The evangelist's depiction of Jesus throughout the fourth Gospel made the subject of intense scrutiny by scholars since ancient times, and to this day, questions regarding the interpretation of Jesus' personality still spark debate among biblical critics. It does appear that the author of John is writing 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; A certain imbalance and occasional ambiguity in terms of the depiction of Jesus' humanity and divinity leads to a somewhat confusing depiction of the extent of Christ's humanity and has prompted some to ascribe docetic, adoptive and Gnostics to the Gospel. This essay aims to provide insight into John's description of Christ's personality, examining in turn those elements that point to his divinity and those that point to his humanity, and then assessing whether there is an imbalance between the divine and human aspects of Jesus from which we could potentially deduce docetic, adoptionist or gnostic connotations, is detectable. Ultimately, I will seek to support the argument that the evangelist primarily presents an illustration of Jesus representative of his true dual nature; John certainly takes the time to sufficiently highlight both sides of himself. While there may be gaps in his description in terms of theology and, while there may be times where John walks a fine line in terms of balancing Jesus' humanity and his divinity, there has a manifestly clear intention, at least, to balance the two parts of his nature into a coherent understanding of becoming flesh. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay A reader can then begin with an examination of John's nominal portrayal 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 which pre-existed with God the creation of all things. The author's mirroring of the language of Genesis 1:1 suggests an attempt to reinforce Jesus' preexistence with God; it precedes this Gospel and the story of Jesus that it tells. The positioning of Jesus as word during 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 we see solidified by the words of John the Baptist who testify to the fact that "He who comes after me is before me because he was in front of me. (1:15) In the context of first-century Judaism, it is worth noting John's symbolic use of the number seven, representative of divine perfection; Jesus performed seven signs, despite the fact that there were more to record ("there are also many other things that Jesus did" (21:25)) and is recorded as using the words "I am" to seven times. The evangelist may be using the number of divine perfection to draw attention to the divinity in the man Jesus. The words “I am” themselves establish a powerful connection between Jesus and the God of the Old Testament and, in turn, the ultimate deity; “ego emi” is used in the context of divine revelation: “I am who I am…I am and has sent me to you.” (Exodus 3:14) Although some dispute any intentional parallel here, it seems likely, at least, that the evangelist was aware of the reflection of the language of Scripture, especially since "ego emi" precedes revelations concerning nature 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 declares 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 in 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 considered the works of the Father . ]' 14:10 speaks of the Father “abiding” in Jesus. As Coloe notes, the reiteration of the title Son affirms Jesus' position as one of ultimate, familial proximity to the divine: "It is God the only Son, who is close to the heart of the Father." (1:18) Coloe also highlights the theme of the Son as "the tabernacle/temple of the presence of God[2]." Some have suggested that when John speaks of the word “dwell” among us, we should understand that to mean that the word has made a tabernacle among us; the tabernacle is the ultimate closeness to God and Jesus, as the new temple, is “the way…no one comes to the father except through me.” (14:6) Moreover, as Thompson observes, “…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, simultaneously, “in confessing Jesus as “God,” the Fourth Gospel never denies the humanity of Jesus. In fact, in affirming that in the life and death of Jesus one sees God active, the Gospel is adamant in its demands to look at the one who was flesh, who performed signs among them, and who died on a Roman cross [4] “However, despite John's emphasis on the divine nature of Jesus, he does not, for the most part, allow this to eclipse the importance of Jesus as fully human; John does not seem to understand Sarx as mere flesh, but he successfully paints the image of Christ whom the Nicene Fathers would come to characterize as fully God and fully man. The performance of miracles, for example, while obviously 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 this 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 Jesus' humanity, because he only does them by virtue of his relationship and dependence on the Father. On the other hand, the signs underline the assertion that the works of this human being reveal the very activity of God[5].' The evangelist seems to want to emphasize the earthly origins of Jesus; on the lips of the Jews, he reminds the reader that Jesus was born of Mary and Joseph. This does not, however, contradict his divinity, especially in light of the prologue which takes care to emphasize the divine origins of Jesus as the first point of address. I think this reminder of Jesus' earthly origins is described 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 about Jesus' seemingly mundane heritage, allowing him to reiterate the paradox of the incarnation. Thompson paraphrases the point succinctlyBultmann's view: "...the human heritage of Jesus was offensive to 'the Jews.' Yet he argued that the evangelist not only accepted the facts about Jesus' human origins, but took the trouble to emphasize them precisely because they raise the paradox of the person of Jesus... even if the Jesus' human origins are an offense, they do not deny his human origins. claim to be the Revealer of God[6].' The author could also raise the issue to reaffirm that only some of Jesus' contemporaries believed or were expected to believe; the Jewish questioning of Jesus' origins in 6:42 is followed almost immediately by Jesus' assertion that "everyone who has heard and learned of the Father comes to me." (6:42) It seems that John is seeking to celebrate the uniqueness of Jesus in terms of his legacy and this does not happen. He does not eradicate his humanity; “For Jesus to be truly human, must he be exactly and only like all other humans? The fourth evangelist's answer to this question is no. He accepts the humanity of Jesus; but he also confesses that he who was known as the "son of Joseph" is the Son of God, that he who became flesh is the Word of God, that he who performed 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 is a shocking reminder to John's readers that Jesus is fully at the mercy of world events; as Thompson observes, the death of “Jesus” places him firmly in this world. By describing this death as the result of the forces of this world, the Gospel shows that Jesus entered fully into this human, carnal and material world[8]. The reasons why Jesus died perfectly illustrate his nature as a divine and human being; death is certainly something that is understood to be God's design ("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 human beings and evil. the events that led to Jesus' death on the cross were 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 