Creation – Next Step Bible Study

Spirit in the Qumran Texts: 1QH 5:30-40

1QH 5, continued

(Unless otherwise noted, the translations of 1QH are my own.)

In lines 24-30 of the Column V hymn, discussed in the previous note, the author describes the role that the principal spirits of holiness, wisdom, etc, played in the Creation, having themselves been established by God before anything else in the universe had been created (cf. Proverbs 8:22-31). These spirits, reflecting the fundamental attributes of God, thus have knowledge of the deepest plans and “mysteries” of God. This is to be compared with the situation of human beings, who are unable to possess true wisdom or understanding unless God Himself, through His spirits, enables the person. Without this ‘special revelation’, human beings simply cannot obtain to the Divine wisdom. The author expresses this, quite clearly, with his rhetorical question in lines 30-31:

“[But how i]s a spirit of flesh (able) to gain understanding of all these (thing)s, and to have discernment of[…] great […]?”

As in 4:37 and 5:15 (possibly also in line 14), the distinctive expression “spirit of flesh” (rc*b* j^Wr) is used, in reference to the nature of a human being. It refers to the created/limited character of this nature, but also to the corruption of it, so that a person is, by nature, influenced and dominated by sin and by evil/harmful spirits. Here, the principal point of reference is to the human being as a created being, with the weaknesses and limitations that this implies:

“And what (is one) born of a woman among all your [gre]at (and) fearsome (work)s?” (line 31b)

The expression “born of a woman” is clearly parallel with “spirit of flesh”. Yet, as the following lines indicate, this created nature is also corrupt, having been perverted and dominated by sin:

“Indeed, he (is but) built of dust and kneaded (with) water. G[uilt and s]in (are) his foundation, (the) nakedness of shame and a so[urce of im]purity; and a spirit of crookedness rules over him.” (ll. 31-33)

The existence of a human being is established (lit. founded, vb ds^y`) on guilt (hm*v=a*) and sin (ha*F*j^), implying that a person is trapped in an existence dominated and influenced by sin from birth. The expression “nakedness of shame/disgrace” probably alludes to the tradition in Gen 2:25; 3:7, 10-11. This natural inclination to sin is further described as a “source of impurity”.

Beyond this, the author/protagonist recognizes that there is also a “spirit” that rules (vb lv^m*) over the human being. This is described specifically as “a spirit of crookedness” (hw@u&n~ j^Wr). The noun hw@u&n~ is verbal, being a participle from the root hwu (I), “bend, twist”; thus hw@u&n~ indicates the action of this spirit—twisting, bending, i.e., perverting, in a negative ethical-religious sense. As discussed in a prior note, lines 12-20 of the Column IV hymn refer to the harmful actions of various “spirits” on human beings. Humans are largely helpless against this influence, unless it is counteracted by other good spirits specifically given by to the individual by God (lines 29ff). Much the same idea is expressed here: the perverting spirit is counteracted by the holy/righteous spirit that God gives to His chosen ones (such as the hymnist/protagonist):

“Only by your goodness can a man be righteous, and by (the) abundance of [your] compas[sion…].
And I, your servant, have knowledge by (the) spirit that you gave [i.e. placed] in me […] and all of your works are righteous” (lines 33b-34a, 35b-36)

The emphasis on the action/effect of this God-given spirit is knowledge (i.e. wisdom and understanding). The protagonist is able to understand the nature of these spirits, and their dynamic (interaction with human beings, etc) in the context of the eternal plans and mysteries of God (see the fragmentary lines 37-40). He says nothing here directly about the cleansing/purifying effect of the spirit, though this is implied in lines 33-34ff. However, in column VI, there is at least one reference to the “spirit of (God’s) holiness” —the principal spirit given to the chosen ones. Indeed, there are parallel references in column VI to the “spirit of holiness” (line 24) and the “spirit of knowledge” (line 36), indicating the important relationship between righteousness/purity and wisdom. This will be discussed further in the next note.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 74 (Part 2)

Psalm 74, continued

The second half of Psalm 74 is a prayer for YHWH to act on behalf of His people, delivering and restoring them from their desolate condition. The Psalmist begins (vv. 12-17) with an appeal to the power that YHWH demonstrated, as Creator, in primeval times, when He subdued the dark and chaotic waters and brought into being the created order necessary for sustaining human life. In the remainder of the Psalm (vv. 18-23), this cosmological appeal is applied to the condition of Israel/Judah. Following the conquest and exile, the land (including Zion, the locale of the destroyed Temple), has become a dark and desolate wasteland (vv. 20-21), resembling (in a certain sense) conditions at the beginning of God’s creation (Gen 1:2). The restoration of Israel/Judah will be a kind of ‘new creation’, and, to this end, the Psalmist asks YHWH to defeat the wicked enemies of His people, just as He once subdued the dark and chaotic waters.

VERSES 12-23

Verse 12

“O Mightiest, (your are) my King from (times) before,
working salvation in the inner(most) part of (the) earth.”

The context of the Psalmist’s appeal in vv. 12-17 is the beginning of YHWH’s creative acts in the primeval time (cf. above). This is indicated here by the use of the noun <d#q#, which denotes a event that takes place “in front”, with the temporal sense of “the beginning” (cf. Gen 1:1), the ancient time(s) that came before, in the beginning of God’s acts of creating. YHWH’s role as Creator is also implied by the reference to Him as King.

The word hu*Wvy+ (“salvation”) here has a dual significance. In the immediate context, it refers to the created order produced by YHWH, which makes the universe (and the earth) habitable for human beings and able to support life. At the same time, the idiom of cosmological myth that the Psalmist utilizes in vv. 12-17 is frequently applied, in the Old Testament, to the historical situation of Israel. The tradition of YHWH’s defeat of the primeval waters was applied, for example, to the Exodus and the great event at the Reed Sea (cf. Exod 15). Thus, the acts of salvation (plur. touWvy+) which God works for His people are patterned after the Creation. Here it is said that He worked in the “inner part” (br#q#) of the earth, probably with the primeval condition of a dark, watery, formless mass in mind (Gen 1:2).

The meter of this verse, as it stands, is highly irregular (3+4 couplet); cf. Dahood, II, p. 204, for a different way of dividing vv. 12-13 that results in a more consistent meter.

Verse 13

“You—you split apart, by your strength, (the) Sea;
you broke (the) heads of (the) monster on the waters.”

The Psalmist here utilizes ancient Near Eastern cosmological myth to describe YHWH’s work in establishing the ordered cosmos necessary for sustaining human life. This involves the ‘defeat’ of the dark primeval waters that constituted the universe at the beginning of creation (Gen 1:2)—these chaotic waters being depicted as hostile or unruly opponents that need to be subdued in combat. I discuss this cosmological mythic tradition in an earlier article.

YHWH’s control over the ancient, primeval waters is clearly expressed in poetic declarations such as Psalm 29:3 and 93:3-4; He is seated above the flood-waters, signifying His dominion over them (Ps 29:10), and exercises control over them at will (Job 26:5ff; 28:25; Psalm 33:7; 104:3; 136:6; Prov 8:29; 30:4, etc). This cosmological imagery was applied to the episode at the Reed Sea in the Exodus narrative (cf. especially the poetic references in Psalm 77:16ff; 78:13). As far as depicting YHWH’s control in terms of the conflict-myth pattern, there are two main passages where this is preserved: here in Psalm 74:13-14 and Isaiah 27:1; to this may be added Job 26:12-13.

In the Canaanite mythic tradition, the Sea is defeated by the deity Baal Haddu and/or Anat (as described vividly in the Baal Epic, cf. my discussion in the aforementioned article). Along with the defeat of the Sea, mention is made of the defeat of other monstrous creatures which apparently were allies of the Sea. In III.3.38ff, these include a great serpentine Sea-monster (tnn), a similar being called “Twisting Serpent” (b¾n ±qltn), and another referred to as “the Ruler with seven heads” (šly‰ d šb±t rašm). The last two are also mentioned in V.1.1-3, along with Litan (ltn) also called “Fleeing Serpent” (b¾n brµ). All four of these mythic beings are mentioned in the Old Testament, but in conflict with YHWH, rather than Baal-Haddu (cf. below).

