John

By Edward W Klink III

Concentrate on the biblical author's message as it unfolds.

Designed to assist the pastor and Bible teacher in conveying the significance of God's Word, the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series treats the literary context and structure of every passage of the New Testament book in the original Greek.

With a unique layout designed to help you comprehend the form and flow of each passage, the ZECNT unpacks:

• The key message.
• The author's original translation.
• An exegetical outline.
• Verse-by-verse commentary.
• Theology in application.

While primarily designed for those with a basic knowledge of biblical Greek, all who strive to understand and teach the New Testament will benefit from the depth, format, and scholarship of these volumes.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Zondervan
• Release date: Jan 10, 2017
• ISBN: 9780310537649

Edward W Klink III

Edward W. Klink III, Ph.D. (University of St. Andrews) is Associate Professor of New Testament at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. He is the author of The Sheep of the Fold: The Audience and Origin of the Gospel of John), editor of The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity, and is currently writing a commentary on the Gospel of John for the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series.

Book preview

Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

Editorial Board

General Editor

Clinton E. Arnold

Talbot School of Theology

Associate Editors

George H. Guthrie

Union University

Constantine R. Campbell

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Thomas R. Schreiner

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Mark L. Strauss

Bethel Seminary San Diego

Zondervan Editors

Editorial Advisor: Katya Covrett

Production Editor: Christopher A. Beetham

Consulting Editors

Richard Bewes, Rector, All Souls Church, Langham Place, London, UK

Craig Blomberg, Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary

Ajith Fernando, National Director of Youth for Christ, Sri Lanka

David E. Garland, Dean and William M. Hinson Professor of New Testament, George W. Truett Theological Seminary

Paul Gardner, Archdeacon of Exeter, Exeter, UK

Carolyn Custis James, Author and Speaker, Orlando, FL

Karen Jobes, Gerald F. Hawthorne Professor of New Testament Greek & Exegesis, Wheaton College and Graduate School

David W. Pao, Professor of New Testament and Chair of the New Testament Department, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Frank Thielman, Presbyterian Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School

Tite Tienou, Academic Dean and Professor of Theology of Mission, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

John

Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

Edward W. Klink III

Clinton E. Arnold

General Editor

For my mom, Kimberly Grace Klink

ZONDERVAN

John

Copyright © 2016 by Edward W. Klink III

Requests for information should be addressed to:

Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Drive SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546

ePub Edition December 2016: 978-0-310-53764-9

---

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Klink, Edward W., III, 1975- author.

Title: John / by Edward W. Klink, III.

Other titles: Zondervan exegetical commentary on the New Testament.

Description: Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, [2016] | Series: Zondervan exegetical commentary on the New Testament | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2016023256 | ISBN 9780310243601 (hardcover)

Subjects: LCSH: Bible. John—Commentaries.

Classification: LCC BS2615.53 K58 2016 | DDC 226.5/07—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016023256

---

All Scripture quotations from books other than the Gospel of John (which is a translation by the author), unless otherwise indicated, are taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.Zondervan.com. The NIV and New International Version are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.®

Any Internet addresses (websites, blogs, etc.) and telephone numbers in this book are offered as a resource. They are not intended in any way to be or imply an endorsement by Zondervan, nor does Zondervan vouch for the content of these sites and numbers for the life of this book.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Cover design: Tammy Johnson

Contents

A Note about Translation Outlines in this eBook

Series Introduction

Author’s Preface

Abbreviations

Introduction

Select Bibliography

---

Commentary on John

---

Theology of John

Scripture Index

Other Ancient Literature Index

Subject Index

Author Index

Commentary on John

Chapter 1. John 1:1–18

Chapter 2. John 1:19–34

Chapter 3. John 1:35–51

Chapter 4. John 2:1–11

Chapter 5. John 2:12–25

Chapter 6. John 3:1–21

Chapter 7. John 3:22–36

Chapter 8. John 4:1–42

Chapter 9. John 4:43–54

Chapter 10. John 5:1–18

Chapter 11. John 5:19–47

Chapter 12. John 6:1–15

Chapter 13. John 6:16–21

Chapter 14. John 6:22–71

Chapter 15. John 7:1–13

Chapter 16. John 7:14–52

Chapter 17. John 7:53–8:11

Chapter 18. John 8:12–59

Chapter 19. John 9:1–41

Chapter 20. John 10:1–21

Chapter 21. John 10:22–42

Chapter 22. John 11:1–57

Chapter 23. John 12:1–11

Chapter 24. John 12:12–19

Chapter 25. John 12:20–50

Chapter 26. John 13:1–20

Chapter 27. John 13:21–30

Chapter 28. John 13:31–38

Chapter 29. John 14:1–14

Chapter 30. John 14:15–31

Chapter 31. John 15:1–17

Chapter 32. John 15:18–27

Chapter 33. John 16:1–15

Chapter 34. John 16:16–24

Chapter 35. John 16:25–33

Chapter 36. John 17:1–26

Chapter 37. John 18:1–12

Chapter 38. John 18:13–27

Chapter 39. John 18:28–40

Chapter 40. John 19:1–16

Chapter 41. John 19:17–27

Chapter 42. John 19:28–42

Chapter 43. John 20:1–10

Chapter 44. John 20:11–18

Chapter 45. John 20:19–23

Chapter 46. John 20:24–31

Chapter 47. John 21:1–14

Chapter 48. John 21:15–25

A Note about Translation Outlines in this eBook

The Translation Outlines in this book have been rendered as images in the eBook edition in order to accurately display the complex formatting on various eReader devices and platforms.

Use your reader’s image zoom feature for the best view of these images.

Series Introduction

This generation has been blessed with an abundance of excellent commentaries. Some are technical and do a good job of addressing issues that the critics have raised; other commentaries are long and provide extensive information about word usage and catalogue nearly every opinion expressed on the various interpretive issues; still other commentaries focus on providing cultural and historical background information; and then there are those commentaries that endeavor to draw out many applicational insights.

