prefers Psalm 85:7-11 as a likely source, as it also groups glory, dwell, love and
faithfulness [J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St
John, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928)]. Barrett sees plh/rh$ as referring back to monogenou=$ and
therefore finds connections more widely than just Exod 34:6 (Barrett, The Gospel according to St
John, 139). See also Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 82, 175-76; and Morris, The
Gospel according to John, 95, 104 for this position.
64
For example “the combination recalls the description of Exod 34:6” (Westcott, The Gospel
according to St John: The Authorised Version with Introduction and Notes, 103). Kuyper sees it as
one of the passages lying behind John’s phrase (Kuyper, "Grace and Truth: An Old Testament
Description of God, and its Use in the Johannine Gospel," 3-19). See also Anthony Hanson, "John
1:14-18 and Exodus 34," NTS 23, 1 (1977): 90-101; Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:14;
Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, 41-42; Carson, The Gospel
according to John, 129; and Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, 272.
65
So Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John, 119-21; Thieme,
"The Panorama of the Shekinah Glory," 49; Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel,
35-37; Kuyper, "Grace and Truth: An Old Testament Description of God, and its Use in the
Johannine Gospel," 3-19. Mowvley, "John 1:14-18 in the Light of Exodus 33:7-34:35," 136.
66
Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 50, note 1; Dodd, The Interpretation of the
Fourth Gospel, 176; Hodges, "Grace after Grace: John 1:16," 38-39.
67
68
Hanson, "John 1:14-18 and Exodus 34," 93.
85
dsj).69 The plausibility of quotation increases when we include thematic parallels

between Exod 33:18-34:7 and Jn 1:14-18: seeing God’s glory (Exod 33:18-19,
34:5-7; Jn 1:14c-d); seeing God (Exod 33:20-23, Jn 1:18a); and the giving of the
law to Moses (Exod 34:1-4, Jn 1:17a). It seems reasonable to conclude that John
is translating (possibly directly from the Hebrew) the phrase in Exod 34:6.70 For
Thieme, the “linguistic and theological association … would have been easily
identifiable to the Jews… It may be concluded with a high degree of certainty that
the author of 1:14 is deliberately echoing Exodus 34:6.”71
Hanson concludes, concerning 1:14 and Exod 34:6, that “these are the two
passages in the Old Testament and the New Testament which treat most explicitly
the particular revelation of God to man.”72 John’s main purpose in using the
phrase, rather than to focus on these two specific characteristics of God,73 is more
general: whatever God revealed to Moses of himself, Jesus reveals more
completely and widely. If anything is to be made of xa/rito$ kai\ a)lhqei/a$, it is
that the gift in view is the revelation of God himself (1:16-18), and the
truthfulness of God’s character means that we can trust the revelation. Such an
approach helps to explain the puzzle of why xa/ri$ appears four times in vv14-17
and then not again in the rest of the Gospel. John is more interested in the gift of
the self-revelation of the incarnate Word, rather than a theology of redemptive
grace.
For Ridderbos, the point of John’s two-fold use of plh/rh$ xa/rito$ kai\
a)lhqei/a$ from Exod 34:6 is to highlight the comparison between Moses and
Jesus:
In the giving of the law God revealed himself to Moses… as the God of
grace and truth, steadfast love, and faithfulness… Still, however unequalled
Moses’ significance was as the mediator between God and the people of
Israel, he could not see God’s glory except from afar as the last rays of the
sun, and even less could he be the bearer or dispenser of that glory in its
69
70
71
Thieme, "The Panorama of the Shekinah Glory," 49.
72
Hanson, "John 1:14-18 and Exodus 34," 101.
73
Contra Kuyper, "Grace and Truth: An Old Testament Description of God, and its Use in the
Johannine Gospel," 3-13, who conducts an Old Testament word study, in both the human and
divine contexts, of dsj and tma to arrive at what John meant.
86
fullness. But of Jesus Christ we are now told that grace and truth came
through him. 74
The comparison between Moses and Jesus becomes overt in 1:16-18, linked to
1:14e by the repetition of plh/rwma and xa/ri$ in v16a.75 Although many
interpreters prefer “grace upon grace” for xa/rin a)nti\ xa/rito$ in v16b, viewing
a)nti/ as synonymous with e(pi/ (upon), meaning that believers receive an abundant
supply of grace that is never depleted,76 a better alternative is to give a)nti/ its
usual meaning of ‘instead of’ or ‘in place of’, indicating the replacement of one
grace by another. The context in 1:17 makes clear the nature of the two graces: the
law given through Moses was superseded by the fullness of grace and truth –
probably referring to a full revelation of the character of God, as in 1:14 and Exod
34:6. The law revealed something of the character of God, but now Jesus reveals
him fully. John’s message is that intimacy with God will not happen through
Torah obedience, rather through approaching the Word incarnate, God the
monogenh/$ (1:18) who makes the Father known.
John 1:14(-18) thus presents Jesus as the glory of God, his complete self-
revelation and dwelling presence, fulfilling and replacing all that was
foreshadowed in the tabernacle and the temple, Moses and the law. Such typology
is polemic: God is not met by adherence to Mosaic law, he is met in the incarnate
word, God the One and Only.
5.3 Signs and Glory

There is a strong connection between the signs Jesus performed and the revelation
of his glory. John uses shmei=a for Jesus’ miracles – they are performed to be seen,
and are thus part of what it means to behold glory. 77 To see Jesus’ glory as
revealed in his signs is to believe in him. 78 The first and last signs in the section
74
Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary, trans. J.
Vriend (Grand Rapids/ Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997), 58.
75
Edwards, "Karin Anti Karitos (John 1:16): Grace and Law in the Johannine Prologue," 3-15.
76
For example Barrett, The Gospel according to St John, 140; Barnabas Lindars, John, New
Testament Study Guides (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 97; Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John: A
Theological Commentary, 56; Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, 275.
77
Jn 2:11, 18, 23: 3:2; 4:54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 20:30.
78
M. Labahn, "Between Tradition and Literary Art: The Miracle Tradition in the Fourth Gospel,"
Bib 80 (1999): 178-203.
87
between chapters 2 and 11 both connect the sign, seeing glory, and believing
(2:11; 11:4, 40). Mlakuzhyil argues persuasively that 2:1-11 and 11:1-44 are
bridge-sections that conclude the sections they follow, and introduce the sections
they precede. 79 They thus form an inclusio, tying all of Jesus’ signs to a revelation
of his glory. Although the intervening signs do not connect signs and glory, they
do perform the important function of outlining the connection between signs as a
revelation of glory, and the right and wrong responses from those who see the
signs. The right response is to believe in the one the signs point to. The wrong
response is to focus on the signs themselves, or to proudly refuse to believe. 80
5.4 John’s Lack of a Transfiguration Account

John notes that he has been selective in his choice of material (20:30-31; 21:25).
On the surface, his omission of a transfiguration account, of which he was an
eyewitness and which the Synoptics all record (Mt 17:1-18; Mk 9:2-8; Lk 9:28-
36), seems puzzling, if the revelation of glory is as dominant a theme as this thesis
is suggesting. Yet John fails to include many Synoptic episodes, perhaps most
notably the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It is possible, though certainly not
79
Mlakuzhyil, The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel, 137-242.
The General Introduction (1:1-2:11)
Hymnic-testimonial introduction (1:1-18)
Testimonial- kerygmatic introduction (1:19-51)
*Historical sign-introduction (2:1-11)
The Book of Jesus’ Signs (2:1-12:50)
Jesus’ initial signs and encounters (from Cana to Cana) (2-4)
Jesus’ works, signs and discussions (at Jewish feasts) (5-10)
* Bridge-section (11-12)
The Book of Jesus’ Hour (11:1-20:29)
The climactic sign and the coming of Jesus’ hour (11-12)
Jesus’ farewell of the hour (13-17)
The hour of Jesus’ passion-death-resurrection (18-20)
80
Passage Sign Right Wrong

response response
1. Water into Wine (2:1-11) 2:11 do/ca 2:11 None
2. Healing of the official’s 4:54 This was the second shmei=on that Jesus 4:53 4:48
son (4:43-54) performed, having come from Judea to Galilee.
3. Lame man healed on 6:2 … they saw the shmei=a he had performed on the 5:24 5:46-47
Sabbath (5) sick.
4. Feeding the five thousand 6:14 … the people saw the shmei=on that Jesus did 6:29, 68-69 6:26, 66
(6:1-15)
5. Blind man healed (9) 9:16 … but others asked, "How can a sinner do such 9:38 9:40-41
shmei=a?" So they were divided.
6. Raising of Lazarus (11) 11:40: do/ca 11:45 11:48
11:47 "Here is this man performing many shmei=a.
88
provable, that one of the other Synoptic gospels was circulating, and that John,
according to his stated intent (20:30-31), did not feel the need to repeat what had
already been done.
John’s emphasis is that Jesus’ whole life, rather than one isolated event, revealed
his glory (1:14).81 John deliberately describes the incarnation as o( lo/go$ sa\rc
e)ge/neto (1:14) emphasising Jesus’ full humanity (see 5.2), against the Docetic
ex-members of his church (see 1 Jn 4:2-3; 2 Jn 7). 82 The do/ca is seen in sa/rc,
and ultimately in the hour of glory, the cross, rather than an exalted heavenly
transfiguration.
Another possibility for John’s omission of the transfiguration is that it presents

Moses (and Elijah) as appearing in glory (o)fqe/nte$ e)n do/ch| - Lk 9:31). John has
already contrasted Moses and Jesus, emphasising that the gift of grace and truth
from the latter replaces and supersedes the grace of law from the former (1:17).
Glasson notes the great impression the shining face of Moses (Exod 34:29-35) had
made on contemporary Jews as evidenced in the Targums.83 Perhaps John wants
to undercut any Jewish speculation about the glory of Moses. Jesus’ whole earthly
life exceeds the glory of any encounter Moses had with God.
5.5 The Hour of Glory – John 12:20-50

Structurally, this passage is part of the first half of the gospel that focusses on
Jesus as the glory and temple of God, yet it introduces events (prefaced at 12:16)
that do not occur until chs 18-21, which are the ultimate revelation of glory. At the
same time it looks back to the shmei=a which reveal Jesus’ glory (2:11; 11:4, 40).
Jesus declares that the hour (w%ra) has come for the Son of Man to be glorified
(12:23), clearly referring to his death with the illustration of the kernel of wheat
dying then producing many seeds. Other references to Jesus’ w%ra connect it to
death (7:30; 8:20) and glory (13:1; 17:1), thus connecting death to glory. 84
81
82
Wenham, "A Historical View of John's Gospel," 15.
83
Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel, 68-71.
84
Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, 1:401.
89
Although counter-intuitive, it is through weakness and death that Jesus most

