Logos Does Have a $50 “Starter Collection” and It is Better Than Accordance's!

Dan,

There are two one volume Eerdmans Bible Dictionaries out there, the one include in the Accordance package is the cheaper one. Comparing the two dictionaries is not even fair. Lexham wins hands down! Compare the following articles on Redemption.

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible

Redemption

Release from legal obligation or deliverance from desperate circumstances, closely connected with a payment necessary to effect that release. In the OT the primary words used to express this concept are Heb. pāḏâ and gāʾal. The NT uses primarily cognates of Gk. lytróō and agorázō.

In the Mosaic law, the basic idea is that of monetary payments required to free persons or property from an obligation. It is applied to the redemption of the firstborn (Exod. 13:11–15; 34:19–20; Num. 3:44–51; 18:15–17), to the redemption of property (Lev. 25:23–34; Ruth 4:1–12), and to the redemption of individuals (Lev. 25:35–55). It is also applied to the process of securing release from a difficult vow or a tithe (Lev. 27:1–33).

The idea of release from obligation continues in the Prophets and Writings (Ps. 49:7–8 [MT 8–9]; Jer. 32:7–8). More frequently, however, the word is synonymous with the concept of rescuing or delivering (Ps. 25:22; 26:11; 44:26 [27]; Mic. 4:10), occasionally in parallel with the notion of “ransom” (Ps. 49:7 [8]; Hos. 13:14). This deliverance may be from any number of circumstances, including famine and war (Job 5:20), oppression and violence (Ps. 72:14), adversaries (Job 6:23; Ps. 69:18 [19]; Jer. 15:21), Sheol and death (Ps. 49:15 [16]; Hos. 13:14), and iniquities (Ps. 130:7–8). Above all, God is the redeemer (Ps. 19:14 [15]; 78:35; Isa. 41:14; 44:6; 49:26; 50:2) who will come to Zion (Isa. 59:20) to bring rest to Israel and judgment to her foes (Jer. 50:34).

These OT emphases are present in the NT, but they are applied foremost to what Christ has done for the believer (1 Cor. 1:30) and only secondarily to what God will do for Israel (Luke 1:68; 2:38; 24:21). The concept of legal obligation is clear in that the believer is “bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:20; 1 Pet. 1:18–19; Rev. 5:9; 14:3–4) and so is “redeemed from the curse of the law” (Gal. 3:13; 4:5). The idea of ransom is present in Jesus’ statement that he came to “give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45) and in Paul’s affirmation that Jesus “gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:6). The idea of deliverance has both past and present aspects. Jesus’ death has accomplished redemption in securing the forgiveness of sins (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:11–15). Yet believers still await the redemption of the body at his return (Luke 21:28; Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:14; 4:30).

John D. Harvey^[1]

Lexham Bible Dictionary

Redemption The release of people, animals, or property from bondage through the payment of a price. Social, physical, or spiritual weakness makes redemption necessary.

Old Testament Literal Origins

The two Hebrew root words associated with redemption are:

1.   גָּאַל (ga'al), meaning “redeem” or “act as a kinsman-redeemer”

2.   פָּדָה (padah), meaning “ransom” or “redeem”

Legal Redemption of Property and Slaves. Redemption of property and slaves by a kinsman-redeemer (גֹּאֵל, go'el) was the most common form of redemption in the Old Testament. This kinsman-redeemer was a close male relative from the same clan. The closer the familial relation, the greater the obligation to redeem on behalf of the family member in need (Lev 25:25). The role was not restricted to immediate family (e.g., brother, father), as indicated by the inclusion of uncles and cousins in the potential list of kinsman-redeemers in Leviticus (Lev 25:49). Beyond this list, any blood relative from his clan could redeem (Lev 25:49). Essentially, whoever could redeem a relative should, with the greater responsibility falling to nearer kin. If an Israelite did not have a kinsman-redeemer but acquired sufficient means, he could redeem his land or himself.

Land was an inheritance from God; the Israelites were tenants of God’s land (Lev 25:23–24). Accordingly, the law prohibited Israelites from permanently selling land outside the family. Every 50th year, the Year of Jubilee, the land was to revert back to the original tenant or his heirs (Lev 25:8–23; compare Levine, Leviticus, 174). If an Israelite became impoverished, he could sell the use of his land. At this point, a kinsman-redeemer could redeem the property and restore it to the family. The amount paid for redemption was determined by the number of years it was held by the buyer (Lev 25:27).

Laws regarding the redemption of houses differed from those regarding land; they also differed based on the location of the house. Houses within a walled city were not considered “land.” Thus, the seller retained the right of redemption for only a year after its sale. After one year, the house belonged permanently to the buyer and his family (Lev 25:29–30). In contrast, houses outside the walled city were treated as land: They could be redeemed beyond a year and reverted back to the original owner at Jubilee (Lev 25:31).

A kinsman-redeemer was also obliged to redeem relatives sold into slavery (Lev 25:47–53; for the proposal that Lev 25:25–55 represents three stages of destitution, see Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2191–93). If an Israelite became destitute and sold himself to a resident alien, a relative could redeem him. Alternatively, if he gained the means, he could redeem himself. The amount to be paid was calculated in light of the years to the next Jubilee. Similarly to the land, if the Israelite was not redeemed, he was to be released at the Year of Jubilee (Lev 25:54–55).

Redemption of Firstborn and Widows. All firstborn people and animals belonged to God, but some could be redeemed. In commemoration of Israel’s redemption from Egypt and the 10th plague, every firstborn male—animal or human—was to be consecrated to God (Exod 13:2). However, a firstborn donkey could be redeemed by a sheep (perhaps for practical reasons rather than religious ones; Exod 13:13; 34:20; see Durham, Exodus, 179), while unredeemable firstborn (an ox, a sheep, or a goat) were to be used either as a sacrifice or as meat for the priests (Num 18:17–18). In place of the firstborn sons of Israel, God accepted the tribe of Levi (Num 3:44). When firstborn Israelite sons were one month old, they were to be redeemed by a payment of five shekels to the priests (Exod 18:15–16; Num 3:47–48).

Boaz’s marriage to the widow Ruth is often understood as a kinsman-redeemer act (Hubbard, “Redemption,” 717). However, according to the law, marriage was not a role for a kinsman-redeemer. A more likely explanation is that since there was no male heir for Elimelech’s land, the redemption of property triggered the levirate law (Deut 25:5–10) so that the name of Elimelech could be raised up on his property (Ruth 4:5, 10; see Lau, Identity and Ethics). The concept of redemption is understood in its broader sense of restoration of name on family property, along with restoration of Ruth and Naomi’s well-being.

