In a 2006 article, John Dennis catalogued a recovery occurring in Johannine scholarship from the period of Bultmann to the present. He concluded, “When the Gospel text is taken seriously as a unity and when all the evidence concerning Jesus’s death in John is taken into account …, a more traditional atonement interpretation seems to be the result.”1 This article adds evidence which interpreters must account for, namely that John’s use of the OT provides a window into the mechanics of how Jesus’s death saves.

In the Gospel of John, interpreters regularly note how Jesus’s death is a revelation of God, and frequently, explanations of this revelation highlight God’s love. Naturally, we should highlight the revelatory element of Jesus’s death because by it Jesus reveals (1) his identity (John 8:28; 12:31–38) and (2) the Father (1:18; 12:28; 14:31). Not only that, but Jesus’s death also reveals God’s love (3:16), Jesus’s love for the Father (14:31), and Jesus’s love for his own (13:1; 15:13). A close analysis, however, of John’s use of the Old Testament to characterize Jesus’s death reveals that—for John—categories of “revelation,” “exemplarism,” and “love” are insufficient as models for discussing Jesus’s cross-work.2

This article lays out the fruit of that analysis in three steps: (1) John 1 and 19 function as adumbration and fulfillment depicting Jesus with lamblike righteous sufferer imagery; (2) we are, therefore, warranted to examine how John employs the OT around the three ὕψωσις-statements which anticipate Jesus’s death (John 3:13–21; 8:21–30; 12:20–43); (3) in view of how he uses the OT in those five key contexts, I argue that John characterizes Jesus as the substitutionary sacrifice of the new exodus, and that substitutionary atonement is essential to the inner mechanism of Jesus’s death in the Gospel of John.

1. Key Distinctions

Before exploring John’s presentation of the death of Jesus in detail, it is important to first explain some crucial logical and theological distinctions that are frequently neglected. I have in mind three related distinctions, all of which are intuitive: mechanism vs. message, objective vs. subjective, and salvation vs. glory.

First, mechanism vs. message distinguishes between what something does and what something says. For example, the internal gears of a mechanical watch are what does the timekeeping, and the watch face is what tells the time to the wearer. Without the hands, the watch cannot be read, but without the internal mechanism it ceases to keep time at all. To one who understands watches, the idea that the hands do the time-keeping is clearly mistaken—a category confusion. The hands display the time kept by the internal mechanism. Johannine scholars who would argue that Jesus’s death saves by revealing God are guilty of the same category error—they’ve confused the message of the cross for its mechanism.3 Just as we would surely not mistake an advertisement for Citizen’s latest watch face to indicate a change in the mechanics of timekeeping, in the same way John’s clear emphasis on the revelatory nature of Jesus’s death does not indicate a change in the mechanics of how it saves sinners.4 As an aside: we should observe that to equate the message of the cross with its saving mechanism, interpreters must redefine sin as a cerebral malady—a move without support from John’s use of the OT.5

The second distinction to keep in mind is between the objective accomplishing of salvation and the subjective receiving of salvation. Schreiner and Caneday make the distinction this way: “We make this crucial distinction between the objective basis and the subjective means of salvation to make it clear from the outset that what believers do in order to attain the prize of eternal life does not add to or nullify God’s grace in the saving work of Jesus Christ.”6 There is a difference between what believers do to receive salvation and what Jesus did to obtain it. While John undeniably accents the subjective side of this equation—think about the 98 uses of πιστεύω and numerous metaphors for belief—nevertheless, this does not alter what Jesus did objectively. It does, however, explain John’s revelatory emphasis—doesn’t it? John’s emphasis on the revelatory message of the cross correlates precisely with his subjective emphasis on believing to have eternal life. Yet, this subjective emphasis does not militate against the objective accomplishment of Jesus’s death.

Schreiner insightfully suggests a final way interpreters err: they misunderstand the “foundational theme” of God’s word. He writes, “[There is] a problem with any biblical theology that posits salvation as the foundational theme of Scripture. How is judgment integrated into such a reading of Scripture? If the glory of God is foundational, however, then his glory is featured in both judgment and salvation.”7 Therefore, to limit the revelation of Jesus’s death to a single attribute of God, simply does not do justice to John’s reflection that “the only-begotten God … has made [the Father God] known” (1:18)8 because what does John report is revealed to be seen, sought, and loved? Not just the love, but the glory of God. “We beheld his glory” (1:14); “you do not seek the glory that comes from the only God” (5:44); “they loved the glory that comes from men more than the glory of God” (12:43 cf. 3:19).9 Atonement theories, therefore, that pit the perfections of God against one another or which see no place for judgment in the revelation of God’s glory—these theories are not only theologically untenable but are also ruled out by a close reading of John.

With these distinctions made, we are now better prepared to consider the testimonial bookends of Jesus’s life and the three lifted up sayings in order to discern how John understands the essence of Jesus’s death as the mechanism of salvation objectively accomplished.

2. Testimonial Bookends: Behold the Lamb

As Jean Zumstein has noted, John 1:29–34 and 19:31–37 form an inclusio, which he says constructs “an arc of tension which places the whole of the narrative under the sign of the cross.”10 This is why I characterized these passages in my introduction, respectively, as adumbration and fulfillment. The former prepares us to understand the latter; therefore, I agree with Jörg Frey who would describe a passage like John 1:29–34 as “introduc[ing] the appropriate categories so that the events [of Jesus’s death] can be properly understood when they are finally narrated in the passion story.”11 For each passage, I will comment briefly on (1) the preceding context, (2) the structure of the passage, and (3) the identities and actions ascribed to Jesus.

2.1. Testimony of the Baptist

In the Gospel of John—unlike the Synoptics—we do not learn of the Baptist’s origins, manner of clothing, unorthodox diet, feud with Herod, or even his message of repentance; rather, John’s focus is almost exclusively on the Baptist’s testimony.12 Although the Baptist’s testimony is properly introduced by verse 19, John prefaced it in the prologue in such a way that we already know about whom and why the Baptist testifies (1:6–7, 15). The testimony is about the Light, who is the Life, who is none other than the preexistent, divine, creative Word (1:1–5). The purpose of his testifying is that “all might believe [in the Word] through [the Baptist’s testimony]” (1:7).13 Additionally, John teases the Baptist’s testimony in verse 15 (cf. v. 30), thereby forging a link with 1:29–34. This link connects the divine Word with the coming One (ἐρχόμενος; 1:15, 27, 30).14

2.1.1. Structure of John 1:29–34

Turning our attention to 1:29–34, I have depicted the structure of the passage in Figure 1.15

The most important observation from this structure, for this paper, is that the paragraph is principally testimony (F) about Jesus’s identity (A/A’),16 for which the preceding inquiries into the Baptist’s identity serve as a foil (1:19–25).17 Jesus’s identity is explained in each of the corresponding actions (B/B’): as Lamb of God, Jesus is the one able to take away sin,18 and as Chosen One of God, Jesus is the one able to baptize with the Spirit.

