Jesus not one word - Word и Excel - помощь в работе с программами

«Jot» and «tittle» are not everyday words in English. What do they mean and how should Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:18 be understood? Jerusalem Perspective‘s editor-in-chief, David Bivin, tackles these questions on behalf of a subscriber’s request for help.

Rather listen instead?

JP members can click the link below for an audio version of this essay.^[*]

Premium Members
If you are not a Premium Member, please consider becoming one starting at $10/month (paid monthly) or only $5/month (paid annually):

One Time Purchase Rather Than Membership
Rather than a membership, you may also purchase access to this entire page for $1.99 USD. (If you do not have an account select «Register & Purchase.»)

In a statement about the continuing validity of the Torah, Jesus uses a difficult-to-understand idiom. The Greek reads: ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου (“…until pass away the heaven and the earth, iota one or one point by no means will pass way from the law…”; Matt. 5:18).

Most English translations have not helped readers understand the idiom:

“Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law…” (KJV)

“…till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law…” (RSV)

“…until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law…” (ESV)

Premium Members
If you are not a Premium Member, please consider becoming one starting at $10/month (paid monthly) or only $5/month (paid annually):

One Time Purchase Rather Than Membership
Rather than a membership, you may also purchase access to this entire page for $1.99 USD. (If you do not have an account select «Register & Purchase.»)

The featured image shows the text of Matt. 5:18 in The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall Tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised by his Majesties Special Commandment Appointed to be read in Churches Imprinted at London by Robert Barker Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie Anno Dom. 1611 (also known as The King James Version).

Premium Members
If you are not a Premium Member, please consider becoming one starting at $10/month (paid monthly) or only $5/month (paid annually):

One Time Purchase Rather Than Membership
Rather than a membership, you may also purchase access to this entire page for $1.99 USD. (If you do not have an account select «Register & Purchase.»)

Источник

John’s Gospel says that «In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God…» I don’t understand the meaning of «the Word?» Is the «Word» a person? How can a word be God?

The prologue of John’s gospel is an important work within the New Testament because it provides perhaps the clearest statement of Jesus’ identity in spiritual terms. Essentially, John’s prologue states Jesus is and always has been God, but it also seeks to explain, to a certain extent, the nature of Jesus’ existence and His role within the Godhead.

Let’s start by examining the opening verses in John’s Gospel:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

John uses the Greek word logos to describe Jesus «in the beginning,» or before creation and time began. Logos means word, but specifically, it means the spoken word or a statement. Jesus is God’s spoken word, according to John.

John then explains that the Word (Jesus) was «with» God and «was» God. This statement yields two important conclusions regarding Jesus and the Trinity: Jesus is God and existed from the beginning as God, yet Jesus’ existence is somehow distinct from God the Father. Jesus was «with» God and «was» God at the same time. This is the mystery of the Trinity: all three Persons in the Godhead are One God and yet all are distinct from one another.

Moving to verse 3, John says that it was the Word (Him) that created all things. From this statement, we begin to see why Jesus is called the «Word» by John. Consider these facts we learn from John’s Gospel and elsewhere in Scripture:

First, we know from scripture that God the Father is Spirit (John 4:24), meaning He doesn’t exist in physical form. So, there is no physical substance to God the Father. The Creation cannot experience the Father as He truly is since we are bound to a physical dimension yet He is not physical.

Secondly, we know that the third member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is likewise spirit only and therefore invisible (John 3:6-8). He can only be known by observing His work in the Creation, Jesus says in John 3. Therefore, Jesus is the only member of the Godhead Who takes on physical form, and for that reason, He is the member of the Godhead responsible for creating all things physical. As John said in chapter 1, all things were made by and through Jesus. Paul echos the same thing in Col 1:15-17.

Moreover, Paul teaches in Colossians that Jesus is the «image of the invisible God,» meaning He is the only member of the Godhead Who entered into and become a part of physical Creation. For this reason, Jesus can be perceived in a physical sense because He is incarnate. In fact, the incarnation of Jesus was intended, in part, to bring mankind a greater awareness of Who God is and what He is like. Therefore, Jesus is both the source of all Creation and an Ambassador of the Godhead into that creation.

Next, consider how the Creation itself was established in Genesis 1. Genesis 1 teaches that the world was created by the spoken word of God (note the repeating phrase in Genesis 1, «Then God said…»). So when God the Father determined to create the universe and everything in it, He «spoke» it into existence. But as John said in verse 3, Jesus was the One who made all things, therefore we can say that Jesus was God’s logos, or spoken Word.

We can begin to understand this partnership (at least to some degree) by drawing an analogy to how our own thoughts and words reach into the physical world. When we desire to command something to happen in the world around us, we must first conceive the idea in our minds. No one can see our thoughts. They are invisible, yet they certainly exist. Without our thoughts, we could purpose to do nothing at all.

If our thoughts are to become visible in some way, they must move from the invisible realm of our mind and into the physical world. The progression from invisible to visible requires we transfer our invisible thoughts into a spoken command. The brain communicates our thoughts to our mouth where it becomes logos: spoken words. Once the spoken word leaves our mouth, it enters the physical world and yields its intended effect. This simple analogy helps explain how God the Father worked with God the Son (i.e., the Word) to establish Creation.

God the Father purposed to create the universe and all that it contains, and when the moment arrived to make it so, God’s «thoughts» were made a physical reality by the Son, Who brought all things into being according to the Father’s plan, and now the Spirit of God attends to the Creation after its formation.

This is John’s meaning when he says that Jesus is the Word. He meant that Jesus is the physical manifestation of God the Father, just as a spoken word is the physical manifestation of our inner thoughts. Until Jesus took action and created the universe, there was no physical reality to God’s presence. But when God «spoke» (i.e., when Jesus took action), the Creation came into existence.

Later, Jesus arrived in Person to meet with His creation, and as Jesus spoke His words to His disciples, He fulfilled the Father’s purpose by providing a physical representation of the Godhead to His creation. Hebrews says it this way:

Heb. 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
Heb. 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
Heb. 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power…

Paul reiterates this same thought in Colossians when he says:

Col. 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col. 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Jesus is the Word because He was the means through which the Father brought all physical reality into existence and because He is the One Who represents the Father’s invisible nature and character to that creation. Just as your spoken word is the physical manifestation of your thoughts and personality, Jesus is the «Word» of the invisible God to His creation.

Источник

Even as a lover of books, this might be one of the most terrifying pictures I’ve ever seen.

“The Bible is not the Word of God, Jesus is. John says he is the Eternal Logos, the true Word spoken from all eternity, and to put such a focus on the Bible as the Word of God is to take it off their point: Jesus. In fact, it’s tantamount to bibliolatry–elevating the Bible to the 4th person of the Trinity.”

Ever heard something like that before? It’s become a truism among many of the Christian internet set, and something like it has been popular in theological circles for some time now.

I must admit, when I first heard the slogan myself, I was thrown off a bit. I mean, John does identify Jesus as the Logos, the Word, of God from all of eternity–the truest and deepest reality Father is eternally speaking. What’s more, it’s true that from time to time you can run across someone in a fundamentalist church who treats the Scriptures as if they were dropped from heaven and yet remain utterly oblivious to its central content. I can begin to see what motivates some to adopt it.

However, after the initial appeal, it appears to me that this is a mistaken move that many (though not all) use as a lead-up to falsely pitting Christ against the Scriptures. In fact, I’ve come to see this as sadly little more than a rhetorical sleight of hand, passing itself off as serious theology.

A Word About Words – The first is concerned with the basic nature of language and the simple text of the Bible. It should be an obvious point that words or phrases can, quite comfortably, have more than one proper use, or an expanded lexical range. For example, the phrase “God’s will” can refer to God’s will of command expressed in his explicit commands, but it can also refer to God’s will of decree by which he governs history. Both meanings are appropriately designated by that phrase, and context will usually clarify any confusion on that point. It ought to be uncontroversial to say the same thing is true of the phrase “the Word of God.”

At the most straightforward level, the phrase “The word of God” just means “a word God has spoken.” We find hundreds of references to God’s speech (“the word of the Lord came to”) littered throughout the canon, whether in the Law, the prophets, or the wisdom literature. Every time God spoke to Moses, he heard “the word of God.” Every time a prophet prophesied and used the phrase “Thus says the Lord”, they were speaking the “word of God.” Over and over, we see the preaching of the Gospel in Acts described as the “word of God.” That Jesus Christ is the eternal Logos of God does not change the fact that it is entirely appropriate to speak of the utterances of Jeremiah or Isaiah as the “word of God.” How much more then for the totality of all that God has “breathed out” by his Spirit?

For those worried about confusion on this point, this is why sometimes theologians have gone out of their way to distinguish what they mean by the phrase, specifying “the Word of God incarnate” (ie. Jesus) or “the Word of God written” (ie. the Bible). They know very clearly that one has certain properties that the other doesn’t. For instance, the Son of God doesn’t have the properties of being made up of 66 books by various authors over a period of a thousand years or so. On the other hand, the Bible doesn’t have the property of being eternally-generated by the Father, or being incarnate, crucified, risen, and ascended in glory. Straightforward enough.

So when the author of Hebrews speaks about the Son’s unique revelatory function he says “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe” (1:1-2), it’s important note that he doesn’t follow that up with, “so now that we have this final Word let’s not call those previous communications ‘God’s Word.’” The conclusion simply does not follow.

Which brings me to the next point: the Word’s own view of the words.

Christ himself presents us with the Word.

What Did Jesus Say? I’ve written before that it’s rather misleading to pit Jesus against the OT, or the “red letters” against the black letter sections of the Bible, given his own view of it. Once again, consider:

Is it not written in your Law, “I said, you are gods”? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming,” because I said, “I am the Son of God”? (John 10:34-36)

Not only is Jesus not squeamish about equating the Old Testament Scripture with the “Word of God”, he re-emphasizes their inviolability and authority by adding that they can’t be “broken.” Passages like this could be multiplied ad nauseam. In this he is followed by all of the apostles.

But instead of just repeating myself, J.I. Packer has some wisdom for us on this point:

But who is this Christ, the Judge of Scripture? Not the Christ of the New Testament and of history. That Christ does not judge Scripture; he obeys it and fulfills it. Certainly, He is the final authority of the whole of it. Certainly, He is the final authority for Christians; that is precisely why Christians are bound to acknowledge the authority of Scripture. Christ teaches them to do so.

A Christ who permits His followers to set Him up as the Judge of Scripture, One by whom its authority must be confirmed before it becomes binding and by whose adverse sentence it is in places annulled, is a Christ of human imagination, made in the theologian’s own image, One whose attitude to Scripture is the opposite to that of the Christ of history. If the construction of such a Christ is not a breach of the second commandment, it is hard to see what is.

—“Fundamentalism” and the Word of God, 61–62 (HT: Matt Smethurst)

In other words, if Jesus identifies the Scriptures as God’s Word, why are we so squeamish about following suit?

The Trinitarian Word – Finally, this approach is confused because in doesn’t see that the Bible is the Trinitarian Word of God. Michael Horton calls our attention to the Trinitarian coordinates of inspiration in The Christian Faith. Reminding us of the structure of all trinitarian actions he writes “In every work of the Godhead, the Father speaks in the Son and by the perfecting agency of the Spirit.” (pg. 156) The Bible is the “Word of God” because in all the Law, the narratives, the Psalm, Prophets, Gospels, and Epistles we hear the Father testifying to the Son (John 5:39) by way of the power of the Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21).

We can see something like this understanding in Heinrich Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession. After calling attention to the locus classicus establishing this doctrine (“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,for reproof,” etc. (II Tim. 3:16–17), Bullinger puts it this way:

SCRIPTURE IS THE WORD OF GOD. Again, the selfsame apostle to the Thessalonians: “When,” says he, “you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it, not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God,” etc. (I Thess. 2:13.) For the Lord himself has said in the Gospel, “It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you”; therefore “he who hears you hears me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Matt. 10:20; Luke 10:16; John 13:20). (Chap. 1)

In a sense, it is only as we acknowledge the Bible as the Word of the Father about the Son that we truly see the Son as the Father’s own True Word. It is through the testimony of the Word of God written that we recognize Jesus as the Word of God Incarnate. What’s more, given the current illumination of the text by the Spirit we ought say with Bullinger that “God himself spoke to the fathers, prophets, apostles, and still speaks to us through the Holy Scriptures” about the Son.

At this point I think it becomes clearer that to pit Jesus as the Word of God incarnate against the Bible as the Word of God written is a false choice. It’s not only confused both at the level of language, not the attitude towards the Scripture taught to us by Jesus, but at the deeper level I fear it leads many to denigrate the diverse testimony of God to Christ in Scripture all in the name of elevating him.

So then, is Jesus the Word of God? Yes and Amen. Should we still speak of the Bible as the Word of God? Of course we should–Jesus told us to.

Soli Deo Gloria

‘Jesus isn’t the word of God’
2nd Helvetic Confession
bibliolatry
bibliology
Heinrich Bullinger
inspiration
J.I. Packer
Michael Horton
the Word of God
theology
Trinitarian word

Источник

I was told that the name of Jesus is special, and saying His name in a prayer means it will be answered. Is that true?

Anonymous GodWords Reader

This question has a few layers. Some claim that praying “in Jesus’ name” will ensure that He will give us what we ask. Some believe that we should refer to the Messiah by His ‘actual’ name, which – they presume – is Hebrew. Some go so far as to say that those who get His name wrong are actually worshipping a false god, and that these people can’t be saved as a result.

What name was Jesus given at birth?

My name, given at birth, is Anthony. My nickname is Tony. Some of my friends call me by other nicknames, but all of those names refer to me. You might ask what my “real” name is, and there’s no single answer. Names can be a bit complicated.

Jesus was given a name at birth. According to Matthew 1:21 that name is Iesous. That’s Greek. Because Jesus and His family are Jews, one presumes that they spoke Aramaic or Hebrew. However, Jesus isn’t named with a Hebrew name in the Bible. We see only Iesous.

We know that Iesous is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Yeshua, or Y’shua, or Yehosua. It’s the same name as “Joshua.” At no point do we see Jesus referred to in the Bible as either Yeshua or Y’shua, but it seems reasonable to assume that the angel told Joseph to name Him “Yeshua.” Y’shua and Yehosua are simply other forms of the name, like Tony is to Anthony.

So: what is Jesus’ “real name” in Hebrew? My name in Spanish is Antonio. Since I’m American and my parents spoke only English, it’s okay to assume that my “real name” is Anthony. In the same way, Jesus’ name – according to the Bible – is Iesous… but it’s okay to assume that the angel was speaking Hebrew, and that Joseph actually named the baby Yeshua.

A linguistic timeline

Jesus’ name in Hebrew is Yeshua, which is a shortened version of Yehoshua.

Yeshua translated into Greek is Iesous.

Iesous transliterated into Latin is Jesu.

Jesu became Jesus in English.

So: Jesus’ name, in English, is kind of “Joshua”. Weird, huh? Translators primarily use the name Jesus to differentiate between Joshua (Moses’ right-hand man) and Jesus (Son of God, Creator of the universe, Messiah).

Is it a translation?

A translation conveys meaning, so Iesous inherits its meaning from Yeshua. A transliteration is simply a letter-for-letter switch: the letters in one language are swapped for letters in another language that make the same sounds. Jesus is not a translation, it’s a modernized Latin transliteration of Iesous. Jesu is a Latin word that sounds like the Greek Iesous.

Jesus does not mean “Yahweh saves” or “the Lord saves” or even “He saves”. Despite the fact that Jesus Himself means a great deal to many people, there’s no English meaning to Jesus at all. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with saying that Jesus’ name means “Yahweh saves.” It’s not linguistically correct, but that’s not very important most of the time.

Isn’t there power in Jesus’ name?

No. The word “Jesus” has no magical powers, and saying it accomplishes nothing spiritually. It’s a name. There’s no special power in the name itself.

There’s nothing about the name itself that makes it more likely that God will give you what you pray for. When the New Testament tells us to pray in Jesus’ name, it doesn’t teach us that the name itself is special. It tells us that the person is special. When an ambassador speaks to a foreign leader, they speak “in the name of” – with the authority of – the one they represent. Jesus is an ambassador, speaking to the Father on our behalf… and speaking to us on behalf of the Father.

When we pray, we’re asking God to act on our behalf. There’s nothing in the Bible to support the superstitious notion that speaking His name does anything on its own. That’s more like witchcraft than Christianity… if you say the incantation right, you get the result. It’s nonsense.

The words have no power of their own, and God will either grant what we ask or He won’t. He will do what He knows is best, regardless of how often or how sincerely we say “Jesus.” When we pray in Jesus’ name, we’re pointing to our relationship with the Father… and that’s made possible by our relationship with Jesus. It’s a bit like saying, “We’re friends, right? Would you loan me $20?”

Should we pray in Jesus’ name?

We should feel free to pray in Jesus’ name. If you’d rather say “Y’shua,” that’s okay. Neither will produce magical results just because we speak the words. However: let’s not be superstitious and pretend that our incantations change anything. We’re asking God for help, or praising Him for being so awesome. We should do that all the time.

Interact with me on Twitter!

Источник

Craig S. Keener

BECAUSE WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE BACKGROUND of the prologue in some detail above, this opening paragraph merely summarizes that background. John addresses a community of predominantly Jewish Christians rejected by most of their non-Christian Jewish communities because of their faith in Jesus. The leaders of the synagogues make a case similar, or perhaps related, to that of second-century Palestinian rabbis: Judaism is a religion of Torah, and the prophetic, messianic Jesus movement has departed from proper obervance of God’s Word (particularly from orthodox monotheism). John responds that following Jesus not only entails true observance of Torah; Jesus himself is God’s Word, and thus no one can genuinely observe Torah without following Jesus. Jewish language about Wisdom, Torah, and God’s Word (rooted in OT wisdom texts but substantially developed since then) provide John a culturally intelligible (albeit only partly adequate) means to communicate Jesus» deity, supremacy, and perfect relationship with the Father while maintaining Jewish monotheism.

The Preexistent Word (1:1–2)

John connects the three lines in this first verse in rhythmic fashion; as Boismard points out, he avoids monotony «by coupling the clauses together according to a device in vogue among the Semites: the first word of the second and third phrases takes up the last word of the preceding one (Word-Word … God-God).»³¹⁹³ Together with v. 2, the four lines provide also a full chiasm, which itself subdivides into two smaller chiastic structures:

A In the beginning

Β was

C the word

D and the word

Ε was

F with God

F» and God

É was

D» the word³¹⁹⁴

C This one

B» was

Á in the beginning with God

The double chiasms appear as follows:

A In the beginning

Β was

C the word

C and the word

B» was

Á with God

A And God

Β was

C the word

C» This one

B» was

Á In the beginning with God³¹⁹⁵

In neither case is the balance exact, but the parallelism of the Psalms and other Semitic poetry is usually similarly inexact. This careful structure opens John’s prologue and Gospe1.

1. In the Beginning (1:1a, 2)

Although λόγος is the subject of 1:1a, b, and c, John has an important reason to open his Gospel with the phrase «in the beginning.» As most commentators observe, «beginning» alludes to the beginning of creation,³¹⁹⁶ and the opening words of John’s prologue echo Gen 1:1.³¹⁹⁷ This allusion is important precisely because he goes on to speak of creation in 1:3. Although John will go on to depict the advent of a new creation (the usual referent of άρχή in his Gospel, e.g., 2:11; 8:25; 15:27; 16:4; cf. 6:64; 1 John 1:1),³¹⁹⁸ he refers here to the literal beginning of creation (cf. 8:44; 9:32; 17:24); not only other Genesis allusions³¹⁹⁹ but the explicit reference to the world’s creation in 1(particularly in view of parallels in contemporary literature cited below), the origination of John the Baptist, and so forth, reinforce this point. The opening words establish the plainly Jewish tone of the Gospel, though John’s purpose is to explain Jesus, not simply to expound the text of Genesis as a midrashic expositor would.³²⁰⁰

Early Jewish wisdom texts celebrated the existence of Wisdom «in the beginning,»³²⁰¹ and Wisdom,³²⁰² Torah,³²⁰³ and the Logos³²⁰⁴ were sometimes called «the beginning.» (Although Jewish teachers discovered this use from their exegesis of Prov 8:22, their openness to it might reflect the Greek philosophical use of αρχή as «first principle,» similar to one philosophical understanding of λόγος.)³²⁰⁵ John does imply more than Jewish Wisdom language normally indicated, but it was easier to stretch Wisdom or Logos language to new bounds than to try to communicate Jesus» identity with no point of contact.³²⁰⁶ Paul had earlier used a similar point of contact in Col 1:15–20³²⁰⁷ with terms like «image» and «firstborn.»³²⁰⁸ Others have suggested that John may echo the «beginning» of the traditional gospel account;³²⁰⁹ suggesting a play on the «beginning» of Genesis and «the proper beginning for the story of Jesus,» Aune points out that «beginning» in Mark 1«is virtually a technical term in historical and biographical writing, based on the notion that the complete explanation of a historical phenomenon must be based on its origins.»³²¹⁰

That John intends an allusion to Genesis 1 may be regarded as certain; that he also plays on fuller nuances in postbiblical Wisdom language (identifying Wisdom with the beginning) is quite possible; that he also intends an allusion to the proper «beginning» of the Gospel account is possible, though the strongest evidence (primarily Mark 1:1) is not compelling. For the sake of emphasis 1recapitulates from 1the intimacy of Father and Son in the beginning, at creation (so also 1:3; 8:58); thus those who reject the incarnate Jesus reject God himself. Jesus did not «make himself» God (10:33); he shared glory with the Father before the world began (17:5).

2. The Word’s Preexistence (1:1–2)

Although Johns concept of the Words préexistence surpasses that of his contemporaries (see below on ήν), his language would have impelled readers to recall the contemporary Wisdom language he surpasses.

2A. Wisdom or Torah as God’s First Creation

Many texts depict Wisdom’s creation at the beginning, often including Wisdom’s participation in the creation of the rest of the universe (on which see comment on John 1:3). Thus in Sirach Wisdom exclaims, «Before the world, from the beginning (άπ» άρχής) He created me.»³²¹¹ The author declares, «Before all things was Wisdom created, and understanding of counsel from eternity.»³²¹²

First-century Jewish literature similarly stressed that God’s law was «prepared from the creation of the world.»³²¹³ Some second-century Tannaim, identifying Torah with Wisdom in Prov 8:22–23, declared that Torah was God’s first creation;³²¹⁴ Amoraim followed this teaching.³²¹⁵ Although later rabbis sometimes claimed that God created six or seven things before the world, they generally listed Torah first.³²¹⁶ In one scheme where God created six things before the world, for instance, only Torah and the throne of glory were formed before the world, and Torah was created first; God merely contemplated the other «préexistent» creations.³²¹⁷ (Although many rabbis declared that the Messiah was among those things which existed before the world was formed,³²¹⁸ more often only the name of, or plan for, the Messiah existed beforehand.³²¹⁹ Similarly the patriarchs preexisted, but usually only in God’s plan or as spirits in God’s plan.³²²⁰ In contrast to the teaching of Wisdom’s/ Torah’s préexistence, teachings concerning préexistent messiahs or patriarchs have little substantial early attestation³²²¹ and should not be regarded as relevant for the study of the Fourth Gospe1.)³²²²

Rabbis differed, however, on how long before the world God created Torah; some scholars said two thousand years,³²²³ others said 974 generations.³²²⁴ Apart from these elaborations, the earliest form of the Torah idea is identical with the Wisdom image on which it is based: God created Torah before he created anything else.³²²⁵

Our extant sources for Jewish opinion indicate that the language of Torah’s existence often served a practical (perhaps homiletic) rather than merely speculative purpose.³²²⁶ Various early sources claim that Torah existed before Sinai;³²²⁷ in contrast to Genesis’s portrayal of patriarchs who sometimes violated Torah’s later prohibitions,³²²⁸
Jubilees has them almost «squeaky clean» on this count,³²²⁹ and when whitewashing them is impossible, Jubilees provides an explanation.³²³⁰ The rabbis naturally developed this opinion.³²³¹

2B. The Préexistence of Johns Logos

For John, the Word was not only «from the beginning» (άπ» άρχής, 1 John 1:1), but «in the beginning» (John 1:1). Many commentators have laid heavy stress on the verb ήν: in contrast to many Wisdom texts which declare that Wisdom or Torah was created «in the beginning» or before the creation of the rest of the world, John omits Jesus» creation and merely declares that he «was.» This verb may thus suggest the Word’s eternal preexistence;³²³² after all, how could God have been without his Word? That God created «all things» through the Word in 1(naturally excluding the Word itself as the agent) further underlines the contrast between the Word and what was created.³²³³

In short, the verb suggests a preexistence of greater magnitude than that of Wis-dom/Torah in most Jewish texts. One might be tempted to argue that such a suggestion is too much to hang on a mere linking verb; after all, «beginning» could refer only to the rest of creation, as sometimes in Jewish texts, and is defined in this text only by the allusion back to the creation of heavens and earth in Gen 1:1.³²³⁴ The temptation to diminish the force of the ήν is probably removed, however, by the literary contrast between Jesus» «becoming» flesh (1:14; cf. 1:6) and his simply «being» in the beginning,³²³⁵ and finally eliminated by identifications of Jesus with his Father’s deity throughout the Fourth Gospe1. If John can say that the Word «was God» (1:1c; cf. 1:18), that Jesus claims, «Before Abraham was, I am» (8:58), and that it is appropriate to believe in Jesus as Lord and God (20:28), John’s Jesus is more than merely divine Wisdom.³²³⁶ Jesus may remain distinct from and subordinate to the Father and may exercise roles frequently equivalent to the exalted role of Wisdom in Jewish literature; yet he does not precisely fit the traditional categories. John utilizes the closest concept available from his milieu, but modifies it to fit his Christology rather than his Christology to fit beliefs about divine Wisdom.

2C. The Word Was with God (1:1b)

John repeatedly emphasizes Jesus» intimacy with the Father, sometimes in the language of him being with the Father (3:2; 8:29; cf. 8:38; 16:32), as Jesus also is with his disciples (cf. 11:54; 13:33; 14:9, 17, 25; 15:27; 16:4; 17:12). Jesus was with the Father before creation (17:5).

Wisdom texts celebrated the special relationship between God and his Wisdom. Wisdom was present (παρούσα) with God when he made the world;³²³⁷ Wisdom lives together (συμβίωσιν) with him;³²³⁸ in later rabbis, Wisdom/Torah claims to be «with God» at creation.³²³⁹ Johns Logos also has a special relationship with God, indicated in part by the προς with the accusative³²⁴⁰ but even more so by continual reaffirmations throughout this Gospel of their close relationship.³²⁴¹ Although the image of father and son was not always one of intimacy and harmony (cf. Luke 15:12–13),³²⁴² the picture in this Gospel is that of a perfect, ideal father-son relationship (e.g., 8:29, 35–38). As Appold notes, the motif of Jesus» oneness with God, stressed throughout the Gospel, begins as early as this line.³²⁴³

Although one scholar emphasizes John’s statements distinguishing Jesus from the Father (e.g., 14:28) and argues against Jesus» deity in the Gospel,³²⁴⁴ the Gospel is equally clear in affirming Jesus» deity (1:1c, 18; 8:58; 20:28) and in distinguishing him from the Father. John addresses «an identification by nature of two distinct persons,»³²⁴⁵ an image developed by the Athanasian faction at Nicea in a manner consistent with its roots.³²⁴⁶

3. The Word’s Deity (1:1c)

In this line it becomes clear that, although John employs the basic myth of Wisdom as the nearest available analogy to communicate his Christology, it proves inadequate. Jesus is not created like Wisdom (Sir 1:4; John 1:1b), but is himself fully deity (1:1c), bursting the traditional categories for divine Wisdom.³²⁴⁷ It is not surprising that the early centuries of Christians felt that emphasis on Jesus» deity was a major reason for the Fourth Gospe1.³²⁴⁸

Not all writers used the title θεός in the same way. It was the standard term for any deity in traditional Greek religion, but these deities acted in ways both repulsive to first-century Jews and embarrassing to many Greek and Roman thinkers. Deities could prove powerless to help mortals they loved, even mortals who were related to them;³²⁴⁹ some could be captured and questioned for information.³²⁵⁰ By contrast, the God of Judaism was omnipotent (Rev 1:8),³²⁵¹ though paganism in this period (especially Roman paganism) generally also attributed this trait to the supreme deity.³²⁵² Some pagan deities stole mortals» property³²⁵³ and killed those who might let out the secret;³²⁵⁴ deities–often married–could seduce and rape various mortals,³²⁵⁵ but slay such mortals if they proved unfaithfu1.³²⁵⁶ (Their sexual exploits proved fertile ground for early Jewish and Christian critiques of paganism.)³²⁵⁷ Hera could jealously avenge her honor in response to Zeus’s adultery;³²⁵⁸ insulted by mortals» neglect³²⁵⁹ or criticisms,³²⁶⁰ deities could also plot their deaths.³²⁶¹ Greeks could complain about the injustice of their deities» decrees;³²⁶² with an entire pantheon, one could pit some deities against others (as in the Trojan War)³²⁶³ in ways that would have been unthinkable to monotheists. Mortals could also threaten them with unbelief if they failed to act.³²⁶⁴ Many Greek and Roman thinkers had become revolted by the literal sense of the old myths.³²⁶⁵

Many Greek thinkers articulated a morally purer notion of the divine.³²⁶⁶ Most Platonists adopted Aristotlés idea of God «as a mind thinking itself,» though in a later period they returned to the early Platonic notion of a first principle higher than mind.³²⁶⁷ The early Stoic view of God bordered on pantheism, identified with the universal reason, the pervasive active principle in the universe acting on passive matter.³²⁶⁸ Contemporary Stoics, however, accommodated the notion of a personal deity against their earlier pantheism.³²⁶⁹ Thus they could speak of God as Zeus or a personal equivalent of Nature;³²⁷⁰ even though gods and people might function as distinct entities, all deities except Zeus would be resolved into the primeval fire. Although generally still polytheistic, Greeks in general had no problems depicting a supreme god as simply «God.»³²⁷¹ Some also praised the Jewish people for rejecting Egyptian images of beasts (also rejected by Greeks) and preferring τό θείον.³²⁷²

Some Jewish writers, especially those who, like Philo, were influenced by Greek thought, could use «god» loosely as well as for the supreme deity. But even when writers like Philo (following Exod 7:1) call Moses a «god,»³²⁷³ Moses remains distinct from the supreme, eternal God to be worshiped,³²⁷⁴ for whom the title is normally reserved.³²⁷⁵ Further, Philo has a text (Exod 7:1) that allows him to accommodate some Hellenistic conceptions of heroes in an apologetically useful manner. Finally, for all the associations of Moses with the divine in Philo, the language comes short of Johns language for Jesus.³²⁷⁶ Jesus appears as God s agent in the Fourth Gospel, but not just like Moses as God’s chief agent; Jesus is one greater than Moses (1:17), namely the Word itself (1:14). In John’s claim, Jesus is therefore not merely the «ultimate prophet.» «God» in the third line (1:1c) hardly signifies something dramatically different from what the term signified in the two lines that preceded it (l:lab), even if one presses a distinction on the basis of the anarthrous construction; like other early Christians (e.g., Mark 12:29; 1Tim 1:17), John acknowledges only one God (e.g., John 5:44; 17:3).

Many commentators doubt that the anarthrous construction signifies anything theologically at al1. It certainly cannot connote «a god,» as in «one among many,» given Jesus» unique titles, role, and relationship with the Father later in the Gospe1.³²⁷⁷ Nor should it mean «divine» in a weaker sense distinct from Gods own divine nature, for example, in the sense in which Philo can apply it to Moses.³²⁷⁸ Had John meant merely «divine» in a more general sense, the common but more ambiguous expression τό θείον was already available;³²⁷⁹ thus, for example, Philo repeatedly refers to the divine Word (θείος λόγος)³²⁸⁰ and Aristeas refers to «the divine law» (του θείου νόμου).³²⁸¹

The anarthrous construction cannot be pressed to produce the weaker sense of merely «divine» in a sense distinct from the character of the Father’s deity. In one study of about 250 definite predicative nominatives in the NT, 90 percent were articular when following the verb, but a comparable 87 percent were anarthrous when before the verb, as here.³²⁸² Grammatically, one would thus expect John’s predicate nominative «θεός» to be anarthrous, regardless of the point he was making. Further, John omits the article for God the Father elsewhere in the Gospel, even elsewhere in the chapter (e.g., 1:6, 12, 13, 18).³²⁸³ The same pattern of inconsistent usage appears in early patristic texts,³²⁸⁴ and apparently Greek literature in genera1.³²⁸⁵ And in a context where absolute identification with the Father would be less of a danger, John does not balk at using the articular form to call Jesus ό θεός (20:28).³²⁸⁶

Still, the nuance must be slightly different from «God» elsewhere in this verse, given the distinction between God and the Logos in the second line; John indeed spends much of the rest of his Gospel clarifying the ambiguous distinction between God and the Logos promulgated in the lines of this first verse. (Philo, who distinguishes the Logos from God,³²⁸⁷ once makes a point that God’s eldest Logos is θεός–anarthrous–whereas God himself is ό θεός–articular;³²⁸⁸ thus Philo may make a distinction analogous to John’s here.³²⁸⁹ In John’s case, however, the distinction is clearer from context than from grammar, as noted above; and John’s Logos is more likely eternal, and certainly personal, than Philós.)

Grammar permits us to translate θεός in 1as either «God» or «divine.» Regarding Jesus as merely «divine» but not deity violates the context; identifying him with the Father does the same. For this reason, John might thus have avoided the article even had grammatical convention not suggested it;³²⁹⁰ as a nineteenth-century exegete argued, an articular θεός would have distorted the sense of the passage, «for then there would be an assertion of the entire identity of the Logos and of God, while the writer is in the very act of bringing to view some distinction between them.»³²⁹¹

Provided we allow the immediately preceding uses of «God» (and analogous identifications throughout the Gospel) to define the sense of the Logos’s deity,³²⁹² one might wish to translate the predicate nominative adjectivally as «divine,» to distinguish the divine Word from the God with whom the Word coexisted in the beginning. It is with just such grammatical and contextual complexities that ante-Nicene and early post-Nicene Christianity was forced to grapple. An early twentieth-century commentator, observing that John’s language makes Jesus partaker of the divine essence yet not identical with «the whole Godhead… is just the problem which the doctrine of the Trinity seeks to solve.»³²⁹³

Scholars from across the contemporary theological spectrum recognize that, although Father and Son are distinct in this text, they share deity in the same way;³²⁹⁴ thus some translate: «the Word had the same nature as God,»³²⁹⁵ or much less ambiguously (though still not quite precisely) «What God was, the Word was.»³²⁹⁶ That is perhaps the closest English translation by which one may hope to catch John’s nuance: fully deity but not the Father. That many sectors of Judaism had already stretched monotheism to accommodate a divine agent distinct from the Father made John’s apologetic task easier, even if he stretched the divine agent idea farther than most of his contemporaries (occasionally excepting Philo).

The Word and Creation (1:3)

John’s Logos, like Wisdom/Torah, is God’s agent of creation, a role that may also prefigure his work in the new creation. Before examining parallels between the Johannine Logos and Jewish tradition’s Wisdom/Torah, we must survey some of the various backgrounds that have been proposed for the creative Logos of 1:3.

