| That Jesus had many brothers is not surprising; families often had many children with a wide range of ages. 6319 Honoring kinship ties was very important, 6320 and brothers were normally the closest and most trustworthy of allies, 6321 which makes the unbelief of Jesus» brothers (7:5) all the more disconcerting. (Intrafamily strife was considered particularly tragic.) 6322 Although Jesus» younger siblings seem to have achieved prominence in the later church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1Cor 15:7 ; Gal 1:19; 2:9,12 ; Jas 1:1; Jude 1), it is not clear that John is polemicizing against them in that later role here (any more than he polemicizes against Peter, a prototypical disciple). They serve a literary function in the narrative, challenging disciples to have deeper faith and to endure rejection by their families, 6323 a common early Christian situation ( 1Cor 7:15–16 ; 1Pet 3:1 ; Matt 10:21). 6324 The statement that «not even his brothers were believing in him» (7:5) follows immediately after the apostasy of many of his disciples (6:66); likewise, believers experienced both tragic defection from their ranks (1 John 2:19) and familial opposition (cf. Matt 10:21, 35–37). If Jesus» brothers serve any function related to their genetic kinship with Jesus, it might be an apologetic purpose, to counter or guard against the charge of nepotism that would allow Jesus» relatives to assume so much rank in the early church. Josephus defends Moses against such a charge regarding Aaron (Josephus Ant. 4.26–28, 34, 58), and John may wish to show that the charge cannot be laid against Jesus. 6325 Or, if John does qualify popular allegiance to Jesus» physical family, it may be in a manner similar to that in which he challenges thoughtless devotion to Peter, ever reminding believers that Jesus alone is the chief shepherd and lord (cf. 13:24, 38; 21:15–22). (That this Gospel would be sensitive to such questions is not surprising. Early eyewitness tradition indicates that John son of Zebedee, with whose tradition, at least, most scholars associate this Gospel, once shared leadership in the conservative Jerusalem church with both Peter and James; Gal 2:9 .) |
| John prepares the way of Yahweh (1:23)–and hence of Jesus–and testifies of Jesus» preexistence (1:30). Jesus proves to be one greater than Moses (2:1–11). Jesus would come down from heaven more like divine Wisdom or Torah than like Moses (3:13, 31). Like Torah or Wisdom, Jesus is the bread of life (6:48). He existed as divine before Abraham existed (8:56–59). Jesus is far greater than the «gods» to whom God " s Word came at Sinai (10:33–39). Repeatedly in John the Scriptures testify to Jesus» identity and mission, but the climax of this motif appears when we learn that Isaiah spoke of Jesus when he beheld his glory in the theophany of Isa 6 ( John 12:39–41 ). Jesus is the perfect revelation of the Father (14:8–10) and shared the Father " s glory before the world existed (17:5,24). His self-revelation can induce even involuntary prostration (18:6), and confession of his deity becomes the ultimately acceptable level of faith for disciples (20:28–31). Where Jesus parallels Moses, he is greater than Moses (e.g., 9:28–29), as he is greater than Abraham and the prophets (8:52–53) or Jacob (4:12). Elsewhere, however, Jesus parallels not Moses but what Moses gave (3:14; 6:31), and even here, Moses should not get too much credit for what was «given through» (cf. 1:17) him (6:32; 7:22). Moses may have given water in the wilderness from the rock, but Jesus is the rock himself, the foundation stone of the new temple (7:37–39). How do Jesus» «signs» contribute to this high Christology (as they clearly must– 20:30–31)? Even though John has specifically selected them (21:25), most signs in the Fourth Gospel are of the same sort as found in