“Renewed Unto Knowledge”: The Restoration Of The Image Of God In Colossians 3:9–10

By Eric R. Montgomery

[Eric R. Montgomery is Professor of Biblical Studies, the International Graduate School of Leadership, Manila, Philippines.]

Abstract

This study examines the words “renewed unto knowledge according to the image” in Colossians 3:10, and it seeks to answer two questions: what did Paul mean by “renewed unto knowledge,” and what is the relationship between knowledge and the image of God? It argues that Paul utilized a well-known Jewish creation tradition in Colossians 3:9–10 to demonstrate that Jesus, as the image of God, is the fullness of divine wisdom and that the Colossian believers are progressively becoming images of God like Jesus as they grow in their knowledge of Christ.

Introduction

In Colossians 3:9–10, Paul[1] exhorts his audience by saying, “Do not lie to one another since you have put off the old man together with his practices and have put on the new [man], the one being renewed unto knowledge according to the image of the one who created him”[2] (μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν). The focus of this article is the phrase in verse 10: τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ’ εἰκόνα (“the one being renewed unto knowledge according to the image”). This study will answer two questions about this phrase: (1) What did Paul mean by ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν (“renewed unto knowledge”) and (2) What is the relationship between knowledge and the image of God?

While most interpreters have observed that the terms “knowledge” and “image” in 3:10 are both related to a believer’s “renewal,” scholars have seldom connected the two words with each other in a convincing manner that makes sense within the context of the sentence. In fact, many commentators have simply examined the terms “knowledge” and “image” in isolation from each other. For example, in his commentary on Colossians, Wright first discusses the relationship between “renewal” and “image” without any consideration of the term “knowledge.” He writes, “The new self is being renewed . . . in the image of its Creator.”[3] Wright omits the word “knowledge” and replaces it with an ellipsis, thus avoiding any discussion of “knowledge” at this point. Two pages later he returns to the word “knowledge” and says, “This renewal is put into effect not only in outward actions but also, and as a prior necessity, in knowledge: the phrase literally means ‘into knowledge’, implying that the ‘renewal’ spoken of is to result in the true knowledge of God.”[4] Here, Wright discusses the relationship between “renewal” and “knowledge” but neglects to explain how this knowledge is related to the word “image.” While Wright’s analysis of the passage contains several good observations, ultimately he fails to explain how the words ἀνακαινόω (“I renew”), ἐπίγνωσις (“knowledge”), and εἰκών (“image”) are related to one another conceptually.[5]

Some scholars have gone further and attempted to explain the relationship between these words. For example, Dunn states that the renewal of knowledge implies a restoration of the relationship between God and man that once characterized Adam as the image of God. The relationship between God and man was broken by the knowledge of good and evil, but now it is restored by the knowledge of God available in Christ.[6] Dunn’s explanation is creative, but it does not adequately consider the syntax of the sentence, the context, or how εἰκών is used elsewhere in Colossians.

Lohse argues that 3:9–10 refers to the event of baptism, at which time the believer puts off the old man (i.e., disobedience to God) and puts on the new man (i.e., obedience to God). After being baptized, the believer is responsible for renewing the new man by daily demonstrating his conformity to Jesus, the image of God, through his obedience to God. Obedience to God is now possible for the believer because he knows God’s will.[7] Like Dunn, Lohse has made a commendable effort to interpret this passage, but his interpretation does not do justice to Paul’s choice of terms or the syntax of the sentence.

After reading the various interpretations of Colossians 3:9–10, two questions remain unanswered: (1) What did Paul mean by “renewed in knowledge” or “renewed unto knowledge,” and (2) What does knowledge have to do with the image of God? This article argues that the answers to these two questions can be found in a Jewish creation tradition that was prevalent during the Second Temple period. According to this tradition, when God created the primordial man, he endowed him with special wisdom and knowledge, and this wisdom made the first man an image of God.

Paul knew of this creation tradition, and he utilized it in his letter to the Colossians. The Colossian Christians were being tempted to perfect themselves through human wisdom. Paul sought to counter this by demonstrating to the Colossians that Jesus, as the image of God, is the fullness of wisdom, and the Colossian believers can obtain perfection as God renews them to the same knowledge and wisdom that is found in Jesus. Before looking at the creation tradition underlying Paul’s thought in Colossians 3:9–10, it is necessary to make a few syntactical observations and interpretive decisions about this passage.

Analysis Of Colossians 3:9–10

Colossians 3:9

Colossians 3:9 continues a series of moral exhortations that began in verse 1. In verse 9, Paul says, μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ (“Do not lie to one another since you have put off the old man together with his practices”). Most commentators agree that the aorist participle ἀπεκδυσάμενοι is causal, indicating the reason why followers of Christ should not lie to one another.[8] The meaning of τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον is more debated. It is clear that Paul was using a clothing metaphor in verses 9–10.[9] Followers of Christ “have put off the old man” and “have put on the new [man].” The difficult question is what Paul meant by “old man” and “new [man].”[10] Some have argued that the imagery refers to baptism, when believers took off their old clothes and donned new clothes after their immersion.[11] While baptism might explain the acts of “putting off” and “putting on,” it does not explain why Paul used ἄνθρωπος here.

As many interpreters have observed, the use of ἄνθρωπος (v. 9) needs to be understood in light of the creation language employed in verse 10, which includes at least four references to the creation account in Genesis 1–3. First, the verb ἐνδύω is taken from Genesis 3:21 (LXX), where God made garments for Adam and Eve and clothed them.[12] Second, the word ἐπίγνωσις is reminiscent of the tree of knowledge.[13] Third, the use of εἰκών is a reference to 1:26–27. Finally, Colossians 3:10 mentions τοῦ κτίσαντος, which is an allusion to God as creator. With this context in mind, the word ἄνθρωπος in verse 9 should be understood as a reference to Adam. Hence, when Paul says that followers of Christ “have put off the old man [i.e., Adam] together with his practices,” he means the old sinful Adamic nature and the practices associated with it.[14]

The meaning of ἄνθρωπος in verse 9 is related to another Pauline expression: ἔσω ἄνθρωπος (“inner man,” Rom 7:22; 2 Cor 4:16; Eph 3:16).[15] For Paul, the inner man represents the seat of human will, desire, and decision-making. It is equivalent to the לֵב (“heart”) in Jewish thought[16] or the νοῦς (“mind”) in Greek thought.[17] In Romans 7:22–24 Paul uses the terms ἔσω ἄνθρωπος and νοῦς synonymously, indicating that he considered these to be equivalent concepts.[18] Thus, when Paul uses the terms “old man” and “new [man]” in Colossians 3:9–10 and elsewhere, he is describing different minds, that is, different ways of thinking and behaving.[19] So, when Paul tells the Colossians that they have put off the old man and put on the new man, he is effectively signifying to them that their minds have changed.[20]

Colossians 3:10

The same line of thought continues in verse 10, where Paul says, καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν (“and have put on the new [man], the one being renewed unto knowledge according to the image of the one who created him”). As with the previous aorist participle, ἐνδυσάμενοι is causal. The object of the participle is τὸν νέον, which should be understood as “the new man” based on the parallelism with verse 9. Like the old man, the new man refers to one’s mind or way of thinking. In essence, Paul tells the Colossians that they should not lie to one another because they have adopted a new mind.[21]

If the old man refers to the former sinful Adamic way of thinking, then the new man must be drawing upon the idea of Christ as a second Adam.[22] Paul is, in effect, telling the Colossians that they have put on a new mind (i.e., a new way of thinking) associated with Christ as the new Adam. Formerly, they had a mind marked by hostility and evil deeds (1:21),[23] but they have put off the old mind of the first Adam and have put on the mind of the new Adam.

The verse goes on to say that the new man is ἀνακαινούμενον (“being renewed”). As many have noted, the present participle denotes a present, continuous process. The terminology here is reminiscent of Romans 12:2: μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός (“be transformed by the renewal of the mind”). Colossians 3:10 is also similar to 2 Corinthians 4:16, which says, “Therefore, we are not wearied. Even though our outer man (ὁ ἔξω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος) is perishing, our inner [man] is being renewed (ὁ ἔσω ἡμῶν ἀνακαινοῦται) day by day.” Paul declares that the inner man (i.e., the mind)[24] is in a process of gradual renewal day by day. Likewise, Colossians 3:10 describes a transformation of the mind.[25]

Verse 10 continues by stating that the new man is being renewed εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν. The prepositional phrase εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν is one of the most misunderstood parts of verse 10. Many modern Bibles translate εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν as “in knowledge” as if εἰς denotes the means of renewal (i.e., “renewed by knowledge”) or the sphere of renewal (i.e., “renewed in the area of knowledge” or “renewed with regard to knowledge”).[26] While it is true that εἰς is sometimes used in place of the preposition ἐν when speaking of a position or location within a certain area (e.g., “in Capernaum,” Luke 4:23, or “in the synagogues,” Mark 13:9),[27] such a meaning does not work in Colossians 3:10. It is also true that the preposition εἰς is occasionally used in the New Testament with an instrumental sense, but such usages are quite rare.[28]

The best sense for εἰς in verse 10 is to denote the goal or objective of renewal.[29] The preposition is used in a resultative manner to describe the entrance into a state of being that will be brought about by the renewal.[30] This conclusion is supported by a very similar construction in Hebrews 6:6, which states, ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν (“[it is impossible] to renew unto repentance,” i.e., to renew unto a state of repentance). In his comments on Colossians 3:10, Meyer correctly states that εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν “expresses the end aimed at by the ἀνακαινοῦσθαι.”[31] Thus, in Colossians 3:10 the words τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν could be translated as “the new [man], the one being renewed unto knowledge” (i.e., unto a state of knowledge).[32]

The meaning of ἐπίγνωσις (“knowledge”) is not explicated in 3:9–10, but 1:9–10 and 2:2–3 supply the clearest definition. In 1:9–10, Paul informs the Colossian believers that he has been praying that they might be filled with “the knowledge of his will (τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ) in all spiritual wisdom and understanding to walk worthy of the Lord fully pleasing in every good work.” In this passage, the word ἐπίγνωσις is associated with the knowledge of God’s will, which enables one to walk rightly before God.[33] Such knowledge constitutes a “spiritual wisdom and understanding” that is antithetical to the fleshly and human wisdom Paul denounces in chapter 2.

Colossians 2:2–3 gives added definition to the word ἐπίγνωσις. Here, Paul states that he wants the Colossian believers to attain “the knowledge of the mystery of God” (εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ), which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” In this passage, Paul proclaims that he desires the believers to come to a full knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Jesus. He then says that wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Jesus himself. If the information from 2:2–3 is combined with 1:9–10, then it is clear that the knowledge that Paul had in mind is the knowledge of Christ through which a believer obtains the knowledge of God’s will and is able to walk in true righteousness and Christlikeness (1:10; 2:6).[34]

After the words καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν (“and have put on the new [man], the one being renewed unto knowledge”), Paul adds another modifying prepositional phrase: κατ’ εἰκόνα (“according to the image”). Commentators have often passed over the preposition κατά without substantial comment, but the syntax is important here. The preposition κατά is being used to indicate a standard or measure.[35] Thus, the prepositional phrase κατ’ εἰκόνα means that the renewal unto knowledge takes place “according to the standard/measure of the image.”