1. Proposed Greek Parallels

Scholars who view John s purpose as antignostic could find plenty of antignosticism in 1:3; in contrast to gnostic beliefs, Christ alone is the mediator of creation in John. In Gnosticism, emanations from the primal Aeon formed the evil material world;³²⁹⁷ the creator was generally the Demiurge, a power far removed from the original deity.³²⁹⁸ Were Mandaic literature not so late, one could even read the verse from an anti-Mandaic angle, noting later rabbinic polemic against the idea of Adam as a divine agent in creation, a tenet of later Mandaism.³²⁹⁹ Yet creation through mediation was hardly limited to gnostic sources; in Greek texts a supreme deity could create other deities to assist in creation.³³⁰⁰ Further, Jewish circles were familiar with the idea of mediation in creation, which appears in Philo;³³⁰¹ polemic against it appears in rabbinic³³⁰² and other³³⁰³ sources about angelic involvement in creation. Further, John’s language does not imply polemic against such a view as Col 1does; we may observe John’s lack of polemic against a gnostic view of creation, for instance, in that he neither agrees with gnosticism that matter is evil³³⁰⁴ nor emphasizes the contrary Jewish position of the goodness of creation (1Tim 4:4), though he certainly accepts the latter position (cf. 1:14).³³⁰⁵ Still, for John, Jesus is the only mediator of creation, with or without polemic against other claims; Greeks well understood the divine instrumental function of διά with reference to creation.³³⁰⁶

Others have found here echoes of the Stoic doctrine of the Spermatikos (generative) Logos³³⁰⁷ or other Greek conceptions of the source of being.³³⁰⁸ One may even compare with Johns wording the anticreation language of Democritus («Nothing can come into being from that which is not» [μηδέν τε εκ του μη οντος γίνεσθαι])³³⁰⁹ and by Diogenes of Apollonius³³¹⁰–though other Greek texts³³¹¹ and especially the Dead Sea Scrolls offer verbal parallels to John 1no less striking («apart from his counsel [מבלעזיו] nothing is performed»;³³¹² «all things come to be through Your will that are»;³³¹³ «apart from Your will nothing is performed»;³³¹⁴ «from God were all things made»³³¹⁵). Although Johns emphasis is christological rather than cosmological, which rules out a polemic against anticreationists here (contrast 2Pet 3:4–6),³³¹⁶ his cosmology, like that of the OT and much contemporary Jewish tradition, conflicted with the idea of an uncreated, imperishable universe.³³¹⁷

More relevant among Greek cosmogenies, however, is the Platonic view of a creator (δημιουργός) building the material universe according to the ideal pattern perceptible by reason.³³¹⁸ In contrast to much earlier Platonic thought, some middle Platonist contemporaries of John were beginning to take the nature of creation in Platós Timaeus literally,³³¹⁹ asserting that Soul shaped matter.³³²⁰ Thus, as Plutarch summarizes Plato, God, matter, and form constituted the first principles, matter being «the least ordered of substances,» form (ιδέα) being «the most beautiful of patterns» (παραδει γμάτων), «and God the best of causes.»³³²¹ A later neoplatonist like Plotinus could declare that the world of intellect formed the universe, which is now held together by the Logos.³³²² Middle Platonism’s contribution to the Fourth Gospel is at most indirect, but might be acknowledged by way of Jewish philosophers like Philo, for whom the doctrine of God’s pattern in creation is paramount. For Philo, too, God used the world of intellect as a pattern for the rest of the world.³³²³ Some philosophers extrapolated from creation to the existence or nature of the creator, an apologetic followed by some early Christian writers (cf. Rom 1:19–20).³³²⁴ Such concerns are, however, beyond John’s purview; it is not a creator’s existence that generates controversy among his audience but the creator’s identification with Jesus.

2. Jewish Views of Creation

Greeks were divided as to whether matter had always existed³³²⁵ or whether visible things were formed from visible³³²⁶ or invisible things;³³²⁷ Jewish writers generally followed the latter view, that God had created.³³²⁸ Although some Jewish writers maintained the view of a creation ex nihilo³³²⁹ (many contend that this view surfaces only after the Fourth Gospel),³³³⁰ others interpreted Gen 1 in light of the typical pagan conception of a primeval chaos out of which God ordered the universe.³³³¹ All agreed, however, that God was «the One who made the world,»³³³² usually including the primeval matter he later reformed. Samaritan liturgy came to emphasize creation heavily,³³³³ and some Jewish teachers sought mystic insight into the way God created the world.³³³⁴ Occasional parallels indicate that at least some later rabbinic traditions preserve reminiscences of earlier speculations that were more widespread.³³³⁵ Philo, who, like later Platonists, synthesized older Platonism and elements of the more popular Stoic thought,³³³⁶ argued that God formed the universe (starting with the incorporeal world)³³³⁷ through his Logos,³³³⁸ through which he also sustains it.³³³⁹ Such a view comported acceptably with the common Greek philosophical ideas that God created through matter and form or that reason ordered existing matter (see comment above). In Philo, Logos is not only divine Reason structuring matter, but as in some middle Platonic thought a determinate pattern which is God’s image.³³⁴⁰ Thus God made the world as a copy of his divine image, the Logos being his archetypal seal imprinted on them.³³⁴¹ Like John, who connects the creative Logos with God’s written Logos,³³⁴² Philo connects the creative Logos with the wisdom of Reason by which he draws the perfect (τέλειος) man, the wise man, to himself.³³⁴³ Philo also connects creation with the law of Moses, and by arguing that the universe was created in harmony with Moses» law and that those who obey the law obey Nature,³³⁴⁴ he explicitly identifies Moses» law with the universal natural law that phi-losophers conceived as pervading the cosmos.³³⁴⁵ Unlike John, Philo was at home in the cultural sphere of philosophically educated hellenized Judaism; but both reflect in many respects a common milieu.³³⁴⁶

But Philo was not the first Jewish writer to suggest that God started from a pattern in creation. As early as the second century B.C.E., Jewish writers indicated God’s prior design for creation rooted in knowledge or wisdom.³³⁴⁷ While expounding on God alone being able to justify, Qumran’s Manual of Discipline declares that «All things come to be by his knowledge [בדעתו] and he sustains [or, establishes] them by his plan³³⁴⁸ [כםחשכח]». Later rabbis applied the Platonic image to Torah: God the builder used Torah as his architect, consulting Torah with its plans and diagrams.³³⁴⁹ Some Tannaim felt that God stamped each person with the seal of Adam (m. Sank. 4:5). Further, Jewish writers fully exploited OT passages which already taught that God created the world by speaking (Gen 1; Ps 33) or through his Wisdom (Prov 8).

3.

Creation by Word, Wisdom, Torah

God spoke the world into being in Gen 1, and John’s contemporaries continued to celebrate this OT pattern. Both early nonrabbinic writers³³⁵⁰ and Tannaim³³⁵¹ reported that God created the world «only by an act of speech»; indeed, one Tannaitic title for God was «the One who spoke and summoned the universe into being.»³³⁵² Although «this utterance did not receive the connotation of «Logos» in the Philonic sense» and «was not hyposta-tized,»³³⁵³ many have found the background for John’s creative Logos wholly or partly in the creative word of Genesis, whose «beginning» John 1evokes.³³⁵⁴

Texts connect creation by Gods word with creation by his wisdom³³⁵⁵ or Torah. In one exegetically ingenious early tradition, God’s ten words on which the world was founded («And he said» occurs ten times in a portion of the creation narrative)³³⁵⁶ represent the Ten Commandments.³³⁵⁷ Building on Prov 8, it was only natural that subsequent texts should attribute creation to divine Wisdom, for example, in Wis 7(Wisdom as the τεχνίτης of all things; cf. Heb 11:10).³³⁵⁸ And if to Wisdom, then naturally also to Torah, especially among those who became Torah’s most prominent expositors.³³⁵⁹ Not only was the world created by Word, Wisdom, and Torah, it was sustained by Word,³³⁶⁰ Wisdom,³³⁶¹ and Torah.³³⁶² Later rabbis interpreted this in a very practical sense, rather than simply theoretically: the world was sustained through the practice of Torah,³³⁶³ hence in some sense through the righteous.³³⁶⁴ Thus as sages could declare that the world was created for Torah,³³⁶⁵ some could also declare it was created for the righteous³³⁶⁶ or Israel³³⁶⁷ who would practice Torah; some texts claimed that it was created for humanity rather than the reverse.³³⁶⁸ (Greco-Roman thought also speculated on the purpose of creation, whether for gods and mortals,³³⁶⁹ for humanity,³³⁷⁰ or clearly not for that purpose.)³³⁷¹

John here affirms what the earliest suspected pre-Pauline creeds had affirmed in the first two decades of the church’s existence: Jesus is the Father’s agent in creation (1Cor 8:5–6; Col 1:15–17).³³⁷² Like most of those creeds (see above), John identifies Jesus with incarnate Wisdom. (See the introductory section to the prologue, above, for a more detailed discussion of various proposed backgrounds for the Logos.) «All things» (πάντα)³³⁷³ emphasizes Jesus» priority, hence supremacy, over whatever is created (3:35; 13:3; cf. Rev 4:11), hence over all humanity (17:2), whether or not humanity acknowledged it (1:10–11).

The Word as Life and Light (1:4–5)

Commentators dispute the proper syntactical sense of ό γέγονεν at the end of 1:3. Should we read the phrase with the rest of v. 3, as in, «apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being; in him was life»?³³⁷⁴ Or should we read the phrase with v. 4, «apart from him nothing came into being; what came into being through him was life»?³³⁷⁵ Church fathers and later manuscripts that are punctuated suggest that those generations thought the latter view makes better sense of the Greek.³³⁷⁶ A somewhat parallel Semitic construction in the Manual of Discipline may, however, support the former reading;³³⁷⁷ one would not expect later Greco-Christian writers to recognize such a construction. (Other exegetical options have sought to circumvent these alternatives.)³³⁷⁸ Ultimately the syntax contributes less to our grasp of John’s sense than the context contributes; since John identifies «life» with «light» (1:4; 8:12), and «light» contextually refers to Christ (1:9–10), we must understand that on a functional level «life» is ultimately Jesus himself ( 11:25; 14:6; cf. 3:15; 5:24).

This verse introduces the light/darkness dualism of the rest of the Gospe1. Both light (1:4, 5, 7, 8, 9; 3:19, 20, 21; 5:35; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9, 10; 12:35, 36, 46) and day (9:4), darkness (1:5; 3:19; 8:12; 12:35,46) and night (9:4; 11:10) appear regularly throughout the Gospel, sometimes even with symbolic significance in the narratives (e.g., 3:2; 13:30; 19:39; perhaps 6:19).³³⁷⁹ The verse also introduces the theme of life, which appears some thirty-five times in the Gospe1.³³⁸⁰

This passage creates a literary chain (life, life, light, light, darkness, and darkness) called a sorites. Such a pattern also appears in Wis 6:17–20,³³⁸¹ though it is not limited to wisdom texts.³³⁸² For John, «life» and «light» are not simply abstractions: the Life raises Lazarus (11:25,43–44); the Light gives light to blind eyes (9:5–7); the Word becomes flesh (1:14).

1. Uses of Light Imagery

Light/darkness dualism figures heavily in gnosticism,³³⁸³ but is no less pervasive in earlier sources.³³⁸⁴ Philosophers spoke of true knowledge as providing light;³³⁸⁵ Philo regarded God as light and the archetype of all other kinds of light.³³⁸⁶ Writers commonly applied to good and evil the contrast between light and darkness.³³⁸⁷ One may also compare the vision of God in various texts.³³⁸⁸

A figurative use of light appears frequently in the OT³³⁸⁹ and in the non-Johannine Gospel tradition dependent on the OT.³³⁹⁰ A variety of Jewish sources employ darkness and light figuratively for evil and good respectively³³⁹¹ or with reference to enlightenment in wisdom,³³⁹² but it was the Dead Sea Scrolls which decisively moved NT scholars away from seeking a gnostic background for Johns «light/darkness» dualism.³³⁹³ Like John, the Dead Sea Scrolls also use «day» figuratively with «light,» and «night» with «darkness.»³³⁹⁴

Jewish teachers applied light and darkness imagery to a variety of specific occasions, all of which reflect a common appreciation for the goodness of light and a common disdain for the dangers of darkness (e.g., Job 18:5,18; 24:13,16; also in early Christian texts, e.g., Rom 2:19; 13:12; 2Cor 6:14; Eph 1:18; 4:18; 5:8, 11; 6:12; Col 1:13). The image applied to the primeval light before or from the creation,³³⁹⁵ a concept of possible relevance in the context of John 1:1–4.³³⁹⁶ (In Gen 1:3, the light came at Gods word, a tradition that continued to be developed.)³³⁹⁷ Because this light would be restored,³³⁹⁸ it also was connected with OT images of eschatological light and glory.³³⁹⁹ Other Jewish teachers regularly called particularly righteous sages or other persons lights (cf. John 5:35; Matt 5:14),³⁴⁰⁰ including Abraham,³⁴⁰¹ Jacob,³⁴⁰² Moses,³⁴⁰³ David,³⁴⁰⁴ and ultimately the Messiah;³⁴⁰⁵ the designation also could be applied to Israel,³⁴⁰⁶ Jerusalem,³⁴⁰⁷ the temple,³⁴⁰⁸ or to God himself.³⁴⁰⁹

But in the context of John’s prologue, it seems particularly relevant to observe that Jewish literature portrays both Wisdom³⁴¹⁰ and Torah³⁴¹¹ as light (e.g., Ps 119:105, 130; Prov 6:23), as many commentators note.³⁴¹² Jesus as God’s Word, Wisdom, and Torah is light to enlighten God’s people, just as Torah was light offered to God’s people at Sinai. «Light of people» (1:4) means light for humanity (3:19), light for «the world» (9:5). Early Christians came to consistently apply the image of transition from darkness to light to a transfer from Satan’s realm to God’s at a believer’s conversion (Acts 26:18; 2Cor 4:6; Col 1:13; 1Pet 2:9; cf. Luke 1:79). In John’s prologue, this light relates to glory (1:14), as in Rev 18:1; 21:23.³⁴¹³

2. Jesus as the Life

John often speaks of «life» (5:25, 26, 29; 6:33, 57, 63; 11:26; 14:6, 19; 17:3; 20:31; cf. 4:50; 6:44) or of «eternal life» (3:15, 16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:21, 24, 39, 40; 6:27,40, 47, 48; 6:51, 53, 54, 58,68; 8:12; 10:10, 28; 11:25; 12:25, 50; 17:2);³⁴¹⁴ although Judaism typically understood this as a future experience, John applies present tense verbs to it (3:16,36; 5:24; 6:47, 54; cf. 14:19), connecting it with faith (3:15, 16, 36; 6:27–29, 40, 47; 11:25, 26; 20:31) and following (8:12) in the present. Jesus» resurrection brings this life to believers (14:19; 20:22). Jesus embodies life because he embodies the truth and the way to God ( 14:6), roles which Judaism traditionally associated with Wisdom and Torah, God’s gracious instruction for the ways of life.³⁴¹⁵

In numerous Jewish texts, Wisdom (cf. Prov 3:18; 13:14)³⁴¹⁶ and Torah³⁴¹⁷ provide or embody life, as modern scholars often observe.³⁴¹⁸ Some Jewish texts mention the availability of both life and light in Torah.³⁴¹⁹ The tradition of life in Torah probably derives from OT promises that if one obeyed the law one would live (Lev 18:5; Deut 30:6,19); although the texts themselves apply to long life on the land (Deut 4:1, 40; 5:33; 8:1; 30:16, 19–20) and many interpreted them accordingly,³⁴²⁰ it was natural to read them (as some later rabbis did) by means of qal vaomer (the «how much more» argument) as applying to the world to come.³⁴²¹ Ultimately, God was Israel’s life (Deut 30:20), meaning in context, the one who would bless the people to live long in the land if they obeyed his commandments.

«Light» and «life» were natural images to use together. Greek texts regularly spoke of those who died as banished from the «light,»³⁴²² recognizing the darkness of the shadowy netherworld of deceased souls.³⁴²³ One could also speak of a beloved person as «the light of our life.»³⁴²⁴ Hebrew poetry employed the same image conjoining «light» and «life,»³⁴²⁵ probably suggesting a shared eastern Mediterranean imagery of death and the netherworld. It is possible that the mention of «life» also continues the Genesis allusions (Gen 2:7; cf. John 20:22), like «the beginning» (1:1; Gen 1:1), creation (1:3; Gen 1:1); probably also God’s speech or word (1:1–18; Gen 1:3–6, 8–11, 14, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28–29) and light versus darkness (1:4–5; Gen 1:3–5).

3. Light Prevails over Darkness

Antithesis was a typical rhetorical form in both Greek and Jewish thought³⁴²⁶ and particularly relevant in a setting whose language implies a sort of moral dualism, as here.

Darkness appears as a negative symbol in most ancient literature,³⁴²⁷ including later Jewish texts.³⁴²⁸ The struggle between light and darkness and their respective hosts is quite evident in the Dead Sea Scrolls; the current conflict between the two, darkness appearing to hold the upper hand in the world,³⁴²⁹ would be resolved in favor of the sons of light at the final battle.³⁴³⁰ As one early Christian writer declares, «Let not light be conquered by darkness, Nor let truth flee from falsehood.»³⁴³¹

The language of John 1indicates some sort of conflict between light and darkness, but the nature of the conflict is disputed. Does κατέλαβεν mean that darkness could not «apprehend» the light intellectually (so Cyril of Alexandria),³⁴³² that darkness did not accept the light,³⁴³³ or that darkness could not «conquer» the light (Origen and most Greek Fathers)?³⁴³⁴ More than likely John, whose skill in wordplays appears throughout his Gospel, has introduced a wordplay here: darkness could not «apprehend» or «overtake» the light, whether by comprehending it (grasping with the mind) or by overcoming it (grasping with the hand).³⁴³⁵ (Playing on different senses of a term [or different terms spelled the same way] was a rhetorical device that some rhetoricians called traductio.)³⁴³⁶ Johns language may adapt similar language (though lacking this wordplay) in Wis 7:30, where evil cannot overpower Wisdom even though night overtakes day.³⁴³⁷ To the extent that the verb tense indicates a specific historical application beyond its general application to history, the past action probably summarizes the whole of Jesus» incarnate ministry;³⁴³⁸ the darkness thus implies Jesus» opposition among «the Jews» (cf. 1:11) and in the «world» in general which they represent.³⁴³⁹ One will not be «overcome» by darknes if one walks in the light (12:35), which penetrates darkness and exposes what is in that darkness (cf. Eph 5:13).

John Only a Witness (1:6–8)

The prologue is emphatic in its contrast between John and Jesus, as between creation and creator: the world was made (έγένετο) «through him» (Jesus) in 1:3. When the prologue declares that «through him» (John) all might believe (in Jesus) in 1:6, it notes that he came (έγένετο) for that purpose. In our introduction to the prologue, we observed that most of the prologue could constitute a hymn in three equal sections of twelve lines, if the lines about John were excluded. Most reconstructions of the original form of the prologue that exclude any part of it exclude the lines about John. Whether or not the prologue was written as a seamless whole, it is likely that the material about John (whom we shall sometimes call «the Baptist,» to distinguish him from the author to whom the Gospel is traditionally attributed) was present in the prologue from the time it became part of the Fourth Gospe1. (The lines about John may in part be woven into the rest of the prologue to connect it with the historical ministry of Jesus beginning in 1:19.³⁴⁴⁰ John, like Mark and some examples of the apostolic preaching in Acts, starts the gospel narrative with the Baptist.)³⁴⁴¹

In a prologue which features the cosmic and préexistent Christ, lines about the Baptist seem hopelessly out of place to modern readers. The question we must thus ask is the function the Baptist material serves for John’s implied readers, the first community he was addressing. Two theories commend the most attention: the author contrasts the prophet John with the supreme Lord because some contemporaries were exalting John inappropriately; or the author uses John to serve a broader symbolic function (like the function that many attribute to the beloved disciple), namely, the importance of a witness. Both theories merit attention and both may be correct; the acceptance of either does not logically exclude the possibility of the other.

1. Polemic against a Baptist Sect

Writers in the early twentieth century advanced the thesis that the Fourth Gospel’s portrayal of John the Baptist represented Johannine polemic against the Baptist’s followers.³⁴⁴² Reitzenstein and his followers, like Bultmann, accepted medieval claims of the Mandean sect to have grown directly from a movement founded by John the Baptist. Because the Mandeans were both anti-Christian and anti-Jewish, Reitzenstein doubted that their source was Christian or Jewish, and regarded their source of traditions later related to Christianity as deriving from the Baptist.³⁴⁴³ Such an application of the criterion of dissimilarity is unwarranted, however, for several reasons: first, many gnostic sects were anti-orthodox Christian or anti-Jewish yet sprang from orthodox Christian or Jewish roots.

Second, the Baptist’s own traditions would hardly be anti-Jewish; and if the character of the traditions could be modified after John’s time to yield anti-Judaism, why could they not have also originated in a later period? Third, all evidence for Mandean belief is too late to be of value; like supposed evidence in the Slavonic Josephus, it is medieva1.³⁴⁴⁴ If we recognize Jewish or orthodox Christian roots in anti-Jewish and anti-orthodox gnostic texts as early as the second century, how much more should we reject Reitzenstein’s suggestion of Mandean doctrinés independence based on its anti-Christian character? Bultmann thinks that the Fourth Gospel has christianized material originally applied to John the Baptist by adding 1:6–8, 15, and possibly 1:17;³⁴⁴⁵ but this postulates that followers of the Baptist had ideas for which we lack a shred of first-century evidence, and against which in fact is any evidence we do have (such as Acts 19:3–5).

Still, the text suggests an intentional contrast between Jesus and John, and a polemical agenda is difficult to dismiss. Other texts in the Fourth Gospel reinforce this impression. The Baptist waxes eloquent in 3:27–36 concerning Jesus» obvious superiority; cf. also 1:15, 24–27, 29–34; 4:1; 5:36; 10:41. (Some see in such texts a sign of positive relations between John’s community and the Baptist sect,³⁴⁴⁶ but one wonders how positively Johannine Christians would view a sect that they considered to have defective Christology and thus soteriology; cf. 14:6.) One may ask why the Baptist, as distinct from other characters, should need to be so self-effacing. If one responds that it is merely because he appears to be the only unambiguously positive witness in the Gospel, we may point to the beloved disciple and ask why he is not similarly self-effacing. It is reasonable to suppose that our author was concerned about John’s reputation vis-â-vis that of the Lord. Further, in contrast to the Synoptics, where the Baptist’s ministry paves the way for that of Jesus but the ministries overlap little, the Fourth Gospel overlaps the period of the two ministries (3:23–24).³⁴⁴⁷ Conflicts with followers of the Baptist could stand behind this difference, whether the Synoptics minimized the overlap or (more likely) John emphasized it, or both.³⁴⁴⁸ More important, Painter has demonstrated the polemical intention of 1:6–8 by contrasting its various assertions with the prologués much greater confessions of Jesus.³⁴⁴⁹

The later Mandeans were clearly not the only sect that appropriated the Baptist as a founder; Acts 19attests Ephesian disciples of John still unacquainted with the full teachings of the Jesus movement, who apparently emigrated from Palestine before Jesus» resurrection and settled in the region of John’s probable provenance.³⁴⁵⁰ Further, a polemic against John the Baptist appears in the Pseudo-Clementines (e.g., 2.17), which affirm both Jesus» superiority to the Baptist and Peter’s superiority over Pau1.³⁴⁵¹ The Fourth Gospel, however, is nearly a century earlier than our earliest extant documents claiming the Baptist’s messiahship; do we place more weight on Acts 19’s reference to the Baptist’s disciples than the text can bear?³⁴⁵²

Yet despite the generally positive treatment of the Baptist, his exalted abasement is part of a larger polemic. His positive water ritual is inferior to Jesus» baptism in 1:26, 33, but this contrast represents part of a much more thoroughgoing contrast between Jewish purification and water rituals on the one hand and Jesus» purification on the other. Followers of the Baptist are not those who deify John; like adherents of other purification rituals, however (Jews, ch. 2; Samaritans, ch. 4), they may diminish the role of Jesus.³⁴⁵³ This suggestion would allow the Baptist polemic to function merely as a subsidiary issue in the overall conflict with synagogue authorities many have postulated (see introduction).

An examination of other Johannine literature, particularly the reports implying current situations in Revelation’s letters to the seven churches, allows us to reconstruct a possible Sitz im Leben for the polemic reducing John’s status as compared with that of Jesus. If the Johannine Epistles reflect a stage in the community’s development not far advanced beyond that reflected in our present form of the Gospel, some charismatics may have found reason to appeal to a lesser Christology than that to which the Johannine charismatics held. These false prophets probably advocated compromise with the synagogue or (more likely) the imperial cult to avoid Roman harrassment and to fit in with civic life (1 John 4:1; cf. the idolatry of 5:21; cf. the prophets of Rev 2:14, 20).³⁴⁵⁴ That they nicknamed their own prophetic mentors «Balaam» or «Jezebel» is unlikely;³⁴⁵⁵ they might have sought a figure respected by both the early Christian and the broader Jewish communities. John the Baptist would suggest a strong role model for them–a prophet who shared their pneumatology and perhaps respect for Christ as traditional Christians did, but allegiance to whom would not demand the high Johannine Christology accepted by the Johannine community, whose exclusivism functioned as an affront to the synagogue community.

The author encourages his readers by responding that prophets such as John functioned as witnesses to Christs role, as should all true possessors of the Holy Spirit. If they considered themselves followers of the Baptist sect that may have existed in Asian cities such as Ephesus (Acts 19:3), Revelation calls them instead followers of the evil prophet Balaam, who led Israel astray to practice idolatry (a term the Johannine community might even apply to an inadequate Christology; cf. 1 John 5:21)³⁴⁵⁶ and fornication (which may apply to spiritual harlotry in Rev 2:14,20–21).³⁴⁵⁷ If the false prophets used the Baptist as a model, our author responds by viewing them as a subsidiary part of Judaism and its old purifications. The true Spirit baptism that John proclaimed belongs to Jesus and his followers; the true Baptist pointed to Jesus as Gods agent, to the true Spirit baptism, and to Jesus as the divine bestower of the Spirit. That our author directs against possible Baptist secessionists the same water motif polemic he employs against the synagogue suggests that in his eyes the faith of the Baptist’s adherents was little beyond that of the synagogue: inadequate.

2. John as a Witness

John was «not the light,» but a witness for the light (1:8; cf. 5:35). As in the rest of the Gospel, John here functions primarily or solely as a witness to Jesus (1:31; 3:28–30; 5:33)³⁴⁵⁸–a theme in the Fourth Gospel that extends far beyond whatever significance the author attaches to its particular application to the Baptist. The writer may thus use the Baptist to introduce his theme of witness;³⁴⁵⁹ the Word is the ultimate truth for all of human history, but is made known through witnesses, of which John the Baptist was one historical example. John the Baptist thus functions in the Fourth Gospel «as the prototype of Jesus» disciples,»³⁴⁶⁰ or as Dodd puts it, «the evangelist is claiming the Baptist as the first Christian confessor,» in contrast to the view represented in the Synoptic Gospels that he was not «in the Kingdom of God.»»³⁴⁶¹

That the Fourth Gospel’s portrayal of the Baptist serves the Gospel’s agenda does not mean that the Baptist historically never testified to Jesus. But that Josephus does not mention such a component of the Baptist’s ministry is hardly surprising, since Josephus regularly plays down messianic ideology or casts messianic figures in a negative light.³⁴⁶² Indeed, all our sources emphasize only those aspects of the Baptist’s ministry most useful to their presentation; Josephus tones down the Synoptic picture of John the prophet of eschatological judgment (as he tones down that aspect of the Essenes), essentially reducing him «to a popular moral philosopher in the Greco-Roman mode, with a slight hint of a neo-Pythagorean performing ritual lustrations.»³⁴⁶³ Probably without Johns polemic, the Synoptics also indicate that the Baptist testified to Jesus. But the Fourth Gospel casts John in this role so thoroughly that one suspects it has reason to do so.

Given the rejection of their faith by synagogue leaders whom they had respected, members of the Johannine community must have welcomed the Fourth Gospel’s provision of witnesses testifying to the truth of their Lord;³⁴⁶⁴ the motif recurs throughout the Gospe1.³⁴⁶⁵ «Witness» was especially a legal term,³⁴⁶⁶ but the term’s figurative extension naturally led to a more general usage.³⁴⁶⁷ In the LXX the term indicates an appeal to objective evidence,³⁴⁶⁸ and frequently appears in lawcourt or controversy imagery.³⁴⁶⁹ Personal testimony implied firsthand knowledge (usually historical³⁴⁷⁰ but occasionally revelatory).³⁴⁷¹ Against some commentators,³⁴⁷² John’s usage may retain some legal associations,³⁴⁷³ especially if, as many contend, the whole Gospel is viewed as a trial narrative.³⁴⁷⁴ As Painter concludes, «The World had Jesus on trial, but was unable to produce a valid witness. Jesus» witnesses not only cleared him of all charges; their evidence brought the world under judgement.»³⁴⁷⁵ In some early Jewish texts prophets also appear as «witnesses» (cf. Acts 10:43; 1Pet 1:11–12).³⁴⁷⁶

Here John came so «all» might believe through him; John s mission as depicted elsewhere limits the force of this language; the «all» in a testimony to «all» could be limited by context (3:26).³⁴⁷⁷ Jesus is for «all» (1:9; cf. 5:23,28; 11:48; 12:19), and his witness must likewise impact all (13:35). John was «sent» from God (1:6),³⁴⁷⁸ fitting the shaliach theme of the Gospel (see introduction), but also reflecting the tradition that he fulfilled (Mal 3:1; see Luke 7:27).

Long before the advent of the current emphasis on literary criticism, Karl Barth noted that the verses about the Baptist (1:6–8,15) which intrude so noticeably on the rest of the prologue are there for a purpose. By standing out from the rest of the prologue,³⁴⁷⁹ he proposed, they draw our attention to the issue, «the problem of the relation between revelation and the witness to revelation.»³⁴⁸⁰ The literary purpose of beginning the Gospel with a witness, John (1:6–8, 15, 19–51), and closing with another witness (whom tradition also calls John, 19:35; 21:24), seems to be to underline the importance of witness for the Johannine community. If God was invisible till Jesus revealed him (1:18), he and Jesus would now remain invisible apart from the believing community modeling in their lives the character of Jesus (1 John 4:12; John 13:35; 17:21–23).

The World Rejects the Light (1:9–11)

The light could overcome darkness, and a witness was provided so people could believe the light. When the light came to them, however, «the world» as a whole rejected the light; even Christ’s own people as a whole rejected him. The remnant who did embrace him, however, would be endued with the light’s character, so they, too, might testify of the light (cf. 1:12–14).

1. The True Light Enlightens Everyone (1:9)

In contrast to John (1:8), who was merely a «lamp» (5:35), Jesus was the true light itself (1:9). In this Gospel, adjectives signifying genuineness can apply to Jesus» followers (1:47; 8:31; cf. 1 John 2:5), but most often apply to Jesus (5:31; 6:32, 55; 7:18; 8:14; 15:1; cf. 7:26; Rev 3:7) or the Father (3:33; 7:28). In a pagan environment with pluralistic options, designating God as the «true» God (17:3; 1 John 5:20; 1 Thess 1:9) made sense; when contrasting Jesus with lesser alternatives in a Jewish context–here John the Baptist–the designation remained valuable.

Philosophers applied «enlightenment» to the revealing of philosophical truth;³⁴⁸¹ Jewish people applied it to the gift of Torah;³⁴⁸² and early Christians applied it especially to the reception of the gospe1.³⁴⁸³ But does John refer here to universal availability to those to whom witness is offered, or to a portion of the Logos revealed to all people with or without the gospel testimony?³⁴⁸⁴ In contrast to the purpose of Johns testimony stated in 1:7, Jesus» role in 1does not limit the sense of «every person»; unlike John, Jesus is the light and the Word itself (1:8–9).³⁴⁸⁵ Yet «every person» could mean «any person,» indicating universal availability in the relevant cases;³⁴⁸⁶ given the variation of usage for such common terms, lexical meanings cannot decide the sense of this verse.

Our answer to the question of the extent and nature of Jesus» enlightenment of humanity may depend in part on what we do with «coming into the world» at the end of v. 9. The phrase «come into the world» can suggest either birth (of people)³⁴⁸⁷ or other kinds of origination,³⁴⁸⁸ but indicates a historical moment rather than an eternal process (cf. 1 John 4:1–6).

Grammatically, the masculine or neuter singular participle can refer either to the light or to «every person.» If the participle applies to «every person,»³⁴⁸⁹ it could be meant to make «every person» more emphatic, underlining its absolute universality. In favor of this reading is the natural flow of the syntax from an immediate antecedent. On this reading, we might at least consider Glasson’s comparison of a rabbinic tradition in which God teaches the law to children in the womb.³⁴⁹⁰ But Greek antecedents are decided by form more than by proximity, and, as noted above, form is indecisive here. John’s usage is ultimately determinative; normally he speaks of Christ coming into the world, not of others.³⁴⁹¹ As opposed to the later and rarer picture of prenatal Torah study, a much more widespread and early Jewish tradition may parallel John’s picture of the Light coming into the world enlightening all: God making available the light of his Word to all nations at a specific historical point at Mount Sinai.³⁴⁹²

That «coming into the world» applies to the light rather than to «every person» is likely;³⁴⁹³ that on such a reading it refers in context to the incarnation is still more likely. «Coming into the world» would be an apt Johannine depiction of Jesus in view of the common application to him of έρχόμ€νος (1:15,27; 3:31; 6:14; 11:27; 12:13; cf. 2 John 7; Heb 10:37; Rev 1:4), although that term is not limited to Jesus (6:35), and entering the world also describes birth (16:21). The Father’s mission sent Jesus into the world (3:17; 10:36; 12:47; 17:18); more specifically, he was the prophet «coming into the world» (6:14) and came into the world as light (3:19; 12:46; cf. 8:12); he entered the world at his birth (18:37). Further, the light was certainly «in the world» (1:10) in this context. Boismard points to the present form of the participle and concurs with many church fathers, who applied the phrase «to the various manifestations of the Word previous to the Incarnation.»³⁴⁹⁴ But Johns verb tenses elsewhere in the prologue hardly seem to model precision; and whereas 1 John can apply a perfect participle to the incarnation (4:2), 2 John employs the same present participle as here (2 John 7; cf. John 1:15; aorist participle in 1 John 5:6). Moreover, the entrance of light to which the Baptist testifies in this Gospel is the incarnate Christ, whose enfleshment is depicted as a new Sinai theophany only a few verses hence (1:14–18).

God did provide the light for all humanity in Jesus» incarnation, just as in Jewish tradition he provided the light of Torah to all nations at Sinai. But just as the nations rejected Torah, so the world rejected God’s Word made flesh.

2. The World Knew Him Not (1:10)

The prologue compares the responses of the world and of Jesus» own, Israel, in 1:10–11.³⁴⁹⁵ The world created through Jesus (1:3) did not know him (1:10), and even became hostile to him (15:18–19); in light of the rest of the Gospel, this world included the initially ignorant Gentiles (cf. 4:42) but remained an object of Christ’s loving mission (3:16–17; 4:42; 6, 51).³⁴⁹⁶ His own even more emphatically or deliberately rejected him (1:11); the word for «received» (1:11; cf. 14:3) probably bears the same sense as its more usual Johannine cognate, used by negation to imply deliberate rejection (3:32; 5:43; 12:48).³⁴⁹⁷

To know the Lord was to obey his ways (Jer 22:16); conversely, those who did not know the Lord were those who rejected him (1Sam 2:12; Isa 1:3; Jer 4:22; Hos 5:4; Luke 1:77).³⁴⁹⁸ In Johannine tradition, the world does not know the Father (16:3; 1 John 3:1), Jesus (John 16:3), the Spirit (14:17), nor the believers (1 John 3:1; believers, too, are not from this world, John 3:3, 8; cf. 1Cor 2.12).³⁴⁹⁹ The world’s lack of knowledge of Jesus is echoed in following passages (1:26; 2:9); the world would reject those who did not belong to and stem from it (15:19). Jesus was in the world he had made (1:3), but the world as humanity alienated from God could not know him and remain the world.³⁵⁰⁰

Jewish views of Gentiles varied widely, from more positive Diaspora to less positive sectarian Palestinian ideas.³⁵⁰¹ Given Israel’s sufferings at the hands of foreign empires, it seems natural that Jewish texts often reflect mistrust of Gentiles, viewing them as oppressors of God’s people and violators of God’s laws.³⁵⁰² Many texts also indicate the damnation of the Gentiles in the end time.³⁵⁰³ After dividing views on the eschatological fate of Gentiles into six categories, Sanders recognizes that in postbiblical Jewish texts, especially those following the devastation of 70 C.E., «the deserved punishment of Israel» decreases while that of the Gentiles increases.³⁵⁰⁴ Other texts, however, require helping and greeting Gentiles for the sake of peace and honoring God’s name.³⁵⁰⁵ Most teachers believed that righteous Gentiles could be saved without formal conversion to Judaism,³⁵⁰⁶ as long as they kept the Noahide laws.³⁵⁰⁷ In some traditions, God would convert all the Gentiles in the end time.³⁵⁰⁸ Nevertheless, many Diaspora Jews sought the conversion of Gentiles;³⁵⁰⁹ although these were not formal missionaries in the later Christian sense, their commitment had a visible impact in the ancient Mediterranean world.³⁵¹⁰

Greek literature included the motif of the hero banished from a homeland or household, who first came secretly to overthrow the unjust power structures;³⁵¹¹ also of wise and good people like Socrates dedicated to the world who were killed by the world.³⁵¹² Greeks spoke of gods unrecognized among mortals and Jewish texts speak similarly of angels;³⁵¹³ John’s motif of the hidden Messiah and the Markan motif of the Messianic Secret may also be relevant, as is Q tradition about Jesus» rejection (Matt 8:20; Luke 9:58). Most relevantly, however, wisdom tradition specifically remarked on the rejection of Wisdom on the earth.³⁵¹⁴ Jewish Torah tradition likewise stressed that God offered his Torah–his Word– to all nations; but the nations rejected it because they wished to continue in their sins. Finally, however, Israel came and accepted Torah.³⁵¹⁵ Some later rabbis contended that because only Israel received Torah, only Israel was freed from the sin nature infused in Eve through her intercourse with the serpent.³⁵¹⁶ The nations would be judged for not practicing Torah;³⁵¹⁷ lest they protest that they had not received Torah, God gave all humanity seven basic commandments in the time of Noah, and Gentiles would be judged for their disobedience to them.³⁵¹⁸

3. His Own Received Him Not (1)

John declares that the Jewish people as a whole did not embrace Jesus any more than the Gentiles did; «his own» could refer in some texts to possessions (16:32; 19:27), but here refers to his people (cf. 10:3–4, 12).³⁵¹⁹ This verse introduces the inadequate response of most of ethnic Israel to Jesus (hostile among the leaders, divided among the people) that became a theological problem for parts of early Christianity (Rom 3:3; 11:1, 11). It also provides the transition to speaking of the remnant of Israel and the Gentiles who would become proselytes to it or, in Pauline language, be grafted into it (John 1:12–13; cf. Rom 11:17, 24). Here John’s message conflicts with Jewish tradition, which emphasized that after the seventy nations had rejected Torah, Israel alone embraced it;³⁵²⁰ Israel alone was suitable to receive it.³⁵²¹ Jewish traditions of various dates emphasized the difference between Israel and the nations in the exodus event in other respects as wel1. For example, the pillar of fire gave light to Israel alone;³⁵²² the revelation at Sinai frightened the whole world until Balaam explained that God was revealing himself to his children;³⁵²³ multiple angels crowned each Israelite at Sinai.³⁵²⁴ Even after their initial acceptance, Israel continued to obey Torah, in contrast to the nations around them, and in many traditions God accepted their obedience as entirely satisfactory.³⁵²⁵ And though the rabbis and other Jewish expositors unquestionably amplified it, the special role of Israel nevertheless is attested from the very beginning of the biblical narrative of salvation.