2.1.2. Adumbrated: Lamblike Servant

I will provide my interpretation of each identity-action pair briefly.19 First, the Lamb of God. Many interpreters would say no single background accounts for the identity-action of John 1:29; instead, in various ways they tend to suggest that John has blended the backgrounds of Passover lamb with that of the Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah 53.20 While I sympathize with this impulse, I disagree that such “creativity” or “innovation” is John’s doing; rather, I suggest that John evokes a network of OT typological connections—a pattern of redemption—by means of a single primary source. I diagram my view in Figure 2.21

I understand “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” to refer principally to the Servant of Isaiah 53, and if we asked, what sort of lamb does Isaiah envision this Servant as, I would argue he is the Passover lamb of the new exodus.22 Now, in typology, later installments on or variations of the type usually come with escalations.23 The Servant is no different. But, just as later variations on the 1964 Mustang are the same type of Ford, so the Servant despite variations is based on the type of the Passover lamb. In turn, we must notice that the Passover lamb is patterned off the type of God’s provided lamb from Genesis 22.24 Just like God provided a ram to die in the place of Abraham’s firstborn child of the promise, Isaac—an undeniably substitutionary sacrifice—so too God provided the Passover sacrifice (Exod 12:27) to die in the place of the firstborn of his people (Exod 12:12–13). One of the typological escalations between the paschal and the lamblike Servant is that Isaiah says the Servant’s substitution deals with the sin, iniquity, and transgression of others. As such, the Servant’s death is properly understood as an atonement for sin.25

Thus, John evokes the three most commonly discussed backgrounds for John 1:29 by referring to Isaiah 53 understood in its typological trajectory. The lamb of Genesis 22 is a type of substitutionary sacrifice, the Passover lamb repeats that type during the exodus and adds the aversion of wrath, and the lamblike Servant repeats the type of the Passover lamb and adds (1) atonement for sin, (2) human substitution, and (3) possible divine identity for the substitute. The resonances we hear in John 1:29 of the Passover lamb and Genesis 22 make sense because (1) they are part of the background of the Isaianic reference, and (2) John will later accent or allude to both in his gospel—perhaps to better unpack his own biblical-theological understanding of the Servant. Therefore, I agree with D. A. Carson that John’s presentation of Jesus as a lamb introduces “the theme of vicarious substitution as atonement for sin at the very beginning of his Gospel,” which, Carson continues, “ought to have a shaping effect on the way we read the rest of the Gospel.”26

Second, regarding the identity-action of Chosen One who baptizes with the Spirit.27 I agree with the text-critical arguments of Tze-Ming Quek, who argues that ὁ ἐκλεκτός is the harder reading and more likely original.28 With Bauckham and Bittner, I understand this identity-action to allude to Isaiah 11:2 and 42:1 to describe Jesus as the anticipated Davidic messiah who has the Spirit.29 In this Gospel where the disciples are frequently chosen (ἐκλέγομαι, 6:70; 13:18; 15:16, 19), Jesus is the Chosen One par excellence,30 and as Jesus was sent and given the Spirit, so he sends them and gives them the Spirit (17:18; 20:21). In this way, the disciples in John are like the servants of the Servant in Isaiah. Therefore, in John 1:29–34 we can see that the identity-action pairs, which describe Jesus, describe him in terms of the Isaianic Servant understood in his literary and canonical contexts. We anticipated this since the Baptist positioned himself as a co-witness with Isaiah. Now, we will turn to John 19, where—once again—testimony is the center of the structure that involves two identities and actions.

2.2. Testimony of the Beloved Disciple

As John moves his narrative toward the cross in 18:28–19:30,31 the prominent theme of Jesus’s kingship is augmented with various intra- and inter-textual connections to shepherd, Servant, sufferer, and paschal texts.32

First, John offers a narrative aside in 18:32b to the effect that Jesus’s upcoming Roman execution fulfills his prediction of being lifted up (12:32–33). This connection is plainly made by the exact repetition of the phrase σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ ἤμελλεν ἀποθνῄσκειν (signifying by what sort of death he was about to die) from 12:33. This literary linkage aims to help readers recall the Isaianic allusions to the Servant in the lifted up sayings (3:14; 8:28; 12:32).33 What all of those passages anticipated is unfolding now for the reader.

Second, John recalls the Shepherd Discourse from chapter 10 a number of times. It appears (1) in Jesus’s words to Pilate, “Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice” (18:37), reminiscent of 10:16 (cf. 10:27); (2) in John’s description of Barabbas as a λῃστής (18:40) recalling 10:1, 8 where the robber is the antitype of the Shepherd and an ectype of the murderer from the beginning (8:44 cf. 10:10); (3) in John’s depiction of Jesus’s final moment, “He handed over his Spirit” (19:30), definitively fulfilling 10:11, 17–18 where Jesus said that as the Good Shepherd he lays down his life on behalf of (ὑπέρ) his sheep.34 The value of recalling the Shepherd discourse in these ways includes the continuing characterization of Jesus both as the Shepherd figure anticipated by Ezekiel (34:15–16, 23–24; 37:22–24 [cf. Zech 11; 13:7]) and as the Servant who dies in the place of the many from Isaiah 53.35 None should seriously doubt the substitutionary nature of the Johannine ὑπέρ passages in view of the way Peter speaks in John 13:37. There, he exclaims with language parallel to 10:11, “I will lay down my life for you” (τὴν ψυχήν μου ὑπὲρ σοῦ θήσω). We naturally understand that Peter is saying he would die in Jesus’s place (not merely for his benefit) because he is his friend, just like Jesus says two chapters later, “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for [ὑπέρ] his friends” (15:13).36

Finally, I would be remiss not to highlight how John clearly emphasizes Passover.37 He does so (1) by placing the entire narrative underneath the heading of the twin temporal markers—Passover and Jesus’s hour (13:1), (2) by describing the ironical insistence on keeping the Passover by the Jewish leaders while they are handing over the new Passover lamb to Pilate for slaughter (18:30), (3) by noting Pilate’s custom of freeing a prisoner during the πάσχα (18:39), (4) by insisting that the timing of Jesus’s death corresponded to παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα (19:14; cf. 19:31, 42), and (5) by using the term hyssop at the cross (19:29).38

Even by that quick survey, we can see that John is recalling or reinforcing certain backgrounds and themes that will be both seen and supported in 19:31–37, namely those of the messianic Shepherd, lamblike Servant, and the Passover lamb. They will be seen in the events of the cross and supported by the citations that John supplies. Before we consider those, however, I will present the structure of the passage.

