^{page 227 note 1} The second of the two disciples in John i. 35 is taken to be the Evangelist by Bishop Westcott (p. 46 of the Greek ed. of his commentary), by SirHoskyns, E., The Fourth Gospel, 1, pp. 186–7, on the basis of πρῶτον, v. 41, and by E. A. Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, § 1720, on the basis of ϊδιον v. 41. It is the traditional interpretation, and among the Fathers who mention it, Chrysostom says it is possible, Cornelius à Lapide that it is the more probable interpretation. Bengel interprets the πρῶτον differently. Moffatt in his Introduction says of this view: ‘The Fourth Gospel is full of subtle touches; but this is hyper-subtle’ (3rd ed., p. 565). That the apostle John was the author of the Fourth Gospel is assumed throughout this article although it makes little difference to the argument involved. At the least it provides a convenient tag by which to refer to the author.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 1} De Vaux, R., Israel, its Life and Institutions (1961), pp. 51–2. On the other hand the title ‘Father’ is never used in the context of the creation of the world. That God is the father of mankind is a Stoic not a Jewish ideaGoogle Scholar. Dalman, G., Die Worte Jesu (1909), E.T. p. 184, considers that it is affirmed ‘that the “father” is the originator of the existence of the son and hence God as the creator of Israel is his father’ in the following texts only: Jer. ix. 34 with ii. 27; Deutero-Isaiah xliii. 6, lxiv. 7 and Mal. ii. 10. Other references he considers imply merely a relationship of possession.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 2} As, e.g. in Strack-Billerbeck, , iii, 15 ff. on Rom. i. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 1} is the reading of the M.T. The LXX and the Targums read τά τέκνα αύτού which is said to be a reference back to Hos. ii. 1, a passage which many commentators regard as a later addition. Symmachus and the Syriac have υίός; Theodotion, αύτóν μου. It may be noticed how many times these references to Israel as God's son occur in places where the text is uncertain. The Targum also as a general rule tends to lessen the force of these texts by turning what is a statement of fact into a metaphor or simile. W. R. Harper in the ICC on this passage rejects the reading ‘my son’ on the grounds that it ‘implies a call out of Egypt to become God's son, but in Exod. iv. 22; Deut. xiv. 1; Jer. iii. 19; xxxi. 9 and 20, the standard passages for the idea, no such statement occurs, he is already represented as Yahweh's son’ (p. 362). But this seems to fail to do justice to the other passages (e.g. Deut. xxxii. 6) as wi11 be seen. It is because Yahweh will call his son out of Egypt that he is already spoken of here as his son. We cannot speak of ‘Israel’ until the crossing of the Red Sea and the wanderings in the wilderness have formed the people. Cf. Hos. xi. 3–4.

^{page 229 note 2} There is another passage which would have been so read by the first-century Jew, but which was probably not so written in the original. This is Ps. lxxx. 14–17, which Kissane, E. J. (The Book of Psalms, 1953) translates:Google Scholar

Yahweh of hosts, turn,

Look forth from heaven and see,

And visit this vine

And the garden thy right hand hath planted

(and the son thou didst rear up for thyself).

Let them that have cut it down and destroyed it

Perish by the rebuke of thy presence;

Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand,

And upon the son of man thou didst rear up for thyself.

Although we have here the son equated with God's people (probably in this case the tribe Benjamin) and with the vine (later another symbol of Israel), it seems most likely that line 5 is an addition to the original based on the last line above. While the idea of the nation as God's son may be present, it seems more likely to parallel ‘son of man’ in the last line, and therefore to be a synonym for ‘man’. In the Apocrypha, Wisdom xviii. 13 calls the nation God's son.

^{page 230 note 1} ‘created’ (R.V. ‘bought’) is the verb . Brown, Driver and Briggs give the meanings (1 a) of God as creating: Gen. xiv. 19, 22; Deut. xxxii. 6; Ps. cxxxix. 13 and Prov. viii. 22. (1 b) of God as victoriously redeeming his people: Exod. xv. 16; Isa. xi. 11; Ps. lxxiv. 2 and lxxviii. 54. Note especially Prov. viii. 22–5 with the succession of verbs and . Here the verbs are , and .

