| The soteriology of both reflects that of early Christianity in general, but they have special nuances in common, some overlapping more with those found in other early Christian sources than others do. Jesus loves his own (Rev 1:5,3:9; John 13:1,34,15:9–10 ), holds believers» fate in his hands (Rev 1and passim; John 10:28–29 ), and declares who are genuinely his people (Rev 3:7–8; John 10 ). Jesus» death and resurrection have cosmic significance (Rev 1:18; 2:8; cf. 3:1; John 12:31; 16:11; 17:4–5 ). Jesus» blood frees his followers (Rev 1:5; 5:9; 12:11), and cleanses them (Rev 7:14, cf. 22:14; 1 John 1:7 ), and is related to a river of life ( John 19:34 ; cf. Rev 22:1). Both have references to piercing dependent on the same Zechariah testimonium (Rev 1:7; John 19:37 ). Both include the vision of God through Jesus (Rev 22:4; John 1:18; 1 John 3:6 ), although Revelation retains the apocalyptic orientation of divine vision from Judaism. The apparent elect may apostatize ( John 6:70 ; Dan in Rev 7:4–8), 1093 wrath is emphasized (Rev 6:16–17; 11:18; 14:10, 15–16; 19:15; John 3:36 ), 1094 and «death» has a spiritual orientation (Rev 2:11, 20:14; 1 John 3:14, 5:16–17 ). 1095 Both apparently transform Jesus» cross into a throne (Rev 5, 22:1; John 12:32–33; 19:2–3,15,19 ). Both works emphasize that salvation (and damnation) are available to all nations (Rev 5:9–10; 7vs. 13:7; 14:6; κσμος in John, esp. 4:42). «Repentance» (Rev 2:5; etc.) is not found in John, but appears in early Christian literature most commonly in conjunction with future eschatology (e.g., Matt 3:2; 4:17), 1096 and John implies it by other terms (his faith and decision dualisms). 1097 They also exhibit parallels in Christology. 1098 Jesus is Lord of history but subordinate to the Father. He is the beginning and the end (Rev 1:17; 2:8; 3:14; 22:13; cf. 1:8; 4vs. 17:8; John 1:1–18 ); this identifies him as deity (Isa 44:6; Rev 1:8; 21:6). He may be the Son of Man of Dan 7 (Rev 1:13, but cf. 14:14), as often in John (esp. 5:27). As in John, Revelation " s Jesus is the divine Son of God (Rev 2:18, although this may strike especially at the imperial cult). 1099 His name is significant (e.g., Rev 2:3, 3:8, 12). Jesus has a supernatural knowledge of the human heart (Rev 2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:3, 8, 15, especially with ργα; John 2:24–25; 6:15, 64 ), searching the minds and hearts (Rev 2:23; John 2:25 ). Jesus is explicitly called creator only in the Gospel, but there acts as the agent of the Father (1:3), which does not conflict with Revelation (4:11; cf. 3:14). |
| 508 E.g., Xenophon Mem. 1.2.3; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 108.4. Writers cared about both the words and «deeds» of characters (e.g., Xenophon Cyr. 5.1.1; Mem. 1.5.6; 4.4.10; on this pairing see further Keener, Matthew, 255, 540; the apparently contrary statement of Eunapius Vit. soph, intro. 452–453 refers in context to casual activities only–cf. Xenophon Symp. 1.1). 509 Josephus Life 8; Ag. Ap. 1.60; 2.171–173, 204. Josephus " s statements on Jewish literacy, like that in m. " Abot 5:21, may reflect the literate elite, with much of the population learning Torah orally (Horsley, Galilee, 246–47); but there were undoubtedly reasons others considered Judeans a «nation of philosophers» (Stern, Authors, 1:8–11,46–50; Gager, Anti-Semitism, 39), and «the synagogue was a comparatively intellectual milieu» (Riesner, «Synagogues,» 209). Philo (Boccaccini, Judaism, 192–94) and Pseudo-Aristeas (Boccaccini, Judaism, 194–98) also stress memory, blending Greek language with Jewish memorial traditions concerning God " s historic acts. 511 Sipre Deut. 48.1.1–4; Goodman, State, 79; cf. Sipre Deut. 4.2.1; 306.19.1–3; b. Ber. 38b; p. Meg. 4:1, §4; Gerhardsson, Memory, 113–21,127–29,168–70; Zlotnick, «Memory.» 