clearly glorifies his Father: that is, reveals his salvific character made manifest for
his people. Jesus’ death is referred to as his glorification (7:39; 12:16), and the
hour of glory (12:23; 17:1 see also 13:31-32).
Jesus’ prediction of his death (12:20-36), following so closely on from the defeat
of death in Lazarus as the penultimate and greatest do/ca-revealing shmei=on yet
(11:4, 40), links the previous signs with the ultimate do/ca-revealing sign. Hoskins
identifies the causality between the two stages of this revelation of glory:
His glorification is composed of two primary stages… The first stage … is
his ministry on earth prior to his ‘hour’… the means by which the Son
glorifies, or displays the glory of, the Father… It simultaneously incites
conflict… (that) reaches its climax in Jesus’ ‘hour’ when the Jews set into
motion their plan to kill Jesus. This, the initial glorification of the Son
through his works, incites the conflict that leads to the next, climactic stage
in his glorification.85
A further level of causality can be identified. One of the purposes of this section is
to serve as a bridge between chapters 1-12, which focus on Jesus as the glory and
temple of God’s presence, and chapters 13-21 that focus on the disciples as the
glory and temple of God’s presence. By introducing events that do not occur until
chs 18-21, it shows how the two identifications are causally linked. Jesus’ glory
(seen to a lesser extent in his shmei=a but ultimately to be revealed on the cross –
12:41) is revealed as he is lifted up in death, thus drawing all people to himself
(12:32-33). Such people must serve and follow Jesus (12:26), put their trust in the
light and so become sons of light (12:36). Chapters 13-17 then go on to flesh out
what that looks like for the disciples. Jesus has given them the glory (mediated
God’s glory to them)86 that the Father gave him (17:22), with the result that they
become the temple in whom God dwells (14:2) through his Holy Spirit (14:16-
23), and thus who glorify the Son (17:10), and glorify God to the world by
bearing fruit, showing that they are Jesus’ disciples (15:8).87
85
86
87
See ch 6.
90
John’s theology of the glory of the cross is evident in this section with its dual
themes of glory88 and death.89 The glory of the cross is greater than any previous
glory. When Jesus prays that his Father would glorify (do/cason – aorist) his
name (12:28), a voice from heaven responds, “I glorify it (e)do/casa – aorist) and
will glorify it (doca/sw –future) again.” Rather than referring to Jesus’ prior
earthly activity, e)do/casa simply takes up the aorist of Jesus’ request. Both aorists
should be viewed as punctiliar rather than past, referring to the hour that has
‘now’ arrived (12:27).90 A similar use of the aorist for doca/zw, with a
contemporary time focus, is found at 13:31, when, following Judas’ departure,
Jesus declares, “Now (nu=n) is the Son of Man glorified (e)doca/sqh – aorist
passive), and God is glorified (e)doca/sqh - aorist passive) in him.”
The themes of death and glory coalesce in John’s use of u(yo/w - to lift up - in
12:32 and 34. Its ambiguity captures well the irony of victory through defeat, of
salvation through death, of glory through shame, 91 of how Jesus’ humiliation can
be the ultimate means of his revealing the glory of God.92 The verb u(yo/w can
either mean to exalt or honour (5:41,44; 7:18; 8:49-50; 9:24), or glorify, to cause
glory to be revealed or seen (8:54; 11:4; 13:31-21; 14:13; 15:8; 16:14; 17:1, 4-5,
10; 21:19). It also means to physically raise, for John, especially in the context of
death by crucifixion (3:14; 8:28).93
Jesus’ comment in 12:32 that he will be lifted up from the earth is followed with
the explanatory comment in 12:33 that he said this to show the kind of death he
was going to die. In 3:14 Moses lifting up – u%ywsen – the snake in the desert, and
thus effecting salvation, is compared to the Son of Man being lifted up
(u(ywqh~nai) as well as in 8:28. The ambiguity is seen in 12:34 with the crowd’s
88
doca/zw – at vv 23, 28 (three times), and do/ca – at v41.
89
a)poqnh/skw – vv 24 (twice), as well as “losing life” in v25.
90
Pamment, "The Meaning of Doxa in the Fourth Gospel," 13. Contra Morris, The Gospel
according to John, 530.
91
Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, 1:398-410.
92
See the discussion by Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John,
147-52.
93
There are also passages where the meaning of u(yo/w combines both senses. In Mt 11:23 and Lk
10:15 e%w$ ou)ranou= u(ywqh/sh| is a symbol of crowning with the highest honours. Walter Bauer, A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. William
F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, Second ed. (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago,
1958), 850-51.
91
misunderstanding. They question how Jesus can say that the Son of Man must be
lifted up (u(ywqh=nai), since the law says that the Christ will remain forever.
Although this may refer to 12:32,94 (where Jesus says “I, when I am lifted up from
the earth, will draw all people to myself”), the lack of Jesus’ use of the title ‘Son
of Man’ here makes the crowd’s question more likely to be in response to Jesus’
statement in 12:23: "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified
(docasqh=)| ”. If this is so, then the crowd has replaced doca/zw with u(yo/w showing
a lack of understanding for how Jesus is using either term here. Jesus is glorified
by being lifted up, not in the sense of being exalted, but through his sacrificial
death being lifted up on a cross (as in 3:14) revealing his loving, salvific
character, and in turn revealing the glory of his Father (17:1). Such double
meanings and misunderstanding are a feature of the Fourth Gospel, e.g. born
again/ from above - a&nwqen (3:3-9), and living water - u%dwr zw=n (4:10-15).
The Old Testament background for John’s use of u(yo/w, doca/zw and do/ca in
12:20-50 can be found in the LXX of Isaiah, and it serves to illustrate how, for
John, the events of the passion reveal God’s glory. In Isa 2:6-22 and 33, u(yo/w and
doca/zw (or do/ca) are found in the context of God’s revelation of himself in both
judgment and salvation. Further, in Isa 5:16 one finds both u(yo/w and doca/zw
where God displays his nature and glory through exercising judgment, while in
Isa 49:3 u(yo/w and doca/zw are used to show how God displays his glory in his
servant, the context making clear that salvation is in view. Hoskins concludes: “In
the Septuagint the close connection between judgment and salvation is maintained
by using the same verbs for God’s display of his glory and exalted nature in
judgment and for his subsequent display of these attributes in salvation.”95 Such
an understanding prepares the reader for John’s presentation of the exaltation and
glorification of Jesus on the cross – not in two separate events of judgment then
salvation, but in one event which signals both judgment on his innocent Son, as
well as either judgment or salvation depending on how people respond to it (3:18;
12:25; 12:44-50).
94
So Chilton, who argues that the crowd heard Jesus refer to the Son of Man around the time of
12:32 but that John did not report it, and then connected Son of Man with Messiah on the basis of
Targ. Is. 52:13. Bruce D. Chilton, "John 12:34 and Targum Isaiah 52:13," NovT XXII, 2 (1980):
177.
95
92
John’s emphasis, seen here in ch 12, is on the cross as the means of glorification,
and then to a lesser extent on his resurrection and ascension. “It is not just that the
shame of the cross is inevitably followed by the glory of the exaltation, but that
the glory is already fully displayed in the shame.”96 This fits with John’s intent of
revealing the incarnational revelation of glory (1:14), rather than an other-worldly
glory. Nicholson’s view that glorification in the Fourth Gospel never includes
Jesus’ death but refers exclusively to his exaltation is too closely tied to 17:5 and
must twist the obvious meaning of other passages such as 12:24 as not referring to
Jesus death.97
On the other hand, Pamment overstates her case when she says “glorification
refers to Jesus’ death and does not include a separate ‘second stage’, so to speak,
of enthronement”, since this is the act which brings greatest glory to the Father –
“the expression of selfless love and unmerited generosity.” She notes that in 20:17
Jesus uses a)nabai/nw rather than doca/zw to refer to his ascent to the Father (see
also 3:13; 6:62). 98 However, there are hints of an other-worldly glory (such as in
17:5; 17:24 and 12:16).99 While the context of Jesus’ announcement of the hour
for the Son of Man to be glorified is to do with death (12:24-26), there is also
Jesus’ promise that where he is, his servant will also be – presumably in eternity.
Dying is the means by which both Jesus and his followers will attain it (12:25).
Also, the use of ‘Son of Man’ in each of Jesus’ references to his death as being
lifted up (3:14; 8:28; 12:23,34) points to an other-worldly referent. In fact, in John
‘Son of Man’ always refers to Jesus’ heavenly position or role (1:51; 3:13; 5:27;
6:27; 6:53; 9:35-39; 13:31). In Daniel 7 the Son of Man is given glory100 by the
Ancient of Days so that all nations should worship him (7:14). For John, the ‘Son
of Man’ has been lifted up to death – a death that saves many, and that vindicates
him as the one worthy of worship and to judge (9:35-39) as in Daniel 7.
96
97
G. C. Nicholson, Death as Departure: The Johannine Descent-Ascent Schema, SBLDS 63
(Chico: Scholars, 1983), 149-55.
98
Pamment, "The Meaning of Doxa in the Fourth Gospel," 13-14.
99
In 12:16 we are told that the disciples recognise the fulfillment of Zech 9:9 in Jesus’ entry to
Jerusalem on the donkey only after Jesus was glorified (e)doca/sqh). This is presumably a
reference to his ascension and after the Holy Spirit is sent who would guide them into all truth
(16:13).
100
Aramaic arqy translated as do/ca by Codex Chisianus and timh/ by the Chester Beatty codex.
93
Why is “the hour” now?

The above thematic discussion explains why John may have placed this episode
where he did. But what causes Jesus, from a narrative point of view, to announce
that the hour has now arrived for the Son of Man to be glorified (12:23)?
Following Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem (12:12-15), the crowd went out to
meet him, causing the Pharisees to say to each other, “You see (qewrei=te) that
you are gaining nothing. See (i&de), the world (o( ko/smo$) has gone after him!”
(12:19). The reference to ko/smo$ serves to introduce some Greeks, who now
approach Phillip, probably also a Greek-speaker, and request to see (i)dei=n) Jesus.
The Greeks’ introduction triggers Jesus’ response concerning the arrival of the
hour for the Son of Man to be glorified (12:23). He will be lifted up, in his death,
and draw all people (pa/nta$) – even Greeks – to himself (12:33). “Jesus views
(their coming) as evidence that his mission has reached its climax and that he is
now to die for the world.”101 Barrett identifies broader structural connections: “the
rest of the chapter winds up the ministry of Jesus to the Jews in order that the true
and spiritual ‘conversation’ of Jesus with the Greeks may begin – on the other
side of the crucifixion.”102
Those who respond to Jesus’ revelation of glory see (i&dwsin) with their eyes, and
understand with their hearts (12:40), and believe (12:37-39). Even Isaiah saw
(ei@den) Jesus’ glory (12:41). This consistent theme of seeing and believing/ not
seeing and believing is first introduced in the prologue (1:5, 10-14). The regular
references to seeing in this section are surely not accidental – they reflect John’s
love of double meaning, as well as his understanding of Jesus as glory – the
visible presence of God in the flesh whose glory we have seen (e)qeasa/meqa)
(1:14). Such seeing is crucial now, at the hour of the greatest manifestation of
glory, the cross.
To explain the negative response to Jesus’ shmei=a John quotes Isaiah, first from
53:1 and then from 6:10. It is in the context of these Isaianic quotations that the
mysterious introduction of the Greeks can be explained, as well as providing a
101
102
94
rationale for Jesus’ designation that the hour had arrived for the Son of Man to be
glorified. In Isa 52:13-15, the context of John’s first quotation in 12:38, Isaiah
describes the coming of the suffering servant who will be raised (<wr) and lifted
up (a?n) and very high (dam hbgw). The LXX translates this u(ywqh/setai kaiˆ
docasqh/setai sfo/dra – he will be exalted/ lifted up and greatly glorified,
intending u(yo/w and docavzw to be synonyms, an understanding the crowd seems
to share (12:23 cf. 12:34). Yet it is through his elevation on a cross to death that
Jesus will reveal his glory most thoroughly.
Isaiah’s words concerning the irony of the exaltation of a suffering servant

resonate with John’s portrait of Jesus here. The jarring contradiction within
Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the suffering servant is that despite his exaltation
and glorification (52:13), his appearance was so disfigured that there were many
who were appalled at him (52:14). The result will be that kings and nations will be
amazed and their mouths will be stopped. They will see and understand his
mission, even though they have not been told the message. “The wisdom of God
will utterly confound human wisdom.”103 While the MT Isa 52:15 has “so will he
sprinkle (hzy) many nations,” the LXX, instead, has “so will many nations marvel
(qauma/sontai) at him”. To marvel (qauma/zw) at Jesus’ words and works is a
favourite description of John’s for the people’s response (3:7; 4:27; 5:20, 28; 7:15,
21). It is this response from kings and nations to the peculiar wisdom of God’s
saving action through a suffering servant that causes Isaiah to ask the astonished
question in 53:1, “Who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the
LORD been revealed?” The arm of the LORD refers to the action of his salvific plan
(see Ps 98:1). The hour of God’s salvation will be seen when the nations
recognise it. This background of Isaiah’s suffering servant provides a likely
explanation for why the inquiring Greeks triggered Jesus’ comments that the hour
for his glorification had arrived. Jesus recognised, in the interest of the nations, as
predicted by Isaiah, the signs that his ultimate glorification and suffering
(wrapped up in the dual meaning of u(yo/w) were beginning.
103
Barry Webb, The Message of Isaiah, ed. J.A. Motyer, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester: IVP,
1996), 210.
95
Following the quotation from Isa 6:10, John makes the extraordinary claim:
“Isaiah said this because he saw (ei@den) his (Jesus’) glory (do/can) and spoke
about him (12:41)”. John is most probably thinking of Isaiah 6. While the MT in
Isa 6:1, says that the train of his robe (lw?) filled the temple, the LXX, instead,
says that the house was full of his glory (plh/rh$ o( oi@ko$ th=$ do/ch$ au)tou=). Not
surprisingly given the extraordinary nature of the revelation, the Targum of Isaiah
6:5 declares that Isaiah saw “the glory of the shekinah of the King of the ages”
(aymlu ilm tnykv rqy),104 perhaps making the connection to Jesus more obvious
for John. Isaiah responds that his eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty
(LXX - to\n basile/a ku/rion sabawq ei@don toi=$ o)fqalmoi=$ mou). Even though
Isaiah records for us that the LORD will not give his glory to another (Isa 42:8;
48:11), John makes the connection between Jesus and the Father. This may either
mean that Isaiah saw a vision of the pre-existent Son, or had a prophetic vision of
the heavenly glory given to Jesus at/ after his resurrection. For John, both stages
of Jesus’ glory were significant (17:5). “Jesus was the Lord (LXX to\n ku/rion
Heb. ynda) seated in glory in Isa 6:1” says Hurtado.105 For the purpose of this
thesis however, the main point is that John connects this vision of glory with the
incarnate glory of the monogenh/$ who is Jesus (1:14), the greater divine
revelation (1:18).
5.6 Glory and the Temple

The Old Testament presentation of the hwhy dwbk reveals a two-fold purpose:
God’s self-revelation, and his dwelling presence among his people. Both find
expression in the Fourth Gospel with respect to the temple.
5.6.1 Glory as Self-Revelation, and the Temple – Jesus and Teaching

John presents Jesus as the glory of God (1:14) who uniquely makes known the
Father (1:18). Just as the hwhy dwbk was present in the temple, and its predecessor
the tabernacle, so Jesus, as the do/ca, is frequently found in the temple. 106 It is the
104
105
Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, 379.
106
Jn 2:12-22; 5:14-47; 7:14-8:59; 10:22-39; see also 6:59 that places Jesus’ bread of life
discourse in the synagogue.
96
place where he teaches (6:59; 7:14; 7:28; [8:2]; and 8:20), revealing his divine
identity, and the place where this revelation is questioned, and eventually rejected
by ‘the Jews’. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus does not teach (dida/skw) outside
synagogue or temple. In fact, in 18:20 Jesus notes that he has spoken openly and
always taught (pa/ntote e)di/daca) in the synagogues and at the temple where all
the Jews come together, and said nothing in secret.107
One further reference, of interest to this thesis, is in 14:26 where Jesus promises
that another Counsellor (14:16 – a&llon para/klhton), the Holy Spirit, will teach
in the new temple of the Christian believers. For John, the revelation of God’s
glory takes place in the teaching in the temple, whether that be by Jesus in
chapters 1-12, or the promise of the Holy Spirit in the new temple of God’s
people, as found in chapters 13-21.
5.6.2 Glory as Dwelling Presence, and the Temple - John 7-8

John describes Jesus as the fulfilment of the tabernacling glory of God (1:14),
foreshadowed by the glory-cloud that descended on Mt Sinai, the tabernacle, and
Solomon’s temple during the Feast of Tabernacles (see 4.2, 4.3). In Ezekiel’s
vision, the glory of God’s presence departs the temple because of the people’s sin
(Ezekiel 10-11). Despite God’s promise that the glory will return (Ezek 39:21-29;
43:1-5; 44:4; also Hag 2:1-9; Zech 2:5), Solomon’s temple was destroyed in 587/6
BC. Haggai and Zechariah nowhere relate a fulfilment of the returning glory to
Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, God’s promise is not fulfilled until Jesus, the glory
of God tabernacling among his people, enters Herod’s temple in John 7-8 during
the Feast of Tabernacles.108 Since it was during the Feast of Tabernacles that
God’s glory had first entered Solomon’s temple, it seems that John is drawing
inter-textual connections between John 7 and 2 Chronicles 5 ‫ ׀׀‬1 Kings 8 using the
107
The context is that Caiaphas is questioning Jesus about his disciples and his teaching (th=$
didaxh=$ au)tou=). This does not mean he did not speak to his disciples in private, simply that what
he said in private was similar what he said in public. Thus there was little point questioning his
disciples; any of the thousands who had heard him would do (Carson, The Gospel according to
John, 584). Lieu’s conclusion, however, is that Jesus’ other conversations are not to be thought of
as ‘teaching’ (Lieu, "Temple and Synagogue in John," 54).
108
Jesus’ first visit to Herod’s temple (2:12-25) does not contain the inter-textual connections of
glory that suggest either Old Testament context. Its purpose, rather, is to introduce Jesus, the
antitype, as the one who replaces the temple, the type.
97
themes of glory, temple and the Feast of Tabernacles.109 His purpose is to accuse
“the Jews” of not responding to the true glory entering Herod’s temple the way
their forefathers had responded to the glory-cloud entering Solomon’s temple, that
is with joyful praise, belief and obedience.
The glory of God, greeted with such joy by the people at the dedication of
Solomon’s temple, and treated with such idolatrous disdain by the people of
Ezekiel’s time, comes to the temple, in fulfilment of God’s visionary promise to
Ezekiel that his glory would return. The reaction of the people to Jesus’ arrival is
mixed at best – some believe (7:12a, 31, 40-41), others want him killed (7:12b,
30, 42).110 John specifically makes the comment in 7:43 that the people were
divided (sxi/sma - also at 9:16 and 10:19) because of Jesus. Such division in
response to Jesus’ revelation of glory is a common theme of John’s (e.g. 5:22-27;
6:52; 12:44-48), beginning in the prologue (1:10-13).
John’s account of this episode begins with an intriguing description of Jesus’