The Redeemer of Blood. Also translated as “avenger of blood” (גֹּאֵל הַדָּם, go'el haddam), the redeemer of blood was responsible for redeeming the life of a murdered relative by killing the murderer. The elders of the city handed over the murderer (Deut 19:12) so that the redeemer of blood could put him to death (Num 35:16–21). In the case of manslaughter, the killer could find protection from the redeemer of blood in a designated city of refuge (Num 35:12–15, 22–28). The redeemer of blood brought justice and restitution for the land from the defilement caused by the killing (Num 35:33–34). The redeemer of blood function also prevented one killing from escalating into a blood feud (see Levine, Numbers 21–36, 561–65).

Old Testament Metaphorical Uses

General. God as redeemer is a prominent theme in the Bible. Throughout Scripture, He is the one who redeems both individuals and the nation of Israel. God is presented as a redeemer in legal contexts, where He acts to vindicate and plead the case on a person’s behalf (Job 19:25; Prov 23:11; on the former verse see Hartley, The Book of Job, 292–94). He also redeems in the general sense of preserving or saving people from death during famine (Job 5:20). God’s redemption of individuals is a prominent theme in Psalms, where the psalmists pray for redemption or deliverance from a variety of circumstances, including enemies (e.g., Pss 31:4–5; 69:18), oppression and violence (Psa 72:14), and Sheol and death (Psa 49:15). Scripture attests that God redeems those who cannot help themselves, including the poor and needy (e.g., Psa 72:12–14). Two events in the Old Testament demonstrate God’s redemption of Israel:

1.   Redemption from Egypt

2.   Redemption from Exile

Redemption from Egypt. God’s salvation of Israel from slavery in Egypt was the foundational act of redemption. God paid a price to release His people from bondage in the form of the 10 plagues against Egypt (e.g., Exod 6:6; 32:11; Deut 9:26; Neh 1:10; Psa 77:15). The concept of God paying a ransom price in exchange for His people is also found in Isa 43:3–4, where nations (Egypt, Cush, Seba) are metaphorically paid as the price (compare Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 140).

Redemption from Exile. The redemption of Israel from Egypt was the paradigm for Israel’s redemption from Babylonian exile. This is particularly prominent in the prophetic writings. For example, Jeremiah uses exodus imagery to describe the deliverance of God’s people from Babylon and other nations where they had been deported (Jer 16:14–15; 23:7–8). Isaiah’s prophecies are rich with exodus allusions (e.g., Isa 40:1–11; 43; 51:10–11; 52:9–10; compare 63:7–14). Ezekiel also describes the return from exile to the land in terms reminiscent of the exodus (e.g., Ezek 20:33–34; compare 34:13; 36:24; 37:12, 21; 39:27). When Israel finally returns to the land, Ezra presents it as a “second exodus” (Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 20). Similar to the exodus, the return features the motifs of plundering a foreign people and being “brought out” of a foreign land (Ezra 1:5–8, 11).

The seminal nature of God redeeming Israel in the exodus is evidenced in all sections of the Old Testament. The biblical writers present this event as motivation for obeying the law (e.g., Exod 20:2; Deut 5:6), and it forms the basis for individual laws (e.g., Exod 13:11–16; Deut 24:17–18). The exodus is the foundational redemptive event for the psalmists (e.g., Psa 106:8–10), and as previously noted, the Prophets allude to this event to anticipate future redemption.

God as Kinsman-Redeemer. God’s covenant with Israel provides the context for redemption in the Old Testament. His redemption is closely linked to His covenant loyalty or steadfast love (חֶסֶד, chesed; Exod 15:13). Israel is God’s unique possession (Exod 19:5), and He dwells among them (Exod 25:8). The exodus—the paradigmatic redemption of Israel—finds its root in God’s covenant with Abraham (e.g., Exod 6:2–8; Deut 7:7–10). Leviticus 25:55 notes that Israel has been redeemed to be God’s servants.

The concept of God as kinsman-redeemer has connotations of intimate kinship. He is described as “our Father, our Redeemer” (Isa 63:16) and “Maker, Husband, Redeemer” (Isa 54:5). The biblical authors present God as a kinsman-redeemer who protects His kin and takes vengeance on their enemies to deliver them (both Israel and individuals within Israel) because of His steadfast love (חֶסֶד, chesed), which stems from His covenant with them.

Old Testament-Apocryphal Eschatological Uses

The Old Testament prophets anticipated an end-time fulfillment in addition to a return from exile. Prophetic texts express God’s longing to redeem His people. However, when Israel and Judah remained firmly entrenched in their social sins and idolatry (Hos 7; 13:14–16), God’s judgment came upon them in the form of exile. The prophets express both an immediate and eschatological fulfillment for their prophecies of redemption (Kidner, Message, 103). Jeremiah’s oracles of restoration are marked by formulaic statements that look forward to events in an indeterminate future: “the days are coming,” “in that day,” “at that time” (Jer 30:3, 8; 31:1). The restoration will be for both Israel and Judah, ransomed and redeemed by God (Jer 31:11; 50:33–34). Zechariah envisages further redemption of the wider dispersion, not just those in Babylon (Zech 10:8). Again, both Israel and Judah will be restored (Zech 10:6–7). In the end, Zion will be saved and her people called “The Redeemed of the Lord” (Isa 62:12).

In the Old Testament, the spiritual aspect of redemption is present to an extent. Because God has redeemed Israel, forgiveness and a clean slate are available for those who repent (Isa 44:21–28, esp. 22). Other passages in Isaiah express the urgency of repentance for redemption (Isa 59:20). The Psalms also declare God as the one who will redeem His people from their iniquities (Psa 130:7–8). In these ways, God provides a solution for the problem of Israel’s disobedience. Yet the Old Testament texts also anticipate a fuller understanding of redemption, which is found in the New Testament.

The Apocryphal texts also demonstrate hope of a future redemption. Composed during the prosperous years of the Hasmonean dynasty, they show less despair at the destruction of Jerusalem than earlier texts. As a result, the hope of messianic deliverance is not as evident in these texts as in earlier texts, but it is still detectable. In the Apocrypha, redemption concentrated on “the portrayal of God Himself as the hero,” although this redemption could also be understood to involve human leadership (compare Horbury, Messianism, 45).