^{page 230 note 2} These are all from the one work, the Manual of Discipline. viii. 6; ix. 14; xi. 7; iii. 13, 25, etc.; viii. 9. This last may refer to the inner council, but cf. ix. 6. They also thought of themselves as the true Israel: ii. 22; v. 5, 22; viii. 10, etc. (Davies, W. D., Christian Origins and Judaism, 1962, p. 123)Google Scholar. It now seems generally agreed that (vi. 1, 8, 9, 12; vii. 16, 24, etc.) was a designation of the members of the sect based on Dan. xii. 2–4 and 10 (Milik, J., Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea, 1959, p. 101)Google Scholar. One of the latest translators of the Scrolls takes it to have the same meaning as in later rabbinic writings and translates ‘Congregation’ (Vermès, G., Pelican Books, 1962). For its survival into the Synoptics see C. H. Bird, ‘Some γάρ clauses in St Mark's Gospel’Google Scholar, J.T.S. n.s. iv (Oct. 1953), 182–4 (on the use of πολλοί).Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 1} Bishop Westcott, in a note on this passage, says that elsewhere, except in the sense of ‘husband’, the word άνήρ occurs in St John only in vi. 10 where the two words ανθρωπος and άνήρ are contrasted. May it not be that even in this second passage there is an intentional use of the word and St John means us to understand by άνήρ ‘husband’? St Matthew explicitly states that the number of those fed was 5000 excluding women and children (wives and children). This present passage would then remain the only exception to the use of άνήρ as ‘husband’ in St John. For some reason St John has added the word here; it is not found in the Synoptic version of the saying (Mark i. 7; Luke iii. i6; Matt. iii. 11) nor in his own earlier quotation of it (i. 27). It is, therefore, meant to be significant, and it seems unlikely that the addition of the word ‘man’ can add much to the sense. If we translate ‘husband’ then the meaning of the associated phrase in the Synoptics (which St John has earlier, i. 27) about the loosing of the sandals can be referred to Deut. xxv. 7–10, the law of Levirate marriage, as St Gregory had done long ago (Hom. in Evang. vii. c. 3), and there is no need to search in the rabbinic literature for unconvincing parallels of the loosing or carrying of sandals being the menial task of a disciple. What the Baptist is saying applies to the old analogy of the ‘husband–wife’ relationship in a new way. In the O.T., God, the one, was the husband, and Israel, the many, joined itself to him as the wife to raise up children, Israelites, for the husband. But with the new dispensation this has moved down a stage. Now the representative of the old Israel is the one, and Christians join themselves to him as the wife, to increase the nation, and so raise up children in place of the children of the old Israel whose line is now deceased. Whereas before the bridegroom was God, now the bridegroom is the Messiah, God's representative. A new husband has appeared on the scene of whom it cannot be said that he ‘doth not build up his brother's house’ (Deut. xxv. 9) and whose sandals, therefore, no one can consider himself to have any cause (αξιος) to loosen (John i. 27). The suggestion lies in the background that as the first ‘husband’ was himself God so the second also may be divine. There is thus an additional reason, besides the implications of the title ‘son of God’, to lead the first disciples on to see in Jesus God incarnate. This would also link up with those passages where Jesus calls himself the bridegroom (Matt. ix. 15; Mark ii. 19; Luke v. 34) and the fact that later in this Gospel the Baptist refers to himself as the friend of the bridegroom (iii. 29). Further the name (title?) άνήρ is applied to the Lord in Acts ii. 22 and xvii. 31. It is perhaps merely a coincidence that we have ‘sonship’ and the ‘husband–wife’ relationship mentioned together as in some O.T. passages (e.g. Jer. iii). On the other hand, G. Vermès in an article which I have not seen in Cahiers Sioniens, ix (1955),57 f., suggests that the word (man) as used in the Manual of Discipline iv. 20 and the sect's commentary on Ps. xxxvii was itself a Messianic title.

