When YHWH Became Flesh and Dwelt Among Us:

John 1:14 as Programmatic for John’s Gospel

By John Ronning1

The purpose of this paper is to argue the case that the reason for John’s use of
(“the Word”) in the prologue to his gospel as a title for the pre-existent Jesus Christ is to make
the highest possible claim to his deity by identifying him as YHWH, the Old Testament God of
Israel, who has now come in the flesh. This identification is based on the practice of the
Aramaic targumists in often rendering the Tetragrammaton (the four letters, Hebrew ‫יהוה‬,

traditionally rendered “LORD”) by “the Word of the LORD.” Some connection between the
Logos title and the use of Memra (“the word”) in the Aramaic Targums has been proposed as
well as opposed for some time, and others argue for another connection between the Old
Testament and the Logos title, namely, from the prominence of the spoken word in creation,
judgment, and redemption, in the course of which it is sometimes personified.2 Most argue for
an exclusive background in either Greek or Hellenistic Jewish philosophy with little or no Old
Testament connection.3 I will argue here that when John says “the Word became flesh” (1:14),
he means for us to understand that YHWH became flesh, and that much of John’s Gospel is
taken up with showing us in the words and deeds of Jesus Christ, the words and deeds of YHWH
in the Old Testament, who now accomplishes these words and deeds as a man.
I. The Importance of the Targums for New Testament Interpretation:
The plausibility of the argument depends in part on acceptance of the fact that John was
familiar with the traditions contained in the Targums. While it has been generally agreed that the
practice of rendering the Hebrew portions of the Old Testament into Aramaic could go back even
to the time of Ezra (since Aramaic became the common tongue of the Jews during the exile), it

1
This paper is a revision of a paper delivered at the ETS annual meeting in Toronto, November 2002. This
paper eventually developed into the author’s book, The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Title (Grand Rapids:
Hendricksen, 2010; subsequently acquired by Baker). The title of this paper is the title I would have preferred for the
book.
2
So, e.g., D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester/ Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity/ Eerdmans,
1991), 115-16.
3
I will not repeat the discussion of this view here, but would agree with Leon Morris, “[John’s] essential
thought does not derive from the Greek background” and his “idea of the Logos conveys exactly the opposite idea”
of the Greeks’ view of the gods as detached from the world (The Gospel According to John: The English Text with
Introduction, Exposition, and Notes [NICNT; Grand Rapids, 1971], 116-17).
has been difficult tracing the two major extant forms of the Targums (Onkelos and Palestinian)
back to New Testament times, and it is doubted by some whether the Targums existed in written
form in the first century A.D. Discovery of pre-Christian Targums at Qumran made it seem
likely that Judaism did have written Targums in New Testament times, but these Targums are
more strictly translations than the Targums preserved in Judaism. The evidence for New
Testament familiarity with a targumic tradition very much like what is preserved in the
Palestinian Targums consists of New Testament citations of the Old Testament where the form
of the citation agrees with the targumic rendering of an Old Testament text, which often goes
beyond a literal translation. Such evidence cannot be reviewed in detail here, but it does form
the basis for this discussion.4
II. Summary of the use of Memra in the Targums:
In the LXX the Tetragrammaton is usually rendered with the Greek κυριος (Lord). In the
Aramaic, the Tetragrammaton is rendered variously (e.g. ‫יוי‬, ‫)ייי‬, and pronounced with the

Hebrew word “Adonay” as in the MT. Frequently an addition to the Tetragrammaton is made:
‫ממרא דיוי‬, “the Word of the LORD.” This expression (or just the altered Tetragrammaton) is

also usually used for Hebrew Elohim, as there was apparently a wish to avoid this plural term to
avoid any connection with a plurality of gods.5 McNamara explains the “extremely frequent
use” of the expression “The Word [Memra] of the LORD” as due to “the religious mentality
which produced the Targums [which] shrank from speaking of God as acting directly in the
world and spoke instead of his Memra doing so.”6 It used to be argued that some targumic
passages speaking of God’s Word did so in such a way as to suggest that there was in pre-
Christian Judaism a recognition that this “Word” was a Being distinct from God, yet acting as

4
See, for example, J. T. Forestell, Targumic Traditions and the New Testament: An Annotated Bibliography
with a New Testament Index (SBL Aramaic Studies 4; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1979); Martin McNamara,
Targum and Testament. Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1972); Roger Déaut, “The Current State of Targumic Studies,” BTB 4/1 (Feb 1974), 3-32, and “Targumic
Literature and New Testament Interpretation,” BTB 4/3 (Oct 1974), 243-89.
5
“When Elohim refers to the God of Israel, the Targums usually replace it by the Tetragrammaton in order to
avoid the plural form of ‘Elohim,’ which might be taken by some to indicate a plurality of gods” (Michael Maher,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis [The Aramaic Bible, vol. 1B; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992], 16, n. 2).
6
Martin McNamara, “Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Ex 1242),” ExpTimes
79 (1968), 115. Attributing God’s actions to his Word was just one of many stratagems employed by the targumists
to this end.
2
God in the world.7 Against this it was argued that “the Word of the LORD” was only a
circumlocution for “God” or “the LORD,” that “the word” is used only to express an attribute or
action of God, that “LORD” and “the word of the LORD” are not distinguished but used side by
side and interchangeably in different versions of the Targums.8 McNamara granted this point,
but added, “It by no means follows that John was not influenced by targumic usage in his choice
of Logos as a designation for Christ.”9 McNamara says that “the Word of the LORD” is a
metonym for “the LORD,” as is “the glory of the LORD.”10 Metonymy consists of “using the
name of one thing for that of something else with which it is associated.” Thus “lands belonging

7
See, e.g., J. W. Etheridge, The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the
Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee (2 vols.; New York: KTAV, 1862), 1:14-34; 2:7-17. In
Etheridge’s view, the targumists would agree with John that the Memra was with God, and the Memra was God
(2:17). Passages which he cites supporting this conclusion most convincingly are those in which the Memra of the
LORD stands for MT angel of the LORD.
8
E.g. Israel Drazin says that Memra should be translated command, will, teaching, inspiration, power,
protection, etc.; “The retention of the Aramaic should not lead anyone to suppose that Memra is a supernatural
being” (Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy: An English Translation of the Text With Analysis and Commentary,
Based on A. Sperber’s Edition [New York: Ktav, 1982], 34). “Neither the Logos, Philonian or Johannine, nor the
preexistent Christ of Paul could be explained by the Memra” (summary of V. Hamp, Der Begriff “Wort” in der
aramäischen Bibelübersetzungen. Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Hypostasen-Problem und zur Geschichte der
Logos-Spekulationen [Munich: Filser, 1938] by L. Sabourin [“The MEMRA of God in the Targums,” BTB 6/1 (Feb
1976), 79, n. 2]); “the formula has practically nothing to do with the prologue of John or with Christianity” (another
summary of Hamp, by Forestell, Targumic Traditions and the New Testament, 19); “The expression ‘Memra of
Adonai’ was an empty, purely formal substitution for the Tetragrammaton and is consequently unsuitable to serve as
a starting-point for the Logos of John” (H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud
und Midrash [6 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1922-28], 2:333; trans. by McNamara in Targum and Testament, 101); “As for
the memra of the Targum, no scholar nowadays will entertain the view that it is either a real being or an
intermediary” (H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
[Cambridge: Harvard, 1968], 287; also quoted by McNamara in “Logos and Memra,” 115, and in Targum and
Testament, 101; “Nowhere in these Targums is memra a ‘being’ of any kind or in any sense” (George Foot Moore,
“Intermediaries in Jewish Theology: Memra, Shekinah, Metatron,” HTR 15 [1922], 53). Moore also points out that
the use of memra of the LORD has nothing to do with the Hebrew dəbar- YHWH; “The ‘word of the Lord’ or ‘of
God,’ is pitgama de-Y. (e.g. Gen 15:1), not memra de-Y.” (ibid., 46).
9
McNamara, Targum and Testament, 102-03; similarly in “Logos and Memra,” 115. Similarly, Leon Morris:
“But this is hardly the point. The point is that wherever people were familiar with the Targums, they were familiar
with ‘the Word’ as a designation of the divine” (John, 120), and Craig A. Evans: “The simple fact that ‘Word’
appears as a periphrasis or name for God in Genesis 1-2 and elsewhere in reference to creation and to God’s
Shekinah dwelling among his people means that it could easily have been adopted by the Fourth Evangelist for his
own use” (Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue [JSNTSup 89;
Sheffield: JSOT, 1993], 128). It should be kept in mind, however, that “the Word” was not used in this way by itself
(as in John), but always in the expression “the Word of the LORD,” “His Word,” etc. In adapting the expression to
Greek, John had the question of what to do with the Tetragrammaton (or Duogrammaton, in Aramaic); he could
change it to “Lord” or “God” (as in Rev 19:13; “the Word of God”), or omit it. I would take the longer form in Rev
19:13 as evidence that John is in fact basing his usage on the Targums (so Evans, ibid., 129).
10
Ibid., Targum and Testament, 99; “Logos and Memra,” 115.
3
to the crown” means lands belonging to the king or queen who wears it.11 John could very well
use “the Word” for the preexistent Christ for the very reason that in the Targums “the Word of
the LORD” stood for the LORD himself. The strongest evidence that this is what John has done is
probably the haggadah of the Four Nights which appears as an addition to Exod 12:42 in part of
the Palestinian Targum tradition. In Neofiti there is a description of “four nights … that are
written in the Book of Memorials:”
The first night: when the Lord was revealed over the world to create it. The world was
without form and void, and darkness was spread over the face of the abyss, and the
Memra of the Lord was the Light, and it shone; and he called it the first night.12

Similarly in the Fragment-Targums; Vatican 440 reads “the memra of the Lord was revealed
upon the world in order to create it; … and the memra of the Lord was light and illumination,”
and Paris 110 reads “through His memra there was light and illumination.”13 McNamara
criticizes Billerbeck because “in the course of his extensive treatment of the Memra in the
Targums (which runs to thirty two pages), [he] does not even once cite or refer to the text of Ex
12:42. Nowhere, in fact, in the entire four volumes of the Kommentar is the relevant part of the
verse cited.”14
I concur that the title “Word” is based on the same tradition that is evident in the Targums,
but I suggest that John uses this title differently than in the Targums, where “Word of the LORD”
is interchangeable with YHWH or Elohim. John says both “the Word was God,” and “the Word

