Does John Have a Theology of the Atonement?

Bibliography

D A Carson, The Gospel According to John: Pillar, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1991.

Leon Morris, ‘The Atonement In John’s Gospel’, Criswell Theological Review 3.1 (1988) 49-64, at https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/ntesources/ntarticles/ctr-nt/morris-johnsatonement-ctr.htm.

J Ramsey Michaels, ‘Atonement in John’s Gospel and Epistles: “The Lamb of God Who Takes Away the Sin of the World”’, in C E Hill and F A James III, The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Theological and Practical Perspectives (FS Roger Nicole: Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 106-118.

Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies For Hellenized Christians Vol 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006).

Introduction

Is Jesus a saviour as a revealer only, but not an atoning sacrifice? Bultmann argued that there is no atonement in John, but that Jesus came as a revealer: “the thought of Jesus’ death as an atonement for sin has no place in John,” (R Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (2 vols: London: SCM, 1952-55), 2.54, in Morris 1988: 49). For Bultmann, the human problem is alienation from God expressed by ignorance, and thus humans need knowledge and a revealer, and Jesus provides that light and knowledge. Jesus’ work is to reveal through work and word, and Jesus’ teaching is the cleansing word. None of this requires a sacrificial atonement.

J Ramsey Michaels, in a somewhat similar vein, despite correct acknowledgement of the permissibility of using other Scriptures, particularly the letters of John, to fill some gaps in the Gospel of John’s atonement theology, asserts of the Gospel of John, that “In itself, the Gospel of John has no explicit theology of the atonement” (2004: 112)

In the case of Bultmann we see a false dichotomy, and Bultmann is right in what he affirms and wrong in what he denies. In the case of Michaels’ we have quite a strange underplaying of the evidence actually furnished in the Gospel of John itself.

However, to establish that John has an ‘atonement theology’ requires more than establishing either the fact or even the importance of Jesus’ death—it involves showing the relationship between Jesus’ death (or any other work or word that Jesus’ performs) and the eternal life that he promises believers, and the mechanism by which that death (or other event) brings that eternal life for others. This essay seeks to bring out and highlight the teaching in the Gospel of John that illuminates the nature of the atoning work of Jesus Christ.

This essay will look firstly at the fountainhead of atonement theology in the Gospel of John, the statement of John the Baptist in John 1:29, 36. It will then look at the use in the Gospel of John of three verbs, αἴρω (‘I take away, lift up’), ὑψόω (‘I lift up, exalt’), and δοξάζω (‘I glorify’), and the important Johannine passages that use that terminology. Then there are some other passages that require separate treatment, namely: the good shepherd discourse (especially John 10:11, 15, 17, 18), the ironic prophecy of Caiaphas concerning Jesus’ death for the people (John 11:50-52, 18:14), and the analogy used by Jesus himself of the dying seed that is buried and thus bears fruit (John 12:24). Then some observations are made about the continual notice John gives in his narrative about Jesus hour or time, which is accomplished by his death (John 19:30), and that the ministry of forgiveness is commissioned after Jesus’ death and resurrection has been completed (John 20:22-23). Confirmation from 1 John is briefly provided for the two basic theses of this essay, namely, that first Jesus’ death is sacrificial (John 1:29, 36) and substitutionary (John 10:11-18, 11:50-52, 18:14), and second that forgiveness and expiation comes to people as a result of the accomplishment of Jesus’ glorification in his death and resurrection (John 1:29, 19:30, 20:22-23) and issues in eternal life for believers.

The Lamb of God, The One Taking Away The Sin of the World (John 1:29, 36)

The description of Jesus as the “the Lamb of God, the one taking away the sin of the world” || ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου” (John 1:29, 36), is vitally important, given that after the prologue, it is the first description we hear about Jesus. This is the first time a character or actor in the Gospel of John describes Jesus identity or mission. It is repeated. Its place and position in the Gospel means that it colours the whole gospel and sets the expectation of Jesus’ mission. It cannot be understood in exemplar terms, as the only way that a ‘lamb’ takes sin away is by being sacrificed as a substitute in accordance with the institution of the cult of Israel (Morris 1988: 50). That is, the very nature of the phrase “the lamb of God”—given the Old Testament background—requires a substitutionary and sacrificial understanding.

