Theological Affinities of Revelation with the Gospel According to John
(avg. read time: 21–42 mins.)
Today’s post is akin to what I have done on a few occasions of primarily interacting with one article (or a dissertation in one case) on the subject of the day (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). This time, we are looking at:
Andreas Köstenberger, “Theological Affinities Between the Fourth Gospel and the Book of Revelation,” Perichoresis 22.2 (2024): 46–67. (available here)
This is a subject I have wanted to explore with more focus than I did in my post on Revelation as the climax of the NT. That post did feature some connections with the Gospel according to John and other Johannine works, but it was not a particular emphasis thereof. Köstenberger makes his observations in the context of arguing a case for common authorship of the Gospel and Revelation. This is a decidedly minority position in NT scholarship. Not that that has bothered me before, but the reader should be aware of it. While I am primarily interested in the theological affinities themselves, and I would like to address the matter of authorship more fully another time (I have written about the date of the book as part of this post), we might as well also address Köstenberger’s larger case.
Arguments About Authorship and Context
I agree with Köstenberger that common claims of contrast between the Gospel and Revelation tend to be exaggerated, such as in the popular claim that the Gospel and Revelation operate with contradictory eschatologies (46–47). Such claims tend to depend on theories of the history of the Gospel that are questionable at best, so that the assumption is that those parts conveying future expectation are later additions by someone other than the original author. I have written on matters related to the eschatology of John and 1 John in various places (see here, here, here, here, and here), and I have seen no good reason to grant this presumption of some entirely realized eschatology in John. (Also see Köstenberger’s article for some examples of future eschatology in John on 55–56.)
While there are some obvious differences of vocabulary and non-overlapping style, I have made clear before (such as here and here) that I think scholars have tendencies to overestimate the significance of these things and to overestimate their own abilities to distinguish authors based on their impressions of style. Since we never have a complete catalogue of all the words an author knows, arguments for authorship based on vocabulary tend to be weak one way or the other. Nor do practical considerations tend to come into view, such as when else a term was supposed to have been used, and why an author would have felt compelled to use such a term, even if apropos of nothing.
As it is, Köstenberger notes that Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza observed eight terms that are exclusive to John and Revelation in the NT (49). He rightly notes that this ignores the many terms (dozens, if not hundreds used multiple times apiece) shared between Revelation and John that are also shared with other works of the NT. These are less distinct indications of shared authorship, but there is no reason to ignore them altogether in an argument based on vocabulary. One wonders what results would come when applying such a peculiar rubric to other works of common authorship or ones that are otherwise not claimed to be by the same author (or how often and for what reasons words are peculiar to a corpus by one author). Not all shared terms are particularly significant either, as I would suggest is true for three of the eight words she lists.1 Some corrections also need to be made:
The verb translated as “surround” (κυκλόω) is not exclusive to John and Revelation (see Luke 21:20; John 10:24; Acts 14:20; Heb 11:30; Rev 20:9). It is on the list by mistake.
One word should be added to the list if we are trying to be comprehensive: δέκατος (“tenth”; John 1:39; Rev 11:13; 21:20).
If one adds 1 John to the consideration, as another work with many affinities with the Gospel, there is one term uniquely shared between them in terms of describing the slaughter of Christ or the faithful: σφάζω (1 John 3:12; Rev 5:6, 9, 12; 6:4, 9; 13:3, 8; 18:24)
The remaining identified terms that are arguably more significant in terms of links they make between the texts are:
ἐκκεντέω (“pierced”) in John 19:37 and Rev 1:7 is significant because both texts draw from the same passage of Zech 12:10 and both use a translation different from the LXX/OG (Aquila and Theodotion use the verb here while Symmachus has an extra prefixed preposition). The use of this text identifies Jesus with God as the subject of Zech 12:10.
ἀρνίον (“lamb”) is more significant in Revelation (where it is used twenty-nine times)2 than in John (where it appears once in 21:15). It is so frequent because it is a pervasive visual representation of Jesus as a diminutive but exalted lamb (hence the difference in terminology from other uses in John besides one that describes his followers in the aforementioned reference).
The use of φοίνιχ (“palm tree/branch”) on two occasions (John 12:13; Rev 7:9) may have significance because of the connected contexts of praising King Jesus.
The verb σκηνόω (“dwell” or “tabernacle”) only appears in these texts to signify either the divine dwelling with humans (whether in the incarnation or the eschatological future) or of those currently dwelling in the heavens (John 1:14; Rev 7:15; 12:12; 13:6; 21:3).
One could also add the terms that are more characteristic of Johannine literature—in the sense that they appear more often in Johannine literature than in the rest of the NT combined—that appear in Revelation. Again, most of these are not especially significant.3 Others are fairly common in the NT but appear the majority of the time in Johannine literature.4 The latter include terms that Johannine literature certainly puts to significant use but which are rather common words overall, like ὕδωρ (“water”; forty-three times in Johannine literature out of seventy-six total uses in the NT) and κόσμος (“world”; 105 times in Johannine literature out of 186 total uses in the NT, only three of which are in Revelation).
But a few others are noteworthy for their prevalence. One is one of the prominent terms for witness/testimony: μαρτυρία. While witness terminology more generally is common, this term is notable for being peculiarly prevalent in Johannine literature, appearing thirty out of thirty-seven times in this corpus.5 Another term I have examined on multiple occasions is the verb νικάω (“I conquer, overcome, am victorious”), which occurs twenty-four out of twenty-eight times in this corpus.6 A significant image of the “crown” (στέφανος) appears ten out of eighteen times in this corpus.7 Finally, for as important as “truth” terminology is to Johannine literature, one that is especially characteristic of this corpus is ἀληθινός (“true”), which is used twenty-three times out of twenty-eight here.8 The other truth terms are not used here like in other Johannine works, perhaps because of this term’s particular linkage with integrity, trustworthiness, and faithfulness (as well as veracity), which fits various thematic emphases in Revelation.