the Synoptic tradition, which often applies them to the messianic era (Isa 35:5–6 in Matt 11/Luke 7:22). As in the Synoptics, the closest biblical parallels to Jesus» healing miracles are often the healing miracles of Elijah and Elisha. But in some other signs, John clearly intends Jesus to be greater than Moses: for his first sign he turns water to wine instead of to blood (2:1–11; cf. Rev 8:8). Later he feeds a multitude in the wilderness and, when they want to make him a prophet-king like Moses (6:15), he indicates that he is the new manna that Moses could not provide (6:32). The walking on water sign (6:19–21) probably reflects faith in Jesus» deity even in Mark. In this broader Johannine context, the healing miracles themselves may further evoke one story about Moses: people who beheld the serpent he lifted up would be healed. Yet Jesus parallels not Moses but the serpent, through which healing came directly (see 3:14, in a context addressing Wisdom, Torah, and Moses). Those who «see» him (parallel Johannine language to «believe» and «know» him) are healed. |
| It is in 6that Jesus explains the nature of his metaphors, explicitly defining the character of «the words I spoke to you.» Others consistently misinterpret Jesus» figurative pronouncements literally (3:4; 6:52; 11:12). It is not the literal flesh (cf. 6:51) that brings life, but the Spirit, 6258 a point also underlined in 3:6. 6259 The Spirit thus joins the Father and Son (5:21; cf. Rom 4:17 ; 1Cor 15:22 ) in giving life (6:63; cf. Rom 8:11 ; 2Cor 3:6 ; 1Pet 3:18 ; perhaps 1Cor 15:45 ). 6260 One may also note that flesh cannot comprehend divine truth adequately (cf. 3:12); elsewhere in the Jesus tradition as well, this comprehension requires a revelation from the Father (Matt 16:17; cf. ll:25–27/Luke 10:21–22). A merely human, «fleshly» perspective on Jesus and his words is inadequate ( 2Cor 5:16 ). 6261 Thus disciples must imbibe his Spirit, not his literal flesh (cf. 20:22); his life is present also in his words (6:68; cf. 15:7). In John, the «flesh» includes the best of human religion (see comment on 3:6), which, as here, profits nothing (φελε οδν; cf. 12:19). (Philosophers used «profit» as a moral criterion, 6262 though this provides merely a specialized example of the more general use.) Only religion birthed from the Spirit of God himself proves adequate for true worshipers (4:23–24). Jesus» words are from the Father (3:34; 12:47–50; 14:10; 17:8), like those of Moses (5:47), and only those taught by the Father would embrace them (6:45; 8:47). It is Jesus» message, his «words,» rather than his literal flesh, that communicates the life he has been promising through the heavenly bread (6:27, 33, 35, 40, 47–48, 51, 53–54, 57); it is those who «come» and «believe» whose hunger and thirst will be quenched (6:35; 7:37–38). They «stumbled» (6:61) and could not understand (6:60) because they did not believe (6:64), hence proved to be not from those the Father gave to Jesus (6:65; see comment on 6:37). Their unbelief or apostasy as uncommitted, unpersevering seekers of Jesus» gifts was of a piece with Judas " s apostasy (6:64), on which see comment on 6:71. (The designation of Judas as «the one who would betray him» appears to be antonomasia, a familiar form of periphrasis.) 6263 That Judas could therefore typify unfaithful professors of Christ suggests the distaste John holds for such persons, people undoubtedly known to John " s audience; ( 1 John 2:18–26). Their very failure to believe confirmed Jesus» warning that only those whom the Father drew would come to him (6:44,65). While this claim would not have qualified as an argument among ancient rhetoricians much better than it would today, 6264 the Johannine Jesus intends it not as an argument but as a warning in obscure language, the sort of riddles found among Mediterranean sages and assumed among sectarian interpreters like those at Qumran, intelligible only to those already inside the circle of understanding. 6265 2. Stumbling or Persevering (6:66–71 ) |
