Craig S. Keener

Источник

7. Christology and Other Theology

OF ALL THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS of Johannine theology in the discourses, the most frequently noted is his Christology.2413 As scholars regularly observe, Christology is central to this Gospe1.2414 Prologues normally set the stage for major themes in the works that followed them, and John s prologue does not disappoint, framed by affirmations of Jesus» deity and relationship with the Father (1:1, 18). Most of the prologue addresses Jesus» identity (1:1–5,9,14,16–18) and the responses of various groups (the world, Israel, and the disciples, 1:10–13); it also offers a model for bold witness about Jesus» identity (1:6–8,15). The rest of the Gospel illustrates these responses to Jesus, especially to his signs (e.g., 1:49; 2:11, 23; 3:2; 4:19; 5:16–18; 6:30, 67–69; 7:30; 8:59; 9:16; 10:19–21; 11:45–46; 20:31), which function as the primary summons to recognize his identity (20:30–31; cf. 14:10–11).2415 That Jesus was rejected by the world just as they were would be relevant for marginalized Johannine Christians,2416 and the story of divine Wisdom's rejection provided a fitting backdrop for the experience of Jesus known to the community.2417 The Gospel's radical Christology enabled the Johannine Christians «to undertake their radical commitment to God in the face of dire risk.»2418

As in other biographies, including the other gospels, the Fourth Gospel focuses on one central figure; over half the verbs in John have Jesus as their subject or are uttered by him.2419 Unlike most biographies, which express the freedom to critique their heroes» shortcomings (e.g., Arrian Alex. 4.7.4; 4.8.1–4.9.6) and mix some measure of praise and blame (e.g., Cornelius Nepos 11 [Iphicrates], 3.2), John will nowhere critique or imply any shortcomings in Jesus. A discussion of the genre and discourses of the Fourth Gospel, undertaken at the beginning of this introduction, invites particular exploration of John's Christology vis-à-vis that of the earliest Jesus tradition. Granted that John has represented Jesus in Johannine idiom and for his distinctive purposes, does he accurately reflect and interpret some prior tradition here, or does he simply create new material?

Because many christological motifs recur frequently in the Fourth Gospel, we survey the background for some of John's terms in this introduction.2420 We will address in more detail the motifs themselves, including John's distinctive adaptation of terms that were used more broadly in other streams of early Judaism and Jewish Christianity, at relevant points in the commentary.

The Thrust of John's Christology

Christology is John's central focus, as both the proem (1:1–18) and summary thesis statement (20:30–31) testify. Both of these passages emphasize the highest, most complete Johannine Christology: Jesus is deity (1:1,18; 20:28–31). John advocates multiple christological models, but especially emphasizes the most complete existing model, namely, that Jesus is Torah or Wisdom. No other conception available in his Jewish vocabulary better conveyed the thought of one who was divine yet distinct from the Father.

The proem leads us to expect Jesus as divine Wisdom or Word to overshadow a great deal of the Fourth Gospel (without erasing other important christological motifs or historical traditions). Jesus is far greater than Moses the agent of revelation, for he is the «Word,» the content of revelation (1:17–18). Like Torah or Wisdom, Jesus is the agent of creation in the beginning (1:1–3) and is life and light (1:4–9; cf. 8:12; 9:5; 12:35–36, 46; 15:6). Throughout the Gospel as in the proem, John compares Jesus» mission to that of Torah or Wisdom sent to Israel: the world did not know him, his own did not receive him, but those who did receive him by believing him could become God's children (1:10–13). These verses build John's soteriology on the model of God's earlier revelation to Moses: his people must «know,» «believe,» and «receive» God's revelation (cf. also 3:36; 5:38,47; 12:48; 17:3). In short, John summarizes Jesus» ministry by declaring that the disciples, like Moses, «beheld his glory» (1:14). Thus the whole Gospel becomes a theophany like Sinai, but in this case John the Baptist (1:6–8, 15) and disciples perform the function of witnesses like Moses. Jesus is one greater than Moses, the Torah in flesh, and the Gospel as a whole develops this paralle1. In such a context, even the image of the «uniquely beloved (son)» (1:14, 18), which could otherwise recall Israel or the Messiah, may also recall traditional Jewish imagery for Torah here.

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.

The discourses that expound the miracles clarify this point further. Although healing the lame (5:5) suggests prophecies of the messianic era (Isa 35:6), Jesus» role in raising and judging the dead (5:17–29) belongs to no mortal in the Bible. Jesus is thus the one of whom Moses wrote (5:45–47)–a fitting introduction to the wilderness feeding where Jesus is the new manna (John 6). When Jesus heals the blind man, the narrative reveals that being his disciple is greater than being Moses» disciple (9:28–29); he is a shepherd of Israel greater than Moses (10:1–18). The raising of Lazarus introduces Jesus as not merely a miracle worker like others (1 Kgs 17:22–23; 2 Kgs 4:35–36) but as the resurrection itself (John 11:25–26). One therefore needs not only the signs but also their inspired interpretation, the testimony of the Paraclete and the disciples (15:26–27).

Christology has implications for ecclesiology: Christ's followers must be one (17:22), including ethnically (ch. 4); they must love one another (13:34–35; 15:12–17). Perhaps the Gospel polemicizes against early stages of division among believers that becomes full schism in 1 John 2, a situation probably reflecting some of the Johannine communities. Their lives (John 13:35; 17:21, 23; cf. 14:11–12) as well as their words (John 17:20) thus constitute part of their witness, through which the world may believe. The function of witnesses for Jesus is the secondary motif of the proem (expressed in the Baptist material) and a primary focus of ch. 1, in which a witness interprets Christology for those who are not yet believers. But for John, witness includes how believers treat one another as well as what they proclaim. Jesus revealed the unseen God by his character of grace and truth (1:18), but his followers» love for one another must continue to do so (see 1 John 4:12).

John's Christological Distinctiveness

John's genre invites another question about his Christology. If John is a biographer and his speeches for Jesus reflect his understanding of the Jesus tradition, to what degree might his Christology reflect that of Jesus? Many features of Johannine Christology are attested in earlier Synoptic tradition,2421 but John alone makes much of the Isaian divine «I am» claims.2422

Some scholars have proposed, even regarding the Synoptic Gospels, that the first two generations of the church forgot so much about Jesus that they created four times as much material about him as they preserved, even though eyewitnesses would have still remained alive.2423 Because Schweitzer thought we could know little of Jesus, Bultmann and others thought the Gospels taught us more about the early church than about Jesus; yet the reverse is almost certainly true.2424 Modern scholarly alternative reconstructions of Jesus and early Christian history are almost entirely speculative.2425 Many other scholars will agree that the proposed «radical amnesia» of early Christians is intrinsically unlikely, yet remain reluctant to embrace many of Jesus» self-assertions in John as authentic. To what degree could John's christological interpretations reflect prior Christian Christology and the self-understanding of the historical Jesus? Although historical data remain inadequate to provide a complete answer, they invite us to contemplate, rather than summarily dismiss, Johannine Christology as an authentic (though distinctive) expression of the Jesus tradition.2426

It is possible that our problem with the issue was also a live one in John's day. John's need to defend his tradition's portrait of Jesus against accusations of «secret» teaching (cf. 7:4; 18:20) may stem from the Johannine tradition's use of teaching missing from the more widely-circulated Synoptic tradition, inviting complaints from some Jewish Christians who preferred to avoid christological controversy for the sake of peace with the synagogue authorities.

At the same time, John may reflect an earlier christological tradition, for which we have some, albeit limited, evidence. It is possible that the Synoptics (especially Mark and Luke) «toned down» Jesus for their audiences, providing a noble hero to which their audiencés contemporaries could relate. (As noted below, Q has an exalted Christology even compatible with Wisdom Christology, so Mark's story of Jesus was not the only approach of his era.)2427 Paul's letters may bear early witness to the tradition of Wisdom Christology (e.g., 1Cor 8:6) and the Johannine Jesus» theme of Christ dwelling in believers (e.g., Gal 2:20); but because Paul does not explicitly claim to be following Jesus tradition, they do not provide proof that such ideas were rooted in any of Jesus» own claims. We survey below the Jewish context of various Johannine christological titles, how early Christians adapted them, and how John sometimes adapted more general early Christian uses. The survey will demonstrate that while John's Christology is distinctive, it was not unique.

Christ

Although most NT students know well the application of the term «Christ» in early Christianity, its antecedents in Judaism are less clear and worthy of at least brief consideration here. Because entire volumes are devoted to the examination of Jewish messianic expectation, the present discussion functions only as a basic prolegomenon for information presupposed in this commentary.

1. Messianic Expectation in Judaism

The prophets had foretold an eschatological king and/or dynasty descended from David,2428 a theme that continued in early Judaism.2429 Because the king was the «anointed one,» Jewish people often granted the eschatological anointed king, the king par excellence, the articular title, «the Messiah,» which came into the LXX regularly as «the Christ» (as «the anointed one» normally did, in what we would regard as nonmessianic usages as well).

The Gospels provide the impression that Palestinian Jews in general understood the term «Messiah» and expected his coming. Given the terms inadequacy in the Diaspora and in later Christology (son of David Christology is far less prominent than Wisdom, lord, and other christologies), it is unlikely that the Gospels would have simply invented this usage. Yet our first-century evidence on the issue is quite disparate; some of it, especially texts directed toward Diaspora audiences, makes minimal use of the term. But this lack of use may say more about our sources than about first-century Palestinian Jewry's messianic expectations.

Josephus's omission of messianic data is understandable; writing for a Diaspora audience, seeking to minimize Judaism's revolutionary involvement, he had reason to omit messiahs, and messianic ideals among the people, which could have political implications.2430 Josephus may even have toned down David's revolutionary activity and ancestry for the Messiah.2431 He elsewhere suppresses Jewish ideas that would look bad to the Romans, and undoubtedly does the same with messiahship, «though certain of the persons whom he describes as brigands and deceivers must really have been messianic pretenders.»2432 Yet the nature of such messiahs varied; not all were necessarily associated with militant resistance. If the Samaritan prophet, Theudas, or the Egyptian prophet were messianic figures, they looked instead to a miraculous divine intervention to establish God's reign.2433

The failed Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–35 C.E. led to Hadrian's establishment of pagan city Aelia Capitolina on the site on Jerusalem, and the Romans flayed alive R. Akiba, one of the primary sources for the Mishnaic tradition. It should therefore not surprise us that the earliest rabbinic texts generally preserve (where it has not been suppressed altogether) a much more cautious view of messianism than later texts that have returned to contemplation on biblical prophecies about the Son of David.2434 Such skepticism is reported of R. Johanan ben Zakkai, who survived the destruction of 70 C.E.: finish what you are doing before going out to greet a messianic claimant.2435 But even in the late second century, rabbis still reportedly hoped for the coming of Messiah.2436

While some texts seem to suppress popular messianic expectations, other texts plainly portray them.2437 Thus for instance the fourteenth and fifteenth benedictions of the Amida, probably rooted in the pre-70 period, long for the restoration of David's house.2438 Likewise, Pss So1. 17:32, a pre-Christian and possibly Pharisaic source, declares:

And he will be a righteous king over them, taught by God.

There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days,

for all shall be holy,

and their king shall be the Lord Messiah.2439

It was also natural to expect this descendant of David to be a warrior:

Undergird him with the strength to destroy the unrighteous rulers,

to purge Jerusalem from gentiles.…

to destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth;

At his warning the nations will flee from his presence:

and he will condemn sinners by the thoughts of their hearts.2440

Various other Jewish texts from the early Roman Empire, like 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, address the Messiah and often connect him with the final judgment.2441 Both 4 Ezra 13 and Enoch's Similitudes suggest a préexistent individual Messiah of some sort who will destroy the wicked.2442

Early Jewish interpretations of the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel 9 increased expectation in precisely the decades surrounding the ministry of Jesus;2443 this may have fit a general expectation of a coming era of peace in the eastern Mediterranean in this period.2444 Suffering would have intensified the expectation all the more; many Jewish people expected it to increase before the coming of the end.2445 Apparently, as with popular eschatological discourse today, expectation of the imminent end often generated predictions of the Messiahs coming after the completion of current events.2446

2. Divergences in Messianic Expectation

Stating that early Judaism expected a messianic figure or figures, however, cannot obscure the diversity of expectations surrounding that figure or figures;2447 one can at most say that the Davidic Messiah was, by the definition of the type, a future ruler ordained by God with political (not merely spiritual) rule.2448 Thus one of the Sibylline Oracles that probably dates to the second century B.C.E. employs thoroughly Greco-Egyptian categories for the expected king, possibly an Egyptian ruler.2449 (T. Levi 18 and T. Jud. 24:1–6 offer interesting parallels to Jewish-Christian Christology, but probably because they represent Jewish-Christian interpolations.)2450

Qumran s «messianic» expectation apparently encompassed two major eschatological figures, a Davidic Messiah and a high priest (e.g., lQSa 2.11–17; 4Q174 3.11–12).2451 The Hasmonean rulers had combined priesthood and kingship in the same persons,2452 a combination to which the Zadokite priests who founded the Qumran community strenuously objected.2453 It was natural for a community with Qumran's history and priestly orientation to anticipate an eschatological purification of the priesthood (cf. Ma1. 3:3) as well as the promised Davidic Messiah; priests as well as kings were to be anointed for office. Thus it was natural for the community to envision two eschatological «anointed» figures rather than one, a priest as well as a king (cf. Zech 4:14; 6:13).2454 Other texts less clearly connected with the Essene movement also stress the role of the future priest.2455

In the earliest texts associated with the sort of movement we find at Qumran, the figures of Levi and Judah probably fill a special role because their two tribes constituted most of Israel as the community knew it,2456 but only a salvific figure from Judah is mentioned.2457 The ruler would come from Judah, in other words–not from the corrupt priestly Hasmonean line.2458 After this period, however, scholars divide on the interpretation of the Qumran texts: some contend that they support one Messiah,2459 others that they support two Messiahs,2460 others that diversity of opinion existed within Qumran or its documents,2461 or that the Damascus Document supports the former and the earlier Manual of Discipline the latter, each representing a different stage in the community's development of eschatological thought.2462 1QS 9.11 does conjoin the expectation of a prophet with that of «the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel»; the Damascus Document, however, consistently employs the singular, lending credence to the possibility of diverse views in the texts.2463

Part of the complication may be our narrow interpretation of the term «Messiah» or «anointed one»; if we allow it to mean anyone anointed for a leading office, the apparent conflict diminishes.2464 The two «anointed ones» refer to «the anointed high priest» (in contrast with the wicked one in the temple) and «the anointed king of Israe1.»2465 What is most significant about the possibly single Messiah of Aaron and Israel, however, is that it implies that at least the Damascus Document's greatest expectation was a Levitic rather than a Davidic anointed one.2466 This suggests the diversity of messianic expectation in the formative period of Christian origins.

The rabbinic idea of two messiahs,2467 however, derives from different exegesis and probably arises independently from later circumstances.2468 Sufficient OT basis existed to provide midrashic proofs for a suffering Messiah (e.g., Dan. 9:26, which is probably messianic in the context of 11Q 13 2.18),2469 but it is probably only after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt that the rabbinic tradition of a suffering Messiah (Messiah ben Joseph) in addition to the triumphant warrior Messiah (Messiah ben David) arose.2470 Although some have argued for a slain Messiah in some Qumran texts (or at least the possibility of such a reading),2471 especially in 4Q285 frg. 5 line 4, subsequent examination has made this interpretation increasingly improbable.2472 It is unlikely that a specific suffering-Messiah view existed in the first century.2473 That such a tradition could arise, however, indicates the flexibility of messianic ideas. Indeed, Jewish expectations concerning eschatology in general varied considerably. Whereas some first-century Jews just hoped for peace, others sought revolt.2474 That Jesus and his movement redefined messiahship is hardly surprising, given the flexibility of Jewish eschatological expectation in general and messianic expectation in particular.

3. Jesus and the Messiah

Some doubt that Jesus» earliest followers considered him a messiah, but this position rejects all explicit testimony that remains in favor of a hypothesis argued virtually from silence.2475 Others suspect that Jesus drew on 2Sam 7 and other passages that lent themselves to a messianic interpretation.2476 Given the environment in which Jesus ministered, he had to know that his teachings about the kingdom and some of his actions would lead to speculation about his messianic character.2477

Evidence from the earliest strands of the Jesus tradition indicates that Jesus taught that his disciples would have a role in the messianic kingdom, which would naturally imply that he attributed to himself the role of Messiah.2478 All extant sources indicate that after his disappearance his disciples claimed him to be Messiah, and his execution as king indicates that others believed that he considered himself Messiah, despite his reticence to employ the title publicly.2479 Given the persecution this could and did create for them, it is implausible that disciples would have simply invented the charge that Jesus was crucified as «king"–that is, for high treason against the emperor (see commentary). Some of the authorities saw Jesus as a potential messianic claimant, as did his disciples; yet it is unlikely that the disciples got the idea of Jesus» kingship from Pilate. A more natural common source would be Jesus himself–which is what our only extant sources claim. E. P. Sanders thus thinks that many scholars have been too cautious about assuming that Jesus believed he was a king:2480

Jesus taught about the kingdom; he was executed as would-be king; and his disciples, after his death, espected him to return to establish the kingdom. These points are indisputable. Almost equally indisputable is the fact that the disciples thought that they would have some role in the kingdom. We should, I think, accept the obvious: Jesus taught his disciples that he himself would play the principal role in the kingdom.2481

Raymond Brown likewise concludes that some of Jesus» followers may have thought him the Messiah, but that he responded ambivalently because his mission defined the term differently from what the popular title would suggest.2482 The Gospels testify that Jesus redefined messiahship; the attitudes of his disciples probably bear witness to popular messianic expectation associated with the exaltation and deliverance of Israe1. But Jesus and his disciples nevertheless found in the diverse concepts of messiahship a nucleus appropriate for defining his mission,2483 once suitably adapted in light of Jesus» sufferings. The diversity mentioned above demonstrates how naturally the actual details of his mission would have redefined the messianic category for the disciples.2484 Other factors would have contributed to a Messianic Secret during Jesus» public ministry. If Jesus knew anything at all about the political situation in Jerusalem, he would have known that a public messianic claim would lead to his immediate execution; in Mark, it does.2485 Further, «self-boasting» was rejected in the Mediterranean world.2486 Our limited information on first-century potential messianic claimants may suggest a reticence to declare their identity prematurely; most apparently felt they had to produce some evidence of their messiahship before publicly claiming kingship.2487 Many teachers, both Greek and Jewish, also kept some esoteric or secret teachings private among a small circle, and sometimes revealed it reticently even to them.2488

«Messiah» was a Jewish category, not Gentile, so it is hardly plausible that the title was invented by later Gentile Christians. «Christ» was a natural way to translate «Messiah» into Greek,2489 and so it translates «anointed one» (not just in the royal sense) regularly in the LXX. But because that term in regular Greek usage simply meant «ointment"–an image wholly unintelligible to most Greeks2490–Paul in the Gentile mission normally uses it as Jesus» surname rather than as a title,2491 in contrast to the more primitive usage in the Gospels.2492 That John, writing in Greek, should explicitly translate «Messiah» as «Christ» (1:41), need not indicate Gentiles in his audience, as some have thought; quite the contrary, John is the only NT writer to include the Semitic term at al1.

As noted in our discussion of signs, John particularly develops the new Moses expectation of early Judaism.2493 As noted in our discussion of genre, John may borrow some aspects of Deuteronomy as a model for his writing. We should also note that explicit references to Moses appear far more widely in the Gospel (1:17, 45; 3:14; 5:45–46; 6:32; 7:19,22–23; 9:28–29) than references to Jacob (only in 4:5,12), Abraham (8:39–40, 52–53, 56–58), or David (7:42). Such factors suggest a heavy emphasis on parallels with Moses, many at the allusion level (e.g., 14:1, 8; 15:15). The Johannine community's opponents seem to appeal heavily to Moses» law to support their position (cf. esp. 5:45–46; 9:28–29). But while Jesus is to some degree a new Moses in John, this Christology is as inadequate as «the prophet» Christology (cf. comment on 6:14–15). Jesus is much more one greater than Moses, the divine glory which Moses witnessed; it is his disciples, rather than Jesus himself, who most directly parallel Moses (1:14; 14:8; 15:15). The reader should examine further our comments on the particular texts under discussion.

Son of God

One title particularly prominent in the Fourth Gospel focuses on Jesus» special relationship with the Father, its attendant implications for his position vis-a-vis humanity, and its invitation to others to become «children of God» in a somewhat different but related sense. Many explanations have been offered for the title «Son of God.»2494

1. Greco-Roman Sons of God

Partly because they argue that Paul employs the title «Son of God» more frequently than the Jesus tradition does,2495 and the Jesus tradition at some points expands the use of the title,2496 many have looked to Hellenistic sources for the background of the title. We have treated the question of the Hellenistic «divine man» above briefly, in our discussion of signs. Here we mention and critique some proposals for a Hellenistic context for the expression «Son of God.»