Here in Psalm 74:13-14, two of the above-mentioned names for the Serpentine Sea-monster are used—/yN]T^ (tannîn) and /t*y`w+l! (liwy¹¾¹n). An odd plural form of /yN]T^ is apparently used here, whereas we would expect the singular (cf. Isa 27:1); Dahood explains the y !- postformative element as an archaic genitive ending, while the final <– could be explained as a enclitic <– (frequent in poetry). The reference to crushing the “heads” of the Sea-monster suggests that a seven-headed creature may be in view, corresponding to the “the Ruler with seven heads” (šly‰ d šb±t rašm) in the Baal Epic, and similar ancient traditions (cf. above).

In verse 13, we have the first in a series of couplets beginning with the personal pronoun hT*a^ (“your”) in emphatic position. Dahood (II, p. 205) notes that the pronoun occurs seven times in vv. 13-17, and makes the interesting suggestion that the number may be a poetic allusion corresponding to the seven heads of the Sea-monster.

Verse 14

“You—you crushed (the) heads of Liwyatan,
you gave (him as) food for (the) crowd of desert (beast)s.”

On /t*y`w+l! (liwy¹¾¹n) as an alternate name (with /yN]T^ [tannîn]) for the multi-headed Serpentine Sea-monster, cf. above. The noun also occurs in Job 3:8; 40:25; Ps 104:26, and Isa 27:1. Here the “desert” probably simply means “dry land” (yx! in relation to the root hyx, denoting dryness). The idea of land creatures eating the slain Leviathan possibly derives from observation of what happens to a dead/beached whale. The noun <u*, usually translated “people” is here understood in the more general sense of “group, crowd”.

Verse 15

“You—you split open (the) source of water and torrent;
(and) you (also) dried up (the) ever(flow)ing streams.”

God’s defeat of the primeval Sea means that He has control over all the waters in the cosmos, with the ability to manipulate and dispense them as He sees fit. He is able to open up a source of water (/y`u=m^), causing a torrent to flow where there was no water before; the noun lj^n~ typically refers to a wadi riverbed that is dry until it is filled by a rushing (seasonal) torrent of water. At the same time, YHWH is able to dry up (vb vb@y` in the Hiphil, “make dry”) a regularly-flowing stream. Here, as in v. 13, the idea of “splitting” the water is likely a (secondary) allusion to the Exodus event at the Reed Sea; the “drying” of the water in line 2 may also imply the same reference.

Verse 16

“To you (belongs the) day, (and) also to you (the) night;
you brought into being (both) luminous (moon) and sun.”

From the control of the water (Gen 1:2, 6-10), the Psalmist continues along with the idea of YHWH establishing, as Creator, the rest of the created order. The focus is on the separation of day and night, with the light in the heavens for each (Gen 1:14-18)—i.e., the sun and the moon. The noun roam* literally means “place/source of light”, just as /y`u=m^ in v. 15 denotes a “source of water”; here roam* refers specifically to the luminous body of the moon (implied), paired with the sun.

Verse 17

“You—you set up all (the) boundaries of (the) earth;
dry season and harvest time (alike), you fashioned them.”

YHWH’s control of the waters, and of the life-giving light (from the sun, etc), has allowed Him to create the agricultural seasons and cycles for human kind. The dry/warm season (Jy]q^) of spring/summer is followed by the harvest season ([r#j)) in autumn. These are among the most significant “boundaries” set up by God in the ordered cosmos of His creation.

Verse 18

“Remember this, YHWH, (how) the hostile (one) scorned (you),
and a foolish people has shown contempt for your name!”

The focus of the Psalmist’s prayer shifts from YHWH’s work as Creator, to a plea that He would act (again), with similar sovereign power, on behalf of His people. The idea is that God would defeat Israel’s current enemies, just as He subdued the hostile/unruly waters in primeval times. Presumably, returning to the context of vv. 1-11 (cf. the previous study), the Psalmist has the Babylonian conquerors (who desecrated and destroyed the Temple) in mind.

There is a bit of wordplay, lost in translation, between vv. 17-18, utilizing the different roots [rj I & II, denoting “scorn” and “harvest (time)”, respectively.

Verse 19

“Do not give (over) to a living (beast) (the) soul <confessing> you;
(the) life of your lowly (one)s, do not forget to the end!”

Again the Psalmist engages in wordplay, along with some syntactical punning. In line 1, the noun hY`j^ (“living [thing]”) signifies a living beast (designating the enemies of God’s people), while in line 2 the same noun refers to the living soul of the devout/faithful ones.

With some reluctance, I follow commentators (e.g., Kraus, p. 96) who, supported by the LXX, emend MT ;r#oT (“your dove”) to ;d#oT (as a verbal noun), “casting (praise)”, i.e., praising YHWH, and thus confessing one’s devotion to Him. The devout and righteous ones among God’s people are clearly in view, as seen by the use of the adjective yn]u* (“low[ly], oppressed, afflicted”), used regularly in the Psalms as a descriptive term for the righteous. The righteous have particularly been afflicted and brought low by the conquest, the destruction of the Temple, and the exile. The wording echoes the tone of lament from the first half of the Psalm; only now the Psalmist calls on YHWH to act, to bring deliverance and restoration to His people.

Verse 20

“Look to (the) binding (agreement)!
For dark places fill (the) land,
habitations of violence!”

With a sudden, impassioned outburst—marked poetically by an abrupt rhythmic shift to a terse 2-beat (2+2+2) tricolon—the Psalmist calls on YHWH to remember His covenant (tyr!B=, lit. “binding [agreement]”) with Israel. As noted above, in the aftermath of the conquest (including the destruction of the Temple), the land has become a dark and chaotic wasteland, resembling the primeval condition of the cosmos at the beginning of creation (Gen 1:2, cf. on vv. 12-17 above). In particular, the wicked enemies of Israel have left “habitations of violence” throughout.

Verse 21

“Do not let (your) crushed (people) sit disgraced;
(but) let (the) oppressed and needy praise your name!”

Currently, God’s people sit (vb bv^y`) disgraced (vb <l^K*), in exile. The are “crushed” (ED^), an adjective parallel and generally synonymous with the more familiar traditional pair “oppressed [yn]u*] and needy [/oyb=a#]” in line 2. The promise and prospect of restoration will cause them to shout (ll^h*) praise to YHWH.

Verse 22

“Stand up, O Mightiest, (and) fight your fight!
Remember (the) scorn toward you
from (the) foolish (one) all the day (long)!”

The Psalmist here urges YHWH even more forcefully to act, asking Him to “stand up” and “fight” (vb byr!). By remembering the constant scorn directed to Him from the “foolish” people, God will be motivated to defeat them, and to restore His people to the land. The root byr can be used in the specific sense of a legal battle or dispute, in which case we should understand YHWH rising in His role as Judge.

Verse 23

“Do not forget the voice of your adversaries!
(The) uproar of (those) standing against you
is going up (toward you) continually.”

This concluding verse to the Psalm builds upon the idea expressed in v. 22; as in vv. 18-19, here in vv. 22-23 the verb rk^z` (“remember”) and jk^v* with the negative particle (“do not forget”) make a synonymous pairing. The wicked enemies of Israel, who are also adversaries of YHWH, are scorning God “all the day (long)”; here in v. 23 this is expressed as an uproar (/oav=) of hostile voices going up toward God continually (dym!T*).

References marked “Dahood, I” and “Dahood, II” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), and Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968).
Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, 2. Teilband, Psalmen 60-150, 5th ed., Biblischer Kommentar series (Neukirchener Verlag: 1978); English translation in Psalms 60-150, A Continental Commentary (Fortress Press: 1993).

May 3: Romans 8:21-23

Romans 8:21-23

Towards the end of chapter 8 (cf. the previous note on Rom 8:10-11), Paul brings in a strong eschatological emphasis. Many Christians today do not fully appreciate the importance of eschatology in early Christian thought. I have discussed the subject at length in the earlier series “Prophecy and Eschatology in the New Testament” (cf. the Part 2 of the article on Romans). For first-century Christians, their eschatology was imminent, expecting that the end would come very soon, probably within the lifetime of most believers. Salvation was understood primarily in terms of being saved from the coming Judgment.

