The recorded sayings of Jesus regarding the family are both affirming and challenging.[1] On the one hand, in these teachings as preserved by Mark, Matthew, and Luke—the so-called Synoptic Gospels, which largely treat the ministry of Jesus from the same perspective—Jesus insisted upon the importance and durability of marriage (Mark 10:2–12; parallels Matthew 5:31; Luke 16:18)[2] while maintaining Mosaic strictures about the honor children owed their parents (Mark 10:19; parallels Matthew 19:19; Luke 18:20; compare Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16). As a child himself, Jesus had been subject to his parents (Luke 2:51), and he emphasized the value of children,[3] strongly teaching that they should not be offended or harmed (Mark 9:36–37, 42; 10:13–16; parallels Matthew 18:2–6, 10; 19:13–15; Luke 9:47–48; 18:15–17). On the other hand, when teaching the importance of loyalty to God and the kingdom above all else, Jesus seemingly slighted his own birth family (Mark 3:31–35; parallels Matthew 12:46–50; Luke 8:19–21) and even taught that true followers should be prepared to reject or abandon their own families (Mark 10:29–30; parallels Matthew 19:29–30; Luke 18:29–30; also Matthew 10:34–38; parallels Luke 12:51–53; 14:26–27).[4] Underlying these difficult sayings is the idea that followers of Jesus have become part of a new spiritual family, which, with God himself as its father and head, takes precedence over any earthly relations.

The Gospel according to John has little to say about earthly families. The depiction of the mother of Jesus, never named and perhaps also used as a broader type, is quite positive,[5] but the brothers in his family of birth are mentioned only in passing (John 2:12) and are not his followers during his mortal ministry (7:3–5). Like the Synoptics, the Fourth Gospel teaches principles regarding the new ideal of a spiritual family, of which God is the Father. However, it goes much further in providing theological underpinnings for better understanding the nature of this divine family and, in particular, Jesus’s own role within it. In the Hebrew Bible, as Frank Moore Cross has noted, “the God of Israel adopts Israel as a ‘son’ and is called ‘father,’ enters a marriage contract with Israel and is designated ‘husband,’ swears fealty oaths together with Israel and enters into covenant, assuming the mutual obligations of kinship.”[6] In a similar manner, John uses this and other kinship language—including that of child, spouse, father, and sibling[7]—to extend this understanding of divine kinship, apply it to believers in new and powerful ways, and connect it explicitly to Jesus. By then bringing in the insights of Restoration scripture,[8] Latter-day Saint readings of these Johannine passages then provide us a better understanding not only of our literal and theological relationship to God, our Heavenly Father, but also of the role played by our Savior, Jesus Christ, in the restoration and advancement of this relationship.

The Family of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels

In an episode early in Jesus’s Galilean ministry, while teaching within a crowded house, Jesus was told that his mother and some of his half brothers were waiting for him outside. Instead of welcoming them in or going out to them, he looked around at those who had gathered inside to hear him, asked who were his mother and brothers and then proclaimed, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother” (Mark 3:34–35; parallels Matthew 12:49–50; Luke 8:21).[9] By not receiving his own family and seeming to prefer those listening to him, Jesus appeared to be slighting them, particularly by contemporary standards that set high expectation in regard to filial duty and especially solidarity with and loyalty to the patrilineal kinship group.[10] Instead, by stressing his relationship to those who did the will of God, Michael Lawler observes, “Jesus suggests a move away from this natural-kin family to another, fictive kin family created by belief in and loyalty to the God preached by Jesus.”[11] Significantly, Jesus extended this new community to sisters as well as brothers,[12] making room for female followers as well as male disciples and providing a welcome to those who might lack their own families, had been ostracized for whatever reason, or were destitute and without social support.[13]

While those in the new family of Jesus are described as mothers, brothers, and sisters in Mark 3:34–35, fathers are not mentioned because all disciples now have one joint Father, even God (see Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2).[14] In this new family community, Jesus occupies a unique position: because he cannot, at least according to the Synoptic presentation of it, head it as father (that position being reserved for God), he is instead presented as spouse, describing himself as the bridegroom (see Mark 2:19–20; parallels Matthew 9:15; Luke 5:34–35; see also Matthew 25:1–13; Luke 12:35–40). This is typically prophetic language denoting the covenant bond that reflects the relationship of YHWH, or Jehovah, to his people Israel.[15] However, loyalty to this new community—what Jared W. Ludlow in “Families as Discipleship: New Testament Teachings about Family” in this volume describes as “the covenant church family”—could create tension with one’s family of birth. As Luke Timothy Johnson observes, “If Jesus is the bridegroom, and one’s relationship with the Lord Jesus renders relative all other relationships (as Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 6:13–14 and 7:25–40), is not marriage then a sign or symbol that can be transcended?”[16]

Indeed, Jesus addressed such a potential conflict when he described the possible necessity of leaving one’s home and family for the gospel’s sake (Mark 10:28–30; parallels Matthew 19:27–29; Luke 18:28–30), promising that whosoever will leave possessions and family for his sake and that of the gospel “shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life” (Mark 10:30; emphasis added). While it is easy to see such bounty in both property and especially relationships as an eschatological promise—that is one to be realized in the world to come—Jesus’s saying, in fact, promises them in this life, indicating that the new community of believers will share resources and care for each other as an actual household here on earth.[17] Hence in Jesus’s ministry, some female followers provided for Jesus and his traveling disciples out of their resources (see Luke 8:2–3), and others, like Martha, hosted them in their homes (Luke 10:38–42; John 12:1–2), serving as “mothers” to the group.[18]