Yet Jewish people recognized that their ancestors had not always kept Torah. When even Israel, who had received Torah at Sinai, disobeyed Torah in the time of the Judges, one early Jewish tradition declares that God wanted to wipe out the whole world.³⁵²⁶ Even later Jewish sources, which could take for granted the tradition that Israel alone embraced Torah at Sinai, recognized that Israel transgressed Torah and merited discipline.³⁵²⁷

That God’s chosen people who celebrated Torah rejected Torah in flesh constitutes a central ecclesiological motif throughout the Fourth Gospe1. As Culpepper observes, John introduces this «foundational irony of the gospel … at the outset.»³⁵²⁸ Israel’s rejection presents a crisis, for receiving Christ in the terminology of this Gospel is essential to salvation (1:12).³⁵²⁹ Ultimately, «his own» would be defined as those who heed his message (10:3–4), those who were truly in covenant relationship with him.

Those Who Received Him (1:12–13)

The mild adversative δέ, after the statement of rejection, could contrast with the rejection of both world and Israel ( 1:10–11 ), or primarily with that of Israel (1:11); the latter would imply that John focuses especially on the Jewish remnant in 1:12–13, since it comprises a majority of his intended readership.³⁵³⁰ In either case, «receiving» the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel embraces the mystery of God’s power revealed in weakness and submitting to the revealing Lord of the universe regardless of the cost. «Receiving» Jesus in 1:11–12 can mean welcoming him as God’s agent, for example, 5:43; 12:48; 13(cf. the Spirit in 14:17; 20:22); whatever other associations it might imply (e.g., connections with Torah or with early Christian missionary language, e.g., 2 John 10; 3 John 10; cf. Matt 10:40–41; Rom 16:2; Gal 4:14; Phil 2:29), the language is rooted in the vocabulary of early Christian soteriology (Col 2:6; for the Spirit, Acts 2:33; 8:17; 10:47; Rom 8:15; 1Cor 2:12; 2Cor 11:4; Gal 3:2,14).³⁵³¹

1. Believers as God’s Children (1:12)

John’s mission was to lead others to «believe» in Jesus (1:7), including revealing Jesus to Israel (1:31). Believing in Jesus» name probably represents an allusion to the divine name.³⁵³² The «Name» was a circumlocution for God,³⁵³³ involving his honor.³⁵³⁴ His name was thus to be hallowed as sacred,³⁵³⁵ not to be named or sworn by.³⁵³⁶ Despite some early Jewish and Christian protests,³⁵³⁷ however, many sought to exploit the power of God’s name in magical and/or exorcistic incantations.³⁵³⁸ (For more on the «name,» see comment on 14:13–14.) The righteous are to trust in Gods name;³⁵³⁹ believing in Jesus» name hence implies trusting in him as deity.³⁵⁴⁰ In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus comes in his Father’s name, that is, as his agent (5:43; 12:13; 17:11–12),³⁵⁴¹ works in the Father’s name (10:25), and seeks to glorify his Father’s name (12:28; 17:6, 26). His followers are to believe in Jesus» name (1:12; 2:23; 3:18), receive life in his name (20:31), ask in his name (14:13–14; 15:16; 16:23), and expect to suffer for his name (15:21). Aside from 2(cf. 1 John 3:23; 5:13), «believing in his name» appears only in the strategic passage 3and in the first and (by implication) last references to faith in the Gospel (1:12; 20:31), allowing John to combine motifs at these strategic points and probably to stress the necessity of embracing God’s agent. (3:16–18 is also the one passage that repeats the prologués μονογενής, explicitly recalling it; cf. 1 John 4:9.)

Different segments of Mediterranean antiquity would read «children of God» in different ways. Bultmann derives the language from the Mysteries, to whose usage he wrongly at tributes the eschatological sense he thinks implied in this text.³⁵⁴² Those influenced by Greco-Roman philosophy, for instance, could view good people as offspring of God,³⁵⁴³ or speak of God’s fatherhood of humanity, or the universe in terms of creation (cf. Acts 17:27–29).³⁵⁴⁴ The image of the supreme deity as father of creation was also much broader than among the philosophers, filling classical Greek literature³⁵⁴⁵ as well as sources closer to the period of early Christianity.³⁵⁴⁶ Philo concurs that God is father of humanity by virtue of creation,³⁵⁴⁷ as did other hellenized early Jewish and Christian sources (cf. Acts 17:27–29).³⁵⁴⁸ Likewise in Philo, possessors of wisdom are God’s friends, not his slaves; by adoption such a person becomes God’s «only son» (αύτω μόνος υιός).³⁵⁴⁹ In other texts as well, those who have knowledge of God are his children, though this does not divinize them.³⁵⁵⁰ One becomes a child of God by God’s divine imprint, which imparts to humans both mind and reason; but this philosophical sense is hardly comparable to John’s usage.³⁵⁵¹

John’s usage appears closer to Palestinian Jewish texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls,³⁵⁵²
Psalms of Solomon,³⁵⁵³
and other Jewish texts less dominated by Hellenistic philosophy,³⁵⁵⁴ where the Jewish people as a whole were God’s children. (The Wisdom of Solomon declares both the righteous³⁵⁵⁵ and Israel³⁵⁵⁶ to be sons of God.) The Jewish conception of God’s fatherhood to Israel is much more intimate than the generally distant language of Hellenistic ritua1.³⁵⁵⁷ Often early texts apply sonship language specifically to Israel’s status in the eschatological time,³⁵⁵⁸ but the title belongs to God’s people by virtue of their identity and is not restricted in early Judaism to eschatological uses.

Our more abundant (but generally later) rabbinic texts naturally amplify the breadth of traditional descriptions. Torah may in some sense make people God’s children,³⁵⁵⁹ presumably through their obedience to it. Following imagery in the Hebrew Bible,³⁵⁶⁰ rabbinic expositions and parables frequently identify Israel as God’s child³⁵⁶¹ or his children.³⁵⁶² In the late second century, R. Judah insisted that the people of Israel are God’s children when they obey as children should; R. Meir objected that they were God’s children either way.³⁵⁶³
ⁱ Some texts acknowledge that a few teachers had a special sonship relationship with God, although these represent a minority of rabbinic sonship texts.³⁵⁶⁴

Given the prominence of Jewish traditions in the Fourth Gospel, we should recognize a contrast between Jewish claimants to the «children of God» title (1:11) and its true heirs, those who follow Torah in the flesh (cf. 3:3–6; 8:35–44).³⁵⁶⁵ That is, believers in Jesus (who in John’s circle were probably largely Jewish or viewed themselves as adherents of a Jewish faith) assume the covenant role granted Israel as a people, because it is these believers in Jesus who perform the role assigned to Israel in the covenant. Given the adoption of the synagogués «Father» title for God³⁵⁶⁶ in early Christianity³⁵⁶⁷ (including the earliest Aramaic-speaking church),³⁵⁶⁸ John here concurs with earlier Christian tradition.³⁵⁶⁹

Johns later interpretation of Caiaphas’s prophecy refers to God’s children scattered abroad (11:52; whether this applies to Diaspora Jews or to Christians is disputed).³⁵⁷⁰ Jesus calls the disciples «children» in typically Johannine (cf. 1 John 2:1, 12, 13, 18, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21; 3 John 4) idiom for teacher-disciple affection (13:33). God’s people are «children of light» (12:36), as in the idiom of the Dead Sea Scrolls. But in the Fourth Gospel, others are born from above to be like Jesus from above (3:3–13); becoming children of God means sharing the same Father with Jesus (20:17).

The term εξουσία can be translated «right» or «freedom» as well as «authority.»³⁵⁷¹ Their «authority» to become God’s children (1:12) presumably emphasizes divine authorization to become what no human effort could accomplish³⁵⁷² (cf. «authority» as authorization in 5:27; 10:18; 17:2; 19:10–11); only the revealer from above could truly induct them into the heavenly realm (3:13–18). Becoming God’s children entails receiving the divine nature or character of which Jesus is the perfect image (see comment on 3:3–6). This contrast between divine authorization and human ability is plain in the text; God gave parents power to bring children into the world, but only his Spirit truly creates proselytes (3:6).³⁵⁷³

2. Not According to the Flesh (1:13)

That children were conceived in parental passion was an ancient commonplace (hence «the will of the flesh,» 1:13).³⁵⁷⁴ One Greek philosopher remarked that children need not be grateful to their parents for conceiving them; most parents acted from passion rather than forethought!³⁵⁷⁵ The «will of the flesh» probably also reflects the context’s contrast between children born from God (1:12) and genetic Israel (1:11), whom some early Christians called Israel «according to the flesh» (Rom 2:28; 4:1; 9:3,5,8; 1Cor 10:18; Eph 2:11); such fleshly birth in Israel was inadequate before God (3:6). Such fleshly birth is not wrong and indeed impossible for humans to avoid (1:14), but it is inadequate without Spirit-birth (3:6; Gal 4:29). Although the contrast between Spirit and flesh is explicit only in 3and 6:63, the dualistic language (e.g., «above» and «below,» «light» and «dark») by which John contrasts the activity of God and the world reinforces the point here: crossing the boundary from the world’s realm to God’s realm is possible only by divine agency.

The «will of man»–άνδρός is distinctly masculine in Greek–probably refers to the father’s authority in deciding to «have» a child: under Roman law, fathers could even order a child to be discarded after birth.³⁵⁷⁶ (Ancients also spoke of parental arrangement of marriage as «human wil1.»)³⁵⁷⁷ «From blood» signifies natural generation; to ask one from what blood (quo sanguine) one came was to ask from what parentage one had sprung.³⁵⁷⁸ The plural expression, «not from bloods» is curious, although the general sense is plain enough (not from human origins, like «not from flesh»).³⁵⁷⁹ Some classical writers did accept the possibility of superfetation–the addition of a new fetus during pregnancy through a new sexual partner–but this was not a confusion of blood providing the first fetus a dual paternity.³⁵⁸⁰ The Hebrew Bible employed the plural to indicate blood shed by murder,³⁵⁸¹ an expression wholly removed from the sense here. Undoubtedly more to the point, some Greeks thought that the embryo was formed by the father’s seed and the mother’s blood,³⁵⁸² or by the mingling of male and female seeds.³⁵⁸³ Thus the Hellenistic Jewish text Wisdom of Solomon declares that a human becomes flesh (σαρξ) by blood (έν αϊματι) from the seed of a man (έκ σπέρματος άνδρός) and the pleasure of sleep (ηδονής ϋπνω, i.e., intercourse).³⁵⁸⁴ John is declaring that what is born from the flesh is flesh; what is born from the Spirit is the new spirit of Ezek 36; see comment on John 3:6.³⁵⁸⁵ God’s will is a major emphasis in this Gospel (4:34; 5:30; 6:38–40; 7:17; 9:31), and is implicitly contrasted with human will and probably human religion in 1(«born from God»).

This birth makes one a participant in the whole new creation inaugurated by the messianic woes undertaken by Jesus and his followers (16:21). Birth from God is discussed in greater detail under John 3:1–13, below. How was it possible for humans to be «born from God»? The chasm was unbridgeable from the human side; but God’s divine Word became flesh in 1:14.³⁵⁸⁶ The narrativés logic implies a transferral: the Word that had been forever «with God» (1:1–2) became «flesh» (1:14) so others could be born not from flesh but from God (1:13; cf. 3:6).

The New Sinai (1:14–18)

Although we will explore various contexts for particular nuances of the text, the guiding imagery for 1:14–18 is from Exod 33–34, where God, in the context of giving Torah from Mount Sinai a second time, revealed his character to Moses. As in Exodus, in John’s prologue the Word comes to God’s people; but here the one who tabernacles among his people and whose glory is revealed is the Word (cf. similarly John 12:41). Here (as in 2Cor. 3) not Moses but the eyewitnesses of Jesus behold and testify to God’s glory; and here the character of covenant love and faithfulness which is the substance of that glory is expressed in Jesus» enfleshment as a mortal human being, which enfleshment climaxes (in the course of the Gospel) in the cross. Many scholars have observed the points of contact between Exod 33–34 and John 1:14–18,³⁵⁸⁷ although not all have recognized the connection between John’s Logos and Judaism’s Torah that explicitly climaxes in this section (1:17–18).

1. The Revelation (1:14)

As God revealed his glory to Moses in Exod 33–34, «full of grace and truth,» so here he reveals his glory in Jesus to the disciples, whose mission is now to announce the more glorious new covenant.

1A. The Word’s Incarnation (1:14)

Some have seen in John’s announcement of the Word’s incarnation a polemic against Hellenistic or gnostic ideas of an impassive deity.³⁵⁸⁸ To be sure, the highest God of Greek philosophy was not material or semi-material like the woundable deities of Homeric mythology.³⁵⁸⁹ Stoics, for instance, believed that «he is not of human shape»;³⁵⁹⁰ the nature of God is not «flesh» or «earth» but pure «reason» and intellect.³⁵⁹¹ In contrast to Johannine theology (cf. 1 John 1:1), a Platonist could describe this divine intellect as «unnamed, unseen, untouched» (Maximus of Tyre Or. 11.9, trans. Trapp).³⁵⁹² Nature could enable one to grasp aspects of God’s character (hence the use of images), but God was far beyond nature (2.10).³⁵⁹³ As a later neoplatonist put it, God is reflected in the life of the wise but cannot be seen «through a body» (Porphyry Marc. 13.221–223).³⁵⁹⁴ Philós view of God’s ineffability apparently even exceeds Stoic and neo-Pythagorean views, though reflecting natural developments from Plato.³⁵⁹⁵ Similarly, a gnostic deity would not be enfleshed; given the dangers of docetism in the early second and probably late first century, John could be confronting early gnosticism here.³⁵⁹⁶ (Ancients could describe an ideal king as a «living law» [νόμον εμψυχον, Musonius Rufus 8, p. 64.11–12],³⁵⁹⁷ an embodied personification of the law’s values; but they recognized this as figurative language, not incarnation.)

That a docetic interpretation of the Jesus tradition would arise was almost inevitable once Christian teaching about Jesus» deity (see introduction on Christology) began circulating in a Hellenistic milieu. Thus pagan deities often came disguised as mortals,³⁵⁹⁸ usually helpfully, but sometimes to seduce mortals sexually or rape them,³⁵⁹⁹ sometimes to lure them to death,³⁶⁰⁰ sometimes as strangers testing hospitality³⁶⁰¹ or testing whether a mortal would betray their theft.³⁶⁰² But these examples hardly fit John’s thought world. Even apart from the drastic theological differences, John’s narrower milieu is early Judaism, and a less thoroughly hellenized early Judaism than one finds in Philo, Pseudo-Aristeas, Josephus, or other sources aimed at more Hellenistically, often philosophically, educated audiences.

Käsemann is certainly wrong to regard John as docetic,³⁶⁰³ as scholars today usually recognize.³⁶⁰⁴ John states the enfleshment specifically, and the verb indicates the enfleshment of his whole being, not a temporary or partial adoption of it as an envelope or covering³⁶⁰⁵ (cf. also other hints, e.g., in 4:6; 18:37). At the same time, John does not dwell on it; his consistent theme in the prologue is not the Word’s enfleshment, but rather that the Word is deity. In other words, he does not expend space here on polemic against non-Jewish views of matter, but assuming a Jewish view of creation emphasizes instead that the Jesus of history is deity. (That the author or, on other views, a later author within this author’s circle, had to combat such a view in 1 John 4is possible, though the established language of Christian tradition does not demand that interpretation–cf. Rom 1:3; 8:3; 9:5; 1Tim 3:16.)

Even some Palestinian Jewish texts could speak of God identifying with humanity to make them understand him³⁶⁰⁶ or coming down to humanity’s level to vindicate his servants» decrees,³⁶⁰⁷ and sometimes even used the anthropomorphic circumlocution «man» to describe God,³⁶⁰⁸ as had some of their Hellenistic Jewish predecessors.³⁶⁰⁹ Despite some opposition,³⁶¹⁰ anthropomorphic pictures of God became standard in the rabbinic movement.³⁶¹¹ But most of Judaism would have rejected any idea like God becoming flesh; by the early second century, in fact, some Jewish teachers found it necessary to polemicize against the idea.³⁶¹² Again, John s polemic is to stress that the Jesus of his followers is the divine Torah of Judaism, not to argue the nature of divine transcendence. «Flesh» indicates Christ’s humanity (1:13; 3:6) and his solidarity with all humanity (e.g., 17:2; a Semitic idiom, e.g., Ps 145:21; Jer 32:27); it is valueless in itself for perceiving truth (3:6; 6:63; 8:15), but it is only in his flesh–his sharing human mortality–that people may be saved (6:51, 53,54, 55, 56).³⁶¹³

1B. The Word Tabernacled among Us (1:14)

Just as God «tabernacled» with his people in the wilderness, God’s Word tabernacled among the witnesses of the new exodus accomplished in Jesus (see the introductory comment on the new exodus under 6:32–51).³⁶¹⁴ Some suggest that the LXX translators may have favored this particular Greek term for «tabernacle» because its consonants correspond to the Hebrew consonants for the Shekinah, God’s presence.³⁶¹⁵ That the image of the Word tabernacling among his people would have found a home among John’s readers is suggested by the declaration of Sirach, which would have been well-known: The one who created wisdom caused her tabernacle (σκηνήν) to rest; thus she was to dwell (κατασκήνωσον) in Jacob.³⁶¹⁶ Not long after this passage Sirach identifies Wisdom with Torah. The allusion would make sense to John s audience, who would recognize the contrast;³⁶¹⁷ this Gospels later imagery from the feast of σκηνοπηγία, Tabernacles (7:2), would reinforce the wilderness background of the image, hence God’s glory dwelling among his people.³⁶¹⁸ The Johannine community probably understood this as the ideal, eschatological state as well (Rev 7:15; 21:3; cf. Heb 8:2).

Most Jewish thinkers viewed God’s Spirit as immanent. Wisdom of Solomon mimics Stoic thought, declaring that God’s «incorruptible Spirit is in all things (έν πάσι).»³⁶¹⁹ Nevertheless, God’s Shekinah or act of dwelling was sometimes linked with Torah,³⁶²⁰ and especially localized in some sense in the tabernacle³⁶²¹ or temple;³⁶²² it was uniquely connected with Israel among all nations,³⁶²³ especially in the exodus event when God’s glory led his people forth.³⁶²⁴ Whether or not John’s «tabernacled» implies any Jewish concepts surrounding the Shekinah (above), «glory» may invite such associations.³⁶²⁵

In light of these various associations, John may emphasize that Jesus, rather than the temple or tabernacle, is the true locus of God’s activity among humanity (cf. 4120–24).³⁶²⁶ Especially after 70, when Diaspora Judaism no longer had a central temple to look to, this claim could constitute a powerful challenge to competing versions of Jewish faith.³⁶²⁷

1C. We Beheld His Glory (1:14)

As noted above, «glory» may invite comparison with the related Jewish concept of Shekinah, which appears especially in rabbinic literature. These texts personify the Shekinah but do not hypostatize it; it functioned essentially as a circumlocution for God,³⁶²⁸ indicating his nearness.³⁶²⁹ God himself could be addressed as «Glorious One» (איש כנוך)³⁶³⁰ or called «The Glory of the World.»³⁶³¹ Jewish readers familiar with such a complex of concepts would not have struggled with identifying «glory» as a revelation of God’s character, as is implied in Exod 33–34 (see esp. Exod 33:19; 34:6–7). God’s presence could be banished by sin³⁶³² or invited by merit;³⁶³³ while John concurs with the image of the presence being withdrawn from the temple (cf. 8:59), the human embodiment of God’s glory as Jesus of Nazareth is rooted in unmerited love (3:16; like Israel’s redemption–Deut. 7:7–8; 9:5–6).

As in the Hebrew Bible (Isa 60:1–3), Judaism continued to associate an ultimate revelation of «glory» with the eschatological time.³⁶³⁴ Although John’s eschatology is primarily realized, we may nevertheless understand his point eschatologically: the climactic revelation of glory has occurred in Christ, as Torah has been revealed again in a new covenant (Isa 2:2–3; Jer 31:33).

«Glory» sometimes retains its common meaning of «honor» or «approval» (see esp. comment on 12:43);³⁶³⁵ Jesus, in contrast to his opponents, accepts this only from the Father (5:41,44; 7:18; 8:50,54; 9:24; 12:41,43; 16:14; 17:22). The Fourth Gospel applies Jesus» «glory» to various acts of self-revelation (his signs–2:11; 11:4,40),³⁶³⁶ but the ultimate expression of glory is the complex including Jesus» death (12:16, 23, 28; 13:31–32; cf. 21:19), resurrection, and exaltation (cf. 7:39; 12:16; 17:1, 5).³⁶³⁷ This glory thus becomes the ultimate revelation of «grace and truth»: where the world’s hatred for God comes to its ultimate expression, so also does God’s love for the world (3:16). If the Johannine community’s opponents regarded the cross as proof that Jesus was not the Messiah, John regards Jesus» humiliation as the very revelation of God: his whole enfleshment, and especially his mortality and death, constitute the ultimate revelation of God’s grace and truth revealed to Moses.³⁶³⁸

The first person plural could refer to the world; certainly his tabernacling «among us» could be construed in that manner (1:10–11; cf. 12:35), though it is noteworthy that Jesus allows specifically disciples to begin to «dwell» with him (1:38–39; 14:23). Thus believers come to share the same intimacy the Word had with the Father (1:1–2). But «we» in «we beheld» (έθεασάμεθα), though not emphatic, probably signifies this intimacy only by analogy and points in the first case to a more specific, historical referent. «Behold» and its synonyms³⁶³⁹ can apply both to seeing physically, which representatives of the world did (6:36; 15:24), and to seeing with eyes of faith (11:45; 14:7, 9; cf. 1 John 3:6; 3 John 11); but the latter is more likely here. Because Jesus revealed his glory in ways obscure to the elite but evident to the eyes of disciples (2:11; a continuing paradigm: 14:21–23), those who actually beheld his glory were those who came to believe him (11:40). The Johannine tradition also interprets the language with reference to the eyewitness of disciples (1 John 1:1–3), which fits the rest of this Gospel (19:35).

Thus the most natural construal of the first person plural, if all source theories are held in suspension, is that John includes himself among the eyewitnesses.³⁶⁴⁰ The eyewitnesses of the Words glory do not evoke the initiates of Hellenistic Mysteries,³⁶⁴¹ but Moses, who beheld God’s glory on Mount Sinai.³⁶⁴² (Greco-Roman myth reflects the notion that if the chief deity revealed his glory, a mortal who saw it would be consumed,³⁶⁴³ and some ancient Israelite traditions reflect a similar conception.³⁶⁴⁴ But Moses saw and was transformed, not consumed.)³⁶⁴⁵ In other words, Jesus» eyewitnesses, including John, are mediators of a revelation greater than that of Moses but in a manner analogous to Moses; Paul depicts his own ministry in a similar manner in 2Cor. 3;³⁶⁴⁶ the transfiguration in the Synoptics likewise alludes to this revelation, though as a single event.³⁶⁴⁷ Although a connection between «light» and «glory» may not have been obvious to all ancient readers, it is quite possible that John alludes to his portrayal of Jesus as «light» (l:4–9).³⁶⁴⁸ Those who could approach the prologue having heard the entire Gospel at least once would also think of others who saw the same glory Moses did, such as Isaiah in his vision in the temple (12:41; Isa 6:1–4).³⁶⁴⁹ In this context, at any rate, «glory» especially alludes to the revelation of God to Moses in Exod 33–34, which could also be pictured as shining (cf. Exod 34:29). Whereas many commentators (such as Glasson and Teeple) compare Jesus in the Fourth Gospel with Moses,³⁶⁵⁰ it is actually particularly his disciples who represent Moses, while Jesus parallels the glory that Moses witnessed on the mountain.

1D. The μονογενής Son (1:14,18)

Greek deities also speak of their «only» sons³⁶⁵¹ or «beloved» sons,³⁶⁵² but the plurality both of children and of deities that begot them would place this image outside the realm of Johannine thought and the Jewish sense of divine sonship on which it rests (see introduction on Christology). Arguing that the backdrop for John’s conception is primarily Jewish, however, does not solve the question of what John means by μονογενής here.

Commentators dispute the significance of μονογενής; some follow the traditional translation «only begotten,»³⁶⁵³ whereas others object that this is not even a sound etymological reading of the term.³⁶⁵⁴ «Only begotten» fails the etymology test, as it would require a different word, μονογεννητός; μονογενής derives instead from a different root, γένος, leading to the meaning «one of a kind.»³⁶⁵⁵ This observation hardly settles the Johannine sense of the term, since usage rather than etymology determines word meanings in practice; but further analysis confirms the conclusion based on the term’s derivation.

Many patristic writers read the term as «only begotten,»³⁶⁵⁶ but this may say more about second-century Christology than about the semantic presuppositions shared between John and his original audience. «Only» is also a very old translation, appearing in some ancient versions³⁶⁵⁷ and some from the Reformation era.³⁶⁵⁸ «Only begotten» came into vogue through church councils and the rendering of the Latin Vulgate.³⁶⁵⁹ Other writers contemporary with John clearly used μονογενής to indicate uniqueness rather than procreation; Plutarch, for instance, notes that Aristotle denied a succession of worlds, supposing our world the only (μονογενής) one created.³⁶⁶⁰ Although the LXX attests that the term applies well to an only child (Judg 11:34; Tob 3:15; 6:11; 8:17), it applies also to other unique things (Ps 21:21; 24:16; 34:17 LXX)–most significantly for John, to divine Wisdom (Wis 7:22).

Although Jesus officially assumes the role of Son particularly at his resurrection in Paul and the apostolic preaching in Acts,³⁶⁶¹ and at the exaltation in Hebrews,³⁶⁶² Jesus» special relation to the Father exists in this Gospel long before his public, officiai glorification, probably in his preincarnate state.³⁶⁶³ Thus one cannot interpret μονογενής in light of Israelite or ancient Near Eastern texts about a ruler «begotten» at his enthronement (as with Ps 2in Acts 13:33);³⁶⁶⁴ the concept of «begetting» is not present. Even where writers like Philo apply to a cosmic being (the Logos or the universe) terms specifically indicating «birth» (e.g., «firstborn»), they are emphasizing role (e.g., the right of the firstborn, Ps 89:27), not procreation.³⁶⁶⁵

Μονογενής was generally (though not invariably) used of an only child³⁶⁶⁶ and probably corresponds to the Hebrew יחיד, which it translates at times in the LXX.³⁶⁶⁷ The term came to connote «beloved» as much as «only,» and it is this nuance which probably comes to the forefront in Johannine usage. יחיד also appears in rabbinic Hebrew as a synonym for בחר, «chosen.»³⁶⁶⁸ Not only was Israel God’s «first-born» (Exod 4:22; Jer 31:9), his «only» child,³⁶⁶⁹ but Jewish literature routinely emphasizes that Israel was called «beloved»³⁶⁷⁰ (as were some of God’s special servants³⁶⁷¹ including Abraham,³⁶⁷² Moses,³⁶⁷³ Samuel,³⁶⁷⁴ Joseph,³⁶⁷⁵ and Isaac³⁶⁷⁶ and the righteous in general).³⁶⁷⁷ (In the context of Johannine polemic, the Fourth Gospel could emphasize Jesus» uniqueness as over against claims for Israel as God’s children;³⁶⁷⁸ but the phrase may simply develop the image without directly challenging all of its nuances.) Because μονογενής often translates יחיד, and יחיד could also be rendered αγαπητός (as with Isaac, who was called יחיד though he was not technically Abraham’s «only» son, Gen 22:2),³⁶⁷⁹ it was natural that μονογενής should eventually adopt nuances of αγαπητός in biblically saturated Jewish Greek.

For other reasons as well, the title «only» son came to mean particularly «beloved» son. Sons were specially loved, and this would apply particularly to an only son.³⁶⁸⁰ To be an only son was to be a uniquely loved son; the death of an only (μόνος) son could precipitate his parents» death from grief,³⁶⁸¹ because the death of «only-children» (μονογενείς) was a particular tragedy.³⁶⁸² Thus it was natural that the connotation «only» in time extended to those who were not only children, but who were specially beloved. To a lexicographer in the second century, a «beloved son» could be called «his father’s only son,»³⁶⁸³ and a later lexicographer «defines a beloved (agapētos) son as monogenēs.»»³⁶⁸⁴ For Philo, too, being God’s «only» son meant being uniquely loved by him, as with Abraham (μόνος υιός)³⁶⁸⁵ or the created universe (τόν μόνον καΐ άγαπητόν … υίόν).³⁶⁸⁶ The adjective «beloved» further added special pathos in the case of death, as in the lament over a daughter on a Jewish funerary inscription from the Appian Way: Μαρία βρέφος άγαπητόν ή θυγάτηρ [Π]ροκοπίου.³⁶⁸⁷

In Jewish texts the title applies particularly to Isaac at the Akedah, of whom God said, «sacrifice your son, your «only son,» whom you love,» in Gen 22³⁶⁸⁸ According to Jewish teachers, «whom you love» reinforced the pathos of «your only son.»³⁶⁸⁹ As Josephus declares, «Isaac was passionately beloved (ύπερηγάπα) of his father Abraham, being his only son (μονογενή) and born to him »on the threshold of old agé through the bounty of God.»³⁶⁹⁰ Among the handful of non-Johannine uses of the term in our earliest Christian texts, the only theologically significant use (cf. Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38) applies to Isaac (Heb 11:17). In John as in common Jewish usage, the «special» son is the «beloved» son (rather than «only begotten»),³⁶⁹¹ and in John as in the oft-told Akedah, this emphasis on being the only one of his kind increases the pathos of the sacrifice (3:16).³⁶⁹² And like that sacrifice, Jesus» incarnation represents a special act of loving obedience in view of the Son’s special relationship with the Father depicted in this term.³⁶⁹³ Jesus, like the holy and understand-ing Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon,³⁶⁹⁴ is μονογενής not in the sense of derivation but as unique and the special object of divine love. What is extraordinary is that in him, this same love becomes available to all who are his followers (17:23).

Christians, like Israel, are called God’s children (1:12–13), but Jesus is the special Son, the «only one of his kind.»³⁶⁹⁵

1E. Full of Grace and Truth (1:14)

John’s use of πλήρης is intelligible enough in Jewish Greek³⁶⁹⁶ without direct appeal to Stoic,³⁶⁹⁷ Philonic,³⁶⁹⁸ or gnostic technical usage of the πλήρωμα.³⁶⁹⁹ A more obvious back-ground lies nearer at hand: when God revealed his glory to Moses, he revealed that his character³⁷⁰⁰ was «abounding in covenant-love and faithfulness,» which translates naturally into John’s Greek expression «full of grace and truth.»³⁷⁰¹ The LXX admittedly rarely renders חסד as χάρις,³⁷⁰² but textual analysis of John’s citations indicates that he or his sources could translate directly from Hebrew at times yet expect his audience to recognize the quotation as Scripture.³⁷⁰³ Whereas έλεος often signified «undeserved favor» in the LXX, this usage receded in later times; early Christian literature typically employs χάρις in this sense, making it the natural term for John to apply.³⁷⁰⁴

Although the phrase recurs frequently in the Hebrew Bible³⁷⁰⁵ and appears elsewhere in Jewish texts,³⁷⁰⁶ the accumulation of allusions to Exod 33–34 in John 1:14–18 leaves little doubt that Johns phrase is a conscious allusion to the occurrence in that context (what we translated above as «abounding»). Thus we would suggest that the «fulness» probably modifies «glory»: «glory full of grace and truth.»³⁷⁰⁷ When God revealed his character of grace and truth at Sinai, it was incomplete; Moses saw only part of God’s glory (Exod 33:20–23; John 1:18). But what was an incomplete revelation of grace and truth through Moses was completed through Christ (1:17).

Observing the climactic comparison in v. 17, some commentators have suggested not only a deliberate allusion to grace and truth present at the giving of Torah, but that John declares that these attributes were present in Christ and not in the law.³⁷⁰⁸ This suggestion, however, ignores the sense of continuity possibly suggested by the omission of an explicit adversative: Christ is the full embodiment of Torah, completing what was partial (but actually present) in Torah. Jesus Christ thus embodies the hope of Judaism. John does not encourage his community to forsake its Jewish past, but to recognize that in following Christ, the embodiment of Torah, his community fulfills the highest demands of Judaism. Conversely, the Jewish opponents, synagogue leaders who claim to speak for the Jewish community, have rebelled against the ultimate embodiment of Torah.

While both Greco-Roman philosophers and biblically oriented Jewish thinkers stressed «love for truth,»³⁷⁰⁹ the semantic range of אםח is quite different from that of άλήθεια, and we must thus examine to what extent John’s usage reflects nuances informed by standard Greek usage (cf. 18:38) and to what extent it reflects translation Greek, betraying an original Hebraic sense related to the biblical phrase John employs (cf. 17:17). Both Greek and Jewish ideals stressed not lying under normal circumstances, providing a considerable area of overlap between them.³⁷¹⁰ Despite the overlap, areas of contrast remain.

The Greek sense of truth involved especially knowledge,³⁷¹¹ sometimes religious knowl-edge;³⁷¹² it could also denote recognition of reality.³⁷¹³ The Hebrew and traditional Jewish concept, conversely, was more apt to include moral truth³⁷¹⁴ and to be identified with God’s law.³⁷¹⁵ אמת often stressed being «true» to onés word–truth as integrity or covenant faith-fulness³⁷¹⁶–and is a central attribute of God’s character.³⁷¹⁷

Although some regard John’s content for αλήθεια as primarily Hellenistic,³⁷¹⁸ many scholars now recognize more of the traditional range of אמת in the Fourth Gospe1.³⁷¹⁹ That 90 percent of the LXX uses of αλήθεια translate אםח³⁷²⁰ and that John derives his use of «full of grace and truth» from the Hebrew Bible (as well as his usage in some other pas-sages, e.g., 17:17), suggest that while the semantic range of both terms may have influenced his usage, he is especially sensitive to the term’s uses in its prior biblical contexts. Perhaps John expects the reader to hear the prologués coupling of «grace and truth» when «truth» recurs alone (twenty-five times) through the rest of the Gospel; if so, «truth» often includes the sense of «covenant faithfulness» in the Fourth Gospe1.³⁷²¹ The aborted dialogue of John 18:37–38 even suggests that John is aware of competing cultural epistemologies or under-standings of truth.³⁷²² Barrett is probably correct when he notes:

αλήθεια retains in Jn more of the meaning of אמת. Sometimes, as in ordinary Greek usage, it means simply that which corresponds to fact, is not false (5.33; 8.40, 44ff.; 16.7); but more characteristically, it means the Christian revelation brought by and revealed in Jesus (1.17; 8.32; 16.13; 17.17; 17.19 [unless here εν άληθεία = αληθώς]; 18:37; 1.14; 4.23f. should perhaps be added). This revelation arises out of the faithfulness of God to his own character, and to his promises, of which it is the fulfilment.³⁷²³

A survey of some of the uses of the term and its cognates indicates its christological focus in the Fourth Gospe1. Truth is moral in 3(articular; opposed to evil, the morality defined in terms of ones response to God s agent); associated with the Spirit in 4:23–24; 15:26; 16(the latter two articular); related to veracity (including of Christ’s witness) in 8:32, 40,44, 45, 46 (all articular); directly related to Christ in 5:33; 14:6; 18(articular). Many uses of the adjective «genuine» (1:47; 3:33; 4:18, 37; 5:31–33; 6:32, 55; 7:18, 26, 28; 8:13, 16, 17, 26, 31; 10:41; 15:1; 19:35; 21:24) also are theological (3:33; 7:28; 8:26), christological (6:32, 55; 7:18; 15:1; 21:24), related to christological testimony (e.g., 5:31–32; 8:13–16; 10:41; 19:35), or ecclesiological (1:47; 8:31) statements; the character of God and his agent also define the true community.

