The evangelist's portrayal of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel has been the subject of extensive scholarly scrutiny since from ancient times and, to the present day, questions regarding the interpretation of the personality of Jesus still arouse debate among biblical critics. It seems that the author of John writes with an awareness of the human and divine aspects of Jesus and the importance of strengthening these aspects for a true understanding of the miraculous gift of the incarnation. However, we cannot ignore the tensions between these elements throughout the text; some imbalances and occasional ambiguities in terms of the representation of the humanity and divinity of Jesus lead to a somewhat confusing representation of the extent of Christ's humanity and have led some to attribute docetic, adoptionist and Gnostic agendas to the Gospel. This essay aims to offer an overview of John's portrait of Christ's personality by examining, in turn, those elements that indicate his divinity and those that indicate his humanity, and to subsequently evaluate whether there is any imbalance between the divine and humans of Jesus from which we could potentially deduce docetic, adoptionist or gnostic nuances, is detectable. Ultimately, I will try to support the line of argument according to which the evangelist presents, predominantly, an illustration of Jesus representative of his true dual nature; John certainly takes the time to sufficiently highlight both aspects of his persona. While there may perhaps be holes in his portrayal in terms of theology, and while there may be moments where John walks a fine line in terms of the balance between Jesus' humanity and his divinity, there is at least one evidently clear intention of balancing Jesus' humanity with his divinity. two parts of his nature in a coherent understanding of the Word becoming flesh. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay. A reader can begin, then, with an examination of John's nominal depiction of the nature of Jesus and his human and divine aspects. John's alignment of Jesus with divinity is evident from the beginning of the Gospel; Christ is the 'logos', the divine word that pre-existed with God before the creation of everything. The author's mirroring of the language of Genesis 1:1 suggests an attempt to reinforce Jesus' preexistence with God; precedes this Gospel and the story of Jesus that it tells. The positioning of Jesus as the word to creation also serves to demonstrate the divinity of Christ over the prophets and messengers of the Old Testament; the Son is prior to them all and is 'before' them temporally and in meaning, an idea which we see consolidated by the words of John the Baptist testifying to the fact that 'He who comes after me is before me because he was before me.' (1:15) In the context of first-century Judaism, it is worth noting John's symbolic use of the number seven, representing divine perfection; Jesus performs seven signs, even though there were others to record ("there are also many other things that Jesus did" (21:25)) and is said to have used the words "I am" on seven occasions. The evangelist perhaps uses the number of divine perfection to draw attention to the divinity of man Jesus. The "I am" sayings themselves draw a powerful link between Jesus and the God of the Old Testament and, in turn, the ultimate divinity; 'ego hemi' is used in the context of divine revelation: 'I am who I am. ..I am sent me to you.' (Exodus 3:14) While some dispute any useful parallels here, it at least seems soIt is probable that the evangelist was aware of the mirroring of the language of the Scriptures, especially since 'ego emi' precedes the revelations regarding the divine nature of Jesus and aspects of his character, for example "I am the bread of life", "I am the light of the world", "I am the resurrection and the life". John explicitly affirms the unity of the Father with the Son and therefore validates the divinity of Jesus as the one whom the Father sent. Christ explains that “I and the Father are one” (10:30) and reiterates at 10:38 that “the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.” Furthermore, Borgen notes that "in 10:37-8 and 14:10-11 the unity between the Son and the Father is made manifest in the words and works of Jesus which are also said to be the works of the Father[1] .' 14:10 speaks of the Father "dwelling" in Jesus. As Coloe notes, the reiteration of the title Son affirms Jesus' position as a person of extreme familial closeness to the divine: "It is God, the only begotten Son, who is near the heart of the Father." (1:18) Coloe also highlights the theme of the Son as 'tabernacle/temple of the presence of God[2]'. Some have suggested that when John speaks of the word 'dwelling' among us, we should understand that the word tabernacle among us; the tabernacle is the closest to God and Jesus, as the new temple, is 'the way...no one comes to the Father except through Me' (14:6) Furthermore, as Thompson notes, ' ...the Gospel affirms the divine identity of Jesus in the strongest possible terms: not only is the revelation of God seen in Jesus, but Jesus is confessed as “God” (1:1; 20-29)[3]' But, at the same time, «in confessing Jesus as “God”, the Fourth Gospel never denies the humanity of Jesus. In fact, in maintaining that God is seen as active in the life and death of Jesus, the Gospel is inflexible in demand to look to Him who was flesh, who performed signs among them and who died on a Roman cross[4] «However, despite John's insistence on the divine nature of Jesus, he does not allow, for the most part, that this obscures the importance of Jesus as fully human; John does not appear to understand Sarx as mere flesh, but he successfully paints the picture of Christ that the Nicene Fathers would come to characterize as fully God and fully man. The miraculous action, for example, although evidently a demonstration of Jesus' divinity, in no way compromises his full humanity for John. As Thompson argues, "typically, Jesus' miraculous action is understood as an extraordinary activity that distinguishes and separates him from the rest of humanity...but such uniqueness cannot be interpreted in such a way as to deny the humanity of