New Testament Developments

The two Hebrew words related to redemption correspond to two Greek terms that are present in the New Testament:

1.   λυτρόω (lytroō), meaning “to redeem” (approximates to גָּאַל, ga'al)

2.   ἀγοράζω (agorazō), meaning “to buy” or “ransom” (approximates to פּדָה, pdah)

Redemption from Sin or Death

Theories of How the Concept of Redemption Was Seen by First-Century Christian Writers. The Old Testament background to redemption influenced the New Testament authors’ ideas of redemption. Particularly important would have been redemption as applied to the legal sphere (of slaves). The New Testament authors also understood God to be the redeemer of Israel corporately (especially in the exodus) and of individuals.

Another influence on New Testament authors was the concept of manumission, which is the payment of a price to the owner of a slave in order to give the slave his or her freedom. Deissmann argues that the Graeco-Roman practice of sacral manumission is the background for the biblical concept of redemption (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient Near East, 319–330). This emancipation of slaves by a deity entailed an individual depositing money in the sanctuary of a god. The transaction would render the slave a slave of Apollo. Although scholars since Deissmann have discredited sacral manumission, the concept of release of slaves in general still forms an important part of the background for first-century Christian writers.

Jesus’ Redeeming Death in the Gospels. In the New Testament, redemption is one of the four “images of salvation” (Stott, The Cross of Christ, 195–236):

1.   Redemption

2.   Propitiation

3.   Justification

4.   Reconciliation

The Gospels describe Jesus’ death as a ransom for the deaths of many (Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45). The preposition ἀντὶ (anti, “for” or “in place of”) evokes the idea of substitution—Jesus’ death is a substitute for the deaths of all humanity. In the Gospel of Luke, redemption also refers to the hope of political liberation from foreign powers (Luke 1:68). Indeed, both political and spiritual dimensions are present in Zechariah’s hymn (Luke 1:71, 74, 77–78; compare Bock, Luke, 179). Others who await the “redemption of Israel” include Anna (Luke 2:38) and the Emmaus travelers (Luke 24:21).

Jesus as Ransom in Paul’s Letters. Paul’s letters present redemption as gained through Jesus’ blood (Rom 3:24–25; Eph 1:7). Through Jesus’ blood, Christians are redeemed from the curse of the law (Gal 3:13) and released from slavery of the law and the power of sin (Gal 4:5). The kinship metaphor is prominent, as Paul describes the change from being a slave to a son of God (Gal 4:6–7). O’Brien notes that redemption is equated with, or “at least in apposition to,” the forgiveness of sins (Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; compare O’Brien, Ephesians, 106). Believers are rescued from God’s judgment of our trespasses. Paul also describes God as making Jesus a Christian’s “redemption” (1 Cor 1:30). Now that Christians have been “bought with a price,” they are not to be slaves to people, but slaves of Christ (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23). Of course, the price is not monetary payment, but the sacrifice of Jesus. The concept of Jesus as a ransom is also found in 1 Timothy (1 Tim 2:6), which is similar to the description in Titus. However, in Titus, Paul also highlights one ethical implication of a Christian’s redemption: As a purified people belonging to Jesus, they should be zealous to do good works (Titus 2:14). According to Mounce, a Christian’s enthusiasm comes from “a full understanding of the redemptive work of Christ” (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 432).

Jesus as Redeeming High Priest in Hebrews. The concept of Christ as redeemer continues in the rest of the New Testament. In the letter to the Hebrews, Jesus is the great high priest who gained eternal redemption in the heavenly temple by His own blood (Heb 9:11–14, 25–26). Furthermore, Jesus secured redemption for those living under the first covenant (Heb 9:15). Hebrews 11:35 also describes martyrs who refused to accept “redemption” or “release” for themselves while being tortured. They chose earthly suffering in order to attain a better resurrection (that is, being raised to eternal life; compare Koester, Hebrews, 514). First Peter similarly speaks of redemption by the payment of a ransom—the priceless blood of Christ. Through Christ, the lamb without blemish, believers have been ransomed from their futile way of life (1 Pet 1:18–19). Here the sacrifice of Christ is again linked with redemption.

In Revelation the Lamb is worthy of praise because He ransomed people from all over the earth by His blood (Rev 5:9). This imagery is reminiscent of the Passover lamb, whose blood delivered the Israelite firstborn (Exod 12). The imagery shifts in Rev 14:3–5, which describes the 144,000 redeemed as the “firstfruits” of humankind for God and the Lamb. The Old Testament background of firstfruits (Lev 23:9–14) points to these believers as the first of a much larger harvest of believers to come.

Eschatological Uses. The New Testament presents a “now but not yet” tension to redemption. Christians have been redeemed from sin, but there still remains the final consummation of their salvation; that is, there is also an eschatological dimension. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus teaches that cosmic signs will point to His second coming, along with the coming of redemption (Luke 21:28). The Apostle Paul also looked to a final future redemptive event. Believers have been “sealed with the Holy Spirit” for the “day of redemption” (Eph 4:30). The Holy Spirit functions as guarantee for the day when believers will receive their full inheritance (Eph 1:13–14). This final redemption also applies to creation in general, when it will be “set free” from its bondage to decay (Rom 8:21). This will take place at the same time as “the redemption of our bodies” (Rom 8:23), the “revealing of the sons of God” (Rom 8:19). It will be a deliverance for all of creation (compare Wright, Mission of God, 51).

Conclusions

There is continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament concepts of redemption. In both Testaments, God is the primary redeemer. In the Old Testament He redeemed individuals and Israel as a nation, paradigmatically demonstrated in the exodus, then reflected in the Law; the Prophets then drew from the concept for the return from exile. Redemption in the Old Testament was primarily physical; the spiritual aspect was present, but there was an anticipation of greater fulfillment. In the New Testament, God redeems His people by the sacrifice of His Son. Believers are released from bondage to sin and death to be slaves of God, while awaiting the final consummation when Jesus returns again. Redemption is both physical and spiritual, with the spiritual aspect fully revealed in the New Testament.

Bibliography

Allen, Leslie C. Jeremiah. Old Testament. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2008.

Bock, Darrell L. Luke. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1994.

Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient Near East. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1978.

Durham, John I. Exodus. World Biblical Commentary 3. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987.

Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988.

Horbury, William. Messianism among Jews and Christians: Biblical and Historical Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2003.

Hubbard, Robert L. “Redemption.” Pages 716–20 in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. D. Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Kidner, Derek. The Message of Jeremiah. The Bible Speaks Today. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1987.

Koester, Craig R. Hebrews. Anchor Bible 36. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2001.

Lau, Peter H. W. Identity and Ethics in the Book of Ruth: A Social Identity Approach. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 416. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.

Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 21–36. Anchor Bible 4A. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2000.

Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 23–27. Anchor Bible 3B. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2000.

Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. World Biblical Commentary 46. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000.