| 6324 Slaughter by relatives, as in Mark 13:12 ; Matt 10:21, indicated an especially awful time (Diodorus Siculus 17.13.6; see n. 21). Those converted to radical philosophies such as Cynicism (Alciphron Farmers 38 [Euthydicus to Philiscus], 3.40, par. 1) or Essenism (4Q477 2 2.8, if its sense resembles that in 2.6) might reject earthly families; even Stoics and Pythagoreans recognized a higher allegiance (Musonius Rufus 16, p. 102.14–16, 21–31; Iamblichus V.P. 35.257). But some pagans criticized Jesus» stance toward his family (Apocrit. 2.7–12). 6325 For appointing relatives, see, e.g., Xenophon Hel1. 3.4.29; 1 Chr 2:16; 27(though cf. 1 Chr 11:6); Neh 7:2. 6326 Safrai, «Education,» 965. 6327 E.g., Sophocles E1. 1493–1494; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 8.78.3; Livy 3.36.2; see comment on 3:2. Although rabbis treated some subjects as esoteric, Smith, Parallels, 155, cites Sipre Deut. 13:7: heretics speak secretly, but the Law is taught openly. 6328 E.g., Musonius Rums frg. 9 in Meeks, Moral World, 49; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 9.32.2; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.69; Publilius Syrus 10; Plutarch Praising 6, Mor. 54ID; Menander Rhetor 2.3, 386.9; 2.10, 416.24–25; Philodemus Frank Criticism frg. 1; among Cynics, see Vaage, «Barking.» 6329 Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 11.9.1; Plutarch Aemilius Paulus 11.3; Flatterer 1–37, Mor. 48E-74E; Philodemus Frank Criticism Tab. 1.2. Historians (Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 1.6.5), philosophers (Epictetus Diarr. 1.9.20; 1.12; 4.6.33; 4.7.24; Diogenes Laertius 6.1.4; 6.2.51; 6.5.92; Marcus Aurelius 1.16.4), and moralists (Isocrates Demon. 30; Cicero Amtc. 25.94–26.99; Off. 1.26.91; Horace Ep. 1.16.25–39; Juvenal Sat. 3.86–87; 4.65–72; Babrius 77; Phaedrus 1.13.1–2; 3.16.16–18; 4.13; Athenaeus Deipn. 6.236e), including Jewish writers (Wis 14:17; Josephus Life 367; Ps.-Phoc. 91; 1 Thess 2:5) regularly warned against flattery. 6330 Plutarch Profit by Enemies 6, Mor. 89B; Flatterer 17–37, Mor. 59A-74E; cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.36.48. 6331 Lysander 5 in Plutarch S.K., Mor. 190F; cf. Prov 27:6 . |
| 7377 Diodorus Siculus 33.1.1. They knew the paths through the hills in hilly Thessaly (Livy 32.11.2). 7379 On analogy with 8:44, one could imply that such thieves were children of the devil (cf. Jub. 11:11), but the popular interpretation of 10as applying directly to the devil ignores his absence from this context. 7380 T. Ab. 10:5A (κλπται, ο βουλμενοι φνον εργζεσθαι και κλψαι και θυσαι και πολσαι). Bandits killed a father and son in Diodorus Siculus 34/35.11.1. 7381 A thief who breaks in with the intention to kill is to be executed, but one who kills a thief intending only to steal is himself executed (p. Sanh. 8:8, §1; cf. Exod 22:1–3). 7382 Ancient moralists sometimes posed the dilemma between the flatterer who does not seek onés good but seems to, and the frank friend (esp. Plutarch Flatterer 1–37, Mor. 48E-74E). 7383 Philosophers could speak of «good life» (τ ε ζην), which was better than mere «life» (Epictetus Diatr. 1.4.31, following Plato Crito 48B). Jewish tradition could speak of those who do alms and righteousness being «filled with life» (πλησθσονται ζως, Tob 12:9). 7384 We have elsewhere argued that, pace much twentieth-century scholarship, some sort of passion predictions by Jesus are historically likely (Keener, Matthew, 431–33, on Matt 16:21). But such anticipations of the passion are also important from a literary perspective; see Aristotle Poet. 15.10, 1454ab. 7385 Anacharsis Ep. 7, to Tereus. John prefers καλς in this context (10:11, 14, 32–33; cf. 2:10), but his sense is not appreciably different from αγαθς (1:46; 5:29; 7:12, though all these could connote more moral virtue). Classical Greek distinguished the two (αγαθς more applying to moral goodness), but the distinction was rare in Koine (Thiselton, «Semantics,» 93); some texts employ them together (Let. Arts. 46). Barrett, John, 373, points out that Exod. Rab. 2:2 portrays David as a «good» () shepherd; but unless that text reflects wider tradition, it merely illustrates the broader principle here. |
