Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-kv2lp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T22:41:37.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Make Them Holy in Truth’: Jesus’ Prayer for Ongoing Theophany in John 17

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2026

Alicia D. Myers Open the ORCID record for Alicia D. Myers [Opens in a new window]
Alicia D. Myers*
Affiliation:
Department of Religion, Baylor University, Waco, USA University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa
*
Email: Alicia_Myers@baylor.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At the end of the Farewell Discourse (FD) in the Gospel of John, Jesus offers a prayer that is far longer than any other in the Gospel. John 17 pauses the narrative progression, transcending both space and time as Jesus addresses his Father directly for only the third time in the Gospel (11.41–2; 12.27–8; 17.1–26). Reading this prayer in John 17 alongside Jesus’ other prayers in chapters 6, 11 and 12, this article argues that John 17 acts as the culmination of Jesus’ teaching through prayer and adds to his theophanic depiction in the Gospel. Moreover, in this prayer Jesus implicitly requests the Spirit’s presence among believers and points toward the Spirit’s work as an ongoing theophany for his disciples.

Keywords

theophanyepiphanyprayerJohn 17SpiritFarewell Discourserevelationtransformation

Information

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 71 , Issue 4 , October 2025 , pp. 509 - 520
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press.

1. Introduction

At the end of Jesus’ Farewell Discourse (FD) in the Gospel of John, he offers a prayer that is far longer than any other in the Gospel. Interpreters often note the climactic and time-freezing nature of Jesus’ prayer. John 17 pauses the narrative progression, transcending both space and time as Jesus addresses his Father directly for only the third time in the Gospel (11.41–2; 12.27–8; 17.1–26).Footnote 1 Read alongside Jesus’ other prayers in chapters 6, 11, and 12, John 17 emerges as the culmination of Jesus’ teaching through prayer and adds to his theophanic depiction in the Gospel. Jesus uses prayer to reveal his union with the Father more fully, pulling back the veil briefly to show onlookers how his desires, words and actions fully align with those of the Father. In John, Jesus is more than a miracle-worker, however, he is the climactic embodiment of the God’s presence in the world, whose coming makes God known so much so that seeing him is the same as seeing the Father (e.g. 1.17–18; 5.36; 8.54; 14.7–11); in other words, he is a theophany. As the last of John’s prayer scenes, John 17 builds on Jesus’ previous teaching and expands his divine unity to include all believers, regardless of whether they saw Jesus in the flesh or not. Thus, although spoken before his departure, Jesus’ prayer in John 17 describes a post-resurrection reality in which the disciples will recognise him as the ‘I am’ (8.28) and participate in the divine unity by means of the holy Spirit (17.20–3; 20.20–3).

In this article, I will argue that Jesus implicitly requests the Spirit’s arrival in John 17 and points toward the Spirit’s role in continuing Jesus’ revelatory teaching as an ongoing theophany. Like other epiphanies and theophanies from John’s milieu, John’s theophanies elevate viewers and change them, even if they experience their vision vicariously through the Gospel text. Indeed, divine appearances and their remembrance by later devotees were powerful rhetorical and affective tools that could both reinforce existing practices as well as justify their sudden, radical change. In light of epiphanic expectations from the ancient Mediterranean world, John 17 contributes to the Gospel’s presentation of Jesus as God’s superior theophany meant to encourage believers despite Jesus’ departure. As Verity Platt demonstrates, although epiphanies reveal direct divine interaction and, therefore, presence to their viewers, they also reveal an anxiety of divine absence that initiates the need for explanation and remembrance.Footnote 2 Josiah Hall has recently argued that John’s Gospel can be interpreted as making a similar move.Footnote 3 John’s Gospel participates in epiphanic rhetoric and uses its emotional power, reshaping Jewish theophanic traditions and creating new appearances in the person of Jesus, including during his final prayer in John 17. In this prayer, Jesus affirms that later believers continue to have access to the divine and, in fact, are transformed through the ongoing theophany of the Spirit to manifest God’s will in the world through their obedience to Jesus’ teachings and remembrance of his words.

2. Theophany in John’s Gospel and the Greco-Roman World

Before delving into John 17, a discussion of theophany and its manipulation in John’s depiction of Jesus is necessary. The suggestion that Jesus is the location of divine presence in John’s Gospel is well established; moreover, many interpreters tie the presentation of Jesus’ incarnation in the Prologue to the manifestation of God’s presence at Sinai (John 1.14–18; Exod 19–20; 33–4).Footnote 4 This appearance of God in sight and sound at Sinai, is regularly identified as a ‘theophany’: a moment when God is made visible or manifest (φαίνω). Theophanies occur at pivotal moments of crisis or change in Israel’s story.Footnote 5 John’s Gospel references several of these encounters with references to Moses, Jacob, Abraham and Isaiah. As Catrin Williams notes, however, John’s references reframe these theophanies, diminishing the tradition that any of these previous figures saw God directly (cf. John 1.18; 3.13; 5.37; 6.46).Footnote 6 ‘No one has seen God ever; God, the only one, who is in the bosom of the Father, that one makes [him] known’ (1.18).Footnote 7 This verse articulates the Gospel’s simultaneous limitation of previous divine appearances, alongside its emphasis on Jesus’ limitless divine access. By turning all previous seers of God into witnesses of Jesus’ glory, John re-members Israel’s theophanic past as a preview to the full revelation made through Jesus’ flesh.