In contrast to the Jewish monotheist tradition, boundaries between exalted humanity and incipient divinity in the Greek tradition often proved fluid;2497 popular tradition divinized many heroes2498 and some philosophers.2499 Homer regularly described heroes as «peers of gods» or «godlike.»2500 Thus it should not surprise us that the expression «son of God» had a wide range of uses in the Greek world. Heroes of old, especially those supposed to have been literally sprung from divine seed, were often sons of gods2501 (though most often in a figurative or distant sense,2502 such as the «Zeus-born» son of such-and-such a human father),2503 or «nurtured» by gods.2504 Some have identified a usage of divine sonship in some mystery cults,2505 although the extent and antiquity of this usage is disputed, and the heroic son of Zeus who achieved immortality and might best fit the description needed, Heracles, never became a deity of the Mysteries.2506 Magicians could be «gods» or «sons of gods» in the magical papyri,2507 although the magical papyri are from after our period and «son of God» was not a usual designation for miracle workers.2508 Philosophers opined that wise men were sons of God or of the gods.2509

The Greek East and eventually other parts of the empire could hail a reigning emperor as «son of a god,» especially because the preceding emperor, his father (genetic or adopted), was now hailed as a god in temples in the eastern Mediterranean. Thus Augustus,2510 Nero,2511 and Hadrian2512 are among those who bore the title; indeed, adopted sons of emperors received the title in the East even if they were not emperors themselves.2513 The title had been applied to rulers like Alexander of Macedon2514 long before. Epictetus probably reacted against such notions when he observed that being a true son of the supreme God was better than being adopted by Caesar.2515 Interestingly, Bousset, quick to cite a background in the Mysteries for the term, dismisses this one, supposing (wrongly, for Asia Minor) that «the cult of the emperor had hardly assumed such a dominant position in the time of Pau1.»2516 Although the pagan world allowed that Zeus had many sons, it regularly used «son of God» as a title of a human only with application to the divine emperor,2517 a sense certainly irrelevant at the beginning of the Jesus tradition, but possibly significant in interpreting Revelation or John. Inscriptions from Ephesus confirm the abundant literary evidence that Ephesus was one of the many cities of the Greek East that hailed the emperor with this title.2518

Yet Greek gods were not always on good terms with their «sons,» especially the immortal ones,2519 and the above listing of possible nuances shows that the Greeks bestowed the term freely but did not invest it with specific, customary content. Further, the title and concepts could arise independently in a variety of cultures, and need in no wise be limited to Hellenistic contacts; thus the seventy gods of Canaan were bene El, «sons of the chief god,»2520 and in the early Chou (Zhou) dynasty of China, the reigning king came to be seen as «a regent of Heaven (called the Son of Heaven).»2521 No less a scholar of Hellenistic antiquity than Nock long ago demonstrated that the early Christian usage of «God s Son» has little in common with Hellenistic usage; the closest parallels function only by way of contrast.2522

Under closer examination, even the argument that the title appears more frequently in Hellenistic parts of the NT proves fallacious. «Son of God» is hardly Paul's primary term for Jesus; his extant letters call Jesus God's «Son» fifteen times, but call him «Lord» 184 times. Further, eleven of Paul's fifteen uses appear in Romans and Galatians, which address particularly Jewish issues; 1 and 2Corinthians, which are the most hellenized of Paul's letters written before his imprisonment, together use the expression only three times. It appears that Paul wanted to avoid specifically Hellenistic associations of the term.2523 Aside from the fact that every known stratum of Gospel tradition and redaction calls Jesus God's «Son» (admittedly more in some than in others), it occurs in one saying of Jesus that is nearly impossible to attribute to early Christianity (Mark 13:30).2524 Matthew stresses Jesus» sonship more than Mark and Luke do, and John, who stresses it most, is just as Jewish as Matthew.2525

Even the historical reconstruction of early Christianity presupposed by Bultmann's and Bousset's Hellenistic and gnostic usage of the expression is intrinsically unlikely, as Martin Hengel points out:

If they were right, then a few years after the death of Jesus an "acute Hellenization,» or more precisely a syncretistic paganization of primitive Christianity, must have come about among the spiritual leaders of Jewish Christianity like Barnabas, or the former scribe and Pharisee Pau1. Moreover, this must have taken place either in Palestine itself or in neighboring Syria.2526

Given the Jewish context in which the expression could be understood, an originally non-Jewish Hellenistic understanding of the phrase is unlikely. That later Johns first audience and Roman authorities might hear in it polemic against the emperor is, however, possible.

2. Jewish Uses of «Son of God»

Even Deissmann, who explored how Gentile Christians would have heard the title in a Hellenistic context, acknowledged that the NT use of «Son of God» probably originated from the OT.2527 The complication with attributing Jesus» claims to divine sonship to the OT or Judaism corresponds with one of our problems in attributing it to Hellenism: the options are manifold.2528 But we bracket from consideration here any discussion of «sons of God,» a title Judaism usually applied to Israel and the righteous, preferring to focus on the use of the singular.2529

The OT and Jewish tradition apply the title to those who belong to God;2530 the OT and early Jewish texts call Israel God's son,2531 and the title naturally came to be extended to a righteous man in genera1.2532 Favorite members of Israel, for example, Moses, could be called God's «son»;2533 in another rabbinic text, a heavenly voice identifies a beloved rabbi as his son.2534 Angels, too, could be called «sons of God,»2535 although given that angels were not human, and «son of God» bore many other senses, probably no Jew would interpret a man as «God's son» in the angelic sense without an explicit statement to that effect in the narrative.2536 The work Joseph and Aseneth apparently applies the term in a Hellenistic sense (in the context of 6:3/62537 Joseph appears like the sun god); the term appropriately comes from the Egyptian Asenath in 6:3/6 before her conversion, but also after her conversion in 13:13/10, suggesting that the author agrees with the title. This probably reflects intentional adaptation for a Hellenistic readership.2538

But though some of the Gospel tradition (especially prominent in Matthew's interpretation)2539 identifies Jesus with Israel (this idea may be behind the Q version of the temptation narrative),2540 the motif is hardly prominent enough to warrant the thoroughgoing application of this title to Jesus in any layer of tradition apart from Matthew's infancy narratives. The identification of Jesus as a righteous man or the presentation of him as a «man of God» to a Hellenistic audience likewise accounts for only a small number of occasions on which the term was used. The biggest problem with Hellenistic and most Jewish parallels is that, in extant Gospel tradition, Jesus is not merely a son of God, but the Son of God, his beloved and unique Son.2541 Granted that different levels of tradition and especially different Gospel writers give the term different nuances (this is certainly true of the Fourth Gospel), what was the sense Jesus and his first followers probably ascribed to the term?

The most appropriate background of the term when applied to Jesus was the sense «Messiah.» This need not rule out figurative nuances of sonship like obedience, submission,2542 intimacy, and delegated authority2543 which would be part of the metaphor in a Jewish context. Many scholars have noted the biblical and Jewish association with an agent chosen for a mission,2544 but the ultimate OT example of this was the Davidic dynasty. The Nathan oracle of 2Sam 7(cf. 1 Chr 17:13; 22:10; 28:6) indicated that God would adopt David's royal descendants (his «house,» 2Sam 7:11), starting with Solomon, as his own sons, perhaps borrowing from the special status of Israel (Exod 4:22) and from divine adoption of kings in other ancient Near Eastern cultures.2545

The temple cultus came to celebrate this promise (Ps 2:7; 89:26–29).2546 The prophets reminded God's people of the qualification of obedience, even suggesting that the tree would become a stump and the house a tent until a time of restoration came (Isa 11:1; Amos 9:11). But the prophets also recognized the promise to David (e.g., Isa 55:3; Jer 33:17–26; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25; Zech 12:10), sometimes fulfilled in his lineage or his ultimate descendant, who would rule forever, in Isaiah's words, as a «mighty God» (Isa 9:6–7), a title applied in the context to YHWH himself (10:21; cf. Jer 23:5–6, but note Jer 33:16; Zech 12:8).2547

Although hope for an eschatological anointed leader or leaders ran high, and the Davidic Messiah remained prominent in many expectations, «son of God» was not a common designation of the Messiah; it was probably no more common than an association with Daniel 7 when people used the more generic expression «son of man.»2548 But in at least some circles, 2Sam 7was interpreted with direct reference to the Davidic Messiah as «son of God» (4QFlor 1.10–11; lQSa 2.11–12).2549 4Q369 frg. 1,2.6–7 may apply the image in the same way,2550 and perhaps also 4Q246 co1. 2, line l,2551 but recovery of the context (4Q246 1.5–9; 2.2–3) suggests to some that 4Q246 is simply polemic against pagan claims for divine sonship.2552 Hints may suggest that others also understood Ps 2 messianically in the period of formative Christianity.2553 As in the NT generally (Acts 13:33; Rom 1:3–4; Heb 1:5; 5:5), the OT title applied especially to enthronement rather than birth.

3. Early Christian and Johannine Sonship

Many NT texts explicitly associate the title «son of God» with «Christ,»2554 probably reflecting the earliest Jewish-Christian use of the term. Jesus himself at the very least used implied intimacy with the Father when he addressed God as «Abba» (Mark 14:36),2555 an Aramaic title which carried over into the early church (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6) and must be original with Jesus.2556 In the messianic context of Jesus» ministry (see above), however, the title surely meant more. Among the Gospels, «Son of God» becomes particularly prominent in John and Matthew.2557

In none of the Jewish senses listed above does «son of God» imply «God the Son,» nor necessarily divinity at all, nor biological relation to God (it is not biological even in Luke 1:35), those senses of the Christian term to which Islam, for example, so strenuously objects.2558 Vermes is plainly correct when he declares that Judaism could use «son of God» to refer in an ascending order, to any of the children of Israel; or to a good Jew; or to a charismatic holy Jew; or to the king of Israel; or in particular to the royal Messiah; and finally, in a different sense, to an angelic or heavenly being. In other words, "son of God» was always understood metaphorically in Jewish circles. In Jewish sources, its use never implies participation by the person so-named in the divine nature.2559

But granted that deity is neither a necessary nor the usual sense of the term in the Synoptics (where it probably usually bears the sense Messiah), the Fourth Gospel reflects a background not only in Judaism, but in six decades of early Christian teaching.2560 Is it not possible that the association of the term with Jesus, who was identified as deity for other reasons, would eventually invest this term with new significance?2561 The expression in the Fourth Gospel means far more than «Messiah,» although the expression itself is never made to bear the weight of Christ s deity provided by other components of the narrative.2562 One title that actually does seem to intrinsically connote Jesus» deity in much early Christian tradition as well as in the Fourth Gospel is John's postresurrection title «Lord» (20:28).

Lord

The most common defining title of Jesus in early Christian texts is «Lord.» The acceptance of this title divided genuine followers of Christ from those who were not his followers (1Cor 12:3).2563 Some scholars have thought that this title originated or grew in the Hellenistic world, under the influence of Hellenistic cults or through Diaspora misapplication of the LXX.2564

Yet «Lord» was as significant in pre-70 Palestine as it was in the Gentile world as a whole.2565 Usually it appears as a title for God,2566 sometimes distinguished in later rabbinic literature from «Elohim» as applying to a different attribute of God.2567 Jewish interpreters of the OT normally applied this title to God; because the tetragrammaton was pronounced as «Adonai,» «Lord,» and both were translated by κύριος in the LXX, «Lord» naturally functioned especially as a divine title.2568 The only usual exception is in the vocative, where it can also mean, «Sir,»2569 but this exception is probably not relevant to our case. That Jesus» disciples addressed him as «Sir» (κύριε) on earth is quite likely;2570 that prayer invocations after his exaltation bore such a limited sense, however, is improbable ( 1Cor 8:5–6; 16:22).

This transition must have occurred early in the Palestinian church. The marana tha invocation of 1Cor 16"is clear evidence that in the very earliest days the Aramaic-speaking church referred to Jesus by the title that in the OT belongs to God alone.»2571 In other words, the title «is the ascription to Jesus of the functions of deity.»2572 Yet apart from occasional asides by the narrator (11:2; 20:20) and the frequent but indeterminate use of the vocative, characters rarely call Jesus «the Lord» before the resurrection, even in John (20:2,13,18, 25; 21:7,12); this suggests some constraints established by historical tradition.

Jesus» Deity in Early Christian Tradition

We have noted some arguments against Jesus» deity from the synagogue leaders and rabbis above and we will address John's particular focus on the issue in the many relevant texts in the commentary. Here, however, we consider the tradition and doctrine which early Christianity made available to the Fourth Gospel's author, whose special contributions on the subject are best first understood in the context of early Christian views already existing in his day.

The opponents of the Johannine community challenged its Christology; John makes that Christology the centerpiece of his message to the community. As God's people had to respond obediently to each new stage of revelation in biblical history (Abraham, the law, successive generations of prophets), so now people were to respond to Christ (cf. Heb 1–10). Just as the dividing line between true and false Christians focused on their understanding of Jesus (1 John 2:22–23; 3:23–4:6; 2 John 7–11) and their response toward his community (1 John 2:9–11, 19; 3:10–23; 4:7–8, 12, 20–21; 3 John 9–11), the dividing line between the true and false heirs of Israel was the person of Jesus, response to whom was expressed by response to his Spirit and his community (cf. Rev 2:9; 3:9).

1. Greek Divinization or Jewish Monotheism?

It has often been asserted that John's high Christology is a late, Hellenistic development.2573 Christians after John certainly regarded the doctrine as more central than had many of his predecessors, perhaps partly under John's influence.2574 Greeks had divinized many heroes2575 and philosophers,2576 and under Eastern influence2577 had divinized Hellenistic rulers.2578 Greeks bestowed the honor cheaply, many regarding the human soul as divine.2579 Although this language influenced Judaism,2580 even Philo employed it only «in a highly qualified sense»;2581 especially in Palestinian Judaism, such promises still belonged to the serpent (Gen 3:5; Jub. 3:19).2582 As noted in our section on background, the deification of emperors in the Greek East, especially in Roman Asia,2583 naturally led to ostracism of those who did not worship the emperor. While Judaism would be exempted, Jewish Christians disclaimed by the larger Jewish community might not be. Thus Johns emphasis on divine Christology may serve a hortatory function: the true king is divine, and fidelity to him is worth the price of shame, persecution, or death for refusing to share that honor with Romés emperor.2584

Yet Judaism s use of divine language was more fluid in this period than it later became;2585 many portrayed a sort of subordinate but powerful vizier alongside God, sometimes apparently understanding wisdom or the logos in such terms.2586 More often, early Judaism seems to have understood wisdom as an aspect or part of God, merely personified distinctly.2587 Although Jewish Christians» Christology violated the messianic concepts of most other Jews, especially those seeking to make Judaism normative,2588 it offered an alternative interpretation rather than a disavowal of Gods unity.2589 Rather than defining what God was in a metaphysical Greek sense, biblical faith knew God by his acts and words, and distinguished him from all other realities; early Christians affirmed Jesus» deity within the identity of the God of their Bible, the way their contemporaries often presented wisdom as a divine attribute. They continued to distinguish this biblical God's identity from all other realities.2590 Later Judaism became far more precise in its definition of monotheism, perhaps under the influence of Maimonides» use of Aristotelian metaphysics learned from Muslim Arabs (which affirmed a monotheism so rigorous that it could define even divine attributes as entities distinct from the Deity).2591 Flusser, an Israeli scholar, is probably correct in his contention: «On the one hand, Christology developed from Jesus» exalted self-awareness and from what happened to or was believed to have happened to Jesus and, on the other hand, from various Jewish religious motifs which became connected with Jesus Christ.»2592

2. Wisdom Christology

Although John uses some other Jewish images, he focuses on Christ's deity from Wisdom Christology (1:1–18),2593 a Christology found in probably pre-Pauline formulas (e.g., 1Cor 8:6;2594 Phil 2:6–7;2595 Col 1:15–17),2596 of which Paul plainly approves,2597 and in Matthew and probably Q (Matt 11:28–30;2598 23:34; Luke 11:49; cf. Matt 11:19; Luke 7:35), and nowhere clearly challenged in extant records of the early church. Nor is Pauls application of Wisdom language to Jesus merely symbolic, as if he did not wish to convey Jesus» preexistence;2599 Paul would not risk compromising monotheism in a Hellenistic environment certain to interpret him literally, if he did not mean his words literally.2600 As some scholars have noted, Enlightenment rationalists must pursue «naturalistic explanations» for the disciples» faith, but Jesus appears as divine Wisdom already in Paul and the Synoptics.2601 Indeed, Paul shows us that preaching of a divine/wisdom Christ precedes Mark's adaptation of the Greco-Roman biographic form to appeal to Gentile audiences accustomed to the sort of narrative structure Mark provides.2602 I have argued elsewhere that these stories would be accurately preserved;2603 but the church's central proclamation was a briefer outline of the salvific story, and in that story Christ was no mere mortal (e.g., Acts 2:21, 38; 22:16; 1Cor 8:6; 12:3; Phil 2:6). The naturalistic explanations always end up explaining away considerable early evidence and arguing from the silence of the lack of evidence that remains.2604

Let us say that John was quite interpretive in Jesus» discourses, even more than we argued in our chapter on the discourses (above). But we have also argued that John was at most one step removed from an eyewitness account. While disciples often revered their teachers (though many also felt free to disagree respectfully with them in time), even among Greeks first-generation students rarely turned their teachers into gods, at least in the pre-Christian period. Neither Plato (who was quite interpretive) nor Xenophon deified Socrates, nor did they appeal to his resurrection and continuing presence. How much more implausible is it that Jewish monotheists would do so? That we hear of no early Christian reaction against such teaching in the period between Paul and John–that is, during the era from which most or all of our NT comes–suggests that a common understanding developed from something in Jesus» own life or teaching, before or after the event of the resurrection.

3. John's Christology and Christian Tradition

It is true that John does move beyond Wisdom Christology; unlike Wisdom, Jesus is eternally préexistent,2605 and John brackets not only his prologue (1:1, 18) but the main narrative of his Gospel (1:1; 20:28) with the christological title «God.»2606 But Paul also seems to assume this identification of Jesus as the divine Lord in his own Christology (Phil 2:6–7)2607 and exposition of the Scriptures (Rom 10:9–13; Phil 2:10–11 with Isa 45:6, 23); although he occasionally seems to apply the OT title «God» to Christ (Rom 9:5;2608 cf. 2 Thess 1:12;2609 Tit 2:13),2610 he usually applies to him the title «Lord,» which usually translates the divine name in the OT, and applies this title far more frequently to Jesus than he does to the Father.2611 Pauls usage presumably goes back to the tradition of the Aramaic speaking church of Palestine (1Cor 16:22),2612 probably to Jesus» first Galilean followers; the more hellenized portion of the urban churches of Jerusalem and Antioch (cf. Acts 6:1, 9; 11:19–20) would have spoken more Greek. Like other early Christian writers, Paul applies OT language for Gods coming to Jesus» return,2613 and Paul already does this in 1 Thessalonians–roughly two decades after Jesus» resurrection, and in one of Paul's most «Jewish» letters (in the sense of reflecting Jewish eschatological motifs uncommon among Gentiles). Likewise, the writer of Hebrews (1:8–13; 3:3–4) and other early Jewish Christian authors affirm that Jesus is God, though distinct from God the Father.2614

3A. Jesus as Deity in the Synoptic Traditions?

Although John emphasizes this high Christology throughout his Gospel as part of his polemical program, his Tendenz does not mean that his affirmations of Jesus» deity lack solid roots in the Jesus tradition.2615 Just as John has reasons to stress particular aspects of Christology, other gospels had reason to play down these aspects. Mark, for instance, develops his Christology partly in terms of the OT prophetic models of Elijah and Elisha (signs-prophets, often understood in terms of the less cohesive Hellenistic «divine man» category);2616 he also develops an apocalyptic Christology related to the Son of Man in Daniel 7.2617 (Barrett suggests that John's source for the phrase may be the Synoptics;2618 one could suggest a common source in the historical Jesus.2619 But especially given the prominence of passion implications in Johannine Son of Man passages, John may still expect his audience to understand the term, as Mark may have, in the light of Danie1.)2620 If «Son of Man» comes from Daniel 7, the early Christian concept of the «kingdom» may also stem partly from Danie1.2621

When the Pharisees think that Jesus «blasphemes» because he forgives sins,2622 Jesus demonstrates the «Son of Mans authority on earth» to forgive sins (Mark 2:10). Although his hearers would not have automatically connected «Son of Man» with Daniel 7 at this point,2623 the allusion to his divinely-bestowed authority points in this direction (Dan 7:13–14).2624 Jesus» hearers would similarly not understand his claim to be «Son of Man» who is «Lord of the Sabbath» (Mark 2:28),2625 but it again alludes to the Son of Mans all-encompassing authority in the end time. The connection with Daniel's eschatological figure becomes explicit to Jesus» disciples in Mark 13and to Jesus» opponents in 14:62.2626

In early Christian literature, «Son of Man» appears almost exclusively on Jesus» lips, and (in contrast to the claims of many form critics)2627 the positive use of the criterion of dissimilarity suggests that if any title of Jesus is authentic, this one is.2628 Jesus apparently defined his mission–both its suffering and exaltation–at least partly in terms of the Son of Man of Daniel 7.2629 The partial parallel to John's exalted Christology is hardly diminished by observing that Jesus as Son of Man acts only as the Father's representative (Mark 9:37); Jesus is no less the Father's agent in Johannine Christology.2630 Earliest Christianity never merged the identity of Father and Son as later Sabellians did.

Mark also believes Jesus is deity: his reapplication of the «Lord» of Isa 40to Jesus (Mark 1:3) can be understood in no other way. The Fourth Gospel's independent tradition might even suggest that the Baptist used this verse to describe his own mission as preparing the Lord's way. Mark does not challenge what had become the standard Christian reading of Ps 110which Jesus cites in Mark 12:36; indeed, the proximity of another Scripture exegesis in his narrative may indicate that Mark intends readers to connect this «Lord» with the one Lord of the Shema in Mark 12:29.2631 The tradition about Jesus being David's «Lord»2632 rather than his «son»2633 (despite the early Christian conviction that Jesus was David's descendant),2634 and his use of Psalm 110, almost certainly go back to Jesus.2635

But other aspects of Christology are more critical to Mark's portrayal of Jesus» mission. The exalted Lord who wrought miracles on earth now can work miraculously through the community (cf. Mark 3:14–15; 4:38–40; 6:4–13; 9:19,28–29). The Son of Man who suffered before his exaltation is the forerunner of the community of faith, his readers, now suffering great tribulation at the hands of hostile world rulers (cf. Dan 7:21–22, 25–27). Mark probably had other traditions available, and could have used some of those which emphasize Christ's deity differently, but that was not Mark's purpose. The closest he comes is the allusion in 6:48–50 to Job 9:8–11; the coincidence of rare images in a short space (God treading the waves and passing by) is so close that Mark surely intends an allusion to that passage here,2636 and hence an allusion to Christ's deity.2637

Luke, writing Hellenistic historiography, presents Jesus more as a divine hero than as God in the flesh or an apocalyptic Son of Man. While not obliterating Markan emphases altogether, Luke may emphasize Christ's deity less. Luke does not deny a view held in other early Christian circles–Peter's sermon in Acts 2 builds on an identification of Jesus (cf. 2:38) as the Lord of Joel (Acts 2:21),2638 thus baptism is offered «in Jesus» name.»2639 Luke does not deny early Christian affirmation of Christ's deity; he simply emphasizes what is most useful in his apologetic history. Luke thus provides the clearest evidence that different writers could stress different Christologies without opposing earlier Christologies in their sources.