Following the Judgment, a New Age would be inaugurated for humankind; the eschatological expectation of many Jews and Christians of the time included the idea of a complete transformation of all creation—drawing upon the prophetic tradition of a “new heavens and new earth” (Isa 65:17ff; 66:22; cf. Revelation 21:1-2; 2 Peter 3:13). Paul is expressing a similar idea here in Rom 8:18-23, working from the premise, shared by most Christians at the time, that the New Age had already been ushered in, but was only realized (in the present) for believers. This way of thinking is typically referred to as “realized eschatology” —the promise of salvation, eternal life, the resurrection of the body, and so forth—all of this is experienced by believers in Christ, in a preliminary way, through the presence of the Spirit.

Thus, as Paul expounds the matter in vv. 18-23, believers represent the ‘first-fruits’, a)parxh/, literally the beginning (of the ingathering) from (the harvest)—the harvest being a natural motif for the end of the Age. The good grain/fruit is brought in, while the bad/useless chaff is discarded (and burnt up)—cf. Mark 4:29; Matt 3:12 par; 13:30, 38ff; Rev 14:15-20; also Matt 9:37-38 par; John 4:35; cp. Jer 51:33; Joel 3:13, etc). From an eschatological standpoint, this signifies a temporal priority—i.e., the initial transformation of believers, through our possession of the Spirit, marks the beginning of the New Age.

For believers in Christ, the end time, in spite of the suffering (like that of a woman in labor) that takes place, ultimately provides a reason for great hope. Indeed, Paul declares that the present (eschatological) suffering cannot compare to the honor/splendor (do/ca) which we are about to experience (v. 18). In his words, the sufferings of “the time (right) now” are not comparable to the do/ca “being about to be uncovered [i.e. revealed] unto us” (note the imminence of this expectation). The prepositional expression ei)$ h(ma=$ could also be translated “in us”.

This hope for believers also gives hope to the rest of creation (as a whole). Paul refers to this in verse 19 as the “a)pokaradoki/a of the foundation”. The compound noun a)pokaradoki/a is almost impossible to translate; it essentially refers to the act of stretching out one’s head (and neck) with the hopes of seeing/perceiving something. The noun kti/si$, which I translate as “foundation,” properly refers to something that is founded or formed (vb kti/zw), cf. Rom 1:25. It is best understood here in a comprehensive/collective sense, referring to all of creation (cp. the use in Rom 1:20). Creation is looking out, hoping to receive (i.e. experience) the end-time manifestation of “the sons of God” (i.e. believers). Currently, this identity of believers is hidden, realized only internally, through the presence of the Spirit; eventually, the honor/splendor (do/ca) of this status will shine forth for all to see.

In verses 20-22, Paul strikingly attributes to all of creation, the same bondage (doulei/a, lit. slavery) which human beings suffered, prior to the coming of Christ. Just as all of humankind was in bondage to the power of sin and death, so all of creation is similarly enslaved. The primary manifestation of this is the fact that all of creation is subject to death and decay (fqora/). Creation has been put in (submissive) order under the authority of sin/death; this idea is expressed by the verb u(pota/ssw. However, the subject of the participle u(pota/canta in v. 20, referring to the person who put creation under this bondage, is not entirely clear. The best explanation is that Paul identifies God as the ultimate cause—He subjected creation to this bondage, allowing it to be so enslaved, with the final hope in mind: that eventually all of creation would be set free from this bondage.

Currently, this freedom is only experienced by believers in Christ, and only through the internal presence of the Spirit. But the time will (soon) come when the same freedom will be realized by all of creation:

“…even the foundation [i.e. creation] itself will be set free from the slavery of th(is) decay, into the freedom of the honor/splendor [do/ca] of the offspring of God.” (v. 21)

All of creation collectively suffers (v. 22), groaning and being in pain (like a woman in labor), but this suffering will lead to a new birth—the manifestation of the sons/children of God. Here in chap. 8, Paul utilizes both the noun ui(o/$ (ui(oi/, “sons”), and the more generic te/knon (pl. te/kna), “offspring”, with no real difference in meaning. By contrast, in the Johannine writings, believers are always referred to as “offspring [te/kna] of God”, with the noun ui(o/$ (“son”) reserved for Jesus. Paul’s use of ui(oi/ in vv. 14, 19 is perhaps influenced by the adoption motif in chapter 8 (esp. verses 14-17). The noun ui(oqesi/a literally means “placement as a son” (cf. also Gal 4:5 in context). Paul does, however, share with the Johannine writings the belief that Divine sonship is realized exclusively through our relationship to Jesus, the unique Son (vv. 29ff).

The climax of this exposition comes in verse 23, where Paul (finally) makes reference again to the Spirit. He makes clear that the transformation of creation will occur just as it does for believers—through the life-giving power of the Spirit:

“And not only (this), but (we our)selves, holding the beginning from (the harvest) of the Spirit, we also groan in ourselves, (look)ing out to receive placement as son(s), the loosing from (bondage) of our bodies.”

The occurrence of the noun ui(oqesi/a again here in v. 23 (indicated in light gray text) is problematic, and some commentators would omit it. Indeed, it is not present in a number of manuscripts (Ë⁴⁶ D F G 614). Its inclusion would imply that believers do not already have “placement as (God’s) sons,” quite contrary to what Paul indicated earlier in vv. 14-17. By contrast, what we are currently still awaiting is the full realization of this identity—which will take place at the end-time resurrection, when our bodies will at last be set free from bondage to death. In this regard, we have the same groaning expectation as the rest of creation, even though we have already been set free from bondage within, through the presence of the Spirit.

Though Paul does not state this here, the transforming power of the Spirit, communicating the live-giving power of God (over death), is specifically related to our participation in the death of Jesus. This is to be inferred based on what was said earlier in vv. 10-11 (as also in 6:1-11)—on which, cf. the discussion in the previous note.

The Monotheistic Revolution: Genesis 1:1

Genesis 1:1

“In the beginning, (the) Mightiest created the heavens and the earth.”
Jr#a*h^ ta@w+ <y]m^V*h^ ta@ <yh!l)a$ ar*B* tyv!ar@B=

The format of this series (at least initially) will be to begin with a verse from the Genesis Creation account (1:1-2:4a). Before relating the verse to the polytheism of the ancient Near East, it will be examined on its own terms. Each word or phrase will be considered as part of this exegesis.

tyv!ar@B= “in (the) beginning” —The opening word of Gen 1:1 is the feminine noun tyv!ar@, and related to the root noun var) I (“head”). The idea of the head can also be understood in the more figurative sense of “top”, and from there to the more abstract concepts of “first, chief,” as well as its use in the temporal sense of “beginning, start”. The feminine noun tyv!ar@ properly captures this abstract usage, especially the temporal or foundational aspect of a beginning.

Some commentators read the noun here as being in the construct state (i.e., “in the beginning of…”), and that verse 1 should be understood, not as an independent sentence, but as a temporal clause, subordinate to what follows in verses 2-3: “In the beginning (when) God created the heavens and the earth…” Cassuto (pp. 19-20) argues that, if this were the intended syntax, then the verb would precede the noun at the start of verse 2. The examples he cites (Jer 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; Hos 1:2) do, in fact, provide the closest grammatical parallels to our verse.

Overall, it is best to understand the opening word (with prefixed preposition), tyv!ar@B=, as a subordinate temporal phrase: “In the beginning, God created…”. It was specifically, at the very beginning—i.e., before anything had yet come to be in the universe—that God created.

ar*B* (“created”)—This is a common verb, similar in meaning to rx^y` (“form, fashion, shape”), with the basic meaning “make,” or, in the case of an artist or artisan, “create”. God thus makes (creates) the universe, and all of the Creation account (1:1-2:4a) is essentially a declaration of YHWH as the Creator (cf. below).

<yh!ýa$ (“[the] Mightiest”)—I translate the plural form <yh!ýa$ (°§lœhîm, “mighty [one]s”) as an intensive plural (i.e., “mightiest”). It is related to the common Semitic word for deity la@ (°¢l, “mighty [one]”). On El as the Creator deity for the ancient Semitic peoples, cf. below. I discuss the names/titles El and Elohim in more detail in prior articles.