Jesus... on the one hand. On the other hand, the signs do not erase the humanity of Jesus, because He carries them out only by virtue of his relationship and dependence on the Father. On the other hand, the signs underline the affirmation that the works of this human being reveal the very activity of God[5]". The evangelist seems to want to underline the earthly origin of Jesus; on the lips of the Jews he reminds the reader that Jesus was born from Mary and Joseph. This does not, however, conflict , his divinity, especially in light of the prologue which is concerned with underlining the divine origins of Jesus as the first point of the discussion. I think that this reference to the earthly origins of Jesus is depicted as coming from the 'Jews' so that the author can raise and discuss the issue; John is perhaps aware of the doubts his readers might have regarding Jesus' apparently worldly legacy and this allows him to reiterate the paradox of the incarnation. Thompson briefly paraphrases Bultmann's point in this regard: “…Jesus' human heritage was offensive to the 'Jews.' However, he maintains that the evangelist not only accepts the facts of the human origins of Jesus, but is careful to underline them precisely because they raise the paradox of the person of Jesus... although the human originsof Jesus are an offense, they do not deny his claim to be the Revealer of God[6]'. The author might also raise the issue to reaffirm that only some of Jesus' contemporaries believed or were destined to believe; the Jews' questions about Jesus' origins in 6:42 are followed almost immediately by Jesus' statement that "all who have heard and learned of the Father come to me." (6:42) It seems that John is trying to celebrate the uniqueness of Jesus in terms of his heritage and this does not destroy his humanity; «for Jesus to be truly human he must be exactly and only like all other human beings? The fourth evangelist's answer to this question is no. Accept the humanity of Jesus; but also confesses that he who was known as "son of Joseph" is the Son of God, that he who became flesh is the Word of God, that he who performed the signs is the light of the world and the bread from heaven , and that he who died on the cross is the resurrection and the life[7]. Jesus' death starkly reminds John's readers that Jesus was completely at the mercy of worldly events; as Thompson notes, the death of "Jesus" places him firmly in this world. By presenting that death as the result of the forces of this world, the Gospel shows that Jesus fully entered that human, carnal, material world[8]". The reasons for Jesus' death perfectly exemplify his nature as a divine and human being; death is certainly something that is understood to be God's plan ("Shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?" (18:11)), but crucifixion as a method of execution is the choice of humans and bad the events that lead to the death of Jesus on the cross are due to the actions of human beings. Christ, as divine and human, is at the mercy of divine and human action manifested physically in the crucifixion. At a more basic level, the evangelist includes frequent references to Jesus' physical body, bodily functions, and his human emotions; he gets tired, for example, (“Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired from his journey, sat by the well” (4.6)) and he is thirsty (“I am thirsty” (19.28)). John also allows us to see the human soul and human reflections of Jesus when he cries for the death of Lazarus: "he was very troubled in spirit and deeply moved... Jesus began to cry". (11:33-35) Even after his resurrection, Jesus' possession of a physical body is crucially reiterated: 'look at my hands; stretch out your hand and put it in my side." (20:27) In yet another touching moment, the dual nature of Jesus is revealed; John contrasts Thomas' recognition of Jesus' physical body with his immediate understanding of his divinity: "My Lord and my God!". (8.28pm) However, despite John's claim that Jesus has a physical body here, there is some ongoing concern in the fact that Jesus appears to be able to walk through walls, an ability that probably would possess if he truly had a physical body in this phase: "the doors of the place where the disciples were closed for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stopped among them". (20:19) However, given that Jesus performed signs throughout the Gospel and just rose from the dead, it doesn't seem too much to imagine this as another of Jesus' miraculous actions. He has a human body but can act in a divine way. Furthermore, it is perhaps inaccurate to judge John's intention within the text through such a small inconsistency. I don't think it's at all obvious that John intended to prove something here, it could just as easily have been a continuity oversight. Perhaps a more relevant denial of Jesus' humanity lies in the denial of his suffering during the crucifixion; all three synoptic accounts offer some depiction of Jesus crying outon the cross. John offers a dignified portrait of Jesus silently giving up his spirit as he utters the words “It is finished.” (7.30pm) But does the omission of suffering really constitute the denial of Jesus' humanity? It doesn't seem that way; John also chooses to omit the account of his birth and childhood, but this does not mean that he disavows these aspects of Jesus' humanity. Perhaps he simply chooses to focus on the divine incarnation as a fusion of divinity and humanity. The incarnation is what is crucial and its soteriological purpose; “it is finished” connotes the completion of a great plan and offers a more literary ending to a literary gospel. Perhaps we should allow the author some poetic license instead of assuming he is denying the humanity of Christ. Kasemann argues that there is a clear imbalance of divine versus human elements in the person of Jesus in John; we are faced with the representation of "God walking on earth". Is the Gospel of John intrinsically docetic? Kasemann asks: “in what sense is he flesh who walks on water and through closed doors, who cannot be captured by his enemies… cannot be deceived by men because he knows their innermost thoughts before they even speak. .. Why all this?" do you agree with the understanding of a realistic embodiment? Does the statement "The Word became flesh" really mean something more than the fact that He descended into the world of men and there came into contact with earthly existence, so that an encounter with Him became possible?