Ramsey Michaels suggests that the phrase “the Lamb of God” does not contribute the ideas of “gentleness or silence or a willingness to be sacrificed but purity […] his use of ‘lamb’ makes the point that the One who purifies the world is himself pure (like the Passover lamb of Ex 12:5). The One who takes away sin is himself sinless. […] It is not a matter of bearing the guilt of sins by an atoning death, but of judging the world’s sins and quite literally doing away with them” (Ramsey Michaels 2004: 107-108). But for what purpose is a ‘lamb’ pure? In fact, what does it mean for a ‘lamb’ to be pure? Again, there is only one reason, and that is to be a sacrifice of atonement. ‘Gentleness’ and ‘silence’ are aspects of the lamb because of common experience of lambs in ancient Palestine, but ‘willingness [or perhaps better, fitness] to be sacrificed’ comes from common experience of the sacrificial cult of Israel. Again, Michaels seems to have fallen into false dichotomising.

Moreover, in what sense can Jesus be said to be “quite literally doing away with them”? What does it mean to quite literally do away with them? Stop them from occurring in the first place? Wipe them from the historical record, perhaps as the Ministry of Truth does in Orwell’s 1984? If the answer lies in covering or removing or forgiving sins, the only mechanism we have for this is the sacrificial system.

There is no consensus regarding the specific background to the phrase, essentially because there is an embarrassment of riches in terms of sacrificial motifs involving lambs. There are excellent candidates in terms of Old Testament passages, types, and institutions that could not have but contributed to and informed the meaning that the phrase carried for the original readers (see Carson 1991: 148-151). The more prominent and pertinent of these are as follows:

• The gentle lamb of Jeremiah 11:19, which in the original context probably refers to the prophet himself, who says, “But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter.”
• The lamb of the morning and evening sacrifice, as required in Exodus 29:38-39, “Now this is what you shall offer on the altar: two one year old lambs each day, continuously. The one lamb you shall offer in the morning and the other lamb you shall offer” (NASB)
• The lamb mentioned by Abraham in response to Isaac, where he says, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son” (Gen 22:8). As a matter of fact, Isaac was actually replaced at the time by a ram caught in the thicket (Gen 22:13).
• The guilt offering, and though this could have been a lamb, it was not always (Lev 4, especially vv. 32-35)
• The servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53, was, in verse 7, “led like a lamb to the slaughter”. This may have been even more appropriate as a background for the Aramaic talya can apparently mean ‘servant’ or ‘lamb’.
• The triumphant Apocalyptic lamb, for which testimony is given in Revelation 7:17; 17:14. However, this figure probably draws on the other Old Testament motifs, and probably also John the Baptist’s teaching that John records in John 1:29, 36.
• The Passover lamb, from the sacrifice instituted in Exodus 12 (cf. 1 Cor 5:7)

Carson argues John the Baptist was thinking of the Apocalyptic lamb found in some Jewish texts, but that the ambiguity of the exact reference serves John the Evangelist well in explaining Jesus’ death (Carson 1991: 150). In fact, there is no reason why a number of the sacrificial images above should not feed into and be the background for John the Baptist’s phrase. Moreover, there is no reason why John the Baptist might not have been given this insight that this was why Jesus came—especially given that Caiaphas has an insight into Jesus’ death for the people in which he clearly speaks more than he knows.

It is well known that there is a paradox and irony in John’s use of the lifting up, taking away, exalting, and glorifying of the Son, which has a particular relationship with the crucifixion of Christ, his resurrection, and all its consequences. This will require us to look at John’s use of three verbs: αἴρω (‘I take away, lift up’), ὑψόω (‘I lift up, exalt’), and δοξάζω (‘I glorify’).

Jesus ‘Take Away/Lifted Up’ (αἴρω) in John 1:29, cf. Isaiah 53:7, 1 John 3:5; Col 2:14

The verb αἴρω is a broad one, which frequently doesn’t have any special theological freight. It usually means ‘take up’, ‘take away’, ‘lift up’, ‘lift away’, ‘carry away’. In John it frequently has this meaning in what at first glance are unexceptional uses.

For example, it means in John 2:16, taking away doves, in John 5:8-12 picking up a mat, in John 8:59 lifting up stones to stone someone, in John 11:39, 41, 20:1 about moving a stone from the mouth of a tomb, in John 11:48 removing the nation and temple by Roman aggression, in John 15:2 cutting off fruitless branches from a vine.

It’s used in a figure of speech for looking up in John 11:41. The use is idiomatic in 10:24 of Jesus not keeping his hearers in suspense. It is used of joy that cannot be taken from believers (John 16:22).

