Genesis 9:1-17

The Covenant with Noah

9:1 God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4 Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life.

6 Whoever sheds the blood of a human,

by a human shall that person's blood be shed;

for in his own image

God made humankind.

7 And you, be fruitful and multiply, abound on the earth and multiply in it."

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, 9 "As for me, I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the domestic animals, and every animal of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark. 11 I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth." 12 God said, "This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: 13 I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth." 17 God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth." (Genesis 9:1-17, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of January 22, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from January 17, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two).

The world-wide flood has dissipated, and yesterday’s reading concluded with a scene in which Noah offered sacrifice that was received with favor by the LORD (Gen. 8:20-22). As today’s reading begins, we are told that “God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered’ ” (9:1-2). According to Rabbi J. H. Hertz, “The blessing which was bestowed on Adam (I, 28) is repeated, since Noah and his sons were the heads of a new race. The Divine benediction would hearten them to undertake the task of rebuilding a ruined world” (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, on Gen. 9:1-2). We note that the earlier blessing speaks of “dominion over . . . every living thing” (1:28), but not of “fear and dread.” Perhaps the latter refers to the new permission to use animals for food. “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you,” says God; “and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything” (9:3). “Every moving thing,” says Rabbi Hertz, “is here used in a wide sense to include beast, fish and fowl” (ibid., on v. 3). And he notes the lifting of the limitation to vegetarian eating. “The meaning is that just as the green herb was granted to man as food by God (I, 29), so now permission is given him to partake of the flesh of animals” (ibid.). But there is a restriction. “Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (9:4). Jon D. Levenson notes this qualification, “that the blood, which the Tanakh [i.e., the Hebrew Bible] identifies with the life-force (Lev. 17:11, 14; Deut. 12:23), must be drained out first. This is the origin of kashering, the Jewish practice of salting meat so as to absorb the blood before cooking” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Gen. 9:1-4). Rabbi Hertz says,

According to Rashi, the restriction was of a twofold nature. It, firstly, forbade yHh Nm rbx ‘cutting a limb from a live animal’–a barbarous practice common among primitive races; and secondly, the blood must not on any account be eaten, since it was the seat of life. This double prohibition, of cruelty to animals and the partaking of blood, is the basis of most of the rules of the Jewish slaughter of animals (Shechitah) and of the preparation (kashering) of meats, which have been observed by Jews from time immemorial. (op. cit., on v. 4)

The subject transitions from the blood as the “life-force” of animals, to include that of humans, in the context of a prohibition of murder. “For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life” (Gen. 9:5). The prohibition of murder is then put in verse form:

Whoever sheds the blood of a human [‘of man’ NJPS 1985, 1999, cf. AV/KJV],

by a human [‘man’ NJPS = AV/KJV] shall that person’s blood be shed;

for in his own image

God made humankind [‘man’ NJPS = AV/KJV]. (Gen. 9:6, NRSV)

In the older translations, the term “man” is clearly understood in the generic sense as “humankind,” including men and women, which the “inclusive policy” of the NRSV makes explicit. Based on this verse, Ronald Hendel explains the prohibition of murdering humans as “since humans are made in the image of God” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Gen. 9:1-7). In commenting on the NJPS, Levenson says,

By man in v. 6 may be more accurately rendered as ‘in compensation for a human being.’ Human life is sharply distinguished from animal life; the idea that human beings are created in the image of God (1:26-27), requires a higher degree of respect for human life. In the Talmud, v. 5 is interpreted as a prohibition of killing oneself (b. B. K. 91b), and v. 6 is cited in support of the prohibition of abortion. (op. cit., on vv. 5-6)

At first glance, it appears that the paragraph ends by repeating its beginning: “And you, be fruitful and multiply, abound on the earth and multiply in it” (v. 7); compare “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (v. 1b; as indicated above, cf. 1:28). But, according to Rabbi Hertz, “This verse is not a superfluous repetition of v. 1. It gives a further reason why God holds bloodshed in such abhorrence. It is His desire that life should be multiplied, and not diminished through murder. The Talmud founded on this verse its strong condemnation of him who does not fulfil the command to found a family” (op. cit., on v. 7). One may wonder, of course, why this could not be based on 1:28 and 9:1. And given the earth’s exploding populations, one may wonder if we haven’t sufficiently fulfilled this command. But under any circumstances, murder is certainly wrong. Even so in ways that go beyond mere individual murders, where economic and social policies, or individual or corporate neglect, leave people to suffer and die needlessly.

