| 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) |
| 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];... |
| 10701 Stibbe, «Return,» employing actantial analysis. 10702 Cf. Kallarangatt, «Mission.» 10703 Some taught that God commissioned Torah teachers to offer Torah freely as he did (b. Bek. 29a; Derek Eres 2.4; Dalman, Jesus-feshua, 226; Lachs, Commentary, 180; cf. m. " Abot 1:3; Sipre Deut. 48.2.7; p. Ned. 4:4); in secular contexts, see, e.g., Xenophon Cyr. 8.3.3 (royal gifts). 10704 Cf. Westcott, John, 294. On the usual punctiliar force of aorist imperatives, see Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 172–73, §§335–337. 10705 See Hawthorne, Presence, 236. 10706 See Keener, Spirit, 8–13. 10707 Haenchen, John, 2:211; Sanders, John, 433; Dunn, «Spirit,» 703; Ellis, Genius, 293; Wojciechowski, «Don» (though reading too much from the Targumim, which is then used to connect John 20 with Pentecost); ÓDay, «John,» 846; du Rand, «Ellips.» 10708 Cook, «Exegesis,» 8; Meier, « John 20:19–23 .» On the Spirit and creation, some suggest also Wis 1:7; 12:1. Stauffer, «εμφυσω,» 536–37, notes the association of the Spirit and creation in Ps 104 10709 Turner, Spirit, 90–92, who also notes (p. 92) that Wis 15and Philo on Gen 2show God breathing his own Spirit at the creative event of Gen 2:7 , suggesting new creation here (3:3, 5). 10710 Also Philo Creation 139. The Spirit of God creates or builds creatures in Jdt 16:14; cf. God " s gift of truth by God " s breath (Odes So1. 18:15), etc. Witherington, Wisdom, 343, helpfully compares Jesus with Wisdom here (Wis 7:22–23). 10711 Derrett, «Blow,» suggests an allusion to the Asian custom of catching the dying person " s last breath (attested at times in India and farther east). One might add Roman examples (see Quintilian pref.12; Virgil Aen. 4.684–685; Ovid Metam. 7.861; comment on 19:30), but Jesus is clearly not dying here and the biblical allusion would be far more obvious, especially in view of the rest of the Gospel (cf. 3:8). 10712 Perhaps the writer wanted to avoid the impression that Joseph could have kissed her for less sacred reasons at this point? The breath of life in magical papyri (PGM 12.237, in Grant, Religions, 46) may be influenced by Jewish sources or common ancient Near Eastern roots; cf. Orphic Hymns 30.8. Greek deities could breathe strength into wounded heroes (Homer I1. 15.60–μπνεσησι; 19.159–πνεση). |
| 2779 Aune, Eschatology, ch. 3, «The Present Realization of Eschatological Salvation in the Fourth Gospel,» 45–135, thinks that the emphasis derives more from the community " s worship experience of the risen Lord than from a polemical situation. It seems, however, that while the community " s spiritual experience is undoubtedly the source, the overwhelming emphasis may be due to the social context of the Gospe1. 2780 Turner, «Thoughts,» 46: «As yet there is no clear instance of Christian love (αγπη) in profane Greek.» 2781 Deissmann, Studies, 198–200, argued against the older notion that αγπη was «biblical Greek.» Later writers could apply it to love for leaders (Philostratus Hrk. 35.9, 12) or prizes (Hrk. 35.14) or even to romantic love (Menander Rhetor 2.1–2,376.11–13 [cf. metaphor in 2.17,438.18]; Philostratus Hrk. 26.4; by contrast, Musonius Rufus 14, p. 94.10–11, uses φιλα). 2783 Wis 8:2; this is equivalent to Solomon having εφλησα Wisdom in the same passage, i.e., the terms are interchangeable. 2784 Sei. Pap. no. 125, also cited by Grant, Gods, 57–58 (the particular text is often quoted, however, because its sentiment is not as common as one might wish); see comment on John 3:16 . Platós ideal of love is quite different (e.g., Symp. 200–202); see Gould, Love, esp. 80–162. 2786 Wis 8:2. Love (γπη) also served a broader ethical function, providing power for piety (εσβεια–Let. Arts. 229; also the right and trustworthy motive for serving the king–Let. Arts. 270). 