Mew Testament Stud. 2i, pp.

40-58

MORNA D. HOOKER

THE JOHANNINE PROLOGUE AND

THE MESSIANIC SECRET*
In 1892 Adolf Harnack, writing on the relation of the Prologue to the Fourth
Gospel, posed the question in these words: ' What is the aim of the Gospel,
what is the aim of the Prologue? Are these aims identical or is the Prologue
really an introduction to the Gospel?... Is it the key to understanding the
Gospel?'1 My aim in this paper is to consider once again this question of the
function of these opening verses. What did the author or redactor of the
gospel aim to achieve by beginning his book in this way?
From the time of the earliest exegetes, the first eighteen verses of John's
gospel have been regarded as of special significance, and they have for many
years been spoken of as the Prologue. The difference between these verses
and the rest of the gospel is obvious - so obvious, indeed, that they are often
assigned to a separate source. Many assume that they could not have been
written by the evangelist; some argue that they are a later addition to the
gospel. This last drastic solution raises as many problems as it attempts to
solve: for not only does the gospel begin strangely without these verses, but
their later addition to the gospel seems inexplicable; the more commentators
emphasize (rightly or wrongly) the difference between these verses and the
rest of the gospel, the harder it becomes to understand how any redactor
came to consider them a suitable introduction. Whatever the truth in this
matter, however, as the gospel stands at present, these verses are intended to
offer an introduction to the events which follow.
Commentators on Mark's gospel have in recent years drawn a parallel
between the opening verses of that gospel and the Johannine Prologue. The
existence of a Marcan prologue is far less obvious, and seems to have been
first suggested by R. H. Lightfoot.2 The parallel was used by Lightfoot to
elucidate Mark's purpose. The present paper attempts to reverse this
process, and investigates the possibility that Mark's literary method may help
us to understand John's.
Unlike John i. 1-18, the style of Mark i. 1-13 in no way distinguishes it
from the rest of the gospel. Nevertheless, there are certain noteworthy
features in these introductory verses. The opening words of Mark i. 1 probably to be understood as a title - are, of course, in a class of their own.
* A paper read at the meeting of S.N.T.S. at Southampton, 31 August 1973.
1
't)ber das Verhaltnis des Prologs des vierten Evangeliums zum ganzen Werk', pp. 189-231 in
Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, n (1892), 191.
2
The Gospel Message ofSt Mark (1950), pp. 15 ff.

J O H N ' S P R O L O G U E AND T H E MESSIANIC SECRET

41

The next two verses are also unusual: for though there are explicit quotations of scripture elsewhere in the gospel, as well as many scriptural echoes,
it is only here that the evangelist himself explicitly states that the events
which he is recording were happening KCCQCOS y^ypcnrrcci. Also noteworthy
in these introductory verses are the threefold reference to the Holy Spirit
(mentioned again only in iii. 29, xii. 36 and xiii. 11), the account of the voice
from heaven (which has a parallel in ix. 7) and the conflict with Satan (which
is referred to again in iii. 20-30). It is clear to us that these verses stand apart
in a sense, from the account of the ministry which is to follow. Yet they are in
narrative form, as is the rest of the gospel, and the vocabulary, though unusual,
finds echoes in later chapters; certainly the differences are not enough to
suggest that these verses are by anyone other than the evangelist.
Mark, then, gives us a prologue in narrative form; John offers us something
which, though it relates events, is much closer to being a theological discourse.
Yet the difference should not be exaggerated. For if narrative is typical of
Mark, discourse is typical of John. The bulk of the rest of John's gospel until we come to the passion narrative - is theological discourse, held
together by a slight narrative framework: his material is essentially a brief
account of certain activities of Jesus, together with lengthy theological
comment on the significance of those activities, usually in the mouth of
Jesus himself. In the Prologue, the order is reversed: we have theological
statements, with a couple of references to John the Baptist to ' anchor' what
is being said in history.1 Yet the juxtaposition of historical narrative and
theological interpretation is in many ways similar to the rest of the gospel.
Controversy regarding the Johannine Prologue has so concentrated on the
question of the ' poetic' style that it has perhaps been overlooked that as far
as form and content is concerned, we might well expect John to write a prologue in this way. The vocabulary of these verses, also, with one or two
exceptions which we must examine later, links it with the chapters which
follow.2
R. H. Lightfoot, drawing attention to the special character of Mark i.
1-13, spelt out the parallelism between these verses and the opening verses of