In Rabbinical thought, a basis is presented here for laws for gentiles, as well as Jews. According to Rabbi Hertz,

Rabbinic interpretation of these verses deduced seven fundamental laws from them: viz. (1)the establishment of courts of justice; (2) the prohibition of blasphemy; (3) of idolatry; (4) of incest; (5) of bloodshed; (6) of robbery; (7) of eating flesh cut from a living animal. The Rabbis called these seven laws the ‘Seven Commandments given to the descendants of Noah’. These constitute what we might call Natural Religion, as they are vital to the existence of human society. Whereas an Israelite was to carry out all the precepts of the Torah, obedience to these seven commandments alone was in ancient times required of non-Jews living among Israelites, or attaching themselves to the Jewish community. (ibid., on v. 7; cf. Levenson, op. cit., on vv. 8-17).

The narrator continues to present God’s speech to Noah. “Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, ‘As for me, I am establishing (Myq9me, mēqîm) my covenant ( yt9yr9B4, b ^erîthî ) with you and your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the domestic animals, and every animal of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark’ ” (vv. 8-10). “Establish,” says Rabbi Hertz, means “confirm,” in reference to “the covenant that is mentioned in VI, 18” (ibid., on v. 9). He has commented on the earlier reference to God’s “covenant”: A covenant means an agreement or compact between two parties, for the observance of which pledges are given. Here it is used in the simple sense of a promise. God will fulfil His promise to spare Noah and his family” (ibid., on 6:18).

In further comment, the Rabbi entitles Genesis 9:1-17, “The Covenant with Noah, the Seven Commandments of Man,” and the discussion envisions more than a simple promise. “I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you” (v. 9). “I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth” (v. 11). “This,” he says, “is the sign (tOx, ’ôth, LXX shmei:on, sēmeion) of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow (yT9w4q1, qaštî ) in the clouds, and it shall be a sign (tOx, ’ôth, LXX shmei:on, sēmeion) of the covenant between me and the earth” (vv. 12-13). According to William L. Holladay, the “bow” is the weapon of a “hunter” or “warrior,” used here metaphorically as the “rainbow” (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. tw,q,, qešeth). Rabbi Hertz says,

This does not imply that the rainbow was then for the first time instituted; it merely assumed a new role as a token of the Divine pledge that there would never again be a world-devastating Deluge. ‘We must explain the verse as saying, The bow which I have sent in the clouds from the day of creation shall henceforth be a token of the covenant between Me and you . . . a covenant of peace’ (Nachmanides). The same commentator further asserts, ‘We must accept the view of the Greeks that the rainbow is the result of the reflection of the sun in the moist atmosphere,’ i.e. the refraction and reflection of light. (op. cit., on v. 13)

According to David M. Carr,

This is the first ‘covenant’ explicitly described as such in the Bible [excluding, of course, the brief reference in 6:18], and it encompasses all of humanity. Indeed, the animal world (vv. 12, 12, 15) and even the earth (v. 13) are included as well. A ‘covenant’ is a formal agreement, often between a superior and inferior party, the former ‘making’ or ‘establishing’ (vv. 9, 11) the bond with the latter. This agreement is often sealed through ceremonies. In this case, God sets his weapon, the bow (Ps. 7:12-13; Hab. 3:9-11), in the sky facing away from humanity as a sign of God’s commitment not to flood the earth again. (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Gen. 9:8-17)

“When I bring clouds over the earth,” says God, “and the bow (tw,q0,ha, haqqešeth) is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant ( yt9yr9B4, b ^erîthî ) that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh” (vv. 14-15). And God reiterates: “ ‘When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth’ ” (v. 16). “The Midrashic comment,” says Rabbi Hertz, “is ‘When the attribute of Justice comes to accuse you and hold you guilty of offending, then I will look upon the bow and remember the covenant’ ” (op. cit.,on v. 16). The chapter concludes with God’s reminder, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth” (v. 17). “This concluding verse of the paragraph,” says Rabbi Hertz, “stresses the idea that the covenant was not only with Noah but with ‘all flesh that is upon the earth’ ” (ibid., on v. 17).