[9]". That certainly seems to be the case. that, given many of Jesus' divine elements, his true humanity must be compromised. This is especially true when it comes to Jesus' omniscience. As Larsen observes, "if Jesus holds divine being from the beginning, he must also have the divine point of view...Jesus appears with much more awareness of his own divine being... that in the Synoptic Gospels... Jesus' omniscience is also evident in the fact that he is at all times aware of what is happening within the other actors and of what will happen in the subsequent course of history[ 10]'. It is difficult to say whether this divine knowledge can truly deny Jesus' humanity, but it certainly does not place him in the realm of normal human beings. Furthermore, as mentioned above, there is no reason why Jesus cannot be depicted as a unique human being. If John had wanted to deny the humanity of Christ, he would surely have removed the distinctly human elements mentioned above especially those including bodily functions such as drinking and crying. While we may wonder how it is possible that Jesus had divine knowledge and was fully human, the author of the Gospel could easily have had these doubts as well. This is more of a technical-theological concern than a concern about the intention of the Gospel. It is as Thompson says when he writes that «Jesus is clearly human: his human origins, his flesh and his death are common to “all flesh”; his signs are performed in dependence on God, as befits one who is flesh. The Gospel places Jesus without hesitation in the material, human sphere, where his signs and his death bring about life and salvation[11]. form of "narrative Docetism", but this is not the same as claiming that John has any historical religious allegiance to the Docetic heresy (as it is now regarded). As Larsen explains, “John did what Paul could not, would not, or simply did.” not: he shaped a high Christology within the literary framework of an elaborate narrative. By telling the story of an omniscient divine being, he reached the limits of the logical possibilities offered to any storyteller, since the tension of the narrative normally arises from limited knowledge andperspective point of view of the narrated actors. John, however, does not compromise by lowering his high Christology in favor of narrative dynamics and thus creates the effect of 'narrative docetism[12]'. This theory certainly explains the seemingly illogical elements within the Gospel and makes sense of the fact that John did not remove the evidence of Jesus' humanity; he was not a docetic but simply fell into narrative docetism as a by-product of his maintenance of the divine omniscience of Jesus. John was, perhaps, unintentionally docetic, but we cannot, simply on the basis of Gospel evidence, burden the author with this title history full of meaning. In contrast to the total denial of the humanity of Jesus à la Docetism, many have attempted that the fourth Gospel offers an adoptionist understanding of the incarnation, espousing the vision that "the union of the logos or Son of God with Jesus of Nazareth occurred in the descent of the Spirit"at his Baptism[13]'. Waston argues that this adoptionism seems likely given John's omission of any birth narrative and the fact that he disputes Jesus' coming from Bethlehem and the idea that he was born to Mary and Joseph. However, this challenge is on the lips of the Jews who always, in John, seem to espouse erroneous views about Christ. They are often rejected by Jesus' argument and are polemized throughout the text. Why should we suddenly decide that their challenge to Jesus' earthly origins is therefore the evangelist's point of view? Waston also notes that John places considerable importance on John the Baptist. One possible explanation for this is that he is the crucial witness, the only witness to the descent of the Spirit. Although the idea of ​​a second divine hypostasis was most likely strange to a first-century Jewish author, "our examination of Cerinthian Christology has shown that belief in a second divine hypostasis could be closely linked to Judeo-Christian adoption" . The fact that the story of the fourth Gospel begins with the Baptist's testimony of the descent of the Spirit on Jesus suggests that the same adoptionism is present there. For this reason the testimony of the Baptist is unique, superior even to that of the apostles: he alone saw the supreme event in which divinity and humanity became one[14]". However, I think the key passage in the refutation of this adoptionist idea is 1:14. The 'word became flesh'; the idea of ​​becoming flesh is probably something much more than simply inhabiting the flesh; the word has not found body and simply insinuates itself, becomes flesh, transforms into flesh, becomes incarnate. I don't think adoptionist ideas really do justice to the use and meaning of this "becoming." Some have suggested that the ascent and descent motif throughout the Gospel offers significant evidence for the idea that Jesus is represented by John as the Gnostic 'man of light', their revealer of the gnosis that would enable them to ascend to the spiritual realm from which they had fallen. According to Bultmann, John's representation of Jesus corresponds to that of the Gnostic revealer: «A celestial being is sent from the world of light to the earth, which has fallen under the dominion of demonic powers, to liberate the sparks of light. , which have their origin in the world of light, but due to the fall into primordial times, were forced to inhabit human bodies. This emissary takes human form and carries out the works entrusted to him by the Father; consequently he is not separated from the Father. He reveals himself in his expressions ("I am the shepherd", etc.) and thus brings about the separation of the sighted from the blind, to whom he appears as a stranger. His people listen to each other, and he awakens in them the memory of their abode of light, teaches them to).