JESUS AND ISRAEL IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL-

JOHN 1:11

by

JOHN W. PRYOR
Melbourne

In the world of Johannine studies, contributions to the debate over

the pre-history and the exegesis of the prologue seem to be never-
ending.' The intention of this paper is to enter a small part of the
debate and to proceed from certain recent contributions to the
question of the prologue's structure. Beginning with the presump-
tion that v 11is part of the central section(s) which extends to v 13,
we shall contend that the reference in v 11 is exclusively to the mis-
sion of the incarnate Logos to Israel, his people xa2a adtpxot. As
such, eis Ta i'3ta is to be translated "to his home" and OL means
simply "his fellow countrymen and women". Implications are
drawn for John's theology of Israel.

(a) Verse Eleven and the Ministry of Jesus

It may be going too far to speak of a consensus but there has cer-
tainly been a marked willingness in recent times to consider the
finished product of the prologue as having an essentially chiastic
structure.2 One need only refer to the article by R.A. Culpepper3 3
to become aware of the number of scholars who have been attracted

1 In the four year period 1985-88, represented by vols 17-20 of Religion Index
One, I located 13 articles on aspects of the prologue. In the same period appeared
the distinctive thesis of Peter Hofrichter, Im Anfang war der Johannesprolog"
(Regensburg: Pustet, 1986).
2 One
significant exception is G. Mlakuzhyil, The ChristocentricLiteraryStructure
of theFourth Gospel(AnBib 117; Rome: Pont. Inst. Press, 1987). He exhibits little
interest in seeking a structure for the prologue, being more concerned to find a
literary pattern to what he considers to be the first section of the gospel, 1:1-2:11.
I consider that his attempt is flawed by false observations (e.g. in 1:1and
in 2:11 can hardly be claimed as an inclusion simply because
of the common use of ).
3 R.A.
Culpepper, "The Pivot of John's Prologue," NTS 27 (1980-81) 1-31.
202

to this way of reading the prologue.4 It is not my intention here to

debate the issue of the chiastic structure of the prologue: rather, I
intend to accept it and work from that presumption. It may, I
believe, be claimed that Culpepper's posited chiasm, with its seven
stage progression and its pivot in v 12b, is too precise. In par-
ticular, the balancing of v 11 with v 13 is questionable as the con-
trast of content which Culpepper detects is not there: in the one the
reaction of Israel to the Word is portrayed, and in the other a fur-
ther application of the divine begetting is presented. I consider we
are on safer ground if with Boismard we include all of vv 12-13 in
the pivot of the prologue.5 Be that as it may, the conclusion which
undeniably emerges is that v 14 is no longer the great incarnational
turning point, and that the ministry of the historical Jesus, which
is unquestionably in focus in vv 12-13, ought to be projected back
at least to v 9.
Such a reading of the point of entry of the historical Jesus and
of v 11 thus being a reference to the ministry of the historical Jesus,
is not new or uncommon. Indeed, even those scholars who see v 14 4
as the original turning point in the Vorlage generally acknowledge
that in the editorial restructuring of the evangelist, v 11 refers to the
ministry of Jesus.6 Not all, however, see it that way. Lindars, while
conceding that fih0iv refers to a particular act in time, insists "it still
does not mean the Incarnation primarily, but the choice of Israel
as God's special people. "' Wisdom tradition is the background to
this idea, Sir 24:7f being specifically referred to. Other exegetes are

4
Though the most recent commentary since 1979, that of G. Beasly-Murray
(Word, 1987) is not impressed by the argument for chiasm.
5 M.-E. Boismard, St John's Prologue(London: Blackfriars Pubs., 1957) 79-80.
6 Note, for example, the comments of Schnackenburg: "Originally v 11 also
continued to speak of the spiritual coming of the Logos to the world of human
darkness." "The evangelist once more certainly understood the verse of the
historical coming ( cf v 9c) of the Logos, and saw in the non-
acceptance the mysterious fact of Jewish unbelief." Gospelaccordingto St John (New
York, 1980), 1.258, 260. Even so, Schnackenburg still does not want to see
as referring exclusively to Israel in a polemical sense, "since no such polemic
is audible in the rest of the prologue." On the contrary, I believe vv 14-18 repre-
sent considerable polemic as the evangelist makes use of the language of Ex 33-34
and applies it to the claims of the Johannine community over against Moses and
Israel. Whereas God pitched outside the camp of Israel and Moses was denied the
vision of God's glory, the Johannine community has had the grace of the incarnate
Logos dwelling among them and they have seen his glory. They are indeed, thus,
the children of God through faith in Jesus, a status denied traditional Israel (v 13).
7 B. Lindars,
Gospelaccordingto John (London, 1972) 90.
 203

more equivocal in their interpretation: the reference is as much to

Israel in her general history as to the incarnation in particular. 8
There are, however, a number of difficulties in seeing the verse
as applying to Israel's wider history.
(i) Firstly, within the structures of the prologue, vv 6-8
undoubtedly bring the movement of thought through to the
ministry of Jesus. Whatever interpretation is given to v 5,9 it is cer-
tain that v 6 brings us into the time frame of the gospel history.
From this point on, though only John is mentioned by name, the
tense of the verbs until v 14'° would suggest that the historical
ministry of Jesus is in mind. This, of course, is not conclusive
evidence, but it does have weight when the other factors are con-
sidered.
(ii) The punctuation of v 9 has been the cause of considerable
debate, and its most satisfactory solution supports a timing in the
incarnate ministry. The case for linking ipx6pLivov with ,xv9pw1tov
presents three difficulties. Firstly, if recourse is made to the Hebraic
idiom '8r ':J, then as is commonly recognised, John has not
been accurate in his translation, the I
adding superfluous 6ivOpw7cov. I
Secondly, I would suggest that had John intended "every man who
comes into the world"" we should have expected to see the
sentence begin with ouTOS as this accords much more with Johan-
nine style. When John uses ilvai he nearly always presents its sub-
ject in substantive form or places the predicate before the verb.'3