belated entrance into the temple, first remaining in Galilee then travelling to
Jerusalem in secret (7:1-13). Interestingly, in Ezekiel’s vision the glory of the
LORD had hovered both over the entrance of the east temple gate (Ezek 10:18-19),
and over the mountain east of the temple (Ezek 11:23) before departing, perhaps
watching to see how the people would respond. Could John’s introduction be a
deliberate echo of Ezekiel’s description of the departing glory? Certainly, John’s
portrayal of oi( )Ioudai=oi is one of their hatred of Jesus (7:7, 19-20), trying to
seize him (7:30, 44) and accusing him of being a deceiver (7:47). The portrait is
equally damning as that of the idolatry of the Jewish leaders in Ezekiel’s time
(Ezek 11:1-14; also Ezekiel 8 and 9) that caused the departure of the glory of the
LORD.
109
Other significant connections between the temple and the Feast of Tabernacles are in Ezra 3,
where Tabernacles is mentioned at the beginning of the construction of Zerubbabel’s temple, and
in Neh 8:13-18, where the people celebrate Tabernacles at the completion of the city walls.
110
Francis J. Moloney, "Narrative and Discourse at the Feast of Tabernacles", in Word, Theology,
and Community in John, (ed. John R. Painter, Alan Culpepper, and Fernando F. Segovia; Danvers,
MA: Chalice, 2002), 155-72; Catherine Cory, "Wisdom's Rescue: A New Reading of the
Tabernacles Discourse (John 7:1-8:59)," JBL 116, 1 (1997): 95-116.
98
It seems most likely that John has the 2 Chronicles passage in mind. In this
account, at the end of his prayer (2 Chron 6:41-42) Solomon quotes the messianic
Psalm 132 (LXX 131) praying that the LORD might arise and come to his resting
place. The Psalmist (LXX 131:13-18) affirms that the LORD has chosen Zion for
his dwelling (katoiki/an), to be his resting place (kata/pausi$) forever, where he
will sit enthroned (katoikh/sw), the place where he will set up a lamp for my
anointed one (LXX tw=Ç xristw=Ç mou, MT yjy?ml). Such a rich promise of God’s
presence in the person of his Christ forms the background for John’s readers as
they read of the glory of the one and only who dwelt among us (1:14), recognised
immediately by Andrew and Simon as the Christ (1:41), and who promises many
dwellings for his followers (14:2) through the indwelling of his Spirit (14:23).
5.7 Jesus’ Replacement of the Temple

Kerr’s thesis is that, for John, Jesus replaces the temple complex in its entirety, in
its regular cultic activity, as well as in the Jewish feasts associated with the
temple. 111 John’s message to Jews coping with the destruction of the temple is that
Jesus, as the antitype to all the typology of the temple, tabernacle, and feasts,
supersedes them and replaces them as God’s dwelling place, and the locus where
he may be met.
5.7.1 The New House of God – Jn 1:51

In 1:51 Jesus responds to Nathanael, “You shall see heaven open and the angels of
God ascending and descending on the Son of Man”. There is widespread
agreement that this is an allusion to Jacob’s vision at Bethel in Genesis 28,112 after
which Jacob exclaimed, "This is none other than the house of God (<yhla tyb);
this is the gate of heaven” (Gen 28:16-17). House (tyb) is not only commonly
used to refer to the temple in the Old Testament, but Jesus also uses it in the next
chapter of the Fourth Gospel with reference to the temple (2:16 – to\n oi‚kon tou=
patro/$ mou), which, itself, is connected to Jesus’ body (to\n nao\n tou=ton).113
111
112
See Neyrey, "The Jacob Allusions in John 1:51," 586-605.
113
99
While there is much disagreement about the exact significance of Jesus’

promise,114 at the very least Jesus is claiming that he is the connection between
humanity and God, between heaven and earth.115 “Whereas before, God’s
presence was associated with a particular place, Bethel … the locus of God’s
presence has shifted from a particular house, in a particular city, in a particular
land to a particular person, Jesus.”116
John’s argument has begun to move forward: Jesus is not just the glory of God
tabernacling among us; he is the new sacred place where God, in the absence of a
temple, is now to be experienced. Kerr ventures a tentative opinion concerning
1:51: “Bethel imagery is present in this verse, and it tilts towards a temple allusion
even though this kaleidoscopic and elusive verse makes it difficult to come to a
definite conclusion.”117 Hoskins is more definite: Jesus is “the fulfilment and
replacement of those places where God revealed himself to his people, including
Bethel, the Tabernacle, and the Temple.”118
This identification becomes more probable when we recognise, within the context,
the frequency of references to Israel/ Jacob. Earlier in 1:31 John the Baptist
understands that the purpose of his mission is so that Jesus might be revealed to
Israel. In 1:50-51 Jesus is referring to the dream of Jacob in Genesis 28, who was
later named Israel (Gen 35:10), the father of the nation. Nathanael declares Jesus
as the Son of God, the King of Israel (Psalm 2; 2 Sam 7:12-15a). Jesus labels
114
See Hoskins for an outline of the arguments: Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in
the Gospel of John, 125-135. Also Brown, The Gospel according to John, 91; Bruce, The Gospel
of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, 62; Anthony Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel: A Study
of John and the Old Testament, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 73; Davies, The Gospel and the
Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine, 296-96; R. J. McKelvey, The New
Temple: The Church in the New Testament, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford
University, 1969), 77. Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John,
136-66.
115
Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John, 125-26; Brown, The
Gospel according to John, 91; Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes,
62; Lindars, John, 122.
116
James M. Hamilton, God's Indwelling Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Old and New
Testaments, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology (Nashville: Broadman &
Holman, 2006), 149. However, Hamilton goes further, suggesting that temple images are in view
for John. Rather than simply seeing a set of stairs, it appears Jacob saw something like a ziggurat,
or a tower, with steps going up the side that reached the heavens (191). See also Ross, Creation
and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis, 489; and McKelvey, The New
Temple: The Church in the New Testament, 77.
117
118
100
Nathanael a true Israelite (a)lhqw=$ )Israhli/th$) in whom there is no deceit (e)n w!|
do/lo$ ou)k e&stin) (1:47), the only use of the term in the Fourth Gospel. This is an
obvious comparison to Jacob/ Israel who deceived Isaac in Gen 27:35 (LXX meta\
do/lou).119 The fig tree Nathanael was under represents Israel, normally with
negative connotations (Jer 8:13; 24:1-8; 29:17; Hos 9:10 also Mk 11:12-21; Lk
13:6-9). Nathanael under (u(po/) the fig tree defines his identity in terms of
membership of national Israel. “The implication is that Nathanael has now been
called out from ‘under the fig tree’ into the new community centred around
Jesus.”120 This may also explain the change from singular to plural between v50
and v51. In 1:50 Jesus declares, “You shall see (o&yh| - 2nd person singular future
indicative) greater things than that” (referring to Jesus seeing him under the fig
tree). He then adds, “You shall see (o&yesqe – 2nd person plural future indicative)
heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man”
(1:51). Nathanael is functioning as a representative Israelite.121 John is using the
subtle imagery polemically: should all Israelites recognise Jesus as Nathanael has,
come out from under the fig tree, then they will meet God in the locus of Jesus,
the new Bethel, rather than in the destroyed temple, or in Torah obedience.
5.7.2 Replacing Jewish Purification Rites with the New Wine of Jesus – Jn 2:1-11
Keener links the wedding at Cana with the temple clearing under the one heading,
“True Purification”. “At a wedding, Jesus sets aside the purificatory purpose of
water pots that embody traditional religious practices. At the Gospel’s first
Passover festival, God’s lamb then purifies the temple itself.”122 Coloe agrees:
“Just as Israel’s water rituals have been perfected in the good wine provided by
Jesus, the next scene shows the overturning of Israel’s sacrificial cult and the
passing of the Jerusalem temple.”123
Jesus does not hesitate to suspend the ritual law of the Jews (symbolised by water)
in favour of a friend’s honour, and transforms the water into wine. John’s water
motif in 2:6, also at 1:33; 3:5; 4:13-14 and later at 7:37-39, consistently represents
119
120
D. Burkett, The Son of Man in the Gospel of John, JSNTSup 56 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 114.
121
122
Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 492.
123
101
Jesus and the Spirit superseding Jewish tradition (although there is no explicit
mention of the Spirit in this chapter). Jesus is ready to make the new purification
of the Spirit available.
The wedding theme is repeated in 3:29 where John the Baptist refers to the
bridegroom. It seems likely that this helps to interpret Jesus’ place in 2:1-11, and
is a clue to a deeper meaning. Cooper sees a five-fold representation of the wine:
the wine of compassion, of replacement, of abundance, of the Bridegroom, and of
glory.124 (John’s testimony concerning Jesus as the Lamb of God [1:29, 36]
achieves a similar purpose in reinforcing the Passover themes in 2:13-25, where
Jesus speaks of his body being destroyed, and raising it again in three days.) The
combination of wedding banquet (Isa 54:4-8), an abundance of wine, and
‘swallowing up death forever’ (Isa 25:6-7) in these two pericopae points to Jesus’
supersession of the Jewish purification rites, and the inauguration of an
eschatological marriage. Kerr sees the wedding as occurring on the seventh day
(1:19, 29, 35, 43; 2:1), intimating a new creation Sabbath rest.125 Such a reading
prepares us for 2:13-22: not only is the old temple superseded, but we are to look
forward to the raising up of the new temple, the body of Jesus, by which the old
gives way to the new.
5.7.3 Replacing the Temple Building with Temple of Jesus’ Body – Jn 2:13-25
John’s positioning of this pericope at the start of Jesus’ public ministry has been
the subject of much scholarly interest.126 For Barrett, “the placing of the incident
was dictated by reasons theological rather than chronological,”127 while for Coloe,
it is “because this pericope provides the reader with… an explicit hermeneutical
key for interpreting the Johannine Jesus as the new temple.”128 Not only does it
speak of Jesus replacing the temple, but when linked to the episode where Jesus
speaks to Nathanael about becoming the new Bethel, the house of God (1:43-51),
and the replacement of the Jewish purification rites with the new wine of Jesus
124
Karl T. Cooper, "The Best Wine: John 2:1-11," WTJ 61, 2 (1979): 376-80.
125
126
Most agree that there was only one cleansing, the account of which John moved to the
beginning of Jesus’ ministry for narrative purposes. See Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the
Temple in the Gospel of John, 109 for a good summary of the various positions and proponents.
127
128
102
(2:1-11), the two episodes immediately preceding it, this account of Jesus’ body
replacing the temple sets up a framework in which we are to think of all of Jesus’
teaching during, and in connection with, the temple, its rituals and feasts – he has
come as the antitype of them all, superseding and replacing them (see 5.8.4).
Jesus shows his replacement of the temple by deed and word. The Johannine
account is unique in mentioning the oxen and sheep Jesus drives out, along with
the pigeons. These were for peace offerings (Leviticus 1, 3). He pours out the
coins for the payment of temple tax that paid for the twice-daily sacrifice of lambs
(Exod 29:38-42). Jesus drives out the very things that made Israel’s on-going
relationship with God possible. He then states that he replaces the temple with his
destroyed and raised body (2:19). While the focus of the Jews is on the building
(2:20), Jesus is thinking of its replacement, his body, destroyed and raised in three
days (2:21).
John notes that the disciples remembered an appropriate text for Jesus’ actions: Ps
69:9 (68:10 LXX) “Zeal for your house will consume (katafa/getai) me.” The
Psalmist’s zeal for God’s house led to his suffering, and thus provides a model for
Jesus’ zeal.129 Jesus’ zeal sets him in conflict with the Jews, a conflict that will
lead to his death. When the Jews demand a sign, Jesus’ response (2:19-21) shows
that his body will replace the temple, as his death will replace the temple
sacrifices, and his resurrection will prove the validity of his actions.
This pericope serves to redefine two terms, the first is explicit, the second only
implicit: nao/$ moves from meaning the physical temple to referring to Jesus’
body; and to\n oi‚kon tou= patro/$ mou / tou= oi&kou sou moves from meaning the
physical temple, to referring to the disciples. Jesus himself redefines nao/$
explaining with words what his actions have demonstrated – his body is now the
new temple, the means of atonement, and the locus of God’s presence, where God
can be met. The temple is first called i(ero/n (2:14, 15), and later nao/$ (2:19-
129
Archibald M. Hunter, The Gospel according to John, Cambridge Bible Commentary
(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1965), 34.
103
21).130 In 2:16-17, however, the designation changes to oi‚ko$. While oi‚ko$ is the
most frequent designation for the temple in the LXX, Jesus’ expression to\n oi‚kon
tou= patro/$ mou (2:16) occurs in only one other place, 14:2. On the surface it is
an appropriate designation for the temple from the monogenh/$ who came from the
Father. The disciples pick up on the terminology and remember that it is written,
“Zeal for your house (tou= oi&kou sou) will consume me.” (Ps 69:9 [68:10 LXX]).
But what is the object of Jesus’ zeal? Is it the physical temple? Salier sees a
tension between Jesus performing his action of cleansing as an expression of his
zeal for the physical temple, with no implied criticism, while his reply to his
interlocutors is that the temple is now obsolete and replaced by his own body. 131
However, if the object of Jesus’ zeal is something other than the temple building,
then the tension disappears. The contention of this thesis, a working hypothesis
until we reach a discussion of 14:2 in ch 6, is that while Jesus is referring to the
physical temple in 2:16, there is a gradual redefinition of oi‚ko$ / oi)ki/a occurring
as we move through the Fourth Gospel, through ‘household’ in 8:35, to 14:2
where th=| oi)ki/a| tou= patro/$ mou refers to the Christian church, as the locus of
God’s dwelling presence among his people. If this is in the background in 2:16,
and if the disciples remembered the Ps 69:9 quote after the teaching of the Last
Discourse, then this understanding could be evident in their selection of the quote.
This would mean that Jesus’ zeal was understood to be for the new temple of his
Father’s presence, the Christian church (13:1, 34), zeal that drove him to the cross,
consuming him. Thus there is no tension.
Jesus is the substitute for the temple. As the glory-presence of God dwelling
among his people, he is the locus where God can be met. He drives out the old
sacrificial system, replacing it with the perfect sacrifice of his body.
130
Carson is reluctant to see a difference between i(ero/n and nao/$ (Carson, The Gospel according
to John, 181). For Borse “A clear distinction between i(ero/n and nao/$ and to/po$ is not possible”.
See U. Borse, "Ieron", in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. H. Balz, and G.
Schneider; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 175. Lieu is emphatic: “the switch is surely
deliberate: the shrine is the locus of divine presence” (Lieu, "Temple and Synagogue in John," 66).
131
Bill Salier, "The Temple in the Gospel according to John", in Heaven on Earth: The Temple in
Biblical Theology, (ed. T. Desmond Alexander, and Simon Gathercole; Carlisle, Cumbria:
Paternoster, 2004), 128.
104
5.7.4 Place Replaced by Person - John 4:19-26