Some have seen in this interpretation of the covenant with Noah the basis for the judgment at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts, chap. 15) about what should be required of Gentile converts to Christian faith: In the words attributed to James:

Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication [word omitted in an early papyrus, P⁴⁵ and the Ethiopic version] and from whatever has been strangled and from blood. (Acts 1519-20, NRSV; cf. NRSV text note a, “Other ancient authorities lack and from whatever has been strangled”)

In dictating the letter for this ruling, James says,

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well” (Acts 15:28-29, NRSV; cf. NRSV text note f, “Other ancient authorities lack and from what is strangled”)

Bruce M. Metzger summarizes the perspective of the editors of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament on “the text of the Apostolic Decree, as it is called” in reference to the variant readings of Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25 as follows:

It therefore appears to be more likely that an original ritual prohibition against eating foods offered to idols, things strangled and blood, and against porneia [fornication, unchastity] (however this latter is to be interpreted) was altered into a moral law by dropping the reference to pniktou [strangling] and by adding the negative Golden Rule, than to suppose that an original moral law was transformed into a food law. (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1971, pp. 429-434)

In any event, there appears to be a connection between the Apostolic Decree of Acts and a Rabbinic understanding of God’s expectations for Gentiles. And so, with the Flood story, we have what amounts to a new beginning, a new creation. Levenson has called the whole section, (Gen. 6:9-9:17) “The flood: corruption, destruction, re-creation, covenant” (op. cit., on 6:9-9:17). But the problematic aspects of sinful human beings remain, as is evident in many later biblical stories, including part of the story of Noah (cf. 9:20-28). Christians anticipate a remedy in a “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17), which applies to individuals but is a part of the process that will culminate in “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev. 21:1).

Hebrews 5:7-14

7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; 9 and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, 10 having been designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Warning against Falling Away

11 About this we have much to say that is hard to explain, since you have become dull in understanding. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food; 13 for everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil. (Hebrews 5:7-14, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of May 23, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year One), when relevant comments were repeated from March 7, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the First Sunday of Lent, Year One), when the reading was Hebrews 5:1-10, and from earlier comments as noted there.

In Hebrews, chapter 4, we learn that Jesus is priest who understands our human weaknesses: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). If the priests of the Mosaic system were “able to deal gently with the ignorant and wayward” because they were “subject to weakness” (5:2), Christ too had such experience, though without sin (4:15). As the writer to the Hebrews continues, today’s passage appears to refer to Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (cf. Mk:14:32-42; Mt. 26:36-46; Lk. 22:39-46; [Jn. 12:27]). “In the days of his flesh,” says Hebrews, “Jesus offered up prayers ( dehvseiV, deēseis) and supplications ( iJkethrivaV, hiketērias), with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission (eujlavbeia, eulabeia)” (Heb. 5:7). “Traditionally,” says Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, “this verse has been understood to refer to Gethsemane (Mk. 14:32-42 and parallels). However, the description resembles the portrayal of the typical Jewish hero, such as Abraham or Moses, who prays loudly to God for deliverance (2 Macc. 11:6; Philo, Rer. div. her. 19)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Heb. 5:7). Harold W. Attridge explains with reference to both traditions, for “Hebrews now recounts part of the human experience of Jesus that made him capable of sympathy [cf. 4:15]” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 1244, on Heb. 5:7). He finds some difference in the details of this account and the Gospels’ account of Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. “The homilist,” says Attridge, referring to the writer to the Hebrews,

may have been inspired by stories of various prayers of Jesus, including his cry on the cross (Mt. 27:46; Mk. 15:34), but the overall pattern embodies traditional notions of the ideal prayer of the righteous. The content of the prayers is not explicit, but the one addressed ‘who was able to save him from death’, suggest that the prayer sought deliverance. The ‘loud cries and tears’, not part of Gethsemane accounts, derive from the Psalms (Ps. 22:1-2, 24; 116:8) and recur in Jewish traditions (1QH 5:12; 2 Macc. 11:6; 3 Macc. 1:16; 1 Esd. 5:62; Philo, Leg. All. 3.213; Qis Heres, 19). That Christ was heard ‘because of his reverent submission’ is part of the same portrait of a saint’s prayer. The word for ‘reverent submission (Gk. eulabeia [eujlavbeia]) appears in Philo’s description of the prayer of Moses (Quis Heres, 22) and has connotations of the ‘fear of the Lord’ (Prov. 1:7). (ibid.)

Hebrews continues with what strikes us as a paradox. The Son, who is “the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being,” who “sustains all things by his powerful word” (1:3), nevertheless had to learn “obedience through what he suffered” (5:8a). This was part of his incarnation “in the days of his flesh” (v. 7). “That Christ ‘was heard’,” says Attridge, “does not indicate that he was spared death; the homilist clearly alludes to Christ’s exaltation in which he was brought out of death; cf. 2:10; 13:20” (ibid.). Attridge adds,

that Christ ‘learned through . . . what he suffered’ involves a common Greek proverb (cf. Aesch. Ag. 177; Hdt. 1.207) about experience as a teacher. The Jewish proverbial notion that suffering can be a form of divine chastisement (cf. 12:4-11) may also be in the background, but the homilist has a hortatory goal. Christ can be sympathetic because of his suffering; he also serves as a model of obedience to the divine will; cf. 10:5-10; 12:1-3. (ibid.)

