The Kingship of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Sehyun Kim

as the audience or the readers of the Gospel in the multicultural societies of the Roman Empire. On this, Okure argues, “the Christians of the first century were not provincial in their outlook, movements or mentality, we have no reason to surmise that either the works or the problems addressed were restricted to the geographical area from which they originated” (Okure, Johannine Approach, 280–81).

55. On the relationship between Samaritan tradition and the Gospel, see chapter 3 of this book. Freed argues that John 4 was written to win Samaritan converts (Freed, “Did John Write His Gospel?,” 241–56). Meeks also contends that the secondary aim of the Gospel is to win Samaritan converts (Meeks, Prophet-King, 313–19; Meeks, “Galilee and Judea,” 159–69, esp. 169; Meeks, “‘Am I a Jew?’,” 163–86, esp. 178).

56. On the relationship between ideology and reality, see the section “Methods and Theories” of this chapter.

57. On this, Wind concludes, “It is therefore not improbable that the purpose of John’s Gospel is as broad as its universalistic character seems to suggest: ‘that you may believe’, that is the faith that saves and defeats the world (John iii 16 and I John v 5)” (Wind, “Destination and Purpose,” 69).

58. On the openness to Gentiles or Gentile Christians in the Gospel, see Dodd, Interpretation, 9; Hengel, Johannine Question, 123; Brown, Community, 55–58; Culpepper, Johannine School, 287–88; Wind, “Destination and Purpose,” 26–69. For example, insertions of Greek terms to clarify Aramaic phrases (1:41, 42; 4:25) show that the author considered Greek-speaking readers (Brown, Community, 57; Kysar, John, 44).

59. Polemic purposes against several groups, for example, Gnosticism, Docetists, the followers of John the Baptist, and so on, have been suggested by scholars. For good surveys on it, see Morris, Gospel, 30–34; Lindars, Gospel, 58–63.

60. See Rensberger, Johannine Faith, 87–134; Carter, John and Empire.

61. On the apologetic purpose of the Gospel of John, the defense of the faith of the Johannine community before unbelievers and/or other Christian groups, see McGrath, John’s Apologetic Christology, esp. 232; Fortna, Gospel of Signs, 224, 229–31; Nicol, Semeia, 145; Meeks, “Divine Agent,” 43–67, esp. 44; Geisler, “Johannine Apologetics,” 333–43; Brown, Introduction, 151–83; Alexander, “Acts of the Apostles,” 15–44.

62. Alexander, “Acts of the Apostles,” 17–18.

63. Fiorenza, “Miracles, Mission and Apologetics,” 2. Droge also gives a good explanation: “Apologetic in the New Testament comprises a study of the ‘act of persuasion’ employed by the early Christians. Such persuasion evolved in a context of Jewish and Hellenistic thought and laid a foundation from the second century apologists. . . . Much of early Christian literature, including the New Testament, was written to promote and defend the Christian movement. The early Christians attempted to appeal to the inhabitants and used methods of Hellenistic religious propaganda. The appropriation of such apologetic-propagandistic forms was essential if Christianity was to succeed in the face of competition from other religions” (Droge, “Apologetics,” 302–7, esp. 302).

64. See Cassidy, John’s Gospel.

65. The implicit expression of the persecution (9:22; 12:42; 16:2; cf. Domitian’s claim being “Lord and God” in John 20:28; Jesus’ death on the cross as a Roman execution; Peter’s martyrdom in 21:18–19) might show that the Johannine community had been struggling not only with the Synagogue but also with the Roman power (see chapter 3 of this book).

66. Meeks, “Man from Heaven,” 44–72; Meeks, “‘Am I a Jew?’,” 163–86; see also Fuglseth, Johannine Sectarianism; Segovia, “Love and Hatred,” 258–72; Culpepper, Johannine School, 287; Brown, Gospel, lxx–lxxv; Kysar, Fourth Evangelist, 149–65; Wind, “Destination and Purpose,” 31–32.

67. See chapter 6 of this book.

68. See Beutler, “Faith and Confession,” 19–32. The Fourth Gospel shows various examples of figures who confess Jesus as their object of faith: Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, the man born blind, Peter, the beloved disciple, Thomas and the disciples, Mary Magdalene, and Joseph of Arimathea and the Crypto-Christians.

69. McKnight, “Reader-Response,” 239.

70. See also Burridge, “About People,” 113–45, esp. 144. On a fairly wide and rapid dissemination and circulation of the texts in the first century, see Thompson, “Holy Internet,” 49–70; Alexander, “Ancient Book,” 71–105; Bauckham, “John for Readers,” 147–71; Barton, “Can We Identify?” 173–94.

71. Nissen, “Community and Ethics,” 197.

72. On the rejection of the sectarian nature of the community, see Cullmann, Johannine Circle; Brown, Community.

73. On this, see chapter 5 of this book.

74. See Rensberger, Johannine Faith. Rensberger argues that John is a kind of liberation theologian. However, it does not mean that the Gospel of John is written only for the poor. It was also written for the rich, for example, the positive roles of Joseph and Nicodemus in the burial of Jesus (van Bruggen, Jesus). On this matter, see also chapter 6 of this book.

75. Lincoln, Gospel, 88.

76. Okure, Johannine Approach, 11–12.

77. Segovia proposes the five possible functions of the plot of the Gospel of John, which shows comprehensively the synthetic purpose of the Gospel (a very strong didactic function; a very strong polemical function; a very prominent admonitory function; a clear consolatory function; a very important exhortatory function). See Segovia, “Journey(s),” 47–49.

78. Carson, Gospel, 89; See also Beasley-Murray, John, lxxxviii–xc; Barrett, Gospel, 26; de Jonge, Jesus, 1–3.

79. Okure, Johannine Approach, 14.

80. Fiorenza, “Miracles, Mission and Apologetics,” 3; see also