512 See documentation in Keener, Matthew, 25–29. Greek and Roman philosophers also could do the same (Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.22.523), even using poetry to reinforce their teaching for early students (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 108.9–10), though not advanced ones (ibid. 108.12; poetry and song involved memorization, Apollodorus 1.3.1; Seneca Controv. 1.pref.2,19). 513 E.g., t. Yebam. 3:1; Mek. Pisha 1.135–136; Sipre Deut. 48.2.6; " Abot R. Nat. 24 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; b. Sukkah 28a; p. Šeqa1. 2:5; cf. m. c Ed. 1:4–6; Sipra Behuq. pq. 13.277.1.12; see further Moore, Judaism, 1:99; Urbach, Sages, 1:68; Gerhardsson, Memory, 122–70; idem, Origins, 19–24; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 14–17. When the proper attribution was unknown, this was sometimes stated (p. Ter. 8:5). 514 This distinction between «net» and «chain» transmission (D. C. Rubin, «Transmission,» Chap. T, 1989) was pointed out to me by Margaret Bradley, a Duke student researching memory from a psychological perspective. |
| 9399 Also Painter, John, 59. 9400 Appold, Motif, 199, suggests connections «with the worship experiences of the Johannine church» (cf. 4:23–24); but the hymns in Revelation, which differ considerably from this prayer, may be more revealing. 9401 Also Tob 3:11–12; 4Q213 frg. 1, co1. 1, line 8; 4 Bar. 6:5; Jos. Asen. 11:19/12:1; f. Ber. 3:14; Pesiq. Rab. 3:5; p. Ber. 4:6; Carson, Discourse, 175; see comment on 4:35. Prayer toward Jerusalem was, however, normative as we11: 1 Kgs 8:44; Dan 6:10; 1 Esd 4:58; m. Ber. 4:5–6; t. Ber. 3:14; for standing in prayer, see, e.g., Matt 6:5; Luke 18:11; p. Ber. 1:1, §8; Lachs, Commentary, 210. 9402 Homer/. 7.178, 201; Xenophon Cyr. 6.4.9; Virgil Aen. 2.405–406 (because she could not lift her hands); 12.195; Silius Italicus 1.508; Chariton 8.7.2; cf. some (albeit only some) traditional cultures in Mbiti, Religions, 84. PGM 4.585 reports closing eyes for prayer, but some parts require the eyes to be open (PGM 4.625; cf. Iamblichus V.P. 28.156); the magical papyri require many different magical gestures. 9403 E.g., Judaism frequently associates God with «heaven» (e.g. 1 Esd 4:58; Tob 10:13; Jdt 6:19; 1Macc 3:18, 50, 60; 4:24; 3Macc 7:6; 1 En. 83:9; 91:7). Greeks also sometimes located Zeus in heaven (Achilles Tatius 5.2.2; cf. Seneca Dia1. 12.8.5). As a circumlocution for God, see comment on John 3:3 . 9404 Ezra 9:5; Lam 2:19; 3:41 ; Isa 1:15; 1 En. 84:1; Jub. 25:11; Ps 155:2; 1 Esd 9:47; 2Macc 3:20; 14:34; 15:12, 21; 3Macc 5:25; 4 Macc 4:11; Sib. Or. 3.559–560, 591–593; 4.162–170; Josephus Ant. 3.26,53; 4.40; Ag. Ap. 1.209; 3.26; T. Mos. 4:1; Mek. Pisha 1.38; t. Móed Qat. 2:17. Cf. also 1Tim 2:8 ; 1 Clem. 29.1; Acts John 43. 9405 E.g., Homer I1. 1.450; 3.275, 318; 5.174; 6.257; 7.130; 8.347; 15.368–372; 19.254; Od. 9.294, 527; 17.239; 20.97; Euripides E1. 592–593; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.248; 4.593,1702; Virgil Aen. 1.93; 4.205; 9.16; 12.195; Ovid Metam. 2.477, 580; 6.261–262; 9.702–703; 11.131; 13.410–411; Diodorus Siculus 14.29.4; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 3.17.5; 15.9.2; Appian C.W. 2.12.85; R.H. 2.5.5; Livy 7.6.4; Suetonius Nero 41; Arrian Alex. 4.20.3 (a Persian); Epictetus Diatr. 4.10.14; Plutarch Cleverness 17, Mor. 972B; Chariton 3.1.8. |
