Notes
Notes
←1
Cf. F. Nötscher, ‘Schicksal und Freiheit’, Biblica, Vol. xl (1959), pp. 446–62.
←2
This is a fairly standard distinction: cf. A. Flew, ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, New Essays in Philosophical Theology (London, 1955), pp. 160–1. See R. Young, Freedom, Responsibility and God (London, 1975), pp. 39 41, for a more sophisticated, philosophical definition of determinism.
←3
On the one side, cf. H. Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, 1966), and, less rigid, G. H. Clark, Biblical Predestination (Nutley, 1969). From the opposing camp, examples include S. Fisk, Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom (Neptune, 1973), and many essays in a book edited by C. H. Pinnock, Grace Unlimited (Minneapolis, 1975).
←4
I. T. Ramsey, Freedom and Immortality (London, 1960); W. S. Towner, How God Deals With Evil (Philadelphia, 1976); J. Farrelly, Predestination, Grace and Free Will (London, 1964). Other contemporary systematicians use biblical terminology to convey modern philosophical/theological conceptions. They include, inter alios, P. Tillich, Systematic Theology (London, 1953–64), Vol. i, pp. 158–9, 300, 316; J. Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology (London, 1966), pp. 302–4, who argues that predestination means God chooses everyone equally to the ‘letting-be’ of ‘authentic existence’. Karl Barth is a special case, and is treated separately in Part Four.
←5
A splendid example of abuse is the work of R. T. Forster and V. Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History (Kent, 1973). Far better work is found, inter alia, in B. B. Warfield, ‘Predestination’, Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia, repr. 1968), pp. 271–333; G. Quell and G. Schrenk, TDNT, Vol. iv, pp. 144–92.
←6
E.g. Th. C. Vriezen, Die Erwählung Israels nach dem Alten Testament (Zurich, 1953); K. Galling, Die Erwählungstraditionen Israels (Giessen, 1928); H. H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election (London, 1950); P. Altmann, Erwählungstheologie und Universalismus im Alten Testament (Berlin, 1964).
←7
For example, Th. C. Vriezen, op. cit., and H. H. Rowley, op. cit., focus so narrowly on the purpose of election in the Old Testament, construed in terms of service, that they end up by reducing election to an entirely contingent divine choice.
←8
Cf. G. von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (London, 1961), p. 427.
←9
Pace many commentators and systematicians who say that God here turns evil into good: e.g. G. C. Berkouwer, The Providence of God (Grand Rapids, 1952), p. 91, who writes of God’s ‘deflection’ of the evil. There are, of course, Old Testament passages in which God is portrayed as the one who ‘deflects’ human evil; but this is not one of them.
←10
G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (London, 1962–5), Vol. i, pp. 172f.
←11
Pace K. Elliger, Leviticus (Tübingen, 1966), p. 301, who says that all of these clauses signify that God is sanctified by the Israelites’ observance of the ritual laws he himself has bestowed.
←12
Cf. K. Budde, Das Buch der Richter (Tübingen, 1897), p. 99; and G. F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (Edinburgh, 1895), p. 328.
←13
A few scholars have argued that the ‘he’ of 14:4 refers to Samson, not Yahweh. But it is unlikely the writer means that Samson was out to provoke the enemy: Samson was interested in winning a woman, not punishing a people. Cf. Judg. 15:6, where, in a similar construction, the closest noun to the verb serves as that verb’s subject: ‘Samson, the son-in-law of the Timnite, because he (the Timnite) has taken his wife …’
←14
R. A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King (Uppsala, 1964), pp. 203f., thinks that to say God’s wrath here has no known reason is ‘a complete misunderstanding’ of the structure of chapters 10–24. He takes the words ‘Uriah the Hittite’ at the end of the bridge 21:15–23:39 to be an important associative link, providing ‘an adequate reason for the new outburst of the wrath of Yahweh in 24:1.’ K. Budde, Die Bucher Samuel (Tubingen, 1902), pp. 327–8, resorts to the desperate expedient of placing all of 2 Sam. 24 before 2 Sam. 21:1–14.
←15
nasb says ‘it incited David against them’—‘it’ presumably finding its antecedent in Yahweh’s anger. But to personify this anger not only provides no solution (it is still Yahweh’s anger), but is needless in the light of 1 Sam. 26:19. P. Dhorme, Les livres de Samuel (Paris, 1910), p. 441, long ago rightly insisted, ‘The subject of wysṯs can only be Yahweh.’
←16
H. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (Edinburgh, 1899), p. 388.
←17
0 G. von Rad, Theology, op. cit., Vol. i, p. 318; similarly, H. H. Rowley, The Faith of Israel (London, 1956), p. 67.
←18
1 Cf. T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (Göttingen, 1972), pp. 155–6.
←19
2 This hapax (sibbāh mē‘im yhwh in 1 Kgs. 12:15; nesibbāh mē‘im ha’elōhîm in 2 Chr. 10:15) is usually taken to mean a ‘turning’, and hence a ‘development’, from Yahweh (cf. the verb sbb in 1 Kgs. 2:15b).
←20
3 The point is overstressed by many scholars. See, inter alios, G. B. Gray and A. S. Peake, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah (Edinburgh, 1912), pp. 196f.; H. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1972), p. 396; and especially F. Huber, Jahwe, Juda und die anderen Völker beim Propheten Jesaja (Berlin, 1976), for whom this is a major conclusion from his research.
←21
4 H. H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election (London, 1950), pp. 124–8.
←22
5 Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Edinburgh, 1850–4), Vol. i, p. 352.
←23
T Masoretic Text
←24
6 R. K. Harrison, Jeremiah and Lamentations (London, 1973), p. 190. Precisely the same concept is found in 1 Sam. 2:22–5, where the sons of Eli ‘would not listen to the voice of their father; for it was the will of the Lord to slay them.’ See M. Tsevat, ‘The Death of the Sons of Levi’, Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. xxxii (1964), pp. 355–8.
←25
T Masoretic Text
←26
7 G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (London, 1972), pp. 42–3.
←27
8 The subject of this and the ensuing verses is Yahweh (cf. verse 7). The suggestion of M. Dahood, Psalms (New York, 1970), Vol. iii, p. 59—that mc’ōd here be taken as a stative adjective, ‘the Great One’, to provide an explicit subject—is neither helpful nor convincing in the light of the long list of verses in which Yahweh is subject. Dahood’s alleged parallel (Ps. 109:30) falls under the same condemnation. See the useful discussion in H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen (Neukirchen, 1961), Vol. ii, p. 721.
←28
9 E.g. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, op. cit., Vol. iv, p. 153. S. R. Hirsch, The Psalms (New York, 1966), Vol. ii, p. 240, is among those who prefer to take the verb intransitively (cf. 2 Kgs. 5:26); but he goes so far to avoid the obvious as to say that if the verb is active, the subject is ‘This’ or ‘It’; i.e. the growth of the people turned the hearts of the Egyptians.
←29
0 See especially E. Robertson, ‘Samuel and Saul’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Vol. xxviii (1944), pp. 175–206.
←30
H. H. Rowley, Faith, op. cit., p. 63; and cf. his Election, op. cit., pp. 45ff.
←31
Cf. G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (London, 1972), pp. 62f.; W. Eichrodt, Man in the Old Testament (London, 1951), p. 23; F. D. Kidner, ‘Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament’, New Perspectives on the Old Testament (Waco, 1970), p. 118.
←32
See especially Th. C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology (Oxford, 1970), pp. 176ff.
←33
J. Lindblom, op. cit., p. 324.
←34
G. C. Berkouwer, Providence, op. cit., p. 92.
←35
B. B. Warfield, ‘Predestination’, op. cit., pp. 48f.
←36
G. C. Berkouwer, Providence, op. cit., p. 92. Cf. G. Von Rad, Theology, op. cit., Vol. i, pp. 51f., who points out that the purpose of a number of these narratives hinges on a theological phrase or clause revealing Yahweh’s governing hand.
←37
J. Lindblom, op. cit., p. 325; cf. pp. 323–6. See also K. Galling, op. cit., pp. 92f.; U. Cassuto, ‘The Beginning of Historiography among the Israelites’, Biblical and Oriental Studies (Jerusalem, 1973), Vol. i, pp. 7–16; and especially J. L. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament (Garden City, 1976), pp. 135–44, who sees in Israel’s historiography the first perception of intelligible unity in a series of events. This approach must be sharply distinguished from that which claims for Israel’s historiography a supposedly linear view of time as opposed to a cyclical view, an approach rightly criticised by J. Barr, Biblical Words for Time (London, 1969), pp. 143–51.
←38
F. D. Kidner, The Proverbs (London, 1964), p. 118.
←39
0 A. Cohen, Proverbs (Hindhead, 1945), p. 103.
←40
1 J. A. Motyer, The Day of the Lion (London, 1974), p. 97. See the important observations of J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (London, 1940), Vols. iii–iv, pp. 486–91.
←41
2 R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (London, 1970), p. 1099. Similarly, it has been argued convincingly that one of the main themes of Ruth is the election and birth of David: e.g. O. Loretz, ‘The Theme of the Ruth Story’, CBQ, Vol. xxii (1960), pp. 391–9.
←42
3 J. K. S. Reid, ‘Determinate, etc.’, A Theological Word Book of the Bible (London, 1950), p. 65.
←43
4 Pace G. Quell, TDNT Vol. iv, p. 159, who argues that the concept of election-of-king preceded that of election-of-people. This view is no longer very popular, although P. Altmann, Erwählungstheologie, op. cit., resurrects it in modified form by arguing that Israel’s consciousness of her election sprang up during the glorious reigns of David and Solomon. Many Old Testament Against Its Environment (London, 1950), pp. 54–60), he is accurately describing some strands of Old Testament thought; but whenever the remnant motif becomes dominant, the simple equation between the elect J. Lindblom, op. cit., pp. 330f. Others, more careful, point out that the exodus does not constitute the genesis of the election traditions because all aspects of this tradition are already present: cf. H. J. Zobel, ‘Ursprung und Verwurzelung des Erwählungsglaubens Israels’, Theologische Literaturzeitung, Vol. xciii (1968), cols. 1–12, especially col. 8; G. Hasel, The Remnant (Barrien Springs, 1972), pp. 153f.
←44
5 This use of yaḏaʿ clearly means choose: cf. Amos 3:2; Hos. 13:5; G. Quell, TDNT, Vol. iv, pp. 147f.
←45
6 P. Altmann, op. cit., passim, wrongly rejects any idea of mission in Israel’s election, by preserving a rigid distinction between election and universalism. His work is thus marred by inadequate consideration of the semantic range of ‘universalism’. Election does not necessarily exclude mission, and mission does not necessarily entail universalism. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that nowhere in the Old Testament is Israel’s ‘mission’ spelled out in categories of systematic foreign proselytising: cf. A. Martin-Achard, A Light to the Nations (London, 1962), passim.
←46
7 G. Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, 1948), p. 90. This particular purpose of Israel’s election is sadly exaggerated by, inter alios, H. H. Rowley, Election, op. cit., and Th. C. Vriezen, Erwählung, op. cit., passim, to the virtual exclusion of all else. They stress the fact that election involves commission in order to minimise any suggestion of privileged exclusivism. But this distiction is artificial. To be chosen by God means both privilege and commission.
←47
8 G. E. Mendenhall, ‘Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law’, and ‘Covenantal Forms in Israelite Tradition’, both in Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. xvii (1954), pp. 26–46 and pp. 50–76 respectively.
←48
9 Of course, this perspective differs from the Sinai covenant: cf. H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion (London, 1966), p. 117. When G. E. Wright, God Who Acts (London, 1952), p. 21, says that ‘God has bound his elect to himself, on the one hand, by great acts of love and grace, and, on the other hand, by a covenant in which his will is expressed’ (cf. also his The Old Testament Against Its Environment (London, 1950), pp. 54–60), he is accurately describing some strands of Old Testament thought; but whenever the remnant motif becomes dominant, the simple equation between the elect and the people of the covenant cannot be made. On the whole question, see G. Hasel, op. cit., pp. 256ff.; and W. E. Müller and H. D. Preuss, Die Vorstellung vom Rest im Alten Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1973), passim.
←49
0 G. Vos, op. cit., p. 93. This gave grounds for the later Pauline differentiation between election to privilege and election to life: ‘For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel’ (Rom. 9:6; cf. 11:28). Cf. J. I. Packer, NBD, p. 359.
←50
1 J. Bright, Covenant and Promise: The Prophetic Understanding of the Future in Pre-Exilic Israel (Philadelphia, 1976), comes to similar conclusions by ascribing to the prophets a creative role as they wrestle with the tension between the Mosaic-Sinaitic tradition, with its emphasis upon Israel’s obligation to covenant law, and the Davidic-Zion tradition, with its unconditional promises of blessing. My approach is essentially a modified form of the argument presented by J. Lindblom, op. cit., pp. 315–21.
←51
2 Theology, op. cit., Vol. i, p. 286. Cf. also L. L. Walker, ‘ “Love” in the Old Testament: Some Lexical Observations’, Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, (Grand Rapids, 1975), pp. 277–88.
←52
3 Cf. F. J. Helfmeyer, ‘Segen und Erwählung’, BZ, Vol. xviii (1947), pp. 208–33, who draws attention to the discriminating significance of divine blessing in the Old Testament: ‘The blessing selects, seizes, chooses, commissions, produces a position of superiority and evokes resignation’ (p. 222). Cf. also N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (London, 1944), p. 139: ‘Either we must accept this idea of choice on the part of God with its necessary accompaniment of exclusiveness, or we have to hold a doctrine of the love of God other than that which is biblical.’
←53
4 V. Herntrich, TDNT, Vol. iv, p. 203.
←54
5 F. Hesse, Das Verstockungsproblem im Alten Testament (Berlin, 1955), provides a helpful analysis, especially of the terms and metaphors involved (pp. 7–30).
←55
6 Election, op. cit., chap. 5.
←56
7 J. I. Packer, NBD, pp. 358f.
←57
8 Cf J. I. Packer, NBD, pp. 1050f.
←58
9 Jorg Jeremias, Die Reue Gottes: Aspekte Alttestamentlicher Gottesvorstellung (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1975).
←59
0 J. A. Motyer, op. cit., pp. 156f.
←60
1 (Tübingen, 1924).
←61
2 Th. C. Vriezen, Erwählung, op. cit., pp. 115f., rightly attacks the confusion between the pretentiousness of ‘being elect’ and the fact of being the object of ‘election’: he distinguishes between Erwähltheit and Erwählung. F. M. Th. de Liagre Bohl, ‘Missions- und Erwählungsgedanke in Alt-Israel’, Opera Minora (Groningen, 1953), especially p. 88, points out that other nations enjoy the conviction of being elected: e.g. Egyptians, Greeks, Romans. But in these cases, quite unlike Israel’s prophets, the idea of election is based on some note of superiority.