11
Philip B. Grove, ed., Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (Springfield, MA: G. & C.
Merriam, 1966), 1424.
12
Martin McNamara, Robert Hayward, and Michael Maher, Targums Neofiti 1 and Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus
(The Aramaic Bible, vol. 2; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994), 52. Neofiti is translated by McNamara, with
notes by Hayward. The original is in all italics, as it is an addition to MT. For the Aramaic text of Neofiti see
Alejandro Diez Macho, Neophyti I: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana (Madrid/Barcelona: Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1968); for the Aramaic text of the Fragment-Targums see Michael L. Klein,
The Fragment-Targums to the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources: Volume I, Texts, Indices and
Introductory Essays (AnBib 76; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1980), 79-80, 167. In the Paris ms the song appears at
Exod 15:18. Tg Ps-J simply reads for the first night, “when he was revealed to create the world” (Maher, Targums
Neofiti 1 and Pseudo-Jonathan, 195). McNamara says “the bearing of this text of Neofiti on the prologue of John
has been noted independently by A. Diez Macho (Atlantida, vol. I, no. 4, 1963, pp. 390-394) and R. Le Déaut (La
nuit pascale, Rome, 1963, pp. 215 f.). The latter, in fact, considers the poem on the Four Nights … as a type of
hymn to the Word (Memra) of the Lord” (Logos and Memra, 116).
13
Ibid., vol. 2, Translation, 126, 47.
4
was with God,” but John only calls the Son “the Word.” “YHWH became flesh” is therefore an
interpretation, or inference, of John 1:14, not a suggested translation. “YHWH the Son became
flesh” is John’s meaning. Further, John is using “the Word” for a different motive than do the
targumists, even though his usage is based on targumic usage. The Targums used “the Word of
the LORD” to avoid anthropomorphisms, to keep God from having too close of a contact with his
creation: John used it for the ultimate anthropomorphism, the incarnation of YHWH.
To support the idea that John 1:14 should be interpreted in this way, I will look first at Old
Testament allusions to this verse, which show a continuation of the LORD’s Old Testament
activities in the incarnate Christ’s person and work. Secondly, in the remainder of his gospel
John shows Jesus as YHWH the Son of Man. Jesus as man speaks and acts as men of God did in
Old Testament times, yet without their sinful failures. On the other hand, he speaks and acts on
earth as the LORD did in Old Testament times from heaven. These two features are explained by
John’s assertion that “YHWH became flesh, and dwelt among us.”
III. Old Testament connections to John 1:14
A. The manifestation of the glory of YHWH in the Old Testament tabernacle and temple:
“The Word became flesh, and dwelt ( ) among us, and we beheld his glory.” The
verb is used in the New Testament only here and in Rev 7:5; 12:12; 13:6; and 21:3,
where it refers to those dwelling in heaven or of God dwelling among men. It is used only three
times in the Old Testament, where it refers to dwelling in tents (Gen 13:12, Judg 8:11, or of
dwelling generally (Judg 5:17). It is related to the noun , which means a tent or temporary
or movable dwelling of man or God (or a god); thus it is often used (in LXX and New
Testament) for the tabernacle built by Moses. John 1:14 could then mean that Jesus dwelt
among us in a temporary/movable dwelling (his body), or, beyond this, that his body was
analogous to the Old Testament tabernacle. That the latter should be preferred seems likely
based on the next chapter of John in which Jesus refers to his body as “this temple” (2:19-21;

14
McNamara, Targum and Testament, 102, n. 7. Neofiti was not available to Billerbeck.
5
temple being an equivalent figure for tabernacle if the stress was to be on God’s dwelling place
rather than its temporary or movable nature). Note that earlier in this same chapter John had
already recorded an instance of “we beheld his glory” (2:11). The combination of the LORD
dwelling in a tabernacle and Israel beholding his glory is seen also with the construction of the
tabernacle by Moses: “Let them construct a sanctuary for me, that I may dwell among them”
(Exod 25:8), and “I will dwell among the sons of Israel, and I will be their God” (Exod 29:8).
When the tabernacle was constructed according to God’s plan, his taking up this earthly
residence is indicated: “The cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled
the tabernacle” (Exod 40:34; sim. v. 46).15
The theme continues when the time comes to build a temple. We see both continuity with
Israel’s past, as well as discontinuity, in keeping with the fact that there has also been a change in
Israel’s government with the establishment of the monarchy, and David’s dynasty. In terms of
discontinuity, or change, we can point to the permanence of the temple (in keeping with the
measure of rest given to Israel by David’s victories), its greater grandeur (i.e., “glory” in the
physical sense), and the fact that its fate is not connected to the obedience of the Israelites in
general to the covenant, but to the covenant obedience of the house of David (1 Kgs 9:1-9). In
terms of continuity, the temple has the same general arrangement as the tabernacle, and the same
ark is housed in the holy of holies, containing the terms of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Most importantly, it serves the same purpose as the tabernacle (“I will dwell among the sons of
Israel,” 1 Kgs 6:13), the fulfillment of which is indicated again by the visible manifestation of
the glory of God: “The glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD” (1 Kgs 8:11; sim. 2
Chron 5:14; 7:1). The sad history of Israel indeed later sees the destruction of the temple “for
the sins of Manasseh,” son of David (2 Kings 24:3; 25:9), but not before the glory of the LORD
has departed from the temple, as seen in a vision by Ezekiel (11:23; 10:18-19). When the second

15
The connection between John 1:14 and the mosaic tabernacle is also mentioned by M. E. Boismard, St.
John’s Prologue (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957), 144; Carson (who also notes the glory filling the
temple), John, 127-28; i.a.
6
temple is built after the return of the Jews from exile, there is again continuity (the temple itself,
built on the same site as the first), and discontinuity. The ark is no more, the temple seems
insignificant compared with its former glory (Hag 2:3), and there is no statement “the glory of
the LORD filled the temple.” Instead there is a promise for the future in light of the present
apparent insignificance of the temple:
“I will shake all the nations; and they will come with the wealth of all nations; and I will
fill this house with glory,” says the LORD of hosts. 8 “The silver is mine, and the gold is
mine,” declares the LORD of hosts. 9 “The latter glory of this house will be greater than
the former,” says the LORD of hosts, “and in this place I shall give peace,” declares the
LORD of hosts (Hag 2:7-9).

In the incarnation and earthly ministry of YHWH the Son we can see the next phase of this
theme; again, with both discontinuity and continuity. John expresses the continuity, if we allow
that “the Word” refers to YHWH: “YHWH … tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory.”
Change is seen in that instead of an inanimate temple whose fate is connected to the obedience of
the house of David, this dwelling place is neither tent nor temple but flesh, namely, the perfectly
obedient son of David. The ten commandments are not in an ark inside this tabernacle as tablets
of stone but are expressed in his life long perfect obedience to the law. In spite of this perfect
obedience, this temple will be destroyed for the sins of his people, then raised again on the third
day (2:19). Possibly we are to see in the incident of the cleansing of the temple an additional
connection to this Old Testament theme, namely as analogous to YHWH’s glory cloud driving
the ministers out of the tabernacle and the temple (Exod 40:35; 1 Kgs 8:10-11; 2 Chr 5:14; 7:2),

while at the same time recalling another promise, namely, that “The Lord ( ‫)האד‬, whom you

are seeking, will suddenly come to his temple” (Mal 3:1). After his ascension we see that his
people become his dwelling place, in whom he manifests his glory to the world (Eph 2:20-21;
3:21; 2 Cor 3:18).
B. The revelation of the glory of YHWH to Moses.
A number of similarities have been noted between Exodus 33-34 (Moses on Mt. Sinai after
the golden calf incident) and John 1:14-18. (1) The glory of the LORD was revealed to Moses
7
(Exod 33:22); (2) “You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live” (Exod 33:20);
compare to “No man has seen God at any time” (John 1:18); (3) the LORD is “abounding in grace
and truth” (Exod 34:6; John 1:14; also v. 17).16 These similarities tend to confirm the conclusion
that “the Word” infers the Tetragrammaton. Points (1) and (3) are most relevant for this study,
as the comparison implies that the glory and attributes of the LORD in the Old Testament are
revealed in Christ, as would be expected if “YHWH became flesh.” Confirming this, Hanson
points out that the only way John’s statement that “no man has seen God at any time” (1:18) can
be true is that,
On those occasions in Israel’s history when God is described as being seen, it was not in
fact God [the Father] who was seen, but the Logos. John says this totidem verbis in xii.
41, where he describes Isaiah’s vision in the Temple as Isaiah having seen Jesus’ glory;
in other words, Jahweh Sabaoth is the Logos.17

C. Evans also noted a relevant contrast between the two passages:

The Prologue’s assertion that the unique God (or Son) existed in the ‘bosom of the
Father’ (v. 18) contrasts with Moses’ fleeting glimpse of God’s ‘back’ (Exod. 33.23).
In sharp contrast to Moses, the eternal Word existed ‘with [or facing: ] God’ (v. 1)
18
and ‘in the bosom [that is, front] of the Father’ from eternity.

A further connection outside of the prologue to this revelation on Mt. Sinai can be seen in
the LORD’s words to Moses, “Before all your people I will perform wonders which have not been
produced in all the earth” (Exod 34:10), which can be compared to John 15:24, “If I had not done
among them the works which no one else did.”
IV. Jesus speaks and acts as YHWH the Son of Man.

16
The Hebrew in Exodus is ‫ד ואמ‬ ‫ר‬, the Greek in John is χά ιτ αὶ ἀ θ ία .
Based on the LXX usage we would expect ἔ for ‫ ד‬, but others argue that John is not following the LXX, and
he simply prefers to translate with χά ι . Anthony Hanson said that “by far the largest number of those scholars
whom I have consulted” (going back to B. F. Westcott) accepts that John 1:18 alludes to Exodus 34 (“John 1.14-18
and Exodus XXXIV,” NTS 23 [1976], 90). Hanson notes an article by J. A. Montgomery (“Hebrew Hesed and
Greek Charis,” HTR 32 [1939], 97-107) “in which he points out that χά ι in the New Testament is regularly
translated by sd in the Syriac” (“John 1:14-18 and Exodus 34,” 93). See also Evans, Word and Glory, 81, and n.
2.
17
Hanson, “John 1:14-18 and Exodus 34,” 96. John 12:41 will be discussed further below.
18
Evans, Word and Glory, 80-81.
8
 The officers sent to arrest Jesus came back empty-handed, saying, “Never did a man speak
the way this man speaks” (7:46). That is true, and it is because “this man” is the LORD, as John
demonstrates in many ways.
A. YHWH says, “I am he” (the one true God).
The identity of Jesus is an issue throughout the Gospel. The Jews think they know who
Jesus is (6:42; the son of Joseph and Mary). Likewise those for whom John is writing think they
know who he is. They have read or heard read the synoptic gospels in which Jesus has obscured
his messiahship to the public by not overtly claiming it. The disciples and the readers know,
however, who Jesus is: the Messiah Son of God, and he did disclose his messiahship to the
Samaritan woman (4:26). Against the idea that the disciples really knew who Jesus was,
however, is John 14:9; “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me,
Philip?” In my view, John writes out of a similar concern that those growing up in the Church,
being “so long” familiar with the synoptic gospels, do not know who Jesus really is. When they
read the question of the Jews, “Who are you?” (8:25), they think they are in the know, but they
are mistaken, as were the Jews. If we take John’s prologue seriously, then we should be
prepared for the answer, “I am YHWH,” and this is the answer that Jesus gives. A key text in
this connection is Isa 48:16. In the midst of an address to Israel, the LORD says: “Come near to
me, listen to this: / From the beginning I have not spoken in secret, / From the time it took place,
I was there. / And now the Lord YHWH has sent me, and his Spirit.” YHWH is speaking both
before and after this verse, and YHWH says, “now the Lord YHWH has sent me.” From a New
Testament point of view, there is no need to assume a change of speaker.19 YHWH spoke in the
past through his prophets; “now” he (YHWH) has been sent into the world himself, by YHWH.
I think the Lord himself is pointing to this conclusion with his “I am he” statements in John 8:24,

19
Note, e.g. E. J. Young on this passage: “Who is the speaker in the third clause? Obviously it cannot be the
Lord, for a distinction is made between the speaker and the Lord. … The speaker is the Servant” (The Book of
Isaiah: The English Text, With Introduction, Exposition, and Notes [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972], 3:258-59).
Presumably Young did not mean to deny the deity of Christ, as this statement seems to do. Young does helpfully
point to Heb 1:1-2 as conveying the same message as Isa 48:16.
9
28, 58, as well as others outside of this chapter. The Greek behind “I am he” is μι, which
is literally, “I am” (omitting the pronoun “he”), but meaning (in these contexts), “I am he.” This

same phrase is used to translate the Hebrew ‫א י ה א‬, literally, “I he,” several times in Isaiah

where the meaning is, “I am YHWH, the one true God” (see Isa 41:4; 43:10, 13; 46:4; 48:12).20
These “I am he” statements in Isaiah serve a recurring theme of chapters 40-55. The LORD
is the one and only true God, and the proof is that he not only predicts the future, but ordains it
and brings it to pass. Specifically, he is predicting through Isaiah the coming of Cyrus (even
mentioning him by name in 44:28 & 45:1, 150 years before he comes). None of the idols have
done such things, only the God of Israel, the “first and the last” (this title is used along with “I
am he” in Isa 41:4; 48:12, and by itself in 44:6; this threefold usage is matched by its threefold
usage by Jesus in Rev 1:18; 2:8, and 22:13). These “I am he” statements in Isaiah also echo the
“I am he” assertion in Deut 32:39, a prophetic song also spoken against idolatry (“I, I am he /
And there is no god besides Me”). Isa 41:4 is representative of the meaning of “I am he” and of
the context in which these statements are made; “Who has performed and accomplished it,
Calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last. I
am he.”
Before considering the “I am he” statements from John 8, note the following comparison of
John 13:19 and Isa 43:10:

Isa 43:10; “You are my witnesses,” declares the
LORD, / “And my servant whom I have chosen, / So
that you may know and believe me / And understand
that I am he. / Before me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after me.
John 13:19; From now on, I am telling
you before it comes to pass, so that
when it does occur, you may believe
that I am he. (Similarly but without
“I am he,” in 14:29.)

