42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
by Donald B. Strobe
I once heard of a preacher in Chicago who advertised three sermons on the devil. The titles of the sermons were grammatically strange, but guaranteed to get attention: “Who, the devil, he is,” “What, the devil, he does,” and “How, the devil, he does it.” I am not trying to emulate that preacher, but only trying to make some sense out of Jesus’ dialogue with His audience in the 8th chapter of John. You recall that immediately after Jesus told His listeners that “The truth will make you free,” they protested that they were descendants of Abraham and, therefore, had never been in bondage to anyone. As we saw in the previous sermon, that was not literally true. But Jesus was talking about a deeper kind of bondage. “Everyone who commits sin is the slave to sin,” He said. Then Jesus accuses them of the most serious sin of all: their inability to see God at work in Him. In essence, He was saying, “If you are really descendants of Abraham, and Abraham was a man noted for his great faith, how come there is so little of that faith in you?” To be descendants of Abraham was not a matter of bloodline, but of spiritual kinship. To be a real child of Abraham was to share the faith of Abraham.
Again, Jesus’ audience became angry at His words. Their reaction was to make an even greater claim: not only were they children of Abraham, they were children of God! “We are not illegitimate children,” they said. Again and again in the Hebrew Bible, what we call the “Old Testament,” the refrain is heard that God is, in a very special way, the Father of His people Israel. It was God’s command to Moses that he should say to Pharaoh, “Thus says the LORD: Israel is my firstborn son.” (Exod. 4:22) The same theme is repeated over and over again in the Hebrew Bible, culminating in the words found in the last book of the Old Testament, the book of Malachi: “Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us?” (Mal. 2:10) So, the members of Jesus’ audience claimed God as their divine Parent. “We,” they said, “are legitimate children.” Now, two things may be going on here. In the Hebrew Bible the loveliest depiction of the relationship between God and God’s people was the image of husband and wife, lover and beloved. But, unfortunately, the prophets proclaimed that God’s spouse, God’s people, were not always faithful to that relationship. In blunt language they accused their people of “whoring after other gods.” Israel had forsaken their one true God and gone after strange gods, which are no gods. Therefore, the basic sin of God’s special people was that of spiritual adultery, the breaking of their marriage covenant with God. Jesus’ audience seems to have forgotten that message of their own prophets. They proudly proclaimed that they were not the children of any such adulterous union; they did not belong to a nation of idolaters, but had always remained faithful to their covenant, had always worshipped the one true God, and Him alone. That was an astounding claim to make in light of their history as it was recorded in their own sacred Scriptures! It was akin to the preposterous claim that they had never been “in bondage” to anyone, while Roman soldiers were standing on their very street-corners reminding them of their subservience to Rome. The fact of the matter is that spiritual adultery had always been a problem for them, as the prophets of the eighth and sixth centuries B.C. had pointed out. They were making a claim that was simply untrue, and only a people steeped in their own self-righteousness would have even dared to say such a thing. That is one possible meaning of their words.
But there may have been a deeper, more sinister, more personal meaning behind their words. Many early Christians believed in the miraculous birth of our Lord, as it is recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But Jesus’ enemies quickly twisted the story of the Virgin Birth and spread the malicious slander that Jesus had been an illegitimate child. They even went so far as to claim that Mary had been unfaithful to Joseph with a Roman soldier, and they even gave that soldier a name. (See Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew, Rethinking the Historical Jesus, New York: Doubleday, 1991, Vol I, pp. 222-230) It is just possible that Jesus’ enemies in this dialogue were flinging at Him an insult about His birth. That is a tactic people often fall back upon when they run out of logical arguments. They cast aspersions on your paternity.
Jesus’ answer is that their claim is utterly false. They are not really children of God, for if they were, they would act like it. If God were really their Father, He says, then they would have recognized the Son of God who came into the world to reveal the Father. Here again we find repeated a strain which occurs over and over again in the Fourth gospel: the real test of people is their reaction to Jesus. His mere presence in our world is judgment upon that world. If a person sees in Jesus the presence of God at work in the world, then that person is on the way to becoming a true child of God. But if a person sees nothing whatsoever attractive in Jesus, and seeks only to eliminate Jesus from his or her life as a nuisance, then that person is not really a child of God at all. In fact, (and now comes the really scary part), such a person is really a child of the devil! Jesus says strong words: “You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44)
Those are, indeed, strong words. What are we to make of them? Is Jesus here stepping out of character and being unkind, or is He merely revealing the true nature of things? And what are we to make of Jesus’ words about the devil, anyway? Over the years many of us have abandoned any belief in the devil. We have been embarrassed by the fact that Jesus seems to have believed in his Satanic majesty. We have tried to deal with Jesus’ language in several different ways. One way is to say that Jesus was a child of His age, and shared the popular belief in angels and demons; therefore, we who are of a more “enlightened” age have no need to believe in the devil simply because Jesus did. Others insist that Jesus actually knew that there was no such personage as the devil, and that He merely went along with popular belief, tailoring His message for less sophisticated hearers. (This argument sounds strange to me, because I cannot recall anywhere else where our Lord toned down His message just because it might upset His listeners.) Others insist that Jesus was right: there is a Power at work in the universe against which God (and we) must struggle. In fact, the original meaning of the word “Satan” was the “Adversary” - God’s adversary and ours. As a professor of mine in seminary said a long time ago, “If there is no devil, there is sure somebody getting His work done for him!”
Some years ago people rejected such language as outworn mythological ways of thinking which have no place in our modern world. The famous New Testament scholar Rudolph Bultmann even wrote an essay in which he flatly stated that “Now that the forces and laws of nature have been discovered we can no longer believe in spirits, whether good or evil...” He went on: “It is impossible to use electric light and wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of demons and spirits.” (“New Testament and Mythology” in Bartsch, Hans Werner, Ed., Kergyma and Myth: A Theological Debate, London: S.P.C.K., 1957, p.4) To which the only proper response is... “Oh???” ( One of the best recent critiques of Professor Bultmann’s rather naive world-view which allows no place for miracles, spirits, or demons is to be found in the book by John Meier I cited previously, especially pages 520-521) One need only note that Bultmann’s quaint words were written during the Second World War which was a particularly vivid example of people who used electric lights and wireless and the latest medical and surgical discoveries, and still were caught up in demonic forces which almost destroyed our world.
We are no longer as optimistic about our world as was Prof. Bultmann. One might even say that our age has discovered the demonic. In our lifetime we have seen decent, law-abiding people, people who would not ordinarily harm a fly, do horrible things to other people. One could cite the madness of Hitler’s Germany, or screaming mobs shouting obscenities at little children at the door of an elementary school because they do not approve of the mingling of the races, or a supposedly “Christian” nation waging an interminable, illogical, and immoral war in Southeast Asia, or the bombing and shelling of innocent civilians in the Balkans, or modern religious fanatics who, in the name of God, explode terrorist bombs which kill hundreds of innocent people on buses and airplanes, or supposedly God-fearing people blithely assembling weapons of mass destruction which could put an end to life on this planet, or militant groups in our own nation who would foment the kind of hatred which resulted in the tragedy which occurred in Oklahoma City. We have a tendency to do things in groups which we would never think of doing alone. We often call ourselves children of God; but all too often we act like children of the devil. We may no longer throw ink wells at the devil as Martin Luther is reported to have done. We are far too sophisticated for that. Yet one of the most sophisticated and civilized nations in the world, a nation which has given the world its greatest music, philosophy, and literature, allowed the extermination of six million of God’s children! I think that we must frankly face the fact that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament may have known exactly what they were talking about when they said that evil is real, endemic, and pandemic. The Bible is right on target when it says that there is a mighty contradiction at the very heart of the universe, and in the hearts and lives of all people. The New Testament is right on target when it pictures a world in which good and evil are locked in mortal combat.
Part of our problem is that we have faced the question of the devil with highly literal, unimaginative minds. Of course I am not talking about the devil as depicted on tins of canned meat or in popular paperbacks: the fellow with the red skin, pointed ears, pitchfork and pointed tail. Such a comical creature might be one of Satan’s favorite tricks to get us to dismiss him out of hand. The Devil we meet in the Bible is much more subtle. St. Paul spoke of the devil and the sinister powers operative in this world in nearly every letter he wrote. He spoke of “elemental spirits” which hold our world in bondage; the “god of this age” who has blinded people’s minds to reality. He wrote: “For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6:12) . . . forces which seem to be very much alive and active in our world; or haven’t you been reading the newspapers lately? As psychoanalyst Ernest Becker once wrote, “The Demonic is real. It comes into being when men fail to act individually and willfully, on the basis of their own personal, responsible powers. The Demonic refers specifically to the creation of power by groups of men who blindly follow authority and convention, power which engulfs them and defeats them.” And so, as Cervantes said in his famous book Don Quixote, we must “give the devil his due.”
But we must not give him more than that! One of the unfortunate side effects of our modern rediscovery of the devil is that many people seem to have given his Satanic majesty credit for more power than he really has. “The devil is a liar and the father of lies” said Jesus in John 8, and one of the lies which he has foisted upon us is the notion that he is really in control of this world. Back in 1973 a fellow named Clyde Nunn wrote an article for the “Center for Policy Research” in which he described what he called “The Rising Credibility of the devil in America.” He compared 1973 with 1964 and noted that during that time the percentage of Americans who were “absolutely certain” that the devil existed increased from 37 to 50%. In addition, he reported that another 21% in 1973 thought that it was “probably true” that the devil exists. Then he said, according to that study, that 71% of the American public was convinced - or at least fairly sure -that the devil exists and is alive and well. And this occurred at precisely the same time that belief in God was declining in our culture as a whole. In other words, people were becoming increasingly convinced that the devil exists while they were becoming less convinced that God exists! A strange state of affairs, to say the least. Indeed, during this time a popular author wrote a best-selling book titled, “Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth” in spite of the fact that Jesus said precisely the opposite in Luke 10:18!
