Navigating succession from leader to leader within an organization requires current leadership to spend time and energy planning how the torch of leadership will be passed and to do so in a way that leads to the least amount of disruption and the greatest amount of success for followers and the organization. The literature related to succession planning articulates several needs and goals of succession planning including developing talent pools, consideration of the past, present, and future, leadership development planning, competency models, consideration of competency and experience, and utilizing excellent communication (Daley, 2020; Hollinger, 2013; McCall, 1992; Rothwell, 2005).

While much has been written on the importance and methods for successful succession planning (Daley, 2020; McCall, 1992), limited research exists on succession planning models derived from the Scripture (Pugh, 2016; Tuppurainen, 2016). As noted, research on succession planning identifies communication as an essential factor in succession (McCall, 1992). However, limited research exists on the relationship between farewell speech and succession in the Scripture (Uytanlet, 2014), and very little research exists on the relationship between Jesus’s farewell prayer and succession (Pugh, 2016; Tuppurainen, 2016). Since John 17 serves as a climax of Jesus’s farewell discourse in John 13–17 (Brown, 1970; Kostenberger, 2004; Keener, 2014), and since a characteristic of farewell speeches was a concern with the succession of leadership (Holmas, 2011), this analysis examined Jesus’s prayer in John 17 and the possible implications for succession planning.

John 17: Genre and Pericope

Genre analysis provides the principles by which the readers can understand a particular pericope (Wittgenstein, 1953). The Fourth Gospel, together with the other Gospels, falls into the general category of ancient biography (Keener, 2014). While historians and biographers typically wrote with a particular agenda and expected readers to recognize themes and draw lessons from their written work, they also desired to be as accurate as possible (Keener, 2014). According to Blomberg (2007), since the Gospels are historical accounts, they are trustworthy accounts, and historical investigation can be used to study them.

Chapters 13–17 are identified as the genre of farewell discourse where the chosen pericope, John 17, serves as a capstone (Brown, 1970; Kostenberger, 2004; Keener, 2014). In Jesus’s “farewell discourse,” “the new messianic community” is prepared for Jesus’s departure through the washing of the feet in John 13, Judas’s parting in John 13, instructions regarding the Holy Spirit in John 14-16, and Jesus’s prayer in John 17 (Kostenberger, 2004). Kostenberger (2004) argued Jesus’s farewell could be compared to Moses’s farewell in Deuteronomy 31–33 and other Second Temple period works on farewells. The genre of such works from the Old Testament and the Second Temple period featured: “predictions of death and departure, predictions of future challenges for the followers/sons of the dying man after his death, arrangements regarding succession or continuation of the family line, exhortations to moral behavior, a final commission, an affirmation and renewal of God’s covenant promises, and a closing doxology” (Kostenberger, 2004, p. 396). Jesus’s farewell included an exhortation to moral behavior in appeal to “love one another” (John 13:34, John 15:17); Jesus’s warning about his “departure” (John 14:5–6); and comforting words (John 14:5–6) (Kostenberger, 2004). Furthermore, “in keeping with the genre’s concern for proper succession,” Jesus announced the coming of “another advocate” (John 13:16) (Kostenberger, 2004, p. 397). According to Kostenberger (2004), this farewell ensured Jesus’s ministry is continued in the ministry of the disciples.

While the discussion on the Second Temple period literary genre and comparison to Moses’s speech in Deuteronomy is important, for the purposes of this analysis, the central part is that “the function of such speeches is the preservation and handing on of wisdom and lessons from one’s life to the next generation shortly before death or departure” (Witherington, 1995, p. 245). What is important for the purposes of this historical-grammatical exegetical analysis of John 17 is the focus on the text itself. Jesus’s prayer in John 17 began with the opening words “when Jesus had spoken these words” (John 17:1), suggesting a connection to the previous text. Kostenberger (2004) suggested Jesus’s prayer is “sandwiched,” between the final dinner and the cross (p. 397). John 17 is traditionally divided into three divisions (Hera, 2012): John 17:1–5 focusing on Jesus, John: 17:6–19 focusing on immediate disciples, and John 17: 20–26 focusing on future disciples. Therefore, this linguistic analysis followed the same divisions.