The preposition κατά could modify either ἀνακαινούμενον or ἐπίγνωσιν. Most commentators have assumed that κατ’ εἰκόνα modifies the participle ἀνακαινούμενον.[36] However, Meyer rightly argues that the prepositional phrase modifies ἐπίγνωσιν.[37] Paul did not mean to say that the new man (i.e., the new mind) is being renewed according to the image unto a state of knowledge. Such an interpretation leaves εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν standing “abrupt, isolated, and indefinite” in the sentence.[38] Rather, Paul intended to say that the new man is being renewed unto a state of knowledge that accords with the image.[39] In other words, εἰκών signifies a measure or standard of knowledge, and the prepositional phrase κατ’ εἰκόνα more precisely defines the kind of knowledge to which the new man is being renewed.

This interpretation of κατ’ εἰκόνα can be confirmed by looking at the only other usage of εἰκών in Colossians. Commentators generally recognize that the word εἰκών in 3:10 is related to 1:15, where Jesus is called the εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ (“image of God”).[40] The use of εἰκών in both 1:15 and 3:10 is an allusion to Genesis 1:26–27. In fact, it is likely that Paul consciously lifted the prepositional phrase κατ’ εἰκόνα in Colossians 3:10 directly from Genesis 1:26, which says: καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν (“And God said, ‘Let us make man according to our image’ ”). Thus, in Colossians 1:15 and 3:10, Paul used the word εἰκών to depict Jesus as the image of God and a new Adam.[41]

Furthermore, in Colossians the word εἰκών also carries the connotation of divine wisdom. Colossians 1:15–20 contains the so-called “Colossian Hymn,” and the first half of the hymn (1:15–17) describes Jesus as follows: “who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because by him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him; and he is before all things and all things hold together in him.”

In recent years, scholars have generally recognized that the language employed in the first half of the hymn is strikingly similar to the descriptions of divine wisdom in other Jewish literature from the late Second Temple period.[42] Apparently, the author of this hymn intended to describe Jesus by using terminology normally applied to God’s wisdom. Thus, like God’s wisdom, Jesus is the image of God (Col 1:15; Wis 7:26) and the firstborn of creation (Col 1:15; Prov 8:22–23). Both Jesus and divine wisdom existed before creation (Col 1:15, 17; Prov 8:22–31; Sir 1:4; 24:1–9; Wis 9:9), and both served as God’s agent through whom he created everything (Col 1:16; Prov 3:19; 8:27–31; Jer 10:12; Wis 7:22; 8:6; 9:2). In addition, both Jesus and divine wisdom are the means by which God holds together and brings order to the universe (Col 1:17; Sir 43:26; Wis 1:7; 7:22–27; 8:1).[43]

The word εἰκών has a double connotation in Colossians. It is a reference to Adam as the image of God, and it is also a reference to God’s divine wisdom.[44] Thus, Jesus, as the εἰκών of God, is both a new Adam and the fullness of divine wisdom. This has tremendous bearing on the proper interpretation of κατ’ εἰκόνα in Colossians 3:10. In this passage, Paul tells the Colossian believers that their minds (i.e., the new man) are being renewed unto a state of knowledge that is in accordance with Jesus, the image of God, who is the fullness of wisdom and knowledge. In other words, through the progressive renewal of their minds, the Colossian believers grow in wisdom and knowledge until they are conformed to Jesus, who is the archetype of God’s wisdom.

The final words in verse 10, τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν, are relatively easy to interpret. The substantival participle, τοῦ κτίσαντος, refers to God as creator,[45] and the pronoun, αὐτόν, refers back to τὸν νέον (“the new [man]”).[46] So, τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν (“the one who created him”) means “the one who created the new man.”

Summary

At this point it will be helpful to provide a periphrastic translation of Colossians 3:9–10 that takes into account the observations made above: “Do not lie to one another since you have put off the old man together with his practices and have put on the new man, the one who is being renewed unto a state of knowledge that accords with the image of the one who created him [i.e., the new man].”

In this sentence Paul asserts that the Colossian believers have cast off the old man (i.e., the mind of the old Adam) and they have put on a new man (i.e., the mind of the new Adam). Furthermore, he states that the new man is being progressively renewed unto a state of knowledge that accords with Jesus, who is the image of God. Earlier in Colossians, Paul described Jesus as the embodiment and fullness of divine wisdom (1:15–17; 2:2–3, 9). In 3:10 he tells the Colossian believers that they are being renewed in their minds unto the same state of knowledge that characterizes Jesus as the image of God.

Paul’s thought process in 3:9–10 seems strange to most modern readers of the Bible who are primarily acquainted with the creation account in Genesis 1–3. In Genesis the image of God is not associated with wisdom or knowledge, nor does Genesis say that Adam possessed special wisdom at the time of his creation. Quite the contrary. Genesis 2–3 indicates that Adam and Eve were cursed because they sought after the knowledge of good and evil. However, as will be demonstrated in the next section, there was another creation tradition prevalent in the Second Temple period that explains the reasoning behind Paul’s thought.

Creation, Wisdom, And The Image Of God In Early Judaism

In recent years, scholars have increasingly recognized that diverse creation traditions existed in ancient Israel.[47] Remnants of these traditions can be found in the Psalms, Job, Ezekiel, the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 6–36), and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. While these creation traditions are varied and often fragmentary, it is clear they differ in substantial ways from the Genesis narrative. Thus, it is apparent that Jews in the Second Temple period did not have a single, universally accepted conception about creation.

One ancient creation tradition is particularly relevant for a proper understanding of Colossians 3:9–10. At least as early as the Persian period, some Jewish writers held the view that God initially created the primordial man with special wisdom, and it was his wisdom that made the first man superior to other earthly creatures. The idea that the primordial man was created with divine wisdom is attested in extrabiblical ancient Near Eastern texts,[48] and it is evident in Old Testament passages such as 1 Kings 3:1–14, Job 15:7–8, and Ezekiel 28:12–19. This view continued in Judaism well into the late Roman period. Examples can be found in Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan texts as late as the fourth century AD.[49] The examples below are not exhaustive but intended to illustrate that this tradition was well-known and widely attested in the late Second Temple period.

Meditation On Creation C

The first source to be considered is a document known as Meditation on Creation C (4Q305), which was discovered at Qumran.[50] Although the text is very fragmentary, it is pertinent because it unequivocally asserts that God gave knowledge to Adam at the time of his creation. The relevant portion (4Q305 II, 1–3) states:

(1) and he created in it animals [. . .	ויברא בו חיות[ . . .
(2) he gave to Adam knowled[ge . . .	נתן לאדם דע[ת . . .
(3) and evil[ ] to know [. . . .	ור֗ע֗[ ]לד֗ע֗ת֗[ . . .

Line 1 is a summary of Genesis 2:18–19, which describes how God brought all of the animals to Adam so that he could name them. The narrative continues in line 2 by stating that God gave knowledge to Adam. Since line 2 is most likely related to the events in line 1, it is reasonable to conclude that the knowledge that God gave to Adam was the knowledge necessary to name the animals (cf. Gen 2:19–20). According to later Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions, Adam exhibited his profound knowledge by naming all of the animals.[51] Although line 3 is very broken, its proximity to line 2 and its use of the words רע (“evil”) and דעת (“to know”) suggest that line 3 is describing the nature of the knowledge that God gave to Adam.[52] Thus, the original, undamaged text of Meditation on Creation C probably stated that God gave to Adam the knowl-edge of good and evil, and it was this knowledge that enabled Adam to know the names of the animals. This contradicts the account in Genesis 2–3, but, as will be seen below, other Jewish texts declare that God created Adam with the knowledge of good and evil.

Words Of The Luminaries

Another text discovered at Qumran, the Words of the Luminaries,[53] goes a step further than Meditation on Creation C. In the Words of the Luminaries, God’s gift of knowledge is directly associated with Adam’s status as the image of God. The relevant section of the text (4Q504 8 recto 4–7) states:

(4) . . . אדם א]ב֗י֯נו֯ יצרתה בדמות כבוד֯[כה . . .

(5) . . . נשמת חיים נ]פ֯ח֯תה באפו ובינה ודעת [מלאתה אותו . . .

(6) . . . בג]ן֯ עדן אשר נטעתה המשלת֯[ה אותו . . .

(7) . . . ]○ם ולתהלך בארץ כב֗וד א○[ . . .

(4) . . . Adam,] our [fat]her, you fashioned in the image of [your] glory [ . . .

(5) . . . the breath of life] you [b]lew into his nostril, and [you filled him with] understanding and knowledge [ . . .

(6) . . . in the gar]den of Eden which you planted. You gave [him] dominion[ . . .

(7) . . . ] and to walk in a glorious land [ . . .

The author of the Words of the Luminaries merged elements from Genesis 1:26–28 and 2:7–8 to create a new narrative. According to this new narrative, God created Adam in his glorious image at the very moment when he breathed into his nostrils.[54] Furthermore, as line 5 states, when God breathed into Adam, he filled him with understanding and knowledge.[55] The author apparently interpreted Genesis 2:7 to mean that God imparted knowledge to Adam at the moment when he breathed into him.[56]

In the Words of the Luminaries three creation events are merged into one: the formation of Adam in God’s image, God breathing into the first man, and God’s bestowal of knowledge and understanding. For the author, these three events were one and the same.[57] The Words of the Luminaries is far from alone in this interpretation. The same concept is in other texts like Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the writings of Philo of Alexandria.

Sirach

In Sirach 17:1–7, the sage states:

The Lord from the earth created humankind, and makes each person return to earth again. Limited days of life he gives them, with power over all things else on earth. He endows them with a strength that befits them; in God’s own image he made them. He puts the fear of humans in all flesh, and allows them power over beasts and birds. Discretion, with tongues and eyes and ears, and an understanding heart he gives them. With wisdom and knowledge he fills them; good and evil he shows them.[58]

In this passage Sirach combined elements from Genesis 1:26–28 and 2:7–9 to narrate the creation of humanity. Verses 3–4 state that God made humankind in his image, and he gave them power to rule over the creation (cf. Gen 1:26–28). Then, verses 6–7 continue by saying that God gave wisdom to humanity.[59] He endowed humans with physical sensation and an understanding mind/heart (v. 6). God also filled them with wisdom and knowledge, and he showed[60] them good and evil (v. 7).[61] Although Sirach does not explicitly state how God granted this knowledge to humanity, the verb ἐμπίπλημι (“to fill”) in verse 7 seems to allude to God filling the first man with his breath in Genesis 2:7. Thus, in Sirach’s view, God endowed the first humans with wisdom and knowledge when he breathed into them.

As with the Words of the Luminaries, Sirach merged three creation events into one: the formation of humanity in the image of God, God breathing into the first man, and God’s bestowal of wisdom and knowledge. The authors of both texts believed that God endowed the primordial man with knowledge when he breathed into him, and they both associated the man’s knowledge or wisdom with his status as God’s image. The same associations between wisdom, the image of God, and the breath of God are also made in the Wisdom of Solomon and the writings of Philo of Alexandria.

Wisdom Of Solomon

In Wisdom of Solomon 7:25–26, the author describes God’s wisdom using concepts from the Genesis creation account and Hellenistic philosophy. The passage states, “For she is a breath of the power of God, and an emanation of the pure glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light, and a spotless mirror of the activity of God, and an image of his goodness.”[62] In this passage the author drew upon Genesis 1:26–27 and 2:7 to describe God’s wisdom as the image of God (“an image of his goodness”)[63] and the breath of God (“a breath of the power of God”).[64] A few chapters later, the text goes on to say that divine wisdom dwelt with Adam at the time of his creation: “She carefully guarded the first-formed father of the world, when he alone was created, and delivered him from his own transgression; she gave him strength to rule over all things” (Wis 10:1–2).[65] In the Wisdom of Solomon, God’s divine wisdom is associated with the image of God and the breath of God, and this divine wisdom was given to Adam at the time of his creation.