Of humans, Jesus uses it when he asks God not to remove believers from the world (John 17:15). The crowd uses it in the imperative as they call on Pilate to crucify Christ (ἆρον ἆρον: John 19:15), and this is otherwise quite an unexceptional usage (cf. Luke 23:18, Acts 21:36, 22:22). It is used of taking away the dead bodies of the crucified men or Christ from the places and instruments of crucifixion (John 19:31, 38, 20:2, 13, 15). More generally, Jesus uses it to describe the fact that no one takes his life away from him (John 10:18).

Unless there is a special reason to see a nuance beyond the literal meaning in John’s Gospel, these uses are unexceptional and carry no necessary theological freight.

The one potentially theologically significant instance is in John 1:29. The thought in this early and important text might conceivably colour later usage of the verb in John’s Gospel.

[T]he Lamb of God, the one taking away the sin of the world” || ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου” (John 1:29, 36)

The co-location of αἴρω with the phrase “the lamb of God” suggests that the taking away is to remove by expiation (J Jeremias, airō, TDNT 1:185-6). There are two other passages that can illuminate this.

The first is in 1 John 3:5, which in context, says:

4Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin (καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ἐφανερώθη, ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἄρῃ, καὶ ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν.). 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. (1 John 3:4-6 ESV)

That Jesus appeared to ‘take away sins’ probably means that “Jesus takes away the punishment for sin, or takes away consequences of sin such as guilt, or both” (Witherington 2006: 500). This is consistent with 1 John’s expiation/propitiation references (2:2, 4:10). 1 John 1:8-2:2 suggests that Jesus’ taking away sin does not mean that true Christians now cannot fall into sin.

The second is Colossians 2:14:

2:14God did this by cancelling the handwritten acknowledgment of debt (χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν) that was against us, with the legal decrees that stood opposed to us. He has even removed it [this handwritten acknowledgement of debt] from our midst (καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου), by nailing it to the cross (προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ).

In Colossians 2:14, the ‘taking away’ of the acknowledgement of debt is metaphorical, as is the nailing of it to the cross. What was nailed to the cross was the body of Jesus. What the ‘taking away’ refers to is the forgiveness that God promises, that he will not count our sins against us on account of the cross work of Jesus. In such a context, the image of ‘taking away’—in a similar way that the images of ‘covering sin’ and ‘not imputing sin’ and ‘not remembering sin’ operate elsewhere—carries a connotation of forgiveness.

The final piece of evidence is the possibility of an intertextual allusion to Isaiah 53:7-8, from the song of the suffering servant.

Here, the life of the servant being taken away is a similar usage to that which Jesus himself adopts in John 10:18 when he says that no-one takes his life from him, but he lays it down. It also, ironically, may be alluded to by the crowds beying for Christ’s blood with the words Christ (ἆρον ἆρον: John 19:15) and the removal of the crucified and dead bodies (John 19:31, 38, 20:2, 13, 15).

So it would seem, in conclusion, that the use of the verb αἴρω in John 1:29 may connote an expiation—the removal of forgiveness by sacrifice—and that it generally alludes to the taking away of a life by death in John’s passion narrative and the good shepherd discourse, consistent with Isaiah 53:8 LXX.

Jesus ‘Being Lifted Up’ (ὑψόω) in John 3:14-17, 8:28, 12:32, 34

In John 3:14-17, Jesus’ being lifted up on the cross is specifically said to be prefigured by Moses lifting up the snake in the desert, in the same way the Son of Man must be lifted up. It is immediately related to believers having eternal life. This brings us to our second verb, ὑψόω (‘I lift up’), which ironically can mean ‘I exalt, raise up’. In John 3:14, the verb δεῖ (‘it is necessary’) with the divine passive infinitival complement ὑψωθῆναι (‘to be lifted up, exalted’) suggests that God is offering Christ up on the cross (cf. Rom 3:25), and that this is the nature of the giving of John 3:16 (n.b. οὕτως γὰρ, ‘for in this way’). Here, the primary reference of the lifting up of ‘the Son of Man’ is to the particular nature of the cross involving lifting up the victim once affixed on a stake and cross-bar, because of the typology of the bronze serpent on a pole.

The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived. (Num 21:8-9 NIV)

For the ‘Son of Man’ (τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) see Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus is bringing together the Son of Man figure with suffering motifs.