The presentation of divine encounters at key moments in Israel’s history, however, reflects larger cultural expectations of divine interaction in the world. In her recent work on divine embodiment in Luke-Acts, Brittany Wilson ties Jewish theophanies to the larger phenomenon of epiphanies in the Greco-Roman world.Footnote 8 Wilson defines epiphanies as ‘an appearance of a divine or heavenly figure to humans’, which can include interactions with angels or other heavenly beings.Footnote 9 A theophany is more precisely seeing God in Jewish literature, even if that sight is primarily heard rather than visually perceived.Footnote 10 The pervasiveness of divine epiphanies reflects and reinforces beliefs that gods desire to be seen, and thus known, by humanity. At the same time, such interaction was potentially dangerous, especially when human beings transgressed unknowingly or brazenly upon divine space. In these stories, it is the divine who has the prerogative of transgressing boundaries. Worshippers sought divine encounters, but they followed rituals of purification meant to ensure safer interaction with the sacred. These purifications focused on external matters as well as interior ones, such as thoughts and intentions.Footnote 11 When humans were unprepared or wandered ignorantly into sacred territory, deities may protect them by appearing only in part, in disguises or by providing divine purification, such as that experienced by Isaiah (Isa 6.1–10).Footnote 12 If people openly flaunted impurity or lingered unwelcome in sacred spaces, however, they were punished.Footnote 13 John’s Gospel also highlights God’s initiative in providing all revelation, but presents previous encounters with God as limited. Jesus, as the climactic theophany, has unfettered access to the Father and can provide safe connection to those purified by his word (cf. 13.10; 15.3). Disciples are ‘made holy in truth’ and commissioned to follow his example (17.17–19; 20.22–3). Jesus’ arrival, however, is also shocking and regularly shows people unprepared, even those whose responsibility was to maintain holy spaces and recognise holiness in their midst. Rather than reacting with immediate judgement, Jesus shifts the epiphanic expectations by accepting violence against himself, using his crucifixion as a moment to reveal God’s love to those drawn to his revelation (3.14–18; 12.32; 19.35–7).

Divine encounters also have similar features in the ancient Mediterranean world, including their depiction of deities as surpassing human abilities (e.g. in beauty, stature, fragrance and power) and transforming those they meet.Footnote 14 These transformations can be disastrous or life-giving, as indicated above, but they often change the course of history and establish new traditions. Petridou highlights the explanatory and authorising functions of epiphanies; they can sanction ongoing practices or provide warrant for dramatic change.Footnote 15 They also give their viewers greater status, as ones ‘beloved by the gods’ (θεοφιλεῖς) or as divine ‘friends’.Footnote 16 According to Petridou, ‘noble and pious’ individuals were more likely to experience epiphanies and benefit from them because they could recognise the gods in their midst, even if not immediately.Footnote 17 Such revelations reinforced their superior status as well as the power structures that supported them. Religious specialists, such as prophets, oracles, seers and priests experienced regular proximity to the divine, leading to a more intimate connection that was often expressed through reported epiphanies.Footnote 18 Yet, not everyone anticipated a direct divine encounter, even if there was belief of divine presence in daily affairs. Instead, Platt argues that divine encounters were experienced through other mediums, including cult statues and worship, as well as written texts and traditions that recalled previous epiphanies.Footnote 19 With ekphrasis and prosopopoeia, authors sought to convey what they could of the divine’s appearance, creating vicarious epiphanies meant to impact their audiences’ behaviours.Footnote 20 Such recollections and representations play with the ideas of presence within absence, seeking to communicate the ongoing power of the divine in physical forms that can never hope to contain them.Footnote 21

With this larger context in mind, we can see how John’s Gospel uses and reframes previous theophanies and epiphanic motifs to present Jesus and his revelation with powerful rhetorical effect. The Gospel uses vocabulary often found in epiphanic literature, but it also subverts some patterns.Footnote 22 Jesus exegetes the divine as a theophany himself (1.18), but his physical appearance is unremarkable. He does not metamorphosise to protect those who see him and looks like a normal Galilean man, less than fifty years of age.Footnote 23 While he controls when people touch him, it does not seem inherently dangerous to do so.Footnote 24 Instead of emphasising appearance, then, John’s Jesus shows God’s δόξα through deeds of power that outshine all previous miracles (cf. 2.11; 3.2; 9.30–3; 10.41; 11.4, 37) and words that are unlike all who have come before (7.46). Jesus’ direct access to the Father means he only speaks and does what the Father commands (cf. 5.19–20, 30; 6.39–40; 7.17–18; 8.28; 12.48–50; 17.8). He is the ‘Holy One of God’ (6.69), upon whom the heavenly ‘holy Spirit’ remains (1.32–3), and who claims, ‘Whoever has seen me has seen the Father’ (14.9). Moreover, those who encounter Jesus are transformed. His presence renders a judgement, even if he does not himself judge during his earthly ministry (3.19–21). His coming is an invitation of God for human interaction, but it is not without risk.Footnote 25 Those who remain with Jesus and accept his ‘difficult word’ (σκληρός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, 6.60) are purified by it (καθαρóς, 13.10; 15.3) so long as they continue obeying Jesus’ command to love like he loves (13.34–5; 14.15–23; 15.9–14). According to John’s Gospel, the reward for this ongoing connection is to see Jesus’ glory (14.21; 17.22, 24), to be where he is (12.26; 15.1–11; 17.24) and, therefore, to experience joy and eternal life (16.22–4; 14.6; 17.2–3, 13). While John’s Gospel conveys Jesus as theophany, however, it simultaneously acknowledges its limitations as well as Jesus’ physical absence by promising the ongoing access through the holy Spirit.Footnote 26

As I will argue below, Jesus’ prayer in John 17 participates in this larger depiction of Jesus as theophany. Jesus’ purification of believers through his word prepares them to hear his final requests for preservation, protection and being made holy in John 17. In fact, Jesus’ prayer is a climactic moment of revelatory teaching at the end of the FD, drawing together themes from his previous prayers to give believers confidence in God’s positive response. Although John 17 takes place before Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his prayer presupposes these events and is spoken from a post-resurrection perspective to believers already blessed with the holy Spirit. In this way, John 17 encourages audiences to remain in Jesus’ word by giving them increased status gained through this theophany, a status that is reinforced each time the Gospel is read in their midst.