O’Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Ephesians. Pelican New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999.

Oswalt, John. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998.

Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

Williamson, H. G. M. Ezra, Nehemiah. Word Biblical Commentary 16. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985.

Wright, Christopher J. H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Peter Lau^[2]

Here is a comparison between the Faithlife Study Bible and IVP New Bible Commentary from John 1:1-5. I will include the opening remarks on the prologue from each. With the Faithlife Study Bible I will include the sidebar notes and plus sign notes. I will not go to the links to the Lexham Bible Dictionary, but honestly you have to consider them a part of the commentary since they are so easy to get to.

I think the Faithlife Study Bible is the winner.

IVP New Bible Commentary

1:1–18 The prologue

This gospel, unlike the others, does not begin with the historical Jesus. Instead, the reader is introduced at once to the Word (Gk. logos), who is not identified with Jesus until the end of the prologue. It is of great importance to consider the meaning of the Word as a key to an understanding of the whole gospel. The term was widely used in Greek literature, and many scholars have supposed that its significance for John can be understood only against such a background. It was used among the Stoics to describe the principle of divine reason which caused the natural creation to grow. This idea was much more fully developed in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, who used it of the instrument through which the world was created. Although there may appear to be some parallels with John’s use of the term, there are crucial differences. Philo never thought of the Word as a person, nor did he maintain its pre-existence to the world. But the most striking and significant difference between Philo and John is that the former denied the incarnation of the Word, whereas John specifically maintained that the Word became flesh. Some scholars have found parallels between John’s use and the syncretistic philosophical literature current in the early centuries of the Christian era known as the Hermetica, but the essential thought is quite different. Greek thought may have supplied some of the terminology that John uses, but for the basic ideas we must look elsewhere.

There is much more to be said for the similarity of thought between John’s use and that of certain ideas in the OT. Jewish thought contributed a major dimension to the Word idea. In the Wisdom Literature we find an emphasis on the creative activity of God through his Word of Wisdom (cf. Pr. 8). Closely linked to this is the rabbinic practice of attributing to the Torah (Law) some agency in creation. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls led to a more sympathetic appreciation of the contribution of Jewish thought for an understanding of John’s gospel.

The prologue, nevertheless, must be considered on its own merits. It is essentially Christian, designed to prepare the way for the record of the activities of a unique person. The gospel itself must furnish the key for the understanding of the Prologue, not vice versa. A careful analysis of the gospel will show how integral the prologue is with the recurrent themes of the gospel.

1:1–5 The pre-existent Word

The opening words of this gospel bear a striking parallel with the opening words of Genesis. John’s own particular contribution is to show that the Word existed before creation. This is implicit in the opening words In the beginning was the Word. Although the verb is used in the past tense, the idea is of continuity. The Word that now is was in existence before the world began. This at once introduces a profound theme, made more profound by the subsequent two statements. The Greek preposition translated with suggests the idea of communion. The thought is lit. ‘towards God’, which requires some distinctiveness between God and the Word. But the next phrase adds a further aspect, since it affirms that the Word was God. This cannot be understood in an adjectival sense (the Word was divine), which would weaken the statement. Since the Greek has no article before God, the term must be taken setting out a characteristic of the Word. Since God is a noun, John must be affirming the Godhead of the Word. It involves not only divinity but deity.

John at once proceeds to declare the creative activity of the Word. The Greek focuses attention on the agency of the Word. This idea is further underlined by excluding all possibility of creation apart from the Word. The close association between God and the Word in v 1 is also seen in their part in creation. The part taken by Christ in creation is a theme which recurs many times in the NT. Such an emphasis would exclude gnostic ideas of intermediaries within creation which were designed to protect God from contamination with an essentially evil world. John’s further assertion that the Word was life is a logical sequence from his creative activity. This idea is basic to this gospel and is highlighted in the statement of purpose in 20:31, that the readers might have life in him.

The close connection between life and light is not unexpected. In the physical world life is dependent on light, and this idea is here transferred to the spiritual world. The statement in v 5 must be interpreted by the mention of light in v 4. There it is an illumination which comes to everyone generally and would seem to refer to the light of conscience and reason. In v 5, however, the focus falls on the environment which is described as darkness. The light, which is closely linked with the Word, must be regarded as personal. It must mean the spiritual enlightenment which humankind has received exclusively through the coming of the Word. The following statement, but the darkness has not understood it, could be translated as ‘has not overcome it’. Both interpretations express a truth, and both are illustrated in the body of the gospel. But the former fits the context better, especially in the light of vs 10–11.^[1]

Faithlife Study Bible

1:1–18 John’s Gospel opens with a prologue that is rich with allusions to ot themes and influenced by Jewish traditions on the exaltation of divine wisdom (see Prov 8:22–31; Job 28:12–28; Sirach 24:1–34; Wisdom of Solomon 7:22–8:1). This prologue also introduces the concept of Jesus as the divine Logos or “Word.” By doing so, it establishes a claim to His divinity by connecting with philosophical and biblical concepts about creation and the organization of the universe. By revealing Jesus’ divine identity from the beginning, John reflects a more explicit Christology than the Synoptic Gospels.

1:1 In the beginning John begins by quoting the opening words of Genesis (see Gen 1:1) in Greek. He uses Genesis 1:1–5 to establish the “Word,” or Logos, as a preexistent agent of creation present with Yahweh from the beginning.

This first section of the prologue (vv. 1–5) functions as an interpretation of Gen 1:1–5 read through the framework of Prov 8:22–31 (see note on Prov 8:22). This exegetical technique resembles a method of Jewish exegesis called midrash. A midrashic interpretation typically begins with a text from the Pentateuch and explains it through allusions to a text from the Prophets or the Writings. John begins with a quotation that invokes the context of Gen 1:1–5 with its imagery of creation by divine word and opposition between light and darkness. His interpretation centers on the Word as Creator and bearer of divine light. Genesis 1:1 and Proverbs 8:22 both use the Hebrew word reshith (usually translated “beginning”), and the larger context of both passages is God’s creation of the universe.

In making this connection, John states that Jesus existed prior to the first acts of creation. God’s Son isn’t an act of creation, but the means of it (compare Col 1:15–23; Heb 1:1–4). It is all the more dramatic, therefore, that the one through whom all of creation came to be has become part of the creation.

Jesus as Wisdom

Proverbs 8:22–31 describes the Wisdom of God as a person or entity—a deity-like figure who assists God with the creation of the world. The passage is crucial for understanding the nt’s use of Wisdom imagery and terminology for Jesus.

The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work,

the first of his acts of old.