John 17: Historical and Cultural Background

Historical and cultural background information on the pericope can indicate how the first readers would have understood its message (Keener, 2014). Knowing the information about the ancient culture is critical to understanding the sorts of circumstances to which the chosen pericope most directly applies (Keener, 2014). Critical components of the historical and cultural background are discussions on authorship, date, the audience to whom it was addressed, and purpose and themes (Osborne, 2006).

Authorship, Date, and Audience

The Fourth Gospel lacks a direct claim to authorship. Although the authorship of the Fourth Gospel has been debated, early tradition attributes the authorship of the Fourth Gospel to John, son of Zebedee (Blomberg, 2007; Keener, 2014). For the purposes of the current analysis of John 17, the authorship is attributed to John. Keener (2014) argued that while the authorship of the Gospel of John is a meaningful discussion, the more critical discussion centers on the eyewitness account confirming the historical accuracy of the Fourth Gospel. In John 19:35, the “beloved disciple” provided evidence that the Fourth Gospel comes from an eyewitness. According to Keener (2014), only John son of Zebedee could fill the role of the “beloved disciple” following Jesus closely. This claim to eyewitness authorship is especially vital in the analysis of John 17. DeSilva (2004) argued in comparison with the Synoptic Gospels, the Fourth Gospel might provide a better historical study of Jesus due to the “correct remembrance of the story of Jesus” (p. 416). Early tradition dates the Fourth Gospel to the mid-90s of the first century (Witherington, 1995; Keener, 2014). Keener (2014) argued the Gospel’s audience was the Johannine community, most likely in Ephesus or Smyrna in Roman Asia, and others like Witherington (1995) argued the Fourth Gospel was written for nonbelievers. Since the Fourth Gospel does not specify a particular audience and there is little consensus among scholars, for the purposes of this historical-grammatical analysis of John 17, the date and the audience of the Fourth Gospel was not discussed in further detail.

Purpose and Themes

John’s primary purpose in writing the Fourth Gospel is to demonstrate that Jesus is the Son of God (Carson, 1991). John portrays Jesus as God’s sent one, his agent (Witherington, 1995). Some of the major themes in the Fourth Gospel address the law and word (Keener, 2014). John emphasized in John 1:1–18 that Jesus is the Word, which is in direct opposition to the Pharisees’ claim that God’s law favors their position (Keener, 2014). Furthermore, John emphasized that the believers possessed the Spirit, which is in direct opposition to the Pharisees’ claim to know the law through their own interpretation (Keener, 2014).

Jesus’s prayer in John 17 resembles the themes found in Jesus’s talk with the disciples in John 13–16 (Harley, 2014; Keener, 2014). According to Tenney (1984) “the vocabulary, which contains such Johannine terms as ‘glory,’ ‘glorify,’ ‘sent,’ ‘believe,’ ‘world,’ ‘love,’ connects its content with the same topics in preceding sections of the Gospel” (p. 398). Similarly, Witherington (1995) highlighted the themes of Jesus’s departure, the truth, and Christ’s indwelling in the believers.

While Jesus prayed often and was in constant communication with the Father, the Gospels do not record very many words. However, John 17 records a lengthy prayer that serves as a final communication to the disciples. The prayer revealed a communion between Jesus and the Father and the union of disciples with Jesus and the Father (Nygaard, 2012). Jesus prayed to the Father that the Father would bring to fulfillment all the work Jesus did.

Linguistic Study: Grammar, Semantics, and Syntax

This part of the historical-grammatical exegetical analysis of John 17 followed Osborne’s (2006) method for lexical study. The goal was to examine grammar, semantics, and syntax as interdependent and necessary in determining the author’s original meaning. The focus was on determining the meaning of the original context of the chosen pericope prior to uniting the hearer with the message of the text (Osborne, 2006). Here, the emphasis was “on the meaning of the text to show how it can be understood within the context of the overall Johannine narrative” (Hera, 2012). Specific terms in the pericope serve as keywords in the context and should be identified as needing additional study (Osborne, 2006). Osborne (2006) suggested a methodology for lexical study: “determines the semantic range,” “allows the context to determine the meaning that best fits the other intended message of the whole,” and “studies the theology behind the word” (p. 108). The first step in the lexical study is isolating keywords in the context by identifying those that are: theologically loaded, crucial to the meaning, repeated in the context or became themes, critical to the context (Osborne, 2006). This analysis of John 17 followed Osborne’s (2006) methodology and suggestions for the lexical study. Identification and analysis of key repeated words and phrases developed specific themes in John 17.