“In what sense, then,” asks F. F. Bruce, “did the Son of God learn obedience ‘by what he suffered’?”

We know the sense in which the words are true of us; we learn to be obedient because of the unpleasant consequences which follow disobedience. It was not so with him. As we are told later (10:7), he announced his dedication to the doing of God’s will at his coming into the world. He set out from the start on the path of obedience to God, and learned by the sufferings which came his way in consequence just what obedience to God involved in practice in the conditions of human life on earth. (The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, rev. ed., 1990, p. 131, on Heb. 5:8)

Hebrews continues, “and having been made perfect (teleiwqeivV, teleiōtheis), he became the source (ai[tioV, aitios) of eternal salvation for all who obey him” (v. 9). It is implied that through Jesus sacrificial death he brings eternal salvation, but more than mere death is involved. Another, related verb (teleutavw, teleutaō) means simply to die (e.g. Herod, Mt. 2:19), but the verb teleiovw, teleioō bears such meanings as “complete, bring to an end, finish, accomplish,” or “bring to an end, bring to its goal,” or “to accomplishment” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. teleiovw, teleioō). In this “final point of comparison between Christ and earthly high priests,” says Attridge, it “relates to the effect of their actions. Christ ‘perfected (cf. 2:10 [teleiw:sai, teleiōsai]) is, in his exalted state, a ‘cause of salvation’ ” (op. cit., on v. 9).

Hebrews anticipates the topic presented in detail in chapter 7 with a brief reference here. A part of Christ’s “perfection” as our effective high priest is his “having been designated by God a high priest according to the order (tavxiV, taxis) of Melchizedek” (v. 10). The author explains that there is much to say on that subject: “About this we have much to say that is hard to explain (polu;V lovgoV kai; dusermhvneutoV, polys logos kai dysermēneutos), but there is a problem, “since you have become dull (nwqroiv, nōthroi) in understanding (ajkoai:V, akoais)” (v. 11). The writer admonishes his readers. They need to mature in Christian faith, which the author illustrates by comparison with foods suitable for infants and adults: “for though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements (stoikei:a, stoikeia) of the oracles of God. You need milk (gavla, gala), not solid food (sterea; trofhv, sterea trophē )” (v. 12). He explains: “for everyone who lives on (metevcwn, metechōn) milk, being still an infant (nhvpioV, nēpios), is unskilled (a[peiroV, apeiros, lit. ‘unacquainted with’; the word occurs only here in the NT) in the word of righteousness” (v. 13). They need to move beyond understanding only the “basic elements” of the Christian faith to a more profound ability to “distinguish good from evil”: “But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil” (v. 14). Kittredge says, “Common in Hellenistic rhetoric [is] the comparison between milk as rudimentary teaching and solid food as more advanced teaching [which] is used to encourage the community to move beyond basic teachings (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1-2)” (op. cit., on vv. 12-14). According to Attridge, “The subject that is lengthy and hard to explain is the interpretation of Christ as heavenly high priest given in chs. 8-10” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Heb. 5:11).

John 3:16-21

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

17 "Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20 For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. 21 But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God." (John 3:16-21, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from December 20, 2009 (the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year Two), four weeks and one day ago, when they were repeated from December 18, 2009, two days earlier, on the Presbyterian reading. Reference to previous sources is made there.

The reference to “eternal life,” provided by Jesus’ crucifixion and atonement (John 3:14-15, leads into the favorite biblical verse of many, what has been called “the Gospel in a nutshell”: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16). It is worth taking note here of the emphasized statement of the source of God’s action. The word translated “so” (Ou{twV, Houtōs) in the phrase, “God so loved the world,” comes first in Greek for emphasis: Ou”twV ga;r hjgavphsen oJ qeo;V to;n kovsmon (houtōs gar ēgapēsin ho theos ton kosmon, “For God so loved the world”). The word for “world” (kovsmoV, kosmos) has a variety of meanings, including “that which serves to beautify through decoration, adornment, adorning,” a “condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order,” “the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe, in philosophical usage.” But more particularly, in the present context (Jn. 3:16), while it can mean “humanity in general, the world” (e.g. Mt. 18:7), the term here is used “of all humanity, but especially of all believers, as the object of God’s love” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], 2000, s.v. kovsmoV, kosmos; my emphasis with bold print). The result of such love that God has for all humanity is stated in the next clause: “God so loved (Ou”twV, Houtōs) . . . that (w{ste, hōste) he gave his only son.” The conjunction w{ste (hōste “so that”) introduces “dependent clauses,” as here, “of the actual result” (BDAG, s.v. w{ste, hōste). Raymond E. Brown comments on the word “loved” (hjgavphsen, ēgapēsin). “The aorist [verb tense] implies a supreme act of love. Cf. 1 John iv 9: ‘In this way was God’s love revealed in our midst: God has sent His only Son into the world that we may have life through him.’ Notice that in 1 John the love is oriented toward Christians (‘we’) while in John iii 16 God loves the world” (The Gospel according to John I-XII, Anchor Bible 29, 1966, on Jn. 3:16).