Conversely, there are many terms that are unique to Revelation, but that is not unusual. Every book in the NT has unique terms, and the longer books tend to have more of them. Some of these in Revelation are terms like “Nicolaitans,” names of tribes of Israel, names of stones, or names of cities where there is no obvious reason why they would be mentioned anywhere else. The same applies to terms that appear predominantly in Revelation, including numbers like “seven” (fifty-five out of eighty-eight uses in the NT appear in Revelation). I have counted seventy-four terms that appear elsewhere in the NT, not in the rest of the Johannine corpus, and which appear more often in Revelation than the rest of the NT combined. Most of these terms appear less than ten times in total,9 or at least less than ten times in Revelation.10 More common words in this category include ἀστήρ (“star”; 14/24); χρυσοῦς (“golden”; 15/18); φυλή (“tribe”; 21/31); ζῷον (“animal/beast/living creature”; 20/23); σφραγίς (“seal”; 13/16); κέρας (“horn”; 10/11); ἀριθμός (“number”; 11/18); χιλιάς (“thousand”; 19/23); ἵππος (“horse”; 16/17); καπνός (“smoke”; 12/13); σαλπίζω (“sound [a trumpet]”; 10/12); πληγή (“plague”; 16/22); θυμός (“wrath”; 10/18); and πυλών (“gate”; 11/18). The two most significant in this category in terms of sheer number and thematic significance are θηρίον (“[wild] beast”; 39/46) and θρόνος (“throne”; 47/62), both of which are also imagistic terms befitting this text’s focus on visions. But again, it is not clear why we should grant that any of these words should have been used in other Johannine literature if they were written by the same person.
Fiorenza also noted differences in terminology for common reference points, such as John preferring to use ἀμνός and Revelation showing a preference for ἀρνίον when both terms refer to Christ as the Lamb (49). But the fact is that both texts use different terms within themselves to refer to lambs/sheep, as both also use πρόβατον, which is by far more common in John than either term, and John 21:15 uses ἀρνίον for referring to Jesus’s followers. The overwhelming preference in Revelation is due to the visionary element of seeing Jesus represented in this way, and the ironic juxtaposition of Jesus as the diminutive but exalted Lamb (as well as one slaughtered like the followers of Jesus) may further serve the purpose of identifying Jesus with his followers and vice versa.
Her second example is of the use of ἰδού vs. ἴδε, two forms of expressing the command to see or behold. The former is a common element of Revelation, and it has four uses in the Gospel (4:35; 12:15; 16:32; 19:5), while the imperative form of ὁράω appears exclusively in the NT in four places in the Gospel (1:46; 7:52; 11:34; 20:27). This is not really any sort of indicative comparison, though. The second verb only ever occurs as a second command following another, whereas the first verb works as an initial command, has a more general function as an attention-getter (like the Hebrew הִנֵּה), and it is obviously especially appropriate for a visionary context like an apocalypse.
The third difference she points to is the differentiation in the spelling of “Jerusalem” (Ἱεροσόλυμα in the Gospel vs. Ἰερουσαλήμ in Revelation for all the three times it appears). It is true that one spelling is restricted to one text and the other to the other text (see John 1:19; 2:13, 23; 4:20–21, 45; 5:1–2; 10:22; 11:18, 55; 12:12; Rev 3:12; 21:2, 10). However, the significance of this variation is questionable, considering that works by the same authors use different spellings, as Matthew uses both spellings, Luke uses both within Luke and within Acts, and Paul uses different spellings within Galatians, while using only one in Romans and 1 Corinthians.
Finally, she observes that only Revelation uses ψευδής (“false/liar”; Rev 2:2; 21:8) while John uses ψεύστης (“liar”; John 8:44, 55; cf. 1 John 1:10; 2:4, 22; 4:20; 5:10). Since each text only uses the respective terms twice, it is difficult to put too much weight on this variation. Moreover, both use ψεῦδος in John 8:44; Rev 14:5; 21:27; and 22:15 (cf. 1 John 2:21, 27), but that is apparently not considered a contraindication to her observation by her metric.
Köstenberger moves on to address genre considerations and subtle indications of common authorship despite the genre differences. On the one hand, he observes that Mozart’s The Magical Flute and Requiem would likely be assigned to different composers by the arguments of modern biblical scholarship, even though they were definitely written by the same person in the same year. Significant differences in genre account for many of the differences between the works (51). On the other hand, he points to subtle commonalities like the importance of the number seven to both the Gospel and Revelation. This is not apparent from a simple consideration of vocabulary, since the word never appears in John while it appears in Revelation more than in the rest of the NT combined (as noted above). However, it is clearly of thematic and structural significance in both works, as the Gospel presents seven signs of Jesus, seven “I am” sayings, seven witnesses to Jesus (51), and, I would add, seven disciples present at the last narrated appearance of the resurrected Jesus. One could probably find other patterns of seven in the Gospel as well.
There are, of course, major differences in genre for these respective works. But I think that Köstenberger exaggerates differences in occasion for writing. I am not convinced that the recipients of the Gospel are unbelieving Jews or proselytes (52), particularly if the Gospel assumes some degree of knowledge of the other Gospels or at least other gospel traditions. I think the purpose of John can be rightly described as being overall similar to that of Revelation (52). I generally agree with how Köstenberger describes the rhetorical strategies of these works, but clearly, as I have highlighted elsewhere (see here, here, here, here, here, and here, as well as posts on Revelation in relation to the OT and the rest of the NT), there is a sense, especially in the earlier chapters, of assuming the significance of Jesus’s first coming as outlined in previous teaching. I also think he’s incorrect to say that the setting of John as opposed to Revelation is one of little or no persecution (or at least conflict), as I have sought to show in this series (particularly here and here), and while such an experience may be intensified in Revelation, I do not think the contrast is as stark as he presents (53).
