| 7954 In the Targumim (Westcott, John, 185; Dahl, «History,» 131; Schnackenburg, John, 2:416; McNamara, Targum, 100; Boring et a1., Commentary, 294; Kirchhevel, «Children»). On early Jewish premises concerning God " s glory, this would be a natural inference from Isa 6:3–4. 7957 Isaiah had predicted a new revelation of glory at the new exodus (Isa 40:5; cf. 40:3, cited in John 1:23 ; Isa 24:23; 35:2; 44:23; 46:13; 49:3; 58:8; 59:19; 60:1–2; 66:18–19; 4Q176 frg. 1–2, co1. 1, lines 4–9). 7963 So Bauckham, God Crucified, 49–51, citing the interpretive principle gezerâ shevâ. He also suggests (p. 51) that exaltation to divine glory may have recalled Ps 110 (cf. Acts 2:33; 5:31; combined with Isa 57in Heb 1:3). 7964 See esp. Acts 4:1–2; 5:34–35; 15:5; 21:20; 23:6–8; 26:5. «Rulers» work together with «Pharisees» in 7:26,48; the world «ruler» who may stand behind earthly rulers is evil in 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; but 12:42, like 3:1, allows for more nuancing. For such nuancing with the Pharisees as well, see 9:16. 7965 Cf. Plutarch Themistocles 1.1; Demosthenes 12.1; Eunapius Lives 465. Alexander reportedly craved praise (Arrian Alex. 7.28.1). Some appreciated reputation but warned that it invited trouble (Babrius 4.7). 7966 Dio Chrysostom Or. 66, On Reputation (LCL 5:86–115); Seneca Ep. Luci1. 123.16; cf. also Porphyry Marc. 15.253 (where, however, the term bears the common nuance of «opinion,» as in, e.g., 17.284). Human mortality also relativized the value of glory (Diogenes Laertius 5.40, citing Theophrastus), and reputation invited trouble (Babrius 4.6–8). 7967 E.g., Xenophon Hiero 7.3 (φιλοτιμα); Philostratus Hrk. 23.23; 45.8; see comment on 5for the appropriate seeking of glory in antiquity. 7968 E.g., Diogenes Laertius 6.1.8 (Socrates); Diogenes Ep. 4; Socrates Ep. 6; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 3.9; Marcus Aurelius 7.34; Philo Spec. Laws 1.281. Diogenes the Cynic reportedly attacked all those who were bound by reputation (νδοξολογοντας, Diogenes Laertius 6.2.47). Cf. condemnations (albeit sometimes qualified) of «self-love» in Epictetus Diatr. 1.19.11; Plutarch Flatterer 1, Mor. 49A; Praising 19, Mor. 546F; Sextus Empiricus Pyr. 1.90; Philo Confusion 128; Worse 32; 2Tim 3:2 ; Sent. Sext. 138; more favorable in Aristotle N.E. 9.8.1–5, 1168ab; cf. also discussion in Grant, Paul, 41. |
| 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 2C. A Voice Crying (1:23) John the Baptist thus denies any prophesied function except that of forerunner, and even a qualified form of that (since he is not Elijah). Naturally the Fourth Gospel does not apply to John some of the traditional texts, such as Mark " s midrashic blending of Mai 3with Isa 40( Mark 1:2–3 ) 3865 or Matthew " s citation of Malachi in a different context (Matt 11:10); this passage in Malachi would too easily evoke an allusion to Mai 4:5–6 and require a more detailed explanation of the sense in which John is or is not an Elijah redivivus. But Isaiah " s promise of a new exodus 3866 and a messenger preparing the way (apparently giving orders to construction engineers and provincials) before the king at the head of the people was fitting. 3867 All four gospels apply the Isaiah text to John, but only the Fourth places the citation on John s own lips. Some scholars suggest that the Fourth Gospel here reflects an independent tradition about the Baptist since this Gospel, unlike the Synoptics, 3868 does not follow the LXX reading. 3869 While Johns normally eclectic appropriation of text types requires us to leave the question open in this case, 3870 other evidence favoring his independence might support this conclusion. |