In an even starker saying, Jesus predicted that choosing to follow him could result in dividing families (Matthew 10:34–37; Luke 12:51–53; 14:26). While the Matthean version of this saying softens it to some extent, reading, “He that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37; emphasis added), the second Lucan version is harsh, stating, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26; emphasis added).[19] Christians over the centuries have responded differently to the sometimes seemingly conflicting statements in the New Testament about marriage and family,[20] but as Lawler has noted, the idea “that a fictive-kin family of Christian believers is to transcend the natural-kin group and that the cost of such a move is high is underscored” in passages such as these.[21] Modern Christian readers, especially Latter-day Saints, may find themselves particularly uncomfortable with such ambivalence in connection with the family, especially our conceptions of the sanctity of the modern nuclear family, which often results in attempts to “domesticate,” or make more palatable, such uncomfortable statements. For instance, we may try to read these passages as being more about convictions and priorities than as actually referring to an expected practice.[22] Yet the probability is high that choosing to become part of the family of Jesus in the New Testament period could have resulted in severing existing family bonds, as sometimes conversion to the restored gospel requires some new members to choose it over their own families.[23]

Power to Become the Children of God

While such loyalty passages do not appear in similar forms in the Gospel of John, the prologue (1:1–18) of this Gospel makes establishing the family of God an important part of the Divine Word’s mission: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the [children] of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12). Recognizing that the Greek reads “children” (Greek tekna) rather than “sons” is not only significant because it is more gender inclusive;[24] in John the noun for “son” (Greek huios) is used only for Jesus, who is the uniquely begotten (Greek monogenous) of the Father.[25] By describing these new children as being “born of God” (Greek ek theou egennēthēsan), the following verse makes clear that those who believe in Jesus do not just become the children of God as part of either a fictive or covenant family. Nor do they seem to become children of God through adoption, as the anointed kings in ancient Israel were (see Psalms 2:2; 132:1–2, 11–12) or as other New Testament authors suggest occurred for Christians (see Romans 8:15–17; compare 1 Peter 4:10). Instead, they become his children through a new birth “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13). A fresh rendering of the Greek of this verse makes the contrast with the original, physical birth and this new birth from God particularly clear: They are born “not from the blood [of women], nor the desire of the flesh, nor the will of men” (translation mine). “Blood” here is actually plural (Greek haimatōn), likely referring to the ancient understanding that conception occurred when the seed of the man was mixed with the blood of the woman.[26] “Men,” on the other hand, is clearly masculine (Greek andros), using the same word that often referred to a husband, which could refer to either the man’s desire in the act of conception or the man’s legal right to recognize a child and accept it into his family.[27] Between the two is the phrase “the desire of the flesh,” representing the physical act between a woman and man that brings about physical conception.

The need for women and men to become children of God may not at first be comfortable for some Latter-day Saint readers of this passage. Restoration doctrine teaches that we are literal, spirit offspring of heavenly parents, and for those of us raised in the Church, this truth is taught at an early age through the beloved children’s song “I Am a Child of God,”[28] which has been part of the adult hymnal since 1985.[29] However, because of the Fall, Adam and Eve were cut off from the presence of God, and each of their descendants was born into a state of spiritual death, or separation, from Deity (e.g., 1 Nephi 10:6; 2 Nephi 2:19–25; Alma 42:6–9; Helaman 14:16; Doctrine & Covenants 20:20). “Accordingly, just as our first parents lost their intimate interaction and personal association with God through the fall and the spiritual death, or separation from deity, that followed, so all of us in a sense lost our original status as children of God as we were separated from him through our mortal birth and the alienation that comes because of subsequent willful sin,” yet, as Robert Millet has described it, “because of the Fall, we come forth into a world of sin, a fallen world in which we are alienated from things of righteousness, including the royal family of God. . . . Through the Atonement we are reinstated into the family of God, that is, we become ‘children of God’ in this sense by rebirth, by adoption, and regeneration.”[30] In other words, the most straightforward—but as we will see, not the only—reading of John 1:12–13 is that accepting Christ gives us the power to reclaim our lost status as children of God through a new, spiritual birth.

This new birth is further explicated, of course, in the well-known dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus, when Jesus tells this leader of the Jews, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3, emphasis added; compare John 3:7). Although the word translated by the KJV as “again” (Greek anōthen) can in fact be temporal and refer to being born a second time, the more likely translation is “from above,”[31] a rendering supported by the adverb’s reuse later in the chapter when John the Baptist says, “He that cometh from above [Greek anōthen] is above all” (John 3:31; emphasis added). Nicodemus’s confusion is understandable: being born from above by necessity implies being born another time, leading him to query, “How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?” (John 3:4). The use of anōthen, however, puts the emphasis as much on the origin and nature of the new birth as it does its iteration.[32] Jesus then proceeds to describe the means of this new birth, saying, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). This passage, long used to explain the necessity for both water baptism and spiritual baptism, has additional meaning given the symbolic use of water throughout the Gospel of John to represent spirit, divinity, and the source of spiritual life (e.g., John 4:10–14; 7:37–39; 19:34).[33] Given this symbolism, the syntax of “be born of water and of the Spirit” may be significant given that in Greek both “water” and “Spirit” appear without articles as the objects of the same preposition (Greek ex hydatos kai pneumatos).[34] Such a construction ties the two nouns very closely together, making it possible that the conjunction kai is used here epexegetically, meaning that the second element is used to define or restate the first: hence, “be born of water—that is, of the spirit.”[35] Such spiritual rebirth “from above” contrasts with Nicodemus’s incredulous comparison of another birth from one’s mother. As such, it represents becoming children of God through power granted by Jesus Christ, which contrasts with birth from the blood of women, the desire of the flesh, or the will of men in the prologue. In this reading of this Gospel, then, regardless of our original status as children of God, we become such again after mortal birth only through the transformative power of the Divine Word made flesh, which as we will see, comes through his death on the cross and his resurrection.