←62
3 See the important article by I. A. Seeligmann, ‘Menschlisches Heldentum und göttliche Hilfe. Die doppelte Kausalität im altestamentlichen Geschichtsdenken’, Theologische Zeitschrift, Vol. xix (1963), p. 401.
←63
XX Septuagint
←64
XX Septuagint
←65
XX Septuagint
←66
T Masoretic Text
←67
XX Septuagint
←68
XX Septuagint
←69
T Masoretic Text
←70
T Masoretic Text
←71
XX Septuagint
←72
T Masoretic Text
←73
XX Septuagint
←74
T Masoretic Text
←75
XX Septuagint
←76
XX Septuagint
←77
That is how the Greek should be taken: Joseph says he belongs to God, not that he is God’s servant. It is true that in 50:18 the brothers tell Joseph they are his servants, and some have taken Joseph’s reply in 50:19, tou gar theou eimi egō, to mean ‘for I am God’s (servant)’. But the structure in 50:18 is dative; in 50:19, genitival. The thought in 50:19 is closer to ego de Christou (1 Cor. 1:12), ‘I am of Christ(’s party)’, i.e. ‘I follow Christ’. Similarly Joseph belongs to God’s party: he follows God.
←78
T Masoretic Text
←79
T Masoretic Text
←80
XX Septuagint
←81
T Masoretic Text
←82
T Masoretic Text
←83
xx Septuagint
←84
XX Septuagint
←85
XX Septuagint
←86
‘God’s “Repentance” and the LXX’, Ex. T, Vol. lxxv (1964), p. 367.
←87
The Exegetical Method of the Greek Translator of the Book of Job (Philadelphia, 1952).
←88
The Anti-Anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch (Princeton, 1943).
←89
T. W. Manson, ‘Miscellanea Apocalyptica’, JTS, Vol. xlvi (1945), pp. 78–80; P. Katz (Walters), ‘Septuagintal Studies in the Mid-Century’, The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 176–208; S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford, 1968), pp. 270f.; T. Wittstruck, ‘The So-Called Anti-Anthropomorphisms in the Greek Text of Deuteronomy’, CBQ, Vol. xxxviii (1976), pp. 29–34. For similar conclusions in another part of the LXX, cf. A. Soffer, ‘The Treatment of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Septuagint of Psalms’, Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. xxxviii (1957), pp. 85–107, now reprinted in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations (New York, 1974), pp. 395–417.
←90
XX Septuagint
←91
Cf. H. M. Orlinsky’s review of Fritsch in Crozer Quarterly, Vol. xxi (1944), pp. 156–60. He has also written a number of articles on Job: in particular, ‘Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job: On the Matter of Anthropomorphisms, Anthropopathisms, and Euphemisms’, Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. xxx (1959), pp. 153–67, and Vol. xxxii (1961), pp. 239–68.
←92
XX Septuagint
←93
XX Septuagint
←94
T Masoretic Text
←95
XX Septuagint
←96
D. H. Gard, op. cit., pp. 67ff.; G. Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint I. The Book of Job (Lund, 1946). A major weakness of Gard’s book is that it does not use Gerleman, published six years earlier.
←97
XX Septuagint
←98
‘Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns’, Textus, Vol. vii (1969), pp. 1–29.
←99
XX Septuagint
←100
XX Septuagint
←101
R. Loewe, ‘Divine Frustration Exegetically Frustrated’, Words and Meanings (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 137–58.
←102
antapodoma
←103
XX Septuagint
←104
XX Septuagint
←105
D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (London, 1964), pp. 37f.; K. Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic (London, 1970), pp. 18–35.
←106
W. Schmithals, The Apocalyptic Movement (Nashville, 1975).
←107
J. Bright, A History of Israel (London, 1972), p. 449.
←108
R. H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times (London, 1949), p. 378.
←109
So also 42:24 in Greek, but not in Hebrew. The translator has apparently read šnym for šwnym and consequently reintroduced the theme of opposed pairs.
←110
It is quite common to exaggerate the importance of those few texts which could be understood as universalistic in tendency: e.g. Tobit 13:3f., 11; 14:6f.; Ecclus. 10:19–22. For example, J. Bright, op. cit., p. 448, takes Tobit 13:3f. to reflect a sensed obligation to witness before the nations. But this witness does not apparently have conversion in view as the goal: cf. 3:5. True, many nations shall come bearing rich gifts to the Lord (13:11); but the result is an opulent Jerusalem (13:16ff.). Although all nations shall turn to the Lord and bury their idols (14:6f.), the comforting aspect lies in the fact that they will then show mercy to the Jewish people (14:7b). And, pace Bright, Ecclus. 10:19–22, far from widening the boundaries of God’s people by removing racial criteria, narrows the boundaries to those who keep the law within the race, while the pagans are rather summarily dismissed (10:14–17). There are some few brighter spots; but the tendency is not toward universalism: cf. H. J. Wicks, The Doctrine of God in the Jewish Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature (New York, repr. 1971), pp. 255f.
←111
Cf. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London, 1977), pp. 329–32.
←112
Where ‘chosen’ is omitted (Aleph) it is due to haplography of ek.
←113
XX Septuagint
←114
M. S. Enslin and S. Zeitlin, The Book of Judith (Leiden, 1972), p. 33.
←115
0 Ibid., pp. 83f., 90.
←116
1 Of course, the emphasis changes somewhat from book to book. For example, the martyrs whose death is said to be a propitiatory death in behalf of the nation, a death brought about by the divine providence (4 Macc. 17:22), elsewhere claim they are dying because of their own sins (2 Macc. 7:18).
←117
2 I use the expression advisedly. Nevertheless I hasten to add that my use of ‘merit theology’ is not meant to conjure up visions of supererogation, a divine judgment based exclusively on human merits and demerits, and so forth. It carries only the freight of the surrounding discussion. This caveat becomes the more important in discussing the rabbis (chap. 8, infra), not least because of the recent and important book by E. P. Sanders, op. cit., which I discuss at length a little farther on.
←118
3 See especially G. L. Prato, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira (Rome, 1975). Prato especially stresses the historical background which calls forth such arguments. Similarly B. L. Mack, both in his article, ‘Wisdom Myth and Myth-ology’, Interpretation, Vol. xxiv (1970), pp. 46–60, and in his book, Logos und Sophia: Untersuchungen zur Weisheits Theologie im hellenistischen Judentums (Göttingen, 1973), makes a great deal of the problems of theodicy arising out of the trauma of this exile, as the background to wisdom speculation. How is Yahweh sovereign over history when history seems to contradict such a belief? Mack develops a ‘near’ wisdom present with God at creation and sustaining all that is good, and a ‘hidden’ wisdom associated with God’s transcendence. The latter later gives rise to the need for revelation; but due to human sinfulness it must become ‘disappeared’ (entschwunden) wisdom. By contrast, apocalyptic, instead of bringing wisdom ‘down’, brings men ‘up’.
←119
4 There is somewhat more among the apocalyptists, but then it is primarily offered by celestial beings: cf. N. B. Johnson, Prayer in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Philadelphia, 1948), pp. 36f. Praises are also offered for particular victories, especially after the numerous Maccabean successes.
←120
5 Ibid., p. 39.
←121
6 APOT, Vol. i, p. 61.
←122
A. Nissen, ‘Tora und Geschichte in Spätjudentum’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. ix (1967), pp. 241–77.
←123
K. Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic (London, 1970), p. 137, n. 43.
←124
Op. cit., p. 54.
←125
NBD, p. 42.
←126
M. R. James, The Testament of Abraham (Cambridge, 1892), pp. 23–9. See M. Delcor, Le Testament d’Abraham (Leiden, 1973), pp. 63–73; and several essays in G. W. E. Nickelsburger, Jr., ed., Studies on the Testament of Abraham (Missoula, 1976).
←127
Op. cit., p. 61.
←128
M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Assen, 1953). He modifies his view somewhat in ‘The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the New Testament’, St. Ev., Vol. i (1959), pp. 546–56, to allow more room for oral tradition in both Jewish and Christian circles; and his most recent statement of his position is found in several essays in a book edited by him, Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Leiden, 1975). Constrast H. C. Kee, ‘The Ethical Dimensions of the Testaments of the XII as a Clue to Provenance’, NTS, Vol. xxiv (1978), pp. 259–70. The recent work by H. D. Slingerland, The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research (Missoula, 1977), provides a more balanced statement of the problem; cf. also J. H. Charlesworth, ‘Reflections on the SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminar’, NTS, Vol. xxiii (1976–7), p. 304, for a succint statement of the present consensus.
←129
D. W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Berlin, 1906), pp. 571ff.; followed by, inter alios, W. R. Murdock, ‘History and Revelation in Jewish Apocalypticism’, Interpretation, Vol. xxi (1967), p. 173; and H. Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (London, 1969), p. 23.
←130
E.g. H. D. Betz, ‘On the Problem of the Religio-Historical Understanding of Apocalypticism’, Journal of Theology and Church, Vol. vi (1969), pp. 134–56, sees Jewish apocalyptic as part of a world-wide and essentially hellenistic movement. W. A. Beardslee, ‘New Testament Apocalyptic in Recent Interpretation’, Interpretation, Vol. xxv (1971), p. 435, objects that his sampling of the data is too limited.
←131
0 F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), pp. 90, 144, 170, 343–6; idem, ‘New Directions in the Study of Apocalyptic’, Journal of Theology and Church, Vol. vi (1969), p. 165, n. 23.
←132
1 Wisdom in Israel, op. cit., pp. 263–82. His argument has been refined by H. P. Müller, ‘Mantische Weisheit und Apokalyptik’, VT Suppl. Vol. xx (Uppsala, 1971), pp. 268–93.
←133
2 P. D. Hanson, ‘Jewish Apocalyptic against its Near Eastern Environment’, RB, Vol. lxxviii (1971), pp. 31–58. For a complete statement of his views, especially focusing on the way apocalyptic is said to emerge in post-exilic prophecy, see his The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Fortress, 1975).
←134
3 Cf. M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (London, 1974), Vol. i, pp. 175ff.; and R. J. Bauckham, Themelios, Vol. iii (1978), 10–18.
←135
4 Apocalyptic (Grand Rapids, 1972), p. 32.
←136
5 There is some uncertainty as to the meaning of the text. Cf. H. M. Hughes, The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature (London, n.d.), pp. 276f. The text either means that our works are in both the divine choice and in our own power, or that they are in our own choice and power. Both APOT, Vol. ii, p. 642, and APAT, Vol. ii, p. 140, opt for the latter translation.
←137
6 C. G. Montefiore, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by the Religion of the Ancient Hebrews (London, 1897), p. 518.
←138
7 Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come (Philadelphia, 1952), p. 3, n. 4; cf. also D. S. Russell, op. cit., pp. 100–103.
←139
8 Op. cit., p. 59.
←140
9 H. M. Hughes, op. cit., p. 243.
←141
0 Ibid., p. 240; cited also by G. H. Box, APOT, Vol. ii, p. 557.
←142
antapodoma
←143
antapodoma
←144
the harsher ekdikēsis;
←145
antapodoma
←146
antapodoma
←147
1 Op. cit., p. 51.
←148
antapodoma
←149
2 S. B. Frost, Old Testament Apocalyptic (London, 1952), p. 230. Cf. also R. H. Charles, Eschatology (London, 1913), p. 206.
←150
3 Such examples render somewhat premature the contention of K. Koch, op. cit., p. 29, that only epochs, not individuals, are determined. He goes so far as to say that ‘the behaviour of the individual is never (sic) accounted in these writings as being predestined toward good or evil …’
←151
antapodoma
←152
4 ‘Jüdische Apokalyptik’, RGG3, Vol. i, col. 465. On the development of eschatological dualism within Jewish apocalyptic, and the historical reasons for it, cf. M. Hengel, op. cit., Vol. i, pp. 190–96.
←153
5 Op. cit., p. 202.
←154
6 Op. cit., p. 186.
←155
7 Op. cit., p. 271f.
←156
8 ‘Apocalyptic and New Testament Theology’, Reconciliation and Hope (London, 1974), p. 292.
←157
9 Op. cit., p. 88.
←158
0 A History of Israel, op. cit., p. 460.
←159
1 ‘Some Reflections on Apocalyptic’, Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne (Neuchâtel, 1950), p. 142. The ‘other side’ is the ‘scribal treatment of the Law leading to the codification in the Mishnah’.
←160
2 Eschatology, op. cit., p. 183.
←161
3 Op. cit., pp. 218ff.
←162
4 The Relevance of Apocalyptic (London, 1947), pp. 151–5.
←163
5 ‘Why Not Prophetic-Apocalyptic?’, JBL, Vol. lxxvi (1957), pp. 192–200. Along similar lines and apparently without consulting Ladd, is B. Vawter, ‘Apocalyptic: Its Relation to Prophecy’, CBQ, Vol. xxii (1960), pp. 33–46.
←164
6 W. A. Beardslee, op. cit., p. 424. This is one point on which there is solid agreement among many scholars who have written recently on the subject of apocalyptic, even when they agree on little else. As representative sampling, cf. R. J. Bauckham, op. cit., pp. 18–23; C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (London, 1962), p. 103; D. S. Russell, op. cit., p. 106; L. Hartman, ‘The Functions of Some So-Called Apocalyptic Timetables’, NTS, Vol. xxii (1975–6), pp. 1–14; G. W. E. Nickelsburger, ‘The Apocalyptic Message of I Enoch 92–105’, CBQ, Vol. xxxix (1977), pp. 302–28; G. I. Davies, ‘Apocalyptic and Historiography’, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, No. 5 (1978), pp. 15–28; J. Priest, ‘Some Reflections on the Assumption of Moses’, Perspective in Religious Studies, Vol. iv (1977), pp. 92–111; and, on early apocalyptic, W. R. Millar, Isaiah 24–27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic (Missoula, 1976).
←165
7 ‘Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death’, CBQ, Vol. xxxvi (1974), pp. 21–43.
←166
8 Cf. especially P. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch (Paris, 1969), 2 vols. The date is late (Bogaert pinpoints ad 96), and so no doubt the fall of the Temple constitutes a large part of the crisis.
←167
9 For further discussion, cf. G. H. Box, both in Apot and also in his The Ezra-Apocalypse (London, 1912), passim; and especially A. L. Thompson, Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra (Missoula, 1974). Some conclude that 2 Esdras is extremely pessimistic, and the notes of hope are necessarily interpolations: cf. E. P. Sanders, op. cit., 409–18, who takes the book to be the sole intertestamental exemplar of ‘covenantal nomism’ collapsing into legalistic perfectionism.