Jr#a*h^ ta@w+ <y]m^V*h^ ta@ (“the heavens and the earth”)—The direct object of the sentence, and the thing that God creates, is represented by this pair of nouns (“the heavens” and “the earth”). This will be discussed further in the next study. Here, I wish to focus on the first three words of the verse only:

<yh!l)a$ ar*B* tyv!ar@B=
“In (the) beginning, (the) Mightiest created”

The Creator in Near Eastern Polytheism

Let us begin with the Semitic-speaking world, since it is closest to ancient Israel, both linguistically and culturally. The word la@ (°¢l), which generally corresponds to “God” in English, is an ancient Semitic word which was well-established and in wide use by at least the early Bronze Age (third millennium B.C.), attested in every part of the Semitic-speaking world—in Mesopotamia, Syria-Palestine, south into Arabia and N. Africa, as well as in the Phoenician (Punic) colonies much further afield. It doubtless belongs to the earliest Proto-Semitic vocabulary, and has a basic meaning and usage similar to the early terms dingir () in Sumer and netjer (n¾r, ) in Egypt. The precise etymology remains uncertain, but the fundamental meaning of la@ would seem to be “mighty” or possibly “great, exalted”. It is often thought to be derived from the root lwa (°awl), but it seems more likely that it stems from a primitive biconsonantal root la.

As applied to the power (or powers, i.e. deities) which were thought to govern the universe, the term would literally mean “mighty (one)”, with plural <yl!a@ (°¢lîm) as “mighty (one)s” —that is to say, “God” or “gods”. The main difference between °¢l and the corresponding terms from Sumer and Egypt is that °¢l was commonly used as the name of the chief (Creator) Deity of the Semitic-speaking peoples. The range of usage does generally match that of “God” in English:

- of Deity generally—”God”
- to refer to any particular deity (or deities)—”god(s)”
- as a name when addressing or referring to the Creator Deity—as “God”

There is reasonably well documented evidence for the chief Creator God being named °E~l (“Mighty [One]”), for both the Amorites in Mesopotamia and Canaanites in Syria-Palestine. As pronounced (vocalized) at the time (c. 2000-1400 B.C.) it would have been °Il(u). The most extensive information comes from the religious texts and myths uncovered at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) in Syria.

The principal role of °E~l was as Father—both of gods and human beings—or, more concretely, as Creator. This is seen in the famous episode in Genesis 14, in which Abraham encounters Melchi-Zedek, the (Canaanite) priest-king of Salem. There °E~l (using the compound name °E~l ±Elyôn) is referred to with the formula-title “creator [hn@q)] of heaven and earth” (v. 19). This passage will be discussed further in upcoming studies.

Multiple Creators?

One aspect of ancient polytheism that can be perplexing to modern readers and students is the overlapping attributes and characteristics of certain deities. Sometimes more than one deity will share the same basic role, and have (in many respects) the same fundamental identity. In part, this has to do with the nature of deity itself, as understood within a polytheistic framework.

For example, consider the idea of a “fertility deity”. There are many parts of the natural world where we see fertility taking place—in the fields and trees, among the animals and human beings, and so forth. Since there were deities who were thought to embody and govern each of these parts, there were thus many different “fertility deities”. The same may be said of “Creator deities”, since creation—the production and generation of life—takes place in many different parts of the natural world.

It is perhaps helpful to distinguish between this common sense of creation and that performed “at the beginning” (as in Gen 1:1). A deity who existed “at the beginning”, and who brought into being the other deities, can be referred to as a Primeval Creator. Clearly, El-Yahweh is a Primeval Creator; indeed, as a whole this characterizes the Semitic °E~l, who was understood to be “father of (all the other) deities”. It is important to remember that, from the polytheistic standpoint, the God who creates the universe, creates (at the same time) all of the powers (i.e., deities) that are manifest in the universe; the two cannot be separated.

Even so, there can be multiple Primeval Creators within certain developed polytheistic systems of thought. While this may seem completely contradictory, we can begin to explain it once we have clearly in mind the nature of ancient polytheism. The complexity of the universe (and how it is understood) means that there can be multiple aspects to the same basic phenomenon; and these different aspects can be conceived as distinct deities. With regard to the Creation, let us consider these illustrative examples from human experience, where a creator can be understood in terms of: an artisan or craftsman, a speaker, a planner/designer, a father bearing seed, a mother giving birth, and so forth. In addition to this, there are the various syncretic (and syncretistic) tendencies in ancient polytheism; these will be discussed at various points throughout this series.

Sumer and Mesopotamia

As noted above, the Sumerian term for deity was dingir (), the precised meaning and derivation of which remains uncertain. By all accounts, it was never used as the name or title of a specific High Deity, such as °¢l / °il(u) was by the Semitic peoples. These Semitic-speakers include the eastern territories extending into Mesopotamia. The Amorites certainly worshiped the Creator God °E~l, while the Akkadians were more directly influenced by the Sumerians, inheriting and adapting many of their fundamental religious beliefs and conceptions of deity.

Among the Sumerians, the deity An held a place comparable to °E~l. The word essentially means “heaven, sky”, referring to the entire upper half of the universe. He was the great High God of the Sumerians, and generally regarded as the Creator of the deities. An (“heaven”) coupled with Ki (“earth”) to produce the various other deities. The universe as a whole was called an-ki (“heaven-earth”), much as we see in Genesis 1:1 and 14:19 (cf. above). This will be discussed further in the next study.

However, the role of Primeval Creator more properly belongs to the goddess Nammu, a name written with the ideogram for “sea”. Embodying the primeval waters which were thought to have preceded the creation of the universe, Nammu was conceived of as a great Mother who gives birth to An-Ki (Heaven and Earth). On a tablet that gives a list of Sumerian deities, Nammu is specifically described as “the mother, who gave birth to heaven and earth” (Kramer, p. 39). Thus, while An and Ki created the deities, they themselves were first created by Nammu. The ancient Near Eastern cosmology, upon which these beliefs are based, will be discussed in the upcoming studies; the primeval waters, especially, will be discussed in association with Gen 1:2.

Ancient Egypt

As I mentioned in the Introduction, the polytheism of ancient Egypt was especially rich and complex. Its complexity is partly due to the fact that we have more information and knowledge about it, thanks to the wealth of surviving artifacts, texts, and inscriptions. At the same time, the Egyptian people also seem to have developed their polytheistic ideas and structures in ways that went beyond those of the surrounding cultures. The syncretic tendencies were especially elaborate and sophisticated, providing a highly detailed depiction of the phenomena of the natural world. It is like a painting that was made with 100 colors instead of 20. As a result, the names and forms of many more deities are known to us from ancient Egypt, than elsewhere.

Over the long history of ancient Egypt, a number of different Creator deities took on prominence. They were not mutually exclusive, but could exist in the religious thought and practice of the people simultaneously. To some extent, they were combined syncretistically, but they also can be seen as representing different aspects of Creation. The following deities can be characterized as (Primeval) Creator gods, and are the most prominent:

- Atum—the name means something like “the All” or “the undifferentiated [One]”; Atum is alone in the dark primeval waters (Nun) where he brings forth (creates) the first deities out of himself.
- Ra (R)—the precise derivation of this name remains in dispute, but could mean something like “(the) rising/ascending (one)”. Ra fundamentally represents the creative, life-giving power manifest in the sun; however, he came to be recognized as the Primeval Creator, especially through the syncretic combination Ra-Atum (i.e., Ra identified as the Creator Atum). The primary religious/cult center for Ra was the city of Iunu (On in the Old Testament, Heliopolis in Greek [“city of the sun”]).
- Amun (°mwn), “[the] Hidden [one]” —this deity may have represented the ‘hidden’ power in the sky (the air/atmosphere); however, in at least one line of cosmological tradition, he is associated with the primeval darkness that preceded the Creation, representing (together with a female consort) one of four deity-pairs embodying aspects of this Primeval state. He came into special prominence when the Egyptian capital was located at Wasit (Thebes), and he was identified (syncretically) with the Creator as Amun-Ra, the great High Deity throughout much of Egyptian history.
- Ptah—a Creator deity worshiped especially at the ancient capital Men-nefer (Memphis), and conceived primarily as a craftsman/artisan, who brought the world into existence as a work of art. In many ways, Ptah corresponds with our basic concept of God as Creator better than the other deities mentioned above. The famous cosmological text on the Shabaka Stone is an especially developed theological work (the so-called “Memphite Theology”) affirming Ptah as the supreme Deity and Creator of the world.