One can understand how such a state of affairs might come to be, for belief in the devil rises when people feel that their lives have somehow gotten out of control. Our generation has found it easier to believe in the demonic because we have witnessed such immense evils: the twentieth century with its death camps, torture chambers, atomic rubble, fanatical violence, terrorism, mindless brutality, and “ethnic cleansing.” How can these horrors be comprehended without some notion of the radical and endemic nature of evil? But belief in a power of evil at work in the world does not necessarily mean that you and I must succumb to that power. As I said, one of the most dangerous lies which the devil has foisted upon us is the notion that he is really in control of this world. According to Jesus, he is not. In the 10th chapter of Luke’s Gospel we have the strange story of the seventy disciples whom Jesus sent forth to preach the Good News of the Gospel, returning with joy, and saying, “Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!” (Luke 10:17) Then it was that Jesus said to them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning.” What he seems to be saying is that the disciples’ victory over the demonic forces was so easy because the ultimate fall of Satan had already occurred. The New Testament speaks of a gigantic cosmic battle which God had waged against all of the forces of evil in this life and won a victory through the life, death, and resurrection of the Christ. With the coming of Christ into the world the forces of evil were already on their way out. The devil had already been defeated, though he still had a lot of life left in him, and the new age had already begun in Jesus. That is the message of the Gospel. That is the message of the familiar hymn: “This is my Father’s world, O let me ne’er forget; that though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet!” In other words, the old excuse “The devil made me do it” is a cop-out! Belief in the devil thrives when people feel overwhelmed by the complexity of life; and that certainly describes our kind of world. But the New Testament message is that the demonic forces which so often hold our world in slavery have already been defeated in principle through Jesus Christ. When we forget that fact, it then becomes easy for us to succumb to the devil’s lies and the devil’s methods.
It seems that our era bears a striking resemblance to the first century in this regard. In Jesus’ day it was easy for people to see the devil’s hand in the daily frustrations of life and the tragic persistence of evil. It seems that way to us, as well. One cannot turn on the television without hearing of a new and horrible example of our inhumanity toward one another. One trouble spot on the earth seems to quiet down, only to be replaced by another, more troubled spot. It is easy to see the devil’s hand in all of this, and when we do, it gives us an excuse to justify using any means at our disposal to fight against it. In Jesus’ day there was a whole sect (the “Zealots”) who believed that any and all means were permissible in fighting against the hated Roman occupiers of their land, much like the terrorists in our own day who justify the wanton murder of hundreds of innocent people in the name of a supposedly “higher cause.” “You’ve got to fight fire with fire,” they say. But the problem with this is that if we fight fire with fire, then everybody gets burned! If we become a devil in fighting the devil, then the devil has won all the way around! Jesus rejected this point of view by asking pointedly, “How can Satan cast out Satan?” (Mark 3:23) One of the tragedies of the Middle East is that all sides seem to see themselves as being “on the side of the angels” as we say, while the other side consists of “devils.” If your enemy is the devil, then there can be no possibility of compromise. Thus the struggle for peace in the Middle East limps along, generation after generation, and Jesus still weeps over Jerusalem (and the world) saying, “If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. “ (Luke 19:42)
How, then, do we deal with the devil? The Bible gives us, I think, a surprising answer to that question. As theologian Karl Barth once put it, “The only devil we know is a defeated devil.” The devil may think that he is in control of this world, but Jesus said that the devil is a liar. Our Lord may have been thinking of the Garden of Eden and the story where the devil promised immortality to our first parents if they disobeyed God. In that case the serpent promised freedom and happiness, but they discovered that the devil is a liar. He promises, but he doesn’t deliver. Or, Jesus may have been thinking of His own time of temptation in the wilderness when the devil took Him to the top of a high mountain and showed Him all of the kingdoms of the world, and promised to give them to Him if He would only adopt the devil’s methods...as though they were his to give! I admit that sometimes they look as though they belonged to the devil, but Jesus knew better. He said, “Away with you, Satan! for it is written, Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’ “ (Matt. 4:10)
How do you deal with the devil? As an already defeated foe! Luther said that the best weapon against the devil is to laugh at him; he is so vain that he cannot stand it! Jesus said that the devil is a liar and murderer and the way of lies and murder is on the way out. The Gospel message is that Jesus Christ came into the world to defeat all of the evil powers of the world, and it proclaims that in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ God has dealt a mortal blow to all of God’s foes. In fact, for the first thousand years of Christendom, that was the prevailing view of what happened on Calvary. They believed that in Christ, God had entered into battle with the powers of evil, God has taken the worst that the world could do, met it head-on, and won the victory over it! Do you recall the words of Jesus as He went to the cross: “Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:31-32) We therefore should deal with the devil as the liar he is, as a power whose nerve has been cut, and of whom, we need not be afraid. The evil is defeated. He’s still got a lot of “kick” left in him, but he is defeated, and he knows it. Satan is not Lord. Jesus Christ is Lord. That is what makes the Gospel “Good News.”
I came across the story of a man who was brought into court one day, charged with running a gambling device known as a slot machine. The man chose to defend himself, not subscribing to the old adage that a man who has himself for an attorney has a fool for a client; and he didn’t do a half-bad job of it. When the prosecutor had finished presenting his case, the defendant’s turn came. “Judge,” he said, “I am charged with operating a gambling device. Will you tell me what gambling is?” “Gambling,” the judge said, “is risking something of value on an event the outcome of which is uncertain.” “Well, judge,” said the defendant, “according to your definition, I am not guilty. When a person puts a coin into my machine, the outcome of that event is not in the least uncertain. The inside mechanism is adjusted so that no one can win. The thing is set against the person. He or she is bound to lose. Thus, it is not gambling.” And the man won his case!
The story is relevant to our struggle with evil in this world. Thanks to Jesus Christ, there is no real gamble in it; the final outcome is not in the least uncertain. “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning,” He said. One of Satan’s biggest lies is to convince us that he is in control of this world. He is not. God is. The authentic attitude of the Christian facing the rampant evils of this, and every other age, should be that of Martin Luther over four centuries ago, when he wrote the stirring words:
And though this world with devils filled should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear for God has willed His truth to triumph through us;
The prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him,
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure;
One little word shall fell him!
That little word is Jesus. For His is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever! Amen!
Overview: Jesus now challenges the depth of the faith of those mentioned in 8:30. It appears that they claim to believe, but their actions don’t support their claim. True disciples will embrace Jesus’s word, which reveals the truth and liberates people from sin (8:31–32). Jesus is the truth and has the power to set people free from their bondage to sin (8:33–36). Many demonstrate their refusal to accept Jesus’s word by trying to kill him (8:37). Jesus now accuses them of behaving like their father, whom he will later identify as the devil (8:38, 41, 44). The heated exchange continues as the Jews claim Abraham as their spiritual father (8:39). Jesus responds that their actions disprove that Abraham is their true father (8:39–41). They deny they are “illegitimate children,” perhaps a cutting…
42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
Jesus discusses Abraham’s true descendants in 8:31–59. The implications of this radical teaching are clear, and controversy is sure to follow. Jesus is overturning the canons of Jewish religion in their entirety! Knowing him who bears this power and authority will bring true freedom (8:32). But again, the Jews understand this in earthly terms: they are free since they are not slaves (8:33). But Jesus is concerned with spiritual slavery (8:34–36), and this they cannot perceive. From here Jesus is engaged in the harshest polemic in the Gospel (8:37–59; cf. Matt. 23:1–39). Verse 35 is key. If the Jews are not sons in God’s household (as Jesus claims), two results follow: their tenure there is limited, and they have another father. Being a descendant of Abraham (8:37) and being a son (8:35, 38) are two different things. Jesus claims that lineage has no effect on spiritual status before God (so Paul, Rom. 2:25–29). But their desire to kill Jesus is telling: they have a spiritual father other than God (8:38–43). At once they see where Jesus is headed: at issue is not only Jewish lineage (8:39) but also their sonship. Jesus is challenging both. The lethal attack is launched in 8:44. The failure of Jesus’s opponents to accept the truth and to hear God’s word (8:47) has led them to desire Jesus’s murder.
The reaction of many of the Jewish authorities with whom Jesus has been speaking is to believe in him (v. 30), and the remainder of the discourse is focused on this group of “believers.” The prediction that they will realize later who Jesus is (v. 28) appears to be coming true even before they lift him up on the cross. It sounds, and it is, too good to be true. Their faith is not genuine (cf. 2:23–25). Jesus has directed their attention toward the future, but they will have none of it. The present is good enough for these “believers,” and they are satisfied with their current relationship to God.
To become real disciples, they need time. Only by continued obedience to Jesus’ message can they know the truth and know what it is to be free (vv. 31–32). The mention of freedom offends them with its implication that they are not already free. As Abraham’s descendants, they are proud of having never been slaves of anyone (v. 33). Jesus explains that he is using slavery as a metaphor for sin and death (vv. 34–36). Descendants of Abraham or not, they are subject to death like everyone else and, in that sense, slaves (cf. Heb. 2:14–15). Jesus’ promise to set them free is a promise of life, an alternative to the grim prospect of dying in their sins (cf. vv. 21, 24). Verse 51 will make the promise explicit without the use of metaphor: I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.
Two themes—the interplay of life and death, and the significance of being descended from Abraham—are the issues that will drive Jesus and the Jewish “believers” further and further apart and trigger the confrontation with which the temple discourse comes to an end (v. 59). The descent of these “believers” from Abraham is not in question (v. 37), but their conduct belies their heritage. Physically they are Abraham’s descendants, Jesus admits, but neither ethically nor spiritually are they Abraham’s children.
Once again Jesus charges that his hearers are trying to kill him (vv. 37, 40), this time in a context in which his identity is known (contrast 7:19). If their behavior means anything, Abraham is not their father; if he were, they would do the things Abraham did (v. 39). Their deeds give evidence of a very different parentage (v. 41). Jesus links the theme of life and death with that of truth and lies, and both of these with the ancient conflict between God and the devil (vv. 42–47). God is the giver of life, who through Jesus makes his truth known in the world. The devil is the source of death, a murderer from the beginning and the father of lies. The references are to the snake’s denial of God’s truth in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:4) and to Cain’s murder of Abel, his brother (Gen. 4:8; cf. 1 John 3:12). Death and falsehood go together as surely as life and truth do. When Jesus charges that you are ready to kill me, he has in mind simply his hearers’ refusal to accept his teaching, the truth that I heard from God (vv. 37, 40). He equates this lie with attempted murder because lies and murder come from the same source and because the one leads inevitably to the other (v. 44). His words are vindicated at the end of the chapter when the “believers” are said to have picked up stones to stone him (v. 59). Though murder was not their intention at the start, Jesus’ words uncover the real import of their actions and attitudes. Their inability to hear God’s words from the lips of Jesus proves that they belong not to God but to the devil and are acting out the devil’s intentions (v. 47).