←168
0 Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tübingen, repr. 1966), p. 352.
←169
1 TDNT, Vol. iv, p. 170.
←170
2 Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (London, 1961), pp. 127f.
←171
3 The question of a human role for Israel within the framework of eschatological universalism is much contested: cf. J. Blauw, The Missionary Nature of the Church (London, 1962), pp. 55–64.
←172
4 Op. cit., p. 299; cf. pp. 297–303.
←173
5 P. Volz, Die Eschatologie, op. cit., p. 356.
←174
6 Le Judaîsme avant Jesus-Christ (Paris, 1931), p. 84.
←175
antapodoma
←176
7 APOT, Vol. ii, pp. 411f.
←177
8 APOT, Vol. ii, pp. 424.
←178
9 His emendations seem reasonable. In verse 7, for example, behind ‘strength’ he reads firmitatem for ms. infirmitatem.
←179
0 TDNT, Vol. ii, p. 197.
←180
1 The same stance is apparently adopted by Test. Ab. (b). Like (a), (b) records the dilemma of the soul with equal merits and sins; but unlike (a), (b) does not record the prayers of Michael and Abraham in behalf of that soul. This is one of several ways in which (b) seems to be more severe than (a). M. R. James, The Testament of Abraham (Cambridge, 1892), pp. 64–70, notes that (b) expunges much of Abraham’s unwillingness to die, probably because such an attitude might appear unmanly. Noteworthy, too, is the fact that (b) places Abraham’s cursing of earth’s sinners (12) after his observation of judgment. This is much harsher than (a). For less significant theological differences between the two recensions, cf. M. Delcor, op. cit., pp. 11–14.
←181
Cf. A. Fitzgerald, ‘MTNDBYM in IQS’, CBQ, Vol. xxxvi (1974), pp. 495–502.
←182
To this may be added 4QDb, which appears to fill in the lacuna at the end of column 15 of the Qumran CD (15.15–17)—i.e. APOT, Vol. ii, following 19.12.
←183
J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (London, 1959), p. 114. Philo, Hyp. 11.2, notes that the Essence community was a voluntary association.
←184
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←185
antapodoma
←186
the harsher ekdikēsis;
←187
J. P. Hyatt, ‘The View of Man in the Qumran “Hodayot” ’, NTS, Vol. ii (1955–6), pp. 276–84.
←188
the harsher ekdikēsis;
←189
Cf. M. Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (London, 1956), pp. 263f.; G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth, 1968) pp. 39–41.
←190
This is not really a horribly mixed metaphor, since, as E. Lohse, Die Texte aus Qumran (Darmstadt, 1971), p. 239, n. 34, points out, the community=the holy mṭ‘(plantation?) in 6.15.
←191
TDNT, Vol. iv, p. 171. For further discussion, cf. W. Günther in Theologische Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament (Wuppertal, 1967–71), Vol. iii, p. 1044a.
←192
The best work in this area is now that of E. H. Merrill, Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns (Leiden, 1975). By ‘predestination’, however, Merrill usually means what I would call ‘soteriological predestination’, or election; yet he draws sweeping conclusions about (what I would call) predestination from his treatment of election. Too often, too, he draws deductions from the texts which the covenanters of Hodayoth would not draw, and here and there tries to resolve the sovereignty-responsibility tension for them.
←193
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←194
One passage, 1 QH 16.10, though probably highly predestinarian, is semantically ambiguous, because of the doubtful meaning of the verb ršm, which occurs only here in the DSS and only once in the Old Testament as a participle (at Dan. 10:21). T. Gaster, The Scriptures of the Dead Sea Sect (London, 1957), p. 191, translates, ‘Thou dost keep a record of every righteous spirit.…’ This suggests that the psalmist’s choice to keep his hands clean is due to the prospect of coming judgment. But others think the verb in its context means that God has written down (sc. the destiny) of the spirit of the just (e.g. S. Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot; Psalms from Qumran (Aarhus, 1960), p. 238, n. 10), i.e. because God has determined the spirit of the just, the just man will choose to be pure. The latter interpretation better suits the context, since 16.11 goes on to insist that man is not righteous except through God. This understanding of the text, which makes man’s choice the result of the divine determining, is rigorously predestinarian; but admittedly the evidence is ambiguous. E. H. Merrill, op. cit., p. 31, does not decide.
←195
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←196
0 Cf. W. D. Davies, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins’, Christian Origins and Judaism (London, 1962), p. 117: ‘We miss in the Sect the concern for the lost, for the “world”; the land for which it offers propitiation is the “land of Israel”. The Sect remains a Jewish community …’ E. P. Sanders, op. cit., pp. 245ff., insists there is strong indication that the covenanters do not restrict the elect to their own community; but the evidence he adduces is of mixed value. Certainly their vision does not really extend beyond Israel, even when it barely extends beyond the community.
←197
1 Cf. J. M. Allegro, ‘An Astrological Cryptic Document from Qumran’, Journal of Semitic Studies, Vol. ix (1964), pp. 291–4; published as 4Q186 in DJD, Vol. v, pp. 88–91. Cf. further M. Hengel, op. cit., Vol. i, pp. 236ff.
←198
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←199
2 So H.-W. Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil (Göttingen, 1966), especially pp. 44ff.
←200
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←201
3 Op. cit., p. 75.
←202
4 The Dead Sea Scrolls, op. cit., p. 374.
←203
5 A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning (London, 1966), in loc.
←204
6 M. Burrows, More Light, op. cit., p. 292.
←205
7 1QS 4.16, 25 may be taken to support this interpretation. In these verses, A. A. Anderson, ‘The Use of “Ruah” in 1QS, 1QH and 1QM’, Journal of Semitic Studies, Vol. vii (1962), pp. 293–303, takes bḏ bḇḏ to mean ‘in certain quantities or parts’, i.e. ‘proportionately’, not ‘in equal quantities’.
←206
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←207
8 Cf. inter alia M. Treves, ‘The Two Spirits of the Rule of the Community’, Revue de Qumran, Vol. iii (1961–2), p. 451; A. Marx,‘Y a-t-il une prédestination à Qumran?’, Revue de Qumran, Vol. vi (1967–9), pp. 163–81; F. Nötscher, Zur theologischen Terminologie, op. cit., pp. 79f.
←208
9 See M. Treves, op. cit., and especially P. Wernberg-Moller, ‘A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Cømmunity (1Q Serek iii.13–iv. 26)’, Revue de Qumran, Vol. iii (1961–2), pp. 413–41, who has changed his mind since writing The Manual of Discipline (Leiden, 1957).
←209
0 On the meaning of yēṣer (‘inclination’) in the Qumran corpus, see R. E. Murphy, ‘Yēṣer in the Qumran Literature’, Biblica, Vol. xxxix (1958), pp. 334–44. Often in Hodayoth it is found in the expression ‘creature (yṣr) of clay’; but even there, as J. P. Hyatt, op. ct., pp. 280f., has pointed out, it can mean ‘impulse’ or ‘inclination’: cf. 1QH 39.6, 31f., 41.3f.; and possibly also 40.32; 41.16; 45.20; 54.3, 9f.
←210
1 M. Treves, op. cit., p. 451, n. 9.
←211
2 G. Maier, Mensch und freier Wille (Tübingen, 1971), pp. 222–63; and J. H. Charlesworth, ‘A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3:13–4:26 and the “Dualism” Contained in the Gospel of John’, NTS, Vol. xv (1968–9), pp. 389–418; reprinted in John and Qumran (London, 1972), pp. 72–106, especially pp. 76–89.
←212
3 Ibid., p. 89.
←213
4 H. W. Huppenbauer, Der Mensche zwischen zwei Welten (Zürich, 1959), p. 113.
←214
5 Op. cit., pp. 53–5.
←215
6 Op. cit., p. 261.
←216
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←217
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←218
7 Op. cit. In fact, a number of scholars have not been content to let the sovereignty-responsibility tension emerge naturally from the DSS, but feel compelled to polarise it or explain it by appeal to diverse sources or the like. For example, P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial (Göttingen, 1969), has attempted a total reconstruction of the development of dualism at Qumran. He thinks dualism is linked inseparably with eschatology in 1QM 1, which he takes to be the oldest stratum of that scroll. In the rest of 1QM this link is weakened, and more ethical dualism is introduced. 1QS 3.13–4.14 is the next stage: light and darkness are de-eschatologised and linked to God’s creation, while the elect are narrowed from Israel to the community. Late developments are found in CD and other pseudepigraphical writings, while the original eschatological dualism is carried on and remains discernible in 11QMel, as in Rev. 12:7–12. But if this ‘early’ strand is so clear in ‘late’ material must we not question whether the entire reconstruction is not ‘all too pat and logical’ (review by J. Fitzmeyer, CBQ, Vol. xxxii (1970), p. 469)? In particular, the dating of 1QM is much disputed: for example, Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford, 1962), pp. 243ff., argues for a date in the second half of the first century bc—not to mention the extreme views of the G. R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls (Oxford, 1965), pp. 168–225, who advocates end of the first century ad. Yet this is one of the crucial, and debatable, points on which the thesis of von der Osten-Sacken rests. Unfortunately, H. Räisänen’s work, The Idea of Divine Hardening (Helsinki, 1972), pp. 73ff., is severely marred by following von der Osten-Sacken rather closely and uncritically. For other examples, cf. E. P. Sanders, op. cit., pp. 265f.
←219
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←220
8 J. P. Hyatt, op. cit., p. 283, n. 1. Cf. A. R. C. Leaney, op. cit., pp. 44f.
←221
9 Cf. R. H. Charles, APOT, Vol. ii, p. 785; M. Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls, op. cit., pp. 250f.; and especially L. H. Schiffman, The Halakah at Qumran (Leiden, 1975).
←222
0 Cf. S. B. Thiering, ‘The Biblical Source of Qumran Asceticism’, JBL. Vol. xciii (1974), pp. 429–44. She also points out (p. 439) that Zoroastrianism is distinctly anti-ascetic.
←223
1 J. T. Milik, op. cit., p. 113. This interpretation therefore differs quite radically from that of R. E. Brown, ‘The Qumran Scrolls and John’, A Companion to John (New York, 1977), p. 76, who overestimates the force of predestination in the DSS, and underestimates it in the Old Testament. E. H. Merrill, op. cit., commits the latter error also.
←224
2 F. Nötscher, ‘Schicksalsglaube in Qumran und Umwelt’, Biblische Zeitschrift, Vol. iii (1959), p. 218. Later in the article, Vol. iv (1960), pp. 98ff., he points out that the tension between predestination and freedom finds in Qumran only a practical, ascetic solution, not a theoretical, theological one.
←225
(London, 1977).
←226
In particular, J. Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (Leiden, 1971), 3 vols.; but also E. Rivkin, ‘Defining the Pharisees: the Tannaitic Sources’, Hebrew Union College Annual, Vols. xl–xli, pp. 234–8, and other of his essays he there cites; and J. Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 1–37.
←227
Cf. H. H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge, Mass., 1976), pp. 307–13.
←228
T Palestinian Targum
←229
P. Wernberg-Møller, ‘An Inquiry into the Validity of the Text-Critical Argument for an Early Dating of the Recently Discovered Palestinian, Targum’, VT, vol. xii (1962), pp. 312–330.
←230
T Palestinian Targum
←231
Cf. A. D. York, ‘The Dating of Targumic Literature’, Journal for the Study of Judaism, Vol. v (1974), pp. 49–62; and E. P. Sanders, op. cit., p. 26, n. 5, and the literature there cited.
←232
C. J. Cowling, ‘New Light on the New Testament? The Significance of the Palestinian Targum’, TSF Bulletin, Vol. li (1968), pp. 6–15.
←233
(Jerusalem, 1975), 2 Vols.
←234
T Masoretic Text
←235
J Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←236
Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←237
J Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←238
Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←239
J Fragmentary Targum
←240
i Fragmentary Targum
←241
J Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←242
Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←243
J Fragmentary Targum
←244
i Fragmentary Targum
←245
T Masoretic Text
←246
J Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←247
Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←248
The English translation is in this instance by M. McNamara in A. Diez Macho, Nesphyti 1: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana (Madrid, 1968– ), Vol. i, p. 641. Where there are established English translations of the targums available, I have used them; otherwise the English renderings are my own.
←249
T Masoretic Text
←250
Ibid., Vol. iii, p. 384.
←251
O Targum Onkelos
←252
J Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←253
Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←254
T Masoretic Text
←255
0 For example, Lev. 22:32 is found in the Babylonia Talmud at B. Ber. 21b; B. Meg. 23b; B. Sanh. 74a; B.A.Z. 27b, 54a. However, the last clause of Lev. 22–27 is included in none of these quotations.
←256
T Masoretic Text
←257
1 Cf. M. McNamara, Targum and Testament (Shannon, 1972), pp. 93–95.
←258
Ji Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←259
T Palestinian Targum
←260
T Masoretic Text
←261
2 P. Ber. 9.8 suggests also that David’s sin consisted in not asking for the ransom money of Exod. 30:12.
←262
T Masoretic Text
←263
T Masoretic Text
←264
T Masoretic Text
←265
3 A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic (Leiden, 1959–73), Vol. iv/b, p. 37.
←266
Ji Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←267
4 J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, 1969), p. 212.
←268
O Targum Onkelos
←269
Ji Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←270
5 Cf. the choice passages culled by C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology (New York, repr. 1974), pp. 1–57.
←271
6 Op. cit., pp. 37–41.
←272
T Palestinian Targum
←273
O Targum Onkelos
←274
7 Cf. M. McNamara, op. cit., pp. 73f.; E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (revised edn; Edinburgh, 1973– ), Vol. i, p. 100. See also the important studies of M. Ginsburger, Die Anthropomorphismen in den Targumim (Braunschweig, 1891), pp. 12f.; J. Schunary, ‘Avoidance of Anthropomorphism in the Targum of Psalms’, Textus, Vol. v (1966), pp. 133–44.