Johannine Worldview Considerations
With all that said, we can now attend more to the actual posited theological affinities. Köstenberger begins by arguing for complementary differences in presentation by the Gospel and Revelation (53–54). The Gospel focuses on Christ’s incarnation with much of the prologue concerning his work pre-incarnation, and Revelation focuses on the glorified Christ whose work constituting the major events of the gospel story has been completed to this point. Particularly because of the incarnation and the events of the gospel story, the Gospel according to John focuses on God’s immanence, whereas Revelation focuses on God’s transcendence. Neither presentation denies the emphatic element of the other, of course; rather, their differences in emphasis and presentation fit together. While the Gospel focuses on the initiation of salvation through the work of Christ, the heavenly birth he provides, and the need to abide in him for the reception of his promises, Revelation focuses on the consummation of Christ’s salvific work, the goal of what is promised, and the need for perseverance in the present to attain the promises of God. These emphases also fit how the Gospel has a spatial focus on earth while Revelation has a spatial focus on heaven. The Gospel also points to Jesus’s heavenly life before his incarnation as well as what is still to come from heaven to earth after Jesus has gone from earth to heaven. Conversely, Revelation may focus its setting on heaven and the heavenly perspective provided on earthly events, but the visions refer to many events on earth, and even as John was called up from earth to heaven, there are promises, especially in the closing chapters, of what will come from heaven to earth.
While Köstenberger’s section on worldview could certainly be expanded (in line with my analysis of the subject here), the basic point he makes is sound (54). Both texts stress their continuity with the Scripture that came before them. For the Gospel, this includes quotes of Scripture pointing to fulfillment, allusions to prophecy, allusions to stories, the invocations of festivals and holy days in the presentation of Jesus, general references to the fulfillment of Scripture, Jesus speaking of how the Scriptures testify for him, and so on. In my aforementioned dedicated post to Revelation and its relationship to the OT, we see many varied uses in which language and imagery is taken from the OT, the multitudinous allusions to texts and themes drawn from across the OT, and the general approach in showing how this vision presents the hoped-for climax of that grand scriptural narrative (cf. 57).
I also tend to agree with Köstenberger’s other points about the worldview exemplified in both texts. Both texts have a universal outlook (or one might say “global/worldwide scope”) that is often obscured by claims of sectarianism (55). I have already alluded to the future-oriented aspects of the Gospel according to John that I have addressed elsewhere (55–56), as well as the use of the OT (57). There is also something to be said about the fact that John and Revelation tend to characterize the world in terms of polar opposites, such as light and darkness in the Gospel and bearing the seal of God vs. the mark of the beast in Revelation (56–57). They also share characterizations of Satan as the accuser of the faithful and the antagonist of Jesus (John 8:44; 13:2, 27; 17:15; 1 John 2:13–14; 3:8, 10; 5:18–19; Rev 2:9–10; 3:9; 12). Both texts even use both references to him as “Satan” and “the devil”. Jesus’s characterization of Satan as “ruler of this world” in the Gospel (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) is borne out at various points in Revelation, but especially in ch. 13. The two documents also complement each other in that the judgment of Satan has been inaugurated with the gospel, but its consummation is in the future that the vision of Revelation conveys in ch. 20 (57–58). Although Köstenberger did not directly address it here, what we have noted in several other posts on Johannine texts elsewhere applies here; namely, one can see a common framework of cosmic conflict in the Gospel according to John, the Johannine epistles, and, most vividly, Revelation.
Christological Identifications
Next, Köstenberger moves to what he curiously labels “theological affinities,” as if the previous section was not addressing such, when what he means is terminological affinities that signify theological affinities. The first of these that he examines is the fact that John and Revelation uniquely refer to Jesus as “the Word of God” (58). I do not know that Isa 55:10–11 should be posited as the particular antecedent for this notion, but it is certainly an illustrative example of beliefs about God’s word (also see here and here). And while Jesus is linked with God’s word elsewhere, it is true that he is only referred to as God’s Word in John 1:1–18 and Rev 19:13. In the former text, this name is primarily in reference to him pre-Incarnation (also see here), but in Revelation it has the more encompassing sense of referring to his work before, throughout, and at the culmination of history. This is obviously compatible with the Gospel because the Jesus we know in the Gospel and its major salvific events is none other than the Word of God incarnate. Revelation simply describes him with a perspective that also includes the gospel story with a view to his future action. He is the one through whom God’s will for creation was first implemented. He is the revealer of God, especially in his incarnate life and his return. And ultimately, he is the one who will fulfill the plan of God by bringing his salvific will to fruition in raising the dead, executing the final judgment, and establishing the new creation. He is the executor of God’s will from creation to eschaton and beyond.
The second of these affinities that he observes is the reference to Jesus as “Lamb of God” (59). We have already discussed this to some degree. The notion of Jesus being the Lamb is not exclusive to Johannine literature (Acts 8:32; 1 Pet 1:19), but it is especially significant to the language and imagery of John’s works (besides the direct references in texts like John 1:29, 36, note texts like John 19:36).
In ch. 5, we see a crucial transition in how Jesus is presented, as the primary reference to him from here until the last chapter is as the Lamb (5:6, 8, 12–13; 6:1, 16; 7:9–10, 14, 17; 12:11; 13:8; 14:1, 4, 10; 15:3; 17:14; 19:7, 9; 21:9, 14, 22–23, 27; 22:1, 3). Revelation is the primary source for this imagery about Jesus, as he is not actually referred to in such a way that often elsewhere in the NT. A synonymous term with what John uses in Revelation appears in John 1:29, 36; and 1 Pet 1:19 (cf. Acts 8:32). While these references from John and 1 Peter are structurally significant in their respective texts, only Revelation makes this description this prominent. Moreover, he is presented as the Lamb who was slain and yet still stands and occupies the throne, which at least partially explains why he is so frequently referred to as the Lamb once he is first presented that way in ch. 5. That is, the depiction of him as a slain yet living and reigning Lamb is an ever-present reminder of the gospel narrative, as it quite succinctly condenses the three major events of his death, resurrection, and exaltation into this image.
The lamb imagery derives from several OT texts, but in general it conveys paschal imagery, sacrificial imagery, or both. In this case, it is likely that the latter is foremost, which would, of course, fit the point made in many NT texts concerning how Jesus fulfills the sacrificial system. Also, the fact that the Lamb still bears the appearance of being slaughtered while still living could resonate with the Gospel according to John in particular—as well as secondarily with Luke—given the emphasis on the marks of crucifixion that Jesus bore after his resurrection. Just as in Revelation, these scars are not the marks of something lost but of something conquered. Just as Jesus fulfilled Scripture by his death and resurrection and bore the marks of that victory he enacted by resurrection and ascension, so too will those in union with him bear the marks of his victory at the fulfillment of the ages. This is how he shares his victory over sin and death with his followers as they are made lambs like him (and so we are reminded of Jesus referring to his followers as sheep in texts like John 10).
