| 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» (π» ρχς, 1 John 1:1), but «in the beginning» ( John 1:1 ). Many commentators have laid heavy stress on the verb ν: 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 ν 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) |
| Jesus revealed to the disciples God " s «name» (17:6), partly meaning his honor 9437 but very probably also implying his character and identity (14:9; 17:26). 9438 Acting by God " s name could represent dependence on God (e.g., 1QM 11.3). When God acted in history, he often did so for the sanctifying of his name, 9439 as he would do also at the final day. 9440 God expected his people to sanctify his name (kiddush haShem was central to Jewish ethics), especially by righteous deeds. 9441 Some rabbis opined that God " s name was hidden in the present age but would be revealed in the coming age; 9442 Jesus» revelation of the Father " s name is thus consonant with John " s emphasis on realized eschatology. Moses sought to know God " s «name» to reveal God to the people (Exod 3:13; cf. 33:18; 34:6–7); here Jesus provides his disciples, who are like Moses, with the same privilege. 9443 This experience would continue more fully after Jesus» glorification (14:21). That Jesus» disciples kept the word he gave them (17:6; cf. 8:51; 14:23; 15:20), as Jesus kept the Father " s (8:55), may recall the obedience of Moses but probably reflects more generally the obedience of Israel or a faithful remnant within Israel ( Deut 33:3, 9 ) . 9444 Yet in giving them the Father " s word (17:6, 8), Jesus is again greater than Moses, who gave the word to Israel; in John " s language, the law was given «through» Moses, but the actual giver of the law was God himself (1:17; cf. 6:32); thus the passage again portrays Jesus in a divine role. At the same time, Jesus remains subordinate to the Father, emphasizing that whatever he gave the disciples was from the Father (17:7). Perhaps, in the language of Exodus, Jesus is the «angel of YHWH» (Exod 3:2), but in the language of John (1:1–18) and of the early Jewish context he reflects, Jesus is divine Wisdom, which imparts God " s teachings to Moses and all those who will hear (e.g., Wis 7:27; 10:16; 11:1). The disciples realized that all that the Father had given Jesus was genuinely from the Father (17:7), in this case referring especially to Jesus» message (17:8; cf. 12:47–50; 16:15). That the Father had «given» disciples to Jesus (17:9; also 17:24) reiterates a striking image in the Fourth Gospe1. Early Judaism taught that Israel as a whole was predestined (see comment on 6:43–44), but like some other early Jewish Christian writers (e.g., Rom 9:6–32 ; Eph 1:4–5 ), John emphasizes the predestination of individuals in Christ through their faith in Christ. Jesus prays on behalf of the disciples (17:9) in a way that provides a model for how disciples will soon be authorized to pray for themselves in his name (16:26–27). |
| The Paraclete here δηγσει, leads or guides, the community with regard to the truth. δηγω is often used literally for leading, for example, the blind, 9261 but it has a variety of metaphorical extensions. Greco-Roman philosophers and moralists could speak of God 9262 or reason 9263 as a guide (δηγς or γεμν); scholars have pointed to a Philonic pas-sage in which the Spirit guided Moses» mind to truth. 9264 In Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom could lead (οδηγσει) the righteous; 9265 God as the «way of wisdom» leads the wise to wis-dorn. 9266 (Qumran scrolls also could speak of knowing God " s «ways» because of the gift of his Spirit.) 9267 In Diaspora Jewish texts, the term could be used negatively, as when wine «leads [οδηγε] the eyes into the path of error [lust]» in T. Jud. 14:1, 9268 or positively, as when «the angel of peace guides» the life of the righteous in T. Benj. 6:1. 9269 In CD 1.11, God «raised up for them a teacher of righteousness [or a righteous teacher] to lead [way-make] them in the way of his heart [ ]»; and in Pss. So1. 17:40–41, Messiah will shepherd God " s flock and lead (θξει) them in his way (in John " s circle of early Christianity, cf. the similar δηγσει in Rev 7:17). 9270 Here the guiding in(to) truth probably relates to Jesus being the truth in 14:6. 9271 It is possible that this is the language of a new exodus; in the first exodus, God or Moses δεσει the Israelites. 9272 In the context of other new-exodus language, Paul de-scribes the believers in Jesus as being led (γονται) by God " s Spirit ( Rom. 8:14 ; cf. also Ga1. 5:18), and this could imply a broader early Christian tradition in which the community of the new exodus was led by the Spirit in the present time. But while new-exodus language may be in the background of this passage, it is probably not in the foreground. 9273 More to the point are passages in which the psalmist prays for God to guide his ways «in truth,» 9274 that is, in accordance with his covenant faithfulness. Dodd cites the most obvious text, Ps. 24 (25):5, but argues, |