←275
T Masoretic Text
←276
Ji Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←277
Ji Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←278
Jii Fragmentary Targum
←279
O Targum Onkelos
←280
Ji Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←281
8 This perspective should not be confused with that in 3 Enoch, where Enoch=Metatron=yhwh hqṭn (‘little Yahweh’). The rabbis opposed the attempt to promote Metatron to divine status: cf. B. Sanh. 38b; B. Hag. 15a (cf. Deut. R.2.13, which may be anti-christian). On the origin of the name Metatron, cf. H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch (New York, repr. 1973), pp. 79ff.; and M. Black, ‘The Origin of the Name Metatron’, VT, Vol. i (1951), pp. 217–19. There is another strand of rabbinic thought which results in the extreme literalism of the Kabbalist period (which went so far as to estimate God’s physical dimensions): cf. E. M. Yamauchi, ‘Anthropomorphism in Hellenism and in Judaism’, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. cxxvii (1970), pp. 212–22, and the literature there cited. The earlier traditions are pre-eminently the other way. This does not mean that God became a mere metaphysical object: the rabbis preserved warmth and deep worship: cf. S. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (London, 1909), pp. 21ff.; and G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (New York, repr. 1971), Vol. i, pp. 439–42.
←282
9 See inter alia G. F. Moore, ibid., vol. ii, pp. 377–95; J. Bonsirven, Le judaîsme palestinien au temps de Jésus-Christ (Paris, 1934–35), Vol. i, pp. 307–21; M. McNamara, op. cit., pp. 133–41; and also A. J. Saldarini, ‘Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Literature’, CBQ, Vol. xxxvii (1975), pp. 348–58.
←283
J Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←284
Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←285
0 The Targums and Rabbinic Literature, op. cit., p. 158.
←286
1 Cf. G. F. Moore, op. cit., Vol. i, pp. 479–93; S. Schechter, op. cit., pp. 242–92; C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, op. cit., pp. 295–314; E. E. Urbach, op. cit., pp. 471–83. In particular, cf. B. Sukk. 52a–b.
←287
J Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←288
Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←289
2 J. M. Price, JE, Vol. v, p. 505a.
←290
3 E. E. Urbach, op. cit., pp. 257f. See his entire section on providence, pp. 255–85.
←291
4 Cf. J. Abelson, The Immanence of God in Rabbinical Literature (London, 1912), pp. 292–4.
←292
5 B. W. Helfgott, The Doctrine of Election in the Tannaitic Literature (New York, 1954), p. 4; with helpful discussion pp. 32–6.
←293
6 Cf. H. J. Schoeps, ‘Die Tempelzerstörung des Jahres 70 in der judischen Religionsgeschichte’, Aus Frühchristlicher Zeit (Tübingen, 1950), pp. 144–83.
←294
7 For an excellent discussion, cf. E. E. Urbach, op. cit., pp. 525–54.
←295
8 E.g. R. Joshua, contra R. Eliezer, argued that Messiah’s coming is independent of Israel’s repentance (B. Sanh. 97b–98a). So also R. Meir (B. Kidd, 36a). See further B. W. Helfgott, op. cit., pp. 105ff., 147ff. R. Judah b. Ilai, however, believed that the filial bond between God and Israel was conditioned by good behaviour (B. Kidd, 36a; Sifre on Deut. 4:1).
←296
9 H. J. Schoeps, ‘Haggadisches zur Auserwählung Israels’, Aus frühschristlicher Zeit (Tübingen, 1950), pp. 184–200, argues convincingly that this sort of Haggadah was the rabbinic answer to christian polemic on election.
←297
0 Cf. references in SB, Vol. iv, p. 35.
←298
1 So taught a Tanna in the name of R. Meir. The Epstein English translation wrongly translates ‘zyn by ‘impetuous’; but, as B. W. Helfgott, op. cit., p. 155, n. 5, points out, the word means ‘energetic’ as in Gen. 49:7; Exod. 14:21; Num. 13:28. Note the parallel in the same passage, attributed to R. Simeon b. Rakish: ‘There are three distinguished in (fierce) strength (‘zyn): Israel among the nations, the dog among animals, (and) the cock among birds.’
←299
J Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←300
Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←301
2 (New York, 1939).
←302
3 On the whole question of merits, see C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, op. cit., pp. 202–32; A. Marmorstein, The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature (London, 1920); W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1970), pp. 270–72; S. Schechter, op. cit., pp. 170–98; E. P. Sanders, op. cit., passim; E. E. Urbach, op. cit., especially chapters 13, 15, and 16.
←303
J Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←304
Pseudo-Jonathan Targum
←305
4 A modern and not altogether surprising parallel comes from Solomon Zeitlin in the preface of his book, The Rise and Fall of the Jewish State (Philadelphia, 1962– ), Vol. i, p. xii; ‘I consider myself fortunate and assigned to great merit to have lived to see the establishment of the Third Commonwealth …’
←306
5 Cf. J. Abelson, op. cit., pp. 248ff.
←307
6 G. F. Moore, op. cit., Vol. ii, pp. 273–5, especially p. 275.
←308
7 Cf. H. J. Schoeps, ‘Weiteres zur Auserwählung Israels’, Aus fruhchristlicher Zeit (Tübingen, 1950), pp. 201–11.
←309
8 For an excellent discussion, cf. E. E. Urbach, op. cit., pp. 511–23.
←310
nt Antiquities
←311
Antiquities
←312
nt Antiquities
←313
Antiquities
←314
nt Antiquities
←315
Antiquities
←316
nt Antiquities
←317
Antiquities
←318
nt Antiquities
←319
Antiquities
←320
nt Antiquities
←321
Antiquities
←322
See the important work by H. W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Cambridge, Mass., 1976).
←323
nt Antiquities
←324
Antiquities
←325
nt Antiquities
←326
Antiquities
←327
nt Antiquities
←328
Antiquities
←329
nt Antiquities
←330
Antiquities
←331
nt Antiquities
←332
Antiquities
←333
nt Antiquities
←334
Antiquities
←335
nt Antiquities
←336
Antiquities
←337
nt Antiquities
←338
Antiquities
←339
nt Antiquities
←340
Antiquities
←341
nt Antiquities
←342
Antiquities
←343
nt Antiquities
←344
Antiquities
←345
nt Antiquities
←346
Antiquities
←347
nt Antiquities
←348
Antiquities
←349
nt Antiquities
←350
Antiquities
←351
nt Antiquities
←352
Antiquities
←353
nt Antiquities
←354
Antiquities
←355
nt Antiquities
←356
Antiquities
←357
nt Antiquities
←358
Antiquities
←359
nt Antiquities
←360
Antiquities
←361
nt Antiquities
←362
Antiquities
←363
nt Antiquities
←364
Antiquities
←365
nt Antiquities
←366
Antiquities
←367
nt Antiquities
←368
Antiquities
←369
nt Antiquities
←370
Antiquities
←371
nt Antiquities
←372
Antiquities
←373
G. Stählin, ‘Das Schicksal im Neuen Testament und bie Josephus’, Josephus-Studien (Göttingen, 1974), p. 342, argues plausibly that Josephus’ bragging is in part a function of his syncretism. However, sometimes it is probably an understandable reaction to his double agony: he is frequently distrusted both by the Romans and by his own people. A more telling measure of hellenistic influence on Josephus is his ‘eschatology’: cf. A. Schlatter, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus (Gütersloh, 1932), p. 259.
←374
nt Antiquities
←375
Antiquities
←376
nt Antiquities
←377
Antiquities
←378
nt Antiquities
←379
Antiquities
←380
nt Antiquities
←381
Antiquities
←382
nt Antiquities
←383
Antiquities
←384
nt Antiquities
←385
Antiquities
←386
nt Antiquities
←387
Antiquities
←388
nt Antiquities
←389
Antiquities
←390
nt Antiquities
←391
Antiquities
←392
nt Antiquities
←393
Antiquities
←394
nt Antiquities
←395
Antiquities
←396
nt Antiquities
←397
Antiquities
←398
nt Antiquities
←399
Antiquities
←400
nt Antiquities
←401
Antiquities
←402
nt Antiquities
←403
Antiquities
←404
nt Antiquities
←405
Antiquities
←406
nt Antiquities
←407
Antiquities
←408
nt Antiquities
←409
Antiquities
←410
nt Antiquities
←411
Antiquities
←412
nt Antiquities
←413
Antiquities
←414
nt Antiquities
←415
Antiquities
←416
nt Antiquities
←417
Antiquities
←418
nt Antiquities
←419
Antiquities
←420
nt Antiquities
←421
Antiquities
←422
nt Antiquities
←423
Antiquities
←424
nt Antiquities
←425
Antiquities
←426
Some manuscripts omit all but the last three words.
←427
nt Antiquities
←428
Antiquities
←429
Likely emendation: cf. the Loeb edition, in loc., footnote.
←430
nt Antiquities
←431
Antiquities
←432
nt Antiquities
←433
Antiquities
←434
nt Antiquities
←435
Antiquities
←436
nt Antiquities
←437
Antiquities
←438
nt Antiquities
←439
Antiquities
←440
nt Antiquities
←441
Antiquities
←442
nt Antiquities
←443
Antiquities
←444
nt Antiquities
←445
Antiquities
←446
nt Antiquities
←447
Antiquities
←448
‘Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies according to Josephus’, Havard Theological Review, Vol. xxii (1929), p. 388.
←449
For other solutions to the question of why Josephus used such terminology, cf. G. Stählin, op. cit., pp. 338ff.; and H. W. Attridge, op. cit., chap. 5.
←450
nt Antiquities
←451
Antiquities
←452
nt Antiquities
←453
Antiquities
←454
Cf. G. Maier, ‘Die jüdischen Lehrer bei Josephus’, Josephus-Studien (Göttingen, 1974), pp. 268f.
←455
nt Antiquities
←456
Antiquities
←457
L. Wächter, ‘Die unterschiedliche Haltung der Pharisäer, Sadduzäer und Essener zur Heimarmene nach dem Bericht des Josefus’, Zeitschrift für Religions und Geistesgeschichte, Vol. xxi (1961), pp. 97–114, argues that Josephus has been influenced by Stoic versus Epicurean debates, among whom predestination (Vorherbestimmung) and free will (Willensfreiheit) were live issues. He says that no Jewish sect believed in a will quite as free as the Sadducees are made out to believe, but that Josephus needed this polarity in his argument and therefore attributed Epicurean beliefs to them. Against this line of argument, G. Maier, Mensch und freier Wille, op. cit., p. 158, sees Ben Sira as ‘the teacher who serves as fore-runner (der frühen Zeit Lehrmeister) of the later Sadducees, who are pictured for us by Josephus’. He rightly points out that the literature of Judaism is concerned with these problems.
←458
Theology in Reconstruction (London, 1965), pp. 169–91.
←459
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←460
Op. cit.
←461
So the verb katelaben should here be translated: cf. 12:35, its only other occurrence in this Gospel.
←462
R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (New York, 1966), p. 155.
←463
‘L’ami de l’époux (Jo., iii, 29)’, A la rencontre de Dieu (Le Puy, 1961), pp. 289–95.
←464
B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (London, 1972), pp. 166f.
←465
M.-J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Jean (Paris, 1936), pp. 94f.
←466
So rightly R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium (Freiburg, 1965–76), Vol. i, pp. 452f. The German reads: ‘Es ist ihm verliehen, etwas zu tun’—precisely the meaning also of 6:65. The English translation, available only for Vol. i, is possible, but probably misleading: ‘being empowered to do something’.
←467
R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Oxford, 1971), p. 172.
←468
Ibid.
←469
E.g. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John (London, 1955), p. 213, who draws attention to Luke 13:1–5. Bultmann, p. 243, says that 5:14 is surprising; but it is only surprising if 9:1–3 is arbitrarily adopted as normative for the fourth Gospel.
←470
0 Barrett, p. 295.
←471
1 Brown, p. 371.
←472
2 So Bultmann, p. 410, n. 10. Cf. W. F. Howard, The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism (revised by C. K. Barrett; London, 1955), p. 187; Bernard, Vol. ii, p. 404; Brown, pp. 439f. BDF §186(2) shows the genitive can be construed as temporal, an approach to this verse which goes back as far as Origen.
←473
3 So Barrett, p. 339. Prophecy is not infrequently associated with the office of the High Priest: cf. Num. 27:21; 2 Sam. 15:27; Philo, Spec. Leg. iv. 192; Josephus, Ant. xi.326f.; xiii.300; and SB, Vol. ii, p. 546. E. Bammel, ‘archiereus prophētōn’, Theologische Literaturzeitung, Vol. lxxix (1954), pp. 351–6, has shown that in rabbinic thought the prophetic character of the high-priestly office is still a living tradition.
←474
4 L. Morris, The Gospel according to John (London, 1971), p. 797.
←475
5 Reading eiches (with B W Θ f.1 pm) rather than echeis (with א A f.13 al.). Possibly the latter variant developed because an is omitted (as in 8:39).
←476
6 The ‘authority’ or ‘power’ to which Pilate makes appeal is the authority of the state. However, Jesus’ rejoinder does not argue that state authority has been granted the Procurator by God, since the participle is dedemenon (dedemenē would be required, to agree with exousia). What is in view is God’s determining of the event of the betrayal: so rightly T. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Johannes (Leipzig, 1908), p. 633; E. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (London, 1947), p. 524; Lagrange, p. 483; Schnackenburg, Vol. iii, p. 301; and the later editions of Bultmann, in loc. The handing over of Jesus to Pilate was determined by God, and therefore if Pilate now finds himself in a position of authority it is by God’s doing: it is in this sense that Pilate’s authority is circumscribed, not by an argument that all human authority finds its source and limitation in the divine will, as W. Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium (Tübingen, 1933), p. 219, maintains.
←477
7 Morris, p. 797.
←478
8 So we may deduce from 6:68f., by observing the emphatic ‘we’, in contrast to those who withdrew (6:66), and the two perfects, pepisteukamen and egnōkamen, which, in the present context, are virtually synonymous and mutually emphatic.
←479
9 The ones most commonly cited are Corpus Hermeticum 6.4 and Rev. 17:17 (the former displacing ‘heart’, kardia, with the less biblical ‘mind’, nous).
←480
0 Barrett, pp. 365f.
←481
1 Lindars, p. 449.
←482
2 Bauer, p. 168.
←483
3 Brown, p. 578. Barrett, p. 373, notes that meta, ‘after’ (13:27) is temporal, not causal, and therefore argues that ‘receiving the morsel does not make Judas Satan’s tool’. However, the tote, ‘then’, joins Satan’s entry into Judas so closely with the receiving of the morsel that it is difficult to resist the conclusion that this was the decisive step.