Analysis of John 17

John 17:1–5

John referred and summarized the four previous chapters, 13, 14, 15, and 16, by the phrase “after Jesus said this” (John 17:1). Jesus here “looked toward heaven” (John 17:1). According to Keener (2014), looking toward heaven was a common posture during prayer. In John 11:41 Jesus assumed the same position in prayer for Lazarus. Jesus refers to the “Father” or pater, meaning “generator or male ancestor,” six times in John 17. Jesus’s words “the hour has come” stand out as a reminder that Jesus’s earthly ministry was coming to an end. John referred to Jesus’s “time has not yet come” in John 2:4, 7:6, 7:8, 7:30, and 8:20. The Greek word for “time” is translated as “hour” (John 17:2). This term identified a specific time of Jesus’s death, and then Jesus’s exaltation (Carson, 1991).

Dyck et al. (2002) argued that timing the various components of succession and, indeed, the actual passing of the torch were critical in determining the outcome of a successful succession. The pericope indicated a distinct sensitivity to time, as Jesus began the prayer in John 17:1 with a proclamation that the “hour has come.” Before this start of the high priestly prayer, Jesus has engaged his disciples in John 13–16 that reviewed and highlighted what had already occurred, what was happening, and what was to come. In addition, he reviewed what the disciples knew and how they had been prepared for his departure. Hence, the time had come for him to leave and allow his successor, the Holy Spirit, to begin leading.

Principle One: As a complex process, the various components of succession must be executed and communicated clearly at the appropriate time to ensure the readiness of both the successor and followers.

In John 17:2 Jesus’s word “glorify” might be best explained by Balz’ (1990) definition of glorification: “Jesus’s entry into the divine glory ‘with the Father’ is distinguished from this glorification as the revealer of salvation; it is the restoration of the preexistence glory through the generous love of the Father; to see it and to participate in it is the destiny promised to the disciple” (p. 149). In Greek doxazo, the word “glory” or “glorify” means “show honor” or “reveal the wonderful character of something or someone” (Strong, 1890). In John 17 glory appears as a significant theme as displaying/acknowledging perfected character (John 17:5, 17:22); open approval of God (John 17:1); lifted to a position of authority (John 17:1, 17:22, 17:24); honoring another by words, actions, and thoughts (John 17:1, 17:4, 17:10); and heaven (implied), a place, Jesus’s dwelling (John 17:24).

Since in the Old Testament “flesh” was often used in the sense of humanity, in John 17:2 “flesh” (NASB) refers to the “people” (NIV) and “mankind” (NASB). Jesus has authority over all people. Furthermore, Jesus has authority to give eternal life (John 17:2). In John 17:3 John equated eternal life with knowing God. Similarly, in Ezekiel 37:14, knowing God is identified with eternal life. The focus in John 17:3 is on having a personal relationship with Jesus (Keener, 2014). In John 17:3 Jesus refers to himself as “the ‘sent one,’ a concept stemming from the Jewish idea of the shaliach, the ‘representative’ who reveals and embodies the will of the sender” and acts as a counselor or an advocate (Osborne, 2006, p. 437). The Hebrew word shaliach refers to an ambassador, a person’s representative with the same authority as the person who sent the ambassador (Hack Polaski, 1999). The authority of the sender is given to the one who is sent (Hack Polaski, 1999).

In John 17:4, Jesus says he completed the work assigned to him by the Father. The word teleioó is translated as “having accomplished” (Strong, 1890). Hera (2012) argued the “complexive aorist,” “an aorist that views the action as a whole,” summed up Jesus’s ministry (p. 202). Jesus here used the singular “work” instead of “works” to refer to the work He came to accomplish, death on the cross (Beasley-Murray, 1999). From the context, the work of the cross was still before Jesus, yet Jesus anticipated the completion of that mission. Jesus had a plan to accomplish his Father’s will.