2. The Baptist’s Testimony (1:15)

The Baptist again intrudes into the narrative; in this instance, his general «witness» to the light becomes more specific in terms of a contrast between himself and the Christ, reinforcing the earlier suggestion of a polemical downplaying of John’s role in the Gospe1.³⁷²⁴ Here the Gospel declares that, though John’s public ministry preceded that of Jesus, Jesus not only outranked him but existed before him.³⁷²⁵ Jesus was, after all, «in the beginning with God» (1:1–2).

If Jesus «came after» John in the sense that some could claim that Jesus was John’s disciple³⁷²⁶–not only did John baptize him but the Fourth Gospel suggests that their ministries overlapped and that John was initially the more prominent of the two (3:22–24, 30)–the pains the author takes to explain the temporal and positional superiority of the Logos to his mere witness are understandable. Normally an inferior would follow a superior;³⁷²⁷ but John’s theology of the incarnation challenges that assumption anyway (cf. 13:14–16). Although it is unlikely that the Baptist used precisely the words here attributed to him (see ch. 2 in the introduction for ancient writers» liberty to paraphrase), the Synoptics also attest that John humbled himself before the one whose climactic, eschatological ministry was to follow his own chronologically. The Fourth Gospel knows that John recognized the one coming after (οπίσω) him, based on a tradition (1:27, 30) also preserved in Mark 1(cf. Matt 3:11).

3. Greater than Moses» Revelation (1:16–18)

Christ is greater than Moses as the one whom Moses saw is greater than Moses; in the Fourth Gospel, the glory witnessed by Israelite prophets was that of Jesus himself (12:41).

But the glory of the new covenant is also greater than the glory of the first covenant (cf. 2Cor 3:3–18).

3A. Receiving the Fulness of Grace and Truth (1:16)

Those who receive Jesus (1:12) receive the full measure of grace and truth present in him, not just the partial, veiled measure in the law. «Fulness» has a wide semantic range, and could allude to God filling the cosmos with his wisdom or his Spirit.³⁷²⁸ In the context, however, it seems most natural to construe «fulness» in 1as a reference to «full of grace and truth» in 1:14.³⁷²⁹ The first person plural would naturally refer primarily to the eyewitnesses of v. 14, but the verb indicates that it embraces also all who believe through their witness (1:12; 17:20). (The «all,» πάντες, applies only to those in the πάντες and πάντα of 1:7, 9 who believe the light, not all those to whom it is available.)

More debated is the meaning of the phrase χάριν αντί χάριτος. Whatever it means, it would seem to further the thought of the context: in Jesus God unveiled the full measure of grace and truth.³⁷³⁰ Matthew Black suggests an original play on words in Aramaic, «grace for disgrace» (both reflecting the Aramaic חסךא³⁷³¹); but this assumes that this portion of the prologue was first written in Aramaic and that the Gospel writer would not have produced a more sensible reading of the Greek. Whether or not the writer understood the Aramaic construction, he was endeavoring to make sense in Greek! «Grace» (in the sense of patronal generosity) was to be met by «grace» (in the sense of gratitude, another nuance of χάρις),³⁷³² but «gratitude» would not make sense if it is the object of «received» (ελάβομεν).

Some have argued that the phrase literally means blessing laid against (upon) blessing, but others have suggested it literally means a new grace habitually exchanged for an old one (άντί meaning «instead of»).³⁷³³ Some have suggested the specific sense, «one grace for another,» meaning Christs grace reckoned to his followers;³⁷³⁴ or Christ’s grace matching ours or, most likely, superceding that of the old covenant (see comment on 1:17).³⁷³⁵ Granted, «one grace for another» might read into the phrase too much that would not be obvious to the intended audience, but other texts may suggest that the phrase signifies a compensatory exchange.³⁷³⁶ Because Christ fulfills rather than negates Moses (5:39,45–47), however, accumulation may make more sense than substitution: grace added to grace, explaining his «fulness» of grace (1:16; Exod 34:6).³⁷³⁷ Whether the phrase suggests ever-renewed or ever-increasing graces is hardly essential to the image; in either case, it would mean an inexhaustible supply of blessing. Thus in Sirach a similar phrase describes an ashamed (i.e., meek, shy) woman as χάρις έπΙ χάριτι, «charm upon charm» (neb), «a double grace,» an extra blessing.³⁷³⁸ Similar emphatic expressions in biblical and extrabiblical Greek make the general point clear even if the specific construction remains ambiguous.³⁷³⁹

3B. Christ More Gracious Than Law (1:17)

Here again John alludes to Exod 33–34, this time to the second giving of Torah from Sinai.³⁷⁴⁰ Gods character of grace and truth was revealed with the giving of law (Exod 34:6), but made fully available to humanity ultimately through Christ. The contrast is one of intensity more than of quality;³⁷⁴¹ John accepts the witness of the law to the fulness of grace and truth in Christ, but Christ is the full embodiment of the law, the actual model of lived-out commandments, in flesh. John does not oppose Torah³⁷⁴² or doubt that grace and truth may still be found there in some measure;³⁷⁴³ he identifies it with Jesus and declares that only followers of Jesus submit to its ultimate eschatological expression.³⁷⁴⁴ Moses» writings remain God’s Word, but they were not the same as «the revelation of grace and truth incarnate.»³⁷⁴⁵

Thus Moses and the law testify to Jesus (1:45; 5:45–47). Those who contend with Jesus on the basis of the law (7:49; 9:28–29; 18:31; 19:7) actually misunderstand (7:23; 8:17; 10:34; 15:25) and disobey (7:19,51) the law themselves. (Interestingly, John does not apply γραφή with the same polemical sense as νόμος.)

The lack of adversative conjunction here does not eliminate the contrast (compare the lack of adversatives in 1:18; 2:9,10; 7:36),³⁷⁴⁶ but it also does not permit us to exaggerate the force of the contrast.³⁷⁴⁷ Context must dictate the force of contrast, as in m. «Abot 2:7, which similarly implies a contrast without a conjunction: «One who gains a good name (indeed) gains (something) for oneself; (but) one who gains for himself the words of Torah gains for himself life in the world to come.»³⁷⁴⁸ As in m. »Abot 2:7, the contrast of John 1is between something good and something better, which are not mutually exclusive. None of John’s audience would have viewed grace negatively; not only the Jewish Bible but early Judaism emphasized grace.³⁷⁴⁹

Most Jewish sources concur that the law was given through Moses–that God was the author and Moses the mediator.³⁷⁵⁰ The only evidence for a contrary view became a gnostic position against the law in the second century.³⁷⁵¹ John accepts the divine origin of Torah («it was given» is presumably a divine passive) and the Mosaic agency, but contends that Christ, not Moses, is the mediator of the character of God to which the law bore witness. In contrast to Abraham (mentioned eleven times in the Gospel), John’s mentions of Moses (twelve times) generally are at pains to subordinate Moses as an agent and a witness.³⁷⁵² John consistently portrays Jesus as the true gifts to which Moses» gifts of Torah, manna, and lifting up the serpent point.³⁷⁵³ The community’s opponents appeal to Moses as their witness (9:28–29), but he is a witness against them (5:45–46).

3C. Beholding God’s Face in Christ (1:18)

Moses could not see all God’s glory because God declared that no one could see his face and live (Exod 33:20).³⁷⁵⁴ John declares first the sense in which that affirmation remains true: «No one has beheld God at any time.» The rest of the Fourth Gospel continues to maintain the Father’s invisibility to the world (5:37; 6:46; cf. 1 John 4:12, 20). But now that affirmation is qualified: the specially beloved, incarnate God has fully revealed his character, so that the one who has seen him has seen the Father (14:9). (In the same way, the postresurrection Jesus will remain invisible to the world, but not to his disciples– 14:21–23; 16:16–19,22; 20:18,25. Before the resurrection he was seen by both, perhaps like Israel at Mount Sinai–6:36; 19:37; Exod 24:10.)

Greek and Roman sources sometimes emphasize God’s invisibility; some writers suggested that only the pure intellect could apprehend or «see» the divine (Maximus of Tyre Or. 11.9–10).³⁷⁵⁵ More consistently, Palestinian Jewish tradition emphasized the invisibility of God,³⁷⁵⁶ even if some visionaries claimed to see his glory in special mystical experiences.³⁷⁵⁷ Diaspora Jewish writers including Philo,³⁷⁵⁸ the Sibylline Oracles,³⁷⁵⁹
and Josephus³⁷⁶⁰ likewise considered God invisible.³⁷⁶¹ Jewish writers still affirmed Scriptures teachings both that God spoke with Moses face to face³⁷⁶² and that Moses could not see all God’s glory.³⁷⁶³ If early Christians claimed to see a fuller picture of God than what Moses had seen, this claim would certainly have sounded blasphemous to most of their non-Christian Jewish contemporaries. If Ascension of Isaiah is an early Christian work, its defense of Isaiah (accused of having seen more than Moses) may respond to anti-Christian polemic from the synagogue.³⁷⁶⁴

Some Jewish sources, however, indicate an eschatological vision of God.³⁷⁶⁵ John may thus imply that Jesus» coming represented the eschatological revelation, the ultimate and climactic revelation of God’s character.³⁷⁶⁶ Some also play on the etymological roots and another possible use of the term to argue that Jesus «opened the way» and guided to God (cf. 14:6);³⁷⁶⁷ but revelation is paramount in the expression.³⁷⁶⁸ As noted in the introduction, John does not abandon all future eschatology, but he clearly stresses the historic revelation and fulfillment of eschatological realities in Jesus. Like Philo, however, John may imply a different kind of vision than mere sensory vision; he also implies depth of insight that produces inner transformation (see introduction on «vision» in chapter 6 of our introduction).

For Jesus to «make God known» implies more than communicating a visual image; the term suggests that Jesus fully interprets God,³⁷⁶⁹ confirming the sense of the context: Jesus unveils God’s character absolutely. John also indicates the extent to which Jesus is the perfect revealer (cf. also 3:11–13). Jesus is the Word who was with the Father in the beginning (1:1–2); here John employs graphic figurative language to drive home the point of his absolute intimacy with the Father: «who being in the Father’s bosom made that one known.» The conjunction of «while being in … made known» (reading the participle temporally) suggests that Jesus revealed the Father while remaining in his bosom, and the context confirms that this revelation coincides with his earthly life, while climaxing in the cross.³⁷⁷⁰

Holding an object to onés bosom declared the specialness of that object,³⁷⁷¹ and the image could be used to depict God’s relation with Torah.³⁷⁷² (Potential pagan parallels, such as Athenés birth from Zeus’s brow or Dionysus’s from his side,³⁷⁷³ would probably not occur even to most Greek readers, given the imagés much broader connotations.) The image also represented a position of intimacy for people,³⁷⁷⁴ thus Jesus elsewhere in the gospel tradition used being in Abrahams bosom as an image of intimacy and fellowship with Abraham (Luke 16:22).³⁷⁷⁵ Because the phrase often appears in man-woman or parent-child relations, and because the text here speaks of «the Father,» the affectionate image may be that of a son on his father s lap.³⁷⁷⁶ This Gospel itself clarifies this role of intimacy for that disciple «whom Jesus loved» in their table-fellowship in 13:25; if the preposition εις retains its original force here–prepositions had lost much of their distinctiveness by the Koine period of Greek–it may further emphasize the intimacy of Father and Son, stressing «that Father and Son are mutually directed towards each other, in the manner customary at an Eastern table where two would lie next to each other while eating.»³⁷⁷⁷

The intimate connection between Father and Son is not only relational, but in terms of their shared nature and similar role. Although some critics still favor the reading «only son,»³⁷⁷⁸ the text more naturally reads «the only God, who is in the bosom of the Father.»³⁷⁷⁹ Given the tendency to simplify the sense of the text, the Arian controversy in Egypt, the source of most of our manuscripts, would have led to a later preference for «only Son,» since «only» was often read as «only begotten» and «only begotten God» could be pressed into ambiguous support against both Arius and Athanasius: «no copyist is likely to have altered «Son» to »God,» whereas there would have been a strong temptation to alter the difficult word «God» to the familiar »Son.» (How could God be in the bosom of God?)»³⁷⁸⁰ One of the text critics who developed the original Westcott-Hort text notes that «unique God» «is the more intrinsically probable from its uniqueness» and «makes the alternative reading more intelligible.»³⁷⁸¹

In further support of the «God» reading may be John s penchant for variation in christological titles,³⁷⁸² the probable inclusio surrounding Jesus» role introduced in 1:1c³⁷⁸³ (and indeed in the body of the book, 1with 20:28), and the shock value of the phrase.³⁷⁸⁴ Finally, μονογενής θεός (in its anarthrous or articular form) has in its favor most of our earliest manuscripts,³⁷⁸⁵ including P⁶⁶ (second or third century), P⁷⁵ (third century), Sinaiticus and its copy (א, fourth century), and Vaticanus (B, fourth century), although Alexandrinus (A, fifth century) is on the other side;³⁷⁸⁶ as Longenecker observes, «The reading «the unique God» (μονογενής θεός) of John 1.18 is better attested textually than »the unique Son» (μονογενής υιός), though it is often set aside on theological grounds.»³⁷⁸⁷

The prologue thus culminates in a rehearsal of Jesus» deity, closing an inclusio that began with 1:1c; it also parallels the conclusion of the Gospel as a whole (20:28), forming an inclusio around the entire Gospel which proclaims Jesus» deity.³⁷⁸⁸ To Jewish Christians needing to lay even their lives on the line because of their Christology, John reminds them that Christology is at the heart of their faith in Israel’s God.

* * *

³¹⁹³

Boismard, Prologue, 5. Partial repetition of phrases yielding limited parallels in successive lines also appears in more limited form in Greek rhetoric (cf. παρομοίωσις in Anderson, Glossary, 91–92).

³¹⁹⁴

Because «God,» being anarthrous, is naturally read as the predicate nominative (see below), John was free to adapt the word order to fit his literary structure.

³¹⁹⁵

Both these structures are from Bailey, Poet, 59.

³¹⁹⁶

Cf., e.g., Col 1:16; Heb 11:3; 2 En. 24(esp. A, but J is similar). Although Philo (Creation 27) contends that Gen 1refers not to the beginning of creation but to the chronological priority of the heavens, «beginning» almost universally refers to the beginning of creation (Rom 1:20; T. Mos. 1:12–13; 12:4; 4 Ezra 6:38; Incant. Text 20:11–12 in Isbell, Bowls, 64–65, יומי עלם); cf. L.A.B. 32:7; 1 En. 69(Sim.); Diogenes Laertius 10.1.75), though it can apply to primeval antiquity in general rather than the moment of creation (Adam’s time in Matt 19:4,8; Mark 10:6; 4 Ezra 4:30; L.A.B. 1:1; cf. Hesiod Theoç. 452).

³¹⁹⁷

Luther, 1st Sermon on John 1; Stuart, «Examination,» 15; Westcott, John, 2; Pollard, «Poems,» 107–11; Bernard, John, 1:1; Guillaume, «Midrash,» 395; Burkitt, Gnosis, 94; Sanders, John, 67; Brown, John, 1:4; Haenchen, John, 1:109; Rissi, «Word,» 396; Morris, John, 72; Moloney, Belief, 27–28. Daniélou, Theology, 108, traces the development of this idea through later Christian thought and Jewish gnosis.

³¹⁹⁸

Some commentators connect the creation of 1:1–3 with the new creation, although apparently arguing for a parallel in Christ’s involvement in both rather than denying his activity in the first creation (e.g., Hoskyns, Gospel, 140–41; Strachan, Gospel, 67; cf. du Rand, «Ellips»).

³¹⁹⁹

Commentators see allusions in such phrases as «light,» «life,» «were made» and sometimes also connect the «word» with God speaking the world into being (Hoskyns, Gospel, 140–41; Lee, Thought, 114–15).Coloe, «Structure,» even finds echoes of the structure of Gen 1 in John 1:1–18.

³²⁰²

Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.43. Cf. also Frg. Tg. and Tg. Neof. on Gen 1(Anderson, «Interpretation»).

³²⁰³

This may represent an Amoraic development predicated on identification with Wisdom in Prov 8(Gen. Rab. 1:1; Lev. Rab. 19:1); cf. Dodd, Interpretation, 86; see esp. Harvey, «Torah,» 1236.

³²⁰⁴

In Philo, see Confusion 146; Moreno Martinez, «Logos»; Longenecker, Christology, 43. In second-century orthodox writers, Jesus as Logos could be called άρχή, the «beginning» (Theophilus 2.10; Tatian 5; Daniélou, Theology, 166–68); in gnosticism, the Nous or Monogenes was the Father and Beginning of all things; proceeding from the first Aeon, it was the source of Logos and Zoe (Irenaeus Haer. 1.1.1).

³²⁰⁵

On the philosophical use, cf. Jannière, «Problèmes.»

³²⁰⁶

Cf. Rev 3:14, where «beginning» is actually a divine title signifying the originator of creation (see 1:8,17; 2:8; 21:6; 22:13; Isa 44:6; 48:11–12; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.190; Ant. 8.280).

³²⁰⁷

As is often recognized, e.g., Kennedy, Theology, 156; May, «Logos,» 446; Moule, Birth, 167; Bandstra, «Errorists,» 332; Johnston, Ephesians, 58; Longenecker, Christology, 145; Glasson, «Colossians I 18, 15,» 154–56.

³²⁰⁸

«First» could mean «greatest» in rank, power, or privilege (πρώτος, Chariton 2.5.4), as could «firstborn» (Gen 49:3–4; «Abot R. Nat. 24, §49 B; Midr. Pss. 5, §4; cf. Pesiq. Rab. 49:7; Gibbs, Creation and Redemption, 103; Beasley-Murray, «Colossians 1:15–20,» 171; πρωτότοκος in 1 Chr 5LXX translates Heb. ךוש); «firstborn» could thus function as a title of Zeus (Protogonus in Damascius De principiis 123 bis, sixth century C.E., in Grant, Religions, 107), other pagan deities («Hymn to Amon-Re,» ANET, 365; PGM 1.198–199, 342–343; 13.188; Isis as prima caelitum in Apuleius Metam. 11.4; Guthrie, Orpheus, 96–97), the true God (Isa 41:4; Gen. Rab. 63:8; Pesiq. Rab. 51:3; Marmorstein, Names, 97–98). More significantly, however, «firstborn» also was Wisdom language (Philo Quest. Gen. 4.97) or Logos language (Philo Confusion 63, 146; Agric. 51; Dreams 1.215; all from Lohse, Colossians, 48; cf. Lightfoot, Colossians, 146; for Justin, see 1 Apo1. 21; Osborn, Justin, 28–29) and could be applied to Torah (Davies, Paul, 151).

³²⁰⁹

Robinson, Problem, 69, regards άρχή as a technical kerygmatic term in Mark 1:1, citing Matt 4:17; Luke 3:23; 4:21; 23:5; John 1:1; 2:11; Acts 1:1; 10:37. Via, Kerygma, 143, uses John 1and Gen 1to suggest new creation imagery in Mark 1:1.

³²¹⁰

Aune, Environment, 48, citing Polybius 1.5.1; 5.31.1–2; Tacitus Hist. 1.1.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 1.8.4. It also can represent the «beginning» of tradition (Luke 1:1) or narration (Apollonius of Rhodes 1.1).

³²¹¹

Sir 24:9. It is true that άπ» άρχής can apply simply to «the beginning of the time in question,» e.g., Sir 51:20; John 2:11. But the context and other depictions of Wisdom in Sirach allow for no such ambiguity here (cf. also Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen. 1:1).

³²¹³

L.A.B. 32(tr., OTP2:346); cf. 1QH 1.19–20. Contrast idols, which were not really «from the beginning,» άπ» άρχής (Wis 14:13).

³²¹⁴

Sipre Deut. 37.1.3 (but some others contend for the sanctuary or the land of Israel).

³²¹⁵

Gen. Rab. 1(third-century sources); cf. Exod. Rab. 30:9; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 3:24.

³²¹⁶

E.g., b. Ned. 39b, bar. (arguing from Prov 8:22); Pesah. 54a, bar.; Midr. Pss. 90:3; cf. Midr. Pss. 72:17; 93:2. Davies, Paul 170 n. 5, also lists b.
Šabb. 88b-89a; Zebah. 116a.

³²¹⁷

Gen. Rab. 1:4. Hamerton-Kelly suggests that the préexistence of all was actual in the baraita in b. Ned. 39b; Pesah. 54a. The later Platonic distinction between actual and ideal préexistence being limited to where it is explicitly stated (Gen. Rab. 1:4; Pre-existence, 20), some Platonic speculation may have affected conceptualizations earlier; cf. «Abot R. Nat. 37, §95 B, which lists the Ten Commandments as among ten things that preexisted in God’s plan. Further, God’s tabernacle «prepared from the beginning,» άπ» άρχής (Wis 9:8), may refer to the ideal tabernacle, the heavenly prototype.

³²¹⁸

R. Berekiah (fifth century), Lev. Rab. 30:16.

³²¹⁹

E.g., b. Ned. 39b, bar.; Pesah. 54a, bar.; Gen. Rab. 1:4; Lev. Rab. 14(his spirit); Pesiq. Rab. 33:6; Midr. Pss. 72:17; cf. similarly Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 138; Schoeps, Paul, 150; Urbach, Sages, 1:684. Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 586, suggest that the preexistent-messiah tradition may appropriate Christian theology. In Mek. Pisha 1.54–56, all Israel was «fit for the kingship» until David was chosen, which would argue against a préexistent messiah in this stream of Tannaitic tradition (i.e., it may have fallen only to Akibás heirs).

³²²⁰

E.g., «Abot R. Nat. 37, §95 B; Gen. Rab. 1:4. Moses appears as preexistent or premeditated in T. Mos. 1and in very late Samaritan tradition (MacDonald, Samaritans, 162–79; cf. 423–24 on the date); cf. Moses» divinity in Philo Sacrifices 9; Exod. Rab. 8:1; Num. Rab. 15:13; based on Exod 7:1. Cf. 2 Clem. 14.1 for the preexistence of the church (2 Clement reflects many Jewish motifs).

³²²¹

We are assuming here that the Similitudes might not be pre-Christian; see 1 En. 48:3,6 (OTP 1cites 1 En. 46:1–2; 48:3; 62:7; 4 Ezra 12:32; 13:26, on 2 Bar. 30:1; the last reference may not imply a préexistent messiah).

³²²²

They also exhibit few of the other parallels cited here in the prologue, although on creation see comments on John 1:3.

³²²³

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:24; Gen. Rab. 8:2; Lev. Rab. 19(«before the Beginning»); Pesiq. Rab. 46:1; Midr. Pss. 90:3; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen. 3:24. Ibn Ezra (twelfth century C.E.) concurred with this opinion but did not regard it as literal, observing that one could not calculate years without days nor days before creation (Jacobs, Exegesis, 14–15).

³²²⁴

«Abot R. Nat. 31 A (R. Eliezer b. R. Yose the Galilean); b. Šabb. 88b (R. Joshua bar Levi, third century).

³²²⁵

It is also evident that Torah, once created, was eternal (Bar 4:1; 1 En. 93:6; L.A.B. 9:8; 11:2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:2; cf. Jub. 2:33).

³²²⁶

Cf. Loewe in Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 171: «The pre-existence of the Torah is very often merely tantamount to an expression that God Himself is bound by His own Laws.» Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.154–156 uses the law’s antiquity (albeit not its metaphysical préexistence) apologetically (cf. Ag. Ap. 1.1–29, 196, 215–218, 227; 2.1, 144, 279, 288).

³²²⁷

E.g., L.A.B. 9:8; 2 Bar. 57:2.

³²²⁹

Jub. 2:30; 3:8,10; 6:2,18–19; 7:3; 14:24; 16:21; 22:1–9; 44:4. See Schultz, «Patriarchs,» passim, who contrasts Genesis’s Noahides with Jubilees» (and some later Jewish sources») law keepers; cf. Endres, Interpretation, 3–4 (though Sinai apparently began a new era in Israel’s history; cf. Wintermute in OTP 2:39, following Testuz [if the latter is correct]).

³²³⁰

E.g., Jub. 33:15–16. Compare the exoneration of David’s royal polygyny on the questionable grounds that the law was unknown in his day (CD 5.2; cf. Keener, Marries, 41,161), and the rabbis» holding Gentiles responsible for the Noahide laws precisely because they know better.

³²³¹

M. Qidd. 4:14; b. Sotah 14a; Gen. Rab. 92:4; 95:3; Exod. Rab. 1:1; Lev. Rab. 2:10. Oral Torah likewise existed before the Rabbis (Solomon in b. ^cErub. 21b); R. Hisda even contended that Abraham was far more proficient in the mishnaic tractate
^cAbbodah Zarah than any contemporary rabbis (b. ^cAbod. Zar. 14b)! Although earlier sources do not comment on this, the admission of Justin’s Trypho that only circumcision was practiced before Moses is probably fabricated (Justin Dia1. 46).

³²³²

Rissi, «Word,» 396; Brown, John, 1:4. Westcott, John, 2, and Bernard, John, 1find supra-temporal existence in the imperfect tense of the verb; cf. similarly Boismard, Prologue, 7; Morris, John, 73. Cf. the title for God in Apoc. Ab. 9(possibly as early as the second century C.E.): «Before-the-World» (OTP 1:693). The suggested distinction between eternals and immortals in some Greek thought (e.g., Herodotus Hist. 2.43, 145–146, in Talbert, Gospel, 26–27) is not particularly helpful here (first, most Greek mythology detailed deities» origin, and second, John’s frame of thought is monotheistic).

³²³³

For comments on self-begotten or unbegotten deity in other texts from this period, see comment on 5:26.

³²³⁴

Hillelites reportedly contended that «was» in Gen 1indicates the state, hence existence, of earth before the creation (p. Hag. 2:1, §17; this undoubtedly reflects Greek speculation–see comment on John 1:3); yet it remains doubtful in view of later rabbinic opinions that they actually viewed it as eternally préexistent.

³²³⁵

See esp. Bultmann, John, 31, for whom the implied contrast between «created» or «became» and «was» alone is adequately decisive.

³²³⁶

The importance of this to John’s Christology is evident in his framing device: he frames the whole body of the Gospel with confessions of Jesus» deity (1:1; 20:28; see Cullmann, Christology, 308).

³²³⁸

Wis 8:3. Cf. the close relationship between Isis and Osiris, Isis being mediator (Plutarch Mor. 352A in Betz and Smith, «De Iside,» 41).

³²³⁹

Gen. Rab. 1:1, using language from Prov. 8:30. Freedman and Simon observe (Midrash Rabbah 1n. 1) that here «the Torah was with God as with a tutor, reared, as it were, by the Almighty.» Cf. Burkitt, Gnosis, 95, who suggests that John here echoes Genesis, which pictures God «producing the creation by consulting with Himself.»

³²⁴⁰

Pollard, «Relationships,» 364–65 (all six instances outside John connote «active relationship or intercourse «with»»); cf. Carson, Discourse, 92. The construction here represents neither movement toward God (Ellis, John, 21; Stevens, Theology, 90; cf. Morris, John, 76) nor an Aramaism; by this period, prepositions were becoming more ambiguous (cf., e.g., μετ» αλλήλων in 6and προς αλλήλους in 6:52).

³²⁴¹

E.g., Pereira, «Word,» 182, citing 7:29. On relations among Father, Son, and Spirit in this Gospel, see more fully Harner, Analysis, 1–43; cf. also Gruenler, Trinity.

³²⁴²

On strained relations in Rome, cf. Sussman, «Sons.»

³²⁴⁴

Trudinger, «Non-deity»; cf. Robinson, Priority, 393.

³²⁴⁷

See Petersen, Sociology, 123.

³²⁴⁸

Wiles, Gospel, 11–12.

³²⁴⁹

E.g., Euripides E1. 1298–1300; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.245; cf. Homer Il. 18.94–96; Ovid Metam. 4.234–244. Most deities could not restore life once it was gone (Ovid Metam. 2.612–613).

³²⁵⁰

E.g., Homer Od. 4.459–461; Apollodorus 2.5.11 (cf. magical papyri for the manipulation of demons).

³²⁵¹

E.g., 2Macc 6:26; 3Macc 5:7; Wis 7:25; Let. Arts. 185; Sib. Or. 1.66; T. Ab. 8:3; 15:12A; b. Šabb. 88b; Yebam. 105b; Yoma 12a; cf. Goodenough, Symbols, 2:179.

³²⁵²

E.g., Virgil Aen. 1.60; 3.251; 4.25, 206, 220; 6.592; 7.141, 770; 8.398; 9.625; 10.100, 668; 12.178,791; Georg. 2.325; Ovid Metam. 1.154; 2.304,401,505; 3.336; 9.271; 14.816; Valerius Flaccus 3.249; Plutarch Isis 2, Mor. 352A; Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 232, also cites Macrobius Sat. 1.23.21. But Juno might be omnipotens (Virgil Aen. 7.428) yet prove unable to prevail against Fate (7.314); other deities appear as omnipotent, e.g., Pluto in Orphic Hymns 18.17 (but perhaps as the «chthonic Zeus,» 18.3). In unrelated religious traditions, see, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 40–41.

³²⁵³

E.g., Ovid Metam. 2.685–686.

³²⁵⁴

Ovid Metam. 2.687–707.

³²⁵⁵

E.g., Sophocles Searchers 212–215 (Sei. Pap. 3:44–45); Euripides Antiope 69–71; Pirithous 22–24 (Sei. Pap. 3:124–125); Virgil Aen. 1.28; Ovid Metam. 2.714–747; 3.1–2, 260–261; 4.234–244; 5.391–408; 10.155–219; 14.765–771; Achilles Tatius 1.5.5–7; Apuleius Metam. 6.22; Apollodorus 3.8.2. On very rare occasions a mortal escaped, outwitting the deity (Apollonius of Rhodes 2.946–954).

³²⁵⁶

E.g., Ovid Metam. 2.603–611.

³²⁵⁷

E.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.244–246,275; Athenagoras 20–22; Theophilus 1.9; Ps.-Clem. 15.1–19.3.

³²⁵⁸

E.g., Euripides Bacch. 94–98; Appian R.H 12.15.101; Ovid Metam. 3.261–272, 280–309; 4.416–530.

³²⁵⁹

E.g., Euripides Hipp. 1–28,1400–1403 (because deities desire honor, Hipp. 8); Apollonius of Rhodes 3.64–65.

³²⁶⁰

Ovid Metam. 4.543–562; 5.409–437.

³²⁶¹

Often they inspired them with folly that destroyed them (Homer I1. 18.311–313; but cf. Also 1Sam 2:25; 2Sam 17:14).

³²⁶²

E.g., Euripides Orest. 417–418, 595–596. This seems to exceed sentiments such as those in 2Sam 6:8; Ps 89:38–49.

³²⁶³

E.g., Ovid Tristia 1.2.4–5. Even if Homer authored both the Iliad and the Odyssey, it remains noteworthy that the former portrays a much less harmonious pantheon; later Roman sources (e.g., the Aeneid) also portray their deities more favorably than the Iliad.

³²⁶⁴

Odysseus in Euripides Cyc1. 606–607. In prayer, pagans often piled up as many names of the deity they were entreating as possible (e.g., Homer I1. 1.37–38, 451–452; 2.412; PGM 4.2916–2927; Cleanthes» Hymn to Zeus; more restrained, ILS 190) and reminded a deity of favors owed, seeking an answer on contractual grounds, as many ancient texts attest (e.g., Homer Il. 1.39–41; 10.291–294; Od. 1.61–62,66–67; 4.762–764; 17.240–242; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.417–419; Virgil Aen. 12.778).

³²⁶⁵

E.g., Pliny Nat. 2.5.17; Seneca Dia1. 7.26.6; Nat. 2.44.1–2.45.1; Maximus of Tyre Or. 5.1; 35.1.

³²⁶⁶

E.g.,Musonius Rufus 16,p. 106.6–8; 17,p. 108.8–18; see further Lutz,«Musonius,»27 n. 111.

³²⁶⁷

Dillon, «Philosophy,» 795. Many also held him to be ineffable (Maximus of Tyre Or. 2.10).

³²⁶⁸

Cf., e.g., Diogenes Laertius 7.1.134, 148; Seneca Nat. 1.pref.13. Pantheism was also more widespread (cf. Virgil Georg. 4.221–222, 225; Aeschylus frg. 34, from Clement of Alexandria Stromata 5.14, p. 718; Aeschylus LCL 2adds Philodemus On Piety 22).

³²⁶⁹

Malherbe, Exhortation, 15; cf. Meeks, Moral World, 47.

³²⁷⁰

Frequently, e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 2.1.25; cf. the identification also in Ps-Aristotle De mundo (according to Grant, Gods, 78).

³²⁷¹

E.g., Chariton 3.3.16; Plutarch Isis 1, Mor. 351DE; T. T. 8.2.4, Mor. 720A. Cf. Plato Alcib. 1.124C: Socrates spoke of his guardian (επίτροπος) as θεός.

³²⁷²

E.g.,Strabo Geog. 16.2.35.

³²⁷³

See Meeks, Prophet-King, 103–6. It is helpful here to compare the divinization of Plato and other teachers in Hellenistic tradition (e.g., Diogenes Laertius 2.100; 6.2.63; 6.9.104; 8.1.11; 9.7.39; Plutarch Profit by Enemies 8, Mor. 90C; Apol1. 36, Mor. 120D; cf. Cicero Leg. 3.1.1); cf. lawgivers in Musonius Rufus 15, p. 96.24. One may also think of hyperbolic comparisons employed in popular rhetoric; see, e.g., Cicero De or. 1.10.40; 1.38.172; Or. Brut. 19.62.

³²⁷⁴

E.g., Philo Sacrifices 9; cf. Runia, «God.» Cf. explanations of Exod 7in Exod. Rab. 8:1; Num. Rab. 15:13. Cf. Metatron (originally a personification) as a lesser YHWH in 3 En. 12(though he turns out to be Enoch in 3 En. 4:2; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 4:24; cf. further Scholem, Gnosticism, 43–46); the righteous Messiah, and Jerusalem called by the Lord’s name (b. B. Bat. 75b; cf. Jer 23:6; Ezek 48:35); and Israel as a god (Gen. Rab. 98:3, fourth-century Amoraim). Yet R. Simeon ben Yohai (late second century) taught that associating God’s name with other gods was worse than denying his existence (b. Sanh. 63a).

³²⁷⁵

The Jewish God regularly appears as θεός (e.g., CI] 1:487, §675).

³²⁷⁶

Contrast Williamson, «Philo»; Chilton, Approaches, 200–201; their comparisons are nevertheless valuable.

³²⁷⁷

Cf. also Bultmann, John, 33 (rejecting especially Hellenistic and gnostic «polytheistic conceptions and emanationist theories» that neglect the text’s monotheistic sense); Stuart, «Examination,» 42. Greek scholars consistently deride the «a god» translation; cf., e.g., Metzger, «Translation,» 125; and esp. Bruce, Booh, 60 n. 4: those who translate «a god» here «prove nothing thereby save their ignorance of Greek grammar.»

³²⁷⁸

Cf. Miller, «Logos»; Cullmann, Christology, 308.

³²⁷⁹

E.g., Josephus Ant. 10.180; cf. Stuart, «Examination,» 42; Bultmann, John, 33; Brown, John, 1:5; Harris, Jesus as God, 287. On Josephus’s general sense for τό θεόv, cf. Shutt, «Concept.»

³²⁸¹

Let.Aris. 3; cf. 31.

³²⁸²

Metzger, «Translation,» 125; cf. Clark, Logos, 21; Sanders, John, 70 (citing the predicate nominative of 1:4). It should be noted, of course, that a writer who wished to emphasize that a predicate noun was definite was free to insert the article (Harner, «Nouns,» 87); and the pattern does not always obtain even in the context (John 1:8–9).