3. Jesus’ Prayer for Ongoing Theophany and Transformation in John 17

Jesus does not pray often in this Gospel and, moreover, he says he does not need to say prayers out loud (11.41–2).Footnote 27 Instead of προσεύχομαι or εὔχομαι, John notes Jesus’ lifting his eyes (11.41; 17.1), giving thanks (6.11; 11.41) or using direct address with a vocative πάτερ (11.31; 12.27–8; 17.1, 4, 11, 21, 24) to indicate his prayers, which are not always quoted. Yet, when we examine the scenes in which Jesus prays, we see that they are routinely used as revelation and communication. Jesus prays to acknowledge the Father as the source of signs he performs (6.11, 23), and to demonstrate complete faith in the Father’s hearing his words and providing an immediate response (11.41–2). In this way, Jesus’ prayers are paedagogical moments that illustrate his identity as the one through whom the Father manifests his presence. When we read these prayers with an awareness of the phenomena of theophanies and epiphanies described above, we can see that they are part of a larger theophanic depiction that teaches audiences to see and hear Jesus as divine, and divinely transformative, whenever the Gospel is read, or Jesus’ words are recalled.

When read together, Jesus’ prayers can be seen as special points of theophanic revelation in John, contributing to the Gospel’s larger portrait of its protagonist. The theophanic element of Jesus’ prayers is perhaps most visible in 12.27–8a when a voice from heaven ‘came’ (ἦλθεν) in thunderous response to Jesus.Footnote 28 All the prayer scenes, however, are linked with common words and motifs, which encourage audiences to hear them together as they come to John 17 (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Commonalities in Jesus’ Prayer Scenes in John

Prayer passages from John with common words and themes. See long description.
Table 1 Long description

The table has two columns: Prayer passage and Common words/themes. Row 1: John 6 (unrecorded prayer); 1. Lifting eyes, 2. Presence of a large crowd, 3. Giving thanks, 4. Sign sparks confused responses. Row 2: John 11 (spoken prayer); 1. Lifting eyes upward, 2. Giving thanks, 3. Father, 4. Crowd ′standing′ around Jesus, 5. Purpose of prayer is belief that the Father ′sent′ Jesus, 6. Belief results in ′seeing the glory of God′, 7. Sign sparks a divided response. Row 3: John 12 (spoken prayer with verbal answer); 1. Father, 2. Glorifying, 3. Name, 4. Crowd ′standing′ by Jesus, 5. Sign sparks confused responses, 6. Purpose of prayer is for the crowd. Row 4: John 17 (spoken prayer); 1. Lifting eyes to heaven, 2. Father, 3. Glorify, 4. Belief in Jesus as the one the Father ′sent′, 5. Glory, 6. Name, 7. Acting on behalf of others.

John 17 builds on earlier theophanic motifs not only by combining the imagery of Jesus’ heavenward gaze and direct address to the Father, but also with repeated descriptions of ‘glory’ (δόξα) and ‘glorification’ (δοξάζω) at the beginning and end of the prayer. Jesus says he has glorified the Father through obedience and completing the Father’s will (17.4–6). Now he asks to be glorified, even as he claims to have revealed his glory to the disciples who received his words (17.22; cf. 1.14) and prays that they will ‘see my glory, which you have given to me because you loved me since before the foundation of the world’ (17.24).Footnote 29 Jesus also uses the verb φανερόω in 17.6, claiming to have ‘made manifest (ἐφανέρωσα)’ God’s Name, a divine attribute also found in other Jewish theophanies and elsewhere in John’s Gospel (5.43; 10.25; 12.28).Footnote 30 Jesus’ statement recalls his earlier manifestation of glory from 2.11 and his revealing ‘the works of God’ that point to his unique identity (3.21; 9.3). As noted above, divine presence was discerned through displays of power in epiphanic phenomena, particularly with deeds that were not possible for ordinary humans to do (3.1; 9.30–3).Footnote 31 Throughout the Gospel, Jesus performs these works and commends characters to ‘believe’ or ‘trust’ who he is because of them (10.38; 14.11).

In John 17, Jesus describes his work as making God’s Name ‘known’.Footnote 32 Throughout this prayer, Jesus stresses the knowledge that he has given and that believers have received (vv. 3, 7–8, 24–6). Not only does this language underscore the post-resurrection perspective of the prayer, but it highlights the theophanic nature of Jesus’ work. As Petridou explains, divine encounters revealed ‘new knowledge’ to their viewers, whether they ‘saw’ the vision directly or through another medium.Footnote 34 Such knowledge was necessarily epistemological; epiphanies challenged and reshaped people’s understandings of the cosmos, thereby impacting their ongoing behaviour.Footnote 35 The knowledge Jesus gives, therefore, is a further indication of the theophanic nature of his work. In John, this knowledge is eternal life because it enables believers to abide in the divine unity, knowing and living out God’s will (17.3). Knowledge of who Jesus is leads disciples to understand and to trust what he has done, even as those deeds brought about his death and departure. As in 12.27, Jesus prays for his glorification (17.1–5), which later audiences recognise as a prayer for his crucifixion because of the revelation it offers to those able to see it (3.14; 12.30–3; 19.35–7).Footnote 36