Note that as in Isa 43:10 Jesus is also speaking to “my witnesses” (John 15:27; Acts 1:8). Again,
the context of Isa 43:10 is that only YHWH can point to predictions made in the past of things
that have come to pass; he can do this because when he declares, no one can thwart his will; none

20
Of a slightly different nature are Isa 43:25 and 51:12, both of which have ‫ א י א י ה א‬and are followed by
10
of the idols have such a record. In John 13:19, Jesus is saying the same thing, which should not
surprise us since John has already told us Jesus is YHWH (the Son). There is nothing obvious in
the context that Jesus could be referring back to when he says, “I am he.” Isa 43:10 provides the
most obvious point of contact: “I am he” means the same as in Isa 43:10, etc.; “I am YHWH.”21
At the same time, the Lord’s declaration is used slightly differently, in keeping with the
incarnation. What Jesus is telling the disciples is going to come to pass, is his betrayal,
something that was experienced earlier by David (this is to happen, so that “the Scripture may be
fulfilled, ‘he who eats my bread has lifted up his heel against me’” [13:18; citing Ps 41:9]). In
the past, YHWH spoke from heaven, through a prophet, concerning things to come which would
happen to his people. Specifically, in this portion of Isaiah, he is telling his people about his
raising up of Cyrus to deliver them from exile. Now, YHWH speaks in the flesh concerning
things which will happen to himself, a son of David, whose person and work Cyrus
foreshadowed. This is so because “YHWH became flesh and dwelt among us.”
We might also note a similarity between the first part of John 13:19 (“From now on, I am
telling you before it comes to pass”) to Isa 48:6: “I proclaim to you new things from now on.”
The “new things” are predictions of the future. Isaiah 48 is a transition chapter; in previous
chapters the focus of fulfilled prophecy has been the coming of Cyrus (the Servant of LORD was
also introduced in chapter 42 in a way that shows him to be analogous to Cyrus). Cyrus fades

a modifying participle.
21
Similarly David M. Ball connects this passage with Isa 43:10 and concludes, “In the fulfillment of the
Scripture about betrayal, Jesus will be seen to be identified with the ‘Lord’ of the Old Testament” (‘I Am’ in John’s
Gospel [JSNT Supp 124; Sheffield, 1996], 200). Ball further observes, “In the most unlikely of situations of
betrayal and crucifixion, Jesus’ sovereignty will be seen and his identity revealed” (ibid.). Some interpreters relate
Isa 43:10 to John 8:24 and miss the closer connection to John 13:19; so J. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929), 2:301 (Bernard
also relates John 13:9 to Isa 48:5, but not 43:10 [ibid., 2:468]); also J. C. Coetzee, “Jesus’ Revelation in the EGO
EIMI Sayings,” in J. H. Petzer & P. J. Hartin, eds., A South African Perspective on the New Testament: Essays by
South African New Testament Scholars presented to Bruce Manning Metzger during his Visit to South Africa in
1985 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986), 173. D. A. Carson says that in 13:19 μι is “an everyday expression that can
be devoid of theological overtones … or can call to mind the ineffable name of God, … the I AM HE of Is. 41:4;
43:10” (John, 471). I don’t think there can be any doubt that the latter is the case; μι is not used here as an
“everyday expression” because it has no antecedent or predicate. Further, the similarity to Isa 43:10 is too striking
to be coincidence.
11
away after chapter 48, and the Servant comes to the forefront. Isa 48:6 can thus be viewed as
spoken from the vantage point that the prophecies concerning Cyrus have come to pass; “from
now on” attention will be focused on the Servant of the LORD. Jesus adapts his previous
statement through Isaiah to his upper room discourse, both of the same topic (prophecy
concerning himself). “From now on” is thus part of the phraseology of the one who reveals the
future, not a mere spokesman for that revealer.
Now we can turn to the “I am he” statements of John 8. Let us consider first, John 8:24-25.
Jesus says to the Jews, “Unless you believe that I am he, you shall die in your sins,” which is
answered with a logical question, “Who are you?” Jesus answers in words which might recall
(with the help of John’s prologue) Isa 48:16:

Isa 48:16 John 8:25

From the beginning I have not spoken [I said to you] in the beginning that which I am
in secret (‫ר י‬ ‫ר‬ ‫א מרא‬ also speaking to you [now] (τὴ ἀ χὴ ὅτι αὶ
… and now, the Lord GOD has sent α ῶ ὑμῖ ) … v. 26; “He who sent me is true;”
Me v. 29; “He who sent me is with Me;” v. 42; “He
sent Me.”

After all, John has already told us that the Word has been active from “the beginning,” i.e.,
before his incarnation. Could Jesus be referring to his own self identification (as YHWH) given
to the Jews through his prophets in Old Testament times? I think the answer is clearly “Yes.”
The meaning of the Greek text of John 8:25 is much discussed, and the doubtfulness of its
translation also makes its connection to Isa 48:16 somewhat doubtful.22 To this discussion I will

22
A wide variety of translations have been suggested since early times. τὴ ἀ χὴ translates ‫( רא ה‬Gen
13:4) and ‫ה‬ (Gen 41:21; 43:18, 20; Dan 9:21) in the LXX, supporting the sense here of “formerly,” or “in the
beginning,” but it could also bear other adverbial meanings such as “principally.” The translation I have given
agrees with the marginal reading of the Bodmer Papyrus II (p66) which has “I said to you” ( ι υμι ) before “in
the beginning.” This reading is accepted by R. W. Funk, “Papyrus Bodmer II (p66) and John 8, 25,” HTR 51/2 (Apr,
1958), 95-100. Funk says that with this reading, “the insurmountable difficulty felt by every commentator since
Chrysostom is thereby alleviated,” and notes that though the added text is a marginal correction, the editor of the
papyrus is certain that they were added by the original scribe, and that a majority of such marginal corrections
contain text universally attested; only that of 8:25 is not attested elsewhere (ibid., 96-97). E. R. Smothers notes that
in John 11:33 the scribe revised his original text which agreed with one text tradition, to one that agreed with that of
p45, the point being that the scribe of p66 went beyond simply copying one ms before him; he went back and checked
it against at least one other as well (“Two Readings in Papyrus Bodmer II,” HTR 51/3 [Jul, 1958], 121). Smothers is
12
only add the observation that seeing John 8:25 as based in part on Isa 48:16 favors taking τὴ
ἀ χὴ as “in the beginning” rather than “principally” or something else. Further, a reference to
Isa 48:16 is certainly in keeping with the fact that Jesus has just adapted one of the “I am he”
statements from this portion of Isaiah: “Unless you believe that I am he” (v. 24); cf. Isa 43:10,
cited above:

In order that you may know and believe me, / unless you believe that I am he (John 8:24)
And understand that I am he (Isa 43:10)

It also may be more than coincidence that the “I have not spoken in secret” of Isa 48:16 is part of
the Lord’s defense of his teaching at his trial (John 18:20; note also that earlier in this chapter
when Jesus said “I am he” [meaning, “I am Jesus of Nazareth”] to those coming to arrest him,
“they drew back and fell to the ground” [v. 6]).
At this point it is not clear to the Jews that Jesus is claiming to be anything other than a man;
the question is, what man (e.g., the Messiah?). They express shock at the idea that he could be
greater than Abraham (8:53). They receive a greater shock; “Truly, truly, I say to you, before
Abraham was, I am he” (v. 58). Again, “I am he” points back to the “I am he” declarations in
Isaiah, and answers the question of the Jews “who are you?” The answer is, in effect, “I, a man,
am YHWH,” again, in keeping with what John has told us in his prologue, John 1:14.23 That
they took up stones to stone him suggests they got the message.

not sure that p66 is original: It “may be an interpolation; it may be primitive. Without it, the obscurity of our
common text remains. With it, we have a simple and an adequate solution” (ibid., 122). See also Bruce M.
Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, 1971), 223-24, and the
major commentaries.
23
Many interpreters misdirect the reference of v. 58 to Exod 3:14, “I am who I am.” The latter is a doubtful
translation of the Hebrew (I would prefer “I will be who I have been,” as suggested by A. Niccacci). However, it
can be argued that the “I am he” statements of Isaiah and Deut 32:39 depend on Exod 3:14. Niccacci notes that
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan relates the “I am he” of Deut 32:39 to Exod 3:14 by giving them a similar rendering: Tg
Ps-J Deut 32:39 reads, “I am the one who is, was, and I am the one who shall be in the future;” Tg Ps-J Exod 3:14
reads, “I am who I am and who will be.” Similarly, the “I am he” declarations of Isaiah refer to past (43:13), present
(41:4; 43:10; 44:6; 48:12; 51:12), and future (46:4; 52:6). The “I am the first and the last” declarations associated
with “I am he” (41:4; 48:12) likewise refer to past and future. John 8:58 is like Isa 43:13 in associating “I am he”
with the past. For a summary of Niccacci see: http://franklin.oit.unc.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?visit=b-
hebrew&id=195099020.
13
 The other “I am he” declaration in chapter 8 is in v. 28: “When you lift up the Son of
Man, then you will know that I am he.” One might argue that “he” in “I am he” obviously points
back to “the Son of Man,” and that there is no claim to deity in this statement. However, one can
equally argue that “I am he” of v. 28 must mean what it does in v. 24, and that v. 28 attests both
to the deity (I am he) and humanity (the Son of Man) of Christ, providing another commentary
on John 1:14. The Greek for “then you will know that I am he” is τ τ θ ὅτι μι.
The string τ τ θ ὅτι occurs eight times in the LXX (sometimes also followed by
μι), the MT equivalent of which is always followed by “YHWH” or “YHWH your God” (Exod
6:7; 10:2; 16:12; Ezek 13:23; 36:11; 37:6, 13, 14). Similarly, Bernard, notes that in 8:28 “I am
He” could refer back to “the Son of Man” or could be used as in 8:24, “the phrase being then
identical with the self-designation of Yahweh in the prophets, ‫ … א י ה א‬On either

interpretation, the style of the sentence is that of Divine proclamations” (referring to Ezek
11:10).24 In NASB the expression “you/they, etc. shall/will know that I am” occurs 81 times,
always spoken by the LORD in the Old Testament (78 times; 63 of which are in Ezekiel), or
Christ in the New Testament. The other New Testament occurrences are John 14:20 (“on that
day you shall know that I am in my Father”), and Rev 2:23, “the churches will know that I am he
who searches the minds and hearts ( αὶ ται ᾶ αι αἱ ίαι ὅτι μι
αυ ῶ φ ὺ αὶ α δία ); and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds,”
which is based on Jer 17:10; “I, the LORD, search the heart, / I test the mind, / Even to give to
each man according to his ways.” In John 8:28 Jesus is predicting the future, and in the Old
Testament “you shall know” statements, the fulfillment of predictions features prominently as
the evidence that men will know that he is the LORD. There is a difference here, in keeping with
John 1:14, namely, here “I am he” indicates both deity (YHWH) and humanity (the Son of Man).
Further, these Old Testament predictions by whose fulfillment men will know that he is the
LORD are frequently predictions of judgment by the LORD against unbelievers (whether Israelites
or their enemies); here there is an apparent difference, as it is a prediction of the crucifixion of
Christ (an apparent defeat). The difference is more apparent than real, however, as the “lifting
up” of Christ (see below) is in fact a great victory over the world.