Witness in John and Revelation
Köstenberger then notes the significance of “witness/testimony” language in Johannine literature in the diverse forms it appears (59–60). From the beginning of Revelation, John tells us that he testifies to “the word of God” and “the testimony of Jesus Christ” (1:2). The same pair appears in 1:9 and 20:4 and the phrase “word of God” by itself also appears with a similar sense in 6:9, where it is also paired with “testimony.” In each of these cases, it is a reference to the gospel (cf. Luke 5:1; 8:11–15, 21; 11:28; Acts 4:29, 31; 6:2, 7; 8:14, 25; 11:1; 12:24; 13:5, 7, 44, 46, 48–49; 15:35–36; 16:32; 17:13; 18:11; 19:10, 20; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; Phil 1:14; Col 1:25; 1 Thess 1:8; 2:13 [2x]; 2 Thess 3:1; 2 Tim 2:9; Titus 1:3; 2:5; Heb 13:7; 1 Pet 1:23). The first phrase identifies God as the source of the gospel, as it is his life-giving word, the story through which he gives everlasting life that goes beyond his initial gift of life. God is also the source of this word in that the word that is the gospel is the execution of his will by the executor of his will that he sent into the world. The second phrase is more of an objective genitive (at least in the usage of Revelation), where Jesus Christ is the object of the action of testimony. One could also think of it as the testimony “about” Christ, so that Christ is the content of the testimony. The word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ are one and the same in concerning the gospel. The word that comes from God is about Jesus Christ, as Jesus was, is, and will be the executor of God’s will. The latter phrase also appears in similar terms in Rev 11:17; 12:11, 17; and 19:10. The proclamation of the gospel is described in similar terms as testimony, especially in Johannine literature, whether by Jesus himself unto death and resurrection (John 3:11, 31–32; 4:44; 5:31; 7:7; 8:13–14, 18; 13:21; 18:37; cf. 1 Tim 2:6; 6:13), by God about Jesus (John 5:32, 34, 36–37, 39; 8:18; 1 John 5:6–11; cf. Acts 10:43; Heb 10:15), or by others about Jesus (John 1:7–8, 15, 19, 32, 34; 3:26; 4:39; 12:17; 15:27; 19:35; 21:24; 1 John 1:2; 4:14; cf. Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31; 22:15, 18, 20; 23:11; 26:16, 22; 1 Cor 1:6; 2 Tim 1:8). What we proclaim in the gospel comes from the will, plan, and promise of God, and the achievement of the same is nothing other than the faithful, loving fulfillment of God’s word by God’s Word.
As observed above, one of the primary functions of disciples in the Gospel according to John specifically is to serve as witnesses to testify to the truth of who Jesus is and what he has done in unison with the Spirit, the Scriptures, and Jesus’s own deeds (on the larger motif, see 1:6–8, 14–15, 29–34; 3:26–30; 4:39–42; 5:33–35, 39, 45–47; 9:8–34; 12:17; 15:26–27; 16:7–11; 19:35; 20:17–18; 21:24). At the center of the disciple’s life and work is the one greater than the disciple, the one to whom the disciple must point (3:30). Through the act of witness/testimony, disciples become participants in the truth to which they testify, that is, of everlasting life, revelatory light, and the fulfillment of Scripture. But disciples can only be witnesses if they have faith. The faith John references as the proper response to Jesus is more than cognitive assent; it is belief in truth enacted and embodied in allegiance (i.e., faithfulness as the supreme expression of faith).
Crucially, Revelation presents the gospel pattern witnessed to by the disciples as the pattern of the victorious life of the faithful Christian. John refers to Jesus as a faithful witness (1:5; 3:14), which, in the context of Revelation as a whole, implies his faithfulness and testimony was unto death, specifically leading directly to his death (cf. Antipas in 2:13, the two witnesses in 11:3, the blood of the witnesses in 17:6, and those beheaded for their testimony in 20:4). But even if that were not so, his death and its efficacy in dealing with sin are still invoked beginning in 1:5. While one could argue, accurately, that this conquest characterizes Jesus’s life as a whole through the lens of Revelation, the action that most fittingly crystallizes that conquest is his resurrection after being a faithful witness unto death. Such an interpretation also makes sense in light of the juxtaposition of conquest and session on the heavenly throne. It is rather common in the NT for reference to the resurrection to be in proximity to reference to the exaltation (Matt 28:18; Acts 1:3–11; 2:31–36; 5:28–32; 7:55–56; 13:30–39; 17:31–32; Rom 1:1–4; 8:34; 1 Cor 15:20–28; Eph 1:17–23; Phil 3:18–21; Col 1:18–20; 2:11–15; Heb 2:5–12; 7:23–27; 12:2; 1 Pet 1:18–21; 3:18–22). In Revelation itself, this link is first made in 1:5. The same gospel progression is also shown, in a more implicit way, in 1:17–18. And as Jesus states in 3:21, this is the same progression for those who adhere to and identify themselves by the gospel when they are faithful followers of Jesus. They can expect the goal of their story to be the same as the goal of this story.