The fact that those denounced so harshly in this passage are called the Jews (v. 31) has prompted the charge that John’s Gospel is “anti-Jewish” or even “anti-Semitic.” But it should be remembered that these particular Jews had believed in Jesus. It would appear that if they represent anyone beyond themselves, they represent certain groups of Jewish Christians!
The angry “believers” now grope for the ugliest names they can think of to call Jesus: He is a Samaritan (cf. 4:9) and demon possessed (cf. 7:20). These are not measured charges made to stand up in court, but momentary expressions of rage. Jesus leaves his defense, and the passing of judgment on his adversaries, in the hands of his Father (vv. 49–50) and returns to his initial promise of eternal life to those who obey his teaching (v. 51; cf. vv. 31–32). It is like reopening an old wound. Once more Jesus’ claim is rejected by means of an appeal to Abraham (v. 52; cf. v. 33). For Jesus to pretend to give life so that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death is to put himself ahead of even Abraham and the prophets (vv. 52–53). Life and death are here conceived in purely physical terms, as if Jesus is promising exemption from physical death.
Without pausing to correct the misunderstanding, Jesus addresses the question Who do you think you are? (v. 53). His answer in verses 54 and 55 counters the appeal to Abraham with an appeal to God himself, the supreme Life-giver and Judge of all. But he adds, Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad (v. 56). Just as there is a specific allusion in 1:51 to Jacob’s Bethel experience (Gen. 28:12), it is natural to look for something specific here as well. The apparent reference is to the promise Abraham received that from his offspring blessing would come to the whole world (Gen. 12:1–3). The promise is assumed to be fulfilled in Jesus (cf. Gal. 3:16), but the beginning of its realization is the birth of Isaac and his deliverance from premature death (Gen. 18, 22). It is probably in connection with one or both of these events that Abraham is understood to have seen Jesus’ day. The narrator may even have in mind the specific moment when “Abraham looked up and there in the thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns” and knew that his son was spared (Gen. 22:13); this incident was regarded by some early Christian interpreters as pointing to the death of Jesus the Lamb of God (e.g., by Melito of Sardis, in his Eclogues; see R. M. Grant, Second Century Christianity [London: S.P.C.K., 1957], p. 72).
In an apparently deliberate misunderstanding, the hostile “believers” respond as if Jesus had said that he had seen Abraham, instead of that Abraham had seen his day (v. 57). Their effort to make his claim sound absurd succeeds only in displaying their own willful ignorance. But Jesus’ reply is serious, and decisive: I tell you the truth … Before Abraham was born, I am (v. 58). With these words, Jesus goes beyond all his previous claims. He has seen Abraham; he was alive in Abraham’s time, and long before. It is as if the earlier instances of the “I am” formula (i.e., 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28) have been waiting for this one for their deepest meaning. In contrast to them all, there is no content that can be supplied either from the nearer or more remote context: for example, that he is the Messiah, or the Son of Man, or the One from above, or everything that he has claimed to be. He simply is. I am in this case is God’s formula of self-disclosure, just as it is in the Hebrew scriptures (Heb.: ‘anî hû’, lit., “I he,” but normally translated into Greek as egō eimi, or “I am”). The formula is clustered especially in Isaiah 40–55, where God uses it to proclaim his uniqueness as Israel’s covenant Lord, faithful to his promises and strong to deliver and restore his people (e.g., Isa. 41:4; 43:10–13, 25; 45:18–19; 48:12; 52:6; cf. Deut. 32:39). Its use implies a radical and unqualified monotheism: “Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me” Isa. 43:10b); “I am the LORD, and there is no other” (Isa. 45:18); “there is no god besides me” (Deut. 32:39). For anyone else to use this formula in the same way was blasphemy (Isa. 47:8; Zeph. 2:15). Here for the first time, the implications of Jesus’ use of this formula came through to his hearers; in reaction they picked up stones to stone him (v. 59). There is no doubt that they understood Jesus to be speaking with the voice of God, as if he himself were “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” (cf. Exod. 3:6).
The use of the “I am” form in relation to Abraham recalls Jesus’ dispute with the Sadducees in the synoptic Gospels, where he defended the belief in a future resurrection (Mark 12:18–27 and parallels). Jesus’ argument on that occasion was that God had said to Moses, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” and that God was “not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Mark 12:27 and Matt. 22:32; Luke 20:38 explains, “for to him all are alive”). Here in John’s Gospel it is Jesus himself who both makes the “I am” statement and claims to be the giver of life (v. 51). It is not to be assumed that the statement, Abraham died (vv. 52–53) necessarily represents the viewpoint of the narrator or Jesus, at least not if it implies death’s usual finality. Jesus’ opponents, wrong about everything else, are wrong about this as well. He who existed before Abraham and promises eternal life to believers is the source of life and hope even for Abraham himself, and for the prophets. The God of Abraham, and of Isaac and Jacob, is Jesus; he is the only giver of life, and Lord of the resurrection (cf. 5:21, 25, 28). Only Jesus can promise his followers, “I will raise them up at the last day” (6:39–40; 6:44, 54), and in this passage even Abraham and the prophets are numbered among his followers. The temple discourse, like the synagogue discourse of chapter 6, ends on the note that God’s life is available to human beings only through trust in Jesus and obedience to his teaching.
The self-disclosure is now complete. As for the immediate hearers, their response is marked by neither trust nor obedience. The “believers” of verses 30–31 are unmasked as unbelievers, once and for all. To them, Jesus’ claim of identity with the God of Abraham is blasphemy. Their attempted stoning of Jesus is a natural and inevitable reaction, ironically fulfilling what Jesus said was their intent all along. They had tried to kill him (cf. 7:19; 8:37, 40), first by rejecting his message, but now literally. Their attempt on his life fails, just as earlier attempts to arrest him had failed (cf. 7:30, 44). The manner of his escape is not told; mysteriously he hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds (v. 59b). He had come out of hiding to make himself known at the temple during the Feast of Tabernacles, and now he goes back in hiding again.
Additional Notes
8:31 The Jews who had believed him. The grammatical construction is different from v. 30 (i.e., “believe” followed by a dative, rather than by a preposition designating Jesus as the object of their faith). But in context the two constructions are equivalents. In this Gospel, to believe in Jesus is to believe what he says, and believing his message means believing in him as God’s messenger. There is no way v. 31 can be made to refer to a less adequate kind of faith than v. 30. In neither verse is it possible to tell from the language that the faith in view is not genuine, even though subsequent events demonstrate that in fact it is not (cf. 2:23–25).
8:31–32 If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. Cf. Jesus’ words in his farewell discourse to those who were genuinely his disciples: “This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples” (15:8); “I no longer speak of you as slaves, for a slave does not know what his master is about. Instead, I call you friends, since I have made known to you all that I heard from my Father” (15:15, NAB). Note that in the latter passage freedom, in contrast to slavery, is defined by knowledge of the truth that Jesus brings, just as it is here.
8:33 We … have never been slaves of anyone. The proud spirit of Jewish independence that brought about the Jewish revolt in A.D. 70 can be heard in this pronouncement. The irony sensed by the narrator and his readers is that Israel had lost its independence to Rome almost a century before this statement was made and still had not regained it when the Gospel was written. Though not exactly in slavery, Israel was by no means free of foreign domination.
8:34 A slave to sin: The words to sin are missing in a few ancient manuscripts and versions. It is not hard to see why some ancient scribes omitted these words. The emphasis of the verse is on the metaphor of slavery as such, not on that to which one is enslaved. But the stronger manuscript evidence favors the longer reading. The slavery here is to sin, just as it is in Paul’s letters (e.g., Rom. 6:16, 20). Sin functions as a middle term between the metaphor (slavery) and the reality (death). Jesus’ next pronouncement, “A slave has no permanent place in the family” (v. 35a), carries forward the metaphor in that it realistically describes a typical household in Jesus’ time, yet it also provides a theological interpretation: “slavery” here means death. The Son (i.e., Jesus), on the contrary, has eternal life (v. 35b) and gives that life to those who are dying. In that sense he sets people free (v. 36).
8:38 The Father … your father: There are no possessive pronouns in the Greek. An explicit contrast between Jesus’ Father (God) and his opponents’ father (the devil) is not introduced until v. 41. It is therefore likely that God is the only Father being referred to in this verse: “I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence. Therefore do what you have heard from the Father” (NIV margin).
This translation is supported by the word oun (“therefore”) in the Greek text. It assumes that the last verb do (Gr.: poieite) should be taken as an imperative rather than as an indicative. Jesus is making one last appeal to his opponents to accept his words as words from God the Father, and put them into practice. But his opponents’ answer (v. 39) demonstrates that their Abrahamic descent is more important to them than Jesus’ appeal on his Father’s behalf.
8:39 If you were … you would do: Some ancient manuscripts continue the note of appeal by making the second verb in this sentence an imperative: “If you are Abraham’s children, … then do” (NIV margin). But the beginning of the following verse in Greek (“But now you are trying to kill me”) makes it clear that the conditional sentence in v. 39 is contrary to fact: If the opponents were true children of Abraham, they would do what Abraham did, but in fact they are not. Grammatically, the first verb is present tense where an imperfect might have been expected. The effect of this is to heighten the supposition of reality, an effect that the GNB translators have achieved with their rendering, “If you really were …”
The things Abraham did: lit., “the works of Abraham” (cf. James 2:21–23). In James the reference is to Abraham’s willingness to offer up his son Isaac as a sacrifice (Gen. 22:1–14), but here Jesus apparently has in mind Abraham’s warm welcome of God’s messengers (Gen. 18:1–8). It is to this that he contrasts the hostile behavior of Abraham’s self-proclaimed “children” (v. 40).
8:44 You belong to your father, the devil: lit., “you are of the father, the devil,” or even “you are of the father of the devil” (!). The end of the verse (he is a liar and the father of lies) could also conceivably be read as a reference to the devil’s father (i.e., “even his father is a liar”). Such possibilities may have provided a basis for later Gnostic speculation about the devil’s origins, but in the absence of any such speculations elsewhere in John’s Gospel or Epistles, it is virtually certain that the meaning implied by the NIV translation is correct. The first clause of the verse might be paraphrased, “You are ‘of the Father,’ all right, but your ‘Father’ is the devil!” The last clause is lit., “he is a liar, and the father of it” (i.e., of the first lie [“you will not surely die,” Gen. 3:4] and therefore the father all subsequent lies).