24
Bernard, John, 2:303.
14
 Finally, in favor of taking “I am he” in John 8:28 the same way as in v. 24, Ball notes that
John 8:24 and 28 together make a more complete parallel to Isa 43:10 (with “know” and
“believe” in reverse order):25

‫י‬ ‫יו‬ ‫ו אמי‬ ‫ד‬ ‫מ‬ ὰ ὰ μὴ ι τ ύ τ ὅτι μι (John 8:24)

τ τ θ ὅτι μι (John 8:28)
(Isa 43:10) ‫י א י ה א‬

Another “I am he” declaration is of interest. The Samaritan woman said to Jesus, “I know
that Messiah is coming…” (John 4:25). Jesus responded, “I am he, the one who is speaking to
you” (v. 26). One might argue that there is no claim to deity here, only to messiahship. On the
other hand, I would concur with David Ball who suggests that this statement of Jesus is
“formulated in … a strange way” because it is also modeled on one of the “I am he” declarations
of the LORD in Isaiah; specifically, one that could be viewed as being fulfilled in the messianic
age: “Therefore my people shall know my name; therefore in that day, indeed I am he, the one
who is speaking, ‘Here I am’” (Isa 52:6).26 The woman herself would not be aware of this
connection, but the disciples, and later, John’s readers, would be able to see it on reflection.
To summarize the significance of these “I am he” statements, “Jesus can only claim a phrase
that was reserved for YHWH and apply it to himself because he is not only YHWH’s son but is
in fact YHWH speaking.”27 The same conclusion will hold true with other statements “reserved
for YHWH” that we will study below.28

25
Ball, ‘I Am’ in John, 189.
26
Ibid., 66, 179. Isa 52:6 is not an “absolute” use of ‫ א י ה א‬since it is followed by a participle (LXX; ώ
μι αὐτ α ῶ · ά ιμι), as in John 4:26 (Ἐ μι, α ῶ ι).
27
Ibid., 280.
28
Another “ ώ μι” statement by Jesus is sometimes considered to be in the same category as those of 8:24,
28, 58; 13:19, namely, 6:20, when Jesus walks on the water and says to the disciples, “It is I ( ώ μι) do not fear.”
Although technically there is no antecedant to ώ μι and the command “Do not fear” is a common divine
assurance, the usage is similar to 2 Sam 2:20 where Asahel uses the phrase to answer Abner’s question, “Is that you,
Asahel?” Likewise in John 6 one might say that there is an implied question on the part of the disciples - “Who is it
walking on the water?” Ball suggests there is a double meaning in Jesus’ words: “On one level they identify Jesus
to the disciples in a purely human way. At the same time their formulation points to a deeper meaning. … He
speaks not just as their friend but also speaks the words of the LORD,” and there is a danger of the reader
“recognizing that it is Jesus who walks on the water, but failing to recognize who Jesus really is” (ibid., 185).
15
B. “No one has ascended into heaven, but he who came down from heaven, the Son of Man”
(John 3:13). “I have come down from heaven” (John 6:38, 42).
Morris notes concerning chapter 6, “The thought of His coming down from heaven is
repeated seven times in this chapter (vv. 33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58).”29 That this expression is
not simply a figure of speech based on an analogy to the Old Testament manna is clear from v.
62, “What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where he was before?” (sim.
John 3:13). The answer to the people’s question (v. 42, since we know Jesus is the son of Joseph
and Mary, how can he say he came down from heaven?) is answered in some detail in the
nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke, the summation of which is John 1:14; “The Word
became flesh, and dwelt among us.” If we correctly relate “the Word” to the Tetragrammaton, it
might lead us to recognize that the LORD coming down from heaven is an important Old
Testament theme, and that again in John 6:38, Jesus is speaking as YHWH did in Old Testament
times. “I have come down from heaven” answers to the LORD’s statement from the burning
bush, “I have come down to deliver them” (Exod 3:8). The context of this passage is instructive
for the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Old Testament. At the end of Exodus 2 Moses tells us
that the Israelites’ cry for help “rose up to God” (Elohim; v. 23); Elohim heard their groaning,
and Elohim remembered his covenant, … and Elohim saw the sons of Israel, and Elohim knew.30
In response, “the angel of the LORD appeared to [Moses] in a blazing fire from the midst of a
bush” (Exod 3:2); and “the LORD said, … I have come down” (vv. 7-8). Elohim continues to be
used in chapter 3, as well as the compound the LORD your God, perhaps lest readers think
YHWH and Elohim are not one (similarly, note the usage of the divine name and title in Genesis
1-4). For God “coming down” in the Old Testament, the name YHWH is used (Gen 11:5, 7;
18:21; Exod 3:8; 19:11, 20; Num 11:17, 25; 12:5; 2 Sam 22:10/Ps 18:9; 144:5; Isa 31:4; 64:1, 3;
Mic 1:3). We see in these contexts that he comes down for judgment (on the wicked in general,

29
Morris, John, 368.
30
Another reading of the last phrase is “and he revealed himself to them” (as read by LXX; see BHS). If this is
correct, then Elohim occurs four times in this passage, not five.
16
but especially on the persecutors of his people), for deliverance of his people, and/or for
revelation, all of which are suited to the work of Christ in his first and second comings. The
Num 11:17, 25 examples are somewhat unique (the LORD came down and took of the Spirit who
was upon Moses, and placed him upon the 70 elders), but here also there is an analogy to the
work of Christ (John 20:22). The great difference, of course, is that in the New Testament the
LORD “came down” by becoming flesh; he is now, “the Son of Man” (John 6:62). The Targums
generally render the expression, “the LORD came down,” etc. as “the LORD revealed himself,” to
avoid the anthropomorphism. In a few cases in these passages it is rendered “the Glory of the
Shekinah of the Lord was revealed,” or something similar (Tg. Neof. Gen 11:5; Num 11:25; 12:5;
Tg. Ps.-J. 11:17; 12:5); occasionally the Memra figures as the instrument of revelation (Tg. Neof.
Exod 3:8; Num 11:17). Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 11:7 is unique in retaining the anthropomorphism.31 In
John’s paraphrase he retains the Targum emphasis on revelation by using the title Logos, but
instead of avoiding anthropomorphism, makes it as explicit as possible: “The Word became
flesh.” The Targums wish to avoid the impression that the LORD acts like a human; John shows
us that he became a human.32
C. YHWH says, “Come to me, and eat, drink, live.”
In John 6:45 Jesus refers to the promise in Isa 54:13, “Your sons will be taught of the LORD”
as an explanation that those who are taught by the Father will come to him. The context of the
Isaiah passage is similar to John 6 (as well as portions of chapters 5 and 7), as may be seen in the
following comparison:

31
In that version the expression is spoken to the 70 angels that stand before God.
32
Paul also speaks of Jesus coming down. In Eph 4:8-10 Paul applies Psalm 68:18, which has the exodus from
Egypt as its background, to Jesus. “You have ascended on high,” etc. Paul applies this to the greater exodus
accomplished by Jesus, and notes the implication of his ascent, meaning he must first have descended, “to the lower
parts of the earth.” This phrase has puzzled many, but there is a good explanation for it from another Psalm. In
Psalm 139:13-15 David speaks of God forming him in his mother’s womb, during the course of which he says “I
was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth.” So Paul’s “the lower parts of the earth” can
be explained as a figurative expression for the womb of Mary, the place on earth to which the Lord did indeed came
down for our salvation. Naturally, Paul can apply the exodus language (when YHWH “came down”) to the work of
Christ because Jesus is YHWH.
17
 Isa 55:1-3 Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come
to the waters; / And you who have no
money, Come, buy and eat. … / Why do you
spend money for what is not bread, / and
your wages for what does not satisfy? /
Listen carefully to me, and eat what is good,
/ and delight yourself in abundance. / Incline
your ear and come to me (YHWH). Hear,
and your soul shall live.
John 5:40; and you are unwilling to
come to me so that you may have
life. 6:27 Do not work for the food
which perishes 6:35 he who comes
to me shall not hunger, / he who
believes in me shall never thirst.
7:37 If anyone thirsts, let him
come to me and drink.

In Isaiah 55:1-3, those who are thirsty or hungry, those who need life, are invited by the
LORD to come to him. Jesus makes the same invitation, “Come to me,” and promises the same
results. The parallelism between coming to Christ and believing in him (John 6:35) agrees with
the targumic rendering of “come to me” (Isa 55:3) by “Attend to my Memra.”33 Other themes
from Isaiah 55 are present; “Seek the LORD while he may be found” (v. 6; cf. John 6:24-26);
“My thoughts are not your thoughts, etc.” (vv. 8-9; cf. John 6:52, 60); “My word shall
accomplish what I desire” (v. 11; cf. John 6:37).
It could be argued that Isaiah 55 has its own Old Testament background in the life of Joseph
who brought about the physical and spiritual preservation of his family. Joseph’s brothers were
sent to Egypt to “buy some [grain] for us, so that we may live and not die” (Gen 42:2; sim. 43:8).
After he makes himself known to his brothers, Joseph says, “God sent me … to keep you alive
by a great deliverance” (Gen 45:7), and “Come to me, and I will give you the good of the land”
(v. 18).
These parallels might be dismissed as coincidental were it not for the fact this section of
Isaiah (chapters 40-55) also begins with an allusion to the story of Joseph: “‘Comfort, O comfort
my people,’ says your God, ‘Speak to the heart of Jerusalem’” (Isa 40:1-2a). These two ideas are
found together also in Gen 50:21; after Joseph’s brothers finally ask forgiveness for what they
did to him, “he comforted them and spoke to their heart.” Further, in asking forgiveness, they

33
Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum (Aramaic Bible, vol. 11; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987),
107. The Targum, again, is avoiding an anthropomorphism, whereas the incarnation makes the anthropomorphism
more emphatic.
18
refer to themselves as “the servants of the God of your father” (v. 17). We note that Joseph in
his generation performed the role that the Servant of the LORD was to perform: “To bring Jacob
back to him” (Isa 49:5); one of the results of which is, “they will not hunger or thirst” (v. 10). So
the figure of Joseph is in the background of the beginning, middle, and end of this section of
Isaiah, providing a background to the words of the LORD and the ministry of his Servant, and in
Jesus we see that the two (a man like Joseph, and YHWH) are One, because, “YHWH became
flesh, and dwelt among us.”
D. YHWH is the proper object of true believers’ faith.
In the upper room discourse, Jesus said to his disciples, “You believe in God, believe also in
me … I go to prepare a place for you … I am the way” (John 14:1, 3). This passage recording
Jesus’ last words to his disciples before the crucifixion may be viewed as adapted from Moses’
last words to Israel (Deuteronomy) in such a way as to show the deity of Christ; note how the
three elements of the quote above are found also in Moses’ words about the LORD: “You did not
believe in the LORD your God, who goes before you on your way, to search out a place for you to
encamp” (Deut 1:32-33).34 The change of “to search out a place for you” to “to prepare a place
for you” is in keeping with the slightly different situation in which Jesus is making the promise.
It also happens to agree with the change made by the targumists to avoid the anthropomorphism
of God searching.35
Without seeing the dependence on Deuteronomy, the passage might seem to be a statement
that Christ is less than God (“believe in God and in me”). Once we see the connection with
Deuteronomy, however, we see that Christ speaks of himself as Moses spoke of the LORD, yet he
also speaks of another (“Believe in God”); it is another example of both “the Word (YHWH) was