| The evidence for Elijah " s eschatological role in post-OT sources is hardly limited to later rabbinic texts, however. 3845 Aune finds reference to him as forerunner in 1 En. 90:31; 3846 4 Ezra 6assumes him among historic figures with special roles at the end of the age (among those who never died); 3847 and Matthew (17:10) unhesitatingly follows Mark (9) in presupposing that this role was widely known in Jewish circles. Sirachs portrayal of Elijah as a restorer and forerunner of the end time (if not explicitly of the messiah) is very close to this. 3848 2B. Not the Prophet (1:21b) Some of these texts may coalesce the image of Elijah with that of the Mosaic eschatological prophet many Jewish people saw in Deut 18:18 . 3849 A Tannaitic midrash on Deut 18 declares that this prophet could even temporarily suspend a commandment of Moses, as Elijah did. 3850 Expectations of this prophet were not solely linked with Elijah, however; that represented only one conceptual option among severa1. 3851 The expectation may appear in 1Maccabees (4:46; 14), 3852 although these texts more likely focus on the restoration of prophecy in general and not a Mosaic prophet in particular. 3853 Some other texts are clearer, although not attesting that all segments of Judaism expected a Mosaic prophet distinct from Elijah. 3854 A Qumran text links an eschatological prophet with the messiahs of Aaron and Israel while distinguishing all three figures; 3855 the historic Teacher of Righteousness apparently reflected some functions of the «prophet like Moses,» but after his passing the complete fulfillment seems to have awaited the eschatological generation. 3856 Samaritan expectation, with its emphasis on the Pentateuch, naturally emphasizes this prophet more than most Jewish texts do, although Qumran expectation is similar. 3857 In our text, Johns interlocutors are careful to question whether he is Elijah or the Prophet if he is not the Christ. «The Prophet» here refers to Deut 18:15–18 , 3858 and early Christian tradition found this text " s fulfillment in Jesus 3859 (e.g., Acts 3:22; 7:37; 3860 cf. Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7 ; Luke 9:35). «Hear him» in the transfiguration story probably alludes in this context to Deut 18:15 ; 3861 likewise the mountain; cloud; allusion to tabernacles; transfiguration (cf. Exod 34:29); presence of Moses and Elijah on the mount (Exod 34:2; 1 Kgs 19:8); and the timing («six days,» cf. Exod 24:16) all suggest allusions to Moses. 3862 The present text, however, distinguishes various roles, suggesting that more than mainstream Christian theology stands behind it. It is possible that the segment of Judaism from which much of John " s community and/or its opponents sprang laid heavy emphasis on the eschatological prophet (1:25; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17); while a prophet Christology would be inadequate (4:19, 25–29; 6:14–15; 7:40–41), Jesus is clearly a prophet (4:44; 9:17), 3863 hence foreshadows the prophetic ministry of the Johannine community (16:7–15). 3864 |