Philo Of Alexandria

Like the Wisdom of Solomon, Philo of Alexandria used an interpretive tradition that asserted God endowed the first man with wisdom and the divine image when God breathed his spirit into him.[66] According to Philo, after God formed the corporeal man from dust (i.e., the primordial Adam), he breathed his divine spirit into him (Opif. 134–35) and thus imbued him with a rational mind (Opif. 139; Leg. 1.39–42; Her. 55–57). The divine spirit that God breathed into Adam was in fact an image of God’s own rationality, which Philo frequently refers to as God’s λόγος (Plant. 18–20; Her. 230–36; Somn. 2.45).[67] Since God’s λόγος is the very image of God, Philo states that Adam’s rational mind was the image of the image of God (Plant. 44; Her. 231; Spec. 1.171, 3.207; QG. 2.62). When God breathed his spirit into Adam, he filled him with divine wisdom and a rational intellect, thus making Adam’s mind an image of God’s own mind (Opif. 145, 151).[68] As with the preceding examples, Philo had a concept of creation according to which God intentionally imbued the primordial man with wisdom at the time of his creation, and this wisdom made the first man an image of God.

Other Texts

In addition to the texts already discussed, several documents written after the Second Temple period declare God created the first man with wisdom and knowledge. Examples can be found in 2 Enoch 30:10–15, the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 12:36–43 (contained within the fourth century Apostolic Constitutions), the Samaritan work known as Memar Marqah (2.1, 8–9; 6.3), and several so-called gnostic texts (e.g., Orig. World, Ap. John, and Ap. Adam). Although these works originated in different time periods and geographical locations, they all contain the same basic belief that God endowed the first man with wisdom, and it was the first man’s divine wisdom that made him an image of God.

Summary

From the evidence surveyed above, it is clear that there was a widespread and well-known creation tradition in the Second Temple period, which differed in fundamental ways from the account in Genesis 1–3. Paul knew of this tradition, and he utilized it in order to persuade the Colossian believers that Jesus, as the image of God, is the fullness of wisdom. Moreover, they are progressively being conformed to the image of God as they grow in their knowledge of Christ. At this point, it is necessary to understand the circumstances surrounding Paul’s letter to the Colossians before examining his argument in Colossians 3:9–10.

Wisdom And The Colossian Heresy

For more than a century scholars have debated the particular problem, the so-called “Colossian heresy,” that Paul was addressing in his letter to the Colossians.[69] Numerous suggestions have been made over the years, and there is still no general consensus.[70] While it is far beyond the scope of this paper to address the specific nature of the Colossian heresy, some comments about its general contours are important for understanding 3:9–10.

Many scholars have observed that the Colossian heresy involved some kind of “philosophy” (φιλοσοφία, 2:8) that Paul opposed. While commentators vigorously debate about the precise background and nature of this philosophy, most scholars have agreed that one aspect of the philosophy had to do with the pursuit of wisdom. Apparently, the opponents claimed that they possessed or had access to special knowledge and wisdom.[71] This explains why the polemic in chapter 2 begins (2:3) and ends (2:23) with statements about the source of true wisdom and why wisdom and knowledge terminology is so prominent in the letter. The opponents claimed that wisdom is found in or acquired through what Paul calls “the traditions of men” (τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, 2:8) and “the elements of the world” (τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, v. 8). These traditions and elements were related to certain practices described in verses 16–22: dietary requirements, calendrical observances, a form of asceticism,[72] worship of the angels,[73] possibly some kind of revelatory experience,[74] and certain human precepts and teachings.

Paul’s opponents sought to overcome the “gratifications of the flesh” (πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός, v. 23) through human wisdom, regulations, and teachings. Apparently, the opponents believed that their wisdom and its associated practices would help them attain fullness and perfection.[75] But Paul responded by saying that such things merely have the “appearance of wisdom” (λόγον . . . ἔχοντα σοφίας, v. 23). True wisdom, according to Paul, is only found in Christ. It is the wisdom available in Christ that would allow the Colossian believers to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord (1:9–10; 2:6–7). Perfection and maturity are only possible through Jesus because he is the embodiment of wisdom (vv. 15–17), and in him are the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (v. 3).

Knowledge And The Restoration Of The Image Of God In Colossians 3:9–10

This study began with two questions related to the words τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ’ εἰκόνα in Colossians 3:10: (1) what did Paul mean by ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν (“renewed unto knowledge”) and (2) what does knowledge have to do with the image of God?

Paul’s opponents in Colossians 2 professed that they had access to special wisdom, which would lead them to fullness and perfection. Paul countered this by refuting their claim to possess wisdom and by asserting that Jesus is the source of true wisdom. Paul argued that whatever supposed wisdom the opponents possessed was not true wisdom. It had no value for overcoming the gratifications of the flesh (v. 23). The minds of the opponents were still alienated from God (1:21) and fleshly (2:18) because they had not put off the old man—the mind of the old Adam (3:9).

In chapter 3, Paul informs the believers that they are not like their opponents. They do not need human wisdom with its regulations, precepts, and teachings. They have died and been united with Christ, and they are able to set their minds on things above (vv. 1–3). In verses 9–10, Paul exhorts the believers not to lie to one another because they have put off the old mind and they have put on the new mind, which is ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ’ εἰκόνα (“being renewed unto knowledge according to the image”).

In verse 10, Paul utilized a popular and well-known Jewish creation tradition in order to portray Jesus as a new Adam—a perfect Adam—who is both the image of God (1:15; 3:10) and the fullness of divine wisdom (1:15–17; 2:3). Paul proclaims that Jesus is the archetype or supreme standard of wisdom, and only the wisdom found in Christ is able to bring people to perfection (1:28). Since the Colossian believers have access to Jesus and know him, they can obtain the wisdom and knowledge hidden in him. Furthermore, as they grow in their knowledge of Christ, their minds are progressively being renewed unto a state of wisdom and knowledge that resembles Jesus, the image of God. Thus, through the wisdom available in Christ, the Colossian believers are in the process of being perfected in wisdom, ultimately becoming images of God like Christ.