John:3
Both prologues dwell upon the relation of Jesus Christ to John the Baptist. . . and
in each book it is shown that, however great and God-sent the forerunner, his work
pales into insignificance when set against the arrival of Him whose way had been
prepared by John. And just as St John's prologue reaches its highest point at verse
14, 'The Word became flesh'.. .so St Mark's prologue reaches its highest point in
the words of verse n , 'Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased'. . .
1
a

M. D. Hooker, 'John the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue', JV.T.S. xvi (1970), 354-6.

There are echoes, for example, in ii. 11; iii. 19; v. 26, 37; vii. 22 f.; viii. 12, 32, 38; ix. 5; xi.
4, 25; xii. 35 f., 46; xiv. 7ff.;xvi. 3; xvii. 1-4, 14, 17. The references to John's witness are taken up
in i. 19-36 and iii. 25-30.
s
Op. cit. pp. i8f.

42
MORNA D. HOOKER
Andfinally,just as in John the narrative proper only begins at verse 19, so also in
Mark the narrative proper only begins with the account of the Lord's activity in
verses 14 and 15, when He comes into Galilee with the announcement that the
time is ripe, and God's promises are now in process of accomplishment.
To these parallels we can add the fact that Mark (by means of his reference
to the Old Testament scriptures which have now been fulfilled) clearly
demonstrates that Jesus is the culmination of God's purposes, the one to
whom God's promises point; and that John sees in Jesus the Aoyos made
flesh - that Aoyos which has been the expression of God's activity from the
beginning. Mark records that Jesus is acknowledged from heaven as 6 uios
uou 6 dyccTrriTos - a phrase almost identical in meaning with John's uovoyevfis
uids.1 According to Mark, the Holy Spirit is at work in what Jesus does:
John, in his Prologue, refers to this same activity of God at work in Jesus in
terms of the Word made flesh. Mark, in his brief account of the temptation,
depicts a conflict between Jesus and Satan: John speaks of light coming into
darkness and the darkness being unable to master it.
The ' gain' of Lightfoot's interpretation of Mark, as he himself saw it, was
that ' we find placed in our hands at the outset the key which the evangelist
wishes us to have, in order that we may understand the person and office of
the central Figure of the book'.2 How successfully Mark has done this becomes
apparent if we omit the first thirteen verses and begin to read the gospel at
verse 14, at the same time imagining that we know nothing about this
'central Figure of the book'. To do so is to find ourselves very much in the
situation of those whose reaction is described in Mark's narrative. We meet
a strange itinerant preacher, who announces with authority that God's
kingdom is about to burst upon us, who performs certain remarkable miracles,
and who continually challenges the authority of the religious leaders. If we
read the book in this way, our reaction is to exclaim with some of the characters in the story: 'What is this new teaching? He commands even unclean
spirits with authority and they obey him' (i. 27) ;3 'Who then is this, that the
wind and sea obey him?' (iv. 4 1 ) ; ' By what authority do you do these things?
Who gave you authority to do them?' (xi. 28). The common people, the
disciples, the religious leaders, are all shown by their reaction to be uncomprehending, and we can sympathize with their obtuseness.
Mark, however, does not allow us to read the gospel in this way. He does
what every writer of detective fiction studiously avoids doing - he spells out
the solution for us on the first page. After that the clues are blatantly obvious.
Those who know that Jesus is the fulfilment of God's promises, that he is
God's beloved Son, that the Spirit of God is at work in him, and that he has
fought with Satan, know the answers to the questions which are continually
1
2
3

C. H. Turner, '6 u!6s uou 6 <Scyonnyr6s' in J.T.S. xxvn (1936), 113-29.

Op. cit. p. 17.
Adopting the reading of ADW f 13, f28, etc.