2.2.1. Structure of John 19:31–37

I depict the literary-thematic structure of John 19:31–37 in Figure 3.39

Notice the intentionality of this arrangement. In the OT citation just prior to our passage, John provided the Scriptural citation immediately after the narrated event (19:23–24; citing Ps 22:18) just like he did earlier in 12:14–15 (citing Zech 9:9); however, in our passage, John delays the citation and calls attention to the truthfulness of his own words. John’s testimony (C’) separates the citations (A’, B’) from the narrated events (A, B) to highlight the fulfillment of the actions from 1:29–34 (C) so that his audience might believe.

Notice further that the order is preserved from 1:29–34, Lamb then Messianic Figure, both in the narration of events and the provision of citations, and, as it turns out, in the symbolism of blood and water. On my reading, blood corresponds—in every case in the gospel (save 1:13)—to Jesus’s substitutionary lamblike death (6:51–56).40 As Leon Morris famously concluded, “[Blood] was especially the life poured out in death; and yet more particularly in its religious aspect it was the symbol of sacrificial death.”41 Water corresponds to the promised Spirit who gives life (4:10–14; 7:37–39)42 and with whom Jesus baptizes (1:33). Together, and in light of the citation in 19:37, the outpouring of blood and water also seem to signify the fulfillment of Zechariah 13:1, as Carnazzo has argued.43 Now, I will briefly give my understanding of the citations John supplied in 19:36–37.44

2.2.2. Fulfilled: Lamblike Servant

First, regarding 19:36, after narrating how the Pharisees ironically keep Exodus 12:10 with respect to the new Passover lamb (“you shall let none of [the lamb] remain until the morning,” ESV),45 John cites Exodus 12:46. While it is striking to see a festal regulation cited in a fulfillment formula,46 I propose this is not an issue if we understand John as applying the text typologically. Furthermore, the concept of divine preservation embodied in the passive verb, συντριβήσεται, may evidence an additional nuance similar to that found in Jubilees 49:13–15 (cf. Ps 34:19–20).47 Jubilees makes “a causal connection” between the preservation of the bones of the lamb and God’s preservation of his people; the one whose literal bones are spared—the lamb—is not spared death, so that God’s people may be delivered from death.48 Certainly, this nuance fits well with the substitutionary sense of the Johannine ὑπέρ-passages. Since John views sin and wrath against sin as the reason all shall surely die (John 3:36; 8:21–24),49 if Jesus’s lamblike death delivers from death, then it necessarily makes atonement for sin by vicarious substitution.

Second, regarding 19:37, John understands the piercing of Jesus at the crucifixion as the fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10. Although there is much debate about this, I understand the pierced figure in Zechariah as a future Davidic king whose identity is closely tied to Yahweh such that to pierce him is to pierce the Lord.50 The prophet Zechariah, indeed, patterned the messianic figure in the panels of Zechariah 9–14 off of the Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah.51 John 19:37 is—in many ways—the climax of John’s seeing motif:52 foreshadowed in “We beheld his glory” (1:14), begun in the narrative with “Behold the Lamb” (1:29), deepened by the allusion to Numbers 21 in 3:14, integrated as seeing belief in 6:40, exemplified by the formerly blind man’s believing sight (9:36–38), exhorted in “Behold your King” (12:15), answered by the Greeks’ “We want to see Jesus” (12:21), echoed in Pilate’s mockery “Behold your King” (19:14).53 I concur with Catrin Williams who argues that John’s use of ὄψονται in 19:37, because no extant OG text of Zechariah 12:10 contains it, betrays an allusion to Isaiah 52:10, where the LXX uses this verb in this exact form to say that when Yahweh bares his arm, then “every corner of the earth shall see (ὄψονται) the salvation which comes from God.”54 This is fitting since John already alluded to and cited Isaiah 52–53 alongside Zechariah in John 12,55 and John identifies Jesus as the revealed Arm of Yahweh in John 12:37–38 (see §3.3). Williams points out that Isaiah 52:13–15 describes two viewpoints on the Servant: (1) Yahweh’s divine call to “Behold” concerning his Servant’s high and lofty status (52:13),56 and (2) the “eventual coming to see” of the nations (52:15, note ὄψονται).57 These viewpoints appear to parallel the adumbration of John 1:29–34 and the fulfillment of 19:31–37 respectively.

Therefore, the testimonial bookends of Jesus’s life refer to networks of related passages that, when combined, suggest Jesus’s death makes atonement as the messianic figure substituted in a lamblike fashion during a new exodus. At this point, one should note that there is a marked lack of emphasis in these OT passages on the revelation of love, on death as mere example, or on the other kinds of things alternative atonement theories suggest the cross saves by. Certainly, the Servant reveals Yahweh’s love for his covenant people (cf. Isa 54–55), is the example followed by the servants of the Servant (Isa 56–66), and descends in humiliation before his exaltation (Isa 53); however, these things ultimately depend upon the Servant’s substitutionary death for their achievement. Hence, the use of the OT in the bookends appears to support my thesis that substitutionary atonement is essential to the inner mechanism of Jesus death in John.

3. Singular Solution: Jesus Lifted Up

Turning to consider how John employs the OT in the context of the lifted up sayings (3:14; 8:28; 12:32),58 I contend that each passage describes the human situation for which Jesus being lifted up in death is the only solution.59 I briefly show this in each passage.

3.1. Serpentine Judgment (3:14–20, 36)

In John 3, Jesus’s death saves from wrath merited by humanity’s default love for darkness. When John applies Numbers 21:4–9 typologically,60 he is minimally drawing upon the thematic elements of (1) the people’s sinful preference for something other than God, (2) unbelief, and (3) salvation from divine judgment. First, in Numbers, the second-generation Israelites wandering in the wilderness sinfully long for Egypt (21:5, 7), just like the previous generation did repeatedly (Num 11:5, 18; 16:13 cf. Exod 3:8; Num 20:5). Yahweh, therefore, sets serpents upon them, which “are to be understood in light of Egyptian symbolism,”61 as they are “the signature animal that Egypt idolatrously venerates.”62 Second, such a sinful preference betrays unbelief in Yahweh’s promises and provision—despite his steadfast love and faithfulness. Third, the uplifted serpent image is “a symbol of Yahweh’s vanquishing Egypt,”63 focusing upon Yahweh as the exclusive Savior, which Wisdom 16:7 sought to clarify.64 This salvific opportunity is provided for “everyone who is bitten” (Num 21:8) and hence, condemned already, not simply to ward off bites.65 The salvation is received by obeying the Lord’s command in faith—turning from love for Egypt to Yahweh.