| When Jesus connects obedience with love, biblically literate Jewish hearers would immediately think of the associations between obeying God " s commandments and loving God (Exod 20:6; Deut 5:10; 7:9; 10:12; 11:1, 13, 22; 19:9; 30:16 ; Neh 1:5; Dan 9:4 ; Sir 2:15 ; 4Q176 frg. 16, line 4). Some might also recall wisdom tradition: love (αγπη) is the keeping (τρησις) of Wisdom " s laws (νμων; Wis 6:18). 8736 Jesus speaks of «having» and «keeping» the commandments. Jewish teachers debated whether knowing or doing Torah took precedence, but all agreed that both were necessary (see comment on 7:17). Given the abundance of ancient literature, it is not difficult to find other examples of selective revelation (14:21; cf. Acts 10:41). Thus, for example, Odysseus and the dogs witnessed Athene, but Telemachus could not (Homer Od. 16.159–163); perhaps more relevant, Apollo appears only to the good (who must also be great, not lowly; Callimachus Hymns 2 [to Apollo], 9–10); likewise, on his peoplés behalf, God reveals his glory to all except his people (3Macc 6:18). Some teachers also warned that their most special teachings were only for a select group, like initiates in the Mysteries. 8737 Nevertheless, Jesus» selective revelation (14:21) has roots in the historical Jesus tradition (e.g., Acts 10:41; cf. Mark 8:11–12 ; Matt 16:1, 21). The world is skeptical because Jesus does not manifest himself or his Father to the world (7:4) but only to his own (17:6); this takes the idea of a messianic or kingdom secret to a new (and more chronologically extended) leve1. But on the theological level, Jesus» selective revelation especially conforms to his identity in this Gospel; Wisdom was not manifest (φανερ) to the masses (Wis 6:22); likewise, in wisdom tradition, God becomes manifest (εμφανζεται) to those who do not disbelieve in her (Wis 1:2). 8738 Another allusion might have impressed itself more quickly on John " s first audience, however; as 14echoed Moses» request to be shown the Father, so might Judas " s desire to understand how only the disciples would receive the revelation in 14:22. 8739 |
| Many sources attest the view of some Greek philosophers that human souls, like the gods, were heavenly, whereas matter was earthly and perishable. 5005 Influenced by Hellenism, later rabbis also opined that the soul was from heaven and the body from earth; thus doing God " s will made people like angels. 5006 But John speaks of a the descent of a particular person, not merely the souls of humanity or a divine spark within humanity, who is from heaven. His language of ascent and descent (e.g., 6:33, 62; see introduction on vertical dualism, ch. 4) closely resembles early Christian imagery for Jesus» incarnation or death and resurrection or exaltation (e.g., Eph 4:9–10 ; Phil 2:5–11 ). 5007 Some have appealed to a descending redeemer from a gnostic myth here, 5008 but this myth is far too late to provide reasonable background for John. 5009 Talbert presents better candidates for Greek and Roman ascending and descending redeemers, 5010 but though these examples are superior to, and less anachronistic than, proposed gnostic redeemers, most of these parallels also prove inadequate: the visit of Zeus and Hermes in Ovid Metam. 8.626–721 appears no different from the visit of divine messengers in Gen 18:1–16 ; Serapis " s message to Ptolemy and subsequent ascent in fire (Tacitus Hist. 4.83–84) appears little different from biblical traditions about the angel of the Lord (e.g., Judg 6:21–22 ). 5011 He cites other examples that include a descent (human born, sent from the gods to help humanity) without an ascent. But when Talbert turns to the descent of Wisdom in Jewish sources, we have returned to familiar Johannine ground: Wisdom descends from heaven, 5012 and in another line of tradition leaves earth during eschatological suffering. 5013 Johns direct source in 3probably follows his direct source for his claim that the earthly cannot understand the heavenly (3:11–12, following Wis 9:15–16), in Wis 9:17: the only way anyone could understand the heavenly ways was because God gave that person wisdom and sent his holy spirit from heaven. 5014 In the context of the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is not here merely one recipient of such wisdom and Spirit, a description that better befits his followers; rather he is divine Wisdom incarnate, having descended from heaven (3:13; cf. 1:1–18). 5015 When Israel needed salvation, God s all-powerful Word (λγος) came from heaven (π» ουρανν ), from (κ) the royal throne, to slay the firstborn of Egypt (Wis 18:15). 5016 Likewise later rabbis harshly condemned anyone who denied that the Torah or any part of it came from heaven. 5017 |