The key question to ask is: What are you looking for in a commentary? This commentary series might be for you if

• you have taken Greek and would like a commentary that helps you apply what you have learned without assuming you are a well-trained scholar.

• you would find it useful to see a concise, one- or two-sentence statement of what the commentator thinks the main point of each passage is.

• you would like help interpreting the words of Scripture without getting bogged down in scholarly issues that seem irrelevant to the life of the church.

• you would like to see a visual representation (a graphical display) of the flow of thought in each passage.

• you would like expert guidance from solid evangelical scholars who set out to explain the meaning of the original text in the clearest way possible and to help you navigate through the main interpretive issues.

• you want to benefit from the results of the latest and best scholarly studies and historical information that help to illuminate the meaning of the text.

• you would find it useful to see a brief summary of the key theological insights that can be gleaned from each passage and some discussion of the relevance of these for Christians today.

These are just some of the features that characterize the new Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series. The idea for this series was refined over time by an editorial board who listened to pastors and teachers express what they wanted to see in a commentary series based on the Greek text. That board consisted of myself, George H. Guthrie, William D. Mounce, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Mark L. Strauss along with Zondervan senior editor at large Verlyn Verbrugge, and former Zondervan senior acquisitions editor Jack Kuhatschek. We also enlisted a board of consulting editors who are active pastors, ministry leaders, and seminary professors to help in the process of designing a commentary series that will be useful to the church. Zondervan senior acquisitions editor Katya Covrett has now been shepherding the process to completion, and Constantine R. Campbell is now serving on the board.

We arrived at a design that includes seven components for the treatment of each biblical passage. What follows is a brief orientation to these primary components of the commentary.

Literary Context

In this section, you will find a concise discussion of how the passage functions in the broader literary context of the book. The commentator highlights connections with the preceding and following material in the book and makes observations on the key literary features of this text.

Main Idea

Many readers will find this to be an enormously helpful feature of this series. For each passage, the commentator carefully crafts a one- or two-sentence statement of the big idea or central thrust of the passage.

Translation and Graphical Layout

Another unique feature of this series is the presentation of each commentator’s translation of the Greek text in a graphical layout. The purpose of this diagram is to help the reader visualize, and thus better understand, the flow of thought within the text. The translation itself reflects the interpretive decisions made by each commentator in the Explanation section of the commentary. Here are a few insights that will help you to understand the way these are put together:

1. On the far left side next to the verse numbers is a series of interpretive labels that indicate the function of each clause or phrase of the biblical text. The corresponding portion of the text is on the same line to the right of the label. We have not used technical linguistic jargon for these, so they should be easily understood.

2. In general, we place every clause (a group of words containing a subject and a predicate) on a separate line and identify how it is supporting the principal assertion of the text (namely, is it saying when the action occurred, how it took place, or why it took place?). We sometimes place longer phrases or a series of items on separate lines as well.

3. Subordinate (or dependent) clauses and phrases are indented and placed directly under the words that they modify. This helps the reader to more easily see the nature of the relationship of clauses and phrases in the flow of the text.

4. Every main clause has been placed in bold print and pushed to the left margin for clear identification.

5. Sometimes when the level of subordination moves too far to the right—as often happens with some of Paul’s long, involved sentences!—we reposition the flow to the left of the diagram, but use an arrow to indicate that this has happened.

6. The overall process we have followed has been deeply informed by principles of discourse analysis and narrative criticism (for the Gospels and Acts).

Structure

Immediately following the translation, the commentator describes the flow of thought in the passage and explains how certain interpretive decisions regarding the relationship of the clauses were made in the passage.

Exegetical Outline

The overall structure of the passage is described in a detailed exegetical outline. This will be particularly helpful for those who are looking for a way to concisely explain the flow of thought in the passage in a teaching or preaching setting.

Explanation of the Text

As an exegetical commentary, this work makes use of the Greek language to interpret the meaning of the text. If your Greek is rather rusty (or even somewhat limited), don’t be too concerned. All of the Greek words are cited in parentheses following an English translation. We have made every effort to make this commentary as readable and useful as possible even for the nonspecialist.

Those who will benefit the most from this commentary will have had the equivalent of two years of Greek in college or seminary. This would include a semester or two of working through an intermediate grammar (such as Wallace, Porter, Brooks and Winbery, or Dana and Mantey). The authors use the grammatical language that is found in these kinds of grammars. The details of the grammar of the passage, however, are discussed only when it has a bearing on the interpretation of the text.

The emphasis in this section of the text is to convey the meaning. Commentators examine words and images, grammatical details, relevant OT and Jewish background to a particular concept, historical and cultural context, important text-critical issues, and various interpretational issues that surface.

Theology in Application

This, too, is a unique feature for an exegetical commentary series. We felt it was important for each author not only to describe what the text means in its various details, but also to take a moment and reflect on the theological contribution that it makes. In this section, the theological message of the passage is summarized. The authors discuss the theology of the text in terms of its place within the book and in a broader biblical-theological context. Finally, each commentator provides some suggestions on what the message of the passage is for the church today. At the conclusion of each volume in this series is a summary of the whole range of theological themes touched on by this book of the Bible.

Our sincere hope and prayer is that you find this series helpful not only for your own understanding of the text of the New Testament, but as you are actively engaged in teaching and preaching God’s Word to people who are hungry to be fed on its truth.

CLINTON E. ARNOLD, general editor

Author’s Preface

I was honored to be invited to contribute the volume on the Gospel of John for the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series, but I accepted with fear and trembling. My concern was not related to the common assumption that more than enough commentaries have been written in the modern era, especially on the Fourth Gospel. I am convinced that every generation must exegete Scripture in and for the church. I also saw more than enough space for my approach to the exegetical and theological issues in the Fourth Gospel to contribute to the academic discussion and to help the church understand the message of the Gospel. No, my fear was much more personal. In short, I felt unworthy. Who am I to offer a public exegesis of this significant book in the sacred Word of God? My agreement to write the commentary does not mean I am now more convinced of my own worthiness—not at all! Rather, I received this task as part of my faithfulness and obedience to God and his calling for my life and ministry. I wrote every page of this book for the church, specifically the local churches and pastors that will be assisted by the exegesis of this Gospel and the explication of its message—the gospel.