³²⁸³

Noted also by Stuart, «Examination,» 41.

³²⁸⁴

See Diognetus as analyzed by Meecham, «θεός.»

³²⁸⁵

Griffiths, «Predicate,» 315. For the more complex situation in Josephus, cf. Shutt, «Concept.»

³²⁸⁷

E.g., Dreams 1.65–66 (recognizing both as «god»); 1.239–240 (the Logos is to God what the parhelion is to the sun). MacGregor, John, xxxvi, acknowledges that Philo personalized the Logos, but thinks it functioned as a divine agent only figuratively.

³²⁸⁸

Dreams 1.228–230, in Hengel, Son, 80; Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 27; Haenchen, John, 1:109; cf. Borgen, «Agent,» 146.

³²⁸⁹

Cf. the practical divinity of Torah–experienced as God’s presence by Israel–in Sandmel, Judaism, 184. Justin likewise distinguishes the Logos from God while calling him God (e.g., 1 Apo1. 63, in Osborn, Justin, 30–31).

³²⁹⁰

Like Michaels, John, 7, we are inclined to accept both reasons for the lack of definite article, without determining which was decisive.

³²⁹¹

Stuart, «Examination,» 41. Cf. similarly Bernard, John, 1:2; Ellis, John, 21; Brown, Christology, 187–88; perhaps this is also what Painter, John, 57, intends.

³²⁹²

Hoskyns, Gospel, 141, contends that John means more than «divine» because the Word is personal; while John’s usage elsewhere indicates a stronger sense of «divine» than many uses (e.g., Philós for Moses), Hoskyns’s argument need not follow logically, especially given Philós Logos.

³²⁹³

MacGregor, John, 4. Kenney, John 1:1, argues that a trinitarian perspective makes more sense of the text than a unitarian one. For Jesus to be fully deity without all deity being identified with Jesus, geometric logic would represent Jesus as a member of the set «God.»

³²⁹⁴

See, e.g., Miller, «Logos»; Bultmann, John, 33; Fennema, «Only Son»; Harner, «Nouns,» 86–87; Griffiths, «Predicate,» 315; Harris, Jesus as God, 51–71,293.

³²⁹⁶

NEB; Bruce, Books, 247. An explanatory note may be needed on whichever side of caution one wishes to err; Harris, Jesus as God, 70, prefers to retain «the Word was God» but to explain that this means the same nature, not the same person.

³²⁹⁷

Irenaeus Haer. 1.1–3. On creation through angelic powers in gnosticism, see «The Apocryphon of John,» NHL 104–16; «On the Origin of the World,» NHL 161–79; Jonas, Religion, 132–36; cf. «The Gospel of the Egyptians,» NHL 195–205. Perhaps the emphasis on God’s creation of evil in Gk. Apoc. Ezra 2:9 may be antignostic.

³²⁹⁸

Cf. Irenaeus Haer. 1.26.1, on Cerinthus; Hippolytus Haer. 6.28–29, on Valentinians. Although the gnostic view of creation reflected Platonic ideas (e.g., Marcus’s creation after an invisible image, Irenaeus Haer. 1.17), the neoplatonist Plotinus found it severely wanting (Plotinus Enn. 2.9.8)

³²⁹⁹

See Cohn-Sherbok, «Mandaeans,» who cites t. Sanh. 8:7; Gen. Rab. 8:10. This may suggest a proto-Mandaic idea later incorporated into Mandaism; but its evidence may derive from a gnostic source, which may have been influenced by the Christian doctrine of the second Adam as well as rabbinic Adam speculation. Further, the polemic against minim in t. Sanh. 8may not address Adam at all; rabbis did polemicize against dual powers in creation (Gen. Rab. 1:7), but this could oppose Christians or the male-female dyad principle of some pagan (e.g., Varro L.L. 5.10.58; cf. Gen. Rab. 8:9; Pesiq. Rab. 20:2) as well as gnostic (Irenaeus Haer. 1.1.1) thought, and a polemic against gnostic or Philonic angelic mediation (cf. Urbach, Sages, 205) need not involve proto-Mandaism in particular.

³³⁰⁰

An anonymous poem in Sei. Pap. 3:544–551 (4 C.E.); cf. Enuma Elish 6.33–38.

³³⁰¹

Confusion 171, 179; Flight 69; cf. also Papias frg. 7 (from Andreas Caesariensis, ca. 500 C.E., in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:155). God created through assistants so that if his creation went astray, the assistants would be blamed (Creation 75).

³³⁰²

Despite disagreement on when angels were created, later rabbis agreed that God did not create them on the first day (contrast the earlier claim in Jub. 2:2), lest schismatics claim that angels aided in creation (Gen. Rab. 1:3; Justin Dia1. 62; cf. Gen. Rab. 8:8; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 1:26; Williams, Justin, 129; Barnard, «Judaism,» 404; Urbach, Sages, 1:203–4; for other traditions on days of creation, cf. t. Ber. 5:31; houses dispute in p. Hag. 2:1, §17; cf. Gen. Rab. 1:15), although God did consult with them (b. Sanh. 38b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 23:1; Gen. Rab. 8:3–4,8; 17:4; Lev. Rab. 29:1; Num. Rab. 19:3; see Urbach, Sages, 1:205–7). This clearly represents polemic against an existing interpretation of the plural in Gen. 1(contrast Jub. 2:3, second century b.C.E.; the plurals of Gen. 1and 11include angels–Jub. 10:22–23; cf. 14:20); polemicists before the rabbis may have also objected to the Jubilees chronology (cf. L.A.B. 60:3; 2 En. 29A; 29:3–5 J).

³³⁰³

In the DSS (Bandstra, «Errorists,» 333–35) and other sources (ibid., 335–37); it may have been opposed in Col 1and 2(cf. Yamauchi, «Colosse,» 147–48). For a fuller collection of sources on angelic mediators in creation, see Fossum, «Gen.»

³³⁰⁴

Burkitt, Gnosis, 55. This view, too, did not originate with the gnostics but in the development of the Platonic contrast between the realm of shadows and realm of ideas (on the corruptibility of all matter, cf. Plutarch Isis 78, Mor. 382F; Ε at Delphi 18, Mor. 392; Plotinus Enn. 2.4; on its consequent unreality, cf. Plotinus Enn. 3.6, esp. 3.6.6–7; on the evil (κακήν) that arises from it, see Plotinus Enn. 1.8; Epitome of Plutarch’s Gen. of Soul 2, Mor. 1030E). Philo taught that God created people through lesser powers lest he be blamed for human sin (Confusion 179) or associated with human finiteness (Flight 69). Gnostics and Philo both drew from middle Platonism; cf. Pearson, «Philo.»

³³⁰⁵

Some scholars do believe that John counters the gnostic view of creation here (Lohse, Environment, 274), but the text s lack of explicit emphasis on creation’s goodness supports this contention mainly by silence, and this scholarly position functions better on the accepted premise of a gnostic context for the Gospel rather than as a support for that premise.

³³⁰⁶

See Grant, Paul, 72; cf. Marcus Aurelius 4.23 (with different prepositions).

³³⁰⁷

MacGregor, John, 5 (accepting also the repeated «God said» of Gen 1 as background). For other Stoic perspectives on the creator, cf. Diogenes Laertius 7.1.147; Seneca Dia1. 12.8.3.

³³⁰⁸

For traditional Greek theogonies (e.g., Hesiod), see Guthrie, Orpheus, 69–72 (72–147 for Orphic theogony; for the Orphic original world-egg reported, e.g., by neoplatonists, see 93–95); these influenced Gnostics (Hippolytus Haer. 1.23; 5.5). One may compare such ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies and titanomachies as Enuma Elish (on which see Heidel, Genesis). For early Greek arguments on the possibility of void or empty space existing, see Allen, Philosophy, 16,45, 50, 55.

³³⁰⁹

Diogenes Laertius 9.7.44. But the significance of this language should not be pressed as if John’s words are directly derivative; it should be noted that various forms of γίνομαι are the most natural Greek language for such origination (e.g., Philo Creation 42; Let. Aris. 16; cf. Jos. Asen. 16:11/6); for «all things that are» in reference to creation (God alone being viewed as uncreated), cf. also an apophthegm of Thaies in Diogenes Laertius 1.35.

³³¹⁰

Diogenes Laertius 9.9.57.

³³¹¹

Nothing comes into being against God’s will except evil deeds (Cleanthes» Hymn to Zeus in Stobaeus Ed. 1.1.12, in Grant, Religions, 153).

³³¹²

1QS 11.11. This comparison was offered as early as Brownlee, «Comparison,» 72, and has often been offered subsequently (Wilcox, «Dualism,» 89; Cross, Library, 215 n. 34). Freed, «Influences,» 146, in fact, calls it «the closest parallel from the Dead Sea Scrolls yet known to any passage in the NT.»

³³¹⁴

1QS 11.17. Schnackenburg similarly comments on the contrasts between «all» and «nothing» in creation language in this document (John, 1:238); cf. a similar contrast in 1 En. 84:3.

³³¹⁵

1QS 3.15. Hengel, Judaism, 1:218–19, regards this as analogous to Greek philosophical language.

³³¹⁶

On the universés or matter’s uncreatedness and consequent eternality (the Peripatetic view), cf. Aristotle Heav. 1.9 (the heavens, not the elements, 3.6); Cicero Tusc. 1.23.54 (the heavens); an Epicurean in Cicero Nat. d. 1.9.21–22; Plotinus Enn. 2.1.1; Philo Eternity passim; Chroust, «Fragment»; idem, «Comments.» On its eternality in particular, cf. Macrobius Comm. 2.10, 19 (Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 223); Lucretius Nat. 1.215–264, 958–1115; Sidebottom, James, 119; on its continual re-creation till the present (closer to the Platonic view, cf. Bauckham, Jude, 301; cf. Stoicism in, e.g., Seneca Berief 4.8.1; Dia1. 6.26.7; Heraclitus in Diogenes Laertius 9.1.7), Gen. Rab. 3:7; Ecc1. Rab. 3:11, §1; cf. disputes in Gen. Rab. 1:5.

³³¹⁷

A view often espoused, even as late as the late-fourth-century writer Sallustius in Concerning the Gods and the Universe §§7,13,17 (Grant, Religion, 184–85,190–91,192–94).

³³¹⁸

Plato Tim. 29A-30. The universe thus originates from what is eternal, not from what has become (το γεγονός).

³³¹⁹

Cf. the Loeb introduction to Plutarch’s Gen. of Soul (Moralia, LCL 13:137); others may have simply echoed the language (e.g., Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 379, §126D; Menander Rhetor 2.17,438.16–17).

³³²⁰

Cf. Epitome of Gen. of Soul 2, Mor. 1030E; the note there refers to 1016C, 1017AB, 1014B, 1029DE, and 1030C. Stoics in Paul’s day could picture God as the universés soul (Seneca Nat. 2.45.1–2).

³³²¹

Plutarch TT. 8.2.4, Mor. 720AB (LCL 9:128–29).

³³²³

Philo Creation 16; Confusion 171.

³³²⁴

See, e.g., Cicero Nat. d. 2.54–58.133–46; a Pythagorean in Diodorus Siculus 12.20.2; Epictetus Diatr. 1.6.7; 1.16.8; Heraclitus Ep. 4; Plutarch Isis 76, Mor. 382A; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.167, 190.

³³²⁵

E.g., fifth-century B.C.E. Empedocles frg. 11 (Allen, Philosophy, 50); Lucretius Nat. 1.155, 159–160 (though atoms are invisible, 1.265–328); Moffatt, Hebrews, 162, cites Philo Eternity 2.

³³²⁶

Plato and Philo believed that visible matter was formed from visible matter (Lane, Hebrews, 332, citing Philo Migration 105, 179; Creation 16, 45; Agriculture 42; Confusion 172; cf. Plato Tim. 29E), though following the invisible pattern.

³³²⁷

Heb 11(cf. Boman, «Thought-Forms,» 13; though contrast Montefiore, Hebrews, 188); cf. Philós creation from the invisible archetypal plan (Cherubim 97; 127); Philo Creation 12; 2 En. 47A; 48A (but contrast recension J in both cases). God authored both visible and invisible worlds (Jos. Asen. 12:1–2/2; 2 En. 65:1; cf. the initially invisible earth in Gen 1LXX, due to the «darkness»).

³³²⁸

Against the world’s uncreatedness and eternality, see even most Diaspora writers, e.g., Josephus Ant. 1.70; Philo Creation 7 (in contrast to Philo Eternity); cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:180, 301.

³³²⁹

Perhaps attested early in 2Macc 7(God made heavens and earth έξ ούκ όντων), although this is disputed in articles cited below; 2 Bar. 21:4; 48:8; Moffatt, Hebrews, 162, cites also Mek. 33b on Exod 14:31; 2 Bar. 14:17; 2 En. 24:2; Philo Dreams 1.13. The earliest Israelite understanding of Genesis may represent creation ex nihilo (Heidel, Genesis, 89–96), though this remains quite disputed; this view also appears among some African peoples, such as the Nuer, Banyarwanda, and Shona (Mbiti, Religions, 51).

³³³⁰

Cf. articles from various perspectives, Goldstein, «Origins»; idem, «Creation»; Winston, «Creation»; in the rabbis, e.g., Pearl, Theology, 10–12.

³³³¹

Wis 11:17; see Winston, «Cosmogony»; Schmuttermayr, «Schöpfung.» One Amoraic exegesis of «It is good» was that God had created and destroyed earlier worlds (Gen. Rab. 9:2; cf. the Greek tradition of various races before the current one). Creation ex nihilo was not typical (cf., e.g., «The Repulsing of the Dragon and the Creation,» trans. J. A. Wilson, 6–7, in ANET; Albright, Period, 17; idem, Yahweh, 223; for chaos in Greek and Roman sources, cf. Hesiod Theog.; Ovid Metam. 1.7).

³³³²

E.g., Sipra VDDen.par. 14.30.1.3 (trans. Neusner, 1:195).

³³³³

See Bowman, Documents, 3, citing especially the «Kise ha-Beríah.»

³³³⁴

Although some revelations were known to the wise (Wis 7:17; for the «mystery» of creation in 1QH 1.11, 13 as well as other uses of the term there, cf. Casciaro Ramirez, ««Himnos»»), later teachers (2 En. 24A; recension J is similar; the context of chs. 25–32 is creation), especially the rabbis, viewed these as mysteries. Some rabbis claimed that this information was withheld due to human sin («Abot R. Nat. 39); the prohibition of publicly teaching (t. Hag. 2:1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; cf. Gen. Rab. 1:5) or even inquiring into (t. Hag. 2:7; b. Hag. 15a; p. Hag. 2:1, §15; Gen. Rab. 1:10; 2:4) such secrets suggests one reason that written references to them surface primarily later in rabbinic tradition.

³³³⁵

E.g., Apoc. Mos. 42:1–2 and note b in OTP 2:293; disputes regarding the day on which angels were created, etc., above.

³³³⁶

Cf. various sources for his thought proposed in Wolfson, Philo; Dillon, «Transcendence.»

³³³⁷

Philo Creation 36; Confusion 171. The human mind is allied to this divine Reason or Logos because it is a copy thereof (Creation 146).

³³³⁸

Philo Creation 20, 26, 31; Migration 6; cf. Athenagoras 4.

³³³⁹

Philo Planting 8–10; Heir 206.

³³⁴⁰

Philo Creation 17–19, 25, 31. The Logos was perfection, more beautiful than the beauty of creation (Creation 139; cf. Platós ideal forms, above); for the Logos as God’s image, see also Philo Confusion 97; Flight 101; for Wisdom as God’s image, Alleg. Interp. 1.43.

³³⁴¹

Philo Creation 16, 26, 36.

³³⁴²

Cf. perhaps Ps 33:4–12, although the contemporary word may simply mean God’s decree on Israel’s behalf.

³³⁴³

Philo Sacrifices 8. The human mind is a copy of the Logos (Philo Creation 146).

³³⁴⁵

Cf., e.g., Diogenes Laertius 7.1.88; Epictetus Diatr. 2.16.28; Marcus Aurelius 7.9; Watson, «Natural Law,» 216–38.

³³⁴⁶

Other commentators also observe parallels between the two on creation (Robinson, Historical Character, 106–7; Schnackenburg, John, 1:237).

³³⁴⁷

Jub. 2:2; cf. 1QS 3.15; God created people through wisdom, 4Q415 frg. 9, lines 7–11.

³³⁴⁸

1QS 11.11; 4Q402 frg. 3–4, lines 12–13. God created simply by «willing» creation’s existence (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.192; cf. Rev 4:11). The anthropomorphism of the later Tg. Neof. 1 on Deut 32required God to sustain the world only three hours a day.

³³⁴⁹

Gen. Rab. 1:1; cf. Num. Rab. 12:4; cf. comments on natural law, above, which Philo also identifies with the Torah of Moses (Creation 3). Moore, Judaism, 268, cites a third-century rabbi who contends that God studied Gen 1 and then created the world to correspond (Gen. Rab. 3:5); in some texts, God took counsel with the (preexistent) souls of the righteous (Gen. Rab. 8:7).

³³⁵⁰

Jdt 16(also mentioning God’s Spirit in this connection); 4Q422 1 1.6; 4 Ezra 6:38; Jos. Asen. 12:2/3, MSS; 2 Bar. 21:4; 48:8; Sib. Or. 1.9,19; 3.20 (the instrumental dative λόγω); 2Pet 3:5; cf. 2Cor 4:6; 1Tim 4:4–5.

³³⁵¹

Sipre Deut. 330.1.1 (trans. Neusner, 2:376); cf. later texts in Gen. Rab. 3:2; 28:2; Deut. Rab. 5:13; p. Ber. 6:1, §6; Deut 33in Targum Onqelos (Memra; cited in Moore, «Intermediaries,» 46); cf. also 1 Clem. 27. Targum Neofiti on the creation narrative emphasizes the creativity of the word of the Lord even more; see Schwarz, «Gen.»

³³⁵²

E.g., Mek. Sir. 3.44–45,49–51; 8.88; 10.29–31; Mek. ^cAm. 3.154–155; Mek. Bah. 11.111–112; Mek. Nez. 18.67–68; t. B. Qam. 7:10; Sipre Num. 78.4.1; 102.4.1; 103.1.1; SipreDeut. 33.1.1; 38.1.3–4; 49.2.2; 343.8.1; «Abot R. Nat. 1, 27, 37 A. In later texts, cf. the translation «by whose word all things exist» in b. Ber. 12a, 36ab, 38b; 40b, bar.; 44b; Sanh. 19a (pre-Tannaitic attribution); p. Pesah 2:5; Gen. Rab. 4:4,6; 32:3; 55(all Tannaitic attributions); Lev. Rab. 3:7; Num. Rab. 15:11; Deut. Rab. 7:6; Ruth Rab. 5:4; Pesiq. Rab. 21:7; Tg. Neof. on Exod 3:14; cf. Urbach, Sages 1:184–213; Marmorstein, Names, 89 (comparing also a Sumerian psalm).

³³⁵⁴

E.g., Smith, John, 23.

³³⁵⁶

Danby, Mishnah, 455, lists them as Gen 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26,29; 2:18, but they could be identified differently.

³³⁵⁷

M. «Abot 5:1; »Abot R. Nat. 31 A; 36, §91 B; 43, §119 B; Gen. Rab. 16:1; Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 399, §1092, also cite Pesiq. Rab. 108ab; cf. «The Samaritan Ten Words of Creation» in Bowman, Documents, 1–3.

³³⁵⁸

2 En. 30(human creation–A, J); 33(planning all creation–A, J); t. Sanh. 8(allegorically interpreting Prov. 9:1); «Abot R. Nat. 37 A (among seven things); b. Hag. 12a (ten things probably corresponding to ten words in the m. »Abot 5tradition); Sir 24:3–12 (alluding to Gen. 1; see Kim, Origin, 115). See further Witherington, Sage, 108–11; many scholars view this as part of the background for John 1(e.g., Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 27).

³³⁵⁹

M. «Abot 3:l4; Sipre Deut. 48.7.1; »Abot R. Nat. 44, §124 B; Exod. Rab. 47:4; Pirqe R. E1. 11 (in Versteeg, Adam, 48); Tanhuma Beresit §l, f.6b (in Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 170–71, §454; Harvey, «Torah,» 1236); cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:196–201,287. Some later rabbis went so far as to attribute the world’s creation even to specific letters (e.g., p. Hag. 2:1, §16).

³³⁶⁰

Philo Planting 8–10; Heir 206. God is the bonder of creation in 2 En. 48:6; Marcus Aurelius 10.1; cf. Wis 11:25. For the connection between creating and sustaining, cf. John 5:17. Lightfoot, Colossians, 156, helpfully cites Philo Flight 112 (word); PlantingS (divine law); Heir 188 (word).

³³⁶¹

Col 1(sustain; hold together) and commentaries (e.g., Lightfoot, Colossians, 156; Kennedy, Theology, 155; Lohse, Colossians, 52; Johnston, Ephesians, 59; Hanson, Unity, 112; Beasley-Murray, «Colossians,» 174); cf. Cicero Nat. d. 2.11.29 (a Stoic on reason); Wis 7(Wisdom’s movement does not contrast with Platós unchanging forms; Plato and others envisioned rapid motion in the pure heavens–see Winston, Wisdom, 182). Cf. 1 Clem. 27A; Sir 43.26; cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:325.

³³⁶²

B. Ned. 32a, bar.; Pesah. 68b; Gen. Rab. 4(R. Meir, second century); Exod. Rab. 37:4; Pesiq. Rab. 21:21; perhaps 1 En. 2(cosmic law in the Ethiopie; the Aramaic here is illegible); 72:2; 73:1: 74:1; 76:14; 78:10; 79:1–2; 1QM 10.12–13. This identifying of creative Wisdom and Torah «corresponded in an astonishing way with the Stoic idea of the world nomos and the moral law ordering the life of the individual» (Hengel, Judaism, 1:170; see comments on natural law in our introductory chapter on the prologue).

³³⁶³

M. «Abot 1:2; b. Ned. 32a, bar., R. Judah; p. Ta^can. 4:2, §13; Deut. Rab. 8:5; thus Resh Lakish (third-century Palestine) declared that had Israel not accepted Torah, God would have returned creation to nonexistence (b. ^cAbod. Zar. 3a, 5a; Šabb. 88a; echoed by later rabbis in Exod. Rab. 40:1; 47:4; Num. Rab. 2:6; Ruth Rab. proem 1); Israel’s existence also depends on observing Torah (Mek. ^cAm. 1.6–7). For practicing the cosmic law, cf. similarly Hengel, Judaism, 1:170.

³³⁶⁴

B. Sanh. 113b, bar.; p. ^cAbod. Zar. 2:1, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 19:6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:11; cf. m. «Abot 1:2, 18; perhaps Isa 51:16; Rom 9:22–23; 2Pet 3:9. This could apply specifically to Israel (e.g., L.A.B. 44:6–8; b. Ta^can. 3b, third century; Exod. Rab. 2:5; Num. Rab. 1:3; Deut. Rab. 7:7, bar.; Song Rab. 7:1, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 11:5), to Moses and David (Sipre Deut. 26.1.1), or the patriarchs (Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.5; Lev. Rab. 36:5) such as Abraham (e.g., Gen. Rab. 12:9, Tannaitic; Ruth Rab. proem 7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:20) or Jacob (Gen. Rab. 96 MSV, Tannaitic); or the sages (Targum to 1 Chr 4:23). The merit of the righteous also preserved localities (e.g., b. Ta^can. 21b).

³³⁶⁵

«Abot R. Nat. 31, §66; Gen. Rab. 1:4, 10; 12(fourth century); Lev. Rab. 23(fourth century); Song Rab. 5:11, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 4:3; 21:21; cf. Co1. 1:15–16; Davies, Paul, 171 (who seeks to press the earlier m. »Abot 1into use). R. Akiba reportedly said this especially of Song of Songs (Song Rab. 1:11, §11), perhaps to keep it canonized. Some thus said that the world was created on the merit of Torah (Num. Rab. 13:15–16; 14:12), and that Torah was greater than creation (reportedly third-century Palestinian source in Exod. Rab. 47:5; Pesiq. Rab. 21:21; 51:1).

³³⁶⁶

2 Bar. 15:7; 21:24; Sipre Deut. 47.3.1–2; b. Ber. 6b, 61b (R. Hanina ben Dosa); Šabb. 30b; Sanh. 98b (David; Moses; Messiah); Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1(Abraham); Gen. Rab. 1(fifth century); Tg. Neof. on Num 22(the patriarchs); Tg. 1 Chr. 4(the sages); thus some could say the world was created by the righteous (Ruth Rab. 2:3, late), e.g., the patriarchs (Lev. Rab. 36:4, fourth century).

³³⁶⁷

T.
Mos. 1:12–13; 4 Ezra 6:59; 7:11; Sipre Deut. 47.3.1; b. Ber. 32b; Pesiq. Rab. 4:1, 3; 28:2; Targum Sheni to Esth 5:1; cf. b. Ber. 32a; even Torah was created for Israel (Mark 2:27; Sipre Deut. 47.3.2; Ecc1. Rab. 1:4, §4, purportedly Tannaitic tradition); the prophets prophesy only for Israel (Mek. Pisha 1.166). Herrn. Vis. 2.4 transfers this image to the church (cf. James in Gos. Thorn. 12); in 2 Bar. 21:7, the world exists for God. For a survey of purposes for creation, see Moore, Judaism, 1:383.

³³⁶⁸

Cf. 1Tim 6:17; 2 Bar. 14:18–19; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5(ed. Wahl, 31); Apoc. Sedr. 3(ed. Wahl, 39); Ecc1. Rab. 7:13, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 46:2.

³³⁶⁹

Cicero Nat. d. 2.62.154; Chrysippus in Cicero Fin. 3.20.67; Grant, Gods, 114; on Philós use of Stoic tradition here, see Jobling, «Dominion.»

³³⁷⁰

E.g., Chrysippus in Aulus Gellius 7.1.1–2.

³³⁷¹

Lucretius Nat. 2.167–183; 5.156–194; cf. 5.195–533.

³³⁷²

Also Herrn. Sim. 9.12.2. Stuart, «Examination,» 282, translates «by» him rather than «through» him, contending that δια is not always instrumental before a genitive (e.g., Xenophon Mem. 1.2.14).

³³⁷⁴

Based on the sense, Calvin, John, 1:30–31; Ridderbos, John, 37.

³³⁷⁵

Miller, Salvation-History, 14, 76–89 (applying it to the incarnation); Cidrac, «Ponctuation.» Less plausibly, Burney, Origin, 29, suggests an Aramaic reconstruction meaning, «because in him was life.» But it is doubtful that John’s wording represents a mistake or mistranslation even on the unlikely thesis that John used a Semitic original for his prologue (cf. Schlatter, «Problem,» 55).

³³⁷⁸

Van Minnen, «Punctuation,» prefers «nothing came into being without him that exists in him; he was life»; Cohee, «1.3–4,» views ο γέγονεν as a gloss.

³³⁷⁹

The importance of light imagery for John is rarely missed; cf., e.g., Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 27; Culpepper, Anatomy, 190–92; more fully, Koester, Symbolism, 123–54. «Darkness» (σκοτία) appears eight times in John, six times in 1 John, and twice elsewhere in the NT (although σκότος occurs often in the NT, it appears only once in John; Tenney, John, 306). Given the theological significance of these themes, the common ancient understanding of light from, rather than to, onés eyes (e.g., 1 En. 106:2; Jos. Asen. 6:6/3; Plutarch T.T. 1.8.4, Mor. 626C; cf. Sir 23:19; Allison, «Eye») should never be pressed in John (light was admitted rather than emitted in some texts like Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; cf. Democritus in Diogenes Laertius 9.7.44).

³³⁸⁰

Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 27.

³³⁸¹

Smith, John (1999), 48.

³³⁸²

As Smith, John (1999), 48, notes, it is appropriate there. But such patterns appear elsewhere, e.g., Demosthenes Against Conon 19; Sipre Deut. 161.1.3; b. ^cAbod. Zar. 20b; p. Šeqa1. 3:3; Ber. 61a; Rom 5:3–5; Jas 1:14–15; 2Pet 1:5–7 (similar to Wis 6:17–20). For similar kinds of repetition, see, e.g., Demetrius 5.268 (for anaphora), 270; Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.25.34–35.

³³⁸³

Jonas, Religion, 57–58; Bultmann, Epistles, 16 (stressing gnosticism but also mentioning OT, Judaism, and other Hellenistic sources). Dodd, Interpretation, 36, points out that the divine is both life and light in the Hermetica, especially Poimandres; Lee, Thought, 37, stresses Poimandres as well (Corp. herm. 1.5,6,12,21; 13.7–9,18; also Ginza, R. 5.2,179, 22–27 in Mandean literature).

³³⁸⁴

Minear, Images, 129, contends that the NT image of light draws from all streams of ancient thought (OT, rabbinic, apocalyptic, Essene, hermetic, and gnostic literature), and lists many references in the NT itself (Images, 128; cf. Manson, Paul and John, 118–19).

³³⁸⁵

E.g., Seneca Ep. Luci1. 48.8 (lumen); Plutarch Lect. 17, Mor. 47C (πολύ φως); cf. Philo Creation 53; Porphyry Marc. 13.224; 20.329–330; 26.403,406,415; darkness as ignorance in Valerius Maximus 7.2.ext.la; Maximus of Tyre Or. 29.5; Porphyry Marc. 13.223–225; Acts 17:27; 26:18; Eph 4:18.

³³⁸⁶

Philo Dreams 1.75 (from Ps 27:1). Argyle, «Philo and Gospel,» 385, points to the Logos as a source of light and life in Philo (Alleg. Interp. 3.25–26; Planting 9).

³³⁸⁷

E.g., Maximus of Tyre Or. 34.1; see comment on 20:12. Orators also praised the brilliance of deities (e.g., Menander Rhetor 2.17,438.12–13, 20–24); writers also used light to symbolize the divine nature or care (Iamblichus Myst. 1.9,13).

³³⁸⁸

See on this theme pp. 247–51, above; cf. Platós parable of the shadows in the cave and the necessity of facing the light.

³³⁸⁹

Enz, «Dualism,» thinks the dualism originates ultimately from the good-evil dualism of Israel’s history.

³³⁹⁰

E.g., Matt 4(Isa 9:1); 5(Ps 27:1; I would cite here esp. Isa 42:6; 49:6); Luke 2(Isa 42:6; 49:6), as noted by Painter, John, 33.

³³⁹¹

E.g., 1QS 3.3 and passim; 1Q27 1.5–6; 4Q183 2.4–8 (and perhaps 4Q185 1–2 2.6–8); Γ. Job 43:6/4; Sib. Or. frg. 1.26–27 (in Charles, Pseudepigrapha, 2:377); cf. 1 En. 108:12–14.

³³⁹³

E.g., 1QS 3.19–22; 1QM 13.5–6, 14–15. The DSS added dualism to the OT images (Brown, John, 1:340; cf. Charlesworth, «Comparison»); these are now often used as Johannine background here (e.g., Ellis, World, 27–28). Treves, «War,» 421, acknowledges OT influence on the Scrolls» «light» imagery, but thinks the imagery is «ultimately of Iranian origin.» Hebrew emphasis on contrasting opposites (like «day» and «night») to represent a whole (cf. Gordon, East, 35 n. 3), and poetic use of metaphoric language, suggest to us that the imagés Jewish roots lay in the OT, though probably accentuated under Persian influence during the exile (cf. similarly Manson, Paul and John, 118–19).

³³⁹⁵

It existed before visible things (2 En. 24:4, A, J; cf. R. Judah’s view in Exod. Rab. 50:1) or appeared on the first day (e.g., b. Hag. 12a; Gen. Rab. 42:3; see fuller discussion in Urbach, Sages, 1:208–10), and by it one could see from one end of the world to the other (3 En. 5:3; b. Hag. 12a; p. Ber. 8:6, §5; Gen. Rab. 42:3; Lev. Rab. 11:7; Num. Rab. 13:5; Ruth Rab. proem 7; Pesiq. Rab. 23:6). Hengel, Judaism, 1:169, points to the «way Jewish-Palestinian and Pythagorean-Platonic and Stoic conceptions are intermingled in Aristobulus» on the primeval light; cf. perhaps the sun’s scattering of chaos in Menander Rhetor 2.17, 438.20–24. Cf. the Yozer Or, «The Creator of Light» prayer, in later synagogue liturgy (Bowman, Gospel, 68); Philo Creation 30–35.

³³⁹⁶

Borgen, «Logos,» thinks John midrashically connects Torah with Word and light on the basis of Jewish traditions on Gen 1:1–3 (note esp. 117, 124, 129); cf. Martin Luther, 1st Sermon on John 1. Pagels, «Exegesis,» thinks the Gospel of Thomas interprets primeval light as continuing since creation, but John refutes it.

³³⁹⁷

E.g., 2Cor 4:6; the first-century C.E. pagan writer Longinus Sub1. 9.9 also attributes it to Moses. Cf. the Memra and creation of light in Tg. Neof. on Gen 1:3–5; God distinguished light from darkness for humanity’s sake in 4Q392 frg. 1.

³³⁹⁸

Because of human sin, it was hidden till the eschatological time (cf. b. Hag. 12a; Gen. Rab. 11:2; 42:3; Exod. Rab. 18:11; Lev. Rab. 11:7; Num. Rab. 13:5; Pesiq. Rab. 23:6; 42:4).

³³⁹⁹

E.g., 1 En. 1:8; 5:7; 108:11–14; 1QM 17.6–7; 4Q541 9 1.4–5; Sib. Or. 2.316 (probably in Christian redaction); «Abot R. Nat. 37, §95 B; b. Hag. 12b; Pesah. 50a; Sanh. 91b; Ta^can. 15a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:3–5; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:1; Exod. Rab. 14:3; 18:11; Lev. Rab. 6:6; Song Rab. 1:3, §3; Ecc1. Rab. 11:7, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 36:1; 42:4; Matt 13:43; Rev 22:5. Boismard, Prologue, 119–24, is impressed with eschatological light in the OT (Job 30:26; Ps 35:8–10; Isa 45for light representing good, ultimately applied to the future in Isa 9:2–6; 42:6–7; 49:6; 60:1–11) as a background for John 1:4; Freed, «Influences,» 145–47, cites numerous passages but believes that Isa 60:1–3,5,19, esp. 1–3, forms the primary background.

³⁴⁰⁰

Sir 50:6–7 (Simon ben Onias like the sun); L.A.B. 51(possibly Samuel); «Abot R. Nat. 25 A and b. Ber. 28b (Johanan ben Zakkai); »Abot R. Nat. 9, §25 Β (Adam as a lamp; p. Šabb. 2:6, §2); 13, §32 Β (R. Eliezer); p. Ta^can. 3:9, §4 (Honi the circle-drawer); Exod. Rab. 15(Daniel’s friends in Dan 3:27); Pesiq. Rab. 8(the patriarchs); priests (possibly 4Q504–506); cf. «Abot R. Nat. 24 A and Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 40(righteous in general); Gen. Rab. 1(righteous deeds). The expression must have been fairly widespread; Anna considers her son Tobias «the light of my eyes» (Tob 10:5); a source may have been 2Sam 21(cf. 1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19). In the eschatological time, see Wis 3:7–8 (cf. 5:6); Matt 13:43; Rev 22:5; L.A.B. 26:13; 4 Ezra 7:97; 2 En. 65A; Sipre Deut. 47.2.1–2; b. Sanh. 100a; Lev. Rab. 30:2; Ecc1. Rab. 1:7, §9; Abelson, Immanence, 89, cites Ya1. Ps. 72. Cf. a pagan metaphor for a skillful sophist (Eunapius Lives 495) or heroes (Menander Rhetor 2.11, 419.18–20; Philostratus Hrk. 44.5; 45.5).

³⁴⁰¹

T. Ab. 7:14B; Gen. Rab. 2:3; 30:10; Pesiq. Rab. 20:2.

³⁴⁰²

Ruth Rab. 2(probably fourth century).

³⁴⁰³

Sipre Num. 93.1.3; b. Sotah 12a, 13a; Exod. Rab. 1:20,22, 24; Pesiq. Rab. 15:4.

³⁴⁰⁵

1 En. 48(from the Similitudes, alluding to Isa 42:6; 49:6); the eschatological high priest in lQSb 4.27; and Amoraic sources in Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 6:5; Gen. Rab. 1:6; 85:1; Pesiq. Rab. 36:1–2; 37:2; kingship in general in Tg. 1 Chr. SM.

³⁴⁰⁶

E.g., Sir 17:19; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:1; uses of Isa 60in the late Song Rab. 1:3, §2; 1:15, §4; 4:1, §2.

³⁴⁰⁷

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21(citing Isa 60:3); Gen. Rab. 59(citing Isa 60:3).