Yet, Jesus’ prayer in John 17 asks for more than crucifixion, it also points to his resurrection and inspiration of the disciples with the Spirit. In her analysis of ‘glory’ and ‘glorification’ in John’s Gospel, Nicole Chibici-Revneanu notes that the first use of δοξάζω occurs in John 7.39, which explicitly connects Jesus’ glorification to the arrival of the Spirit.Footnote 37 Using 7.39 as a cipher, Jesus’ glorification includes his crucifixion and his resurrection, which ultimately results in the gift of the Spirit to believers (20.19–23). Rather than being met with silence, therefore, Jesus’ prayer in John 17 is answered with the events of John 18–20, just as John depicted immediate responses to Jesus’ prayers in chapters 6, 11 and 12. Presenting Jesus’ death as part of the Father’s response to Jesus rather than as his abandonment of him, the Gospel encourages audiences to trust that the Father continues to fulfil Jesus’ requests after his resurrection. Such a reading, furthermore, exposes the implicit request for the Spirit within Jesus’ prayer, especially at 17.11–19. Most scholars connect the use of ἁγιάζω in these 17.17–19 to 10.36–8 where Jesus interprets Ps 82 (81 lxx) to support his unity with the Father.Footnote 38 In this context, Jesus’ ‘being made holy’ or ‘consecration’ is his being set apart to do the work of God, which most scholars connect to his crucifixion.Footnote 39 Taking Chibici-Revneanu’s observations into account, however, this consecrated work also includes his resurrection and giving the Spirit to his disciples as part of this larger mission. Indeed, Jesus highlights the arrival of this second Paraclete as an ongoing presence and comfort to his disciples throughout the FD (14.15–26; 15.26–7; 16.7–15). Furthermore, the adjective ἅγιος is used in the Gospel as descriptions only for the Spirit, Jesus and the Father (1.33; 6.69; 14.26; 17.11; 20.22). Jesus’ prayer in John 17 builds to his desire for believers to participate in his unity with the Father, both of whom are holy. When the holy Spirit is sent by the Father and Jesus, therefore, it enables believers to remain in communion with this holiness.

As we saw above, in epiphanic traditions, proximity to divinity ultimately results in transformation of the beholders. Jesus’ requests in John 17, then, are not just for believers to participate in the divine unity, but for them to be transformed and made holy as a result of the ongoing presence of the Spirit (esp. 17.11–19). We have seen that epiphanies and theophanies were initiated by gods and could be dangerous if people were not prepared or did not recognise the vision given. When recognised, however, divine encounters could be purifying and sanctifying, changing those who beheld the divine to reflect their vision. In John, the transformative effect of theophanies helps us to understand better Jesus’ previous statements concerning purity in the FD. For the Gospel of John, believers are purified by the λόγος, which is both the person of Jesus and the words that he delivers (e.g. 1.14–18; 2.22; 4.41; 5.24; 8.51–2; 17.6, 17). Thus, he tells the remaining disciples in 15.3 that they ‘are already purified because of the word which I have spoken’ (cf. 13.10–11). Jesus elsewhere identifies his words as Spirit (6.62–3, 68), which he also equates with God in 4.24. According to Jesus, then, the Spirit, too, is a theophany for those who recognise it in their midst. Moreover, as Wil Rogan notes, in this way, John’s Gospel is similar to other Jewish writings from the Second Temple Period, which depict purification by means of God’s giving a ‘holy Spirit’ to the people.Footnote 40 More than just purifying, however, in John the Spirit also makes the disciples holy, protecting and preserving them with divine presence as they continue Jesus’ mission in the world.Footnote 41 As other scholars note, Jesus’ description of sending the disciples in 17.18 points forward to 20.21, when Jesus commissions his disciples after having given them the Spirit.Footnote 42 Pressing on this connection, audiences can hear Jesus’ petitions throughout John 17 as including a request for the holy Spirit to be sent to his disciples, even though the Spirit is not explicitly mentioned.Footnote 43 Instead, Jesus uses terms of holiness, truth and word, all of which have been not only associated with the Father and himself, but with the Spirit, especially in the immediate context of the FD (14.17; 15.26; 16.13; 17.17).

The Spirit’s ongoing presence among believers, therefore, continues God’s climactic revelation in the person and work of Jesus Christ in John’s Gospel. Written in a time long after Jesus’ departure, this Gospel points to concern and continued grief over Jesus’ absence, even as it seeks to ameliorate this pain. Thus, Jesus’ request and subsequent gift of the holy Spirit create an ongoing connection between God and believers, regardless of whether or not they physically beheld the incarnate Word. Disciples who never saw Jesus become friends of God because of the theophany they receive through the Spirit (15.13–15).Footnote 44 This friendship does not make believers equal to God, but it permits them to speak openly with the Father (παρρησία, 16.25–6) as Jesus models in John 17. Jesus’ departure is better for the disciples, then, because it is the means of the Spirit’s arrival (16.7).

The presence of the Spirit ultimately empowers disciples to continue sharing Jesus’ word and revelation to the world (17.20–3). According to John, Jesus remains God’s climactic theophany, but his revelation can only be truly seen after his departure, as the holy Spirit’s arrival causes continuous post-resurrection interpretation of his work. The Gospel presents itself as a product of the Spirit’s work and, therefore, one means of the Spirit’s continual revelation (2.17, 22; 12.17). As Platt shows, the interest in epiphanies was prominent not only in ancient Greek religion, but well into the Roman imperial period, as authors sought to re-experience the divine presence through the study of canonical texts.Footnote 45 These epiphanies fuelled connection to the divine and inspired the continued study and discussions of these traditions. The Gospel of John, likewise, encourages reading and re-reading, presenting subsequent interpretations as inspired by the holy Spirit, whose theophanic presence remains with the disciples so long as they keep Jesus’ command to love one another. Thus, it is not only the Gospel that manifests God’s presence, but the believers themselves, when they act in accordance with God’s will and reveal it to those around them. Believers become God’s physical presence even as Jesus’ relationship with the Father remains superior and unique (1.14–18). Although the world struggles to see this ongoing theophany, Jesus’ followers are to remain confident of the divine knowledge they receive which gives them new birth and eternal life. Filled and animated by the holy Spirit, these children continue God’s revelation by becoming a theophany in Jesus’ absence.Footnote 46