8:52 Abraham died and so did the prophets. The statement superficially recalls Jesus’ own words in 6:49 (“Your forefathers … died,” cf. 6:58), but its function in the narrative is different. In chap. 6, Jesus’ implication was that God had judged the generation that long ago died in the desert (cf. 1 Cor. 10:5), while those who ate the Bread of life Jesus now offered would live forever. Those who died, he told his opponents, were “your forefathers.” Here, however, Jesus’ point is that his opponents are not Abraham’s true descendants (cf. v. 39), nor are they children of the prophets. The pronouncement that Abraham and the prophets are dead is their pronouncement, not that of Jesus or of the narrator. The righteous have seen Jesus’ day—and they will live! (cf. v. 56, Mark 12:27; note also that Abraham is assumed to be alive in God’s presence in Luke 16:22–31).
For an example of Judaism’s struggle with the notion that even such a great man as Abraham finally had to face physical death, see The Testament of Abraham, trans. M. E. Stone (Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972).
8:56 Your father Abraham: Contrast v. 39, where Jesus denies that Abraham is their father. Here in ad hominem fashion, he mockingly throws their own claim in their face (cf. v. 54; “my Father, whom you claim as your God”).
The thought of seeing my day: Ancient Jewish literature testifies to the belief that God revealed “the end of the times” to Abraham (4 Ezra 3:14; cf. also the late rabbinic commentary Genesis Rabbah 44, 22 [Midrash Rabbah (London: Soncino Press, 1961), vol. 1, p. 376] on Gen. 15:18). The reference here, however, is probably not to Abraham’s vision in Gen. 15 but to the promise of a son and to the birth and deliverance of the promised offspring.
8:57 Not yet fifty years old: It is precarious to argue from this round number, as some have done, that Jesus was approaching fifty years of age (e.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.22.6) or that he looked almost that old (according to Luke 3:23 he was “about thirty years old” when he began his ministry). Compared to the many centuries since Abraham, even an overly generous fifty-year span sounded like only a moment and served well to make the point.
Direct Matches
In Gen. 3 the serpent entices humankind to sin. Not until Rev. 12:9 are we told explicitly that the serpent is Satan.
In the OT, “evil spirit” may be a heavenly being sent by God (1 Sam. 16:14 23; 18:10; 19:9; cf. 1 Kings 22:22–23). The OT engages in extensive rebuke of the superstitions of the surrounding nations that included belief in demons (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; perhaps Isa. 13:21; cf. Rev. 18:2).
Jesus’ encounter with the devil in the wilderness recalls Adam and Eve’s encounter with the serpent in Eden. The setting, significantly, is now a wasteland. The second man to walk the earth with no sin claims the right to take back the dominion that Adam passed to the serpent. Jesus can have the whole world (without the cross) if only he will submit to the devil’s rule (Luke 4:5–7). Jesus rejects the offer. Later, he sees Satan’s fall from heaven to earth (Luke 10:18; cf. Rev. 12:5–12). Whereas once the devil had access to God’s courtroom, now his case is lost. His only recourse is murderous persecution. Between the ascension of the Son of Man (Acts 1:9) and the final judgment, this is understood to be the experience of Christ’s people (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 12:17; cf. 1 Pet. 5:8).
Whereas the OT provides sparse information about Satan and his angels/demons, the NT opens with an intensity of activity. Demons are also called “evil spirits,” and they are associated with physical illness, madness, and fortune-telling. In Acts 17:22 Paul describes his pagan Athenian listeners as “demon-fearers” (NIV: “religious”). Jesus’ miracles demonstrate his lordship over Satan’s regime as the demons flee in terror before him (Mark 1:23–26; 5:1–15). According to Paul, Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), and John urges believers to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1), assuring them that they need not fear Satan or his forces, “because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.” (1 John 4:4). On judgment day Satan will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14–15) along with all of God’s enemies.
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage and divorce. Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6 17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the OT (Mark 10:1–12).
Children and parenting. Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:16 17), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).
In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.
In one sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holy God satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationship with human beings without compromising his justice? The short answer is: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), who eventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemed them from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated on obedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant was the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies and sprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took a second goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness. . . . The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.
During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation (Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also the Suffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).
After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers began proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness, they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned against them (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believers continue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal. 5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23). The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the new heaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).
As even this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesis to Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’s plot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative; it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved in order for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.
“Word” is used in the Bible to refer to the speech of God in oral, written, or incarnate form. In each of these uses, God desires to make himself known to his people. The communication of God is always personal and relational, whether he speaks to call things into existence (Gen. 1) or to address an individual directly (Gen. 2:16 17; Exod. 3:14). The prophets and the apostles received the word of God (Deut. 18:14–22; John 16:13), some of which was proclaimed but not recorded. The greatest revelation in this regard is the person of Jesus Christ, who is called the “Word” of God (John 1:1, 14).
The psalmist declared God’s word to be an eternal object of hope and trust that gives light and direction (Ps. 119), and Jesus declared the word to be truth (John 17:17). The word is particularized and intimately connected with God himself by means of the key phrases “your word,” “the word of God,” “the word of the Lord,” “word about Christ,” and “the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:16). Our understanding of the word is informed by a variety of terms and contexts in the canon of Scripture, a collection of which is found in Ps. 119.
The theme of the word in Ps. 119 is continued and clarified in the NT, accentuating the intimate connection between the word of God and God himself. The “Word” of God is the eternal Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; 1 John 1:1–4), who took on flesh and blood so that we might see the glory of the eternal God. The sovereign glory of Christ as the Word of God is depicted in the vision of John in Rev. 19:13. As the Word of God, Jesus Christ ultimately gives us our lives (John 1:4; 6:33; 10:10), sustains our lives (John 5:24; 6:51, 54; 8:51), and ultimately renders a just judgment regarding our lives (John 5:30; 8:16, 26; 9:39; cf. Matt. 25:31–33; Heb. 4:12).
Secondary Matches
Bible Texts and Versions The NT and the OT have considerably different but partially overlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin with a survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.
Greek texts. Although no autographs of the NT books survive, there exist more than five thousand Greek texts covering anywhere from a portion of a few verses up to the complete NT. Traditionally, these texts have been classified into five groups: papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, and quotations in patristic texts. The most important manuscripts are listed below.
The earliest texts of the NT are those written on papyrus. Ninety-eight of these manuscripts have been identified, and they are represented by a “P” with a numerical superscript. The earliest of these papyri is P52, which contains parts of four verses in John 18 and dates to the early second century. For substantial portions of the NT text, the most important papyri are found in the Chester Beatty and Bodmer collections. P45, P46, and P47, all from the Chester Beatty collection, are from the third century and contain large sections of the four Gospels, eight of the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation. Within the Bodmer collection in Geneva are four very important codices. P66 dates to around AD 200 and preserves most of the Gospel of John. P72 dates to the third century and contains the earliest copies of 1–2 Peter and Jude, which are preserved in their entirety, as well as Greek translations of Pss. 33–34. P74 dates to the seventh century and contains portions of Acts, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Finally, P75, which dates to the early third century, contains most of Luke and John 1–15. It is the oldest extant copy of Luke. Among the remaining papyri, forty-three have been dated to the early fourth century or before.
The second category of manuscripts is the uncials, which usually were written on parchment and span the fourth through the tenth centuries. About 270 uncials are known, and they range from a few verses up to complete copies of the NT or even the entire Bible. Uncials originally were denoted by capital letters, but when the number of manuscripts grew beyond these limits, a new system was employed whereby each manuscript was given a number always beginning with zero. However, the most important uncials are still usually known by their letter. Among the most important uncials are the following five manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter à) dates to the fourth century and is the only uncial that contains the entire NT. It also has almost all of the OT as well as the early Christian writings the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Dating from the fifth century, Codex Alexandrinus (designated as A) contains the OT, most of the NT—lacking only portions of Matthew, John, and 2 Corinthians—and 1–2 Clement. Along with Sinaiticus, the most important uncial is Codex Vaticanus (designated as B), which dates to the fourth century. It contains almost all of the OT and the complete NT, except for substantial portions between Hebrews and Revelation. It has been in the Vatican’s library for over five hundred years. The fourth important uncial is Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (designated as D), which contains Greek and Latin copies of the four Gospels, most of Acts, and a few verses from 3 John. It dates from the late fourth or early fifth century. The fifth important uncial is Codex Washingtonianus (designated as W), which dates to the early fifth century and contains virtually all of the four Gospels.
The third category of NT manuscripts is minuscules. These texts date from the ninth century and later and comprise approximately 2,800 manuscripts, which are denoted by a number not beginning with zero. Among the more important minuscules are Codex 1, Codex 13, and Codex 33, which, along with their relatives, are considered reliable witnesses to early families of texts such as the Caesarean (1) or the Alexandrian (33). Codex 13 and its relatives are noteworthy for having the story of the adulterous woman at the end of Luke 21 instead of in John 8. The final two groups of NT manuscripts, the lectionaries and quotations in patristic sources, are not manuscripts in the strict sense of the term, but their use of portions of the NT presents important witnesses for the practice of textual criticism.
Versions. With the spread of Christianity during the time of the Roman Empire, the NT was translated into the language of the native peoples. These versions of the NT are important both for textual criticism of the NT and for the interpretive decisions that are reflected in how the text was rendered into a new language. Among the most important early versions of the NT are the following.
As Latin began to displace Greek as the dominant language of the empire, there was a need for a Latin version of the Bible. The earliest translation, known as the Old Latin or Itala, was made probably in the late second century, though the oldest manuscript (Codex Vercellensis) is from the fourth century. With the proliferation of Latin texts a standardized Latin translation became desirable, and in AD 382 Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to provide a new translation known as the Vulgate.
Another family of NT versions is the Syriac texts. Around the late second century the four Gospels were translated into a version known as the Old Syriac. It is extant in two incomplete manuscripts that are probably fifth century. The translation that became the standard Syriac text is the Peshitta, which was produced in the early fifth century. It does not contain 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, or Revelation because these were not considered canonical among the Syriac churches.
Other important versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.
Old Testament
Hebrew texts. The text that has served as the basis for most modern editions and translations of the Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text (MT), named after the Masoretes, the Jewish scribes who transmitted the text and added vocalization, accentuation, and notes to the consonantal text. The most important Masoretic manuscripts date from the end of the ninth century to the early eleventh century. Notable among these is the Leningrad Codex (AD 1008), denoted as L, which is the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the entire OT. Also important are the Aleppo Codex (c. AD 925), denoted as A, which preserves all of the OT except for most of the Pentateuch; the British Museum MS Or. 4445 (c. AD 925), denoted as B, which contains most of the Pentateuch; and the Cairo Codex (c. AD 896), denoted C, which contains Joshua through Kings and also the Prophets.