Notes

1. Throughout this article the author of the letter to the Colossians is referred to as “Paul,” although the letter’s authorship is highly debated. The true identity of the author has no significant bearing on the arguments presented here.
2. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are the author’s own translations.
3. N. T. Wright, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 137.
4. Wright, To theColossians and to Philemon, 139.
5. Wright is not alone in dissociating the terms “knowledge” and “image” in his discussion; many other commentators have done the same. See T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, International Critical Commentary (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1902), 284; F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 148; David E. Garland, The NIV Application Commentary: Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 207; Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 269–70.
6. James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 221–23. Following Dunn, Beale offers a similar interpretation. He argues that “knowledge” in Colossians 3:10 refers to the knowledge of God, which Adam and Eve once possessed in the Garden of Eden. However, Adam and Eve failed to act according to their knowledge because they were deceived by the serpent (just as the Colossian believers were in danger of being deceived by the false teachers). In verse 10, Paul tells the believers that they are being renewed unto a true knowledge of God which characterizes Jesus, the last Adam. See G. K. Beale, Colossians and Philemon, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 284.
7. Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, ed. Helmut Koester, trans. William R. Poehlmannand and Robert J. Karris, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 142–43.
8. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon, trans. John C. Moore, rev. and ed. William P. Dickson, American ed., (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1889), 352–53; Abbott, To the Ephesians and to the Colossians, 283–84; Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary 44 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 189; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 265–66; Dave Mathewson, “Verbal Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in Pauline Ethical Injunctions,” Filología Neotestamentaria 9.17 (1996): 34. Lohse, however, argues that the participles carry on the imperatival force of μὴ ψεύδεσθε at the beginning of verse 9 (Colossians and Philemon, 141).
9. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 189–90; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 266–67.
10. Elsewhere, Paul uses the language of “old man” and “new man” in Romans 6:6 and Ephesians 2:15; 4:22–24.
11. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 141; Wright, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 138; Dunn, To the Colossians and Philemon, 220–21. It should be noted, however, that there is no evidence for a ritual change of clothing at the time of baptism until the mid-second century AD (Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 267; Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 288).
12. Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 278.
13. The word ἐπίγνωσις is not used in Genesis 1–3, but the verb γινώσκω is used several times (Gen 2:17; 3:5, 7, 22) and the word γνωστός is used once in Genesis 2:9.
14. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 190; Bruce, To the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 147; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 268; Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 278–79.
15. Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. William Montgomery (New York: Macmillan, 1956), 296–97; Robert H. Gundry, Sōma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 29 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 135–37.
16. Cf. 1 Peter 3:4, ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίαςἄνθρωπος. Also, in Ephesians 3:16–17 the terms ἔσω ἄνθρωπος and καρδία are conceptually related.
17. Philo used language similar to Paul’s “inner man” to describe the νοῦς. Philo referred to the νοῦς as ἄνθρωποςἐνἀνθρώπῳ (Congr. 97) and τὸν ἐν ἡμῖν πρὸς ἀλήθειανἄνθρωπον (Plant. 42).
18. See C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 1:363; Gundry, Sōma in Biblical Theology, 137.
19. The association between the “new man” and the “mind” can also be observed in Ephesians 4:23–24, where the phrase ἀνανεοῦσθαι τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ νοὸς ὑμῶν (“to be renewed in the spirit of your mind”) is parallel with the phrase ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον (“to put on the new man”).
20. The meaning of “old man” in Colossians 3:9 is probably described in Colossians 2:18 where Paul mentions the τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς (“fleshly mind”) of those who were trying to lead the Colossian believers astray.
21. Many commentators have noted the similarity between Romans 13:14, Galatians 3:27, and Colossians 3:10 in that all three verses speak of putting something on. However, Lohse correctly observes that Colossians 3:10 differs from the other two. He states, “Col does not speak of putting on Christ like Gal 3:27 and Rom 13:14. Rather it exhorts to put on the ‘new man,’ who is formed according to the Creator’s ‘image’ (εἰκών) which, in fact, is Christ” (Colossians and Philemon, 142).
22. C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 119; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 268.
23. In Colossians 1:21 the word διάνοια is used instead of νοῦς, but the meaning is not substantially different.
24. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Epistles to the Corinthians, trans. D. Douglas Bannerman, rev. and ed. William P. Dickson, American ed. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 501–2; Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, International Critical Commentary (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1915), 135–37; George H. van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 232 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
25. Moule correctly notes the similarity between 2 Corinthians 4:16 and Colossians 3:10 (To the Colossians and to Philemon, 120).
26. NIV, ESV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, HCSB, NET, LEB.
27. Frederick W. Danker, et al., eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 289.1.a.δ.
28. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon, 291.9.
29. Danker, 290.4a–b.
30. Beale states that “the preposition here expresses either purpose or intended result.” Colossians and Philemon, 282n42.
31. Meyer, To the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon, 354. See also Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 269.
32. Garland states that the knowledge mentioned in verse 10 “comes as a byproduct [sic] of our renewal.” Colossians and Philemon, 207. This is quite the opposite of what Paul intended. Knowledge is not the by-product of renewal. Rather, it is the goal of renewal.
33. Throughout Colossians, wisdom and knowledge are associated with one’s conduct and behavior (1:9–10, 24–28; 2:2–3, 23; 3:9–10, 16–17; 4:5–6).
34. After conducting an exhaustive study of the uses of ἐπίγνωσις in the New Testament, Moule concludes that the word “is closely concerned with the knowledge of Christ and conformity to his likeness, which, in turn, is the substance of God’s self-revelation” (To the Colossians and to Philemon, 159–61).
35. Danker, A Greek–English Lexicon, 513.B.5.b.
36. See, for example, Abbott, The Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, 284; O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 191; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 269–70.
37. Meyer, To the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon, 354–55.
38. Meyer, 355.
39. Meyer writes, “Through the [renewal] there is to be produced a knowledge, which accords with the image of God” (Meyer, 354).
40. Moule, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 120; Wright, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 138; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 269–70.
41. Herman N. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 78–85; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 113–14; Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 80–86, 119–20.
42. Dunn has commented, perhaps somewhat hyperbolically, “Indeed, few issues in recent NT theology have commanded such unanimity of agreement as the source of the language and imagery used in these two passages [i.e., 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:15–20]. By common consent, it was drawn from earlier Jewish reflection on divine Wisdom.” James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 269. See also Moule, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 58; O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 37–40; Bruce, To the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 56; Wright, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 66–68; Dunn, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 87–94; Jeffrey S. Lamp, “Wisdom in Col 1:15–20: Contribution and Significance,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41.1 (1998): 45–53.
43. The notion that Jesus and divine wisdom bring order and cohesion to God’s creation is borrowed from Greek philosophy. See C. John Collins, “Colossians 1, 17 ‘Hold Together’: A Co-opted Term,” Biblica 95.1 (2014): 64–87.
44. Moo rightly observes that Colossians 1:15–20 utilizes both Adam and wisdom as typological figures (To the Colossians and to Philemon, 113–14). On the integration of Adam and wisdom themes in Colossians 1:15–20, see Dave Steenburg, “The Worship of Adam and Christ as the Image of God,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 12.39 (1990): 101–6; Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 123–24.
45. Although some earlier interpreters (most notably Chrysostom) read τοῦκτίσαντος as a reference to Jesus, such a reading would make no sense in the context if εἰκόνα also refers to Jesus. Moreover, in the New Testament, God, not Jesus, is always referred to as the creator. See Meyer, To the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon, 355.
46. The masculine pronoun αὐτόν refers to the masculine adjective νέον, not the feminine noun εἰκόνα.
47. John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); Yair Hoffman, “The First Creation Story: Canonical and Diachronic Aspects,” in Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 319 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 32–53. See also David J. A. Cline, “Varieties of Creation in the Bible,” New Directions in Cosmology Conference, St. John’s College, Durham University, January 10, 2013, video of lecture, http://www.academia.edu/2381241/Varieties_of_Creation_in_the_Bible.
48. E.g., the myth of Adapa (Adapa and the South Wind), the story of Oannes in Berossus’s Babyloniaca, the Enuma Elish, and the Epic of Gilgamesh.
49. For a more detailed discussion of this creation tradition, see Eric R. Montgomery, “ ‘He Gave to Adam Knowledge’: A Competing Creation Tradition in Early Judaism and Early Christianity,” Journal of Theological Studies 72.2 (2021): 676–708.
50. Torleif Elgvin et al., Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 20 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 157–58.
51. See Ecclesiastes Rabbah 8:2–3; Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 3.21; Qur’an 2.30–31.
52. The word טוֹב (“good”) may have been written at the end of line 2, which is no longer extant.
53. Maurice Baillet, ed., Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 7 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 137–75.
54. It was not uncommon for ancient Jewish interpreters to read Genesis 1:26–27 together with 2:7. Examples can be found in 4Q381 (4QNon-Canonical Psalms B) 1, 7; Life of Adam and Eve 13:1–3; Pseudo-Phocylides 105–8. See also Jarl Fossum, “Gen. 1, 26 and 2, 7 in Judaism, Samaritanism, and Gnosticism,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 16.2 (1985): 202–39; Gregory E. Sterling, “ ‘Wisdom among the Perfect’: Creation Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian Christianity,” Novum Testamentum 37.4 (1995): 355–84.
55. Although the beginning and end of line 5 are no longer extant, the waw conjunction indicates complementary parallelism between the first half of line 5 (the act of God breathing into the man) and the second half of line 5 (the understanding and knowledge). Even though the words מלאתהאותו (“you filled him”) must be reconstructed in 5b, the parallelism with 5a supports the interpretation that God gave “understanding and knowledge” when he breathed into Adam.
56. The idea that God’s breath could impart wisdom or knowledge is the result of a conflation of ideas. First, God’s breath in Genesis 2:7 (נִשְׁמַתחַיִּים) was equated with his רוחַ. In several passages God is said to have breathed his רוּחַ into the human being (Gen 7:22; Job 33:4; 34:14; Isa 42:5). In late Second Temple Judaism it was widely believed that God breathed his “spirit” (רוּחַ or πνεῦμα) into Adam (e.g., Wis 15:11; Philo, Opif. 135; Leg. 1.33, 36–37; 3.161; Det. 80; Plant. 18–19; Her. 55–57; Spec. 4.123; Josephus, Ant. 1.34). Second, the spirit that God breathed into Adam was associated with the spirit of God which, in other contexts, is known to grant special knowledge and wisdom to people (e.g., Exod 31:3; Isa 11:2; Dan 5:12). On the spirit of God as a giver of wisdom, see John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 34–86. Based on these intertextual connections, Jewish interpreters deduced the idea that God breathed his divine spirit into Adam, which filled the first man with wisdom and knowledge. Such an interpretation is evident in Job 32:8: “But truly it is the spirit in a mortal, the breath of the Almighty, that makes for understanding.”
57. John Collins, “Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 299–300.
58. Translation from Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, The Anchor Bible 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 276–77.
59. Verse 5 is a late interpolation into the text.
60. Skehan and Di Lella translate verse 7b as: “good and evil he shows them” (καὶἀγαθὰ καὶ κακὰ ὑπέδειξεν αὐτοῖς). In this verse, the verb ὑποδείκνυμι probably has the connotation of divine revelation (i.e., “good and evil he revealed/made known to them”). The same verb is used in verse 12b, which alludes to the Sinai theophany when God revealed his decrees to Moses. Elsewhere in Sirach, the verb ὑποδείκνυμι is normally used in a context dealing with divine or prophetic revelation (Sir 3:23; 14:12; 46:20; 48:25; 49:8).
61. These two clauses in verse 7 should be understood as complementary parallelism. The knowledge of good and evil (v. 7b) explains in more detail the kind of wisdom and knowledge that God gave to humanity (v. 7a).
62. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
63. In Wisdom of Solomon 2:23, the author also associates divine wisdom and the image of God. He writes, “Because God created human beings for incorruption and made them the image of his own nature.” Here the author equates the image of God in Genesis 1:26–27 with incorruptibility (ἀφθαρσία). Elsewhere in the Wisdom of Solomon, God’s wisdom is responsible for producing such incorruptibility (ἀφθαρσία, Wis 6:18–19) or immortality (ἀθανασία, Wis 8:13, 17; 15:3). Thus, it was divine wisdom that made the first humans incorruptible images of God.
64. In Wisdom of Solomon 1:6 and 9:17 the author refers to God’s wisdom as a “spirit” (πνεῦμα) or the “holy spirit” (τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα).
65. In Wisdom of Solomon 10:1–2, divine wisdom is associated with the creation mandate in Genesis 1:28. It was God’s wisdom that enabled Adam to rule as a king over the creation.
66. Philo’s anthropology is complex and multifaceted. For a more thorough discussion of the creation of man in Philo, see A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Philo’s ‘Heavenly Man,’ ” Novum Testamentum 15.4 (1973): 301–26; Thomas H. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 14 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983); Jonathan D. Worthington, Creation in Paul and Philo: The Beginning and Before, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.317 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 138–51, 164–72.
67. S. Vernon McCasland, “ ‘The Image of God’ according to Paul,” Journal of Biblical Literature 69.2 (1950): 92–93; Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, 3rd rev. ed., 2 vols., Structure and Growth of Philosophic Systems from Plato to Spinoza (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962), 1.389–95.
68. In commenting on Philo’s interpretation of Genesis 1:26–27 and 2:7, Sterling remarks, “For Philo . . . the image of God is what is breathed into the face of humanity” (“Wisdom among the Perfect,” 364). He also describes Philo’s interpretation of Genesis 1:26–27 and 2:7 as follows: “It is thus our rational capacity which God breathes into us. It therefore does not matter whether we speak of εἰκών or πνεῦμα since both refer to the rational capacity of humanity” (Sterling, 365).
69. A small minority of scholars have doubted whether a specific heresy or group of opponents was being addressed in Colossians. See, for example, Morna D. Hooker, “Were There False Teachers in Colossae?” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, ed. Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 315–31. However, after surveying a century of scholarship on the Colossian heresy, DeMaris plainly states, “The vast majority of scholars are convinced that the author is combating opponents or a well-defined faction in the Colossian community, or that at the very least he has in mind an established set of beliefs and practices that he finds objectionable and that warrant his opposition.” See Richard E. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy: Wisdom in Dispute at Colossae, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 96 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 39.
70. For a survey of opinions, see J. J. Gunther, St. Paul’s Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 35 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 3–4; Fred O. Francis and Wayne A. Meeks, trans. and eds., Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies, rev. ed., Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study 4 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975); DeMaris, Colossian Controversy, 11–40.
71. The exact nature of this knowledge or wisdom and how the opponents acquired it are not pertinent to the present argument. These questions are related to the much-debated background of the Colossian heresy.
72. The word ταπεινοφροσύνη is used twice in Colossians 2, in verses 18 and 23 (the word occurs one other time in the letter in 3:12). The meaning in verse 18 is not explicit, but in verse 23 the word ταπεινοφροσύνη is related to ἀφειδίᾳσώματος, (“deprivation of the body”). This suggests that ταπεινοφροσύνη in chapter 2 indicates a form of bodily asceticism.
73. The meaning of θρησκείᾳτῶνἀγγέλων in verse 18 is highly debated. Three problematic issues are: (1) the meaning of θρησκεία, (2) which ἄγγελοι Paul had in mind, and (3) whether τῶνἀγγέλων is a subjective or objective genitive.
74. Again, the meaning of the phrase ἃ ἑόρακεν ἐμβατεύων in verse 18 is debated. It might refer to a revelatory experience, or it could simply mean “which he has seen upon close scrutiny.” See DeMaris, Colossian Controversy, 63–66.
75. Most likely Paul used the terms πληρόω (1:9; 2:10), πλήρωμα (1:19; 2:9), πληροφορία (2:2), πληροφορέω (4:12), and τέλειος (1:28; 4:12) in response to the claims made by his opponents (Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 78, 173; Moo, To the Colossians and to Philemon, 93).

Three Feasts And A Triadic Macrostructure In John

By Jeffrey A. Dukeman

[Jeffrey A. Dukeman is Pastor at St. Matthew Lutheran Church, Gulfport, Mississippi, and Adjunct Professor at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.]

Abstract

This article argues for a triadic macrostructure based on the three feasts mentioned in John, as well as terminological, thematic, and structural indicators. It concludes that three main sections make up the Gospel: 1–5 (Passover), 6:1–12:11 (Tabernacles), and 12:12–21:25 (Hanukkah).

* * *

Introduction

Scholars have achieved little consensus regarding the macrostructure of the Gospel of John. Beutler, in his commentary, summarizes some of the recent major proposals.[1] According to Beutler, one commonly proposed structure is based on Bultmann’s thematic view and sees chapters 2–12 as “the book of signs” and chapters 13–20 as “the book of glory” with chapter 1 as an introduction and chapter 21 as an epilogue or supplement. Scholars also note a “cycle of feasts” near the middle of John, which Beutler finds helpful because it draws on thematic, spatial, and temporal elements in the text. Typically these proposals include at least a one-year cycle of feasts that moves from Passover (6:4), to Tabernacles (7:2), to Hanukkah (10:22), and back to Passover (11:55).[2] Another common method for structuring John involves the journeys of Jesus to Jerusalem. For example, Segovia argues for four cycles of journeys that each end in Jerusalem in 1:19–3:36, 4:1–5:47, 6:1–10:42, and 11:1–17:26.[3] Beutler argues that a weakness of these journey proposals is they do not sufficiently account for the feasts, although Beutler himself argues the journey and feast themes should be combined since Jesus journeys to Jerusalem for the feasts. Finally, Beutler notes in recent years it has become more common to combine various formal and thematic criteria in trying to discover the structure of John.