Glory in John and Revelation
Another lexical-thematic affinity he notes is that of glory:
The expression occurs nineteen times in the Fourth Gospel (John 1:14 [2]; 2:11; 5:41, 44 [2]; 7:18 [2]; 8:50, 54; 9:24; 11:4, 40; 12:41, 43 [2]; 17:5, 22, 24) and sixteen times in Revelation (Rev 1:6; 4:9, 11; 5:12, 13; 7:12; 11:13; 14:7; 15:8; 16:9; 18:1; 19:1, 7; 21:11, 23, 24, 26). In addition, the verb doxazō (“to glorify”) occurs twenty-three times in the Fourth Gospel (John 7:39; 8:54 [2]; 11:4; 12:16, 23, 28 [3]; 13:31 [2], 32 [3]; 14:13; 15:8; 16:14; 17:1 [2], 4, 5, 10; 21:19) and twice in Revelation (Rev 15:4; 18:8 [sic. 18:7]). Thus “glory” constitutes a major shared theological concept in these two writings. (60)
I have observed elsewhere how John references Jesus’s glory while making more of a theme of it compared to the other Gospels as Jesus reveals his glory in the incarnation, his signs, and climactically through his crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation (1:14; 2:11; 5:41, 44; 7:18, 39; 8:50, 54; 11:4, 40; 12:16, 23, 28, 41, 43; 13:31–32; 15:8; 17:1–2, 4–5, 10, 22, 24; also see here and here). From the beginning, Jesus revealed the glory of God, but it was not until the last days of his earthly ministry that he most fully disclosed it. This “glory” has multiple dimensions. One, it recalls God’s glory displayed in the exodus and in dwelling among the people in the tabernacle and the temple (Exod 33:7–11; 40:34–38; Num 14:10; 1 Kgs 8:10–11; Pss 26:8; 102:16; Jer 17:12; Ezek 10:4). In other words, this reference to Jesus’s revelation of God’s glory connects him with the Shekinah. Two, as such it evokes new exodus imagery and the promises of God’s coming to Israel to dwell with his people forevermore (Pss 50:3–4; 96:12–13; 98:8–9; Isa 4:2–5; 24:21–23; 25:6–10; 31:4–5; 35:3–6, 10; 40:3–5, 9–11; 52:7–10; 59:15–21; 60:1–3, 19–20; 62:10–11; 63:1, 3, 5, 9; 64:1; 66:12, 14–16, 18–20; Ezek 43:1–7; 48:35; Joel 3:16–21; Zeph 3:14–20; Hag 2:7, 9; Zech 1:16–17; 2:4–5, 10–12; 8; 14:1–5, 9, 16, 20–21; Mal 3:1–4; cf. Rev 16:18; 21:10–11, 22–23; 22:1–5). Three, this glory is a quality both of the revelation and of the Revealer, the quality by which the Son reveals the Father and which the Son has by virtue of his union with the Father (as many of the Johannine texts show). Fourth, the conclusive events of Jesus’s life in his crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation are the primary means of Jesus’s glorification because they are the outcome of Jesus’s perfect obedience to the Father’s will. For it is simply by this obedience that Jesus glorifies the Father and receives glorification from the Father.
The theme of glory is poignantly connected to the Gospel events as well not only by the Prologue (1:14) and the climax of John’s story, but also by the dialogue with Nicodemus. We learn there that the only means by which one can be born from above—and thus have everlasting life/enter the kingdom (3:3, 5, 15)—is the “lifting up” of the Son of Man (as Moses lifted up the bronze snake in the wilderness). This use of the term ὑψσόω, a verb otherwise used for exaltation (it is applied to Jesus also in Acts 2:33; 5:31), is peculiar to John. It is typically translated as “lift up” here in 3:15, as well as in 8:28 and 12:32–34. Most obviously, this refers to the manner of Jesus’s death by crucifixion, as made clear in John’s narrator comment in 12:33 and as is strongly implied in 8:28 (cf. 18:32).
This is not a case of John deliberately avoiding crucifixion language, as it is abundant in the actual passion narrative in ch. 19. Rather, this language is used because of its suggestive ambiguity. The Son of Man will be lifted up in his death by crucifixion, but that act of lifting up will also turn out to be an act of exaltation, as God takes up the lethal rejection of the Word and makes it the means by which the Word is exalted and his will for the salvation of his creation is achieved. By this “lifting up,” God will make the crucified Jesus the crucified-and-resurrected-and-exalted Jesus, in confirmation that it is this one whom the world crucified who is the Word of God made flesh. The “lifting up” most directly refers to the crucifixion, but because of its double entendre character, this term also encapsulates the entirety of the gospel events as a narrative of the exaltation of Christ, despite the human intentions of the crucifixion. Such a use of this exaltation language fits with how much of John, especially Jesus’s speech in John, operates on two (or more) levels of discourse (cf. 57 in Köstenberger’s article).
Indeed, one of the statements of Jesus talking about his being “lifted up” is part of a larger statement that he is going to be glorified (12:23–33). The crucifixion is thus presented as necessary to the exaltation or glorification of Jesus. This is so because the gospel events fulfill God’s salvific will, and so, just as the “death” of a kernel is necessary to production of the larger plant that produces more seeds, Jesus’s death, resurrection, and exaltation are necessary for others to receive everlasting life. As he makes clear in vv. 25–26 in particular, the gospel events are how he lays out the salvific narrative in which his followers participate by their union with him, so that those who share in this faithfulness unto death will also share in his resurrection. By extension of this same logic, this same path will also lead to the exaltation/glorification of Jesus’s followers in sharing in his own exaltation.
These elements of “glory” language also fit what we see in Revelation, even if the language is not always used there. We have already noted one respect in which there is a thematic link between the references to God’s glory in John and Revelation, especially in light of how they depend on the same background (particularly note the scene in the heavenly sanctuary in 15:8). The first use of such language in Rev 1:6 is notable not only for how it connects this language to worship, but also for how it is linked with the summary of the gospel in Rev 1:5. Of course, the ascription of glory is one of the fundamental expressions of worship. That is the sense when the speakers ascribe “glory, honor, and power” to the Father in 4:11 (cf. 4:9; 7:12; 19:1). Likewise, worship is signified through fearing and God and giving him glory (11:13; 14:7; 15:4; cf. 16:9). In this sense, we can also see how “glory” is involved with the worship of the Son/Lamb as part and parcel of the worship of God in 5:12–13 (cf. 19:7). The Lamb is ascribed “power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and praise.” And then immediately following this is the declaration that to the one who sits on the throne and to the Lamb “be praise, honor, glory, and power forever and ever.” In addition to the ascription of glory, near the end of book we are told of the new Jerusalem, “The city has no need for the sun nor for the moon, that they should shine on her/it, for the glory of God is her/its light, and the Lamb is her/its lamp” (21:23). The Father and the Lamb share glory in a way that God does not do with anyone outside the Godhead.