| Similarly, the Gospel naturally stresses signs of grace whereas the Apocalypse stresses signs of judgment; but it may be more than coincidence that the first of John " s seven signs, turning water to wine (2:9), reflects the first of Moses» signs in Exodus, turning water to blood (Exod 7:20; cf. Jub. 48:5), 1071 a prominent source of judgment imagery in two of Revelation " s three sets of seven plagues (8:8–11,16:3–4). John does not mention the marriage supper (Rev 19), but this concept provides part of the eschatological backdrop for John 6 and perhaps also chs. 2 and 21. The new Jerusalem naturally occurs only in Revelation (3:12, ch. 21), but the idea complements well the Fourth Gospel " s emphasis on the genuine Jewishness of the true people of God, as well as his negative portrayal of the earthly Jerusalem. The new Jerusalem " s dimensions probably simply represent the presence of God (a cube, like the holy of holies, 21:16); 1072 its gates (Rev 21:12–13) are part of the imagery of the renewed city (Isa 60:18; Ezek 48:30–34 ), and are thus not incompatible with (though neither are they identical to) the sheepfold image of Jesus as the way and door ( John 10:7, 9; 14:6 ). John " s «dwelling» motif, expressed by his characteristic menö, is replaced by katoicheö and the motif of the heavenly temple (e.g., Rev 21:3); but this fits the contrasting eschatological perspectives of the two books. Revelation " s temple imagery (e.g., 3:12, 4:6, 5:8, 8:3, 15:2) is apocalyptic, but fits well theologically with John " s portrayal of Jesus» replacement of the temple (2:21, 8:35,14:2); they function in a roughly equivalent manner on the theological level (Rev 21:22; cf. the tabernacle in 7:15,13:6,15:5; John 1:14 ). Only Revelation includes the common Jewish image of the book of life (Rev 3:5, 20:12), but an apocalyptic image is hardly mandatory for a gospel; John, unlike the Synoptics, does stress eternal life as a possession in the present. White robes (Rev 3:4–5; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9; but cf. John 19:40; 20:12 ), the «new name» (Rev 2:17; 3:12; 7:3; 14:1; 22:4; cf. 17:5; 19:16; cf. John 1:42; 10:3 ), the crown imagery (Rev 2:11; 4:4; 12:1; 14:14; 19:12), angels (Rev passim; cf. John 20:12 ), the morning star (Rev 2:28; 22:16), the «nations» (Rev 2:26; 11:18; 12:5; 15:4; 19:15; 21:24; 22:2; but cf. John " s kosmos), thunder (Rev 4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16[Exod 19:16; Ezek 1:4,13 ]; cf. John 12:29 ), a cry for vengeance (Rev 6[reflecting the OT; cf. 4 Ezra 4:33–37]), darkness (Rev 6:12–14; John omits the Synoptic tradition " s darkness at the cross), trumpets (1:10; 4:1; 8:2), locusts (9:3–11 [ Joel 2:4–5 ]), and antichrist imagery (Rev 13; though cf. 1 John 2and possibly John 5:43; 10:1 ), are examples of apocalyptic motifs that play little or no part in the Fourth Gospe1. But this should simply be expected on the basis of different genres. |
| 5065 The subject in 3could be the Father; Jesus» gift contrasts with that of Jacob in 4:5,12 and with that of Moses in 6:31–32 (cf. 1:17; 7:19, 22). 5066 1:22; 9:24; 11:57; 12:5; 13:29; 19:9. The world «gives» Jesus only blows (18:22; 19:3). 13may extend the divine predestinarian use of «give» (e.g., 10:29) to Jesus (cf. 21:13), but this is less than absolutely clear. 5067 ; 28LXX; 28:8,11, 52,53; 30LXX; 30:20; 31:7; 31LXX; 32:49; 34:4; cf. 2:5,9,19. This represents a majority of the occurrences of δδωμι in Deuteronomy (also frequent in Exodus, e.g., 6:4, 8; 12:25; 13:5; 33:1; and elsewhere). 