“Grace and Truth,” and “Grace” in the Gospel of John
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Alexander TSUTSEROV “GLORY,” “GRACE AND TRUTH,” AND “GRACE” IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN: Ratification of the Sinaitic Covenant of the Presence of God (Exodus 33:12-34:10 LXX) in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Alexander Tsutserov, 2006 1. Introduction 1.1 Views of relationships between the revelations of God at Sinai and as Jesus from the perspective of the Gospel as a whole 1.1.1 The revelation of God as Jesus replaces the revelation of God at Sinai In the first view, the revelation of God as Jesus replaces the revelation of God at Sinai. To begin with, adherents of this approach argue that Jesus is not only ‘a prophet’, who would fit in the line of the OT prophets, but ‘the Prophet’ par excellence, in the sense of Deuteronomy 18:18–19. As Marie É. Boismard summarises, “Formerly God spoke to Moses, putting in his mouth the words intended for his people. Today, God is going to speak through Jesus; it is by his mouth that he is going to address his people and to give them a new law.”1 Moreover, grace in the NT is generally opposed to the Law, as in Paul’s, “you are not under law but under grace” (Romans 6:14).2 Furthermore, Mount Sinai, which had been the pre-eminent location of theophany in Israel’s formative period was, during the Israelite monarchy, superseded in dominance by Mount Zion. From the time of David on, psalmists, prophets, historians, and apoca- lyptic writers saw Zion as the most prominent place of divine self-disclosure.3 Emphasis on seeing the LORD was gradually replaced4 with prominence of 1 Boismard, Moses or Jesus, 6, 39. 2 To render a Hebrew/Greek text in English, the study utilises: NASB for BHS MT OT and NA27 NT; LXE (Brenton’s translation) for the Proto-canonical corpus of the LXX/OG; RSV for the Deutero-canonical corpus of the LXX/OG (unless otherwise noted). Versification in the OT is given according to MT (unless otherwise noted). 3 Theodore Hiebert, “Theophany in the OT,” 508. 4 The vision of God was perceived as something exceptional and dangerous (Genesis T HE REVELATION OF G OD AS J ESUS 97 hearing the word of God. Where there were accounts of seeing God, their main concern was to provide the setting for the revelation of the Word.5 When God appeared, it was not primarily for the sake of the theophany, but in order to send a prophet to pass on God’s Word. Judaism became a religion of God’s word which was either heard or to be heard. Seeing God was envisioned as an eschatological event which was to take place when Yahweh would come to Zion.6 In the Evangelist’s view, eschatology characterised by seeing God is now realised. Yahweh has come to Zion as the Word incarnate and is seen in Jesus. Finally, according to the Gospel, Jesus replaces various OT institutions, such as the Temple and festivals. It is expected that by implication Jesus re- places the OT Law with (the new Law of) the Gospel as well.7 1.1.1.1 Replacement of the revelation of God at Sinai by the revelation of God as Jesus that envisions an opposition between the revelations Some of those who argue that the revelation of God as Jesus replaces the revelation of God at Sinai envision an opposition between the revelations. Scholars feel that such contrast is expressed by Jesus who, in their evaluation, contradicts either the written or oral Law. Jesus is allegedly held to be a law- breaker or sinner in various ways. Jesus is called “a sinner” for breaking the Sabbath (cf. 5:16; 7:21–23; 9:13–16)8 and a “blasphemer” because He is calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God (cf. 5:17–18; 10:31–36; 19:7).9 Jesus is judged by some of the participants to be a false prophet who is leading the people astray and, therefore, an enemy of the nation (cf. 7:12; 11:47–50). Opponents of Jesus appeal to the Scripture when they question the legitimacy of Jesus arising as Christ (7:40–42) or/and the Prophet (7:52) out of Galilee. When put under interrogation on such charges, Jesus can only witness to Himself (cf. 5:31; 8:13, 17). Jesus offers His blood to drink which contradicts the Law (6:53–56).10 Jesus is accused of teaching without having studied (7:14–15); technically, He breaks the transmission of the chain of oral traditions which, according to Abot 1:1, went back to Moses who had received the oral Law from God.11 19:26; 32:31, Exodus 3:6; Exodus 33:20). Absence of images of God in Israel con- tributed to lessening of Sinaitic emphasis of seeing God (Kittel, “akouô,” 1:217–218). 