The Kingship of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Sehyun Kim
Introduction, 151–52.
82. Meeks also says that “the history of the Johannine mission and apologetics must have been far more complex” (Meeks, “Divine Agent,” 60).
83. Segovia, “Journey(s),” 47–49.
84. The witnesses for the first reading (πιστευητε; present subjunctive: “you may continue to believe”) given in NA27 include P66vid אּ* B Θ 0250. 892s. l 221 1; and for the second reading (πιστεύσητε; aorist subjunctive: “you may begin or to come to believe”), אּ2 A C D L W ψ 0100 F1.13 33, etc. (see Bruce, Gospel, 395; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 256; de Jonge, Jesus, 1–7; Okure, Johannine Approach, 9; Beutler, “Faith and Confession,” 19–20).
85. In Greek, the aorist form always expresses the perfect aspect of the verb, which describes the action as a complete event, without commenting on whether or not it is a process. Therefore, in ἵνα-clauses (purpose), aorist subjunctive means the action as a complete event in the future. It is, therefore, that πιστεύσητε can be translated as “you, who have not believed yet, may begin to believe.”
86. In Greek, the present form always expresses the imperfect aspect, which describes the action as a process. Therefore, in ἵνα-clauses (purpose), present subjunctive means the action as a process from the past. It is, therefore, that πιστεύητε can be translated as “you, who have believed, may continuously believe.”
87. Bryne, “Faith of the Beloved Disciples” 93. De Jonge also comments that the subjunctive sentence in the Johannine literature “reflects catechetical instruction within the Johannine communities rather than missionary practice” (de Jonge, Jesus, 2). See also Brown, Gospel, 1056; Schnackenburg, Gospel, 3:337–38; Fee, “On the Text,” 193–206.
88. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 256.
89. Kysar, Fourth Evangelist, 147–65; Kysar, John, 18–26.
90. Carson, Gospel, 662.
91. Lincoln, Gospel, 88. Culpepper also argues, “a distinctive group of readers . . . is in view, but it is not necessarily a homogeneous group,” through surveying all the data of five areas (persons, places, languages, Judaism, and events) to which the narrator refers (see Culpepper, Anatomy, 211–23).
92. MacRae, “Fourth Gospel,” 14–15.
93. Smith, “Johannine Christianity,” 222–48, esp. 47.
94. McGrath, John’s Apologetic Christology, 234.
95. See Horbury, Jewish Messianism.
96. Horbury, Jewish Messianism, 3.
97. For surveys of backgrounds of the Gospel of John, see Lindars, Gospel, 35–42; Barrett, Gospel, 27–41. Lindars argues that “the author derives his thought from the Jewish and Christian tradition; but it is altogether probable that he writes for Greeks, and duly takes their way of thinking into account” (Lindars, Gospel, 35). Some scholars see both possibilities of the perception of Jewish and Gentle influence on the Gospel (Casey, From Jewish Prophet, 11–14; Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 402–13; McGrath, John’s Apologetic Christology, 6–27).
98. About the relationship between the Gospel of John and the Samaritan traditions, see chapter 6 of this book.
99. For example, the influence of the Hellenistic culture on Judaism was extensive (see Engberg-Pedersen, “Introduction,” 1–16), but resistance of the Jewish people resulted in different situations in various regions and periods (Lindars, Gospel, 49; see also Barrett, Gospel, 27). Hengel argues that because of a smooth penetration of Hellenistic influences into Judaism for centuries, there was respect on both sides between Jew and Greek. However, he argues that a furious defensive reaction occurred when the Greeks tried to go too fast, make Hellenization obligatory and outlaw the Law (see Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism).
100. MacRae contends that because he and his readers were in the multicultural environment of Roman Hellenism, John “may have tried deliberately to incorporate a diversity of backgrounds into the one gospel message, precisely to emphasize the universality of Jesus, creating his own gospel “style,” and heaping up Christological titles” (MacRae, “Fourth Gospel,” 15, 17, 19). In my view, John exquisitely employed many Christological titles to reveal the universal kingship of Jesus. The titles were not “heaped up,” but arranged elaborately in the text by the author’s highly intended literary strategy. I will discuss this in chapter 3 of this book.
101. De Jonge, “Jewish Expectation,” 246–70; Fitzmyer, One Who Is to Come.
102. Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 35–57. See also Caragounis, “Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven,” 418.
103. That is the reason why John describes Jesus fleeing the crowd’s attempt to make him king by force (6:15), while in other passage he affirms Jesus as the king (12:13; in the passion narrative). Moreover, the use of the phrase, “Jesus the Nazarene, the king of the Jews,” (19:19–20) on the cross written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin indicates, ironically, his universal kingship.
104. Hurtado, “Christ,” 106.
105. See chapter 3 of this book; Dodd, Interpretation, 238–39; Schneider and Brown, “σωτήρ,” 217; Koester, “Savior of the World,” 667.
106. Dodd comments that “the evangelist may even have been conscious of a certain dramatic propriety in putting it in the mouth of Samaritans, who in this gospel represent in some sort the Gentile world over against the Jews” (Dodd, Interpretation, 239).
107. See Fitzmyer, One Who Is to Come, 82–133; Horbury, Jewish Messianism; Day, King and Messiah; Collins, Scepter and the Star, 20–48; Neusner, Green, and Frerichs, Judaisms.
108. In the New Testament, Messiah bears this title “king” in close dependence on the Hebrew