In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Excursus IV. The Prologue: God’s Plan for Humankind As long ago as 1986 I published an article on the Prologue1 in which I adopted and developed a thesis put forward much earlier (1964) by Paul Lamarche that the subject of John 1:3 is not creation, as is widely assumed, but that this verse “is essentially concerned with the realization of the divine plan.”2 Apart from the briefest of notes by Craig Evans,3 my article lay disregarded until it was eventually picked up in 2006 in a book devoted to the Prologue by Peter M. Phillips.4 Phillips does not discuss all my arguments, and his treatment of those he does discuss is unconvincing. Since the issue is clearly an important one, affecting not just the interpretation of the Prologue itself but (as I will show in chapter 8) that of the Gospel as a whole, it must be covered properly. I will first cite Lamarche’s arguments as set forth in my translation of his original article;5 then, after following these up in each case with further reasons of my own, I will deal with Phillips’s attempted rebuttal. 1. Lamarche challenges the standard interpretation of John 1:3: “Does v. 3 really speak of creation? The word here is not κτίζω (“create”) as in Colossians (1:15) or in Revelation (4:1; 10:6), nor even ποιῶ (“do/make”), but γίνομαι, which means not “to be created” but “to become/to happen.” If the central perspective of the Prologue is indeed God’s universal plan, it is clear that the very wide meaning of this verb can perfectly express God’s activity by means of his Logos throughout the history of the world, starting, of course, 1. John Ashton, “The Transformation of Wisdom: A Study of the Prologue of John’s Gospel,” New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 161–86; reprinted in Studying John: Approaches to the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 5–35 (references here are to the reprint). 2. “As early as 1958,” Lamarche adds, “T. F. Pollard had arrived at the same conclusions” (Pollard, “Cosmology and the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel,” Vigiliae Christianae 12 [1958]: 147–63). 3. Craig A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue, Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 89 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 112 n. 1. 4. Peter M. Phillips, The Prologue of the Fourth Gospel: A Sequential Reading, Library of New Testament Studies (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2006). 5. Paul Lamarche,“The Prologue of John,” in The Interpretation of John, ed. John Ashton, 2nd ed., Studies in New Testament Interpretation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 47–65. 145 from the creation, right up to the Incarnation, and including Israel’s election and the natural law of the Gentiles. Everything that has happened—the history of salvation as well as the creation—happened through the Logos. Arguments in support of the very wide meaning that must be given to γίνομαι include the following: a. The use of this verb in the Prologue as a whole ought to shed light on its meaning in v. 3. No doubt in v. 10 the world has “become,” that is, has been “created,” unless this refers rather to the world of human beings, which has just come about in history. But in any case this is just one aspect of “becoming” in the Prologue. In fact, the same verb is used for John the Baptist, who “comes”; for Christ, who “came” before John and who “becomes” flesh; for the grace and truth that “come” through Jesus Christ; and for the faithful, who “become” children of God. b. The same (historical) use of the word is found in the first verse of Revelation: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place [γίνεσθαι]” (cf. Rev. 1:19; 4:1; 22:6). c. The same usage is found in the Septuagint, particularly in a passage in the book of Judith: “For you have brought all this about [ἐποίησας] and everything that preceded and followed; you have planned [διενοήθης] both present and future. and all that you planned has come to pass [ἐγενήθησαν ἃ ἐνενοήθης]” (Jdt. 9:5-6).6 Let me now deal with Phillips’s attempted refutation both of Lamarche’s arguments about the meaning of the verb γίνεσθαι, and of the support I gave them in my own article: “Ashton notes,” he says, “that καὶ ἐγένετο is used in the standard Greek phrase...

Share