4. Conclusion: Implications of an Ongoing Theophany

As a lens for reading John 17, ancient understandings of divine appearances help us to see the radical nature of Jesus’ prayer and its connections to other scenes in the Gospel. In the larger Greco-Roman world, divine encounters were powerful, used to explain the inexplicable and to advocate for specific behaviours and identities. The results could be a reinforcement of current structures, but they were often impetuses for change, whether in the establishment of new rituals or in a reshaping of identity from a god’s-eye-view. As potentially dangerous encounters, meeting deities brings together concerns over purity and holiness and highlights the transformative power of the divine. The Gospel of John uses theophanic expectations and traditions to reshape the story of Israel’s relationship with God, as building to the theophany of Jesus as God’s Son and Christ. Appealing to and subverting traditions of previous theophanies, the Gospel presents Jesus as God’s superior and climactic appearance. Jesus’ few prayers in the Gospel of John reinforce this presentation, with Jesus more often offering thanks than directly requesting his Father’s intervention. In this way, Jesus’ prayers teach audiences that the Father is always listening and responding to his words, which are ultimately a restatement of the Father’s own. These prayers reveal God’s glory and point to Jesus’ glorification in his death and resurrection. While this glorification might seem to threaten believers with abandonment, in John 17, Jesus asks his Father to continue the theophany by bringing believers into the divine unity through the protection, sanctification and commissioning of the holy Spirit. Even though Jesus is no longer physically present, John’s Gospel provides a theophany for audiences who see Jesus’ divinity and who, as a result, participate in this divinity through their connection to the holy Spirit.

While such a reading can be comforting and empowering for those who assent to the Gospel’s vision, readers should recognise that its power also makes it dual-edged. John’s use of theophanic rhetoric resists Roman imperial claims of divine favour, just as other epiphanic memories and traditions could. For John, Jesus is the theophany, not Caesar. At the same time, however, John’s reshaping of Jewish stories requires the discarding of certain traditions that do not conform to this new theophany.Footnote 47 Thus, as Sung Uk Lim notes, John is both anti- and pro-empire because it replaces all other rulers with Jesus and his vision of God’s Kingdom.Footnote 48 While such ambiguity can invite us to join Jesus in a space of otherness and vulnerability, John’s Gospel has been a powerful tool for exclusion and domination as well.Footnote 49 Jews who do not recognise Jesus as a theophany miss out on God’s revelation, cannot understand their own Scriptures and are harshly polemicised by the Gospel and Jesus himself (e.g. 5.39–47; 8.31–59; 9.40–1). Recognising John’s theophanic rhetoric should not only alert interpreters to the ways this phenomenon blends key themes in the Gospel to depict the transformation of believers, but also the potential danger this Gospel brings with its depiction of those who reject its claims. While this may point toward the later struggles faced by readers of this Gospel described in 1–3 John, it certainly acts as a warning for readers in the present to take care when using John’s rhetoric that offers inclusion and transformation for some, even as it conquers and alienates others.

Competing interests

The author declares none.

References

1 R. E. Brown, Gospel According to St. John (AB 29–29a; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966–70) 2.744–8; G. R. O’Day, ‘“I Have Overcome the World” (John 16:33): Narrative Time in John 13–17’, Sem 53 (1991) 153–66, at 163–4; C. Hoegen-Rohls, Der nachösterliche Johannes: Die Abschiedsreden als hermeneutischer Schlüssel zum vierten Evangelium (WUNT 2/84; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 230–55; G. Parsenios, ‘“No Longer in the World” (John 17:11): The Transformation of the Tragic in the Fourth Gospel’, HTR 98 (2005) 1–21; M. M. Thompson, John: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Kox, 2015) 347; P. Van den Heede, Der Exeget Gottes: Studien zur johanneischen Offenbarungstheologie (HBS 86; Freiburg: Herder, 2019) 294; J. Zumstein, L’Évangile Selon Saint Jean (13–21) (CNT IVb; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2007) 160.

2 V. Platt, Facing the Gods: Epiphany and Representation in Graeco-Roman Art, Literature and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 71, 173–80, 232–5, 391–3; G. Petridou, Divine Epiphany in Greek Literature and Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) 23–7.

3 Josiah D. Hall, Divine Presence and Absence in the Gospel of John (SNTSMS; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming) ch. 2.

4 E.g. Brown, Gospel, 1.503–4; 360–73; M. Theobald, Die Fleischwerdung des Logos: Studien zum Verhältnis des Johannesprologs zum Corpus des Evangeliums und zu 1 Joh (NTAbh 4; Münster: Aschendorffsche, 1988) 255–63, 360–73; M. Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2001) 31–64; N. Chibici-Revneanu, Die Herrlichkeit des Verherrlichten: Das Versändnis der δόξα im Johannesevangelium (WUNT 2/231; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) 405–12; E. Käfer, Die Rezeption der Sinaitradition im Evangelium nach Johannes (WUNT 2/502; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019) 107–17; B. E. Wilson, ‘Seeing Jesus, Seeing God: Theophany and Divine Visibility in the Gospel of John’, Early High Christology: John Among New Testament Authors (ed. C. Blumhofer, D. Chen and J. B. Green; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2024) 53–62.

5 For example, God renames Jacob ‘Israel’ in Gen 32.28 during Jacob’s theophany at Peniel. As with other theophanies, this divine encounter is used to explain both Israel’s name and a practice (Gen 32.33). Philo, however, argues that ‘Israel’ means ‘He who sees God’ rather than ‘strives with God’ (from the root שׂרח; Abr. 12.56–7).

6 C. H. Williams, ‘(Not) Seeing God in the Prologue and Body of John’s Gospel’, The Prologue of the Gospel of John (ed. J. G. van der Watt, R. A. Culpepper and U. Schnelle; WUNT I/359; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016) 87–98.

7 This translation reflects the fact that John 1.18 lacks a direct object for ἐξηγήσατο. On the connection of ἐξηγέομαι to the interpretation of epiphanies in the Greco-Roman world see Van den Heede, Exeget Gottes, 70–2.