Ages ago I was set up,

at the first, before the beginning of the earth.

When there were no depths I was brought forth,

when there were no springs abounding with water.

Before the mountains had been shaped,

before the hills, I was brought forth,

before he had made the earth with its fields,

or the first of the dust of the world.

When he established the heavens, I was there;

when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,

when he made firm the skies above,

when he established the fountains of the deep,

when he assigned to the sea its limit,

so that the waters might not transgress his command,

when he marked out the foundations of the earth,

then I was beside him, like a master workman,

and I was daily his delight,

rejoicing before him always,

rejoicing in his inhabited world

and delighting in the children of man.

Proverbs 8 appears to describe a co-Creator or divine agent in God’s creative work. Authors of the nt readily identify this figure with Christ.

Jesus as Wisdom in the New Testament

The writers of the nt often identify Jesus with Wisdom in some way. Paul’s reference to Jesus as the “Wisdom of God” in 1 Cor 1:24 may be an explicit statement to that effect. However, in light of 1 Cor 1:30, Paul may not have meant to identify Jesus specifically with the Wisdom of Prov 8: “And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” Paul here simply seems to include Wisdom in a list of theological themes. Since Paul may have derived his notion of Jesus as co-Creator (Col 1:16; 1 Cor 8:6) from other sources, many hesitate to attribute a fully developed “Wisdom Christology” to Paul.

Luke 11:49–51 provides a much more striking example. This text, specifically Luke 11: 49, directly refers to the personified Wisdom of God in Prov 8:

And he [Jesus] said, “Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, and you build their tombs. Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.”

At the beginning of this passage, Jesus rails against the hypocrisy of His enemies. But in Luke 11:49, He suddenly introduces another speaker, the Wisdom of God, who proceeds to say in the first person, “I sent you prophets and apostles.” Here, Jesus does not directly quote any ot passage about Wisdom, but rather alludes to a passage in the Wisdom of Solomon, a book certain Jews and early Christians considered sacred. According to Wisdom 7:27, Wisdom “makes everything new, although she herself never changes. From generation to generation she enters the souls of holy people, and makes them God’s friends and prophets.” With this allusion, Jesus implies that Wisdom sent the prophets and apostles—an action that both the ot and nt attribute to God the Father (see Isa 6:8; 10:6; Jer 1:7; 1 Cor 1:28). Jesus’ statement therefore identifies Wisdom with God the Father.

A comparison of Luke 11:49 with the parallel account in Matt 23, particularly verse Matt 23:34, indicates the deeper reality of Jesus’ statement:

[And Jesus said,] “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Whereas Jesus quotes Wisdom as a second speaker in Luke, Matthew puts the very words of Wisdom—whom Luke directly identified with God the Father—into Jesus’ own mouth. Together, Luke and Matthew fully identify Jesus as God’s co-Creator, Wisdom, whom Luke also identifies as Yahweh, the God of Israel.

The writer of Hebrews also identifies Jesus with Wisdom. Hebrews 1:1–3 reads:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance [Greek: apaugasma] of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

The word apaugasma is exceedingly rare: it occurs only here in the nt and once in the LXX’s version of the Wisdom of Solomon (7:24–26):

For wisdom is more mobile than any motion;

because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things.

For she is a breath of the power of God,

and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty;

therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her.

For she is a reflection [apaugasma] of eternal light,

a spotless mirror of the working of God,

and an image of his goodness.

Hebrews 1:3 draws from Wisdom of Solomon 7:22, where apaugasma—the radiance of God’s glory—refers specifically to Wisdom. For the writer of Hebrews, then, Wisdom and Jesus are one in the same.

The Jewish theology of Jesus’ day had a developed theology of Wisdom as an enthroned divine being in Yahweh’s Divine Council (see the links below). The Jewish writer of Wisdom of Solomon contributed to the development of this theology by elaborating on the idea of personified Wisdom in the book of Proverbs. The following two examples of this theology were written a century or two before Jesus:

O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who has made all things with your word, And ordained man through your Wisdom, that he should have dominion over the creatures which you have made, And order the world according to equity and righteousness, and execute judgment with an upright heart: Give me Wisdom, who sits alongside your throne; and do not reject me from among your children:

And Wisdom was with you, who knows your works, and was present when you made the world, and knew what was acceptable in your sight, and right in your commandments. O send her out of your holy heavens, and from the throne of your glory, that being present she may work with me, that I may know what is pleasing unto you. For she knows and understands all things, and she shall lead me soberly in my doings, and preserve me in her power (Wisdom of Solomon 9:1–4, 9–11).

Wisdom shall praise herself, and shall glory in the midst of her people. In the council of the most High shall she open her mouth, and triumph before his power. I came out of the mouth of the most High, and covered the earth as a cloud. I dwelt in high places, and my throne is in a cloudy pillar. I alone compassed the circuit of heaven, and walked in the bottom of the deep (Sirach 24:1–5).

These Jewish writers—committed to the uniqueness of the true God, Yahweh—startlingly place Wisdom alongside the throne of God, or depict Wisdom as coming from God’s throne. Some Jews considered this sort of Wisdom language to coincide perfectly with other Godhead language in the ot (see the link below). Others took this language another way—one that had dramatic ramifications for framing Paul’s struggle with Jewish loyalty to the law.

The word for Wisdom is grammatically feminine in Hebrew, which explains why the writer of Proverbs uses feminine pronouns in personified descriptions of Wisdom. Some Jewish theologians, making much of the fact that the word for “law” (torah) is also grammatically feminine, identified the law itself with Wisdom. This connection meant that, for many Jews, the Torah (as Wisdom) was divine. While nt writers understood Wisdom in terms of Prov 8 (as a co-Creator deity alongside God), other Jews saw God’s Word, Torah, as Wisdom and His agent of creation.

Ultimately, the nt merges these ideas by equating God in human form with the Word (John 1:1–3, 14). But many Jews, refusing to see Jesus as the focal point of these references, put their loyalty in the Law. Given this, Paul’s struggle to articulate the gospel “apart from the law [Torah]” takes on an entirely new light (Rom 3:21). The apostles’ strategy of defining Wisdom as Jesus was crucial for their articulation of the gospel: that Jesus, as Wisdom (and the Word), is the means of salvation—not the Mosaic law (compare Matt 5:17–20).