Summary

As Creator, YHWH (= Elohim in Genesis 1:1ff) holds a place in Israelite monotheism similar to that of the Primeval Creator-deities in ancient Near Eastern polytheism. The main difference is two-fold: (1) in creating the universe (heaven and earth), YHWH does not create any comparable deities; and (2) He proceeds to create all aspects and components of the universe Himself. Both of these points are fundamental to the distinction between monotheism and polytheism. Since the various “powers” (= deities) are related to the various parts of the universe, they come into being with the universe; this is essential to the polytheistic worldview. Similarly, as the universe takes shape, in stages, the first created deities, in turn, create more deities—the coming-to-be of world (cosmogony) is also a coming-to-be of all the deities in the world (theogony). This will be discussed in more detail in upcoming studies.

By contrast, in the Genesis Creation account, there is cosmogony, but no theogony. God (YHWH) alone creates all the different parts of the universe. To be sure, the Israelite and (later) Jewish worldview included other divine/heavenly beings (Angels, etc) who were created by God. This idea is comparable, in certain respects, with Near Eastern polytheism; however, there is not the slightest mention of it here in the Genesis Creation account.

References above marked “Cassuto” are to Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I: From Adam to Noah (1944), transl. by Israel Abrahams (1961) (Magnes Press: 1989).
References marked “Kramer” are to Samuel Noah Kramer, Sumerian Mythology: A Study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium B.C. (1944) (Harper & Bros.: 1961).

December 18: John 1:4-5

John 1:4-5

Verses 4 and 5 are interrelated, combining in their lines the themes of life (zwh/) and light (fw=$). Both of these themes, apart from their value each as a natural religious (and theological) metaphor, are specifically associated with the divine Wisdom in Old Testament and Jewish tradition. Verse 4 emphasizes life, while verse 5 focuses on the theme of light.

Life (zwh/), verse 4

“In him was life,
and th(is) life was the light of men”

There are many references to life in the Wisdom literature, associated with the Wisdom of God. These tend to emphasize natural life (i.e., long life) as much as the divine/eternal life, but there is a clear association between Wisdom and the life-giving power of God. Of the many verses that could be cited, see Prov 3:16, 18; 4:13, 22-23; 8:32-35; 13:14; 15:24; 16:22; Sirach 4:12f; Wisdom 6:18-19; Baruch 3:14; 4:1.

The term lo/go$, and the Logos-concept, blends the idea of Wisdom together with the Word of God. YHWH spoke the universe into existence through His life-giving Word (Gen 1:1ff), the same Word which spoke the Torah to Moses, the oracles to the Prophets, and wisdom for the righteous. The term “instruction” similarly encompasses both aspects—word and wisdom—and, indeed, the Instruction (Torah) came to be personified in Jewish tradition, much like the Word and Wisdom of God. The Old Testament basis for this, associating the Torah with the life-giving Word of YHWH, can be seen in passages such as the Song of Moses (Deut 32:47), the great Psalm 119 (vv. 17, 25, 107), and other references as well. Baruch 4:1 is a good example of how closely the personified Torah and Wisdom were connected in Jewish thought.

Here in the Prologue, eternal life, the life of God is said to be “in” (e)n) the Logos. This goes well beyond the idea that God created all things through the Logos (thus giving them life), as expressed in verse 3. In verse 4, the focus is on the life that God Himself possesses, and which the Logos shares. This is the special (theological) meaning of the noun zwh/ as it is used throughout the Johannine writings. The noun occurs 36 times in the Gospel and 13 more in the Letters; if we add in the 17 occurrences in the book of Revelation (counting it as a Johannine work), that comes to nearly half of all the New Testament occurrences of the word (66 out of 135). Clearly “life” is an important keyword in the Johannine writings, and the way it is introduced here in the Prologue is significant indeed.

The second line of the verse (“and the life was the light of men”) is a bit more difficult to explain. Again, it would be easy to interpret this in a natural sense—i.e., the wisdom of God that enlightens human beings (esp. the righteous). This is certainly a fundamental theme of Wisdom literature, as there are many passages which associate Wisdom (and, similarly the Word and Torah of God) with light—cf. Psalm 36:9; 119:105, 130; Prov 4:18; 6:23; Eccl 2:13; Wisdom 7:10, 26ff; 18:4; Sirach 32:16; Baruch 3:14; 4:1-2.

However, it must be emphasized here that, just as zwh/ refers to the life of God (i.e., divine/eternal Life), so also fw=$ in the Gospel of John refers to divine Light—the light of God that is manifest in the person of Jesus (the Son). It is another way that Jesus is identified with the Logos—the Word and Wisdom of God—in the Prologue (cf. the prior note on v. 2).

Light (fw=$), verse 5

“and the light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness did not take it down.”

While the term “light” (fw=$) was introduced in verse 4, it is featured here in v. 5, establishing the important dualistic contrast between light and darkness (skoti/a). This light-vs-darkness contrast is natural, and occurs quite frequently as a religious and ethical motif in many traditions worldwide. It is used by a number of New Testament authors (and speakers), but is particularly prominent in the Johannine writings, being featured at several important points in the discourses: at the climax of the Nicodemus discourse (3:19), as part of the Light-theme in the Tabernacles discourses (8:12), the entire chapter 9 episode (healing the blind man, see v. 4), and at the conclusion of the first half of the Gospel (the ‘Book of Signs’, 12:35, 46; cp. 11:10). There also several key allusions within the traditional narrative, which take on added meaning in a Johannine context (cf. 3:2; 6:17; 13:30; 19:39; 20:1; 21:3). The “world” (ko/smo$) is dominated by darkness, while light belongs to the domain of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and those who trust in him.

The verbs used here in verse 5 are worth noting. The first, fai/nw, means “shine”. It is, of course, a natural verb to use in reference to light; however, like the related noun fw=$, it has special meaning as part of the Johannine vocabulary. Admittedly, the verb fai/nw occurs just three times (here, and in 5:35; 1 Jn 2:8); but when we combine these with the 29 occurrences of fw=$ (23 in the Gospel, 6 in the Letters), along with the related verb fanero/w (“make [to] shine forth”), an extensive thematic portrait emerges. Jesus, the Son and Logos of God, possesses the divine Light of God, and, in his own person and work, makes this Light “shine forth” to others.

The second verb, in the second line of v. 5, is katalamba/nw, which literally means “take down”. It can be understood in a negative, positive, or neutral sense; the parallel in 12:35 strongly suggests a negative meaning here—i.e., of a person who attempts to take someone down, with hostile or evil intent. The opposition of darkness to light means that darkness will attempt to “take down” (i.e., bring down, cover over, extinguish) the light. This dualism is fundamental to the Johannine theology and Christian worldview, as noted above. The world is opposed to God the Father—and thus also is hostile to Jesus the Son, and to the believers who trust in him. This thematic emphasis runs through all the Discourses, and is developed in a number of important ways.

Elsewhere, in the Johannine Letters, the same dualism is present. Jesus is the “true light” of God that has shone forth in the darkness of the world (cf. 1 Jn 1:5-7ff; 2:8-11). Light and darkness are fundamentally opposed and cannot co-exist. Ultimately, the light of God dispels the darkness completely.

In concluding our study on this part of the Prologue, it is worth presenting again verses 3-5 as a poetic unit:

“All (thing)s came to be through him,
and apart (from) him came to be
not even one (thing) that has come to be.
In him was life,
and th(is) life was the light of men;
and the light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness did not take it down.”

A pair of 3-line (tricolon) sub-units surround the central declaration “in him was life”. The first three lines (v. 3) refer to the original creation of the world, while the last three lines (in v. 4) describe the origins of the new creation that is introduced through the person and work of Jesus (identified with the Logos). Like the eternal Wisdom and Word of God, the Son brings life and light to all things. In particular, it is to the chosen ones (believers), who are able to experience the divine Life and Light in a way that the world simply cannot. Since the world has come to be dominated by darkness, it is only the believers, currently living in the world, who are able to embrace the light.