The ‘ambiguity’ or, better, ‘multi-referential’ quality of the verb ὑψόω in this particular context—it is fitted to refer to the crucifixion (Jesus ‘lifted up’ from the earth by the act of crucifixion), resurrection (Jesus ‘lifted up’ from the dead and the grave), and ascension and return to the Father (Jesus ‘lifted up’ from the earth by returning to the Father)—serves John’s purpose to show the paradoxical nature of Jesus’ exaltation. The other key texts developing this theme are John 8:28, 12:32, 34.

John 8:28: Therefore, Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man (ὅταν ὑψώσητε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦἀνθρώπου), then you will know that I am, and that I do nothing from myself, but that I am saying these things just as the Father taught me.

Jesus is talking to ‘the Pharisees’ and ‘the Jews’ (John 8:13, 22). Again, by saying “lifted up”, Jesus is referring to the action of crucifixion. It must refer to this, for the aorist subjunctive ὑψώσητε is second person plural, ‘you’, and the only way the Jews and Pharisees will lift up the Son of Man is not by resurrection or ascension (God the Father does this, or God the Son), but by crucifixion. In crucifixion, Jesus will be affixed to a cross, and lifted to the upright position, raised off the ground for everyone to see, with his arms stretched out and nailed to the cross beam. And Jesus also means it, paradoxically, that when he is lifted up on the cross in shame and disgrace, he is also lifted up and glorified.

John 12:31-34: 12:31Now (νῦν) is the judgement of this world, now (νῦν) the ruler of this world will be thrown out (ἐκβληθήσεται ἔξω). 12:32And when I am lifted up from the earth (κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς), I will draw all people to myself (πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν).” 12:33Now he said this signifying the kind of death he was going to die (τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγεν σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ ἤμελλεν ἀποθνῄσκειν). 12:34For this reason the crowd answered him, “We heard from the law that the Christ will stay forever, yet how is it that you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up (ὅτι δεῖ ὑψωθῆναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου)? Who is this Son of Man?”

Jesus has drawn the Greeks to himself—most likely, gentiles have asked to see Jesus (John 12:20). So Jesus speaks proleptically about his death and its consequences. In verse 23 John the Evangelist makes it clear the referent of ὑψόω (‘I lift up’) is to Jesus’ death by crucifixion.

The results of Jesus’ lifting up in crucifixion are stated, firstly, in verse 32: “I will draw all people to myself”. The point here is that the death of Christ draws humans—at this point, it doesn’t matter about the extent of that ‘drawing’, whether it extends to all people indiscriminately but non-efficaciously, or to all types of people efficaciously but not all indiscriminately—and that is for a salvific purpose. The death of Jesus Christ saves humans by drawing them to him. However, secondly, the death of Jesus is co-located (n.b. proleptic νῦν, ‘now’, in v. 31) with certain other salvific acts—“the judgement of this world” and that “the ruler of this world will be thrown out (ἐκβληθήσεται ἔξω)”. The glorification of Jesus by the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus will be the casting out of Satan (cf. Rev 12:7-11). With the snatching up of the child (Rev 12:5)—Christ’s ascension—Satan was cast out. The casting out occurred, in Revelation 12:10-11, by “the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony”. Only the risen and ascended Son of Man is in heaven, and there is no one left in heaven to condemn believers.

The Old Testament background for this may well be Isaiah 52:13-14 LXX:

The LXX of the Suffering Servant song commences by prefacing the song with and telegraphing that the suffering of the servant will be his exaltation and glorification: the astounding statements are that ‘he will be exalted’ (ὑψωθήσεται) and ‘he will be glorified’ (δοξασθήσεται: v. 13). See the next section below on the glorification of Jesus. Yet, the noun δόξα, ‘glory’, is used to describe the fact that humans do not give him the glory that he deserves. Here is the paradox of the glory of Jesus in his death and resurrection: the ignominy of humans becomes the glory of God the death and resurrection of Christ.

Jesus’ ‘Glorification’ (δοξάζω) in John 7:39, 12:16, 23, 13:31-32

A third word group John uses to describe to the exaltation of Christ on the cross is that which is often rendered ‘glorification’ in English. None of the instances of the well-known noun δόξα (‘glory’) in the Gospel of John can be said to have a primary, explicit, or unambiguous reference to the death of Jesus on the cross as his ‘glory’. However, the same cannot be said for the cognate verb δοξάζω (‘I glorify’), and the instances in John 7:39, 12:16, 23, 13:31-32, seem to refer at least in part to the death of Jesus Christ as a means of Jesus’ glorification. As we come to look at each passage, Leon Morris provides an important observation which calls for careful exegesis.