Returning to John 3, we see the same themes. First, fallen humanity loves darkness rather than God the Son incarnate (3:18–20 cf. 12:43).66 This philoskotia is why the people are perishing and needed God to send his Son into the world (3:16–17). They are perishing because the wrath of God abides on the disobedient (3:36). Second, this love of darkness is manifestly unbelief (3:18, 36), and if they do not believe, they will neither “see life” (3:36) nor “pass from death to life” (5:24 cf. 12:46). Third, John explains (γάρ, 3:16) that Jesus must (δεῖ, 3:14) be lifted up in death for two reasons:67 (1) internal to God, the character of the Creator (loving and just; cf. Exod 34:6–7), and (2) external to God, the default and dire state of fallen humanity.68 Because fallen humanity cannot save itself, the Word took on flesh (1:14) in order to give his flesh up by dying that some might live (6:51).

John 3:36 offers something of a summary of this chapter, in terms reminiscent of Numbers 21, as Weinrich observes, “[The] two gnomic statements [in 3:36] … refer the reader back to the fiery serpent episode in the wilderness.”69 If 3:36 were written about Numbers 21, it might sound like this, “The one who trusts in Yahweh has looked and lives, yet the one rebelling against Yahweh will not live; rather, the venom remains in his veins.”70 As a confirmation that 3:36 reflects on Numbers 21, we should note that one of only two other times in the entire NT and LXX that ὀργή is the subject of μένω is Wisdom 16:5, which speaks of God’s mercy in the serpent episode of Numbers 21 when God would not let his wrath remain until the end.71 In John 3, therefore, Jesus’s death saves from wrath merited by humanity’s default love for darkness.

3.2. Capital Punishment (8:21–30)

Turning to John 8, we see that Jesus’s death is the exclusive way for believers to be saved from capital punishment merited by sinning. Notice how 8:21 repeats 7:34 but alters one clause: instead of “you will not find me,” in 8:21, Jesus says, “You shall surely die in your sin” (ἐν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ὑμῶν ἀποθανεῖσθε). Instead of denying they will do something, Jesus tells them what will happen if they continue as they are. Presently, they are not able to come where Jesus is going.72 Jesus explains his pronouncement further in 8:24.

Their inevitable end is caused by unbelief in Jesus’s divine identity. I say unbelief in his divine identity because the phrase πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι is an allusion to Isaiah 43:10, as is γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι in John 8:28 (see also 13:19).73 In that passage, Yahweh is the exclusive Savior in an anticipated new exodus over and against all idols (Isa 43:8–13 cf. 44:6–20).74 Unlike idols, the Creator-Redeemer declares things before they happen (43:9 cf. 44:6–8) because he has been from the beginning (43:13).

Regarding the inevitable end in view here, “you shall surely die” (John 8:21, 24), I propose that these words allude to the capital punishment decreed upon sin from the beginning—that is, in Genesis 2:17. Although some interpreters have noted the similarity between the Johannine phrase and Ezekiel 3:20,75 I am unaware of anyone but myself who has argued this alludes to Genesis 2:17.76 My argument is fourfold: (1) Ezekiel 3:18 alludes to Genesis 2:17, with the result that the language of Ezekiel 3:20 (the language in our passage) is an established way to describe the punishment that the Lord warned about in the beginning; (2) John 8 refers to Genesis repeatedly, making an allusion to Genesis far more likely than Ezekiel;77 (3) the LXX of Genesis 2–3 contains one third of all LXX uses of ἀποθνῄσκω in the Future Middle Indicative Second Plural, including Genesis 2:17 itself (θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε), and John 8:21, 24 are the only uses in the NT of ἀποθνῄσκω in that form; and finally, (4) the immediate context—heavy with emphasis on Jesus’s heavenly origin, divine identity, allusions to Yahweh as Creator, hints that the Jewish leadership are seed of the serpent (8:44–47), etc. All these features coalesce to support Jesus’s revocalization of the archetypal warning against sin from the garden.

Therefore, the consequence of sin in John is none other than the curse God warned Adam and Eve about from the beginning—the curse that the father of lies (John 8:44) said would not happen (Gen 3:4 cf. Rev 12:9)—death, not simply a physical ending of life but an eternal (and spiritual) separation and exile from God’s benevolent presence (John 8:52 cf. 3:36). By warning his hearers with an allusion to Genesis 2:17, Jesus appears to characterize (1) their rejection of him as the rejection of the Creator and (2) its consequence as that which their Creator—who is true (3:33; 8:26) and speaks truth (8:26, 28, 40)—spoke about from the beginning (cf. 8:25 [!]).78 In John 8, the sole means of rescue from that inevitable divine judgment comes when Jesus is lifted up in death (8:28).79

3.3. Divine Hardening (12:20–43)

In John 12, Jesus’s fruitful death is appointed by God to fulfill Scripture and saves from the spiritual darkness of unbelief. When Jesus is glorified (12:23) and lifted up (12:32) in death (12:33),80 then he says, “I will draw all people to myself” (12:32). Before I turn to the use of Isaiah later in the chapter, notice how John ensures that we think about the necessity of Jesus’s death again. He does it through the question of the crowd from verse 34: “How are you saying, ‘It is necessary that the Son of Man be lifted up’?” Their question reflects the wording of 3:14, not 12:32, showing that John is intentionally recalling and emphasizing δεῖ (“it is necessary”).81 On their view, Messiah is supposed to abide forever (μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 12:34), but Jesus taught in the wheat-grain simile that if he doesn’t die, then he abides alone (αὐτὸς μόνος μένει, 12:24). In other words, Messiah’s death is necessary if he would bear the fruit of the “all” whom he will draw to himself.82

Now, turning to John 12:37–43, John explains the divine purpose and deeper reason that Jesus was received with unbelief, particularly by the Jewish leaders. While his description of their unbelief in 12:37 reminds us of Deuteronomy 29:4 (MT 29:3), God has appointed it (note ἵνα) to fulfill Isaiah 53:1 because (διὰ τοῦτο → ὅτι) the inability to believe reflects “the sensory-organ-malfunction” foretold in Isaiah 6:10.83

Regarding the use of Isaiah 53:1, Brendsel correctly probes the shortcomings of typical interpretations of this citation, “One wonders what substantive loss would occur if John quoted only Isa 6:10.”84 With Brendsel and others,85 this would be a substantial loss for two reasons: (1) this citation characterizes Jesus’s identity, and (2) it identifies the unbelieved report as revelation of an unbelievable salvation. In the first place, we must remember that leading up to Isaiah 53, chapter 52 began with Yahweh saying that because his name was despised, they would behold him (52:6), he would come and redeem (52:9), and that redemption is described as Yahweh baring “his holy Arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (52:10). Of course, what is beheld next is the Servant (52:13). Isaiah 53:1 moves from general to specific, as Brendsel writes, “That which was not believed is a report specifically about the revelation of Yahweh’s arm.”86 The report is given from the perspective of those redeemed by the Servant’s substitutionary death, whose death reverses the judgment of Isaiah 6:9–10—the hardened unbelief, with which they had received the Servant, has now been reversed.87 They now speak about what they saw and heard, whereas before they could neither see nor hear. In a mysterious way, therefore, when Yahweh “rolled up his sleeves” to bare his Arm, the Arm that is revealed and seen is his Servant.88