fundamental level, the evangelist frequently refers to Jesus' physical body, his bodily functions, and his human emotions; he gets tired, for example (“There was Jacob's well there, and Jesus, tired from the journey, sat by the well” (4, 6)) and thirsty (“I am thirsty” (19, 28)). John also allows us to see the human soul and human reflexes of Jesus when he cries at the death of Lazarus: “he was very disturbed in spirit and deeply moved…Jesus began to weep.” (11:33-35) Even after his resurrection, Jesus’ possession of a physical body is crucially reiterated: “see my hands; and stretch out your hand, and place it in my side. (20:27) In yet another poignant moment, Jesus' dual nature is manifested; John juxtaposes Thomas’ recognition of Jesus’ physical body with his immediate understanding of his divinity: “My Lord and my God! (20:28) However, despite John's assertion that Jesus has a physical body here, there is some concern in that Jesus appears to be able to walk through walls, a skill he would arguably not possess not if he really had it. a physical body at this stage: “the doors being closed where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them.” (20:19) However, given that Jesus performed signs throughout the Gospel and has just risen from the dead, it does not seem far-fetched to imagine this as another miraculous action ofJesus. He has a human body but can act in divine ways. Furthermore, it may be inaccurate to judge John's intention in the text on such a minor inconsistency. I don't think it's obvious at all that John intended to demonstrate anything here, it could well just be a continuity oversight. Perhaps a more relevant denial of Jesus' humanity lies in the denial of his suffering at crucifixion; all three synoptic accounts offer a depiction of Jesus crying on the cross. John offers a dignified depiction of Jesus silently surrendering his spirit as he utters the words “It is finished.” (19:30) But does the omission of suffering really constitute the denial of Jesus' humanity? This does not appear to be the case; John also chooses to omit the birth and infancy narrative, but that does not mean he denies these aspects of Jesus' humanity. Perhaps he simply chooses to focus on divine incarnation as an amalgam of divinity and humanity. The incarnation is what is crucial, and its soteriological purpose; “it is finished” suggests the completion of a grand plan and provides a more literary ending to a literary gospel. Perhaps we should allow the author some poetic freedom here, instead of assuming that he denies 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 confronted with a representation of “God walking on the earth”. Is the Gospel of John intrinsically docetic? Kasemann asks: "In what sense is he the flesh, he who walks on water and through closed doors, who cannot be captured by his enemies...he cannot be deceived by men because he knows their most intimate thoughts before they even speak... How does all this happen? do you agree with the understanding of realistic embodiment? Does the statement “The Word became flesh” really mean more than the fact that he descended into the world of men and entered into contact with earthly existence, so that has a meeting with him become possible?[9]” This 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 the omniscience of Jesus. As Larsen observes, "if Jesus considers divine being from the beginning, he must also be endowed with the divine point of view...Jesus appears with much more awareness of his own divine being...than in the Synoptic Gospels...the Jesus' omniscience is also seen in the fact that he is at every moment aware of what is happening to the other actors and what will happen in the rest of the story[10].' It is difficult to say whether this divine knowledge actually risks denying Jesus' humanity, but it certainly does not place him in the realm of normal human beings. Again, as previously mentioned, there is no reason why Jesus could not be described as a unique human being. If John had wished to deny the humanity of Christ, he would surely have removed the decidedly human elements previously mentioned, especially those including bodily functions such as drinking and crying. Although we may wonder how it is possible that Jesus had divine knowledge and was fully human, the author of the Gospel could very easily have had these doubts as well. This is more of a technical theological concern than a concern about gospel intent. 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”; its signs are accomplished in dependence onGod, as befits him who is flesh. The Gospel without hesitation places Jesus in the material, human sphere, where his signs and his death bring about life and salvation[11]. form of "narrative doceticism", but this does not amount to asserting that John has a historical religious allegiance to the docetic heresy (as it is now considered). As Larsen explains, “John did what Paul could not, would not, or simply did.” no: he fashioned 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 comes from the limited knowledge and perspective point of view of the actors being told. John, however, makes no compromise in 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 of the Gospel and makes sense of the fact that John did not suppress the evidence of Jesus' humanity; he was not a docetist but simply fell into narrative docetism as a byproduct of his maintenance of the divine omniscience of Jesus. John may have been unintentionally docetic, but we cannot, on the basis of the Gospel alone, charge the author with this historically charged title. In contrast to Docetism's total denial of Jesus' humanity, many have attempted to demonstrate the extent to which the Fourth Gospel offers an adoptionist understanding of the incarnation, espousing the idea that "the union of the logos or Son of God with Jesus of Nazareth took place 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, in John, always seem to take erroneous views of Christ. They are frequently stopped by Jesus' argument and are the subject of polemics throughout the text. Why should we suddenly decide that their challenge to Jesus' earthly origins is therefore the evangelist's view? Waston also notes that John places considerable importance on John the Baptist. A possible explanation for this is that he is the crucial witness, the only witness of the descent of the Spirit. Although the idea of ​​a second divine hypostasis was most likely strange for a first-century Jewish author, "our examination of Cerinthian Christology has shown that belief in a second divine hypostasis could be closely linked to Jewish adoptionism -Christian. The fact that the fourth Gospel narrative begins with Baptiste's testimony of the descent of the Spirit on Jesus suggests that the same adoptionism is present there. This is why 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 become one[14].' However, I think the key passage to refute this adoptionist idea is 1:14. The “word became flesh”; the idea of ​​becoming flesh is undoubtedly much more than simply inhabiting the flesh; the word has not found a body and has simply settled there, it becomes flesh, is transformed into flesh, is incarnated. I don't think adoptionist ideas really do justice to the use and meaning of this "becoming." Some have suggested that the motif of ascension and descent present 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 which would allow them to rise towards the spiritual kingdom from which they fell. According to).