This article proposes that the Gospel has a triadic macrostructure consisting of three sections integrally connected to the three great Jewish feasts mentioned in John.[4] It will argue 1–5, 6:1–12:11, and 12:12–21:25 constitute these three sections with Passover, Tabernacles, and Hanukkah, respectively, as the predominant festivals.[5] In what follows I will examine each of the three proposed sections of John and its proposed corresponding festival, dividing each section into three smaller, generally well-recognized subsections to aid the discussion.

The First Section Of John And Passover

This section will argue chapters 1–5 form a distinct section in John with Passover as the predominant festival. Various terminological, thematic, and structural arguments support this.

John 1

Jesus being called “the Lamb of God” (ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ) in 1:29, 36 (the only occurrences of this phrase in John) likely connects with the Passover. Porter notes that scholars typically see Jesus bearing some resemblance to the Passover Lamb here.[6] Porter further argues that perhaps more important to establishing the Passover theme in John 1 is that Jesus “takes away the sin of the world” (ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου, v. 29).[7] Porter also indicates that some notable scholars connect the imagery in 1:29, 36 with later parts of John, like 19:31–37, and argue for a Passover theme in this way as well.

Given that commentators regularly recognize the Passover Lamb in chapter 1, this raises the question of whether Passover is present throughout the chapter. Wheaton lists numerous scholars who see references to the Exodus in 1:14–18, which would also suggest connotations of the Passover.[8] With a similar emphasis on beginnings, Porter, in his discussion of the Lamb of God in chapter 1, notes the significance of these references appearing “in concentrated fashion at a crucial initiatory point in the narrative, marking the Gospel’s, as well as John the Baptist’s, introduction of Jesus and the commencement of Jesus’s ministry.”[9] Porter’s discussion opens up other possibilities for finding Passover themes in chapter 1. For example, the initiatory position of the Lamb of God references brings to mind that Passover inaugurated the Jewish year, the Exodus marked the beginning of Jewish existence as an independent nation, and ultimately God the Creator initiated the Exodus.[10] God as Creator is also a major theme in the prologue, especially in 1:1–5. When considering Passover in connection with God as Creator, the centrality of water is evident both at the world’s creation and the parting of the Red Sea. Thus, the passages in chapter 1 dealing with the related terms of water (1:26, 31, 33), baptizing (1:25–26, 28, 31, 33), and John the Baptist (1:6, 15, 19, 26, 28, 32, 35, 40) arguably tie to Passover.[11]

John 2–4

While John 1 alludes to Passover, chapters 2–4 explicitly mention Passover repeatedly, and Passover occupies a central place in its structure. John 2:13 contains the first reference to Passover—the occasion for Jesus’s first journey to Jerusalem. Verse 23 mentions Passover again and associates it with signs (σημεῖα), a term reminiscent of the ten signs that Moses did in Egypt at the time of the institution of the Passover feast.[12] John explicitly connects Jesus’s first miracle in Cana, which is called a sign (2:11), with his second sign (4:54) of healing the official’s son and the Passover journey to Jerusalem (v. 54, further emphasizing the association of Passover with signs). The Passover journey to Jerusalem in chapters 2–4 forms a literary unit, with terms and themes at the beginning and end that form an inclusio.[13]

Besides these explicit references to Passover and its structural significance, water is prominent in chapters 2–4, similar to chapter 1. Fourteen of the total twenty-four occurrences of the term “water” (ὕδωρ) occur in chapters 2–4 (2:7, 9; 3:5, 23; 4:7, 10–11, 13–15, 46). Similarly, “baptize” (βαπτίζω) occurs six times in contexts where Jesus, John, or the disciples perform the act (3:22–23, 26; 4:1–2). Likewise John the Baptist’s name occurs six times in these passages (3:23–27; 4:1). These references to water recall Moses parting the Red Sea and the closely-associated feast of Passover.[14]

Besides these water-related themes, the references to signs in chapters 2–4 appear in contexts that recall the ten signs in Egypt and the Passover.[15] Jesus’s first sign in Cana (2:11) involved abundant water (v. 6). The sequence of events when Jesus cleansed the temple and was asked what sign he did to justify it (v. 18) occurred immediately after he departed for Jerusalem because Passover was at hand (v. 13). John 3:2 contains the next occurrence of the term “sign.” The Nicodemus account (vv. 1–21) could have Passover connotations: Nicodemus came to Jesus at night (the final three signs in Egypt involved darkness); Jesus was thought to come from God because of his signs (Pharaoh thought similarly of Moses in Exod 8:8, 28–29; 9:27–28; 10:16–17, 24; 12:31–32); Jesus immediately spoke to Nicodemus about new birth and water (and later Moses in John 3:14); and the conversation occurred while Jesus was in Jerusalem for Passover. The final two mentions of signs in John 2–4 pertain to the healing of the official’s son who was at the point of death. That account forms an inclusio with the beginning of the section and conceivably alludes to the final sign given to Pharaoh—the deaths of the firstborn sons of Egypt.

John 5

The Passover also seems to appear throughout John 5, beginning with the chapter’s placement in the narrative. Jesus’s Passover trip from Galilee to Jerusalem precedes chapter 5, and a reference to another Passover feast follows it at the beginning of chapter 6. The Passover surrounds chapter 5. In fact, this could be one of the reasons that 5:1 mentions an anonymous feast. By not naming the feast, the events of the feast can be more easily associated with Passover, even though it is probably not a Passover feast.

In chapter 5 water is also a prominent theme. The healing at the beginning of the chapter clearly involves water, as the location carefully specifies the presence of a pool (κολυμβήθρα, v. 2). The term “pool” is repeated in verse 7. Besides these references to water, the text mentions John the Baptist in verses 33 and 36. These two verses about John use forms of the term “testimony” (μαρτυρία), which connects them to the surrounding discussion that mentions and describes testimony (5:31–32, 34) in such a way that the themes of water and Passover further permeate the chapter.

Finally, various indicators suggest that chapter 5 makes an inclusio with chapter 1. The explicit mention of water (ὕδωρ) in 5:7 makes twenty-one total instances up to that point in John, with only three instances (7:38; 13:5; 19:34) remaining outside of chapters 1–5, including none in chapter 6, despite Jesus walking on the sea (6:16–21).[16] Similarly, John the Baptist’s name occurs seventeen times in chapters 1–5 and only twice elsewhere (10:41–42). The two mentions of John’s name in 5:33, 36 are placed in the context of Jesus’s testimony and light being greater than John’s. This recalls the numerous references to John the Baptist in chapter 1, which also refers to Jesus’s testimony and light being greater than John’s (1:6–9, 19–27).[17] The water-related themes connected to Passover suggest that chapters 1–5 form a distinct section.

Summary Of The First Section Of John And Passover

This section has argued chapters 1–5 form a unit in the Gospel with Passover as its predominant festival. The term “Passover” occurs in 2:13, 23 and is the only feast explicitly mentioned in the section. Furthermore, various allusions to Passover appear, such as Jesus twice being called “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” and abundant references to water and water-related phenomena like God’s creation of the world, the Exodus, John the Baptist, baptizing, and a pool.

The Middle Section Of John And Tabernacles

This section argues that 6:1–12:11, as a cycle of feasts, forms a distinct section of John. Whereas chapters 1–5 focus on Passover, 6:1–12:11 is primarily concerned with Tabernacles. Various terminological, thematic, and structural arguments support this.

John 6

Numerous scholars have seen a cycle of feasts present in the middle of the Gospel, typically beginning with chapter 5 or 6 and extending to the beginning of Holy Week in 12:11. The present article argues that this cycle of feasts begins with chapter 6. One reason for this is Passover, mentioned in 6:4, begins the Jewish calendar year and provides a natural starting point for a year-long cycle of feasts. The cycle of feasts then moves to Tabernacles (7:2) in the middle of the calendar and then to Hanukkah (10:22) at the end. John 6:1–12:11 constitutes a middle section, which is itself centered around the feast of Tabernacles, the predominant festival.

A simple way to consider the three feasts is by linking them to their prior history. Passover focuses on the departure from Egypt through the Red Sea, Tabernacles focuses on Israel’s time in the wilderness, and Hanukkah focuses on the promised land. With this said, the three feasts with their respective historical emphases clearly relate to each other. For example, the time in the wilderness required the Red Sea crossing and prepared the way for the promised land.[18] These things are important in considering John 6. The events of this chapter happened during the Passover feast (6:4). But in 6:31, 49 the wilderness (ἔρημος) is mentioned and refers to Israel’s time after the Red Sea crossing—a period for which Passover prepared the way but was more fully commemorated by Tabernacles.[19] Chapter 6, in emphasizing the wilderness, has Tabernacles as its predominant festival, and yet the events of the chapter take place in such a way that Tabernacles also recalls its precursor, Passover.

Besides explicit references to the wilderness, other details in chapter 6 relate to Israel’s time in the wilderness and in this way also relate to Tabernacles. Probably most prominent here is the theme of bread. The term ἄρτος (“bread”) appears nowhere in chapters 1–5 but appears twenty-one times in chapter 6, culminating in Jesus’s first great “I am” statement (“I am the bread of life,” ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς, 6:48).[20] In the chapter John connects bread to the wilderness (“manna in the wilderness,” vv. 31, 49). This bread has some connotations of Passover, such as God freeing his people before they were in the wilderness. But it has a closer connection to Tabernacles, which especially commemorates the time in the wilderness where God provided the manna. Besides the new theme of bread, in chapter 6 Jesus acts in a much more public way (6:2).[21] Jesus’s mentoring of his disciples features more prominently, as Jesus enlists his disciples to help him feed the five thousand and explains his actions in the process.[22] This public mentorship of the disciples seems to recall God teaching his people in the wilderness, such as at Mt. Sinai. Finally, amid Jesus’s mentoring of his disciples, both Jesus’s disciples and his opponents grumbled (γογγύζω) against him (6:41, 43, 61), recalling Israel’s grumbling in the wilderness and the related festival, Tabernacles.[23]

John 7:1–10:21

The beginning of chapter 7 repeatedly and explicitly mentions Tabernacles. After stating that Jesus would not travel in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill him, John records Tabernacles was at hand (v. 2). This ongoing resistance against Jesus is like the grumbling of Israel in the wilderness observed in chapter 6. When Jesus’s brothers wanted him to go to Jerusalem to celebrate Tabernacles (7:3–4), it reflected unbelief and improper timing (vv. 5–9). John records Jesus went to the feast privately (v. 10) and the Jews were looking for him at the feast (vv. 11–13). Around the middle of the feast, Jesus went into the temple and began preaching (v. 14). In this passage John repeatedly and explicitly mentions Tabernacles and ties it to the Tabernacles-related themes of resistance and grumbling (v. 32).