Matthew, like John, represents a strain of Jewish Christianity less hellenized than Mark or Luke; like John, he emphasizes Jesus» deity to monotheistic readers.2640 Several claims attributed to Jesus closely resemble divine claims in early Jewish literature.2641 Whereas John uses especially the image of Wisdom to develop his Christology, however, Matthew also focuses on the Shekinah.2642 Jesus is not only God present with his people (1:23),2643 after his exaltation as Son of Man (28:18)2644 equal to the Father and divine Spirit (28:19)2645 and virtually omnipresent (28:20);2646 Jesus is God's presence among his people (18:20), fulfilling a function Jewish teachers ascribed to the Shekinah, God's presence.2647 Yet for all this «high» Christology, it is hardly Matthew's emphasis. Matthew devotes far more space to Jesus as authoritative teacher, Messiah (rightful king of Israel), the fulfillment of ancient Israel's history and prophecies, and so forth.2648 Despite the lack of emphasis, Jesus» deity is assumed, generally alluded to rather than argued.2649

In the Q traditions Jesus portrays himself not as a mere human teacher but as judge in the day of judgment who will be addresses as «Lord, Lord» (Matt 7:21–23; Luke 13:25). Even John the Baptist recognizes the coming one as greater than a merely human, natural messiah or teacher. He presents him as one whose sandals he was unworthy to unloose or carry (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16)–that is, as one whose servant he is unworthy to be (see commentary on John 1:27). This supernatural figure would not baptize in mere water, but in the Spirit of God; he would perform the divine role of judge, separating the righteous for eternal life and the wicked for damnation (Matt 3:10–12; Luke 3:9, 16–17). If Matthew and Luke believed Jesus to be merely a natural messiah, they did an inexplicably sloppy job of editing Q. Early Christian writers preferred to make their case through a variety of images rather than to focus on answering a small number of precise christological questions no one was yet asking in this century; but these images from the start include a superhuman role beneath the authority of the Father.

3B. Diverse but Complementary Christologies

There is, in fact, little evidence for any strands of early Christianity that did not recognize Jesus as deity; the usual view of Christological development rests on speculation concerning the way views should have developed, rather than on the evidence of early Christian texts themselves. Although Wisdom Christology by itself could portray Jesus» divinity in a merely Arian sense (to borrow the later description), various NT writers modified such Christology by portraying Jesus as the divine Lord, often applying to him OT and Jewish language and imagery for YHWH (cf., e.g., 8:58; Mark 1:3; Acts 2:21, 38; Rom 9:5; 10:9–13; 1Cor 8:6; Phil 2:6,9–11; Rev 1:17; 2:8; 22:12–13).

Neither John nor other first-century Christians felt constrained to distinguish Wisdom and divine Christologies; they adapted both by adding them together, coming to understand Israel's one God as a composite unity. Interestingly, however, they did avoid the later Jewish-Christian compromise of an angel Christology.2650 Neither Gal 4:142651 nor 1 Thess 4:162652 actually teaches it, though Michael is the most likely guess, if any,2653 for the «archangel» of the latter text,2654 being the most common archangel in early Jewish texts (Dan 10:13,21; 12:1).2655 Further, Col 1:16; 2:8–11,18;2656 and Heb 2:5–162657 may effectively polemicize against the temptation of an angel Christology.

That a first-century Palestinian Jewish movement would within its earliest decades already hold a consensus that their founder rose from the dead and was divine Wisdom is remarkable, considering that we have no comparable evidence for the deification of other first-century Jewish messianic figures. It seems that something distinctive within the movement, rather than merely following a common first-century Jewish social pattern, produced this consensus. It is difficult to comprehend how, without the authority of Jesus» teaching, so many monotheistic Jews in the early church would have simultaneously come to emphasize Jesus» divine character, and, while debating circumcision, food laws, Jerusalem's authority, and other points, fail to have deeply divided over this aspect of Christology. That Jesus» disciples waited so long to grasp his messianic identity and even then misunderstood it, according to the Markan scheme, does not make it likely that they understood his deity before the resurrection. But if Jesus» teachings after the resurrection (cf. Acts 1:3) made many points clearer, among these may have been the basis for what came to be the common postresurrection view of the early church. In the light of the resurrection (cf. John 20:28), the disciples could reinterpret Jesus» earlier sayings (cf. John 2:16–22); sayings that they had supposed were enigmatic could retroactively be taken more literally (e.g., Mark 9:10; cf. Ezek 20:49).2658

Aside from a preference for a variety of images (noted above), other reasons help explain the paucity of explicit statements calling Jesus «God» in comparison with the equally divine title «Lord» and range of divine images recurrent throughout the NT. In his book on Christ's deity in first-century Christian literature, Murray Harris lists a number of reasons (some of which are more convincing than others):

(1) Because the writers normally applied θεός to the Father as virtually a proper name, applying the same title to Jesus would have created ambiguity in early Christian tradition (as it sometimes does in nonliturgical public prayer today)

(2) A distinction of titles preserves the conceptual distinction between the Father and Son.

(3) The Son is subordinate to the Father, but the reverse is not true.

(4) Had early Christians regularly called Jesus θεός, the resulting ambiguity would have led many Jews to regard Christians as ditheists (as they later did) and Gentiles to view them as «polytheistic.»

(5) Caution with the title could protect Jesus» humanity against the excesses of the docetists.

(6) New Testament Christology is mainly functional rather than ontologica1.2659

Some of these arguments, such as the fifth, are unhelpful; early Christian language about Jesus was well established in the tradition before docetism became an issue. Others of these arguments can be combined; two through four can be viewed as facets of the first. But the first and sixth arguments are very strong and fit what we should expect from the data themselves: Jewish Christians, having come to grips with Jesus» role, would endeavor to express that role in terms appropriate to their setting (even John uses illustrations identifying Jesus with the role of God in the OT far more often than he applies the title to Jesus). Further, as Jews they would conceive his role more functionally than ontologically, although these categories are not mutually exclusive (either in John or in earlier Christian traditions).

At the same time, Johns view of Jesus» deity, like that of other first-century Christians, should not be exaggerated. Later Trinitarian doctrine, zealous to advocate the Father and Son's equality in deity, sometimes neglected the earliest Christian emphasis on the Son's voluntary subordination to the Father in role, a subordination which John emphasizes no less than Mark (see comment on 5:18–20).

None of this requires us to suppose that John provides verbatim reports of Jesus» preresurrection claims to deity; it does allow for the possibility that Jesus made some claims which were only later understood as claims to deity by his followers. That some of Jesus» opponents pressed more significance into such statements than did the disciples, who in the gospel tradition had not yet understood Jesus» identity (John 5:18; 8:59; 10:31–33), is also suggested by Mark (2:7; 14:63). John has reworked his narrative to speak to the events of his own day (e.g., making the Pharisees the primary opposition), and chosen to emphasize some points of the Jesus tradition to the exclusion or near exclusion of others. But in doing so John may nevertheless develop motifs already implicit in the Jesus tradition itself, reapplying Jesus to his generation rather than creating from whole cloth a new Jesus with great authority but no continuity with the earlier tradition (contrast 1 John 4:1–6, which counters gnosticizing charismatics who have abandoned the Jesus of history for spiritual revelations from a different Jesus).2660

Whereas the Fourth Gospel does include some protestations that Jesus has not revealed himself (10:24), and includes a Messianic Secret of its own based on the hardness of unbelieving hearts, it is clear that we must take account of the particular emphases of John, of Mark, or of both to understand why the Johannine Jesus reveals his glory (messiahship included) so early and so comparatively openly. It may be that John, «who had meditated for many years on the significance of the acts and words of Jesus, had learned to appreciate even the earliest stages of the ministry in the light of its consummation.»2661

Witherington concludes, in The Christology of Jesus, that Jesus would not have claimed deity in a way that confused him with the Father, which is how his contemporaries would have heard a claim to deity. At the same time, Witherington continues, some of Jesus» claims, including the claim to be David's Lord, suggest that he held a more transcendent self-image, so that Raymond Brown is undoubtedly correct in thinking that Jesus would have found in the Fourth Gospel a faithful exposition of his identity.2662

The Motif of Agency

Although the Fourth Gospel highlights Jesus» deity more than the other gospels, it also highlights Jesus» subordination to the Father more than the others. John's christological emphasis allows him to explore both Jesus» unity with the Father and the distinction between them. Although we reserve most comments on the Son's subordination for the commentary (see esp. 5:19–20), we must address the motif of agency here because its background is too involved to treat under a specific passage in the commentary.

1. The Agent in Ancient Society

The concept of a commissioned messenger, authorized by his sender, was not restricted to Judaism.2663 The earliest Greek literature reports various peoples honoring the immunity of heralds.2664 In the Roman period, when Caesar sent (αποστέλλω and cognates) a governor or representative, that representative was both authorized to act on Caesar's authority and responsible for carrying out his wishes.2665 Philosophers could send disciples to teach in their stead and act as their representatives.2666 Letters of recommendation often identified the sender with the one recommended.2667

Greeks could likewise associate such sending with cultic or revelatory purposes. Temples could send representatives, for example, the envoys dispatched by the hierophant of Eleusis to seek contributions for the shrine.2668 Hermes as messenger of the gods was sometimes «sent (απέστειλαν) from heaven.»2669 Epictetus advised that the genuine Cynic was a messenger (άγγελος) sent (άπέσταλται) from Zeus to people to show them their depravity;2670 possessionless Cynics could happily announce, «Behold, I have been sent by God as an example to you.»2671 An appeal to an apostolate in later gnosticism for NT background is thus unnecessary and implausible.2672

An equivalent custom existed in ancient Israelite circles as far back as Proverbs,2673 and eventually became formalized under Jewish law. While we cannot determine the date at which some aspects of the custom of agency became law, the custom's practice in other cultures suggests that the Jewish custom is older than the rabbinic sources which comment on it. Thus, for instance, both Roman and Jewish law recognized the function of proxies, or intermediary marriage-brokers, in betrothals.2674 (This sort of custom occurs fairly commonly in societies where parents must negotiate the terms of marriage contracts.)2675 While Jewish law did not require agents in betrothals,2676 they were clearly common,2677 and rules were created regulating their conduct.2678 Agents were also used in divorce2679 and business.2680

Other evidence indicates that the practice was early. The language of agency appears in Qumran halakah.2681 Eventually the Nasi sent «envoys» to the Diaspora, a practice attested in the church fathers and Roman law as well as rabbinic literature;2682 but earlier texts attest the same practice of the high priest.2683

2. The Jewish Agent as New Testament Background?

In a detailed study of shaliach and its cognates, Κ. H. Rengstorf contended that the Christian «apostle» is a close adaptation of the Jewish institution of agency.2684 Some of his OT data may reflect the custom. His use of rabbinic literature (especially dating it around the beginning of the Christian era) is questionable at points, but some of the evidence more strongly supports his position.

Although many scholars follow Rengstorf in defining the mission of Jesus or NT «apostles» in terms of the Jewish institution of the shaliach, or agent,2685 many others reject this background.2686 The objections are, however, questionable. As we have pointed out above, the relevant Jewish evidence is early enough that date is not a valid criterion for rejection. Some arguments, such as the lack of a Hebrew equivalent for the adjectival cognate,2687 are completely irrelevant to the existence of the concept of a «sent» or commissioned messenger in both Jewish and Greek cultures. Nor does Schmithal's objection that the shaliach's authorization is juristic rather than «religious» carry much weight.2688 A better objection is that άγγελος and πρεσβύτης are more common equivalents than απόστολος before 70 C.E.,2689 but early Christianity hardly limited its choice among synonyms to standard translations of the day. «Messiah» was rarely translated into Greek (by «Christ» or other designations); qahal could be rendered συναγωγή or έκκλησία, but early Christians usually chose the latter, perhaps in part to distinguish themselves from the former.2690

Rengstorf was hardly the first to recognize a connection between Christian apostles and the Jewish legal institution of agency; the latter as the former's prototype was recognized at least as early as Jerome.2691 The idea was also recognized by Lightfoot in the nineteenth century, in part through his vast knowledge of patristic sources.2692 Lake recognized that αποστολή designated a mission in classical Greek, although απόστολος means «messenger» only rarely.2693 The LXX uses αποστέλλω so frequently that it rarely employs πέμπω, but normally renders «envoy» as άγγελος, using απόστολος for this only once.2694 The one use of the term by Josephus, however, for the leader of a Jewish delegation, is significant.2695

The strongest argument in favor of drawing the connection between apostleship and agency is that Jewish (and more broadly Greco-Roman) agency supplies the most obvious general cultural context for the Christian conception of a commissioned messenger:

In every language there is a word to describe a person who is sent by the king or by the magistrates to act as their authorized representative. The Aramaic word for such persons is שליחים.

There is nothing unusual about it, and if Jesus sent out authorized representatives as Mark says that he did, this is the name which he would naturally have used. In the New Testament this is generally rendered into Greek by απόστολος, but this word, though etymologically correct, is not customary in non-Christian Greek.2696

Having argued that the shaliach provides a general context for the nt idea of agency (particularly apostleship), however, it is also important to recognize the quite different conception of agency in the nt. Conzelmann and Bultmann, for instance, observe that the shaliach is often a temporary position, whereas that of nt apostles is permanent.2697 While this need not affect the derivation of the image, it does affect the sense. Others also insist that the different nt usage qualifies the meaning, and they are right.2698 The synthesis noted by J. A. Kirk is helpful; the rabbinic institution provides an analogy to apostleship, but

neither the word nor the function of an απόστολος Χριστού ,Ιησού can strictly be derived from שליח. … As Rengstorf himself suggests, although the idea may have come from rabbinic Judaism its characteristic use in the New Testament has a peculiarly Christian origin and em-phasis. Like many other words which occur in contemporary literature, its characteristic mean-ing in the New Testament is quite unique.2699

The general institution of agency therefore informs the early Christian, including Johannine, conception of agency, but specific nuances of agency, which early Christian writers may have adopted and adapted, remain to be examined.

3. Meaning of Agency and Apostleship

Agency represented commission and authorization, the sense of the concept which provides a broad conceptual background for early Christian agency. The agent's own legal status may have been low;2700 under rabbinic rulings, even slaves were permitted to fill the position.2701 Yet agents bore representative authority, because they acted on the authority of those who sent them. Thus perhaps the most common rabbinic maxim concerning a person's agent is that «he is equivalent to the person himself.»2702 Later rabbis, probably wishing to minimize the possibility of accidental bigamy, regarded a divorce performed on the testimony of an agent as valid even if the husband later denies its validity.2703 In the broader Mediterranean world envoys or messengers were backed by the full authority of those they represented.2704 They also bore diplomatic immunity, so mistreating them was an insult not only to those who sent them2705 but also to the standards of Mediterranean justice,2706 for their office had long been held sacred.2707 The principle applied much more broadly, in fact, than to heralds; one could express onés feelings toward a sender by so treating the sender's representative. Thus Turnus thinks that King Evander deserves death, and accordingly kills his representative in battle (Virgil Aen. 10.492); by contrast, Achilles tells frightened heralds that he is angry with Agamemnon who sent them, not with them (Homer Il. 1.334–336).

Because the agent had to be trustworthy to carry out his mission, various teachers ruled on the character the pious should require of such agents;2708 an agent who fails to carry out his commission is penalized.2709 This also implies, of course, that a shaliach's authority was entirely limited to the extent of his commission and the fidelity with which he carried it out.2710 Granted, high-ranking ambassadors could act in the spirit of their senders, but even in such cases governing bodies could refuse or modify their agents» terms.2711 (In this Gospel Jesus appears as the Father's perfect agent, in continual communion with him, rendering such modification unnecessary; cf. 5:19–20; 8:28–29.) In the broader Mediterranean world as well, messengers of all sorts were required to have exceptional memories so as to communicate accurately all they were sent to say,2712 and any suspicion that they exaggerated a report could be held against them.2713

The LXX regularly employs άποστέλλω and not πέμπω with divine sending.2714 For instance, God sent Joseph (unknown to Joseph; Gen 45:5,7,8) and Abigail (unknown to her; 1Sam 25:32); the term often applies to one sending another on a mission.2715 But God particularly sent Moses (Exod 3:10,13–15; 4:28; 7:16; Deut 34:11; cf. Exod 4:13; 5:22) and the prophets, whether individually (2Sam 12:1; 2 Chr 25:15; cf. 2Sam 12:25) or collectively (2 Kgs 17:13; 2 Chr 24:19; Bar 1:21). Especially noteworthy here are 2 Chr 36(God sent by his άγγέλους, the noun cognate of άποστέλλω apparently being unavailable), and the language of Jeremiah (Jer 7:25; 24:4; 26:5; 28:9; 35:15; 44:4), where unsent prophets are evil (Jer 14:14–15; 23:21, 32; 27:15 [36:15–16 LXX]).

Some later Jewish teachers thus viewed as agents Moses,2716 Aaron,2717 the OT prophets2718 or, most generally, anyone who carried out God's wil1.2719 Jewish teachers who saw the prophets as God's commissioned messengers were consistent with the portrait of prophets in their Scriptures. Israel's prophetic messenger formulas echo ancient Near Eastern royal messenger formulas such as, «Thus says the great king,» often addressing Israel's vassal kings for the suzerain king Yahweh.2720 Old Testament perspectives on prophets inform the early Christian view of apostleship,2721 although they do not exhaust its meaning;2722 early Christianity clearly maintained the continuance of the prophetic office, while seeming to apply to apostles the special sort of position accorded only to certain prophets in the OT (such as prophet-judges like Deborah and Samuel, and other leaders of prophetic schools like Elijah and Elisha).2723

The first Christian «apostles» were probably distinguished from prophets because they were sent on missions while Jesus was with them in the flesh (Mark 6:7–13, 30). True apostles were apparently defined partly by their message of revelation. Most probably saw themselves as «sent» with a revelatory message to Israel like prophets of old, until Paul expanded the categories (like Jeremiah as a prophet to nations; Jer 1:5; Rom 11:13). Most significantly, early Christian apostles used Moses as a primary model (John 1:14; 2Cor 3). Although the noun appears in John only at 13(where it clearly functions as cognate in sense to the verb), at least some Johannine Christians used the term for the Twelve (Rev 21:14) and for Christian leaders until the end (Rev 18:20; false ones in Rev 2:2). If the prophetic use of the verb probably stands behind the general sense of the early Christian «apostle,» it is even more likely to stand behind the use of the verb in this Gospe1.

4. Johannine Usage of Agency

John portrays Jesus as God's agent, his authorized, reliable representative. Although John's Christology is incarnational, it is also a «sending» Christology,2724 the latter theme reflecting the divne love that originates the sending.2725 Like the prophets of old, Jesus was an agent not of humans but of God. In the case of the Johannine Jesus, images of God sending divine Wisdom forth from his holy heavens to instruct the wise2726 (or, less closely, angels sent from God)2727 are a still nearer part of the context. The Jesus tradition and early Christianity already included the portrait of Jesus as the Fathers agent (e.g., Mark 9:37; 12:6; Matt 10:40; 15:24; 21:37; Luke 4:18, 43; 10:16; Acts 3:26; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4),2728 but John emphasizes this motif more fully.

Another important element in the significance of the sending motif is that messengers even in the OT were often servants.2729 The servant of a king held a high position relative to those the servant addressed (albeit a sometimes uncomfortable one when the people were in rebellion, 2 Kgs 12:18), but was always subordinate to the king. Although commissioned agents in the first century were not always of lower social status (especially in betrothal arrangements), they relinquished their own status for the commission given them, in which they were authorized by the status of their senders. Equally, when one sent onés son (Mark 12:6), the messenger position was necessarily one of subordination to the sender. Although the concept of agency implies subordination, it also stresses Jesus» functional equality with the Father in terms of humanity's required response: he must be honored and believed in the same way as must be the Father whose representative he is (e.g., John 5:23; 6:29).

Jesus is the Father's appointed agent, but at his return to the Father he commissions the Paraclete and his followers to continue this mission.2730 Jewish agents could sometimes appoint agents themselves, and some scholars suggest that this background is in view here.2731 Because this practice was so rare, however, the allusion may not have been immediately obvious to the readers, who would have viewed the succession in terms closer at hand.2732

A survey of the usage of the two Greek verbs by which John articulates agency indicates that John employs them interchangeably (as, e.g., in Wis 9:10), as is particularly obvious in 1:19, 22, and 24. Some writers make slight distinctions, claiming, for example, that αποστέλλω often has God as the sender whereas πέμπω normally identifies the sender, but the distinction does not hold wel1.2733 Both identification at times in immediate contexts and uneven distribution by placement rather than category render distinctions between the terms doubtfu1. Thus, for example, the last discourse employs only πέμπω, whereas the prayer of ch. 17 employs only αποστέλλω. The καθώς of 20:21, however, forces us to identify them. Their significance, therefore, lies in the nuances associated with the concept of sending in the culture, and their specific function in the Fourth Gospe1. The commentary will address the latter further in relevant passages. The Fourth Gospel applies the terms αποστέλλω and πέμπω in the following ways:

1. The Jewish custom or institution2734

a. «The Jews» send priests and Lévites

αποστέλλω: 1:19

πέμπω: 1:22, 24

b. Pharisees send officers

αποστέλλω: 7:32

c. Mary and Martha send messengers

αποστέλλω: 11:3

2. God sent his Son

αποστέλλω: 3:17, 282735, 34; 5:36, 38, 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36, 11:42;

17:3, 8,18,21,23, 25; 20:21

πέμπω: 4:34; 5:23, 24, 30, 37; 6:38, 39,44; 7:16,18, 28, 33; 8:16,18, 26,

29; 9:4; 12:44, 45, 49; 13:16, 20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5

3. The Spirit is sent «in his name»

a. By the Father

πέμπω: 14:26; 15:26

b. By Jesus

πέμπω: 16:7

4. Disciples and others are sent

a. John the Baptist, by God

αποστέλλω: 1:6; 3:28

b. Disciples

αποστέλλω: 4:38; 6:57;2736 9:7;2737 17:18

πέμπω: 13:16, 20; 20:21

In most cases these terms include the connotation of representation and delegated authority, that is, more than the usual nuance of the English term «sent» or even of the phrase «sent as a messenger.» Several texts clearly associate the sending of Jesus with that of the disciples (13:20; 17:18; 20:21), an association also extant in the Synoptic tradition (Matt 10:40; cf. Luke 10:16; Mark 10:37). This «sending» Christology emphasizes the subordinationist aspect (the Son subordinate to the Father) of John's Christology.