^{page 231 note 2} The Greek is óτι πρῶτός μον ňν, a notoriously ambiguous passage. R.V. text has ‘for he was before me’; R.V. marg. ‘first in regard of me’. E. A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar, § 2665, suggests ‘he was my chief’. C. H. Dodd, The Fourth Gospel, says it may mean (i) he is the Logos, i.e. pre-existent, but the Baptist would not know this, (ii) he is the re-incarnation of Elijah (did the Baptist ever believe this of anyone?), or (iii) he was my disciple. The N.E.B. cuts the knot and gives ‘for before I was born, he already was’. At any rate it need not necessarily imply pre-existence, and the ambiguity may have been intentional.

^{page 232 note 1} vid. pc. e ff^2* sy^sc. read ό έκλεκτός. a (b ff^2c) sa. read ‘electus filius’. Both of which readings would alter the sense but little if this interpretation of the meaning of ‘son of God’ is correct. It is the process of choice which makes Israel the son.

^{page 232 note 2} St John's style seems to bear the closest resemblance to that of the Hebrew prophetic books. It is a balanced, rhythmic style often built up on a threefold pattern. It depends not on metre but on the juxtaposition of paralleled phrases linked by words like καί and and often building up to a climax (Burney's ‘synthetic or constructive parallelism’).

^{page 232 note 3} έκεīνος seems an unusual way to refer to God. Perhaps John meant his former teachers, who would nevertheless be the mouthpiece of the divine, who taught him that which led him to set out on his mission of baptizing and awaiting the Messiah. But it seems that the Johannine usage is against this, cf. έκεīνος equals ‘God, the Father’ v. 19; equals ‘the Comforter’ xv. 26.

^{page 232 note 4} This belief that the Messiah would baptize with the Spirit is based on Isa. xxxii. 1; xliv. 1–4; Ezek. xi. 19; xxxvi. 25–7; xxxvii. 14; xxxix. 29; Joel ii. 28–9 and Zech. xii. 10. In John's commission there is no mention of the Dove, it was not the expected sign, only the descent of the Spirit would mark out the Messiah.

^{page 233 note 1} In an article in the Scottish Journal of Theology, xv (Sept. 1962), 288–304, I have tried to show some of the implications of the identification of the Dove with Israel. An identification which I now find was made as long ago as 1883 by A. Edersheim in his Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Longman), pp. 286–7, who also rejects its symbolic equation with the Spirit. It is, therefore, the Dove which is important at the Baptism. Cf. the sequence:Google Scholar

Hoskyns, op. cit., says: ‘the attention of the evangelist is concentrated on the dove’ (p. 182). Westcott remarks: ‘the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Christ at his baptism is presented by St John simply as an objective sign to the Baptist. He does not speak of any communication of the Holy Spirit to Christ’ (Greek ed., p. 78).

^{page 233 note 2} The Hebrew here, of course, means properly an ‘ewe-lamb’. It is possible that the author of Deutero-Isaiah himself had in mind the daily Temple sacrifices when he made the comparison, assuming they had been already instituted. This was almost certainly the primary reference in St John and the schools of both Shammai and Hillel see the meaning of the daily sacrifice in the forgiveness of sins, but this does not preclude the reference to the ‘servant’. It is possible that the ‘servant’ passages themselves contain some suggestion of Israel as the ‘son’. The LXX translates not by δούλος, but by παïς. Likewise in xlii. 1, the ‘servant’ is , which (see J.T.S. o.s. xxvii (1926), 113–29) is equal to άγαπητός, which in turn is a synonym for μονογενής For the idea of Israel as a ‘son’ pleading on behalf of the nations see the Midrash on Ps. ii. 12 (quoted in the article in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, iv, 571 b on the ‘son of God’). The more usual rabbinic exegesis of this psalm was to interpret the ‘son’ as Israel, not as the Messiah (Dolman, op. cit. p. 269; S.-B. iii, 19 and 674).

