| Death as the means of God’s retribution manifests itself through illnesses, pain, persecution, loneliness, need, fear and being forsaken by God, and threatens life both in case of individuals and of whole societies (compare Ps 6:5-9; Ps 21:12-22; Ps 29:2-4; Ps 37; 59:3-5; 78:1-5). The Prophets could daringly declare a whole city or a whole country to be cast down into dust, although at the time of the prophecy these places were flourishing and it appeared that nothing was threatening them. This kind of prophesy was uttered by Isaiah about Zion (Isa 1:21-23) and by the prophet Amos about the house of Israel (Am 5:1-2). 1.3. In the Old Testament death is linked with the underworld, or Sheol, which is located in the bowels of the earth and is the common grave for the whole of humanity. To descend into Sheol or to be buried meant becoming a victim of the mighty power of death. And although the idea of life after death was linked to Sheol, existence in this kingdom of shadows was hopeless, because death is the result of and the punishment for sin (Gen 2, 3; Wisdom 1:13-16; 2:22-24). However at the time of the Maccabees the attitude to death changes in connection with the struggle against foreign enslavement and, for the first time in the Old Testament, in the first book of Maccabees death is portrayed as heroic (1 Macc 13:25-30). From this time onward the idea of the anticipation of the resurrection of the dead gradually develops, an idea that had been expressed already in the book of the prophet Daniel (Dan 12, 13; compare 2 Macc 7, 9, 14). It is subsequently taken up in Jewish apocalyptic writings, in the writings of the wise men of Israel (Sir 15:6; Wisdom 2:23) and in the works of scribes close to the Pharisee faction (Acts 23:8). 2. Death in the New Testament 2.1. In the New Testament Man’s death is viewed through the prism of the death on the Cross and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Immortality belongs only to God (1 Tim 6:16) and it is natural for people to be afraid of death (Matt 4:16; Heb 2:15). However, because God is the life-giving source of all life (Rom 4:17), death could have only appeared as the result of Man having abandoned God, which is what happened with Adam (Rom 5:15, 17-18; 1 Cor 15:22) and which is repeated in the life of every person (Rom 6:23; Heb 9:27). In this manner, death gains power over a person not only at the end of his earthly life, but reigns over him throughout his whole life. This is so-called carnal wisdom, moral or spiritual death (Rom 8:6; 1 John 3:14), because sin, which results in death and is its sting, exists in Man despite the law of God (Rom 7:9, 1 Cor 15:56; James 1:15). For this reason the Scriptures say that the Devil, from whom sin originates, was in possession of the dominion of death (Heb 2:14) and death itself is viewed as a demonic power (1 Cor 15:26-27; Rev 6:8; 20:13-14). |
| 3897 Philo Dreams 2.242–243; Worse 117 (the «fountain of divine wisdom»); Flight 166; see Knox, Gentiles, 87–88; Argyle, «Philo,» 386. Cf. 1QS 10.12, in a hymn that speaks of God as the , the «fountain of knowledge and the spring of holiness»; rabbinic Hebrew uses «fountain» and «spring» also with reference to issuing from the womb, but the image here is more likely for the source of water; cf. further 1QS 3.19; 11.3, 5, 6–7; probably CD 3.16–17. Arabic and Syriac A Ahiqar 1(ed. Charles, 2:726–27) compares a father " s instruction to bread and water. 3900 M. «Abot 1(attributed to a pre-Tannaitic sage); 2(attributed to ben Zakkai, though the form is heavily redacted); Mek. Vay. l:74ff.; Bah. 5(allegorizing OT on water); Sipre Deut. 48.2.7; 306.19.1; 306.22–25; »Abot R. Nat. 18 A; cf. b. Ta c an. 7a; B. Qam. 17a, 82a; Gen. Rab. 41:9; 54:1; 69:5; 70:8–9; 84:16; 97:3; Exod. Rab. 47(and bread); Song Rab. 1:2, §3; Origen Comm. Jo., 13.26–29. 3901 R. Akiba in Sipre Deut. 48.2.7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:9; Tg. Neof. on Num 21:18–20 ; cf. Belleville, «Born,» 130, arguing that the rabbis used a well as a symbol of Torah more than they used water in general, to bolster her argument that the water of John 3is not Torah. 