| 4093 Cf. in Isaacs, Spirit, 47, citing Philo Flight 132; Moses 1.175 for Moses being the Spirit " s «recipient par excellence» and Giants 47 for the Spirit abiding with him longer than with others. 4094 Whitacre, Polemic, 98; see the thesis of Keener, «Pneumatology,» passim. 4095 See, e.g., Mattill, Last Things, 4; Robinson, Studies, 161; Dunn, Baptism, 42; cf. Minear, Kingdom, 135. Tannehill, Sword, 145; idem, Luke, 1:251, connects with the context of division. For authenticity, see Hill, Prophecy, 67. 4096 Ps 1:4 ; Hos 13:3 ; Isa 17:13; cf. Exod 15:7; Jer 4:11–13; 13:24; 15:7 ; Isa 29:5; 33:11; 41:15–16; Zeph 2:2. Cf. Matt 9:38; 13:39; 21:34. Cf. the «threshing-floor» in 4 Ezra 4:30–32. 4097 Isa 26:11; 66:15–16,24; cf. 2 Thess 1:6–7 and many other early Christian sources; cf. Ps 97:3 ; Nah 1:6; Zeph 1(which readers could have taken eschatologically, although historic judgments stood in the foreground); or for noneschatological judgment, e.g., Num 11:1 ; Jer 4:4; 15:14; 17:4; 21:12 ; Ezek 21:31; 22:20–21 . The Semitic expression «wrath burned» is common in the Hebrew Bible, and the cognate appears, e.g., in the Moabite Mesha inscription (ANET 320–21). 4098 Chaff did not burn eternally (Ladd, Theology, 37, cites Isa 1:31; 66:24; Jer 7:20 ); that Q " s fire is unquenchable suggests a particular Jewish image of judgment as eternal (the worst sinners in 4 Macc 9:9; 12:12; t. Sanh. 13:5; probably 1 En. 108:5–6; L.A.B. 38:4; Ascen. Isa. 1:2; 3 En. 44:3; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Sanh. 6:6, §2; Plutarch D. V. 31, Mor. 567DE). There was no unanimous Jewish view; see the probably first-century dispute in " Abot R. Nat. 41 A; cf. also 36 A. Matthew " s view is more obviously Jewish than Lukés (cf. Milikowsky, «Gehenna»; Goulder, Matthew, 63), though Lukés Hellenistic contextualization does not abandon future eschatology (Acts 17:31–32; 23:6; 24:15; contrast to some extent, e.g., Josephus Ant. 18.14, 18; War 2.163; Philo Sacrifices 5, 8). 4099 In the most common rabbinic view, most sinners endure it temporarily till destruction (cf. 1QS 4.13–14; Gen. Rab. 6:6; most sinners in t. Sanh. 13:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10:4; Pesiq. Rab. 11:5) or release (Num. Rab. 18:20; other texts are unclear, e.g., Sir 7:16 ; Sipre Num. 40.1.9; Sipre Deut. 311.3.1; 357.6.7; " Abot R. Nat. 16 A; 32, §69 B; 37, §95 B). Many Jewish storytellers conflated Gehenna with the Greek Tartarus (e.g., Sib. Or. 1.10, 101–103, 119; 4.186; 5.178; 11.138; cf. Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4:22; b. Git. 56b-57a; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Sanh. 6:6, §2; Apoc. Pet. 5–12; on the relationship between Jewish and Greek concepts, cf. also Serrano, «Sheol»). |
| Like the rest of the Fourth Gospel, John here insists that Jewish believers remain faithful to the God of Israel through fidelity to Jesus, not through satisfying the synagogue leadership (12:42–43). This is because Jesus is God " s faithful agent; he neither spoke (14:10; cf. 16:13) nor acted (5:30; 8:28, 42) on his own (12:49), but only at the Father " s command (12:49; see comment on 5:19). 7989 By again reinforcing the portrait of Jesus as God " s faithful agent, John reminds his hearers that their opponents who in the name of piety opposed a high view of Jesus were actually opposing the God who appointed him to that role. «The Father " s commandment is eternal life» (12:50) is presumably elliptical for «obedience to the Father " s command produces eternal life,» but also fits the identification of the word (1:4), Jesus» words (6:68), and knowing God (17:3) with life. For John, the concept of «command» should not