The description here of God’s Son, whom he was moved by love to give, calls for comment. The words (to;n uiJo;n to;n monogenh: (ton huion ton monogenē, (Jn. 3:16; cf. monogenh;V qeovV, monogenēs theos, variant reading, monogenh;V uiJovV, monogenēs huios 1:18) have been variously translated: “his only Son” (NRSV), “his one and only Son” (TNIV), “his only begotten Son” (AV/KJV), and so forth. The word monogenhvV (monogenēs) describes the “only son” of the widow at Nain (Lk. 7:12) whom Jesus raised from death (vv. 11-17), as an example of how the word pertains “to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only.” But more particularly, as in John’s usage here, it pertains “to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of something that is the only example of its category” (BDAG, s.v. monogenhvV, monogenēs). There is none other like Jesus.

The next clause is a statement of purpose, the purpose of God’s giving. He “gave his only son so that [or ‘in order that’ ( i{na, hina) everyone who believes in him may not perish but have eternal life. The expression, “everyone who believes in him” combines the verb pisteuvw (pisteuō), “believe,” and the preposition, “in” or “into,” is one expression with this verb that means “to entrust oneself to an entity in complete confidence, believe (in), trust, with implication of total commitment to the one who is trusted” (BDAG, s.v. pisteuvw, pisteuō). The Lexicon adds that in our literature “God and Christ are objects of this type of faith that relies on their power and nearness to help, in addition to being convinced that their revelations or disclosures are true.” The verb for “perish” (BDAG, s.v. ajpovllumi, apollymi), as used here (middle voice), can be a cry of anguish by sailors in a storm-tossed vessel, but especially, as here in John, of eternal death. But the alternative, for those who believe, is eternal life (a common theme in the Gospel of John, e.g. 3:36; 4:14; 5:24, and so forth).

John 3:16, the “Gospel in a nutshell,” has a paragraph of its own in the New Revised Standard Version. Raymond E. Brown, sees connections backward–“the theme of Jesus’ death” (vv. 14-15)–and forward: “If [v.] 16 assures us that the purpose of the Father’s giving the Son in Incarnation and death was eternal life for the believer, [v.] 17 paraphrases this in terms of salvation for the world” (op. cit., on Jn. 3:16).

The following verses spell out the contrast between the results for those who believe in God’s Son (v. 16), and those who do not. “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (vv. 17-18). God’s purpose was to provide for those who believe in his Son, not to condemn the rest. But the consequence for those who do not believe is spelled out; they are “condemned already.” The contrast here is explained in terms of light and darkness. “And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil” (v. 19). Not only do some “love darkness,” but “all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed” (v. 20). On the other hand, “those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God” (v. 21)

Brown notes similarities in this “dualistic vocabulary of vss. 19-21 (light/darkness; practicing wickedness/doing truth)” to the dualism of Qumran texts (i.e. Dead Sea Scrolls): “According as man’s inheritance is in truth and righteousness, so he hates evil; but insofar as his heritage is in the portion of perversity, so he abominates truth” (1QS iv 24, cited by Brown, p. 148, on Jn. 3:19-21).

If there is a twofold reaction to Jesus in John, we must emphasize that the reaction is very much dependent on man’s own choice, a choice that is influenced by his way of life, by whether his deeds are wicked or are done in God (vss. 20-21). There is a consistency in the two sides of the dualism: evildoers are disbelievers, while good works and faith go together. Thus, there is no determinism in John as there seems to be in some passages of the Qumran scrolls. . . . the idea is that Jesus brings out what a man really is and the real nature of his life. Jesus is a penetrating light that provokes judgment by making it apparent what a man is. The one who turns away is not an occasional sinner but one who “practices wickedness”; it is not that he cannot see the light, but that he hates the light. (ibid., pp. 148-149, on Jn. 3:1-21)

We need not find ourselves in that last group. “But these [signs/this book] are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name” (Jn. 20:31).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net