5068 E.g., Josephus Ant. 4.318; notably among the rabbis, who emphasized Torah (Sipre Deut. 32.5.10; b. Ber. 5a; Ned. 38a; p. Hag. 3:5, §1; Exod. Rab. 1:1; Lev. Rab. 35:8; Num. Rab. 19:33). 5069 Strikingly, moralists could recommend being discriminating in choosing to whom to give gifts; they should not be given randomly to anyone (Seneca Benef. 1.1.2). 5071 E.g., Burkert, Religion, 74–75; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 118,147–48. Traditional African religions rarely speak of God " s love; but as in African relations, love is more something to demonstrate than to speak about (Mbiti, Religions, 49). 5072 E.g., Homer Il. 1.86; 5.61; 22.216. Occasionally this is explicitly tied to their sacrifices (Homer Il. 24.66–68). 5074 Goodenough, Church, 10. For Isis, cf. P.Oxy. 1380.109–110 in Griffiths, «Isis»; for Thoeris, see P.Oxy. 3.528.5–6 (also cited by Grant, Paul, 110). 5075 E.g., CD 8.17; " Abot R. Nat. 36, §94B; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9(attributed to R. Ishmael); Gen. Rab. 80(third century); Exod. Rab. 18:5; 38(attributed to an early Tanna); 51:4; Song Rab. 8:7, §1; cf. Goshen Gottstein, «Love.» 5076 Cohen, «Shekhinta»; cf. Pesiq. Rab. 8:5; Bonsirven, Judaism, 5, 18. See also Ayali, «Gottes,» though Hadrianic repression is a better catalyst for its emergence in the early period than Christian polemic; immutability was long a Greek doctrine, and polemic against Origen in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15 (so Manns, «Polémique») is unlikely. Cf. Judg 10:16 ; Isa 63:9; Hos 11:8 . |
| 4036 This portrayal fits other early Christian images (e.g., 1Pet 1:19 ; 4037 Rev 5:6; 7:14). 4038 In Rev 5:6, 9, the «lamb having been slaughtered» is the Passover lamb whose blood delivers God " s people from the coming plagues (7:3), but also (in 6:9) the lamb in union with whom the martyrs are portrayed as sacrifices beneath the altar (where the blood of sacrifices was poured in the Hebrew Bible). 4039 That the Fourth Gospel later portrays Jesus» death in terms of the Passover lamb (18:28; 19:36) and writes in the context of a new exodus and a new redemption (1:23) expected by Judaism indicates that this is the sense of «lamb» in view in the Fourth Gospe1. 4040 1B. Historical Tradition or Johannine Theology? Where John covers the same ground as the Synoptics (e.g., 1:30–33; 12:25), it is clear that even when he employs Johannine idiom, he normally develops earlier tradition. John himself testifies that he employs his traditions very selectively, and had a sufficient number from which to choose those he found most appropriate to his purpose (20:30–31; cf. 21:25). A choice between Johns theology and his tradition is therefore forced. Whether one regards the information in any particular pericope as historical, however, will depend largely on the presuppositions with which one approaches the rest of the materia1. Is the Baptist s confession of Jesus as the lamb ahistorical? Many scholars think so; how could John regard Jesus so highly, yet later doubt that he was the one (Matt 11/Luke 7:20)? 4041 Yet if we accept the Baptists confession that Jesus was mightier than he 4042 and would baptize in the Spirit, that the Baptist was unworthy to be his slave and saw the Spirit descend on Jesus (details recorded in all four extant gospels), 4043 another high christological confession is not impossible. Indeed, we would expect later Christology to emphasize dominant themes like «Christ,» «Lord,» or perhaps «God» or «Son of God» (cf. 1:34) more readily than the less common «lamb.» While the Fourth Gospel " s Tendenz explains why the author omits the Baptists later doubt when Jesus does not inaugurate eschatological judgment, it need not make other pronouncements ahistorica1. |
