1

Jesus “the Prophet” in the witness and belief of his contemporaries

according to the Fourth Gospel
- A Johannine theological perspective -

Stelian Tofană

1. Preliminaries

Jesus Christ is the supreme Prophet and Teacher by virtue of his very own nature, for
his teachings leading existence to eternity, derive from his Person. Jesus is both the Teacher
and the teaching, he is the embodiment of Life and Truth, according to his own testimony: “I
am the light of the world” (Jn 8,12); “I am the truth…No one comes to the Father except
through me” (Jn 14,6). He is the preacher and the preaching; in Him the subject of the
teaching identifies with the object. His teaching is truly prophetic because His Person is
prophetic, revealing in himself the man at the end of his eschatological journey. He is the
Prophet and the ultimate prophecy in Person. Father Dumitru Stăniloae asserts that through
his divine nature, but also through his deified human nature, he is “infinite length and width”
in which always submit those who believe in him until the end of time.1 In this sense, his
teaching is also the climax of revelation about God, about universe and man, whereas He
himself is, as a person, this revelation.2
Therefore, Christ is the Prophet and the Teacher par excellence of the entire Universe,
for he defines through himself and prophesies through himself the future eschatological status
of all those incorporated in himself. From this point of view, he may be called the Prophet of
the eschatological time which is an important message of Jewish apocalyptic literature.
Expectations related to the "eschatological Prophet" who would come and restore all
things, were deeply rooted in Jewish belief. All this messianic hopes were based on
Deuteronomy 18,15 which declares that the Lord will raise up a prophet like Moses: “The
Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You
must him listen.” 3 This text which of course does not yet point to a return of Moses himself,
but to the eschatological appearance of a prophet similar to him, plays an exceptionally im-
portant role in the concept of the prophet.4

1
Cf. Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, București 1978, vol II, 116.
2
Debating the indirect relationship between the prophets of the Old Testament and the truth they preached,
which reveals the difference between them and Jesus Christ, Prof. D. Staniloae noted: „Old Testament prophets
communicated a partial truth about God and about man, because they received the truth about God from God as
from somebody else and could not assimilate it as a whole in themselves; and the man they knew, from their own
experience was not the man fully developed in God. Therefore, they could not portray the culminating
relationship between man and God; on the other hand, as they were not fully identified with the truth they
communicate, they could not communicate the truth with the power to change other people” (Cf. Teologia
Dogmatică Ortodoxă, II, 118).
3
The importance of this passage for the early Christians is seen from the quotations of it by Peter in Acts 3, 22
and by Stephan in Acts 7,37. In both places it is implied that Jesus is the coming prophet.
4
For details, see J. Jeremias, “Mwushj”, in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (ThWNT),
Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln, 1990, Band IV, 852 ff. This verse, along with other Old Testament passages, is also cited
in a collection of messianic testimonies of the Qumran sect. See J. M. Allegro, Further Messianic References in
Qumran Literature, JBL 75, 1956, 174 ff.
The Pseudo-Clementine Kerygmata Petrou likewise cites Deuteronomy 18,15: ”Peter says that the Jews’ often
sent for us to talk with them about Jesus, in order to find out whether he was the Prophet whom Moses had
predicted would come (Cf. O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, Revised Edition, The
Westminster Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1963, 17).

1
 2

From this point of view it is not surprising that the coming prophet came to be thought
of in some circles as Moses Redivivus.5 Parallel to this idea was the belief that Elijah would
return. These thoughts developed continuously in the Jewish belief and reached a stage when
the arrival of two prophets was expected – Enoch and Elijah or Moses and Elijah. 6 “Such
expectations – thinks D. Guthrie - together with one connected with the name of Jeremiah
would explain the popular ideas about Jesus as Prophet mentioned in the gospels”.7
As for the Johannine Jesus, in addition to being the Christ, Son of God, Son of Man,
and King of Israel, is also a prophet. Both the Samaritan woman and the witnesses to the
feeding of the multitudes refer to Jesus as a prophet (4, 19; 6, 14) and Jesus himself appears to
do so as well (4, 44). Furthermore, like the biblical prophets, the Johannine Jesus speaks the
words given to him by God and acts as the mediator of God’s revelation to the world: ”For I
gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I
came from you, and they believed that you sent me“ (Jn 17,8)

2. Jesus - the Prophet. A Johannine perspective

Before moving on to the core of our topic, we have to consider a fundamental

question: did Jesus consider Himself a prophet or "the eschatological Prophet”? But before
answering this question, I would like to mention that I will not deal in this study with the
analysis of prophetic words of Jesus8, but with the theological perspective of John the
Evangelist in mentioning the title granted to Jesus by his contemporaries, namely that of the
Prophet. For a better understanding of the Johannine perspective concerning Jesus’ action as a
Prophet and of the way in which his contemporaries recognize and understanding him as such,
it is crucial to make a reference to the synoptic testimony regarding the way in which they
presented Jesus as a prophet.

a. The testimony of the Synoptics about Jesus as Prophet – a tool to comparison

Reading the texts from the synoptic Gospels (Mt 21, 10.14; Mk 6, 4. 14-15; 8, 28, Lk.
7, 16), in which Jesus is named Prophet, one may see that a part of people perceived Jesus,
even during his life, as the Prophet expected at the end of time.
For this context, there are two essential testimonies: When Jesus came into Jerusalem,
the crowds asked themselves astonished: Who is He? And the answer was: The prophet Jesus
of Nazareth: ”When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, "Who is
this?" The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee" (Mt 21,10-
11). By another event, occasioned by the resurrection of the widow’s son in the city called
Nain, Luke the Evangelist noted: “And fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God,
saying, "A great prophet (profh,thj me,gaj) has arisen among us!" and, "God has visited
His people!" (Lk 7,16). Interpreting this episode, O. Cullmann thinks that the crowd through
its expression does not see in Jesus the eschatological Prophet of the end of time, but simply a
prophet. The fact that in the original text there is no article before the noun profh,thj and it is
accompanied by an adjective, makes the author to assert: “this indicates that the remark of the
5
Cf. D. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, Inter-Varsity Press, Illinois USA, 1981, 269.
6
Ibidem. More details on this topic, see O. Cullmann, op. cit., 21-22. For a developing of this issue “Jesus as a
prophet”, see R. Meyer, Der Prophet aus Galiläa, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970; F. V.
Filson, Jesus Christ the Risen Lord, New York/ Nashville, Abingdon, 1956, 137 ff.
7
Cf. New Testament Theology, 269.
8
For a remarkable analysis of the prophetic words of Jesus, with reference to the Fourth Gospel, see Adele
Reinhartz, Jesus as prophet: Predictive prolepses in the Fourth Gospel, in “Journal for the Study of the New
Testament “( JSNT ), 36, 1989, 3-16