³⁴⁰⁸

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5, bar.; Gen. Rab. 2(the temple in the messianic era; citing Isa 60:1); 3(fifth century, citing Jer 17:12; Ezek 43:2).

³⁴⁰⁹

1QH 7.24–25; 4 Bar. 9:3; L.A.B. 12:9; L.A.E. 28:2; T. Zeb. 9(paraphrasing Mai 4:2); PGM 4.1219–1222; perhaps 4Q451, frg. 24, line 7; cf. Sib. Or. 3:285; b. Menah. 88b (late second century); Gen. Rab. 3(third century, citing Ps 104:2; also in Exod. Rab. 50:1); Gen. Rab. 59(citing Isa 60:19); Num. Rab. 15:2; Pesiq. Rab. 8(citing Ps 27:1; 119:105); 21(citing Isa 60:19); Rev 21:23. In rabbinic texts, this often alludes to the Shekinah (the divine presence, closely connected with his glory, although Urbach, Sages, 1:44–47, disputes Abelson’s view of its physical nuances), e.g., Sipre Num. 41.1.1; b. Ber. 60b; the Shekinah of the first exodus is also depicted as light (e.g., Wis 17; 18:1–3; b. Menah. 86b; Exod. Rab. 14:3).

³⁴¹⁰

Wis 6:12; 7:26, 29–30; 1QS 2.3; 11.5–6; 1QM 1.8; 4 Ezra 14:20–21; cf. Sir 22:11; Tatian 13; Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.45 (the Logos). Cf. the light of knowledge in both LXX and Qumran readings of Isa 53:11, adding (?) light to what became the MT (cf. Seeligmann, «Phos»). For light representing wisdom and law in the OT, see the references in Malatesta, Inferiority, 99–102; Boismard, Prologue, 114 (esp. Ps 19:9; 119:105; Prov 4:18–19; 6:23; Eccl 2:13).

³⁴¹¹

Bar 4:2; 4Q511 frg. 1, lines 7–8; frg. 18, lines 7–8; CI] 1:409, §554 (Hebrew on a bronze lamp in Italy); L.A.B. 9:8; 11:1–2; 15:6; 19:4, 6; 23:10; 33end (legis lumine; MSS: legis lumen); 51:3; 2 Bar. 17:4; 18:1–2; 59:2; Sipre Num. 41.1.2; p. B. Mesi^ca 2:5, §2; Hor. 3:1, §2; Sukkah 5:1, §7; Gen. Rab. 26:7; Pesiq. Rab. 8:5; 46:3; cf. L.A.B. 37(the «truth» from the bush illuminabatMoses); Sipre Deut. 343.7.1; Gen. Rab. 3:5; Exod. Rab. 36:3; Num. Rab. 14:10; Deut. Rab. 4:4; 7:3; Ecc1. Rab. 11:7, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 17:7. Torah also appears as fire (m. «Abot2:10; Sipre Deut. 343.11.1; »Abot R. Nat. 43, §121 B–Deut 33:2; b. Besah 25b–school of R. Ishmael; Ta^can. 7a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2; Jer 23:29; Song Rab. 5:11, §6; the Ten Commandments as lightnings in Tg. Neof. on Exod 20:2–3; Tg. Ps.-]. on Exod 20:2–3; Tg. Neof. on Deut 5:6–7) or summons heavenly fire (p. Hag. 2:1, §9; Song Rab. 1:10, §2), and specific commandments, such as the Sabbath, appear as light (Pesiq. Rab. 8:4).

³⁴¹²

Dodd, Interpretation, 84; Barrett, John, 157; Lightfoot, Gospel, 48.

³⁴¹³

The «glory» in Exod 33is described as a «cloud» (34:5), which is depicted elsewhere in the context (33:9,10) in terms similar to the pillar of fire (13:21–22; 14:24; 40:38).

³⁴¹⁴

See introduction for a brief treatment of this motif. «Life» occurs 36 times in John, 17 times in Revelation, 14 times in Romans, and 13 times in 1 John (Morris, John, 82).

³⁴¹⁵

Although Wheldon, Spirit, 18, is not wrong to associate life with the Spirit in John (cf. 6:63), it is first of all associated with Christ.

³⁴¹⁶

E.g., Wis 8:13,17; Sir 4:12; 17:11; cf. 1 En. 98:10,14; 2 Bar. 38:2. Greek writers could associate philosophy with living properly (Crates Ep. 6, to students; Cyn. Ep. 56–57–ζην). See also the biblical references in Painter, John, 49.

³⁴¹⁷

Bar 3:9; 4:1–2; Pss. So1. 14:1–2; L.A.B. 23:10; 2 Bar. 38:2; m. «Abot 2:7 (Hillel: the more Torah, the more life, חיים; and later in the same text, «he who gains for himself words of Torah, gains for himself the life of the world to come,» חיי העולם הבא; b. »Abot6:7, bar.; «Abot R. Nat. 34 A (among other things); »Abot R. Nat. 35 B; Sipre Deut. 306.22.1; 336.1.1; b. Hag. 3b; Roš Haš. 18a; p. Ber. 2:2, §9; Exod. Rab. 41:1; Lev. Rab. 29:5; Num. Rab. 5:8; 10:1; 16:24; Deut. Rab. 7:1,3,9; Tg. Ecc1. 6:12. Cf. the tradition of souls departing or being restored at Sinai (usually of Torah bringing Israel life but disobedient nations death), e.g., b. Šabb. 88b; Exod. Rab. 5:9; Lev. Rab. 1:11; Deut. Rab. 1:6; Song Rab. 5:16, §3. The exact sense of Odes So1. 3is slightly more difficult to determine, but may refer to God as the life (cf. Gen. Rab. 1:5; 43:3; Num. Rab. 10:1).

³⁴¹⁸

E.g., Ladd, Theology, 498.

³⁴¹⁹

E.g., Bar 4:2; L.A.B. 23:10; Deut. Rab. 7:3; light and eternal life are also linked in, e.g., 2 En. 42(A, J).

³⁴²⁰

Sir 3:5–6, 12–15; L.A.B. 11:9. Long life could reward obedience (1QS 4.7; 11QT 65.3–5; Ps-Phoc. 229–230; b. Ber. 13b, bar.; Meg. 28b; p. Ta^can. 4:2, §8; Gen. Rab. 59:1; Num. Rab. 11:4; Ecc1. Rab. 3:2, §3; cf. Josephus War 2.151) but would not be confused with perpetual life (Aulus Gellius2.16.10).

³⁴²¹

Sipre Deut. 336.1.1; cf. m. Réah 1:1; «Abot R. Nat. 40A; p. Hag. 2:1, §9; Qidd. 1:7, §6.

³⁴²²

E.g., Sophocles Phil 415; Euripides Hec. 435; Hipp. 57; Phoen. 1547–1548, 1553; Ale. 18, 206–207,395,437,852; Virgil Aen. 12.660. «Looking on light» means continuing to live (Ale. 82,271, 457,691, 1073)

³⁴²³

E.g., Homer I1. 4.503,526; 5.22,47,310; Euripides Hipp. 1444; Phoen. 1453; Ale. 989–990; Virgil Aen. 6.545; Georg. 4.497; Ovid Metam. 10.54; Propertius Eleg. 2.20.17; Silius Italicus 7.586,690,724.

³⁴²⁴

Lux nostra, Cicero writing to his wife about their daughter, Earn. 14.5.1

³⁴²⁶

E.g., Rhet. Alex. 26, 1435b.25–39; Anderson, Glossary, 21–22; Rowe, «Style,» 142 (citing as examples Gregory Nazianzus Or. 3; Augustine Ep. 196.6); for the LXX, Lee, «Translations of OT,» 780.

³⁴²⁷

E.g., Seneca Ep. Luci1. 122.3–4; cf., e.g., Macrobius Comm. 1.2.2 (in Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 225; he cites as relevant to John 1also Macrobius Sat. 3.10, where nox me comprehendit); cf. also texts on spiritual blindness in Seneca Ep. Luci1. 50.3; see further under John 9:39–40. See similarly, e.g., Lucan C.W. 6.624; comments on John 20:12.

³⁴²⁸

Gen. Rab. 33:1; 89:1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:1; other connotations sometimes existed, however, e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 7:12. The contrast between darkness and light did not always have moral connotations, however (Gen 1:14–18).

³⁴²⁹

Cf. 1QS 11.10; 1 QM 13.11–12 («dominion» in line 11 is partly reconstructed, but the parallelism supports it); 15.9.

³⁴³⁰

1QM 1.7, 10; cf. the eschatological end of darkness in 1 En. 58:5–6 (Sim.); Gen. Rab. 89:1. The suggestion that the passage is antignostic (because Gnosticism felt that the cosmos fell into darkness through Fate rather than morally through rejecting the light–Lohse, Environment, 274) is therefore improbable.

³⁴³¹

Odes So1. 18(Charlesworths Oxford trans., 79).

³⁴³²

Dyer, «Light,» parallels the verb with «knew,» etc., and reads it, «appreciated.» Medieval Kabbalah also declares that true light cannot be comprehended (Ginsburg, Kabbalah, 127).

³⁴³³

Cf. Burney’s unlikely suggestion (Origin, 29–30) that this verb (and possibly its occurrence in 12:35) represents a mistranslation of the Aramaic, confusing the apWel («darken») with the páel («receive, take»).

³⁴³⁴

Boismard, Prologue, 19–20.

³⁴³⁵

Sanders, John, 73; Barrett, «κατέλαβεv,» 297; Lightfoot, Gospel, 89; cf. Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 27. «Darkness» could symbolize ignorance (e.g., Valerius Maximus 7.2.ext.la; Maximus of Tyre Or. 29.5).

³⁴³⁶

Rowe, «Style,» 132 (citing Isocrates Peace 8.101; Cicero Verr. 2.64.155); in Paul, cf. possibly Rom 8:2–3 (Porter, «Paul and Letters,» 580).

³⁴³⁷

Whitacre, John, 52–53.

³⁴³⁸

Cf. similarly Rissi, «Word,» 398; Cadman, Heaven, 21; i.e., it is unlikely that it refers to the fall of Gen 3 (Brown, John, 1:8), as if the chapter were in chronological sequence.

³⁴³⁹

Cf. similarly Ellis, Genius, 22–23.

³⁴⁴⁰

Cf. Hooker, «Baptist,» 358. Miller, Salvation-History, 4, 88, thinks 1:6–8 may have been the Gospel’s original beginning; but this misses the connection with «light,» which precedes. The suggestion of Teeple, Origin, 133, that the Baptist insertions in the prologue have a different author from that of John 21, the epilogue, because the names are anarthrous in the prologue, fails if the insertions connect to the text of 1:19–36, where articular forms prevai1.

³⁴⁴¹

Mark also domesticates the Baptist as a witness to Jesus, though not as rigidly as John; cf., e.g., Marxsen, Evangelist, 33; Trocmé, Formation, 55.

³⁴⁴²

Cf. Strachan, Gospel, 70. Burkitt, Gnosis, 97, even contended that the Fourth Gospel’s original readers knew of John but were just learning of Jesus (though they had previously heard of him).

³⁴⁴³

Kraeling, John, 107–8. Reitzenstein’s other primary argument for Mandean doctrinés dependence on the Baptist, the alleged priority of the heavenly-man myth before Daniel, is even more clearly without foundation.

³⁴⁴⁵

Bultmann, «Background,» 33; cf. idem, «Bedeutung,» 142–43.

³⁴⁴⁶

Backhaus, «Beziehungen»; cf. idem, «Täuferkreise»

³⁴⁴⁷

Many scholars contend that Jesus was, or probably was, a disciple of the Baptist (e.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 91). While this may be true (see comment on 3:23–24), arguing that it is the case on the basis of the Gospels and Acts striving so hard to subordinate the Baptist (ibid.) may be like claiming that because the evidence so strongly favors position A, position A must be a falsification; Sanders’s arguments on p. 92 are better. (Some of his contrasts between Jesus and John, however, are less reasonable, apart from John’s asceticism and Jesus» eating and drinking; in the temptation narrative, Jesus fasted like John’s disciples; John’s mission included sinners by repentance; the separation of wheat from chaff resembles judgment language common to both.)

³⁴⁴⁸

Cf. the question in Marxsen, Mark, 39.

³⁴⁴⁹

Painter, «Christology,» 51: «In the beginning» vs. «came to be» (though cf. 1:14); «was with God» vs. «sent from God» (though this often depicts Christ, too); «was God» vs. «his name was lohn»; «in the beginning with God» vs. «came for a witness»; «all things came to be through him … in him was life … the light of men» vs. «to witness concerning the light.» These parallels are inexact, but the contrast of 1:8–9 is explicit.

³⁴⁵⁰

Fritsch, Community, 117, who adds that this «could explain how the Evangelist came to know so much about John the Baptist and the Essene-Covenanter background out of which he came.» Longenecker, Ministry, 70, suggests that the «one baptism» of Eph 4shares this polemical context. Cf. Bultmann, Tradition, 165; Morris, John, 88.

³⁴⁵¹

Daniélou, Theology, 62. Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.54 warns that some followers of the Baptist proclaimed him the Christ (cited in Michaels, John, 7; cf. Luke 3:15).

³⁴⁵²

Stanton, Gospels, 167; Kysar, «Contributions of Prologue,» 359 n. 32; cf. still more strongly Smalley, John, 127. Taking an exalted self-understanding back to the Baptist himself (Hengel, Leader, 36) is even harder to argue.

³⁴⁵³

Cf. Kysar, «Contributions,» 359 (suggesting «Jewish opponents… arguing that Jesus was the equal of John the Baptist but no more»). His concessions to Bultmann, but with the warning that Bultmann certainly exaggerated, are in his n. 32.

³⁴⁵⁴

Cf. Fiorenza, Revelation, 195; cf. also Collins, Oracles, 118, who remarks concerning Egyptian oracles that the purpose of the Jewish Sibylline Oracles «was primarily to establish common ground between the Jewish and gentile worlds.»

³⁴⁵⁵

«Balaam» suggests an oracular connection (Aune, Prophecy, 218; as the greatest pagan prophet, cf. Josephus Ant. 4.104; Sipre Deut. 343.6.1; 357.18.1–2; Exod. Rab. 32:3; Num. Rab. 14:20; Pesiq. Rab. 20:1; as philosopher or sage, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Gen. Rab. 65:20; 93:10; Lam. Rab. proem 2), but he also epitomized wickedness in Jewish lore (e.g., «the wicked Balaam» in m. «Abot 5:19; b. ^cAbod. Zar. 4a; Ber. 7a; Sanh. 105b, 106a; cf. Exod. Rab. 30:20; Num. Rab. 20:6), these traditions supplying details missing in Num 22–25; Mic 6:5: leading Israel to immorality, hence judgment (Josephus Ant. 4.157; LA.B. 18:13; Sipre Deut. 252.1.4; p. Sanh. 10:2, §8; cf. Jude 11; Judith 5:20–21; p. Ta^can. 4:5, §10), greed and eschatological shortsightedness (2Pet 2:15; Pesiq. Rab. 41:3), folly (2Pet 2:15; Philo Cherubim 32; Worse 71; Unchangeable 181; Confusion 64, 159; Migration 115–cited by LCL l:xxv; Ecc1. Rab. 2:15, §2), and vanity (Philo Confusion 159; m. «Abot 5:19); cf. Caird, Revelation, 39, who cites Philo Moses 1.292–304; Josephus Ant. 4.126–130 in support of the idea that religious syncretism is in view here.

³⁴⁵⁶

Most commentators take the Revelation reference more literally than meaning inadequate Christology, however (e.g., Bowman, Revelation, 31). For banquets associated with the imperial cult, cf., e.g., CIL 3.550 (Sherk, Empire, §125, p. 165).

³⁴⁵⁷

Caird, Revelation, 39, noting that Jezebel’s «harlotry» in the OT (2 Kgs 9:22) was only figurative; cf. 4QpNah. 3.4; perhaps Wis 14:12. It could refer to literal cultic or other prostitution, as at Baal-peor (Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 86–87), although this is not attested in conjunction with the imperial cult; both readings (spiritual or physical fornication) seem contextually possible (Meeks, Moral World, 146).

³⁴⁵⁸

Also Hooker, «Baptist,» 358; Boice, Witness and Revelation, 26; Wink, lohn, 105; Collins, Written, 8–11.

³⁴⁶¹

Dodd, Tradition, 299, in his comment on 1:20.

³⁴⁶²

Kraeling, John, 51–52. While historically Johns «eschatological «radicalisation»» lent itself to political misinterpretation (Hengel, Leader, 36), neither political nor moral proclamation characterizes the Fourth Gospel’s Baptist.

³⁴⁶³

Meier, «John,» 234. For the passagés authenticity, see also Feldman, «Methods and Tendencies,» 591.

³⁴⁶⁴

See Culpepper, School, 278.

³⁴⁶⁵

See 1:7–8,15,19, 34; 2:25; 3:11, 26, 28, 32–33; 4:39,44; 5:31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39; 7:7; 8:13, 14, 17, 18; 10:25; 12:17; 13:21; 15:26–27; 18:23, 37; 19:35; 20:24. Painter, John, 8, counts forty-seven uses in John and only six in the Synoptics, «4 of which refer to the false witnesses at the trial of Jesus» (cf. further ibid., 90); even if John emphasizes separation from the hostile world more than the Synoptics (Goppelt, «Church in History,» 196–97), he seeks to prevent the flow of influence in only one direction.

³⁴⁶⁶

Casey, «Μάρτυς,» 30–31.

³⁴⁶⁷

E.g., Plutarch Apoll 14, Mor. 108E («το θείον also testifies to this»); Oracles at Delphi 22, Mor. 405A (Homer testifies); Nicias 6.3 («events έπεμαρτύρει to his wisdom,» LCL 3:226–27); Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.4. Aristotle supposed ancient witnesses the most reliable because they could not be corrupted (Rhet. 1.15.13,1375b; 1.15.17). Trites, Witness, 4–15, shows that they were used in both legal and nonlegal (e.g., historiographie) contexts to establish data.

³⁴⁶⁸

Trites, Witness, 16–19.

³⁴⁶⁹

Ibid., 20–47, esp. 35–47 on witness for God in Isa 40–55 (cf. also Cothenet, «Témoignage»). On other Jewish texts, see 48–65 (Philo bridges the gap between the OT and Hellenistic use); in rabbinic literature, see 231–39. John’s usage is probably closest to that of Isaiah LXX (cf. Trites, Witness, 112; Caird, Revelation, 18; Boice, Witness, 16).

³⁴⁷⁰

Cf. Aune, Environment, 81, citing Herodotus Hist. 2.99; Polybius 12.27.1–6; 20.12.8; Lucian Hist. 47 (on autopsia, eyewitness knowledge).

³⁴⁷¹

E.g., 1 En. 104:11; 105:1; cf. Aune, Prophecy, 115.

³⁴⁷²

Casey, «Μάρτυς,» 35; Franck, Revelation, 52 (on 15:26, though earlier he acknowledges a forensic context for παράκλητος).

³⁴⁷³

Meeks, Prophet-King, 65 (pointing to the parallel between μαρτυρία and κρίσις in 8:14, 16); cf. Caird, Revelation, 18. Perhaps as early as Revelation, μάρτυς began to take on a meaning it came to acquire more often in patristic literature: martyr (Morrice, «John,» 44; perhaps Abel who μαρτύρησας in T. Ab. 11:2B).

³⁴⁷⁴

E.g., Trites, Witness, 78–127 (79–90 address John’s juridical character; 90–113 address the lawsuit of Jesus» ministry; 113–22 address the postresurrection lawsuit of John 13–17; on the Johannine Epistles, see 124–27; Trites’s conclusions are sound). Cf. Burge, Community, 204–5; Harvey, Tria1. John contrasts witness with faithless betrayal (cf. 5:15; 11:46,57; 12:4); the purpose of witness is to reveal the content of the testimony (2:25).

³⁴⁷⁶

Steck, «Zeugen,» cites Jub. 1:12; 4Q216.

³⁴⁷⁷

See esp. 2Macc 3:36 (εξεμαρτύρει… πάσιν); Chariton 4.7.5 (πασιν ανθρώπους; though cf. 7:6, where whole cities did come to meet her).

³⁴⁷⁸

The sense «from God» fits the genitive (cf. παρά θεών in Musonius Rufus 3, p. 38.27; παρά του θεοϋ in Menander Rhetor 2.1–2,370.21–26 = εκ θεών in 370.29–371.2) as well as the sending.

³⁴⁷⁹

Also by introducing Johns witness in 1:19–34.

³⁴⁸⁰

Barth, Witness, 13–14.

³⁴⁸¹

Epictetus Diatr. 1.4.31.

³⁴⁸²

See on 1:4–5, above. T. Levi 14declares that God gave the law to «enlighten every person»; the parallel is close, but could depend on John, given the heavy Christian redaction of T. Levi (Bernard, John, 1:13; Brown, John, 1:523; Longenecker, Christology, 12,146).

³⁴⁸⁴

Although the latter interpretation could be used in an argument for universal salvation, early Christians applied it instead to universal accountability (Rom 1:18–2:15; Justin 2 Apo1. 13).

³⁴⁸⁵

The «genuine» light of 1contrasts them explicitly; cf. the application of «genuine» to God in the apologetic of Hellenistic Judaism (Best, Thessalonians, 82, cites LXX Exod 34:6; 2 Chr 15:3; Ps 86:15; Isa 65and mentions other sources).

³⁴⁸⁶

In a negative example, cf. T. So1. 18(πάντα άνθρωπον), though the demon’s power is limited. Torah’s message is free to all who enter the world (Mek. Bah. 5.100–1).

³⁴⁸⁷

John 16:21; 1 John 4:9; cf. t. ^cEd. 1(attributed to R. Akiba); Hag. 1:2; Mek. Bah. 5.100–101; Sipre Deut. 311.1.1; 312.1.1; 313.1.3; Exod. Rab. 4:3.

³⁴⁸⁸

Wis 14:14; 1 John 4:1. It may also reflect the Semitic idiom, «coming among people,» which means «among people» (e.g., 1Sam 17:12).

³⁴⁸⁹

Lightfoot, Gospel, 89.

³⁴⁹⁰

Glasson, «John 1 9» (citing mainly late sources: b. Nid. 30b; Lev. Rab. 14:2; 31:1,6, 8 [but light in the mothers womb here refers to physical light vs. darkness]; his earlier citation of 4 Ezra 7supports the view no more clearly than does John 1by itself). On prenatal sin, see comment on John 9:2: but Judah ha-Nasi (ca. 200 C.E.) taught that the tempter ruled only from birth (b. Sanh. 91b).

³⁴⁹²

On this revelation, see Borgen, «Logos,» 129.

³⁴⁹³

Morris, John, 94; MacGregor, John, 11; Schnackenburg, John,:253, 255; Stuart, «Examination,» 293. The rabbinic phrase «everyone coming into the world» is not irrelevant because it lacks explicit statement of «person» (Stuart, «Examination,» 293) nor simply because John’s usage elsewhere is more important (Morris, John, 93–94), true as the latter argument may be; the rabbinic phrase applies to individuals entering the world (e.g., t. ^cEd. 1:15; Sipre Deut. 311.1; 312.1.1; 313.1.3) as well as to «everyone,» hence could apply to Jesus as well as anyone else.

³⁴⁹⁴

Boismard, Prologue, 32.

³⁴⁹⁵

Cf. the rhetorical practice of distributio (Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.47; Anderson, Glossary, 32–33; cf. Rowe, «Style,» 134), though it is normally more elaborate.

³⁴⁹⁶

Augustine Tract. Ev. Jo. 2.11.2 emphasizes that John means not the entire created order here (cf. Isa 1:3) but rather humans who love the world (cf. 1 John 2:15–17).

³⁴⁹⁷

If John envisions chronological specificity, perhaps 1implies his birth (or préexistence?), but 1the beginning of his public ministry later in this chapter (Luther, 5th Sermon on John i), though this is unclear. Westermann, John, 7, thinks 1:11–12 outlines John’s story (coming to his own in 1–6, rejected by them in 7–12, empowering those who received him in 13–17).

³⁴⁹⁸

E.g., the wicked in Pss. So1. 2who ούκ έγνωσαν αυτόν.

³⁴⁹⁹

Cf. Dodd, Interpretation, 156, for comments on analogous Jewish and Hellenistic expressions.

³⁵⁰⁰

On the double sense of «world» here, cf. Ellis, Genius, 23; Stuart, «Examination,» 282.

³⁵⁰¹

See Boccaccini, Judaism, 251–65; Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 52–74; in Let. Aris., see Boccaccini, Judaism, 176–79.

³⁵⁰²

E.g., 1Macc 5; Jub. 1:9; 15:34; 22:16–18, 20–22; 23:24; 24:25–33; LA.B. 7:3; 12(OTP also cites 4 Ezra 6:56; 2 Bar. 82here); 1Q27 1.9–11; 4QpNah. 1.1; m. ^cAbod. Zar. 2:1; Ter. 8:12; Sipre Deut. 213.1.1; Gen. Rab. 80:7; Pesiq. Rab. 21:2/3. Texts such as p. Ter. 1:1; 3:8; Pesiq. Rab. 48address Gentiles» sacrifices.

³⁵⁰³

E.g., 1QM 11.12–13; 14.7; 15.1–2; 17.1–2; t. Sanh. 13:2; b. Roš Haš. 17a; Lev. Rab. 13:2; Num. Rab. 19:32; Ecc1. Rab. 1:9, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 10:5; 11:5; cf. 1 En. 99:4; other texts in Bonsirven, Judaism, 65–68; Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 52–54. Some of these texts include in the judgment the wicked of Israel as wel1.

³⁵⁰⁴

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 214–15. Urbach, «Self-Affirmation,» 278–84, attributes the predominantly negative attitude toward Gentiles to the period before 70, suggesting that rabbis at Yavneh emended it to avoid profaning God’s name. Jeremias, Promise, 40–41, suggests that the negative view (which he may overemphasize) climaxed in such statements as that of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, ca. 90 C.E.: «No Gentile shall have a part in the world to come.» But Moore, Judaism, 2:385–86, cites texts indicating that R. Eliezer was believed to have changed his mind; see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 215, for a critique of Jeremias on this point.

³⁵⁰⁵

CD 12.6–8; m. Git. 5:9; Ecc1. Rab. 11:1, §1; though cf. Bonsirven, Judaism, 154, for qualifications of this principle. The principle was widespread; Isocrates Ad Nic. 22, Or. 2, stresses the obligation to treat foreigners well for reputation’s sake. Ps.-Phoc. 39–40 may be directed toward just treatment of Alexandrian Jewry rather than toward witness to Gentiles.

³⁵⁰⁶

Let. Aris. 279 (Ptolemy Philadelphus); t. Sanh. 13:2; Sipre Deut. 307.4.2. This tradition may have served an apologetic purpose, since idolatry and sexual immorality excluded most Gentile men from the broadest Jewish definition of «righteous»; nevertheless, individual righteous Gentiles do appear (e.g., Sipra A.M. pq. 13.194.2.15; b. Hu1. 92a; Lev. Rab. 1:3; cf. also a third-century C.E. Phrygian inscription, praising one who «knew the law of the Jews»–CI J 2:34, §774). See further Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 65–69; for surveys of ancient Jewish texts» diverse positions on the lostness of the Gentiles, see Sanders, Paul and Judaism, 206–12; Bonsirven, Judaism, 66–70; Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 52–74; for a broad sampling of rabbinic texts on Gentiles, see Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 556–65.

³⁵⁰⁷

See the references below. The Noahide law tradition in its completed rabbinic form may not be prerabbinic, but Pseudo-Phocylides contains allusions to it (see P. W. Van der Horst in OTP 2:569), the idea appears as early as Jubilees, and Philo and Josephus attest the tradition (see Schultz, «Patriarchs,» 48–49). Not only does Noah’s covenant prefigure Israel’s covenant in Jub. 6:4–10 (with 6:15–16, this passage provides an inclusio around 6:11–14); 7:20–25 portrays the Noahide laws more plainly (although Finkelstein, Pharisaism, 223–27, overstates his conclusions from this evidence; see Schultz, «Patriarchs,» 44–45).

³⁵⁰⁸

1QH 6.2–14; 1QM 12.14 (in both texts, the nations» conversion’s function is to exalt Israel’s eschatological glory); Sib. Or. 3.710–726 (second century B.C.E.; perhaps also 1.129); T. Zeb. 9(tex-tually uncertain); t. Ber. 6:2; Num. Rab. 1:3. In Pss. So1. 17Gentiles survive under Messiah’s yoke.

³⁵⁰⁹

Cf. Josephus Ant. 20.34–36; Ag. Αρ. 2.210; m. «Abot 1(if הבריות include Gentiles); b. Šabb. 31a (purportedly Tannaitic); Sank 99b; Gen. Rab. 39:14; 47:10; 48:8; 84:8; 98:5; Num. Rab. 8:4; Ecc1. Rab. 7:8, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:6; Pesiq. Rab. 14:2; 43:6. For further discussion, see Bamberger, Proselytism, 13–19 (OT period), 19–24 (intertestamental period), 222–25 (early rabbis), 225–28 (the royal house of Adiabene), 267–73 (on Matt 23:15); Urbach, Sages, 1:549–54, passim; Flusser, «Pagan-ism,» 1097; cf. the information in Georgi, Opponents, 83–164, although his conclusions may go too far.

³⁵¹⁰

See, e.g., Hoenig, «Conversion,» 49; Lake, «Proselytes,» 75; Sevenster, Anti-Semitism, 203. Active proselytizing may have followed Hellenistic models (see Goodenough, Church, 9; Culpepper, School, 117), but the wars with Rome may have stifled it (Applebaum, Cyrene, 343; Gager, Kingdom, 137; for more detailed history, see Cohen, «Conversion»).

³⁵¹¹

E.g., Orestes in Sophocles Electra; Euripides E1. 202–206,234–236. Cf. also the unpersuasive but accurate mantic (Apollodorus 3.12.5).

³⁵¹²

Sotades of Maronea (third century B.C.E.) in Stobaeus Anthology 4.34.8 (Boring et al, Commentary, 244); see also on rejected wisdom below.

³⁵¹³

See Keener, Matthew, 321 n. 26, on Matt 10:15.

³⁵¹⁴

Especially in apocalyptic circles, e.g., J En. 42:1–3 (Sim.); cf. similar images of the world’s depravity in pagan literature (Ovid Metam. 1.149–150; Fasti 1.247–250; Cicero Quinct. 1.5; perhaps Cicero Mi1. 37.101). Commentators note this theme in Wisdom literature (e.g., Schnackenburg, John, 1:228).

³⁵¹⁵

Mek. Bah. 5 (in Urbach, Sages, 1:532); Sipre Deut. 343.4.1; b. ^cAbod. Zar. 2b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:1; 12:10; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:15; Exod. Rab. 17:2; 30:9; Num. Rab. 14:10; Pesiq. Rab. 15:2; 21:2/3; 30:4; cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:7; 12:20; also Hengel, Judaism, 1:174–75; Harvey, «Torah,» 1239; Urbach, Sages, 1:327. One may also compare the tradition of the daily bat qol from Mount Horeb condemning the Gentiles for their neglect of Torah (b. «Abot 6:2, bar.; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Lam. Rab. proem 2), and a different tradition in which the nations copy (plagiarize?) elements of Torah (p. Sotah 7:5, §1). While comments about Torah are most common in rabbinic literature, the similar idea of the testimonium in L.A.B. 11by which God would judge the world probably indicates that this tradition was not limited to rabbinic circles.

³⁵¹⁶

B. Yebam. 103b (third century).

³⁵¹⁷

E.g., b. ^cAbod.Zar.3a.

³⁵¹⁸

E.g., Mek. Bah. 6.90ff; Sipre Deut. 343.4.1; b. ^cAbod. Zar. 2b, 64b, bar.; Sanh. 56ab, bar., 59a, bar. (including Tannaitic attribution), 74b; Yebam. 48b; Gen. Rab. 26(including Tannaitic attribution); 34:14; Exod. Rab. 30:9; Deut. Rab. 1:21; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:1; cf. Num. Rab. 1:8; Urbach, «Self-Affirmation,» 275–78; Moore, Judaism, 274–75. Proselytes and a few pious Gentile prophets also show that the Gentiles are without excuse (e.g., Lev. Rab. 2:9).

³⁵¹⁹

«His own» (neuter) may refer to the land, and «his own» (masculine) to the people; see Brown, John, 1:10; cf. Westcott, John, 8. Although Galilee is Jesus» native land, his «own» land that rejects him is Judea (cf. 4:45; Meeks, Prophet-King, 40); in 10:3–4, 12, Jesus» «own» is redefined as his true flock. M. Smith, Parallels, 153, finds in «his own» an allusion to Jesus» deity because Israel is regularly God’s possession in the Hebrew Bible and Tannaitic literature.

³⁵²⁰

Besides references above, see, e.g., b. ^cAbod. Zar. 2b; Lam. Rab. 3:1, §1. The language here is Jewish, not gnostic; cf. Teeple, Origin, 136 (in Gnosticism the power «is received by its own»).

³⁵²¹

Sipre Deut. 311.2.1; the school of R. Ishmael according to b. Besah 25b; Pesiq. Rab. 50:2, bar.

³⁵²⁴

Pesiq. Rab. 10:6; 21:7. Presumably this represents Israel’s role as a «kingdom of priests» (Exod 19:6; cf. LXX and 1Pet 2:9; transformed into a «kingdom and priests» in Rev 1:6; 5:10; cf. Symmachus; Theodotion; see comments on interpretation in Best, Peter, 107).

³⁵²⁵

B. ^cAbod. Zar. 3a; Meg. 15b. In late tradition, all generations of Israel, including souls not ye: created, were at Sinai to receive their share of Torah (Exod. Rab. 28:6). In contrast to Gentile sins-Israel’s were like those of an infant kicking the mother in the womb, hence were not judged as an offense (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:5).

³⁵²⁶

L.A.B. 44.6–8. In later tradition, had Israel not received Torah at Sinai, God would have destroyed the world then (Pesiq. Rab. 21:4).

³⁵²⁷

Some Amoraim contended that this was Israel’s one unforgivable sin (p. Hag. 1:7, §3). Other traditions declared that God did not hate Israel, though Israel hated him (Sipre Deut. 24.3.1); though Israel had most of humanity’s share of wisdom and Torah, it also had most of the world’s hypocrisy (Esth. Rab. 1:17).

³⁵²⁸

Culpepper, Anatomy, 169. On the foreshadowing, cf. Ellis, Genius, 9.

³⁵²⁹

See the reception of Jesus in 4:45; 5:43; of his fulness in 1:16; of his witness in 3:11, 32–33; 5:34; of his representatives in 13:20; of his Spirit by faith in him in 7:38–39; 14:17; 20:22. The aorist may imply a deliberate, single act of rejection (Morris, John, 97), but aorists also can summarize larger periods, and may refer to Israel’s failure to respond to his whole ministry, even if climaxed specifically in the cross. In either case, it certainly refers to the incarnate Christ (Vos, «Range,» 571).

³⁵³⁰

Cf. Brown, «Prologue,» 436; Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 211.

³⁵³¹

Cf. the language of witness (3:11, 32–33; 5:34; 1 John 5:9; 3 John 12) and of the gospel (Gal 1:9,12; cf. 1Cor 11:23; 15:3). Note that we have included not only λαμβάνω here but also synonyms.

³⁵³²

Freed, «Samaritan Converts,» 252, suggests that the «name» Jesus bears is the «I am,» a frequent divine name in both Jewish and Samaritan sources.

³⁵³³

1 En. 6(if Semyaza means «he sees the Name»); cf. Bonsirven, Judaism, 7 (citing 1 Chr 13LXX; m. Ber. 4:4; Yoma 3:8); Bowman, Gospel, 69–98, esp. 69–77. «The Name» appears as a title for Christ in Jewish Christian theology (Daniélou, Theology, 147–63; on 150 he finds this even as early as the NT: John 12with 17:5; Jas 2:7; 5:14).

³⁵³⁴

E.g., 1QM 11.14; 2 Bar. 5:2.

³⁵³⁵

Isa 29:23; Ezek 39:7; 1 En. 9:4; Sipra Emor par. 11.234.2.3; b. Pesah. 53b; Šabb. 89b; p. Sanh. 3:5, §2; Num. Rab. 15:12; prayer on Samaritan bill of divorce (Bowman, Documents, 328); cf. Moore, Judaism, 2:101–5; the «sacred letters» in Let. Aris. 98; cf. b. Šabb. 115b, bar.; Pesiq. Rab. 22:7; engraved on Israel’s weapons, Song Rab. 5:7, §1; 8:5, §1. One may also compare Matt. 6and its sources in the Kaddish and the third benediction of the Amidah (the latter is called «the sanctification of the name,» m. Roš Haš. 4:5); eschatological sanctification of the Name in Ezek 28:22; 36:23; 38:23; 39:7; and see comment on John 17:6, 17, 19, below.