| 7239 L.A.B. 23:12; 30:5; 1 En. 89:16–24; 4Q266 18 5.13; Sipre Deut. 15.1.1; Exod Rab. 24:3; Pesiq. Rab. 9:2; 26:1/2. ( Sir 18:13 ; Philo Agriculture 50–53; and p. Ber. 2:7, §2 appear to be exceptions.) Early Christians applied the image to the church (Minear, Images, 84–87; Ladd, Theology 108); on the shepherd image in early Christianity, see Keener, «Shepherd,» 1091–93. 7240 Robinson, Studies, 71. It is doubtful that the image is one of replacement (as apparently in Pancaro, Law, 301)–rather, one of the faithful covenant remnant (cf. Barrett, John, 369). 7244 E.g., Ps 77:20 ; Isa 63:11; 1 En. 89:35; L.A.B. 19:3, 10; Sipre Deut. 305.3.1; p. Sanh. 10:1, §9; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:8; Exod. Rab. 2:2; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 40 (Moses, Aaron, and Miriam); possibly 1Q34 and 1Q34 bis, 3 2.8 (Wise, Scrolls, 186; fragmentary); see further Meeks, Prophet-King, 311–12 (esp. on Mek. Pisha 1 on Exod 12:1); Glasson, Moses, 95–96; Odeberg, Gospel, 315–17. R. Nehemiah understood Isa 63to mean that all Israelites became shepherds as Moses was (p. Sotah 5:4, §1). Moses» title may relate to his occupation (Exod 3:1), but it is hard to suppose (with Enz, «Exodus,» 213) that the good shepherd of John 10 recalls Exod 3:1. 7250 E.g., the Teacher of Righteousness at Qumran (Painter, John, 42). Derrett, «Shepherd,» 26–28, argues that John uses «shepherd» as teacher; God is their owner, he claims, not their shepherd. 7258 T. B. Qam. 7:2; b. B. Qam. 114b; Gen. Rab. 54:3; Derrett, «Shepherd,» 41; also Rhet. Alex. 11, 1430b. 16–19. The robbers (ληστα, Lat. latrones) generally lived off the countryside and traveled in bands (MacMullen, Enemies, 255). 7261 Thieves and wolves summarized the greatest collective dangers to flocks (Tibullus 1.1.33–34). 7263 Ibid., 123; cf. Ruth 3:7. Cf. the allegedly Jewish robbers (ληισ[ται]) in the Ptolemaic vineyard in CPJ 1:157–58, §21. 7266 Aulus Gellius 11.18; death in Xenophon Mem. 1.2.62 and Hamm. 21; those in collusion with them should receive the same penalty (Lysias Or. 29.11, §182). Even former thieves were permanently barred from speaking to public meetings (Seneca Controv. 10.6.intr.). |
| 1 There is no need to give an elaborate bibliography, but there is a characteristically wide-ranging and thought-provoking article on what might be meant by a modern Orthodox cosmology by Olivier Clement in Clement (1967). 2 Athanasius, De Incarnatione 7. 3 Ibid. 4 Tin eis to mi einai phthoran: De Incarnatione 4. 5 It is instructive to contrast Athanasius’ treatment of why repentance on Adam’s part would have been insufficient with Anselm’s treatment of the same problem in Cur Deus homo I. 20. Athanasius also mentions the offence done to God’s honour, but the reason he gives for the inadequacy of repentance is based on the cosmic effects of Adam’s sin: Anselm’s reasoning turns entirely on the infinite offence done to God’s honour by Adam’s sin. 6 See esp. May (1978). 7 Origen, On First Principles II.8.3. 8 Ibid. I.6.2. 9 It is perhaps worth emphasizing that we have, in fact, no very clear idea from the Origenists themselves of their beliefs. The Origenism condemned by Justinian is the Origenism, not of Origen himself, but of Evagrius and his followers: see Guillaumont (1962), 124–70. This is presumably the Origenism faced by Maximus, though, as we shall see, occasionally what Maximus finds fault with seems more characteristic of Origen himself than of Evagrius. 