Jesus, Wisdom, and Nicaea

The early church’s identification of Jesus with Wisdom in Prov 8 became a controversial issue in early theological debate. The Council of Nicaea was called in ad 325 to address a debate about the relationship of Jesus to God the Father. The dominant view at the council was that Jesus (the Son) was God in the flesh—that the Word (or Wisdom) incarnated in the person known as Jesus of Nazareth. Consequently, there was never a time when the Son had not existed. In contrast, the Arians believed that there was a time when the Son had not existed—that he was a created being. One of their arguments came from Prov 8:22: “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old” (esv).

The Hebrew verb translated “possessed” (qanah) was at the root of the controversy. The verb has a wide range of meanings in biblical usage, including “to create” (Gen 14:19, 22; Deut 32:6). Understanding it as such, the Arians argued that Prov 8:22 states that Wisdom is a created being. Therefore, they argued, since the nt identifies Wisdom with the Son, the Son is also created. However, they maintained that the Son (Jesus) served as the agent for the rest of God’s creation (Col 1:16; 1 Cor 8: 6) and Savior of the world.

Those who held that the nt presents Jesus as the truly incarnate, eternal God argued that the best translation of qanah in Prov 8:22 is “bring forth.” Genesis 4:1 provides an example of this translation, where Eve “brings forth” her son Cain. There, the use of qanah does not convey conception (i.e., bringing into existence)—another verb (harah) expresses this idea in the same verse. Rather, it speaks of Cain’s emergence from Eve’s womb after having been conceived. This reflects the ancient Israelites belief that birth was not “creation,” but a “bringing forth” of something already living inside the womb. Hence, qanah refers to the moment of emergence—not the beginning of the life. The Godhead therefore brought forth Wisdom to assist God the Father with creation. This understanding of the verb in Prov 8:22 preserves the Son’s eternality (who is Wisdom).

Michael S. Heiser

the Word John uses the simple term “Word” as a title for Jesus throughout this prologue. He doesn’t specify that “Word” refers to Jesus until v. 17. To a modern audience, the title has less allusive power than in the Hellenistic world of the first century ad. The Greek term logos had a rich network of associations in Hellenistic Judaism due to its ability to evoke both biblical and philosophical concepts.

The “word of Yahweh” evokes associations with creation, divine revelation, personified wisdom, and the law of Moses. The “word of Yahweh” and the law had already been closely related in prophetic poetry (see Isa 2:3). The “word” is the agent of creation in Psa 33:6, but divine wisdom is personified and depicted in that role in Prov 8:22–31. In Sirach 24:23, this personified divine wisdom is connected to the law of Moses, similarly given pre-existent eternal status in Jewish tradition (see Genesis Rabbah 1.1). Jesus is connected with divine wisdom also in 1 Cor 1:30. By choosing this language, John makes Jesus the very power and essence of God.

The Logos in John’s Prologue

John’s use of logos drew on a wide-range of Jewish and Greek concepts, evoking associations with the ot, Hellenistic Jewish literature, and Greek philosophy. Using the title “the Word” for Jesus simultaneously invoked and subverted the assumptions of his Jewish and Greek audiences. His use of the term was a deliberate attempt to persuade them of the divinity of Jesus using categories of thought they would have been familiar with.

For Jews, John’s use of logos would have evoked the phrase, the “word of Yahweh.” This title was an important part of biblical traditions about Yahweh and His effective power over the universe. The phrase was regularly used to refer to Scripture as divine law (Isa 2:3), written instruction (Psa 119:11), and prophetic revelation (Hos 4:1; Ezek 6:1). More important, the “word of Yahweh” was depicted as an active force at work in the world to accomplish Yahweh’s will (Isa 55:11; Jer 23:29). This force was the agent through which Yahweh created the world (Psa 33:6, 9; Gen 1:3, 6, 11).

A Jewish audience in the first century ad would also have accepted “the Word” as a divine title based on the regular substitution of memra (Aramaic for “the Word”) for the divine name in Aramaic translations of the ot, also called targums. The Aramaic translators used this title to avoid instances where Yahweh was described in human terms (i.e., with an arm or hand). This tradition connected “the Word” with creation even more: The targum for Isa 48:13a reads “By my word I have founded the earth” (replacing “my hand” in the Hebrew text with memra).

For Greeks, the idea of “the Word” as God’s active agent on earth resonated with the Greek notion that the Logos was the stabilizing principle of the universe. In Greek, logos can mean “reason,” or rational thought. In Greek philosophy, logos referred to the ordering principle behind the universe, the all-pervasive creative energy at the source of all things. The philosopher Heraclitus (sixth century bc) declared this principle always existed and was responsible for all things. The Logos was ultimate reality, the ever-present wisdom organizing the universe. The Stoic philosophers developed this idea further in the third century bc, and envisioned the Logos as the rational principle of the universe that made everything understandable. The Logos was the impersonal power that originated, permeated, and directed everything.

John’s use of the term logos does not appear to be indebted to Greek philosophy, however. His presentation of the Logos as a personal Creator involved in His creation and incarnated in the person of Jesus completely subverted the philosophical idea of the Logos as an impersonal force. A Greek audience would have recognized the concept as important, even if they did not fully understand it. John’s usage combines Jewish and Greek concepts about the universe and ultimate reality. The first century ad Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria also explicitly combined these two worlds of thought, describing the Logos as the rationality of the mind of God and the template for the divine ordering of creation.

John’s assignment of “the Word” to the role of the active agent in creation (John 1:3) connects with the biblical picture of creation through the divine word (Gen 1:3; Psa 33:6), and creation through divine wisdom (Prov 3:19, 8:22–31). Proverbs 3:19 describes “wisdom” as Yahweh’s agent in creation. Wisdom is regularly personified in Proverbs 1–9 and takes an active role in creation in Prov 8. Just like divine wisdom, “the Word” was also life-giving (compare Prov 3:18 and John 1:4).

Creation is the central concept of the message of John’s Gospel. Both the Jewish and the Greek associations of “the Word” find their ultimate meaning in creation. The Greeks were searching for knowledge, for a way to understand the impersonal principle bringing order to the universe. John proclaims that the one who gives order to creation is personal and divine. For the Jews, the connection between “the Word” and creation was natural since the role of Creator inherently belongs to God. But neither the Jews nor the Greeks would have expected John’s conclusion. He took a familiar concept, rich with meaning, and gave it a surprising twist. “The Word” was God, not an impersonal force, not just a tool God used to accomplish His purpose. “The Word” was personal. “The Word” was God, and God came in human form as Jesus (John 1:14).

John puts it all together. Jesus is none other than God’s creative, life-giving, light-giving Word. Jesus is the power of God that created the world and the reason of God that sustains the world—come to earth in the flesh. Using the term logos to communicate this prepared John’s hearers to accept the validity of his message.