In the nearly six years it took me to write this commentary, my own ministerial assignment was shifted from the academy to the church. After nearly a decade as a professor at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in southern California, I exchanged the podium for the pulpit, serving now as the senior pastor at Hope Evangelical Free Church in northern Illinois. I have training and gifting for the academy, yet I sensed an unmistakable call to serve in the local church. I do not believe that my PhD in New Testament and research/writing gifts are any less significant or functional by serving as a pastor, for I believe that the pastorate allows them to be placed in the context in which they are the most natural—in spite of the anti-intellectualism prevalent in so much of American evangelicalism. While I am thankful to be serving as an adjunct professor in the New Testament Department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, I cherish the thought that at least one contributor to the ZECNT series shares a post with the majority of its readers: the local pastor.

There are numerous people and institutions that deserve thanks. I am still surprised that the editors of ZECNT, especially the general editor, Clint Arnold, entrusted this task to me. The numerous insights along the way, not only from Clint but all the members of the editorial committee, as well as the editorial team at Zondervan, especially Christopher Beetham, were more than helpful. The deficiencies in this commentary are entirely my own. The entire design of this commentary series is very well conceived and considerably more useful for the church than many commentaries currently in print.

The commentary was almost entirely written while I was still teaching at Talbot/Biola, and I cannot thank that institution and its leaders enough for the assistance and support given to me. I received not only grants from Biola University but also received a significant sabbatical from Talbot School of Theology. I would like to thank the deans who served during my years of service for all the resources they provided me: Dennis Dirks, Mike Wilkins, Clint Arnold, and Scott Rae. I would also like to thank my New Testament colleagues for their constant encouragement and prayer: Darian Lockett, Jon Lunde, Ken Berding, Matt Williams, Joanne Jung, Michelle Lee-Barnwall, and Doug Huffman. I could mention so many other Talbot colleagues who supported me along the way. During my years at Talbot/Biola I experienced a unique community of support and grace that was a blessing not only to my career but also to my family. This commentary, the majority of which was written in office 218 of the Talbot East building, is very much the result of the blessed environment in which I worked.

There were numerous students who read through some or all of the commentary and provided helpful feedback. Thanks are especially due to the graduate students in my Exegesis of John classes and the undergraduate students in my Gospel of John classes for their careful reading of various versions of the manuscript. Their insights into the text and interest in exegetical method motivated me and reminded me of the importance of this task. But no one provided more assistance than Jason Smith, my former teaching assistant, who not only read over large portions of the commentary but also spent countless hours working on the diagrams. I am so very thankful for the assistance Jason gave to me and to this commentary.

I would also like to thank my church family at Hope Evangelical Free Church in Roscoe, Illinois for recently welcoming my family and me as their senior pastor and for supporting me as I finished this commentary even while beginning my ministry with them. I want to thank the elders for having the vision and courage to invite a pastor-theologian to shepherd the flock they oversee. I would especially like to thank my ministerial team for their support and partnership in the gospel: Brad Schreiner, Jim Oakley, Kevin Dick, Fana Timoti, Vera Juhlin, Pat Noble, Carolyn Scherrer, and Dana Butts.

No person felt the burden of the production of this commentary more than my wife, Laura. For six years she constantly and graciously provided me with the time and blessing I needed to work on this massive project in the midst of regular work and life, including the birth of our third child! I could not have done this without her full support and encouragement. Not one word could have been typed had she not participated with me in this task. Laura shares in every way the fruit of this labor. I would also like to thank my children, Jacob, Benjamin, and Ruth, for their patience as their dad finished this book. I love each of them and hope that the message of the Gospel of John will be written into their hearts and lives as they believe in Jesus Christ and learn to have life in his name (20:31).

Finally, I am dedicating this commentary to my mom, Kimberly Grace Klink. It was not easy for her to raise a son as a single mom, but she did it. She sacrificed in innumerable ways for me, giving me the love and support of two parents! I have never met a more giving person, and I hope she can receive this commentary as my gift to her.

Abbreviations

1 En. 1 Enoch

1 Macc 1 Maccabees

2 En. 2 Enoch

2 Macc 2 Maccabees

AB Anchor Bible

ABR Australian Biblical Review

ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library

AD anno Domini

AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums

AJPS Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies

AnBib Analecta Biblica

ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers

Ann. Annales (Tacitus)

ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentaries

Ant. Jewish Antiquities (Josephus)

AsTJ Asbury Theological Journal

AThR Anglican Theological Review

2 Bar. 2 Baruch

b. Shabbat Babylonian Talmud: Shabbat

b. Sukkah Babylonian Talmud: Sukkah

Barn. Barnabas

BAR Biblical Archaeology Review

BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge

BBC Blackwell Bible Commentaries

BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research

BC before Christ

BCOT Baker Commentary on the Old Testament

BDAG Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000

BDF Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961

BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BeO Bibbia e oriente

BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium

BGBE Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese

Bib Biblica

BibTS Biblical Tools and Studies

BibInt Biblical Interpretation Series

B.J. Bellum judaicum (Josephus)

BLG Biblical Language: Greek

BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries

BR Biblical Research

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BSNA Biblical Scholarship in North America

BSR Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose

BT The Bible Translator

BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin

BTL Biblical Theology for Life

BTNT Biblical Theology of the New Testament

BZ Biblische Zeitschrift

BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

BZNWKAK Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series

CD Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956–75

CIT Current Issues in Theology

CNTC Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries

Colloq Colloquium

ConBNT Coniectanea Neotestamentica

CTJ Calvin Theological Journal

CTM Concordia Theological Monthly

CTR Criswell Theological Review

CurBR Currents in Biblical Research

DDSR Duke Divinity School Review

Did Didaskalia

Did. Didache

DRev Downside Review

ECC Eerdmans Critical Commentary

ECS Early Christian Studies

EcumRev Ecumenical Review

EJL Early Judaism and Its Literature

Enc Encounter

ENT Erläuterungen Neuen Testament

2 Esd 2 Esdras

ESV English Standard Version

ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses

EUS European University Studies

EvQ Evangelical Quarterly

ExAud Ex Auditu

ExpTim Expository Times

FC Fathers of the Church

FCNTECW Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings

FPCC Faith and Practice of the Christian Community

GNB Good News Bible

GOTR Greek Orthodox Theological Review

GTJ Grace Theological Journal

HACL History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant

Haer. Adversus haereses (Irenaeus)

HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology

HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible

Hist. eccl. Historia ecclesiastica (Eusebius)

HM Hallische Monographien

Hor Horizons

HTCNT Herder’s Theological Commentary on the New Testament

HTR Harvard Theological Review

ICC International Critical Commentary

Ign. Magn. Ignatius, To the Magnesians

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal

IJST International Journal of Systematic Theology

Int Interpretation

IRM International Review of Mission

IVPNTC InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary

JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association

JB Jerusalem Bible

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JECH Journal of Early Christian History

JES Journal of Ecumenical Studies

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JPaleolimnol Journal of Paleolimnology

JQR Jewish Quarterly Review

JR Journal of Religion

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

JTI Journal of Theological Interpretation

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

JTSA Journal of Theology for Southern Africa

Jub. Jubilees

J.W. Jewish War (Josephus)

KJV King James Version

KNT Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

LCC Library of Christian Classics

LFHCC A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church

LitTh Literature and Theology

LNTS The Library of New Testament Studies

LQ Lutheran Quarterly

LSJ Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996

LTJ Lutheran Theological Journal

LW Luther’s Works, American Edition. J. Pelikan and H. T. Lehmann. 55 vols. St. Louis: Concordia/Philadelphia: Fortress, 1955–86

LXX Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament)

MarStud Marian Studies

m. ’Abot Mishnah: ’Abot

m. Kelim Mishnah: Kelim

m. Nid. Mishnah: Niddah

m. Shabbat Mishnah: Shabbat

m. Sukkah Mishnah: Sukkah

ModTheol Modern Theology

MTZ Münchener theologische Zeitschrift

NA²⁸ Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, 28th ed.

NAC New American Commentary

NASB New American Standard Bible

NBC A New Biblical Commentary

NCB New Century Bible

NCBC New Cambridge Bible Commentary

NEB New English Bible

Neot Neotestamentica

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament

NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIV New International Version

NJB New Jerusalem Bible

NovT Novum Testamentum

NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum

NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology

NT New Testament

NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen

NTL New Testament Library

NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus

NTS New Testament Studies

NTTS New Testament Tools and Studies

NTTSD New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents

Odes Sol. Odes of Solomon

OT Old Testament

Papyrus (manuscript)

PBM Paternoster Biblical Monographs

PCNT Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament

PL Patrologia Latina [= Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina]. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–1864

PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary

Posterity On the Posterity of Cain (Philo)

Presb Presbyterion

ProcGLM Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies

ProEccl Pro Ecclesia

PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies

PSB Princeton Seminary Bulletin

Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon

RefR Reformed Review

ResQ Restoration Quarterly

RevExp Review and Expositor

RSR Recherches de science religieuse

RSV Revised Standard Version

RThom Revue thomiste

RTR Reformed Theological Review

RV Revised Version

SBB Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge

SBET Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology

SBFLA Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annus

SBG Studies in Biblical Greek

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SBLStBL Society of Biblical Literature Studies in Biblical Literature

SBT Studies in Biblical Theology

ScEs Science et esprit

SCJ Stone-Campbell Journal

Scorp. Scorpiace (Tertullian)

SemeiaSt Semeia Studies

SGBCNT Story of God Bible Commentary: New Testament

Sir Sirach

SMR St. Mark’s Review

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

SP Sacra Pagina

Spec. De specialibus legibus (Philo)

SSEJC Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity

ST Studia Theologica

StBibLit Studies in Biblical Literature (Lang)

Stim Stimulus

SVTQ St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly

SWR Studies in Woman and Religion

SymS Symposium Series

TBei Theologische Beiträge

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976

TENTS Texts and Editions for New Testament Study

ThTo Theology Today

T. Levi Testament of Levi

Tob Tobit

TJ Trinity Journal

ThSt Theologische Studiën

TS Texts and Studies

TS Theological Studies

TTCSST T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology

TTE The Theological Educator

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

TZ Theologische Zeitschrift

Vita Vita (Josephus)

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WCF Westminster Confession of Faith

WesTJ Wesleyan Theological Journal

Wis Wisdom of Solomon

Wor Worship

WSC Westminster Shorter Catechism

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

ZSNT Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament

ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Introduction to John

The Gospel of John might be described as needing no introduction at all. This particular Gospel and book of the Christian Bible has been one of the most frequented and theologically significant in the entire canon, maybe in all the literature of the world. Yet possibly for that very reason it has also been one of the most abused and distorted and at the center of a host of interpretive and theological debates. And while this Gospel is itself intended to provide an introduction to the gospel of Jesus Christ, it still requires its own introduction, if only because of its sacred purpose and the importance of its subject matter.

Prolegomena

The modern commentary is expected to provide a certain amount of space to giving an introduction to the text to be commented upon, almost always in relation to its historical context. The author, origin (date, provenance, and audience), and purpose of the document are usually explored and defended with the methodological assumption that such data is significant for the interpretation to follow. It is unquestionable that this historical information about the text to be commented upon is vital to correctly understand its meaning and application. Yet it is rare for commentators to defend or even explain this implicit methodological foundation. This is unfortunate for two primary reasons.

First, it minimizes the hermeneutical issues involved in any kind of interpretation. Presumably, modern commentaries take for granted that the commentary genre is an overtly historical task and therefore feel no need to explain their method and its philosophical and theological underpinnings to the reader. But this is hardly the case. Not only does the text carry its own interpretive commands innate to its origin and nature, but the act of interpretation forces the interpreter to make a plethora of methodological assumptions regarding the text in view.