2
 3

crowd does not point to the eschatological Prophet; that prophet does not need the description
‘great’. Jesus is simply placed in the prophetic category, a category in which also others have
belonged. Still, a miracle like the one reported in this passage does show that the Spirit of God
is now at work again in an especially powerful way, just as he was earlier at work in the
prophets. The judgment of the crowd, of course, does not directly express the eschatological
significance of this fact; Jesus is not designated the Prophet of the end time” 9 However, the
presence in the text of the adjective me,gaj may generate suspicions regarding the accuracy
of Cullmann’s explanation.
It follows from these texts that neither Matthew nor Luke used the word prophet to
express their own belief in Jesus. Oscar Cullman thinks that when they recorded these
episodes,10 not even the evangelists saw in Jesus the "prophet", or the resurrected Elijah. They
only account for what some people saw in Jesus. Actually, Jesus Christ was variously
identified with John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets (cf. Mk 8,27 ff – Mt
16,14ff – Lk 9,18ff). Yet in Luke 4,24 Jesus indirectly applies the title to himself. It is true
there is a much in the ministry of Jesus that fits into the prophetic role. We know that his
teaching ministry was centered on the proclamation of the kingdom of heaven. Yet in his
teaching ministry Jesus went beyond the function of proclamation which the old prophets
exercised. In all his teachings, he suggested that he is a new prophet, which inaugurates a new
era, namely the eschatological one. From this point of view, Jesus behaved as the
eschatological prophet whom the crowd really perceived and understood as such.11
Some biblical scholars suppose that in the Gospel according to Luke (24, 27.45) Jesus
is also portrayed in a special status, namely as a post-paschal prophet, i.e. an interpreter of the
Scripture. This appears to be a distinctive understanding of Jesus if we compare it to the other
Gospels. It seems that in this situation Luke expresses its own belief about Jesus. This
kerygmatic post-paschal dimension of Jesus, as Prophet-Teacher, is specific to Luke.
Developing this idea Severino Croato affirmed: ”Now Jesus is neither the prophet of the
classic tradition, nor Elijah I, nor the former teacher, but the prophet-teacher on a different
dimension—as risen. Through his resurrection, he becomes not only the glorious Messiah but
also the interpreter of Scripture, as it is clearly stated in two references: Lk 24:27: “he
explained (dierm»neusen) to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” and
24:45: “then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures”.12
Therefore, we may assert that according to the Synoptics Jesus did not perceive
himself as the eschatological Prophet. The idea regarding the coming of the eschatological
Prophet belonged only to a part of people conviction.
The Gospel according to John leads to the same conclusion. Here just like in the
Synoptic Gospels it is the crowd who assigns the title of 'Prophet' to Jesus and not the
evangelist, too.13 To prove this point, I will refer to a single episode: Those who have been
witnesses to the miracle regarding the multiplication of the loaves have exclaimed: "Surely
9
Cf. O. Cullmann, op.cit. 30
10
Ibidem, 37.
11
See D. Guthrie, op. cit, 269
12
Cf. Jesus, Prophet like Elijah and Prophet - Teacher like Moses in Luke – Acts, in JBL 124/3, 2005, 460. The
author supposes that this hermeneutic and kerygmatic function was at the same time „what the Christian
community needs in order to be constantly “interpreting” the Scriptures and proclaiming the good news of
salvation” (Ibidem). A developing of the theme – The paschal and post-paschal Jesus according to the Gospel of
Luke - see also, S. Tofană, Euharistia în arătarea la Emaus. Repere exegetice şi teologice (Lc. 24, 13-35), in the
volum “Grai maramureşan şi mărturie ortodoxă”, Baia-Mare 2001, 169 ff.
13
„Alle vier Evangelisten gebrauchen den Titel nicht, wenn sie mit eigenen Worten von Jesus sprechen, und
Jesus selbst nennt sich, wenn man von Luk 13,33 absieht, nirgendwo ausdrücklich Prophet. Damit ist nicht
gesagt, daß die Bezeichnung Jesu als Prophet ursprünglich nicht häufiger gewesen ist, als sie in den Zeugnissen
der Evangelisten erscheint“. (See, H. Krämer, K.H. Rendtorff, R. Meyer, F. Hauck, prof»thj, profÁtij....,in
Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (ThWNT), Band VI, 843.

3
 4

this is the Prophet who is to come into the world (Jn 6,14). Based on these findings we reach
the following conclusion: according to the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel it is not
Jesus who assigns himself the role of a “Prophet” and it is not the evangelists either, but a part
of the people. Thus they expressed their belief in him as well as the messianic hope which
dominated the entire Jewish eschatological waiting.14

b. The specificity of the Fourth Gospel regarding the witness “Jesus - the Prophet”