Verse 37 contains the last explicit reference to Tabernacles as it speaks of “the last day of the feast, the great day,” but this verse sets the stage for important Tabernacles themes. On these themes, Wheaton notes the following:

Scholarly treatment of this festival in John 7–8 typically focuses on the symbolic background of the water and light ceremonies in John 7:37–38 and 8:12, respectively. Representative of those of many commentators are the conclusions of Yee, who summarizes: “[Jesus] is the new temple from which the ‘rivers of living water’ will flow,” and in lieu of “the light of Tabernacles in the Jerusalem temple, Jesus becomes ‘the light of the world.’ ”[24]

Wheaton’s own discussion focuses on one aspect of the water rite. During the water rite the bronze altar would be struck with palms in memory of Moses striking the rock at Meribah to provide water for Israel (Exod 17:7). Here it should be noted that the Mosaic history recalled in John 7:37–38 and 8:12 occurred in the wilderness after the parting of the Red Sea, which shows continuity with the wilderness history and Tabernacles themes present in John 6.[25] As the section continues, the theme of light appears repeatedly as Jesus calls himself “the light of the world” (φῶς εἰμι τοῦ κόσμου) in 8:12 and 9:5. If the Mishnah accurately describes John’s time, the candlesticks measured seventy-five feet high in Jerusalem at the feast of Tabernacles. They would have cast spectacular light, a fitting reminder of God’s presence with his people in the wilderness through the pillar of fire and the tabernacle filled with his glory.[26] John’s narration of the last day of the feast of Tabernacles (7:37) emphasizes the Tabernacles water ritual (7:38–39) and light ritual (8:12; 9:5), which commemorated Israel’s time in the wilderness.

The question now arises whether the Tabernacles theme continues throughout 7:1–10:21. Beutler notes, “Research is increasingly establishing that the whole section John 7:1–10:42 is stamped and determined by this feast [Tabernacles].”[27] Beutler largely agrees that this extensive section connects to Jesus’s presence at Tabernacles but prefers to see the section as consisting of 7:1–10:21 since 10:22 mentions the feast of Hanukkah taking place.[28] The prominent light theme, demonstrated by Jesus calling himself the light of the world (8:12; 9:5), can reasonably be extended to the rest of chapter 9 since John closely associates sight with light (11:9–10). Jesus, in publicly giving the blind man sight, provided light to him who saw only darkness, while Jesus’s opponents simultaneously seemed to become darkened (9:40–41).[29] Finally, it should be noted that John, in the very last verse of this section (7:1–10:21), explicitly connects the Good Shepherd discourse (10:1–21) with the miracle Jesus performed in chapter 9: “These are not the words of one who is oppressed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” (10:21). Here the Good Shepherd imagery of John 10 seems to connect with themes such as light (for guidance) and mentoring, both of which fit with what God did for the Israelites in the wilderness, as argued above.

John 10:22–12:11

The feast of Hanukkah, mentioned in 10:22–39, should be briefly introduced before showing how Tabernacles is the predominant festival in 10:22–12:11. Wheaton summarizes scholarship on the significance of Hanukkah by noting two main themes that tend to be emphasized.[30] The first theme is Jesus’s consecreation (ἡγίασεν) by the Father in 10:36. This plays off the tradition where Judah Maccabee in 164 BCE consecrated the bronze altar of the temple that had been recaptured from the occupying Seleucids to prepare for resuming temple worship.[31] The second Hanukkah theme is the accusation of blasphemy against Jesus in verse 33, which parallels the accusation of blasphemy against the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes. Although Wheaton draws some fresh conclusions and tries to distinguish his own view, it relates closely to the previous scholarship that links Jesus being accused of blasphemy with his claim to deity.

While these two Hanukkah-related themes are present in verses 22–39, and likely throughout 10:22–12:11 to some extent, the Tabernacle feast persists as the predominant festival throughout 10:22–12:11.[32] This can be seen first by considering the structure of 10:22–12:11. The clearest structural element is the transition to Holy Week after 12:11. By bringing up Hanukkah in 10:22–39, John demonstrated how Tabernacles, as the middle feast, can show how the Jewish feasts relate to each other. Another important structural consideration is that while Jesus is at the feast of Hanukkah in 10:22–39, he continues the Good Shepherd discourse from the beginning of chapter 10 by mentioning sheep and repeating what he has just told his audience in the context of Tabernacles in 10:1–21.[33] Jesus is threatened with death not just because he claims to be divine (a Hanukkah theme) but because he accuses his listeners of being disobedient sheep, like those who wandered and grumbled in the wilderness at the time of Moses (a Tabernacles theme). The two themes are related to each other here in 10:25–30. Finally, John mainly designates miracles as signs (σημεῖα) in 1:1–12:11. This means that Holy Week, with its predominant Hanukkah theme, does not have signs emphasized to the extent, or at least in the manner, that they were earlier. Anticipating this, the events occurring at Hanukkah in 10:22–39 emphasize miraculous “works” (ἔργα) that Jesus had been doing (vv. 25, 32–33, 37–38). By repeatedly referring to works and nowhere mentioning signs, verses 22–39 seem to be distinguishing Hanukkah in some way. And yet, the following context in 10:41 also associates these works with signs, which places these works within the larger context of the signs of Tabernacles (e.g. 6:14; 9:16; 11:47) in the middle section of John (6:1–12:11).[34] John 10:22–12:11, while displaying some connections to Hanukkah, nevertheless is presented in such a way that the Tabernacles festival predominates.

Finally, various wilderness-related themes throughout 10:22–12:11 point to a predominant Tabernacles context. Light appears prominently again, both explicitly as a term (11:9–10) and metaphorically for Lazarus living (v. 37). This is reminiscent of chapter 9 where light appeared as a term and functioned as a metaphor for sight.[35] Furthermore, like the other miracles with wilderness-related themes in 6:1–12:11, the resurrection of Lazarus involved a public setting (11:31, 45–47; 12:9). This public setting affords an opportunity for Jesus to mentor disciples, whose crosses are connected with Jesus’s (11:1). A mentoring theme seems present in connection with Lazarus, who not only is raised to the light of life but also seems to progress in discipleship, having his life threatened due to his allegiance to Jesus (12:9–11). This reminds the audience of a similar occurrence with the man born blind (9:34–35). On the flip side, Jesus’s opponents seem to grow darker still as Jesus can no longer walk “openly” (παρρησίᾳ) but must walk in the wilderness (11:54).[36] These various wilderness-related themes suggest that Tabernacles is the predominant festival in 10:22–12:11.

Summary Of The Middle Section Of John And Tabernacles

This section has argued that 6:1–12:11 houses a distinct middle section in John’s Gospel with Tabernacles as its predominant festival. Whereas Passover and Hanukkah are each mentioned only once in this section, the Tabernacles feast is mentioned seven times. Furthermore, although the section contains certain Passover and Hanukkah ideas, a Tabernacles theme dominates, as seen in the wilderness-related elements like manna, grumbling, and water and light elements connected to the rituals of Tabernacles. Various structural elements indicate that 6:1–12:11 forms a distinct unit: (1) a distinct festival cycle of Jewish feasts from Passover to Hanukkah; (2) an abrupt transition from emphasizing water in chapters 1–5 to emphasizing bread in chapter 6; (3) the first of the great “I am” statements in chapter 6; and (4) the last of the great signs in 12:18, which sets apart Holy Week.

The Final Section Of John And Hanukkah

This section will argue that 12:12–21:25, the Holy Week, forms the third and final section of John and predominantly focuses on the festival of Hanukkah. Various terminological, thematic, and structural arguments will support this argument.

John 12:12–13:38

To establish Hanukkah’s place as the predominant feast during Holy Week, some comments on structure should first be made. In the book of signs (1:1–12:11), the word “glory” (δόξα) appears thirteen times and “glorify” (δοξάζω) four times. In Holy Week (12:12–21:25) “glory” appears six times and “glorify” appears nineteen times, despite Holy Week occupying only about a third of John. This suggests a special relationship between glory and Holy Week.[37] Holy Week also follows a narrative-discourse-narrative structure that perhaps matches the three-part movement from Passover to Tabernacles to Hanukkah in 6:1–12:11, as well as the threefold division for chapters 1–5 chosen for this article. Finally, Holy Week also coheres as a distinct unit due to its consistent setting in or near Jerusalem, with the exception of chapter 21, which could function as an epilogue.

Having briefly considered some initial structural matters, I will now address the festival terminology at the beginning of Holy Week. A question arises: Why should Holy Week have Hanukkah as its predominant festival when the Feast of Passover is explicitly mentioned (12:1)? To answer this, one must recognize that Passover never really arrives in John. Verse 1 uses the expression, “six days before the Passover.” Here the countdown has begun, yet it never reaches zero. The first verse in Holy Week says, “The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem” (v. 12). Significantly, the author does not specify the intended feast. The generic language leaves open the possibility that John intended the reader to think that Hanukkah was still being celebrated, or at least its after-effects. Verses 17–18 mention that the crowd present in Jerusalem was associated with Lazarus, and they witnessed the sign Jesus did for him. The crowd is thus linked to the past, with the most recent feast being Hanukkah (10:22). John 12:20 again mentions an unnamed feast and the presence of Greeks, quite fitting in the context of Hanukkah since it celebrated liberation from certain Greek forces. John 13:1 explicitly mentions Passover but includes the crucial qualifier that the event occurred “before the Feast of the Passover”; Passover still had not arrived. John 13:29 contains the final reference to a feast in this section, but John again does not name it.

Besides these generic references to feasts in this section, I will briefly consider two other related peculiarities in John’s presentation of Holy Week. First, John does not have a clear account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper but rather has the footwashing event and Jesus’s Farewell Discourse, setting it apart from the other Gospels.[38] Downplaying the Last Supper would make sense if John intended to deemphasize Passover (and its associated meal) in favor of Hanukkah. Second, John stands out among the Gospels by portraying the last day of Jesus’s life on the day before Passover, “the day of Preparation” (19:14, 31, 42), rather than on Passover.[39] This too would make sense if John meant to downplay the Passover in favor of Hanukkah. Thus, this discussion leaves open the possibility that although Holy Week deals with some details related to Passover, Hanukkah might provide the predominant festival in this section.

The two chief Hanukkah themes discussed earlier will provide the basis for the remainder of this article: consecration in a temple context and an emphasis on true deity against blasphemy. Bauckham clarifies the theme of consecration in connection with Hanukkah and the temple using three steps. In an Old Testament temple context, unclean (ἀκάθαρτος) things first had to be cleansed (καθαρίζειν) to become pure (καθαρός). Then profane things (κοινός or βέβηλος) had to be consecrated (ἁγιάζειν or ἁγίζειν) to become holy (ἅγιος). Finally an inauguration (ἐγκαίνια) took place when the item’s temple use began, which Bauckham identifies as the meaning of the term “Hanukkah” (חנכה or חנוכה).[40] In terms of Jesus’s life as presented in John, Jesus’s consecration in 10:36 correlates to the second step; the third step (inauguration) occurs at the cross.[41] In terms of the current section, 12:12–13:38, Bauckham claims that Jesus washing his disciples’ feet involved cleansing them. At a symbolic level, this was a purification from sin in connection with the forgiveness procured by Jesus’s death (13:10–11). This corresponds to the first of Bauckham’s three steps of consecration; so Hanukkah proves important for understanding the footwashing.[42] Glory also seems connected to the temple consecration. In 12:12–13:38 “glory” occurs three times, and “glorify” occurs ten times. These occurrences highlight that Jesus’s glory is imminent but not yet fully present. Coloe connects the theme of glory with the temple but does so somewhat differently than Bauckham.[43] For her, the true temple in John from the beginning is Jesus’s body, which involves various indwellings between God and people. This is reminiscent of the glory cloud indwelling the tabernacle in the Old Testament. This true temple of Jesus’s body underwent preparations to be destroyed through the cross before being raised on the third day. The mutual glorification of the Father and the Son also involves mutual indwelling in 13:31–32, making Coloe’s understanding of the connection between glory and the temple evident. In 12:12–13:38 the occurrences of the terms “glory” and “glorify” connect with the temple cleansing, a theme central to Hanukkah.[44]