3903 E.g., Gen. Rab. 71:8; see further Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 163ff. Nevertheless, Jesus the Word never appears as «water» in the Fourth Gospel, but only as its source (so also Culpepper, Anatomy, 196; cf. Lee, Thought, 218). 3905 E.g., Smalley, «Relationship,» 97, although he sees it as less developed than Paul " s. Brown, John, l:cxi, cites Cullmann, Vawter, Hoskyns, Lightfoot, and Barrett as tending toward the sacramental view. 3906 Brown, John, l:cxi, cites Bornkamm, Bultmann, Lohse, and Schweizer as holding a non-sacramental or antisacramental understanding of John. For a summary of the major views before 1945, see esp. Howard, Gospel, 206–14. 3908 MacGregor, «Eucharist,» 118. Ottós parallel with pagan magical sacramentalism depends on Western sources geographically removed from Christian baptism " s origins in the Baptist (see Kraeling, John, 120). |
| 3071 The Similitudes of Enoch (1 En. 42:1–3) also point out that Wisdom found no place to dwell on earth and so was given a place in heaven among the angels. 3072 This can also reflect the imagery of Greek mythology (cf., e.g., Apollonius of Rhodes 4.640–641). 3075 E.g., Harris, «Origin,» 170, 314; Kysar, «Contributions,» 349; Gibbs, Creation, 59–92; Longenecker, Christology, 145; Lee, Thought, 74–75; see also above, on Christology. Gibbs, Creation, 34–58, also finds it in Rom 5 and 8. 3076 For pre-Pauline conceptions of préexistence, cf. Witherington, Christology, 53; Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 192–94. Kim, Origin, 135, thinks Paul the first to develop a Wisdom Christology, based on his Damascus road encounter; but Paul " s traditional language (e.g., in 1Cor 8:6 ) suggests that the formula existed prior to his adoption of it. 3080 Greek Anthology 1.28 includes a prayer to «Christ, Wisdom of God.» In Shepherd of Hermas, God " s Wisdom and Word created the universe (1.1.10; on the creation of the church, cf. also 1.2.4); Wisdom is author of Scripture in 1 Clem. 57. 3083 Dodd, «Background,» 335. The attempt of Dix, «Wisdom,» 2, to distinguish Wisdom and the Logos in Jewish sources and Rev 12 is unconvincing. 3084 Pace Ashton, Studying, 16, though 1 En. 42, to which he prefers to appeal, can also provide useful context. 3085 Here the Torah is joined by the prophets and other ancestral books (i.e., the Bible, and perhaps also subsequent traditions of sages). Cf. further Wis 6:17–18. 3086 «All these things» refers to the Book of the Covenant, and the context is a monologue by Wisdom about herself. Sheppard, «Wisdom,» contends that Ben Sira develops the identification of Wisdom and Torah offered in Deut 4 and 32 (see esp. p. 174; cf. also Davids, James, 52). 3088 Cf. Busto Saiz, «Sabiduria.» Boccaccini, Judaism, 81,88–90,94–96, argues that Ben Sira does not fully identify them but frequently links them. 3094 Epp, «Wisdom,» 133–36. While some sources are late, the early sources indicate the antiquity of this general tendency of thought. |
| 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 ν), 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 (π» ρχς) 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 attestation 3221 and should not be regarded as relevant for the study of the Fourth Gospe1.) 3222 |