This passage provides the clearest evidence yet in John’s developing argument for
the temple’s obsolescence and replacement.132 The issue it addresses is how to
worship the Father. Although the temple is not mentioned, the association of
worship with Jerusalem, together with the reference to to/po$ (4:20), shows that
the temple is in mind. Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman shows the
temporary nature of the physical temple.133 Instead, Jesus predicts that the hour is
coming when place will be irrelevant for worship. Jesus then declares (4:23) that
the hour is coming (e&rxetai w%ra) and now is (kai\ nu=n e)stin) when true
worshippers (oi( a)lhqinoi\ proskunhtai/), Jew or Samaritan, will worship the
Father in Spirit and truth. For John, the hour is the hour of glory, of Jesus being
lifted up to death (12:23-24; 13:1, 31; 17:1). In that sense, the hour is still coming,
“but when the words kai\ nu=n e)stin are added it means that the gifts and power of
the eschatological era are unleashed already, as it were, proleptically… The new
worship has come already. It consists of a new relationship with God as Father in
Spirit and Truth.”134 Two contrasts are drawn: just as the Jews had a greater
revelation than the Samaritans, and hence worshipped what they knew (salvation
is from the Jews), so in the light of the coming of Jesus, true, or genuine, worship
is now no longer bound to place but is centred on the person of Jesus.
Since God is Spirit, his nature does not place limits on where he is to be
worshipped. As Spirit, God is the appropriate source of the true information on
how he is to be worshipped (17:17), as well as the source of the Spirit that enables
people to worship (3:34; 4:10). The immediate context (4:1-42) of this discussion
is united by consistent reference to the Spirit: spiritual water (4:10-15), spiritual
worship (4:19-26), spiritual food from a spiritual harvest (4:34-42). The Fourth
Gospel presents Jesus as the one who possesses the Spirit (1:32), teaches truly
(14:6) that entering the Kingdom of God only comes by the Spirit (3:5-8) the gift
of God (4:10), whose words are Spirit and life (6:63), and who promises the Spirit
to believers (6:63; 7:38-39; 14:16-17; 20:22) without limit (3:34), the Spirit of
132
Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John, 135-36.
133
The debate is really over the proper site for the temple, whether on Mt Gerazim or Jerusalem
(Deuteronomy 12). The tension between Jews and Samaritans escalated after John Hyrcanus
destroyed the temple on Mt Gerazim in 129 BC.
134
105
truth (to\ pneu=ma th=$ a)lhqei/a$ – 14:17; 15:26; 16:13). It also seems likely that
his last act prior to death, for John, involved handing on the Spirit (pare/dwken to\
pneu=ma) to the believers (19:30).135 This Spirit, in turn, will reveal the truth to
them (14:26; 16:13). This explains why such worshippers are the ones the Father
seeks (4:23). He always wants worship from those who are truly his people (Ps
51:16-17; 1 Sam 15:22). With the coming of Jesus, the mark of true worshippers
is the presence of his Spirit (which wells up to eternal life – 4:14), and conformity
to the truth he reveals. There is no true place to worship, only true worshippers
centred on the one who embodies truth and who pours out the Spirit.
Jesus’ teaching of the obsolescence of place in the worship of the Father, and the
importance of the Spirit, will become more developed in the second half of the
gospel. The incarnate Word was tied to one place; however, when he goes, he will
establish many dwelling places in his Father’s house, the believers themselves,
through the indwelling Spirit (14:2, 16, 23, 26). The Spirit of truth, the
Counsellor, will teach them all things and enable them to obey the teaching. This
should make them glad (14:28). This is the worship in Spirit and truth the Father
seeks.
5.7.5 Jesus replaces the Temple Feasts

John’s message is that not only does Jesus fulfil and replace the physical temple
as the locus of God’s dwelling and where he can be met, but he also fulfils and
reinterprets those festivals whose focus is the temple. “Where the reality and truth
is in Jesus, there is no need for such feasts in their traditional cultic form to be
celebrated any longer.”136
5.7.5.1 Passover
John’s first mention of Jesus visiting the temple (2:13-25) is during Passover
(2:13, 23). The context of Passover, Jesus’ earlier identification as the Lamb of
God (1:29, 36), John’s unique mention of the cattle and sheep Jesus drives out, the
135
Not his Spirit, but the Spirit [Mary L. Coloe, "Raising the Johannine Temple (John 19:19-37),"
ABR 48 (2000): 56]. Contra Carson, The Gospel according to John, 353.
136
106
pouring out (e(kxe/w) of coins,137 Jesus’ mention of his sw=ma, and the time period
of three days all combine to produce “the sacrificial timbre” heard in this
passage.138 There are only four other instances where sw=ma is used in John – all to
do with Jesus’ death (19:31, 38, 40; 20:12). Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of
the temple of his body and his raising of it in three days, remembered by the
disciples only after his resurrection, identifies his death as the fulfilment and
replacement of all that the Passover anticipated.
Jesus not only fulfils the symbolism of Passover, but also fulfils the daily temple
sacrifices, thus replacing the temple. The destruction of his body and its
resurrection will be the means by which atonement is made, once and for all.
Jesus’ action of clearing the temple “represents an act of the rejection of the most
important rite of the Israelite cult, the daily whole offering, and therefore, a
statement that there is a means of atonement other than the daily whole offering,
which is now null.”139
This theory of John’s sacrificial emphasis in 2:13-25 is strengthened by a

comparison between John and the Synoptics in their use of Old Testament
quotations. Rather than quoting Isa 56:7 as the Synoptics do, John notes that the
disciples remembered that it is written, “Zeal for your house (tou= oi&kou sou) will
consume me.” (Ps 69:9 [68:10 LXX]). The Psalmist’s zeal for God’s house led to
his suffering, and thus provides a model for Jesus’ zeal. 140 As discussed in 5.7.3,
the various terms in this section have more than one referent: nao/$ refers both to
the physical temple and Jesus’ body (2:21), to\n oi‚kon tou= patro/$ mou / tou=
oi&kou sou refers both to the temple building and, as a working hypothesis, the
new temple of the disciples (14:2; also 8:35) (see ch 6). It is zeal for this new
temple that will consume Jesus. The sacrificial overtones in “consume”, “make it
obvious we should be thinking of Jesus’ death”.141 This consumption takes place
137
The term is frequently used with reference to blood or libations poured out in sacrificial acts
(e.g. Exod 29:12; Lev 4:7; Num 28:7; Jer 7:18 LXX. See TDNT 2, 467-69.
138
Hamilton, God's Indwelling Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments, 151.
139
Jacob Neusner, "Money Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah Explanation," NTS 35 (1989):
290.
140
Hunter, The Gospel according to John, 34.
141
M. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form, vol. 15,
Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996), 41.
107
in his death and resurrection, as the sacrificial Passover lamb (2:13, 23) who takes
away the sin of the world (1:29) and who brings life to those who eat its flesh
(6:51-53).142
The next reference to the Passover (6:4) suggests that Jesus replaces the
unleavened bread at Passover (6:4), as Jesus later explains (6:35). The bread
becomes the Passover Lamb (6:51); eating his flesh will result in eternal life
(6:53-59). At the final Passover, his death occurs at the time of the slaughter of the
Passover lamb (19:14).
In 19:34 we find John’s account of Jesus’ piercing, and the blood and water that
flowed from Jesus’ side. It was a matter of great importance, judging by his strong
affirmation in the following verse. While many have searched for anatomical
significance in the incident, John was “not at all motivated by medical
questions.”143 There are two connections which might be made: first, Jesus
connected his sw=ma with the temple in 2:19-21, and promises the living water of
Spirit to all who would believe in him (4:13-14; 7:37-39; 14:17). Now, the new
temple of his body from whom, as a result of his death, the life-giving water of his
Spirit flows. “Yahweh, long-suffering, who stood by the rock to be struck that his
people may drink (Exod 17:6) is once more struck that his people might receive
water”.144 The second possibility flows from John’s proof-text in 19:36. The
allusion is to the Passover lamb none of whose bones were broken, a direct quote
from Exod 12:46. The strong affirmation in 19:35 is simply to undergird the
historical circumstances that led to there being no need to break Jesus’ legs to
expedite his death.
5.7.5.2 Tabernacles
Not only is the Feast of Tabernacles a fitting occasion canonically and
typologically for Jesus’ temple entrance, echoing the entrance of the glory-cloud
to Solomon’s temple during the same feast (see 5.6.2), but it is also appropriate
thematically. The Feast of Tabernacles celebrated God bringing the people into
142
143
144
108
the land, no longer to live in tents, and caused the people to remember the
privilege of God dwelling among them in the tabernacle in the wilderness. John
particularly highlights the tabernacle as a type of Christ (1:14), the location of
God’s glory among his people. Glasson offers the opinion that “as… Passover
was a type of Christ’s passion, and the Feast of Pentecost was a figure of the
sending of the Holy Spirit, so the Feast of Tabernacles seems to have been typical
of Christ’s incarnation.”145
Jesus himself uses the symbolism associated with the Feast of Tabernacles to
show further aspects of his fulfilment of it. This is in answer to the various
questions concerning his nature (a good man or a deceiver – 7:12; a learned
teacher without credentials – 7:15; demon-possessed – 7:20, 8:48, 52; the man the
authorities are trying to kill – 7:25; a Samaritan – 8:48), his identity (the Christ –
7:26, 31, 41; the Prophet – 7:40; greater than Abraham – 8:53), and his origin and
destination (unknown/ known – 7:27; going to the Greeks – 7:35-36; Galilee or
Bethlehem – 7:41-42, 52; kill himself – 8:22). The people asked, “Who are you?”
(8:25) and “Who do you think you are?” (8:53), but were divided (7:43).
During the festival, the pilgrim slept and ate within a specially constructed booth
(Neh 8:13-18) that recalled God’s care for his people during the Exodus (Lev
23:43). In post-exilic times the feast developed eschatological overtones, with
Zech 14:16-19 read on the first day of the festival, looking to the day the nations
would gather for Tabernacles in Jerusalem. 146 The Zechariah passage mentions
drought as a punishment for failure to attend, thus the festival also included
prayers for rain. Each morning of the festival the priests would draw water from
the Pool of Siloam that was carried back to the temple, passing through the Water
Gate (m. Sukk. 4:9). By the end of the first century A.D. this gate was identified
with the south gate of the eschatological temple of Ezekiel 47, out of which
flowed life-giving waters from the Divine Presence.147 The water, along with
wine, was then poured over the altar. A second aspect of the festival occurred
each night in the Court of the Women. Four huge menorahs illuminated the entire
145
Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel, 55.
146
G. A. Yee, Jewish Feasts and the Gospel of John, (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier,
1989), 73.
147
109
temple area. The celebrants danced while the Levites chanted the Psalms of
Ascent (120-134) as they descended the steps from the court of the Israelites to
the court of women. 148
A new section is introduced with the words )En de\ th=| e)sxa/th| h(me/ra| th=| mega/lh|
th=$ e(orth=$ (7:37). To which day is John referring? The Feast of Tabernacles
proper was held for seven days, with a closing festival on the eighth day (Lev
23:36), although by Jesus’ time there were Jews who so linked the eighth day with
the preceding seven that they thought of it as an eight-day feast (Jos. Ant. iii. 245).
Further, the eighth day was celebrated as a great day, distinct from the others,
called “the last good day” (m. Sukk. 4:8). It is preferable to see 7:37 as referring to
the eighth day. In the absence of water rituals and light, Jesus’ offer of streams of
living water for those who thirst (7:37-38), and light for those in darkness (8:12)
would have an added poignancy. “As once God cared for the Israelites in their
wilderness wanderings by providing them with gifts of water from the rock (Exod
17:2) and a pillar of fire to light their way (Exod 13:21-22), Jesus announces that
in his person God continues to offer guidance and sustenance to the people.”149
For John’s readers, the drought and darkness of the temple’s destruction are
replaced by Jesus, who provides the Spirit to his people, the new temple from
whom the living water of God’s Spirit would permanently flow. The significance
of the eighth day, the first day of the week, is also reflected in the post-Easter
events. It is the day Jesus breathes the gift of the Holy Spirit onto the disciples
(20:19-22), further fulfilling the promise of 7:39.150
In 7:37-39, within a feast that has had daily water libations and prayers for rain,
Jesus proclaims a new source of living water. “If anyone is thirsty, let him come
to me and drink. Whoever believes in me (o( pisteu/wn ei)$ e)me/), as the Scripture
has said, "Streams of living water will flow from out of his belly (e)k th=$ koili/a$
148
J. C. Rylaarsdam, "Booths, Feast Of", in IDB, (ed. G. A. Buttrick; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962),
1:456.
149
Mary L. Coloe, "Dwelling in the Household of God (John 14:2)", in That Our Joy May Be
Complete: Essays on the Incarnation for the New Millennium, (ed. Rosemary Gill, Marian Free,
Jonathan Holland, and John Mainstone; Adelaide: Open Book Publishers, 2000), 49-50.
150
110
au)tou=)" (7:37-38). Interpretation of these verses is difficult.151 Does o( pisteu/wn

ei)$ e)me/ finish v37, or begin v38? The second alternative is preferable. The
participial phrase begins a sentence forty-one times in John, but never occurs at
the end of a sentence. 152 If o( pisteu/wn ei)$ e)me/ ends v37, then it makes a poetic
parallel structure out of v37: “If anyone thirsts, let that one come to me; and let
drink, that one who believes in me”.153 This does not make sense of the metaphor:
to come and drink means to believe. It is a nonsense to invite the one who already
believes to drink.
If, however, o( pisteu/wn ei)$ e)me/ begins v38, then the phrase corresponds to
au)tou=, out of whose belly the streams of living water, representing the Holy
Spirit, will flow.154 This does not mean that believers are an independent source of
the Spirit. They come to Jesus to drink (v37), receive the Holy Spirit, which then
flows out of them. This is echoed in Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman.
He offers to give her living water (4:10), which will then become a spring of
living water welling up to eternal life (4:14). Hodges clarifies the relationship:
“The Lord Jesus remains its true and ultimate source, while the believer might be
more fittingly described as a ‘channel’ for the waters he actually receives.”155
Beale suggests that “his innermost being” refers to Jesus himself as the source of
the Holy Spirit for believers,156 and cites as evidence the fact that Ezekiel 47
identifies the innermost part of the temple, the Holy of Holies, as the source of the
life-giving river. However, this observation makes it more likely that, instead, the
believers who now make up the new temple (also 14:2) fulfil this prophecy, as the
eschatological temple from whose innermost being flow the streams of living
151
Michael A. Daise, "'If Anyone Thirsts, Let that One Come to Me and Drink': The Literary
Texture of John 7:37b-38a," JBL 122, 4 (2003), 687-99.
152
Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:321.
153
So Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 303; Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth
Gospel, 349; and Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, , 154.
154
So Barrett, The Gospel according to St John, 270-71; and Morris, The Gospel according to
John, 375.
155
Zane C. Hodges, "Rivers of Living Water: John 7:37-39," BSac 136, 3 (1979): 242.
156
Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of
God, 97-198. Contra Carson, The Gospel according to John, 322-329. Beale concedes that it is not
necessarily a crucial issue to solve since John 7:39 implicitly sees Jesus as the source of the Spirit
for believers.
111
water. In Ezekiel’s vision the actual source of the water is not seen, the waters are
simply flowing from the threshold of the sanctuary.
Jesus’ Scriptural quotation supports this identification of the Christian believers as

the fulfilment of the prophetic hope for the new eschatological temple. There is no
exact parallel in either the MT or LXX.157 The strongest possibility is a general
evocation of several promises that fountains or streams of water will flow out of
the new temple (Ezek 47:1-11), the LORD’S house (hwhy tyb) (Joel 2:18), or
Jerusalem (Zech 14:8). Also, God’s dwelling presence is combined with the water
of his Spirit in the Joel prophecy (3:16-21) where God promises that his people
will know that he dwells (/k?) in Zion.
Jesus uses the water-symbolism of Tabernacles to expand on what it means for

him to be the glory-presence of God dwelling among his people (1:14). He
replaces the temple as the locus of worship (2:13-23), and, as the source of the
Spirit (4:10-14), he inaugurates worship in Spirit and truth beyond place (4:19-
26). His gift of the Spirit means that the Christian believers can now assume the
role of the new temple, the source of the life-giving Spirit to the world (7:38-39)
as God had promised in the prophets.
5.7.5.3 The Feast of Dedication/ Hanukkah – John 10:22-42