In John 12, John identifies Jesus as this Servant, as the revealed Arm of Yahweh received with unbelief.89 Both the situation (sin/unbelief) and solution (the death of God’s Servant) of Isaiah 53:1 are the same in John. Remember the report concerned the revealing of the Arm—the revelation of someone to be seen and believed.90 In 12:37, John describes unbelief as not seeing who Jesus was when his signs were done before their very eyes (cf. 2:11). As we saw in the bookends, John writes as one who has seen and believed, and he aims that we too would look upon Jesus lifted up, the outstretched Arm of Yahweh, and—seeing this salvation God has wrought—have eternal life. Therefore, ironically, and gloriously, the divinely appointed blindness of the Jewish leaders in particular, which climaxes in the death of Jesus the lamblike Servant, is appointed to bring about its own remedy for when Jesus is lifted up they will know his identity (8:24, 28), look upon the pierced one (19:37 cf. 6:40), and—if anyone would look in belief—live (3:14–17).

Regarding the use of Isaiah 6:10, John is making the point that the inability to believe (οὐκ ἠδύναντο πιστεύειν, 12:39) comes from an inability to perceive (12:40). The divine blinding should not be taken retributively, “as a means of punishing sin,” because John cites it as the reason (διὰ τοῦτο → ὅτι, 12:39) for the sin in question, unbelief (12:37, 39).91 John emphasizes spiritual perception in 12:40 by fronting the ocular effects of fallen humanity’s inward condition. Our inward condition is initially like the congenital blindness described in John 9:1–3,92 not as a result of individual sin but of the fall. However, as we have seen already, this fallen condition loves the darkness (3:19–20) and naturally does evil deeds (πονηρὰ τὰ ἔργα; cf. 8:34, 44). Thus, humanity sins by nature and choice. Without divine enablement—e.g., born ἄνωθεν (3:3; cf. 1:12–13), drawn by the Father (6:44), taught of God (6:45)—without this, spiritual congenital blindness persists (οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν, 3:3; cf. 9:39–41);93 humanity will remain in darkness (12:46) and sure to die in their sins (8:24). The Jewish leaders were, therefore, kept in the dark to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 53, and the deeper reason they were kept in the dark through Jesus’s hour is that God actively withheld from them the divine enablement necessary for believing sight as prophesied in Isaiah 6:10.94 Consequently, in John 12, Jesus’s fruitful death is appointed by God to fulfill Scripture and saves from the spiritual darkness of unbelief.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, I have argued that John characterizes Jesus as the substitutionary sacrifice of the new exodus, and that substitutionary atonement is essential to the inner mechanism of Jesus’s death in the Gospel of John. I advanced my case for this by analyzing the texts that John employs (1) in the bookends of the Gospel and (2) in the three ὕψωσις-passages.

First, we considered John 1 and 19, the testimonial bookends of Jesus’s life in the Gospel. Both passages concern Jesus’s identity and actions, hinge around testimony, and relate to one another. They are related in terms of adumbration and fulfillment—what the former predicts the latter depicts. In both, Jesus is characterized with networks of OT passages brimming with themes of suffering, substitution, dealing with sin, removing wrath, and messianic expectation. Those passages include Isaiah 53, Exodus 12, Genesis 22, Isaiah 11/42, Zechariah 12, and John 10 (which itself picked up on Ezek 34). The most common theme in these passages is lamblike vicarious substitution, and if my interpretation is accurate, then Isaiah 53 plays a strategically prominent role among those texts.

Second, warranted by the use of the OT in the bookends, we fixed our gaze on the three ὕψωσις-passages in 3:14–21, 8:21–30, and 12:21–43. In this analysis, I pressed beyond the important observation that “lifted up” alludes to the Servant of Isaiah 52:13, and I argued that each passage uses the OT regarding the human situation for which Jesus being lifted up in death is the only solution. In John 3, we saw that Jesus’s death saves from wrath merited by humanity’s default love for darkness. The human condition was described in terms of Numbers 21, where a sinful, controlling preference for Egypt merited divine wrath from which the only deliverance was trusting in what the Lord provided. The same is true in John 3, where the Lord’s provision of his uplifted Son is the only way to have eternal life.

In John 8, we saw that Jesus’s death is the exclusive way for believers to be saved from capital punishment merited by sinning. I proposed that the phrase “you shall surely die in your sin[s]” (8:21, 24) alludes to Genesis 2:17, the archetypal warning against sin. Thus, Jesus’s death saves from the curse God warned Adam and Eve about from the beginning—the curse that the father of lies (John 8:44) said would not happen (Gen 3:4; cf. Rev 12:9)—death, not simply a physical ending of life but an eternal (and spiritual) separation and exile from God’s benevolent presence (John 8:52; cf. 3:36). This description of the human condition aligns well with what we saw in John 3, and once again, utilizes the OT to deepen our understanding of humanity’s dire condition for which Jesus’s death is the only solution.

Finally, in John 12, we saw that Jesus’s fruitful death is appointed by God to fulfill Scripture and saves from the spiritual darkness of unbelief. Here, John accents the necessity of Jesus’s death again, by making it clear that his Messianic ministry would bear fruit only if Jesus was lifted up in death (12:32–34; cf. 18:32). Then, John cites two Isaianic passages to explain (1) the divine purpose and (2) the deeper reason that Jesus was received with such unbelief, particularly by the Jewish leaders. These citations validate my previous contentions that (1) Isaiah 53 plays a strategically prominent role in John’s understanding of Jesus’s death,95 and (2) God actively withheld divine enablement to believe, so that Jesus would be lifted up (cf. Rom 9:17).

Therefore, because Jesus’s death is necessary to save from divine wrath that comes against unbelieving disobedience and because John characterizes that death as the substitutionary death of the lamblike Servant—for those reasons, we are warranted to conclude that substitutionary atonement is essential to the inner mechanism of Jesus’s death in the Gospel of John. As Michael Horton writes, “Vicarious substitution is not the whole story, but there is no story apart from it.”96

---

[1] John A. Dennis, “Jesus’ Death in John’s Gospel: A Survey of Research from Bultmann to the Present with Special Reference to the Johannine Hyper-Texts,” CurBR 4 (2006): 331, emphasis original.

[2] See David Vincent Christensen, “The Lamblike Servant: Exodus Typology and the Death of Jesus in the Gospel of John” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2021). This paper attempts to summarize the central argument of my dissertation. Due to space limitations, some conclusions are stated without argument, and where this occurs, I have tried to refer the reader to the dissertation itself.