Placement of the Seven Miraculous Signs in the Structure of John

Prologue: Logos Hymn and the first witnesses (1:1–51)

Book of Signs (2:1–11:57)

• Water to wine (2:1–11)

• Healing the nobleman’s son (4:46–54)

• Healing the man at the Pool of Bethesda (5:1–18)

• Feeding the five thousand (6:1–15)

• Walking on water (6:16–21)

• Healing the man born blind (9:1–12)

• Raising of Lazarus (11:38–44)

Book of Glory (passion and resurrection narratives, 12:1–20:31)

Epilogue (21:1–24)

A Figurative Groom at the Wedding at Cana

Jesus’s presence at the wedding feast held at Cana can be seen, at the very least, to show that he approved of marriage and was eager to celebrate it, but symbolically he is the groom at the wedding, which can represent his covenant relationship with his people.[36] Of course, the theological significance of this episode is marked by the miraculous transformation of water into wine, which the narrator of the Gospel notes is the first of this text’s seven miraculous signs.[37] These are miraculous signs (Greek sēmeia) rather than simply miracles (Greek dynameis) as in the Synoptics because they are as much about revealing the identity and mission of Jesus as they are powerful deeds that bless the lives of those who receive them.[38] Traditional interpretations of this first sign have included the fulfillment of the older law of Moses, represented by the six large jars of water, by the new rich life and blessings offered by Christ, symbolized by the fine wine that replaced the water.[39] Although the institution of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is not recounted in John, the discussion of believers eating Jesus’s flesh and drinking his blood in the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, together with the use of wine to represent his blood at the Last Supper in the Synoptic Gospels, gives the Cana miracle at sacramental character.[40] Additionally, Latter-day Saint commenters, noting that the Divine Word had created or “organized” all things (John 1:1–3), point out that the Incarnate Word’s ability to reorganize elements in this miracle, was a sign that Christ was, in fact, Jehovah.[41]

Linking this sign of his divine identity with the occasion at which it occurred, however, make this episode a parallel of sayings in the Synoptic Gospels in which Jesus declared himself the bridegroom, and hence leader, of the divine family. Although there has been speculation from time to time as to the identity of the bride and bridegroom at Cana,[42] the text itself is silent as to who they were. While the narrative in John stresses that Jesus was invited (Greek eklēthē; KJV “called”), presumably as a guest and not as any kind of participant in an important way, Jesus can still be seen, as with the Synoptic bridegroom sayings, as a husband figure. While prophecy in the Hebrew Bible frequently drew upon marital terminology to describe the covenant relationship between YHWH and his people Israel, frequently the Lord’s people were separated from him through sin and apostasy (e.g., Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 2:1–11; 31:32; Ezekiel 16:8–14; Hosea 2:1–23). With the opening of Jesus’s public ministry with the miracle at Cana, however, Jehovah-now-made-flesh had now come in person to be with his people and reconcile them to himself,[43] reestablishing a relationship that Cross describes as “a mutual covenant of love, loyalty (ḥesed), and fidelity (ʾemet).”[44] In the next chapter, John the Baptist explicitly refers to Jesus as the bridegroom (John 3:29), and elsewhere in the Johannine corpus the church is described as the bride of the Lamb (Revelation 21:9; see also 21:2; 22:17).

No Longer Orphans but Children of Christ

After the raising of Lazarus, which is the seventh miraculous sign in John, provokes fear and opposition to Jesus among the Jerusalem leadership (John 11:45–48), the high priest Caiaphas unknowingly prophesies that their efforts to kill Jesus would, in fact, result in Jesus’s dying for the nation (John 11:50–51). The evangelist, or Gospel author, then reflects, noting that Jesus’s sacrificial death “should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad” (11:52; emphasis added). This statement extends the gathering of the scattered children of Israel (Isaiah 11:12; Jeremiah 23:3; Ezekiel 34:16; Micah 2:12; John 10:16) to all whom the Father gives to Jesus,[45] with Jesus’s intercession then bringing them into unity with each other and with them (John 17:2, 7–11, 22–24). Yet, while this reference to the children of God picks up the proposition from the prologue that Jesus will give those who accept him power to become the children of God (John 1:12), in subsequent chapters Jesus himself assumes the role of father.

First, in John 12:20–36 Jesus announces in the temple that the time has come for him to be glorified through his death and resurrection like a seed buried in the earth that then springs up into new life. After the voice of God confirms that he has glorified his name and will glorify it again, Jesus then teaches those gathered in the temple, “Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light. . . . While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light” (John 12:35–36; emphasis added). Just as the prologue had established Christ as the one who gave power to men and women to become the children of God, it had taught that “in him was life; and the life was the light of men, . . . the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (John 1:4, 9). Arguably, then, becoming children of light[46] could imply becoming children of Jesus, who himself was the Light.

This suggestion of the fatherhood of Jesus is supported in the Farewell discourses (John 14:1–16:33) when Jesus says to his followers, “Little children, yet a little while I am with you” (John 13:33; emphasis added), a usage echoed when he refers to seven of his disciples gathered in Galilee after the resurrection as “children” (21:5). This usage, of course, could be merely symbolic of his father-like role as their teacher and leader. Such uses of “children” (Greek tekna) is common, for instance, in the first Johannine Epistle, where the writer refers frequently to the members of his community as “little children” (1 John 2:1, 12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21). This has led one New Testament scholar to suggest this is an example of the language of fictive kinship that was adopted by early Christian communities, which might refer to the founding missionary of their community as its father and described each other as brother and sister.[47] Focusing on the diminutive “little” that is used both in the Gospel and the Epistle, Greg Mamula proposes, “This surrogate family is to replace the earthly family. In this eschatological family God is the father, Jesus is the master of the house, his followers are childlike occupants.”[48]