In John 17:4–5, Jesus’s claim to the Father’s glory is a claim to being divine (Keener, 2014). According to Keener (2014) “Judaism did have an analogy with which to compare Jesus’s divine claim here: God’s Wisdom reflects his glory (Wisdom of Solomon 7:25-29)” (p. 297). Jesus had the same glory he is asking for now (John 17:5) when he was in God’s presence where Jesus shared nature and intimate familiarity in a relationship with God. Keener (2014) connects glory in John 17 to Moses, reflecting God’s glory in Exodus 33–34. When God revealed his glory to Moses in Exodus 33:19 he also revealed his character full of grace, truth, and love (Keener, 2014). In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus revealed his glory through signs and the sacrifice on the cross (Keener, 2014). According to Keener (2014) early Christians would have connected the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 to Jesus. In John 12:23 and again here in John 17:2 John connected the crucifixion to Jesus’s glory (Keener, 2014). Carson (1991) argued as Jesus does not seek “the praise of men but the glory that comes from the only God, so Jesus seeks by His own glorification nothing less than the glory of His Father” (p. 554). Jesus had glory before the world began, and He gained additional glory when He returned to heaven. In John 17:1–5, Jesus reviewed his mission and the work He has done.

Throughout the text, Jesus communicated the variety of ways that he has met his leadership mission in the completion of his works. More specifically, in John 17:2–5, the text supports that he was sent to glorify God, to represent to and bring knowledge of God to the people, and to equip the disciples to spread the Gospel. An important note related to this reiteration is that it is not done from a place of ego or self-glorification, but rather to glorify God and remind the disciples that the centrality of Jesus’s mission and, subsequently, their mission is to tell others of God and bring glory to the Father.

Principle Two: The successful execution of succession requires that current leadership affirm the mission and vision of the organization and to guide followers to remain focused on the organizational mission and vision.

John 17:6–19

In John 17:6–19, Jesus prayed for his disciples. In verses 6 and 9, Jesus said those God gave Him came out of the world. While the word for “world” (kósmos) refers to a “physical place,” “earth” and “universe” (John 17:5, 17:11, 17:13, 17:15, 17:18, 17:24); here (John 17:6, 17:9, 17:14, 17:16, 17:18, 17:21, 17:23) John assigned the word to mean “people” who don’t know or obey God (Strong, 1890). Jesus used endearing terms to refer to his followers: “those you gave me” in John 17:6 and “those who are mine” in John 17:10 (Kostenberger, 2004). Jesus claimed that God’s word was accepted by the disciples (John 17:8).

In John 17:11, “name” (onoma) is defined as “name” and “character” (Strong, 1890). “Your name” in John 17:11 relates to Moses’ announcement of God’s name in Exodus 3:15 (Keener, 2014). God’s name revealed character, attributes, honor, and reputation (Strong, 1890; Keener, 2014). Therefore, “to manifest the name of God is to reveal the essential nature of God to men” (Morris, 1995, p. 723). Glory came to Jesus through his disciples’ future ministry after his departure.

In John 17:17–19, hagiazó is translated as “sanctify,” but it could also be translated as “set apart for sacred use” or “make holy” (Strong, 1890). Witherington (1995) postulated the word should be translated as “set apart” since the disciples are to be set apart in the truth. In John 17:17, alétheia is translated as “truth” (Strong, 1890). In John 17:18, Jesus referred to the disciples as the “sent” ones. In John 17:11–19, Jesus varied the exact wording, but repeatedly said He shares what God gave Him with those who belong to Him. Jesus gave the disciples: God’s revelation (17:6); His words (John 17:8, John 17:14); His joy (John 17:13), His separation from the world (John 17:16), His commission (John 17:18), His sanctification (John 17:17–19); and His glory (John 17:22, 17:24). Jesus prayed for those His Father had given him. Here, Jesus asked that the disciples would be kept in Father’s name (Kostenberger, 2004) as he petitioned for their protection by asking for unity (John 17:11), joy (John 17:13), and consecration (John 17:17). Jesus values those who belong to Him.