The position is complicated a little by the fact that in some passages it is possible that Jesus is looking beyond the cross to the splendor that would follow in heaven but it does seem that in a number of places “glorify” points to this concept of humble glory. This seems to be the case in the somewhat complicated series of references to being glorified in 13:31-32 and elsewhere. The point is that for John it is the cross that is supremely significant and in it we see the culmination of the humble glory that is to be discerned throughout Jesus’ lowly life. (Morris 1988: 56)

7:39Now he said this about the Spirit, whom the ones who believed in him were about to receive, for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified (οὔπω γὰρ ἦν πνεῦμα, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐδέπω ἐδοξάσθη).

While the death of Christ is undoubtedly included in whatever constitutes his ‘glorification’ here, subsequent events would place the ascension and session of the Christ as the immediate event that precedes the sending of the Spirit (Luke 24, Acts 1-2).

12:16His disciples did not understand these things at first, but when Jesus was glorified (ἀλλ’ ὅτε ἐδοξάσθη Ἰησοῦς), then they remembered that these things were written for him, and they did these things for him.

Elsewhere in John, the time when the disciples remembered the Scriptures and Jesus’ fulfillment of them is said to be “when he was raised from the dead” (John 2:22). But in John 14:25-26, the power and ability to remember the things Jesus had spoken to them during his earthly ministry is given when “the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will enable you to remember everything which I have said to you” (John 14:26). So again, the accent here on the glorification is probably on the resurrection, ascension, session, and bestowal of the promised Holy Spirit.

John 12:23-24: 12:23And Jesus answered them, saying, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 12:24Truly truly I say to you, if the grain of wheat which falls into the earth does not die, this grain remains alone, but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

While John 12:24 accents the death of Jesus under the figure of the burial of a grain of wheat, the resurrection is not far from the surface, because the grain won’t remain alone, but bears fruit, which probably refers to the general resurrection, brought into the present by the resurrection of Christ (cf. John 11:24-26).

John 13:30-32: 13:30So Judas took the piece of bread and left immediately. And it was night. 13:31So when he had left, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified (νῦν ἐδοξάσθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου), and God is glorified in him. 13:32[If God is glorified in him], God will also glorify him in himself, and immediately he will glorify him (καὶ εὐθὺς δοξάσει αὐτόν).

The accent in verses 30-32a seems to be the glorification of Jesus Christ in his death by crucifixion, because (a) in verse 30, Judas goes out to betray Jesus to death, and that is the occasion for Jesus’ statement, (b) the phrase that “immediately he will glorify him” (εὐθὺς δοξάσει αὐτόν: v. 32b) suggests that the resurrection on the first day of the week is the means of God’s glorification of Jesus, which then suggests that the glorification of Jesus in verses 31-32a precedes it, and is the glorification of his death.

Thus, there is a place for seeing a reference to the death of Jesus in John’s use of the verb δοξάζω (‘I glorify’). Nevertheless, R H Strachan seems to go too far when he says, “The ‘glorifying’ of Jesus always means His dying (xiii.31)” (The Fourth Gospel [London: SCM, 1941] 106, in Morris 1988: 56). This broad statement is simply not born out by all the uses of the verb, and none of the uses of the cognate noun seem to refer to Jesus’ death at all.

The Good Shepherd Who Lays Down His Life For His Sheep (John 10:11, 15, 17, 18)

The ‘good shepherd’ motif is rich with atonement significance, in that four times Jesus states that he is going to die for his sheep (John 10:11, 15, 17, 18).

• John 10:11: I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλὸς τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τίθησιν ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων).
• John 10:15b: just as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep (καὶ τὴν ψυχήν μου τίθημι ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων).
• John 10:17: For this reason, the Father loves me, because I lay down my life (ἐγὼ τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου), so that I can take it up again (ἵνα πάλιν λάβω αὐτήν).
• John 10:18: No-one takes it from me (οὐδεὶς αἴρει αὐτὴν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ), but I lay it down myself (ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ τίθημι αὐτὴν ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ). I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again (ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι αὐτήν, καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω πάλιν λαβεῖν αὐτήν).