The second reason is even more important: it minimizes that the text in view is in fact the biblical text, that is, part of Christian Scripture. The very reason why there is so much interest in this particular text is treated as methodologically unimportant to the task at hand. By definition, then, this text raises the interpretive stakes. For its author is not merely historical but also divine; and its audience is not merely confined to the ancient world but still exists and receives this text in the modern world. Without denying that this text has an origin and purpose in a time long past, as Scripture it must also be understood to have a divine origin and eternal purpose that demands its reception in every generation—even those still to come.

The dual origin of this text is the constant issue facing the interpreter. And after two millennia, with even greater cultural and historical distance between this (now ancient) text and the (contemporary) reader, the interpretive gap is even more of an issue. It would be an understatement to say that this gap has been the subject of much disagreement and debate over the last few centuries; there is no way a commentary on a biblical Gospel can avoid this issue. In fact, a biblical Gospel, maybe specifically the Gospel of John, is where these interpretive tensions or gaps (i.e., Lessing’s Ditch) are the most apparent. For certainly a book that begins, In the beginning . . . with God (1:1) is not easily given a date or provenance that is functional for the modern historical-critical method.

In light of the above discussion and the last few centuries of hermeneutical debate we can summarize two basic approaches to the biblical texts that confront the interpreter and this commentary: critical and confessional. It is often assumed that the critical approach takes its directives from the ancient context and historical identity of the text, and the confessional approach takes its directives from the contemporary ecclesial context and divine identity of the text, but as we will see below neither of these are entirely accurate. It is only partly correct to pit the approaches against one another in a manner that pits history against theology. While the critical approach is almost required to deny any divine authority to the interpretive task, the confessional approach not only embraces unhesitatingly the ancient context and historical identity of the text as part of the means of revelation but does so specifically for theological reasons. That is, while the critical approach cannot find warrant to move from the authoritative foundation of the natural (historical) to the supernatural, the confessional approach cannot find warrant to stop the move from the supernatural to the natural, since creation is a subset and necessary corollary of the Creator.

The critical approach finds its roots in what has for about two centuries been called historical criticism. While the church has always practiced a historical reading of Scripture, the Enlightenment’s rationalistic demands developing in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries within and outside the church pressured a more scientific interpretive method to provide warrant for belief or disbelief in the doctrines derived from the Bible, with sophisticated historiographical methods dictating the terms of interpretation by the nineteenth century.¹ Early versions of historical criticism function in godlike fashion, making a new kind of dogmatic claim that silenced the dogma of the church.² More contemporary versions, however, are more admissive of their perspectival nature and simply argue (along with the confessional approach) that their perspective is the most faithful to the object of study, that is, verifiable by their own standards of ethics and warrant.³

In a recent and more sophisticated work on the critical approach, Barton argues that the plain sense of a text should not be equated with its original sense or what it meant. Rather, biblical critics are concerned with what texts mean, now equally as much as then.⁴ Barton argues that the difference between critical and confessional approaches is not historical but literary, "the kind of text" being studied.⁵ Barton’s analysis establishes a common point of difference between the critical and confessional approaches: the nature and function of the biblical text itself. This means that history and its application is not the difference, as is commonly assumed. A confessional approach is just as concerned with the historical context and identity of the text as the critical approach, just for different reasons and with different warrant. Both approaches believe that the ancient context of the Bible is a determiner of its meaning. And both approaches feel the need to disregard certain historical judgments made to the text by the other approach. Just as the confessional approach will challenge historical value judgments of the critical approach to the biblical events (e.g., Jesus’s resurrection from the dead or walking on water), so also the critical approach will challenge historical value judgments of the confessional approach to the biblical text (e.g., inerrancy). In this sense, then, both approaches rely on history and theology (or ideology), but do so from very different foundations, neither of which are value neutral.

What are the foundations upon which each approach establishes its authority? Is there a verifiable foundation upon which objective truth judgments can be established for determining meaning? Even by the standards of the critical approach, not without faith! Barton claims as much when he argues that the critical approach honors the text as part of the givenness of a world we did not make.⁶ But what exactly is this givenness and from whom has this been given? With what is almost a version of the cosmological or teleological argument, Barton’s use of givenness is an ideological starting point that logically grounds the meaning of the text in the historical world to which it naturally relates. The confessional approach is no less theological (ideological) when it honors the text as part of the givenness of the God who claimed to write it. But this givenness is also a theological starting point that logically grounds the meaning of the text in the God to whom it naturally relates.⁷ Both can be said to rely on the self-attestation of the text itself, but only the confessional approach ultimately trusts itself to the witness of the biblical text.⁸ The ultimate difference, then, is what each approach believes to be the foundational given: the world or God—an ironic choice in light of the Gospel of John. In this commentary we chose the Creator over his creation.⁹

In short, the exploration of what this Gospel means cannot begin until we have explained what this Gospel is, for interpretation is guided by the nature of its object. And these two approaches have differently defined objects in view, even when both are interpreting the Gospel of John, and the difference in object yields different warrants, guidance, and insights into its meaning. The issue was never history against theology or ancient versus ecclesial context, but which givenness is the most appropriate foundation for grounding the meaning of the text. It is the argument of this commentary that only the confessional approach can handle not only the God of the biblical text but also its full historicity, denouncing any dichotomy between history and theology by claiming that God both uses and is made known by the historical reality to which the text points and through which the text communicates. Using the Gospel’s own terms, when the Word became flesh (1:14), it was "the Word and not the flesh" that was the primary agent of the encounter and therefore the primary ground of meaning.¹⁰ Similarly, the paradox of Scripture is most suitably handled by the confessional approach.¹¹

The above discussion has tried to situate the introductory topics regarding this particular kind of text in its divine identity as Christian Scripture. If one does not begin with this definition of the text—the Gospel of John, then they are not only reading in an entirely different manner but also in a deficient and inappropriate manner. The fact that commentators rarely define or defend their methodological foundation gives further warrant for such prolegomena here. For this reason we must include in the introduction to this commentary a section on methodology befitting Christian Scripture, and it is that section with which we must begin.