Douglas Mangum

the Word was with God This phrasing testifies to the distinction between God the Father and Jesus while emphasizing the close intimate relationship between the Father and the Son.

the Word was God The Word shares the same character, quality, and essence of God. John’s phrasing preserves the distinction between God the Father and God the Son while emphasizing their unity in all other regards.

Old Testament Godhead Language

The Old Testament contains elements of (orthodox) Israelite theology and worship that New Testament writers would much later recognize as a Godhead—the view that God comprises more than one personage, each of whom is identified as the presence of Yahweh. Israel derived their understanding of the Godhead from their version of the divine council, or pantheon (i.e., God and His heavenly host), and the binitarian (two persons) language used for Yahweh and other figures that the ot writers identify so closely with Yahweh that they are inseparable, yet distinct.

Israel’s Divine Council: An Overview

The closest parallel to Israel’s (and therefore the ot‘s) conception of the assembly of the heavenly host under the authority of Yahweh is the divine council of Ugarit. Practitioners of Ugaritic religion organized the unseen divine world into three (or possibly four) tiers. In the top tier dwelled El and his wife Athirat (Asherah). The second tier was the domain of their royal family (“sons of El”; “princes”). One member of this second tier, Baal, served as the co-regent of El; despite Baal being under El’s authority, worshipers gave him the title “most high.” The third tier was for “craftsman deities,” and (perhaps) the fourth and lowest tier was reserved for the messengers (mal'akhim), essentially servants or staff.

The ot exhibits a three-tiered council (the craftsman tier is absent). In Israelite religion, Yahweh, at the top tier, was the supreme authority over the divine council, which included a second tier of lesser elohim (“gods”), also called the “sons of God” or “sons of the Most High.” The third tier comprised the mal'akhim (“angels”).

Orthodox Yahwism replaced the co-regent slot that Baal occupied with a sort of binitarian Godhead, in which Yahweh occupied both slots. The ot in fact describes Yahweh with titles and abilities that Canaanite literature attributes to both El and Baal. Israelites thus fused El and Baal in their worship of Yahweh—a literary and theological strategy that asserted Yahweh’s superiority over the two main divine authority figures in wider Canaanite religion. Within Israelite religion, Yahweh’s occupation of both of the two highest tiers resulted conceptually in two Yahwehs—one invisible, the other visible. At times both speak as characters in the same scene, but more frequently, they are virtually interchangeable.

Israel’s Binitarian Godhead

The Angel of Yahweh

The relationship between Yahweh and the Angel of Yahweh (“Angel of the Lord”) provides the most familiar example of “two Yahwehs.” The ot writers at times deliberately make the Angel of Yahweh indistinguishable from Yahweh (e.g., Exod 3:1–14). For instance, according to Exod 23, the Angel has Yahweh’s “Name” in him (Exod 23:20–23). This passage gives a glimpse of the Hebrew Bible’s “Name theology,” in which reference to “the Name” actually refers to Yahweh Himself. Thus, in Exod 23, Yahweh indicates that He is in the Angel. And yet, in other passages, Yahweh and the Angel can be simultaneously—but separately—present (Judg 6). Various ot passages attribute God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt to both the God of Israel and the Angel (e.g., Judg 2:1–3; 1 Sam 8:8; Micah 6:4). In light of Deut 4:37, which states the “presence” of Yahweh was responsible for Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, these passages provide a constructive case for binitarianism. The divine presence, of course, is Yahweh Himself, His “essence.” Perhaps most tellingly in this theology is the text of Gen 48:15–16, which fuses God and the Angel. Jacob, near death and pronouncing blessing on Joseph’s sons, speaks of God’s saving action in a way that highlights the fusion of Yahweh and the Angel:

When Israel saw Joseph’s sons, he said, “Who are these?” Joseph said to his father, “They are my sons, whom God has given me here.” And he said, “Bring them to me, please, that I may bless them.” Now the eyes of Israel were dim with age, so that he could not see. So Joseph brought them near him, and he kissed them and embraced them. And Israel said to Joseph, “I never expected to see your face; and behold, God has let me see your offspring also.” Then Joseph removed them from his knees, and he bowed himself with his face to the earth. And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel’s left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel’s right hand, and brought them near him. And Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands (for Manasseh was the firstborn). And he blessed Joseph and said,

“The God [ha-elohim] before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,

The God [ha-elohim] who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day,

The Angel [ha-mal'akh] who has redeemed me from all evil,

May he bless the boys” (Gen 48:8–16).

But this is complicated by the biblical teaching that God is eternal (in that He existed before all things) and that angels are created beings. The explicit parallel of “God” and “Angel,” thus, does not imply that God is an angel. Rather, it affirms that this Angel is God. The verb “bless,” moreover, is grammatically singular; a plural verb would indicate that Jacob is asking two different persons to bless the boys—the singular thus denotes a tight fusion of the two divine beings—one eternal and one not.

The Angel that embodies Yahweh’s presence parallels the role of Baal not only as co-regent but also as the warrior who fights for El. According to Josh 5:13–15, it is the Angel who leads Israel, “sword drawn in his hand,” to the promised land as the captain of Yahweh’s host. This precise description appears in only two other places in the ot, both in reference to the Angel of Yahweh (Num 22:23; 1 Chr 21:16). Thus, while orthodox worship of Yahweh precluded cosmic rule by two separate and distinct deities (El and Baal in Ugaritic religion, Yahweh plus another distinct deity in Israelite religion), it could tolerate two personages of Yahweh. That the Angel had the Presence (Name) of Yahweh in Him but was a distinct personage meant He was Yahweh’s presence, but not Him in His fullness.

The Rider on the Clouds

Another motif in the ot that indicates that there is an Israelite binitarian Godhead is the “Rider on the Clouds.” Although this epithet was a well-known title for Baal, the Hebrew Bible consistently uses it and similar designations to refer exclusively to Yahweh (Pss 68:4; 68:33; 104:3; Deut 33:26; Isa 19:1), with one exception: the “son of man” in Dan 7:13. This human figure—though distinct from the Ancient of Days (the enthroned deity described in Dan 7)—bears a title reserved exclusively for Yahweh in the ot.

References to God in the Third Person by Yahweh

In certain ot passages, Yahweh appears to refer to Yahweh, or “God,” in the third person: “Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven” (Gen 19:24) and ‘I overthrew some of you, as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were as a brand plucked out of the burning; yet you did not return to me,’ declares the Lord” (Amos 4:11).