In the text, Jesus gave significant attention to the knowledge and skills the disciples had acquired in order to fulfill the mission and vision. More specifically, in John 17:8, Jesus claimed that the disciples had heard God’s Word and accepted it as truth. From this knowledge, the disciples would fulfill the mission and vision by bringing glory to God through knowing his name and character and spreading this knowledge to others. Jesus reiterated that the disciples possessed both the knowledge and skills needed to navigate and succeed in their roles and tasks following Jesus’s departure.

Principle Three: Leaders must communicate what knowledge and skills followers possess to navigate their roles and tasks under new leadership.

John 17:20–26

Jesus prayed for all believers and future disciples in John 17:20–26. According to Osborne (2006), in John 17:20–23, Jesus gave a Biblical command regarding unity. The mandate was given in the plural to a believing community and was intended to be lived out in a community (Osborne, 2006). In John 21:21, Jesus said, “that they also may be in us.” The unity is modeled by the relationship between the Father and the Son. Keener (2014) argued that Israel emphasized the importance that the God they serve is “one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). While John 17:20–26 supported that God is “one,” the focus was on God’s personal indwelling among those who believe and love Jesus (John 14:23–24). According to Osborne (2006), love and unity are central to the relationship between Christ and God and serve as a model to the family of God. Jesus’s prayer identified three types of unity: Jesus’s unity with His Father (John 17:1–7, 17:21); the believer’s unity with Jesus and the Father (John 17:10, 17:21, 17:23); and the believer’s unity with other believers (17:11, 17:21–23). The relationship between the Father and the Son serves as a model for unity of all believers. Keener (2014) argued “followers of Jesus constitute a small minority in a hostile world and need each other to survive as much as other minorities normally do” (Keener, 2014, p. 298). The Father gives glory to Jesus and Jesus gives his glory to the believers (Hera, 2012). According to Hera (2012), both ἵνα clauses in John 17:21 and John 17:23 are interrelated. The disciples’ unity demonstrates to the world that God sent Jesus as His Son and that the disciples are loved by God (Hera, 2012). In John 17:25, Jesus refers to the Father with an adjective “righteous” in order to contrast the world with those who know the Father through Him (Hera, 2012).

In John 17:20–26, Jesus prays not only for the disciples but for all believers. In essence, Jesus calls for unity between Jesus and the Father, the disciples, Jesus, and the Father, and, finally, between all believers. Unity may be viewed as centered around the mission and vision of the organization. As mentioned previously, the central mission and vision highlighted in this text is spreading the Gospel. Jesus’s prayer emphasized the centrality not of him as the disciples’ leader, but rather the centrality of the Gospel mission. The knowledge of God and his glorification remained the unifying mission and vision of the disciples following Jesus’s departure.

Principle Four: Leadership during succession communicates the need for current and future unity within the organization centered around the mission and vision.

Summary

The historical-grammatical exegesis of John 17 revealed four distinct principles of succession communication. More specifically, to ensure satisfactory succession from one leader to another, the leader must communicate at the appropriate times, emphasize the mission and vision of the organization, reiterate what followers know, and the skills they possess and establish and encourage both present and future unity. To review, succession planning is critical for leadership development and the long-term success of an organization (Ishak & Kamil, 2016; Yukl, 2013). Yukl (2013) argued that consideration of succession planning using a systems perspective of leadership development would lead to success. More specifically, succession planning must be viewed as a complex phenomenon occurring within complex systems. McCall (1992) argued that best practices in organizations include utilizing a specialized position or a committee to coordinate leadership development. Often, the specialized position equates to the individual holding the current leadership position. In addition, satisfactory succession planning involves developing talent pools, both internal and sometimes external (Hollinger, 2013) and the consideration of present situation, future situation, performance, future performance, development plans, competency models, succession planning program, and statement of values for governance (Rothwell, 2005).