But while the sense of sharing is unique—because of the shared identity of the Father and Son as “God”—God still allows believers to participate in divine glory. Even though the Son grants to those who are in union with him the authority to sit on the throne with him and to rule, and even though believers will be glorified, nowhere is it said that they have the divine glory that God has in the same intrinsic way, as we are bearers of God’s image and likeness. But what we are told is that the glory of the new Jerusalem is God’s glory (21:11). This sharing of divine glory fits with what we have seen from several resurrection texts of God’s promise to allow the faithful to participate in his glory. In this context, then, what the nations bring to the new Jerusalem when the text speaks of the “glories” of the nations (21:24–26) is their worship, their devotion of all that they are, all that God has given them, to that same God. In this way, one could also think of them giving their wealth to God, in that they have what they have to give because God gave it to them in the first place.
The Holy Spirit
As for Köstenberger’s observations about pneumatology in these books (60–61), I will not spend as much space on that subject. I have already written dedicated posts for both books here and here (also see here). In various ways, sometimes different from one another, both texts stress the union of Christ and the Spirit. Both texts link the Spirit to testimony and (especially) revelation. And both texts convey the Spirit being sent by the Father to be God’s immanent presence and action in the world.
Revelation
The next affinity he notes is not a terminological one as such, since the term for “mystery” does not appear in the Gospel according to John, but he notes how both texts relate to the theme of revelation (61). It is also another matter of continuity I have hinted at throughout this post and elsewhere (such as in posts linked here concerning the Gospel). I have also already commented on the theme of God dwelling with his people as conveyed by the term σκηνόω (61).
Seeing God
Köstenberger then highlights how both texts appeal to notions about seeing God (62). Moreover, they do so in complementary ways. Both texts ultimately rely on the shared background of the OT, where people expressed amazement or fear at seeing the angel of the Lord face to face (Gen 32:30; Num 14:14; Judg 6:22; cf. Gen 16:13; Judg 13:22), thus theophanies and seeing God’s glory at a remove would replace seeing God’s true face, lest the prophet should die or fear dying (in addition to the theophanies already noted, see Exod 33:20–23). John’s Prologue thus indicates that no one has seen God the Father, but the one seen in these encounters must have been the Word, and it is the Word who has made the Father known (John 1:18). This point of Jesus’s exclusive revelatory relationship with the Father is also reiterated elsewhere in the Gospel (5:37; 6:46). He also speaks of those who have seen him having seen his Father who sent him (12:45; 14:7, 9). But there is at least an implication that by one’s union with him they will receive the vision of God that only he can provide as the one who makes the Father known. Jesus thus promises Nathanael that he will see something of the heavenly glory of the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man (1:51).
But these things become more explicit in Revelation with its fuller view of the promised reality to come. In the new creation, there will no longer be a need for any mediation of appearance since, to use Paul’s language, we will see face to face and know fully even as we are fully known (1 Cor 13:12). All the wonder described at a remove, even in Revelation through the intermediaries of John’s vision or of angelic interpreters, will be seen and experienced firsthand. That is the promise of 22:4, after all, and it is in fulfillment of what is implied in grand promises of the OT concerning the eschatological state (Isa 40:5; 60:19–20; 62:11; Ezek 43:6–9; Zech 8:21–23; 14:5, 9).
Perseverance
Finally, since I have already linked to posts I have written on the perseverance of the suffering faithful (62–63), I will not write as fully about the subject here. Revelation is the climactic narrative representation of the theme of vindication of the suffering faithful, as it expresses both the culmination of suffering and the consummative vindication and exaltation of the suffering faithful, befitting the aforementioned gospel pattern. No other text more thoroughly presents the NT theme of the pressures of assimilation against the call to allegiance to God in Christ by the submission to and empowerment of the Holy Spirit. (A minor aspect of this is how this pressure to assimilate manifests in the pressure regarding food offered to idols in 2:14 and 20. This is not necessarily brought to a climactic resolution, except a part of the general theme here, but it is notable how this shows it being at home with other parts of the NT, as we see it being a live issue also in Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1 Cor 8; and 10.) It also fits with a larger theme in Johannine literature of the challenges of choosing between assimilation to one’s context and allegiance to Christ (3:10; 6; 8–9; 11:7–10, 17–18; 13; 14:9–20; 16; 17:1–5, 8, 14–18; 18:2–3, 9–24; 19:1–3, 15–21; cf. John 3:16–20; 7:7; 12:24–26; 15:18–27; 16:32–33; 1 John 2:15–17; 3:1, 13, 16–17; 4:1, 3–5, 17; 5:19). I think Köstenberger is also correct to observe the complementarity of themes described in terms of “abiding” language in John (μένω) and “persevering” language in Revelation (ὑπομονή).
Other Affinities
Thus far, I have riffed on Köstenberger’s observations while adding my own emphases from my own research in expansion of his observations. From this point, I want to explore other matters he did not have space to address in order to add to what will still be an incomplete list here. As with other parts of this analysis, there are times I have written in more depth elsewhere, such as on resurrection in John and resurrection in Revelation (as well as 1 John here). But here I will focus on matters that can be summarized “briefly.”
While Köstenberger focused on “titles” that are unique to John and Revelation, another identification that could be mentioned that is not unique to these books is referring to Jesus as “one like a son of man” (1:13; cf. 14:14). This is a rare case outside of the Gospels where Jesus is referred to in a way that invokes both Dan 7:13–14 and his preferred means of self-reference as recorded in all the Gospels. The fact that Jesus distinctively presented himself as the Son of Man in ways that showed this language was crucial to his self-conception and self-presentation (Matt 8:20 // Luke 9:58; Matt 9:6 // Mark 2:10 // Luke 5:24; Matt 10:23; 11:19 // Luke 7:34; Matt 12:8 // Mark 2:28 // Luke 6:5; Matt 12:32 // Luke 12:10; Matt 12:40; 13:37; 16:13; Matt 16:28; Matt 17:9 // Mark 9:9–10; Matt 17:12, 22 // Mark 9:31 // Luke 9:44; Matt 20:18–19 // Mark 10:33–34 // Luke 18:31–33; Matt 20:28 // Mark 10:45; Matt 24:27–31 // Mark 13:24–27 // Luke 21:25–28; Matt 24:39 // Luke 17:26; Matt 24:44 // Luke 12:40; Matt 26:2, 24 // Mark 14:21 // Luke 22:22; Matt 26:45 // Mark 14:41; Mark 8:31; 9:12; Luke 6:22; 11:30; 19:10; 22:48; John 3:13–14; 6:53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31), and that he would regularly refer in his eschatological teaching to what the Son of Man would do (Matt 13:41; 16:27 // Mark 8:38 // Luke 9:26; Matt 19:28; 25:31–46; Luke 12:8; 17:22, 24, 30; 18:8; 21:36; John 1:51; 5:27; 6:27), means that Jesus’s self-presentation in his earthly life correlated with his heavenly revelation to John. This also comports with how the heavenly revelation to Stephen in Acts 7:55–56 refers to him as the Son of Man, which is the only other text outside of the Gospels and Revelation to refer to him in such a fashion (see here and here for more details). Although the terminology is not exactly widespread in Revelation, not least since John has other ways of referring to Christ, we can see how the presentation here is of Christ’s self-presentation coming to realization in his execution of God’s will and his enabling of the faithful to share in God’s reign.