The Two Powers in Heaven Doctrine of Judaism

Jewish thinkers in the Second Temple period (circa 516 bc–ad 70)—who were quite familiar with these patterns in the Hebrew text—did not indicate that any of it violated monotheism. Yahweh, quite simply, was alone at the top of the heavenly host, albeit in two forms. In fact, Jewish theologians and writers during this period devoted a great deal of speculation to more precisely identifying the second Yahweh. Their guesses ranged from divinized humans from Israel’s history (Adam, Abraham, and Moses were leading candidates) to exalted angels (Gabriel, Michael) to other intermediate figures (e.g., Philo’s “the Word”). These guesses were solidified into religious sects, and thus emerged the “two powers in heaven” doctrine of Judaism.

However, the early Christians (who were also Jews), altered the course of these speculations when they identified the second power, or second Yahweh, with Jesus. This identification allowed the first Christian converts—all of them Jews—to simultaneously worship both the God of Israel and Jesus of Nazareth without acknowledging any other god. Affirming Jesus’ incarnation as a man went beyond affirming Yahweh embodied in human form—Jesus was crucified as a blasphemer who made Himself equal with God. (The idea that Jesus was the incarnate second Yahweh offended Jews who had formerly accepted the “two powers.”) It wasn’t until the second century ad that Jewish authorities declared the “two powers” teaching to be heresy.

The Holy Spirit as “Third Yahweh” in the Old Testament

Writers in the ot occasionally make statements about Yahweh that actually reference the Holy Spirit—equating the two. For example, in Isa 63:7, the prophet refers to Yahweh as doing good to His people. But according to Isa 63:9, “the angel of his presence” saved Israel. This is a reference to Yahweh’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt. Israel is then recorded as responding by “rebelling” (marah) against and “grieving” (atsab) the Holy Spirit (Isa 63:10). In Psalm 78:40–41, which directly parallels this passage, the same two Hebrew verbs refer directly to God (“they rebelled against him”; “they grieved him”). Consequently, these two passages identify the Holy Spirit with God.

Michael S. Heiser

1:3 All things came into being through him The concept of creation through the divine word reflects Yahweh’s act of speaking the universe into existence in Gen 1:3–26. Jesus’s pre-existence and role as Creator and sustainer of all things is also seen in Col 1:15–20.

John’s Jewish audience would have been familiar with the idea that Yahweh created the world through His divine wisdom (see Prov 8:22–31); however, that wisdom was still viewed as a created thing, the first thing Yahweh created (see Prov 8:22). John pushes that familiar concept into new territory, implying that “the Word” was uncreated and pre-existent (compare Isa 43:10–11). John’s use of logos in the context of creation draws on these associations with the divine Word/Wisdom/Law as the effective agent of creation as well as the Stoic philosophical concept of the Logos as the impersonal force of “Reason” giving order to the universe. This makes Jesus not only the reason for the creation and the means of creation, it also makes Him ruler over the creation in the way God the Father has jurisdiction over it.

1:4 In him was life The Word is the source of life, both physical through the creation of all things (looking back to v. 3; compare Col 1:17) and spiritual (looking ahead to v. 4b; compare 6:35).

life A key word for John; it is used 36 times in the Gospel. This Gospel and other nt writings attributed to John or his disciples account for more than 40 percent of the total occurrences of this word in the nt. For John, Jesus’ ability to grant life to those who walked in “darkness” or “death” is the key issue at stake. Jesus has the ability and authority to do so because He was there in the beginning when God’s creative works took place.

John uses the word “life” (zōē) or “eternal life” as a technical term much like the Synoptic Gospels use “kingdom of heaven” or “kingdom of God” (see note on Matt 3:2). “Life” denotes salvation, the state of reconciliation and access to the presence of God. John’s Gospel accounts for 26 percent of the occurrences of zōē in the nt; the letter of 1 John has 13 occurrences, and Revelation has 17. The word occurs 135 times in the nt.

the life was the light of humanity Alluding to the initial act of creation involving light (Gen 1:3) and invoking the association of “light” with divine glory (Isa 60:19). Light is often used in the ot as a metaphor for salvation and spiritual awakening (see note on Isa 51:4).

Light is another key word for John (used 21 times; compare 1 John 1:5 and note). The light metaphor draws further connections with the Wisdom/Law/Logos motif (see note on v. 1). The hymn glorifying Wisdom in the Wisdom of Solomon describes personified Wisdom as reflecting the light of the divine glory (Wisdom of Solomon 7:25–26). God’s law is also described as shining light on spiritual matters (see Psa 119:105; Prov 6:23; 2 Baruch 59:2). Light makes life possible in the physical world; Jesus is the light that makes salvation possible in the spiritual world. The light of the Word brings true enlightenment. John’s message would have resonated with Jewish audiences familiar with biblical associations with light, as well as with Greek audiences seeking enlightenment through moral philosophy.

humanity The Greek term tōn anthrōpōn (singular ho anthrōpos) can be used to refer generically to the human race. Greek uses the masculine plural as a generic for referring to a group with mixed gender. That this is a reference to all humanity is made clear from Jesus’ statement in 8:12. Compare the “light for the nations” idea in Isa 42:6; 49:6.

1:5 the light shines in the darkness The contrast between light and darkness is a prominent theme in John’s Gospel (compare 2:8–10). This antithesis draws on Gen 1:1–5 (see note on v. 1) as well as ot traditions of the advent of the Messiah as a light dawning over a world of physical and spiritual darkness (see Isa 9:2, 60:1–2). Compare 1 John 1:5 and note.

The light and darkness dualism is also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly in the “War Scroll” (1QM) depicting a cosmic eschatological battle between the “sons of light” and the “sons of darkness.” In their founding document known as the “Community Rule,” the Qumran sect associated themselves with the light of the true followers of God and categorized all others as under the dominion of darkness (see 1QS 3.13–26).

the darkness did not overcome it It is apparent that the darkness had no chance of victory over the light, but the phrasing is ambiguous due to the variety of figurative senses available for the verb katalambanō, which literally means “to take hold of, seize.”

The precise sense depends on context. The phrase is typically taken as a reference either to mental comprehension or to triumph over an enemy. Common translations for the first include “comprehend” or “understand”; for the second, “overcome” or “overpower.” The best English equivalent to capture a similar range of meaning is “apprehend.” Idiomatically, the sense of extinguishing or putting out the light also fits the context.^[2]

Dan Francis said:

 Faithlife is decent study Bible but the dictionary has gaps, where it done I will not say it is usually very well done, beyond a single volume dictionary entry.

One of the nice things about the Faithlife Study Bible and Lexham Dictionary is they can be updated and revised easily. Perhaps Logos should create a way for us to report shortcomings.