John 14–17

John 14–17 contains Jesus’s Farewell Discourse, where he instructs his disciples about his coming work, which will enable their future role in the church. Jesus frames part of this instruction in terms of consecration, a theme this article connects to Hanukkah. For example, 15:2–3 refers not just to physical pruning (καθαίρει) of a vine but uses wordplay to refer to the disciples’ purification from sin by Jesus’s word to become clean (καθαροί).[45] This employs the same language used when Jesus cleansed his disciples’ feet (13:10–11). In both cases the cleansing corresponds to the first of the three stages of inaugurating the temple during Hanukkah. In the Farewell Discourse, Jesus not only cleanses his disciples but also consecrates them—the second stage of the temple inauguration. Thus, near the end of the sermon, Jesus, using the same root term for consecrate (ἁγιάζω) as 10:36, where the Father consecrated Jesus, said that he was consecrating himself so that his disciples might also be consecrated (17:17–19).[46] Bauckham notes numerous other verbal parallels between chapters 10 and 17 in connection with Hanukkah and argues that in chapter 17 Jesus consecrated himself as a sacrifice for the temple inauguration at the cross.[47]

Coloe helpfully discusses other passages in the Farewell Discourse related to the temple, which provides additional evidence for Hanukkah’s presence in this context. Coloe argues the Farewell Discourse deals chiefly with Jesus preparing to leave the disciples and how the disciples will experience God’s presence in the future.[48] Coloe summarizes one of her main arguments as follows,

Taken together, the two key phrases of 14:2—“in my Father’s house there are many dwellings,” and “I go to prepare a place for you”—show a uniquely Johannine concern with the temple, now reinterpreted in a radically new way as the household of God, where the divine presence dwells within the community of believers. When the disciples fail to understand Jesus’ words, his explanation leads into the promise of the Paraclete and an indication that the household of my Father will be prepared through the indwellings of the Father, Jesus, and Paraclete within the believer (14:17, 23, 25). In some way, the action of Jesus’ “going” to the Father, is simultaneously the action when he “prepares/builds” the “place” (temple) for the disciples. The Father's house will no longer be a construction of stones, but will be a household of many interpersonal relationships, many dwellings, where the Divine Presence can dwell within believers.[49]

Flowing from Jesus’s description of the Father’s household with its many dwellings (μοναὶ, 14:2), Coloe connects the temple to Jesus’s body and his dwelling with his disciples, with the temple inauguration occurring at Jesus’s death (2:21).[50] In her argumentation, Coloe connects the temple and its associated interpersonal relationships to an abundance of passages in chapters 14–15 that use derivatives of the word “to dwell” (μένω) that stem from 14:2.[51] Hanukkah is evident in the Farewell Discourse both through the opening verses about the Father’s household with its dwelling places and through the related language permeating the discourse.

Besides the theme of the temple and its consecration, another way the Farewell Discourse shows Hanukkah as its predominant festival is through the theme of establishing deity, especially in light of charges of blasphemy. At the feast of Hanukkah in 10:30–31, Jesus’s opponents prepared to stone Jesus because he said, “I and the Father are one.” They said he was committing “blasphemy” (βλασφημίας) for “making himself God” (ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν, 10:33; see also v. 36). Then they attempted to arrest Jesus again when he said, “The Father is in me and I am in the Father” (vv. 38–39). The Farewell Discourse contains various statements where Jesus similarly asserted his deity, such as when Jesus said not just to believe in God but also to believe in himself (14:1). In 14:10–12, in a context where others asked Jesus to prove himself (14:8–10), he used almost identical language as at the Hanukkah Feast in 10:38, saying twice, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” Here Jesus even appealed to his works (14:11) similarly to 10:32, 37. A few verses later Jesus used similar language but modified it to include a reference to his disciples, saying, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you” (14:20). The language in chapter 17 is similar. Near the beginning of his prayer, Jesus said that he shared glory with the Father before the world existed (v. 5). Verse 11 recalls the deity-associated language of 10:30 as Jesus prayed to the Father that the disciples “may be one, even as we are one.” John 17:21–22 again contains language reminiscent of Jesus’s words at the Hanukkah feast dealing with both unity (10:30) and indwelling (10:38). Jesus prayed

that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one (17:21–23).

Finally, the prayer’s conclusion in chapter 17 may make an inclusio with the beginning of the Farewell Discourse, emphasizing Jesus’s deity as Jesus spoke of the Father loving him before the foundation of the world and prayed that this love and Jesus himself might dwell in all who would believe.[52] The Farewell Discourse emphasizes Jesus’s deity in a similar way as occurred at the Hanukkah feast in 10:22–39, and in this way, it connects with Hanukkah.

John 18–21

In various ways the passion narrative emphasizes the deity of Jesus—one of the two main themes associated with Hanukkah. I will briefly discuss two primary examples. Before doing so, it should be noted from the Hanukkah feast in 10:22–39 that Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy because he said, “I am the Son of the God” (υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι, 10:36). This expression may contain a version of the divine name: “I am” (εγώ εἰμι, see Exod 3:14). In Jesus’s arrest in John 18:1–11 it is almost as if a battle takes place between Jesus and “a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees” (18:3).[53] When these soldiers and officers asked about Jesus’s identity, he replied with the divine name “I am” (v. 5). The Johannine narrative repeats that Jesus said “I am” (v. 6), causing the soldiers to draw back and fall to the ground. Following this Jesus repeats the divine name in verse 8 and orders his adversaries to let his disciples go. Although this account does not include the phrase “I am the Son of God” that Jesus spoke at Hanukkah in 10:36, the phrase “I am” appears three times and seemingly demonstrates the deity of Jesus.[54]

The second account that emphasizes Jesus’s deity comes from Jesus’s trial before Pilate (19:7–11). The Jews tried to have Jesus crucified “because he has made himself the Son of God” (ὅτι υἱὸν θεοῦ ἑαυτὸν ἐποίησεν, 19:7). These words recall the accusation that Jesus was claiming to be God during the Hanukkah feast in 10:33–36. Similar to Jesus’s arrest where the divine name drives back his opponents, after Pilate hears that Jesus has made himself the Son of God, Pilate “was even more afraid” (19:8) and brought Jesus into his headquarters for a second private conversation. Jesus declared Pilate “would have no authority over [him] at all, unless it had been given from above” (v. 11). This passage asserts Jesus’s deity by illustrating the power of the divine name, “Son of God.” Similarly, the passage vindicates Jesus from the charge of blasphemy associated with this name in accordance with the Hanukkah feast (10:38) and suggests his opponents are guilty of blasphemy.[55]

Besides the emphasis on Jesus’s deity, the passion narrative also emphasizes another theme related to Hanukkah, the consecration and inauguration of the temple. I will briefly summarize two of Coloe’s interpretations.[56] Coloe argues that only two main features appear unique to the Johannine crucifixion account: the title above Jesus’s head (19:19) and the scene with Mary and the beloved disciple (vv. 25–30). Regarding the former, Coloe notes that the Johannine passion narrative repeatedly refers to Jesus as the “the Nazarene” (τὸν Ναζωραῖον, 18:5, 7; 19:19). Based on an association of the title Nazarene with the concept of a branch and in light of contemporary Jewish literature and biblical passages like Zechariah 6:11–13, Coloe argues the title Nazarene above the head of Jesus “is a reference to his messianic role as the builder of the eschatological temple.”[57] Regarding the latter unique feature of the Johannine passion narrative, although at crucifixion the temple of his body would be destroyed (John 2:19–21), Jesus was also raising a new one. The shape of this new temple appears in Coloe’s explanation of 19:25–30. Coloe summarizes this as follows,

These two phrases, “behold your son” and “behold your mother,” establish a new relationship between the disciple and the mother of Jesus, and in so doing they establish a new relationship between the disciple and Jesus. If the woman always called “the mother of Jesus” is presented also as the mother of the Beloved Disciple, then Jesus’ sonship is extended to embrace others; the disciple is adopted as Jesus’ brother/sister and therefore becomes a child of God (1:12).[58]

For Coloe, the cross inaugurates a new temple, not as a building but new relationships marked by dwelling together made possible through the temple of Jesus’s body. In these two ways Coloe argues Jesus inaugurates a new temple, a concept fitting with Hanukkah.

Summary Of The Final Section Of John And Hanukkah

This section has argued 12:12–21:25 forms a unit in John’s Gospel with Hanukkah as its predominant festival. Although the Johannine Holy Week nowhere explicitly mentions Hanukkah, the text points to it by downplaying Passover in such a way that Passover never seems to arrive, making the last feast celebrated Hanukkah (10:22–39). Furthermore, two main themes with connections to Hanukkah appear abundantly in 12:12–21:25. The first is Jesus’s cleansing and consecrating evident in the footwashing and the Farewell Discourse. This prepared the way for the new temple’s inauguration with its new relationships of dwelling together demonstrated by Jesus’s mother and the beloved disciple at the crucifixion. The second theme is the repeated assertion of Jesus’s deity, including when it was blasphemously questioned. Various structural elements also indicate 12:12–21:25 forms a distinct unit with Hanukkah as the predominant festival, such as the section occurring almost exclusively in Jerusalem and the section emphasizing glory in contrast to 1:1–12:11, which emphasizes signs.

Conclusion

This article has argued the Gospel of John contains three sections, each with a predominant festival: Passover, Tabernacles, and Hanukkah, respectively. The explicit festival terminology in John serves as support. Passover is mentioned twice (2:13, 23) in the first section of John 1–5. Tabernacles is mentioned repeatedly in the middle section of John 6:1–12:11. Hanukkah is the last celebrated feast in Holy Week, while Passover never really arrived. Various Johannine themes support the proposed three-part structure for John with accompanying festival emphases. The first section emphasizes water-related themes fitting for Passover. The middle section emphasizes wilderness-related themes fitting for Tabernacles. The final section emphasizes Jesus’s deity and temple-related themes fitting for Hanukkah. Various structural considerations also support the three-part structure and associated festivals. For example, chapters 1–5 are structured around a Passover journey to Jerusalem; 6:1–12:11 is structured around a festival cycle where the Tabernacles feast held the most prominent place; and 12:12–21:25 occurs almost entirely in Jerusalem, the central location for the events commemorated by Hanukkah.

These conclusions are important because recognizing structural indicators in a piece of literature can contribute immensely to understanding its meaning. This article only scratches the surface of seeing the Jewish feasts as central to John. Further research is needed for the first two parts of John and especially for examining the Hanukkah festival within the context of the Johannine Holy Week. Additional research should explore Johannine discipleship in light of John’s three sections and accompanying festivals.