| 8104 E.g., " Abot R. Nat. 25A; see considerably more documentation in Keener, Matthew, 542–45, on Matt 23:7–11. 8113 T. Sanh. 7:8; b. Hor. 13b, bar; p. Sanh. 1:2, §13; Ta c an. 4:2, §§8–9. This widespread practice of rank probably also prevailed in first-century Pharisaic circles (e.g., Bowker, Pharisees, 35). 8114 E.g., Plutarch T.T. 1.2.3, Mor. 616E; Xenophon Cyr. 8.4.3–5; Luke 14:7–11; p. Ta c an. 4:2, §§9, 12; Ter. 8:7. 8115 Apuleius Metam. 10.7; among the deities, see Homer II. 1.535; see further Garnsey and Sailer, Empire, 117, and sources cited there (including Suetonius Aug. 44). In Jewish sources, see Gen 43:33 ; t. Sanh. 8:1; p. Ta c an. 4:2, §12; b. Hor. 13b, bar. 8116 Apuleius Metam. 10.7; Valerius Maximus 4.5.ext.2; Plutarch Cicero 13.2; 1QS 2.19–23; lQSa 2.11–17; p. Ketub. 12:3, §6; Roš Haš. 2:6, §9; cf. m. " Abot 5:15; on the order in speaking out, cf. 1Cor 14:29–30 ; Josephus War 2.132; 1QS 6.9–10. 8120 E.g., Aeschines Timarchus 25; Xenophon Cyr. 8.7.10; Aristotle Po1. 2.7.5, 1272a; Diodorus Siculus 21.18.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 8.15.1. Roman society also demanded giving way to onés elder (Cato Col1. dist. 10; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.47.1). 8121 Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.206; Anf. 3.47 (applied to the sages in Sipra Qed. pq. 7.204.3.1; p. c Abod. Zar. 3:1, §2; Hor. 3:5, §3; Lev. Rab. 11:8). Prominent local leaders tended to be those who were aged, as both literary texts (Josephus Life 266; Let. Arts. 32:39; Acts 14:23) and inscriptions (CI) 1:294, §378; 1:426, §581; 1:432, §595; 1:433, §597; 2:9, §739; 2:45, §790; 2:46, §792; 2:53, §801; 2:76–77, §828a; 2:77, §828b; 2:79, §829; 2:137, §931; cf. CI] hlxxxvi-lxxxvii) testify, as does the LXX (e.g., Josh 24:1; Judg 8:14, 16; 11:5–11; 21:16 ; Ruth 4:2–11; 2 Chr 34:29; Jer 26:17 ; Jdt 6:16; 7:23–24; 13:12; 1Macc 1:26; 7:33; 11:23; 12:35; 13:36; 14:20,28; 2Macc 13:13; 14:37). 8126 E.g., b. c Abod. Zar. 20b; Sotah 4b-5a. Lincoln, Ephesians, 236, cites Qumran texts extolling gentleness or meekness (1QS 2.24; 3.8; 5.3, 25; 11.1). |
| The finality of Pilatés claim about «what I have written» (19:22; cf. esp. γεγραμμνον in 19:19–20) may remind the reader of every other use of «written» to this point in the Gospel–every other use refers to Scripture (2:17; 6:31, 45; 8:17; 10:34; 12:14, 16; 15:25), which cannot be broken (10:35). Thus John may ironically suggest that Pilate, as God " s unwitting agent (19:11), may carry out God " s will in the Scriptures. 3. Dividing Jesus» Property (19:23–24) Confiscation of goods was a common penalty attending execution or other sentences of judgment, 10125 but Jesus has few goods on him to confiscate. The removal of clothing (19:23–24) fits what we know of typical ancient executions; 10126 Romans crucified their victims naked. 10127 Although some later rabbis, explaining the proper way to carry out theoretical executions, allowed men a loincloth, 10128 it is unlikely that Pilatés soldiers would have accommodated their sensitivities; 10129 further, other tradition indicates that most Jewish teachers allowed men to be executed naked. 