Nevertheless, another passage from the Farewell discourses in the Gospel of John suggests something more than fictive fatherhood or an honorific title given to, and assumed by, a respected teacher and master. Throughout these discourses, five times Jesus teaches his disciples about the role of the Spirit when it comes to them in its capacity as the Paraclete (Greek paraklētos), translated in the KJV as “Comforter” but perhaps better rendered “Helper” or “Intercessor.”[49] Scholarship has generally taken the First Paraclete Saying (John 14:15–17) to be a general statement of the Spirit’s role coming after the departure of Jesus to strengthen and help his disciples, with Jesus being the original Helper and the Spirit later filling that role as “another Comforter” (14:16).[50] Some Latter-day Saint readings of this passage, taking into account a teaching of Joseph Smith, invert this order. In 1839 the Prophet taught, “Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.”[51] While Jesus was the first Teacher and Helper for his original disciples and the Holy Ghost then came to fill that role after his departure, for subsequent believers the order was reversed: we begin with the Holy Ghost, yet if we are true and faithful, loving Christ and consistently keeping his commandments, the Risen Lord will come to us as a Second Comforter to assure us of eternal life (see John 14:18, 21–23; Doctrine & Covenants 93:1; 130:3).[52]

This context gives added meaning to the passage, “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you” (John 14:18; emphasis added). Here the word the KJV translated as “comfortless” (Greek orphanous) literally means “orphaned” or “without parents.”[53] A fresh rendering of this verse could then be, “I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you!” Since a role of a parent is to furnish a child with the means of life, Jesus’s role as Paraclete, or “Helper,” in this regard is significant: just as our heavenly parents gave our spirits life and our earthly parents provided us physical life, Jesus will come to us to bring eternal life. One possible Latter-day Saint reading of this verse thus makes explicit what John 14:18 only suggests. As King Benjamin taught in the Book of Mormon, “And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters” (Mosiah 5:7; emphasis added). While Jesus’s Intercessory Prayer defines eternal life as knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent (John 17:3), Restoration scripture and teaching sees eternal as describing not just the never-ending extent of life after the resurrection but also the quality of celestial life (see Doctrine & Covenants 19:11; Moses 7:35), having the kind of life that God and Christ have and enjoying it in their presence.[54] The sacrificial death of Jesus and his coming forth from the tomb thus restore us to our lost status as children of God while giving us a new position as covenant children of Christ.

Taken into the Family of Jesus at the Foot of the Cross

Christ’s role as our covenant father notwithstanding, the crucifixion scene in John employs yet another family image to illustrate the ties of divine kinship that we share with him. Other than the soldiers who crucified him and the two criminals who shared a similar punishment, the Synoptics portray Jesus as alone on the cross, with the women who had come with him from Galilee observing his suffering and death from a distance (Mark 15:22–27, 37–41; parallels Matthew 27:33–38, 50–56; Luke 23:32–33, 46–49). In John’s account, however, a small group of family and close friends stand at the foot of the cross, consisting of his mother, his mother’s sister (his maternal aunt), Mary the wife of Cleophas (perhaps a paternal aunt), and Mary Magdalene, together with the “the disciple . . . whom he loved” (John 19:25–26),[55] traditionally associated with the figure of the John, the apostle for whom the Gospel is named (19:25). This disciple’s anonymity allows him to serve as a type for all followers of Jesus, which allows for some significant symbolism in the scene. When Jesus declares from the cross to his mother, “Woman, behold thy son!” and to the disciple, “Behold thy mother!” the disciple then takes her into his own home (19:26–27). Jesus’s entrusting of his mother to his friend is usually seen as a sign of his concern for her care and well-being, but what is often overlooked is the symbolism created by this seeming adoption of the Beloved Disciple to the mother of Jesus.[56]

Whereas the unnamed Beloved Disciple had previously been a follower and student of the Master, through what is occurring on the cross, this disciple—and by extent all of us as believers—was brought into a deeper relationship with the Savior of the world. Now in the position of a son to the mother of Jesus, the disciple has become part of his family.[57] While the other sons of Mary were earlier portrayed as not believing in Jesus, this brother by choice assumes the sibling relationship, which was one of the strongest personal bonds in Mediterranean kinship groups.[58] Because the Disciple can represent all believers, this is an intimate role that we, too, can share. As Dirk van der Merwe concludes, “For the Fourth Evangelist, all those who acknowledge God as their Father, and Jesus as their brother, have a place in the family.”[59] This is a new family created by Jesus’s salvific act on the cross and not only the pre-earth relationship that some Latter-day Saints have in mind when they on occasion might refer to him as “our elder brother.” As discussed by Matthew Bowen’s ‘He Is Not Ashamed to Call Them Brethren’ in this volume, Jesus’s saving role was expressed as both brother to and father of the children God has given him.

After Jesus expires on the cross, a soldier pierces his side with a spear, causing both blood and water to flow from his side (John 19:34). The twofold flow from Jesus can be taken as a sign of both his salvific work and his identity as the one who gives new life. In Johannine symbolism, blood and water represent respectively mortality and divinity: as the mortal son of Mary, Jesus had died for our sins; as the divine Son of God, his sacrifice was both infinite and eternal (see Mosiah 15:1‒5; Alma 34:10‒12).[60] The flowing water recalled the streams of water that Jesus earlier prophesied would flow “from his belly” (John 7:38). The word translated belly in that passage (Greek koilia) can also mean “womb,”[61] and the word for side (Greek pleura) in John 19:34 is the same one used in the Septuagint, or Greek translation, of Genesis 2:21–22 when Eve is created from Adam’s “side.”[62] Further, with blood and water being elements present in the birth process, Jesus’s death is also tied paradoxically to birth imagery. In other words, through words and images associated with the ways both women and men can bring forth life, he became a new parent to those who accept him. As the source of life, he was able to rise again and share immortality and eternal life with us.[63]