8 So, for
example, J. Marsh, Saint John (Harmondsworth, 1968) 98-99; B.
Vawter, "John" in Jerome Biblical Commentary2.423.
9
Opinions fall into several groupings: (i) those who affirm that the ministry of
the incarnate Logos is in view-e.g. E. Käsemann, "Aufbau und Anliegen des
johanneischen Prologs," in ExegetischeVersucheund Besinnungen(Göttingen, 1968)
155-180; (ii) those who see a general statement of the cosmic being and activity
of the Logos. The aorist may be either gnomic ("has/does never") or
historic (referring either to creation or to the cross)-so commentaries of Morris,
Lindars, Brown, Barrett; (iii) Bultmann contends the verse refers to the work of
the incarnate Logos, not just however "to his earthly work, which for the
evangelist lies in the past, but to the revelation which has been given to the world
through this work and now lives on in the community." (Bultmann, John [Oxford,
1971] 46). So also Schnackenburg.
10 There are 13 aorist formations, 3
imperfects, 1 perfect, and 2 presents (3 if
be separated from in v 9).
11 See Bultmann's discussion of this, 55 n 2, and his view of as an
explanatory gloss of the translator; also note comments in major commentaries.
12
"Every man as he comes into the world" would hardly be possible as it is
difficult to know how the Logos would enlighten an infant-Schnackenburg 1.255.
13 There are some
exceptions to this rule-e.g. 5:2, 6:9, 13:13, 33, 14:9.
204

As it stands, the sentence just does not look like John's way of say-
ing "He was the true light who enlightens every man coming..."
Thirdly, it is not John's practice to speak of man coming into the
world, while it is a way of speaking of the coming of Jesus (6:14,
9:39, 11:27, 16:28; and note especially 12:46).'4
On the other hand, John does make use of the periphrastic con-
struction elsewhere (1:28, 2:6, 3 :23, 10 :40, 11:1, 13:23, 18:18,
18:25)15 and so its presence here is not uncharacteristic of him. A
third possibility is suggested by Schnackenburg, namely that v 9c
is to be read "as an afterthought". This gives the present participle
virtual punctiliar force: "that came into the world". Apart from
the difficulty that Schnackenburg acknowledges, that "according to
the rules of grammar the article should have been repeated",'6
there is the additional objection of the second point above, that we
should still expect the sentence to begin with olroq.
We conclude, then, that the customary translation such as is
given by the RSV is to be retained. On this source, Lindars is hard
pressed to persuade us that the verse now "refers to a continuous
coming of the light as the score of revelation for mankind". Follow-
ing immediately after the denial that John is the light, and
preceding the statement that the light is now in the world, the
obvious intention is not to suggest continuous comings but to con-
vey a sense of expectancy and movement: the true light is on the
way and is about to come into the world in a dramatic manner.
Granted this interpretation of v 9, any other reading of v 11 than
one that refers exclusively to the incarnate Logos is seen to be
impossible.
(iii) Can the wisdom tradition itself support the "history of
Israel" approach to v 11? In Sir 24 wisdom, who has as her posses-
sion all of heaven and earth (vv 5-6), "sought a resting place; I
sought in whose territory I might lodge"; to which comes the reply
from God, "Make your dwelling place in Jacob and in Israel
receive your inheritance" (vv 7-8). A number of features are
worthy of comment here. There is an implicit contrast between
Israel and the rest of creation. Though the language of acceptance
and rejection is not used, it is implied that wisdom sought in vain

14 Barrett,
Gospelaccordingto St John (London, 1978) 160.
15 The references in italics are cases of
beginning a sentence and with the
participle at some remove from the indicative verb.
16 Schnackenburg 1.255.
 205

for lodgings in creation, to find them only in Israel. Thus in v 1

Israel is called her and in v 12:

xai ippi§mJa Ev haj liloiaJpLivq/

!V ?LFP(6txvplov, x7?r?povo?,iaS auTOu

All of this contrasts sharply with John 1:10-11, where the

parallelism between the two verses highlights the similarity of
response of both x6JpLoq and
A He was in the world
(and the world was made through him)
B and the world did not know him;
A' he came to his own home
B' and his own people did not receive him.

The actual relationship between the x6JpLoq and !ZTOLwill be fur-

ther discussed. But what is obvious is an association in rejection not
at all found in Sir 24. And not only is there conceptual variance
between the wisdom tradition and John, but the language also finds
no parallel. In none of the wisdom passages under discussion do we
find the sort of vocabulary found in 1:11-of wisdom speaking of
either creation or Israel as "her own", of her "coming" or of her
being "not received".
In Wisdom 10-12 Israel's traditions, from Adam to the settle-
ment of the people in the promised land, are recounted in the form
of a poem on the workings of wisdom. But even here, though the
sins of the people are not ignored, there is still a clear distinction
between the righteous and the ungodly-the latter being the Egyp-
tians and the other enemies of Israel in the desert and in Canaan.
A later chapter aptly sums up the spirit of the writer:

But thou, our God, art kind and true,

patient, and ruling all things in mercy.
For even if we sin we are thine, knowing thy power;
but we will not sin, because we know we are accounted thine.
For to know thee is complete righteousness,
and to know thy power is the root of immortality.
For neither has the evil intent of human art misled us,
nor the fruitless toil of painters ... (15:1-4)
206

Neither is 1 Enoch 42 a parallel. I For while the condition of the

total rejection of wisdom by all of humanity is met, other conditions
are not. In John there is clearly a relationship of some kind between
the Logos and Ta !Zta, and those who reject him are his !Ztot. In
Enoch, however, wisdom has no such relationship with mankind-
they are simply "the children of men" among whom she "found
no dwelling place". Likewise, Prov. 1 :20ff, while taking up the
theme of the rejection of wisdom, makes it clear that those who do
the rejecting are the simple ones, scoffers, and fools (v 22).18 This
group is not the nation as a whole and hardly forces a link with Jn
1:11. Never at any stage in the wisdom tradition is there a relation-
ship between wisdom and the "fools" such that the latter are %t0t
of the former. On the contrary, the scoffers and fools are that group
in direct contradistinction to the wise and the righteous.
Perhaps the passage bearing closest resemblance to 1:11 is
Baruch 3:9ff. Here the relationship between Israel and Wisdom is
presumed, for wisdom is the Torah, the "commandment of life"
(3:9; see also 4:1). The verses are part of what Charles calls Docu-
ment B (3:9-4:4), a section which he cannot date precisely but
which "is obviously intended to console Israel during the Roman
dominion in Palestine."'9 Charles was inclined to date it after 70
AD, but more recent opinion is that it is certainly pre-Christian,
perhaps stemming from the late Maccabean period,2° and reflecting
the tensions of those times. For our purposes what is significant is
that the intention of the hymn is not simply to castigate Israel as
faithless, and certainly not to lump her with the other nations who

17As is
presumed, e.g., by W. Meeks, "The Man from Heaven in Johannine
Sectarianism," JBL 91 (1972) 61.
18 The a term particularly common in Proverbs (Pss = x 3; Prov = x 13;
Ezek = x 1), is the simple minded one who is easily led astray by the guiles of
folly (9:16), is gullible and lacks the ability to discern good and evil (14:15).
Though hope may be expressed for his education in wisdom and prudence (1:4,
8:5, 9:4) he is, in Proverbs, one for whom little hope is held. The (scorner) on
the other hand is incapable of redemption (9:7f), and for this reason is to be
avoided at all costs (Ps 1:1 Again, another term very common in Proverbs (Pss
= x 1; Prov = x 14; Isa = x 1). The refers to "the dull or obstinate one,
referring not to mental deficiency, but to a propensity to make wrong choices."
(Harris, Archer and Walke [edd], TWOT, 1.449) He takes no pleasure in under-
standing (18:2), enjoys wickedness (10:23), and his end is destruction (1:32).
Apart from 3 references in Pss, all occurrences are in Proverbs and Eccles (Prov
= x 49; Eccles = x 18).
19 R.H. Charles,
Apocryphaand Pseudepigrapha(Oxford, 1913) 1.575.
20 See, for example, the comments of S. Tedsche in IDB 1.363.
 207

are totally ignorant of wisdom and whose leaders "have vanished

and gone to Hades, and others have arisen in their place" (3:19).
The hymn is rather one of consolation: Israel can have confidence
for she has the precious gift of wisdom, the Law of God. Her pres-
ent distress is because she has "forsaken the fount of wisdom"
(3:12) but if she will return to her she will again find peace and
glory (4:2-4). Again, then, resemblances with 1:11 are superficial.
Particularly absent is the link between world and Israel so apparent
in John.
The case is not strong for seeing v 11 as a statement in the
wisdom tradition of the rejection of the Logos by Israel during the
course of her history. The tradition does not write this way, even
though it may not hide the sins and rebellion of the nation; and the
distinction between Israel and the rebellious nations is always
maintained. We are on far safer ground if we see here a statement
about the incarnate Logos and his reception.

(b) Verse Eleven and Verse Ten - Repetition or Development ?

A further problem to be solved is the relationship between v 10
and v 11. Put simply, do we have just a case of repetition, of
parallelismus membrorum in both poetic structure and meaning, or
does v 11 represent some kind of advance upon the thought of v 10?
The two positions are clearly represented by Bultmann and Brown.
For the one, "v 11 is exactly parallel to v 10, and each verse
explains the other. ei5 Ta %KXfih0iv corresponds to iv <j x6JpLq/ fit
as oi 1'6tot (x?,r6v ou 1tcxpiÀcx?ovcorresponds to o x6o[jLo<;autov oux
EYVW. "21For the other, "Verse 11 is not synonymous with 10 (pace
Bultmann), but marks a narrowing down of the activity of the
Word to Israel. "22
Before discussing the major point of contention in this regard, it
would be well to settle a preliminary matter. Bultmann's position
is that v 11is but a repetition of v 10 except for the change of
language. Does the same situation occur elsewhere in the prologue?
Schnackenburg, in his restructuring of the pre-Johannine

21 Bultmann 56; see also S. Schulz, Das

EvangeliumnachJohannes (NTD; Göt-
tingen, 1972) 24-25.
22 Brown 1.30. So also M.-J. Lagrange, EvangileselonSaint Jean
(Paris, 1924)
43 hesitantly.
208