10 For Maximus and Origenism see Sherwood (1955a), esp. 72–222. Sherwood argues against Balthasar’s claim that Maximus had experienced a conversion from Origenism (for this, see esp. Balthasar 1961 , 482–643, a modified reprint of the original article of 1940). 11 This is the argument of Amb. 15 (1216A-1221B); it is not so clearly expressed in the much longer (and presumably slightly earlier) Amb. 7 (1068D-1101C). 12 See Gersh (1978), 218–22, 243–51. 13 See, e.g., Amb. 41–1308C. 14 Origen, Homily of Exodus 12. 4. See Louth (1981), 65–6. 15 Evagrius, Gnostic Centuries I.27. 16 See Danielou (1954), 145–51. 17 On this see Balas (1966), 34–53. 18 E.g., Ep. 6:429D. And see on the whole subject, Thunberg (1965), 14052. |
| 10201 Cf. the mourning women of Luke 23:27, who may have provided a merciful narcotic (b. Sanh. 43a; Stauffer, Jesus, 135; Blinzler, Trial, 252–53). Some used pennyroyal or mint stored in vinegar to revive those who had fainted (Pliny Nat. 20.54.152); but these were probably not available. People could also use wine to deaden pain ( Prov 31:6–7 ; Tibullus 1.2.1–4; 1.7.39–42; Ovid Her. 14.42; Silius Italicus 13.273–275). 10206 Some (e.g., van der Waal, «Gospel,» 39) apply it more generally to Israel " s rejection of Jesus (1:11), but the Jewish identity of the torturer is not clear here, nor is this act the Gospel " s most decisive or climactic act of repudiation. 10209 «Javelin» appears in miniscule 476, probably accidentally; see Sanders, John, 409; Blinzler, Trial, 256 n. 38. Less probably, Schwarz, «Johannes 19.29,» suggests instead the misreading of the Aramaic «ëz as »êzôb, «switch» as «hyssop.» 10214 Clearly some Diaspora Jews applied the Passover to figurative or spiritual principles (Philo Sacrifices 63). Jewish people expected a new exodus (see comment on 1:23), which probably implied a new Passover of some sort (later, Exod. Rab. 19:6; Pesiq. Rab. 52:8). 10215 The contrast is often observed, e.g., Goguel, Jesus, 172; Stendahl, Paul, 74; Brown, Death, 34. 10218 So Stauffer, Jesus, 141. Later midrash could view «finished» in Gen 2in terms of dedication (Exod 39:32). 10219 Given the multiple attestation that it was the day of preparation for the Sabbath, most commentators concur that lesus was crucified on a Friday (see Brown, Death, 1350–51). 10221 Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 271, suggest that kings nodded approval (citing Hom. Hymn, Hymn to Aphrodite 222, where Zeus does this; we might add Zeus in Maximus of Tyre Or. 4.8; 41.2; Callimachus Hymns 3 [to Artemis], lines 39–40; Athena in Callimachus Hymn 5 [on Pallas " s Bath], lines 131–136). 10223 E.g., Ovid Metam. 10.43 (exhalata anima); Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.14; T. Ab. 17A; L.A.E. 45(«gave up the spirit,» OTP2:286); 2 En. 70:16; cf. Jas 2:26. One also breathed out (e.g., Homer I1. 13.654, ποπνεωυ; Euripides Phoen. 1454, ξπνευσαν; Herac1. 566, κπνευσαι) onés life, or «breathed» (exanimatus est) onés last (Cornelius Nepos 15 [Epaminondas], 9.3). |
| The manna could also prefigure God s eschatological provision for his people, 6145 and later rabbinic tradition promised eschatological manna. 6146 This picture is not unlikely; Jewish texts, at least from later rabbinic circles, spoke of an eschatological banquet. 6147 The later rabbis also expected a new exodus, 6148 but reflected a broader early Jewish expectation (see comment on 1:23), 6149 a hope rooted in the biblical prophets (e.g., Hos 2:14–15; 11:10–11 ; Isa 2:3; 12:2; 40:3) 6150 and emphasized in early Christianity. 