be incompatible with believing in Jesus (6:27; cf. 8:12; 12:25), which is the basis for eternal life (3:15–16; 6:40, 47; 11:25; 20:31); faith involves obedience (3:36; cf. Acts 5:32; Rom 1:5; 2:8; 6:16–17; 15:18; 16:19, 26; 2 Thess 1:8; 1Pet 1:22; 4:17 ). Jesus always obeys his Father " s commands (8:29), including the command to face death (10:18; 14:31); his disciples must follow his model of obedience to his commandments by loving one another sacrificially (13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10,12). 7803 Matthew " s stirring of «the entire city» (Matt 21:10), however, may invite the reader to compare this event with an earlier disturbance of Jerusalem (Matt 2:3). 7804 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 306; Catchpole, «Entry.» In favor of reliability, see also Losie, «Entry,» 858–59. 7805 In view of ancient patronal social patterns, Jesus» numerous «benefactions» would also produce an entourage, seeking favors, that could potentially double as a political support base, exacerbating his threat to the political elite (DeSilva, Honor, 135). 7806 Also for Matthew (Matt 21:10–11); in Luke those who hail him are disciples (Luke 19:37, 39); even in Mark, where «many» participate, those who go before and after him are probably those who knew of his ministry in Galilee ( Mark 11:8–9 ). This may represent a very different crowd from the one that condemned him (Matt 27:20–25; Mark 15:11–14 ; Luke 23:13, 18, 21, 23)–certainly in John, where the condemning «Jews» are the «high priests» (19:6–7, 12–15). |
| MacMullen, «Conversion» MacMullen, Ramsay. «Conversion: A Historian " s View.» Second Century 5 (1985–1986): 67–81. MacMullen, Enemies MacMullen, Ramsay. Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966. MacMullen, Relations MacMullen, Ramsay. Roman Social Relations: 50 B.C. to A.D. 284. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. MacMullen, «Women» MacMullen, Ramsay. «Women in Public in the Roman Empire.» Historia 29 (1980): 209–18. MacRae, «Gnosticism» MacRae, George W. «Gnosticism and New Testament Studies.» The Bible Today 38 (November 1968): 2623–2630. MacRae, Invitation MacRae, George W. Invitation to John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John with Complete Text from the Jerusalem Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1978. MacRae, «Myth» MacRae, George W. «The Jewish Background of the Gnostic Sophia Myth.» NovT 12 (1970): 86–101. Maddox, Purpose Maddox, Robert. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982. Magen, «Bty-knst» Magen, I. «Bty-knst swmrynyym [Samaritan Synagogues].» Qadmoniot 25 (1992): 66–90. Magen, «QTndyh» Magen, Y. «QTndyh–hwwh hql " yt lgydwl gpnym wlyyswr yyn mymy byt Sny [Kalandia–a Vineyard Farm and Winery of Second Temple Times].» Qadmoniot 17 (1984): 61–71. Magen, «Yrwslym» Magen, Y. «Yrwslym kmrkz si t c syyt kly- " bn btqwpt hwrdws [Jerusalem as the Center for Stone-Ware Production in Herodian Times].» Qadmoniot 17 (1984): 124–27. Magness, «Observations» Magness, J. «Some Observations on the Roman Temple at Kadesh.» IEJ 40 (1990): 173–81. Magness, Sense Magness, J. Lee. Sense and Absence: Structure and Suspension in the Ending of Mark " s Gospe1. Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1986. Magnien, Mystères Magnien, Victor. Les mystères d " Eleusis: Leurs origines, le rituel de leurs initiations. 3d ed. Paris: Payot, 1950. Maher, «Humble» Maher, Michae1. «Humble of Heart: The Virtue of Humility in Rabbinic Literature.» Milltown Studies 11 (1983): 25–43. |
