Michael J. Gorman, Paul and John in Harmony: A Theological and Historical Exploration (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2026)

The goal of this book, which began as a series of lectures at the Lanier Theological Library, is to explore theological aspects of Christology and discipleship in St. John’s Gospel and 1 John that are in harmony with the undisputed Pauline letters (Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon) and to begin the historical task of reevaluating the relationship between St. John and St. Paul.

Gorman has structured this book in six chapters, a brief epilogue, a bibliography, and three indices: one of subjects, another of modern authors, and one of Scripture.  

In the first chapter (“Why This? Why Now?,” 1–16), Gorman lays out the objective for this book and places his volume within the scholarly conversation, especially concerning the relationship of St. John to St. Paul. 

Chapter 2 (“Paul, John, and Jesus: Christology, and Its Implications for Discipleship” 17–60) explores the significant and similar linguistic, structural, and theological of Philippians 2:6–11 and John 13:1–20: both contain “a two-dimensional story of Christology/soteriology . . . and of participatory discipleship, or spirituality . . .”; both are stories “about God, about incarnation, and about divine self-revelation”; both are stories “of Christ’s divine vulnerability, humility, downward mobility, and self-enslavement followed by exaltation”; both are stories “of self-giving love”; and both are paradoxical in that they feature “Christ’s free choice and obedience.” 

In chapter three (Paul, John, and Participation in Christ: Spirituality, and Its Roots in Christology I: Overview,” 61–86), Gorman examines the similar locative and residential rhetoric in St. John’s Gospel and the Pauline letters, namely that Christians reside in Jesus and in God. Thus, he looks at the Greek verbs menō, “to remain,” and oikeō, “dwell,” and the prepositions en, “in,” and meta, “with,” in St. John’s Gospel and 1 John as well as the prepositions en, “in,” and syn, “with,” the latter of which is often found attached to certain verbs in St. Paul’s letters. 

Chapter 4 (“Paul, John, and Participation in Christ: Spirituality, and Its Roots in Christology II: Four Common Aspects of Their Locative Language,” 87–128) takes the observations from the previous chapter and considers the locative and residential rhetoric of St. John and St. Paul more in depth. He argues that the use of such rhetoric by both authors is mutual, identity-defining, Trinitarian, active, and transformative. In particular, the mutual and intimate indwelling that St. John and St. Paul discuss “permits believers to share in” the divine identity of God and to be transformed into the image of the Messiah, which is to become more like God (126). Since God the Father and Son are “on the move, this Godlike Christlikeness is inherently and inevitably missional in character, enabled by the Spirit of the Son and the Father” (126). Nevertheless, there are differences in St. John’s and St. Paul’s locative and residential rhetoric. The former does not talk about the body of the Messiah as St. Paul does, St. John does not speak of being “in the Messiah,” and St. Paul rarely notes that Christians are “in Jesus.” The reason for these differences is that St. John’s Gospel “reflects a time when Jesus was doing his earthly ministry,” while St. Paul was focused on the risen Messiah and Lord (126).  

In chapter 5 (“Prequels and Sequels,” 129–56), Gorman investigates the “prequels” and “sequels” to the Gospel of St. John and the letters of Paul noting that both corpora highlight that the Father sends the Son and the Spirit, that one must believe in Jesus, be in him, and dwell in him, and that both underscore God’s life-giving salvific activity. All these observations serve as the foundation for Gorman’s last chapter and suggestion about the relationship between St. John’s Gospel and St. Paul.  

Chapter 6 (“Similarities and Sources,” 157–80) reviews the genetic question about which New Testament author influenced whom, observing the three ways that scholars have answered this question: (1) each author wrote independent of each other and drew on common sources; (2) St. Paul influenced St. John’s writings, either through his own writings or the tradition associated with him (which is the commonest view) or St. John and his writings influenced St. Paul; and (3) St. Paul’s traditions and writings and Johannine tradition and writings influenced each other. Gorman offers a new proposal: St. John influenced St. Paul. The main reason is that “it makes more sense to think of Paul as translating Johannine narratives and metaphors into new idioms for new situations . . . than it does to think of the author of John taking Pauline words, phrases, metaphors, and narratives and placing them on the lips of Jesus and in his own hands as the Gospel narrator” (167). He provides two ways in which this happened: (1) the soft version: either St. Paul knew of Johannine traditions or an early version of St. John’s Gospel or (2) the hard version: St. Paul knew of St. John’s Gospel “more or less as we have it” (168). Gorman points out that the soft version is not as controversial because even Raymond Brown concluded that some Johannine traditions date between AD 40 and 60. The hard version, however, is contrary to almost all historical-critical scholarship on St. John’s Gospel, that its final form dates to the mid AD 90s. 

Nevertheless, Gorman gives eight reasons to support his proposal. The first is that provided St. Paul knew of John 13–17, with what other parts of John was he familiar? He suggests that it is likely the apostle knew the Gospel was a whole, save for John 21. The second is that an early date for St. John’s Gospel is not out of the realm of possibility because hard evidence for a post AD-70 date is lacking. The third reason is that there is no reason why St. John’s Christology postdates St. Paul’s. The fourth is that St. John’s Gospel may have been composed in the AD 40s. The fifth reason is that if St. John knew and used St. Mark’s Gospel and possibly also St. Matthew’s, then all three Synoptic Gospels possibly date before AD 50. The sixth is that this dating of the Gospels explains several aspects of Pauline theology such as the similarities between St. Paul and St. John, St. Paul’s similarity to St. Mark’s understanding of the cross and discipleship, and St. Paul’s citations of St. Matthew’s and St. Luke’s Gospels [what citations he does not provide]. The seventh reason is that St. Paul’s use of St. John’s Gospel resembles how the author of 1 John uses St. John’s Gospel, too. And, the eighth reason is that St. Paul probably gained access to St. John’s Gospel as it circulated among early Christians. 

Finally, in the last chapter (“A Brief Epilogue,” 181–82), Gorman provides a short summary of Paul and John in Harmony. 

This work is quintessential Gorman: well-written, easy to read, descriptive, precise, filled with summaries of his arguments, and thought provoking. I have noted the similarities between Philippians 2:6–11 and John 13 for years in my own study and preaching and Gorman has convinced me that there is a relationship between St. Paul and St. John’s Gospel. What is more, for the past few years, especially since I read Jonathan Bernier’s Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament (2022) (which I review here); J. A. T. Robinson,Redating the New Testament (1976), and Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus (2016), I now question the entire scholarly edifice on which the reconstruction of early Christianity is based, especially the dates of the New Testament works (I am in the data collection process of a new introduction to the New Testament that re-examines the dates of the twenty-seven canonical works). Therefore, I welcome Gorman’s new proposal that the best explanation for the similarities between St. Paul and St. John that the former knew and read the latter’s Gospel (save for John 21): Bravo! 

In sum, this is an excellent and important read and I encourage you to get your copy of Paul and John in Harmony today directly from Baker Academic! 

I am grateful for the gratis copy of this book, which in no way influenced by review of it.