Nontraditional Christological Images

John's Christology does not focus on traditional Jewish christological titles (nor on those naturally favored by post-Nicene Christianity), but on a variety of images that communicate points in terms of «earthly analogies» (see John 3:12) rather than more traditional categories.2738 Many of these images would have functioned polemically in John's context,2739 and most of them would have functioned soteriologically.2740 Articulating more explicitly the christological implications of Jesus» life and teachings than is typical in the Synoptics, these sayings might well sound shocking to a first-time hearer, thus borrowing an attention-holding strategy attested not only in the rhetorical handbooks but also by Jewish sages and the Synoptic Jesus (cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 24). Most of these images, which involve some detailed cultural or religious background, are treated more fully under the passages in question. Here we simply summarize some of these profound images in Johannine Christology, organizing them by means of the predicative «I am» sayings by which John draws attention to them.

The ideal, most informed members of John's audience would recognize the biblical roots of his «I am» images. While the «I am» sayings without an object (most clearly 8:58) allude to Isaiah (esp. 43:10), his other «I am» sayings probably allude to the Bible as wel1.2741 Thus «Jesus claims to be the bread of which the OT spoke, the light of which Isaiah spoke, the shepherd of whom Jeremiah spoke, and the vine of which many OT passages spoke.»2742 While one might differ concerning the particular biblical texts to which the images alluded (e.g., the divine shepherd image may derive primarily from Ezek 34), their Bible was certainly the most natural source to which John's informed audience would have looked for allusions. At the same time, the images were all basic enough to daily Mediterranean life that even peripheral members of the audience would have caught the primary significance of the allusions–perhaps better than many biblically literate but culturally distant readers today.

The predicative «I am» christological images emphasize the relationship between Jesus and believers, but they remain more christological than ecclesiologica1. Granted, the latter was by this period a serious issue; but for John, ecclesiology is determined entirely by Christology, because the community is defined solely by allegiance to Christ, who is the only way to the Father (14:6). John's vertical dualism (e.g., the man from heaven in 3:13, 31) and other contrasts such as «flesh» and «Spirit» (3:6; 6:63) repeatedly appear in the service of his emphasis that all humans are utterly inadequate before God apart from Christ and the Spirit.2743 Like Mark, though to a lesser extent, he emphasizes some obduracy among the disciples (e.g., John 11:13; Mark 8:16–18); but «the world» is wholly blind and alienated from God (John 9:39–41; 15:18–25; Mark 4:12).

Some of the predicative «I am» images emphasize relationship in more familiar relational images. Jesus is the shepherd, and sheep must trust the guidance of their shepherd, heeding his voice and knowing that he will provide pasture and safety (10:9, 11, 14). The Synoptics support John's association of this image with the Jesus tradition (Mark 6:34; 14:37; cf. also Matt 25:32; Luke 15:4). A related image, though not directly relational, is Jesus as the light of the world; here Jesus is the guide who enables one to walk without falling in the darkness outside him (John 1:4–5; 8:12; 9:4–5).

Most of the predicative «I am» images, however, are more organic, taking relationship beyond the boundaries normally possible in human intimacy. Thus Jesus is living bread from heaven, the bread of life (6:35, 48, 51); people depend on bread as a basic staple of life, and Jesus summons his followers to depend on him the same way. Related images would be the Spirit (who mediates Jesus» presence) as living water (4:14; 7:37–38) and perhaps Jesus as the giver of wine (2:4–7; less clear) and the paschal lamb which would be eaten (1:29; 6:51–56; 19:36). The Synoptics do use metaphors of light (cf. Matt 5:14–16; 6:23; Luke 8:16; 11:33–35), bread (Matt 7:9; 13:33; Mark 8:15; Luke 11:5,11–13), drinking (Mark 10:38–39), and so forth, though only occasionally are these metaphors explicitly christological (Mark 14:22–24).

The image of the «door» to the sheepfold signifies the way to security for the sheep (10:7,9). As surely as members of John's audience might dwell in rooms or apartments or houses (depending on their economic status), so they could dwell in safety spiritually through Jesus, protected from thieves and wolves (10:10–14). In a related image, Jesus is the way to the Father's presence (14:6), so that one who comes to Jesus enters the Father's presence (if an image were attached, one would probably think of the holy of holies in Jerusalem's temple). (For a related but less explicitly christocentric usage, see the Q material in Matt 7:13–14; 25:10; Luke 13:24–25.)

Related to this image of dwelling is the image of the vine (15:1). Branches dwell in the vine, but with greater dependence than a person who dwells in a home; the branches depend utterly on the vine for their fruit and their continued life. Apart from Jesus disciples could do nothing (15:5), just as Jesus did nothing apart from the Father (5:30; 8:28, 42; 12:49; 14:10). Like the vine to which the branches are attached, Jesus is the very life of those who depend on him (1:4; 11:25; 14:6). This means that Jesus offers the life of the resurrection, the life that would characterize the coming age; but it also speaks of absolute dependence on him, affirming that Christ's own character is lived out through the believer in a way unparalleled in early Judaism.2744 The closest parallel to the idea of God's Messiah or Spirit living through the believer in Jesus is probably the way the biblical prophets were often moved with God's feelings as well as his words (Jer 6:11; 9:1; 13:17; 14:17; Mic 3:8).2745 Many early Christians in general, and John in particular, appear to have taken much more literally than most of their contemporaries the idea of dependence on God; all moral behavior depended utterly on God's own empowerment, and this was available only in Christ and through his Spirit.2746 The Synoptics know the vineyard metaphor but apply it to the people of God (Mark 12:1).

Both Greek and Jewish mystics sought to contemplate and experience the divine, and John probably invites his hearers to do the same in Jesus (cf. 14:8–9); but the earthly images suggest an intimacy not limited to philosophers or mystics. Eating and drinking Jesus, depending on him like branches in the vine, suggest that Christ is the very life of his followers, and all their welfare derives from his indwelling (cf. 14:19,23; 15:4–5). The idea probably stems from the intense experience of the Spirit attested throughout the earliest Christian sources2747 and resembles the ideals of the earliest NT writer (Rom 8:9; Gal 2:20; Phil 1:21; cf. Eph 3:16–17; Col 1:27, 29; 3:16). Whatever the symbolic value of the images by themselves (e.g., bread as Torah), their cumulative impact evokes organic images with which all hearers were familiar. They also suggest that John connected Christology closely with early Christian experience.

Conclusion regarding Christology

Johannine Christology is among the most exalted in the NT, but its portrayal of Christ's subordination to the Father is equally sharp. Taken together, the emphasis of these various strands suggests their polemical function: one could not deny Jesus» Lordship while truly following God the Father, as the synagogue leadership claimed to do. Jesus was the Father's appointed agent, greater than Moses and the prophets, and rejecting him was tantamount to rejecting the one who sent him. Many elements for this portrait appear in less developed form in earlier Jesus tradition, although John has employed and developed that tradition in distinctive ways.

Some Other Johannine Themes

Most themes in John will be treated only as they present themselves in the commentary, since each relevant passage further develops the theme in question. For example, we treat the «witness» motif at John 1:6–8 and pneumatology passim, and focus on several sample themes here only. Many of these themes have been treated in various monographs, such as Segoviás treatment of the love commandment. Here we will comment briefy on realized eschatology in the Fourth Gospel, then still more briefly on the themes of love, faith, life, and the «world.»

1. Realized Eschatology

Although C. H. Dodd emphasized realized eschatology, scholars point out that in his final publication he did he allow that early Christian eschatology included a futurist element2748–ambiguously as he may have kept that concession.2749 The kingdom was central to Jesus» teaching;2750 some think that he stressed its present aspect, others that he stressed its future aspect. Jesus himself undoubtedly stressed both aspects of the kingdom.2751 Judaism recognized God's rule in both present2752 and future,2753 and if Jesus could distinguish between his first and second comings (as much of the NT evidence suggests that he did, though modern scholarship tends to be more doubtful of its authenticity), he himself could have viewed eschatological fulfillment as a two-stage work.2754 Wherever Jesus stood, however, there is widespread agreement that his followers soon articulated a view of OT prophecy in which some aspects were fulfilled and some remained to be fulfilled.

There can be no dispute that John emphasizes realized eschatology. What is more is dispute is whether John does so to the exclusion or near exclusion of future eschatology. Käsemann, consistently articulating a noneschatological reading of the Fourth Gospel, urged that John's view concurred with that of the enthusiasts of Corinth and schismatics of 2Tim 2:18: the resurrection of all the dead was present and Jesus could be known only in his resurrection existence.2755 According to Käsemann, John's docetic Christology dominated his eschatology,2756 an eschatology that no longer emphasized the end, but the beginning and abiding.2757

Other scholars find John's realized eschatology appealing and therefore primitive. Dodd long felt that the Fourth Gospel contained «the most penetrating exposition» of Jesus» real teaching;2758 Glasson feels that this Gospel preserves .the correct teaching of Jesus, that is, that he inaugurated the eschatological time;2759 Robinson also believes that it sets forth the earlier teaching of Jesus before apocalyptic distortions set in.2760

Attempts to reduce the eschatological elements in the historical Jesus» kingdom teachings, however, have properly met with steady resistance.2761 Although most NT scholars allow some mythological language in the NT, the principle of selection (of which language is «mythical») is debated. The discursive component of apocalyptic imagery may be translated into other genres (e.g., a de-symbolized discourse on eschatology; although this diminishes its aesthetic, evocative impact), in some cases without reducing the content. But to personalize corporate portraits of eschatology is to strip the apocalyptic hope of its intended significance. While the «future» may represent to some an «authentic possibility of being,»2762 it was not merely this for the NT writers.2763 The earliest purpose of apocalyptic imagery tended to be sociopolitical and perhaps included a mystical component, and Bultmann offers his premise, that the NT should be demythologized «like» apocalyptic literature, without adequate substantiation.2764

Whatever the measure of historical tradition behind the Fourth Gospel, it is no coincidence that Paul's eschatological motifs in 1 Thess 4–5 correspond so well to eschatological Jesus traditions,2765 given how concentrated diverse sayings are in this section, and especially given how many other traditions from Jewish eschatology are absent from both sources.2766 It is hardly likely that Paul's «word of the Lord» in 1 Thess 4 refers to Christian prophecy;2767 as widespread as Christian prophecy was, it would be as odd for Matthew or later Jesus tradition to be based on the particular prophecy that lay behind Paul, as for it to be based on Pauline letters to a particular church in Macedonia. When our earliest Christian writings preserve eschatological Jesus tradition even in a thoroughly Hellenistic setting, we should not doubt that Jesus taught future eschatology, like his early followers, his predecessor John, and most of his Palestinian Jewish contemporaries.2768 But Paul's use of Jesus» teachings on ethics (1Cor 7) may also suggest that the Jesus of his tradition anticipated some time before the end of the age. The same evidence that supports the Synoptic emphasis on future eschatology in Jesus» teaching thus also reinforces the Synoptic and especially Johannine tradition of realized eschatology, that is, a period of living in the shadow of the imminent messianic era.

Whatever the source of his realized eschatology, John's eschatological motifs clearly focus on the present.2769 This need not imply, however, that John would therefore exclude future eschatology. If Aune is correct in his understanding of realized eschatology in the Dead Sea Scrolls,2770 it is noteworthy that realized and future eschatology coexisted in the Qumran community without conscious tension. The same could have been true of the Johannine community. Documents like the Fourth Gospel and the Qumran Hymns might stress realized eschatology without much emphasis on future eschatology, yet be employed without contradiction by communities that also used Revelation and the War Scrol1. If the communities envisioned no contradiction, it is likewise possible that the authors themselves envisioned no contradiction. Even a Jewish writer as thoroughly influenced by Hellenistic philosophy as Philo, who rarely indicates his futurist eschatology, had one: Sanders traces Philós hope for Israels future restoration.2771

Although future eschatology is hardly Johns emphasis, there are clearly futurist passages in his Gospel,2772 as many scholars recognize.2773 As in 1 John 2:18, the author seems to begin with the community's futurist expectation and establishes the present reality from it (cf. esp. the language in 5:25–29; 11:23–26; 14:2–7). As Bürge comments, «unless we join Bultmann and excise a considerable portion of futurist expectation in John (notably 5:28–29; 6:39–40, 44, 54; 12:48), there is no denying that John expects a future consummation.»2774 Brown correctly points out that the Pharisees and Christians shared futurist eschatology; it was far more important for John to stress realized eschatology in a Gospel addressed to conflict with Jewish authorities who denied, not future hope, but the inauguration of that hope in Jesus. In 1 John, conversely, the author addresses secessionists whose eschatology is wholly realized, and thus focuses more on future hope than the Gospel had.2775

As in Paul, realized eschatology in the Fourth Gospel is inaugurated by Jesus» presence and glorification, then realized and anticipated in believers» experience through the Spirit (e.g., Rom 8:11, 23; 1Cor 6:14; 15:12–13; 2Cor 1:22; 5:5).2776 It is even possible that John intentionally replaces most of the expectation of Jesus» future coming in the Olivet discourse (prior tradition) with an emphasis on the Spirit's coming to realize among the disciples the life of the new era.2777 On a reading of the Fourth Gospel that emphasizes realized eschatology without excluding futurist expectation, the Johannine Paraclete thus anticipates the eschatological future.2778

If leaders in the non-Christian Jewish community raised the obvious objection to Christians that Jesus, if Messiah, should have inaugurated a new era, Christian realized eschatology could have become a major focus in the church's debate with the Synagogue.2779

2. Love

Although some have stressed the particularly Christian character of the term αγάπη,2780 neither the term nor the concept is uniquely Christian (cf., e.g., Matt 5:46).2781 Pre-Christian Jewish texts declare Gods love (άγαπήσαι) for the oppressed of Jerusalem.2782 God also loved (ήγάπησεν) Wisdom.2783 Pagan parallels to a deity's love for a devotee are rarer but do exist.2784 Judaism also stressed loving God2785 and his Wisdom.2786 The Dead Sea Scrolls declare God s love for the elect community and the OT concept of love for God.2787

What is more significant is that the early Christians fairly consistently used the rarest term for love,2788 and that αγάπη with its cognates represents the supreme virtue so frequently in early Christian writings (e.g., Rom 13:8–10; 1Cor 13:1–13; Gal 5:14, 22; Col 3:14; 1 Thess 4:9; Heb 10:24; 1 John 2:10; 3:14; 4:7–9), whereas other literature did not stress it as consistently. This suggests that Jesus» teachings on the subject strongly affected early Christian ethics.

The two verbs for love, along with (in the case of άγαπάω) their cognates, function interchangeably for all practical purposes.

The Father άγαπά the Son: 3:35; 10:17; 15:9; 17:23–24, 26

The Father φιλεΐ the Son: 5:20

The Son άγαπά the Father: 14:31

The Son φιλεΐ the Father: no examples

The Father άγαπά believers: 17:23; cf. 3:16

The Father φιλεΐ believers: 16:27

The Son άγαπά believers: 11:5; 13:1, 23, 34; 15:9, 12; 19:26; 21:7, 20

The Son φιλεΐ believers: 11:3, 36; 20:2

Believers άγαπώσι Jesus: 8:42; 14:15, 21, 23, 24, 28; 21:15–16

Believers φιλοϋσι Jesus: 16:27; 21:15–17

Believers άγαπώσι God: cf. 5:42; no references for φιλοϋσι

People άγαπώσι a sinful object: 3:19; 12:43

People φιλοϋσι a sinful object: cf. 12:25; the world's love in 15:19

Believers should άγαπώσι one another: 13:34–35; 15:12, 17

Believers should φιλοϋσι one another: no examples

Given a frequency of αγαπάω greater than φιλέω, the few categories in which their uses do not overlap surely reflect the sort of coincidence one would expect if the terms were essentially interchangeable. One passage (21:15–17) clearly uses the two terms interchangeably, unless we are to suppose that Jesus diminished the intensity of his own request to accommodate Peter s desire.

Against many scholars,2789 John employs his two terms for love interchangeably.2790 Stylistic changes from one section of the Gospel to another no more need indicate separate sources or redactors than similar changes from one part of Epictetus to another indicate that Arrian quotes him more accurately at some points; both Epictetus and Arrian probably had certain words or phrases more on their minds at certain times.2791 Variation was a common feature of ancient writing;2792 some writers, in fact, explicitly asserted their preference for variation in vocabulary against «the pedantic precision» of some philosophic trends of their era.2793 As Nock pointed out, their pleasure in variety «often works havoc with the neat differentiations of meaning we seek to establish.»2794 It is not surprising that it is a standard feature of Johannine style.2795

John's call to love is a call to church unity,2796 whether against the outside opposition (John 15) or against the secessionists (1 John 3). Love also adds a moral context to «knowing God» ( 1 John 4:7–8,16,20) that goes beyond the amoral mysticism some false teachers may have been proclaiming (John 8:55; 1 John 2:3–5; 3:6).2797

3. Faith

Although love appears as the supreme commandment, the Fourth Gospel emphasizes faith in Jesus,2798 perhaps because faith is what the believers» current trials are testing most: «While the emphasis is on believing in John 1–12, love becomes central in John 13–17. But there it is love as the basis of the possibility that the world might come to believe. Thus the focus remains on faith. In 1 John the focus is on love as a test of all claims to know God.»2799

Whereas Mark uses πιστεύω 10 times, Matthew 11, and Luke 9, the verb appears by itself (without following clause or object) 30 times in John, 18 with the dative, 13 with cm, 36 with εις, and once each with èv and the neuter accusative.2800 John employs the verb 98 times, whereas the three Synoptics employ it 30 times, and Paul 54 times (by contrast, Paul employs the noun 142 times, the Synoptics 24 times, and John never).2801 Viewed from another angle, cognates of this term appear on the average page of the Greek text of the NT according to the following distribution: 0.09 in Revelation; 0.24 in the Synoptics; 0.55 in Acts; 1.10 in the Catholic Epistles; 1.25 in Paul; 1.31 in Hebrews; and 1.48 in John.2802 That John emphasizes faith heavily cannot be disputed.2803

Secular Greek and the LXX provide no parallels for πιστεύω είς; it may resemble the Semitic hémin be, but the LXX renders that with the dative.2804 This construction may thus represent «a distinctive Christian creation designed to express the personal relationship of commitment between the believer and Jesus»;2805 if it turns out to be less than completely distinctive, it is nonetheless noteworthy that a construction so rare outside Christian literature would be so prominent in this literature.

John was not the only religious propagandist (in the neutral sense of the phrase) to explore development of faith through characters in his narrative. The guest in Philostratus's Heroikos initially does not believe in heroes but is willing to be persuaded (3.1; 7.10–11; 8.2). Before long, however, he begins to believe in response to accounts of the signs (7.12; 8.18; 16.6; 17.1; 18.1; 44.5).2806 Philostratus is late enough to reflect Christian influence, but it is at least possible that this motif is independent; if dependent, it at least demonstrates that early readers understood the centrality of faith development in Johns plot. A broader Mediterranean audience might understand faith in the context of dependence on a divine provider2807 and certainly would understand the dangers of active unbelief that provoked the anger of deities.2808 But one also finds judgments for unbelief in a divine agent in the OT (2 Kgs 9:7; Dan 9:6–7; Amos 7:12–17), Amoraic texts,2809 and Luke-Acts (Luke 1:20; Acts 13:11).

Moses is frequently the object of faith in the LXX of the Pentateuch (Exod 4:1,8,9,31; 14:31; 19:9); most often, however, Moses leads the people to «believe» in God (Exod 4:5; 14:31; Num 14:11; 20:12; Deut 9:23; 32:20). Just as God's people should believe in both God and his prophet Moses (Exod 14:31), they should believe in both God and Jesus (John 14:1). As noted in our section on signs in the previous chapter, the Fourth Gospel emphasizes Jesus as the one greater than Moses.

Faith is a common motif in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., 4:21; 14:1); the world (16:9), even the world closest to Jesus (7:5), is characterized by unbelief, but such unbelief serves as a foil for faith.2810 Faith is sometimes related to witness (never pejoratively, 1:7; 4:39; 19:35; cf. 9:18), including the witness of Scripture (2:22; 5:38, 46–47; cf. 20:9), but especially to signs (1:50; 2:11, 23; 4:39; 10:41–42; 11:15, 42; 12:11; 13:19; 14:29; 17:21; 20:8, 25, 27). Signs-faith is one possible stage of faith, but although it is better than no faith (10:37–38; 12:37; 14:10–11) its status remains ambiguous throughout the Fourth Gospel, because it remains inadequate of itself, short of the ultimate stage of faith (4:41–42, 48, 50, 53; 6:30, 36; 7:31; 11:40; 16:30–31; 20:29–31).2811 «Signs faith» must develop further to become «mature faith.»2812

Even at their initial occurrence, signs can provoke either faith or rebellion ( 11:45–46, 48; cf. 12:10–11, where unbelievers also dread the witness). A true believer must also become a witness, a confessor (12:42). John's narrative, like the narratives of the exodus story and Mark, chronicle the epic of faith: in the exodus story, Israel continues in unbelief despite many signs; in Mark and John, the disciples» faith grows from initial acceptance toward full understanding, allegiance, and confession (cf. 2:11; 6:69; 16:30–33).2813 «Believe» thus refers to the proper response to God's revelation,2814 a faithful embracing of his truth, as in OT «faithfulness»; it is a conviction of truth on which one stakes onés life and actions, not merely passive assent to a fact.2815

Even before confronting Christ or the witness of his Spirit, the prior condition of peoplés hearts–visible only to God and Christ–has predisposed them one way or the other (5:38, 44, 46–47; 8:44–47; 10:25–26; 12:38–40; cf. 3:19–21). Those who can believe with minimal signs (1:50; 20:8) are contrasted with those who struggle to believe at all (3:12); those who appreciate Jesus» gift and pay a price for their faith are also more apt to believe (cf. 9:35–38). Faith in the Father (through his agent Jesus, 5:24; 12:44) and the Son (1:12; 3:15, 16, 18, 36; 6:35, 40, 47; 7:38–39; 8:24; 11:25–26; 12:36, 46; 16:27; 17:8; cf. 6:29) is the precondition for salvation, but in the context of the Fourth Gospel, salvation is guaranteed only if one perseveres in such faith.