December 17: John 1:3-4 (continued)

John 1:3-4, continued

In the previous note, we looked at the two different ways of dividing verses 3-4, involving the words o^ ge/gonen (“[that] which has come to be”). These words come at the end of v. 3 (according to the traditional verse-division), but many commentators consider them to belong with verse 4, providing the opening words for that verse:

“(That) which came to be [o^ ge/gonen] in him was life”

To do so, however, creates certain difficulties for interpretation. What, exactly does this statement mean? In the previous note, I offered a possible explanation, or line of interpretation, suggesting that it is a reference to the new creation (i.e., believers in Christ), in contrast to the first/original creation referenced in v. 3. While such an explanation would be consonant with Johannine theology (cf. vv. 12-13; 3:3-8), the actual syntax of the clause in v. 4 seems to argue against it. Life is the subject (not believers), and so, based on the Johannine understanding of the noun zwh/, it is the divine/eternal life itself that “came to be” in the Logos.

There are several passages in the Gospel where it is stated that the Father gave life to the Son (who, in turn, gives it to believers). We see this most notably in the chapter 5 discourse (vv. 21ff, 26), but it is implied elsewhere in the discourses (cf. 3:34-36; 6:27ff; 10:28; 12:49-50; 17:2-3). While this idea is very much part of the Johannine theology, it does not seem to fit to context here in v. 4. There is a relatively sharp distinction between the use of the verb of being (ei)mi) and the verb of becoming (gi/nomai). In the Prologue, the verb of being is used of God (i.e., divine being), while the verb of becoming is used for created beings. Thus, by reading the words o^ ge/gonen as part of v. 4, the verse is apparently made to say that the divine life which the Logos (and Jesus, the Son) possesses has “come to be” (that is, was created by God). One can well understand why those who held an Arian view of Jesus, would cite the verse (read in this way) in support of their Christology, since it would seem to suggest that the pre-existent Son was created.

Keeping the words o^ ge/gonen as part of verse 3 removes this complication, and preserves a clear distinction between the eternal being of God (vv. 1-2, 4) and created being (v. 3). For this reason, among the others cited in the previous note, I would argue strongly for the traditional verse division, and will thus assume it as the correct approach for the remainder of these notes. Following the traditional division, we can render vv. 3-4 as:

“All (thing)s came to be through him,
and apart (from) him came to be
not even one (thing) that has come to be.
In him was life,
and th(is) life was the light of men.”

The poetry may appear to be rather uneven in this arrangement; however, the structure becomes more properly balanced, both rhythmically and thematically, when one includes v. 5.

Verse 3 refers to creation—specifically to created beings—which all came into existence, by God, through the Logos. Verse 4, by contrast, refers to the divine being, the creative power, which the Logos possesses. Creation takes place through (dia/) the Logos, but eternal life is experienced in (e)n) the Logos. Verse 4 is comprised of two distinct, but related, statements:

- “In him was life” (e)n au)tw=| zwh\ h@n)
- “the life was the light of men” (h( zwh\ h@n to\ fw=$ tw=n a)nqrw/pwn)

The use of the verb of being (ei)mi) echoes the wording of vv. 1-2, with the same imperfect form (h@n, “he/it was“); it thus refers to the divine being and existence of the Logos, and the relation of the Logos to God. As previously noted, the noun zwh/ (“life”) occurs frequently in the Gospel of John (36 times, more than a quarter of all NT occurrences), and always refers to the life that God possesses—that is, to the divine and eternal life. The Logos possesses this same life, and is thus able to give it to others; since Jesus the Son is identified with the Logos of God (v. 2), the life (and life-giving power) belongs to him (3:34-36; 5:21ff; 10:28; 11:25; 14:6, etc).

We will examine this thematic keyword, zwh/ (“life”), in a bit more detail in the next daily note, as we include verse 5 as part of our study.

December 16: John 1:3-4

John 1:3-4

The two clauses of verse 3 are clear and straightforward, both in terms of form and meaning. As discussed in the previous note, together they provide an emphatic declaration regard the role of the Logos in God’s creation of the universe:

“All (thing)s came to be through him,
and apart (from) him not even one thing came to be”

Difficulties arise, however, when we come to the last two words of verse 3 (as it is traditionally divided): o^ ge/gonen (“that which has come to be”)—a neuter relative pronoun followed by a perfect form of the verb of becoming (gi/nomai). Do these words belong with what precedes them (in v. 3), or with what follows (in v. 4)? Scholarly opinion is rather evenly divided on the matter, with some commentators (e.g., Metzger, pp. 167-8) preferring the former, and others (e.g., Brown, pp. 6-7) opting for the latter.

There are two principal arguments adduced in favor of reading o^ ge/gonen as part of v. 4:

- It establishes a clearer (poetic) rhythm to the lines, and also preserves the so-called “staircase” parallelism that is said to be typical of Johannine style.
- It seems to have been the view of the pre-Nicene Christian writers (who discuss the verse); a shift in favor of reading the words with v. 3, it is said, was prompted by a reaction against an Arian interpretation of the passage (when the words are read as part of v. 4).

I find the opposing arguments to be rather stronger (cf. Metzger, p. 168):

- The Johannine predilection for beginning a sentence or clause with the preposition e)n + a demonstrative pronoun (e.g., Jn 13:35; 15:8; 16:26; 1 Jn 2:3-5; 3:10, 16, 19, 24; 4:2)
- The theological parallels in 5:26, 39; 6:53, etc
- The precise meaning of v. 4, when the words o^ ge/gonen are included, is, in the view of many commentators, rather obscure; on the other hand, the meaning of the verse, when the words are kept as part of the prior v. 3, seems quite clear, and requires no special pleading.

To illustrate the situation, let us compare the two approaches to handling vv. 3-4, in translation:

- First—according to the traditional division (the words as part of v. 3):
  “All (thing)s came to be through him,
  and apart (from) him came to be
  not even one (thing) that has come to be.
  In him was life,
  and th(is) life was the light of men.”
- Second—reading the words as part of v.4:
  “All (thing)s came to be through him,
  and apart (from) him not even one (thing) came to be.
  (That) which has come to be in him was life,
  and th(is) life was the light of men.”

Admittedly, there is a certain poetic consistency in the second option that the first lacks. However, this is a rather subjective assessment, and it presumes that the author—whether of the Prologue or an underlying hymn (or both)—intended such a consistency. Moreover, it ignores a different sort of balance that is achieved, with the first approach, when all three verses of the section (vv. 3-5) are included:

Note here how two triplets (three-line structures) surround a central declaration, balancing natural life (i.e., created existence) and eternal life.

But, perhaps most decisive against reading the words o^ ge/gonen as part of verse 4 is establishing exactly what the verse would then mean. For the sake of the argument, let us consider the possibility that this is the correct approach; verse 4 would then read:

“(That) which has come to be in him was life”
o^ ge/gonen e)n au)tw=| zwh\ h@n

At first glance, in the context of creation, we might assume that this statement means that the Logos gave (and still gives) life (i.e., existence) to all things. However, in the Johannine writings, the noun zwh/ essentially never refers to life in the ordinary (natural) sense, but, rather, to the life that God possesses—i.e., eternal life. Given this emphasis, the clause would have to be understood rather differently—as a contrast with ordinary creation. In other words, verse 3 refers to the role of the Logos in the creation of the universe (i.e., the first creation), while verse 4 focuses on the new creation of believers in Christ. According to this view, the phrase “that which has come to be in him” means those (believers) who are “in Christ”, those who were born into him “from above” (3:3-8, and cp. with vv. 12-13 in the Prologue), by the Spirit, as a ‘new creation’.

While this explanation certainly would concur with the Johannine theology, we must ask if it appropriate at this point in the Gospel Prologue. More to the point, does the wording of the statement, as given above, accurately and truly express this theology? We shall attempt to examine the matter in more detail in the next daily note.

References marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel According to John I-XII, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 29 (1966).
Those marked “Metzger” are to Bruce M. Metzger in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies: 1971, 1994).