Although Revelation does not use the term for “life” (ζωή) as frequently as John (which is not to say it is infrequent at seventeen occurrences) and never uses the exact phrase for “everlasting life,” there remain affinities in how Revelation refers to the promise of life and its everlasting scope. One example that is easy to overlook is Christ’s self-description as “the Living One” in Rev 1:18. This fits how God himself is referred to as “the living God” in Rev 7:2. On the one hand, it is quite traditional to refer to God as “the living God,” often in contexts distinguishing him from idols/false gods (Deut 5:26; Josh 3:10; 1 Sam 17:26, 36; 2 Kgs 19:4, 16; Pss 42:2; 84:2; Isa 37:4, 17; Jer 10:10; 23:36; Dan 6:20, 26; Hos 1:10; Matt 16:16; 26:63; Acts 14:15; Rom 9:26 [Hos 1:10]; 2 Cor 3:3; 6:16; 1 Thess 1:9; 1 Tim 3:15; 4:10; Heb 3:12; 9:14; 10:31; 12:22). On the other hand, it also signifies that he is the only one who has life in himself while others have it only because he gives it to them (e.g., John 5:26; Acts 17:25; 1 Tim 6:13–16). The faithful are thus identified by their exclusive allegiance to the only living God and by having the life he gives, which is his own eternal life (just as the seal of the living God is none other than the name of God). The Gospel according to John, along with other works of the NT, declares the promise of everlasting life that extends from God’s own eternal life, as the former shares in the latter (John 3:15–16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:26, 39–40; 6:27, 33, 35, 40, 47–51, 53–54, 57–58, 63, 68; 8:12, 51; 10:10, 28; 11:25–26; 12:25, 50; 14:6, 19; 17:2–3; 20:31; 1 John 2:17; cf. Acts 17:25; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:13, 16; Heb 5:6; 6:20; 7:16–17, 21, 24, 28; 13:8). Likewise, the everlasting promise of glorious life and worshipful union is something Revelation also grounds in God’s eternal life (1:18; 2:8; 4:9–10; 10:6; 11:15; 15:7; 22:5; cf. 2:7, 10; 11:11; 21:6; 22:1–2, 14, 17, 19). Though the terminology is different, one should also note the connection between Rev 12:11 about the martyrs not loving their life when they faced death and Jesus’s statement in John 12:25 that one who loves one’s life loses it, and the one who hates one’s life in this world keeps it for everlasting life.
Something should also be said about the hidden manna in Rev 2:17, though I have written more about it in my post on resurrection in Revelation. This text at least shares a background with Jesus’s teaching on his flesh as the bread of life in John 6 and it being the fulfillment of what the manna pointed to. While I do not want to assume too much in linking the same constellation of thought to what Jesus showed in John 6 in associating manna with the bread of life and the bread of life with resurrection (not least because that bread is referred to in the present tense in John while it is in the future tense here), I am not sure we can entirely dismiss some type of association of these ideas either. It would fit with what we have observed elsewhere—and will continue to observe—about the function of resurrection in fulfilling Scripture and in bringing about Jesus’s followers’ fulfillment of Scripture in their own respect. As Jesus was/is/will be the true manna from heaven, the community of believers is the community of the new covenant, the people of the new exodus, and the heirs of the new creation in amplified fulfillment of what was promised to the ancestors of Israel long ago.
Finally, we can close this incomplete post that has turned out longer than I expected with some miscellaneous observations:
Although we have already noted both the importance of the term “water” for Johannine literature as well as the fact of its frequent appearance in non-Johannine works, the image of the water of life as a reference to everlasting life is unique in the Gospel and Revelation. In the former case it appears in John 4:10–14 and 7:38, while in the latter case it appears in Rev 7:17; 21:6; 22:1, and 17.
Although this is less peculiar to John, it is notable how Revelation fits with texts referring to something put into place, planned, or done even before the foundation of the world (John 17:24; Rev 13:8; 17:8; cf. Matt 25:34; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 1:4; 1 Pet 1:20; Jude 25). And even as John, Revelation, and these other texts point back to creation, Revelation narrates the resolution of this story, including the final salvation of those who are the beneficiaries of Christ’s work from the foundation of the world and even before.
The actual terminology of “sign” (σημεῖον) is less pervasive and significant in Revelation compared to John (on the latter, see here). But there is still some overlap of significance in the seven times it appears here (as opposed to the seventeen times it appears in John). On the one hand, most references to signs in Revelation refer to counterfeit signs used to deceive (13:13–14; 16:14; 19:20), as opposed to Jesus’s signs meant to reveal. On the other hand, other signs that are meant to reveal what is really going on behind the scenes of earthly events are shown in heaven (12:1, 3; 15:1).
The new Jerusalem that is itself a sanctuary/sacred space that is the dwelling place of both God and God’s people (21:3, 22) is anticipated in various ways by both John and other places in the NT. We see this in how Jesus identifies himself as the temple of God in John 2 with two-level discourse, the imagery linking Jesus as the cornerstone of the temple (Matt 21:42 // Mark 12:10–11 // Luke 20:17; Acts 4:10–11; Eph 2:20–22; 1 Pet 2:4–7), and even in identifying believers as the temple (1 Cor 3:16–17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:20–22).