Technically, Jesus accepts signs-faith (e.g., 13:19; 14:29; 20:29), but many whose faith is only signs-faith will not endure subsequent tests of faith and thus end up without faith in Jesus. Thus Jesus is not impressed with crowds who «believe» in him but do not understand what they are believing (8:30); they will be his genuine disciples only.if they continue in his teaching (8:31), and sure enough, before the dialogue is over, they have become his mortal enemies (8:59). The language of faith can also be applied to Jesus knowing better than to place his trust in untrustworthy people who will not persevere (2:24; cf. the contrast between faith and betrayal in 6:64). Initial faith can stem from others» witness (4:39) and become complete once the initiates have experienced Jesus for themselves (4:40–42; cf. 1:46–51).

4. Life

John employs ζωή thirty-two times in the narrative depicting his signs, and four times in the discourse section.2816 Even when not conjoined with «eternal,» the term designates eternal life with one exception (which may have symbolic import, 4:50–51). Otherwise John employs ψυχή (10:11; 12:25).2817 In Johannine language, to «live forever» is basically synonymous with «remaining forever» (1 John 2:17), though the latter usually is not limited to the individual believer (John 8:35; 12:34; 2 John 2).2818

Goppelt suggests that «kingdom» was a Palestinian Jewish concept more or less incomprehensible to Hellenistic readers, so John substituted a rarer term from the Jesus tradition, namely «life» (cf. Mark 9:43,45 [=the kingdom in 9:47]; 7:14; 10[cf. 10:15, 23]; Matt. 25[=the kingdom in 25:34]; Luke 10:25).2819 He may well be correct concerning the substitution itself, but it is unlikely that John chose «life» simply to accommodate a Hellenistic audience, if, as we think likely, his audience was primarily Jewish. Indeed, Greeks and Romans could imagine a long life without perpetual youth (as in the case of the Sibyl),2820 which differs appreciably from the Jewish emphasis on the transformed, immortal life of the resurrection. More likely, «kingdom» (John 3:3,5) had political ramifications (cf. comments on 18:36–38) that would be particularly unhelpful for Christians in Roman Asia in the mid-nineties, given the demands of the state, not least of which was imperial religion.2821

Life is related to divine knowledge in Hellenistic sources, especially in the Hermetica,2822 but the connection is also an OT2823 and early Jewish one.2824 «Eternal life» occasionally appears in Hellenistic sources; for instance, Plutarch employs it to describe Gods character (της αίωνίου ζωής).2825 But it is rare in pagan circles in this period;2826 the vast majority of its occurrences are in Jewish sources, beginning with Dan 12:2, where it refers to the life inherited at the resurrection of the dead; at that time the righteous would be «raised up to eternal life.»2827 Jewish sources often speak of «the life of the world to come"(חיי העולם הבא) or «life of the age» («eternal life»),2828 often abbreviating it as «life»2829 as in John. Thus the righteous are preserved for the life of the coming world at death,2830 or (in more Hellenistic sources) the righteous dead currently «live out the age of blessing.»2831 Most early Christian literature also employs it as the «life of the coming age,»2832 though «eternal life» is more frequent in the Gospel (about seventeen times) and Epistles (six times) of John than in other NT documents (less than thirty times in all non-Johannine texts, one-third of them in Pauline literature).

The Fourth Gospel employs the term somewhat differently from contemporary Jewish sources and the Synoptics. Linking it with present-tense verbs, the Fourth Gospel declares that the life of the kingdom era is available to those living in the present through faith in Christ.2833 His resurrection has already inaugurated the resurrection era that the rest of Judaism still awaited in the future.2834 This motif thus provides a major contribution to the realized eschatology of the Fourth Gospe1.

5. The World

The term κόσμος can refer to the universe,2835 but this is not Johns usage (though cf. 21:25).2836 In the prologue, «world» (1:10) may represent the nations in contrast to Israel (1:11; cf. 12in context; 8with Isa 42:6; 49:6), or may represent «all people» (1:7,9; cf. 5:34,41), a usage more suited to its inclusion of Palestinian Jews in the rest of the Gospel (18:20). The «world» represents the «public» (7:4; 12:19; 18:20), is in darkness (1:10), is ruled by a demonic power (12:31; 14:30; 16:11), is alienated from God and his agents (14:17,19; 17:9,25), and is morally opposed to Jesus and the people of light (7:7; 15:18–19; 16:20; 17:14). Still, it is the object of God's saving love and enlightenment in Jesus (1:29; 3:16, 17, 19; 4:42; 6:51; 8:12; 9:5, 39; 12:46–47; also described as conquest by suffering the cross, 16:33; cf. the wordplay in 11:9), and the goal of Jesus» agents» witness (14:31; 16:8; 17:21, 23). The world is thus the arena of the light's salvific invasion of darkness (6:14; cf. the wordplay in 16:21)–that is, sinful humanity, the «lost» that Jesus came to seek and to save (cf. Luke 19:10). But neither Jesus nor his disciples are genuinely «from» the world (13:1; 16:28; 17:16; 18:36); the disciples have come «from» it only in the sense that they no longer «belong» to it ( 17: 6), and Jesus invaded it so they could become differentiated from it (17:13–14). Both are now «from above,» that is, from God. That is, though they work in the world to bring salvation, they are sent from God, whose mission to determines their lives (17:11,15–18; cf. 8:26; 10:36; 11:27).

Thus disciples could be exhorted not to «love the world» ( 1 John 2:15)–not to love its character, which was opposed to Gods–yet to witness to the God who «loved the world» (John 3:16)–that is, the sinful humanity of which all but Jesus were once a part. This tension between caring about outsiders and avoiding any compromise with their values appears elsewhere in early Christian literature (cf., e.g., Jude 22–23), but was acutely evident for a persecuted community where belief could be a life and death matter even in terms of the life of this age. The Fourth Gospels «love commandment,» in contrast to that of the Synoptics, is specifically directed only toward other believers in Jesus; but that this is a matter of emphasis rather than of opposition may be suggested by the fact that John, unlike the Qumran Scrolls, does not explicitly invoke hatred of onés enemies, though his community experienced hatred from the world (John 15:18–25).

Conclusion

Few of John's themes, including those most relevant to his distinctive Christology, prove unique to John. His emphases and development of those themes are, however, distinctive, and the commentary must take note of them. It should be noted that other themes also are worthy of exploration, such as the power relations presupposed in class as well as geographical and christological lines in the Fourth Gospe1. We have, however, limited this chapter to some explicit themes evident in the vocabulary of the Fourth Gospel, and hope to provide the interpreter further clues in our more detailed comment on specific passages below?

* * *

2413

Black, «Words,» 221–23, argues that Jesus» speech in this Gospel employs conventions of rhetorical grandeur appropriate to discussing the divine.

2414

E.g., Davies, Rhetoric, 159.

2415

One might similarly see Jesus as something of a «sign» revealing the Father's identity ( 14:8–11).

2416

Rensberger, Faith, 120.

2417

See esp. Witherington, Wisdom; and idem, Sage.

2418

Rensberger, Faith, 142.

2419

Burridge, Gospels, 223–24.

2420

Rhetoricians would often dwell on or return to their strongest point for their case (Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.45.58); if one accepts John's Christology, his other points (including his controversial ecclesiology and pneumatology) follow.

2421

Reim, Studien, 260; cf. Longenecker, Wine, 112.

2422

Reim, Studien, 261; scholars typically find allusions to OT theophanic language in the formula (e.g., Gwynne, «Invisible Father»; Okorie, «Self-Revelation»). Developing themes would have been common practice; εξεργασία (elaboration) was a standard rhetorical exercise (Anderson, Glossary, 48–49).

2423

So Blomberg, «Where,» 22, critically summarizing the position of Mack.

2424

Wright, People of God, 341–42, noting the highly speculative nature of modern reconstructions of early Christianity. Burridge, Gospels, 256–58, argues from the Gospels» genre that their focus should be Jesus, not early Christian experience.

2425

Those who radically reject the canonical gospels as sources for historical information should at least admit that they are our only objective sources for reconstructing Jesus (as some classicists, noting some weaknesses of Livy, nevertheless recognize that he cannot be replaced; Foster, «Introduction,» xxxi).

2426

For history of modern Jesus research, see, e.g., Schweitzer, Quest; Thompson, Debate; Witherington, Quest. This research has often led to less rather than greater consensus (e.g., Crossan, Jesus, xxvii-xxviii; Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:3,21–31; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 145).

2427

As Jacob Neusner points out, reductionist, nonsupernaturalist portraits of Jesus cannot suffice to explain the rise of Christianity (Neusner, New Testament, 184).

2428

E.g., Isa 9:7; Jer 23:5. That the eschatological ruler would be a restoration after the Davidic rule had been cut off was suggested by preexilic prophets (Isa 11:1, the «stump» of Jesse; Amos 9:11). I take the Amos passage as authentic to Amos because of literary connections with the rest of the book (cf. also Asen, «Faith»; von Rad, Theology, 2:138; Soggin, Introduction, 244; Schedl, History, 4:167; other hopes in Williams, «Theology,» 403) against many scholars (Snaith, Amos, 49; Coote, Amos, 122; Ringgren, Religion, 10; Clements, Prophecy, 44).

2429

Pss. So1. 17.21; 4Q252 1 5.1–4; b. Sanh. 97b-98a; p. Sukkah 5:1, §7; Gen. Rab. 88:7; Song Rab. 2:13, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15; Tg. Jer 30:9. See Fitzmyer, Essays, 113–26; Longenecker, Christology, 109–10; Kee, Community, 126, esp. on the DSS. Daly-Denton, «Shades of David,» sees David echoes in John's Gospel, even though it mentions David only once (7:42; the case may be more persuasive in the Passion Narrative, recalling 2Sam 15–18).

2430

Cf., e.g., Witherington, Christology, 83.

2431

Cf. Feldman, «David.»

2432

Kraeling, John, 52. Some professed signs-prophets also sought kingship in broader Mediterranean culture (Diodorus Siculus 34/35.2.5–6,22–23).

2433

See Freyne, Galilee, 194–95, on Ant. 18.85–87; 20.97–98,169–171; War 2.261–266; Acts 5:36; 21:38; cf. also Crossan, Jesus, 158–68. Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 110–31, do, however, point out that popular attempts to rule often focused on commoners rather than a revived Davidic dynasty.

2434

Cf. Moore, Judaism, 2:346. Rivkin, «Messiah,» 65, contrasts the set belief in the world to come and the resurrection with the greater flexibility on messianic belief after the revolt.

2435

        "Abot R. Nat. 31, §67 B.

2436

        Sipre Deut. 34.4.3 (resurrection in the messianic era); Ketub. 12:3, §13 (R. Meir); speculation flourished again in the Amoraic period (e.g., b. Meg. 12a). Aberbach, «Hzqyhw,» thinks that «Hezekiah» was sometimes a code-name for R. Judah when some still considered him the messiah.

2437

For groups that emphasized biblical messianic hopes, see Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 102–10. 4Q521 2,4 1.1, suggests a global or even cosmic (though this may be hyperbole) role for the messiah.

2438

Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 109. In a later period redemptive work suggested genealogical correctness rather than Davidic descent being primary; cf. Kaufmann, «Idea.»

2439

        OTP 2:667. «Lord» is κύριος, but the messiah's king is the «Lord himself» (17:34), who is also Israel's eternal king (17:46); cf. the distinction also in J En. 48(Sim.)

2440

Pss. So1. 17:21–25 (OTP2:667). Neusner, Beginning, 36, focuses on this aspect of messiahship; Jonge, «Psalms of Solomon,» also sees a scribal element.

2441

See Wittlieb, «Bedeutung.»

2442

Collins, «Son of Man.»

2443

See Beckwith, «Daniel 9

2444

Josephus War 6.312–313; Tacitus Hist. 5.13; Suetonius Vesp. 10.4, apply the biblical prophecy of a king from Palestine to Vespasian; paganism could absorb Jewish motifs without objections. See esp. Aune, Prophecy, 76, citing Sib. Or. 3.350–380; Virgil Eel 4.4–10.

2445

1QM 15.1; Jub. 23:13; 2 Bar. 29:3; Τ Mos. 7–8; cf. also Allegro, «History,» 95, on 4QpPs. Such sufferings were sometimes associated with the advent of the messianic era or of the messiah (Sib. Or. 3.213–215, 635–648, probably pre-Christian; possibly 1QH 5; 4 Ezra 6:24; 7:29; 8:63–9:8; m. Sotah 9:15; b. Sanh. 97a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Pesiq. Rab. 36:1); cf. Bonsirven, Judaism, 180–83. Its estimated duration varied widely, e.g., 7 years (b. Sanh. 97a; Song Rab. 2:13, §4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15; 34:1; 36:1–2); 12 parts (2 Bar. 26–30); or 40 years (CD 20.14–15). (In the late Pesiq. Rab. 36Messiah himself suffers seven years to save Israe1.)

2446

Cf.,e.g.,S/fc. Or. 3.46–50.

2447

Cf., e.g., Villiers, «Messiah»; Horsley, «Groups»; Evans, «Messianism,» 700; in the Diaspora, see Goldstein, «Composition,» according to whose interpretation messianic imagery is prominent. Glasson, Advent, 8–13, notes that Judaism diverged even on the messiah's origin from heaven or from earth, though pre-Christian Judaism mainly held to the earthly view (cf. 15–23 on 1 Enoch). For wisdom associations with the messiah, see Witherington, Christology, 180.

2448

Wächter, «Messianismus,» stresses this political aspect of Jewish expectations, distinguishing them from the early Christian view defined by Jesus» mission. That Jesus did not inaugurate an earthly kingdom is one of the primary objections to his followers» messianic claim for him in contemporary Jewish scholarship; cf. Berger and Wyschogrod, «Jewish Christianity,» 18–19; Klausner, Jesus, 414; Borowitz, Christologies, 21.

2449

        Sib. Or. 3.652–656; cf. the Potter's Oracle and Collins's note on Sib. Or. 3 in Sibylline Oracles, 356; Egyptian expectation in Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 244. Cf. the oracle about a coming ruler in Josephus War 6.312, perhaps followed by Tacitus Hist. 5.13 (Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 110).

2450

Black, «Messiah» (cf. similarly Jeremias, Theology, 50), against Charles (who is followed by Barrett, Spirit, 43–44).

2451

Evans, «Messianism,» 701–2, finds thirty Qumran texts describing «anointed» individuals, with the royal Messiah probably in CD 12.23–13.1; 14.19 (= 4Q266 frg. 18, 3.12); 19.10–11; 20.1; 1QS 9.11; lQSa 2.11–12,14–15, 20–21; 4Q252 frg. 1 5. 3–4; 4Q381 frg. 15.7; 4Q382 frg. 16.2; 4Q458 frg. 2, 2.6; 4Q521 frg. 2 4, 2.1; 4Q521 frg. 7.3.

2452

E.g., 1Macc 14:41–42, with the functions of ruler, priest, commander, and possibly prophet sought for Simon Maccabeus.

2453

See the Wicked Priest of lQpHab 8.8–10; 9.4–7; 11.5–6; 12.5; and the role of Zadokites in the community. The view that the Teacher of Righteousness is modeled after Judas Maccabee (Eisenman, Maccabees, 35) has not garnered much support.

2454

Evans, «Messianism,» 703, lists οτ precedent for the two messiahs (Jer 33:15–18; Hag 2:1–7; Zech 4:11–14; 6:12–13; 4Q254 frg. 4 alludes to Zech 4:14).

2455

7: Reu. 6:8; T. Jud. 21:1–2; cf. T. Sim. 5with 1QM. On Melchizedek as eschatological priest, see Puech, «Manuscrit.»

2456

See Jub. 31:12–17 and 31:18–20; cf. similarly T. Iss. 5:7; T. Dan 5:4, 10; T. Naph. 5:3–5; 8:2. Schniedewind, «King,» roots the dual messianic expectation in the Chronicler's ideal leadership pattern (esp. 1 Chr 17:14).

2457

        Jub. 31:18–20; see Noack, «Qumran and Jubilees,» 201.

2458

See Charles, Jubilees, xiv (although we may date Jubilees somewhat earlier than he suggests on xiii).

2459

Higgins, «Priest,» 333; idem, «Messiah,» 215–19; Laurin, «Messiahs,» 52. LaSor, Scrolls, 152ff., argues that the Hebrew idiom supports one messiah, rabbinic scholars seeing two because of their Talmudic background; although there may be more than one «anointed one,» only one is eschatologica1. T. Benj. 11seems to support a figure from both Judah and Levi (perhaps reflecting a Jewish-Christian desire to derive one of Jesus» parents from Levi, cf. Luke 1:5,36). The DSS conflate various anointed figures (e.g.,4Q174 3.10–13; 4Q252 1 5.1,3; 11Q13 2.15–20).

2460

Aune, Prophecy, 123 (citing T. Reu. 6:5–12; T. Levi 18:2–9; 1QS 9.10–11; lQSa 12–17; cf. CD 19.10–11; 20.1); Villalon, «Sources,» 53–63, esp. 63; Burrows, More Light, 297–311 (or maybe three, 311); Joczwiak, «Mesjanizm» (or even three); Jonge, ««Anointed,»» 141–42; Brown, «Messianism,» 54–66. In «Theory,» 56, Brown still thought there were probably two messiahs, but noted that not all texts were clear or represented the same period.

2461

Smith, «Variety»; Abegg, «Messiah.»

2462

Longenecker, Christology, 114; Driver, Scrolls, 468–69; Priest, «Mebaqqer»; cf. Priest, «Messiah.» Wcela, «Messiah(s),» finds in the Damascus Document (CD 12.23–13.1; 14.19; 19.10–11; 20.1; cf. 7.17–21) one military messiah with a priest who could be an Aaronic messiah (342); 1QS 9.11 has two messiahs, but often a priestly companion to the messiah is in view, and the Damascus Document probably sees both as one individual (347). Smith, «Begetting,» 224, thinks both anointed ones may be «survivals of the same figure,» but is not certain that either is eschatological or messianic.

2463

CD 12.23–13.1 (albeit with an emended misspelling of משיחo );14.19 (not all the word is clear, but the relevant ending is); 20.1; also the warrior messiah of 1QM 11.7–8. Puech, «Apocalypse,» considers 4Q521 an «apocalypse messianique» (but contrast Bergmeier, «Beobachtungen»); Garcia Martinez, «Textos,» finds a messianic king (4Q252,285, 521), priest (4Q540), and heavenly figure (4Q246).

2464

LaSor, «Messiahs,» 429; Gaster, Scriptures, 392; Bruce, History, 122. Stefaniak, «Poglady,» thinks Qumran stressed eschatology more than messianology; this is probably right, unless the messiah was a Teacher of Righteousness redivivus.

2465

Silberman, «Messiahs,» 82, questioning whether the expectation is even eschatological in the final sense. It is reasonable to surmise that originally the title applied to the first Teacher of Righteousness.

2466

Cf. the priest's precedence over the «Messiah» in lQ28a 2.19–20; «Moses God's anointed [Messiah"]» in 4Q377 2 2.5; 1Q22 11–12 even adds Eleazar to Joshua in Deut 31:7, to couple priest and ruler figures; see also the «anointed priest» in 4Q376 1 1.1. Some late rabbis also spoke of a priest «anointed for battle,» i.e., an eschatological priest to accompany the troops, along with the Davidic messiah (b. Yoma 73b; Song Rab. 2:13, §4).

2467

For the suffering and triumphant messiahs, see 3 En. 45:5; for a suffering Messiah, see the various views offered in b. Sukkah 52a; p. Sukkah 5:2, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 34:2; 36:1–2, and see data listed in Torrey, «Messiah.» For a messiah suffering for Israel's sins, cf. Pesiq. Rab. 36:1–2; 37:1. For a servant messiah, cf. 2 Bar. 70:9. The doctrine of two messiahs continued in ninth-century Karaite doctrine (possibly from Essene roots?); cf. Wieder, «Messiahs.»

2468

Driver, Scrolls, 465–66, notes the different exegesis but thinks the rabbinic picture could shed light on the DSS, a proposition which takes too little account of the relative dates of the traditions. Kuhn, «Messias,» 208, points out that the DSS subordinate the political messiah to the priestly one, but rabbinic literature offers no parallel to this (though Jub. 31 and some other texts, may).

2469

See Rosenberg, «Messiah,» who (less accurately) predicates the prominence of Qumran's Levitic messiah on the decease of the Davidic one. Brownlee, «Servant,» argues that lQIs(a) applies the Suffering Servant of Isa 52–53 to the «anointed» community as a whole (he and Reider, «MSHTY,» debate the Hebrew back and forth on 27–28).

2470

So Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 140; Yamauchi, «Concord,» 165–66 (this seems more reasonable than Berger's attribution of the doctrine to typology; cf. «Themes»). If a tradition of testing the messiah existed (e.g., Bar Kokhba by his sense of smell, b. Sanh. 93b), it may have arisen the same way (Rivkin, «Meaning,» 397, thinks instead that the Pharisees used this tradition in their opposition to Jesus).

2471

E.g., Tabor, «Messiah.»

2472

Vermes, Religion, 211 n. 1; idem, «Forum»; idem, «Messiah Text»; Bockmuehl, «Messiah»; Abegg, «Hope»; Martone, «Testo»; Abegg, «Introduction to 4Q285»; Evans, «Messianism,» 703. Collins, «Servant,» doubts that 4Q541 (on a suffering sage/priest) is messianic.