8 B. E. Wilson, The Embodied God: Seeing the Divine in Luke-Acts and the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021) 60–1. See also E. Pax, Ἐπιφάνεια: Ein religionsgeschichtlichter Beitrag zur biblischen Theologie (MTS 1; München: Zink, 1955); U. Mauser, Gottesbild und Menschwerdung: Eine Untersuchung zur Einheit des Alten und Neuen Testaments (BHTh 43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971); M. Frenchkowski, Offenbarung und Epiphanie (2 vols.; WUNT 2/79–80; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995, 1997); M. M. Mitchell, ‘Epiphanic Evolutions in Earliest Christianity’, ICS 29 (2004) 183–204; P. E. Kinlaw, The Christ Is Jesus: Metamorphosis, Possession, and Johannine Christology (SBLAB 18; Atlanta: SBL, 2005) 15–67; M. D. Litwa, Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014) 111–40.

9 Wilson, Embodied God, 57. Petridou (Divine Epiphanies, 29–106) identifies seven possible types of epiphanies: (1) anthropomorphic; (2) enacted (e.g. through cultic and dramatic performances); (3) effigies; (4) φάσμα (ethereal or ghostly forms, but also natural phenomena); (5) pars pro toto (i.e. body parts or the effects of body parts having been present); (6) zoomorphic; (7) amorphous (i.e. ‘manifestations of power’, 98). Platt emphasises that epiphanies are mediated through culture, therefore leading to varied presentations and regular debate (Facing the Gods, 22–4).

10 Wilson, Embodied God, 63. D. Forger highlights the theophanic element of Jesus’ speech in John, ‘Because the physical act of speaking creates sound, and sound becomes perceptible to persons through the sense of hearing, Jesus’ words concretize Israel’s God. … they render the Father accessible in the somatic realm’ (‘Jesus as God’s Word(s): Aurality, Epistemology and Embodiment in the Gospel of John’, JSNT 42 (2020) 274–302, at 276). This somatic revelation includes the later reading of the Gospel to audiences (295–6).

11 E.g. Plutarch Mor. 309f–10a; Pausanias 7.9.6–9; Platt, Facing the Gods, 17–9. Purification is required when one approaches God in the Torah (e.g. Exod 19–20; 25–31; 35–40; Lev), though God may self-disclose to whomever he so wishes, regardless of purity (e.g. Gen 18.1–2; 32.22–32; Exod 3.2–4.17; Josh 1.1–9; Isa 6.1–10; Wilson, Embodied God, 61, 65). J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 21–31; J. Lennon, ‘Pollution, Religion and Society in the Roman World’, Rome, Pollution and Propriety: Dirt, Disease and Hygiene in the Eternal City from Antiquity to Modernity (ed. M. Bradley with K. Stow; British School at Rome Series; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) 43–58, at 45; R. Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purgation in Early Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983) 160–3; M. Blidstein, ‘Purity and Defilement in the Greco-Roman East and in Judaism’, Purity, Community, and Ritual in Early Christian Literature (ed. M. Blidstein; Oxford Studies in the Abrahamic Religions; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) 18–58.

12 See, e.g. Hippocrates, De morbo sacro 4.364. Blidstein (‘Purity and Defilement’, 30–2) notes the close connection between purification, healing and medicine in the Greco-Roman world in medical writings and with the popularity of the incubatory sanctuaries. Focusing on Jewish contexts, Klawans notes that morally impure people could enter the temple, and sometimes were instructed to do so (e.g. Exod 21.14; Num 5.11–31) since the temple was where sacrifices were made to atone for sins and thus purify the sanctuary, even as individuals and the land remained defiled, building toward exile (Lev 18.28; Ezek 36.19; Klawans, Impurity, 26–31). See also W. Rogan, Purity in the Fourth Gospel: Early Jewish Tradition, Christology, and Ethics (LNTS 679; London: T&T Clark, 2023) 64–76.

13 E.g. Sophocles, Oed. Tyr. 863–97; Callimachus, Hymn 5.100–2; Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.30–1. Petridou cites Il. 20.129–31, which she translates: ‘Gods are dangerous when they manifest themselves clearly/openly’ (Divine Epiphany, 38). This divine unapproachability is similar to Mary Douglas’ conclusions about holiness ‘breaking out’ in Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 149–50. Parker suggests that Greek religion did not see this danger as holiness, but rather, as unmediated divine power that destroyed unprepared humans (Miasma, 179–80).

14 Petridou, Divine Epiphany, 3–5.

15 Petridou, Divine Epiphany, 16–17, 329–43; Platt, Facing the Gods, 52, 124–69.

16 Petridou, Divine Epiphany, 36–7, 41. E.g. Homer, Od. 10.573–4; Hymn Hom. Dem. 111; Hymn Hom. Ven. 185–6; Euripides, Bacch. 501–2. Philo argues that the pursuit of virtue is rewarded by seeing God. He describes Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as, ‘All alike are God-lovers and God-beloved (πάντας φιλοθέους ὁμοῦ καὶ θεοφιλεῖς) and their affection for the true God was returned by him, who deigned, as his utterances shew, in recognition of their high and lifelong virtues’ (Abr. 50 (ed. F. H. Colson; LCL 289; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929); see also Cher. 49).

17 Petridou, Divine Epiphany, 42; cf. S. M. Olyan, Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000) 11–14.

18 Petridou (Divine Epiphany, 25) records an inscription from the oracle of Didyma (2nd c. ce) in which the ‘priestess of Thesmophoros Demeter Alexandra’ asks why she receives many epiphanies now that she is a priestess.

19 Platt, Facing the Gods, 215–52. Platt argues that votives depicting epiphanic encounters in temples ‘anticipate the epiphanic viewing of a cult statue’ even as they ‘simultaneously raise the possibility of an encounter with the deity itself’ (43). On divine involvement in daily life, see M. Flower, ‘Divination and the “Real Presence” of the Divine in Ancient Greece’, Ancient Divination and Experience (ed. L. G. Driediger-Murphy and E. Eidinow; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019) 203–25; C. Seglenieks, Johannine Belief and Graeco-Roman Devotion: Reshaping Devotion for John’s Graeco-Roman Audience (WUNT 2/528; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020) 129–43.