We have to state from the very beginning that the Fourth Gospel has a specific
characteristic by presenting Jesus as a prophet.
We have mentioned above that the first three evangelists did not use the title of
“prophet” to articulate their belief in Jesus. Instead, although John the Evangelist pointed out
—just like the Synoptics do—that it is the crowd who has assigned to Jesus the title of
“prophet”, it seems that this title has a particular significance for him. We may notice in this
sense that the evangelist strongly insists on John the Baptist’s refusal to assign himself this
title and that of “resurrected Elijah” as well.
A delegation from the temple of Jerusalem (Jn 1,19-27), composed of influential
priests and levities15, is sent to John the Baptist with a fundamental question regarding his
identity: Su. ti,j ei= ? - Who are you? (1,19). The question was going to clarify the issue of
the authority by virtue of which John the Baptist established the religious movement centred
on him. John’s answer was unambiguous one: "I am not the Christ" (1,20). This means that he
is not the eschatological Saviour. This denial becomes an authentic confession of the faith in
Jesus’s messianity.16 St. Cyril of Alexandria says that John the Baptist’s confess "I am not the
Christ” “attempts to explain how or in what way he became the word of testimony”.17
After the first response the delegation asks other questions, namely if he is Elijah or
the Prophet? John categorically denies: ”They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you
Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "NO." (1, 21).18 The
questions of the priests and of the levities were of course aimed at the preaching of scholars
according to which the coming of the Messiah at the end of time would be preceded by the
coming of the eschatological prophet, which follows and replaces Moses, as well as by the
appearance of the prophet Elijah (see Mk 9,11; Mt 7,10). They were all characters awaited for
messianic time. 19 In a new attempt of the delegation to find out about the identity of John the
14
Cf. O. Cullmann, op. cit., 36-37.
15
G. Zevini sees in this episode the Evangelist’s intention to mark the first meeting between darkness and light,
in the Fourth Gospel: „la premiere aparition pour l’Evangeliste des ténèbres contre la lumiere” (Cf. G. Zevini,
Commentaire spirituel de l’Evangile de Jean, Paris 1995, 44).
16
Cf. G. Zevini, op. cit, 44.
17
Cf. Chiril al Alexandriei, Comentariu la Evanghelia Sfântului Ioan, Scrieri, partea a IV-a, trad. Dumitru
Stăniloae, Bucuresti 2000, 129.
18
Andreas J. Köstenberger, makes a connection between the threefold denial of the Baptist, understood as a
confession, and the threefold denial of Peter: „his frank threefold confession stands in marked contrast to Peter’s
later threefold denial of Jesus“ (Jn 18, 17.25.27; cf.13,38) (Cf. John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan 2004, 60). A developing of the content of that three negations: John the
Baptist was not Messiah; John the Baptist was not Elijah; John the Baptist was not the Prophet (an echo of
Deut.18,15-18), see Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII, The Anchor Bible, Garden City,
New York, 1966, 46-50; Sf. Chiril al Alexandriei, op. cit., 129.
19
Concerning the identity of the Baptist, there seems to be a contradiction between the Synoptics and the author
of the Fourth Gospel. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus asserts that his predecessor is indeed Elijah (Mk. 9,11-13;
Mt. 11, 7-14; 17, 12-13). In the text, cited above, from the Fourth Gospel, John the Baptist himself denies this
fact. However, we are not dealing with a contradiction but with different reporting perspectives to the mission of
John the Baptist: Jesus speaks of John as of the one who accomplishes the prophecy of Malachi (cf. Mt. 11,10;
Lk. 7,27), whereas John the Baptist, denying that he is Elijah, only wants to assert that he is not Elijah in person,
resurrected (cf. Lk 9,8) (See G. Zevini, op. cit. 44-45).

4
 5

Baptist, the latter describes himself using the words of the prophet Isaiah: "I am the voice of
one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.'" (cf. Jn 1,23 – Is 40,3). In fact,
the denial of John the Baptist in his answer to the delegation of the Temple was not a mere
denial, but rather a testimony. 20 It did not refer to what he is, but above all to what he is not,
namely Christ. The testimony of the Baptist understood first of all as recognition of his
identity and not as a religious testimony proper, expressed what the readers of the Fourth
Gospel had already known: John the Baptist was neither the awaited Messiah nor the
eschatological Prophet. 21
It may be inferred from this dialog between the Lord’s Forerunner and the Temple
delegation, that the author of the Fourth Gospel is especially concerned to assign the Prophet
title, as well as others, to Jesus. For the Christology of John the Evangelist this aspect seems
to be of special significance, defined for the most part by the meaning of the titles conferred
to Jesus: ”o` avmno.j tou/ qeou/” - 1,29; ”Messi,aj” – 1,41; 4,25-26; ”o` ui`o.j tou/
qeou//” – 1,49; 9,35; ”R`abbi,” – 3,2; ”o` a;rtoj th/j zwh/jÅ” – 6, 48; ”to. fw/j tou/
ko,smou\” – 8,12; 9,5; ”h` qu,ra\” – 10,9; ”o` poimh.n o` kalo,jÅ” – 10,11.14; ”h`
avna,stasij kai. h` zwh,\ ” 11,25; ”h` o`do.j kai. h` avlh,qeia kai. h` zwh,” –
14,6; ”h` a;mpeloj h` avlhqinh.” – 15, 1.5 etc. Hence, the Prophet title strikes John’s
Christology through a new vision regarding the expression of the person of Jesus both through
word and deed.
O. Cullmann22, quoting G. Bornkamm who has shown that ”the figure of the Paraclete
in the Gospel of John includes the essential features of the Prophet, who also is to “lead into
all truth”. This is done in such a way, of course, that the forerunner and the perfecter are
one”23, seems to articulate the same idea regarding the characteristic of Johannine Christology.
In the dialog between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (Jn 4, 7-26) Jesus' knowledge of
the past convinces the woman that he is inspired and having authority from God. When she
affirms: „I perceive that You are a prophet” (4,19) she is perhaps thinking of “the prophet”
(cf. 1.21), giving a messianic interpretation to Dt 18, 15.24 It is well known that the Samaritans
did not accept the prophetical books of the Old Testament, therefore the image of the prophet
steams probably from Dt 18, 15-18, a passage which in the Samaritan Pentateuch, as well as
in some Qumran material, comes after Exod 20, 21. Taking into account the logic of the