←484
4 Barrett, p. 370; similarly Brown, pp. 553f.
←485
5 J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh, 1906–1976), Vol. i, pp. 178f., 248; BDF §387 (3).
←486
T Masoretic Text
←487
XX Septuagint
←488
6 Morris, p. 728.
←489
7 J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John (Edinburgh, 1928), Vol. ii, p. 325.
←490
8 Cf. W. D. Davies, The Gospel and The Land (Berkeley, 1974), pp. 289ff., who argues persuasively that Jesus replaces all the ‘holy space’ in the fourth Gospel. For example, in John 4 he comes to Jacob’s well, but he himself is the ‘living water’. On the temple replacement, cf. also L. Gaston, No Stone on Another (Leiden, 1970), pp. 205–7. Cf. also S. Pancaro, The Law in the Fourth Gospel (Leiden, 1975), pp. 367–487, and E. J. Epp, ‘Wisdom, Torah, Word: The Johannine Prologue and the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel’, Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (Grand Rapids, 1975), pp. 128–46, for the idea that Jesus replaces the law.
←491
9 Cf. the works by T. F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (London, 1963); W. A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Leiden, 1967); and K. Haacker, Die Stiftung des Heils (Stuttgart, 1972).
←492
0 Cf. R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids, 1975), pp. 152f.
←493
1 Ibid., pp. 70ff., 152–7, 218.
←494
2 Cf. -S. Amsler, L’Ancien Testament dans l’église (Paris, 1960), pp. 39f.; and especially A. Dauer, Die Passionsgeschichte im Johannesevangelium (München, 1972), pp. 295–306.
←495
3 An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London, 1958), pp. 186f.
←496
4 The verb plēroun occurs at 12:38; 13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 36, as well as here, and virtually ensures in each case that hina is telic in force: cf. Bernard, Vol. i, pp. clii–clvi, especially p. cliii.
←497
5 New Testament Apologetic (London, 1961), p. 267.
←498
6 Studien zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums (Cambridge, 1974), p. 261. The precise significance of these ‘Ego Eimi’ statements in John’s Gospel is much disputed. For a convenient survey of the most important literature, cf. G. H. Parke-Taylor, Yahweh: The Divine Name in the Bible (Waterloo, Ont., 1975), pp. 73ff.
←499
7 R. N. Longenecker, op. cit., p. 155.
←500
8 J. K. S. Reid, op. cit., p. 67.
←501
9 D. A. Carson, ‘Current Source-Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Some Methodological Questions’, JBL, Vol. xcvii (1978), pp. 411–29. Although this paper glances at the theories of R. Bultmann, J. Becker, R. Schnackenburg, R. Nicol, R. Fortna, H. Teeple, and S. Temple, it focuses on the work of R. T. Fortna.
←502
0 The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (London, 1936), pp. 155ff.; The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), pp. 144ff. Cf. E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology (Edinburgh, 1908), pp. 295–319.
←503
1 ‘Agnostos Christos: Joh. 2.24 und die Eschatologie des vierten Evangeliums’, The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 281–99.
←504
2 Jesus and His Coming (London, 1957).
←505
3 Viz. G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1974). Moreover, the use of a christian document’s eschatology as an index of its date is a highly doubtful procedure: cf. S. S. Smalley, ‘The Delay of the Parousia’, JBL, Vol. lxxxiii (1964), pp. 41–54.
←506
4 Die Eschatologie des Johannesevangeliums (Assen, 1962).
←507
5 Ibid., pp. 60ff., 74–80. Cf. T. Preiss, Life in Christ (London, 1954), p. 27, who describes eternal life in John as a possession in spe nondum in re.
←508
6 Salvation in History (London, 1967), pp. 289f.
←509
7 Die Eschatologie des vierten Evangeliums (Zürich, 1966).
←510
8 Krisis: Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie (Freiburg, 1964).
←511
9 Consummatum Est. Eschatology and Church in the Gospel of St John (London, 1958), pp. 85–112.
←512
0 C. F. D. Moule; ‘The Individualism of the Fourth Gospel’, Nov. T Vol. v (1962), pp. 171–90; idem, ‘A Neglected Factor in the Interpretation of Johannine Eschatology’, Studies in John (Leiden, 1970), pp. 155–60.
←513
1 E. Grässer, ‘Jesus und das Heil Gottes: Bemerkungen zur sog. “Individualisierung des Heils” ’, Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie (Tübingen, 1975), pp. 167–84, points out how often the ‘individualising of salvation’ occurs not only in Paul and John but in the synoptic Gospels as well.
←514
2 The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity (Leiden, 1972), pp. 65–102.
←515
3 Cf. especially D. Hill, ‘On the Evidence for the Creative Role of Christian Prophets’, NTS, Vol. xx (1974), pp. 262–74; R. Bauckham, ‘Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse’, NTS, Vol. xxiii (1977), pp. 162–76; J. D. G. Dunn, ‘Prophetic “I”—Sayings and the Jesus Tradition: The Importance of Testing Prophetic Utterances within Early Christianity’, NTS, Vol. xxiv (1978), pp. 175–98.
←516
4 Cultic Setting, op. cit., pp. 89–102.
←517
5 The structure of Bultmann’s eschatology can most conveniently be examined in his Theology of the New Testament (London, 1952–55); but, as it emerges in his study of John, it must be gleaned piecemeal from his commentary, op. cit. For a rigorous critique, cf. D. E. Holwerda, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in the Gospel of John (Kampen, 1959), pp. 113–33.
←518
6 This spatial dualism itself encourages the rendering ‘from above’, rather than ‘again’ or ‘anew’. Further, cf. F. Büchsel, TDNT, Vol i, p. 378.
←519
7 Brown, p. cxv.
←520
8 For a succinct summary of the arguments in favour of this point, cf. J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London, 1970), pp. 173–6; and contra, pp. 176–8.
←521
9 Cited by J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism, op. cit., p. 176, from a private communication.
←522
0 Otherwise, as W. Thüsing, Die Erhöhung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium (Münster, 1970), pp. 265f., notes, the appearances to Mary and to the disciples must have been of vastly different types.
←523
1 Op. cit., p. 176.
←524
2 L. Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids, 1969), pp. 65–138.
←525
3 Lindars, p. 612 (italics mine).
←526
4 J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism, op. cit., p. 178.
←527
5 To use the choice expression of C. K. Barrett, ‘The Place of Eschatology in the Fourth Gospel’, Ex. T, Vol. lix (1947–48), p. 305.
←528
XX Septuagint
←529
AG W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich (eds), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 1957
←530
6 J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism, op. cit., p. 181.
←531
7 Cf. J. Painter, ‘Eschatological Faith in the Gospel of John’, Reconciliation and Hope (Exeter, 1974), pp. 49–51.
←532
8 D. Hill, Greek Words with Hebrew Meanings (Cambridge, 1967), p. 196.
←533
9 The Fourth Gospel (Amsterdam, 1929, repr. 1968), pp. 293f.
←534
0 Cf. C. F. D. Moule, ‘The Influence of Circumstances on the Use of Eschatological Terms’, JTS, Vol. xv (1964), p. 8, who says that ‘apocalyptic has its value in emphasising the transcendent and “vertical”, as against the “horizontal” and merely human.’ C. K. Barrett, The Fourth Gospel and Judaism (London, 1975), in tracing parallel developments between late first century Judaism and Christianity, points out that ‘apocalyptic is not characteristic of the [fourth] gospel’ (p. 44; cf. pp. 66f). However, the basic two-age structure (with Christian modification) is characteristic of it. Moreover, the major New Testament Apocalypse has many points of contact with the fourth Gospel. Nor is it, pace Barrett (p. 66) an exception: he himself later notes (p. 89, n. 24) that the hope of the parousia is alive and well in the second century, which, of course, also witnesses the flourishing of christian apocalyptic.
←535
1 S. S. Smalley, John—Evangelist and Interpreter (Exeter, 1978), pp. 210ff., sees the divine/human tension in Jesus as the Mitte of the fourth Gospel’s use of christological titles; but I must forbear to discuss the matter here. However, because this monograph concerns John and Jewish background, therefore one question I cannot evade, even if I do not have space to treat it at length, is this: How truly Jewish is John’s ascription of divine status to Jesus? The actual ascription of theos to Jesus is not common in the New Testament, but it is scattered widely even if thinly: cf. Heb. 1:8f.; 2 Pet. 1:1 (on which see R. E. Brown, Jesus, God and Man (Milwaukee, 1967), p. 25); 2 Thess. 1:12; Titus 2:13; almost certainly Rom. 9:5 (cf. B. M. Metzger, ‘The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5’, Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 95–112); and the three references in the fourth Gospel discussed in this section. Of course, Jesus’ deity does not turn exclusively on the word theos. But much, perhaps most, current New Testament scholarship holds that the ascription of deity to Jesus reflects the change in the Church’s christology occasioned by the Church’s penetration of one form or another of hellenistic culture. The Church, it is held, affected by the pressures of syncretism, presented Jesus, for the first time, in divine categories. See, for example, F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology (London, 1969), pp. 108–14. The attempt to understand John’s logos in philonic terms has largely passed away. More recently, however, a strong case for Jewish roots to johannine christology has sprung up from several quarters. R. N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London, 1970), pp. 136ff., has demonstrated that the explicit ascription of the title theos to Jesus arose in Jewish Christian circles. C. H. Talbert, ‘The Myth of a Descending-Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiquity’, NTS, Vol. xxii (1975–6), pp. 418–40, has shown that it is unnecessary to resort to Gnosticism to find descent/ascent themes; indeed, there are numerous parallels within Judaism. Similarly, cf. J. P. Miranda, Der Vater, der mich gesandt hat (Bern, 1972). Other works of importance which support the essential Jewishness of ‘God’ and ‘Son of God’ christology, the position taken in this monograph, include: J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘Der semitische Hintergrund des neutestamentlichen Kyriostitels’, Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie (Tübingen, 1975), pp. 267–98; C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge, 1967); I. H. Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology (Leicester, 1967); M. Hengel, ‘Christologie und neutestamentliche Chronologie’, Neues Testament und Geschichte (Zürich, 1972), pp. 43–67; idem, The Son of God (London, 1976).
←536
2 Viz., the UBS text, the Nestle-Kilpatrick text, and the Nestle-Aland text. The first and third are in the process of getting together.
←537
3 Barrett, p. 160.
←538
4 Cf. P. B. Harner, The ‘I Am’ of the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia, 1970), pp. 39ff., 51ff. He points out that the ‘I Am’ sayings are often found in a subordinationist context; but in 8:58, the deity of Christ is in view: cf. Brown, p. 367. W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land, op. cit., pp. 294f., not only recognises this point, but sees 8:58f. in terms of the Feast of Tabernacles background (especially Sukk. 4.5) and argues that the divine Presence is here abandoning the ‘holy space’ of the Temple: ‘The Shekinah is no longer there, but is now found wherever Christ is’ (p. 295).
←539
5 C. F. D. Moule has repeatedly suggested that the anarthrous huios anthrōpou (5:27) most likely means simply ‘man’: cf. his ‘Neglected features in the Problem of “the Son of Man” ’ Neues Testament und Kirche (Freiburg, 1974), p. 420; idem, The Origin of Christology, op. cit., pp. 16f., n. 15.
←540
6 Cf. R. Longenecker, Christology, op. cit., p. 102.
←541
7 Cf. Schnackenburg, Vol. iii, pp. 294–6; idem, ‘Die Ecce-homo-Szene und der Menschensohn’, Jesus und der Menschensohn (Freiburg, 1975), pp. 371–86; F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man (Rome, 1976), pp. 202–7.
←542
8 Whatever possible symbolic meaning there may be, the evangelist saw the event first of all as historical fact: cf. Barrett, p. 461; J. Wilkinson, ‘The Incident of the Blood and Water in John 19.34’, Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. xxviii (1975), pp. 149–72.
←543
9 The Jesus of St. John (London, 1958), pp. 90–157.
←544
0 This is true even of John 10:34–6.1 think the argument is ad hominem; but its a minori ad maius form also indicates the minimum that Jesus expects the Jews to believe about him, the purpose being to show Jesus’ superiority (10:36) in a context that has already made Jesus out to be God (10:33). Of course, the precise meaning of the passage turns in part on the background envisaged: cf. J. A. Emerton, ‘Some New Testament Notes’, JTS, Vol. xi (1960), pp. 329–36; idem, ‘Melchizedek and the Gods: Fresh Evidence for the Jewish Background of John x.34–36’, JTS, Vol. xvii (1966), pp. 394–401; J. S. Ackermann, ‘The Rabbinic Interpretation of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John: John 10:34’, Harvard Theological Review, Vol. lix (1966), pp. 186–91; and especially A. T. Hanson, ‘John’s Citation of Psalm lxxxii Reconsidered’, NTS, (Vol. xiii (1966–7), pp. 363–7.
←545
1 Accepting the minority reading (but the lectio difficilior) of the Western text, along with most commentators since Harnack.
←546
2 O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (London, 1963), pp. 306ff; Bultmann, passim, perhaps especially pp. 248–54.
←547
3 Introducing the New Testament (London, 1972), p. 65; idem, According to John (London, 1968), p. 115.
←548
4 The Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Tübingen, 1976).
←549
5 ‘The Use of the Fourth Gospel for Christology Today’, Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (Cambridge, 1973), p. 73.
←550
6 The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel op. cit., pp. 200–6.
←551
7 Cf. the questions raised by R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (London, 1965), pp. 247ff., who, although he thinks the restatement of the gospel for the hellenistic world contributed largely to ontological categories, nevertheless acknowledges: ‘For it is not just a quirk of the Greek mind, but a universal apperception, that action implies prior being—even if, as is also true, being is only apprehended in action. Such ontic reflection about Yahweh is found even in the OT, e.g. “i am” (Exodus and Deutero-Isaiah)’, (pp. 248f.). Cf. especially the careful statement of Longenecker, Christology, op. cit., pp. 154–6.
←552
8 Johannine Christology and the Early Church (Cambridge, 1970), p. 17.
←553
9 Johannine Christology, loc. cit.
←554
0 Lindars, p. 615.
←555
XX Septuagint
←556
1 ‘A Neglected Feature of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel’, NTS, Vol. xxii (1975–6), p. 45.
←557
2 Cf. Christology, op. cit., pp. 139ff.; adapted by Mastin, art. cit.
←558
3 B. A. Mastin, ‘The Imperial Cult and the Ascription of the Title Theos to Jesus (John xx.28)’, St. Ev., Vol. vi (1973), pp. 352–65.
←559
4 Jesus, God and Man, op. cit.
←560
5 The New Testament Christological Hymns (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 20ff.
←561
6 ‘The Prologue of St John’s Gospel’, New Testament Essays (London, 1972), pp. 27–48.
←562
7 Ibid., pp. 32–51.
←563
8 R. Leistner, Antijudaismus im Johannesevangelium? (Bern, 1974).
←564
9 History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York, 1968).
←565
00 New Testament Essays, op. cit., pp. 65f.; idem, ‘ “The Father is greater than I” (Jo. 14, 28): Subordinationist Christology in the New Testament’, Neues Testament und Kirche (Freiburg, 1974), pp. 144–59.