20 Ekphrasis is vivid description that aims to ‘bring what is portrayed clearly before the sight’ (Theon, Prog. 118 (G. Kennedy, Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (WGRW, Atlanta: SBL, 2003) 45); cf. Quintilian, Inst. 8.3.61–72; 9.2.40–4). Prosopopoeia, also called ethopoeia, is speech-in-character, which seeks to give appropriate voice to a chosen character (Theon, Prog. 115; cf. Quintilian, Inst. 3.8.49–54; 9.2.29–37). Platt uses a variety of examples, including presentations of Phidias’ statue of Zeus which is both described and given voice in various texts (Facing the Gods 224–35).

21 Platt gives the example of the Lindo stele that memorialises an epiphany of Athena. The stele highlights the Lindians’ experience of her absence by recalling her previous appearance as a form of comfort (Facing the Gods, 161–9). Hall connects Platt’s example to the Gospel of John in Divine Presence, ch. 10.

22 Petridou offers an extensive list of terms in Divine Epiphany, 3–5. Several words that are relevant to John’s Gospel include φαίνω, φῶς, φανωερός, ὁράω, προσέρχομαι, δύναμις, δείκνυμι, δέχομαι, εἰσάγω and σωτήρ.

23 John 1.26, 29–34, 45; 6.41–2; 7.41–2; 8.57. These passages support M. M. Thompson’s argument that Jesus’ humanness is assumed rather than argued in John (‘The Human Jesus in the Gospel of John: The Word Made Flesh’, Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John (ed. C. R. Koester; LNTS 589; London: T&T Clark, 2019) 17–30, at 20–3). Thus, while E. Käsemann’s attention to Jesus’ embodiment of the divine is helpful, he takes the conclusion too far (Testament of Jesus: A Study on the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17 (trans. G. Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) 10–13). As J. Frey argues, Jesus’ humanness is part of God’s permanent self-disclosure from the moment of incarnation (The Glory of the Crucified One: Christology and Theology in the Gospel of John (trans. W. Coppins and C. Heilig; BMSEC; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2018) 280–2).

24 E.g. John 7.30, 44; 8.20; 9.6; 10.39; 18.5–12; 20.17, 27.

25 E.g. John 3.17–21, 31–6; 8.24; 9.40–1; 15.22–5. Hall suggests Jesus’ departure in John is a combination of judgement and blessing for those left behind depending on their recognition of Jesus (Divine Presence, ch. 8).

26 The Gospel notes that there are additional signs not included (20.29–31; 2.24–5) and contains ambiguous promises from Jesus that believers will see and do ‘greater things’ (1.51; 14.12). The Spirit offers ongoing connection by reminding and reinterpreting Jesus’ words for later audiences in ways that are represented in the Gospel itself (2.22; 12.16–17), while leaving the door open for additional possibilities.

27 For a summary of interpretations of Jesus’ prayers in John, see W. S. North, ‘Jesus’ Prayer in John 11’, The Old Testament in the New Testament (ed. S. Moyise; JSNTSup 189; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000) 164–80, at 167–8. A. T. Lincoln (‘God’s Name, Jesus’ Name, and Prayer in the Fourth Gospel’, Into God’s Presence: Prayer in the New Testament (ed. R. N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 155–80) understands prayer as ‘presuppose[ing] a two-sided relationship in which there is a petitioning and a response – both an asking and an answering’ (158). According to this definition, then, Jesus’ first two prayers are ‘accommodations’ for the audiences, and John 17 only offers a list of petitions without an explicit answer (157–8). M. Wilcox, ‘The “Prayer” of Jesus in John xi.41b–42’, NTS 24 (1977) 128–32; G. R. O’Day, ‘John’, New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary (ed. L. Keck; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998) 491–865 at 691–2; Thompson, John, 250.

28 This thundering voice links to theophanies from Israel’s Exodus, including God’s rescuing the Israelites like a shepherd who guides his sheep through the sea in Ps 76 (lxx) and God’s appearance at Sinai (Exod 19). In Ps 76.18 God comes as a ‘voice/sound of your thunder’ (φωνὴ τῆς βροντῆς σου), while Exod 19.16 describes ‘voices/sounds and lightnings and a dark cloud (φωναὶ καὶ ἀστραπαὶ καὶ νεφέλη γνοφώδης ἐπ̓ ὄρους Σινα)’. Thunder was also a theophanic sign in Greco-Roman contexts, particularly when associated with Zeus (Petridou, Divine Epiphany, 103; e.g. Aeschylus, Prom. 994–5)

29 These descriptions of pre-existent glory recall John 1.1–5, 14–18. This resumption of themes from John 1, with its connection to the Sinai theophany, further reinforces the theophanic elements of John 17. On connections between John 1 and 17 see, e.g. F. J. Moloney, The Gospel of John: Text and Context (BibInt 72; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 461; C. S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003) 2.1052–4; Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 252; A. J. Akala, The Son-Father Relationship and Christological Symbolism in the Gospel of John (LNTS 505; London: T&T Clark, 2015) 186–92.

30 See also the use of ἐμφανίζω in 14.21–2. On manifestations of the Divine Name see Wilson, Embodied God 108–12. D. Forger (‘Divine Embodiment in Jewish Antiquity: Rediscovering the Jewishness of John’s Incarnate Christ’, JSJ 49 (2018) 108–15, 128–43) notes the depictions of Moses and the Jewish high priest embodying God’s name in Philo (Mos. 1.158; Sacr. 9) and Josephus (Ant. 11.302–45).

31 Petridou, Divine Epiphany, 20–2, 38–9. Jesus’ ability (δύναμαι) is a key point in his discussion with Nicodemus in John 3.2–11.