6151 Undoubtedly John " s audience was familiar with the hope of eschatological manna (Rev 2:17). Some Jewish traditions emphasized that the final redeemer would bring down manna like Moses did, 6152 as commentators on John 6 have long pointed out; 6153 these traditions do not seem to predate the third century but represent a natural midrashic assumption based on the new Moses and new manna motifs. An Amoraic tradition that connected the clouds with Aaron and the well with Miriam connected manna with Moses. 6154 The contrast with Moses» «gift» is explicit in 6:32; that Jesus is greater than Moses is important in this context (5:45; 7:19). 6155 The Father " s supreme gift is what matters most (e.g., 3:16), and that is where the discourse is headed (6:37, 39; cf. the Son " s gift in 6:27, 33–34, 51–52). The bread Jesus announces is more essential than the manna given in Moses» day, for it is the " true bread» (6:32). The position of «true» or «genuine» in this sentence is emphatic. 6156 Calling this bread the «genuine» bread is characteristic of metaphors in this Gospel: Jesus, rather than John, is the «true light» (1:9); those who worship in the Spirit rather than merely in the temple are «true worshipers» (4:23); Jesus (perhaps in contrast to Israel) is the «true vine» (15:1). In the same way, God is true (7:28; 17:3), Jesus» judgment is true (8:16), and so is the beloved disciplés witness (19:35). In Platonic thought, the appearance was merely the symbol of the ideal reality behind it, but if such an idea is present here, 6157 it is only remotely so. The vertical dualism of apocalyptic thought blended this Hellenistic conception with analogous ancient Near Eastern ideas to emphasize the superiority of the heavenly mode1. 6158 |
| At the same time, whatever view one takes regarding the historicity of the claim, it is surely also Johannine theology. The Fourth Gospel returns to the paschal lamb motif (18:28; 19:36), and «Behold» (Christ) is an especially Johannine construction (19:5,14). 4044 If the tradition of the exclusion of Jewish apostates from the Passover lamb is this early (though such exclusion could not be easily enforced in any case), 4045 recognizing Jesus as the lamb may have served an apologetic function encouraging to Jewish Christian expelled from their synagogues. Neither other reports about the Baptist nor contemporary Jewish Christologies (see introduction, chapter 7) support the likelihood that the Baptist would have foreknown that the messianic mission included an atoning death. While the Baptist could have drawn such concepts from the Hebrew Bible (a new exodus and eschatological redemption could imply the need for a new Passover), the Fourth Gospel " s testimony on this specific point can neither be confirmed nor disproved with certainty. On grounds of historical probability, one can say only that the Baptist " s witness here is consistent with the general historical truth that the Baptist testified to Jesus, 4046 and is specifically consistent with motifs in the Fourth Gospel that the author may have regarded as natural insights for a true prophet and Jesus» forerunner. Given the Gospel " s genre and use of materials where we can test him, I suspect that the author believed that the Baptist made an affirmation which could ultimately have been understood in this manner; but his wording appears to be a thoroughly Johannine formulation. The result is at any rate a masterful expression of Johannine soteriology. «Taking away sin» (also 1 John 3:5 ) may evoke the scapegoat, but probably alludes to a sacrificial reading of the Passover lamb, very possibly interpreted in light of the servant lamb of Isa 53. 4047 John " s particular expression for «taking up» sin probably means that it is lifted up with him on the cross (3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34). |
|
|