←566
01 Die Stiftung des Heils, op. cit., pp. 25–7.
←567
02 Ibid., pp. 90ff.
←568
03 Ibid., p. 116.
←569
04 The Testament of Jesus (London, 1968).
←570
05 Cf. inter alia G. M. Davis, ‘The Humanity of Jesus in John’, JBL, Vol. lxx (1951), pp. 105–12; J. Knox, The Humanity and Divinity of Christ (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 25ff.
←571
06 E. Käsemann, ‘Aufbau und Anliegen des johanneischen Prologs’, Libertas Christiana (München, 1957), p. 94.
←572
07 Testament, op. cit., p. 10.
←573
08 In particular, cf. G. Bornkamm, ‘Zur Interpretation des Johannesevangeliums’, Geschichte und Glaube (München, 1968), Vol. i, pp. 104–21; R. E. Brown, ‘The Kerygma of the Gospel according to St John’, NTS (London, 1970), pp. 218ff.; S. S. Smalley, ‘The Testament of Jesus: Another Look’, St. Ev., Vol. vi (1973), pp. 495–501; H. Hegermann, ‘Er kam in sein Eigentum: Zur Bedeutung des Erdenwirkens Jesu im vierten Evangeliums’, Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde (Göttingen, 1970), pp. 112–31.
←574
09 E. Malatesta, ‘The Spirit/Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel’, Biblica, Vol. liv (1973), pp. 539–50.
←575
10 G. Richter, ‘Die Fleischwerdung des Logos im Johannesevangelium’, Nov. T, Vol. xiii (1971), pp. 81–126.
←576
11 K. Berger, ‘Zu “Das Wort ward Fleisch” Joh. I 14a’, Nov. T, Vol. vxi (1974), pp. 161–6.
←577
12 Cf. the carefully qualified corroboration by W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1970), pp. 164f. and notes. On pp. 166f., he argues that the development of Wisdom was in part an attempt to reconcile transdendence and immanence in the realm of creation and elsewhere. It is not surprising therefore that a growing number of recent scholars have connected John’s Logos doctrine with Wisdom motifs: e.g. Lindars, passim; F. M. Braun, Jean le théologien, op. cit., especially Vol. iii.
←578
13 The Central Message of the New Testament (London, 1965), pp. 89f. Cf. B. F. Westcott, The Revelation of the Father (London/Cambridge, 1884), pp. 7–10.
←579
14 W. Kümmel, Theology, op. cit., p. 273.
←580
15 Barrett, p. 62.
←581
16 E. Haenchen, ‘ “Der Vater …” ’, NTS, Vol. ix (1962–3), p. 210. Quite a number of scholars recognise the revelatory function of Jesus Christ in John’s Gospel, yet keep it in proportion. Among the most useful recent articles are: P. J. Cahill, ‘The Johannine Logos as Center’, CBQ, Vol. xxxviii (1976), pp. 54–72; E. Ruckstuhl, ‘Abstieg und Erhöhung des johanneischen Menschensohn’, Jesus und der Menschensohn (Frieburg, 1975), pp. 314–41; H. Vorländer, ‘ “Mein Herr und Mein Gott.” Christus als “personlicher Gott” im Neuen Testament’, Kerygma und Dogma, Vol. xxi (1975), pp. 120–46; T. W. Manson, ‘The Johannine Jesus as Logos’, reprinted in A Companion to John (New York, 1977), pp. 33–58.
←582
17 F. Amiot, ‘Deum Nemo Vidit Unquam: Jo. I, 18’, Mélanges Bibliques (Paris, n.d.), pp. 470–77.
←583
18 E. Haenchen, ‘ “Der Vater …” ’, op. cit., p. 211.
←584
19 A. Loisy, Le Quatrième Evangile (Paris, 1921), p. 415.
←585
20 F.-M. Braun, Jean le théologien, op. cit., Vol. iv, p. 93.
←586
21 A. Dauer, Die Passionsgeschichte, op. cit., p. 286.
←587
22 A. Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London, 1958), pp. 187f. The use of ‘solved’ is perhaps infortunate. Cf. also the extended discussion by D. M. Baillie, God Was in Christ (London, 1948), pp. 106–32.
←588
23 ‘The Manhood of Jesus in the New Testament’, Christ, Faith and History (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 95–110. One must nevertheless be careful with this sort of statement, lest it descend once more into mere functionalism. The same caution pertains especially to the work of A. T. Hanson, Grace and Truth: A Study in the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London, 1975); for when he speaks of divinity revealing itself in humanity, I am never entirely sure if he is referring to character as opposed to essence.
←589
24 J. D. G. Dunn, ‘The Washing of the Disciples’ Feet in John 13:1–20’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Vol. lxi (1970), pp. 247–52, is surely correct in refusing to split off 13:12ff from 13:1–11. Cf. also A. Weiser, ‘Joh. 13, 12–20—Zufügung eines späteren Herausgebers?’, Biblische Zeitschrift, Vol. xii (1968), pp. 252–7.
←590
Pace R. Bultmann, Faith and Understanding (London, 1969), p. 169; P. Benoit, ‘Paulinisme et Johanisme’, NTS, Vol. ix (1963), pp. 193–207; and many others.
←591
W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1966), p. 410. Cf. the discussion in G. Stemberger, La symbolique du bien et du mal salon saint Jean (Paris, 1970).
←592
‘A Grammatical and Contextual Inventory of the Use of kosmos in the Johannine Corpus with some Implications for a Johannine Cosmic Theology’, NTS, Vol. xix (1972–3), pp. 81–91.
←593
In the case of 2:23–5, the de in 3:1 probably bears adversative force.
←594
Cf. Lagrange, p. 411: ‘The meaning, therefore, is: If, having come, I had not spoken to them …’
←595
C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (London, 1962), p. 94.
←596
Morris, p. 481.
←597
Barrett, p. 289.
←598
J. A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament (Edinburgh, 1874), Vol. ii, p. 437.
←599
0 In one sense, of course, they had come to Jesus (6:2, 4), but their present coming ‘has not been a true coming, their present seeing has not been a true seeing’ (C. J. Wright, Jesus the Revelation of God (London, 1950), p. 174).
←600
1 D. Mollat, ‘La conversion chez saint Jean’, Lumière et Vie, Vol. xlvii (1960), p. 101.
←601
2 C. K. Barrett, New Testament Essays, op. cit., p. 64.
←602
3 Cf. Morris, p. 406: ‘His hearers had raised the question of his competence as a teacher. He raises the question of their competence as hearers.’
←603
4 This is even more emphatically the case in 5:6, where commentators regularly misinterpret Jesus’ question, ‘Do you want to be healed?’ E.g. Morris, p. 303: ‘He begins by inquiring as to his willingness to be cured’; W. Barclay, The Gospel of John (Edinburgh, 1955–6), Vol. i, p. 175: ‘The first essential towards receiving the power of Jesus is the intense desire for it.’ Similarly Zahn, pp. 282f. But Jesus’ question, far from evoking any faith and hope, seems only to reveal the man’s bankruptcy. Moreover, faith required in 4:46–54 is not required in 5:1ff.; so it cannot be a necessary precursor of a display of Christ’s power in the fourth Gospel.
←604
5 The hoti clauses following pisteuein are in 6:69; 8:24; 11:27, 42; 13:19; 14:10f.; 16:27 (cf. 8:42; 17:8); 16:30; 17:8, 21; those following ginōskein, in 6:69; 8:28; 10:38; 14:20, 31; 17:7f., 23; cf. also 7:26, in the words of the crowd; and those following eidenai, in 3:2; 4:42; 16:30; cf. also 7:28; 14:5. Cf. J. T. Forestell, The Word of the Cross (Rome, 1974), pp. 45f., n. 119; and discussion in J. M. Boice, Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John (Exeter, 1970), pp. 53–61.
←605
6 The example of John the Baptist most likely stands behind the ‘others’ of 4:38, as well. Cf. J. A. T. Robinson, ‘The New Look at the Fourth Gospel’, St. Ev., Vol. i (1959), pp. 510–15; contra O. Cullmann, in several of his writings, perhaps especially ‘Samaria and the Origins of the Christian Mission’, The Early Church (London, 1956), pp. 183–92; and most recently, in The Johannine Circle (London, 1976).
←606
7 Actually, Jesus never expressly calls his followers ‘slaves’ (douloi) in the fourth Gospel, although in 13:13, 16 he comes close to it.
←607
8 Pace the idea that philos, ‘friend’, here suggests ‘a mutual intimacy and confidence on equal terms’ (Lindars, pp. 491f.).
←608
9 In the case of John 14:15, there is textual ambiguity. The reading tērēsēte (p 66א al.) makes the protasis include all of verse 15: cf. Brown, pp. 637f.: ‘If you love me and keep my commandments, then at my request etc.’ But Brown has to read in a kai to remove the awkwardness. The imperative tērēsate claims support of A D K W X Δ ΘΠ fl f13 al., but this ill accords with the erōtēsō clause in 14:16. Of course this objection has no weight if there is a break in thought between 14:15 and 14:16; but in that case 14:15 appears to be a terribly isolated logion. The future tērēsete (B L Ψ al.) best fits the context and is paralleled in thought by 14:21 (cf. also 1 John 5:3), and in grammar by 14:23f.
←609
0 Barrett, p. 414.
←610
1 Most commentators give krisis a neutral significance here. Morris, p. 223, distinguishes between krima and krisis and argues that the latter here means ‘the process of judging, not the sentence of condemnation’. Similarly Bultmann, p. 157, sees a great division in the world. He is followed enthusiastically on this point by J. Blank, op. cit., pp. 95ff. Lindars, p. 160, and Brown, p. 134, agree. But the rest of the verse surely shows that krisis, like krinein in 3:17, here has the sense of condemnation: cf. Barrett, pp. 181f.; Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, 1966), Vol. i, p. 143; and especially Schnackenburg, Vol. i, pp. 403ff.
←611
2 A number of scholars take the verb elenchein only in the neutral sense of ‘to expose’: e.g. Schnackenburg, Vol. i, p. 406, n. 160; Lindars, p. 161. The verb may have this neutral sense in Eph. 5:13. In the LXX, however, it usually translates ykḥ, retaining a forensic meaning. Pace Schnackenburg, elenchthē (3:20) is not strictly parallel with phanerōthē (3:21). Rather, the removal of the common elements of the last clause in each verse shows that elenchthē is structurally parallel with, and thematically set over against, phanerōthē … hoti en theō estin eirgasmena. Moreover, it is hard to see how mere exposure would keep the one who does evil away from the light, unless that exposure shamed him, rebuked him, or convicted him. Cf. also F. Büchsel, TDNT, Vol. ii, p. 437–5.
←612
3 Barrett, p. 182.
←613
4 Vol. i, pp. 406f.
←614
5 Westcott, p. 57. Cf. niv: ‘… so that it may be plainly seen that what he has done has been done through God.’
←615
6 Lindars, p. 161.
←616
7 Vol. i, p. 399.
←617
8 Cf. B. B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies (Nutley, repr. 1952), pp. 505–22; Bultmann, p. 153, n. 3.
←618
9 The choice of tense is significant. The believer is ou krinetai, the unbeliever ēdē kekritai. The world is already condemned and perishing; but it is a new thing when someone from the world believes and is ou krinetai.
←619
0 B. B. Warfield, ‘Predestination’, op. cit., p. 55.
←620
1 The failure to observe this point mars Schnackenburg’s generally excellent excursus, ‘Selbstentscheidung und -verantwortung, Prädestination und Verstockung’, Vol. ii, pp. 328–46. He argues, p. 330, that the possibility of coming to faith is ‘not seen as unfulfillable’, because Jesus demands faith from everyone, not just from an esoteric circle of disciples. But the demand, the obligation, does not entail the independent ability. A demand that we fly like birds would be unjust because we are constitutionally unable to do so; but a demand to be holy is not unjust if the only inability is a moral one, i.e. a set determination to choose not to be holy. So it is, in John’s view, with Christ’s demand for belief.
←621
2 Cf. P. S. Minear, ‘The Audience of the Fourth Evangelist’, Interpretation, Vol. xxxi (1977), p. 347: ‘In fact, the author presents his book as a substitute for the signs, thus recognising that his readers will have access to faith through reading rather than through seeing.’ That the entire Gospel is to be seen in this sort of light, cf. inter alia A. E. Harvey, Jesus on Trial (London, 1976); S. S. Smalley, John—Evangelist and Interpreter (Exeter, 1978), pp. 138ff.; A. A. Trites, The New Testament Concept of Witness (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 78ff.
←622
3 As in Mark 8:11–33, no gratifying miracle is given because no miracle will suffice; ‘the request is unanswered because it is unanswerable; no sign can prove (though many signs suggest) that Jesus is the messenger of God’ (Barrett, p. 239). Cf. G. H. C. MacGregor, The Gospel of John (London, 1928), p. 143: ‘In the days of his flesh, as in the Evangelist’s own day, Christ could produce no credential so conclusive but that the Jews would demand one more conclusive still.’
←623
4 There is a well-known textual difficulty here. John 6:30 presents the people asking for a sign, that they may see (sc. ‘it’) and believe. In 6:36, all manuscripts read hoti kai heōrakate me, except א A ita,b,e,q syrc,s which omit me. Many commentators, seeing in 6:36 a reference to 6:26, 30, favour the omission of the word against the textual evidence: e.g. Bauer, p. 97; Bernard, Vol. i, p. 199; Bultmann, p. 232, nn. 5f.; Barrett, p. 243; J. N. Sanders and B. A. Mastin, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St John (London, 1968), p. 189, n. 1; Lindars, p. 260; J. Marsh, The Gospel of St John (Harmondsworth, 1968), p. 301. Schnackenburg, Vol. ii, p. 71, is noncommittal. Westcott and Hort, before the discovery of p66, 75 (which corroborate the majority reading), included it only in brackets. The UBS text includes it with rating {C}: cf. B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, op. cit., p. 213. It is possible to understand the words to mean ‘have seen me (sc. performing signs)’; but that is unnecessary. More likely the ambiguity is intentional. Really to see the signs is to see Jesus. To see Jesus and not believe means to see the signs only superficially—in which case more signs won’t help. In the immediate context, moreover, the Jews ask for bread (6:35)—and Jesus says they have seen him, but not believed. By this form of expression, the evangelist has tied together 6:26, 30, 35f. (contra Schulz, p. 105).
