Inter-Varsity Press

Contents

Introduction: John’s Gospel and the church’s doctrine of the Trinity
The approach of the present study

PART 1: HISTORICAL CONTEXT

1 John’s Gospel and Jewish monotheism
John’s context
John’s portrayal of Jesus and Jewish monotheism
The background of John’s portrayal of Jesus’ pre-existence
Christ-devotion and exclusivist Jewish monotheism
Implications for John’s Gospel

PART 2: BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS
2 God in John’s Gospel
Introduction
The prologue
The Book of Signs
The Book of Glory
Summary

3 The Father in John’s Gospel
Introduction
The prologue
The Book of Signs
The Book of Glory
Summary

4 The Son in John’s Gospel
Introduction
One-of-a-kind Son
Son of God
Son of Man
The Son
Summary and conclusion

5 The Spirit in John’s Gospel
Introduction
The Book of Signs
The Book of Glory
Summary

6 Father, Son and Spirit in John’s Gospel
Introduction
Summary and synthesis

PART 3: THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS

7 Christology in John’s trinitarian perspective: Jesus’ filial identity
Introduction
The prologue: John’s initial characterization of Jesus as the Son
Jesus’ filial identity and divine agency
Jesus’ filial identity and the nature of salvation
Conclusion

8 The Spirit who rests and remains on God’s Son and his brothers
Introduction
John’s initial characterization of the Spirit in relation to Jesus: Book of Signs
Initial summary: Jesus and the Spirit in the Book of Signs
John’s fuller characterization of the Spirit in relation to Jesus and the disciples: Book of Glory
The Spirit who rests and remains on God’s Son and his brothers
Conclusion

9 ‘As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you’: Toward a trinitarian mission theology
God (theos)
The Father
The Son
The Spirit
Father, Son and Spirit: The three persons of the Godhead united in one mission
The Trinity and the church’s mission
Conclusion

10 The Trinity and John’s Gospel
Introduction
John 17: Jesus’ high-priestly prayer
Immanent and economic Trinity
Conclusion

Conclusion: The gift of life: Knowing the triune God

Series preface

New Studies in Biblical Theology is a series of monographs that address key issues in the discipline of biblical theology. Contributions to the series focus on one or more of three areas: (1) the nature and status of biblical theology, including its relations with other disciplines (e.g. historical theology, exegesis, systematic theology, historical criticism, narrative theology); (2) the articulation and exposition of the structure of thought of a particular biblical writer or corpus; and (3) the delineation of a biblical theme across all or part of the biblical corpora.

Above all, these monographs are creative attempts to help thinking Christians understand their Bibles better. The series aims simultaneously to instruct and to edify, to interact with the current literature, and to point the way ahead. In God’s universe, mind and heart should not be divorced: in this series we will try not to separate what God has joined together.

While the notes interact with the best of scholarly literature, the text is uncluttered with untransliterated Greek and Hebrew, and tries to avoid too much technical jargon. The volumes are written within the framework of confessional evangelicalism, but there is always an attempt at thoughtful engagement with the sweep of the relevant literature.

One trap we would not want a series devoted to biblical theology to fall into is a kind of implied depreciation of systematic theology. Biblical theology and systematic theology are differentiable but overlapping and complementary disciplines. The former tends to ask theological questions about individual biblical books and corpora and about the trajectories that run right through the biblical corpora; the latter tends to ask theological questions that are primarily atemporal (e.g. ‘What is God like?’ and not ‘What does the Gospel of John tell us about God?’). For those of us who hold that Scripture must be the norming norm, both disciplines, to be responsible, no matter how much they learn from each other and from other contributing fields such as historical theology and philosophical theology, must ground themselves in the exegesis of Scripture. And of course, that exegesis is itself shaped, inevitably, by antecedent theological understanding.

This present volume is the joint product of a Neutestamentler and a systematic theologian. In their collaboration they have simultaneously attempted a detailed exegetical and theological understanding of what the Fourth Gospel says about God, using the categories of that Gospel itself, and mature understanding of the links between that text and the systematic formulations of what came to be called the doctrine of the Trinity. In what sense is it proper to think of the doctrine of God in John’s Gospel as trinitarian? Some are so suspicious of links between biblical exegesis and systematic theology that they will deplore any ostensible connections between the two, afraid that the latter will domesticate the former and stain it with anachronism, or that the former will dilute the latter and render it insipid. Drs Köstenberger and Swain, thankfully, are not numbered among them.

For those who want to know what they ought to believe – surely one of the functions (though not the only one) of constructive systematic theology – out of God’s self-disclosure in Scripture, this book will be a stimulating delight. In addition to its contribution to Christian understanding of God (can there be any higher subject?) it stimulates serious thought about how we move from careful study of biblical text to theological formulation. Nothing would please us more than if this book were to become a model for a lot more theological work of the same order.