Logo.rlied, 23 suggested that verses 4 and 9 originally belonged

together as a couplet, both parts of which also said the same thing.
This in fact becomes a major difficulty for Schnackenburg, for in
combining v 4 and (reconstructed) v 9 as part of Strophe 2, it is out
of step with his other 3 strophes. In each of the others there is some
advance within each strophe, even if, in the case of vv 10-11 (for
Schnackenburg) there is only advance in terminology from
"world" to "his own" (I will below strongly contest this). But in
his strophe 2, v 9 simply repeats v 4 and adds nothing to what is
said. In any case we have already rejected Schnackenburg's conjec-
ture of v 9c as a later addition to the Vorlage. In fact, no other part
of the prologue is repetitive in the way suggested for vv 10 and 11.
John's style is either to progress by the step parallelism of the open-
ing verses, or to make use of contrast, as in vv 7-9 or 17-18.
The heart of the contention over the relationship of vv 10 and 11I
is the meaning of the two words lZiaAZioi.24 Ta lÕlCX can mean either
"home/homeland" or can refer to "possessions, property,
substance, characteristics".z5 John and other authors in the NT are
aware of both meanings.26 In deciding its meaning in 1:11 the
following considerations need to be born in mind:
(i) In the LXX Ta lõ?cxoccurs substantively 15 times, mostly car-
rying the meaning "home/homeland". More significant is the fact
that ELÇTa t'3nx never means anything but "to one's home" (Es 5:10,
6:12, 3 Macc 6:27, 6:37, 7:8).
(ii) In the NT we also find that Ei5 ia lZia always means "to one's s
home" (16:3227, 19:2728, Ac 21:6).

23 R.
Schnackenburg, "Logos-Hymnus und johanneischer Prolog," BZ 1
(1957) 69-109.
24 It is
significant that TDNT has no article on the group in spite of the
relative importance of the term for Johannine theology and in later gnostic
thought.
25 See, for
example, the citings in Arndt and Gingrich.
26 For "home" see 16:32, 19:27, Ac 21:6; for
"property/substance" etc see
8:44, 15:19, Lk 18:28, 1 Thess 4:11.
27 Brown's translation has "each on his own", but in the notes he
acknowledges
"The meaning 'to his own occupation' is possible, but the meaning 'to his own
home' is more likely (see usage in Esther v 10, III Macc vi 27, Jn xix 27)" 2.727.
Bultmann here and in 19:27 acknowledges the meaning "to his own home".
28 Brown
acknowledges the connotation "to his own home" but says the phrase
implies care as well, and so translates it "into his care" (2.907). Perhaps a better
translation which will convey both senses would be the colloquial "under his
roof".
 209

(iii) Jacob Jervell29 has given examples of the use of Ta 1!6ta in

later Gnostic and other writings. He quotes Irenaeus (Haer 1.21 :5)
who describes the sacramental funerary rites of the Gnostic Marco-
sians. At one stage the spiritual man expresses his awareness that
his origin is with the Father in the upper world and that he has
come forth from there. This upper world is called Ta lÕlcx and he
proclaims: 1tOpE.ÚOfJ.CX? 1tcXÀ?v 60iv Ü'Ý¡Àu9cx.While Ei5 ia 1'6toc
Eis Ta 'L'6L(X
even here means "homeland", does have the technical sense
of conveying the characteristics/property of the heavenly kingdom.
Thus, in Acts of Thomas 124, the newly baptised Mygdonia replies
to her husband's request for her to return to him: 0 xatpos Exeivos
c6c lav<06 xai ouTOSTa lÕlcx. And the characteristics (Ta lZia)
of this time are then described in the next verse: such things as
finality, eternal life, eternal marriage, immortality etc. Other
references (cited also by Bultmann) are: Mand Lit 86:9-10, 114:4,
Ginza L 38:4, 78:11, 90:9. What is clear is that in later Gnostic
thinking the use of as either homeland or property would not
refer to the cosmos and the world of material reality. For Bultmann
to claim that such references "provide us with a basis for under-
standing the dualistic gnostic sense of the concept, according to
which lõwv means that which shares in a common nature", 30 and
then to relate all this to the exegesis of 1:10-11, is to ignore this very
fact. Jervell has put the matter clearly:

In Wirklichkeit ist v 11 für die gnostische Theologie noch schwieriger als v 10. In
der ersten Phase der Gnosis tritt ja der Gegensatz "h6chster Gott-Demiurg" nicht
hervor. Diese Spekulation geh6rt erst den Systemen des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts
an. Was aber die Frfhgnostiker sich nicht sagen liessen ist, was in v 11I
ausgedruckt ist, nämlich dass diese Welt Gottes eigene Welt ist, und dass die Men-
schen im allgemeinen "die Seinen" sind."

What then is the meaning of eis Ta lõ?cx In the light of the

above considerations I believe there is no case to be made for the
translation "he came to his own possession", whether that be seen
in terms of the world as a whole (so Bultmann; Lindars, who takes
ia lÕlcxas a reference to the world and yet OLiZioi as a reference to
Israel) or of Israel as the peculiar possession of the Logos (so

29
J. Jervell, " 'Er kam in sein Eigentum' Zum Joh 1,11," St Th 10 (1, 1956)
17-18.
30 Bultmann 56 n 1.
31
Jervell 15-16.
210