Jesus’ laying down his own life is for others, his sheep (ὑπὲρ with the genitive, τῶν προβάτων: vv. 11, 15). He is dying not as an example, but on behalf of others. The volition of Jesus in setting down his own life is emphasized with the personal pronoun (ἐγὼ: vv. 17, 18), the reflexive pronoun (ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ: v. 18). Jesus embodies the good shepherd in John 18, when Judas, the robber, attempts to enter into the walled garden, but Jesus goes outside the garden to meet him and gives up his life for the sheep outside the garden (John 18:4, 8-9).

The Prophecy of Caiaphas Concerning Jesus’ Death (John 11:50-52, 18:14)

The ironic prophecy of Caiaphas concerning Jesus’ death (John 11:50-52, 18:14) is an important expression of John’s atonement theology.

John 11:50-52: 11:50Don’t you think that it is better for you that one man die for the people (ὅτι συμφέρει ὑμῖν ἵνα εἷς ἄνθρωπος ἀποθάνῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ) and the whole nation not perish (καὶ μὴ ὅλον τὸ ἔθνος ἀπόληται)? 11:51And he did not say this in his personal capacity, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die on behalf of the nation (ὅτι ἔμελλεν Ἰησοῦς ἀποθνῄσκειν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους), 11:52and not only on behalf of the nation, but also so that the scattered children of God might be gathered together as one (καὶ οὐχ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους μόνον ἀλλ’ ἵνα καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ διεσκορπισμένα συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν).

John 18:14: Now Caiaphas was the one who advised the Jews that it is better for one man to die for the people (συμφέρει ἕνα ἄνθρωπον ἀποθανεῖν ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ).

John makes it clear that Caiaphas’ prophecy is not made merely in his personal capacity (John 11:51). It is an official prophecy, bearing the full weight of his office of high priest that year. John 11:51-52 is John’s indirect speech report of the prophecy. Jesus did indeed die for the people, and indeed for the scattered children of God. The irony of the prophecy is found in the different mechanism by which his death was ‘on behalf of’ the people, and the end result of Jesus’ death for the people.

Caiaphas, it seemed, hoped that the nation's ultimate rejection of Jesus' Messianic claims, as evidenced by his execution for blasphemy, might unite the Jews by maintaining the religious status quo. But for John, the saving power of Jesus’ death was to be found in its being a substitutionary sacrifice for the sin of the whole world:

The notion of one man for many is clear in John 11:50, εἷς ἄνθρωπος ἀποθάνῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ (cf, 11:51-52, 18:4). The preposition ὑπὲρ with the genitive can mean ‘in the place of’, ‘in substitution for’. Given that Jesus is introduced as “the lamb of God, the one taking away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, 36), this must colour the meaning of ὑπὲρ with the genitive as a substitutionary idea. Further, given that the salvation is conceived of as salvation from ‘perishing’ (11:50), but that Jesus’ ‘dies’ to achieve it, the structure of the thought is that one human, Jesus, dies, so that “the nation”, “the people”, or “the scattered children of God” (all synonymous, or nearly synonymous phrases) does not. One dies so that many don’t die. It is one for many, but in a substitutionary, and not merely representative, manner.

In John 11:52, the purpose clause, ἵνα καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ διεσκορπισμένα συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν || ‘that also the scattered children of God might be gathered into one’ picks up on the John 10:16, where the good shepherd has other sheep not from this sheep pen (gentile believers) who must be brought in to “become one flock [under] one shepherd” (καὶ γενήσονται μία ποίμνη, εἷς ποιμήν). For sheep, safety is found in numbers, being in the flock and not a lost sheep, and in the shepherd being a good one. In John 10:9, Jesus promises “if someone enters through me, he will be saved”, and the metaphoric expression of this is that “he will go in and go out and find pasture”. This the benefit of being in the one flock under one shepherd, and the figure represents ‘eternal life’.

The Dying Seed That Is Buried And Bears Fruit (John 12:24)

When informed that the Greeks were seeking an audience with him (John 12:20), Jesus used another motif to describe his death, that of the dying seed that is buried and produces fruit. Jesus likens himself to a grain of wheat. John 12:24:

Truly truly I say to you, if the grain of wheat which falls into the earth (πεσὼν εἰς τὴν γῆν) does not die (ἀποθάνῃ), this grain remains alone (αὐτὸς μόνος μένει), but if it dies, it bears much fruit (ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ, πολὺν καρπὸν φέρει).