34
R. Brown noted the connection to the way and a place from Deut 1:33 (John 13-21, 625).
35
Tg. Onq. Deut 1:32-33 reads, “You did not trust the Memra of the Lord your God who marches ahead of you
on the way, to prepare for you a site for a resting place” (Bernard Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy
[Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988], 20); similarly the Palestinian Targums. Martin McNamara pointed out
the connection between the Targums and John 14:2 (only with respect to the change from “search” to “prepare”),
and noted that the same change is found in the Peshitta (Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament [Good News
Studies 4; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983], 239-40).
19
with God, and the Word was God” (1:1), as well as “the Word became flesh” (1:14).
E. YHWH is a Lawgiver
We see another dependence on Deuteronomy in the upper room discourse, namely, “A new
commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you love
one another” (13:34); similarly in 15:12, 17. This commandment can be compared with a
recurring theme in Deuteronomy, where Moses says to Israel, in effect, “Love one another, as the
LORD your God has loved you.” The example of the LORD’s love meant by Moses in every case
is the exodus, which should serve as a motivation for the Israelites to be kind to others. In Deut
5:14-15, Moses shows the Israelites that by keeping the Sabbath day they would be doing for
their families and employees what God had done for them, namely, giving them a day of rest, by
bringing them out from Egypt. I.e., by giving a sabbath rest to their households they would be
loving others as God loved them.
Similarly, in Deut 10:18-19 Moses tells Israel that God “executes justice for the orphan and
widow, and shows his love for the alien by giving him food and clothing” (v. 18). Therefore,
Israel, you “show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt [and the LORD
your God loved you]” (v. 19). Again, the message is “love one another, as the LORD your God
has loved you.”
A third case is the law of manumission of slaves in Deut 15:12-18, which uses exodus
theme words to show that when Israelites release their servants from servitude at the end of
seven years, they will be acting as God did for them.36 “Give to him as the LORD your God has
blessed you” (v. 14) is the equivalent of “Love him as the LORD your God has loved you.”37
Conversely, they are told in effect, do not be like Pharaoh (“it shall not seem hard [‫ה‬ ‫ ] א י‬to

36
(to let go, send away) is used in vv. 12, 13, 18; ‫( יצא‬to go forth, go out) is used in v. 16. “Do not send
him away empty-handed” ( ‫רי‬ ‫ ; א‬v. 13) recalls the LORD’s own promise that Israel would not leave
Egypt empty-handed ( ‫רי‬ ‫ ; א‬Exod 3:21).
37
Christopher J. Wright almost makes my point when he says, “this wonderful text … could have fallen from
the lips of Christ himself” (Deuteronomy [NIBC; Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 1996], 193). On the other hand, if we
take John’s gospel seriously, we would recognize that the words of Moses are those which Christ commanded him
to speak before his incarnation (Deut 6:1, etc.). Wright also took note of the verb “go out,” v. 16: “The very
expression is exodus-flavored” (ibid.).
20
you when you let him go;” ‫ה‬ was used earlier for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart; see Exod

13:15).
Another way in which Jesus acts as YHWH the lawgiver is in stating that the motivation for
keeping the commandments is love for him; “If you love me, you will keep my commandments
(14:15; similarly vv. 21; 23; 15:10). This again is a deuteronomic theme: “You shall love the
LORD your God … and these words which I am commanding you will be on your heart,” etc.
(Deut 6:5-6; similarly, 10:12; 11:1, 13, 22; 13:3; 19:9; 30:6, 16).
Here again, we see both continuity and change. In both Testaments, the law is based on love
for the LORD, the lawgiver, who commands his people to love one another as he has loved them;
therefore, in both testaments, the moral law is based on the goal of moral likeness to God.
However, in the New Testament, the example of how God has loved his people, therefore the
extent of love that he commands, goes beyond Old Testament love (he loved them to the
uttermost; John 13:1). The Old Testament examples cited above were cases where the Israelite
was enjoined to show love for those less powerful than they. We might say that in the Old
Testament, the example of “as I have loved you” is that YHWH gave them an example of a good
Master to follow. When YHWH became flesh, however, he gave to his people the example of
the good Servant who lays down his life (13:4-16). Thus, what is new in Christ’s commandment,
is what “as I have loved you” entails — greater love is commanded.
In keeping with this change is another; in the Old Testament YHWH gave his law to his
people through a man, Moses, his servant. In the New Testament, YHWH became flesh, a man,
a servant, and gave his law in person. At the same time, John not only shows us that Jesus is
God by his YHWH-like actions (“the Word was God”), he also shows “the Word was with God”
(i.e. he refutes modalism). So even while Jesus speaks as YHWH in the Old Testament spoke,
he also refers to the Father as another: “He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is
who loves Me; and he who loves me shall be loved by my Father” (14:21).
F. YHWH is a Warrior.

21
 The suzerain-vassal treaty form followed in Deuteronomy communicated to Israel that their
God was the Great King, as it is the prerogative of the Great King to issue laws binding his
subjects. Another function of the Great King in Old Testament times was that of the Warrior. In
keeping with his statement in the prologue that YHWH became flesh, John shows us that this
Old Testament depiction of YHWH as warrior is fulfilled in the New Testament in Christ.
In the crossing of the Red Sea the Israelites saw that the LORD their God was “a warrior”

(Exod 15:3). Literally, “YHWH is a man of war” (‫מה‬ ‫מ‬ ‫)יהוה אי‬. John shows us that what

was a figure of speech then was literally true when “YHWH became flesh.” The same song
shows us that the divine warrior is also King (Exod 15:18; “The LORD shall reign forever and
ever”), which John also shows us is true of Jesus. YHWH, as the Son of Man, is the Warrior
King. A third regal function comes as a something of a surprise, though it also is shown in the
Old Testament - he is also the Servant.
In John 12:37ff. John cites the unbelief of the majority of the Jews who witnessed Jesus’
miracles as a fulfillment of Isa 53:1 (“Who has believed our report,” etc.), and then cites Isa 6:10
in explanation; “He has blinded their eyes,” etc. John goes on to say, “These things Isaiah said,
because he saw his glory, and he spoke of him” (v. 41). McNamara notes, “This is good
targumic language. We may also recall how John generally speaks of the glory of Christ in
conjunction with ‘seeing’ and ‘revealing’, as the Targums do of the glory of the Lord.”38 Tg. Isa

6:1, 5 reads “I saw the glory of the LORD” (for MT “I saw the Lord [‫)”]אד י‬, and “my eyes have

seen the glory of the Shekinah of the eternal king, the LORD of hosts!” (for MT “my eyes have
seen the King, YHWH of Hosts”).39 Note also the LXX of Isa 6:1 which has “the house was full
of his glory” for “the train of his robe filled the temple.” The implication of John 12:41, even
without the targumic language for comparison, is that when Isaiah saw the LORD in the temple,
he saw the pre-incarnate Christ in glory.

38
McNamara, Targum and Testament, 100.
39
Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, 14. Italics are original and indicate additions to the Hebrew.
22
 It is of further interest that these two texts of Isaiah which John connects by the theme of
unbelief, are connected by another theme, not mentioned by John but by Jesus in the previous
context; the theme of lifting up: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to
Myself” (12:32); “How can you say, ‘the Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this Son of
Man?” (12:34). The lifting up of the Son of Man is in fact a theme repeated twice before this
point in the Gospel (3:14; 8:28), and John tells us that it is fulfilled in the manner of Jesus’ death
(12:33), i.e. the crucifixion. Isaiah’s description of his prophetic call begins with him seeing the

Lord “high and lifted up [‫א‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ ”]ר‬in the temple (6:1). The fourth Servant Song begins

similarly; “Behold, my Servant will act wisely; he will be high, he will be lifted up [‫א‬ ‫ו‬ ‫;]יר‬

he will be greatly exalted [‫מאד‬ ‫( ”]ו‬52:13). Similarly in a third text from Isaiah: “‘Now I

will arise [ ‫]א‬,’ says the LORD, / ‘Now I will be exalted [ ‫ ]אר מ‬/ Now I will be lifted up

[‫א‬ ‫( ”’]א‬Isa 33:10).40 In the latter context, the invasion of Sennacherib is in view: the situation

was hopeless (vv. 7-8; Sennacherib had broken his treaty with Hezekiah and demanded the
unconditional surrender of Jerusalem); the LORD intervened at just the right time and destroyed
the Assyrian army, in a victory that would be known to those far and near, whom the LORD
invites to “hear what I have done” (vv. 11-13). The whole episode is an apt picture of the gospel,
and the “far and near” theme is picked up in Isa 57:19 and Eph 2:17. In these three texts, then,
Isaiah shows us (1) the LORD as the exalted King (6:1-5), (2) the LORD as the exalted Warrior
(33:7-13), and (3) the Servant of the LORD as lifted up in suffering, disfigured beyond likeness to
the sons of men (52:13-14), suffering unto death, nevertheless prolonging his days and dividing
the spoils as would a victorious warrior (53:8-12). When John records the Lord’s repeated
emphasis on the fact that he would be “lifted up,” and tells us that Isaiah saw his glory (high and
lifted up), and when we note the function of this idea in Isaiah, we can see a merging of the

40
The LXX translates the niphal imperfect of ‫ א‬here with the future passive of ὑ , the verb used in John
3:14, 8:28, and 12:32. In 52:13 this verb translates either ‫ ו א‬or ‫( ו‬the three Hebrew verbs are rendered by
23
figures of the suffering Servant and the divine Warrior King who overcomes the world. One
might even say that John hereby introduces us to the rest of his Gospel where these themes are
expounded.41
It also appears that the three passages in John where the idea of Christ being lifted up is
expressed can be related to the three passages in Isaiah mentioned above. First, we can see in
John 12:31-32 several connections to Isa 33:10 and its context:

Isa 33:10; Now I will arise, John 12:31-32; Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler
… now I will be exalted, of this world shall be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up [ ἀ ὼ
now I will be lifted up ὰ ὑ θῶ] from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.
[‫] ה א א‬

Note: (1) the use of the first person, unlike the other passages from John and Isaiah;42 (2) the
emphasis on “now;”43 (3) the context of victory over the enemy, “the ruler of this world;”44 (4)
the consequences of the victory; compare “I will draw all men to myself” to Isa 33:13; “You who
are far away, hear what I have done. / You who are near, acknowledge my might.” Also note the
prediction that the envoys of Cush would bring tribute to the LORD when he had dealt with the

only two verbs in LXX).