“My Father, and Your Father; and My God, and Your God”

Jesus’s coming forth from the tomb signaled the completion of his work bringing new life. Earlier in the Gospel, Jesus had declared, “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:17‒18; emphasis added). Unlike the Synoptics or the writings of Paul and Peter, where men take Jesus’s life on the cross and God raises him from the tomb, in John Jesus has life within himself. Still earlier in the Gospel, Jesus had told the Samaritan woman, “The water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:14), and with the water flowing from his side on the cross representing the life-giving spirit now emanating from him, he ushers in the resurrection not only for himself but for all. As a new birth, the resurrection gives the “birth from above” promised Nicodemus new meaning.[64] Again, as Benjamin declared, “Because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ” (Mosiah 5:7; emphasis added). Thus, both as father and as bridegroom, or covenant partner, he has brought forth immortality for all ever born and the promise of eternal life for those who accept him and are sanctified in his name.

The change in the status of his disciples is further signaled by the kinship language that the Risen Lord uses when he triumphantly directs Mary Magdalene, “Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God” (John 20:17; emphasis added). Before the cross and the empty tomb, Jesus had never in this Gospel directly and explicitly used sibling language for his disciples, yet here he now describes them as his brothers. Likewise, he has now given those who accept him power to become—or regain their status as—children of God. Of the 120 references to God as “Father” in John, all but one refer to his being the Father of Jesus. This is the only instance where God is described as the Father of believers.[65]

Yet in the high Christology of John, Jesus is more than covenant partner, father, and redeeming brother—rather, he himself becomes the divine kinsman described by the language of the Hebrew Bible. Thomas, upon seeing, hearing, and finally touching the wounds of Jesus, falls before him, declaring, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Because this is the standard way that the Septuagint rendered the Hebrew title YHWH ʾĔlōhāy, Thomas thus effectively testifies that Jesus was Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, a declaration that ties back to the first verse of the Gospel, “the Word was God” (John 1:1).[66] This deeper appreciation Jesus’s divinity and the Gospel of John’s use of kindship terms helps us better understand how it is through Jesus alone that we regain our original status as children of God, are born into a fuller relationship with him, and become one with him and his Son for all eternity. This is the message of the Gospel, as it originally closed at the end of chapter 20:[67] “These [things] are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have [eternal] life through his name” (John 20:31).

Bibliography of the Family of God in John

Barton, Stephen C. Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew. Cambridge: University Press, 1994.

Bauckham, Richard. Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.

Becerra, Daniel. 3rd, 4th Nephi: A Brief Theological Introduction. Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2021.

Blythe, Christopher James. “Was Jesus Married?” BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021): 75–84.

Brown, Raymond A. The Death of the Messiah. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

———. The Gospel according to John. Anchor Bible Commentary 29–29A. New York: Doubleday, 1966.

Cross, Frank Moore. “Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel.” Pages 3‒22 in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Crossan, John Dominic. “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus.” Novum Testamentum 15 (1973): 81–113.

Dahms, John V. “The Johannine Use of Monogenēs Reconsidered.” New Testament Studies 29 (1983): 222‒32.

Dewey, Joanna. “Images of Women.” Pages 63–81 in The Liberating Word: A Guide to Non-Sexist Interpretations of the Bible. Edited by Letty M. Russell. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976.

Balz, Horst and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990–93.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. Edited by Frederick William Danker. Translated by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000.

Ellison, Mark D. “Family, Marriage, and Celibacy in the New Testament.” Pages 532–54 in New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Text of the New Testament, edited by Lincoln H. Blumell. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019.

Hellerman, Joseph H. “Origins of the Surrogate Kin Group Idea.” Pages 59‒91 in The Ancient Church as Family. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.

———. When the Church Was a Family: Recapturing Jesus’ Vision for Authentic Christian Community. Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2009.

Hodges, Zane C. “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John, Part 3: Water and Spirit—John 3:5.” Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (1978): 206‒20.

Huntsman, Eric D. “‘And the Word Was Made Flesh’: A Latter-day Saint Exegesis of the Blood and Water Imagery in the Gospel of John.” Studies in Bible and Antiquity 1 (2009): 51–65.

———. Becoming the Beloved Disciple: Coming unto Christ through the Gospel of John. Springville, UT: Cedar Fort, 2018.

———. God So Loved the World. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011.

———. “The Gospel of John.” Pages 304–21 in in New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Text of the New Testament, edited by Lincoln H. Blumell. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 2019.

———. The Miracles of Jesus. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2014.

———. “Teaching through Exegesis: Helping Students Ask Questions of the Text,” Religious Educator 6, no. 1 (2005): 107–26.

Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. “The Complex Witness of the New Testament Concerning Marriage, Family, and Sexuality.” Pages 659–78 in Contested Issues in Christian Origins and the New Testament: Collected Essays. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2013.

Käsemann, Ernst. The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978.

Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003.

Lawler, Michael. “Fathering: A Christian Perspective.” The Furrow 52, no. 10 (October 2001): 523–31.

Levine, A.-J. The Difficult Words of Jesus. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2021.

Lust, J., E. Eynikel, K. Haispie. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Revised edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003.

Lohfink, Gerhard, “The New Family. Pages 39–73 in Jesus and Community: The Social Dimension of Christian Faith. Translated by John P. Galvin. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

Maier, Harry O. New Testament Christianity in the Roman World. Essentials of Biblical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Mamula, Greg. “Jesus’ Understanding of Family and Fictive Kinship.” DM 7851 paper, April 10, 2015, https://www.academia.edu/14444230/Jesus_understanding_of_family_and_fictive_kinship.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010.

Millet, Robert L., Camille Fronk Olson, Andrew C. Skinner, and Brent L. Top. LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011.