The Doctrine of Scripture and Methodology

The prolegomena which we covered above has magnified the importance of defining rightly the object of our study, the ontology of the Gospel of John. Before we can explain what the Gospel does we must first explain what the Gospel is. And since the Gospel of John is part of Christian Scripture, it must be dealt with accordingly. To do this, however, we must first apply the doctrine of Scripture specifically to this Gospel.

Doctrine of Scripture

To define the Gospel as part of Christian Scripture is to place it in a much larger communicative context than simply the first-century context in which it took on its literary flesh. By categorizing the Gospel as Scripture, we are depicting it in light of its origin, function, and end in divine self-communication; yet we are also depicting the manner in which it must be read and the kinds of responses appropriate to its nature:  ‘Scripture’ is a shorthand term for the nature and function of the biblical writings in a set of communicative acts which stretch from God’s merciful self-manifestation to the obedient hearing of the community of faith.¹² While such language might not be common vernacular in an introduction to an exegetical commentary, it should be, for the object of interpretation demands to be treated according to its true and sacred nature. Not to treat this Gospel as Scripture is itself a form of eisegesis, and it is a disobedient hearing of the (canonical) text’s own claim and of the God by whom it was authored.

The doctrine of Scripture is necessary for the exegetical task in two ways. First, it gives insight to the interpretive rules demanded by the object of interpretation. In a sense, Scripture becomes its own kind of genre: If genre is a function of communal reception and usage as well as of inherent characteristics, then the genre of the biblical texts is that of ‘holy Scripture.’ ¹³ Functionally, then, the doctrine of Scripture explains the (theological) genre of the Bible and the generic conventions to be followed by the faithful reader.

Second, the doctrine of Scripture gives oversight to its constituent parts and unifies their functions. Three are immediately apparent: (1) since the Gospel speaks in time-and-space history, a doctrinal framework is needed to make sure history remains subservient to the God of creation; (2) since the Gospel speaks in literary form, a doctrinal framework is needed to make sure words stay subservient to the Word; and (3) since the Gospel speaks about the things of God, a doctrinal framework is needed to make sure theology is defined by the person and work of God himself, the true subject matter of the things of God. In short, the doctrine of Scripture gives oversight to the historical, literary, and theological components of the revelation of God, which we will refer to as creation, canon, and creed in order to match their doctrinal nature. A brief explanation of each is in order.

Creation

The doctrine of Scripture provides the necessary requirements for understanding the historical content and context of the Gospel. To make interpretive judgments regarding the meaning of the Gospel by comparing it to the historical (and social-cultural) setting in which it originated and occurred without the oversight or mediation of the doctrine of Scripture is to conflate the meaning of the text to its historical context. The Bible is not to be read as any other book. The view that supposes texts are wholly limited and confined by their immediate circumstances of origin, and that as soon as they stray from their appointed time and place they will be misread and misunderstood, embraces a historical perception of this body of writings that is theologically foreign to them.¹⁴ This is not to say that Scripture is unhistorical or less historical—not at all! It is to say, rather, that it is more; it speaks from a more comprehensive position.

A doctrine of Scripture allows the biblical narrative, with all its historical necessity and detail, not to bow the knee to the claims of historical naturalism. For a Christian theological account of Scripture . . . the problem . . . is not the affirmation that the biblical texts have a ‘natural history,’ but the denial that texts with a ‘natural history’ may function within the communicative divine economy, and that such a function is ontologically definitive of the text. It is this denial—rather than any purely methodological questions—which has to form the focus of dogmatic critique.¹⁵ Helpful here is Billings, who explains that every interpreter implicitly answers two questions when they interpret the Bible: (1) Is revelation grounded in inherent, universal human capacities or in the particularity of God’s action with Israel and in Jesus Christ?; and (2), Is Scripture received from within a deistic hermeneutic or with a Trinitarian hermeneutic?¹⁶ In both cases the latter option is necessitated by a doctrinally defined reading of Scripture, for an interpretation that is naturalistic and/or deistic is poorly matched to the divine character of Scripture. For this reason the interpreter is given dogmatic reasons to believe that God was involved in the entire messy process, from the historical event to the textual expression of the text of Scripture (composition, transmission, and reception). This requires a highly theological account of history, not only as a tool of interpretation but also as a philosophical construct.

A sophisticated account of a theology of history has been provided by Rae, who argues that in relation to biblical interpretation the very idea of history requires both the biblical doctrine of creation, and a teleology, an account, that is, of the directedness of history towards some goal.¹⁷ Similar to our discussion of historical criticism above, Rae argues that theology had been excluded from the consideration of biblical texts, which ironically is itself a dogmatic presupposition.¹⁸ The key for Rae (and others)¹⁹ is the logical priority of Scripture: We simply cannot proceed to investigate the Bible’s witness to revelation by assuming that we know apart from revelation what history is. The order of knowing must be reversed.²⁰ Since all history doctrinally finds its purpose (telos) in the person and work of God, history only has meaning in the purposes of God. This is why the doctrine of creation is so important (and must be related) to the doctrine of Scripture. Creation implies that the world is invested with a telos. There is a reason for its being, and history, in consequence, is to be understood as the space and time opened up for the world to become what it is intended to be.²¹ History becomes God’s own confession, under his creative, providential, and redemptive purposes, to extend himself to the world. The referentiality and meaning of Scripture, therefore, is given definition not only by its placement in the originating (historical) context but also in the fuller context of God’s communicative grace.

The history in this Gospel, therefore, cannot be understood by rational inquiry without recourse to revelation. Nor can its purpose and meaning be reduced to a set of laws or by comparison to apparent analogous entities—to do so would be naturalistic and deistic. Rather, history, once understood to be framed by the Alpha and Omega (Rev 22:13), becomes a subset of creation—and therefore the Creator—and is embedded with promise and purpose that is revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ, who is both its ground and goal.²² The incarnation, as the Gospel records it, is not something entirely new but is the magnified, replacement grace (1:14) of a God who had been active and present in his creation since the beginning (1:1).