JOHN S PROLOGUE AND THE MESSIANIC SECRET

43

being asked by the participants in the story. Unlike the modern writer of
detective fiction, Mark did not wish his readers to be puzzled. He wished
them to see and recognize the truth which he was setting out before them:
that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and that the Spirit of God himself
was at work in what he did. To read Mark's gospel after reading the Prologue
is to read with the spectacles of faith: the messianic secret is an open secret
for those who have been allowed to overhear the words from heaven, for to
them the significance of what is happening is obvious, and the obtuseness of
crowds, disciples and religious leaders who failed to comprehend seems culpable. Mark demonstrates the truth that the 'facts' alone are insufficient:
those with eyes of faith interpret what is happening correctly - others deny
Jesus' authority or attribute it to the wrong source. Men and women are
divided in Mark's narrative into those who acknowledge Jesus and those who
reject him - and to acknowledge him is to confess that he is the Christ, the
Son of God, and to recognize the Spirit of God at work in him. The faith to
which the disciples are called - together with the readers of the gospel - is
precisely that which is revealed to us in the opening verses: and it is precisely
this estimate ofJesus which divides disciple from unbeliever, for those who do
not see and understand the divine revelation are those who remain outside,
and who are offended by what Jesus does.
The messianic secret in Mark was once interpreted as something which
divided believer from unbeliever during the ministry of Jesus. Later, it was
seen as representing the tension between the non-messianic ministry of Jesus
and the messianic interpretation of the Church - between 'then' and 'now'.
Whether or not there is some truth in either or both of these positions, it is
certainly true that the messianic secret in Mark indicates a tension in the
present experience of the evangelist and his readers: their generation is
divided into those who have eyes to see and those who have not. The problem
is not simply that men and women failed to recognize then the one whom they
now acknowledge to be Messiah; but that the question ' Who is he?' can still
be given totally opposing answers.
When we turn to John we have, of course, no 'messianic secret'. Jesus is
twice pointed out by John the Baptist as the lamb of God.1 The Baptist
explains that his knowledge of this is not human, but has come to him by

revelation; he has seen the Spirit descend and rest on Jesus - this is how he
knows him to be the one who baptizes with the Spirit, and the Son of God.
These words remind us again of the Marcan prologue - but what in Mark
was spoken for the ear of the reader alone is in John shouted aloud by the
Baptist. The disciples acknowledge Jesus as Messiah from the very beginning;2
1
The title is puzzling, and no satisfactory solution has ever been given. Perhaps it is best understood in relation to the Evangelist's arrangement of signs and discourses, by which he shows Jesus
to be the one who is the fulfilment of all the Jewish festivals: in him are brought together all the
functions of the old rituals - but now they are effective for the world.
2
i- 4 ' J 49-

44

MORNA D. HOOKER

Jesus himself sets out his claims openly throughout the gospel in no uncertain
manner. 1 Yet just as in Mark we meet a division between those who accept
the claims of Jesus (however imperfectly understood) and those who do not,
so too in John there is a division between those who are ' his own' and ' the
Jews'. The cause of the division, too, is very much the same as in Mark. Those
who reject Jesus do so because the truth is hidden from them: they may
converse with Jesus but they are unable to understand what he is saying, and
the authority which he claims is in their view not God-given but an authority
he has taken upon himself.
But if Messiahship is spoken of openly, what is it that is hidden? An examination of those passages where Jesus meets opposition and where his hearers
reject his teaching shows that for John the point at issue is the question of
Jesus' origin: those who reject him fail to recognize that he is 'from above'.
This question is raised in every debate between Jesus and the Jews, and the
fundamental cause of the dispute is set out in the opening discourse between
Jesus and Nicodemus: the latter is unable to understand Jesus because he has
not been born ccvcoQev and therefore can understand only at a fleshly, not a
spiritual level. Nicodemus cannot grasp heavenly things, while Jesus is the
Son of man who descended from heaven (iii. i13). The monologue which
follows (iii. 14-21) introduces the theme ofJesus as the light which has come
into the world, and it is natural to find this reference to light followed by the