| 3061 Harris, Prologue, 43; Dodd, «Background,» 335; May, «Logos,» 438–47; ÓNeill, «Prologue,» 49; Brown, John 1:520,523; Weder, «Raum»; cf. Tobin, «Prologue.» See especially the list in Dodd, Interpretation, 274–75. 3062 See Kysar, Evangelist, 107–11; cf. Stevens, Theology, 78–81; Lee, Thought, 97–100; Martens, «Prologue,» 268; Bruce, «Myth and History,» 94; Epp, «Wisdom,» 130–32; Ladd, Theology, 240; Gaston, Stone, 209; Kreitzer, John, 28–30; Perkins, «John,» 944; Wainwright, «Sophia.» 3063 Wisdom may be personified, as in Prov, also in 4Q381, frg. 1, line 1; 11Q5 28.10. In Wis, even the literary device of personification «is not consistently employed» (Isaacs, Spirit, 54). But Stuart, «Examination,» 26–28, may go too far in seeing Wisdom as only an attribute and not a hypostasis. 3064 This is often recognized, e.g., by May, «Logos,» 447, especially in Wis, where it is clearer (Vos, «Range,» 399; Urbach, Sages, 1:40; DeSilva, «Wisdom of Solomon,» 1271–72). Ringgren, Word, 104, even regards Prov 8 " s portrayal of Wisdom as hypostatic. 3065 Cf. this point in Moeller, «Motifs,» 98. Stuart, «Examination,» 26–28, is certainly mistaken to think John probably unacquainted with apocryphal literature. 3066 Cf. Muraoka, «Hymn,» 173 (who suggests that it portrays Wisdom and its seeker like «a man and his chaste, youthful, and attractive woman»); Schroer, «Grenzüberschreitungen.» 3067 ÓDay, «John,» 519. Cf. Valentinian use of Sophia (Hippolytus Haer. 6.29). By contrast, Scott, Sophia, 250–51, relates the feminine image of Wisdom to the positive role of women in John " s community; but this seems unlikely precisely because John does not use the feminine term here. 3069 Ibid., 26, 39–40. Early Judaism seems not to have systematized its view quite so distinctly, however, in that Wisdom was viewed as created, a point that John needs to modify (see comment on 1:1–2). 3070 For Wisdom Christology in John, see more fully Witherington, Sage, 368–80; also Dunn, «John,» 314–16; Ringe, Wisdom " s Friends. |
| Our investigation of this motif in the background of the Paraclete will not provide the same fertile ground we found in the prologue; here there is no concerted parallelism between John " s subject and divine Wisdom, and also no development in rabbinic sources from Wisdom to the Spirit to provide material from that massive body of literature for analysis. But the parallels are at least suggestive, as Harris, Isaacs, and others have already noted. In addressing the Pleroma of sapiential tradition, Harris argued early in the twentieth century that «the Holy Spirit came into the Christian Theology through the bifurcation of the doctrine of the Divine Wisdom, which, on the one side, became the Logos, and on the other the Holy Ghost.» 8666 While he failed to develop any «bifurcation» adequately in pre-Christian texts, his observations concerning the relationship of the Spirit and Wisdom derive sufficient support from the LXX wisdom traditions to warrant serious consideration as important background for the personality of the Spirit where this occurs in the NT. Regarding especially the Fourth Gospel, Isaacs observes that «it is an over-simplification to talk of a «bifurcation»»: Whatever was to take place in later theology, no such development has taken place in the Fourth Gospe1. We have already seen [pp. 122–23] that John keeps Jesus and the spirit-paraclete in the closest possible relationship. In fact it could be argued that, far from reflecting any division, John drew upon wisdom concepts precisely in order to emphasize a continuity between the ministry of Jesus and that of the spirit. 8667 Wisdom and the Spirit are paralleled in Wis 9:17: And who has known your counsel, Unless you have given [δωκας] wisdom [σοφαν], And sent [επεμψας] his holy Spirit from above [π υψστων]? Thus men of earth below were taught (Wis 9:18). Wisdom will not enter a sinful person (Wis 1:4), for the γιον πνεμα of παιδεα will flee from sin and not let it enter (1:5). For Wisdom is a spirit who cares for men [Φιλνθρωπον γρ πνεμα σοφα];... |
| 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. 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). |