Canon

The doctrine of Scripture not only gives definition to the material nature behind the text but also to the literary nature of the text itself. Since such a doctrine provides a conceptual framework, suggested by the narrative itself, for interpreting that narrative, it becomes essential for the exegetical task.²³ Vanhoozer suggests that by referring to Scripture as a divine speech act, the classical doctrines of revelation, inspiration, and infallibility can be integrated and interpreted.²⁴ As a speech act, Scripture can speak not merely in word (what God says) but also in action (what God does).²⁵ The notion of a divine speech act addresses both the problem of the nature of God’s activity and the problem of the nature of biblical language. Scripture is neither simply the recital of the acts of God nor merely a book of inert propositions. Scripture is rather composed of divine-human speech acts that, through what they say, accomplish several authoritative cognitive, spiritual and social functions.²⁶

In this way, then, Scripture, including this Gospel, speaks by word and action in a multitude of modes and manners, that is, illocutionary acts, which simultaneously form a unitary act. A right reading of the Gospel will interpret the illocutionary inferences, or communicative intentionality, provided by the text itself through primary (explicit) and secondary (implicit) data. In this Gospel the inference is made explicit (20:30–31): that the reader would come to believe in Jesus Christ and have life in his name. This intentional communication, as a subset of the doctrine of Scripture, makes it more than a communicative act—it is a missional act: the self-presentation of the triune God, the free work of sovereign mercy in which God wills, establishes and perfects saving fellowship with himself in which humankind comes to know, love and fear him above all things.²⁷ Scripture as a whole, and the Gospel of John in particular, is the communicative grace of God.

By canon, then, we refer to more than the collection of biblical books;²⁸ we are referring here primarily to Scripture’s function and identity, both of which have implications for interpreting the Gospel of John. First, according to its function as canon, this Gospel cannot be treated as if it were a single unit. Without denying that the Gospel took on literary flesh in the context of a particular historical author and audience, as the Word of God it was always intended (doctrinally) to be read as part of a collection. Though an argument could be made that the Gospel was originally created (historically) with this intention from its inception,²⁹ our argument is more dogmatic than historical. Since this Gospel makes up one of many parts of God’s intentional communicative Word, then this Gospel must be viewed as functioning cooperatively. This in no way denies that the Gospel had value and meaning for its particular historical context, only that its meaning is so tied to its larger canonical context that the latter extends and even explains the former. Again, while the critical approach demands that only the historical context be determinative for meaning, the confessional approach understands that in the providence of God this Gospel’s historical and canonical contexts function symphonically to communicate the intended fullness of the Word of God.

Second, according to its identity as canon, this Gospel cannot be treated as if it were (another) source to the Word of God but must be treated as the very source of the Word of God. That is, the Bible is not a window to that which is inspired but is itself the inspiration. When we speak of Scripture, we are speaking about the source of revelation and claiming (dogmatically) that Scripture is the locus of revelation, not merely a mediator of revelation. This issue is easily confusing and needs to be attended to carefully (for further definition, see "Text versus Event" below). This is not to deny in any way that the text is referring to real historical people, places, and events but to claim that the revelation, inclusive of real events, is located in the inscripturated account; God is giving divine commentary on his own actions in history. Again, while the critical approach is tempted to find meaning behind the text (in the event), the confessional approach realizes that this text, as a divinely inspired communicative act, is God’s revelation per se (in or by itself).

The Gospel of John cannot be read as just any other book. Its form, function, and canonical identity are not ancillary to its interpretation and meaning; they are determinative. Even the reality to which it points cannot be defined without recourse to revelation, nor can its meaning be determined outside of its canonical context. Rather, the Gospel, once understood to be framed by the rest of Scripture, becomes a subset of the biblical canon and embedded with the full significance of the Word of God. Canon is not ultimately a historical account of the biblical collection but a trinitarian and soteriological account of revelation . . . in which God establishes saving fellowship with humanity and so makes himself known to us.³⁰ In this way, then, the Bible is addressing not merely the past but the present and not merely an ancient audience but the contemporary church. Stated more straightforwardly, this Gospel mediates the gospel.

Creed

The doctrine of Scripture not only gives definition to what lies behind the text (creation) and to the text itself (canon) but also guides the reader to the goal of the text or its true subject matter. In light of God’s use of creation in Scripture and the canon of Scripture, the biblical speech act can be described as Jesus Christ’s own self-utterance.³¹ And if this Gospel fits the generic form of a biography (see below), then it is more accurately an autobiography, for this word about God is also the Word of God. Since Scripture is God’s communicative act, then its message and subject matter are about him—his person and his work. It is in this way that this Gospel proclaims the gospel.

To read this Gospel in a manner unbefitting of Scripture, as a mere historical account of the religious reflections or traditions of some first-century Christian group, is to read anthropocentrically in a manner that puts humanity and not God as the source and subject matter. Quite simply, if this Gospel were only written by and to a Christian group in the first century, then the reader would have every reason to use the resources of the first century to reconstruct the group(s) and its intended communication. However, if this Gospel was written also by God, then the same is true: the reader should make every effort to interpret the Gospel according to its author and his intended communication.

One of the consequences of the critical approach, however, is the loss of connection between the doctrines of the church and the text of Scripture. This is primarily because Scripture is expected, according to scholarly rules of interpretation, to be grounded historically in the first century, thereby excluding by methodological necessity eternal theological truths. The text becomes historically grounded in a manner that a faithful reading of the text’s literal sense is in reference to subjects driven by and derived from the context of the Gospel’s origin, not figuration or typology [which] was a natural extension of literal interpretation in earlier eras of biblical interpretation.³² The doctrines of the creeds, according to this approach, are entirely imposed upon the text of Scripture. Helpful here is Yeago, who explains that Scripture speaks not merely with concepts, the use of explicit words or terms, but also judgments, which can use a variety of concepts but in a manner that speaks beyond them, making a further implicit referential claim.³³ A text uses concepts but makes judgments. The only way to uncover the judgments made in a text is to pay close attention to what is said and implied, to the specific, contingent ways in which its conceptual resources are deployed.³⁴ In this way, then, the text may make judgments beyond its use of concepts, with the Trinity being a classical example, so that it may (and does!) speak to subject matters not contained by any one concept.