Neyrey, Jerome H. “Loss of Wealth, Loss of Family and Loss of Honour: The Cultural Context of the Original Makarisms in Q.” Pages 139–58 in Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its Context, edited by Philip F. Esler. London: Routledge, 1995.

Pendrick, Gerard. “Mονογενής.” New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 587‒600.

Roberts, R. L. “The Rendering ‘Only Begotten’ in John 3:16.” Restoration Quarterly 16 (1973): 2‒22.

Skinner, Christopher W. Reading John. Cascade Companions. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2015.

Stegemann, Wolfgang, “The Emergence of God’s New People: The Beginnings of Christianity Reconsidered.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 62, no. 1 (2006): 23–40.

van der Merwe, Dirk, “Domestic Architecture: Culture, Fictive Kinship and Identity in The First Epistle of John.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 21, no. 2 (2010): 207‒26.

Wilson-Lemmόn, Haley. “The Family of God: A Christian Tradition as a Greco-Roman Phenomenon.” Studia Antiqua 17, no. 1 (2018): 15‒25.

Notes

[1] See Mark D. Ellison, “Family, Marriage, and Celibacy in the New Testament,” in New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Text of the New Testament, ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 2019; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book), 539–43.

[2] Luke Timothy Johnson, “The Complex Witness of the New Testament Concerning Marriage, Family, and Sexuality,” in Contested Issues in Christian Origins and the New Testament: Collected Essays (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2013), 672.

[3] Johnson, “Marriage, Family, and Sexuality,” 669.

[4] See, for instance, the overview and conclusions of Stephen C. Barton, Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew (Cambridge: University Press, 1994), 121–24, 215–25.

[5] See Eric D. Huntsman, Becoming the Beloved Disciple: Coming unto Christ through the Gospel of John (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort, 2018), 28–34.

[6] Frank Moore Cross, “Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel,” in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 13.

[7] Cross, “Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel,” 6–11, 13–14.

[8] Such an approach follows the model of first seeking to do exegesis, striving to identify the original meaning of the text to its first audiences, followed by exposition, applying it to ourselves with the aid of additional scripture not had by the original author or audience and the expanding our understanding of it with subsequent revelation and teaching. See Eric D. Huntsman, “Teaching through Exegesis: Helping Students Ask Questions of the Text,” Religious Educator 6, no. 1 (2005): 107–26, as well as the Ellison, “Family, Marriage, and Celibacy,” 547, who notes, “Certainly Restoration scripture and teachings of Latter-day Saint prophets have dramatically influenced our outlook. . . . In these respects, Latter-day Saint theology surpasses what can be found in the New Testament.”

[9] Luke softens the implicit rejection or criticism of his birth family by placing the saying in the context of his telling of the parable of the sower and the seed—further tempered by his earlier description of Mary as one who, in fact, received the word of God and followed it. See Johnson, “Marriage, Family, and Sexuality,” 668. Barton, Discipleship and Family Ties, 78–79, went farther, arguing, “Matthew and Luke found Mark’s hostility to the family of Jesus difficult to sustain. . . . Neither Matthew nor Luke follows Mark in reporting that people close to Jesus set out to take him because they thought him mad. . . . Matthew has them reverently seeking to speak to him (12.46), and Luke has them wanting to see him but being prevented from so doing by the crowd (8.19–20).”

[10] For a detailed discussion, see Joseph H. Hellerman, The Ancient Church as Family (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 27–58, which examines Mediterranean family systems in detail.

[11] Michael Lawler, “Fathering: A Christian Perspective,” The Furrow 52, no. 10 (October 2001): 527. See also Harry O. Maier, New Testament Christianity in the Roman World, Essentials of Biblical Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 171–73.

[12] While the Greek adelphoi, a grammatical masculine form, can be taken as gender inclusive in Mark 3:34 Matthew 12:49; Luke 8:21, it is significant in Mark 3:35 and Matthew 12:50 Jesus expressly includes states that a believer can be a “sister” (Greek adelphē). See Joanna Dewey, “Images of Women,” The Liberating Word: A Guide to Non-Sexist Interpretations of the Bible, ed. Letty M. Russell (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 74.

[13] See also Gerhard Lohfink, Jesus and Community: The Social Dimension of Christian Faith, trans. John P. Galvin (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 41–42, and Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971), 169.

[14] Greg Mamula, “Jesus’ Understanding of Family and Fictive Kinship” (DM 7851 paper, April 10, 2015, 17, https://www.academia.edu/14444230/Jesus_understanding_of_family_and_fictive_kinship. While this was a graduate paper and not a peer-reviewed journal article, Mamula’s characterization is so apt and worth quoting.

[15] Johnson, “Marriage, Family, and Sexuality,” 672.

[16] Johnson, “Marriage, Family, and Sexuality,” 674.

[17] Joseph H. Hellerman, When the Church Was a Family: Recapturing Jesus’ Vision for Authentic Christian Community (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2009), 64–66.

[18] Hellerman, When the Church Was a Family, 66, also notes Barnabas’s sale of property in Acts 4:36–37, to support the common church need.

[19] While it appears that Matthew has softened the original logion or saying (a believer cannot love family more than Jesus) and Luke provides it in its original, harsher form (one must hate his family), Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 224, has tried to argue that the Semitic original behind the Lucan version also conveyed a comparison rather than actual “hate.” Regardless, loving any teacher or leader more than the kinship group would have been scandalous in a first-century Mediterranean context.

[20] Johnson, “Marriage, Family, and Sexuality,” 659–78.

[21] Lawler, “Fathering,” 527.

[22] Hellerman, When the Church Was a Family, 55–56. See also Ellison, “Family, Marriage, and Celibacy,” 534, and Amy-Jill Levine, The Difficult Words of Jesus (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2021), 33–53.