Following its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes, who had sacrificed a sow to
Jupiter on the altar, the temple was rededicated by Judas Maccabaeus in 165 BC
(see 1 Macc 1:54; 2 Macc 6:1-2), The Feast of the Dedication (e)gkai/nia),
Hanukkah, celebrated this purification. It was to be a joyous celebration of eight
days during which it was forbidden to mourn (Meg. Ta’an.). The precedent for the
eight day time period was the purification (?dq MT, a(gni/zw LXX) or cleansing
(rhf MT, kaqari/zw LXX) of the temple in the time of King Hezekiah following
the defilement of the temple by his father, King Ahaz (2 Chron 29:15-17).158 The
Feast provided opportunity to recall the miraculous events associated with the
157
For various options, see M. Menken, "The Origin of the Old Testament Quotation in John
7:38," NovT 38, 2 (1996): 160-75; and Daise, "'If Anyone Thirsts, Let that One Come to Me and
Drink': The Literary Texture of John 7:37b-38a," 687-99.
158
Solomon Zeitlin, "Hanukkah: its Origin and Significance," JQR 29, 1 (1938): 1-36.
112
consecration/ dedication of the tabernacle and the temple (2 Macc 1:18-2:18).

Hezekiah declared that God had consecrated/ made holy (?dq) the temple forever
(2 Chron 30:8). Solomon’s temple was dedicated/ renewed (1 Ki 8:63-64 LXX 3
Ki 8:63 – e)nekai/nisen) and the middle courtyard purified (LXX 3 Ki 8:64 –
h(gi/asen). Similarly, the dedication/ renewal (e)gkai/nia) of the second temple
was celebrated in Ezr 6:16 (LXX 2 Esdras 6:16).
In the midst of an argument with the Jews concerning his identity, during which
Jesus declares that he and the Father are one (10:30), Jesus gives support for his
assertion: he is the one of whom the Father uniquely approves, “the One the
Father sanctified and sent into the world” (o^n o( path\r h(gi/asen kai\ a)pe/steilen
ei)$ to\n ko/smon) (10:36a). Such a declaration shows that John is concerned to
present Jesus as the fulfilment of the Festival of Dedication. 159 God consecrates
(?dq) the tabernacle “by his glory” (ydbkb) (Exod 29:43; 40:35), as well as the
temple (1 Ki 8:10-11). He also gives verbal approval of its consecration (a(gia/zw
LXX – 3 Ki 9:3). Likewise, Ezekiel’s eschatological temple will be made most
holy (<y?dq ?dq MT; a%gia a(gi/wn LXX - Ezek 43:12) by the declaration and the
presence of God’s glory. This meant that the celebration of the Feast of
Dedication relied upon the divine visual and verbal assurance given to Solomon
that the temple was God’s chosen, consecrated sanctuary. Jesus makes the verbal
claim, supported by the visual assurance of his works (10:25, 32, 37-38), that the
Father had likewise consecrated him, a claim just as strong as those of the
Jerusalem temple. Further, “the consecration of Jesus as the true temple
necessarily means that he takes the place of the Jerusalem temple, for God only
chooses one place at a time for his people to come and worship him.”160
One further point might be made. It is not only Jesus who is sanctified, as the
temple was, but also those who follow him. In 17:17-19 Jesus prays that the
Father would sanctify his disciples by the truth (a(gi/ason au)tou\$ e)n th=|
a)lhqei/a)| . Jesus sanctifies himself (a(gia/zw e)mauto/n) so that they may be
sanctified by the truth (au)toi\ h(giasme/noi e)n a)lhqei/a)| . The Christian disciples
159
Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John, 172; Coloe, God Dwells
with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, 145-56.
160
113
are now the locus of God’s sanctified presence by the in-dwelling of his Spirit
(14:23), the Spirit of truth. Such a transition and re-definition of categories from
Christ to the Christian disciples is the subject of the next chapter.
This chapter has investigated the first twelve chapters of John’s gospel,
identifying the intertwined themes of glory and temple that John has used
typologically to point to Jesus, the antitype of both. Place is superseded by person.
Jesus is the locus of God’s self-revelatory, tabernacling, salvific glory-presence,
replacing and fulfilling the tabernacle and the temple. This revelation of glory
reaches its climax in Jesus’ lifting up / glorification on the cross (12:23-36). These
chapters of the gospel contain hints of a further re-application of the symbolism,
and prepare the way for how the themes of glory and temple are re-applied to the
disciples in John 13-21.
114
Chapter 6: John’s Portrait of the

Disciples: Glory and Temple – John 13-21
The themes of glory and temple are not immediately obvious in the second half of
John’s gospel. Köstenberger rightly recognises “a telling silence” regarding the
physical temple in John 13-17, but reaches the wrong conclusion, asserting that
these chapters point to Jesus as the temple’s permanent replacement.1 Rather, the
emphasis is on the disciples as the temple’s replacement, the locus of God’s self-
revelatory glory-presence through the Holy Spirit.
6.1 In My Father’s House (14:2-4)

Chapters 13-21 begin with Jesus’ Farewell Discourse to his disciples (13-17). In
John’s gospel the setting frequently contributes to the meaning of Jesus’ teaching
concerning himself.2 Thus, in the context of an intimate meal among friends,
Jesus speaks of a new intimacy only possible through his departure.
Text and translation of John 14:2-4
2a e)n th=| oi)ki/a| tou= patro/$ mou In my Father’s household

2b monai\ pollai/ ei)sin: are many dwellings/ abidings.
2c ei) de\ mh/, ei‚pon a*n u(mi=n If not, I would have told you,
2d o%ti poreu/omai e(toima/sai to/pon u(mi=n; because I am going to prepare a place for you.
3a kai\ e)a\n poreuqw= kai\ e(toima/sw to/pon u(mi=n, And if I go and prepare a place for you,
3b pa/lin e&rxomai I will come again
3c kai\ paralh/myomai u(ma=$ pro\$ e)mauto/n, and take you to myself
3d i%na o%pou ei)mi\ e)gw\ kai\ u(mei=$ h@te. so that where I am you also may be.
4 kai\ o%pou [e)gw\] u(pa/gw oi&date th\n o(do/n. And where I go you know the way.
This passage is commonly understood as a reference to heaven, to which Jesus is

departing for the purpose of preparing a home for his disciples. His promise is to
return to take his disciples there, either at their death or the Parousia. 3 Indicative
1
Gospel," 240.
2
For example, in the temple, Jesus’ body is the temple (2:21); at the well, Jesus offers living water
(4:10); while eating bread, Jesus is the bread of life (6:35).
3
Carson, The Gospel according to John, 488; George Gunn, John 14:1-3, the Father's House: Are
We There Yet?, [cited 21 August, 2007]. Online: http://www.shasta.edu/articles/gunn/john14.asp;
McCaffrey, The House with Many Rooms: The Temple Theme of John 14:2-3, vol. 114, Analecta
Biblica (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1988), 220. Milne, The Message of John, 210; Morris, The
Gospel according to John, 567; Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, , 60-61; Tasker,
115
of this position is Brown: “‘My Father’s house’ is probably to be understood as

heaven.”4 However, such an interpretation misses the distinctive language and
themes of the Farewell Discourse, as well as how the terms in 14:2 are used in the
rest of the Fourth Gospel.
At the heart of the Farewell Discourse lies chs 14 and 15, which speak of Jesus’
ongoing presence with the disciples. To dwell, or abide (me/nw), is a characteristic
Johannine expression.5 It refers to the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son
(14:10; 15:10), the mutual indwelling of Jesus and the believer (15:4-9), and the
indwelling of the Spirit in the believer (14:17) who will also be “with” them (meq'
u(mw=n) in 14:16.6 The same concept is described in two further ways: using the
language of one person being “in” (e)n) another, often combined with me/nw (14:10,
25; 15:4-11; 15:4-11), but also used apart from me/nw (14:10, 11, 17, 20 – 3 times;
15:2),7 as well as the language of Jesus’ prayer in chapter 17 of believers being
one (e%n) as the Father and the Son are one (17:11, 21, 22), which 17:23 makes
analogous to the indwelling of the Son in (e)n) believers and the Father in the Son.
The concept of mutual indwelling is a prominent way Jesus seeks to comfort and
prepare his disciples for his physical departure. The quantity of closeness of
relationship is transferred to that of the closeness of physical space. The
background of this is the Old Testament notion of God dwelling in and among his
people, in his tabernacle/ temple by his glory, as an expression of the depth of his
relationship with them.
While the image of the vine and the branches (15) is widely recognised as an
expression of this concept of indwelling, a less-recognised image is that of “in my
Father’s house” (e)n th=| oi)ki/a| tou= patro/$ mou) and its “many dwellings” (monai\
pollai/) (14:2). The phrase e)n th=| oi)ki/a| tou= patro/$ mou needs to be interpreted
John, 171; Barrett suggests the language is deliberately ambiguous in order simultaneously to refer
to more than one coming (so Barrett, The Gospel according to St John, 457).
4
Brown, The Gospel according to John, 625.
5
The verb is used forty times in the Fourth Gospel, compared with only nine times in the
Synoptics, fifteen times in chs 14 and 15 alone.
6
We also find a more normal use of dwelling in a place (14:17; 14:25; 15:16).
7
A fascinating reference is 14:30 where Jesus refers to the prince of this world who e)n e)moi\ ou)k
e&xei ou)de/n (lit. in me does not have anything – has no claim on me [ESV]). This has the idea of
there being no relationship between the two, as opposed to the believer being in the Son or the
Spirit, i.e. having a close, dependent relationship.
116
in the light of a similar expression in 2:16 when Jesus refers to the Jerusalem
temple as to\n oi‚kon tou= patro/$ mou. The terminology of the temple as the
oi‚ko$ reflects the dominant Old Testament term hwhy tyb.8 There is little
difference in New Testament usage between oi‚ko$ and oi)ki/a with both being
used to refer to a building (Mt 9:7; Lk 19:46 / Mt 2:11; Mk 13:34), the habitation
of the human body (Mt 12:44 / 2 Cor 5:1), and a household, family or descendants
(Lk 1:27; 10:5; Acts 10:2 / Mt 12:25). However, oi)ki/a is nowhere used in the
New Testament or LXX to refer to the temple (oi‚ko$ – Mt 21:13; Mk 2:26; Acts
7:47), and the Fourth Gospel uses oi‚ko$ to refer only to a physical building, while
oi)ki/a refers to a building (11:31; 12:3) or a household (4:53; and arguably 8:35)
in addition to its usage in 14:2.9
In 2:12-25 there is a redefinition of temple, beginning with the temple building

(i(erw=)| (2:14). Jesus declares that if they destroy this temple (nao/$), he will
rebuild it in three days, explained as referring to the temple of his body (tou= naou=
tou= sw/mato$ au)tou=) (2:21). The idea of the temple is further redefined in 7:38-
39 where Jesus promises that the one who believes in him will drink the waters of
the Holy Spirit, and streams of living water will flow from within that person, in
fulfilment of the Ezekiel 43 prophecy concerning the new temple of God’s people
in whom God’s glory would dwell (see 5.6.3.2). In addition, it is quite possible
that John’s readers may have been aware of a number of significant passages in
Paul’s epistles that calls the Christian community a temple, not because of its
function, but because God (2 Cor 6:16), or the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; Eph
2:21) dwells in their midst.10 Such knowledge would have made it easier for them
to interpret Jesus’ comments, as Gundry puts it, “not (as) mansions in the sky, but
spiritual positions in Christ.”11
8
Observant readers will also have noticed another connection of Jesus to the temple with his claim
in 1:51 to be the new Bethel, God’s house where humankind and God can meet (see 5.3).
9
Gunn, noting that oi‚ko$ is masculine and oi)ki/a feminine, and citing TDNT, concludes that 2:16
is an unsuitable parallel for 14:2. Gunn, John 14:1-3, the Father's House: Are We There Yet?,
[cited 21 Aug, 2007]. Available from http://www.shasta.edu/articles/gunn/john14.asp.
10
11
Robert H. Gundry, "In My Father's House Are Many Monai," ZNW 58 (1967): 71.
117
Another piece of the puzzle in understanding e)n th=| oi)ki/a| tou= patro/$ mou in
14:2 is the parabolic reference to oi)ki/a in 8:35, where Jesus states that “a slave
does not remain in the house (or household) forever, the son remains forever”
(dou=lo$ ou) me/nei e)n th=| oi)ki/a| ei)$ to\n ai)w=na, o( ui(o$\ me/nei ei)$ to\n ai)w=na).
Here Jesus issues an invitation to dwell in God’s household to all those who
become his children through faith (1:12-13).12 John 14:2 picks up this language of
dwelling, as well as of oi)ki/a. Brown suggests: “Thus there would be some
precedent for reinterpreting ‘many dwelling places in my Father’s house’
parabolically as possibilities for permanent union (mone/ menein) with the Father
in and through Jesus.”13 Neyrey puts it well: “Thus, we should not think of the
‘Father’s house’ as heaven, but as God’s family or household here on earth, a
common enough metaphor found throughout the New Testament. It is a social, but
not necessarily a spatial metaphor.”14 Aune goes so far as to claim that the image
of the household of God in 14:2 and 8:35 “reflects the self-designation of the
Johannine community.”15 With respect to this ‘household’ image, there may be
more significance than is often recognised in Jesus’ command to Mary in 20:17,
“Go instead to my brothers (tou\$ a)delfou/$ mou) and tell them ‘I am returning to
my Father and your Father (to\n pate/ra mou kai\ pate/ra u(mw=n)’.”
The case for this interpretation of e)n th=| oi)ki/a| tou= patro/$ mou is strengthened
when we consider the next phrase; (14:2b) monai\ pollai/ ei)sin. The word monh/,
cognate with the verb me/nw, properly signifies a ‘dwelling place.’ Traditionally it
is understood to refer to the many rooms in the Father’s heavenly house. Its only
other New Testament occurrence is in 14:23 where it refers to Jesus’ promise to
the one who keeps his word: “My Father will love him, and we will come to him
(pro\$ au)to\n e)leuso/meqa ) and will make a dwelling place with him (kai\ monh\n
par' au)tw=| poihso/meqa).” This suggests that the “many dwellings” in 14:2b
refers to many believers, and the return Jesus promises in 14:2-3 is his coming by
12
Mary L. Coloe, "Households of Faith (John 4:46-54; 11:1-44): A Metaphor for the Johannine
Community," Pacifica 13 (2000): 326-35.
13
14
Jerome H. Neyrey, "Spaces and Places, Whence and Whither, Homes and Rooms: 'Territoriality'
in the Fourth Gospel," BTB 32, 2 (2002): 60-74.
15
D. E. Aune, The Cultic Setting of Realised Eschatology in Early Christianity, NovTSup 28
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), 130. Other passages that support this position are 1 Pet 2:5; 4:17; 1 Tim
3:15; Heb 3:2-6.
118
his Spirit to dwell with all of them. 16 Although Carson acknowledges this
meaning in 14:23, he still holds for a traditional interpretation of monh/ in 14:2 as
heavenly rooms, saying that “there is no more reason to read the referent of that
word (i.e. to what dwelling-place the word refers) in v23 back into v2 than the
reverse; in both instances the context must decide.”17 However, his point works
against his position. Carson is right: the context must decide. When we include
the many references to me/nw in chapters 14-17, all with a focus on a personal in-
dwelling, and an immediate future rather than an eschatological future, it is
preferable to see monai\ pollai/ as referring to the many personal in-dwellings
within the Father’s new household of spiritual sons and daughters. “It would be
much more in harmony with Johannine thought to relate monh/ to the cognate verb
me/nw frequently used in John in reference to staying, remaining, or abiding with
Jesus and with the Father.”18
Those who object to seeing 14:2 as referring to an in-dwelling relationship in the