[3] The language of “mechanism” is indebted to Horton’s similar usage (Michael Horton, Justification, New Studies in Dogmatics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018], 2:237).

[4] I would argue that the essential components of the mechanism are (1) vicarious substitution and (2) the complete satisfaction of God’s character. The complete satisfaction of God’s character includes, but is not limited to, the satisfaction of his righteousness and wrath. See John R. W. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 112–246; Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 318–27; see also Robert Letham, The Work of Christ, CCT (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 125–94. I prefer to speak “the complete satisfaction of God’s character” rather than limiting satisfaction to the attributes usually mentioned in penal substitutionary accounts. I mean more, not less. Naselli writes correctly, “The heart of Jesus’s death is that Jesus paid our penalty (penal) in our place (substitution). All other pictures of what Christ’s death accomplished depend on his penal substitution” (Andrew David Naselli, Romans: A Concise Guide to the Greatest Letter Ever Written [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022], 25, emphasis original). Additionally, Naselli provides an exquisite note (p. 25 n. 12) detailing how penal substitution is the means by which various pictures of salvation are accomplished.

[5] For an (unpersuasive) attempt to do this, see Anastasia Scrutton, “‘The Truth Will Set You Free’: Salvation as Revelation,” in The Gospel of John and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham and Carl Mosser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 359–68.

[6] Thomas R. Schreiner and Ardel B. Caneday, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 89, emphasis added.

[7] Thomas R. Schreiner, “A Biblical Theology of the Glory of God,” in For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper, ed. C. Samuel Storms and Justin Taylor (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 220. Later in his essay, Schreiner clarifies, “We see that he saves his people for the glory of his name. Hence, the salvation of human beings is not God’s ultimate concern but the majesty of his glorious name” (p. 225, emphasis added). Schreiner is referring to passages like Isa 48:9–11 and Ezek 36:22–27. We see something similar in John, for example, when Jesus says that he goes to his hour to glorify the Father (12:27–28) and does his work to display his love for the Father (14:31).

[8] On retaining this translation of μονογενής, see Charles Lee Irons, “A Lexical Defense of the Johannine ‘Only Begotten,’” in Retrieving Eternal Generation, ed. Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 98–116.

[9] Against translations of δόξα as “praise” in 12:43, Morris is spot on: “John is surely looking back to his use of the term in verse 41. The glory of Christ sets the standard. To love the glory of people above the glory of God is the supreme disaster” (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, revised ed., NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 538).

[10] This is my translation of the original French: “courbe de tension plac[ant] l’ensemble de la narration sous le signe de la croix” (Jean Zumstein, “L’interprétation johannique de la mort du Christ,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. Frans van Segbroeck and C. M. Tuckett, BETL 100 [Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1992], 3:2120).

[11] Jörg Frey, “The Gospel of John as a Narrative Memory of Jesus,” in Memory and Memories in Early Christianity: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Universities of Geneva and Lausanne (June 2–3, 2016), ed. Simon Butticaz and Enrico Norelli, WUNT 398 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 280.

[12] John D’Souza, The Lamb of God in the Johannine Writings (Allahabad, India: St. Paul Publications, 1968), 124.

[13] The Baptist is the referent of αὐτοῦ (cf. 17:20). See Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 93 n. 23.

[14] For more detail on the context of 1:29–34, see Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 90–97.

[15] The arrow glyphs point in the functional direction of reference. The propositions A–E all relate to Jesus’s identity as the Lamb of God; whereas, the propositions A'–E' all relate to Jesus’s identity as the Chosen One of God. The central proposition (F) reports John’s eyewitness testimony. While I arrived at my structure of the passage independently from Bieringer, I am indebted to him in particular for the labels of action (Handeln) and identity (Identität). See Reimund Bieringer, “Das Lamm Gottes, das die Sünde der Welt hinwegnimmt (Joh 1,29): Eine kontextorientierte und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung auf dem Hintergrund der Passatradition als Deutung des Todes Jesu im Johannesevangelium,” in The Death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, ed. Gilbert van Belle, BETL 200 (Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 2007), 220–21; I originally presented this structure in Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 113, see discussion on 112–15.

[16] Cf. Bieringer, “Das Lamm Gottes,” 218–19.

[17] In effect the Baptist’s posture towards his interlocutors says, “You are asking who I am, but you really need to ask, who is the coming One?” Thus, he embodies John 3:30 from the beginning.

[18] Frey writes, “Die Deutung von Joh 1,29 sollte deshalb zunächst bei der Funktionsbeschreibung ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου ansetzen” (Jörg Frey, “Die ‘Theologia Crucifixi’ des Johannesevangeliums,” in Kreuzestheologie im Neuen Testament, ed. Andreas Dettwiler and Jean Zumstein, WUNT 151 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002], 202 (“The interpretation of John 1:29 should therefore begin with the functional description ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου”).

[19] For a lengthier and more annotated discussion, see Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 98–106.

[20] E.g., Jesper Tang Nielsen, “The Lamb of God: The Cognitive Structure of a Johannine Metaphor,” in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, ed. Jörg Frey et al., WUNT 200 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 217–56; see also those cited in Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 103 n. 76.

[21] I originally set forth this position in Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 103–6.

[22] I argue this at length in Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 27–66.

[23] See, e.g., Friedbert Ninow, Indicators of Typology within the Old Testament: The Exodus Motif, Friedensauer Schriftenreihe 4 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2001), 156; Aubrey Sequeira and Samuel Emadi, “Biblical-Theological Exegesis and the Nature of Typology,” SBJT 21.1 (2017): 12.

[24] Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 45–52.

[25] See Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 40–66.

[26] D. A. Carson, “Adumbrations of Atonement Theology in the Fourth Gospel,” JETS 57 (2014): 519; see also Max Turner, “Atonement and the Death of Jesus in John—Some Questions to Bultmann and Forestell,” EvQ 62 (1990): 121–22.

[27] For more thorough discussion and annotation, see Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 107–12.

[28] Tze-Ming Quek, “A Text-Critical Study of John 1.34,” NTS 55 (2009): 22–34.

[29] Richard Bauckham, Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 155–58; Wolfgang J. Bittner, Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium: die Messias-Erkenntnis im Johannesevangelium vor ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund, WUNT 2.26 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1987), 138–50, 245–46; see also James M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Indwelling Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments, NACSBT 1 (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006), 100–121.

[30] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 152.

[31] For more detailed discussion of these and other connections, see Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 117–30.

[32] Of the sixteen occurrences of βασιλεύς in John, twelve are in 18:33–19:21 (18:33, 37 [2×],
39; 19:3, 12, 14, 15 [2×], 19, 21 [2×]), and the others are 1:49; 6:15; and 12:13, 15. Jesus also speaks of his βασιλεία (kingdom) in 18:36 [3×].

[33] For a catalog of persons discussing this allusion, see Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 165 n. 1.