←624
5 R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel according to John (London, 1960), p. 149.
←625
6 Cf. E. Bammel, ‘John Did No Miracle’, Miracles (London, 1965), pp. 179–202.
←626
7 Because of the parallel instances cited, there is no need to take the evasive action advocated by many, to avoid identifying the believers in 8:30 with these in 8:31ff.: (1) Some (e.g. W. F. Howard, ‘The Gospel According to John’, Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. viii (New York, 1952), p. 600) suggest that pisteuein plus dative (8:31) refers to a different, or at least smaller, group than that referred to by pisteuein eis plus accusative (8:30). This is contextually improbable, the more so since the latter expression is used for defective faith in 2:23f.; 12:42 (cf. Bultmann, p. 252, n. 2). (2) E. A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar (London, 1906), 2506, suggests that because Greek has no pluperfect active participle, the perfect participle (pepisteukotas) has that sense in 8:31. But nowhere else in the fourth Gospel does the perfect of pisteuein have that sense. (3) Schnackenburg, Vol. ii, p. 259, n. 1, says the occurrences of the perfect of pisteuein ‘always express an established faith (or non-faith): 3:18; 6:69; 11:27; 16:27; 20:29; compare 1 John 4:16; 5:10.’ But 16:27 needs to be seen beside 16:31, and 3:18 and 1 John 5:10 are prescriptive. (4) Brown, pp. 354f., Lindars, p. 323, and others, prefer to omit the words pepisteukotas autō. But if the alleged gloss were redactional, the problem is only pushed back to the redactor; if accidental, it must have been very early, for there is no manuscript evidence to support it. (5) Some scholars follow Augustine in taking the ‘they’ of 8:33 to refer to ‘the Jews’, not to ‘the Jews who had believed in him’. This is convenient, but artificial. (6) C. H. Dodd, More New Testament Studies (Manchester, 1968), pp. 41ff., sees an anachronistic reference to Jewish-Christians of the judaising type. But would even Paul have charged the Judaisers with 8:43f.?
←627
nt Antiquities
←628
Antiquities
←629
8 Cf. F. Hahn, ‘Sehen und Glauben im Johannesevangelium’, Neues Testament und Geschichte (Zürich, 1972), pp. 125–41.
←630
9 ‘ “Der Vater, der mich gesandt hat” ’, op. cit., p. 208.
←631
0 Bultmann, pp. 137f.
←632
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←633
1 Considering the fact that not one Greek manuscript supports the singular hos ouk … egennēthē (constituting a reference to the virgin birth), it is astonishing how many scholars have accepted this reconstruction. External evidence is versional and patristic, a dubious basis for emendation when it stands alone. The Latin witness b is further weakened by the fact that qui is both singular and plural: the difference between qui natus est and qui nati sunt is only in the verb. The unambiguous patristic evidence most frequently cited is Irenaeus, Ad. Haer. iii.xvi.2; xix.2; and Tertullian, De carne Chiristi xix, who says the plural was an invention of the Valentians. Both Bodmer papyri (ii and xiv—i.e. p66, 75) have the plural. Those who nevertheless opt for the singular include F. Blass, Euangelium Secundum Joannem (Leipzig, 1902), p. 2; Zahn, pp. 73; C. F. Burney, Aramaic Origin, op. cit., pp. 43ff.; Loisy, pp. 101ff.; C. C. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels (London, n.d.), pp. 151–3; F.-M. Braun, ‘Qui ex Deo natus est’, Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne (Paris, 1950), pp. 11–31; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, 1943), pp. 62–8; M.-E. Boismard, St John’s Prologue (London, 1957), pp. 35–9; idem, ‘Critique textuelle et citations bibliques’, RB, Vol. lvii (1950), pp. 401–8; L. Sabourin, ‘ “Who Was Begotten … of God” (Jn. 1:13)’, Biblical Theology Bulletin, Vol. vi (1976), pp. 86–90; J. McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (Garden City, 1975), pp. 255–68; M. Vellanickal, The Divine Sonship of Christians in the Johannine Writings (Rome, 1977), pp. 112–32; and especially the extended treatment by J. Galot, Etre né de Dieu (Rome, 1969). MacGregor, pp. 14f., is sympathetic, but following Loisy doubts that the singular by itself would imply a virgin birth, ‘for the words in question would exclude the idea of human mother no less than human father.’ It is easy to imagine an a fortiori argument whereby the text was corrupted from plural to singular: if Christians are begotten by God, how much more so Jesus Christ? Indeed, Hoskyns, p. 166, Barrett, pp. 137f., and Morris, p. 100, see just such an allusion in the plural text. It is difficult to imagine so thorough a corruption of the text the other way.
←634
2 Barrett, p. 137. See inter alia Howard, p. 471; Bultmann, p. 59, n. 4.
←635
3 H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie (Tübingen, 1911), Vol. ii, p. 534.; cf. also his commentary, pp. 41f.
←636
4 ‘The Fourth Gospel an Act of Contemplation’, Studies in the Fourth Gospel (London, 1957), p. 27. Cf. Morris, p. 101: ‘The new birth is always sheer miracle. All human initiative is ruled out.’
←637
5 The plural hymas (3:7) is puzzling (as are other shifts in pronoun and number in this pericope), but a general reference to Nicodemus’s class (cf. 3:1) seems best to explain the text at this point.
←638
6 A. Augustinović, Critica ‘determinismi’ Joannei (Jerusalem, 1947), pp. 53, 118.
←639
7 Review of Augustinović, op. cit., in RB, Vol. lv (1948), p. 472.
←640
8 ‘The neuter (pan ho) is sometimes used with reference to persons if it is not the individuals but a general quality that is emphasised’ (BDF § 138(1). MacGregor, p. 146, sees here ‘a comprehensive neuter, the thought of the believer’s individuality being thus subordinated to that of the Father’s grace.’ Cf. the important discussion by F.-M. Braun, ‘La réduction du pluriel au singulier dans l’Evangile et la Première Lettre de Jean’, NTS, Vol. xxiv (1977), pp. 40–67.
←641
9 ‘A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3.13–4.26 and the “Dualism” Contained in the Gospel of John’, John and Qumran (London, 1972), p. 95.
←642
0 Cf. the excellent summary of 6:37–40 by Barrett, p. 243; and now also O. Hofius, ‘Erwählung und Bewahrung. Zur Auslegung von Joh. 6, 37’, Theologische Beiträge, Vol. viii (1977), pp. 24–9.
←643
1 Hendriksen, Vol. i, p. 238.
←644
2 Cf. W. Eborowicz, ‘L’exégèse augustinienne de Jean vi, 44’, Studia Evangelica, Vol. vi (1973), pp. 95–9; G. Berkouwer, Divine Election (Grand Rapids, 1960), p. 47.
←645
3 Barrett, p. 252; cf. Morris, p. 387. Cf. also the so-called ‘johannine logion’, Matt. 11:27.
←646
4 Brown, p. 741.
←647
5 Pace Lindars, p. 521, who says, ‘There is no rigid doctrine of predestination here, though the tendency of Semitic to see the whole contained in the beginning gives the impression of such a doctrine.’ But that is just the point: if the whole is indeed contained in the beginning, it is difficult to avoid predestination.
←648
6 Against this interpretation, J. C. Earwaker, ‘John xvii21’, Ex. T, Vol. lxxv (1963–4), pp. 316f., sees all the hina clauses in 17:21 as co-ordinate. This not only makes the prayer extremely disjointed, but it is excluded by the fact that the main clause (17:20) designates the people specifically prayed for as believers-to-be. Cf. Bultmann and Morris, in loc. E. A. Abbott, op. cit., §§2511, 2524–6, 2528, tries to preserve a rigid distinction between aorist and present subjunctives in hina-clauses. Hence in §2554 he contrasts 17:21d (‘that the world may grow in belief’) with the parallel clause in 17:23c (‘that knowledge may dawn on the world’). If Abbott were right, 17:21d would imply that the world already believes, and Jesus is praying that this belief may continue and deepen. That would contradict, for instance, 16:33; 17:9, 25. But the dilemma is a false one. Abbott seems to think ginōskē in 17:23c is an aorist; but it is not, and there is no significant textual evidence for gnō.
←649
7 Pace Barrett, p. 428.
←650
8 Barrett, p. 306.
←651
9 It is difficult to decide if pro emou is original. The words are omitted by p45 (vid) 75 א* E F G M S U Γ Δ 28 892, most minuscule, and by manuscripts of OL, OS, and Coptic versions; but the probability seems to be with inclusion.
←652
0 A. Vanhoye, ‘Notre foi, oeuvre divine, d’après le quatrième évangile’, Nouvelle Revue Theologique, Vol. lxxxvi (1964), p. 343. Cf. also E. K. Lee, The Religious Thought of St John (London, 1950), pp. 169f.
←653
1 Cf. C. Spicq, ‘La charité est amour manifeste’, Revue Biblique, Vol. lxv (1958), pp. 360–62; BDF §207(3); A. M. Hunter, According to John, op. cit., pp. 87f.; Morris, pp. 612f.
←654
2 The expression may mean: (1) To the death: note the cognate verb tetelestai in 19:30. Brown, p. 555, draws attention to LXX Deut. 31:24. (2) To the uttermost: cf. NEB. (3) To the last moment of life: cf. Barrett, p. 365. In any case, in 13:1 ‘the piling up of participial clauses is unusual for John, and gives a most solemn effect’ (Lindars, p. 448).
←655
3 This nuanced approach is vastly to be preferred to the work of M. Lattke, Einheit im Wort (Münich, 1975), who attempts to force all love references into a single mould. Love, in John, he says, has no psychological or mystical element, but means simply to exist in the unity of the word, and can therefore refer only to believers and their Lord. Needless to say, he has enormous difficulties with John 3:16; 10:17f.; 13:1; 15:13.
←656
4 As in n. 60, supra, p. 350.
←657
5 Cf. the references in Morris, pp. 669f., n. 10. R. Borig, Der wahre Weinstock (München, 1967), says that katharos does not mean free from sin, but from everything that would hinder fruitbearing. However, in the context of johannine thought, there is no distinction between the two. Cf. John’s only other use of the word, in 13:10f.
←658
6 Morris, p. 669.
←659
7 This simple interpretation gets rid of the strained exegesis which sees Jesus’ love as the motivating power for Christians, or which takes kathōs in 15:9 to be causative (BDF §453(2); Brown, p. 663). Barrett, p. 397, thinks 14:15, 21 are parallels which, taken with this passage (15:10), indicate ‘that love and obedience are mutually dependent. Love arises out of obedience, obedience out of love,’ But the relationship is not so symmetrical. John 14:15, 21 speaks of the love of believers for Christ, resulting in obedience to him; while 15:10 speaks of the obedience of believers to him, which results, not explicitly in love for Christ, but in an enduring love from Christ for them (cf. 16:27).
←660
8 Cf. the translation of Brown, p. 658: ‘You are clean already, thanks to the word I have spoken to you.’ This takes dia plus the accusative in its ordinary sense: so also Bernard, Vol. ii, p. 480, and many others. Cf. Schlatter, p. 305, who says that Jesus’ word declares (heissen) the disciples to be clean.
←661
9 Cf. Brown, p. 675; and Augustine’s oft-quoted remark, ‘Aut vitis, aut ignis’ (In Jo. 81.3). Contra cf. F. W. Grosheide, Het Heilig Evangelie Volgens Johannes (Amsterdam, 1950), Vol. ii, p. 335, who construes en emoi in 15:2 not with branch but with fruit. The idea would then be that in addition to the branches in the vine (= Christ), there are branches in other vines, and these branches do not bear fruit in Christ. In that case, the urgency of abiding in Christ (15:4) seems rather forced. I. H. Marshall, Kept by the Power of God (Minneapolis, 1975), p. 184, argues that since the branches thrown away were once in the vine (= in Christ), they must have been authentic believers. That may be pushing the metaphor too hard, in a book in which being a ‘disciple’ does not itself guarantee anything.
←662
0 Morris, p. 603.
←663
XX Septuagint
←664
1 Hoskyns, p. 428.
←665
T Masoretic Text
←666
T Masoretic Text
←667
XX Septuagint
←668
2 Krisis (Freiburg, 1964), pp. 304f.; ‘Eschatological Faith’, art. cit., pp. 46f. The change from third person to first is probably due to the evangelist’s appended identification of Jesus as the one whom Isaiah saw (12:41): cf. R. Schnackenburg, ‘John 12, 39–41’, art. cit., pp. 174–6.
←669
3 So, for example, A. Augustinović, op. cit., pp. 188–90.
←670
4 M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek (Rome, 1963), §§412–14, notes that the very existence of causal hina in New Testament Greek is still disputed (although it is attested in the second and third centuries). In any case, ‘to posit it here does not seem to do justice to the passage’ (Brown, p. 484).
←671
5 Brown, p. 485.
←672
6 Cf. Schnackenburg, Vol. ii, pp. 345f.; and J. Gnilka, Die Verstockung Israels (München, 1961), especially pp. 23ff. Contra, cf. C. F. D. Moule, ‘Mark 4:1–20: Yet Once More’, Neotestamentica et Semitica (Edinburgh, 1969), pp. 95–113. Cf. also R. P. Maye, ‘Mark 4, 10: “Those about Him with the Twelve”,’ St. Ev., Vol. ii (1964), pp. 211–18; W. L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids, 1974), pp. 156–9.
←673
7 Cf. Calvin’s wrestlings with this problem in connection with Rom. 9, in Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (London, 1961), p. 76ff.
←674
8 Cf. G. E. Ladd, Theology, op. cit., p. 277, who says that the ‘decision of faith is not a human meritorious achievement like the Jewish works of the Law, but simply the fitting answer, made possible by the grace of God, to the revelation given by Jesus.’
←675
9 Barrett, pp. 140f. The emphasis on grace is but little changed if we follow I. de la Patterie, ‘Charis paulinienne et charis johannique,’ Jesus und Paulus (Göttingen, 1975), pp. 256–82, who sees the grace of Christ’s truth replacing the earlier (and lesser) grace of law. Cf. also idem, La vérité dans Saint Jean (Rome, 1977), Vol. i, pp. 129ff.
←676
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←677
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←678
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←679
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←680
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←681
SS Dead Sea Scrolls
←682
L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1941), p. 106.
←683
W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (Edinburgh, 1889), Vol. i, p. 403. Cf. J. H. Thornwell, Election and Reprobation (Philadelphia, repr. 1961), p. 73, who argues that God’s saving decree does not force men to act contrary to their wills. But it does renew their wills, and so they choose aright.
←684
A. A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology (London, 1890), p. 157.
←685
E.g. C. Hodge, Systematic Theology (New York, 1872), vol. ii, pp. 289ff.