immediate future, rather than heaven in the longer-term future, point to 14:2d-3d
as evidence that Jesus was thinking of another place. In 14:2d Jesus declares
poreu/omai e(toima/sai to/pon u(mi=n, repeated slightly differently in 3a, to which
he adds that he will come again (pa/lin e&rxomai), promising paralh/myomai
u(ma=$ pro\$ e)mauto/n with the result that o%pou ei)mi\ e)gw\ kai\ u(mei=$ h@te. The
normal assumption is that Jesus is going to the same to/po$ he is preparing, the
rooms in the Father’s house, and the place where he and his hearers will be. (The
NIV unhelpfully adds “there” – “I am going there to prepare a place for you.”)
However, if place has been redefined as people, and physical proximity as
relational intimacy, need this assumption hold?
The word to/po$, either on its own,19 or as “holy place” (tou= to/pou tou= a(gi/ou20)
is frequently used in the New Testament as shorthand for the temple. In the LXX,
the phrase “to prepare a place” refers either to a home for the Ark, the visible
16
So Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, 162-64; Gundry, "In
My Father's House Are Many Monai," 68-72.
17
18
19
4:20; 11:48; Acts 6:14; 21:28.
20
Acts 6:13; also Mt 24:15 and Exod 26:33; Lev 16:1; 1 Ki 8:6, 8, 10.
119
representation of God’s presence, or later the temple. 21 If Jesus refers to the

indwelt Christian community as the Father’s household (14:2; 8:35), who replace
the temple (7:34-35), then it would be appropriate for him to refer to the
inauguration of that indwelling by the Spirit with the temple language of
“preparing a place”. This process cannot begin until he goes to the Father (16:7),
and hence sends the Spirit. This means that where Jesus goes need not be the
“place” he is preparing.
When Jesus says pa/lin e&rxomai (14:3b), does he refer to his post-resurrection
appearances, his coming in the Holy Spirit, or his parousia? The context suggests
the coming of the Holy Spirit. In 14:16, he promises the disciples that the Father
will give another Counsellor (a&llon para/klhton) to be with you forever (i%na
meq' u(mw=n ei)$ to\n ai)w=na h@)| . The disciples are said to know him “because he
abides with you and will be in you” (o%ti par' u(mi=n me/nei kai\ e)n u(mi=n e&stai)
(14:17). The present tense me/nei refers to Jesus’ present ministry empowered by
the Spirit (1:32) para/ them; the future e&stai is his future ministry by the Spirit
e)n them. This close connection between the presence of the Son and the Spirit
continues in the next two verses, with the subject immediately changing to Jesus:
“I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you (e&rxomai pro\$ u(ma=$). Before
long the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me”. This could be
referring to post-resurrection appearances were it not for the strange description
that follows of what else will happen on that day (14:20): “On that day you will
know that e)gw\ e)n tw=| patri/ mou kai\ u(mei=$ e)n e)moi\ ka)gw\ e)n u(mi=n.” This most
probably refers to a realisation of the presence of the Holy Spirit within them, and
hence of the indwelling of the Son. The close connection between the presence of
the Son and the Spirit is repeated in 14:25-28. Jesus’ teaching has been while
remaining with them (par' u(mi=n me/nwn), echoing the para/ of 14:17. The
Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in Jesus’ name (e)n tw=|
o)no/mati/ mou) will also teach them, and remind them of everything Jesus has said,
echoing also the e)n of 14:17. He then repeats his promise that he is going away
and coming back to them (14:28). All this, taken together, points to Jesus’ coming
back as referring to the coming of the Holy Spirit.
21
1 Chron 15:1, 3, 12; 2 Chron 1:4; or later the temple, 2 Chron 3:1.
120
The phrase in 14:3c “kai\ paralh/myomai u(ma=$ pro\$ e)mauto/n” (often translated
“I will take you to be with me” NIV), following on from 3b pa/lin e&rxomai,
implies that Jesus will take his hearers back to the place where he has gone and
from which he has returned. However, the phrase is better translated as “I will
take you to myself” (ESV), which simply continues the language of indwelling.
The result of this will be that “where I am you also may be (o%pou ei)mi\ e)gw\ kai\
u(mei=$ h@te). This place is principally with the Father as Jesus goes on to explain.
The reason the disciples know the way where Jesus is going is because they know
Jesus. Jesus is the way (the true and living way) to the Father (14:6). Knowing the
Father (14:7) is paralleled with coming to the Father (14:6), the language of place
continuing to focus on relationship. In 14:28, the “place” to which Jesus goes is to
the Father, not to the Father’s house. The emphasis is on the relationship with the
Father, rather than the Father’s house.
The image of intimacy expressed in dwellings within the Father’s household

reaches a culmination at 14:23. Those who obey Jesus’ teaching will be loved by
the Father, and we will come to him (pro\$ au)to\n e)leuso/meqa) and “make our
home in him” (monh\n par' au)tw=| poihso/meqa) (14:23). This word for home
(monh/) is the same one used by Jesus in 14:2 to describe the many rooms in his
Father’s house. This all expresses an intimate relationship in locative language,
yet is beyond location. It is a teaching Jesus builds on with the next image of
indwelling, the vine and the branches.
6.2 The Vine and the Branches (John 15:1-17)

Jesus is the vine, and his hearers are the branches (15:5). Branches are to remain
in the vine and the vine in the branches (mei/nate e)n e)moi/, ka)gw\ e)n u(mi=n) so as to
bear much fruit. In this, the Father is glorified (e)n tou/tw| e)doca/sqh o( path/r
mou). The key to understanding the indwelling in this image is, again, the Spirit,
sent to convict the world of guilt, sin, righteousness and judgment (16:7-8). Jesus
is the true vine (15:1) who sends the Spirit of truth to guide into all truth (16:13).
He will glorify Jesus (e)me\ doca/sei) because he will take from what is Jesus’ (the
truth), and declare it to the disciples (o%ti e)k tou= e)mou= lh/myetai kai\ a)naggelei=
121
u(mi=n). This is the Spirit Jesus hands over at his death (19:30),22 and which he
promises by breathing on them after his resurrection (20:22), appointing them as
agents of his message of forgiveness by the power of the Holy Spirit (20:23).
6.3 Glory Through the Disciples

Jesus is the glory of God, his revelatory, dwelling presence among his people
(1:14), revealing God through his words and signs. Thus he fulfils the temple that
symbolised the presence of God among the people. Likewise, the concepts of
temple and glory find fulfilment in the Christian church. As the house (household)
of God, the Christian believers are the dwelling place of the Father and Son
through the Spirit, serving as the channel for this life-giving Spirit to the world, as
the eschatological temple. In this sense they serve as the glory of God – his
revelatory, dwelling presence.
As seen in 3.4 John uses dovca / docavzw distinctively, referring to seeing glory
(1:14; 11:40; 12:41; 17:24), or revealing glory (2:11), evoking an understanding
very similar to that of hwhy dwbk in the Old Testament.23 For John, the incarnate
Word was a physical manifestation of the glory of God (1:14). When Jesus or the
Father is mentioned as being glorified, edoca/sqh, or an event glorifies, docavzw,
them,24 rather than meaning to “be praised” or “praise”, it is preferable to see this
as shorthand for referring to their glory being revealed as in 2:11. Such meaning
can also be applied to verses where the Christian believers docavzw God. Jesus’
teaching and prayer in the last discourse is that the Christian community will be
the location where God’s glory will dwell, and hence the instruments by which
God will reveal his glory. In 14:12 Jesus declares that the one who has faith in
him will do even greater miracles because he goes to the Father (i.e. because the
Spirit will come). The believer who does these things, in prayerful dependence on
the Son, will cause the Father to be glorified in the Son (i%na docasqh=| o( path\r e)n
22
The term paradi/dwmi is not a euphemism for death; it refers to the handing on or bequest of
something to a successor. So Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth
Gospel, 189; Brown, The Gospel according to John, 931; and Barrett, The Gospel according to St
John, 554.
23
Cook, "The 'Glory' Motif in the Johannine Corpus," 291-97; Navone, "Glory in Pauline and
Johannine Thought," 48-52; Riga, "Signs of Glory: The Use of Semeion in St John's Gospel," 402-
24.
24
John 7:39; 8:54; 11:4; 13:31-32; 14:13; 15:8; 16:14; 17:4, 17:10; 21:19.
122
tw=| ui(w)=| (14:13). In 15:7, believers, as branches, are called to abide in the vine,
Christ, together with a promise of answered prayer. The result will be (15:8) e)n
tou/tw| e)doca/sqh o( path/r mou, i%na karpo\n polu\n fe/rhte kai\ ge/nhsqe e)moi\
maqhtai/. Believers bear fruit and prove they are Jesus’ disciples. This will cause
people to recognise the glory of God.
Not only is the Father glorified, but the disciples also reveal the glory of the Son.
In 17:1 Jesus prays that since the hour of glory has come, “Father, glorify your
Son, so that your Son may glorify you.” He sums up his earthly ministry as
glorifying the Father (e)gw/ se e)do/casa) by completing the work he gave him
(17:4), and revealing the Father’s name (e)fane/rwsa/ sou to\ o)/noma) to those he
gave him (17:6). A similar idea, though a more complicated phrase, occurs in
17:22. For Jesus to have given them the glory the Father gave him (th\n do/can h^n
de/dwka/$ moi de/dwka au)toi=$) means that he has mediated God’s glory, or caused
it to be revealed to them.25 That this is what Jesus means is clear in a parallel
phrase (17:26): “I have made your name known to them.” Lindars comments: “He
has passed this on to the disciples not only by entrusting to them the message of
salvation, but also by creating in them a form of life which bears witness to it.”26
As a result of this ministry of revelation of glory, Jesus is able to declare of his
disciples, “I am glorified in them (dedo/casmai e)n au)toi=$) (17:10), that is, Jesus’
glorious character and work are revealed and recognised by others through their
belief and obedience.
In the context of Jesus’ farewell discourse, where Jesus prepares his disciples for
his departure by teaching of his ongoing presence in them, John re-applies the
concepts of glory and temple to the Christian believers. They are the Father’s
house, in whom are many abidings through the Holy Spirit. As such, they are able
to reveal the glory of both the Father and the Son through their obedience. Thus,
not only does Jesus replace the destroyed temple as the locus of God’s dwelling,
but also Christian believers supersede temple worship, by worshipping God
independently of place, in Spirit and truth.
25
So Carson, The Gospel according to John, 569.
26
Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, ed. Ronald E. Clements, and Matthew Black, New
Century Bible (London: Oliphants, 1972), 530.
123
Chapter 7: Conclusions
For John’s contemporaries, Herod’s temple lay in ruins. Their coping strategies
for the loss of such a central aspect of the cult involved a greater adherence to
Torah, as well as a retreat into merkabah mysticism and apocalypticism. John
answers the crisis of where God was to be met by using Old Testament categories
of temple and glory typologically to draw attention to the more complete antitype
of both, Jesus Christ, the self-revelatory, dwelling presence of God’s shekinah-
glory, the fulfilment and replacement of Jewish religious symbolism related to the
tabernacle and the temple, as well as to the religious festivals centred on the
temple such as Passover, Tabernacles and the Feast of Dedication. For John,
person replaces place. God is now to be met in Jesus: the new house of God, the
new temple.
The temple, the complex Jesus has come to replace, serves as the location for
much of his teaching, a further expression of his self-revelatory glory, echoing the
presence of hwhy dwbk in the temple in the Old Testament. John’s message is that
physical locations of worship are inadequate as locations of divine presence, and
Jesus is now the proper locus and focus of worship. Although this portrait is
developed in John 1-12, a major emphasis is the glory of the cross. Jesus’ lifting
up/ glorification on the cross is the action that reveals God’s salvific glory most
completely. Jesus’ signs are also the means by which his glory, the visible
presence of God, is revealed to his beholders.
Such a message is only a partial answer to the temple’s destruction however, since
at the time of John’s writing Jesus had returned to the Father. Where did that leave
believers now? The second half of the gospel reapplies the concepts of glory and
temple to Christian believers who become, after they have received the Holy
Spirit, the Father’s household, the new temple of God’s presence. As the
recipients of God’s Spirit, they become the channel for this Spirit to the nations,
bearing fruit, and thus revealing the glory of God to the world.
124
For John’s readers, such a portrait thoroughly fills the void left by the temple’s
destruction. God is now to be worshipped in Spirit and truth, where place
becomes irrelevant. Rather than simply being the privileged people among whom
the temple of God’s presence dwells, they are the people in whom the Spirit of
God himself dwells, his new temple. Their purpose is to become, through fruitful
obedience, the means by which God’s glory-presence is revealed, as well as the
channel through which the Spirit flows to the nations.
125
Bibliography
Aland, Kurt and Barbara. The Text of the New Testament. Translated by E. F.
Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Alexander, Philip S. "The Parting of the Ways from the Perspective of Rabbinic
Judaism." in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135,
edited by James D. G. Dunn. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992.
Arnold, B. T., and B.E. Beyer. Encountering the Old Testament. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1999.
Attridge, Harold. The Gospel of John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Unpublished),
International Symposium: Text, Thought and Practice in Qumran and
Early Christianity, 2004. [cited 10 Oct, 2007]. Online:
http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/9th/papers/AttridgeAbstract.html.
Aune, D. E. The Cultic Setting of Realised Eschatology in Early Christianity,

NovTSup 28. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972.
Barnett, Paul. "Indications of Earliness in the Gospel of John." RTR 64, 2 (2005):
1-15.
Barrett, C.K. The Gospel according to St John. London: SPCK, 1970.
———. "The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel." JTS 48, 3 (1947): 155-68.
Bauckham, Richard. "Qumran and the Fourth Gospel: Is There Any Connection?"
in The Scrolls and the Scriptures, edited by S.E Porter, and C.A. Evans,
267-79. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. Translated by William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur
Gingrich. Second ed. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago,
1958.
Beale, G. K. The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the
Dwelling Place of God. Edited by D. A. Carson. Vol. 17, New Studies in
Biblical Theology. Downer's Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2004.
Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to

St John. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928.
Beutler, Johannes. "The Use of 'Scripture' in the Gospel of John." in Exploring the
Gospel of John: In Honour of D. Moody Smith, edited by R. Alan
Culpepper, and C. Clifton Black, 147-62. Louisville, Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox, 1996.
126
Blau, Ludwig. "Shekinah." in The Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by Isidore Singer,

9:258-60. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1905.
Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues and

Commentary. Downers Grove: IVP, 2001.
———. "To What Extent Is John Historically Reliable?" in Perspectives on John:

Method and Interpretation in the Fourth Gospel, edited by Robert B.
Sloan and Mikeal C. Parsons, 27-56. Lewiston, New York: Mellen, 1993.
Borgen, Peder. "Logos Was the True Light: Contributions to the Interpretation of
the Prologue of John." NovT 14, 2 (April, 1972): 115-30.
Borse, U. "Ieron." in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by H.