Schnackenburg for the Evangelist; Brown).32 If we remember that

at this stage John is thinking of Jesus the incarnate Logos and of
his ministry in Israel, then there is no reason at all why he should
not have been using this phrase in a quite non-technical sense, "he
came to his own homeland".33 Verse 11 is thus not a mere repeti-
tion of v 10.
Jervell, however, draws the opposite conclusion. On the one
hand he agrees with our conclusion with dç Ta "in der
Bedeutung 'Eigentum' kannte jede Zeit nicht ia lõ?cx als religi6sen
Terminus. Im Sinne 'Heimat' aber war es der Zeit und den Men-
schen vertraut."34 Yet on the other hand he expressly rejects the
possibility that Ta lZia and ol lõLO?may refer to Israel, and maintains
the reference is to creation and mankind. His thesis is as follows:
verses 10 and 11betray John's distinctively antignostic tendencies,
by which he turns gnostic concepts on their head:
Erstens spricht der Verfasser des Evangeliums in v 10 die unm6gliche Behauptung
aus, dass diese Welt, die unterste Region, von Gott durch den Erlöser geschaffen
geworden ist. Zweitens führt er in v I1seine Gedanken so weiter, dass er sagt,
dass gerade diese Welt, die vom himmlischen Vater geschaffene, die Heimat der
Menschheit ist. Nicht im Himmel, nicht dort oben im Lichtreich, nicht dort ist
1& 121a,Ursprungsort und Heimat der Menschen, aber hier unten, auf der Erde. 35
This argument, however, will not stand. Firstly, whilst it is
acknowledged that the Logos is the creator of the cosmos, it is quite
clear that this is not his Heimat. There is no need to argue this case
in detail, simply to refer to certain verses in the gospel such as 8:23,
13:1, 17:14, 18:36f, 20:17. Thus, while v 10 can acknowledge that
the eternal Logos is the agent of creation, this is not to say that the
cosmos is his home. And if this is so, it is also quite clear that those
who belong to the Redeemer, those who are indeed "his own" (as
in 13:1), do not belong in a permanent sense in this world. This is
not the place to enter into the difficult debate over Johannine
eschatology '36 and a few comments only will be made. In 14:1-3

32 Some scholars
give equal weight to both senses of property and home. So
Hoskyns, Barrett.
33 So, for
example, Westcott, Gospelaccordingto St John (London, 1908) 8;
Morris, GospelaccordingtoJohn (London 1972) 96, who is prepared to translate v
11a "he came home".
34
Jervell 21.
35
Jervell 21.
36 So much has been written on the
topic of the eschatology of John's Gospel.
Major works include J. Blank, Krisis, Untersuchungen Christologieund
zur johanneischen
Eschatologie(Freiburg, 1964); L. van Hartingsveld, Die Eschatologiedes Johan-
 211

Jesus makes a promise to the disciples as to his future return to take

them to himself. It is quite probable that at one level this promise
finds its fulfilment after the Resurrection in the coming of the
Paraclete (c.f. vv 18-23, espec. v 23).37 But this does not exhaust
the meaning of the promise for John. Brown suggests that chapter
14 is another example of the presence side by side of two
eschatologies in John, one traditional and futurist, the other
realised (as in 5:19-25, 26-30).38 This is an acceptable suggestion as
long as one is not thereby asserting, as Brown is in danger of doing,
that the two are simply placed side by side without any
integration-they merely come from two stages in the Johannine
tradition.39 Nor ought one to say that the traditional has been
absorbed or re-interpreted in terms of the realised-and this,
Brown suggests, is what has happened in chap. 14:
It is perhaps in this re-interpreted sense that vss 2-3 are related by the Johannine
writer to vss 6ff, while 4 serves as a transition by way of the Johannine technique
of misunderstanding. If by his death, resurrection, and ascension Jesus is to make
possible a union of the disciples with his Father, he must prepare his disciples for
the union by making them understand how it is to be achieved .40

The Johannine approach, however, is not to place two traditions

side by side, nor the absorption of the one by the other caused by
the delay of the Parousia 41 but a deal perspective caused by the
very nature of the incarnation experience and the presence of the
Holy Spirit in the life of the church. The disciples were conscious
of a new relationships with God by the presence of the Spirit in their
lives, and this Spirit awareness was also felt to be the Spirit of Jesus,
his ongoing presence with them. Yet at the same time there was an
element of incompleteness and anticipation in it all-indeed the

nesevangeliums (Assen, 1962). See also Excursus 14 in Schnackenburg 2.427-437;

M. Pamment, "Eschatology and the Fourth Gospel," JSNT 15 (1982) 81-85. See
also the survey of views on Johannine futurist-realised eschatology in D.E. Aune,
The Cultic Settingof RealizedEschatologyin Early Christianity(Leiden, 1972) 45ff. In
relation to the matter under discussion, reference should also be made to R.H.
Gundry " 'In my Father's House are many Monai' (John 14.2)," ZNTW 58
(1967) 68-72; C.F.D. Moule, "The Individualism of the Fourth Gospel," in
Essays in New TestamentInterpretation(Cambridge, 1982) 97-101.
37 So Lindars 421.
38 Brown 2.624-627.
39 So Brown in 1.216-221, of the
passages in chapter 5.
40 Brown 2.627.
41 For a denial of the
significance of this "problem" in the development of
Johannine theology, especially in relation to the Paraclete, see K. Haacker, Die
Stiftungdes Heils (Stuttgart, 1972) 135-162; see also Moule "Individualism".
212