[34] Jörg Frey, “Edler Tod—wirksamer Tod—stellvertretender Tod—heilschaffender Tod: Zur narrativen und theologischen Deutung des Todes Jesu im Johannesevangelium,” in The Death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, ed. Gilbert van Belle, BETL 200 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2007), 74; On the ὑπέρ statements, see Dennis, “Jesus’ Death,” 331–63; Frey, “Theologia Crucifixi,” 213–19; John E. Morgan-Wynne, The Cross in the Johannine Writings (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 162–64.

[35] In addition to those in the previous note, see, e.g., Paul S. Coxon, Exploring the New Exodus in John: A Biblical Theological Investigation of John Chapters 5–10 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014), 322–26. Plenty have noted that the LXX of Isa 53:12 includes the phrase παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ (“he handed over his soul unto death”), which parallels John 19:30 conceptually and uses the same verb.

[36] I owe this observation to Frey, “Tod,” 79–81; and Frey, “Theologia Crucifixi,” 215.

[37] For extended meditation on the Passover themes, see Paul M. Hoskins, “Deliverance from Death by the True Passover Lamb: A Significant Aspect of the Fulfillment of the Passover in the Gospel of John,” JETS 52.2 (2009): 285–99; Stanley E. Porter, John, His Gospel, and Jesus: In Pursuit of the Johannine Voice (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 198–224; Coxon, Exploring the New Exodus in John, passim; Gerry Wheaton, The Role of Jewish Feasts in John’s Gospel, SNTSMS 162 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 83–126.

[38] The use of ὕσσωπος fits nicely into the Passover context but is no sure proof of it—the garnish but not the meat of the argument.

[39] Cf. Sebastian A. Carnazzo, Seeing Blood and Water: A Narrative-Critical Study of John 19:34 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 24. The main difference between Carnazzo’s structure of the passage and mine is that he collapses my (C) into (B) making my (C’) the center of his structure; however, as I will explain, I see (C) as relating to both (A/B) and (A’/B’) where the former are related as events and the latter as supports.

[40] Most Johannine scholars agree that references to Jesus’s flesh and blood (in John 6:51–56) refer in some way to his death. See those cited in Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 282 n. 205.

[41] Morris attributes this quote to Armitage Robinson (St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians), as cited in Leon Morris, “The Biblical Use of the Term ‘Blood,’” JTS 6 (1955): 82; see also Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 112–28.

[42] The phrase μεγάλη ἡ ἡμέρα links 7:37 with this context (19:31), as noted by Carnazzo, Seeing Blood and Water, 63.

[43] See Carnazzo, Seeing Blood and Water, 67–76.

[44] For a more detailed discussion, see Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 130–58.

[45] And, since Jesus is the climactic Bread from Heaven (John 6:27–59; see Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 231–92), John may view this as also an ironic fulfillment of Exod 16:19.

[46] As noted by Menken (Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form, CBET 15 [Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996], 158).

[47] See, e.g., Catrin H. Williams, “Composite Citations in John,” in Composite Citations in Antiquity: Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses, ed. Sean A. Adams and Seth Ehorn, LNTS 525 (New York: T&T Clark, 2018), 118 n. 73.

[48] Menken, Old Testament Quotations, 164. This is the difference with Ps 34:20. In that text, the one whose bones are not broken is also spared death—not so in Jubilees or John; however, I am not suggesting dependence upon Jubilees, only similarity of nuance.

[49] I will say more about this in §3.

[50] See, e.g., Anthony R. Petterson, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah, LHBOTS 513 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 237–38; Adam Kubiś, The Book of Zechariah in the Gospel of John, Études bibliques 64 (Pendé: J. Gabalda, 2012), 139–45; R. Reed Lessing, Zechariah, ConcC (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing, 2021), 461, 471–75.

[51] See discussions in Petterson, Behold Your King, 240–41; Kubiś, Zechariah in the Gospel of John, 44–45; Lessing, Zechariah, 470–72; Paul Lamarche, Zacharie IX–XIV: Structure Littéraire et Messianisme, Études bibliques (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1961), 124–47; Kelly D. Liebengood, The Eschatology of 1 Peter: Considering the Influence of Zechariah 9–14, SNTSMS 157 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 51; Martin Hengel and Daniel P. Bailey, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, trans. Daniel P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 85.

[52] This motif contains both aspects of salvation (e.g., 6:40; 9:36–38) and judgment (e.g., 3:3, 36; 6:36; 9:39–41; 15:24), as acknowledged by Rudolf Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, 4 vols., HThKNT 4 (Freiburg: Herder, 1965–84), 4:173; John envisions the “looking” of 19:37 to “[consist] either of saving faith or of guilty blindness” (Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 155; cf. J. M. Lieu, “Blindness in the Johannine Tradition,” NTS 34 [1988]: 84); contra Kubiś, Zechariah in the Gospel of John, 201.

[53] See Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 152–59.

[54] See Catrin H. Williams, “‘Seeing,’ Salvation, and the Use of Scripture in the Gospel of John,” in Atonement: Jewish and Christian Origins, ed. Max Botner, Justin Harrison Duff, and Simon Dürr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), 145–46, 149–51.

[55] On the use of Isaiah in John 12, see esp. Daniel J. Brendsel, “Isaiah Saw His Glory”: The Use of Isaiah 52–53 in John 12, BZNW 208 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014); Adam W. Day, Jesus, the Isaianic Servant: Quotations and Allusions in the Gospel of John, GBS 67 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2018), 89–104, 129–40.

[56] On which, see the excellent work of Jaap Dekker, “The High and Lofty One Dwelling in the Heights and with His Servants: Intertextual Connections of Theological Significance between Isaiah 6, 53 and 57,” JSOT 41 (2017): 475–91; see also Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 52–57.

[57] Williams, “‘Seeing,’ Salvation, and the Use of Scripture,” 146, emphasis original.

[58] For my extended discussion, see Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 165–230.

[59] In saying this, I affirm the “consequent absolute necessity” of Jesus’s atoning death. With those terms, Murray means that Jesus’s atoning death is an “absolute necessity” because of God’s character and is a “consequence” of electing freely to save fallen individuals (see John Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955], 9–18; cf. Letham, The Work of Christ, 127.

[60] I lay out ten typological correspondences and the components of escalation between Num 21 and John 3 (Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 180–81); see also Daniel H. Fletcher, Signs in the Wilderness: Intertextuality and the Testing of Nicodemus (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014), 168–71.

[61] John D. Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 147; see also Karen R. Joines, “Winged Serpents in Isaiah’s Inaugural Vision,” JBL 86 (1967): 410–15; John D. Currid, “The Egyptian Setting of the ‘Serpent’: Confrontation in Exodus 7,8–13,” BZ 39 (1995): 203–24; Duane A Garrett, A Commentary on Exodus, KEL (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2014), 275.