Balz, and G. Schneider, 2:175-76. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
Bowker, John. The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish

Interpretations of Scripture. Cambridge: The University Press, 1969.
Braine, David D. C. "The Inner Jewishness of John's Gospel as a Clue to the Inner
Jewishness of Jesus." SNTSMS 13 (1989): 101-55.
Brockington, L.H. "The Greek Translator of Isaiah and His Interest in Doxa." VT
1 (1951): 23-32.
Brooke, George J. "Florilegium." in Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David

Noel Freedman, 2:217. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Brown, R. E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York and Ramsey,
New Jersey: Paulist, 1979.
———. An Introduction to the Gospel of John. Edited by Francis J. Moloney.

New York: Doubleday, 2003.
Brown, R.E. "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament." in John and the
Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by J.H. Charlesworth, 1-8. New York: Crossroad,
1990.
———. The Gospel according to John. 2 vols. Vol. 1, The Anchor Bible.
London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966.
———. The Gospel according to John. 2 vols. Vol. 2, The Anchor Bible.
London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966.
Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes. Grand

Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1983.
Bultmann, Rudolph. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G.R.

Beasley-Murray. Edited by R.W.N. Hoare and J.K. Riches. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1971.
127
Burkett, D. The Son of Man in the Gospel of John, JSNTSup 56. Sheffield: JSOT,
1991.
Burney, C.F. The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1922.
Burridge, R. A. What Are the Gospels? Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1991.
Burrows, Millar. Burrows on the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Omnibus of Two Famous
Volumes: The Dead Sea Scrolls, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.
Caird, George. "The Glory of God in the Gospel of John: An Exercise in Biblical
Semantics." NTS 15, 2 (1969): 265-77.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England: IVP, 1991.
———. "The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:30-31 Reconsidered." JBL
108 (1987): 639-51.
Carter, Warren. John: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody,

Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2006.
Charlesworth, J.H. "Baruch, Book of 2 (Syriac)." in Anchor Bible Dictionary,

edited by David Noel Freedman, 1:220-24. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
———. "A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3.13-4.26 and the
'Dualism' Contained in the Gospel of John." in John and the Dead Sea
Scrolls, edited by J.H. Charlesworth, 76-106. New York: Crossroad, 1990.
———. "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel according to John." in Exploring
the Gospel of John: In Honour of D. Moody Smith, edited by R. Alan
Culpepper, and C. Clifton Black, 65-97. Louisville, Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox, 1996.
Chilton, Bruce D. The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenance of the
Isaiah Targum, JSOTSS 23. Sheffield: JSOT, 1983.
———. "John 12:34 and Targum Isaiah 52:13." NovT XXII, 2 (1980): 176-78.
Collins, Matthew S. "The Question of Doxa: A Socio-Literary Reading of the

Wedding at Cana." BTB 25 (Fall, 1995): 100-09.
Coloe, Mary L. "Dwelling in the Household of God (John 14:2)." in That Our Joy
May Be Complete: Essays on the Incarnation for the New Millennium,
edited by Rosemary Gill, Marian Free, Jonathan Holland, and John
Mainstone, 47-57. Adelaide: Open Book Publishers, 2000.
———. God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel.
Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2001.
———. "Households of Faith (John 4:46-54; 11:1-44): A Metaphor for the

Johannine Community." Pacifica 13 (2000): 326-35.
128
———. "Raising the Johannine Temple (John 19:19-37)." ABR 48 (2000): 47-58.
———. "The Structure of the Johannine Prologue and Genesis 1." ABR 45
(1997): 40-55.
Cook, W. Robert. "The 'Glory' Motif in the Johannine Corpus." JETS 27, 3
(1984): 291-97.
———. The Theology of John. Chicago: Moody, 1979.
Cooper, Karl T. "The Best Wine: John 2:1-11." WTJ 61, 2 (1979): 364-80.
Cory, Catherine. "Wisdom's Rescue: A New Reading of the Tabernacles

Discourse (John 7:1-8:59)." JBL 116, 1 (1997): 95-116.
Culpepper, R. Alan. John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend. Edited by D.
Moody Smith, Studies on Personalities of the New Testament. London: T
& T Clark, 2000.
———. "The Pivot of John's Prologue." NTS 27, 1 (1981): 1-31.
Dahms, John V. "The Johannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered." NTS 29, 2

(1983): 222-32.
Daise, Michael A. "'If Anyone Thirsts, Let that One Come to Me and Drink': The
Literary Texture of John 7:37b-38a." JBL 122, 4 (2003): 687-99.
Davies, W.D. The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial
Doctrine. Sheffield: JSOT, 1994.
———. "Reflections on Aspects of the Jewish Background of the Gospel of

John." in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honour of D. Moody Smith,
edited by R. Alan Culpepper; and C. Clifton Black, 43-64. Louisville,
Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1996.
Dennison, James T., Jr. "The Prologue of John's Gospel." Kerux 8, 2 (1993): 3-9.
Denzey, Nicola Frances. "Genesis Traditions in Conflict?: The Use of Some

Exegetical Traditions in the Trimorphic Protennoia and the Johannine
Prologue." VChr 55, 1 (2001): 20-45.
Dillingstone, F. W. Christianity and Symbolism. London: Collins, 1955.
Dodd, C.H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge

University, 1953.
Donaghy, Henry. "God with Us." Worship 31, April (1957): 276-84.
Donnelly, Edward. "Glory and Suffering in the Fourth Gospel: A Paradox of

Discipleship." RTJ 18, 4 (2002): 3-13.
129
Draper, J. A. "Temple, Tabernacle and Mystical Experience in John." Neot 31, 2

(1997): 263-88.
Dumbrell, William J. "Grace and Truth: The Progress of the Argument of the
Prologue of John's Gospel." in Doing Theology for the People of God,,
105-21. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 1996.
Dunn, James D. G. "Let John Be John: A Gospel for its Time." in The Gospel and
the Gospels, edited by Peter Stuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
———. The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and Their
Significance for the Character of Christianity. 2nd ed. London: SCM,
2006.
Edwards, R. A. The Gospel according to St. John. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode,
1954.
Edwards, Ruth B. "Karin Anti Karitos (John 1:16): Grace and Law in the
Johannine Prologue." JSNT 32 (1988): 3-15.
Ellis, E. Earle. "Background and Christology in John's Gospel." in Perspectives on

John: Method and Interpretation in the Fourth Gospel, edited by Robert
B. Sloan and Mikeal C. Parsons, 1-25. Lewiston, New York: Mellen,
1993.
Evans, Craig A. Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background
of John's Prologue. Vol. 89, JSNTSup. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1993.
The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan. Translated by J. Goldin. Vol. 10, Yale
Judaica Series. New Haven: Yale University, 1995.
Fennema, D. A. "John 1:18: 'God the Only Son'." NTS 31 (1985): 124-35.
Ferreira, Johan. Johannine Ecclesiology, JSNTSup 160. Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic, 1998.
Fortna, R. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Underlying the

Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1970.
Frey, Jorg. John and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Recent Perspectives on Johannine
Dualism and its Background (Unpublished) Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, International Symposium: Text, Thought and Practice in
Qumran and Early Christianity, 2004. [cited Sept 23, 2007]. Online:
Fuglseth, Kare Sigvald. Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective: A Sociological,

Historical, and Comparative Analysis of Temple, and Social Relationships
in the Gospel of John, Philo and Qumran. Edited by M.M. Mitchell,
NovTSup 119. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
130
Gärtner, Bertil. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New
Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1965.
Glasson, T. Francis. Moses in the Fourth Gospel. London: SCM, 1963.
Gonen, Rivka. Contested Holiness: Jewish, Muslim and Christian Perspectives on

the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Jersey City, New Jersey: Ktav Publishing,
2003.
Goodman, Martin. "Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple." in Jews

and Christians, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 27-38. Tübingen: Mohr-
Siebeck, 1992.
Graetz, Heinrich Hirsch. History of the Jews: From the Reign of Hyrcanus (135
BCE) to the Completion of the Babylonian Talmud (500 CE). Vol. 2.
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1893.
Gundry, Robert H. "In My Father's House Are Many Monai." ZNW 58 (1967): 68-
72.
Gunn, George. John 14:1-3, the Father's House: Are We There Yet? , 2007. [cited
21 August, 2007]. Online: http://www.shasta.edu/articles/gunn/john14.asp.
Guttman, A. "The End of the Jewish Sacrificial Cult." HUCA 38 (1967): 137-48.
Hamilton, James M. God's Indwelling Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Old and
New Testaments. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen, NAC Studies in Bible &
Theology. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006.
Hamilton Jr., James M. "God with Men in the Prophets and the Writings: An
Examination of the Nature of God's Presence." SBET 23, 2 (2005): 166-93.
Hanson, Anthony. "John 1:14-18 and Exodus 34." NTS 23, 1 (1977): 90-101.
———. The Prophetic Gospel: A Study of John and the Old Testament.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.
Harris, Dale. The House Was Filled with His Glory: Johannine Temple-
Christology and the Death of Jesus Briercrest Seminary, 2007. [cited 15
Jan, 2008]. Online: http://www.ccws.ca/theology/.
Harris, Elizabeth. Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist.
Edited by Stanley Porter, JSNTSup 107. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1994.
Hill, Charles E. The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. Oxford: Oxford
University, 2004.
Hill, David. "Request of Zebedee's Sons and the Johannine Doxa Theme." NTS
13, 2 (1967): 281-85.
131
Hodges, Zane C. "Grace after Grace: John 1:16." BSac 135, 1 (1978): 34-45.
———. "Rivers of Living Water: John 7:37-39." BSac 136, 3 (1979): 239-48.
Hogeterp, Albert L.A. "Paul and God's Temple: A Historical Interpretation of

Cultic Imagery in the Corinthian Correspondence." Ph.D. diss., University
of Groningen, 2004. [cited 15 Jan, 2008]. Available from
http://irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/258765666.
Hooker, Morna. "John the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue." NTS 16, 2 (1970):
355-70.
Horbury, William. "The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian

Controversy." JTS 33 (1982): 19-61.
Hoskins, Paul M. Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John,
Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006.
Hunter, Archibald M. The Gospel according to John, Cambridge Bible

Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1965.
———. Introducing the New Testament. London: SCM, 1945.
Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Hwang, Won Ha. "The Presence of the Risen Jesus in and among His Followers
with Special Reference to the First Farewell Discourse in John 13:31-
14:31." Ph.D. diss., University of Pretoria, 2006. [cited 18 Nov, 2007].
Available from http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-06222007-
111151/.
Hwang, Won Ha, and J.G. van der Watt. "The Identity of the Recipients of the
Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Purpose of the Gospel." HTS 63, 2
(2007): 683-98.
Katz, Steven T. "Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 CE:
A Reconsideration." JBL 103 (1984): 43-76.
Kaufman, Philip S. The Beloved Disciple: Witness against Anti-Semitism.

Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical, 1991.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Peabody,

———. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Vol. 2. Peabody,

Kerr, Alan R. The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of
John, JSNTSup 220. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002.
132
Kidner, Derek. Genesis. Edited by D.J. Wiseman, Tyndale OT Commentaries.