10130 Public nakedness could cause shame in other settings, 10131 and Romans stripped those they would punish to degrade them, 10132 but it was especially shaming for Palestinian Jews. 10133 The specific mention of divided clothing (19:23–24) explicitly recalls Ps 22 (21LXX), 10134 which plays a prominent role in the Gospels» passion traditions. 10135 Although one can read the two lines of the verse as parallel, John exegetes from them as much as is possible, like Matthew in Matt 21:5. 10136 (Their contemporaries also read more into texts than they required when it suited their purposes to do so.) 10137 John also clearly provides fulfillment quotations in his Passion Narrative (19:24, 28, 36–37) for apologetic purposes; even details of Jesus» death, which was scandalous in the ancient Mediterranean, fulfilled the divine plan. In addition to his apologetic purpose, John seeks to bring out the symbolic spiritual significance of Jesus» death. 10138 |
| In 12:46, discussion about beholding (12:45) may recall Jesus» previous declaration that he is the light (12:35–36), another motif in this Gospel (1:4–9; 3:19–21; 5:35; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9–10); 7983 his «coming into the world» reinforces the Gospel " s testimony to Jesus» incarnation to save the world (cf. 12:47; 1:9; 3:19; 6:14; 9:39; 11:27; 16:28; 18:37; 1Tim 1:15 ). Jesus is the light who, when seen and believed, delivers his followers from darkness. In this context, John " s emphasis on light suggests that those who are not blinded (12:40) can see the light (12:45) of his glory as Isaiah did (12:41), and those who respond in faith will be saved (12:46). In 12another Johannine motif emerges; though Jesus did not come to condemn (3:17; cf. 8:15), his coming itself constitutes a dividing line of judgment (3:19; 9:39; cf. 12:31), and he will act as God " s agent at the judgment (5:22, 24, 27, 29–30; cf. 8:16, 26), whereas his opponents judge inaccurately (7:24, 51; 8:15; 18:31). The image in 12shifts from «seeing» Jesus (12:45) to «hearing» his words (which in this case applies to hearing with or without obeying). 7984 Those who reject the light do not require additional judgment from Jesus; they have simply rejected the salvation that would deliver them from the judgment already otherwise theirs (see esp. 3:17–21). Eschatologically, however, they would be judged by his word they had heard; their very opportunity to respond raised the standard of judgment. 7985 On the judgment at the last day according to Jesus» word (12:48), see comment on 5:24; 7986 they would also be accused by the Father " s previous word in the Torah delivered through Moses, which testified to Jesus (5:39,45). Jesus» word (12:48) is in fact the same as the Father " s word (cf. 3:34; 5:47; 17:8), for all that he spoke he spoke in obedience to the Father (12:49–50). Jesus» teaching that those who reject him as God " s agent reject God himself (12:48) fits Johannine theology (13:20; 14:6; cf. 1 John 2:23 ) but is plainly earlier Jesus tradition ( Mark 9:37 ; Matt 10:40; Luke 9:48). 7987 This word would serve as the criterion for judgment on the «last day» (12:48), a common Johannine expression for the time of the resurrection (6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24) of both righteous and unrighteous (5:29). 7988 |
| 8865 4 Ezra 5:23; 2 Bar. 39:7; L.A.B. 12:8–9; 23:12; 28:4; b. Hu1. 92a; Gen. Rab. 88:5; 98:9; Exod. Rab. 44:1; Num. Rab. 8:9; Esth. Rab. 9:2; either Israel or the elect in 4QHodayot-like frg. 2, line 3 (Wise, Scrolls, 447). This could also be conjoined with the image of God " s flock (4 Ezra 5:23–24; cf. John 10 ). 8866 E.g., some of the same texts also compare Israel with a lily (4 Ezra 5:23) or various trees (Esth. Rab. 9:2); some also used the vine to symbolize Torah or Jerusalem (b. Hu1. 92a) or Sarah (Gen. Rab. 53:3; cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:9), or its branches to symbolize Moses and others (Gen. Rab. 88:5). R. Meir reportedly thought the tree of knowledge was a vine, but others disagreed (b. Ber. 40a). 