Jesus is the grain of wheat. He will fall to the ground and die, and be buried (cf. John 19:38-42). The power of the analogy is that it is only by ‘burying’ the grain of wheat—and thus it metaphorically dies and is buried—that it bears fruit and produces a crop. The fruit might be the greater works of the disciples, but if so, this is ultimately realized by the forgiveness of sins and the general resurrection of the dead, and thus John 12:24 implicitly links the death and resurrection of Jesus with the salvific resurrection of believers (cf. John 11:25-26).

Jesus’ Hour or Time

John’s Gospel makes it clear that Jesus’ work is to head to the cross. This is the meaning of Jesus’ frequent statements about his ‘hour’ or ‘time’ (John 2:4, 7:6, 8, 30, 8:20, 12:23, 27, 13:1, 16:32, 17:1). The climactic statement “it is finished” (John 19:30) shows his cross work, confirms it is the climax of the Gospel account (Morris 1988: 49-50).

Forgiveness Commissioned After Jesus’ Death and Resurrection (John 20:22-23)

Ramsey Michaels observes that “Jesus, in fact, never explicitly ‘forgives’ anyone in this gospel [and O]nly at the end of the story do we hear of anyone’s sins being ‘forgiven’ when the risen Jesus breaths on his disciples” (Ramsey Michaels 2004: 110-1). But this fact actually supports the contention that the forgiveness of sins is related to the death and resurrection of Jesus. The narrative progression of John’s Gospel links the objective achievement (John 19:30) of the death and resurrection of Jesus—his lifting up and glorification—with the forgiveness that the disciples will proclaim.

20:22And having said this, he breathed and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 20:23If you forgive anyone’s sins (ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας), they are forgiven them (ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς). If you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained (ἄν τινων κρατῆτε κεκράτηνται).

It is not accidental that this commission involves the direction to forgive sins, and that this follows the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the narrative. For this is the narrative way or method of showing that the forgiveness offered to the world by the disciples is through the glorification of the Son in death and resurrection. When the epistles ‘tell’ us, the Gospels ‘show’ us the same thing. Indeed, the Gospel of John here shows how the death and resurrection were properly described as his ‘glorification’ or ‘exaltation’, because the basis of the recipients praise of the lifted up Son of God is what his crucifixion and consequent resurrection actually achieved—the forgiveness of their sins. This is confirmed by the new song that the elders sing:

Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, 10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth. (Rev 5:9-10 ESV)

The redeemed in Revelation 5—elders, angels, and all creation—praise the lamb, for the reasons given by the elders. The basis of their praise is the fact of his death, and the achievement that his death wrought. Properly, then, must his death be regarded as the glorification of the lamb.

Confirmation from 1 John

John’s first letter, with his use of the cultic and sacrificial expiation/propitiation language (1 John 2:2, 4:10), and his linking of the death of Jesus and his ongoing intercession and advocacy (and thus, implicitly, his resurrection) with the forgiveness of our sins (1 John 1:8-2:2, 4:9) confirm what John has already testified to in his Gospel—that Jesus is the sacrificial “lamb of God” who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29, 36) in an analogous way that any lamb would take away any sin in Israel, that the death of Jesus was for his people in the substitutionary sense required of sacrifices (John 10:11-18, 11:50-52, 18:14) and that forgiveness comes to people as a result of the accomplishment of Jesus’ glorification in his death and resurrection (John 19:30, 20:22-23). What the first epistle of John tells us, the Gospel of John shows us.

Conclusion

The saving power of Jesus' death was to be found in its being a substitutionary sacrifice for the sin of the whole world: nothing less can account for Jesus being “the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, 35). The people would look to the lifted up Son of Man on the cross, and by believing in him as the Messiah, not in rejection of him as a pretender, they would live (John 3:14-16). This was his exaltation and glorification, following the pattern and prophecy of Isaiah 52:13-14. Jesus death as substitutionary is shown in that he is the good shepherd who laid down his life for his sheep (John 10:11-18). The prophecy of Caiaphas about Jesus’ death, while he speaks more than he knows, emphasises the substitutionary death of Jesus for the people, nation, and scattered children of God (John 11:50-52, 18:14).

Further study of the themes of human sin and the wrath of God would strengthen the argument for substitutionary sacrifice in the Gospel of John.

‘’“”—