final appearance ofJohn the Baptist in this gospel, once again bearing witness
to Jesus as in chapter i by declaring that he himself is not the Christ, but is
sent to bear witness to the greater one who follows him.2 Here, too, we have
a short monologue (whether in the mouth of the evangelist or the Baptist is
not clear) whose themes echo those of the conversation between Jesus and
Nicodemus. The Baptist, as the one who bears witness to Jesus and his divine
origin, stands in contrast to Nicodemus, who fails to recognize the truth. 3
The failure of' the Jews' to recognize Jesus' divine origin is demonstrated
throughout the gospel. Their enmity arises from the fact that Jesus makes
himself equal with God (v. 17 f.); they attempt to stone him because he
claims to be one with God (x. 30-9); in both instances the Jews fail to
recognize that the activity of Jesus is the activity of God. The crowds do not
believe in him because they think they know where he comes from - though
of course they do not, since he is sent from God (vi. 41 f.; vii. 25-30).4 The
great debate in chapter viii is centred on the question to which Jesus knows
the answer but the Jews do not (since they judge according to the flesh) namely whence he comes and whither he is going (viii. 14 f.; cf. vii. 41 f.);
1

For example in iv. 26; v. 17; viii. 28; ix. 37; x. 24 f.; xviii. 20 f.
As in i. 6-8, 15, and i. 19-28, 29-36, the Baptist's witness to Jesus here consists of a negative
statement about himself, and a positive statement about Jesus. Cf. M. D. Hooker, op. cit.
s
Since the Baptist witnesses to the truth about Jesus, it can hardly be he, as some commentators
suppose, who is referred to as SK Ttis yns4
How far they are from comprehending is demonstrated by the fact that they argue about Galilee
versus Bethlehem! See vii. 41 f.
2

J O H N ' S P R O L O G U E AND T H E MESSIANIC S E C R E T

45

they are from below, and belong to this world, but he is from above, and does
not belong to it, for he comes from God (viii. 23-30); he comes from God, but
they do not understand him, because they are not children of God (viii.
42-7). When Jesus declares:' Before Abraham was, l a m ' , they again attempt
to stone him (viii. 58 f.). The same question ofJesus' origin appears in ix. 29:
' We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know
where he comes from.' Finally, the theme of Jesus' divine origin is prominent
in the trial scene, where Jesus first tells Pilate that his kingdom is not K
TOO KOCTUOU TOUTOU (xviii. 36), and is later asked by Pilate: FI60EV el ou;
(xix. 9). In these scenes Pilate is cast in the role of a middleman who puts the
questions, for the real dispute is between Jesus and the Jews.1
Underlying many of these disputes are themes central to the prologue
- light (iii. 19-21; viii. 12 ff.; ix. 5, 39) and life (iii. 15, 36; v. 24-6; vi. 51 f.)
and truth (iii. 33; viii. 44-6; xviii. 37-8). As in Mark those who have
read the introductory verses understand what is obscure to many of the
main actors in the drama, so here those who have read the Johannine Prologue comprehend words ofJesus which otherwise seem irrelevant. The most
puzzling Johannine discourse is immediately illuminated by a re-reading of
the Prologue.
The theme of the Aoyos, too, is recognizable in the disputes about the
activity of Jesus interpreted as that of God himself (v. 17 f.; x. 30-9).
Although Aoyos is not used again in John in precisely the way that it is used
in the Prologue, the word does occur significantly elsewhere. In v. 37-47, for
example, the Jews fail to recognize the works of Jesus as the activity of the
Father: 'His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen;
and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him
whom he has sent' (v. 37 f.). To fail to recognize Jesus is to fail to accept
God's word.
In chapter viii, the difference between the disciples of Jesus and his opponents is that the former continue in his word (v. 31), whereas those who
oppose him demonstrate that his word finds no place in them (v. 37). Those
who accept him are children of God, and those who reject him are children
of the devil (vv. 39 ff.); 'He who is of God hears the words (TOC priuocToc) of
God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God'
(v. 47). It is clear that Jesus' words are those of God himself, since he goes on
to claim: ' before Abraham was, I am' (v. 58). The Jews should keep his
word, as he has kept his Father's word (vv. 51-5)- The words of Jesus are not
spoken on his own authority, but have been given to him by the Father
(xii. 44-50). The identification is explicitly made in xiv. 23 f.: 'If a man
loves me, he will keep my word.. . He who does not love me does not keep
my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father's who
sent me.' In xvii. 6, 8, 14, 17, Jesus says that he has passed on to the disciples
1