[62] Andrew David Naselli, The Serpent and the Serpent Slayer, SSBT (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 75.

[63] Currid, Ancient Egypt, 149; see also Naselli, Serpent, 76–77.

[64] So, e.g., Jörg Frey, “‘Wie Mose die Schlange in der Wüste erhöht hat …’: Zur frühjüdischen Deutung der ‘ehernen Schlange’ und ihrer christologischen Rezeption in Johannes 3,14f,” in Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum, ed. Martin Hengel and Hermut Löhr, WUNT 73 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), 163.

[65] Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC 4 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 177.

[66] The world in John is regularly a reference to humanity in their fallen state of rebellion against their Creator. On understanding of κόσμος in John, see D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension, reprint ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 163–67; cf. William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, 2 vols., NTC (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1953), 1:79 n. 26.

[67] When Reichenbach says, “Why the necessity? The answer is unclear,” he neglects the logic of how John related 3:16–21 to 3:14–15 via γάρ. If it is unclear, it is because Reichenbach’s healing reading of Num 21 obscures John’s point in the allusion (Bruce R. Reichenbach, “Soteriology in the Gospel of John,” Themelios 46 [2021]: 581).

[68] Metzner, similarly, calls humanity’s condition the “äußere Anlaß” (external cause), which is the occasion for God’s “innere Motiv” (inner motive) of love to act. See Rainer Metzner, Das Verständnis der Sünde im Johannesevangelium, WUNT 122 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 140.

[69] William C. Weinrich, John 1:1–7:1, ConcC (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing, 2015), 453.

[70] Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 192.

[71] Noted by Frey, “Schlange,” 196–97; Weinrich, John 1:1–7:1, 453. The other is Wis 18:20, which is also speaking of mercy in a wilderness judgment.

[72] Such inability is a theme in John. See, e.g., 3:5, 27; 6:44, 65; 7:34–36; 8:21; 12:39; 14:17.

[73] For discussion of this, see Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 204–11.

[74] See G. K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 272–80.

[75] The relevant clause of Ezekiel 3:20 reads, καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις αὐτοῦ ἀποθανεῖται. See, e.g., Edward W. Klink, John, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 409; J. Terence Forestell, The Word of the Cross: Salvation as Revelation in the Fourth Gospel, AnBib 57 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974), 149 n. 10; Metzner, Sünde, 169 n. 47.

[76] For a more detailed treatment, see Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 201–4.

[77] See, e.g., Maarten J. J. Menken, “Genesis in John’s Gospel and 1 John,” in Genesis in the New Testament, ed. Maarten J. J Menken and Steve Moyise, LNTS 466 (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2012), 83–98.

[78] The sense of 8:25 is difficult to pin down. See the discussions in Ed. L. Miller, “The Christology of John 8:25,” ThZ 36 (1980): 257–65; Chrys C. Caragounis, “What Did Jesus Mean by Τὴν Αρχήν in John 8:25?,” NovT 49 (2007): 129–47.

[79] Morgan-Wynne argues compellingly that the temporal frame (ὅταν … τότε in 8:28) of Jesus’s exaltation (ὕψωσις) is primarily the cross (“The Cross and the Revelation of Jesus as Ἐγώ Εἰμι in the Fourth Gospel (John 8.28),” in Studia Biblica 1978: Papers on the Gospels from the Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone, JSNTSup 2 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980], 2:219–26).

[80] Rightly, Chibici-Revneanu concludes “that by the δοξάζεσθαι of Jesus his death is meant is not stated, but the composition of verses 12:23–28 hardly admits of any other conclusion,” (my translation of “Dass mit dem δοξάζεσθαι Jesu sein Tod gemeint ist, wird nicht ausgesprochen, die Zusammenstellung der Verse 12,23–28 lässt aber kaum einen anderen Schluss zu,” Nicole Chibici-Revneanu, Die Herrlichkeit des Verherrlichten: das Verständnis der δόξα im Johannesevangelium, WUNT 2.231 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007], 173); cf. Brendsel, Isaiah Saw, 137–60.

[81] Note that in John 3:14 Jesus said, ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, but in 12:32 they say, δεῖ ὑψωθῆναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; In the former, the action is accented; in the latter, its necessity. On necessity, see n. 59 above.

[82] For my discussion of John 6:44 and 12:32, see Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 216–18, 267–79.

[83] The phrase “sensory-organ-malfunction” is Beale’s (We Become What We Worship, 36–70).

[84] Brendsel, Isaiah Saw, 99.

[85] E.g., Jonathan Lett, “The Divine Identity of Jesus as the Reason for Israel’s Unbelief in John 12:36–43,” JBL 135 (2016): 159–73.

[86] Brendsel, Isaiah Saw, 105.

[87] Christensen, “Lamblike Servant,” 40–73.

[88] See esp. Matthew R. Akers, “The Soteriological Development of the ‘Arm of the Lord’ Motif,” JESOT 3.1 (2014): 41–45.

[89] Brendsel, Isaiah Saw, 115; Lett, “Divine Identity,” 172–73.

[90] Day, Jesus, the Isaianic Servant, 96–97.

[91] Blaylock contends, “For DRA [divine reprobating activity] to be retributive, a biblical author must present God as having undertaken reprobating action as a means of punishing sin” (386 n. 42, emphasis added). He correctly argues that John does not appear to cite Isa 6:10 to describe the punishment of sin (Richard Monserrat Blaylock, “Vessels of Wrath: A Biblical-Theological Study of Divine Reprobating Activity” [PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2021], 386–87); see also Donald E. Hartley, “Destined to Disobey? Isaiah 6:10 in John 12:37–41,” CTJ 44 (2009): 272–73, 279–84.

[92] Hartley, “Destined to Disobey?,” 279–81.

[93] Hartley, “Destined to Disobey?,” 278.

[94] With Hartley and against Blaylock (Hartley, “Destined to Disobey?,” 279; Blaylock, “Vessels of Wrath,” 388), withholding of divine enablement better describes what John would mean in chapter 12 in light of the multiplicity of ways he has already described this reality in the preceding chapters of his gospel (Blaylock agrees [pp. 388–98] this interpretation is the case in John 6, for example). It is not so much that they had spiritual sight and were blinded (τετύφλωκεν, in the perfect, accents their ongoing state of blindness as the result of God’s past activity), as they were blind and—even though the Light walked among them—they were not given eyes to see it. For the idea that this is the climactic fulfillment of Isa 6:10, see Brendsel, Isaiah Saw, 89.

[95] One even wonders whether his prolific use of πιστεύω was influenced by Isa 53:1 (cited in 12:38), calling his audience to believe his report about how Jesus, the Arm of Yahweh, was lifted up that we might have eternal life.

[96] Horton, Justification, 2:235, see further 195–255; Jeremy R. Treat, The Crucified King: Atonement and Kingdom in Biblical and Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 174–226.