[23] Haley Wilson-Lemmόn, “The Family of God: A Christian Tradition as a Greco-Roman Phenomenon,” Studia Antiqua 17, no. 1 (2018): 24; Jerome H. Neyrey, “Loss of Wealth, Loss of Family and Loss of Honour: The

Cultural Context of the Original Makarisms in Q,” in Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its Context, ed. Philip F. Esler (London: Routledge, 1995), 139–58.

[24] The Greek text reads edōken autois exousian tekna tou theou genesthai, literally “he granted them authority to become the children of God,” tekna tou theou, meaning “children” and hence including both sons and daughters.

[25] See. J. A. Fitzmyer, “monogenēs,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, eds. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990–93), 2.439–40. Despite the power of the traditional rendering of monogenous as “only begotten,” the force of the adjective monogenēs stresses more the one-of-a-kind nature of the relationship. As Christopher W. Skinner, Reading John, Cascade Companions (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2015), 26, notes, this adjective is probably not a compound of monos and gennaō, “to beget,” but monos and genos, for “type” or “kind.” The NIV, for instance, renders it “the one and only Son,” and the NRSV and NJB translate it as simply “only,” The emphasis is not so much on the Logos becoming the only begotten son but rather one that is unique in its kind or class (BDAG 658, §1–2). See again R. L. Roberts, “The Rendering ‘Only Begotten’ in John 3:16,” Restoration Quarterly 16 (1973): 2‒22; John V. Dahms, “The Johannine Use of Monogenēs Reconsidered,” New Testament Studies 29 (1983): 222‒32; and Gerard Pendrick, “Mονογενής,” New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 587‒600. By using “Uniquely Begotten,” my rendering “splits the difference” between Only Begotten and One and Only.

[26] Walter Bauer, “haima,” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., ed. Frederick William Danker, trans. William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and F. W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000), 26–27. See Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, Anchor Bible Commentary 29–29A (New York: Doubleday, 1966), 12; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 753. J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 72, renders hoi ek haimatōn as “not from bloodlines,” explaining the plural not by referencing the woman’s role in procreation exclusively but rather the various human bloodlines from which all people are born.

[27] Brown, Gospel according to John, 12–13; Keener, Gospel of John, 404; Michaels, Gospel of John, 73.

[28] Naomi W. Randall, “I Am a Child of God,” Children’s Songbook (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1989), 2–3.

[29] Naomi W. Randall, “I Am a Child of God,” Hymns (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1985), no. 301.

[30] Robert L. Millet, “Children of God,” in Robert L. Millet, Camille Fronk Olson, Andrew C. Skinner, and Brent L. Top, LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 107. For this distinction in the Book of Mormon, see Daniel Becerra, 3rd, 4th Nephi: A Brief Theological Introduction (Provo, UT: Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2021), 30–34.

[31] J. Beutler, “anōthen,” Exegetical Dictionary, 1:112–13.

[32] While one could argue that Nicodemus question arose from an understanding of anōthen (or whatever the Aramaic original was) as “again,” the proposition of any second birth—from above, of the spirit, or in some other way—itself might have led him to have assume of some new, literal maternal birth.

[33] Eric D. Huntsman, “‘And the Word Was Made Flesh’: A Latter-day Saint Exegesis of the Blood and Water Imagery in the Gospel of John,” Studies in Bible and Antiquity 1 (2009): 51–65.

[34] The anarthrous use of two objects of the same preposition ties the two ideas very close together, perhaps as a hendiadys (see BDF, 229 §442.16; Brown, Gospel according to John, 131), which would convey the idea of “spiritual water” or even “watery spirit,” an intriguing possibility given the significance of water = spirit/eternal life throughout the Gospel. In this regard, see my discussions below of 7:38‒39 and 19:34, where such “spiritual water” could connect the “birth from above” with resurrection. Huntsman, “Blood and Water Imagery,” 61–65. For further discussion of the most likely original exegetical contexts, see Zane C. Hodges, “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John, Part 3: Water and Spirit—John 3:5,” Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (1978): 206‒20, esp. 215‒19, where the original setting, perhaps on a roof at night time might encourage reading ek hydatos kai pneumatos as being born of rain and wind “from above” (anōthen), reflecting the nurturing, life-giving grace of God from the sky. Note that is “born from above” (John 3:3) and “one is born from water/rain and spirit” (John 3:5) would another example of Johannine repetition.

[35] Keener, Gospel of John, 550–51.

[36] Johnson, “Marriage, Family, and Sexuality,” 672.

[37] For the structure of John and how the seven sēmeia, or “miraculous signs,” fit into this structure, see Eric D. Huntsman, “The Gospel of John,” in New Testament History, Culture, and Society, Blumell, 309–15.

[38] Huntsman, “Blood and Water Imagery, 53–57, and The Miracles of Jesus (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2014), 3, 135–36.

[39] Brown, Gospel according to John, 100, 103–5; Keener, Gospel of John, 493–95, 513; Michaels, Gospel of John, 148–49.

[40] Brown, Gospel according to John, 109–10.

[41] James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ (Salt Lake City, 1924; repr. Deseret Book, 1982), 146–49; Bruce R. McConkie, Mortal Messiah, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1979–81), 1:453–54. Building upon this, I have previously argued that the miraculous transformation of water to wine is also a symbol of the Incarnation, with water representing Jesus as the spiritual, premortal Word and the wine representing his becoming the flesh and blood. See Huntsman, Miracles of Jesus, 19; Becoming the Beloved Disciple, 32–33.