2788 Morris, Thessalonians, 51. Against Spicq, the term is not uniquely Christian; see Joly, Vocabulaire; Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 165. 2791 Some phrases are fairly evenly distributed throughout Epictetus, whereas others (e.g., τ. σο κα μν) are more common in particular sections; for the same observation in Luke and Paul, see Cadbury, «Features,» 97–101. 2792 Cf., e.g., Aulus Gellius 1.4; Anderson, Glossary, 53–54,114; in LXX, see Lee, «Translations of OT,» 776–77; varied imperatives for attentiveness in Xenophon Anab. 5.1.8–10; words for serving in Xenophon Cyr. 3.1.36, 41; see esp. Cicero Or. Brut. 46.156–157; Fam. 13.27.1; cf. Cicero Brutus 91.316. Malherbe, «Theorists,» 17, cites Philostratus as favoring a discreet use of novel forms of expression. |
| 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 (πρτος, 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; πρωττοκος in 1 Chr 5LXX translates Heb. ); «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). 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). 3213 L.A.B. 32(tr., OTP2:346); cf. 1QH 1.19–20. Contrast idols, which were not really «from the beginning,» π» ρχς (Wis 14:13). 3214 Sipre Deut. 37.1.3 (but some others contend for the sanctuary or the land of Israel). 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,» π» ρχς (Wis 9:8), may refer to the ideal tabernacle, the heavenly prototype. |
| Probably more helpfully, some interpreters saw Moses» serpent as a positive alternative to the hostile ones that had bitten the people, which had more in common with the serpent in Eden. 5038 (Egyptians used images of snakes as prophylactic magic against snake bites.) 5039 If this tradition is not ad hoc and might be known by John " s audience, he may play on positive connotations of Moses» serpent. Another possibility is that the Son of Man bears humanity " s judgment in death just «as the deadly serpents were representatively judged in the bronze image.» 5040 Then again, the most natural midrashic interpretation would connect Moses» bronze serpent ( Num 21:8–9 ) with his rod that became a serpent (Exod 4:3; 7:9–10, 15), hence functioned as a sign; 5041 in this case, Jesus» crucifixion is itself a «sign» (cf. 2:18–19). Moses stood the serpent on a σημεου, a standard ( Num 21:8–9 LXX; cf. John 2:11, 18; 3:2 ); 5042 thus everyone (πς) bitten, seeing it, would ζσεται, live (cf. 3:15). As some rabbis interpreted «live» in terms of eternal life when convenient, 5043 so here John can midrashically exegete «live» as «have eternal life.» Given material resembling Wisdom of Solomon in the preceding verses (3:12–13), an allusion to that work here would also make sense; in Wis 16the bronze serpent symbolizes salvation (σμβολον … σωτηρας), thus again functions as a «sign.» 5044 Because John emphasizes soteriological vision (see introduction), one might suppose that he emphasizes looking on the serpent, hence on Jesus; 5045 but while John might have approved of such an application, it is less clear that he intended it. Given his own emphasis on vision, it is all the more striking that he leaves it unmentioned here; it remains a very possible interpretation, but not conclusively so. For John, however, the central element of the image is probably the «lifting up,» which he emphasizes elsewhere (cf. 8:28; 12:32), rather than any comparison with the serpent. 5046 «Lift up» certainly refers to the crucifixion here as elsewhere in the Gospel, a usage it can bear very naturally in Palestinian Aramaic 5047 and in ancient Mediterranean thought. |