Although these manuscripts are much later than the biblical period, their reliability was largely confirmed with the discovery of the DSS beginning in 1947. Among the Qumran library are many manuscripts of biblical books as well as biblical commentaries, apocrphyal and pseudepigraphal works, and sectarian literature. All the OT books are represented among the scrolls that were found except Esther and Nehemiah, though the latter is usually presumed to have been at the end of Ezra but has not survived. The books with the most manuscripts are, in order, Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. One of the striking characteristics of these scrolls is that they reflect a diversity of text types. For example, there is a copy of Jeremiah that is close to the Masoretic version, but also a manuscript of Jeremiah similar to the much shorter version found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT).
Another Hebrew text of the OT is that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is the text transmitted by the Samaritans. It is similar to the MT in some respects but also has differences that reflect theological interests. The main manuscripts for the Samaritan Pentateuch are from the twelfth century.
Versions. Between the third and first centuries BC, the entire OT was translated into Greek. This version, known as the Septuagint (designated by the abbreviation LXX), became the main version of the OT used by the early church. Due to its adoption by the church, the LXX has been preserved in numerous manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. By the late first century BC or early first century AD, there were two revisions of the Greek text: the Proto-Lucianic version and the Kaige recension. The latter aimed to revise the Greek toward closer conformity with the Hebrew text and derives its name from its peculiar tendency to translate the Hebrew word gam (“also”) with the Greek work kaige. In the second century AD three other Greek translations were made by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, all of which revised the Kaige recension back toward the MT.
Another important early version of the OT consists of the Targumim, which are Aramaic translations or paraphrases (and sometimes extensive elaborations) of OT books. The official Targumim for Judaism are Targum Onqelos for the Pentateuch (c. second century AD), which is quite literal, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan for the Prophets (sometime before the fourth century AD), which ranges from being quite literal to somewhat paraphrastic. Unofficial Targumim for the Pentateuch include Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. There are also various unofficial Targumim for the Writings section of the OT, except for Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah (which are already written partly in Aramaic).
Besides the Greek and Aramaic translations, there are other important versions of the OT. Sometime in either the third or fourth century AD, the Peshitta of the OT was produced, though there is evidence that there were earlier Syriac translations of some books already circulating. Also important is a group of Latin translations known collectively as the Old Latin. These versions were produced sometime during the second century AD and were primarily made from already existing Greek translations rather than Hebrew texts. As with the NT, a later Latin translation was made by Jerome for the Vulgate.
Bible Texts and Versions The NT and the OT have considerably different but partially overlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin with a survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.
Greek texts. Although no autographs of the NT books survive, there exist more than five thousand Greek texts covering anywhere from a portion of a few verses up to the complete NT. Traditionally, these texts have been classified into five groups: papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, and quotations in patristic texts. The most important manuscripts are listed below.
The earliest texts of the NT are those written on papyrus. Ninety-eight of these manuscripts have been identified, and they are represented by a “P” with a numerical superscript. The earliest of these papyri is P52, which contains parts of four verses in John 18 and dates to the early second century. For substantial portions of the NT text, the most important papyri are found in the Chester Beatty and Bodmer collections. P45, P46, and P47, all from the Chester Beatty collection, are from the third century and contain large sections of the four Gospels, eight of the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation. Within the Bodmer collection in Geneva are four very important codices. P66 dates to around AD 200 and preserves most of the Gospel of John. P72 dates to the third century and contains the earliest copies of 1–2 Peter and Jude, which are preserved in their entirety, as well as Greek translations of Pss. 33–34. P74 dates to the seventh century and contains portions of Acts, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Finally, P75, which dates to the early third century, contains most of Luke and John 1–15. It is the oldest extant copy of Luke. Among the remaining papyri, forty-three have been dated to the early fourth century or before.
The second category of manuscripts is the uncials, which usually were written on parchment and span the fourth through the tenth centuries. About 270 uncials are known, and they range from a few verses up to complete copies of the NT or even the entire Bible. Uncials originally were denoted by capital letters, but when the number of manuscripts grew beyond these limits, a new system was employed whereby each manuscript was given a number always beginning with zero. However, the most important uncials are still usually known by their letter. Among the most important uncials are the following five manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter à) dates to the fourth century and is the only uncial that contains the entire NT. It also has almost all of the OT as well as the early Christian writings the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Dating from the fifth century, Codex Alexandrinus (designated as A) contains the OT, most of the NT—lacking only portions of Matthew, John, and 2 Corinthians—and 1–2 Clement. Along with Sinaiticus, the most important uncial is Codex Vaticanus (designated as B), which dates to the fourth century. It contains almost all of the OT and the complete NT, except for substantial portions between Hebrews and Revelation. It has been in the Vatican’s library for over five hundred years. The fourth important uncial is Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (designated as D), which contains Greek and Latin copies of the four Gospels, most of Acts, and a few verses from 3 John. It dates from the late fourth or early fifth century. The fifth important uncial is Codex Washingtonianus (designated as W), which dates to the early fifth century and contains virtually all of the four Gospels.
The third category of NT manuscripts is minuscules. These texts date from the ninth century and later and comprise approximately 2,800 manuscripts, which are denoted by a number not beginning with zero. Among the more important minuscules are Codex 1, Codex 13, and Codex 33, which, along with their relatives, are considered reliable witnesses to early families of texts such as the Caesarean (1) or the Alexandrian (33). Codex 13 and its relatives are noteworthy for having the story of the adulterous woman at the end of Luke 21 instead of in John 8. The final two groups of NT manuscripts, the lectionaries and quotations in patristic sources, are not manuscripts in the strict sense of the term, but their use of portions of the NT presents important witnesses for the practice of textual criticism.
Versions. With the spread of Christianity during the time of the Roman Empire, the NT was translated into the language of the native peoples. These versions of the NT are important both for textual criticism of the NT and for the interpretive decisions that are reflected in how the text was rendered into a new language. Among the most important early versions of the NT are the following.
As Latin began to displace Greek as the dominant language of the empire, there was a need for a Latin version of the Bible. The earliest translation, known as the Old Latin or Itala, was made probably in the late second century, though the oldest manuscript (Codex Vercellensis) is from the fourth century. With the proliferation of Latin texts a standardized Latin translation became desirable, and in AD 382 Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to provide a new translation known as the Vulgate.
Another family of NT versions is the Syriac texts. Around the late second century the four Gospels were translated into a version known as the Old Syriac. It is extant in two incomplete manuscripts that are probably fifth century. The translation that became the standard Syriac text is the Peshitta, which was produced in the early fifth century. It does not contain 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, or Revelation because these were not considered canonical among the Syriac churches.
Other important versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.
Old Testament
Hebrew texts. The text that has served as the basis for most modern editions and translations of the Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text (MT), named after the Masoretes, the Jewish scribes who transmitted the text and added vocalization, accentuation, and notes to the consonantal text. The most important Masoretic manuscripts date from the end of the ninth century to the early eleventh century. Notable among these is the Leningrad Codex (AD 1008), denoted as L, which is the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the entire OT. Also important are the Aleppo Codex (c. AD 925), denoted as A, which preserves all of the OT except for most of the Pentateuch; the British Museum MS Or. 4445 (c. AD 925), denoted as B, which contains most of the Pentateuch; and the Cairo Codex (c. AD 896), denoted C, which contains Joshua through Kings and also the Prophets.
Although these manuscripts are much later than the biblical period, their reliability was largely confirmed with the discovery of the DSS beginning in 1947. Among the Qumran library are many manuscripts of biblical books as well as biblical commentaries, apocrphyal and pseudepigraphal works, and sectarian literature. All the OT books are represented among the scrolls that were found except Esther and Nehemiah, though the latter is usually presumed to have been at the end of Ezra but has not survived. The books with the most manuscripts are, in order, Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. One of the striking characteristics of these scrolls is that they reflect a diversity of text types. For example, there is a copy of Jeremiah that is close to the Masoretic version, but also a manuscript of Jeremiah similar to the much shorter version found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT).
Another Hebrew text of the OT is that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is the text transmitted by the Samaritans. It is similar to the MT in some respects but also has differences that reflect theological interests. The main manuscripts for the Samaritan Pentateuch are from the twelfth century.
Versions. Between the third and first centuries BC, the entire OT was translated into Greek. This version, known as the Septuagint (designated by the abbreviation LXX), became the main version of the OT used by the early church. Due to its adoption by the church, the LXX has been preserved in numerous manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. By the late first century BC or early first century AD, there were two revisions of the Greek text: the Proto-Lucianic version and the Kaige recension. The latter aimed to revise the Greek toward closer conformity with the Hebrew text and derives its name from its peculiar tendency to translate the Hebrew word gam (“also”) with the Greek work kaige. In the second century AD three other Greek translations were made by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, all of which revised the Kaige recension back toward the MT.
Another important early version of the OT consists of the Targumim, which are Aramaic translations or paraphrases (and sometimes extensive elaborations) of OT books. The official Targumim for Judaism are Targum Onqelos for the Pentateuch (c. second century AD), which is quite literal, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan for the Prophets (sometime before the fourth century AD), which ranges from being quite literal to somewhat paraphrastic. Unofficial Targumim for the Pentateuch include Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. There are also various unofficial Targumim for the Writings section of the OT, except for Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah (which are already written partly in Aramaic).
Besides the Greek and Aramaic translations, there are other important versions of the OT. Sometime in either the third or fourth century AD, the Peshitta of the OT was produced, though there is evidence that there were earlier Syriac translations of some books already circulating. Also important is a group of Latin translations known collectively as the Old Latin. These versions were produced sometime during the second century AD and were primarily made from already existing Greek translations rather than Hebrew texts. As with the NT, a later Latin translation was made by Jerome for the Vulgate.
The OT was written in Hebrew, with some parts in Aramaic, but the NT comes to us exclusively in Greek. Greek developed from an Indo-European language spoken by the people referred to in the Iliad as the Achaeans. It is suggested that primitive Greek speakers migrated from the area north of the Black Sea and began to settle in the Aegean Sea area around 2000 BC. These people groups called themselves “Hellenes.” Later the Romans called them “Greeks.”
