Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:22:25.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jesus as God in the Fourth Gospel: the Old Testament Background

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Günter Reim
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

B. A. Mastin, in his article ‘A neglected feature of the christology of the Fourth Gospel’, points out ‘that in the construction of the Fourth Gospel prominence is given to the designation of Jesus as θεός. The Fourth Gospel appears to use the term θεός deliberately of Jesus; in “Paul”, on the other hand, the usage is much more casual, as indeed is the case in the rest of the New Testament, with the possible exception of Heb.i.8f'. Mastin demonstrates that Jn. 1. 1, 18 and 20. 28 speak of Jesus as God. ‘These three verses are placed at strategic points in the gospel, and this underlines the significance of what they say.’ Finally, Mastin states: ‘… it is reasonable to claim that the Evangelist thought it was important that the title θεός should be given to Jesus. It is probable that this feature of his christology is due to controversy with the Jews, and that as a result of this he formulated his estimate of Christ's person in this way.’ I fully agree with these results. The aim of my article is to show the scriptural background for this controversy.

Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , January 1984 , pp. 158 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

[1] NTS Vol. 22/1 (1975/76), pp. 32–51.Google Scholar

[2] Op. cit., p. 34.Google Scholar

[3] Op. cit., p. 42.Google Scholar

[4] Op. cit., p. 51.Google Scholar

[5] Strack-Bill, . Vol. 32 (1954) on Hebrews 1. 8 f. p. 680.Google Scholar Jesus' rebuke of Peter who used a sword (Jn. 18. 11) consists of two parts: a parallel to Matth. 26. 52a and a piece of a story in which the use of violence is discarded (Matth. 20. 22, 25) - although John is not dependent upon Matthew.

[6] Strack-Bill, . op. cit., p. 679.Google Scholar

[7] On the original meaning of this difficult passage see: Segal, M. H., ‘El, Elohim, and YHWH in the Bible’ in JQR 45/46 (1954), pp. 89 ff.Google Scholar; Mulder, J., ‘Studies on Psalm 45’ Witsiers-On (1972)Google Scholar; King, P. J., ‘Thy Throne, o God, is for ever and ever’ in Princeton Theol. Review 21 (1923).Google Scholar

[8] How important Ps. 45 was for the Targumists can be seen in the interpretation of the two messianic passages Is. 53 and Gen. 49. 8 ff. with the help of the ‘beauty’ of the Messiah of Ps. 45. 3: ‘Kein profanes Aussehen ist sein Aussehen …’ (Tg Is. 53. 1, translated by Koch, K., ‘Messias und Sündenvergebung in Jes 53-Targum’ in Journal for the study of judaism Vol. 3 (1972), pp.117 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar) and: ‘How beauteous is the King Meshiha, who is to arise from the house of Jehuda!’ (Pal. Tg Gen. 49. 8). It is interesting that for some Church Fathers the beauty of Jesus is read out of Ps. 45.

[9] Compare similar Jewish interpretations of Ps. 87. 7 and Ps. 82. 6. A second difficult passage in a Psalm with ‘elohim’ is quoted Jn. 10. 34 and translated ‘Gods’ - not: ‘angels’! see Reim, G.Studien zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums (Cambridge, 1974), p. 24 n. 49.Google Scholar

[10] On the discussion which NT passages speak of Jesus as God see Mastin, op. cit., pp. 32 f.Google Scholar

[11] Concerning the dating of the Tg see York, A. D., ‘The Dating of Targumic Literature’ in Journal for the Study of Judaism Vol. 5 (1974), pp. 49 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘If a passage is interpreted identically in a Jewish and Christian source (particularly, with reference to the Messiah), one must give priority to the Jewish source inasmuch as later rabbis would never have borrowed such an interpretation from Christians’ (Macho, Diéz p. 55).Google Scholar

[12] D 38. 1, 3 D 56. 14 f. D 43. 3 f. D 86. 3 - see my forthcoming article on John and Justin in Journal for the Study of the New Testament.

[13] See ThWNT article ἂγγελος.