ὄψις (“face” or “appearance”) appears three times in these books without clear, special structural or thematic significance (John 7:24; 11:44; Rev 1:16). Ἑβραϊστί (“in Hebrew”) appears seven times (John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; 20:16; Rev 9:11; 16:16). πορφυροῦς (“purple” or a related color) appears four times (John 19:2, 5; Rev 17:4; 18:16).
Rev 5:6, 8, 12–13; 6:1, 16; 7:9–10, 14, 17; 12:11; 13:8, 11; 14:1, 4 (2x), 10; 15:3; 17:14 (2x); 19:7, 9; 21:14, 19, 22–23, 27; 22:1, 3.
A list I expect is incomplete includes: ψεῦδος (“lie”; 6/10); λευκός (“white”; 18/25); κλείω (“shut”; 9/16); ταχύ (“quickly”; 7/10); εἴκοσι (“twenty”; 7/11); περιβάλλω (“clothe”; 13/24); βροντή (“thunder/peals of thunder”; 11/12); καίω (“burn”; 7/12); μέλας (“black/ink”; 4/6); διψάω (“thirst”; 9/16); πηγή (“spring”; 8/11); γεμίζω (“fill”; 5/8); ποταμός (“river”; 9/17); φρέαρ (“pit”; 6/7); ἄμπελος (“vine/vineyard”; 5/8); στῆθος (“chest/breast”; 3/5); στάδιον (“stade”; 4/7); νύμφη (“bride”; 5/8); βάτπω (“dip”; 3/4); πιάζω (“seize”; 9/12); ἐντεῦθεν (“(from) hence/on each side”; 7/10).
A list I expect is incomplete includes: βιβλίον (“book/scroll”; 25/34); προσκυνέω (“worship”; 35/60); τέσσαρες (“four”; 31/41); οὔπω (“not yet”; 14/26); μισέω (“hate”; 21/40); πρὀβατον (“sheep”; 20/39).
John 1:7, 19; 3:11, 32–33; 5:31–32, 34, 36; 8:13–14, 17; 19:35; 21:24; 1 John 5:9 (3x), 10 (2x), 11; 3 John 12; Rev 1:2, 9; 6:9; 11:7; 12:11, 17; 19:10 (2x); 20:4. Mark (14:55–56, 59) and Luke (22:71) only feature it in Jesus’s trial. Otherwise, we only see it scattered in Acts 22:18; 1 Tim 3:7; and Titus 1:13.
John 16:33; 1 John 2:13–14; 4:4; 5:4 (2x), 5; Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21 (2x); 5:5; 6:2 (2x); 11:7; 12:11; 13:7; 15:2; 17:14; 21:7. The noun νίκη also appears in 1 John 5:4 as the only use in the NT. The other uses appear in Luke 11:22; Rom 3:4 (a Scripture quote); and 12:21 (2x).
John 19:2, 5; Rev 2:10; 3:11; 4:4, 10; 6:2; 9:7; 12:1; 14:14. The uses from John parallel the references to Jesus’s crown of thorns in Matt 27:29 and Mark 15:17. Others use it as a reference to the everlasting reward of victory (Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19; 2 Tim 4:8; Jas 1:12; 1 Pet 5:4) or for the root image from athletic contests (1 Cor 9:25).
John 1:9; 4:23, 37; 6:32; 7:28; 8:16; 15:1; 17:3; 19:35; 1 John 2:8; 5:20 (3x); Rev 3:7, 14; 6:10; 15:3; 16:7; 19:2, 9, 11; 21:5; 22:6. For other uses, see Luke 16:11; 1 Thess 1:9; Heb 8:2; 9:24; and 10:22.
ὀχύς (“sharp”; 7/8); δίστομος (“two-edged”; 2/3); ῥομφαία (“sword/broadsword”; 6/7); κλεῖς (“key”; 4/6); ψευδής (“false/liar”; 2/3); πορνεύω (“commit sexual immorality”; 5/8); πολεμέω (“make war/fight”; 6/7); ψῆφος (“stone/pebble”; 2/3); μολύνω (“defile/soil”; 2/3); ἐξαλέιφω (“erase”; 3/5); ψυχρός (“cold”; 3/4); ὅρασις (“vision/appearance”; 3/4); λέων (“lion”; 6/9); τέταρτος (“fourth”; 7/10); ἀετός (“eagle”; 3/5); πτέρυξ (“wing”; 3/5); κιθάρα (“harp”; 3/4); ᾄδω (“sing”; 3/5); ᾠδή (“song”; 5/7); πυρρός (“red”; 2/3); χλωρός (“green/pale”; 3/4); στολή (“robe”; 3/5); μεγιστάν (“noble/eminent person”; 2/3); πλύνω (“wash”; 2/3); θυμίαμα (“incense”; 4/6); πικραίνω (“make bitter”; 3/4); ἄβυσσος (“abyss”; 7/9); σκοτόω (“darken”; 2/3); σκορπίος (“scorpion”; 3/5); θώραξ (“breastplate”; 3/5); σιδηροῦς (“iron”; 4/5); θεῖον (“brimstone”; 6/7); φαρμακεία (“sorcery/witchcraft”; 2/3); πατέω (“tread [underfoot]”; 3/5); ἥμισυς (“half”; 3/5); αἰχμαλωσία (“captivity”; 2/3); χάραγμα (“mark”; 7/8); δρέπανον (“sickle”; 7/8); τρυγάω (“gather”; 2/3); ληνός (“winepress”; 4/5); λαμπρός (“bright/shining”; 5/9); ἕλκος (“sore”; 2/3); πόνος (“pain”; 3/4); κόκκινος (“scarlet”; 4/6); μαργαρίτης (“pearl”; 5/9); ἐρημόω (“make desolate”; 3/5); ἔμπορος (“merchant”; 4/5); πένθος (“mourning”; 4/5); πύρωσις (“burning”; 2/3); γόμος (“cargo”; 2/3); πλάτος (“plain/width”; 3/4); τεῖχος (“wall”; 6/9); μῆκος (“length”; 2/3).
σάλπιγξ (“trumpet”; 6/11); λυχνία (“lampstand”; 7/12); τάδε (“thus/these things”; 7/10); γέμω (“I am full”; 7/11); λίμνη (“lake”; 6/11).