2473

        Tg. Ps.-J. identifies the servant with the messiah but transfers the sufferings to Israel (Bruce, Books, 145). Even in the mid-second century, Tryphós acquiescence to the suffering Messiah in Justin Dia1. 39 sounds somewhat suspicious (see Higgins, «Belief,» 304).

2474

Sanders, Judaism, 279–303.

2475

E.g., Mack, Lost Gospel, 4–5.

2476

Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:594–601.

2477

Marshall, Origins, 54–56; Witherington, Christology, 272–73.

2478

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 234.

2479

Ibid., 321–22. Jesus» execution as a royal pretender leads many scholars to this conclusion (e.g., Witherington, Christology, 104,116; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 173–87).

2480

Sanders, Figure, 242, suggests that Jesus» view of his royalty may not have been that he was a messiah, but rather that he was God's eschatological viceroy.

2481

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 307. The same conclusion is argued from a variety of data; cf., e.g., Chilton, «Announcement,» 168.

2482

Brown, Death, 473–80; cf. Marshall, Origins, 89–90.

2483

Founders of most ancient schools provided for their perpetuity (see Culpepper, School, 123; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 20–22), and the same would naturally be true for Jesus (see Flusser, Judaism, 35). While Jesus» apocalyptic orientation could be cited against his intention for a continuing movement, his choice of twelve favors his plan for such (Borg, Conflict, 70; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 104).

2484

Klein, «Messianism,» 201, relates Jesus to the priestly and royal messiahs at Qumran, but we argue here from analogy only that messianic concepts were gradually adapted to the communities and social situations they addressed.

2485

See Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 87; cf. Augustine Tract. Ev. Jo. 113. Times can dictate discretion; a pagan who claimed his teacher divine had to be very discreet when Christian emperors were in power (Eunapius Lives 461). Observations about the Messianic Secret are hardly new; John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 3 recognizes the Messianic Secret and thinks it was the model for Paul's missions strategy in Acts 17:31.

2486

See, e.g., Isocrates Nic. 46, Or. 3.36; Plutarch Praising 15, Mor. 544D; Quintilian 11.1.17–19; Lyons, Autobiography, 44–45,68–69. On the relevance of avoiding self-boasting to Jesus» mission, see also Neyrey, «Shame of Cross,» 127; Keener, Matthew, 262.

2487

See Witherington, Christology, 265–67. For documentation on various reasons for the «Messianic Secret,» see Keener, Matthew, 261–63.

2488

See full documentation in Keener, Matthew, 378–79; also Eunapius Lives 371–372,468. Suspense was a rhetorical technique (e.g., Cicero Verr. 2.5.5.10–11), possibly relevant to the literary presentation of the secret, though not centra1.

2489

Outside the LXX, Diaspora Judaism rarely used the term, however; even Sib. Or. 2.45 is a Christian interpolation. The most obvious exception would be disputes about «Chrestus» in Rome cited by Suetonius (see above on Gentile backgrounds), but if this refers to Jesus, the title could have been introduced mainly by Christians.

2490

Meeks, Christians, 94; Hooker, Message, 13,65; Ladd, Criticism, 96.

2491

Morris, Romans, 37.

2492

Ladd, Theology, 140–41.

2493

See, e.g., Herlong, «Covenant»; Boismard, Moïse; Glasson, Moses; Teeple, Prophet. Ezra likewise parallels Moses in 4 Ezra (see Knowles, «Moses»).

2494

On the related but distinct portrayal of God as «Father» in ancient Mediterranean sources, see Keener, Matthew, 216–18.

2495

Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 207.

2496

See Jeremias, Prayers, 29–31; idem, Theology, 62, for a breakdown of Jesus» uses of «Father» in various Gospel traditions.

2497

Cf., e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.6–11; 2.8.10–11; 2.19.26–28; Plutarch Pompey 27.3; Plotinus On Virtues, Enn. 1.2.7; Ovid Metam. 8.723–724; cf. Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.232.

2498

E.g., Euripides Andr. 1253–1258; Herodotus Hist. 1.65–66; Cicero Tusc. 1.12.28; 2.7.17; Nat. d. 2.24.62; 3.15.39; Virgil Aen. 7.210–211; Lucan C.W. 9.15–18, 564; Plutarch Lycurgus 5.3; Ovid Metam. 9.16–17. Greek veneration of departed heroes may have begun in the eighth century b.C.E. (Antonaccio, «Hero Cult»).

2499

E.g., Cicero Leg. 3.1.1; Plutarch Profit by Enemies 8, Mor. 90C; Apol1. 36, Mor. 120D; Longinus Subi 4.5; Diogenes Laertius 2.100; 6.2.63; 6.9.104; 8.1.11; 9.7.39.

2500

E.g., Homer II. 2.407; 7.47; 13.295, 802; Od. 3.110; 17.3, 54, 391; 19.456; 20.369; 21.244; cf. also Sophocles Oed. tyr. 298.

2501

E.g., Homer Il. 2.512; see esp. Heracles (Epictetus Diatr. 3.26.31; Grant, Gods, 68–69).

2502

E.g., Homer Il. 4.489; 16.49, 126, 707; Od. 10.456 (MSS), 488, 504; 11.60, 92, 405, 473, 617; 13.375; 14.486; 16.167; 18.312; 22.164; 23.305; 24.542. For divinity in this figurative sense, Aeschylus Supp1. 980–982.

2503

E.g., Homer Il. 4.358.

2504

Homer I1. 17.34,238,685,702; 21.75; 23.581; 24.553,635,803; Od. 4.26,44,63,138,156,235, 291, 316, 391, 561; 5.378; 10.266,419; 15.64, 87,155, 167, 199; 24.122. The title was often bestowed cheaply (Od. 22.136), but sometimes applied to a deity (I1. 21.223).

2505

Ramsay, Cities, 143.

2506

Hengel, Son of God, 25. Cf. Dionysus in Euripides Bacch. 417.

2507

Smith, Magician, 101; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 6,168–69. Smith's thesis (which may reflect a particular theological bias, as Neusner [New Testament, 5, 173; «Foreword,» xxvii] suggests) would bear more weight were there not so many other uses of the term with significantly better claims. Cf. Diogenes Laertius 8.2.62: Empedocles» healing powers revealed that he was an immortal god.

2508

Blackburn, «ΑΝΔΡΕΣ,» 189; see further on the «divine man,» pp. 268–72, above.

2509

Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.6; cf. Diogenes Laertius 6.2.77, of Diogenes. Blackburn, «ΑΝΔΡΕΣ,» 189 provides a list of Greek men thought to be gods.

2510

E.g., Virgil Aen. 6.792; C7L 11.365; IGRR 3.137; ILS 84; 8781; OGIS 532; SEG 11.923; and other inscriptions in Sherk, Empire, 5, 7, 11, 13, 20, 31, 57–59; inscription in Deissmann, Light, 346–47.

2511

E.g., inscription in Sherk, Empire, 115 (IG II-2, 3277); inscription in Deissmann, Light, 347; cf. the sarcasm in Sib. Or. 5.140.

2512

E.g., inscription in Sherk, Empire, 200 (OGIS 701).

2513

Cf. the popular Germanicus, Se1. Pap. 2.76–77, lines 1–2, 31–32 (19 C.E.).

2514

Arrian Alex. 7.29.3; Diodorus Siculus 17.51.1–2; Dio Chrysostom Or. 32.95; Alexander 15 in Plutarch S.K., Mor. 180D (the Loeb note and Aune, Prophecy, 69, also cite Plutarch Alex. 27.5–11); Plutarch Alex. 2.2–3.2; 28.1 (though Plutarch thinks Alexander allowed the belief only as a political tool, 28.3); also known by Egyptian Jewry in the centuries immediately surrounding the birth of Christianity (Sib. Or. 5.7; 11.197–198; 12.7); for the Persian king, see Aeschylus Persians 157.

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. Tacan. 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).

2537

The double citation reflects two methods of enumerating verses in Joseph and Aseneth; where there is a difference, I consistently use the enumeration of OTP first and that of my Greek manuscript second.

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).

2539

Longenecker, Exegesis, 141–45.

2540

See Riesenfeld, Tradition, 76; Dunn, Baptism, 30; Albright and Mann, Matthew, 36; Teeple, Prophet, 75–76; Meier, Vision, 59–60; Gundry, Matthew, 53.

2541

So also Hengel, Son, 24, on Greek usage.

2542

Hooker, Preface, 55–65, sees this sense rather than messiahship in Paul, but the options are not mutually exclusive (cf. Rom 1:4).

2543

See Harvey, Jesus, 172–73.

2544

Cullmann, Christology, 275; Martin, Mark, 106.

2545

Dahood, Psalms, 11–12; cf. De Vaux, Israel, 109; Harrelson, Cult, 86–87.

2546

See Bright, History, 225.

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.

2551

Collins, «Son of God»; Evans, «4Q246» (noting also the close parallels with Luke 1:33–35). Fitzmyer, «4Q246,» applies it positively to a coming ruler, but not in a messianic sense.

2552

Fabry, «Texte»; Cook, «4Q246.»

2553

Cf. Bons, «Psaume 2.» Pss. So1. 17uses Ps 2in a messianic passage, although «son» (2:7) is not mentioned. Gero, «Messiah,» finds «son of God» in 4 Ezra (cf. also 13:37, 52); more scholars think the Greek behind the passage reads «servant» (Jeremias, Parables, 73 n. 86); the Ethiopie, an Arabic version, and the Armenian omit «Son» (OTP 1:537, note e).

2554

Longenecker, Christology, 93.

2555

See Hengel, Son, 63.

2556

Jeremias, Prayers, 57 (followed by, e.g., Martin, Worship, 34–35; Bruce, Books, 56; cf. Hunter, Predecessors, 50) has overstated the case for the titlés uniqueness, but his detractors on the issue have focused on exceptions rather than the preponderance of evidence (e.g., Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 210–13; a rare analogy hardly constitutes proof of vocative appellation).

2557

Kingsbury, Structure, 40–83, sees «Son of God» as Matthew's primary christological title; Hill, «Son,» challenges this centrality of the title.

2558

The rabbis opposed any idea that the messiah was deity; see Bonsirven, Judaism, 190 (citing esp. b. Sanh. 38b; Justin Dia1. 49:1; 50:1); cf. the late Midr. Pss. 21, §2.

2559

Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 72.

2560

Cf. Coppens, «Logia.»

2561

John infuses the expression with greater significance than it previously held (Howton, «Son,» 237).

2562

By the time of R. Abbahu in third-century Palestine (or the later editor of the document), the Christian identification of «God's son» with deity had become widespread enough to warrant a response (Exod. Rab. 29:5).

2563

Cf. later Irenaeus Haer. 1.1.3; 2.6, for Valentinian gnostics who call Jesus «savior» but not «lord.»

2564

Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 128; Conzelmann, Theology, 82–84.

2565

Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT, 82.

2566

E.g., T. Mos. 4:2. Cf. also Plutarch Isis 2, Mor. 352A, who applies this title to the universal God.

2567

        Sipre Deut. 26.5.1; Gen. Rab. 12:15; 33:3; 73:3; Exod. Rab. 3:7; 6:1, 3; Num. Rab. 9:18.

2568

See Schweizer, Jesus, 72.

2569

Applied even to a relative of higher rank, e.g., P.Oxy. 1231,26; Select Papyri 1:338–39, lines 1, 24; P.Giess. bib1. 21.11.

2570

Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 114–15; he notes evidence for the title applied to teachers on 114–20. For the vocative, see also Γ. Job 3:5; for the title of a legal guardian (or perhaps a freedwoman's patron), CP/2:20–22, §148 (Egypt, 10 b.C.e.).

2571

Fee, Corinthians, 839.

2572

Ladd, Theology, 416–17. See further Longenecker, Christology, 136.

2573

Dibelius, Tradition, 96, emphasizes the gradual «disappearance of the boundaries between God and the God-sent man» in Hellenistic religious history in genera1. Arguing against this, Croy, «Neo-Pythagoreanism,» 741, thinks that hellenized Judaism resisted the blending of human and divine; yet this too may overstate the case (see below).

2574

By the second century Jesus» deity was widely affirmed by Christians (see Ign. Rom. 3; Eph. 7; Justin Dia1. 68:9; Athenagoras 24; perhaps 1 En. 48:5; etc.). Contrast «Ebionites,» Irenaeus Haer. 3.19; 5.1.3; cf. Kaye, Apology, 54; Chadwick, «Defence,» 287.

2575

E.g., Heracles (Cicero Tusc. 1.12.28; 2.7.17; cf. Nat. d. 2.24.62; 3.15.39); Apollonius (probably third- or fourth-century inscription; see Jones, «Epigram»; a demigod in Eunapius Lives 454). This also applied to divine lawgivers like Lycurgus (Herodotus Hist. 1.65–66; Plutarch Lycurgus 5.3) and occasional other mortals (Pausanias 8.9.6–8; 9.22.7). On the deification of heroes, cf. Nock, Paul, 96 (Heracles, the Dioscurai, Dionysus, and Asclepius); Hadas and Smith, Heroes. One may compare esp. the popular Asclepius, a former mortal who now cures diseases (cf. Pausanias 6 [Elis 2].l 1.9).

2576

E.g., Democritus (Diogenes Laertius 9.7.39); Pythagoras (Diogenes Laertius 8.1.11); «the divine Plato» (Cicero Opt. gen. 6.17; Leg. 3.1.1; Nat. d. 2.12.32; Plutarch Profit by Enemies 8, Mor. 90C; Apol1. 36, Mor. 120D; Philostostratus Epistulae 73, §13; cf. patristic sources in Grant, Gods, 63–64); Theodorus (Diogenes Laertius 2.100). People could be divinized by philosophy (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 48.11; Marcus Aurelius 4.16); philosophy's goal, virtue (Seneca Dia1. 1.1.5; Epictetus Diatr. 2.19.26–28; Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 3.18,29; 8.5; Plotinus On Virtues 1.2.7; cf. also Koester, Introduction, 1:353); proper knowledge of onés humanity (Plutarch Pompey 27.3); faithfulness (Sent. Sext. 7ab, a Hellenistic Christian source); or, in some systems, death (Cicero Leg. 2.9.22; 2.22.55). See Alexander, «Ipse dixit,» 109–10.

2577

Also Egyptian deification of Pharaohs (e.g., Bright, History, 38).

2578

Perhaps as early as Philip of Macedon (Diodorus Siculus 16.95.1). Philosophers such as Diogenes the Cynic could mock this practice (Diogenes Laertius 6.2.63; cf. 6.9.104). On divine rulers, see our discussion of emperor worship above under Judaism: relations with the provincial administration. Although divinization is alleged to occur in some other groups» initiations (Eliade, Rites, 71), the common view that it occurred in mystery cults in the NT period (e.g., Reitzenstein, Religions, 70,200; Angus, Religions, 108; Avi-Yonah, Hellenism, 42; Tarn, Civilisation, 354–55) has come under challenge in recent years (see Ferguson, Backgrounds, 239); it is clear, however, in the Hermetica (Reitzenstein, Religions, 70–71; Conzelmann, Theology, 11; Wikenhauser, Mysticism, 179; Ladd, Theology, 260–61) and other gnosticizing (Ménard, «Self-Definition,» 149; Jonas, Religion, 44–45) and later Christian sources (Tatian 7; Taylor, Atonement, 206, cites Irenaeus Haer. preface; Athanasius De Incarnatione 54.3).

2579

Cf. Plato Rep. 10, 61 IDE; Cicero Parad. 14; Resp. 6.24.26 (Scipiós dream); Tusc. 1.24.56–26.65; Div. 1.37.80 (citing a Stoic); Seneca Ep. Luci1. 32.11; Epictetus Diatr. 1.1; 1.9.6–11, 22; 1.14.6; 1.12; 1.17.27; 2.8.10–11; (Ps?)-Plutarch Moon 28, Mor. 943A; Marcus Aurelius 2.13,17; 3.5, 6, 12, 16.2; 5.10.2; 5.27; 12.26. For a historical survey of divinization of humans, cf. Koester, «Being.»

2580

Philo Moses 1.279; Josephus War 3.372 (Urbach, Sages, 1:222); Tabor, «Divinity»; postmortem deification in T. Adam 3:2–3 (possibly Christian material); at the resurrection in Ps.-Phoc. 104; cf. immortality or divine character in Jos. Asen. 16.16; L.A.E. 14.2–3; Pr. Jos. 19; p. Sukkah 4:3, §5.

2581

Holladay, Theios Aner, 236; see Philo Virtues 172. Cf. Lycomedes» use of the term for a benefactor (an apostle) while acknowledging only the true God (Acts John 27).

2582

        Apoc. Mos. 18.3; cf. Gen 11:4; Exod 20:3–5; Isa 14:14; Jub. 10:20; Exod. Rab. 8:2.

2583

E.g., Dio Cassius 51.20.6–8. Greek marketplaces also included imperial temples (Pausanias 3.11.5) and sanctuaries for other deities could include imperial statues (Pausanias 1.40.1).

2584

Cf. Longenecker, Christology, 140.

2585

Cf. Moses in the probably Hellenistic Jewish long version of Orphica 25–41 (though missing in the short version); Aristobulus frg. 4 (in Eusebius Praep. ev. 13.13.5); cf. the exalted role of Melchizedek in some circles, e.g., 11Q13 2.10 (using Ps 82:1); perhaps a divine king appears in 4Q491C 11 1.18 (but probably it is meant in a relative sense). Although our best evidence for this is later, Simon, Sects, 94–95, argues that some strands of first-century Judaism also hypostatized divine attributes as distinct. On Jewish monotheism in this period, see esp. Hurtado, One God; cf. also Wright, People of God, 248–59; Ashton, Understanding, 159.

2586

See Hayman, «Monotheism,» though he probably overstates the case for the pervasiveness of dualistic monotheism. Cf. Fauth, «Metatron»; Abrams, «Boundaries»; Alexander, «3 Enoch,» 235.

2587

With Bauckham, God Crucified, 2–4,27–28, who believes Jesus in early Christian texts functions like Wisdom, being within the unique divine identity (26–42).

2588

Pritz, Jewish Christianity, 110; Flusser, Judaism, 620, 624. Barrett, John and Judaism, 48–49, thinks rabbinic teaching on God's unity reflects some polemic against Christianity.

2589

See, e.g., Albright, Stone Age, 304; Johnson, Possessions, 45.

2590

For detailed argument, see most fully Bauckham, God Crucified, 2–15,26–42; cf. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 35; Wright, Paul, 63–72.

2591

Moore, Judaism, 1:437. Even later Judaism, however, regarded Gentile (as opposed to Jewish) adherence to Trinitarian views as Shittuf (partnership) rather than idolatry (cf. Falk, Jesus, 33–35; Borowitz, Christologies, 32; Berger and Wyschogrod, Jews, 33; Schoeps, Argument, 16–17).

2592

        Judaism, 620.

2593

See comment on 1:1–18; further, e.g., Dunn, «John,» 314–16, who finds it pervasive throughout the Gospe1.

2594

Paul modifies Hellenistic (see Nock, Christianity, 34; Koester, Introduction, 1:162; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 145)–both Stoic (Moffatt, Corinthians, 106; Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 130; Meeks, Christians, 91) and Platonic (cf. Grant, Gods, 48; Horsley, «Formula»)–and Hellenistic Jewish (Lohse, Colossians, 50; cf. Sib. Or. 3.277–278; Grant, Gods, 84–85) language here; his wording probably represents esp. an adaptation of the Shema (Goppelt, Theology, 2:83; Hering, 1Corinthians, 69; Bruce, Corinthians, 80), pervasive use of which is attested early, e.g., the Nash Papyrus (second century B.C.E.); m. Ber. 2:5.

2595

Some have seen elements of an Adam Christology (e.g., Martin, Carmen Christi, 116–18; idem, "Morphë»; Hunter, Predecessors, 43; Johnston, Ephesians, 41; Beare, Philippians, 80; Ridderbos, Paul, 74; Furness, «Hymn»); others have denied it (Glasson, «Notes,» 137–39; Wanamaker, «Philippians»; Bornkamm, Experience, 114) or held that Paul revised an earlier Adam Christology (Barrett, Adam, 71). Regardless of possible allusions to Adam as God's image (e.g., Philo Creation 69; 4 Ezra 8:44; 9:13; L.A.E. 37:3; 39:3; Apoc. Mos. 10:3; 12:2; 33:5; m. Sanh. 4:5; h. Sanh. 38a, bar.; Gen. Rab. 8:10; Ecc1. Rab. 6:10, §1), Wisdom was God's image in the ultimate sense (Wis 7:26; Philo Planting 18; Confusion 97; 147; Heir 230; Flight 101; Dreams 1.239; 2.45; Spec. Laws 1.81), which this text distinguishes from the human sense (Phil 2:7–8), especially in presenting Jesus» divinity (cf. Phil 2:10–11 with Isa 45:23). Paul here assumes Christ's préexistence (Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 156–68; against Talbert, «Problem»); on other christological hymns stressing Christ's préexistence, see Martin, Carmen Christi, 19.

2596

This passage is frequently regarded as hymnic (e.g., Schweizer, Colossians, 63; Lohse, Colossians, 41; Beasley-Murray, «Colossians,» 170; Martin, «Hymn»; Schweizer, «Christ in Colossians»; Pöhlmann, «All-Prädikationen»; McCown, «Structure»; Gibbs, Creation, 95; Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 168–69; cf. ÓBrien, Colossians, 40–42, who accepts it as a hymn but thinks it may be Pauline) and as containing wisdom traditions (Bandstra, «Errorists,» 332; Johnston, Ephe-sians, 58; May, «Logos,» 446; Manns, «Midrash»; Kennedy, Epistles, 156–57; Longenecker, Christology, 145; Moule, Birth, 167; Glasson, «Colossians»).

2597

Although 1Cor 8may represent the Corinthian position (Willis, Meat, 84–87, 95), Paul himself clearly accepts Wisdom Christology (1Cor 1:30; cf. Willis, Meat, 96; Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 130).