20
See L. Morris, The Gospel according to John, Revised edition, New International Commentary on the New
Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995, 117; In the same sense, F.J. Moloney, in The Gospel of John, Sacra
Pagina, vol 4, Collegeville, Minnesota, Liturgical Press, 1998, 52, states: „The Baptist introduces the messianic
theme into the interrogation by denying that he is the Messiah (v. 20). The pleonastic introduction to these first
words of the Baptist, „He confessed and did not deny, but confessed”, is an indication that the right confession of
messiahship will be important to the right understanding of the identity of both the Baptist and Jesus”.
21
Some scholars have seen in the explicit reference in the Fourth Gospel to John the Baptist’s denial of any kind
of messianity an intention of the Evangelist to intervene in a so called polemic between the disciples of John the
Baptist and certain Judaeo-Christians regarding the superiority of John the Baptist. There was no reference to the
concept of ‘Christ’ in the centre of this debate, there was only reference to the concept of ‘Prophet’; the Judaeo-
Christians named Jesus ‘the true Prophet’ and went as far as calling John to be the representative of a false
prophetism. On the other hand, the disciples of John the Baptist displayed an exaggerated faith in their Master,
conferring him a role which excluded the coming of the Messiah. Thus, the object of the first Christological
controversy was not a Christology but rather a ‘prophetology’ and it did not oppose Jews and Christians but
disciples of John and Christians (See R. Brown, The Gospel according to John, 47). For a reference to this
theory, see also, O. Cullmann, op. cit, 30-31. Taking into account the thematic rapport between the Johannine
Prologue and the rest of the Fourth Gospel such kind of assertions seems to be more than exaggerated.
22
Op. cit, 37.
23
G. Bornkamm, Der Paraklet im Johannesevangelium, Festschrift R. Bultmann, 1949, 12 ff.
24
R. Schnackenburg thinks that the Samaritan woman regarded him as a mere prophet and not a messianic one:
“In diesem allgemeinen Sinn ist hier “Prophet” gemeint (vgl. auch 9,17); an den (messianischen) Propheten (wie
6,14; 7,40.52) denkt die Samariterin, nach dem artikellosen Gebrauch zu schließen, nicht, obwohl der
samaritanische Messias nach Dt 18,15-18 prophetische Züge trug” (cf. Das Johannesevangelium, I Teil, 469).

5
 6

implicit question in 4,20, this Prophet-like-Moses would have been expected to settle legal
questions, namely to restore proper worship.25 In view of v. 25: “I know that Messiah is
coming (who is called Christ). When He comes, He will tell us all things”, this is not likely,
unless John is alluding to the fact that the Samaritans gave a messianic interpretation to Dt
18.15 and saw their Messiah (Taheb) as a prophet. 26 Above all these presuppositions, the
woman’s assertion “He will explain everything to us“, is consistent with the fact that rather
than looking for a royal Messiah from the house of David (as did the Jews), Samaritans
apparently expected a „teaching Messiah”27, a Prophet who teaches them rather than manifests
himself as a royal Messiah.
Therefore, on the basis of Deut. 18.15 ff. the Samaritans awaited the coming of Taheb.
He is obviously identified as Moses Redivivus and has really the characteristic features of the
prophet, namely he performs miracles, restores the law and true worship among the people,
and brings knowledge to the other nations. “He is called the “Teacher” or also Taheb, which is
to be translated either “the Returning One” or, more probably, “the Restorer”. 28 For the
Samaritan woman in John 4,19.25 the Messiah is at the same time a prophet but with these
characteristics mentioned above.
Therefore, the expectation of such a prophet with a very definite task to perform all
prophesies and to know all the things at the end of time was widespread in Judaism at the time
of Jesus.
Unlike Synoptic Gospels, where the crowd references to Jesus the Prophet expressed
surprise and amazement more than anything else due to the fact that God had placed a great
prophet amongst them, the Samaritan woman confesses her expectations regarding the
coming of the end time prophet. What can be determined here is the fact that the Evangelist
bears in mind a prophet with a complete mission, superior to the mission of the foregoing
prophets: He will tell us all things. According to his interpretation, the stress falls upon the
word “all” in the woman’s reference, which means a complete preaching and an absolute
knowledge of those that had been foretold. These are peculiarities that belong only to the
work of God. Hence, for John the Evangelist, the status of the expected Prophet transcends
the human condition – He is God. To that effect, the Synoptic writers’ perspective on the end
time Prophet is much improved. John’s Christology thus becomes considerably marked by the
significance of Jesus’ mission as the awaited prophet.
Hence, the intention of the Evangelist, regarding the identification of Jesus with the
eschatological Prophet seems to be different from that of the Synoptic writers. According to
his belief, all messianic titles are worthy of Jesus Christ. That is the reason for his careful

25
Cf. R. Brown, The Gospel according to John, 171. More details and a bibliography concerning the Jewish
expectations and those of the Qumran Essenes related to the coming of the Prophet-like-Moses, see R. Brown,
op. cit, 49-50.
26
See C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John. An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek
Text, Second Edition 1978, 235. Referring to the Samaritan woman’s expectations on the coming of Messiah,
Andreas J. Köstenberger affirms that „although the woman here refers to a coming “Messiah”, the Samaritans
did not regularly use this expression until the sixteenth century, preferring terms such as “Taheb” or “the
Restorer”. The figure of Taheb, in turn, apparently originated independently of Deut 18,15-18 and was only later
identified with the “Prophet like Moses” (Cf. John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 2007, 157. On this topic, see also more details, H.G. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge:
Traditionsgeschchtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramäischen Periode,
Religionsgeschchtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 30, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971, 303, n. 216, 276-327; M.E.
Boring, K. Berger and C. Colpe, Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament, Nashville: Abingdon, 1995,
264-265).
27
Cf. Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, 158. See also, J. Bowman, Samaritan Studies, Manchester University
Press, Manchester, 1958, 298-308.
28
Cf. O. Cullmann, op. cit. 19.