41
I refer to the Lord taking upon himself the role of a servant in washing the disciples’ feet (chap. 13), along
with his statement of victory (16:33, etc.), and his self-designation as King (18:36). I would suggest that the
peoples’ question “Who is this Son of Man” (12:34) is answered by Pilate when he brings Jesus out, mockingly
“crowned with glory and honor” (Ps 8:5) and says, “Behold the Man” (19:5). The man / son of man parallelism
between 12:34 and 19:5 agrees with Ps 8:4. The first use of “the Son of Man” in the New Testament canon is Matt
8:20, which alludes ironically to Ps 8:7-8 (“the foxes have holes, the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man
[given dominion over the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky] has nowhere to lay his head”); the title is
equivalent to “the Last Adam” (J. L. Ronning, “The Curse on the Serpent (Genesis 3:15) in Biblical Theology and
Hermeneutics,” PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, Glenside, PA, 1997, p. 357). Readers of modern
translations driven by a feminist agenda (such as the TNIV) would not be able to see the connection between Christ’s
“Son of Man” title and Ps 8:4.
42
John 3:14 (“the Son of Man must be lifted up”); 8:28 (“When you lift up the Son of Man”), Isa 6:1 (“I saw
the Lord, high and lifted up”); 52:13 (“Behold my Servant … will be high and lifted up”).
43
Cf. Rom 5:6, “For Christ, when we were helpless, at the right time died for the ungodly.”
44
Sennacherib makes a very suitable figure for “the ruler of this world,” who would be God: (1) note how
Sennacherib sends his “prophet” to call on Hezekiah to submit to him at the same place from which the L ORD had
sent Isaiah some 30 years earlier to call on Ahaz to submit to him (Isa 7:3; 36:2); (2) Sennacherib makes the same
threats (the covenant curse of siege induced famine) and promises (he promises to take Israel to a new “promised
land” where they will sit each under his own vine and fig tree) as the LORD did to Israel (see Isa 36:12, 16-17, and
compare to Deut 28:53-57; Isa 27:5; Mic 4:4).
24
Assyrian menace (Isa 18:1-7), and the chronicler’s statement that after the LORD dealt with
Sennacherib “many were bringing gifts to the LORD at Jerusalem, and choice presents to
Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was exalted in the sight of all nations thereafter” (2 Chr
32:23).
Secondly, John 3:14 can be related to Isa 52:13 - 53:12. Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness — the serpent is a cursed creature (Gen 3:14-15), and the fourth Servant song “speaks
of the suffering of the Lord’s servant in language used elsewhere of the defeat of the serpent-

dragon.”45 Specifically, the verbs “crush(ed)” (Isa 53:5, 10, from root ‫ )ד א‬and “pierced” (v. 5,

from root ‫ ) ו‬are used in other Old Testament passages where a provisional, or token

fulfillment of Gen 3:15 (God’s defeat of the serpent-dragon called Leviathan or Rahab) is
recorded; see Isa 51:9, Job 26:13, Ps 89:10.46 In addition to an allusion to the curse on the
serpent, Isa 52:13 - 53:12 alludes to the servant’s suffering as being like the covenant curse of
exile (52:14; “Just as many were appalled at you [Israel], / So his appearance was marred more
than any man;” see the use of “appalled” in Lev 26:32) and the curse of the law (he suffered
capital punishment with criminals, who are cursed of God [53:8-9; cf. Deut 21:22-23]).
Finally, John 8:28 can be connected with the remaining “lifted up” passage from Isaiah, Isa
6:1. Although the more direct reference of John 8:24-28 is to Isa 43:10 and 48:16 (see above),
the context of Isa 43:10 has its own connection with Isaiah 6, namely, a mention of those who
have eyes but do not see, and ears but do not hear (Isa 43:8; cf. Isa 6:9-10), a theme which is
mentioned in John 8:47 and also figures prominently in John 9 (especially vv. 39-41). In
addition, note how several themes from Isaiah 6 are paralleled in John 8:

Isaiah 6 John 8

45
Ronning, “The Curse on the Serpent,” 324. Raymond Brown also connected John 3:14 with Isa 52:12,
saying that Jesus’ saying that the Son of Man must be lifted up implies that it will be a fulfillment of prophecy (The
Gospel According to John (I-XII): A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary [AB: Garden City:
Doubleday, 1966], 146).
46
Ronning, “The Curse on the Serpent,” 220-23; 251-60. Note also that the proper translation for ‫רי‬
in Job 26:13 and Isa 27:1 would be “evil serpent,” not “fleeing serpent,” etc. (ibid., 136-39).
25
 Isaiah saw the Lord / the King, the LORD of
Hosts (vv. 1, 5).
Isaiah saw him in the temple (vv. 1, 4, 6).
Isaiah describes him as “high and lifted up”
(v. 1).
Jesus repeatedly identified himself as YHWH
with the “I am he” statements (vv. 24, 28, 58).
The Jews saw Jesus in the temple (vv. 20,
59).47
Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of
Man…” (v. 28).

A connection between two other passages in John and these isaianic passages about “lifting
up” may be indicated by the fact that in the LXX the passive of ο (to glorify) is used in Isa

33:10 for the hithpolal ‫ אר מ‬and for either ‫א‬ ‫ ו‬or ‫ ו‬in Isa 52:13.48 The two passages are

John 12:23; “the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified,” and John 13:31; “Now is the
Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him.” The connection to Isa 52:13 is obviously that
the glorification refers to his suffering as described in that context. The connection to Isa 33:10
would be that John 12:23 is spoken in the context of Greeks (those “far away”) wanting to see
Jesus (and notice again the emphasis on “now”). The connection to Isaiah 6 would be that in his
suffering, he would be identified by Pilate (against the objection of the Jews), as “the King of the
Jews” (John 19:21). Again, so that those far and near (Jew and Gentile) could see what he has
done (Isa 33:13), this inscription was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek (19:20).
The isaianic passages about one who is “lifted up” feature both the LORD (chapters 6 and
33), and one who is clearly a man, who suffers such that he is marred “more than the sons of
man” (52:14). Likewise when Jesus speaks of himself as being lifted up he is “the Son of Man.”
Even when he speaks in the first person as in the manner of Isa 33:10, John brings in the “Son of
Man” reference through the people’s question, “Who is this ‘Son of Man’?” (John 12:31-34). In
keeping with this feature, John also shows us Jesus as the warrior in his actions as a “son of

47
Similarly, David Ball notes that in his MPhil thesis “The μι Sayings in John’s Gospel;” C. L. B.
Plumb “argues from the Old Testament and Targums that the location of Jesus’ ‘I am’ sayings in the Temple, where
God’s glory was to be expected, is paramount to their understanding as theophanies” (Nottingham, 1990, 114;
quoted in Ball, ‘I am’ in John, 80, n. 4).
48
Cf. Evans, Word and Glory, 155; “The language of glorification and exaltation … probably owes its origin to
the LXX’s use of δ ά and ὑ ά in the opening line of the Servant Song.”
26
man.” I refer to the activities of Jesus at the Jordan River (John 1), where at the beginning of his
ministry, he walks in the footsteps of his Old Testament namesake, Joshua, as he crossed the
Jordan in preparation for the conquest of Canaan. The baptism of Jesus in the Jordan is
described in the synoptics, where it is seen as the typological counterpart to the crossing of the
Red Sea, followed as it was by the 40 days testing in the wilderness. In the Old Testament, the
crossing of the Jordan under Joshua is also related typologically to the crossing of the Red Sea.49
God began to exalt Joshua, the successor of Moses, at the miracle of the drying up of the Jordan
(Josh 3:7; 4:14), which is related to the crossing of the Red Sea where a similar miracle
happened, as well as the end of the flood, and the third day of creation when dry land appeared
out of the waters below (note that the Jordan was to be crossed on the third day, Josh 1:11).
Later in Israel’s history, Elijah is succeeded by Elisha, who like Joshua is marked out by God as
the successor in a miraculous crossing of the Jordan (2 Kgs 2:14-15). In both of these Old
Testament cases, the successor carries on where the predecessor has failed to accomplish his
mission given on Mt. Sinai.50 Similarly, John, who is like Elijah (Mk 9:13, etc.), points to Jesus
as the one who comes after him and is greater (John 1:27, 30). The synoptics show Jesus exalted
by the Father at his baptism in the Jordan (as Joshua and Elisha were exalted in the Jordan
crossing) as well as the creation symbolism of the hovering dove (Matt 3:17-18; Mark 1:10-11;
Luke 3:22), and John 1 shows Jesus after his return to the Jordan following in the footsteps of
Joshua the warrior in the incident of the setting up of the monument at Gilgal after Israel crossed
the Jordan (Joshua 4). Note the following correspondences:

49
See, e.g., Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 358-68.
The Red Sea crossing is further related back to Noah’s flood by the common theme of the drowning of the wicked,
and Noah’s flood is in turn related back to creation, a relationship which is conveniently shown in the birth narrative
of Moses: (1) creation: the mother of Moses “saw him, that he was good” (Exod 2:2; cf. Gen 1:4, etc.); (2) flood: the
waterproofed “ark” used to deliver Moses from drowning (v. 3) recalls Noah’s ark (the word ‫ה‬ is used only in
these two narratives); (3) Sea crossing; the mother of Moses placed the “ark” in the reeds ( ), from where he is
rescued, as Israel later would be rescued at the Red Sea ( ‫( )י‬see Ronning, “The Curse on the Serpent,”213-14,
and (for point [2]), U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967], 18).
50
Note the numerous similarities between Exodus 34 and 1 Kings 19.
27
 Joshua is told to pick 12 stones
out of the Jordan, one for each
tribe (2-5).
Joshua was to set up the stones at
the place he made camp that night
(vv. 4, 8, 20).
The twelve stones were a “sign”
and “memorial” to future
generations of the greatness of
YHWH (4:24).
Jesus begins gathering 12 disciples at the Jordan; being
John’s disciples, like Joshua’s 12 stones they had been
immersed in the Jordan.51
Some of John’s disciples followed Jesus from the Jordan
to the place he was staying (vv. 38-39). Jesus named the
one who would be their leader, “stone” (i.e., Peter; v. 42).
The 12 disciples likewise were to testify to the greatness
of Christ, seen as both Son of Man (like Joshua) and as
YHWH.

These typological correspondences between John’s baptism in the Jordan and Joshua’s crossing
of the Jordan, along with John’s statement that “YHWH became flesh and tabernacled among
us” helps us see the appropriateness of Jesus being baptized in the Jordan as analogous to the ark
of the covenant standing in the middle of the Jordan while Israel crossed. The miracle went
beyond simply drying up the Jordan and its consequent creation symbolism; the waters of the
Jordan were “cut off” before Israel by the LORD (3:13, 16; 4:7[2x]), as afterward Joshua would
“cut off” the Canaanites (11:21; 23:4). Joshua the man led his people in war, but YHWH was
the one who gave them the victory.52 The New Testament Joshua (Jesus) as the Son of Man
follows in the footsteps of the Old Testament Joshua; yet Jesus speaks as YHWH, the Old
Testament “man of war.” These two are true, again, because YHWH became flesh.
g. YHWH is the Bridegroom of his people
In the Old Testament, YHWH is the Divine Warrior (see above), and the Divine Bridegroom
of his people. These themes are found side by side in Isaiah 62-63. Isa 62:4-5 reads, “you will

be called ‘My delight is in her’ [ ‫צי‬ ] / And your land, ‘Married’ [‫ה‬ ]; / For YHWH

51
As John Calvin acknowledged, “the word ‘baptize’ means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of
immersion was observed in the ancient church” (Institutes, book IV, chap. 15, §19).
52
The reader might object that, even if John is showing the actions of Christ as similar to those of Joshua, they
are not particulalry war-like actions. It should be remembered, though, that Gilgal (where the monument was set up)
was Joshua’s war camp, where he made preparations for war, and to where he returned after battle. John can be
seen as adding to the synoptics in their portrayal of Christ as divine warrior, after his temptation going into the
promised land, driving out demons, etc. For a discussion of the synoptic material, see Tremper Longman III and
28
delights in you, / and [to him] your land will be married. / For as a young man marries a virgin, /
so your Builder53 will marry you. / And as the bridegroom rejoices over his bride, / So your God
will rejoice over you.” In 2 Kgs 21:1, we see that “Hephzibah” was a royal bride (of Hezekiah)
in Isaiah’s time. In Isa 63:1-6 YHWH appears as the Divine Warrior, in imagery taken up in the
portrayal of Christ at his second coming (Rev 19:13; cf. Isa 63:2-3). Also consistent with this
portrayal of YHWH as warrior in Isaiah, John says his name is “the Word of God” (Rev 19:15);
i.e., YHWH, if we have correctly related the Logos title with the Tetragrammaton. While it is
true that this name is not used in Isa 63:1-6, the parallel passage Isa 59:15b-20 removes all
doubt. The portrayals of YHWH as Warrior and as Bridegroom side by side is found in
Revelation 19 as well, for right before the portrayal of Christ as the Divine Warrior we see a
discussion of the marriage supper of the Lamb (vv. 7-9).
I suggest that we have such a side by side portrayal in John’s gospel as well. Above I
connected the idea of Christ being “lifted up” with the theme of the Divine Warrior in Isaiah.
Following the first mention of this idea in the gospel (John 3:14), Jesus is portrayed as the Divine
Bridegroom, in keeping again with the theme, “YHWH became flesh.”
The Lord’s first miracle was done at a wedding (John 2:1-11); Jesus was there as a guest, not
the bridegroom. Nevertheless, when the bridegroom failed to provide enough wine for the
wedding feast, Jesus stepped in and performed the role of the bridegroom (notice in v. 10 how
the bridegroom got the credit for saving the best wine until the end).54 In the next chapter John

Daniel G. Reid, God is a Warrior (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 91-135.