Since context is so determinative of how and to what the interpreters pay close attention, the critical and confessional approaches will uncover different judgments in the text. For example, what looks like historical discrepancies or even unimportant detail to the critical approach will have a much different and contingent significance for the confessional approach. The critical approach interprets the conceptual resources by the text as referring to historical issues—the belief of the Johannine commmunity standing behind the Gospel or even simply the historical event itself. But the confessional approach interprets those same conceptual resources in a manner that can (and does!) also refer to the divine context and content of the text (Scripture). The confessional approach, for example, interprets the Gospel’s depiction of the relation between the Father and the Son as reflective of the Trinitarian identity of God, even if the concept (the Trinity) is not used. If God is Trinitarian in nature, then depictions of him, even if partial, are also reflective of the Trinity. In a sense, without denying the logical priority and authority of Scripture, the subject matter of Scripture functions in a circular manner, not only as the result of a reading of Scripture but also as a guide for further readings.³⁵

The subject matter of Scripture has been deemed by the church to be clear, which it summarized by the doctrine called the perspicuity of Scripture. Its clarity is not, however, because the meaning of the text and its subject matter are obvious. Rather, it is because of the (doctrinal) conviction that Scripture has the capacity to address and transform the human being, and to offer a reliable guide to human action.³⁶ Webster defines it well: Scripture’s clarity is neither an intrinsic element of the text as text nor simply a fruit of exegetical labour; it is that which the text becomes as it functions in the Spirit-governed encounter between the self-presenting saviour and the faithful reader. To read is to be caught up by the truth-bestowing Spirit of God.³⁷ The doctrine of Scripture guides the reader to look rightly at the text, that is, to look for the self-presentation of God through the work and person of Jesus Christ by the empowering Holy Spirit. The Gospel of John may not say all that Scripture in its entirety is saying, but it is speaking about the same thing, just as there can be four Gospels that all speak to the same unitary subject matter. To use a metaphor, reading Scripture is like listening to a symphony, so that even when we listen to only one instrument (a biblical book), we are always aware of the part it plays in the symphony (the whole of Scripture) and thus read it in light of its symphonic cooperation. We read the Gospel of John, therefore, as part of and in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Methodology

Our discussion of the doctrine of Scripture above is directly related to methodology, for we cannot begin to draw out (exegesis) its meaning until we have defined its nature. Although there are presuppositions and stances that one must adopt from the start, a robust doctrine of Scripture is expressed methodologically not by a rigidly defined procedure but by a posture that is sensitive to the narrative’s own movements, pressures, and expectations (explicit and implicit) demanded from an obedient, believing reader. It is an art as much as a science, yet some basic principles or postured practices can be explained.

Historical-Critical/Grammatical and Theological Exegesis

Since this Gospel is a historical narrative, it is essential that its historical nature be properly treated. Yet its historical nature cannot render mute its nature as Christian Scripture, which commonly occurs, even if only partially, in light of the dominance of the critical approach and its concerns. Over the last few decades it has been common for confessional interpreters to distance themselves from many of the tenets of the historical-critical method and yet try to maintain their historical methodology by removing critical and referring to their method as historical-grammatical, with the grammatical suggesting that they attend more confessionally to the literal sense of the text.³⁸ The strength of the historical-grammatical method for interpreting a historical narrative is obvious, but there is also a potential weakness: history—as in the historical context in which the Gospel was written—must serve as the foundation for all other methods. Blomberg states it plainly: This does not mean that I reject theological and literary analyses; indeed, I find them crucial. However, they can be engaged in legitimately only when built on the appropriate historical foundations.³⁹

The demand for a historical foundation raises a potential weakness of the method: Does a historical foundation make doctrine secondary? Our discussion above would push against such a hierarchy, not only because there can be no conception of history (i.e., creation) without God but also because the nature of Scripture requires the foundation of doctrine in order to rightly interpret this unique text. To make historical analyses the foundation limits from the start what the interpreter sees in and does with the text. And as we discussed above, as necessary as history is for reading a historical text, the tenets (dogmas) of history are unable to grasp or express the nature of Scripture. The concern, therefore, is that history as an interpretive science is unqualified to grasp the fullness of the biblical text and its subject matter.⁴⁰ A method is in grave danger if it grounds a reading of Scripture on a historical foundation in such a manner that doctrine or theology seem to be an imposition that must be guarded against.⁴¹

A recent response to the historical-grammatical method by others within the confessional approach has been an overtly theological method often called theological interpretation of Scripture.⁴² This approach has been variously defined, rarely applied to the biblical text—more theoretical than exegetical in form, and the object of much confusion and criticism.⁴³ While this theological interpretation movement, if it may be called that, has brought to light several important issues regarding the confessional approach, it may have only tipped the imbalance to the other side. Even more, neither side—the historical-grammatical or theological interpretation of Scripture, if they may be referred to as sides—actually admit imbalance. The proponents of the historical-grammatical method believe they are doing theology—and they are, even if they do place it on a primary, historical foundation; and the proponents of theological interpretation of Scripture believe they are concerned with the text’s original, historical location—and they are, even if they subsume it under a theological starting point within which it is easy to misplace.

What, then, is the methodological approach of this commentary in response to a historical narrative like the Gospel of John? The answer of this commentary is balance according to the nature (ontology) of Scripture: to qualify the interpretation/exegesis of Scripture as either historical or theological is to make a false dichotomy from the start. Exegesis of Scripture can only be properly both, meeting the demands of a historical narrative that also bears the identity of Scripture. To choose between historical and theological emphases, therefore, is to pit the text against itself, as our discussion above has tried to explain, for creation and Creator cannot be divided. What does this look like? In general the approach of this commentary will begin with certain presuppositions that hold tightly to the necessity and meaning-deriving use of history while at the same time limiting the tenets of historical science by the