6
 7

distinction between Jesus and the figure of Moses: 29 if Jesus, both as Logos and as Christ is at
the same time the Prophet, Moses can no longer be considered the prophet par excellence,
hence the strong refusal to see in Moses the one that gives “bread coming down from
heaven”: „Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread
from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. (Jn 6,32; cf.
1,17).30
To the same effect of theological interpretation in Johannine spirit of the term Prophet, the
Evangelist also registers the crowd’s exclamation witnessing the multiplication of loaves:
“After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the
Prophet who is to come into the world - o` profh,thj o` evrco,menoj eivj to.n
ko,smon” (Jn 6,14).
O. Cullman is right when, referring to that episode, asserts that the text does not deal with
a prophet that could be placed at the same level as other prophets in Israel, but with the
Prophet awaited at the end of time: o` evrco,menoj eivj to.n ko,smon.31 It is true that
the expression o` evrco,menoj can also be found in the question asked by the delegation
consisting of disciples of John the Baptist, commissioned to ask Jesus whether He is the One
who was to come or they should expect for someone else: ”Are you the one who was to come
(o` evrco,menoj), or should we expect someone else?" (Mt 11,3). But while at the
Synoptic writers the expression appears as a question, in the Fourth Gospel it appears as being
an assertion marked by a reality that has become certitude for the crowd. For John, the
expression o` evrco,menoj appears to be a Christological or Prophetological testimony
rather than a mere question. Once more we deal with a real Johannine theology developed
around the prophet title assigned to Jesus. Thus we can assert that John the Evangelist
develops in his work a real Prophetological Theology as a component of his Christology. For
him, Jesus is not just a simple prophet, but one who exceeds in significance the Judaic
expectations of his time.
In this context it is also important to acknowledge the fact that the crowd’s assertion and
the accomplished miracle of Jesus appear in the fourth Gospel in a frame of crucial
significance, namely in which Jesus has just declared his unity with the Father and thus his
divinity (Jn 5,17-23.36). This fact determined his audience to ask for a sign whereby He can
prove the authority He was claiming. The sign was the multiplication of the loaves (6,5-13).
In the speech (6,22-59)32 that follows the miracle Jesus defines himself as being the Bread of
Life (6,48).33 From this point of view, the proclamation of Jesus as a Prophet by the crowd
appears in John’s full claim of divinity: ”For I have come down from heaven (katabe,bhka
29
Though no explicit mention of the passage Dt.18,15 appears in the Gospel. In spite of this fact that the passage
Dt. 18,15-21 is not cited, some scholars think that it is implicit in the Gospel According to John. For instance, see
T. Francis Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel, London: SCM, 1963, 27-31; David Hill, New Testament
Prophecy, Atlanta: John Knox, 1979, 36. 57. All these studies suggest that portrayal of Jesus was intended in part
to demonstrate his identity as the prophet like Moses.
30
Jesus’ superiority comparing with that of Moses can be viewed in the New Testament within an antithetic
typology:
- Moses gives food to his people, the heavenly manna, saving him from the physical death – Jesus gives
also food to his people but his own Body, saving the people from its spiritual death which is one eternal
- Moses climbs up in a mountain and receives God’s commandments - Jesus climbs also up in a
mountain and gives to people commandments too which are his own word
- Moses’ authority consists in the word of God – Jesus’ authority consists in his own teaching: ™gw
de lšgw Øm‹n
- Moses’ deeds did him condemn - Jesus’ deeds did save the world etc. (See more details on this topic,
H. Krämer, K.H. Rendtorff, R. Meyer, F. Hauck, prof»thj, profÁtij....,in Theologisches Wörterbuch
zum Neuen Testament, 848-849).
31
Cf. Op. cit., 36.
32
A. J. Köstenberger defines this discourse with the title ”The Bread of Life Discourse” (6, 22-59), (cf. John,
206); (See also, D.A.Carson, The Gospel According to John, 276).

7
 8

evk tou/ ouvranou/) not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me (tou/
pe,myanto,j me). The prophet Jesus, the One who was awaited to come in the world, is
thus the God Jesus, the One who comes from heavens and offers eternal life to the world by
consuming His own Flesh and Blood: ”Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has
eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day…Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my
blood remains in me, and I in him” (6,54-56).
Therefore, referring to the topic of Jesus’ Flesh and Blood in the context of being called
by the crowd the Prophet who is awaited into the world, John the Evangelist is linking the
theological significance of the prophet title to the idea of Jesus’ sacrifice. Thus, for John the
Evangelist, Jesus is not just the Prophet, the One who was awaited into the world, to proclaim
the works of God, but the Prophet who sacrifices himself for it, offering eternal life (cf. 6,53-
58).34 According to D. Stăniloae the eternal life could only be given by him, for God the
Father offered eternal life to the humanity of Jesus that he has took upon himself by the
embodiment as Son of God.35 Therefore, John links the issue of the prophet to that of
sacrifice. This theological perspective of the prophet title significance given to Jesus can not
be found by the Synoptics.
Another theological dimension of the title ”Jesus the Prophet” is given by his discourse
occasioned by his participation at the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem (cf. Jn 7). By this
Feast emphasizing his relation to God, and thereby his authority, having been made clear,
Jesus, taking advantage of a feature of the Temple ritual at Tabernacles, introduced a new
theme into his teaching and made proclamation of the gift of God (cf. earlier references to
water, 3,5; 4,14): “On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud
voice, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the
Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him. By this he meant the
Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had
not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified” (7,37-39).
The quoting of the Scripture in this pericope gives to the text a Christological
interpretation. The idea that water will flow from Jesus is supported by 19,34, where water
comes from his side. Revelation 22,1, that is another johannine work, 36 shows a river of living
water flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb. According to John 7,39, the water is
the Spirit, and for John it is Jesus who gives the Spirit (19,30; 20,22).
R. Brown thinks that the expression “as the Scripture has said” (7, 38) could be interpreted
as an allusion to an event during the Exodus when Moses gives water to the thirsty smiting a
rock with his rod causing water to gush (cf. Ex 17,6). Then the author makes a correct
allusion to the Christological-typological interpretation of the Old Testament’s event within
the old Church: “This rock – he states - was seen in the early church as a type of Christ (I Cor
33
The eucharistic interpretation of the account on the multiplication of loaves (6,1-15) as well as that of the
expression "Jesus – the Bread of life” (6,22-59) is characteristic to the most Exegetes (See R. Brown, The
Gospel According to John, 247-248). A presentation of arguments „for” and „against” to a sacramental
interpretation of the Discours „Jesus – The Bread of life”, see D. A. Carson, op. cit. 277-280. A rearrange of
chapters 4,5 and 6 according to diferent thematic but especially cronological resons, see R. Brown, op. cit.,
235-250.
34
It is true that for some scholars the thematic unity of Jesus discourse on the topic “Bread of life” is
questionably, but the reference to the Eucharistic sacrifice in the speech is not compromised by another themes
which characterize the discourse like that of Incarnation, Wisdom etc. (See R. Brown, op. cit., 263-267).
35
Cf. Chipul evanghelic al lui Iisus Hristos, Sibiu 1991, 96.
36
For further details about the controversed issue regarding the Johannine authorship of the Book of Revelation,
see, Udo Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Göttingen 1994, 547-550; D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo,
Introducere in Noul Testament, trans. into Romanian by Dinu Moga, Oradea 2007, 807-814; The apostolic
authorship of the Book of Revelation is recognized with some reserves, among others by - D. Guthrie, New
Testament Introduction, Illinois SUA, 1990, 932-948; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, NICNT,
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977, 25-31; John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, Chicago: Moody
1966, 11-14.