Notes

1. Johannes Beutler, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 4–8.
2. The unnamed feast in 5:1 and, to a lesser extent, the Passover feast in 2:13 are sometimes also included in the cycle of feasts.
3. Fernando F. Segovia, “The Journey(s) of the Word of God: A Reading of the Plot of the Fourth Gospel,” Semeia 53 (1991): 37–45; see also Fernando F. Segovia, “The Journey(s) of Jesus to Jerusalem: Plotting and Gospel Intertextuality,” in John and the Synoptics, ed. Adelbert Denaux, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 101 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 535–41.
4. For a discussion of macrochiasm in general and in John in particular, see Wayne A. Brouwer, “The Chiastic Structure of the Farewell Discourse in the Fourth Gospel, Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 175.698 (2018): 195–214. For the Gospel of Luke having a generally triadic macrostructure with a travel narrative as the middle element, see Adelbert Denaux, “The Delineation of the Lukan Travel Narrative within the Overall Structure of the Gospel of Luke,” in Studies in the Gospel of Luke: Structure, Language and Theology (Berlin: LIT, 2010), 3–37. For a discussion of chiastic ring composition structure with an emphasis on a middle element in classical Greco-Roman literature and possible similarities in Luke and Acts, see Kenneth R. Wolfe, “The Chiastic Structure of Luke-Acts and Some Implications for Worship,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 22.2 (1980): 60–71. For a triadic macrostructure for the Old Testament as a whole, see Lester L. Grabbe, “The Law, the Prophets, and the Rest: The State of the Bible in Pre-Maccabean Times,” Dead Sea Discoveries 13.3 (2006): 319–38. For a triadic macrostructure in Matthew see Jeffrey A. Dukeman, Mutual Hierarchy: A New Approach to Social Trinitarianism (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019), 130–62.
5. While arguing that each of the three sections corresponds to a particular feast, I allow that the feasts relate to each other in such a way that all three feasts and their corresponding themes are present throughout the Gospel. Furthermore, al-though this article will focus on festival contexts, this does not deny that other factors could also provide a basis for the proposed macrostructure.
6. See the chapter, “Jesus, the Passover Theme, and John’s Gospel,” in Stanley E. Porter, John, His Gospel, and Jesus: In Pursuit of the Johannine Voice (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 198–224. Porter observes that commentators find Passover themes in the Gospel chiefly in chapters 1 and 19, while Porter himself finds Passover themes throughout John.
7. Translations of Scripture are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
8. Gerry Wheaton, The Role of Jewish Feasts in John’s Gospel, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 162 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 16.
9. Porter, John, His Gospel, and Jesus, 207.
10. For a discussion of the close relationship between the Exodus and God as Creator in the biblical narrative, see Terence E. Fretheim, “The Reclamation of Creation: Redemption and Law in Exodus,” Interpretation 45.4 (1991): 354–65.
11. See also 1 Corinthians 10:2, which connects baptism, water, and the Exodus.
12. Passover is instituted in Exodus 12:1–28 and 12:43–51; these two passages bracket the tenth sign and the narration of the Exodus in 12:29–42.
13. On the literary unity of John 2–4, see especially Wheaton, Role of Jewish Feasts, 52–54. “It is striking that so brief and carefully constructed a story as the wedding of Cana should contain so many words and themes that occur again only in chapters 3–4” (Wheaton, 53).
14. Wheaton, 61. Wheaton makes a connection between water, John the Baptist, baptizing, Cana, and Jesus’s words to Nicodemus.
15. For the significance of the ten plagues in Egypt referred to primarily as “signs” in Exodus, see Terence E. Fretheim, “The Plagues as Ecological Signs of Historical Disaster,” Journal of Biblical Literature 110.3 (1991): 385–96.
16. Contrast Matthew 14:28–29 and Luke 8:23, 25. Beutler notes Jesus’s sea miracle in John differs from its synoptic parallels by stressing the theophany rather than the power of Jesus over the wind and the waves. John, 170.
17. See also John 3:25–36. Similarly, chapters 1–4 contain eleven of the twelve occurrences of βαπτίζω, with the only other occurrence in 10:40.
18. See Edwin Reynolds, “The Feast of Tabernacles and the Book of Revelation,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 38.2 (2000): 248–49; and Wheaton, Role of Jewish Feasts, 128–9. See also Catherine Cory, “Wisdom’s Rescue: A New Reading of the Tabernacles Discourse (John 7:1–8:59),” Journal of Biblical Literature 116.1 (1997): 114–5.
19. Wheaton claims many scholars have noted John 6 and 7 deal with wilderness and new Exodus themes. Role of Jewish Feasts, 130.
20. Seven interconnected “I am” statements are often identified in John (6:35; 8:12; 10:9–11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:5).
21. Jesus’s encounter with Nicodemus in John 3 conspicuously involves only Jesus and Nicodemus. The case is similar with Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4, although the end of the story begins to open up to a wider audience. Similarly, the miracle in John 5 occurs in the relatively confined space of a pool.
22. Andreas J. Köstenberger argues that in John 6 Jesus is instructing the Twelve about the nature of the ministry they would eventually face. Encountering John: the Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Persepctive (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 99. Francis J. Moloney points out John 6:1 introduces a new setting (the Sea of Galilee), a new set of characters (the multitude), and a change in time (the Passover). Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 30.
23. On the themes of grumbling and God mentoring Israel in the wilderness, see Deuteronomy 8:1–6 and 1 Corinthians 10:1–11.
24. Wheaton, Role of Jewish Feasts, 129, quoting Gale A. Yee, Jewish Feasts and the Gospel of John (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989), 82.
25. Deuteronomy 8:15–16 brings together the wilderness, manna, and the water from the rock. Wheaton connects the water coming from the struck rock and the wilderness theme. Role of Jewish Feasts, 147–54.
26. For example, see Reynolds, “Tabernacles and the Book of Revelation,” 255–56.
27. Beutler, John, 204.
28. Benjamin M. H. Kim points out that when “the light of the world” (Jesus) shines, some—like the blind man—see, while others—who think they see—are blinded by the light (John 9). Kim asserts that this theme flows continuously and cohesively from the treatment of the Feast of Tabernacles in John 8 and prepares the way for 10:1–21, where the elite Jews/Pharisees are “thieves and robbers” who exercise their leadership blindly and have yet to receive Jesus’s light. “Disciples and Discipleship in the Fourth Gospel in Light of the Shift of Christological Understanding Resulting from the Resurrection of Jesus” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2003), 124–26.
29. Christopher M. Blumhofer sees John 7:1–10:21 as a distinct section and titles it “Jesus: The Hope of Sukkot/The Deceiver of the People.” The Gospel of John and the Future of Israel, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 177 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2020).
30. Wheaton, Role of Jewish Feasts, 160–2.
31. Richard Bauckham notes that Hanukkah was unique among the Jewish festivals for celebrating the temple itself. “The Holiness of Jesus and His Disciples in the Gospel of John,” in Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament, ed. Kent E. Brower and Andy Johnson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 99.
32. The case when John 6 was shown to contain some Passover-related themes while Tabernacles remained more dominant is similar to 10:22–39 having themes from two feasts.
33. Beutler argues, based on the dissertation of Luc Devillers, that although 10:22–39 is set at Hanukkah, the verses remain a part of John’s discussion of Tabernacles, which began in 7:1. Some of the reasons listed for this are that in 10:22–39 Jesus had remained in Jerusalem, his audience was the same as earlier, Hanukkah is often connected to Tabernacles as “the second Feast of Tabernacles,” and the theme of Jesus as the Good Shepherd from the beginning of chapter 10 is taken up again. John, 206–7; see Luc Devillers, La Fête de l’Envoyé: La section johannique de la Fête des Tentes (Jean 7, 1–10, 21) et la christologie, Etudes bibliques NS 49 (Paris: Gabalda, 2002).
34. Numbers 14:11, 22 show that both Passover and Tabernacles were associated with signs. Brian C. Dennert demonstrates that 2 Maccabees associates Hanukkah with miraculous works of God and that literature both prior to and after the Gospel of John does the same. Dennert also notes that the Babylonian Talmud sometimes distances Hanukkah from biblical feasts—for example, in the prescription against fasting for Hanukkah. Something like this distancing may be evident in John as well. “Hanukkah and the Testimony of Jesus’ Works (John 10:22–39),” Journal of Biblical Literature 132.2 (2013): 439–45. Richard Bauckham views the cross as the seventh sign in John in light of 2:18. Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 60. But this designation in 2:18 occurs somewhat cryptically and early on in the book of signs, which leaves room for the cross and resurrection to be more associated with a different kind of miracle—a work associated with the term glory, in the book of glory that is Holy Week.
35. Dennert discusses the light theme in chapters 9–12 and questions how strong of a link exists between light and Hanukkah here. Hanukkah being known as the “Festival of Lights” with a widespread emphasis on light may have been a postbiblical development, especially since 10:22–39 does not mention light. “Hanukkah,” 437.
36. The public setting and missionary thrust of 12:9–11 could indicate an inclusio with 6:1–2.
37. Bauckham connects glory in John with Jesus’s death and resurrection. Gospel of Glory, 54–55, 58–61.
38. Mattathias in 1 Maccabees 2, Judah Maccabee in 1 Maccabees 9, and various other figures in 2 Maccabees 6–7 delivered significant farewell addresses to their followers. They struggled and died battling against the invading Seleucids as well as against some of their traitorous countrymen. For an example of viewing Jesus’s Farewell Discourse as having a highly polemical context, see Fernando F. Segovia, “The Structure, Tendenz, and Sitz im Leben of John 13:31–14:31, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 104.3 (1985): 471–93. For a discussion of the influence of the martyr traditions in 2 Maccabees on both the first century generally and John’s Gospel specifically, see Wheaton, Role of Jewish Feasts, 168–79.
39. For further discussion, see Wheaton, 90–91.
40. Bauckham, “Holiness of Jesus,” 95–107.
41. Bauckham, 105–6.
42. Bauckham, 98.
43. Mary L. Coloe, “Temple Imagery in John,” Interpretation 63.4 (2009): 368–81; and Mary L. Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2001).
44. Bauckham argues, “The reference to Jesus’s consecration [in John 10:36] in the context of the feast of Hanukkah must certainly be connected with the theme of Jesus as the new Temple, fulfilling the meaning of the Jerusalem Temple with eschatological newness, that runs prominently through the Gospel of John.” “Holiness of Jesus,” 106–7. Bauckham says that of the temple’s two main meanings, presence of God with people and sacrifices allowing them to approach the temple, Hanukkah relates to the latter. Bauckham here cites Coloe’s work but explicitly disagrees with her argument that John emphasizes both temple themes. I side with Coloe on this issue, especially given the extensive dwelling language used in John 14–17, which is analyzed in the next section.
45. See also Gary W. Derickson, “Viticulture and John 15:1–6, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 153.609 (1996): 34–52.
46. Bauckham notes that the word “consecrate” occurs four times in John, at the Hanukkah feast in 10:36, in 17:17, and twice in 17:19. Bauckham connects all these passages together in a Hanukkah context and argues that Jesus cleanses the disciples before consecrating them. “Holiness of Jesus,” 95–99.
47. Bauckham, 108–12.
48. Coloe, “Temple Imagery,” 374. See also Coloe, God Dwells with Us, 157–78.
49. Coloe, “Temple Imagery,” 377.
50. Coloe, 375.
51. Coloe, 374–76. Coloe cites as an example of this dwelling John 14:10, 17, 23, 25. Other relevant passages according to Coloe’s criteria are 15:4–7, 9–10, 16.
52. John 17 seems to contain an especially strong emphasis on Hanukkah in the Farewell Discourse, as it has various echoes of the Hanukkah feast in 10:22–39. It repeatedly refers to such things as glory, indwelling, consecration, and the deity of the Son.
53. The other Gospels record it was a crowd that came to arrest Jesus. For other instances where John seems to add military or battle imagery to the passion narrative when the Synoptics lack it, see 18:12, 22, 25, 36; 19:1–2, 6, 10–11, 23–25, 32–34. This is significant because Hanukkah was clearly a feast that remembered a war involving an invading foreign power and defection by some Israelites to the side of the invading foreign power. In John, from a historical perspective, Rome is an occupying foreign power, and various leaders of the Jews defect from God by not believing in Jesus (although, from a discipleship perspective, it might be said that all human beings can see themselves in the treachery evident in the Johannine passion narrative, since Jesus dies for all and wins the war against the sin of all).
54. See also Joshua J. F. Coutts, The Divine Name in the Gospel of John: Significance and Impetus, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.447 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017).
55. The blasphemy of Antiochus Epiphanes was associated with forcefully invading the temple and defiling it. The Johannine passion seems to have something similar in view with the sins of Pilate, the Jewish leaders, and, in a discipleship reading, even the disciples and all people. For another instance of Jesus’s deity being asserted in a case involving treachery, see the resurrection appearance to Thomas in 20:24–29.
56. Coloe, “Temple Imagery,” 377–81. See also Coloe, God Dwells with Us, 179–212.
57. Coloe, “Temple Imagery,” 379.
58. Coloe, 380.