December 15: John 1:3

John 1:3-5

The first section of the “Christ hymn” in the Johannine Prologue (vv. 1-2) emphasizes how the relationship between the Logos and God existed “in the beginning” —that is, prior to the creation of the universe (cf. the discussion in the previous note). This is clearly indicated by the allusion to Genesis 1:1, and by the fact that the section which follows (vv. 3-5) refers specifically to the creation. However, the theme of a pre-creation existence of the Logos, and its relationship (indicated by the preposition pro/$, “toward,” in vv. 1-2) to God, is also implied by the use of the term lo/go$ (lógos) itself.

In a prior note (on v. 1b), I discussed the meaning and background of the noun lo/go$, and the special philosophical/theological use of the term, going back to the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraklitos in the 6th/5th century B.C. The meaning of the Logos-concept, in this context, may be summarized as: a manifestation of God, a rational intelligence that gives order to all things in creation. Philo of Alexandria is perhaps the best example of a Jewish philosopher who utilized the Logos-concept, applying it to Old Testament religious and theological tradition. He also happens to be a contemporary (fl. 20-50 A.D.) of the first-generation of Christians (and the earliest New Testament writings), so his application of a Logos-theology is especially pertinent to the similar development that we see here in the Johannine Prologue.

Philo uses the noun lo/go$ more than 1400 times in his writings, and often in the specialized philosophical/theological sense noted above. What is particularly significant, is the way that he has blended the Greek Logos-concept with Hellenistic Jewish Wisdom tradition. According to this line of tradition, Wisdom (Grk sofi/a) was considered to be the image (ei)kw/n) of God (Wisd 7:26), by which the world (and human beings) were created (2:23). The thought goes back, primarily, to the famous passage in Proverbs 8:22-31, in which Wisdom (Heb hm*k=j*), personified as a pre-existent divine being, it is said, acted to bring about God’s work of Creation. Philo similarly speaks of the Logos (lo/go$) as the image of God; the created universe, in turn, is the visible image of the Logos of God, like a personal stamp upon a coin (On the Creation §25; On Dreams 2.45; On the Special Laws I.81). This idiom is not limited to Jewish tradition, as it can be seen in other strands of philosophy, such as in Platonic thought, going back to Plato’s concept of the visible world as the perceptible image (ei)kw/n) of an intelligible Deity (Timaeus 92c).

The Logos (like the divine Wisdom) plays a central role in God’s creation of the universe, and it continues to function as the governing power of God by which all things in the universe are “held together” (sune/sthke). The Logos is similarly described as a “bond”, the binding force, that holds the cosmos together (Philo, Who Is the Heir §23, cf. On Flight and Finding §112). In Wisdom 1:7, the Wisdom of God is likewise said to be that which holds all things together (sune/xon ta\ pa/nta); while in Sirach 43:26, it is stated that all things lay (bound) together (su/geitai ta\ pa/nta) in the Word (Lo/go$) of God. This language clearly relates to the the thought-world of the Johannine Prologue, as also of the other New Testament “Christ hymns” we have studied (cf. especially Col 1:17 and Heb 1:3, and note also the wording in 2 Peter 3:5). For more on the place of the Logos (Lo/go$), the personified Word/Wisdom of God, and its role in creation, in the writings of Philo, see On the Creation §146; Who Is the Heir? §§7, 130ff; On the Special Laws I.80-81; III.83, 207; IV.123b; On the Migration of Abraham §6; On the Cherubim §125f; On Flight and Finding §§12, 95; On the Work of Planting §§18, 50; The Worse Attacks the Better §§83, 86; On Dreams 1.72, 215 (Attridge, p. 40ff). The influence of this Wisdom/Logos tradition on the Johannine prologue is obvious, but, as I previously discussed, the authors of Hebrews and the Colossians hymn (whether Paul or another) almost certainly drew upon it as well. For comparable references to the divine Wisdom in Hellenistic Jewish tradition, cf. Wisdom 7:22-8:1; 9:2ff; 10:1ff; Sirach 1:3-10; chap. 24; 33:7-8ff; 42:21; Baruch 3:15ff, etc.

It is in Proverbs 8:22-31 that we find the origin of the Jewish concept, and, especially, the idea of the close relationship between Wisdom and the Creator God. In verse 30, the personified Wisdom declares “I was near (lx#a@) Him”; the Greek LXX renders Hebrew lx#a@ with the preposition para/ (“alongside”). Even though the Johannine Prologue (vv. 1-2) uses a different preposition (pro/$, “toward”), the same basic idea is being expressed. The Logos was with God, in close proximity to him, at the time when the universe was created.

Verse 3

The first line of verse 3 states the role of the Logos in the creation of the universe quite clearly and simply:

pa/nta di’ au)tou= e)ge/neto
“all (thing)s came to be through him”

Let us briefly examine each of the three components in this statement.

pa/nta (“all [thing]s”)—The comprehensive adjective pa=$ (“all”) occurs here in a substantive plural form, as the subject of the clause. “All things” = everything in the universe. In our study of the Colossians hymn (1:15-20), we saw how the adjective pa=$ was used repeatedly (7 times in the hymn) to give special emphasis to the exalted position of Jesus over “all” creation; his exalted position is due, in part, to the role that he (as the pre-existent Son) played in the process of creation itself. In that hymn, a predicate use of the substantive plural (ta\ pa/nta, “all things”) occurs several times (vv. 16-17 [twice in each verse], 20), as it also does in Hebrews 1:3, which in many ways is closer to the thought expressed here in the Prologue:

“…and bearing [i.e. carrying] all (thing)s by the utterance [i.e. word] of his power”

In that statement, the noun r(h=ma (“utterance”) is used rather than lo/go$, but the meaning is comparable, and almost certainly reflects the same Logos/Wisdom theology summarized above.

di’ au)tou= (“through him”)—The Logos is the means, the instrument, through which God created the universe. This is fully in accordance with the Logos/Wisdom theology (cf. above), and is similarly applied to the (pre-existent) person of Jesus elsewhere in the Christ hymns. Note, in particular, Hebrews 1:2b (“through whom He [i.e., God the Father] made the Ages”); cf. also Colossians 1:16b (“all things have been founded [i.e. created] through him…”).

e)ge/neto (“came to be”)—The use of the verb of becoming (gi/nomai) in the Prologue is significant, since it provides a clear distinction (and contrast) with the verb of being (ei)mi). The verb of being, used in vv. 1-2, refers specifically to the being of God (i.e., Divine being), while the verb of becoming (beginning here in v. 3) refers to created beings (esp. human beings). The verb gi/nomai can mean “coming to be born,” referring to the birth of a human being, though the related verb genna/w expresses this more precisely. The important distinction between ei)mi and gi/nomai will be discussed further as we proceed through the Prologue.

The emphasis on “all things” (note the emphatic [first] position of pa/nta in the line) is reinforced by the statement that follows in v. 3:

“and apart (from) him not even one (thing) came to be”

Again, the meaning of statement is quite clear: God created everything through the Logos. However, it is at this point in the section that considerable difficulties of interpretation arise. We will attempt a clear and succinct discussion of these in the next daily note.

December 3: Hebrews 1:3 (3b)

Hebrews 1:3, continued

Verse 3b

fe/rwn te ta\ pa/nta tw=| r(h/mati th=$ duna/mew$ au)tou=
“and bearing all (thing)s by the word of his power”

This is the second of the two participial clauses in verse 3ab, each of which illustrate different aspects of the pre-existence Christology that came into prominence during the period c. 60-90 A.D. It is helpful to keep in mind the syntactical structure:

- (the Son) “who” (o%$)
  - “being…” (w&n) [3a]
    - “…a beam (shining) forth of the splendor (of God)”
      a)pau/gasma th=$ do/ch$
    - “…an engraving of th(at which) stands under Him”
      xarakth\r th=$ u(posta/sew$ au)tou=
  - “and bearing all (thing)s by the word of His power” (fe/rwn te ta\ pa/nta tw=| r(h/mati th=$ duna/mew$ au)tou=) [3b]

Both of the key participles (w&n, fe/rwn) are present-tense forms, and, as such, may be intended to establish characteristics of Jesus the Son of God that are eternal (i.e., ever-present); or, at least, that they have fundamental meaning and significant in the present, rather than simply referring to events or conditions in the past. The first participle (cf. the discussion in the previous note) is a form of the verb of being (ei)mi), and thus the clause functions as a declaration of who Jesus is. The second participle is of an active/transitive verb (fe/rw), meaning “bear, carry”, and refers to what Jesus (the Son) does.