8
 9

10,4), and therefore this background would favor the Christological interpretation of the
source in John’s citation”.37
Through Jesus Christ, and in consequence of his Exaltation, the Spirit was to be given as
never before. Such a bold assertion, the Holy Spirit being source of life, therefore being
God,38 renewed the division among his hearers, some counted him “the prophet”: “Whoever
believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.
By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive...
Therefore many from the crowd, when they heard this saying, said: Truly this is the Prophet”
(7,38-40). If the Scripture makes reference in 7,38 to the scene of Moses rod smiting the rock
in the desert, then the people had in mind, in the statement “Truly, this is the prophet”, Jesus
the Prophet-like-Moses.39
We saw in 6,14 that the resemblance between Jesus’ power to multiply loaves and that of
Moses to bring down manna from heaven led the crowd to identify Jesus as the Prophet.
It seems that the same way of resemblance can also be found in the text cited earlier. In
fact, the idea of the coming of a second Moses as prophet of the end of time can be tracked in
late rabbinic literature. Regarding the eschatological successor to Moses there is a fragment in
a Midras to Eccles. 1,9 that makes reference to this very prophet: “As the former redeemer
(Moses) made a well to rise (Num 21,17-18), so will the latter Redeemer bring up water, as it
is said: “And a fountain shall come forth from the house of Lord….” (Joel 4,18).40
Another part of the crowd saw however in Jesus the person of Messiah, the one awaited to
come: ”Others said: "He is the Christ!“ (7,40). In the first-century thinking, the prophet and
the Christ were often viewed as two separate personages (cf. Joh 1,21). For instance, in the
Qumran community were expecting both the coming Prophet and the Anointed Ones of Aaron
and Israel (1QS 9,11), whereby the prophet was held to be different from the priestly and
royal Messiahs.41
But another part of those who have been present by the Feast of Tabernacles assuming
they know Jesus origins in Galilee, insisted on the assertion that thus Jesus could not be the
Messiah: “Still others asked: "How can the Christ come from Galilee?” Does not the Scripture
say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David
lived? Thus the people were divided because of Jesus" (7,41-43). The objection that is raised
against Jesus’ being the Messiah indicates that there was no knowledge in Jerusalem that
Jesus had actually been born in Bethlehem, an indication that is hard to reconcile with Matt 2,
3 where all Jerusalem is upset by the birth of the child.
The confusion can be solved if we take into account that there were two theories related to
Messiah and both are illustrated in chapter 7. The objection in 7,27 related to the
identification of Jesus with Messiah comes from a so-called theory of a Hidden-Messiah,
namely of a Messiah whose origins are not known: ”But we know where this man is from;
when the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from.” Paradoxically, the people believe
they know the origins of Christ (Galilee), but are in fact wrong: Jesus has come from heavens
and the crowd seems ignorant to this fact.
Therefore, Jesus is unknown and can be the hidden Messiah. In 7,42 the background of
the confusion seems to be the Davidic descent of Messiah: ”Does not the Scripture say that
the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?”

37
Cf. The Gospel According to John, 322.
38
Cf. Sf. Chiril al Alexandriei, Comentariu la Evanghelia Sfântului Ioan, 538.
39
See D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1991, 329.
40
Cf. R. Brown, op. cit., 329.
41
Cf. A. Köstenberger, op. cit., 241

9
 10

The people think that they know that Jesus was born in Nazareth, but ironically they are
wrong: he was born at Bethlehem. Therefore, Jesus can be the expected Davidic Messiah.42
Due to the split that has been created, some of those who were present wanted to catch
Jesus, but nobody dared to lay hands on Him (7,44). During the dispute arisen in the
Sanhedrin, this time generated by the fact that Jesus has not been arrested, Nicodemus springs
to His defence, but he is being replied: “They answered and said to him: Are you also from
Galilee? Search and look, for no prophet has arisen out of Galilee” (7,52).43 The Pharisees fail
to uphold the law, making a sarcastic response to Nicodemus whose defence of Jesus was
based upon legal grounds: they should first listen to Jesus’ words before He is arrested.44
Related to these disputes and splits in the crowd, generated by the misapprehension of
the Person of Jesus, one may assert that they indicate, historically, that there was a diversity of
opinions regarding Jesus’ legitimacy during the early ministry. 45 Therefore, by the feast of
Tabernacles Jesus was thought to be the expected Prophet, but also the Davidic Messiah.
But the theological perspective of the Evangelist goes however beyond the apparent
confusion of the origins of Jesus. What John meant by recording this episode of the Feast of
Tabernacles in his Gospel is its deep theological significance. He sees in the water that Jesus
Christ can offer as the spring of life, the Holy Spirit. The Eastern exegetical tradition46 has
always emphasized the strong link between Jesus’ deified humanity, after His death and
resurrection, and the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world. Emphasizing this idea, D.
Staniloae stated: “The Holy Spirit will fully irradiate from Christ’s humanity only after He
resurrects as a human, namely when His humanity is freed from death. The Holy Spirit is the
hypostasis of life, as the Son is the hypostasis of the word, thought and wisdom:” By this he
meant that the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive; for the Holy
Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7, 39). 47 From this point of
view, what theologically characterizes the episode that took place during the Feast of
Tabernacles is the pointing out of the Christological dimension of Johannine Pnevmatology.
Therefore, Jesus – “The Johannine Prophet”, according to the Speech from the Feast of
Tabernacles, is not just David’s descendant or a prophet equal to Moses; He is much more. He
is the Prophet through whom the Holy Spirit comes into the world; He is the Eschatological
Prophet of Pneumatological life of the Christian Church of all times.