³⁵³⁶

E.g., Sir 23:9; Josephus Ant. 2.276; Sib. Or. 3.17–19 (probably pre-Christian); 1QS 6.27–7.1; m. Sanh. 7:5; t. Ber. 6:23; Ecc1. Rab. 3:11, §3; cf. Lev. 24:11,16; b. Sanh. 60a, bar.; Bietenhard, «όνομα,» 268–69 (for alleged exceptions in the temple service, see m. Sotah 7:6; Sipre Num. 39.5.1–2; Marmorstein, Names, 39; Urbach, Sages, 1:127; cf. Lemaire, «Scepter»); among the Samaritans, see Jeremias, Theology, 10 n. 1. The Qumran sectarians often wrote the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew letters (probably to show it special honor, but cf. Siegal, «Characters,» comparing the rabbinic teaching), as did early Greek OT manuscripts (see Howard, «Tetragram»).

³⁵³⁷

Cf., e.g., Sent. Sext. 28, a second-century Christian work.

³⁵³⁸

E.g., Pr. Jos. 9–12; Lad. Jac. 2:18; Incant. Text 20.11–12 (Isbell, Bowls, 65); 69:6–7 (Isbell, Bowls, 150); CIJ 1:485, §673; 1:486, §674; 1:490, §679; 1:517, §717; 1:523, §724; 2:62–65, §819; 2:90–91, §849; 2:92, §851; 2:217, §1168; T. So1. 18:15–16 (the Solomonic tradition recurs in b. Git. 68a; Num. Rab. 11:3); Smith, Magician, 69; cf. Apoc. Zeph. 6:7; Apoc. Ab. 17:8, 13; examples in Deissmann, Studies, 321–36; Nock, Conversion, 62–63; MacMullen, Enemies, 103; Knox, Gentiles, 41–42. Cf. the namés power in Pesiq. Rab. 21:7; Urbach, Sages, 1:124–34; Bietenhard, «όνομα,» 269; in Jewish mystical experience, see Scholem, Gnosticism, 32–33. Name invocation was common practice (e.g., Apuleius Metam. 2.28; 3.29; Twelftree, «ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,» 376; Koester, Introduction, 1:380).

³⁵⁴⁰

Richardson, Theology, 45, regards this «peculiarly Johannine» πιστεύουσιν εις τό όνομα as a probable «reference to the baptismal confession of faith in Christ’s name»; cf. Dodd, Interpretation, 184. Philo may employ «the Name» as a title of the Logos (Confusion 146, in Longenecker, Christology, 43), but the title usually applies to God himself; early Christians, however, transferred it to Jesus (Longenecker, Christology, 45–46). «Believe into» may reflect the varied use of prepositions in Koine, though Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 14–15, suggest antilanguage for an antisociety.

³⁵⁴¹

Speaking in another’s name was acting as that person’s messenger or traditionary, e.g., «Abba Saul said in his [R. Johanan ben Zakkaís] name [literally, from his name, משם]» (m. «Abot 2:8). Believers are also forgiven «on account of Jesus» name,» i.e., through his merit ( 1 John 2:12).

³⁵⁴²

Bultmann, John, 58. Cf. corporate apotheosis in Hellenistic texts in Tabor, «Sons,» though even Paul, like John, reflects more Jewish concerns (Israel’s future glory in the prophets and Jewish corporate eschatology).

³⁵⁴³

Seneca Dia1. 1.1.5; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.6 (through rational communion with deity); 1.19.9.

³⁵⁴⁴

Diogenes Laertius 7.147; Epictetus Diatr. 1.3.1; 1.6.40; 1.9.4–7; 1.13.3–4; 1.19.12; 3.22, 82; Alexander 15 in Plutarch S.K., Mor. 180D; Plutarch R.Q. 40, Mor. 274B; Macrobius Sat. 4.5,4 (citing Virgil Aen. 6.123; Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 226); Musonius Rufus 18a (112.23–25L/96.1–3H; in Van der Horst, «Musonius,» 309).

³⁵⁴⁵

Homer Il. 2.371; 3.276,320,350,365; 16.458; Od. 14.440; Hesiod Theog. 457,468,542; Scut. 27; Op. 59,169; Sophocles Ajax 387; Euripides Medea 1352; Aristophanes Clouds 1468–1469. Cf. the exposition of Homer in Cornutus Nat. d. 9 (Grant, Gods, 78). For much fuller documentation, see Keener, Matthew, 217, on Matt 6:9.

³⁵⁴⁶

Zeus in Diodorus Siculus 1.12.1; Babrius 142.3; Orphic Hymns 15.7; 19.1; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.241; Virgil Aen. 1.60; 2.691; Georg. 1.121, 283, 328; Apollo in PGM 1.298, 305; Ouranos in Orphic Hymns 4.1; Herakles in Orphic Hymns 12.6; Janus in Martial Epigr. 10.28. For much fuller documentation, see Keener, Matthew, on Matt 6:9.

³⁵⁴⁷

E.g., Philo Confusion 170; Moses 2.238; Decalogue, 51, 105, 107; Spec. Laws 1.14, 22, 32, 41, 96; 2.6, 165; 3.178,189; Virtues 64, 77, 218; Rewards 24; Contemp1. Life 90; Eternity 13; Embassy 115, 293; QG 2.60; the Logos is the Father in Confusion 41.

³⁵⁴⁸

E.g., Sib. Or. 3.726 (second century B.C.E.: God as γενετήρ, «begetter»), 604 (God as the αθάνατος γενετής, «the immortal begetter»); perhaps Pr. Jos. 1 (maybe second century C.E.; similar to other magical texts and probably Jewish). Although Montefiore, «Father,» contends for this universal usage in the NT, it probably appears only in Acts 17:28–29 (cf. the critique of Jeremias, Prayers, 43 n. 70); but in other early Christian literature, cf. also Theophilus 1.4; Athenagoras 13, 27.

³⁵⁴⁹

Sobriety 55–56, 62–63 (LCL 3:472–73).

³⁵⁵⁰

Vellanickal, Sonship, 50, and Dodd, Interpretation, 60, citing Philo Confusion 145. On a birth from God, cf. QG 3.60; Dreams 1.173; Alleg. Interp. 3.219, in Vellanickal, Sonship, 51. For divine son-ship in Philo in general, see Vellanickal, Sonship, 50–52.

³⁵⁵¹

Hagner, «Vision,» 83–85. Argyle, «Philo and Gospel,» 385, cites Philo Confusion 147 to indicate that Philós Logos also makes people God’s (or at least the Logos’s) children.

³⁵⁵²

E.g., 4QDibrê ham-Méorôt 3.4–10 (in Vellanickal, Sonship, 31); 1QH 9.35–36 (often applying only to the true remnant of Israel, not to ethnic Israel as a whole). Cf. «son» in Jub. 2:20; 19:29; and God as Israel’s father in Jub. 1:25.

³⁵⁵⁴

Perhaps Tob 13:4. Cf. Hengel, Son, 51, on Sir 2(the righteous); 18(Israel). Cf. God as «the Father» in T. Job 33Ρ (vs. S, V); 33(P, S, V); Γ. Ab. 16:3; 20:12A.

³⁵⁵⁵

Wis 2:13,16,18; 5:5. At least the latter applies especially to Israel as wel1. See also 4Q416 frg. 2 (4Q417) 1.13 (in Wise, Scrolls, 384); 4Q418 frg. 81, line 5.

³⁵⁵⁷

See Johnson, Prayer, 61.

³⁵⁵⁸

Cf., e.g., Wis 5:5; Pss. So1. 17:30; Sib. Or. 3.702–704 (second century B.C.E.); Jub. 1:28. Even here, however, the title is not conferred but recognized eschatologically (e.g., cf. Jub. 1:25). Israel’s sonship in the OT also had eschatological associations; see in Vellanickal, Sonship, 25–26.

³⁵⁵⁹

Cf. m. «Abot 3:15. Later rabbis contended that one who teaches his neighbor Torah is as if he begot him (e.g., b. Sanh. 19b). In Pesiq. Rab. 21God gave Torah to his children Israe1.

³⁵⁶⁰

E.g., Exod 4:22; Deut 32:6; Isa 64:8; cf. Ladd, Theology, 85; Jeremias, Prayers, 11–15.

³⁵⁶¹

Sipre Deut. 43.8.1; b. Šabb. 31a; Yoma 76a; Exod. Rab. 15:30; Lev. Rab. 10:3; Num. Rab. 16:7; Deut. Rab. 2:24; 10:4; Lam. Rab. proem 2; Lam. Rab. 1:17, §52; SongRab. 2:16, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 15(often in parables); cf. Gen. Rab. 86(modeled after Exod 4:22, but the tradition is attested early in Jub. 19:29).

³⁵⁶²

E.g., «Abot R. Nat. 35, §77; 44, §124 B; Sipra Behuq.pq. 2.262.1.9; Sipre Deut. 43.16.1; 45.1.2; 352.7.1; b. Šabb. 31a, 128a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:5; 14:5; Exod. Rab. 46:4–5; Num. Rab. 5:3; 10:2; Deut. Rab. 1:6; 3:15; Lam. Rab. proem 23; Lam. Rab. 3:20, §7.

³⁵⁶³

Sipre Deut. 96.4.1; cf. similarly Sipre Deut. 308.1.2. The discussion continues in later texts: Israel are God’s children when they obey him (Deut. Rab. 7:9); God begot Israel as an only child, but will treat them as slaves if they disobey (Pesiq. Rab. 27:3; cf. John 8:35); Bonsirven, Judaism, 48–49, cites some other revelant texts (including Sipre Num. on 15:41).

³⁵⁶⁴

E.g., b. Ber. 7a (apocryphal bat qol to R. Ishmael), 19a (Honi the Circle-Drawer, but the antiquity of the tradition is difficult to date); cf. Sukkah 45b (R. Simeon ben Yohai). See especially Vermes on charismatic rabbis, discussed on pp. 270–72 (Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 210–11, citing b. Ta^can. 23b; followed by Borg, Vision, 45; tentatively by Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT, 82).

³⁵⁶⁵

See on «the Jews» in the introduction, above; cf. similarly Ellis, Genius, 24. Early Jewish readers, both Christian and non-Christian, probably assumed the idea of future inheritance in sonship language; see Hester, Inheritance, 42.

³⁵⁶⁶

E.g., m. Sotah 9:15; t. B. Qam. 7:6; Hag. 2:1; Péah 4:21; Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.15; Sipre Deut. 352.1.2; b. Ber. 30a, bar.; p. Sanh. 10:2, §8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:9; Lev. Rab. 1:3; 7:1; 35:10; see further texts in Marmorstein, Names, 56–58; cf. 3Macc 5:7; 7:6; personal prayer in Jos. Asen. 12:14. Outside 3Macc 6:8, the title appears regularly in prayers, especially in rabbinic texts (Moore, Judaism, 2:202–10; cf. McNamara, Targum, 116ff.), but these probably reflect some early and widespread prayer language (e.g., the Kaddish, adapted no later than Q in the Palestinian Jesus tradition; see Moore, Judaism, 2:213; Smith, Parallels, 136; Jeremias, Theology, 21; Jeremias, Prayers, 98); see esp. Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 40. «My father» may have sounded strange (Jeremias, Message, 17; idem, Prayers, 57; Israel as a whole applies it in Sipra Qed. pq. 9.207.2.13), but «our Father» certainly did not. For OT usage, see Jeremias, Prayers, 12; for «intertestamental» literature, see ibid., 15–16; nor is the title unique to Judaism and its religious descendants (Mbiti, Religions, 63, 83).

³⁵⁶⁷

E.g., Matt 6:9/Luke 11:2. The alleged Pompeiian evidence (Botha, «Prayer,» 43) is not, however, compelling (see Baines, «Square»).

³⁵⁶⁸

Jeremias contends that the use of «Abba» for God was unique to Jesus until passed on to Jesus» followers (Jeremias, Prayers, 57; followed also by Bruce, Time, 21–22); Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 210–11, cites b. Ta^can. 23b to the contrary, but if the tradition there is pre-Christian, it is still parabolic and rare rather than vocative and standard (as apparently with Jesus; cf. already Klausner, Jesus, 378). Whether Christians learned «Abba» from Jesus» example (Mark 14:36) or from an Aramaic address in the Lord’s Prayer (e.g., Ridderbos, Galatia, 158; Hunter, Predecessors, 50; for the Lord’s Prayer in Aramaic rather than Hebrew, see Jeremias, Theology, 188–89; idem, Prayers, 95–98; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 19–20; but then why not include the common «Abba» in the prayer?) or experienced the cry ecstatically based on either tradition (Lull, Spirit, 67; cf. Aune, «Magic,» 1550) is disputed.

³⁵⁶⁹

Cf. also Paul on «adoption,» where he apparently follows the Roman concept of adoption attested by witnesses (Rom 8:15–16); the custom is Greco-Roman, especially Roman, not Palestinian Jewish (Lyall, «Law»; idem, Slaves, 67–99; cf. Hester, Inheritance, 18–19, 59; Ramsay, Teaching, 203; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 203; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51; Deissmann, Studies, 239; idem, Paul, 174–75; Tarn, Civilizations, 101–2; on witnesses also to Roman wills, cf. Gaius Inst. 2.104–108; Justinian Inst. 2.10.6–11). Adoptive sons have the same legal standing as genetic sons (Gaius Inst. 2.136) and come under the father’s full authority (Gaius Inst. 1.97–117, cited in Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 189–90, §194; cf. Lyall, «Law,» 466).

³⁵⁷⁰

See Pancaro, «People,» 126–27, who argues that «scattered children of God» is a double entendre for Diaspora Jews (the traditional sense John exploits here) and all those who believe, united in Christ.

³⁵⁷¹

Cf., e.g., 1Cor 8:9; Diogenes Laertius 7.1.125.

³⁵⁷²

This is not to exclude the value of human effort once authorized; in Xenophon Oec. 7.27 God gave both genders equal βξουσίαν to exercise self-contro1. Whitacre, John, 36,55, finds an antimony (a figure used by both Greek and Jewish writers) linking both divine election and human responsibility (with John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 10.2); see our comment on 6:43–44 for Jewish thought on the matter.

³⁵⁷³

Contrast the language of some rabbis (e.g., «Abot R. Nat. 12 A; 26, §54 B; Sipre Deut. 32.2.1; Song Rab. 1:3, §3), although the language is essentially hyperbolic (cf. similar language in b. Sanh. 99b); the rabbis would have attributed the conversion to God as wel1.

³⁵⁷⁴

Cf. 1QH 9.14–16; Lev. Rab. 14:5; in Greco-Roman antiquity in general, cf. Keener, Marries, 80, esp. nn. 155–56 on 187. The contrast between human and divine will (also 3:8) reflects the Johannine emphasis on God’s will (4:34; 5:30, 40; 6:38, 39; 7:17; 9:31; cf. 5:6) vs. the world’s rebellion, and God’s will to give life (6:40; cf. 5:21). Cf. Plutarch T.T. 8.1.3, Mor. 718A: God created the cosmos but not δια σπέρματος.

³⁵⁷⁵

Many considered passion virtually irresistible (e.g., Sophocles Track. 441–448; Publilius Syrus 15, 22; Plutarch Oracles at Delphi 20, Mor. 403F-404A; see further Keener, Matthew, 186, on Matt 5:28). Some later rabbis attributed to the yetzer hara the positive function of incentive for procreation (Gen. Rab. 9:7; Ecc1. Rab. 3:11, §3).

³⁵⁷⁶

See Keener, Marries, 74, esp. nn. 76–77 on 179–80; on paternal authority, see ibid., 98 and nn. 110–119 on 197–98.

³⁵⁷⁷

So, e.g., Achilles Tatius 1.3.2.

³⁵⁷⁸

Virgil Aen. 2.74. Rarer uses, such as «blood» meaning courage (Aeschines Ctesiphon 160), make much less sense here.

³⁵⁷⁹

A Semitic play between dm («blood») and dmut («likeness,» e.g., Gen 5:1) would be unintelligible to most of John’s audience.

³⁵⁸⁰

See Gardner, Women, 53, citing Aristotle Gen. Anim. 773a, 30ff.; cf. Pliny Nat. 7.49. In Greek myth a mother could bear twins, one for her husband and the other due to divine impregnation (Pindar Ryth. 9.84–86).

³⁵⁸¹

Boismard, Prologue, 44. Cf. Lightfoot, Talmud, 3:241, who associates «bloods» here with a passage in Exod. Rah. that reads Ezek 16:6«s plural for bloods as a reference to circumcision and Passover; he thus applies it to the means of conversion for proselytes.

³⁵⁸²

Bernard, John, 18; cf. Boismard, Prologue, 44 (though Boismard suggests that this may represent a textual error).

³⁵⁸³

Lucretius Nat. 4.1209–1232. Cf. also van der Horst, «Emission.»

³⁵⁸⁴

Wis 7:2, also noted in this connection by Bernard, John, 18.

³⁵⁸⁵

That the point is simply «not by natural intercourse» is usually agreed; e.g., Michaels, John, 8.

³⁵⁸⁶

Cf. Talbert, John, 77, 98 (on 1:18; 3:6), for the ancient Mediterranean epistemological premise that only like recognizes like, hence necessitating the incarnation for sufficient revelation.

³⁵⁸⁷

Boismard, Prologue, 135–45, esp. 136–39; Enz, «Exodus,» 212; Borgen, Bread, 150–51 (concurring with «recent scholarship,» which «has shown [this] convincingly»); Hanson, «Exodus» (including rabbinic material); Harrison, «John 1:14,» 29; Mowvley, «Exodus.» Schnackenburg’s recognition of mere echoes (John, 1:281) is too weak.

³⁵⁸⁸

E.g., Ellis envisions a Greek contrast between matter and spirit (World, 19) that John is refuting (World, 35). Contrast Betz and Smith, «De Ε,» 95, who compare Plutarch Mor. 388F, noting, «That God could be perceived in the world is typical of Greek thinking.» The thought of incarnation, however, is hardly Greek (Barrett, John and Judaism, 25; cf. Haenchen, John, 1:119).

³⁵⁸⁹

On which see comment on 19:34. Greek thought allowed for mortals to become immortal, but not the reverse (Talbert, Gospel, 77–78; cf., e.g., Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.38). Cf. Goodenough, Church, 10: Mysteries «led the initiate up to the deity» but, unlike Christianity, did not bring the deity down. Hellenistic Christians apparently soon viewed the incarnation as a means of divinization for humanity (cf. Odes So1. 7:3).

³⁵⁹⁰

Diogenes Laertius 7.1.147 (LCL 2:250–51); cf. Alexander son of Numenius, who declares God «unbegotten and always indestructible» (Rhetores graeci 3.4–6 in Grant, Religions, 166). Barclay, «Themes,» 115, appeals here to the Orphic «body-as-a-tomb» idea.

³⁵⁹¹

Epictetus Diatr. 2.8.2. Augustinés comments on his pre-Christian Platonic understanding may be used to highlight the unintelligibility of divine enfleshment for a Platonist (see Hays, Vision, 142). Later neoplatonists could detest the body as evil (Eunapius Lives 456); see comments on the gnostic view of matter as evil on 1:3.

³⁵⁹²

Such a God, being incorporeal, lacked even the lower aspect of the soul, being pure reason (Maximus of Tyre Or. 27.8).

³⁵⁹³

Some Platonists had to answer the objections this raised to traditional religious rites (e.g., Iamblichus Myst. 1.8).

³⁵⁹⁴

In a philosophic system where the true person is formless, bodiless, and apprehended only by intellect (Porphyry Marc. 8.147–150), genuine incarnation would be impossible. (Such philosophical qualms stood behind some of the church’s fourth-century christological debates.)

³⁵⁹⁵

See Dillon, «Transcendence,» 1,6 (citing Plato Rep. 6.508E ff.).

³⁵⁹⁶

John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 11 (antidocetic); Strachan, Gospel, 18–19; Argyle, «Incarnation,» 137; Barclay, «Themes,» 115–16; Ellis, World, 36; Lohse, Environment, 274; Schnelle, Christology; for the view that Cerinthianism is here opposed, see Stuart, «Examination,» 38; Harrison, «John 1:14,» 26; Talbert, John, 73–74 (cf. Irenaeus Haer. 3.11.1). For attitude of gnostics toward «flesh,» see Schmithals, Gnosticism, 155–66. Various religious traditions have «incarnations» of various sorts (see, e.g., Hoynacki, «Flesh»), but Christianity is the only monotheistic religion that has one.

³⁵⁹⁷

Lutz, «Musonius,» 64–65, cites parallels in Xenophon Cyr. 8.1.22; Philo Moses 2.1.4; Clement of Alexandria Strom. 2.438).

³⁵⁹⁸

Homer Il. 4.86–87, 121–124; 13.43–45, 69, 215–216, 356–357; 14.136; 16.715–720; 17.71–73, 322–326, 333, 554–555, 582–583; 20.79–81; 21.284–286, 599–611; 22.7–11; 24.354–458; Od. 1.105, 420; 2.267–268,382–387,399–401; 6.21–22; 7.19–20; 8.8,193–194; 10.277–279; 13.221–222,288–289; 22.205–206,239–240; 24.502–505, 548; Virgil Aen. 12.784–785; Ovid Metam. 1.676; 6.26–27.

³⁵⁹⁹

E.g., Ovid Metam. 2.425, 434–437, 850–851; 4.222; 14.765–771.

³⁶⁰⁰

E.g., Homer Il. 22.224–231 (which Hector realizes too late, 22.298–299); Ovid Metam. 3.275–277.

³⁶⁰¹

Homer Od. 17.484–487; Ovid Metam. 8.626–627; cf. Ovid Metam. 1.212–213.

³⁶⁰³

Käsemann, Testament, 65, 76–77. Noting that the emphasis of 1is not flesh, Käsemann wrongly ignores the statement altogether (p. 9), citing Johannine miracles to prove that Jesus was not human (though many of these are paralleled in the Synoptics!). Bultmann, John, 61, reads John’s language here as mythological, analogous to the gnostic Redeemer myth (on which see comments in our introduction). For developed docetism, see Hippolytus Haer. 8.2; 10.12.

³⁶⁰⁴

E.g., Bornkamm, «Interpretation,» 94 notes that it anachronistically reads later categories into the first century. On Jesus» humanity in the Fourth Gospel, see, e.g., ÓGrady, «Human Jesus»; Kysar, «Contributions,» 354; Smith, Theology, 166–68; and esp. Thompson, Humanity.

³⁶⁰⁵

Gilbert, «Notes,» 45; Cranfield, «»Became,»» 215; Sanders, John, 79), in contrast to texts merely postulating préexistent souls (e.g., Plato Phaedo 76CD; Meno 81 BD; Epictetus Diatr. 2.1.17; Wis 8:20; cf. 3 En. 43:3; h. Hag. 12b; Gen. Rab. 8:7; Dillon, Platonists, 177). ÓNeill, «Flesh,» thinks εγένετο here means «born»; but while this was the means (18:37), it is not the specific sense of the term here (cf. 1:3,6, 10, 17).

³⁶⁰⁶

Cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:4. Sipra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.5 emphasizes God’s eschatological immanence in anthropomorphic parabolic language.

³⁶⁰⁷

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 23:4; cf. Fritz, «Midrash.»

³⁶⁰⁸

E.g., 1QM 12.10 («man» simply functioning as «one»); Amoraim in Ecc1. Rab. 2:21, §1; 8:1, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 14:10; cf. Exod 15(but איש מלחמה is idiomatic for «warrior»); the expression is applied to an angel in Num. Rab. 10:6. For explanations of anthropomorphisms, see, e.g., Aristobulus frg. 2,4 (Eusebius Praep. ev. 8.9.38–8.10.17; 13.13.3–8; in OTP 2:837–41).

³⁶⁰⁹

Ezekiel the Tragedian, Exagoge 70 (second century B.C.E.; see OTP 2note); Justin Dia1. 59:1. Philo calls the Logos «God’s Man» (Confusion 41,62,146) and the «Man after his image» (Confusion 146); but Philo would have rejected actual incarnation (Dodd, Interpretation, 60; see above).

³⁶¹⁰

The School of R. Ishmael opposed such anthropomorphisms (Marmorstein, Names, 65–67); for some opposition to anthropomorphism in the LXX, see Gard, Method, esp. 32–46.

³⁶¹¹

See Goshen Gottstein, «Body.» For its pedagogic function, see Stern, «Anthropomorphism.»

³⁶¹²

E.g., Ishmael and Akiba, according to Gen. Rab. 22(on Gen 4:1); cf. perhaps b. B. Bat. 75b (interpreting Jer 23by Ezek 48:35); Šabb. 55a and Sanh. 94a (applying Isa 9:5–6 to Hezekiah, but without clear indication of polemic). Boring et a1., Commentary, 246, and Smith, John (1999), 58, cite Philo Embassy 118: It would be easier for God to become human (Philo is assuming this impossible) than for humans to become God.

³⁶¹³

Drummond, «Genesis,» suggests that the incarnation crowns John’s picture of the new creation paralleling the crowning creation of humanity in Gen. 1, but this insight on intertextuality probably exceeds John’s own purpose; more likely, έγένετο signifies that Jesus accepts the limitations of existence in the creation that έγένετο through him (1:3; see Westcott, John, 11; Harrison, «John 1:14,» 26). Because John moves from a universal Jewish Logos theology to a particularistic Christology in the incarnation (cf. Boyarin, «Binitarianism»), some (e.g., Buzzard, «John 1:1») take the Logos as God’s eternal purpose that became identified with a particular person, Jesus, only in 1:14; but Johannine Christology (see 8:58; 17:5) argues against this.

³⁶¹⁴

Boismard, Prologue, 48–49; Morris, John, 103–4; survey of background in Coloe, Temple Symbolism, 31–63; against Barrett, John, 165. Jesus thus becomes the new temple (Jerusalem was God’s tabernacling-place, κατασκήνωσις–Tob 1:4); see comment on 2:19–21; 4:21–24; 7:37–39; 10:36; 14:2–3; and cf. Brown, Community, 49; Painter, John, 57; cf. commentators on the hidden manna and ark under Rev 2:17.

³⁶¹⁵

Stuart, «Examination,» 311; Hoskyns, Gospel, 148; Gaston, Stone, 209; contrast Barrett, John, 165.

³⁶¹⁶

Sir 24:8; the parallel is widely noted (Harris, «Origin»; Vos, «Range,» 404; Haenchen, John, 1:119; Gaston, Stone, 209; Glasson, Moses, 66; Hoskyns, Gospel, 148; cf. Barrett, John, 166). Cf. Bar 3:37; Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.46 and Congr. 116 (the tabernacle represents Wisdom); Posterity 122 (the λόγος θείος ενοίκει among those who contemplate eternal things); cf. T. Levi 2:11; 5:2; 6:5; the name in Did. 10.2.

³⁶¹⁸

On the sukkah recalling the wilderness cloud of glory, hence God’s sheltering presence, in rabbinic texts, see Rubenstein, «Sukkah» Isa 4suggests an eschatological cloud of glory for a new exodus (even more emphatic in Tg. Isa. 4:5).

³⁶¹⁹

Wis 12:1; See further Isaacs, Spirit, 23. Isaacs suggests that Philós doctrine of immanence may reflect dependence on biblical tradition as well as on the language of the Stoa (Spirit, 29).

³⁶²⁰

«Abot R. Nat. 1 A; b. Yoma 4a (early Tannaitic attribution); Num. Rab. 11:6; Pesiq. Rab. 21:6; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1(citing m. »Abot 3:2, the oldest comment on the Shekinah); Abelson, Immanence, 143–45; with the Word, 146–49. Wisdom has glory in Wis 9:11, and functioned as God’s glory or Shekinah in the wilderness, guiding the righteous and being a covering by day and flame of stars by night (Wis 10:17; cf. Exod 13:21).

³⁶²¹

4Q504 4.2–6; Num. Rab. 12:3; 14:22; Song Rab. 3:11, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 5:7, 9; 7:4; Tg. Neof. on Exod 25:8; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:51–53; for transferral of the idea to synagogues, see Lev. Rab. 11:7; glory is associated with booths in the wilderness, but again only rarely (b. Sukkah lib, attributed to R. Eliezer vs. R. Akiba). Some Amoraim sought to harmonize the universality of God’s presence with its localization in the tabernacle (e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:2; Num. Rab. 12:4; Song Rab. 3:10, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 5:7). On glory and the tabernacle, see Exod 40:32–36; 1 Kgs 8:10–11; Boismard, Prologue, 144.

³⁶²²

B. Šabb. 33a; Gen. Rab. 97 (NV); Exod. Rab. 2:2; for similar association of glory with the temple, see Pesiq. Rab. 1:2; 32:1. For the Spirit dwelling in God’s temple, see Isaacs, Spirit, 25 (citing Josephus Ant. 8.114 as a Spirit-parallel to rabbinic Judaism’s Shekinah). Sievers, «Shekhinah,» thinks that the Shekinah may have been more universalized after the templés destruction in 70. Naturally God’s glory was also portrayed as dwelling in heaven (1QS 10.3).

³⁶²³

Mek. Sir. 3.67 ff.; b. B. Qam. 83a; Sanh. 58b; Yebam. 64a, bar.; Num. Rab. 11:5; cf. Pesiq. Rab. 12(citing Tannaim); for «the righteous,» see Gen. Rab. 86(second-century attribution).

³⁶²⁴

Exod 13:21; 40:36–38; Neh 9:12; Ps 78:14; Mek. Šir. 3.67 ff.; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:1; cf. Ps 80:1; Isa 63:14; Urbach, Sages, 1(citing Sipre Num. 80, 84). Glory, of course, had always been associated with that event (e.g., 2Macc 2:7–8; Pss. So1. 11:2–6). From at least the second century, however, rabbinic tradition indicated that the Shekinah also participated in Israel’s captivity in Egypt and Babylonia (Mek. Pisha 14.87ff.; Mek. Bes. 3.82–83; Sipra Behuq. pq. 6.267.2.6; Sipre Num. 84.4.1; p. Ta^can. 1:1, §10, citing a Tanna; Exod. Rab. 15:16; Num. Rab. 7:10; Lam. Rab. 1:5, §32; cf. Cohen, «Shekhinta»; as late as the Zohar, cited in Siegal, «Israel,» 106).

³⁶²⁵

Abelson, Immanence, 380–82, notes that although kabod («glory») sometimes is identified with Shekinah, they are not always the same; but he feels that δόξα in the NT covers the semantic range of both terms (380). Burney, Origin, 36, imports the Aramaic yekara («glory») alongside Shekinah (presence) here.

³⁶²⁶

With Collins, Written, 198–216.

³⁶²⁷

See Coloe, Temple Symbolism, 11, and passim. Coloe also points to other Johannine passages pregnant with temple symbolism.

³⁶²⁸

E.g., Num. Rab. 20:10; see Kadushin, Mind, 223–26 (against medieval philosophers); cf. Abelson, Immanence, 98–134, followed also by Isaacs, Spirit, 25–26. In one late personification, the departing Shekinah kissed the walls of the temple (Lam. Rab. proem 25).

³⁶²⁹

Kadushin, Mind, 226–29; cf. Abelson, Immanence, on the Shekinah as the «immanent God» (pp. 117–34).

³⁶³⁰

E.g., 1QM 12.10. God’s face was «glorious» as he led Israel out of Egypt (1 En. 89:22).

³⁶³¹

Marmorstein, Names, 88, finds it especially in the Targumim; for «glory of the Lord» as a divine circumlocution, see, e.g., Tg. Neof. on Gen 1:17, 28; 2:3; 9:27; 11:5; 17:22; 18:33; 22:14; 28:16; Exod 17:7,16; 19:11; 33:23; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 17:22; 18:1,33; 28:13; Tg. Onq. on Lev 9:4. Rabbis disputing an interpretation of R. Isaac, a second-century Tanna, call him «The Glory of the Life of all worlds» (Gen. Rab. 100:5).

³⁶³²

E.g., «Abot R. Nat. 38 A; Sipra Qed. pq. 8.205.2.1; par. 4.206.2.6; Sipre Deut. 258.2.3; 320.2.1; b. Ber. 5b; Roš
Haš. 31a; Šabb. 33a, 139a; Yebam. 64a, bar.; Yoma 21b;p. Sanh. 8:8, §1; Deut. Rab. 5:10; 6:14; Ruth Rab. 1:2; cf. Sipre Num. 1.10.3; Urbach, Sages, 1:286–87 (citing Mek. Pisha 5); pagan deities in Ovid Fasti 1.247–250; Plutarch Them. 10.1; so with Wisdom (Wis 1:4; 6:12–25, esp. 6:23; cf. Wis 7:25–26; Babrius 126). The Shekinah was progressively banished from, and then reinvited to, earth CAbotR. Nat. 34 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:1; Gen. Rab. 19:7; Song Rab. 5:1, §1); because of sin, his tabernacle or temple was necessary to bring his presence (Pesiq. Rab 7:4). For the Shekinah continuing with Israel even when they sin, see Abelson, Immanence, 135–42.

³⁶³³

Especially on the clouds of glory in the wilderness or revealed to Moses: Sipre Deut. 305.3.1; 313.3.1; 355.6.1; Gen. Rab. 60:16; Exod. Rab. 45:5; Num. Rab. 19:20; Song Rab. 4:5, §2; SongRab. 7:6, §1; cf. Pesiq. Rab. 10on a later period.

³⁶³⁴

E.g., CD 20.25–26; 1QM 12.12; Sib. Or. 3.282; Lev. Rab. 1:14; Num. Rab. 21:22; Deut. Rab. 6:14; Esth. Rab. 1:4. Some eschatological glory texts refer to a new exodus (e.g., Isa 40:5; 2Macc 2:7–8; Pss. So1. 11:6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:1).

³⁶³⁵

In classical Greek it often signifies «reputation» or «opinion» (Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, 444). But the NT often takes the sense beyond this, following the LXX’s novel translation of kabod (Harrison, «John 1:14,» 28; Holwerda, Spirit, 2–3); others also followed the LXX (e.g., «splendor» in Γ. Job 33:4), and various senses could be used in the same proximity (e.g., honor in 1Macc 14:35; adornment in 1Macc 14:15; the Hebrew means «honor» in Mek. Pisha 1.89–105).

³⁶³⁶

Perhaps this includes the disciples» transformation (cf. 14:13; 15:8; 17:10, 24) as Moses was transformed by viewing glory (2Cor 3:7–18). «Signs» and «glory» were already connected in the LXX (Num 14:22; perhaps Sir 45:3, also concerning Moses; cf. Exod 16:7; Epp, «Wisdom,» 145, cites Num 14:22).

³⁶³⁷

Often pointed out, e.g., Bürge, Community, 132–33; Holwerda, Spirit, 5–8; Bruce, Message, 105; Nicol, «Research,» 16; cf. Whitacre, Polemic, 117; Dodd, «Prologue,» 22 (Christ’s incarnate life and death are the revelation of God’s love); Pamment, «Doxa» (after 2:11, «glory» alludes to God’s revelation of love, echoing Isaiah LXX).

³⁶³⁹

θεάομοα is not theologically significant in 1:38; 4:35; 6:5, and in 1and 11does not differ in sense from its synonyms; in this context it is interchangeable with όράω (1:18).

³⁶⁴⁰

Contrast Brown, Community, 32, on 1 John 1:1–3 (who sees that text as an appeal to eyewitness tradition but refuses to accept the claim implicit in the first person pronoun there). Harrison takes the «us» among whom the Word dwelt as the people of 1rather than the «we» who beheld his glory (Harrison, «John 1:14,» 27). A single author could also employ an authorial «we» (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Demosth. 58; cf. perhaps 2Cor 1:6).

³⁶⁴¹

Against Bousset, Kyrios-Christos, 228. «Beheld» is a natural transition from the prologue to the narrative (Ridderbos, «Prologue,» 195).

³⁶⁴²

For various suggested OT associations, see Olsson, Structure, 70–71. Israel’s «beholding» God in Exod 24could be applied to the Shekinah (Lev. Rab. 20:10, citing a third-century Palestinian source).

³⁶⁴³

Ovid Metam. 3.280–286,292–295, 308–309 (as lightning).

³⁶⁴⁵

See comments on the transfiguration in Keener, Matthew, 437, and sources cited there, esp. Moses, Transfiguration Story, passim.

³⁶⁴⁶

See von der Osten-Sacken, «Geist,» against Bultmann.

³⁶⁴⁷

See Glasson, Moses, 69; Bruce, Message, 105.

³⁶⁴⁸

See Abelson, Immanence, 82–89, for the frequent relationship between Shekinah and light.

³⁶⁴⁹

Kirchhevel, «Children,» compares Tg. Isa. 53here and in John 12.