←686
J. I. Packer, NBD, p. 1052.
←687
Ibid., p. 734.
←688
Op. cit., p. 16.
←689
Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, op. cit., p. 123.
←690
‘Some Comments on Hebrews 6:4–6 and the Doctrine of the Perseverance of God with the Saints’, Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (Grand Rapids, 1975), p. 357.
←691
0 K. Rahner, Theological Investigations (London, 1961– ), Vol. ii, p. 246, wisely admits that ‘freedom of choice … can be defined only with difficulty.’ Then he goes on to state that the ‘causality of free action … can … be possible only when faced with the finite, or the infinite conceived as merely finite, and hence can have meaning only in the face of the finite.’ In general he accepts the Roman Catholic view which relates responsibility to human freedom: see, for example, his Grace in Freedom (London, 1970), passim; and his Theological Investigations, op. cit., Vol. vi, pp. 197ff. In the latter instance he purposely skirts the question of whether some other concept of responsibility is possible in the very nature of things—e.g. one which operates under the presuppositions of a psychological or theological determinism.
←692
1 For example, A. Flew, ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, New Essays in Philosophical Theology (London, 1955), pp. 144–69, and J. L. Mackie, ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, God and Evil (Englewood Cliffs, 1964), chap. 6, have advanced a new disproof of the free will defence; and they are in turn answered by the joint arguments of S. T. Davies, ‘A Defense of the Free Will Defense’, Religious Studies, Vol. viii (1972), pp. 325–43, and A. D. Steven, ‘Once More on the Free Will Defense’, Religious Studies, Vol. x (1974), pp. 301–11.
←693
2 Among those who have recently attempted to ease the sovereignty-responsibility tension by in some way limiting God’s omnipotence while everywhere positing that human free will entails power to contrary, are B. Hebblethwaite, Evil, Suffering and Religion (London, 1976), especially pp. 55ff.; A. Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil (London, 1975), who, among other things, argues that the crucial factor in the free will defence is that the proposition ‘God is omnipotent, and it was not within his power to create a world containing moral good but not moral evil’ is true (which prompts me to wonder what the new heaven and new earth will be like); J. R. Lucas, Freedom and Grace (London, 1976), who strongly defends human freedom and reduces God to a super chess player who is able by his superior playing ability to defeat his opponents; P. Geach, Providence and Evil (Cambridge, 1977), whose work is highly individualistic, introducing a fundamental distinction between God’s ‘almightiness’ and his ‘omnipotence’. On Geach, see especially P. Helm, ‘Omnipotence and Change’, Philosophy, Vol. li (1976), pp. 454–61. On Lucas, I am indebted to the review by O. O’Donovan in Churchman, Vol. xci (1977), pp. 74–6, and especially to the first draft of a paper by P. Helm, ‘Grace and the Logic of Causality’, read in Oxford in 1977 (I have not seen the final draft in print.) On the whole question of the nature of human freedom, cf. R. Young, ‘Human Freedom and Christian Theism’, Interchange, No. 16 (1974), pp. 241–8; and especially his magnum opus, Freedom, Responsibility, and God (London, 1975). From a theological perspective, cf. J. Murray, The Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh, 1977), Vol. ii, pp. 60–67. For further discussion, not always in agreement with what I here defend, cf. also A. Farrar, The Freedom of the Will (London, 1963); and K. Lehrer, ed., Freedom and Determinism (New York, 1966), especially the last chapter.
←694
3 Op. cit., p. 402.
←695
4 E. G. J. Jocz, A Theology of Election (London, 1958), pp. 166–71; alternatively, in the manner of the existential theologians, e.g. P. Tillich, Systematic Theology (London, 1953–64), Vol. iii, pp. 421–7.
←696
5 The proposed solutions have varied widely, despite N. Pike, God and Timelessness (London, 1970), pp. 53–86, who analyses the solutions of Boethius and Augustine and thinks both are possible—and that they exhaust the possibilities. Thomists say that God’s foreknowledge is causative, and yet, because all things are ‘present’ to God, he can know all ‘future’ acts without destroying their freedom. Cf. K. Rahner, SM, Vol. v, pp. 89f. Molina proposed a complex three-fold knowledge in God, in order to deny that divine foreknowledge is in any sense deterministic (for convenient discussion, cf. J. Farrelly, op. cit., pp. 23f.). E. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (London, repr. 1966), pp. 317f., tries not only to divorce time and eternity, but to associate time with decision rather than with sequence. In the past it has also been common to set chronological time over against allegedly distinctive Hebrew concepts of ‘psychic time’, ‘realistic time’, or the ‘quality of time’—e.g. H. W. Robinson, Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament (Oxford, 1946), pp. 106ff.; J. A. T. Robinson, In the End, God … (London. 1950), pp. 44ff.; T. Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek (London, 1960), pp. 137ff.; J. Manek, ‘The Biblical Concept of Time and Our Gospels’, NTS, Vol. vi (1959–60), pp. 45–51. These approaches will, by and large, no longer stand: cf. especially J. Barr, Biblical Words for Time, op. cit. Some approaches are more drastic: W. Pannenberg, Basic Questions in Theology (Philadelphia, 1973), Vol. iii, pp. 80–98, argues that all conceptions of divine foreknowledge and predestination exclude any meaningful idea of human freedom, and again presents God as the ‘power of the future’. Cf. also his article in RGG (third edition), Vol. ii, pp. 614–22. He is criticised in the last few pages of R. G. Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-Existence, op. cit. More recently Pannenberg has built on his earlier work in Human Nature, Election, and History (Philadelphia, 1977); but despite the many valuable insights in everything he writes, this book does not escape the weaknesses of the presuppositions he expressed earlier.
←697
6 Cf. especially P. Helm, ‘Divine Foreknowledge and Facts’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. iv (1974), pp. 305–15; idem, ‘Timelessness and Foreknowledge’, Mind, Vol. lxxxiv (1975), pp. 516–27.
←698
7 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London, 1955), pp. 144f., is one of the few who appeals to the distinction between time and eternity, but who also admits that this distinction is not a biblical insight.
←699
8 This is a very common approach. For example, it is adopted by J. R. Lucas in his study, ‘Pelagius and St. Augustine’, JTS, Vol. xxii (1971), pp. 73–85.
←700
9 E.g. Jerome Zanchius, Absolute Predestination (Grand Rapids, repr. 1971), p. 76.
←701
0 Philosophical Theology (Indianapolis, 1969).
←702
1 Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, op. cit., pp. 117f.
←703
2 For a recent outline of the structure of the argument, cf. M. L. Peterson, ‘Christian Theism and the Problem of Evil’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. xxi (1978), pp. 35–46.
←704
3 The Providence of God (Grand Rapids, 1952), pp. 153f. It is customary at this point in some theological discussion to distinguish between the materia and the forma of the sinful act: e.g. L. Berkhof, op. cit., pp. 174.; and especially H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (Kampen, 1906–11), Vol. ii, pp. 595ff. On the artificiality of such distinctions, cf. G. C. Berkouwer, Providence, op. cit., pp. 131ff.
←705
4 Often do biblical characters, especially in the Old Testament, assume that God is leading in the approaching events, even though the direction of that leading may be revealed only in the events themselves: e.g. Gen. 24:7f.; Exod. 32:30–35; 2 Sam. 5:12; Joel 2:11–14; Amos 5:15; Jonah 3:9f.; Zeph. 2:3; Esther 4:14; Dan. 3:17f.
←706
5 There is an excellent if brief discussion in G. C. Berkouwer, Divine Election, op. cit., pp. 115–30.
←707
6 The personality of God in the Old Testament is vehemently defended by, inter alios, C. R. North, The Old Testament Interpretation of History (London, 1946), pp. 143ff.; W. Eichrodt, Theology, op. cit., Vol. i, pp. 206–10; J. Lindblom, Prophecy, op. cit., pp. 315, 322f.; E. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God, op. cit., pp. 121–3; J. Daane, The Freedom of God (Grand Rapids, 1973), pp. 63f., 68, passim. Cf. also the perceptive analysis by H. Thielicke, Gotteslehre und Christologie (Tübingen, 1973), pp. 123–39, in particular p. 138: ‘When we speak of God as a person, we do not mean this in some anthropomorphic sense. On the contrary: when we speak of the human person, we mean this in a theomorphic sense.’ On the models used to discuss God’s personality, and the course of the debate in church history, cf. H. C. Wolf, ‘An Introduction to the Idea of God as Person’, Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. xxxii (1964), pp. 26–33.
←708
7 Cf. W. Vischer, ‘Words and the Word: the Anthropomorphisms of the Biblical Revelation’, Interpretation, Vol. iii (1949), pp. 1ff.; E. M. Yamauchi, ‘Anthropomorphism in Hellenism and in Judaism’, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. cxxvii (1970), pp. 220–22.
←709
8 E.g. in the Thirty-Nine Articles, Art. i; the Westminster Confession of Faith, ii.1.
←710
9 I am indebted to Dr Paul D. Feinberg for stimulating discussion on this whole question of the impassibility of God, and for showing me a rough draft of one of his papers, which, I hope, will not be long in appearing in print.
←711
0 For some elegant discussion of the problems surrounding anthropomorphism and anthropopathism, cf. G. D. Kaufman, An Essay on Theological Method (Missoula, 1975), passim, especially pp. 52, 67.
←712
1 Cf. his Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh, 1857), Vol. ii/2, pp. 3–506. For briefer expositions of Barth’s thought, cf. inter alia P. Maury, ‘Predestination’, Predestination and Other Papers (London, 1960), pp. 19–71, T. H. L. Parker, ‘Predestination’, A Dictionary of Christian Theology (London, 1969), pp. 264–72; J. K. S. Reid, in his introduction (especially pp. 40–4) to a new translation of Calvin’s Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, op. cit.; C. Gunton, ‘Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Election as Part of His Doctrine of God’, JTS, Vol. xxv (1974), pp. 381–92; M. Barth, Ephesians (New York, 1974), Vol. i, pp. 105–9.
←713
2 For further critique, cf. K. Standahl, ‘The Called and the Chosen. An Essay on Election’, The Root of the Vine (London, 1953), pp. 67ff.; G. C. Berkouwer, Divine Election, op. cit., pp. 154–62; C. Brown, Karl Barth and the Christian Message (London, 1967), pp. 134–9.
←714
3 Belief in God (New York, 1970), pp. 97ff.
←715
4 Cf. A. S. Peake, The Problem of Suffering in the Old Testament (London, 1904), p. 102. Th. C. Vriezen’s discussion, in Outline, op. cit., pp. 316f., is excellent. This point is quite missed by those who overlook God’s speeches and seek the solution to Job’s suffering only in the prologue (suffering tests faithfulness, 1:6–12), or in the epilogue (suffering can be made redemptive by the right attitude, 42:10): cf. J. Bowker, Problems of Suffering in Religions of the World (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 19f.
←716
5 F. D. Kidner, ‘Wisdom Literature’, op. cit., p. 125.
←717
6 Cf. J. Abelson, The Immanence of God, op. cit., p. 52. Yet R. Otto, The Idea of the Holy (Oxford, 1929), is quite wrong to emphasise the transcendence of God by associating it with non-rationality. Election and predestination he then dismisses as numinous experiences of utter dependence upon the transcendence God (pp. 116f.).
←718
7 Cf. C. F. D. Moule, ‘The Influence of Circumstances on the Use of Eschatological Terms’, JTS, Vol. xv (1964), pp. 5f.: ‘so vast are the purposes of God that the human mind can only adumbrate lists of them as thesis and antithesis, never, in this life, reaching synthesis; and, consequently, it is not surprising if a single thinker is found using antithetic formulations at one and the same period of his own development.’ Similarly, cf. J. I. Packer, ‘What Did the Cross Achieve?’, Tyndale Bulletin, Vol. xxv (1974), pp. 35f.: ‘The way to stand against naturalistic theology is to keep in view its reductionist method which makes man the standard for God; to stress that according to Scripture the Creator and his work are of necessity mysterious to us, even as revealed (to make this point is the proper task of the word “supernatural” in theology); and to remember that what is above reason is not necessarily against it.’
←719
8 It is not uncommon to find the word ‘antinomy’ applied to the sovereignty-responsibility tension. Unfortunately, the term is ambiguous. Following the development of Kantian usage, it is generally defined as a ‘logical contradiction between two accepted principles or between conclusions drawn from premises which have equal claim to objective validity’ (so DPP, Vol. i, p. 56; also D. E. Runes, ed., Dictionary of Philosophy (Totowa, N. J., 1966), p. 14; OED, in loc.). With this meaning the term is applied by Th. C. Vriezen, Outline, op. cit., pp. 87f., to various theological tensions, including the sovereignty-responsibility tension (Dutch ‘antinomiën’). Other writers assign a modified definition to the word, so that it refers to an apparent contradiction between two true principles or conclusions: So J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (London, 1961), pp. 18ff.; H. Dunelm, ISBE, Vol. ii, p. 926. Because of this ambiguity, I have avoided the term in this book.
←720
9 New Testament Essays (London, 1972), pp. 49–69.
←721
0 E.g. most of the writings of Voetius, Turretin, and many others.
←722
1 In particular, cf. H. D. McDonald, ‘The Changing Emphasis in the Doctrine of Providence’, Vox Evangelica, Vol. iii (1964), pp. 58–75; and now especially G. Kraus, Vorherbestimmung: Traditionelle Predestinationslehre im Licht gegenwärtiger Theologie (Freiburg, 1977), who critically assesses the positions of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth, and then opts for a modified Barthian position.
←723
2 More refined statements are possible. Some who claim to be of Arminian persuasion would not say that man has a free will in the sense that he, all by himself, can make a decision for Christ. Rather, like all other men, he will choose to reject Christ, unless the grace of God prompts him to choose aright. However, these ‘Arminians’ would go on to say that this divine grace operates in all men; so that if a man chooses the good, he cannot say he has done so apart from the grace of God. Nevertheless, they would say that the man retains the absolute freedom to reject the wooing of this universal grace. This theological perspective can be traced to John Wesley himself, prompting critics to label him, not an Arminian, but an inconsistent Calvinist; cf. I. W. Reist, ‘John Wesley and George Whitefield: A Study in the Integrity of Two Theologies of Grace’, Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. xlvii (1975), pp. 26–40. Epithets aside, it remains obvious that even this so-called ‘inconsistent Calvinism’ involves a concept of human freedom which includes power to contrary. The ultimate distinguishing feature between the man who chooses for Christ and the man who chooses against Christ turns, not on divine elective grace, but on the choices of the men themselves apart from any distinguishing grace.