^{page 234 note 1} This is a characteristic of the Gospel as a whole where the end echoes the beginning. For example, the first week (i. 19–ii. 11) ending in a Passover (ii. 13)—the holy week (xii. 1–xix. 30) ending in the Passover (xix. 31) (C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John, 1955, p. 158); μέσος ύμῶν στήκει i. 26—εστη είς τó μέσον xx. 19; Βηθανίlᾳ i. 28—Βηθανίαν xii. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 2} ‘The Baptist seems to dwell on the contrast between the dimension which he had fashioned and the reality which he had found’ (Westcott, p. 42). This is another characteristic of the Gospel, cf. ερχεσθε καί ཹψεσθε 1. 39; ερχον καί ίδέ i. 46; μείʒω τούτων ཹψŋ 1. 50.

^{page 234 note 3} Hoskyns, E., op. cit. p. 216, has called the discussion with Nicodemus in chapter iii ‘“The Discourse”, the subject-matter of which is repeated in all subsequent discourses’. It is possible to read this, bearing in mind the many meanings of the title ‘son of God’, and it is then no longer necessary to separate off iii. 16–21 as the Evangelist's comment.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 4} For the king as the ‘son of God’: II Sam. vii. 14, equals I Chron. xvii. 13, and I Chron. xxii. 10 and xxviii. 6 based upon this. Ps. ii. 7 and lxxxix. 26–7.

^{page 234 note 5} That is, before Christianity. The earliest texts in which it occurs in this way, outside specifically Christian works, are in the Book of Enoch and IV Esdras. Later it became common among the Jews. Contra see E. Stauffer, Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments (1955) E.T., p. 113.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 6} This excludes passages where the term obviously refers to lesser divine beings, i.e. Gen. vi. 2, 4; Job i. 6; ii. 1; xxxviii. 7; Ps. xxix. 1; lxxxix. 6.

^{page 234 note 7} Hos. i. 10; Isa. i. 2, 4; xxx. 1, 9; Jer. iii. 14, 19, 22; iv. 22; Deut. xiv. 1; xxxii. 4–6, 19–20; Ps. lxxiii. 15; Deutero-Isaiah xliii. 6; xlv. 11 (cf. the Maker of Israel, ); lvi. 5. These are all cases where the word is , often rendered by the EVV. ‘children’. In the Apocrypha, Wisdom ix. 7; xii. 19, 21; xvi. 10, 26; xviii. 4. In Sirach iv. 10 (cf. v. 5) the pious Israelite is called in the Greek ύιóς ཻίστου, where the Hebrew of this passage reads: ‘then will God call thee son.’ In Wisdom ii. 18 it is the just man set upon by the wicked (Isaiah's suffering ‘servant’?) who is called the ‘son of God’, perhaps here also as representing Israel.

^{page 235 note 1} O. Cullmann, Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments (1959) E.T., p. 307 says: ‘we have also seen in the preceding chapters that without being contradicted Jesus’ opponents understood “son of God” to mean “identification with God”. This is not true if it means they objected to the title “son of God”. What they took offence at were such phrases as “I and the Father are one” (x. 30), and the divine name “I am” (viii. 58) and possibly, according to one way of reading the Greek, the title “the beginning” (viii. 25).’

^{page 235 note 2} It seems reasonable to take the words in the Prologue (i. 12) as referring in this way to the people of the old Israel and not, as is usually done, to the Christians of the new dispensation. There is then no break in the chronological sequence from (i) the Word in mankind (v. 9); (ii) the Word in Israel (‘his own’ v. 11); and (iii) the incarnation (v. 14). The difficult reading αίμάτων which has troubled commentators could then be explained. We might gloss as follows. God gave the old Israelites power to be sons (τέκνα not υཷοί), but this was not ‘of bloods’, i.e. the Temple ritual (cf. Heb. x. 4 ‘for it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins’); nor of man's striving (cf. Gal. ii. 16 ‘a man is not justified by the works of the Law’); but purely of God's free choice and election (cf. Rom. ix. 16 ‘so then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy’). The word in viii. 39 is also τέκνα not υཷοί. St John nowhere says Christians are sons of God (this is left for I John to conclude). The only other use of τέκνα in the Gospel (xi. 52) may also be read of the Jews, i.e. of the dispersion. There may also be a reference to the ‘husband–wife’ analogy in viii. 41.