xviii. 34 f.; xix. 6 f.

46

MORNA D. HOOKER

the word or words given to him by the Father: they have received them, and
know that Jesus has come from the Father and been sent by him.
The 'word of God' is crucial in x. 34-6, where Jesus quotes Ps. lxxxii. 6
to demonstrate that those to whom the word of God came were properly
called 'gods'. How much more, then, is it right to call him whom the Father
consecrated and sent into the world ' the Son of God': the activity ofJesus is
that of God himself, and demonstrates that God's word has indeed come in
him. In all these disputes between Jesus and the Jews, the theme of God's
word is central.
In Mark's gospel it is the 'messianic secret' which divides men into those
who, being blind, remain blind and incapable of recognizing the truth, and
the disciples, who for all their incomprehension come to grasp the truth that
Jesus is the Son of God. Even the disciples, however, because they find the
secret hard to comprehend, share to a large extent in the general hardness of
heart and blindness to the truth: their eyes are like those of the blind man at
Bethsaida, only partly opened. They are liable to slip back into a position
where they see things from men's viewpoint, instead of from God's (Mark
viii. 33).* In the Fourth Gospel there is a similar bewildering pattern of belief
and disbelief: the twelve follow Jesus, though not fully comprehending him,
but there are also disciples who cease to believe and 'Jews' who sometimes
believe. It is worth asking what clues are given us regarding the causes of this
belief and disbelief. In vi. 60, many ofJesus' disciples take offence, declaring
'This is a hard saying: who can listen to it?' Even if we do not regard vv.
51-8 as a later addition to the discourse, the 'hard saying' seems to refer
to the identification of Jesus with the bread which came down from heaven,
rather than to the particular eucharistic interpretation. This is made clear
by the reply of Jesus in verse 62: what will their reaction be if they see the
Son of Man ascend to where he was before? It is Jesus' claim to be the bread
which comes down from heaven which causes many to turn back. Here we
have the theme of heavenly origin. But we have also the very significant
contrast with Moses: it was not Moses who gave bread to your fathers, but
God who gives bread to you. This bread is already identified in Jewish
thought with the Torah, the Word of God. It is the claim of Jesus to be this
bread (which readers of the Prologue will of course understand) which causes
unbelief.2 What Moses gave was not the true bread, but points forward to
what is to come. By contrast with the failure of many disciples to believe this
we have the confession of Peter in 0. 68: 'You have the words of eternal life.'
In chapter viii we have a more confused situation. In verse 31 we read of
1
According to their response, they are sometimes 'inside', sometimes 'outside'. See C. F. D.
Moule, 'Mark 4: 1-20 yet once more', in Neotestamentica et Semitica, ed. E. E. Ellis and M.Wilcox
(1969), pp. 98 f.
a
The contrast with Moses is even more pointed if John is contradicting an interpretation which
identified Moses with the manna. This identification is perhaps found in Targum Neofiti Exodus
xvi. 15; see G. Vermes, ' He is the Bread', in JVeotestamentica et Semitica, ed. E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox
(1969), pp. 256-63.