2598

Cf. Sir 24:19; 51:23–28; Meier, Matthew, 127; cf. Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 68; Stein, Method, 3; on Sir 51, contrast Stanton, «Salvation»; cf. Gundry, Matthew, 220. Multiple points of contact likely suggest that Sir 51 is in view, though by itself this could support a sage Christology and not just a Wisdom Christology.

2599

Brown, Community, 45–46.

2600

Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, 117ff.; and Wright, People of God, 362, defend the antiquity of the cosmic Christ doctrine. Wisdom Christology may stem from Jesus himself (see Harris, Prologue, 62; Witherington, Sage, 201–8).

2601

Ellis, «Christology,» 16. Longenecker, Wine, 112, argues that John's Christology is not necessarily «higher» than the Synoptics; rather, he spells out «the conclusion to which the other three evangelists, each in his own way, were pointing.»

2602

1 would argue that, if anything, Mark tones down the divine Christ for the genre of philosophic-type biography, to appeal to a Hellenistic audience, rather than that the divine Christology in John reflects a late and Hellenistic theology!

2603

Keener, Matthew, 16–36, 53–67.

2604

Cf. similarly Wright, People of God, 106.

2605

See the commentary on John 1:1–2; 8:58.

2606

Although the narrative technique inclusio generally only framed paragraphs, it could also frame books; one may compare the assembly setting near the beginning and end of Chariton s nove1.

2607

Paul certainly agrees with it even if this text represents a pre-Pauline formula, as many scholars think. Some have argued that its language is wholly Pauline (e.g., Lupieri, «Morte»), but most see it as at least partly pre-Pauline (e.g., Hunter, Predecessors, 42); for a survey of views on the passage, see Martin, Carmen Christi. Paul's whole illustration in Phil 2:1–11 hinges on the kenosis there, as does some of his argument in the context (Lincoln, Paradise, 88; Boyer, «Étude»).

2608

Cf. the parallel construction in 1:25; see Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 233–38; Fahy, «Note»; Cullmann, Christology, 313; Cranfield, Romans, 2:467–68; Longenecker, Christology, 138; Ladd, Theology, 421. Those who dissent, noting that this is not Paul's usual terminology, nevertheless concur that a doxology to Christ as «God» remains the most likely interpretation of the grammar (Hunter, Romans, 90; idem, Paul, 62–63).

2609

See Lightfoot, Notes, 106; Longenecker, Christology, 138–39; Bultmann, Theology, 1:129; but cf. Bruce, Thessalonians, 156–57.

2610

On Tit 2:13, see Lock, Epistles, 144–45; Harris, «Deity,» 271; Cullmann, Christology, 313; Longenecker, Christology, 138; Bultmann, Theology, 1:129; cf. also 2Pet 1:1. Greek-speaking Judaism typically extolled the «great» God (see Tob 13:15; 2Macc 3:36; 3Macc 7:2,23; cf. 1 En. 1:3; Epictetus Diatr. 1.16.16–17), esp. in Sib. Or. (1.165,268,282,316,323; 2.27,219; 3.56,71,91,97,162,194,246, 284, 297, 306, 556–557, 565, 575, 584,656–657,665, 671, 687,698, 702, 717, 735, 740, 773, 781, 784, 818; 4.6,25, 163; 5.176, 405). For the «Granville Sharp Rule» applicable here, see Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 144–45, §276, 228, §442; Dana and Mantey, Grammar, 147.

2611

Nock, Christianity, 32–33; Hengel, Son, 77; Ladd, Theology, 416; Longenecker, Christology, 132; idem, Ministry, 97; Bruce, Acts (English), 74; although this title becomes more prominent in Diaspora usage (cf. Schweizer, Jesus, 72; Bultmann, Theology 1:124; Conzelmann, Theology, 82–83), there is no extant stratum of earliest Christianity that completely excludes it. The supposed connection with the Mysteries (cf. Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 128) is weak (Hengel, Son, 77–78; Sheldon, Mysteries, 87–90).

2612

Hengel, Acts, 105; Longenecker, Christology, 121–24; Fee, Corinthians, 839; Ladd, Criticism, 210. Some regard the original meaning of the term as ambiguous (Simon, Stephen, 66; cf. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 114–20), but a use in early Christian liturgy (eschatological, eucharistie, or both, e.g., Robinson, Studies, 154–57; idem, Coming, 26–27; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 300–301; Cullmann, Christology, 201–2; Hunter, Paul, 65; cf. Did. 10) would constitute a divine invocation (Fee, Corinthians, 838–39; Ladd, Theology, 341, 416–17; for divine usage elsewhere, cf. Marmorstein, Names, 62–63; Betz, Jesus, 108; Bruce, Paul, 117).

2613

Glasson, Advent, 161–79; followed also by Robinson, Coming, 140–41.

2614

Reim, «Jesus as God,» goes too far in seeing a shared background between the Christology of John and that of Hebrews in Ps 45:7–8. For Jesus» deity in Revelation, where it is emphasized perhaps even more than in the Fourth Gospel, see my discussion in Keener, Revelation, 42.

2615

Cf. McGrath, Apologetic Christology (much was pre-Johannine but developed in the polemical setting).

2616

For these categories, see above on signs. Mark's signs may have an aretalogical function (Theissen, Stories, 212), and are certainly positive (Kümmel, Introduction, 93; Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 105; Kingsbury, Christology, 76; Vander Broek, «Sitz,» 131–89; against Weeden, Mark, 52–69), but as in John and Acts, peoplés response is varied.

2617

E.g., Manson, Servant-Messiah, 72–73; Longenecker, Christology, 82–92. Although some views of the Son of Man reject its eschatological sense because the phrase could bear a non-eschatological sense (e.g., Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 160–91; Leivestad, «Exit,» 266–67; cf. Cullmann, Christology, 138; contrast Lindars, «Re-Enter»), most scholars recognize a specific eschatological title, whether from an interpretation of Daniel or from the Similitudes of Enoch (Burkitt, Sources, 66–68; Tödt, Son of Man; Ladd, Theology, 145–58; Boccaccini, Judaism, 219; Brown, Death, 509–14). Scholars still dispute whether the Similitudes are Christian (e.g., Agouridis, «Son of Man») or earlier (e.g., Thompson, «Son of Man»); they could prove irrelevant in either case (see Casey, «Son of Man»; Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT, 18, 88–89; compare Knibb and Isaac in their renderings of J En. 71:14).

2618

        Barrett, Essays, 48.

2619

See below. It could not derive from gnosticism (see Schnackenburg, John, 1:529–42; Bordiert, John, 150).

2620

Holwerda, Spirit, 12–13. Cf. Borgens connection with Philós «Man after God's image» (Confusion 146; Alleg. Interp. I A3; Borgen, «Agent,» 146).

2621

Witherington, Christology, 242.

2622

Although an Essene text, the Prayer ofNabonidus, has an exorcist «forgive» sins, our general lack of evidence for such locution suggests that this was not the customary expression. «Blaspheme» undoubtedly appears here in its broader sense (cf. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 58–60).

2623

They might have heard the phrase simply as «man» (Montefiore, Gospels, 1:44, on Mark 2:28; contrast Kümmel, Promise, 46 n. 93; cf. Higgins, Son of Man, 26–30). The ambiguity is probably intentional (see Kingsbury, Christology, 97, 157–79).

2624

Also Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 62.

2625

Montefiore, Gospels, 1:44, cited above.

2626

The Messianic Secret ends here (Perrin, «Question,» 81–82; Hooker, Message, 58–59), in what is generally regarded as a conflation of Dan 7and Ps 110(e.g., Dodd, Parables, 91; Ellis, «Uses,» 203). Again Mark applies «blasphemy» in the general sense; the status of Son of Man in Dan 7 was exalted, but would not be identified with a claim to deity (cf. Pace, «Stratigraphy»).

2627

Higgins, Son of Man, 53,118, 193; Borg, Vision, 14; Borg, Conflict, 221–27. Boring, Sayings, 239–50, sees it as the product of Christian prophecy, without producing actual evidence (contrast Hill, Prophecy, 183); some note that it appears only on Jesus» lips, but nevertheless assign it to the redactional level, again with unconvincing explanation (Donahue, Christ, 184).

2628

See Jeremias, Theology, 260–76; Kümmel, Theology, 106; Gerhardsson, Origins, 57; Riesenfeld, «Background,» 94–95; Marshall, «Son of Man»; idem, Origins, 63–82; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:43–50; Witherington, Christology, 233–62; idem, End, 170; Keener, Spirit, 54.

2629

Both aspects of Jesus» Son of Man sayings «do make sense against the background of Dan. 7» (Stanton, Jesus, 160–61), and Jesus explicitly cites this text in the Synoptic tradition (Mark 13:26; 14:62; at least the essential reliability of the substance of the former passage is confirmed by Pauline use of the same traditions in 1 Thess).

2630

See on agency below. Note the argument of Margaret Pamment that John's Son of Man maintains Daniel's sense of a representative of the saints in the context («Son of Man in Fourth Gospel»; cf. idem, «Son of Man in First Gospel,» 126–27; Dodd, Interpretation, 248). While John might mean «human one» (cf. 19:5), he does not seem to develop «Son of Man» in a distinctively Johannine manner.

2631

        Gezerah sheva was a common interpretive device in Tannaitic (e.g., Mek. Pisha 5.103; Nez. 10.15–16, 26, 38; 17.17 [Lauterbach 1:41; 3:75–77,130]) and Amoraic (e.g., b. Ber. 9a; 35a; B. Qam. 25b; Git. 49a; Ker. 5a; Qidd. 15a; 35b; Menah. 76a; Naz. 48a; Nid. 22b-23a; RoS Hal 3b; 34a; Sanh. 40b; 51b; 52a; Šabb. 64a; Tern. 16a; Zebah. 18a; 49b-50b; Exod. Rab. 1:20) texts; the use of one authoritative text to interpret another also appears elsewhere (e.g., CD 7.15–20).

2632

Not a characteristic Markan title (Kingsbury, Christology, 110–11, though it probably means more when it does occur than Kingsbury suggests).

2633

«Not A but B» was a typically Jewish didactic manner of implying, «Not only A but Β as well»; similar antimony is used here (Jeremias, Theology, 259; cf. Moule, Mark, 99; Argyle, Matthew, 170; against Grant, Gospel, 193).

2634

Besides Hegesippus's witness to a Palestinian tradition about Jesus» relatives (Eusebius Hist, ecc1. 3.19; 3.20.1–6; 32.3–6; cf. Julius Africanus To Aristides, cited by Jeremias, Jerusalem, 291), Jesus» Davidic descent constitutes the unanimous witness of Paul (Rom 1:3–4) and later NT writers, and, despite the polemical situation, is never challenged by Jewish opponents in extant records. By contrast, arguments for Hillel's Davidic descent first clearly appear ca. 200 C.E. (Safrai, «Self-Government,» 411–12; Stern, «Aspects,» 617), although a third-century scholar cited a genealogical scroll in Jerusalem (Gen. Rab. 98:8). Before 70 Jerusalem contained genealogical records for priests (1 Esd 5:39–40; Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.36; cf. t. Hag. 2:9; Sanh. 7:1; p. Ketub. 1:9, §1); scholars differ over the existence of other precise genealogies (Johnson, Genealogies, 99–108; contrast Jeremias, Jerusalem, 181; Stauffer, Jesus, 14), but the ability to establish onés purity of lineage was essential (p. Ter. 7:1; cf. Johnson, Genealogies, 88–95), and Davidic ancestry would not be easily forgotten.

2635

Gentile Christians, unfamiliar with the Jewish style of argument noted above, would hardly have created a pericope which to them could have called into question Jesus» Davidic origin (even Matthew, writing for Jewish readers, sought to guard the saying from misinterpretation; see Gundry, Matthew, 451).

2636

Lane, Mark, 236, cites for «passing by» only Exod 33:19,22; 1 Kgs 19:11; and Job 9:8,11.

2637

Conjoined with the oft-recognized probable allusion to Christ's deity in the «I am» of Mark 6(Lane, Mark, 237–38; Hurtado, Mark, 91; cf. Argyle, Matthew, 115; Ellis, Genius, 110–11; Appold, Motif, 82), this allusion is very likely. But «I am» in Mark 13may simply mean «I am [messiah]» (Reim, Studien, 261 η. 20).

2638

Given the two Lords of Ps 110, Peter argues, on which «Lord» should one call (Juel, «Dimensions,» 544–45; see Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 22; Knowling, «Acts,» 81; Ladd, Church, 50–51; idem, Theology, 338–41). That 2concludes an exposition of 2is clear from the fact that 2picks up the rest of the Joel passage where Peter left off in 2(the allusion is noted, e.g., by Zehnle, Discourse, 34; Dupont, Salvation, 22; Haenchen, Acts, 184 n. 5).

2639

See Abrahams, Studies, 1:45; De Ridder, Discipling, 107, for evidence that Jewish proselyte baptism could occasionally be described as «in God's name»; cf. Longenecker, Christology, 42–46, 127–28; Urbach, Sages, 1:124–34, for a discussion of the «name.»

2640

For divine language, cf., e.g., Danker, «God With Us» (though it is not necessarily «Hellenistic»). Cf. the emphasis on Jesus» deity in Heb (1:8), also probably in ethnically Jewish (albeit very hellenized) circles. Longenecker, Christology, 139, also notes that the most strictly Jewish circles in early Christianity most emphasized Jesus» deity.

2641

See examples in Smith, Parallels, 152–54 (m. "Abot 3to Matt 18:20; Sipra on 25to Matt 10:25; Mekilta on 15and Matt 13/ Luke 10:24; Mekilta on 18and Matt 10:40; Midrash Tannaim 15to Matt 25:35,40).

2642

For Wisdom Christology in Matthew, see Witherington, Sage, 339–40; Deutsch, «Wisdom.»

2643

E.g., Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, 102; cf. T. Sol 6for what is probably the earliest extant non-Christian exegesis of this Matthean text or of its subsequent use.

2644

The language likely echoes Dan 7:13–14 (Meier, Matthew, 369; Ellis, Matthew, 22; Schaberg, Father, 335–36).

2645

As in Did. 7.1–3; Odes So1. 23:22. Various analyses recognize Matthew's emphasis here on Jesus» centrality and authority (e.g., Meier, Matthew, 371; Brooks, «Design»; Schaberg, Father, 336–37 [emphasizing Jesus as the supreme teacher, not the Trinity]; Parkhurst, «Reconsidered» [connecting Jesus» words here with the worship of 28:17]). On the possible antiquity of the tradition, see Albright and Mann, Matthew, 362.

2646

For the connection among Matt 1:23; 18:20; and 28:20, see Kingsbury, Structure, 69; Ellis, Matthew, 28; Gundry, Matthew, 597.

2647

Matthew's formula echoes the Jewish formula in later recorded in m. «Abot 3:2,6; Mek. Bah. 11.48–51 (Lauterbach 2:287); other texts also emphasized God's presence among his people (e.g., Mek. Pisha 14.87,100–101, Lauterbach 1:113–14). God was commonly called «the Omnipresent» (t. Sotah 3–4 has it roughly twenty-four times; cf. also m. »Abot 2:9,13; 3:14; t. Péah 1:4; 3:8; Šabb. 7:22, 25; 13:5; Roš Haš. 1:18; Tacan. 2:13; B. Qam. 7:7; Sanh. 1:2; 13:1,6; 14:3,10; Sipra VDDen.pq. 2.2.4.2; pq. 4.6.4.1; Sav M.D. par. 98.7.7; Sh. M.D. 99.1.4, 5, 7; 99.2.2, 3; 99.3.9, 11; 99.5.13; Qed. Par. 1.195.2.3; pq. 7.204.1.4; Emor pq. 9.227.2.5; Behuq. pq. 5.266.1.1; 8.269.1.3; Sipre Num. 11.2.3; 11.3.1; 42.1.2; 42.2.3; 76.2.2; 78.1.1; 78.5.1; 80.1.1; 82.3.1; 84.1.1; 84.5.1; 85.3.1; 85.4.1; 85.5.1; and other references listed in Keener, Marries, 150 n. 27). See, e.g., Smith, Parallels, 152.

2648

For Matthean Christology, see esp. Kingsbury, Structure.

2649

See further Benoit, Jesus, 1:47–70, who argues at length for Jesus» deity in the Synoptics.

2650

See Gospel of the Ebionites frg. 6 (Epiphanius Haer. 30.16.4–5 in NT Apocrypha, ed. Hennecke, 1:158); Daniélou, Theology, 67 (the Elkasites), 117 (the image discontinued in the fourth century because of Arian use). Philo regarded God's angel as the Logos (Names 87; Dreams 1.239).

2651

The parallelism is ascending rather than synonymous; for this comparative figurative use of angels, see 1Sam 29:9; 2Sam 14:17, 20; 19:27; Zech 12:8; perhaps Gal 1(contrast Longenecker, Christology, 26–31).

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. Mesica 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. Mesica 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).

2657

The inclusio of 2:5,16 dominates the section (Lane, Hebrews, 2,44), as a similar inclusio contrasting Christ and angels in 1:5,13 (Lane, Hebrews, 2,24). The writer thus emphasizes Christ's superiority over the agents who mediated the law (cf. 2:1–4; Manson, Hebrews, 50; Hughes, Hebrews, 7–8), but does so at the expense of any angelic Christology, by which his Jewish-Christian readers may have been tempted to make peace with their Jewish opposition (Montefiore, Hebrews, 41–42).

2658

Against those who have disputed the authenticity of the passion predictions in Mark 8:31, 9:31, and 10(e.g., Wrede, Secret, 82–92; Robinson, Problem, 51; cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 15, 358 n. 47), see Jeremias, Theology, 277–86; Stauffer, Jesus, 171–73; Hill, Prophecy, 61; Dodd, Parables, 57 (all pointing to what Jesus could have known simply from his situation and mission); more recently, Keener, Matthew, 431–33; Brown, Death, 1468–91.

2659

Harris, Jesus as God, 282–83. Explicit application of the title to Jesus is at least as early as Paul, although rare in Paul as well (Rom 9:5); it may be earlier (see Harris, Jesus as God, 276–78).

2660

Horsley, Documents, 1:19–20, compares many «I am» statements of one Isis aretalogy with the Fourth Gospe1. Yet these represent a few «I am's» (e.g., «I am the eldest daughter of Kronos .… I am the mother of King Horos») in a long list of Ts» followed by oher verbs; the self-praise may be relevant, but the «I am» form is not centra1.

2661

Bruce, Documents, 59.

2662

Witherington, Christology, 276, citing Brown, «Know,» 77–78.

2663

Readers of Isa 52LXX, which influenced early Christian usage of «good news,» may have envisioned the image of «herald» (though κήρυξ appears in the LXX only at Gen 41:43; 4 Macc 6:4; Sir 20:15; Dan 3:4). Heralds traveled in pairs (Homer I1. 1.320; even when others joined them, as in Homer I1. 9.168–170, the report might employ the dual: Homer I1. 9.182), as in Mark 6:7; Luke 10:1; Acts 13:2.

2664

Cf., e.g., Iliad passim.

2665

Cf. Josephus Ant. 18.1, regarding Quirinius; Ant. 18.265, regarding Petronius; for the Latin equivalent, see Pliny Ep. 10.18.190–191.

2666

Zeno in Diogenes Laertius 7.1.9.

2667

Malherbe, Aspects, 102–3. Moxnes, «Relations,» 260, thus associates Jesus» sending of the Twelve with patrons delegating authority to clients to act on their behalf.

2668

Mylonas, Eleusis, 244. They somewhat resemble some traveling holy men who sought to spread their cults abroad, although the establishment generally viewed these as charlatans (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 42).

2669

Cornutus 16.p. 20,18–19 (in Van der Horst, «Cornutus,» 169).

2670

Epictetus Diatr. 3.22.23.

2671

Epictetus Diatr. 4.8.31, my translation. Adinolfi, «L'invio,» differentiates the sending of Jesus from that of Cynic philosophers in that God was present in Jesus.

2672

Georgi, Opponents, 34; Malan, «Apostolate,» 57–58; against Schmithals, Apostle, 114–92.

2674

See Cohen, law, 295–96 (citing Ulpian Digest 23.1.18); Friedländer, Life, 1:234.

2675

See the traditional Chinese custom in Jochim, Religions, 164; the Shona custom in Gelfand, «Disorders,» 158; and the Wolof and Kiga custom in Mbiti, Religions, 179.

2676

M. Qidd. 2:1.

2677

E.g., b. Qidd. 43a; Exod. Rab. 6(a parable attributed to R. Meir); 6:4.

2678

        Τ Yebam. 4:4.

2679

        B. Git. 23a; Qidd. 43a.

2680

Assumed in the parable in Gen. Rab. 8:3.

2681

CD 11.2 forbids the use of a foreigner to accomplish onés business on the Sabbath (cf. the later Jewish custom of the Sabbath goy); CD 11.18–21 forbids sending an offering to the altar by anyone unclean. «Send» had nontechnical uses as well; God would «send» deliverance by an angel in 1QM 17.6.

2682

Safrai, «Relations,» 205, citing, e.g., Epiphanius Haer. 25.11; Eusebius On Isa. 18:1; Theodosian Code 16.8,14. Cf. Nickle, Collection, 96; on the temple tax, see also Reicke, Era, 288.

2683

2Macc 1:18; Acts 9:2; 22:5; 28:21; cf. 1Macc 15:17; Let. Aris. 32; Safrai, «Relations,» 204–7. The «apostles» of CIJ 1:438, §611 may simply be «messengers of the congregation» in question (439; see m. Ber. 5:5).

2684

Rengstorf, Apostolate, 27. For one comparison of Johannine and rabbinic agency as well as questions of dating, see Friend, «Agency.»

2685

E.g., Dix, Ministry, 228–30; Wanamaker, «Agent»; Witherington, Christology, 133–35; Meier, Matthew, 115; Grayston, Epistles, 125; Hunter, Romans, 24; Héring, 1Corinthians, 1; Ladd, Theology, 381; Ellis, Paul, 30; De Ridder, Dispersion, 124–26; Bruce, History, 184.

2686

E.g., Richardson, Theology, 324; Malan, «Apostolate,» 57 (contending, probably wrongly, that most now reject it; see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:153, who suggest that most rightly connect «apostle» with shaliach).