42
R. Brown notes that some scholars arrogated the ignorance of the crowd regarding Jesus’ place of birth to the
Evangelist, due to his avoidance in giving an answer to those asserted in 7,42. However , the parallelism between
7,27 and 7,42 clearly shows that the author of the Gospel knew very well the place of Jesus’ birth (See The
Gospel according to John, 330). Considering also the fact the author of the Gospel shows a perfect knowledge of
Palestine and its Judaic traditions it is hard to imagine that he didn’t know the birth place of Jesus. From this
point of view, this kind of remarks remains pure fantasy. Additionally, the two concepts mentioned above have
the role to improve those previously asserted.
43
But their statement condemns them and shows their blindness to the Scriptures: the Prophet Jonah came from
Gath Hepher, a town in Galilee only 3 miles from Nazareth (2 Kin. 14, 25). Cf. The Orthodox Study Bible. New
Testament and Psalms, Nashville, Tenessee, 1997, 233
44
See Ex.23,1 – forbidding false reporting; Deut. 1,16 – requiring that both sides of the case be heard. See also
Josephus, Antiquities 14, 167. G. Zevini thinks that the author by this dispute generated by the presence of Jesus
at the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem has pointed out a polemic between the primary Church of the end of the
first century and the Judaism of that age: ”Pour Jean, dont le texte précédent met en évidence une vive
polémique entre l’Eglise des origine à la fin du premier siècle et le judaisme de l’époque, le visage des
adversaires apparait maintenant dans tous ses détails” (cf. Commentaire spirituel, 181).
45
Details related to the reason of the splits generated by the Person of Jesus, registered by the Evangelist
especially in chapters 7-10, see, L. Schenke, „Joh 7-10: Eine dramatische Szene“, in „Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft“ 80, 1989, 177-178.
46
An example in this sense, see Sf. Chiril al Alexandriei, op. cit. 532-537
47
Cf. Chipul evanghelic, 146.

10
 11

Jesus – “The Johannine Prophet” is God. We must emphasize, in this context as well,
the superiority of the Johannine perspective over the theological dimension of the “Prophet”
title of Jesus, as compared to the one of the Synoptic Gospels.
But the theological perspective of John the Evangelist on the “Prophet” title, attributed
to Jesus by His contemporaries acquires new dimensions in the account of the miracle of
healing performed on the man born blind (Jn 9). After his healing, as he receives his sight
from Jesus, a controversy arises between the Pharisees regarding Jesus’ identity: “Some of the
Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But others
asked, "How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?" So they were divided” (9, 16). But,
during the dispute, the former blind man is asked to utter an opinion regarding the identity of
the One who has cured him: “Finally they turned again to the blind man, “What do you say
about Him, since He opened your eyes?" And he said, "He is a prophet - o[ti profh,thj
evsti,n” (9, 17).
As for the statement of the formerly blind man is not the same as that of 6,14 or 7,40,
where the article is used (see on these verses) (cf. rather 4,19). The formerly blind man, like
the Samaritan woman, is simply aware of the presence of an unusual person, who excites
wonder and respect, though the precise nuances may differ. No ordinary man could have
given sight to the blind. Therefore, for the formerly blind man, was Jesus a simple prophet? 48
It is not easy to answer this question. Probably, “Prophet” may well have been the highest
position that the man knew to ascribe to Jesus.49 Rudolf Schnackenburg thinks that by
designating Jesus as a Prophet, the former blind man did not assign a messianic significance
to the notion, for only Jesus leads him to such understanding: ”Eine messianische Bedeutung
hat die Bezeichnung ”ein Prophet” schwerlich, da der Geheilte zu einem solchen Glauben erst
durch Jesus selbst geführt wird”.50 It is possible he had in view the fact that the only notable
miracle-working prophets were Elijah and Elisha (cf. 2 Kings 5,10-14). Another possible
antecedent figure is Moses (Dt 18,15-18; 34, 10-12). Had he in view the prophets mentioned
above then Jesus wouldn’t have been for him a simple prophet. Clearly, the man’s verdict runs
counter to the Pharisees’ categorical denial, “This man is not from God” (9,16).
What is interesting to note in the characterization made by the blind man to Jesus, as
A. Köstenberger correctly mentions, is his progress in estimating and understanding the
Person of Jesus: from ”the man called Jesus” (9,11) to ”a prophet” (9,17), to one who might
be followed by disciples (9,27), to ”from God” (9,33), to ”Lord” to be worshiped (9,38). 51
Taking into account the progressive itinerary of the former blind man to understand Jesus’
Person, C.S. Keener calls him ”a paradigm of growing discipleship” 52 The idea of spiritual
progress in understanding the Person of Jesus, The Prophet, by the one who once used to be
blind, is also expressed by D.A. Carson who asserts that ”the confession He is a prophet may
reflect a man in his spiritual infancy, but it is a step in the right direction, an improvement
over his ”the man they call Jesus” (9,11). This man’s eyes are opening wider: he is beginning
to see still more clearly, while the eyes of his judges are becoming clouded over with
blinding, theological mist”.53
This progressive itinerary in understanding the Person of Jesus made by the former
blind man is the frame within which John the Evangelist incorporates the theological
significance that he allots to the title „Prophet” in this episode. The healing of the man born
48
See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 359.
49
See L. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 432. St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Commentary to John hints at
this fact by saying: “For it was their practice to call “Prophets” those who were performing miracles, as ones
who are hereby acknowledged by God as being good” (Cf. Comentariu la Evanghelia St. Ioan, 675).
50
Cf. Das Johannesevangelium, II, 315.
51
Cf. John, 287. See also, D.A.Carson, The Gospel according to John, 368.
52
Cf. The Gospel of John, Peabody, Mass: Haendrickson, 2003, 775.
53
Cf. The Gospel According to John, 368.