33 See John 11.42 and 17.8, 21, 23, 25 which contain the only occurrences of the phrase σύ με ἀπέστειλας in the Gospel.

32 Many interpreters connect the Father’s ‘name’ in 17.4 to Jesus’ repeated use of ‘I am’ throughout the Gospel (Brown, Gospel, 2.754–7; Keener, Gospel, 2.1056; Lincoln, ‘God’s Name’, 164–5). C. Williams argues persuasively that Jesus’ use of ‘I am’ is a reference to God’s theophany before Moses as interpreted in Isa 40–55 (I Am He: The Interpretation of ʾ Anî Hû’ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (WUNT 2/113; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 255–306). See also Platt, Facing the Gods, 58 above.

34 Petridou, Divine Epiphany, 30–1.

35 As Sunny Kuan-Hui Wang explains, ‘Theophanies bridge the gulf between humans and the divine. Certain knowledge of God is revealed and leads to life-changing transformation of the characters who encounter Him’ (Sense Perception and Testimony in the Gospel According to John (WUNT 2/435; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017) 55). C. Bennema, ‘Christ, the Spirit and the Knowledge of God: A Study in Johannine Epistemology’, The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God (ed. M. Healy and R. Parry; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007) 107–33, at 113–4.

36 The importance of ‘seeing’ Jesus’ crucified form is underscored in John 19.35–7 (cf. 21.24–5). The emphasis on the truthful eyewitness is similar to Pausanias’ concern to communicate the ‘truthfulness’ of his own epiphanic reports (e.g. 1.4.4; 10.19.5, 23.2). Platt suggests the vividness of Pausanias’ retelling of epiphanies is ‘a means whereby Pausanias can animate the world he has explored for his readers, generating a verbal form of energeia that allows the text itself to function as a virtual experience of sacred theōria’ (Platt, Facing the Gods, 219–20).

37 Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 114–24.

38 E.g. Brown, Gospel, 2.765–6; Moloney, Gospel of John, 469; Thompson, John, 355; Zumstein, L’Evangile, 178–9; Marianus Pale Hera, Christology and Discipleship in John 17 (WUNT 2/342; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) 148–50; Van der Heede, Exeget Gottes, 299–300; R. Bauckham, ‘The Holiness of Jesus and His Disciples in the Gospel of John’, Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament (ed. K. E. Brower and A. Johnson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 95–113, at 111–12; A. J. Byers, Ecclesiology and Theosis in the Gospel of John (SNTSMS 166; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017) 186–99; M. L. Coloe, John 11–21 (Wisdom Commentary Series 44; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2021) 466.

39 Especially because of Jesus’ use of ὑπὲρ in 17.19 (καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἁγιάζω ἐμαυτόν, ἵνα ὦσιν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἡγιασμένοι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ). See, e.g. Frey, Glory of the Crucified One, 182–97; Moloney, Gospel of John, 469–71.

40 E.g. Ps 51; Ezek 36.24–7; Jer 40 (lxx); Jub. 1.23–5; 1QS 3.2–9; 4.20–3. Rogan, Purity in the Fourth Gospel, 64–76. Blidstein (‘Purity and Defilement’, 50–3) connects purification by means of God’s holy spirit to growing emphasis on impure spirits in Second Temple Jewish literature. See also M. Thiessen, Jesus and the Forces of Death: The Gospels’ Portrayal of Ritual Purity within First-Century Judaism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2020) 123–39.

41 J. Leonhardt-Balzer, ‘The Ruler of the World, Antichrists, and Pseudo-Prophets: Johannine Variations on an Apocalyptic Motif’, John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic (ed. C. H. Williams and C. Rowland; London: T&T Clark, 2013) 186–7.

42 E.g. Brown, Gospel, 2.762; Keener, Gospel, 2.1060–1; Thompson, John, 355; Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 567–75; Bauckham, ‘Holiness of Jesus’, 112; Zumstein, L’Evangile, 285; Hera, Christology, 149.

43 Troels Engberg-Pedersen, John and Philosophy: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) 282–4; Van der Heede, Exeget Gottes, 302.

44 See n. 17 on epiphanic experiences showing people to be ‘friends’ or ‘beloved’ of the divine.

45 Platt (Facing the Gods, 135–47, 217–8) explores how epiphanies could fuel assimilation and resistance, especially during the Roman imperial period. Resistance is discernible in Jewish festivals that highlight God’s intervening theophanies in Israel’s history, which also made these times of potential violent resistance to Rome (S. Weitzman, ‘From Feasts into Mourning: The Violence of Early Jewish Festivals’, JR 79 (1999) 545–65). John’s Gospel participates in the anti-imperial rhetoric that theophanies can provide by presenting an alternative to Rome’s narrative.

46 R. Chennattu makes a similar observation, though without using theophany language, in her focus on the covenant in John (Johannine Discipleship as a Covenant Relationship (Peabody: Hendricksen, 2006) 135). While Byers (Ecclesiology) uses patristic language of theosis to describe this unity, discussing transformation in light of the cultural expectations of epiphanies is more firmly situated in John’s milieu.

47 Williams, ‘(Not) Seeing’, 97–8; M. Kotrosits (The Lives of Objects: Material Culture, Experience, and the Real in the History of Early Christianity (NSR; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2020) 44–6) helpfully situates this ruination and rebuilding of narratives in imperial contexts.

48 S. Lim, Otherness and Identity in the Gospel of John (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021) 31–6, 126.

49 F. F. Segovia, ‘Inclusion and Exclusion in John 17: An Intercultural Reading’, What Is John? Vol. II: Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel (SBLSymS 7; Atlanta: Scholars, 1998) 183–209; A. Reinhartz, Cast Out of the Covenant: Jews and Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of John (Lanham: Lexington/Fortress, 2018).

Figure 0

Table 1. Commonalities in Jesus’ Prayer Scenes in JohnTable 1 long description.