present experience only received its meaning in the light of the

fulfilment yet to come. Thus, while the Father and the Son came
to dwell with the disciples while they were still "in the
world", this present dwelling is but an anticipation of the fuller, the
perfected indwelling yet to be. 42
Quite apart from all this, the comment of Jervell that "diese
Welt ... die Heimat der Menschenheit ist" has taken no account
of the complex Johannine theology of the world. True it is, x6JpLoq
can often be used in a quite neutral or even positive way (e.g. 1:29,
3:16).43 As the gospel develops, however, the tension between Jesus
(and his disciples) and the world becomes heightened, so that the
latter comes to stand for humanity in opposition tb the revelation
of God in Christ (e.g. 15:18f, 16:8-11, 16:20, chap 17).44 In the
light of this, even some verses which at first glance appear rather
neutral in their use of x6JpLoq can justifiably be taken to bear the
second level of meaning. When, therefore, in 13:1 Jesus is said to
be about to depart "out of this world" and return to the Father,
there is a theological necessity involved: not just that the Son comes
from the Father and belongs with him, but also that in the light of
the gospel events, the x6JpLoq represented by its inhabitants has
shown itself to be totally opposed to him, and Jesus has no perma-
nent place among them ( 17:14, 18:36). And just as Jesus is not six
Tou xoa?,ou but was sent for a time dç -c6v x6JpLov, so with the
disciples. They live with the tension of having been chosen Ex Tou
x6JpLov (15:19, 17:6, 14-16) and yet of living in the world (17:15).
But just as Jesus returned to the Father, so the tension for the
disciples is only meaningful in the light of l4:lff. There is an
implicit inter-relationship between world as physical creation and
world as spiritual opponent of God.45 If 1:10 is read with such a

42 See M. de
Jonge, "The Son of God and the Children of God," in his Jesus,
Stranger fromHeaven and Son of God (Missoula, 1977) 161.
43 N.H. Cassem, "A Grammatical and Contextual Inventory of the Use of
in the Johannine Corpus with some Implications for a Johannine Cosmic
Theology," NTS 19 (1972) 88, lists 14 neutral occurrences of and 25
positive, out of a total of 78 in John.
44 H. Sasse, " " TDNT 3, 894. I am deliberately avoiding the issue of
the relationship between the Jews and the world-see Section (d).
45 Sasse 885-895, demonstrates that this is not an idea peculiar to John but is
shared by the NT generally. "For is not just the universe as the sum of
all created things. It is also the world that is now estranged from its Creator and
Lord. Hence the linguistic sense of the early church does not allow it to use this
term for the eternal world of eschatological hope." (885)
 213

verse as 13:1 in mind, then the change from x6JpLoq as neutral

created object in v 10a,b to as negative inhabited creation
in v lOc is no subtle sleight of hand on John's part, but signifies the
natural inter-relationship of the two.46 Reading John as a whole, it
is impossible always to separate x6JpLoq meaning people/humanity
and x6JpLoq meaning the physical universe. Jervell's comment,
therefore, on the world as the home of the of the Logos is really
quite puzzling and certainly unacceptable.
There is a second error in Jervell's analysis. In this attempt to
see the verse as anti-gnostic, he insists that instead of only the elect
being of the Redeemer (in the case of gnostic speculation), John has
insisted that all humanity is God's "own". But the contrast with
gnostic thought is at once lost. For on Jervell's own admission, in
Gnosticism the lÕlOl would automatically be redeemed. Verse 11 as
it naturally reads is more than simply "erstaunlich, unverstandlich
und tragisch" ,47 it is quite impossible. Jervell tries to get around
this by reading vv 11 and 12 together as meaning: redemption is
not automatic but requires a decision, an act of the will. But v 11I
says more than that. It speaks of actual rejection, and however
much we allow for the possibility that some of the 6Joi were also I3t.0t.
it is abundantly clear that John intends to say that the majority of
the 13t0t. did not receive him.48
Jervell's thesis has come completely unstuck, and his attempt to
keep vv 10 and 11 together and yet translate dç Ta lZia as "to his
home" must be deemed a failure. One is left to wonder why he was
so unimpressed with the possibility of taking ??0 and ibtot as
references to Israel. His first reason is that John does not have
Israel at all in mind here,49 for in verses 3,9 and 10 John quite
clearly is dealing with the relationship between the Logos and the
world. Jervell ignores two obvious factors: (i) that the evangelist has
already begun to focus attention on Israel in vv 6-8; and (ii) that
the context of v 11is obviously not just what comes before but also

46 Brown 1.
Appendix 1 (7), 509. The ease by which is made the transfer from
"created world" to "inhabited world" in both Hellenistic and Jewish thought is
mentioned also by Sasse 890.
47
Jervell 22.
48
Schnackenburg 1.259-60 also makes a similar point: "In the religious
language of mysticism and Gnosis, the are the favoured and elect who have
received divine revelation and attained the goal of union with God. Such a notion
can hardly be intended here ..."
49
Jervell 20.
214

what follows. It is our contention that vv 12-18 very much have

Israel in mind, that the verses are deliberately loaded with
theological terminology from the OT, and that John is saying
something quite specific about the nature of the Christian com-
munity vis-h-vis the traditional claims of Israel.
Jervell's second reason is the one sentence observation that "if
the Septuagint ever speaks of Israel as God's people it makes use
not of the phrase laos lõwç but of Àcxoç 1tEPWÚO"WÇ" .The 50 observa-
tion is correct and has relevance to the question as to what exactly
John meant by speaking of the people of Israel as the of the
Logos. We will take up this matter in a moment. At present it needs
simply to be said that to our mind this does not at all settle the issue.
To return to the original question of the section: is v 11 but a
repetition of v 10 or does it represent development? We conclude
with Brown and others that Ta i5va and Ot LZLOL do not refer to the
cosmos and the wider world of humanity, but to Israel and her
people, and that the translation of the verse should be: "He came
to his home and his people did not receive him."