| McEleney, «Conversion» McEleney, Neil J. «Conversion, Circumcision, and the Law.» NTS 20 (1973–1974): 319–41. McEleney, «Fishes» McEleney, Neil J. «153 Great Fishes ( John 21,11 )–Gematriacal Atbash.» Biblica 58 (1977): 411–17. McEleney, «Orthodoxy» McEleney, Neil J. «Orthodoxy in Judaism of the First Christian Century.» JSJ 4 (1973): 19–42. McEleney, «Replies» McEleney, Neil J. «Orthodoxy in Judaism of the First Christian Century: Replies to David E. Aune and Lester L. Grabbe. " JSJ 9 (1978): 83–88. McGehee, «Reading» McGehee, Michae1. «A Less Theological Reading of lohn 20:17.» JBL 105 (1986): 299–302. McGinn, «Taxation» McGinn, T. A. J. «The Taxation of Roman Prostitutes.» Helios 16 (1989): 79–110. McGrath, Apologetic Christology McGrath, James F. John " s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology. SNTSMS 111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. McGrath, «Rebellious Son» McGrath, James F. «A Rebellious Son? Hugo Odeberg and the Interpretation of John 5.18 .» NTS 44 (1998): 470–73. McKenzie, «Know» McKenzie, John L . «Know, Knowledge.» Dictionary of the Bible. Milwaukee, Wis: Bruce, 1965. McKenzie, «Sculpture» McKenzie, Judith Sheila. «The Development of Nabataean Sculpture at Petra and Khirbet Tannur.» PEQ 120 (1988): 81–107. McKnight, «Critic» McKnight, Scot. «A Loyal Critic: Matthew " s Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspective.» Pages 55–79 in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Donald A. Hagner. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. McKnight, «Jesus» McKnight, Scot. «Who Is Jesus? An Introduction to lesus Studies.» Pages 51–72 in Jesus under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Edited by Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. McKnight, «Prosleytism» McKnight, Scot. «Proselytism and Godfearers.» Pages 835–47 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 2000. |
| 9211 Cf. Wis 4:20, where the very sins of the wicked will convict (ελγξει) them on the Day of Judgment. 9214 E.g., b. Hag. 13b; Exod. Rab. 15:29; Lev. Rab. 5:6; 21:10. Technically, judges were not to be witnesses (Aeschines Timarchus 89). 9215 Pancaro, Law, 254; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 34; cf. Chariton 5.4.9; CP/2.64–66, §155; Josephus War 1.637–638; David, «Eloquentia.» 9216 E.g., Josephus Auf. 4.46; Exod. Rab. 15:29. For God as witness and advocate for the righteous, see, e.g., 4 Ezra 7:94. 9219 Cf., e.g., Reese, «Paraclete.» Witness, judge, and prosecutor were not then the mutually exclusive functions they are today; see Harvey, History, 31. 9220 Cf. Dodd, Interpretation, 414; Holwerda, Spirit, 49–50, for the Paracletés work here as a continuance of Jesus» forensic conflicts with the religious authorities. 9222 On rank, status, and lawcourts, see, e.g., Gaius Inst. 4.183; Petronius Sat. 14; P.Ha1. 1.124–127; Meeks, Moral World, 32; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 113; also divisions of penalty by rank in ancient Near Eastern legal collections. 9223 Cf. Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 123, on the Spirit " s proclamation function in a late-first-century context. 9225 Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 125, thinks that «the End is very much in the background» and that John 16:8–11 is not a foretaste of the Last Judgment. In my thinking, associations between God " s judgments in history and the final judgment are naturally connected, though the connection would not be universally grasped; that John intends to unite the two is, I think, clear in his Gospel (3:17; 5:21–28). 9226 On the transfer of Satan " s usual role, see Windisch, Spirit-Paraclete, 11, while also noting that this characterizes the «prophetic and apostolic preaching of judgment.» 9227 A biblical title also frequent in Amoraic texts, e.g., Gen. Rab. 38:7; 84:2; Exod. Rab. 18:5; Lev. Rab. 21:10; Ecc1. Rab. 3:2, §2; 3 En. 26:12. In b. Sukkah 52b, the evilyetzer tempts in this world, and in the world to come testifies against those he has seduced. |