| For John, a background in the Word may also reflect to a degree the most familiar early Christian use of the word as the proclaimed message of Christ (e.g., 5:24; 8:31,37,43, 51; 17:20; Acts 6:2,4,7; Rom 10:17 ; 1Cor 1:18 ), which in Johannine theology actually mediated Jesus» presence ( John 16:7–15 ). Thus this Gospel already appears to load Jesus» «word» with christological significance (cf. 12:48; 17:17). 3060 Because the Word and Wisdom were identified, this option naturally coalesces with divine Wisdom and we should not read them as exclusive alternatives for the prologués background. 2. Wisdom Observers have long noted that virtually everything John says about the Logos–apart from its incarnation as a particular historical person–Jewish literature said about divine Wisdom. 3061 This background for the prologués Logos probably represents the majority consensus for the latter half of the twentieth century. 3062 What makes this suggested background so appealing is that we have clear evidence that texts in which Wisdom is personified or functions hypostatically circulated widely before John wrote, and John and his readers would naturally have shared a common understanding of this background. Wisdom usually functions as mere personification (e.g., Sir 15:2 ), 3063 but in some texts may be hypostatic, especially in Wisdom of Solomon (Wis 9:4) and Ben Sira ( Sir 1; 24 ), 3064 texts to which early Christians, many of whom would have used recensions of the LXX containing these works, had ready access. 3065 Wisdom was not only a feminine term grammatically, but a distinctly feminine image ( Sir 15:2 ; Wis 8:2–3), 3066 perhaps one factor in inviting John to replace σοφα with λγος 3067 (though not, as we will suggest below, the primary one). Bauckham argues that Wisdom and Word personify and hypostatize divine aspects, hence are within God " s identity, allowing distinctions within God " s identity. 3068 To the extent that this was true, it would further provide John a bridge to articulate his Christology. 3069 |
| 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 (παροσα) with God when he made the world; 3237 Wisdom lives together (συμβωσιν) 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 accusative 3240 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 |
| For the Spirit of the Lord fills the world [τι πνεμα Κυρου πεπλρωκεν την οκουμενην]. 8668 In Wisdom is an understanding πνεμα, which is αγιον, μονογενς, and so forth (7:22), and Wisdom is the τμς, breath or vapor, of God " s power (δυνμεως) (7:25), a σμβουλος, or counselor (8:9). Word and Spirit are often associated in the OT and later Jewish texts, 8669 perhaps reflecting the ancient Near Eastern pattern of «word» as «a power effecting what it signifies.» 8670 Philo identifies λγος (and hence probably Wisdom) and πνεμα in many ways; there are differences in usage, so that the Spirit is what is given rather than also the agency through which it is given. 8671 There is, however, a serious weakness in the argument that John draws his imagery of the Spirit primarily from Jewish wisdom traditions. The problem with the connection is not that it occurs too rarely in early Jewish literature; given the rarity of discussions about the Spirit in this literature, this is to be expected. The problem is rather that the connection is rarely demonstrable outside Wisdom of Solomon. While John unquestionably could have drawn directly upon Wisdom of Solomon rather than upon a common portrayal of the Spirit in the milieu, one might have expected that he would have made clearer allusions to that book here (as he does, e.g., in 3:12–13) if he intended his readers to recognize this dependence. He could, for instance, have replaced his Παρκλητος with Σμβουλος. On the other hand, he perhaps substituted the former term for the latter as more clearly connoting a forensic context (though even this term is not necessarily forensic). Nevertheless Wisdom of Solomon was both early and widespread, and may constitute a primary source for John " s image here. The evidence that wisdom tradition ultimately stands behind the personhood of the Spirit in John, whether mediated through Christian tradition or (more likely) modeled after Jesus» personhood, is sufficient for one to say that it is an entirely reasonable hypothesis; it is not sufficient, on the basis of currently extant sources, to demonstrate it beyond doubt. |
|
|