J O H N ' S P R O L O G U E AND T H E MESSIANIC S E C R E T

47

Jews who believed in Jesus. Immediately, however, they take on the normal
character of Johannine Jews, hostile to Jesus and to his words. Why? One
can of course explain such inconsistencies by referring to sources - though
this does not explain why the evangelist was content with inconsistency. Once
again, it is worth noting what it is which causes belief to change to disbelief.
It is those who abide in the word of Jesus, who are truly his disciples; the
truth sets them free. It is this suggestion that the Jews need to be set free
which sparks off their indignation: 'We are descendants of Abraham, and
have never been in bondage to anyone.' In the ensuing conversation, Jesus
demonstrates that the proud descendants of Abraham are slaves to sin and
therefore no true children of Abraham. Those in whom the word of Jesus
finds no place seek to kill him, v. 37. They are not children of God, but
children of the devil, because they do not love the one who comes from God,
and cannot bear to hear his words, vv. 42 f. Once again we have the claim of
Jesus to come from God; we are told, moreover, that for the Jews to be true
children of God it is not enough for them to be descendants of Abraham indeed, to be merely that is to be in bondage! They must accept Jesus and his
word. Those who have read John i. u - 1 3 understand why this step is
necessary.
Moses pointed forward to the coming of Christ, the true bread; Abraham
rejoiced to see his day. In v. 37-47 the evangelist has already spelt out the
fact that Moses wrote of Jesus, and that, in refusing to hear Jesus, they are
failing to accept the witness of Moses. ' If you believed Moses, you would
believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe Moses' writings,
how will you believe my words?' (vv. 46 f.). The question at issue is how they
read Moses: 'You search the scriptures', Jesus says to the Jews, 'because you
think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to
me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.' Life has come into
the world, but they will not accept it; they will not seek the glory which comes
from God. They do not hear the testimony of God himself to Jesus. 'His
voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen; and you do not
have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent'
(vv. 37 f.). To those who know that the word of God, active throughout
history, and speaking in the Torah, has now been made flesh, and that the
God whom no man has seen has been made known by his Son, the claims of
Jesus here are comprehensible, since it is obvious that the scriptures point to
Jesus: those who have not understood what is set out in the Prologue are, in
every sense, in the dark.
In chapter ix we have an acted parable on the theme of belief and unbelief.
Jesus, the true light, opens the eyes of the man born blind. In the course of the
chapter, his inner eyes of faith are gradually opened, while the Pharisees
become confirmed in unbelief. The climax of their confrontation comes in
their second meeting, and the irony of the situation is brought out in vv. 28

48

MORNA D. HOOKER

and 29, in the words of the Jewish authorities: ' You are his disciple, but we
are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for
this man, we do not know where he comes from.' The Pharisees fail to recognize that God not only spoke to Moses, but is speaking through 'this man'.
The healed man is astonished: 'You do not know where he comes from', he
exclaims. 'If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.' Once again
it is the question of Jesus' origin which causes division, and which separates
the believer from the non-believer. The man who confesses that Jesus comes
from God is cast out of the synagogue. But in the final comment of Jesus we
see that it is the Jews who have become blind. His coming has brought not
only light but judgement, because men are blind to the truth.
These final words remind us of the words of Jesus in Mark about the
blindness of those who do not accept him. Another close parallel is found in
John xii. Here, as often, Jesus speaks of his presence in the world in terms of
light, a reference which readers of the Prologue will understand: his hearers
must walk in the light, lest they are overtaken by darkness. The failure of
the crowd to believe is summed up by the evangelist in quotations from Isa.
liii. 1 (used in similar circumstances by Paul, Rom. x. 16) and vi. 10: 'He
has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they should see with
their eyes and perceive with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.' This
is said by the evangelist to refer to Christ's glory, which Isaiah saw; Isaiah
therefore wrote of Christ. The 'secret' which is hidden from the crowd in
John is not the mystery of the kingdom, nor the messianic identity of Jesus,
but the glory spoken of in the Prologue. In the final verses of this chapter,
Jesus spells out the meaning of belief: to believe in him is to believe in him
who sent him. He has come as light into the world - but those who do not
believe in him remain in darkness. Once again, the key to understanding this
discourse of Jesus is put into the hands of those who have read the Prologue.
Fifty years ago, E. F. Scott suggested that 'in the fourth Gospel the Messianic idea is replaced by that of the Logos'.1 Some have objected that,
apart from the Prologue, the Logos idea is conspicuous by its absence. But
Scott was surely right. The idea of the Logos is as central - and as hidden in John as the idea of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah is central in Mark. Just
as the Messianic identity of Jesus is a secret in Mark, so the identity of Jesus
with the Logos is a secret in John - not deliberately hidden, but certainly not
known to those who oppose Jesus, and never spelt out specifically in his
debates with them; but as in Mark there are innumerable clues which can be
understood by those who know the secret because they have become disciples
of Jesus, so in John there are many mysterious passages, incomprehensible to
those who think only in terms of the flesh, which make sense to those who have
believed in Jesus and been made children of God,2 and recognize in him the
1
2