2687

Ehrhardt, Ministry, 5.

2688

Schmithals, Apostle, 106.

2689

Wilson, Gentiles, 114.

2690

See Foakes Jackson and Lake, «Development,» 327–28; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 54; Richardson, Theology, 285. Many scholars connect the NT church with Israel's qahal (e.g., Cerfaux, Church, 100–105; Barth, People of God, 11–12; Bruce, Books, 84; Meeks, Christians, 79; Ladd, Theology, 109–10). The DSS had already adopted the Hebrew term for their own community (Gaster, Scriptures, 17; Pfeiffer, Scrolls, 50–51).

2691

        Comm. in Ep. ad Ga1. 1.1, cited by Dix, Ministry, 228.

2692

Lightfoot, Galatians, 93–94, citing Epiphanius Haer. 30.

2693

Lake, «Twelve,» 46, finding only Herodotus Hist. 1.21 (cf. 5.38) for the latter usage.

2694

Lake, «Twelve,» 46, the one occasion being 3 Kgdms 14:6.

2695

Lake, «Twelve,» 46, citing Josephus Ant. 17.299–303.

2696

Lake, «Twelve,» 46. Anderson, Mark, 171, thinks it unlikely that Jesus regarded the Twelve as shaliachim, but reasonable that the Jerusalem church saw them in these terms.

2697

Conzelmann, Theology, 45–46; Bultmann, Theology, 2(Bultmann accepting the derivation from the shaliach).

2698

E.g., Käsemann, Romans, 5–6.

2699

Kirk, «Apostleship,» 252.

2700

        B.Ketub. 99b-100a.

2701

B. Gif. 23a; cf. p. Gif. 2:6, §1.

2702

        T. Tacan. 3(trans. Neusner, 2:274); also m. Ber. 5:5; b. Naz. 12b. For the sender's responsibility, see m. Meci1. 6:1; but reportedly pre-Christian tradition in b. Qidd. 43a holds the agent liable even if the sender is liable also.

2703

        P. Git. 1:1, §1. For discussion of how a sender could nullify an agent's task, see p. Git. 4:1, §1; the stricter rule required speaking to the agent (see m. Git. 4:1).

2704

E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 6.88.2; Diodorus Siculus 40.1.1; Josephus Life 65, 72–73, 196–198; 2Macc 1:20. Cf. Zenós dispatch of two fellow scholars in his place in Diogenes Laertius 7.1.9.

2705

Diodorus Siculus 4.10.3–4; Josephus Ant. 8.220–221.

2706

Cf. Euripides Herac1. 272; Xenophon Anab. 5.7.18–19, 34; Apollodorus Epitome 3.28–29: Polybius 15.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 8.43.4; Diodorus Siculus 36.15.1–2; Dio Cassius 19.61; Appian R.H. 3.6.1–2; 3.7.2–3; 4.11; 8.8.53; Valerius Maximus 6.6.3–4. This was important, since receivers of news sometimes responded positively or negatively to messengers depending on the news they received (e.g., Homer Il. 17.694–696; 18.15–21; Euripides Medea 1125–1129; Appian R.H. 12.12.84; Arrian Ind. 34.4; 35.1; 2Sam 1:15; 18:20, 22; Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.35, 37).

2707

Homer Il. 1.334; 7.274–282; 8.517; Aeschines Timarchus 21; Cicero Phi1. 13.21.47; Herodian 6.4.6. Ambassadors who risked their lives merited special honor (Phil 2:25–30; Cicero Phi1. 9.1.2).

2708

        M. Demai 4:5; t. Demai 2:20; cf. also Aeschines Timarchus 21.

2709

        B. B. Qam. 102ab.

2710

Wenham, Bible, 114–15. In the broader Mediterranean culture, cf., e.g., Demosthenes Or the Embassy 4–5.

2711

E.g., Appian R.H. 9.9.3 (196 B.C.E.).

2712

E.g., the ideal herald Aethalides in Apollonius of Rhodes 1.640–648.

2713

Cf. Euripides Herac1. 292–293.

2714

The sense of a cognate noun and verb need not agree, but given the noun's absence in the LXX and the verb s prominence there in a manner analogous to early Christian usage, it seems likelv that the noun here reflects a Christian usage coined to match the cognate LXX verb (albeit in less technical use in secular vocabulary).

2715

Joshua by Moses (Josh 14:7; cf. Josh 11:15); Barak by Deborah (Judg 4:6); Saul's messenger? (1Sam 19:20); David (allegedly) by Saul (1Sam 21:2); angels from God (e.g., Judg 13:8; Tob 12cf. Gen 24:7); cf. messengers in 1 Kgs 18:10; 19:2;2Kgs 1:2,6,9,11,13; etc. A disciple may be'sent» as his master's representative (the false but believable claim in 2 Kgs 5:22; cf. 2 Kgs 9:1–4).

2716

        Sipra Behuq. pq. 13.277.1.13–14; "Abot R.Nat. 1 A, most MSS; Exod. Rab. 6(marriage negotiator); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 14:5; cf. Josephus Ant. 4.329. Samaritan literature sometimes portrayed Moses as God's apostle (Memar Marqah 6.3, in Boring et a1., Commentary 263; Bowman, Documents, 241, 243; Meeks, Prophet-King, 226–27; idem, «Jew,» 173); Meeks regards this as significant for John (Prophet-King, 301–2); later Jewish texts may polemicize against Christian exploitation of such a position (cf. Barrett, John and Judaism, 49).

2717

        Sipra Sav M.D. 98.9.6.

2718

        Mek. Pisha 1.87 (Lauterbach 1:8), referring both to Jonah and to the wind God sent after him; "Abot R. Nat. 37, §95 B.

2719

        Sipra Sav M.D. 98.9.5. For a background for John's sending motif in Isaiah's servant, see esp. Griffiths, «Deutero-Isaiah,» 359.

2720

Holladay, «Statecraft,» 31–34; cf. Judith 2:5; Rabe, «Prophecy,» 127. The form was probably used similarly in other ancient Near Eastern ecstatic prophetism (see Paul, «Prophets,» 1160; cf. Moran, «Prophecy,» 24–25).

2721

See Grudem, Prophecy, 43–54; he probably goes too far, as Hill, Prophecy, 116–17, points out, although he does distinguish the two.

2722

Hill, Prophecy, 116–17.

2723

Schmithals, Apostle, 55–56, rejects the prophetic background for apostleship (preferring a gnostic background); by contrast, Betz, Jesus, 105, thinks apostleship is modeled «above all on the Old Testament prophet.» Meeks, Moral World, 107,109, seems to equate Paul's «false-apostle» opposition with wandering prophets; Aune, Prophecy, 206, mentions «itinerant Christian missionaries» (Did. 11.3–6); but Richardson, Theology, 320, rightly observes that Apollos, Timothy, and Titus did not explicitly receive the title, suggesting that the Didache usage is a post-NT development.

2724

Cf. Becker, «Auferstehung,» emphasizing the latter. Mercer, «Apostle,» correctly argues that John's sending motif is incarnational, not docetic.

2725

See Waldstein, «Sendung.»

2726

Wis 9:10. Cf. the late parabolic comparison of Torah and prophets to a king's agent in Song Rab. 1:2, §2; cf. also the heavenly agent (in Philo, esp. Israel) in Borgen, «Agent,» 144–47; cf. Borgen, «Hellenism,» 101–2. A «sending» Christology fits a sapiential emphasis well; see Manns, «Evangelio.»

2727

E.g., Tob 12:20. Cf. Abel and Enoch in T. Ab. 11:2–10B; and the role accorded angels representing God in earlier tradition (e.g., Gen. 32:30; 33:10, if the angel was viewed as Esaús guardian).

2728

Thus Coppens, «Logia,» roots the motif in Christian tradition notably expressed in the Synoptics.

2729

For an example of subordinate status, cf. P.Ry1. 233.14,16 (2d cent.C.E.), where an agent addresses his master as κύριε.

2730

Cf. 1 Clem. 42.

2731

Burge, Community, 201–2, following Borgen, «Agent,» 143.

2732

See on the Paraclete and succession narratives in the commentary.

2733

Mercer, «ΑΠΟΣΤΕΛΛΕΙΝ.» Seynaeve, «Verbes,» may be right about general patterms, but admits that each is used elastically. Rengstorf, «άπόστολος,» 404, acknowledges the general interchangeability but draws a distinction which in some cases we would regard as coincidental or probably habitual rather than semantically significant (26 of 33 πέμπω passages refer to God as sending Jesus).

2734

Probably although not certainly this involves the idea of the shaliach.

2735

By implication.

2736

By possible implication from the καθώς and the partial parallelism.

2737

By implication for a prospective disciple from the term «Siloam.»

2738

This was good rhetorical technique; a good orator should emphasize the same point in as many varied ways as possible (Cicero Or. Brut. 40.137; Fam. 13.27.1).

2739

See Bell, I Am, 273–74.

2740

See ibid., 282–83.

2741

Ibid., 258. Bauckham, God Crucified, 55, catalogues seven divine uses of ani hu in the OT, fitting John's seven absolute «I am» statements. But would John really have counted the occurrences in the OT (in any case, outside Deutero-Isaiah, who uses it six times)? On a secondary level «I am» might respond to the psalmists» «you are» confessions (e.g., Ps 16:2; 22:3; 25:5; 31:3,4,14).

2742

Bell, I Am, 259.

2743

John's distinctive use of key terms relexicalizes them in a dualistic way to reinforce his community's «anti-language» and consequent «anti-society»; see the sociolinguistic observations of Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 5–7.

2744

See Keener, Spirit, 215–16, on the distinctiveness of early Christianity in this regard; see, e.g., Gal 2:20; 5:22–23; Col 1:27–29.

2745

Cf. the «burden» of the word of the Lord (Jer 23:33–38; Nah 1:1; Hab 1:1; Zech 9:1; 12:1). Early Judaism shared the Hellenistic and occasional OT images of divine possession or frenzy in prophecy, but this was usually limited to moments of inspiration and displacement of the mind rather than an intertwined intimacy that produced character and behavior.

2746

The closest parallel here would be in 1QS 3.13–4.26, where all actions are determined by either the spirit of truth or the spirit of error, though this may relate more to Qumran's angelogy than to its divine pneumatology.

2747

For the pervasiveness of emphasis on the Spirit in early Christian texts, see, e.g., Fee, Presence; idem, Spirit; Turner, Spirit; idem, Power.

2748

        In Founder, 115; Hunter, Predecessors, 147; Perrin, Kingdom, 67. See some of the arguments against Dodd's earlier position in Morris, Judgment, 57ff.

2749

In the context of his emphasis on an eschatological, transcendent reign present in Jesus and reflected in the imminent crisis on the horizon (Founder, 54–59, 114–18), Dodd's consummation «beyond history» is hardly traditional Christian eschatology.

2750

Although it appears in various early Jewish sources, it rarely appears so dominantly as in Jesus» teaching (see Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:240–69).

2751

Cullmann, State, 87–88; Witherington, End, 51–74; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:10, 289–506; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:389. This is especially suggested by kingdom parables such as the mustard seed and leaven, by sayings such as Mark 10:15, etc.; see Ladd, Theology, 65–69, 91–104.

2752

In the OT, imminent historical judgments often foreshadowed the Day of YHWH as a sort of «realized eschatology» as well (e.g., the locusts/armies of Joel; cf. Morris, Apocalyptic, 63).

2753

See Sanders, Judaism, 290–94 (although various eschatologies existed; see 279–303).

2754

Whether this distinction was actually made by Jesus or by the early church is a matter of much debate, and cannot detain us in a commentary on a late-first-century work. Some scholars have noted that Jesus» ethics and choice of Twelve as a nucleus of a new community suggest that he envisioned a continuity among his followers.

2755

Käsemann, Testament, 15–16.

2756

Ibid., 16. Käsemann's docetic Christology in John is critiqued amply by Thompson, Humanity.

2757

Käsemann, Testament, 20. Cf. Becker, «Abschiedsreden,» 219–28, esp. 228, on future eschatology reducing to anthropology.

2758

Dodd, Preaching, 75.

2759

Glasson, Advent, 222–25.

2760

Robinson, Coming, 163.

2761

E.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 123–56; Allison, «Plea»; Johnson, Real Jesus, 25,41.

2762

Bultmann, «Man and Faith,» 96–97 (originally published in 1930).

2763

Most of Bultmann's present eschatology correctly recites the NT picture (e.g., «Between Times,» 256 [originally 1952]; «Mythology» [originally 1941], 17–20, 38–39), though Jewish intermediate-era eschatology was not fixed (cf. «Between Times,» 248). But even in John, realized eschatology anticipates rather than annuls futuristic eschatology (Paul is most explicit, e.g., Rom 8:23; 2Cor 1:22; 5:5).

2764

«Mythology,» 14–15; gnostic literature, which he also mentions, may reduce more naturally into existential terms.

2765

Cf. Hunter, Predecessors, 49; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 13; Mounce, «Eschatology»; Waterman, «Sources»; Ford, Abomination, 22; Stanley, Resurrection, 82; Wenham, «Apocalypse»; idem, Discourse; against Robinson, Coming, 105–7; Glasson, Advent, 175. Jeremias, Sayings, 33–34, dismisses some agrapha via Papias for being too apocalyptic.

2766

Cf. also 2 Thess 2. The Jesus traditions in the Thessalonian epistles include not only what later appears in Mark but also material only in Matt 24 (perhaps, but not definitely, Q) and Acts 1:7.

2767

With Hill, Prophecy, 130; cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 144–45 (tentatively); against Koester, «One Jesus,» 196; Boring, Sayings, 11, 34 (n. 41 cites others); more tentatively, Aune, Prophecy, 253–56.

2768

On the continuity between Jesus» and Paul's eschatology, see esp. the fine study by Witherington, End.

2769

E.g., Schweizer, Jesus, 164–68; the eschatological «hour» in John (Kysar, Evangelist, 210, on Blank's view).

2770

Aune, Eschatology, ch. 2, «The Present Realization of Eschatological Salvation in the Qumran Community,» 29–44; see also Sanders, Judaism, 370. Still, present blessings were spiritual; ruling the world lay in the future.

2771

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 86.

2772

That the Apostle taught this is suggested by Murat. Canon 23–26 as well as millenarian teachings in Revelation and Papias.

2773

Kümmel, Theology, 294–95; Lindars, Behind, 66; Barrett, John, 68–69; Moule, «Factor,» 159; Kysar, Maverick Gospel, 87, 110; Sloan, «Absence»; Carroll, «Eschatology.» The attempt of Holwerda (Spirit; reviewed in Schnackenburg, «Holwerda») to defend futurist eschatology goes too far, however, ignoring genuine realized eschatology at significant points (see on the appropriate passages below).

2774

Bürge, Anointing, 115.

2775

Brown, Epistles, 99.

2776

Thus the Spirit is often regarded as «the power of the new age already broken into the old» (Dunn, «Spirit,» 3:701). For recent works on the Spirit and eschatology in John, see the more thorough summary in Bürge, Anointing, 33–36.

2777

Cf., e.,g., Koester, Introduction, 2:192; Burge, Anointing, 116.

2778

Cf. Schlier, «Begriff,» 268.

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 (αγάπη) in profane Greek.»

2781

Deissmann, Studies, 198–200, argued against the older notion that αγάπη 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 φιλία).

2782

Tob 13:12.

2783

Wis 8:2; this is equivalent to Solomon having εφίλησα 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.

2785

        "Abot R. Nat. B 9, §26.

2786

Wis 8:2. Love (άγάπη) also served a broader ethical function, providing power for piety (εύσέβεια–Let. Arts. 229; also the right and trustworthy motive for serving the king–Let. Arts. 270).

2787

Fensham, «Love,» 74–75, stressing differences too much.

2788

Morris, Thessalonians, 51. Against Spicq, the term is not uniquely Christian; see Joly, Vocabulaire; Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 165.

2789

Evans, « Αγαπάν,» 69.

2790

This is clear particularly in John 21:15–17, where John adapts his language for variation, but would not be «coming down» to Peters level; cf. Stählin, «φιλέω,» 133–35.

2791

Some phrases are fairly evenly distributed throughout Epictetus, whereas others (e.g., τί. σοί καί ήμίν) 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.

2793

Trapp, Maximus, 182 n. 9; Maximus of Tyre preferred Platós looseness in vocabulary (Or. 21.4).

2794

Nock, «Vocabulary,» 137. One should merely take care to avoid «improper» synonyms (Rowe, «Style,» 123–24); for ancient discussion of synonyms, see, e.g., Porphyry Ar. Cat. 68.5–27. In some writers a more consistent sense obtained, but this was unusual (Aulus Gellius 2.5.1).

2795

Morris, Studies, 293–319; Nicholson, Death, 135. His overall stylistic simplicity could also be viewed as fitting some rhetorical practice before the Second Sophistic (see, e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Isoc. 2, 3,12; Demosth. 5–6,18).

2796

Richardson, Theology, 287.

2797

Cf. Manson, Paul and John, 96–97,102–3.

2798

E.g., Ladd, Theology, 271; McPolin, John, 72.

2799

Painter, John, 100. «Believe» appears seventy-six times in John 1–12, and twenty-two times in John 13–21 (Painter, John, 77).

2800

Ladd, Theology, 271.

2801

Painter, John, 77.

2802

Jeremias, Theology, 160, arguing that the Synoptics betray little tampering.

2803

As is widely agreed, e.g., Schnackenburg, John, 1:558–75; Filson, «Life,» 112.

2804

Ladd, Theology, 271–72.

2805

Ibid., 272.

2806

Because the gardener knows (γινώσκων) he can help the man believe (8.1).

2807

Inscriptions demonstrate the use of faith language in patronal relationships; see, e.g., Seneca Benef. 3.14.2; Marshall, Enmity, 21–24; DeSilva, Honor, 115–16,145; idem, «Patronage,» 768 (following Danker, Benefactor).

2808

E.g., Ovid Metam. 3.513–518. To disbelieve (άπιστων) is to act unjustly (άδικήσεις, Philostratus Hrk. 17.1).

2809

E.g., b. B. Bat. 75a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 18:5.

2810

Jonge, Jesus, 52. On unbelief in John, cf. Brandie, «Vida.»

2811

Cf. Pesiq. Rab. 32:3/4, where God judged a man who believed only because he saw.

2812

The terms are from Kysar, Maverick Gospel, 72. Koester, «Hearing,» distinguishes those who «hear» about Jesus and proceed to true faith, from those who «see» Jesus and do not (the categories are not airtight).

2813

This need not imply that the confessions of faith progress from lesser to greater, though 20is certainly climactic (cf. Baron, «Progression»).

2814

Painter, John, 77.

2815

On the sense of the Hebrew term (whose semantic range was extensive), cf. Bromiley, «Faith» 270; Michel, «Faith,» 595–97; Jepsen, «אמן»

2816

Brown, John, 2:620.

2817

Coetzee,«Life,»51.

2818

Elsewhere in the nt at 2Cor 9:9; Heb 7:24; 1Pet 1:25. Cf. Sophocles Ant 456–457, where the divine unwritten laws «live forever.»

2819

Goppelt, Theology, 1:45.

2820

Ovid Metam. 14.136–144; cf. Aulus Gellius 2.16.10. A more helpful Hellenistic notion would be «immortality» (cf. 1Cor 15:53–54), though to some Greeks it would connote apotheosis.

2821

See above, pp. 178–79, 292–93.

2822

Dodd, Interpretation, 14,151; cf. true being in Plato Rep. 6.490AB.

2823

Schedl, History, 1:293; cf. Hos 6:2–3.

2824

Buchanan, Consequences, 131–34; for Qumran, cf. Schütz, «Knowledge,» 397; and life for a thousand generations in 4Q171 1–2 3.1.

2825

        Isis 1, Mor. 351E.

2826

Dodd, Interpretation, 144–50.

2827

Pss. So1. 3:12, using the full expression; cf. 13:11.

2828

M. "Abot 2:7, attributed to Hillel; b. Ber. 28b; Lev. Rab. 13:2; CIJ 1:422, §569 (Hebrew funerary inscription from Italy); 1:474, §661 (sixth-century Hebrew inscription from Spain); 2:443, §1536 (Semitic letters, from Egypt); cf. Abrahams, Studies, 1:168–70; Philo Flight 77. The usage in 1 En. 10(cf. 15:6; 25:6) and Jub. 5(cf. 30:20) is more restrictive, perhaps figurative; the Similtudes, however, seem to follow the ordinary usage (37:4; 58:3,6), and the circles from which 1 En. and Jub. derive probably used «long duration» language to represent eternity as well (CD 7.5–6; cf. Sir 18:10); for «eternal life» in the DSS, see also 4Q181 (Vermes, Scrolls, 251–52); Coetzee, «Life,» 48–66; Charlesworth, «Comparison,» 414. «Eternal» occurs with other nouns (e.g., Wis 10:14; 1QS 2.3) far more rarely.

2829

Tob 12:9–10; Ladd, Theology, 255, also cites Pss. So1. 14:7; 2Macc 7:9–14; 4 Ezra 7:137; 14:22); see Manson, Paul and John, 112 n. 1.

2830

        Sipre Deut. 305.3.2,3.

2831

4 Macc 17:18, using a cognate of βίος rather than of ζωή. Cf. T. Ab. 20:14A.

2832

Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 159; Bultmann, Theology, 2:159; Ladd, Theology, 255–56. See, e.g., Mark 10:17, 30; Matt 25:46; Acts 13:46, 48; Rom 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23; Gal 6:8; 1Tim 1:16; 6:12; Tit 1:2; 3:7; Jude 21.

2833

See Filson, «Life,» 114; Simon, «Life.»

2834

Dodd, Studies, 149.

2835

Marcus Aurelius 4.2; Epictetus frg. 3 (LCL 2:442–43; but cf. frg. 4).

2836

Manson, Paul and John, 91. 1 En. 48(Sim.) may employ the wicked world similarly (cf. Dibelius, Ja mes, 121).


Источник: The Gospel of John : a commentary : Volumes 1-2 / Craig S. Keener – Massachusetts : Baker Academic, 2003. – 1636 pages.

Комментарии для сайта Cackle