(c) The Meaning of at 13tot

In discussing the significance of OL LBLOT as applying to Israel,
scholars are wont to make reference to the several occasions in the
OT where Israel is called God's special people. Passages referred
to are: Ex 19:5, 23:22, Dt 7:6, 14:2, 26:18, Isa 43:21, 31:5, Ezek
13:18f, Mal The point of all this is to suggest that inasmuch
as Israel was God's own special covenant people, his own posses-
sion, this is what John has is mind in v 11. Thus, the eternal Logos,
who looked on Israel as his own people, came to them and was
rejected. In other words, ot %t0t is given a theological connotation
by an association with the covenantal language of the OT verses
mentioned.
The association of ideas, however, is questionable from a
number of aspects. Firstly, as Jervells2 has pointed out, !'Btot is never

50
Jervell 21.
51 Commentators who make reference to Ex 19:5 and one or more of the other
verses are: Westcott 8; Bernard, Gospel according
to St John (Edinburgh, 1928) 15;
Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel(London, 1947) 146; Brown 1.10; Schnackenburg 1.260 n
138; Van den Bussche 93.
52 Also
Schnackenburg 1.260 n 138.
 215

used in the LXX to translate the verses under consideration. In Ex

19:5 i1,JO becomes in the LXX ?<x6(; ?speouwo5, in Ps 135:4 it
becomes ?&pt.ouoKX?[jt.6?;in Dt 7:6, 14:2, 26:18 ?'7aD Dy is also
translated as Xot6q 1tEPWÚO"WÇ; and in Mal 3:17 7 i1'JD ...'b is
translated xal EQOVTOCI ... ei5 1tE.pL1to(r¡O"L\I.
Moreover, in the LXX'L,6LoL
is never used either adjectivally or substantively in a reference to
the special status of Israel as God's own.
A further consideration is John's frequent use oflõwç in its vari-
ous forms, as revealed by a comparison with the synoptic gospels.
If we eliminate xaT' as an idiomatic expression, the following
table of usage emerges: Matt x 3, Mark nil, Luke x 4, John x 15.53
John's penchant for the word is revealed in 4:44, one of the few
verses in John which has close parallels with the synoptic tradition.
In the saying, John alone of the canonical and post-canonical tradi-
tion has qualified 1tcx'tp(ç with In view of the fact such a
qualifier is hardly necessary with 1tcx'tp(ç, one may be tempted to
suggest that this is simply the Johannine equivalent to oc6-CoG found
in Mk, Lk and P Oxy. However, it is not so certain that 'lZia here
is merely the equivalent of the possessive pronoun",54 as a survey
of the Johannine use of 1'8to; reveals. Six of the 15 occurrences are
"technical" and fall outside the discussion (1 :11 twice, 8:44, 13:1,
15:19, 16:32, 19:27). Twice (5:43, 7:18) the word bears its normal
sense of "one's own/peculiar to oneself". Apart from 4:44 this
leaves five instances worthy of comment.
(i) 10:3 xai Ta lõ?cx 7cp6potroc cpwve-t xai' 6vopLa xai ieciyet cxùd.
Certainly auTOU would have been a meaningful alternative to i'??a
but it would not have conveyed the sense intended. John wants to
highlight the distinctive relationship between shepherd and flock, a
flock which is "folded" along with other flocks." And for this pur-
pose only will do.
(ii) and (iii) In 10:4 oc?-cdcwould be possible, but it is clear that
for John has become a term which he finds specially meaningful
to convey the relationship between shepherd and sheep. Thus in

53
John's usage is not so distinctive as to qualify the term being considered as
a Stileigentümlichkeitin E. Ruckstuhl's list (Die literarische Einheit des Johan-
nesevangeliums[Freiburg, 1951]). Paul also makes frequent use of the word-42
uses in the total Pauline corpus.
54 So
Schnackenburg 1.462-3 and n 5. Also Arndt and Gingrich 370, 2 (c).
55 is less likely to
Schnackenburg 2.280, 282, who acknowledges that here
be simply a possessive pronoun. Also Bernard 2.350; Barrett 369; Morris 502 n
16; Lagrange 275-76.
216

10:12 the sheep are the shepherd's and this term, stripped of
its metaphorical associations, becomes I'8t0t. in 13:1.
(iv) 5:18 xai 1tcx'tipcx1'6tov iliriv Tov 9E,ó\I. Again, auTOU is a
meaningful alternative and yet it is also clear that John has chosen
his words and word order with care. Stress here falls at the begin-
ning of the clause (1tcx'tipcx1'6Lov)and John wishes to highlight the
distinctive Father-Son relationship which even the Jews can detect
in Jesus' claims. For this reason is carefully chosen by John
and is not just a stylistic variant for ot?-CO6. 56
(v) 1:41 1 ilpiJxii ouTOS1tpw'tO\l TOV&6eXy6v -c6vLZLovEL?twvot. Of all
the verses considered this has the strongest claim for bearing
merely the exhausted sense "his" rather than "his own" .57 Cer-
tainty is impossible here, for the issue is clouded by the confusion
over the state of the text. If xp6l<oq is read, then lZiov will mean
"his own" ("he was the first disciple to find his own brother").59
If either 1tpwt or xp6l<ov be preferred then the issue is not settled,
for either "his" or "his own" is possible. Here the issue must rest,
except to say this: we have seen that John has a tendency to use
to express personal relationship between groups. It is not at all
unlikely that here, too, John has chosen his term carefully to
highlight the relationship between the two disciple.60
Whatever the decision in 1:41 it can, however, be affirmed that
John shows no tendency to substitute lôwç for auiou. He generally
(or perhaps always) wishes to lay stress upon a relationship, and
this is particularly true in chaps 10 and 13 where the Christ-
disciples relationship is emphasised. I believe we are therefore
justified in suggesting that in 4:44 is deliberately chosen by
John and that it marks the peculiar relationship that John (and the
early church) understood to have existed between Jesus and Galilee

