Within the main study, sociology is rarely mentioned or applied explicitly. There is no discussion of the difficulties inherent in the utilization of sociological theory, based on empirical data, in the interpretation of ancient texts, a problem frequently raised, e.g., by J. H. Elliott and others in Semeia 35. The interaction with sociology offered is thus disappointingly shallow. The influence of eastern culture and religion on the interpretation is overtly mentioned in the Preface. This is to be welcomed, but there is regrettably no discussion of the hermeneutical dynamics of inculturation or of the role of the reader in the construction of the text.
Eastern culture operates as an implicit rather than an explicit referent in the discussion.
Few would dispute that the incarnation in John represents in some sense a forfeiture of glory. This conception introduces a flesh-spirit dualism that makes the incarnation essentially a disguise, a thinly veiled covering over Jesus' divinity. This implies a fully developed and conscious gnosticism in John. This fascinating thesis is, however, not backed up by any in-depth exegesis. They are less than Jesus only because their mutual recognition depends on being told the secret by him.