For John, the prologue has a literary function. As we will see, John introduces several themes with the prologue, providing the reader with the narrator’s omniscient vantage point. Alan Culpepper states, “The reader is immediately given all that is needed to understand the story. . . . Like the narrator, therefore, the reader knows more than any of the characters who interact with Jesus.”4 The theme of the Word has rich background that is important to John’s choice of this term, because it compares and contrasts well with four themes of the OT and Judaism: the creative Word of God, Wisdom, Torah, and the memra of the Jewish targums.5 John’s concept of the Word incarnate is unique and represents a significant development from this Jewish backdrop, but his audience did possess some understanding of the imagery that John used, allowing them to appreciate both the nature of the claim and the comparison. The creative Word of God is seen in OT texts such as Isa. 55:11, where the Word comes from above and yields fruit like a sown seed. The Word was present at the creation, the means by which things came into being (Gen. 1; Ps. 33:6). The Word is like a lamp that guides a person’s way on a path (Ps. 119:105). God’s word contains the authority of judgment (Ps. 147:15, 18). So the Word is God’s “effective speech,” a revelation of who he is and what he does, along with being the mediating means by which his purpose is performed. As the spoken word reveals the thoughts of the mind in tangible ways, so the Word expresses and reveals God in both word and act.
Written by Darrell L. Bock and Benjamin I. Simpson. Quote from Jesus According to Scripture, published by Baker Academic.
5 comments:
From "the beginning" to the end:-
"Fifth, the root verb of tetevlestai (televw) for Christ’s victory cry “It is finished” (19:30) is used elsewhere in the New Testament for a literal monetary payment (Matt. 17:24; Rom. 13:6).214 The word tetevlestai was often written on receipts in daily commerce during the Koine Period to show proof of full payment or completed redemption.215 The choice to use the verb tetevlestai in John 19:28a and 30 rather than the similar word teleiovw from verse 28b is significant. Televw carries the possible lexical meaning of paying a price whereas teleiovw does not. 216 While some deny the redemptive meaning of tetevlestai in verse 30, 217 this may be another instance in John’s Gospel of a word intentionally having two possible meanings, both of which are valid. 218 In this case, tetevlestai would mean that the work planned by the Father has been fulfilled or accomplished specifically because redemption’s price for sin has been paid in full.219"
214 Cook, Theology of John, 83.
215 Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, New Classical Fragments and Other Greek and Latin Papyri, Greek Papyri, Series II (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897), 78-84; J. H. Moulton and G.Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 630. See also, Bergmeier, “ΤΕΤΕΛΕΣΤΑΙ in Joh 19:30,” 282-90; Alan M. Stibbs, The Finished Work of Christ: tetevlestai (London: Tyndale, 1954).
https://www.gracegospelpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Stegall-That-You-May-Believe-Gospel-of-John-ThD-dissertation.pdf
Pg.205
What are your thoughts on people who promote that almost every time the phrase "the word of Jehovah or the word of God (LORD)" is used in the Hebrew scriptures it's referring to some type of spiritual entity or being.
My Barber has been watching certain lectures on this. People like Alan Segal are promoting this.
T, if you research Alan Segal, I think you'll find that he was just giving an account of what he called the "two powers" heresy. But did Segal truly advocate this idea?
I believe it's a stretch to think the Bible writers hypostatized/personalized Jehovah's word in the Hebrew Bible. Some obviously feel that the Word is impersonal in the NT: laying that issue aside, I think the context of the Hebrew Bible verses will tell us whether or not, a person is under discussion. But when Jehovah's word is spoken through the prophets, how is the verse speaking of a person? See also Psalm 33:6. I believe it's anachronistic to explain the psalm as a reference to some person alongside Jehovah. Compare Isaiah 44:24.
My Barber listens to Michael Heiser and I guess he promotes a Jewish Trinity or the word of God in the OT being some type of entity. I'm trying to help him see this is not the case but he sent me this.
https://youtu.be/Hz8J4DTIkEg
T, I'm familiar with Heiser's views and I've watched a number of his videos. The best way to attack his view is to look at examples of the Word of YHWH in the Hebrew Bible, then see if his interpretation is confirmed or rebutted by the Bible verses themselves. How does Psalm 33:6 prove that the Word is an entity?
See https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_jeremiah_thomson.html
Post a Comment