Understanding John 17:5

Does John 17:5 teach a literal preexistence? Introductory Notes

John 17:5 is used as a common proof text for Trinitarians and Arians who believe that Jesus had a literal preexistence as a conscious being. 

John 17:5 (ESV)
⁵ And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Does the statement according to John 17:5, “glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed” teach a literal preexistence? The literal interpretation of the isolated verse would seem to indicate that.  This is, however, not actually the case. There is a better explanation of what is being conveyed in John 17:5 that better fits the larger context of John 17 and the balanced testimony of the New Testament.

One of the principal hazards with respect to the book of John is that Jesus is presented as saying things that cannot be understood in the correct sense without looking at the surrounding context. John 17:5 is a prime example of this.

When one approaches any verse in John, the appropriate question is to ask first whether the verse should be taken literally. Is there an indication in the surrounding context the meaning is to be qualified? Indeed, the surrounding context indicates it to be understood in a non-literal or figurative sense.

If it can be observed that there are numerous passages in John that are clearly not literal, then why should John 17:5 be regarded in such a way if there is an explanation of the meaning that fits better with the surrounding context? Before we get into the correct understanding of John 17:5, let’s first review why we must be particularly careful about John.

John is clearly not the kind of book that should be as it is not written as a histography but rather scholars have observed it is more similar to Hellenistic revelation literature and is written in a style appealing to philosophically minded Jews and Greeks. Early Church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria identified John as a spiritual Gospel. His pupil Origen of Alexandra, one of the most prolific Christian theologians of the third century, noted, that John cannot be taken as a historical narrative but is symbolic. Origen, in his extensive commentary on John, noted the discrepancies between John and the first three gospels that if literally read, the narrative cannot be harmonized and that John must be interpreted spiritually.

In modern times, since the 100+ years of critical scholarship stemming from the mid-19^th century, it became more axiomatic for New Testament scholarship that the Gospel of John should be regarded as a theological, rather than a historical document. James D. G. Dunn, in reference to the quest for the historical Jesus, concurred that “it cannot be regarded as a good source for the life of Jesus.” (James D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, Volume 1, Jesus Remembered, Paperback Edition, 2019, pp. 40-41)

Dunn further concludes the conventional findings regarding John are correct. 

“Few scholars would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus’ life and ministry in any degree comparable to the Synoptics.” After giving an overview of the numerous factors leading to this conclusion Dunn concludes in his book on Christianity in the Making, “On the whole then, the position is unchanged: John’s gospel cannot be regarded as a source for the life and the teaching of Jesus of the same order as the Synoptics… We shall certainly want to call upon John’s gospel as a source, but mostly as a secondary source to supplement or corroborate the testimony of the Synoptic tradition.” (James D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, Volume 1, Jesus Remembered, Paperback Edition, 2019, pp. 165-167)

Richard Bauckham, in his commentary on major themes in Johannine theology, observed, “The Gospel of John is a text that constantly creates the impression that more is going on than immediately meets the eye. The author deploys the power of metaphor and symbol in a masterful way” and that “John is a master of irony, so that characters constantly say more than they intend, and sometimes even the opposite of what they mean. Jesus is consistently misunderstood, foregrounding the question of what is the true meaning of his words.” He further noted that “its frequently riddling character… is meant to tease the intelligence and entice its readers into its world of multidimensional meaning.” (Richard Bauckham, Gospel of Glory, Major Themes in Johannine Theology, p. 131-32)

Numerous scholars throughout the 20^th century have noted that John exhibits a theme of misunderstanding and employs irony and symbolism throughout.

Hans Windisch in 1923 regarded expressions of misunderstanding in the Fourth Gospel as a mark of Johannine style.

H. Leroy interpreted this technique as the genre riddle, related to oracle and joke. The unreal riddles of John are given an abstract answer, which could not be understood without the accompanying clarification. (George Strecker, History of New Testament Literature (1997) p. 175)

Rudolf Bultmann argued, in his commentary on the Gospel of John, that “the device of the misunderstanding occurs again and again throughout the Gospel.” Bultmann suggested that this particular device was already being used in Hellenistic revelation literature. 

Alan Culpepper further elaborates on the misunderstanding, irony, and symbolism of John in his book Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, A Study in Literary Design noting:

“The continuous implicit communication within the Fourth Gospel is a major source of both its power and its mystery. What seems clear and simple on the surface is never so simple for the prospective reader because of the opacity and complexity of the Gospel’s subsurface signals. Various textural features, principally the misunderstandings, irony, and symbolism, constantly lead the reader to view the story from a higher vantage point.” (R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, A Study in Literary Design, p. 151)

Culpepper saw the distinctive feature of the Gospel of John is as the frequency in which its secondary characters misunderstand Jesus. He characterizes these misunderstandings by the following elements:

(1) Jesus makes a statement which is ambiguous, metaphorical, or contains a double-entendre;

(2) His dialogue partner responds either in terms of the literal meaning of Jesus’ statement or by a question or protest which shows that he or she has missed the higher meaning of Jesus words

(3) In most instances, an explanation is then offered by Jesus or (less frequently) the narrator. The misunderstandings, therefore, provide an opportunity to explain the meaning of Jesus’ words and develop significant themes further.

In the larger analysis of John, Culpepper observed “Our analysis of the misunderstandings, ironies, and symbolism of the Fourth gospel highlights it’s deformation of language. Images, concepts, and symbols, and in its milieu are defamiliarized, given new meaning, and used idiosyncratically. In succession, various characters missed their meaning. The misunderstandings warned the reader not to mistake superficial for real meanings. He further concludes “This interweaving of themes through misunderstanding, irony, and symbolism, is the signature of the evangelist’s insight and art.” (P.119)

Herbert Leroy has produced the most extensive study of misunderstandings and John, and it remains the best compendium of information on the subject. Through form-critical analysis, he defines the Johannine misunderstanding as concealed riddles.

Francois Vouga argued that John does not use misunderstanding as a “technique” which is applied in the same manner in every instance but that John’s method is supple and variable.

David W. Wead, concluded “Whether the misunderstandings are described as a “motif,” “technique,” or “device” is probably of little consequence as long as their frequency, variability, and effects are recognized, (David W. Wead, The Literary Devices in John’s Gospel, pp. 69-70)

C. H. Dodd noted “The evangelist, it seems, has molded his material in forms based upon current Hellenistic models of philosophical and religious teachings, instead of following the forms, of Jewish origin, represented in the synoptic gospels. The typical Johannine dialogue must be accepted as an original literary creation owing, so far as form is concerned, little or nothing to the primitive Christian tradition.” (C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, p. 321)

More recently, Warren Carter, in his book, ‘John: Storyteller Interpreter Evangelist, noted that the literary design of the Fourth Gospel, specifically the theme of misunderstanding, is highly important for making sense of what the author or authors of the Gospel of John are trying to convey to their ideal readers.

Dustin Smith noted recently in his Biblical Unitarian Podcast #204, “the theme of misunderstanding has been widely accepted as non-controversial and clearly apparent by scholars of the Gospel of John for over 100 years.”

It is with this disclaimer we must affirm that the proper approach to understanding John is not to adopt the most straightforward or literal interpretation of a particular verse, but to understand how the meaning of the verse is to be understood by the surrounding context. This is precisely the approach we must take with John 17:5. If isolated from the entire chapter, John 17:5 could easily be misunderstood. The meaning must be qualified by the surrounding context, especially the entirety of the chapter containing the verse in question. Best practices for Bible interpretation require careful attention to the immediate context. Most errors in interpretation involve taking verses and phrases out of context, and passages in John are especially susceptible to misunderstanding.