The Fourth Gospel, its Purpose and Theology (1920), p. 6.

i. 12 f.

J O H N ' S P R O L O G U E AND T H E MESSIANIC SECRET

49

Logos of God. And just as, in Mark, the secret is on occasion shouted aloud,
but falls on deaf ears, so in John, Jesus speaks of himself in terms which to us
seem obvious - but which the Jews fail to comprehend. The Johannine
'secret' explains the claims of Jesus to come from above: for Jesus is the
divine A6yos. Those to whom this secret is not revealed are blind and uncomprehending - and yet culpable, since, having the scriptures, they should have
recognized Jesus; the disciples, as in Mark, do not fully comprehend, and yet
are prepared to follow, having glimpsed something of the truth, and to them,
in chapters xiv-xvii, the themes of i. 1-18 are set out most clearly. To those
of us who read the gospel, however, all is plain - provided that we first read
the Prologue; for as in the case of Mark, if we leave these verses aside and
begin at i. 19, we find ourselves sharing the bewilderment of Jesus' contemporaries: 'Isn't this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we
know? How does he now say " I have come down from heaven"?' (vi. 42);
'Are you greater than our father Abraham who died?. .. . Who do you
claim to be?' (viii. 53). It is only because we know that Jesus is the Word
made flesh that we are able to understand his words in this gospel; only
because we have been given this clue to the significance of what he does that
we are not offended by his claims.
A contrast is often drawn between Mark's use of miracle stories and the
Johannine understanding of miracles as 'signs'. Yet the similarities are also
worth noting. In both gospels there are different levels in understanding the
miracles. In Mark, the common reaction is one of astonishment - the crowds
marvel at the miracles; but for those with some understanding, they have
greater significance, for they are pointers to the true identity of Jesus. 'Who
then is this?' (iv. 41). In John, also, there are two levels of understanding.
But here the messianic question is brought out into the open: 'Can this be
the Christ?' (iv. 29). ' When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than
this man has done?' (vii. 31). The deeper meaning of the miracles, which is
hidden from the crowds who waver between belief and unbelief, is that they
are manifestations of his glory. As in Mark, the miracles set out the secret of
Jesus' person to those with eyes to see.
The Johannine discourses also, though they are so different from the
Marcan parables, nevertheless serve the same function and produce the same
effect. In Mark the parables are used Christologically, presenting a challenge
to discipleship, and setting out the supreme importance of the choice. The
Johannine discourses have a similar role. In both gospels, parable and discourse inevitably lead to division and rejection and dispute, as well as to
discipleship and understanding. The parable becomes paradoxically a way of
1

Cf. T. W. Manson, On Paul and John (1963), pp. 158 f.: 'One is tempted to think that the

peculiarity of the discourse in the Fourth Gospel arises just from this; that it is the Logos that speaks
in the person of Jesus. The Jewish interlocutors get at cross-purposes with the Johannine Christ
because they think they are holding a debate with Jesus the son of Joseph from Nazareth, whereas
they are really listening to the incarnate word of God.'
NTS xxi
4