8867 Cf., e.g., Jer 1:10; 24:6; 31:28; 42:10 ; Jub. 1:16; 7:34; 16:26; 21:24; 36:6; 1QS 8.5; 11.8; CD 1.7; lQapGen 1.1 (reconstructed); 2 Bar. 51:3; Fujita, «Plant»; Mussner, «Gleichnis»; Wirgin, Jubilees, 22–26; perhaps 1 En. 10:16; 84:6. See also Matt 15:13; Rom 6:5; 11:16–24 ; 1Cor 3:6–9 ; Herrn. Sim. 8. For the patriarchs, see, e.g., 1 En. 93:2, 5, 10; b. Yebam. 63a (were the image more common, one could argue that John portrays Jesus as the greater foundation for God " s people). The moralistic uses (cf. 1Macc 1:10; T. Ash. 1:7) may be a Hellenistic borrowing (Plutarch Educ. 1, Mor. 4C) but may actually undergird the early image (e.g., «uprooting» in judgment in 2 Chr 7:20; Prov 2:22 ; Jer 12:14–15 ; Jub. 6:12; 15:26,28, 34; 16:9; 20:4; 21:22; 22:20; 24:29,31, 33; 26:34; 30:7,10,22; 31:17,20; 33:13,17, 19; 35:14; 36:9; 37:23; 49:9). 8868 For a Roman congregation possibly named for the olive tree and one in Sepphoris for a vine, see Leon, Jews, 146; for common Greco-Roman tree symbolism in Diaspora Jewish art from the second to the fifth centuries, see Goodenough, Symbols, 7:87–134. 8870 The «vineyard» in Yavneh (e.g., b. Ber. 63b) is also understood figuratively as the disciples there (p. Ta c an. 4:1, §14). 8871 E.g., Josephus War 5.210; pagan views of this were negative (cf. Cicero Pro Flacco 28.66–67; Tacitus Hist. 5.5). |
| 2652 The Jesus tradition upon which Paul " s words are based (often agreed to be Matt 24l " s source, e.g., Neil, Thessalonians, 101; Wenham, «Apocalypse,» 348) also delegates the use of the trumpet to angels (Matt 24:31). 2653 The anarthrous use may indicate that no particular archangel is in view (Morris, Thessalonians, 144). 2654 As in Apoc. Mos. 22.1–3; perhaps less likely, though plausible, is the suggestion that he constitutes the restrainer of 2 Thess 2:5–7 (cf. T. Dan 6:2; Gen. Rab. 63:14; Ruth Rab. proem 1; Pesiq. Rab. 30:4; Dekor, «Guerre,» 374, notes that he is also Israel " s guardian in 1QM). 2655 Although Jewish literature names many archangels (e.g., Tob 12:15; 1 En. 9:1; 54:6; 1QM 8.15–16; Sib. Or. 2.214–220; Τ Ab. 13:10A; Pesiq. Rab. 46:3), the biblical angels Gabriel (Luke 1:19, 26; 1 En. 10:9; 20:7; 40:9; 2 En. 21:3; 72A; 3 En. 14:4; 17:1–3; b. Sotah 12b; 33a; B. Mesi c a 86b; Gen. Rab. 78:1; Deut. Rab. 5:12; 11:10; Lam. Rab. 3:23, §8; Song Rab. 2:4, §1; 6:10, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 21:9; 35:2; also amulets in Goodneough, Symbols 2:174–88) and Michael (Jude 9; Rev 12:7; 1 En. 20:5; 24:6; 40:9; 2 En. 22:6; 33:10; 3 En. 17:3; 44:10; 1QM 17.6–8; T.Ab. 1:13; 2:1,13–14; 7:11; 8:8, 11; 9:8; 10:1, 12; 11:1; 12:15; 14:12A; 4:4–5, 14; 5:1; 6:6; 7:2; 8:1; 14:7B; L.A.E. 25.2; Apoc. Mos. 3.2; 37.5; 40.1–2; 3 Bar. 11:2; T. So1. 1:7; b. B. Mesi c a 86b; Gen. Rab. 78:1; Exod. Rab. 2:5; Deut. Rab. 5:12; 11:10; Lam. Rab. 3:23, §8; SongRab. 2:4, §1; 6:10, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 21:9; 40:6) are the most frequent. 2656 For views on angelic mediation, esp. in creation, see comment on John 1:3 . Although some scholars (e.g., Francis, «Humility,» 178–80; Carr, Angels, 70; cf. the more nuanced view of Yates, «Worship») have read Col 2as challenging worship with angels, as at Qumran and in Revelation (besides references in Francis, «Humility,» see, e.g., Jub. 30:18; 31:14; 1QM 12.1–2; Sipre Deut. 306.31.1; cf. Pr. Man. 15; T. Job 33:2–3; Robinson, «Adam and Liturgy»), it is difficult to see why Paul would have opposed this practice, except to the extent that it involved fallacious revelations (perhaps Gal 1:8 ). Most likely, with other scholars (see Schweizer, Colosnans, 159), it refers to the practice of venerating angels as divine mediators (see Kraabel, «Judaism,» 143–44; Cohen, Maccabees, 84). |
|
|