^{page 235 note 3} Exod. xxi. 6; xxii. 8, 9 all from the Covenant Code, and Ps. lxxxii. 6–7. In all these instances the term stands for ‘judges’ as God's agents. Perhaps there should also be included I Sam. ii. 25; Judges v. 8; Ps. lxii. 1 and cxxxviii. I although the meaning here may be ‘divine beings’.

^{page 236 note 1} For this understanding of x. 35 see Barrett, op. cit. on this verse.

^{page 236 note 2} The Greek is γιóς τού θεού, without an article. Cf. πατέρα ϊδιον v. 18.

^{page 236 note 3} The Names of Jesus (1954), p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 4} Cullmann, , op. cit. p. 283.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 5} We may also note the use of the other analogy, that of the vine and husbandman, in chapter xv where Jesus as Israel is the vine.

^{page 236 note 6} On two occasions according to the Synoptists he referred to himself as the ‘son’ (Luke x. 22/Matt. xi. 27, and Mark xiii. 32/Matt. xxiv. 36). There is also the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Matt. xxi. 33–46/Mark xii. 1–12/Luke xx. 9–19) and the Baptismal Formula (Matt. xxviii. 19). This is in contrast to the Fourth Gospel.

^{page 236 note 7} John v. 27 equates the ‘son of God’ with the ‘son of Man’.

^{page 236 note 8} It may be noted that as the new Israel, the ‘son of God’ calls no one to himself, they are given him by God (vi. 44). Of the disciples, two are sent by the Baptist (i. 35–6); Peter is brought by Andrew (i. 41); Philip is probably also found by Andrew (interpreting πρῶτον in i. 41 in this way, but see note 1, p. 227 above for the more usual interpretation; in any case there is a studied avoidance of any stated subject to the verb of finding—i. 43); Philip finds Nathanael (i. 45). One can join Israel, and the members of Israel can make converts, but Israel itself (himself) is a static thing, a community. Is this the origin of the expression πιστεύειν είς? St John is familiar with the normal use of πιοτεύω; he uses it with the dative to mean ‘faith in’ (8 times) and with a following ཹτι clause (14 times). On the other hand the object of πιστεύειν είς is always the person of Jesus. xiv. 1 is an apparent exception, but here είς εμε is paralleled with είς τóν θεόν as an indication that believing into the ‘son’ is equivalent to believing into God. Another indication for the eye of faith that Jesus in his person is not just man. Finally, if we exclude the cases where it is a pronoun (εμε 11 times; αύτόν 16 times) we have the following objects of πιστεύειν είς: ‘his name’ (i. 12; ii. 23); ‘the name of the only begotten son’ (iii. 18); ‘the son’ (iii. 36); ‘he whom God sent’ (vi. 29); ‘the son of Man’ (ix. 35); ‘Jesus’ (xii. 11); and ‘the light’ (xii. 36): an ascending order which culminates in xiv. 1 τóν θεόν.

^{page 237 note 1} That this was the interpretation put upon the title by our Lord and that St John was not unaware that it had this meaning may be seen from John i. 51 where the angels of God are said to ascend and descend upon the ‘son of Man’. In the original of this quotation they ascended and descended upon Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 12) who was soon to become, in his person, Israel (Gen. xxxii. 28). It is possible, since Jesus was on his way to Galilee from beyond Jordan, that the two incidents, that in St John and the naming of Israel, took place in the same spot—the ford of Jabbok.

^{page 237 note 2} There is, therefore, no need to adduce parallels from the second section of the Book of Enoch, which is only doubtfully pre-Christian (at Qumran there have been found parts of all other sections of Enoch save the second book) nor from IV Esdras which is certainly post-Christian.