| 6360 Cf. Germanicus " s praise in Dio Cassius 57.18.6; cf. Anderson, Glossary, 125 (citing Rhet. Ad Herenn. 4.63). 6361 E.g., Apollonius of Rhodes 1.307–311 ; 3.443–444. 6362 E.g., Pythagoras (Aulus Gellius 1.9.2; Iamblichus V.P. 17.71); 4Q185 1 2.7–8; 4Q186 1 1.5–6; 2 1.3–4; 4Q561. 6363 Homer I1. 3.167; Od. 1.207, 301; 3.199; 9.508; 10.396; Aristotle Rhet. 1.5.13, 1361b; Arrian Alex. 5.19.1; Plutarch Lycurgus 17.4; Chariton 2.5.2; Herodian 4.9.3; 6.4.4; Artapanus in Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.27.37. If the Shroud of Turin should prove authentic, however (see Borkan, «Authenticity»), it would testify that Jesus was, after all, perhaps a head taller than his contemporaries. 6364 Homer Od. 13.289; 15.418; 18.195; Plutarch D.V33, Mor. 568A; Longus 2.23; Achilles Tatius 1.4.5; Jos. Asen. 1:4–5/6–8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 17:6. 6365 Agamemnon was a head taller than Odysseus, but the latter had a broader chest (Homer 17. 3.193–194) and is «tall» in Homer Od. 6.276; 8.19–20. Cf. Cornelius Nepos 17 (Agesilaus), 8.1. 6366 Malherbe, «Description,» comparing Augustus, Heracles, and Agathion. Some of the apparently unflattering features become conventional as early as Homer " s depictions of Odysseus; the «small of stature» observation (Acts Paul 3:3; Paul and Thecla 3) fits his Latin name (Paulus, small). 6367 Drury, Design, 29. 6368 Aristotle Po1. 3.7.3, 1282b; Rhet. 1.6.10, 1362b; Theon Progymn. 9.20; Jdt 8:7; 10:7; cf., e.g., Plato Charm. 158C; Chariton 2.1.5; 3.2.14; 5.5.3; 5.5.9; 6.1.9–12; 6.6.4; Athenaeus Deipn. 13.608F; Sir 36:22 ; t. Ber. 6:4; but cf. Plutarch Bride 24–25, Mor. 141CD; Prov 6:25; 31:30 ; Sir 9:8; 11:2; 25:21 . 6369 Sextus Empiricus Eth. 3.43 recognizes that various peoples defined beauty according to their own cultures. 6370 Homer Il. 1.197; Euripides E1. 515, 521–523; Hipp. 220, 1343; Iph. au1. 758, 1366; Here. fur. 993; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.1084; 3.829; 4.1303, 1407; Virgil Aen. 4.590; 10.138; Ovid Metam. 9.715. 6371 Homer Il. 19.282; Od. 4.14; Aristophanes BirdslU; Apollonius of Rhodes 2.676; Virgil Aen. 4.558; Ovid Metam. 11.165; Apuleius Metam. 5.22. |
| 5024 Explicit references to Moses appear far more widely in the Gospel (1:17, 45; 3:14; 5:45–46; 6:32; 7:19, 22–23; 9:28–29) than references to Jacob (only in 4:5, 12) or Abraham (8:39–40, 52–53, 56–58) or David (7:42). The Johannine audiencés opponents seem to appeal heavily to Moses» law to support their position (cf. esp. 5:45–46; 9:28–29). 5027 Odeberg, Gospel, 72 (on 1 En. 70:2; 71:1; 2 En. 1–24; 3 En. passim; Γ. Levi 2; 2 Bar. passim; Ascen. Isa. passim), 73–88 (Hermetic and Mandean texts), 89–94 (rabbinic literature). See also Borgen, «Agent,» 146 n. 4, following Odeberg; cf. Grese, «Born Again»; Kanagaraj, «Mysticism»; idem, «Mysticism» in John; DeConick, Mystics, 67. Talbert, John, 101, thinks 3may counter Christian mystics (as in 1 John 4:1 ). 5028 Borgen, «Agent,» 146; idem, «Hellenism,» 104–5, citing Philo QE 2.46 (on Exod 24:16), which is probably authentic. Borgen, «Agent,» 146, connects John " s «Son of Man» with Philós «Man after God " s image» (Confusion 146; Alleg. Interp. 1.43). 5030 E.g., m. Roš Haš. 3:8; p. Roš Haš 3:9, §§1–6. Cf. deliverance from serpents in response to Jeremiah " s prayer in Liv. Pro. 2.3 (OTP 2:386; Greek, ed. Schermann, 81–82). 5031 Philo Creation 157; Agriculture 108; Alleg. Interp. 