³⁶⁵⁰

See, e.g., Herlong, «Covenant»; Boismard, Moïse; Glasson, Moses; Teeple, Prophet.

³⁶⁵¹

E.g., Sophocles Searchers 218, though Zeus already had other children.

³⁶⁵²

Homer Il. 5.314, 318; 16.460; of a deity in Homer Il. 14.338; Od. 5.28.

³⁶⁵⁴

Cf., e.g., Manson, Paul and John, 133; Du Plessis, « Only Begotten«»; Morris, John, 105; Roberts, «Only Begotten»»; Pendrick, «Μονογενής»; cf. Westcott, Epistles, 169–72.

³⁶⁵⁵

Roberts, «Only Begotten;» 4; also Harrison, «John 1:14,» 32

³⁶⁵⁶

Cf. Dahms, «Monogenēs» (also arguing from the LXX that the «unique» view has less support than its proponents claim); cf. Athenagoras 10. The phrase also appears in late apocryphal works such as Apoc. Sedr. 9(ed. Wahl, 42). 1 Clem. 25.2 applies it to the phoenix as unique (Bernard, John, 1:23).

³⁶⁵⁷

The Syriac, ca. 170 C.E.; Coptic, ca. 200 C.E.; Old Latin, late second century C.E. (Roberts, «Only Begotten,»» 3).

³⁶⁵⁸

Coverdale (1535) and Tyndale (1525), as against «only begotten» in Wycliffe, Rheims, Genevan, Bishops, KJV, etc. (Roberts, «Only Begotten,»» 2).

³⁶⁶⁰

E.g., Plutarch Ε at Delphi 11, Mor. 389F (LCL 5:226–27); cf. Mor. 423AB, cited by Wicker, «Defectu,» 165.

³⁶⁶¹

Luke does, however, acknowledge Jesus as Son also by the virgin birth (1:35).

³⁶⁶²

Heb 1(in the context of 1:3–9); 5:5 (in the context of 5:6); on exaltation and sonship Christology, cf. Longenecker, Christology, 93–98.

³⁶⁶³

Stevens, Theology, 124. Kysar suggests that John fuses the themes of filial obedience (although this is not merely Jewish, as his words could imply) and a Hellenistic ontological conception (Maverick Gospel, 40).

³⁶⁶⁴

Against Bulman, «Son.» But Bulman, like proponents of the «unique» view, is right to look elsewhere for the term’s source than to Jesus» birth in the Fourth Gospel, which does not mention it (cf. Roberts, «Only Begotten,»» 5).

³⁶⁶⁵

E.g., Philo Confusion 63 (πρωτόγονον, ό γεννηθείς); the title could also apply to pagan deities (Fortuna as Primigeniae, Livy 43.13.5). Scott, Gospel, 201–2, thinks John’s picture of Jesus» sonship derives from Philós portrayal of the Logos; Borgen, «Agent,» 146, compares the two. Ps 89is probably the background for «firstborn» in Heb 1(Lindars, Apologetic, 211) and Col 1(e.g., Ladd, Theology, 418–19).

³⁶⁶⁶

Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus RA. 3.1.3 (μονογενός). Bernard, John, 1:23, Hoskyns, Gospel 149, and Roberts, «Only Begotten,»» 8, cite, e.g., Judg 11:34; Ps 35:17; Jer 6:26; Amos 8(cf. similarly Tob 3:15; 6:10, 14; 8:17; Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; cf. Plato Tim. 31); technical exceptions include Heb 11:17; Josephus Ant. 20.19–22. They also cite non-Jewish examples in Plautus Captives 1.147,150; Aegeon Comedy of Errors 5.1.329; cf. similarly Du Plessis, ««Only Begotten,»» 30 n. 5 (on Plautus).

³⁶⁶⁷

Bernard, John, 1:23–24, and Roberts, «Only Begotten,»» 8, cite examples in Psalms (22:21; 25:16; 35:17).

³⁶⁶⁸

Abelson, Immanence, 164–65, also linking the term to μονογενής.

³⁶⁶⁹

Sir 36:12 (πρωτόγονος); Pss. So1. 18:4; 4 Ezra 6(also «only begotten,» OTP 1:536); cf. Jub. 19:29. Israel was beloved to God like an only child (Simeon ben Yohai in Exod. Rab. 52:5; Lev. Rab. 2:5; later rabbis, Song Rab. 5:16, §3; Israel as an only daughter, Song Rab. 2:14, §2; 3:11, §2). «Son» usually represents Israel in rabbinic parables (Johnston, Parables, 587).

³⁶⁷⁰

Bar 3:36–37 (ήγαπημένω); Pss. So1. 9(λαός, öv ήγάπησας); Jub. 31:15, 20; 4 Ezra 5:27; Rom 11:28; «Abot R. Nat. 43, §121 B; Sipre Deut. 344.1.1; 344.3.1; 344.5.1; Song Rab. 2:1, §1; 2:1, §3; Tg. Isa. 1:4. Sipre Deut. 97.2 interprets Deut 14as declaring that «every individual Israelite is more beloved before [God] than all the nations of the world» (trans. Neusner, 1:255). Different rabbis applied the title «most beloved [of all things]» variously to Torah, the sanctuary, or Israel (Sipre Deut. 37.1.3); for some rabbis, God’s love for Israel was the heart of Torah (Goshen Gottstein, «Love»).

³⁶⁷¹

E.g., R. Ishmael (3 En. 1:8); Esdram (Gk. Apoc. Ezra 1[ed. Wahl, 25] ); articular if the article for «holy prophet» includes this, the καί being epexegetical); Sedrach (Apoc. Sedr. 3[ed. Wahl, 39]). Early Christian texts naturally transfer the title to Jesus (Mark 1:11; 9:7; Matt 3:17: 17:5; Luke 3:22; Eph 1:6; Acts Paul 3:11Paul and Thecla 1; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4[ed. Wahl, 30]). Ancients regarded being the «beloved of the gods» (θεοφιλής) a special privilege (Plutarch Lycurgus 5.3, LCL 1:216–17).

³⁶⁷²

Three Hebrew Children 11; Philo Abraham 50; cf. p. Ber. 9:5, §2.

³⁶⁷⁶

T. Ab. 7:1; 8ΙΑ; Γ. Isaac 2:20, 25 (probably a Christian work); Philo Abraham 50; Gen. Rab. 59:9.

³⁶⁷⁷

Cf. the righteous in Wis 4:10; Pss. So1. 13:9; T. Jos. 11:1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:1. Later midrash could view God as the «beloved» of Song 6(p. Ber. 2:7, §2).

³⁶⁷⁸

Kysar, «Contributions,» 359.

³⁶⁷⁹

Du Plessis, « Only Begotten,»» 23 (Heb 11:17). Although Ishmael was already grown, he was effectively disinherited in Gen 21:10–12; cf. Frymer-Kensky, «Relationships,» 213 (citing Hamm. 170–171).

³⁶⁸⁰

When Deut 16 lists first sons, then daughters, slaves, and Lévites, rabbis remarked, «the most beloved comes first» (Sipre Deut 138.2.1; 141.2; Neusner, 1:331, 337); Jeremiah could call his scribe Baruch, «my beloved son» (ϊίε μου αγαπητέ) (4 Bar. 7[Kraft, 38–39] ); like a king who favors his youngest son, God loves Benjamin in a special way (Sipre Deut 352.7A). Thus Horus may appear as Isis’s and Osiris’s «beloved son» (PDM Sup. 131) by borrowing the earlier Christian expression, but may simply be «beloved» as a son would normally be.

³⁶⁸¹

Tob 6:14; cf. Gen 42:38. Thus one took special care with such a son (e.g., Aeneas in Sib. Or. 11.149, from Egypt, possibly first century B.C.E.).

³⁶⁸²

Tob 8:17; cf. 4 Ezra 10:1. Only sons could hold a special place because they were heirs, regardless of their behavior; cf. Manasseh in Ascen. Isa. 1(probably pre-Christian material); see comment on John 8:35.

³⁶⁸³

Julius Pollux, in Roberts, «Only Begotten,»» 7.

³⁶⁸⁴

Ibid., 7, citing Hesychius Pollux 3.19. Further, «Aquila and Symmachus have monogenes in every context where the LXX and Origen have agapētos« (Roberts, «Only Begotten,»» 13).

³⁶⁸⁷

CIJ 1:96, §137. Cf. Homer Il. 16.460. Normally one would have compassion on someone who had lost a son (cf. Plutarch Camillus 11.2).

³⁶⁸⁸

Sipre Deut 313.1.4; Gen. Rab. 55:7. Cf. also references above to Isaac as «beloved»; similar language from Abraham to Jacob in Jub. 19:27. The Akedah was among the Genesis texts apt to be emphasized in the Second Temple period (4Q252 1 3.6–9); in later texts, Isaac’s willingness to be sacrificed proved meritorious (e.g., Tg. Neof. on Gen 22:8, 10, 14; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 22:1,10 and on Lev 22:27; contrast the Greek child sacrifice tradition in Aeschylus Agamemnon 205–247).

³⁶⁸⁹

Since both Isaac and Ishmael were only sons of their mothers and Abraham loved both, they said that God had to specify further (e.g., Gen. Rab. 55:7; Pesiq. Rab. 40:6). Early Christian art applies the Akedah to Jesus» death (Jensen, «Binding»); but Hayward, «Sacrifice,» argues that the later Akedah haggadah is without Christian influence.

³⁶⁹¹

Many commentators, e.g., Bernard, John, 1:23–24; Hoskyns, Gospel, 149; Michaels, John, 8.

³⁶⁹²

Some even suggest deliberate Isaac typology in John; see Kruijf, «Glory,» 123.

³⁶⁹⁴

Wis 7:22 (μονογενές). Rabbinic texts often identify God as the «unique» or «only» one of the world (e.g., Sipra Sh. M.D. 99.2.3; b. Pesah. 118a–as Abraham was; p. Meg. 1:9, §1; Roš Haš. 1:3, §42; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:1; Gen. Rab. 98:13; Num. Rab. 10:5; Song Rab. 1:9, §2, with a second-century attribution, if reliable).

³⁶⁹⁵

See Harris, Jesus as God, 84–87, also noting that the issue is not Jesus being «begotten» but being the only one of his kind.

³⁶⁹⁶

E.g., martyrs» hope «full of immortality» (Wis 3:4). In John, cf. fulness of joy (3:29; 15:11; 16:24; 17:13) or of physical bread (6:12; cf. 6:13,26) or water (cf. 2:7, different term).

³⁶⁹⁷

Emphasizing «a unified cosmos» (Lincoln, Ephesians, 73; cf. Long, Philosophy, 157); cf. the Cynic Diogenes in Diogenes Laertius 6.2.38. Some suspect popular Stoic influence on the use of the term in Pauline epistles, e.g., Benoit, «»Pleromá»; Lyonnet, «Adversaries,» 147–48.

³⁶⁹⁸

Bury’s references to the Logos being «full» of divine graces (Logos Doctrine, 28–29; cf. Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.77–78; Planting 87–89; Confusion 123) may be relevant as a parallel usage to John 1:14, though not as a source for it. In Hellenistic Judaism, the omnipresent God (Let. Aris. 131–132; Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.44; 3.4; Confusion 135–136; Names 27; cf. 2 En. 39:5; Cicero Resp. 6.17.17; cf. references in Knox, Gentiles, 163; Moore, Judaism, 1:370–72), the Spirit, and Wisdom fill the cosmos (Wis 1:7; Sir 24:25; cf. Sib. Or. 3.701; cf. Bogdasavich, «Pleroma»), but «fulness» does not always appear in a technical sense (e.g., Sir 1:16).

³⁶⁹⁹

E.g., Irenaeus Haer. 1.1.1; Prayer of the Apostle Paul (trans. Dieter Mueller, NHL 28); Gospel of Truth (trans. George W. MacRae, NHL 37). Sandmel, Judaism, 474 n. 5, is among those who dismiss the gnostic sense in John here. It is unlikely elsewhere in the NT as well; cf., e.g., Overfield, «Pleroma»; Arnold, Ephesians, 83–84; Baggott, Approach, 70; Lincoln, Paradise, 146; Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 183; Yamauchi, Gnosticism, 46; contrast, e.g., Hanson, Unity, 117.

³⁷⁰⁰

For John, «glory» includes «divine nature» (Bratcher, «Glory»).

³⁷⁰¹

Many commentators acknowledge the allusion to Exod 34:5–6 here, e.g., Westcott, John, 13; Barrett, John, 167; Epp, «Wisdom,» 138; Boismard, Prologue, 54–56; Dahl, «History,» 132; Lee, Thought, 40; Gaston, Stone, 209. Most acknowledge that the phrase is dependent on the Hebrew expression even if they do not cite Exod 34as the specific allusion (e.g., Stuart, «Examination,» 316; Dodd, Bible, 75; Hoskyns, Gospel, 150; Ladd, Theology, 230). Readers naturally continued to find God’s special mercy toward Israel in this passage (b. Roš Haš. 17b), rightly understanding it to imply that God’s mercy exceeds his anger (e.g., t. Sota 4in Urbach, Sages, 1:450).

³⁷⁰²

Hanson, «Exodus,» 93; Vellanickal, Sonship, 153–54. Χάρις can mean «charm» (Demetrius 3.128–156) or, more aptly here, «generosity» (Grayston, Gospel, 12, citing inscriptions).

³⁷⁰³

For Johns composite text types, see in general Freed, Quotations.

³⁷⁰⁴

Barrett, John, 167; Epp, «Wisdom,» 138; Richardson, Theology, 281–82; Schnackenburg, John, 1:272. Philós preferred term for God’s gracious activity is also χάρις (Schnackenburg, John, 1:272). Because only χάρις recurs in the prologue and neither term occurs in the Gospel outside the prologue, Johannine usage is not decisive in this case (Epp, «Wisdom,» 139). Though when conjoined with speech (λόγος and other terms), χάρις could mean «charm» (e.g., Homer Od. 2.12–13; Plutarch Cic. 39.6; Demosth. 7.2; Menander Rhetor 2.5, 395.4; 2.6,400.1; 2.7, 405.28; 2.17, 446.12), the exodus background and the «word» as Torah suggest «generous kindness» instead.

³⁷⁰⁵

Epp, «Wisdom,» 138, and Westcott, John, 13, cite texts including 2Sam 15LXX; Ps 25:10; 40:11; 57:10; 89:1,2,14,24,33,49; 86:15; 108:4; Hos 4:1; Tob 3(citing Ps 25:10).

³⁷⁰⁶

See Charlesworth, «Comparison,» 415, who cites חסדו in 1QS 4.4 and ורוב חסדים in 1QS 4.5. The component ideas by themselves need require no allusion at all; cf. God’s «grace and mercy» in Wis 3:9; his «kindness» and «truth» in Wis 15:1; the «graces of [his] blessing» in 1QM 12.3. God’s names that are not sacred (perhaps meaning nontechnical titles) include «full of grace» and «full of mercy» in p. Meg. 1:9, §17.

³⁷⁰⁷

Michaels, John, 8, is among those who suggest that it modifies Jesus instead, citing Acts 6:3, 5, 8; 7:55; 11:24); the adjective is itself indeclinable.

³⁷⁰⁸

Dodd, Studies, 141–42; idem, Interpretation, 82,295, citing Midr. Pss. 25:10.

³⁷⁰⁹

E.g., Marcus Aurelius 1.14. See comment on John 3:21.

³⁷¹⁰

See, e.g., Let. Aris. 206 (with note in Hadas, 206, citing Prov 24LXX; Arrian Alex, pref.; Diodorus Siculus 1.70.6); see comment on John 7:10–13.

³⁷¹¹

Often «truth» vs. «opinion» (e.g., Diogenes Laertius 9.22, Parmenides, ca. 500 B.C.E.); for Stoics, truth especially involved propositions (Mates, Logic, 33–36). For Plato, truth is perceived with the soul, not with the eyes (Rep. 7.527E).

³⁷¹²

Plutarch Isis 2, Mor. 351E; for Justin Martyr and the Gospel of Truth, see Story, Truth, 220–23.

³⁷¹³

Marcus Aurelius 9.1.2. Cf. Irenaeus Haer. 1.1.1, where gnosticism’s first aeon emanated nous and alëtheia.

³⁷¹⁴

E.g., 1 Esd 4:38–39; T. Jud. 14:1. Pagan thought also could connect truth and virtue (e.g., Marcus Aurelius 3.11.2), though mainly portraying deceit against reality itself as the impiety (e.g., Marcus Aurelius 9.1.2); the different sources of truth reflect the different concepts of morality.

³⁷¹⁵

E.g., Ps 119:160; 2 Bar. 44:14; T. Ash. 6:1, 3; cf. Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.45 (on the Logos); later rabbinic sources like b. Abod. Zar. 4b; Exod. Rab. 30(purportedly Tannaitic, but probably later); Num. Rab. 12(third-century attribution); Dodd, «Background,» 335, cites Midr. Pss. 25:10, which may also illustrate the principle of exposition grounded in more explicit texts such as Ps 119:160; Prov 23:23. Cf. perhaps even Philo in Knight, «Aletheiá» Some writers, including Painter, John, 46; Longenecker, Christology, 40, suggest a contrast between Jewish views of Torah and the view of Jesus in John 14:6.

³⁷¹⁶

So, e.g., Dodd, Bible, 67–75; Manson, Paul and John, 94; Boice, Witness, 62; Ladd, Theology, 264. Thus lying to save another’s life (often in the OT) could be viewed as an act of truth; Epictetus Diatr. 4.6.33 also allowed lying in some cases (LCL 2n. 1, cites also Stobaeus Ee1. 2.7,11).

³⁷¹⁷

1QS 11.4; cf. 1QM 13.9–10. In later rabbinic texts, אםח actually becomes a surrogate name for God (p. Sanh. 1:1, §4; Marmorstein, Names, 73,179–81; Urbach, Sages, 1:181).

³⁷¹⁸

Dodd, Interpretation, 170–78 (reality); Cadman, Heaven, 24.

³⁷¹⁹

Cf. Kuyper, «Grace,» 15–19; Ladd, Theology, 264–69; van der Waal, «Gospel,» 28–33; Boice, Witness, 62; Lindsay, «Truth.» Cf. Schnackenburg, John, 2(in Excursus 10, «The Johannine Concept of Truth,» 225–37); Albright, «Discoveries,» 169, on Qumran contacts.

³⁷²⁰

Epp, «Wisdom,» 138–39.

³⁷²¹

Kuyper, «Grace,» 14; Pancaro, Law, 541. For a distribution of αλήθεια by writer (25 times in John, 20 in Johannine Epistles, 47 in Paul, 1 in Matthew, 3 in Mark, 3 in Luke, etc., and distribution of the adjectival cognate), see Morris, John, 294.

³⁷²²

John surely knew both senses (Harrison, «John 1:14,» 33).

³⁷²⁴

See above. That the Baptist’s voice ends in 1is clear, but Origen Comm. Jo. 6.13 thought it ended in 1(in contrast to Heracleon, who ends it in 1:17).

³⁷²⁵

That John implies temporal precedence (i.e., the Logos’s preexistence) is evident from the context; see Stuart, «Examination,» 318; Hoskyns, Gospel, 151 (contrasting Matt. 3:11); Dodd, Tradition, 272. The logic here resembles the rhetorical form called an ένθύμημα (enthymeme; see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 44; Vinson, «Enthymemes,» 119).

³⁷²⁶

E.g., Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:19–22, 116–30; cf. John 1:29.

³⁷²⁷

Stuart, «Examination,» 318.

³⁷²⁸

E.g., Wis 1:7; Sir 24:25; Let. Arts. 131–132; Sib. Or. 3.701; glory in Ps 72:19; Hab 2:14; cf. 2 En. 39:5; similar language in Stoic and related Hellenistic systems (e.g., Diogenes Laertius 6.2.38).

³⁷²⁹

Fulness of a virtue can mean its epitome (Sir 1:16). Gnostics viewed the Pleroma as the sum of the aeons (Irenaeus Haer. 1.1.1; 1.5; cf. Prayer of the Apostle Paul in NHL, 28; Gospel of Truth in NHL, 37); but against the gnostic interpretation of Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 228, cf. Harris, «Origin,» 417–18 (Colossians, John, and gnosticism drew the word from wisdom motifs; cf. Sir 2:16; 35:14–15); Overfield, «Pleroma.» Few current commentators find gnosticism here (Schnackenburg, John, 1:275; Sandmel, Judaism, 474 n. 5). See comment on «full» in 1:14.

³⁷³⁰

Against ÓNeill, «Prologue,» 44–45, who thinks that the last phrase of v. 16 and the whole of v. 17 «form a long interpolation,» but admits that no textual evidence supports his hypothesis. Michael, «Prologue,» 278, likewise suggests an accidental change from an original χάριν άντί νόμου without any textual evidence.

³⁷³¹

Black, «Tradition,» citing a similar play in the Tg. Yer. to Lev 20:17.

³⁷³²

See DeSilva, Honor, 104–5, 116 (citing esp. Sophocles Ajax 522; Seneca Benef. 2.35.1), though not on this passage. Ancients would associate «grace» with patronal generosity or benevolence (DeSilva, Honor, 104–5, citing esp. Aristotle Rhet. 2.7.1, 1385al6–20; idem, «Patronage,» 768; following Danker, Benefactor).

³⁷³³

MacGregor, John, 20, citing Philo Posterity 145; Stevens, Theology, 96; Edwards, «Grace»; Brown, John, 1:16; Moloney, Belief, 46–47; cf. Westcott, John, 14 (citing the thought of m. «Abot4:5); Stuart, «Examination,» 321; note Jeremias, Message, 85; Haenchen, John, 1:120.

³⁷³⁵

See Boismard, Prologue, 60–61.

³⁷³⁶

On this linguistic use, see Blumenthal, «Χάρις.»

³⁷³⁷

So Ridderbos, John, 56.

³⁷³⁸

Sir 26:15. The preposition differs (as most scholars cited above would point out, stressing άντί in 1:16); but LXX readers might have suspected an allusion; prepositions were losing some force by the Koine period.

³⁷³⁹

Compare emphatic expressions such as «from glory to glory» (2Cor 3:18) or «from faith to faith» (Rom 1:17); «from evil to [greater] evil» (Jer 9:3; cf. 2Tim 3:13); «from strength to strength» (Ps 84[83LXX]); perhaps Ps 103(«from age to age»). «Evil on evil» (Homer Il. 16.111) simply underlines Aias’s suffering; cf. the emphatic rhetorical flourish in Menander Rhetor 2.3,378.29–30. Similar plays on words appear, e.g., in p. Meg. 1:9, §13 («from the Faithful to the faithful, from the Righteous One to the righteous» [trans. Neusner, 19:59–60]).

³⁷⁴⁰

So also others, e.g., Boismard, Prologue, 62. Dumbrell, «Law,» proposes that Christ here fulfills God’s original purpose in the law-giving of Exod 19–20 as opposed to the second law-giving in Exod 34; this requires us to assume that the Johannine community accepted a difference between the two gifts of Torah (a possible reading of John because midrashically natural, but not clear in the text).

³⁷⁴¹

See Whitacre, Polemic, 68,108; cf. Dahl, «History,» 132–33.

³⁷⁴²

Against Sikes, «Anti-Semitism,» 24; Strombeck, «Grace,» esp. 90; Ackerman, «Psalm 82,» 190–91.

³⁷⁴³

Against Pancaro, Law, 540; cf. even Epp, «Wisdom,» 139: «Torah has been displaced–superseded by Jesus Christ,» though he notes that the contrast is temporal rather than qualitative (pp. 140–41).

³⁷⁴⁴

The argument that John must oppose Torah because Jesus speaks of «your law» falters on the analogy that he also calls Abraham «your father,» «though obviously no disparagement of Abraham is intended (cf. 8.39–40), but rather of their appeal to him» (Whitacre, Polemic, 65–66).

³⁷⁴⁵

See Carson, Discourse, 28.

³⁷⁴⁶

Pancaro, Law, 534–46, argues correctly that the parallelism here is antithetical rather than synthetic. Some ancient versions, including the Peshitta, understood (and translated) an implicit adversative (see Baarda, «John 1,17b,» also suggesting that «grace» was missing in an underlying text).

³⁷⁴⁷

Harrison, «John 1:14,» 35; cf. Jones, «Moïse»; Trudinger, «Prophet.»

³⁷⁴⁸

The repeated קנה emphasizes the parallel structure.

³⁷⁴⁹

See, e.g., Boccaccini, Judaism, 171–74; Sanders, Judaism, 275–78; Limbeck, Ordnung, passim.

³⁷⁵⁰

1 Esd 9:39; LA.B. 11:2; «Abot R. Nat. 1 A; Sipre Deut. 305.1.2; Ned. 38a; cf. Barrett, John, 169; Sib. Or. 11.37 (Egypt, maybe first century B.C.E.); cf. texts that stress Torah as God’s gift, e.g., Sipre Deut. 32.5.10; Lev. Rab. 35:8; Num. Rab. 19:33. Moore, Judaism, 1:398, cites also the ancient Ahabah Rabbah preceding the Shema. Despite Moses» greatness, others were worthy that Torah should have been given through them: Ezra (t. Sanh. 4:7; b. Sanh. 21b; p. Meg. 1:9, §3); yet Moses was «the best-known figure of Jewish history in the pagan world» (Gager, Moses, 18), and pagans called Moses the νομοθέτης of the Jews (Gager, Moses, 25; for positive views, see 25–79; for deficiencies, 80–112).

³⁷⁵¹

Philo may have claimed that God authored only the Ten Commandments by himself, to allow Moses more involvement in authoring other components of the law (Myre, «Caractéristiques»). Gnostics may have developed Philonic thought in constructing their view that God is not the source of all the law (Fallon, «Law»).

³⁷⁵²

See Whitacre, Polemic, 51. Cf. the contrast between Moses the servant and Christ the king of 1in Augustine Tract. Ev. Jo. 3.16.

³⁷⁵³

Meeks, Prophet-King, 292.

³⁷⁵⁴

Many concur that 1echoes Exod 33:20, e.g., Borgen, «Agent» 145; Boismard, Prologue, 64 (citing also Judg. 13:21–22; Isa 6); Epp, «Wisdom,» 137; Glasson, Moses, 25. Lacomara, «Deuteronomy,» 68, thinks John 1explicitly echoes Deut 34:10; Num 12:6–8, especially given John’s reference to Moses in 1:17.

³⁷⁵⁵

Greek views seem to have varied (cf., e.g., Xenophon Mem. 1.4.9; Epictetus Diatr. 1.6.19; Plutarch Isis 9, Mor. 354D; Isis 75, Mor. 381B; Chariton 1.14.1; Maximus of Tyre Oration 8.10 in Grant, Religions, 168; PGM 13.62 in Grant, Religions, 47; cf. Plutarch Isis 78, Mor. 383A; Dio Cassius frg. 1.6.3; Hippolytus Haer. 1.16); for deities» selective revelations, see, e.g., Callimachus Hymns 2.9–10 (cf. Acts 10:41); for the danger of seeing them, e.g., Callimachus Hymns 5.98–102,111–116. Cf. some analogous ideas of God’s transcendence in traditional societies (Mbiti, Religions, 64).

³⁷⁵⁶

1QS 11.20; 2 En. 48:5; «Abot R. Nat. 2, 39 A; Sipra VDDen. pq. 2.2.3.2–3; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 16:13; Tg. Neof. on Exod 33:23; Tg. Onq. on Exod 33:20,23; see further under «Vision of God» in our introduction. This could apply even despite partial throne revelations (1 En. 14:19,21).

³⁷⁵⁷

Rissi, «Word,» 401, thinks John 1«is directed against» those who claim «another and direct access to God» besides Jesus. See in more detail DeConick, Mystics, though she focuses on the Thomas tradition.

³⁷⁵⁸

Names 7; Creation 69; Spec. Laws 1.47; 2.165; see further Hagner, «Vision,» 82–84; Isaacs, Spirit, 30; Lee, Thought, 17; citing Cherubim 101; Names 2; Rewards 40 as direct parallels, and close parallels in Dreams 1.67; Unchangeable 56; Alleg. Interp. 2.36; Names 9–10; Rewards 44.

³⁷⁵⁹

Sib. Or. 3.12 (αόρατος), 17 (probably pre-Christian); frg. 1, lines 8–11 (date unclear).

³⁷⁶¹

Also, e.g., Rom 1:20; 1Tim 1:17; Aristobulus frg. 4 (second century B.C.E., in Eusebius Praep. ev. 13.13.5, in OTP 2:840); Orphica long version 11–12 (OTP 2:799); a line attributed to Euripides but possibly from a Jewish work in Clement of Alexandria (OTP 2:828, in «Fragments of Pseudo-Greek Poets,» third to second century B.C.E., intr. and trans. H. Attridge, 2:821–30); T. Ab. 16:4A. Cf. the danger of beholding death in T. Ab. 17:9–18:1A; 13:15–14(cf. the Greek Medusa?).

³⁷⁶²

L.A.B. 11:14; cf. Sipra VDDen. pq. 2.2.3.3; some believed Moses ascended to heaven to receive Torah and there beheld God (Martyn, History, 103; cf. comment on 3:13). For Philo, Moses saw because he went beyond mortal vision (Names and because he sought a revelation of God (Spec. Laws 1.41; cf. John 14:8). One could see God in some sense yet remain alive (Gen 32:30; Ascen. Isa. 3:8–10), or in some traditions be spared temporarily by God’s mercy (Gen. Rab. 65:10; cf. Callimachus Hymns 6.59). Hanson, «Midrash,» thinks that Paul expounded as if Moses saw the preexistent Christ.

³⁷⁶³

Sipre Deut. 357.19.1; b. Ber. 7a; Meg. 19b. The rabbis may have had reason to polemicize here as well if some Diaspora Jews implied that Moses» vision of God divinized him (cf. Van der Horst, «Vision»), as in some Greek traditions of visionary divinization (see on divinization, above; wrongly viewed as better background for 1 John 3by Bousset as reported in Howard, Gospel, 163; Boman, «Thought-Forms,» 22).

³⁷⁶⁴

Ascen. Isa. 3:8–10. Knibb and many others think this part is pre-Christian, which is possible; the revelations of Isaiah (ch. 6) and Ezekiel were also appropriated by Jewish visionaries in revelations of God’s throne; later rabbis seem to have polemicized against this Isaiah tradition (b. Yebam. 49b).

³⁷⁶⁵

Cf. 1 En. 90:35; «Abot R. Nat. 1A; Sifra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.5. The righteous deceased could also see God’s face (פני אל, CIJ 1:452, §634, an inscription from Italy; [Ε]ικ[ων] ενορώ[ντος] θεου, CIJ 1:509, §696, from Thessaly; Sipra VDDen. pq. 2.2.3.2; Sipre Deut. 357.19.1).

³⁷⁶⁶

See Carson, Sovereignty, 156.

³⁷⁶⁷

E.g., Potterie, «Finale»; Devillers, «Exégèse.»

³⁷⁶⁸

For the double meaning «guide» and «narrate,» see Robert, «Mot»; idem, «Précédent,» citing Plato Rep. 474BC for the same double sense.

³⁷⁶⁹

The term probably alludes to Sir 43:31: «Who has seen (τις εόρακεν) him [i.e. God] and can fully make him known (εκδιηγήσεται)?» (Epp, «Wisdom,» 138). Cf. Epictetus Diatr. 1.6.19, where humanity not only observes God and his acts but must be an εξηγητής of them. The εξηγητής was a Roman provincial administrative office (e.g., P.Ry1. 119.1; P.Oxy. 1025.3) referring to an «explicator» or «adviser» (Lewis, Life, 186).

³⁷⁷⁰

Cf. Moloney, «Bosom,» 68, who suggests this means that John was «turned towards the Father (in love and obedience throughout the whole of his historical presence among men and women).»

³⁷⁷¹

E.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 2:1. A Babylonian Amora could exegete so as to describe the sanetuary as the earth’s bosom (Pesiq. Rab. 12:10).

³⁷⁷²

Thus God holds a Torah scroll to his bosom in Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 2:1; an early Tanna (early second century C.E.) declared that Torah lay in God’s bosom 974 generations before the world was created (Harvey, «Torah,» 1236; Epp, «Wisdom,» 138; Dodd, Interpretation, 86; and Hofius, «Schoss,» all citing «Abot R. Nat. 31).

³⁷⁷³

E.g., Euripides Bacch. 96–100, 203, 286–287. But Jesus remains in God’s bosom rather than being born from it, and the image (cf. 13:23) is closer to a son being held tight to a father’s chest (Luke 15:20; cf. Tob 11:9; Appian R.H. 2.5.3); Dionysus is a deified mortal, whereas Jesus is deity who became flesh.

³⁷⁷⁴

E.g., Jub. 23(Jacob on his grandfather Abraham’s bosom); Juvenal Sat. 2.120 (bride on new husband’s).

³⁷⁷⁵

Cf. T. Ab. 20.Ί4Α (the σκηναί [abodes] of Isaac and Jacob are εν τω κόλπω αυτού in paradise). As D. J. Harrington («Abraham Traditions,» 171) points out, the parallel between Γ. Ab. 20 and Jub. 23’is purely verba1.»

³⁷⁷⁶

Lataire, «Lap» ; for growing up in a palace as being reared in royal laps (κόλποις), see Menander Rhetor 2.1–2, 371.18–20. The long history of images of divine kings in deities» bosoms (Kügler, «Sohn») probably reflects a particular application of this broader image. «Father» is a divine title in some Greek sources (e.g., Aeschylus Supp1. 139) and many Jewish sources (see Keener, Matthew, 216–18) but often retains its original metaphoric significance.

³⁷⁷⁷

Du Plessis, «Only Begotten,»» 28; cf. Moloney, «Bosom,» 68. John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 15 took the image as one of equality (no one else dared be in the Father’s bosom), but interpreters have usually emphasized this image as an anthropomorphic metaphor for intimacy (Luther, 1st Sermon on John 1) and sharing of secrets (Augustine Tract. Ev. Jo. 3.17.2; Calvin, John, 1:55; see comment on John 15:13–15).

³⁷⁷⁸

E.g., Stevens, Theology, 108; Haenchen, John, 1:121; Letis, «Influences.» Boismard, Prologue, 66, favors a still less attested reading: «only begotten» without «Son» or «God» (so Tatian, Origen once, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc.)

³⁷⁷⁹

See Harris, Jesus as God, 73–103, esp. 74–83; Bernard, John, 1:31–32; Vellanickal, Sonship, 129.

³⁷⁸⁰

Ross, «Titles»; cf. Metzger, Commentary, 198; Du Plessis, «Only Begotten,»» 27; Michaels, John, 9.

³⁷⁸³

Cf. Barrett, John, 169. An inclusio surrounding a proem appears in a widely read Greek classic, Homer Od. 1.1–10, where 1.1–2 and 1.10 invoke the Muse to tell the story while 1.2–9 summarizes the whole book’s plot. Repetition on a smaller syntactic level was also a part of good style Cicero Or. Brut. 39.135).

³⁷⁸⁴

Chow, «Applications.» Shock value offered one means for orators to hold attention (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 24).

³⁷⁸⁵

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Col. 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Col. 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him.

What name was Jesus given at birth?

A linguistic timeline

Is it a translation?

Isn’t there power in Jesus’ name?

Should we pray in Jesus’ name?

The Preexistent Word (1:1–2)

1. In the Beginning (1:1a, 2)

2. The Word’s Preexistence (1:1–2)

2A. Wisdom or Torah as God’s First Creation

2B. The Préexistence of Johns Logos

2C. The Word Was with God (1:1b)

3. The Word’s Deity (1:1c)

The Word and Creation (1:3)

1. Proposed Greek Parallels

2. Jewish Views of Creation

The Word as Life and Light (1:4–5)

1. Uses of Light Imagery

2. Jesus as the Life

3. Light Prevails over Darkness

John Only a Witness (1:6–8)

1. Polemic against a Baptist Sect

2. John as a Witness

The World Rejects the Light (1:9–11)

1. The True Light Enlightens Everyone (1:9)

2. The World Knew Him Not (1:10)

3. His Own Received Him Not (1)

Those Who Received Him (1:12–13)

1. Believers as God’s Children (1:12)

2. Not According to the Flesh (1:13)

The New Sinai (1:14–18)

1. The Revelation (1:14)

1A. The Word’s Incarnation (1:14)

1B. The Word Tabernacled among Us (1:14)

1C. We Beheld His Glory (1:14)

1D. The μονογενής Son (1:14,18)

1E. Full of Grace and Truth (1:14)

2. The Baptist’s Testimony (1:15)

3. Greater than Moses» Revelation (1:16–18)

3A. Receiving the Fulness of Grace and Truth (1:16)

3B. Christ More Gracious Than Law (1:17)

3C. Beholding God’s Face in Christ (1:18)

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Col. 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col. 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him.