Leicester: IVP, 1967.
Kim, Chul Hae. "The Logos-Christology in the Prologue of the Gospel of John as
a Bridge Concept between the Old Testament Shekinah Events and
Johannine Christology." Ph. D. diss., An unpublished dissertation
presented to Concordia Seminary, 1991. [cited 16 February, 2006].
Available from www.tren.com.
Kirchhevel, Gordon D. "The Children of God and the Glory that John 1:14 Saw."
BBR 6 (1996): 87-93.
Kirschner, Robert. "Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of

70." HTR 78, 1-2 (1985): 27-46.
Kittel, Gerhard. "dokew." in TDNT, edited by Gerhard Kittel, 2:232-55. Grand

Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1964.
Klein, Michael. "Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique." Bib 57 (1976):

515-37.
Kline, Meredith G. "Creation in the Image of the Glory-Spirit." WTJ 39, 3 (1977):
250-72.
———. Images of the Spirit. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980.
Koester, Craig R. The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament.
Vol. 22, CBQMS, 1989.
Kohler, Kaufmann. "Memra." in The Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by Isidore

Singer, 464-65. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1904.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. "The Destruction of the Second Temple and the

Composition of the Fourth Gospel." TrinJ 26 (2005): 205-42.
———. John, BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.
Kravitz, Leonard. "Shekinah as God's Spirit and Presence." Living Pulpit 5, 1

(1996): 22-23.
Kuyper, Lester J. "Grace and Truth: An Old Testament Description of God, and
its Use in the Johannine Gospel." Int 18, 1 (1964): 3-19.
Kysar, R. "The Expulsion from the Synagogue: A Tale of a Theory." in Voyages

with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel, edited by R. Kysar, 237-46.
Waco, Texas: Baylor University, 2002.
———. "The Gospel of John." in Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel
Freedman, 912-31. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
———. John, the Maverick Gospel. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/ John

Knox, 1993.
133
———. "The Whence and Whither of the Johannine Community." in Life in

Abundance: Studies of John's Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown,
edited by J. R. Donahue, 65-81. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2005.
Labahn, M. "Between Tradition and Literary Art: The Miracle Tradition in the
Fourth Gospel." Bib 80 (1999): 178-203.
Levine, Etan. The Aramaic Version of the Bible. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988.
Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford:

Oxford University, 1940.
Lieu, Judith. "Temple and Synagogue in John." NTS 45, 1 (1999): 51-69.
Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. Edited by Ronald E. Clements, and

Matthew Black, New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1972.
———. John, New Testament Study Guides. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990.
Longman III, Tremper. Immanuel in Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel's Worship.
Edited by Tremper Longman III, and J. Alan Groves, The Gospel
According to the Old Testament. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2001.
MacGregor, G. H. C. John. Edited by James Moffatt, The Moffatt New Testament

Commentary. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928.
MacLeod, David J. "The Incarnation of the Word: John 1:14." BSac 161, 1
(2004): 72-88.
Manning, Gary T. Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John
and in Literature of the Second Temple Period. London: T&T Clark, 2004.
Martínez, Florentino García. Qumran and Apocalyptic : Studies on the Aramaic

Texts from Qumran. New York: E.J. Brill, 1992.
Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. Nashville:

Abingdon, 1968.
McCaffrey. The House with Many Rooms: The Temple Theme of John 14:2-3.
Vol. 114, Analecta Biblica. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1988.
McKelvey, R. J. The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament, Oxford
Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University, 1969.
McNamara, Martin. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the
Pentateuch. Vol. 27, Analecta Biblica. Rome: Pontifical Bible Institute,
1966.
Meagher, John C. "John 1:14 and the New Temple." JBL 88 (1969): 57-68.
134
Meeks, Wayne A. "Am I a Jew?: Johannine Christianity and Judaism." in

Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton
Smith at Sixty, edited by Jacob Neusner, 163-86. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
Menken, M. Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual

Form. Vol. 15, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology. Kampen:
Kok Pharos, 1996.
———. "The Origin of the Old Testament Quotation in John 7:38." NovT 38, 2
(1996): 160-75.
Metzger, Bruce M. "Important Early Translations of the Bible." BibSac 150, 1

(1993): 35-49.
Middleton, R. D. "Logos and Shekinah in the Fourth Gospel." The Jewish

Quarterly Review 29, 2 (1938): 101-33.
Mills, Lawrence H. Zoroaster, Philo and Israel: A Treatise upon the Antiquity of
the Avesta. New York: AMS, 1977.
Milne, Bruce. The Message of John. Edited by John R. W. Stott, BST. Leicester,
England: IVP, 1993.
Mlakuzhyil, George. The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel.

Vol. 117, Analecta Biblica. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico,
1987.
Moloney, Francis J. Belief in the World: Reading John 1-4. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1993.
———. "Narrative and Discourse at the Feast of Tabernacles." in Word,

Theology, and Community in John, edited by John R. Painter, Alan
Culpepper, and Fernando F. Segovia, 155-72. Danvers, MA: Chalice,
2002.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to John. Edited by Gordon D. Fee. rev. ed,
NICNT. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1995.
Motyer, Stephen. Your Father the Devil: A New Approach to John and the Jews.
Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997.
Mowvley, Henry. "John 1:14-18 in the Light of Exodus 33:7-34:35." ExpTim 95,
5 (1984): 135-37.
Munn, G. Lacoste. "An Introduction to the Gospel of John." SWJT 31, 1 (1988):
7-11.
Navone, John. "Glory in Pauline and Johannine Thought." Worship 42, 1 (1968):
48-52.
Neusner, Jacob. "Judaism in a Time of Crisis: Four Responses to the Destruction

of the Second Temple." Judaism 21 (1972): 313-27.
135
———. "Money Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah Explanation." NTS 35

(1989): 287-90.
Neyrey, Jerome H. "The Jacob Allusions in John 1:51." CBQ 44 (1982): 586-605.
———. "Spaces and Places, Whence and Whither, Homes and Rooms:
'Territoriality' in the Fourth Gospel." BTB 32, 2 (2002): 60-74.
Nicholson, G. C. Death as Departure: The Johannine Descent-Ascent Schema,

SBLDS 63. Chico: Scholars, 1983.
Niebuhr, Ursula. "Glory (Kabod)." BTB 14, 2 (1984): 49-53.
Palmer, James. "Exodus and the Biblical Theology of the Tabernacle." in Heaven
on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology, edited by T. Desmond
Alexander, and Simon Gathercole, 11-22. Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster,
2004.
Pamment, Margaret. "The Meaning of Doxa in the Fourth Gospel." ZNW 74

(1983): 12-16.
Pendrick, Gerard. "Monogenes." NTS 41 (1995): 587-600.
Pilgaard, Aage. "The Qumran Scrolls and John's Gospel." in New Readings in
John: Literary and Theological Perspectives. Essays from the
Scandinavian Conference on the Fourth Gospel Arhus 1997, edited by
Johannes Nissen and Sigfred Pedersen, 126-42. London: T&T Clark
International, 1999.
Reid, Andrew. Salvation Begins: Reading Genesis Today. Edited by Paul Barnett,
Reading the Bible Today. Sydney: Southwood, 2000.
Richards, W. Wiley. The Witness and the Glory: The Tabernacle and the Gospel
of John, TREN Conference Papers. Presented at the 42nd National
Conference of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1990, New Orleans,
LA, 1991. [cited 31 March, 2007]. Online: www.tren.com.
Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel according to John: A Theological

Commentary. Translated by J. Vriend. Grand Rapids/ Cambridge:
Eerdmans, 1997.
Riga, Peter. "Signs of Glory: The Use of Semeion in St John's Gospel." Int 17, 4
(1963): 402-24.
Robertson, Paul E. "Glory in the Fourth Gospel." TE 38, 3 (1988): 121-31.
Robinson, G. "The Trimorphic Protennoia and the Prologue of the Fourth

Gospel." in Gnosticism and the Early Christian World, edited by J.E.
Goehring et al., 37-50. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1990.
136
Robinson, John A. T. Can We Trust the New Testament? Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1977.
———. "The Destination and Purpose of John's Gospel." NTS 6 (1959-60): 117-
31.
———. Redating the New Testament. London: SCM, 1976.
———. "The Relation of the Prologue to the Gospel of St John." NTS 9 (1962-3):
120-29.
Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of
Genesis. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Russell, D.S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic. Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1964.
Rylaarsdam, J. C. "Booths, Feast Of." in IDB, edited by G. A. Buttrick, 1:455-58.

Nashville: Abingdon, 1962.
Salier, Bill. "The Temple in the Gospel according to John." in Heaven on Earth:
The Temple in Biblical Theology, edited by T. Desmond Alexander, and
Simon Gathercole, 121-34. Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster, 2004.
Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Penguin, 1993.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St John. Translated by Cecily

Hastings, Francis McDonagh, David Smith and Richard Foley SJ. 3 vols.
Vol. 1. London: Burns & Oates, 1980.
———. The Gospel according to St John. Translated by Cecily Hastings, Francis

McDonagh, David Smith and Richard Foley SJ. 3 vols. Vol. 2. London:
Burns & Oates, 1980.
———. The Gospel according to St John. Translated by Cecily Hastings, Francis

McDonagh, David Smith and Richard Foley SJ. 3 vols. Vol. 3. London:
Burns & Oates, 1980.
Schuhlein, Fr. "Targum." in Catholic Encyclopaedia, edited by Charles G.

Herbermann, Edward A. Pace, Condé B. Pallen, Rev. Thomas J. Shahan,
Rev. John J. Wynne, 14:454-58. New York: Robert Appleton Company,
1912.
Schurer, Emil. The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus. Edited by
Nahum Glatzer. New York: Schocken, 1972.
Silva, Moises. "Approaching the Fourth Gospel." CTR 3, 1 (1988): 17-29.
Stibbe, Mark W. G. John's Gospel, New Testament Readings. London: Routledge,

1994.
137
Streeter, B.H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript
Tradition, Sources, Authorship, and Dates. 4th impression, revised. ed.
London: MacMillan, 1930.
Strong, James. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Maclean, Virginia:

MacDonald, 1961.
Tasker, R. V. G. John. Edited by R. V. G. Tasker, Tyndale New Testament

Commentaries. Leicester: IVP, 1983.
Taylor, John B. "The Temple in Ezekiel." in Heaven on Earth: The Temple in

Biblical Theology, edited by T. Desmond Alexander, and Simon
Gathercole, 59-70. Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster, 2004.
Thettayil, Benny. In Spirit and Truth: An Exegetical Study of John 4:19-26 and a
Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel.
Leuven: Peeters, 2007.
Thieme, Robert B. "The Panorama of the Shekinah Glory." TREN Theses and
Dissertations. A thesis submitted to the faculty of Western Conservative
Baptist Seminary, Portland, Oregon in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Theology (1997).
Trost, Travis Darren. "The Fourth Gospel as Reaction to Militant Jewish

Expectation of Kingship, Reflected in Certain Dead Sea Scrolls." DTh
diss., University of South Africa, 2006. [cited 11 October, 2006].
Available from http://etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-
08072006-115319/unrestricted/thesis.pdf.
Um, Stephen T. The Theme of Temple Christology in John's Gospel, LNTS 312.
London: T&T Clark, 2006.
Valentine, Simon R. "The Johannine Prologue: A Microcosm of the Gospel." EQ

68 (1996): 291-304.
van der Watt, J.G. "The Composition of the Prologue of John's Gospel: The
Historical Jesus Introducing Divine Grace." WTJ 57 (1995): 310-36.
———. "The Presence of Jesus through the Gospel of John." Neotest 36, 1-2
(2002): 89-95.
VanderKam, James, and Peter Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. New
York: Harper Collins, 2002.
VanderKam, James C. "1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian
Literature." in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity,
edited by James C. VanderKam, and William Adler, 33-59. Assen:
Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, 1996.
———. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Vardaman, E. Jerry. "The Pool of Bethesda." BT 14, 1 (1963): 27-29.

138
Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. New York: Penguin,
1997.
———. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin, 1987.
Voorwinde, Stephen. "John's Prologue: Beyond Some Impasses of Twentieth-

Century Scholarship." WTJ 63 (2002): 15-44.
Walker, Peter W. L. Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on
Jerusalem. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1996.
Wallace, Daniel B. "John 5:2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel." Bib 71 (1990):
177-205.
Watkins, H. W. The Gospel according to John. Edited by Charles John Ellicott.

2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957.
Webb, Barry. The Message of Isaiah. Edited by J.A. Motyer, The Bible Speaks
Today. Leicester: IVP, 1996.
Wenham, David. "A Historical View of John's Gospel." Themelios 23, 2 (1998):
5-21.
Westcott, B. F. The Gospel according to St John: The Authorised Version with

Introduction and Notes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 [1881].
———. An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. 4th ed. London: Macmillan,
1872.
Witherington III, Ben. John's Wisdom. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John

Knox, 1995.
Yee, G. A. Jewish Feasts and the Gospel of John. Wilmington, Delaware:

Michael Glazier, 1989.
Zeitlin, Solomon. "Hanukkah: its Origin and Significance." JQR 29, 1 (1938): 1-
36.

Glory and Temple in Johns Gospel With Pa

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Glory and Temple in Johns Gospel With Pa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Glory and Temple

I certify that the substance of this thesis of approximately 35000 words

Date ………24/11/08 ……………………….

In the decades after the destruction of the

In chapters 13-21 glory and temple are redefined

Chapter 2 Authorship, Dating, Provenance, Purpose, Audience and Jewish 10

Chapter 3 The Conceptual Background of Johannine do/ca Usage 42

Chapter 4 Glory of God, and Related Themes, in the Old Testament 59

Chapter 5 John’s Portrait of Jesus: Glory and Temple – John 1-12 73

5.2 John 1:14: The Word Became Flesh 79

Chapter 7 Conclusions 123

Chapter 1: Introduction and Thesis

Her attention is focussed primarily on the internal evidence of various passages

No extended investigation has been made however, to this author’s knowledge, of

We will now turn our attention to an investigation concerning necessary questions

Chapter 2: Authorship, Dating,

As Westcott argues, internal evidence points to a Jewish author, specifically a

Clement of Alexandria, referring to John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, provides

This date is supported when we turn to internal evidence. Martyn,39 followed by

More recently, Barnett has argued for a pre-A.D. 70 date of composition. He

With respect to hypothetical and non-verifiable theories of various sources and

2.4 Purpose and Audience

does the category of Messiah mean?”. Instead it answers the questions a

2.5 Jewish Background of the Fourth Gospel

2.5.1 The Jewishness of John’s gospel

2.5.1.1 John’s Use of the Old Testament

John is less interested in Jesus’ fulfilment of individual passages of the Old

2.5.1.2 The Influence of Qumran on John?

The similarities, while attention-grabbing, have proved complex to analyse and

scrolls has generally been doubted.”100 For example, in response to

2.5.2. The Jewish Milieu as Revealed by John’s Gospel

Despite these concerns, Martyn’s basic approach is constructive  it is possible to

2.5.3 The Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple

Following the temple’s destruction, and despite Roman restrictions on Jews

2.5.4 Jewish Coping Strategies for the Destruction of the Temple

spiritual existence.”132 Goodman agrees; “There is every reason to suppose that

According to Davies, the Pharisees, in the years subsequent to the temple’s

The process of escalating Torah obedience into a means of atonement culminated

2.5.4.2 Jewish Apocalyptic

Apocalyptic is literature of despair and hope in equal or greater measure.161 The

2.5.4.3 The Dead Sea Community

Following their withdrawal from temple attendance, the inhabitants of Qumran

of the “official” Israel. They regarded themselves as a priestly community,

While there is no evidence of sacrificial rites at Qumran, the community viewed

2.5.4.4 The Christian Response

Chapter 3: The Conceptual Background

3.1.1 New Testament

The hwhy dwbk is frequently a visual phenomenon – a physical representation of

3.1.4 Targum teaching on Glory

Written versions of the Targums (Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament

In the Targums the dwbk of God is rendered by arqy, (honour, worth or

Further examples can be seen below:32

3.1.5 Qumran’s Teaching on Glory

The term dwbk occurs frequently in The Thanksgiving Scroll (1QH).35 It is

Such an outlook of God’s glory, as only being available to the enlightened,

circumstances to a heavenly intrusion into history. In the Fourth Gospel,

means by which an omnipresent God made his personal presence visible to

This also holds true for the withdrawal of God’s presence.

It is also found in inverted order – the glory of the shekinta:

These word studies serve as an introduction to a more thorough consideration of

3.4 Specific References to dovca and docavzw in the

In a number of passages it is clear that Jesus’ glorification refers to his crucifixion

Chapter 4: Glory of God,

4.2.1 The Tabernacle