| 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» αλλλων in 6and προς αλλλους 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. 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. |
| 2152 E.g., Wis 2:21; 1 En. 89:33, 41, 54; 93:8; 99:8; cf. T. Dan 2:2, 4; Τ Jos. 7:5; T Benj. 4(the last may be interpolated). Vision apparently functions as a symbol for knowing more of God in 1 En. 89:28. 2157 «Abot R. Nat. 1 A; Sipra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.5; Sipre Deut. 310.6.1; Pesiq. Rab. 12:9; 37:2; cf. also Tanhuma 4.18 and »Aggadat Beresit 73.48 in Marmorstein, Anthropomorphism, 95; and discussion in ibid., 96–99; Kirk, Vision, 14–15. 2158 Marmorstein, Anthropomorphism, 105–6; this was also the prerequisite for the eschatological vision of God (96,101). 2161 Against Phillips, «Faith,» 84–85; Derrett, «Seeing.» See further Sanchez Navarro, «Acerca»; idem, «No existe.» 2165 E.g., Aristotle Rhet. 1.2.18, 1357b; Rhet. Alex. 7, 1428a.l9–23; 12.1430b.30–40; 1431a.l-6; also Anderson, Glossary, 108–9; cf. the remez in Judaism (Sandmel, Judaism, 116). Cf. Plutarch Alex. 1.3, on Alexander " s acts as «signs» of his sou1. 2166 Sik Or. 3.410, 441, 457; Plutarch Demosthenes 19.1; Philostratus Hrk. 16.5; 17.3–4; 18.2; 31.5; cf. Cicero Div. 1.46.104; «signs and wonders» (σημεα and τρατα) may be intended thus in Wis 8:8; in Josephus, see Betz, «Miracles,» 231–33. Suetonius (e.g., Aug. 94–97, probably not true) accepts such signs more frequently than the more cynical Tacitus. 2168 For the use of the term in Judaism, cf. Bonsirven, Judaism, 15. The language of miracle categories overlapped; thus, e.g., exorcism could be called «healing» (Tob 12:3,14). 2169 Smith, Johannine Christianity, 82; see at greater length Becker, Evangelium, 1:112–35, including the extensive bibliography on the subject on 112–13; and von Wahlde, Version. 2170 E.g., Neirynck, «Kritiek»; Witherington, Wisdom, 9–10; Davies, Rhetoric, 259–60; most thoroughly and convincingly, Van Belle, Signs Source, esp. 366–76. 2171 Crossan, Jesus, 311–12. After cutting John " s first two signs, he parallels two stories that include both sickness and sin, but he could have included other ones (e.g., John 9:2 ); then he must appeal to Secret Gospel of Mark to parallel one story. The only real parallel is that water-walking immediately follows the feeding in both sources; both were probably usually transmitted together. |
| 2515 Epictetus Diatr. 1.3.2. 2516 Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 207 n. 142. 2517 Hengel, Son, 30. 2518 Tilborg, Ephesus, 38–39. 2519 Grant, Gods, 47, who states the case too strongly. In Greek myths, gods often did provide some sort of patronage for their sons, as they provided favors for other mortals they liked. 2520 Albright, Period, 45. 2521 Jochim, Religions, 29; the period in view was ca. 1050–770 B.C.E. 2522 Nock, Christianity, 45. 2523 Hengel, Son, 7. 2524 A statement contrasting Son and Father, this text is most easily read as denying the incarnate Jesus» full knowledge of God " s plan, an admission the early Christians, if not committed to preserving authentic Jesus tradition, might not have even wished to preserve in their polemical situation (Gundry, Matthew, 492; Wenham, Bible, 46). 2525 See the lists in Longenecker, Christology, 98. 2526 Hengel, Son, 18; cf. similarly Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, 90–91. 2527 Deissmann, Studies, 166. 2528 For a survey of modern Jewish views on Jesus» divine sonship and the historical context of those views, see Catchpole, Trial, 78–86. 2529 For the plural, see comment on John 1:12 . 2530 Hengel, Son, 21–23. 2531 Longenecker, Christology, 97, cites Exod 4:22–23; Hos 11:1 ; Isa 1:2; 30:1; 63:16; Jer 3:19–22 ; Sir 4:10 ; Pss. Sol 13:9; 17:27–30; 18:4; Jub. 1:24–25; cf. Wis 2:13,16,18. Besides these, see Wis 18:13. 2532 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 195–97. 2533 Sipre Deut. 29.4.1, a parable. 1 En. 105could refer to God " s son, but most likely (106:1) refers to Enoch " s son Methuselah. 2534 P. Móed Qat. 3:1, §6: R. Eliezer in a dispute with R. Joshua, after working miracles; cf. p. Ta c an. 3:10, §1 (concerning Honi). Witherington, Christology, 153, correctly notes that the expression when applied to «charismatic rabbis» (Vermes) is not used as distinctively as in the Gospels. 2535 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 200. 2536 Later rabbinic polemic explicitly emphasizes that the «son» of Dan 3was merely an angel (p. Šabb. 6:9, §3). |
| 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. c Am. 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). 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. 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. |
| 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 |
|
|