[42] A few early Latter-day Saint authorities speculated that Jesus himself was getting married at Cana (e.g., Orson Hyde, in Journal of Discourses (London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1854–86), 2:82 (October 6, 1854); B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints (Salt Lake City, Deseret News, 1907), 2.272. Bruce R. McConkie later suggested that Mary’s concern about the success of the wedding feast indicated that one of her own family might have been involved. Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–73), 1:136. For the most recent, and complete, treatment of nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint thinking on the possibility that Jesus was married see Christopher James Blythe, “Was Jesus Married?,” BYU Studies Quarterly 60 no. 3 (2021): 75–84, and for the question of his role at the wedding at Cana in particular, see 77–79. Other suggestions for the groom have been made, including John himself, who consistently does not name himself anywhere in the text. Perhaps the most intriguing possibility is Nathanael. Newly called as disciple immediately before this episode (John 1:45–51), Nathanael is the only character explicitly described as being from Cana (John 21:2).

[43] Huntsman, “The Symbolism of the Wedding Feast,” Miracles of Jesus, 18.

[44] Cross, “Kindship and Covenant,” 13.

[45] Brown, Gospel according to John, 440–41, 442–43; Keener, Gospel of John, 86–57; Michaels, Gospel of John, 653–54.

[46] Strictly the Greek huioi phōtos (KJV, “children of light”) means “sons of light” and resonates with the use found in the writings of the Qumran Community, which uses it to contrast the faithful righteous remnant with the children of darkness (e.g., 1QS2.3). See Brown, Gospel according to John, 340, 515–16.

[47] Johnson, “Marriage, Family, and Sexuality,” 971. In a similar vein, Dirk van der Merwe, “Domestic Architecture: Culture, Fictive Kinship and Identity in The First Epistle of John,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 21, no. 2 (2010): 211, writes, “By reminding the Johannine community of their fictive kinship, of their common identity, and the values, conduct and doctrine that set them apart from other groups (the deceivers) in their society, the Elder entrenches their identity as a group, and serves to continue to regulate social (ethical) behavior in this group.”

[48] Mamula, “Jesus’ Understanding of Family and Fictive Kinship,” 12.

[49] The Greek paraklētos literally means “one called to one’s aid.” See F. Porsch, “paraklētos,” Exegetical Dictionary, 3.28–29. Although providing comfort is certainly an important role of the Holy Ghost, the traditional rendering “Comforter” is somewhat misleading, since the KJV meant “comfort” in the sense of “help” or “assistance” (compare providing “aid and comfort” to an enemy as an archaic meaning of treason). “Helper” (NAS), although perhaps the most literal translation, is somewhat inelegant. “Advocate” (NIV, NRSV; Latin, advocatus, again “someone called to someone’s side as an aid”), “Intermediary,” or “Intercessor” (Latin, literally “one who steps in between to help or protect”) are working alternatives, though they risk causing confusion with the role of Jesus, who is our Advocate and Intercessor (though perhaps the overlap is intentional and important, as the succeeding verses suggest). Some contemporary translations seek to avoid the problem by using the anglicized term Paraclete (NJB). The five Paraclete Sayings describe the Spirit’s role as a general helper (John 14:15–17), as an interpreter or teacher (15:25–26), as a witness (15:26–27), as a prosecutor or convincer (16:8–11), and a revealer (16:12–15). See Brown, Gospel according to John, 1135–43; Keener, Gospel of John, 953–71.

[50] Brown, Gospel according to John, 643–44, 1140; Keener, Gospel of John, 966–69, 972–73; Michaels, Gospel of John, 783–84.

[51] Discourse, between circa 26 June and circa 2 July 1839, as Reported by Wilford Woodruff, p. [33], The Joseph Smith Papers.

[52] Millet, “Second Comforter,” in LDS Beliefs, 568–70.

[53] W. Elliger, “orphanos,” Exegetical Dictionary, 534–35.

[54] Millet, “Eternal Life,” in LDS Beliefs, 190.

[55] The unusual syntax of John 19:25 makes punctuating the list difficult, with some commentators seeing three and others four women standing together. The challenge is that there are only two instances of the conjunction kai, or “and,” in the verse, eistēkeisan de para tōi staurōi tou Iēsou hē mētēr autou kai hē adelphē tēs metros autou Maria hē tou Klōpa kai Maria hē Magdalēnē. By reading “Maria of Clopas” in apposition to “his mother’s sister,” we have only three women listed. However, it is very unlikely that the mother of Jesus and her sister would both have been named Mary, which led Tatian and the Syriac Peshitta to insert a third kai, suggesting that there were four women. For a full discussion of all the possibilities, see Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1014‒15, and Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 204‒5.

[56] Brown, Gospel according to John, 922–27; Keener, Gospel of John, 1144–45; Michaels, Gospel of John, 958–60.

[57] Eric D. Huntsman, God So Loved the World (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 83; Becoming the Beloved Disciple, 126–27.

[58] Hellerman, Ancient Church as Family, 35–51.

[59] van der Merwe, “Culture, Fictive Kinship and Identity, 211.

[60] Huntsman, God So Loved the World, 84–85, 88; Becoming the Beloved Disciple, 127–28.

[61] F. G. Untergassmair, “koilia,” Exegetical Dictionary, 2.301. See Brown, Gospel according to John, 320–21; Huntsman, “Blood and Water Imagery,” 61–63.

[62] J. Lust, E. Eynikel, K. Haispie, “pleura,” in Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003), 496–97. See Brown, Gospel according to John, 935; Huntsman, “Blood and Water Imagery,” 64.

[63] Huntsman, “Blood and Water Imagery,” 64‒65, and God So Loved the World, 88‒91.

[64] Keener, Gospel of John, 1191.

[65] Brown, Gospel according to John, 994, 1016–17; Michaels, Gospel of John, 1001–2.

[66] Brown, Gospel according to John, 1026–27, 1046–48; Keener, Gospel of John, 1210–12; Michaels, Gospel of John, 1018.

[67] John 21 is widely seen as an epilogue or an appendix that was added later, either by the evangelist himself or a later redactor. See Brown, Gospel according to John, 1077‒82; Keener, Gospel of John, 1219‒22.