Classical versus Koine
Classical Greek is commonly dated to the years 900–330 BC. Although three notable dialects of Greek were prevalent (Doric in the west, Aeolic in the north, and Ionic in the east), a dialect of the Ionic family known as Attic, the language of Athens and the great writers Thucydides, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, and Demosthenes, eventually gained supremacy. It was this form of Greek that Alexander the Great took with him on his conquests.
Koine (lit., “common”) Greek became the new lingua franca in the years 330 BC–AD 500. Koine Greek, which itself was influenced by the Hebrew and Aramaic of the OT, was closely related to the language of the LXX. This common form of Greek is in part the result of the imposition of Greek upon nonnative Greek speakers. The Koine Greek of the NT reflects the style of writing found in the papyri and ostraca discovered in the Egyptian desert. These writings are more a nonliterary Koine—found in wills, deeds, receipts, and private letters—and not the polished Greek of the literary works. While the literary writers of the day tried to imitate the Attic models by means of an artificial literary tradition, the Greek of the NT has much more in common with the spoken Greek of the average person.
One of the distinctive elements of Koine Greek at the time of the NT was the tendency toward greater simplicity. Although this is a natural occurrence within a language over time, it became accelerated when the Greek language was forced upon nonnative Greek speakers. The Koine Greek of the NT, then, may be characterized by the relative absence of subtle nuances among words, the replacement of complex forms by simpler ones, and the almost complete disappearance of the optative mood. Other changes include the increase in the use of pronouns as subjects, more adverbs, pronunciation and vocabulary differences, and the tendency toward more-explicit expressions.
Features of Biblical Greek
Greek is a highly inflected language. Inflection refers to changes that words undergo in accord with their grammatical function in a sentence. With regard to verbs, the changes reflect the word’s aspect (similar to the English tense [see below]), voice (active or passive), and mood (generally speaking, mood refers to the author’s attitude toward the kind of reality behind the statement: whether the action actually took place or whether it is merely a potentiality). For nouns and adjectives, these changes reflect the word’s gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter [similar to the English pronouns “he,” “she,” “it”]), number (singular or plural), and case (nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative [technically, a fifth but rarely used case is the vocative]). It cannot be overstated that grammar is always secondary to context. Thus, one should not seek to find too much meaning in the form of a word, or the meaning of a word, without contextual warrant.
Verbs: tense, aspect, and mood. Whereas English verbs employ tense (past, present, future, past perfect, etc.), which strongly links the action of the verb to a time, Greek verbs reflect a verbal aspect. Aspect primarily refers to the way the action of the verb is viewed by the author. Consequently, the time (past, present, future, etc.) is secondary at best. This distinction is especially important for verbs that are not in the indicative mood (the mood utilized by an author to speak in terms of reality rather than potentiality). In the indicative mood, the aspect generally reflects the time of the event.
For years, one of the most debated features of biblical Greek was the verb in the aorist tense (aspect). It often was suggested that the aorist reflects a onetime event that occurred in the past. Modern scholarship is nearly unanimous today that the aorist serves instead as the default aspect. That is, authors used the aorist when not wishing to make any specific pronouncement regarding the action of the verb. The aorist functions as the simple or undefined aspect. Therefore, in biblical Greek the statement “I studied Greek,” if in the aorist, would have been the author’s way of simply stating that this event occurred. The use of the aorist alone would not have made any assertion about the duration of the action (I studied for ten minutes, months, or years) or as to whether this act was completed (I know Greek well). Thus, John 11:35 says, “Jesus wept.” The use of the aorist here does not tell us how long he wept. Some have argued that since the aorist is used in reference to Christ’s death (Rom. 5:6), it means that Jesus died once and for all. Although this conviction is true, its truth derives not from the use of the aorist, but rather from the context of Scripture.
Two other aspects occur in the Greek NT. The imperfective aspect regards an action as a process or as habitual. The perfective aspect views the action as completed with ensuing results (I have studied Greek [and still remember it]).
Biblical Greek employs two moods. The mood of a Greek verb indicates whether the author viewed the action as one that actually occurred or one that was merely potential. Greek verbs in the indicative mood tend to suggest that the author viewed the action as something that either has happened, is happening, or will happen. It is very important to note that in the Greek NT verbs consistently have temporal relations only in the indicative mood. The potential mood in biblical Greek displays a variety of potentialities. The subjunctive mood often expresses a contingency, a hope, or a desire for the event to occur. The optative mood, which was prominent in Classical Greek but had fallen almost completely out of use by the time of the NT, expresses a possibility or a wish. The imperative mood is the mood for a command or prohibition.
Nouns and adjectives: case. Nouns and adjectives are inflected by means of various cases, depending on the function of the noun or the adjective in the sentence.
The nominative case is used primarily for the subject of a Greek sentence. In the absence of a noun or noun phrase in the nominative case, the subject of the Greek sentence is found in the pronominal suffix of the verb. Pronouns in the nominative, though much more common in biblical Greek than in Classical Greek, are not grammatically necessary, and thus they often express a degree of accent or stress (cf. the use of “you” and “I” in the Greek text of John 7:8, 28, 34, 36, 47; 8:14, 15, 22, 23, 31, 38, 41, 44, 46, 47, 49, 54).
The genitive case is the most varied in its use. Generally speaking, it is the case of possession, source, or separation. Nouns and adjectives in the genitive case are often translated into English by adding the preposition “of.” The ambiguity inherent in the genitive case is evidenced even in English. Note, for example, Rev. 1:1: “The revelation of [NIV: “from”] Jesus Christ” (in Greek, “Jesus Christ” in the genitive case). Does this mean that the revelation is from Jesus Christ or about Jesus Christ?
The dative case is used to indicate location, instrumentality, accompaniment, or reception, as well as for the indirect object of the verb. Nouns and adjectives in the dative case are often translated into English by adding the preposition “to” or “for.”
The accusative case serves as the primary case for the direct object of the verb. This case generally connotes the ideas of extension or limitation of an act or movement.
A fifth case, less common than the others, is the vocative. The vocative is reserved for the purpose of direct address. It often serves as a discourse marker, as in “My dear children” in 1 John 2:1, 12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21.
Word order. One of the important by-products of the inflections found in biblical Greek is the measure of freedom afforded to authors in regard to word order (the order of words in a sentence is referred to as syntax). This relative freedom allows authors to emphasize words or phrases by means of their location in the sentence.
In the NT, “Jews” (Ioudaioi) is an ethnic and religious term to describe the people of Judah. In Jesus’ day, Jews were distinguished from Samaritans (John 4:9, 22). Gradually the term began to be used more in a religious than in an ethnic sense, and it has come to represent the descendants from Abraham as a whole and religious converts who regard the Mosaic law and customs as the inalienable religious foundation for faith and practices (Mark 7:3; John 2:6).
The Gospels
In the Synoptic Gospels the term “Jews” is used largely in the phrase “the king of the Jews” with reference to Jesus (Matt. 2:2; 27:11, 29; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18; Luke 23:3, 37). Born as the king of the Jews, Jesus claimed to have come to fulfill the law of Moses instead of abolishing it (Matt. 5:17). He emphasized the importance of practicing the law in obedience (Matt. 7:24–27), and he rebuked the Pharisees and the scribes for teaching the law without carrying it out (Matt. 23). They opposed him, not only because they rejected his claim to be the Messiah, but also because they viewed his teaching and practices as destabilizing their religious status quo (Matt. 12:1–8; John 5:10; 11:48).
The Jews are represented in the Gospels by both the upper class (e.g., Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, chief priests) and the lower classes (the crowds). Usually the religious upper class would not accept Jesus’ teaching and challenged him by asking questions or denying his authority (Matt. 15:1; 16:1). The crowds generally accepted Jesus’ teaching and experienced his power to heal and other benefits. The Synoptic account of the opposition by the upper class is contrasted with the widespread opposition to Jesus by the “Jews” in general in John’s Gospel. But Matthew and Luke also highlight Jesus’ lament of the unrepentant Jewish cities (Matt. 11:20–24; Luke 10:12–15), indicating that resistance to Jesus’ teaching was a common phenomenon among the Jews.
Jesus responded to the unbelieving Jews with strong rebuke and condemnation (Matt. 12:30–32; 21:33–46). When Jesus healed a servant of a Roman centurion and marveled at the amazing faith of this Gentile (8:5–13), Jesus predicted that “the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness” because of unbelief, whereas the Gentiles will come to eat with Abraham in the kingdom of heaven (8:11–12). In spite of the unbelief of the Jews, the privilege to hear the gospel was given to them first. Jesus sent out the twelve disciples, instructing them that they should not go anywhere among the Gentiles or enter the towns of the Samaritans, but instead go “to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 10:6 [cf. Rom. 1:16]).
The term “Jews” occurs only four times in the Synoptics outside the phrase “king of the Jews,” but seventy-one times in the Gospel of John. John uses the term especially as a technical one for those Jews who were hostile to Jesus and his followers. Whereas the Synoptics focus on the Jewish leaders’ rejection of Jesus’ messianic actions, John focuses on their rejection of his teaching that he is the Son of God in unique relationship with the Father. Jesus in John is not only the “one and only” (monogenēs) of God (1:18), but also the fulfiller of what the temple signifies and all the Jewish tradition and customs represent. John thus describes the Jewish opposition to Jesus as much more widespread and intense than that in the Synoptics, presenting the Jews as opposing Jesus’ teaching because of their loyalty to Jewish tradition (5:15–18; 6:41; 7:1–2, 13; 8:31–57; 9:22; 10:31–33; 19:7–12, 38; 20:19).
Acts and the Pauline Letters
In the book of Acts the term “Jews” (eighty-one occurrences) is used especially with reference to the Jewish people who oppose Paul’s law-free gospel (9:23; 13:45, 50; 14:2, 4; 17:5; 18:12, 14; 20:3; 21:11; 22:30; 23:12; 24:9).
In his letters, Paul refers to “Jews” primarily in an ethnic and religious sense without connoting that they have theological antagonism against the gospel. The Jews are thus contrasted with the Gentiles in that they are “the people of Israel”: “Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises” (Rom. 9:4). While Paul acknowledges the continuity of Jewish identity through their lineage from Abraham, he distinguishes true Jews from false Jews in terms of Jesus’ accomplishment of redemption. Paul says, “A person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code” (2:29). This distinction of true Jews from false Jews resonates with his distinction of true Israel from false Israel (9:6). The redefinition of the group of spiritual Israelites is the result of Jesus’ death and resurrection according to the OT prophecies. Those who believe in Jesus are reckoned as “children of Abraham” according to the gospel announced in Gen. 12:3 (Gal. 3:7–8).