11
 12

blind represents the sixth and penultimate sign chosen by John to demonstrate Jesus’
messiahship and divinity.54 In the context of his Gospel, John the Evangelist describes the
healing in terms of light-darkness imagery. By the Feast of Tabernacles Jesus proclaims
himself to be the Light of the world (8,12). In the healing of the blind man Jesus manifests
himself as such. The world and the Jews with it lie in darkness (9,39). Whoever wants to walk
in the light must come to Jesus and follow him. In fact, by recording the episode of the
healing of the blind man, the Evangelist wants to reveal what happens when the light spreads.
D.A. Carson answers: ”Some are made to see, like this man born blind, while others, who
think they see, turn away, blinded, as it were, by the light (9,39-41)”.55
In John’s vision, the One who carries the man over from darkness to light is none other
than the prophet from the testimony of the one who once was blind. In Synoptic Gospels we
do not find theme of “Jesus-Prophet” linked to the motive “light”. However, we do find in
Luke’s Gospel, in the episode of the resurrection of the Nain widow’s son the “Prophet”
theme bound to the theme of life (Lk 7, 11-16). In John 9, the contrast between light and
darkness is eliminated by Jesus, the Prophet, which creates a favourable framework for a true
outlook and understanding the Person of Jesus. Within this new framework, created by light,
the one who used to be blind ends up believing in Jesus and worship him: “Jesus heard that
they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of
God?"56 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord that I might believe on him? Jesus said, "You
have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." Then the man said, "Lord, I
believe," and he worshiped him (proseku,nhsen auvtw/)| ” (9,35-38). The Evangelist’s
use of the word proskune,w, which when it has God as subject of worship (cf. Mt 4:10;
Jn 4:20f, 23f; 12:20; Ac 24:11; 1 Cor 14:25; Hb 11:21; Rev 4:10; 14:7; 19:4) or the Person of
Christ (Mt 2:2, 8, 11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 20:20; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Mk 5:6; 15:19; Lk 24:52)
means - fall down (fall on your knees) and worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before,
do reverence to, clearly shows that the former blind man perceived Jesus as being the true
God. At this point, the one who was confessed as Prophet now becomes for him God, whom
he is already worshiping. This immediate perspective of adoration by a quick transition from
the understanding of the person of Jesus as prophet, to that of God, is not found in the
Synoptic Gospels. It belongs only to John and is due to his obvious concern to confer Jesus’
facts and words a deep theological message, resulting from the understanding of His person as
a true God. (cf. 20, 28)
Therefore, the main purpose of John is not to designate Jesus’ place among the
prophets, but to emphasize his unique identity as the Son of God, who has been given the
power and the authority to speak God’s words and to do God’s works in the world. The
“Prophet – Jesus” is identified in the Fourth Gospel with “God-Jesus”.
What is interesting to distinguish is the Jesus’ concern to help the former blind man to
reach the faith and understanding of His person. Developing this idea, St. Cyril writes: “Not
54
Concerning the theological significance of the „sign” of healing the man who used to be blind, in the context
of the theological message of the „Book of signs” (Jn 1-12), see R. Brown, The Gospel according to John, I,
369-376; R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, II, 302-328; G. Zevini, thinks that the pericope 9,1-41
was originally ”une catéchèse christologique de ton apologétique, face à l’opposition de la Synagogue de la fin
du premier siècle, catéchèse idéale pour ceux qui dans la suite, se préparent à recevoir le baptême” (cf.
Commentaire spirituel de l’ Evangile de Jean, I, 201.
55
Cf. The Gospel According to John, 359.
56
Some critical editions have the expression ”Son of Man” (cf. NAS, NIV, NLT). Andreas J. Köstenberger
(John, 294), quoting M. Müller (”Have You Faith in the Son of Man? (John 9,35”), in ”New Testament Studies”,
37, 1991, 291-294), affirms ”the term ”Son of Man” here appears to be primarily a term of self-identification”.
D.A. Carson also thinks that the original form of the expression was ”Son of Man” and not ”Son of God”. He
states: ”It is almost universally acknowledged that ”Son of man” is original, not only because the earliest
manuscripts support this reading, but also because it is hard to see in this instance copyists would have
introduced a harder reading” (Cf. The Gospel According to John, 376).

12
 13

only does Jesus simply ask the former blind man if he wishes to believe, but He also adds the
question in whom to believe. For the faith must be in the Son of God and not in a man like us,
but in a God embodied as a man like us... And by asking him: “Do you believe?” He is
actually asking him: “Do you wish to see beyond their madness? You, who have managed to
defeat their lack of faith, receive the faith!”57
Therefore, the Fourth Gospel places the “Prophet” title in a framework of theological
significances which confer a specific mark to the Johannine Christology and through it to the
entire New Testament Christology. The Johannine Jesus is not only the prophet, but the
prophesied, not only the mouthpiece for the divine word but the content of the message
itself.58

3. Conclusions

1. According to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus did not attribute himself the title of
“Eschatological Prophet”. By virtue of his messianic activity, He was more than a
mere prophet, but being an eschatological one.59
2. In the applying of the concept “prophet” to Jesus Christ, the Fourth Gospel records
two distinguished attitudes:
a. A part of Jesus’ contemporaries still looked forward to coming of the
eschatological Prophet: “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world” (Jn
6,14)
b. Another part of Jesus’ contemporaries was convinced that the eschatological
Prophet is already come in the Person of Jesus Christ and therefore the people is
contemporary with Him, but not being well sure if he is the very eschatological
Prophet or a simple one: “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet !” (Jn 4,19).60
3. John the Evangelist develops in his creation an entire theology centred upon the title
of „prophet” attributed to Jesus, highlighting four dominating characteristics of its
significance:
a. Kerygmatic Characteristic (cf. Episode ”Samaritan woman” – Jn 4)
b. Sacrificial Characteristic (cf. Discourse ”Bread of Life” – Jn 6)
c. Pneumatological Characteristic (cf. Discourse by the Feast of Tabernacles- Jn 8)
d. Divine Characteristic ("Do you believe in the Son of God?" – cf. Episode ”Blind
Man”- Jn 9)
4. In the Fourth Gospel, unlike in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus reveals Himself as more
than the awaited prophet; He is The Messiah and even the Son of God: The former blind man
worships him (9, 38). Thus, the Johannine perspective of understanding Jesus as being the
Eschatological Prophet is exceeded.
5. In defining the Johannine Christology, the title of “prophet” plays a dominant role
in pointing out the messianic character of Jesus Christ’s activity and, last but not least, of the
deity of His Person.

57
Cf. Comentariu la Evanghelia Sf. Ioan, 693.
58
More details on this subject, see Dumitru Staniloae, Iisus Hristos sau restaurarea omului, Sibiu 1943, 214-
216.
59
The fact that Jesus has himself never designated as being the „Eschatological Prophet” is considered from
some scholars as coming from the so-called „Messianic Secret” that has characterized his activity: „Daß Jesus
sich nirgendwo ausdrücklich als endzeitlichen Propheten bezeichnet hat, kann nicht als Beweis dafür angesehen
werden, daß Er sich selbst nicht für den Propheten angesehen hat, sondern es entspricht seiner sonstigen
Verkündigung, die das Messiasgeheimnis wahrt”. (See more details, K.H. Rendtorff, R. Meyer, F. Hauck,
prof»thj, profÁtij....(ThWNT), 849).
60
See more details on this topic, Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament. A Historical Introduction to the Early
Christian Writings, New York / Oxford, 2000, chap. “Jesus, the Apocalyptic Prophet”, 229 ff.

13
14

14