53
“Your Builder” is a legitimate reading of the received consonantal text ‫ יך‬, and provides a synonymous
parallel to “your God,” making much more sense than “your sons” (BHS cites Ps 147:2, “YHWH is the builder of
Jerusalem.”). The ‫ י‬in ‫ יך‬could be a plural form of the participle, used of God honorifically (likewise the verb;
see, e.g., ‫י‬ ‫י‬ ‫ י‬in Isa 54:5), or more likely, ‫ י‬is simply the more original root consonant which is often
retained in III- verbs throughout Isaiah, here misunderstood as marking a plural “sons,” which in turn led to
construing the verb as plural and adding the mater ‫ י‬to it. The root ‫ ה‬was also used for the LORD building Eve
from Adam’s side; similarly, Jesus said “I will build my church” (Matt 16:18). J. N. Oswalt argues for the MT
reading “sons” with a meaning “possess” for (The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66 [NICOT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998], 581). The meaning “possess” for this root is not attested (despite Oswalt, “the basic sense of the
word is ‘to possess’” [ibid.]), and certainly contrary to its meaning in the rest of the verse!
54
Paul D. Duke noted the significance of this miracle in portraying Jesus as the bridegroom in Irony in the
29
the Baptist refers to Jesus as the bridegroom who is above all and who comes from heaven: “He
who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him,
rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice” (John 3:29; see also v. 31). In the following
chapter we read of a man meeting a woman at a well, what could be called a classic Old
Testament betrothal or courtship scene.55 Three times in the Old Testament we read of a man
meeting a woman at a well (Genesis 24, Gen 29:1-14, and Exod 2:15-21); in each case, the
woman (Rebekah, Rachel, Zipporah) is the future bride of the man of God (Isaac, Jacob, Moses).
We could say that these three stories of a man meeting a woman at a well fall into two
categories.56 In Genesis 24 (by far the most detailed of these three accounts, parts of the story
being told four times), the bridegroom is not present; Abraham’s servant is there to find
Rebekah, and the focus is on the bride and her virtuous character. Isaac is only brought in by
reference (note that Isaac also is a servant - of God; v. 14), until the end of the chapter when he
makes an appearance (vv. 62-67). In Genesis 29 and Exodus 2, however, the focus is not on the
bride, but on the bridegroom, who is present at the well, and on his deeds that he performs for his
prospective bride. Jacob rolls the stone away from the mouth of the well and waters Rachel’s
flock (Gen 29:10). Moses rises up and saves the daughters of Midian from the shepherds who
are harassing them, then draws water for them and waters their flocks (Exod 2:17, 19).

Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 101, as did Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning,
Mystery, Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 48-49. Both also noted the connection to John 3:29. It should
be added that at the conclusion of the Samaritan episode, John mentions Jesus’ return to Cana and reminds us of the
miracle done there (4:43-46).
55
Some of the connections between John 4 and these three Old Testament scenes were pointed out as long ago
as David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus Critically Examined [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972; orig. 1835], 308.
To Strauss, these similarities, as well as the evident symbolic importance of the Samaritan woman’s moral and
spiritual deficiencies, was evidence that John 4 was contrived (i.e. non-historical). Christians would agree, of
course, that the agreement with the Old Testament is “contrived,” by the Author of history (v. 4, “he had to pass
through Samaria”), and recorded for its theological significance, of which commentators on John generally say little
or nothing.
56
In contrast Robert Alter discusses the three passages as three variations on one type scene, which he calls
“the encounter with the future betrothed at a well” (The Art of Biblical Narrative [New York: Basic Books, 1981],
51-62). Duke also minimized the differences between the two types in listing their common elements: “(1) a man is
traveling in a foreign land; (2) he goes to a well; (3) he meets there a maiden; (4) water is given; (5) the woman
hurriedly runs home to tell; (6) the man is invited to stay; (7) a betrothal is concluded” (Irony, 101). Comparing
these to John 4, we see that point (3) is modified; the Samaritan woman is not a “maiden.” Further, item (7), the
30
 In Old Testament times, these two types of scenes could be seen for their theological
importance in relation to the idea of YHWH as the bridegroom and Israel as the bride, taken for
himself at the exodus. Genesis 24 features the servant and the virtuous prospective bride. The
servant could be seen as analogous to Moses, the servant of YHWH, his intermediary sent to win
Israel his bride, who should therefore be virtuous, like Rebekah. Israel does, indeed, promise
Rebekah-like faithfulness (Exod 19:8; 24:3, 7), but does not deliver, instead dying in the
wilderness for her prostitutions (Num 14:11, 32-33). The LORD’s actions on behalf of Israel are
analogous to Jacob’s and Moses’ on behalf of their prospective brides: the exodus itself of course
corresponding to Moses’ saving the daughters of Zipporah from oppression, and the drawing of
water corresponding to the LORD’s wilderness provision for Israel. In light of this, note how
both Moses (the servant) and the LORD (the bridegroom) appear together when the LORD “meets”
Israel at the well after they leave Egypt: “Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at
Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink”
(Exod 17:6). Israel as a whole consistently shows herself to be quite an undesirable bride, as
pointed out regularly in the prophets.
In John 4 there is a merging of the servant and the divine bridegroom. First, there are close
similarities between Genesis 24 and John 4.57 We could begin by noting an overall similarity in
theme: In Gen 24:1-4 we see that there is a father (Abraham) who is seeking a virtuous bride for
his son Isaac. Jesus says that the Father is seeking those who will worship him in spirit and in
truth (John 4:23-24). Now note the similarity in details. (1) In both cases the man begins by
asking the girl for a drink: “The servant ran to meet her, and said, ‘Please let me drink a little

betrothal, is missing (or is it?).

57
M. É. Boismard noted many of these parallels in “Aenon, près de Salem (Jean, III, 23),” RB 80 (1973), 223-
24, as did Normand R. Bonneau in “The Woman at the Well: John 4 and Genesis 24,” The Bible Today, Oct 1973,
1254. Bonneau attributed his list to F. -M. Braun, but gives no citation. Bonneau also mentions the similarity of
words used in John 4 and the LXX of Genesis 24. He further connects Jesus’ statement about the water he would
give becoming a well springing up to eternal life (4:14) to the Palestinian Targum rendering of Genesis 29 in which
the water from the well rose up for 20 years after Jacob rolled the stone away (ibid., 1257). He also reports the
suggestion of Aileen Guilding (The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship [Oxford: Clarendon, 1960], 231-33) that if
John 4:35 provides a date for the incident, the contemporary Palestinian synagogue reading would include Exodus 2
31
water from your pitcher’” (Gen 24:17; also see vv. 14, 43, 45). The Lord Jesus begins his
conversation with the Samaritan woman the same way; “Jesus said to her ‘Give me a drink’”
(John 4:7). (2) In Gen 24:18-24 the servant learns who the woman is and what is her character.
In John 4:9-26 we see that Jesus, who is in fact “greater than our father Jacob” (v. 12) as shown
in that he already knows the character of the woman, and who she is. (3) Rebekah “ran and told
her mother’s household about these things” (Gen 24:28), just as the Samaritan woman “went into
the city and said to the men, ‘Come see a man who told me all the things I have done’” (John
4:29). (4) In both cases those who were told about the stranger at the well go out to meet him
and invite him to stay with them: Laban ran outside to the man at the spring, invited him in, and
he came to their house (Gen 24:29-32), just as the Samaritans “went out of the city and were
coming to him. … They were asking him to stay with them (John 4:30, 40). (5) In both
narratives the stranger initially refuses to eat: “When food was set before him he said, ‘I will not
eat until I have told my business’” (Gen 24:33); similarly, “The disciples were requesting him,
saying ‘Rabbi, eat.’ But he said, ‘I have food to eat that you do not know about. … My food is
to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work’” (John 4:31-32, 34). (6) In both
cases the man at the well is on a mission of which the woman is unaware (she thinks the meeting
is just a chance encounter), and he has gifts for the woman of which she is unaware: “when the
camels had finished drinking, the man took a gold ring weighing a half-shekel and two bracelets
for her wrists weighing ten shekels in gold” (Gen 24:22; also see v. 47). And after the marriage
is agreed to, “the servant brought out articles of silver and articles of gold, and garments, and
gave them to Rebekah; he also gave precious things to her brother and to her mother” (v. 53).
Similarly, Jesus says to the Samaritan woman, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who
says to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living
water” (John 4:10). (7) In both episodes, the stranger stays for two days: “He and the men who
were with him ate and drank and spent the night. In the morning he said, ‘Send me away to my

or Genesis 24 (ibid., 1255).

32
master’” (Gen 24:54). Although he stayed less than 24 hours, this period of time would be
counted in the Bible as two days; the day he arrived being the first, and the day he left being the
second. Likewise, Jesus stayed with the Samaritans for two days: “And he stayed there two
days. … And after the two days he went forth from there” (John 4:40, 43).
Clearly, all these similarities of detail are meant to show us that Jesus is walking in the
footsteps of an Old Testament character; in this case, Abraham’s servant, who went on a mission
to procure a bride for his son Isaac. From what I said before about references to Jesus as the
bridegroom in passages leading up to John 4 (i.e., Jesus providing the wine at the wedding,
fulfilling the role of the bridegroom (John 2:1-11), and John the Baptist calling Jesus the
bridegroom in John 3:29, one might wonder why Jesus is portrayed as the servant in John 4 (esp.
v. 34; “My food is to do the will of him who sent me”), along the lines of Genesis 24, rather than
as the bridegroom himself. Further considerations make it clear, however, that the Old
Testament background to John 4 does also portray Jesus as the bridegroom. That is, in addition
to parallels between John 4 and Genesis 24, we also see parallels to Genesis 29 and Exodus 2,
where the bridegroom himself meets his prospective bride at a well. In John 4 the time of day is
about noon (v. 6), as in Gen 29:7, unlike Gen 24:11, and Jesus is sitting by the well (v. 6), as in
Exod 2:15, unlike Gen 24:13.58 I mentioned before that in Genesis 29 and Exodus 2, where the
bridegroom is present at the well, the focus is not so much on his bride whom he meets there, but
on the deeds of the bridegroom done for his bride. Jacob by himself rolls the stone away from
the mouth of the well, and waters Rachel’s flock (Gen 29:10). When shepherds came to oppress
the daughters of Reuel, “Moses rose up, and helped them” (Exod 2:17); his deeds are recounted
to Reuel by his daughters, who mistook him for an Egyptian; “An Egyptian saved us from the
hand of the shepherds; he even drew water for us and watered the flock” (Exod 2:19). Likewise
in John 4 the man at the well has water to give (vv. 10, 14), and the conclusion of the whole