Paul’s presentation of spiritual Jews is foreseen in Jesus’ statement that the Jews who do not believe in him are not Abraham’s children but rather the children of the devil (John 8:30–44). In 1 John the children of God are defined in terms of love rather than ethnic lineage (3:10). According to the book of Revelation, those “who say they are Jews” are not, but are a “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9). These passages show that salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus rather than through the ethnic lineage of Abraham and observances of the Mosaic law (Rom. 3:20–28).
These polemics against the Jews and Jewish law do not necessarily make the NT teachings anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic. What the NT polemicizes is neither the Jewish nation nor Judaism but rather the unbelief of the Jews who rejected Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus is the Messiah, who has come in flesh and fulfilled the prophecies of the OT.
In the NT, “Jews” (Ioudaioi) is an ethnic and religious term to describe the people of Judah. In Jesus’ day, Jews were distinguished from Samaritans (John 4:9, 22). Gradually the term began to be used more in a religious than in an ethnic sense, and it has come to represent the descendants from Abraham as a whole and religious converts who regard the Mosaic law and customs as the inalienable religious foundation for faith and practices (Mark 7:3; John 2:6).
The Gospels
In the Synoptic Gospels the term “Jews” is used largely in the phrase “the king of the Jews” with reference to Jesus (Matt. 2:2; 27:11, 29; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18; Luke 23:3, 37). Born as the king of the Jews, Jesus claimed to have come to fulfill the law of Moses instead of abolishing it (Matt. 5:17). He emphasized the importance of practicing the law in obedience (Matt. 7:24–27), and he rebuked the Pharisees and the scribes for teaching the law without carrying it out (Matt. 23). They opposed him, not only because they rejected his claim to be the Messiah, but also because they viewed his teaching and practices as destabilizing their religious status quo (Matt. 12:1–8; John 5:10; 11:48).
The Jews are represented in the Gospels by both the upper class (e.g., Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, chief priests) and the lower classes (the crowds). Usually the religious upper class would not accept Jesus’ teaching and challenged him by asking questions or denying his authority (Matt. 15:1; 16:1). The crowds generally accepted Jesus’ teaching and experienced his power to heal and other benefits. The Synoptic account of the opposition by the upper class is contrasted with the widespread opposition to Jesus by the “Jews” in general in John’s Gospel. But Matthew and Luke also highlight Jesus’ lament of the unrepentant Jewish cities (Matt. 11:20–24; Luke 10:12–15), indicating that resistance to Jesus’ teaching was a common phenomenon among the Jews.
Jesus responded to the unbelieving Jews with strong rebuke and condemnation (Matt. 12:30–32; 21:33–46). When Jesus healed a servant of a Roman centurion and marveled at the amazing faith of this Gentile (8:5–13), Jesus predicted that “the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness” because of unbelief, whereas the Gentiles will come to eat with Abraham in the kingdom of heaven (8:11–12). In spite of the unbelief of the Jews, the privilege to hear the gospel was given to them first. Jesus sent out the twelve disciples, instructing them that they should not go anywhere among the Gentiles or enter the towns of the Samaritans, but instead go “to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 10:6 [cf. Rom. 1:16]).
The term “Jews” occurs only four times in the Synoptics outside the phrase “king of the Jews,” but seventy-one times in the Gospel of John. John uses the term especially as a technical one for those Jews who were hostile to Jesus and his followers. Whereas the Synoptics focus on the Jewish leaders’ rejection of Jesus’ messianic actions, John focuses on their rejection of his teaching that he is the Son of God in unique relationship with the Father. Jesus in John is not only the “one and only” (monogenēs) of God (1:18), but also the fulfiller of what the temple signifies and all the Jewish tradition and customs represent. John thus describes the Jewish opposition to Jesus as much more widespread and intense than that in the Synoptics, presenting the Jews as opposing Jesus’ teaching because of their loyalty to Jewish tradition (5:15–18; 6:41; 7:1–2, 13; 8:31–57; 9:22; 10:31–33; 19:7–12, 38; 20:19).
Acts and the Pauline Letters
In the book of Acts the term “Jews” (eighty-one occurrences) is used especially with reference to the Jewish people who oppose Paul’s law-free gospel (9:23; 13:45, 50; 14:2, 4; 17:5; 18:12, 14; 20:3; 21:11; 22:30; 23:12; 24:9).
In his letters, Paul refers to “Jews” primarily in an ethnic and religious sense without connoting that they have theological antagonism against the gospel. The Jews are thus contrasted with the Gentiles in that they are “the people of Israel”: “Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises” (Rom. 9:4). While Paul acknowledges the continuity of Jewish identity through their lineage from Abraham, he distinguishes true Jews from false Jews in terms of Jesus’ accomplishment of redemption. Paul says, “A person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code” (2:29). This distinction of true Jews from false Jews resonates with his distinction of true Israel from false Israel (9:6). The redefinition of the group of spiritual Israelites is the result of Jesus’ death and resurrection according to the OT prophecies. Those who believe in Jesus are reckoned as “children of Abraham” according to the gospel announced in Gen. 12:3 (Gal. 3:7–8).
Paul’s presentation of spiritual Jews is foreseen in Jesus’ statement that the Jews who do not believe in him are not Abraham’s children but rather the children of the devil (John 8:30–44). In 1 John the children of God are defined in terms of love rather than ethnic lineage (3:10). According to the book of Revelation, those “who say they are Jews” are not, but are a “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9). These passages show that salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus rather than through the ethnic lineage of Abraham and observances of the Mosaic law (Rom. 3:20–28).
These polemics against the Jews and Jewish law do not necessarily make the NT teachings anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic. What the NT polemicizes is neither the Jewish nation nor Judaism but rather the unbelief of the Jews who rejected Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus is the Messiah, who has come in flesh and fulfilled the prophecies of the OT.
In the NT, “Jews” (Ioudaioi) is an ethnic and religious term to describe the people of Judah. In Jesus’ day, Jews were distinguished from Samaritans (John 4:9, 22). Gradually the term began to be used more in a religious than in an ethnic sense, and it has come to represent the descendants from Abraham as a whole and religious converts who regard the Mosaic law and customs as the inalienable religious foundation for faith and practices (Mark 7:3; John 2:6).
The Gospels
In the Synoptic Gospels the term “Jews” is used largely in the phrase “the king of the Jews” with reference to Jesus (Matt. 2:2; 27:11, 29; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18; Luke 23:3, 37). Born as the king of the Jews, Jesus claimed to have come to fulfill the law of Moses instead of abolishing it (Matt. 5:17). He emphasized the importance of practicing the law in obedience (Matt. 7:24–27), and he rebuked the Pharisees and the scribes for teaching the law without carrying it out (Matt. 23). They opposed him, not only because they rejected his claim to be the Messiah, but also because they viewed his teaching and practices as destabilizing their religious status quo (Matt. 12:1–8; John 5:10; 11:48).
The Jews are represented in the Gospels by both the upper class (e.g., Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, chief priests) and the lower classes (the crowds). Usually the religious upper class would not accept Jesus’ teaching and challenged him by asking questions or denying his authority (Matt. 15:1; 16:1). The crowds generally accepted Jesus’ teaching and experienced his power to heal and other benefits. The Synoptic account of the opposition by the upper class is contrasted with the widespread opposition to Jesus by the “Jews” in general in John’s Gospel. But Matthew and Luke also highlight Jesus’ lament of the unrepentant Jewish cities (Matt. 11:20–24; Luke 10:12–15), indicating that resistance to Jesus’ teaching was a common phenomenon among the Jews.
Jesus responded to the unbelieving Jews with strong rebuke and condemnation (Matt. 12:30–32; 21:33–46). When Jesus healed a servant of a Roman centurion and marveled at the amazing faith of this Gentile (8:5–13), Jesus predicted that “the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness” because of unbelief, whereas the Gentiles will come to eat with Abraham in the kingdom of heaven (8:11–12). In spite of the unbelief of the Jews, the privilege to hear the gospel was given to them first. Jesus sent out the twelve disciples, instructing them that they should not go anywhere among the Gentiles or enter the towns of the Samaritans, but instead go “to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 10:6 [cf. Rom. 1:16]).
The term “Jews” occurs only four times in the Synoptics outside the phrase “king of the Jews,” but seventy-one times in the Gospel of John. John uses the term especially as a technical one for those Jews who were hostile to Jesus and his followers. Whereas the Synoptics focus on the Jewish leaders’ rejection of Jesus’ messianic actions, John focuses on their rejection of his teaching that he is the Son of God in unique relationship with the Father. Jesus in John is not only the “one and only” (monogenēs) of God (1:18), but also the fulfiller of what the temple signifies and all the Jewish tradition and customs represent. John thus describes the Jewish opposition to Jesus as much more widespread and intense than that in the Synoptics, presenting the Jews as opposing Jesus’ teaching because of their loyalty to Jewish tradition (5:15–18; 6:41; 7:1–2, 13; 8:31–57; 9:22; 10:31–33; 19:7–12, 38; 20:19).
Acts and the Pauline Letters
In the book of Acts the term “Jews” (eighty-one occurrences) is used especially with reference to the Jewish people who oppose Paul’s law-free gospel (9:23; 13:45, 50; 14:2, 4; 17:5; 18:12, 14; 20:3; 21:11; 22:30; 23:12; 24:9).
In his letters, Paul refers to “Jews” primarily in an ethnic and religious sense without connoting that they have theological antagonism against the gospel. The Jews are thus contrasted with the Gentiles in that they are “the people of Israel”: “Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises” (Rom. 9:4). While Paul acknowledges the continuity of Jewish identity through their lineage from Abraham, he distinguishes true Jews from false Jews in terms of Jesus’ accomplishment of redemption. Paul says, “A person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code” (2:29). This distinction of true Jews from false Jews resonates with his distinction of true Israel from false Israel (9:6). The redefinition of the group of spiritual Israelites is the result of Jesus’ death and resurrection according to the OT prophecies. Those who believe in Jesus are reckoned as “children of Abraham” according to the gospel announced in Gen. 12:3 (Gal. 3:7–8).