| Lindars, «Composition» Lindars, Barnabas. «Composition of John XX .» NTS 7 (1960–1961): 142–47. Lindars, «Discourse and Tradition» Lindars, Barnabas. «Discourse and Tradition: The Use of the Sayings of Jesus in the Discourses of the Fourth Gospe1.» JSNT 13 (1981): 83–101. Lindars, John Lindars, Barnabas. John. New Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Lindars, «Rebuking» Lindars, Barnabas. «Rebuking the Spirit: A New Analysis of the Lazarus Story in John 11 .» NTS 38 (1992): 89–104. Lindars, «Re-enter» Lindars, Barnabas. «Re-enter the Apocalyptic Son of Man.» NTS 22 (1975–1976): 52–72. Lindars, «Traditions» Lindars, Barnabas. «Traditions behind the Fourth Gospe1.» Pages 107–24 in L " évangile de Jean: Sources, rédaction, théologie. Edited by M. De Jonge. BETL 45. Gembloux: J. Duculot; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1977. Lindemann, «Samaria» Lindemann, Andreas. «Samaria und Samaritaner im Neuen Testament.» Wort und Dienst 22 (1993): 51–76. Lindenberger, «Ahiqar» Lindenberger, J. M. Introduction to «Ahiqar.» OTP 2:479–93. Lindner, «Geschichtsauffassung» Lindner, Helgo. «Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum: Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage, Diss., Tübingen 1970» (summary). Theologische Literaturzeitung 96, no. 12 (1971): 953–954. Lindner, «Heiligtum» Lindner, Manfred. «Ein nabatäisches Heiligtum oberhalb der Nischenklamm (Sidd el-Máägin) von Petra (Jordanien).» Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 106 (1990): 145–54, plates 14–19. Lindsay, «Truth» Lindsay, Dennis R. «What Is Truth? Αλθεια in the Gospel of John.» Restoration Quarterly 35 (1993): 129–45. Lindsey, Jesus Lindsey, Robert L. Jesus, Rabbi and Lord: The Hebrew Story of Jesus behind Our Gospels. Oak Creek, Wis.: Cornerstone, 1990. Ling, «Stranger» Ling, R. «A Stranger in Town: Finding the Way in an Ancient City.» Greece and Rome 37 (1990): 204–14. Linneman, «Gospel of Q» Linneman, Eta. «The Gospel of Q–Fact or Fantasy?» Trinity Journal NS 17 (1996): 3–18. |
| 2538 Also MSS at 18:11. Hengel, Son, 43; Blackburn, «ΑΝΔΡΕΣ,» 189, are not entirely convincing in referring only to the Jewish tradition of applying this language to angels (Wis 5:5). 2540 See Riesenfeld, Tradition, 76; Dunn, Baptism, 30; Albright and Mann, Matthew, 36; Teeple, Prophet, 75–76; Meier, Vision, 59–60; Gundry, Matthew, 53. 2547 Given the prevalence of divine kings in parts of the ancient Near East (De Vaux, Israel, 111; even Akenaton in «The Amarna Letters,» 483–90 in ANET, passim), one sin to which Israel " s and Judah " s rulers had not succumbed (De Vaux, Israel, 113), one may question whether Isaiah would have risked implying that God would be Israel " s ultimate Davidic king if that was not what he meant (against Berger and Wyschogrod, Jews, 43; on the structure cf. De Vaux, Israel, 107; Kitchen, Orient, 110). This idea admittedly lacks parallels elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, but explicit messianic material is scarce in it to begin with. Tg. Isa. 9deliberately alters the grammar to distinguish the Davidic king from the Mighty God. 2548 Before the Qumran texts, in fact, scholars generally agreed that first-century Judaism did not apply «son of God» as a messianic title, in contrast to some OT usage; see Conzelmann, Theology, 76–77; Jeremias, Parables, 73; Montefiore, Gospels, 1:85; Stevens, Theology, 104–105. 2549 Longenecker, Christology, 95; Stanton, Gospels, 225. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 198–99, rightly notes that lQSer(a) (=lQ28a) 2.11–12 is not as clear as 4QFlor; Hengel, Son, 44, also cites a Daniel apocryphon as yet unpublished at the time of his book. Some cite 4Q 242 2.1–2, though it remains debated (Stanton, Gospel Truth, 154–55); see comment below. 4Q174 3.10–11 uses 2Sam 7:11–14 in an explicitly messianic context (4Q174 3.11–13; the passage may also stress, as Bergmeier, «Erfüllung,» argues on 4Q174 2.17–3.13, the eschatological elect and their temple). 2550 See Evans, «Son»; idem, «Prayer of Enosh» (including 4Q458); Abegg, «Introduction to 4Q369,» 329. |
|
|