3.159; Migration 66. The «belly» frequently refers to pleasure in ancient texts (Euripides Cyc1. 334–335; Longus 4.11; Plutarch Pleas. L. 3, Mor. 1087D; Epictetus Diatr. 2.9.4; Achilles Tatius 2.23.1; Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 1.7; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 60.4; 3Macc 7:10–11; 4 Macc 1:3; Syr. Men. Epit. 6–8; Phil 3:19 ; Apoc. E1. 1:13), including in Philo (Spec. Laws 1.148–150, 192; 4.91). 5032 Exod. Rab. 3:12; Tg. Neof. 1 on Num 21:6 . Were the tradition earlier, one might appeal here to the messianic interpretation of Gen 3:15 , attested in the Targumim (McNamara, Targum, 121) and perhaps as early as the LXX (Martin, «Interpretation»). For texts identifying the serpent with the devil, see comment on 8:44. 5033 The identification of the Jewish lawgiver with «the lawless serpent» in Acts John 94 resembles gnostic anti-Judaism and not first-century tradition. Pace some, the source of Epiphanius Haer. 64.29.6 is probably not pre-Christian (Jacobson, «Serpent»). |
| 1. The Sin-Bearing Lamb (1:29, 36) In the Fourth Gospels distinctive chronology, Jesus dies on Passover; the temple cleansing, which in the Synoptic tradition occurs in his final Passover, opens his public ministry, framing his whole ministry with the shadow of the passion week and its Johannine association with Passover. «Lamb of God» is thus a very appropriate title. 1A. Proposed Backgrounds Scholars have proposed four main backgrounds for the lamb of 1:29: apocalyptic lambs; the lamb of Isa 53:7; and Passover and sacrificial lambs (we have treated these last two together). On the first reading, the Baptist announced an apocalyptic lamb, like the eschatological horned lambs of the messianic era in 1 Enoch. 4007 In this case, the Baptist " s public confession in 1(as opposed to the relative clause in the possibly unattested confession of 1:29, which defines the lamb " s mission in terms of sin-bearing) could make historical sense in the context of the Baptist being an eschatological prophet. The evidence for this position is weak, however. 4008 Apocalyptic lambs before John the Baptist appear only in materials from portions of 1 Enoch (chs. 89–90), and probably bear no specific function worthy of special attention by the Baptist or the Fourth Gospe1. 4009 Other works that use lambs to convey other images were more widely read in this period. 4010 Another apocalyptic work from the Johannine community includes one central lamb (Rev 5:6,13; 6:16; 7:10; we read the Greek terms for «lamb» interchangeably), but no allusion to the lambs of 1 Enoch; even in Revelation, the lamb is a Passover lamb that delivers God " s people from the plagues (cf. 5:6,9; 7:1–8,17). 4011 Others have found here the language of Isaiah " s Suffering Servant. 4012 Although the servant is clearly Israel in most of the Servant Songs (41:8–9; 43:10; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3), in 49and 53:4–8 the innocent servant suffers on behalf of Israel, which failed to carry out its mission fully (42:19). Although extant sources suggest (against some scholars) 4013 that Judaism lacked a messianic reading of the servant passages in this period 4014 (and later continued to lack it with regard to the suffering aspects of these passages), 4015 this became the prevailing interpretation in early Christian sources (e.g., Acts 8:32; 1Pet 2:22–24 ), 4016 and may hark back to Jesus» self-definition as presented in Mark 10:45; 14:24 . |
|
|