Paul’s presentation of spiritual Jews is foreseen in Jesus’ statement that the Jews who do not believe in him are not Abraham’s children but rather the children of the devil (John 8:30–44). In 1 John the children of God are defined in terms of love rather than ethnic lineage (3:10). According to the book of Revelation, those “who say they are Jews” are not, but are a “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9). These passages show that salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus rather than through the ethnic lineage of Abraham and observances of the Mosaic law (Rom. 3:20–28).
These polemics against the Jews and Jewish law do not necessarily make the NT teachings anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic. What the NT polemicizes is neither the Jewish nation nor Judaism but rather the unbelief of the Jews who rejected Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus is the Messiah, who has come in flesh and fulfilled the prophecies of the OT.
The Bible regularly states that people know some things but not others. In English versions of the Bible, “knowledge” is usually a translation of the Hebrew noun da’at or the Greek noun gnōsis. Similarly, “know” is usually a translation of the Hebrew verb yada’ or the Greek verb ginōskō. Within each language, the noun and the verb share related forms.
God offers everyone knowledge to guide how one should live, but if spurned, the offer may be withdrawn (Prov. 1:28; Matt. 7:7–8; John 7:17; Phil. 3:15). Some people love simplistic thinking more than knowledge (Prov. 1:22), but fools who spurn knowledge in order to follow their own ways are warned that their complacency “will destroy them” (1:29–32). People are similarly warned not to value their own wisdom too highly (Prov. 3:7).
The Bible indicates that a basic knowledge of God is possible simply from observing the world. Genesis 1 states that God created light, land, stars, plants, animals, and people. The existence of the Creator provides an explanation for the existence of each and every thing, and for the world as a whole. Paul accordingly wrote that God’s eternal power and divine nature “have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Rom. 1:19–21).
Beyond this, a more substantial knowledge of God is possible because God has sometimes spoken or acted in history. God communicates using the limited forms that people can hear or perceive. The assembled people of Israel hear God speak at Mount Sinai from the midst of fire when he gives the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5:4–27). God likewise speaks to Moses from a burning bush (Exod. 3). God speaks in a particular place and speaks using the words of a language. This does not deny God’s transcendence. It instead affirms it by showing that God is unlike idols made by humans, idols that “cannot speak” or act (Ps. 115:5).
In the Bible, God normally speaks to people indirectly through prophets. Ancient people did not believe every prophet’s testimony, so God gives Moses miracles to substantiate his claims (Exod. 4:1–9, 27–31). God likewise comes to Mount Sinai so that the people of Israel would trust Moses forever (19:9). Because the nation hears God speak, failure to believe Moses is considered unjustifiable. Eventually, the entire law and covenant are known through Moses. The written record of these events and the law, as validated by historic community practice, are considered sufficient basis for each later generation to believe Moses’ law. After Moses’ death, God speaks through other prophets. There are no grounds to reject their testimony, for they do not deny the law and commandments that God has given through Moses, make false predictions (Deut. 13:1–5; 18:20–22), or contradict each other.
In the NT, Jesus, like Moses, is a prophet (Matt. 21:11; John 7:40; 12:40), authenticated by miracles. He observes the law (Matt. 5:17; John 8:46), unlike his opponents (John 5:45–47). In turn, Jesus sends out disciples with his message and says, “Whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16). Consequently, the Bible gives knowledge of God largely through Moses and the prophets, and in the NT through the prophet Jesus, God’s Son, and the disciples whom he sends out with his message. Those who receive God’s Spirit will understand them more deeply (1 Cor. 2:9–16).
The serpent (nakhash) initially appears in Gen. 3:1, endowed with wisdom and the capacity to speak. In addressing Eve, it intentionally changes God’s positive command to eat from all trees of the garden, with one exception, to a comprehensive prohibition and then goes on to contradict God and promise that eating will make Adam and Eve “like God, knowing good and evil” (3:5). While an explicit identity for the serpent is not given at this point, the curse pronounced against the creature (Gen. 3:14–15) has transcendent implications (cf. Rom. 16:20). By the first centuries BC and AD, the serpent became linked with the malevolent figure of Satan, the devil, the great dragon. This connection is most comprehensively articulated for the Christian community in Rev. 12:9–15; 20:2. Eve acknowledged its deceptive wiles (Gen. 3:13), a point that both Jesus (John 8:44) and Paul (2 Cor. 11:3) reinforce.
Deadly snakes were recognized and feared denizens of the great and terrible wilderness (Deut. 8:15) as the Israelites made their way toward the promised land. When the people spoke against God and Moses, God sent burning serpents that bit the people (Num. 21:6–9). Moses’ action in elevating a bronze serpent on the pole served as the paradigm for Jesus’ reference to lifting up the Son of Man (John 3:14) and the necessity of belief in the unlikely prospect of a crucified Messiah. Later, this bronze snake became an object of worship, and Hezekiah destroyed it (2 Kings 18:4). Because serpents were so dangerous, their venom was a figure for utterly destructive evil (Ps. 140:3).
Isaiah 27:1 moves the sphere of activities from barren wilderness to tumultuous water: “In that day, the Lord will punish with his sword—his fierce, great and powerful sword—Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea.” The same motif is evident in Ps. 74:13–14, which declares that God broke the “heads” of the sea monsters and smashed the “heads” of Leviathan (cf. Gen. 3:15). The “fleeing serpent” of Isaiah also appears in Job 26:12–13, which describes God cutting Rahab in pieces and piercing the “gliding serpent.” Around the central figure of the serpent, a land creature, are watery glimpses of the mythic and shadowy Leviathan, a sea monster, and Rahab, all of which represent a creature opposed by God. It is likely that this malevolent cosmic figure is lurking below the surface of the crocodile-infested waters of Job 41, a subtle but powerful closure to the contest with which the book commenced; although Job could not restrain Leviathan, God does.
The motifs that recur in these passages were also part of the mythologies of cultures surrounding ancient Israel. The Enuma Elish (a Babylonian creation story) depicts the violent battle between the goddess Tiamat and the god Marduk that involved monster-serpents and roaring dragons. Closer to Israelite culture, in the Canaanite myth of Baal and Anat, we read that Anat claimed to crush the crooked serpent with seven heads. Just as serpents and related figures in the biblical text occasionally crossed the flexible boundaries between good and evil, in the wider cultural context of the ancient Near East the serpent served as a metaphor for a vast complex that included life, fertility, and wisdom, as well as chaos and death.
For the Christian community receiving the Revelation of John, “the great dragon, that ancient serpent” (20:2), presented a powerful metaphor. Wise, shrewd, quick, beguiling, and terrifying, it had been in opposition to God in the age-old conflict between good and evil, the reality of which was expressed across cultural boundaries and a part of which was enveloping the church in the Roman Empire of late antiquity. Even its defeat was not instantaneous; the “head” of the serpent, struck by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, would bear one final blow; the cosmic evil would be ultimately and completely defeated to accomplish the purposes of God. See also Venomous Serpent.
Evil, malicious talk or lies intended to defame or destroy another person or another’s reputation (Pss. 31:13; 50:20; Ezek. 22:9). Both Testaments frequently condemn the sin of slander. Mosaic law forbade it (Lev. 19:16), and the ninth of the Ten Commandments specifically condemns bearing “false testimony” (Exod. 20:16). Slandering was an especially malicious act, with accompanying consequences (Prov. 30:10), and was viewed as a crime worthy of God’s displeasure or punishment (Pss. 101:5; 140:11). Paul includes slander among destructive ways of relating and speaking to one another (Rom. 1:30; 2 Tim. 3:3; cf. 2 Cor. 12:20; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8). The great accuser and slanderer of God and his people is Satan (Gen. 3:4–5; Job 1:9–11; 2:4–5; Zech. 3:1). There is no truth in him; he is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44).
- 'Tabloid trash': NC GOP candidate Mark Robinson denies report he made lewd posts on porn site
- Family, friends still searching months after Tennessee pastor goes missing without a trace
- Christian mom sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan
- Pastor Mark Driscoll refuses city order to take down 'Jesus Christ 24' sign: 'We will not comply'
- Lake Country Church pastor wrongfully fired for looking at inappropriate images, attorney says
- Georgia abortion law not responsible for deaths of Amber Thurman and Candi Miller, pro-life doctors say
- Trump says he's thinking more about God after recent assassination attempts
- 'Our eyes are on God': 16.2M Christians forced from their homes in sub-Saharan Africa
- Alaska man arrested for threatening to kill 6 Supreme Court justices
- SBC Executive Committee creates department dedicated to fighting sexual abuse in churches
- Becoming a Church for People of All Abilities
- Don’t ‘Spiritually Bypass’ Your Church-Hurt Neighbor
- SBC to Sell Nashville Headquarters to Cover Cost of Abuse Cases
- Seminary Professor Accused of Secret Second Marriage
- These Christians Have Not Given Up on North Korea
- Mobilizers See Millions of Future Missionaries in Overseas Filipino Workers
- Sports Betting Has Become Too Prevalent for Christians to Ignore
- You Can Turn Off the News and Still Be a Good Citizen
- God at the Bottom of the Glass
- Shielded from Truth at Our Own Expense
- Watch: Jasprit Bumrah Sets Up Bangladesh Opener, Knocks Back Off-Stump With Devastating Nip-Backer | IND vs BAN | Cricket News Today
- Judo Champion Nemanja Majdov Banned After Making Sign Of The Cross At Paris Olympics
- Young Pakistani Women Are Reclaiming the Sari as Their Own
- Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to appear at Nassau Coliseum Sunday, with protest planned outside
- Aaron Hernandez wrote message on forehead before death with 'blood drawn on cell walls'
- Stephen Colbert's brutal encounter with TV show host while meeting the Pope detailed
- Christian mom sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan
- Corinth: The Sex Capital of Ancient Greece
- Beyond Brilliance: 8 Lessons From Israel’s Remarkable Operation
- Dallas pastor Steven Lawson fired for 'inappropriate relationship' with woman
- "Evangelicals for Harris" Mocks People of Faith to Shave Crucial Votes
- The 'Evangelicals for Harris' Hoping to Sway the Election
- Vatican Offers Cautious Green Light to Medjugorje Devotion
- Donald Trump and Polish President to Visit Shrine in Pennsylvania
- Evangelical Sociology and Clericalism
- The Workers and the Church
- 16.2M Christians Forced From Homes in Sub-Saharan Africa
- To See the Light
- SBC Will Sell its Nashville HQ to Defray Abuse-Related Legal Costs
- 80% of Indian Muslims Say They Suffer Discrimination From Hindus