58
My point is not that it makes a great deal of difference whether the man at the well is standing or sitting, but
that John seems to purposely bring in Exodus 2 in addition to Genesis 24 as background to John 4. J. Bernard notes
that Josephus (Antiquities 2.11.1) adds some detail to the Exodus narrative that is strikingly similar to John 4:6: “As
33
episode is that “this one is indeed the savior of the world” (v. 42), whereas before it was doubted
that he was “greater than our father Jacob (v. 12). Jacob at the well watered the flock for Rachel,
temporarily satisfying their thirst; Jesus offers “living water” that leads to eternal life. Jesus
performs the heroic deeds of the bridegroom. Like Jacob he rolled the stone away; like Moses,
he arose and delivered his bride. To accomplish these things, however, he first took on the role
of the servant.
In the previous section we noted that when YHWH became flesh, the Divine Warrior
became also a servant. Here in John 4 we see him as the Servant-Bridegroom. Though acting
out his Bridegroom role as a man based on Old Testament human analogy, he at the same time
asserts his deity in the manner of his quotation of Isa 52:6 in John 4:26 (see above). He is the
divine Servant Bridegroom. It follows that the Samaritan woman represents the bride of Christ,
that is, the church; she was from an undesirable race (as we are, namely, the human race),59 and
had had many husbands, currently living with a man to whom she was not married (similarly, we
have all had many “husbands,” since immorality is frequently used as a figure for idolatry).60
We may note as well that Jacob and Moses were fleeing for their lives when they met their
prospective brides at the well; in fact, prior to the wedding at Cana John reminds us of Jacob’s
two-fold mission (to save his life and find a wife) in Jesus’ mention of the angels ascending and
descending on the Son of Man (John 1:51; cf. Gen 28:12). Although it has been argued that
Jesus was likewise avoiding potential persecution when he passed through Samaria (implied in
vv. 1, 3), overall Jesus in contrast was on a mission to give his life for his bride. We may further

in the Gospel story, Moses was sitting by the well at midday, weary with his journey” (John, 1:136).
59
John has already shown us that Jesus regards the whole human race as the Jews regarded the Samaritans
(John 2:24-25).
60
Interpreters who have noted the connections to the Old Testament betrothal scenes have nevertheless failed
to come to the simple conclusion that the Samaritan woman must represent the bride of Christ, i.e., the church as a
whole. More commonly, she has been viewed as representative only of the Samaritans and their false religion. John
Bligh, for example, says “the ‘five husbands’ probably stand for the five false religions introduced into Samaria by
the foreign settlers sent there by the Assyrians. The names of the false gods are given in 2 Kg 17:30-31. There are
in fact seven names, but as four of these occur in pairs, there are five idolatrous cults. … Josephus … says that five
gods were imported. … the sixth husband [sic] … will be the debased form of Yahwism practised by the
Samaritans” (“Jesus in Samaria,” Heythrop Journal 3 [1962], 336). Similarly Boismard, who also suggests an
34
contrast how Jesus treated his unworthy bride with how Isaac treated the model bride, Rebekah.
Isaac betrayed his most worthy bride, Rebekah, subjecting her to potential defilement to save his
own life (Gen 26:7-9); Jesus gave up his life for his unworthy bride, “to make her holy, cleansing
her by the washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:26). Isaac (like his father Abraham) lied to
save his own life. Jesus could have done the same before Pilate, but said instead, “for this I have
come into the world, to bear witness to the truth” (John 18:37).61
Above it was noted that comparison of John 4 to the Old Testament woman-at-the-well
scenes shows that the former lacks (or seems to lack) a betrothal. Instead, the issue of the
episode is that the woman and many of her fellow townspeople came to believe in Jesus (4:39,
41-42). There was a similar outcome from the first miracle, when Jesus stepped in to perform
the bridegroom’s role at the wedding in Cana (2:11). The Baptist’s designation of Jesus as the
bridegroom is in response to a report that “all are coming to [Jesus]” (3:26). “Coming to” Jesus
is equivalent to “believing in” Jesus (John 6:35).
The figure of the people of God as his bride naturally suggests that people become part of
that “bride” when they become part of the church, the body of Christ; i.e., when they believe in
him (John 1:12). This implication is completely consistent with what we see in the Old
Testament use of this figure. After Israel crossed the Red Sea (it was at the exodus that he took
Israel for his bride), we read that they “believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses” (Exod
14:31). Yet their faith proved to be temporary, so that within two years they are characterized as

unbelievers who will die for their harlotries ( ‫י‬ ; Num 14:11, 33; Deut 1:32).

John’s portrayal of Christ as the bridegroom is based on John the Baptists’s designation,

allusion to the Canaanite Baal in the word “husband” of vv. 16-18 (“Aenon, près de Salem” 225).
61
Elsewhere I have connected the obedience of Christ to the Old Testament theme of the new Adam. Various
men are brought forward in Genesis as if they were the new Adam (e.g. Noah in Genesis 9, Abraham in Genesis 17).
Moses shows us that these men are in fact unsuitable to actually be the new Adam. One of the disqualifying features
is that they sin in a manner that reminds us of the sin of the first Adam, who sinned against an ordinance given in the
Garden of Eden. Another ordinance there given was the marriage ordinance, that the man should cling to his wife;
Abraham and Isaac instead lied to save their own lives, giving up their wives (at least potentially) to others. The
obedience of Christ to death on a cross shows his worthiness to be the new (last) Adam, i.e., the Son of Man (see
Ronning, “The Curse on the Serpent,” 208-10, 311-13, 332-35).
35
Christ’s actions in Cana, and his actions and words at the well in Sychar. Christ as bridegroom
is not an ad hoc analogy but is the New Testament continuation of the Old Testament theme of
YHWH as the bridegroom of his people. It is another example of “the Word (YHWH) became
flesh.”
5. Conclusion and Implications.
a. Compositional: two of the questions raised in the study of John in modern times are (1)
whether John’s gospel is composed in light of the prologue or is the prologue an indepenedent
afterthought, and (2) whether the background of the gospel tends toward the hellenistic or the
semitic. The present study supports the view that the gospel is indeed composed in light of (and
is thus explanatory of) the prologue, and the background is indeed heavily semitic (specifically,
the Old Testament).62
b. Christological: It would seem that John has four emphases concerning the person of Jesus
Christ (no doubt expressing his concerns as he observes the church in its second or third
generation): (1) Jesus Christ is the eternal Son who is and always was fully God; (2) though fully
God he is nevertheless distinct from the Father; (3) in the incarnation he became fully man; (4)
Christ’s taking on of human nature did not diminish his deity. These four emphases are seen
John’s prologue: (1) v. 1, 18, “the Word was God;” “the one and only God;” (2) v. 1, 18, “the
Word was with God;” “who is in the bosom of the Father;” (3); v. 14, “the Word became flesh;”
(4) vv. 14, 18 “we beheld his glory, glory as of the one and only one from the Father. … The one
and only God.”
But Arians have been very resourceful in denying the deity of Christ based arguments from
passages containing the word θ , since this word can be used of angels or even men, and
sometimes there are technical grammatical and textual issues which can be brought in to cloud

62
I thus concur with Evans who says, “In my opinion scholars have exaggerated the differences between the
Prologue and the body of the Fourth Gospel.” Explaining why the Logos from the prologue is absent from the body,
Evans says, “Jesus acts and teaches as God’s ‘Word’ throughout the Gospel proper” (Word and Glory, 185). I hope
that I have shown more precisely the connection between the Logos in the prologue and the rest of the gospel: Jesus
acts and teaches as YHWH throughout the gospel proper. Much of the material that supports this conclusion has
36
the issue.63 Seeing that “the Word” infers the Tetragrammaton, however, there is no escaping the
conclusion that Jesus Christ is fully God, because YHWH points unambiguously to the one true
God of Israel from “the beginning” of revelation.
These same four emphases are seen throughout John’s gospel, though in this paper I have
been concentrating on the first; the portrayal of Christ in word and deed as YHWH. Since these
words and deeds of Christ are describing him post-incarnation, they also serve to make point
(4).64 But the same passages that portray Jesus as speaking and acting as YHWH also
consistently make point (2) in their context, where Christ mentions his relationship to the Father
(distinct from and subordinate to). These passages also make point (3) by consistently point out
the real humanity of Christ by John’s comments (“Jesus was weary from his journey,” etc.), as
well as the words of Christ (such as “I am thirsty” and his repeated self description as “the Son
of Man”). That these emphases seen in the prologue are carried forward in his gospel, can be
seen as confirmation of the suggestion that “the Word” infers YHWH.
If these emphases reflect John’s concerns as he observes the church in his day, it is fitting
for us to ask whether he would be similarly concerned were he to observe evangelicalism today.
I speak especially of point (1). Do we in our thinking about “Jesus Christ” really think about
him as the eternally existant YHWH (not just in theory but in practice)? In researching this
paper it struck me that writers who have noted the YHWH-like words of Jesus in John’s gospel
seem nevertheless reluctant to make the simple inference, that Jesus is YHWH. Further, books
having titles such as “Christ in the Old Testament” confine themselves to a discussion of
messianic prophecy and analogies to Old Testament men as types of Jesus the Son of Man, rather
than observing that when the Old Testament witnesses to YHWH, it is witnessing to the pre-

come directly from the Old Testament, some of it has been mediated through Judaism (such as the Targums).
63
I.e. in v. 1, the translation “the Word was God” as opposed to “the Word was a god” depends in part on a
grammatical argument that obviously would not be appreciated by non-Greek speakers. In v. 18 the word “one and
only” has been misunderstood as “only begotten,” implying to some a created status for Christ. Further, some mss.
read “son” for “God.”
64
One might add that the fourth emphasis (post-incarnation) is extended to the post-ascension Christ in Jesus’
prayer of John 17, and especially in the Book of Revelation with the passages mentioned already.
37
incarnate Christ, who showed in his public ministry his own consciousness of this truth by
speaking to his people in the flesh in the same manner in which he formerly spoke through the
prophets.
Therefore when Christ speaks of his own person and works, we cannot assume that he is
only speaking of himself post-incarnation, for example, when he says that the Scriptures testify
concerning him, or that Moses wrote about him (John 5:39, 46), we need not (I would say,
should not) assume that Jesus is only speaking of messianic prophecies. When he says to
Nicodemus, “If I told you [plural] earthly things and you did not believe, how shall you believe
if I tell you heavenly things,” we should consider the possibility that he is contrasting his pre-
incarnation revelation to his people (largely earthly things) with his post-incarnation revelation
(heavenly things). When a “liberal Christian” says he accepts the teachings of Jesus as coming
from God but not Paul’s teachings, therefore he does not condemn homosexuality because Jesus
did not, we should instinctively reply that according to Jesus’ own words, he is YHWH,
therefore he not only gave the laws against homosexuality from Mt. Sinai (calling it an
abomination), but is the one who rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah
and Zeboiim. If we fail to take Christ’s deity fully into account in our understanding and in our
ministry, we will be guilty of not honoring the Son, even as we honor the Father (John 5:23).
Jesus Christ is not merely a superhuman deity like the gods of the pagans. His humanity did not
diminish his deity. His humanity served to demonstrate the full extent of his divine love (John
13:1), but it does not take away from his other divine characteristics, such as his wrath towards
those who reject him. In fact it intensifies that wrath, because it is a greater sin to reject YHWH
who came in the flesh than to reject YHWH who spoke from heaven through sinful men in the
Old Testament (Heb 10:28-29; John 15:22-24).

38