56 So also Barrett 256;

Schnackenburg 2.101. Lagrange 142, puts the matter
admirably: " ne signifie pas 'son' car tout Israélite pouvait nommer Dieu son
Père, mais 'son propre père, son père à lui', dans le sens de l'égalité."
57 So Barrett 182; Blass Debrunner Funk 286;
Lagrange 47; Schnackenburg
1.311 tentatively; Bultmann 101 n 3; Boismard, Du Baptêmeà Cana (Paris, 1956)
81-84; Morris 159 n 92.
58 For a discussion of the textual
problems see the major commentaries. Also
Boismard, Du Baptême81 ff; N. Turner, GrammaticalInsights into the New Testament
(Edinburgh, 1965) 135ff.
59 Preferred
by Turner 136-7: "The inference is that a son of Zebedee was to
follow the precedent and bring his brother too.'" For Turner thus means " his
own".
60
J.H. Moulton, Grammarof New TestamentGreek(Edinburgh, 1908) 1.90.
 217

(representing the wider Israel).6' John has not lost sight of the fact
that Jesus came as Messiah to the people of his own race, Israel.
In spite of the high Christology of the descent of the Son of Man,
or the sending of the Son, or the claims of Christ to be "from
above", here is a verse from the Johannine tradition which
indicates to us that John may not be so "naively docetic" as is
sometimes imagined.61 He and his community still fully
acknowledge the Jewish heritage of the human Jesus.63
It is in this light that we are to read 1:11: o[ 't?6totdoes not carry
with it the profoundly theological concept of Àcxoç 1tEpWÚO"WÇ, the
covenant people of God. For John it is not a status term but a rela-
tional one. Here is the reminder of the conditions of the ministry
of Jesus: he came to his own kinsfolk, his t'8KX1tcx'tp(ç. Nothing in the
verse is implied of Israel as God's covenant people: they are simply
his own people according to the flesh, the people of his homeland
(eis Ta We conclude, then, that Jervell is not justified in his
argument, and that oi lôwl does not reflect the language of the LXX
in the relationship of God to Israel is not a justification for denying
the application of the verse to Israel. John means no more than
what he repeats in a different way in 4:44-Jesus came to his own
homeland, and his own countrymen rejected him. They failed to
perceive in Jesus of Nazareth the eternal Logos of God.64

(d) 1:11 and 1:10 Again

It was earlier concluded that v 11represents a narrowing of the
scope of v 10, such that OL are not humanity in general but
Israel in particular. While not wanting to overthrow this conclu-
sion, it is appropriate to ask whether there is not a subtler relation-

61 See
my article, "John 4:44 and the Patris of Jesus," CBQ 49/2 (1987)
254-263.
62
pace E. Käsemann, The Testamentof Jesus (London, 1968) chap 2.
63 See also such verses as 2:3, 7:3, and 19:26f. In 7:40-42 I believe it is much
more likely that John is here reflecting knowledge and acceptance of the early
church's tradition of the Davidic descent and the Bethlehem birth of Jesus (with
Lindars 302-3; Barrett 330; Schnackenburg 2.158-9; Brown 1.330; Lagrange 218;
Van den Bussche 299-300) than that "the Evangelist knows nothing or wants to
know nothing of the birth in Bethlehem" (Bultmann 306 n 6).
64 Both
Hoskyns 260, and Lindars 201, see some kind of thematic relationship
between 1:11 and 4:44 in the matter of rejection. Whether for John the association
is closer is an unknown factor. For example, has in 4:44 been inserted as a
conscious allusion to 1:11? It is possible, if the prologue was written first. Or if
the gospel was written first, it is possible that 1:11 reflects the language of 4:44.
218

ship between OLlôwl and the cosmos in v lOc. In the main body of
the gospel there are 38 instances of xoa?,os having negative force .65
While it is true that there is no absolute overlap between Israel and
the world, it is also clear that in many references it is Israel who is
representative of the world. Thus, in 7:7 the hatred of the world
towards Jesus is the hatred of the Jews mentioned in 7 : 1 (see also
8:23, 9:39). In the Farewell Discourses this antipathy will carry
over to apply also to the disciples (e.g. 15:18ff). But again it is quite
clear that it is the Jews who are the hating and persecuting world
(see 15:20, 25, 16:lfo. So in 1:10-11 John begins by highlighting
the irony of the situation: the Logos, by whom the world was made,
came into that world and was unknown. When it comes to being
more specific, to detailing where and how the Logos was in the
world and yet not known, reference is made to Israel and its people.
So here at the very beginning of the gospel is a theme which is
developed in the ensuing chapters: Israel, though acknowledged as
the 1tcx'tp(ç of Jesus, his own people by race, have shown by their
rejection of him to belong totally to the world. They have no other
claim to make. 66

65 I am
using the figures deduced by Cassem 81-91, without attempting to
evaluate his grouping into positive, neutral, and negative uses of
66 To
my knowledge only Van den Bussche 92, has seen that even in the pro-
logue Israel is designated as the world: "En fait, c'est dans le monde d'Israël
qu'apparait la lumière. 'Le monde' et 'les siens' désignent à peu près la même
réalité concrète, quoique dans le monde' subsiste encore l'écho d'une destination
universelle. "