D. A. Carson
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

John’s Gospel and the church’s doctrine of the Trinity

From the patristic period until today, John’s Gospel has served as a major source for the church’s knowledge, doctrine and worship of the triune God. The Fathers found in the Fourth Gospel both a primary text concerning the trinitarian mystery of salvation and ammunition for the refutation of heresies such as modalism and Arianism. In expounding their full-orbed trinitarianism, major fourth-century pastors and theologians were ‘drawn like a magnet’ to John’s Gospel. The reason for this lies close at hand:

Among all New Testament documents the Fourth Gospel provides not only the most raw material for the church doctrine of the Trinity, but also the most highly developed patterns of reflection on this material – particularly, patterns that show evidence of pressure to account somehow for the distinct personhood and divinity of Father, Son, and Spirit without compromising the unity of God.

In John’s Gospel, the distinct personal identities of Father, Son and Spirit and their unity in being, will and work are equally affirmed. While there are important personal differences in the roles of the triune God along salvation-historical lines (the Father sends, the Son is sent and sends, the Spirit is sent) the missio Dei is characterized by a deep underlying unity among the participants in this mission. As the fourth evangelist puts it, Father and Son are ‘in’ one another, and they are ‘one’ (10:30, 38; 14:10–11).

Given John’s perennial impact on the church’s trinitarian confession, it is surprising that, with the exception of Royce Gruenler’s The Trinity in the Gospel of John, no contemporary, book-length study of John’s trinitarian theology is available. Fine studies related to aspects of John’s doctrine of God have been published by M. M. Thompson, Bauckham and others, but none that summarizes and synthesizes what John has to say about God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This void is a subset of the larger neglect of theology proper in NT studies, which is itself a symptom of the systematic separation of dogmatics and exegesis in the modern era.

The tide of NT studies is turning, however. A recent spate of articles and books devoted to God and/or the Trinity in the NT has emerged. Contemporary with this revival in trinitarian NT studies is a shift in the playing field of the theological disciplines and theological method. On the one hand, many theologians increasingly acknowledge the role that biblical interpretation must play in their own discipline. Biblical exegesis is not only the territory of professional Bible scholars and biblical theologians. On the other hand, many biblical scholars recognize the role that theological reflection must play in the exegetical enterprise. The Bible is, after all, a profoundly theological document. Readings that fail to move beyond literary and genetic/historical issues to substantive doctrinal ones thus fail to grasp the Bible’s main subject matter.

Corroborating this (re)new(ed) methodological approach is an increased historical awareness that the church’s great dogmas, including the doctrine of the Trinity, originated not as a consequence of a priori theological reflection but instead as interpretative principles, principles that were derived from a believing engagement with Scripture. Indeed, Augustine traces his understanding of the Trinity to ‘all the Catholic commentators’ whom he ‘read on the divine books of both testaments’ (Trin. 1.7; italics added).

To be sure, there is a danger associated with speaking of the Bible’s, or even of John’s, ‘trinitarianism’. We must not import fourth-century discussions into our exegesis of biblical texts. Anachronism should be avoided. Nevertheless, we believe it is legitimate to label John’s teaching about God ‘trinitarian’ for at least two reasons.

First, John’s Gospel is ‘trinitarian’ in an obvious, non-controversial sense: John presents Father, Son and Spirit as three characters whose identities are bound together in a profound and mutually determining way. Admitting this point does not concede a full-blown doctrine of the Trinity. Even Arius spoke of a ‘trinity’ of ‘three hypostases’ in this sense (Arius simply denied that two of the three characters were fully divine!). The present point simply justifies our concentrated focus on Father, Son and Spirit as they are portrayed in their mutual relationships and actions in the Fourth Gospel. It also assures us that such a focus will not lead us away from John’s own interests and intentions.

Second, in keeping with an increasing body of literature, we believe there is a strong and natural link between the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments and later trinitarian formulations and terminology (e.g. the Nicene Creed, trinitas, hypostasis, homoousios etc.). Simply put, John’s portrayal of Father, Son and Spirit (along with the rest of the Bible) put ‘pressure’ on fourth-century discussions about the nature of God in such a way that later formulations and terminology should be viewed less as evolutionary developments beyond the NT data and more as attempts ‘to describe and analyse the way in which Jesus Christ and the Spirit’ were ‘intrinsic to’ Scripture’s way of speaking about God. In other words, the creeds represent a ‘descriptive grammar’ of the Bible’s own intrinsically trinitarian discourse. Jenson explains:

The real question about the relation of church doctrine to biblical witness is not about the development of ideas, but about whether the church’s Trinity doctrine and Christology make – and then develop and analyze – the same judgments about Jesus that Scripture does.

Admittedly, the present point is more controversial than that of the preceding paragraph. But we believe the present volume will bear it out, at least in the case of the Fourth Gospel.

The approach of the present study

In the light of the preceding discussion, we believe that a fresh examination of the Fourth Gospel’s trinitarian teaching is in order. ...