The doing of Jesus involves the act of creation—that is, of God creating the universe. This is a central aspect of the early pre-existence Christology, and it is influenced by Hellenistic Jewish Wisdom/Logos tradition, being originally derived (primarily, if not exclusively) from the ancient Wisdom-tradition in Proverbs 8:22-31. For the basic details on this line of tradition, cf. the discussion in the previous note, as well as the earlier notes on the Colossians hymn (1:15-20).

However, while the Colossians hymn, like the Johannine prologue, refers to Jesus’ role in creation in terms of “making, establishing, forming” (kti/zw, ti/ktw), here in v. 3b the emphasis seems to be on sustaining the universe, maintaining its unifying bond of existence. Let us see how this is expressed by examining the two component phrases of the clause.

fe/rwn ta\ pa/nta

As noted above, the participle is the verb fe/rw (“bear, carry”), and it expresses how the Son’s divine character is manifest in the world—he carries all things, meaning that he supports and sustains all of Creation. Particularly important to this line of Christology is the substantive use of the adjective pa=$ (“all”), in the plural, as a comprehensive (and emphatic) reference to everything in the universe (“all things,” ta/ pa/nta). The adjective is used repeatedly (7 times) in the Colossians hymn (ta\ pa/nta in vv. 16-17, 20). While this coincides with Pauline usage, the same emphatic term here in Hebrews demonstrates that the language in Col 1:15-20 could just as easily be derived from an earlier (non-Pauline) hymn or confessional statement.

tw=| r(h/mati th=$ duna/mew$ au)tou=

This sustaining of creation is done “by the utterance [r(h=ma] of his power”, which blends the Wisdom/Creation traditions (cf. above) with the fundamental religious/cosmological idea of God creating the universe by His speaking a word. Both of these ideas are established more clearly in the Johannine Prologue (1:1-3ff), but they are certainly present here as well, and relate to the divine pre-existence of Jesus as the Son. The same divine power that brought the world into existence now providentially sustains it.

The noun r(h=ma is used, rather than lo/go$ (as in the Johannine prologue), but the same basic idea of the spoken word is involved. Admittedly, lo/go$ is more closely rooted to the underlying Wisdom tradtion, since it connotes the Divine thought and reason that brings shape and order to the universe. This all-pervasive sustaining and ordering of creation is attributed, famously, to the Divine Wisdom in Wis 7:24ff. In the writings of Philo of Alexandria, this is expressed in terms of the Logos (Lo/go$), as the means by which God sustains the cosmos (On the Migration of Abraham §6, cp. Who Is the Heir? §7, On Dreams 1.241. In certain passages, the Logos is referred to as a “pillar” that supports the universe, and to the “bond” (desmo/$) that holds all things together (On the Work of Planting §8; On Flight and Finding §112; cf. Attridge, p. 45).

“His power,” of course, refers to the power of God, and indicates that the creative (and world-sustaining) power of the Son (like the Logos) is that of the Father Himself. The pre-existent Jesus thus shares the same Spirit (i.e. Power) of God, affirming a central point of the developing Christology, common to the great hymns in Philippians and Colossians, as well as other key Christological passages of the New Testament.

December 1: Hebrews 1:3 (continued)

Hebrews 1:2b

The context of the “Christ hymn” in Hebrews 1:1-4 was discussed in the previous note. The hymnic portion is vv. 2b-3, a statement on the person of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, containing both of the key Christological views—the earlier exaltation Christology, along with the pre-existence aspect that emerged and developed in the second half of the 1st century.

One of the details that marks verse 3 (and vv. 2b-3) as a Christological hymn (or credal/confessional statement) is the use of the relative pronoun (o%$), referring to the subject of Jesus (the Son), to introduce and govern the poetic content (on the characteristic device, cf. the earlier note on Phil 2:6). This use is indeed confessional—that is, early Christians are making a fundamental statement regarding who Jesus is. More to the point, the statement expresses what it means to say that Jesus is the Son of God.

From the beginning, all believers would have embraced and accepted the exaltation Christology—i.e., the Sonship of Jesus defined in terms of his being raised and exalted to a place at God’s “right hand” in heaven. By all accounts, the pre-existence aspect represents a later development, and may still have been relatively new in the context of the hymns of Philippians and Colossians. This may explain the importance (and the rise) of these Christological statements; they were intended, at least in part, to familiarize believers with the idea of Jesus’ divine/eternal pre-existence, and to communicate this as an established (orthodox) belief in congregations throughout the Greco-Roman world.

There are actually three parallel relative clauses that govern vv. 2b-3:

- “…in a Son” (e)n ui(w=|)
  - “whom He set as heir of all things”
    o^n e&qhken klhrono/mon pa/ntwn
  - “through whom He even made (all) the Ages”
    di’ ou! kai\ e)poi/hsen tou\$ ai)w=na$
  - “who, being…carrying…”
    o^$ w*n…fe/rwn…

The first two clauses (2b) reflect the exaltation and pre-existence aspects, respectively (cf. above).

o^n e&qhken klhrono/mon pa/ntwn
“whom He set as heir of all things”

The initial relative clause draws on traditional (Messianic) language applied by early Christians to the exaltation of Jesus. The idea of God “setting” (vb ti/qhmi) a chosen one (i.e., the Davidic ruler) as His “son” and “heir” is part of the ancient royal theology, encapsulated in a number of Psalms that came to be interpreted in a Messianic sense—most notably Psalm 2 (vv. 7-8), but cf. also 89:28; and, on the Messianic application, cp. Isa 55:12; Dan 7:14; Ps Sol 17:23; 1 Macc 2:57. This language presumably underlies the declaration in the kerygma of Acts 2:36, that God “made” (vb poie/w) Jesus to be Messiah and Lord. The exalted Jesus had the place of God’s heir, as Son to the Father, close by His side in heaven. The inheritance motif is also utilized in Wisdom tradition, both in the sense of wisdom as a(n everlasting) possession of the righteous, and also for the eternal inheritance that belongs to the divine Wisdom itself—e.g., Sirach 24:8, 23; 1QS 11:7-9. It is also a theme that plays an important role throughout Hebrews, as believers in Christ are promised a share in his inheritance (1:14; 3:1; 6:17; 9:15; 12:25-29). Cf. Attridge, p. 40.

The second relative clause emphasizes the divine pre-existence of Jesus as God’s Son:

di’ ou! kai\ e)poi/hsen tou\$ ai)w=na$
“through whom He even made (all) the Ages”

This is expressed in terms of Jesus’ role (as God’s agent) in the original creation of the universe, much as it was in the Colossians hymn (1:15-17, discussed previously), as also in the Prologue of the Gospel of John (1:2ff). In both the Colossians hymn and the Johannine prologue, Hellenistic Jewish Wisdom tradition has been applied to the person of Jesus. According to the ancient tradition preserved in Proverbs 8:22-31, the Wisdom of God (personfied) was viewed as His first and highest creation, and functioned as the means by which God created the world. This tradition was preserved and developed within the Greek wisdom literature (Sirach 24; Wisdom 7:22; 8:4ff; 10:1ff; 1 Enoch 42, etc), and became one of the strands of the distinctive Hellenistic Jewish Logos-theology that would be so influential on early Christian thought. The place of the Logos (Lo/go$), the personified Word/Wisdom of God, and its role in creation, is best seen in the writings of Philo of Alexandria; of the many passages that may be cited, see esp. Who Is the Heir? §§130ff; On the Special Laws I.80-81; III.83, 207; On the Migration of Abraham §6; On the Cherubim §125f; On Flight and Finding §95; On Dreams 1.215 (cf. Attridge, p. 40f). The influence of this Wisdom/Logos tradition on the Johannine prologue is obvious, but, as I previously discussed, the author of the Colossians hymn (whether Paul or another) almost certainly drew upon it as well. The pre-existent Son, Jesus, was the means by which (“through whom”) God the Father created the universe.

This brings us to the third of the relative clauses in the Hebrews “hymn,” and the one which is most central to the overall message and theology of the author. This is the dual-statement in verse 3 proper, and we will examine it closely in the next daily note.

References above marked “Attridge” are to Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1989).