5 Isaiah 6:1, Ezekiel 1, Amos 9:1, cf. also Exodus 3:1. 6 Kittel, “akouô,” 1:218. 7 Motyer, John and “the Jews,” 43, 128, cf. 197. Along these lines also Lincoln, Truth, 232–233. 8 The term “John” in numerical references to the chapter and verse of the Gospel of John may be omitted (so, if no book is mentioned in a chapter and verse reference then it is the Gospel of John that is in view). 9 Cf. Deuteronomy 13:1–5. 10 See Lincoln, Truth, 232; Pancaro, Law, 9–125. 11 Manns, John and Jamnia, 35. 98 T HE REVELATION OF G OD AS J ESUS 1.1.1.2 Replacement of the revelation of God at Sinai by the revelation of God as Jesus with a degree of denigration of Moses or/and the Law Some of those who argue that the revelation of God as Jesus replaces the revelation of God at Sinai discern a degree of denigration of Moses or/and the Law. They argue that the Gospel uses the OT revelation as a negative foil by which to portray the revelation in Jesus as immeasurably superior. Numerous scholars discover a degree of such denigration in particular episodes of the Gospel. Frédéric Manns maintains that just as Moses conveyed the Law at Sinai, so now Jesus gives the new and better Law, symbolised by wine, at Cana.12 Charles H. Dodd and Anthony T. Hanson believe that the water from the well which the Samaritan woman offers is contrasted as ‘dead’ water with the living water which Jesus provides; the ‘dead’ water means the Torah.13 William L. Petersen interprets the bread from heaven episode as denigrating Moses.14 To begin with, the expression “the food which perishes” (6:27) is believed to be a reference to the Law as the disciples of Moses un- derstood it. It is not Moses who provided the bread from heaven but Jesus’ Father. God is now acting to give Israel the true bread, as opposed to the manna which was much less than “true” in comparison with Jesus. Moreover, the superiority of the revelation as Jesus is accentuated by the present tense of the verb in the phrase, “it is My Father who gives [didôsin] you the true bread out of heaven” (6:32). Furthermore, the true bread from heaven gives life not just to Israel, but now to the whole world (6:35, 38, 48–51). Finally, the conven- tional notion of a sign as an act performed by Moses to prove something else is replaced by the notion that Jesus Himself is the sign. Manns finds a degree of such denigration in the Evangelist allegedly pre- senting Jesus no longer as a Jew but an adversary of the Jews.15 Jesus speaks of “your Law” (8:17; 10:34) and “their Law” (15:25). The same distance is found in Jesus addressing the Jews in terms of “your fathers” (6:49), as if Jesus was rejecting His Jewish origins.16 The Evangelist also uses expressions like “the Jewish custom of purification” (2:6), “the Passover of the Jews” (2:13; 6:4; 11:55), “a feast of the Jews” (5:1, 7:2), “the burial custom of the Jews” (19:40), “the Jewish day of preparation” (19:42), all of which have a flavour of the Evangelist distancing himself from the institutions associated with “the Jews.” 12 Manns, John and Jamnia, 63–67. Along these lines also Lincoln who remarks, “the water jars employed for purification under the law are now filled with the wine that represents the life and joy of the new order” (Lincoln, Truth, 233). 13 Dodd, John, 311–314; Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel, 63 (with the reference to Numbers 21:17–18). 14 Petersen, John, 35, 71, 96, 103, 121. 15 Manns, John and Jamnia, 30. 16 So Manns, John and Jamnia, 30. T HE REVELATION OF G OD AS J ESUS 99 Manns observes that the Evangelist reminds the Jews who stress the Law of Moses that religious history does not begin with Moses. Circumcision is not from Moses but from the fathers (7:22). Before Moses, the Patriarchs— Abraham17 (8:39–40, 56), Isaac (1:29, 36), and Jacob (1:51)—bore witness in favour of Jesus. Thus, pre-Mosaic traditions are as important as Mosaic Law.18 Norman R. Petersen19 argues that the message of the Gospel should be interpreted as a conflict in which Jesus and His disciples are given a positive value and Moses and his disciples are assigned a negative one. According to this scholar, the central Christological affirmations of the Gospel appear al- most without exception to be derived by antithesis as traditional assertions about Moses.