Succession planning criteria highlight formal guidelines and considering capability and experience (Rothwell, 2005). While research highlights the benefits of succession leadership, most organizations have minimal integration of leadership development with succession planning (Tao & Zhao, 2019; Yukl, 2013). Organizations without a succession plan might experience obstacles such as: lack of support, politics, and quick-fix mentality (Rothwell, 2005). Brady and Helmich (1984) postulated executive succession is rooted in Max Weber’s study of bureaucracies. For Brady and Helmich (1984), Weber’s research on succession required adaptation on behalf of the followers.

The current analysis of John 17 explored how Jesus’s teachings were understood in first-century Palestine and what Jesus meant in his final prayer. Jesus’s sayings in John 17 were recorded to apply not only to the ancient hearers but also to the generations to come (Keener, 2014). Here, “Jesus ensured the continuation of his mission by preparing his new messianic community for its mission” (Kostenberger, 2004, p. 9). John portrays Jesus as a “sage who has left his legacy with his disciples” (Witherington, 1995, p. 268). Jesus’s instructions to his followers were a part of the succession process. John 17 served as an “address, admonition, consolation, revelation, and prayer” for the disciples (Hera, 2012, p. 12). Jesus began “the process of succession planning for the Christian church by selecting and developing the apostles, who later selected and developed others” (Hollinger, 2013, p. 158). In the Fourth Gospel, first Jesus is the sent one, then Jesus claims Holy Spirit is the sent one, and then finally the disciples and believers are referred to as the sent ones. The authority is passed on from Jesus to the disciples and believers. Hollinger (2013) argued that although the early church significantly differs from the modern organizations, the modern leaders “can learn important lessons from the approach to succession” as presented in the Scripture (p. 158).

One way the material in this historical-grammatical study can be used is for discussion regarding succession development and the role of the exiting leader in the communication with the followers. Jesus’s leadership development of the disciples informs today’s succession planning programs, and Jesus’s prayer in John 17 informs succession farewell speeches. Farewell speeches in Greco-Roman culture and Paul’s and Jesus’s speeches prepared later generations for what was to come (Kurtz, 1985). Often, biblical farewell speeches addressed transitions in authority and necessary changes in practices due to the changes in circumstances (Kurtz, 1985). After Jesus fulfilled his assignment, He addressed and encouraged those who are staying behind to be united. Analysis of John 17 resulted in the identification of certain themes: unity, glory, and specific gifts Jesus gave to the disciples. John emphasized throughout the Fourth Gospel, the time for transition is not right until, in John 17, Jesus said it was time.

Leadership succession should occur at a specially designated time. The timing of the transition of authority from Jesus to disciples was specific. Jesus envisioned unity for the believers and repeatedly said he shares what he had with the believers. Departing leaders might pattern their farewell address on Jesus’s prayer in John 17, reminding the followers of the right timing for the succession, all they have learned from the leader, the mission and vision for the organization, and the need for unity. In John 17, the disciples heard Jesus’s comforting words of being one with God. Jesus purposely allowed disciples to hear His prayer. By utilizing the historical-grammatical exegetical process, the analysis of John 17 offered an alternative vision of succession planning and specifically communication of the exiting leader regarding the changes in the circumstances.

Some limitations of this research include its limited scope. As mentioned previously, succession planning is a complex phenomenon taking place in complex organizations. The analysis provided here focuses on a small slice of the full complexity of Jesus’s life, leadership, and departure. Besides, there exist a number of ways in which research related to both this text and topic could be approached. This analysis provided just one.

Further research might examine the possible application of John 17 to the leadership succession efforts in various settings. In addition, it may be beneficial to the understanding of succession planning from this perspective to review and analyze additional section chapters within the last discourse found in John 14–17. Doing so may provide additional insight into the character and specific influence of John 17 in the overall succession communication strategy of Jesus in the Gospel.

Discussion Questions

  1. 1.

    Why are timing and communication important to consider during succession planning?

  2. 2.

    How can organizations assure a successful process of transferring knowledge exists?

  3. 3.

    How can exiting leaders use the vision and mission of the organization to create opportunities for unity?

  4. 4.

    What does a culture conducive for knowledge sharing and succession planning look like?