50

MORNA D. HOOKER

concealing the truth; the discourse leaves men bewildered instead of enlightened. The secret of Jesus' identity is in both cases the key to understanding.
Since the 'secret' to which men are blind is different in the two gospels,
we naturally find a difference in the way in which messianic terms are used.
In Mark, the belief that Jesus is perhaps John the Baptist or Elijah or one of
the prophets is contrasted with the confession that he is the Christ. The
crowd - and Herod too, in chapter vi - do not even begin to guess that Jesus
is the Messiah. Throughout his ministry, the secrecy of his messiahship is
concealed from them. Compare with this John's gospel, where ' Messiah'
is included with the other terms, in both i. 20 f. and 25 and in vii. 41. The
messianic possibility is no longer, as in Mark, one that is not even mentioned:
the secret in John is the truth that Jesus has come from above. There is
already a hint of this in Mark xii. 35-7; in John it has moved into the central
place.
Similarly, the term 'Son of God' belongs in Mark to the 'secret' and is
deliberately hidden: Jesus himself does not use the phrase - though for Mark
himself it is a far more significant term than 'Messiah'. It is the sonship
of Jesus which is acknowledged from heaven in i. 11 and ix. 7, and by the
centurion in xv. 39, and in the early chapters it is as 'Son of God' that the
unclean spirits acknowledge Jesus (hi. 11 and v. 7). In John, on the other
hand, Jesus speaks of himself openly as' Son of God' - but the true significance
of the title is not grasped by his hearers. The real difference between Mark
and John at this point is that in the former the sonship ofJesus is deliberately
hidden, whereas in the latter it is simply not understood: the glory has been
revealed, but men have been blind. To some extent this reflects the different
ways in which the evangelists approach the problem of responsibility:
although both emphasize the divine purpose on the one hand and human
failure on the other, the emphasis in Mark is on the former, and in John on
the latter: to use a Pauline metaphor, the 'veil' in John is on the human side.
It is perhaps worth noting another link between the evangelists in their use of
this title: in both Mark (i. 10 f.) and John (i. 32-4), as also in Rom. i. 3 f., the
designation of Jesus as Son of God is linked with the Spirit of God.
A final parallel between Mark and John may be seen in their treatment of
Jesus' death. In Mark, the understanding of Jesus as Messiah and Son of
God is linked closely with his death: no real explanation of this is ever given but the acknowledgement of Jesus as Son of God comes about through his
death. Readers of the gospel are privileged to overhear the truth, spoken by
the voice from heaven, in the Prologue - it would indeed be more accurate to
describe it as a 'Son of God' secret rather than a messianic secret: in spite
of manifest clues in the course of the gospel, it is only by Jesus' death that the
truth about him becomes generally known - see ix. 7-9 and xv. 39. In John,
the Prologue sets out for us the truth about Jesus' glory; and though in the

J O H N ' S P R O L O G U E AND T H E MESSIANIC S E C R E T

51

course of the gospel signs of his glory are seen, it is only in the hour of his
death that Jesus is fully glorified, and the truth made plain.
The Johannine Prologue, then, serves the same function as its Marcan
equivalent; without it the chapters which follow are incomprehensible to us,
as to the Jewish opponents in the story. Notwithstanding the arguments of
those who have considered it an addition to the gospel, it seems that these
verses give us, as R. H. Lightfoot remarked, 'the key to the understanding of
this gospel5.1 They are not only closely related in theme to the rest of the
gospel, but are (to quote Lightfoot again) ' designed to enable the reader to
understand the doctrines of the book'.2 We are led to the conclusion that
these verses have always formed the essential opening paragraphsof thegospel.
It would be interesting to discover a parallel to this literary device of Mark
and John. Did other authors set out to give an explanation to the ensuing
drama in their opening pages? In some Greek plays, of course, we find
prologues which set out the purpose of the dramatist, and summarize the
plot: but the parallel is not close. C. R. Bowen, writing on 'The Fourth
Gospel as Dramatic Material',3 commented that the very term 'prologue'
suggested a drama - but promptly mixed his metaphors by speaking of the
verses as ' a striking of the great major chords whose harmony is to vibrate
until the last curtain falls'.4 Looking at Jewish literature, we find that the
book of Ecclesiasticus opens with a prologue but it is closer to the literary
model of Luke i. 1-4 than to John i. Nor does Philo provide a parallel - the
closest approach to one is found in the introductory section of De Legatione
ad Gaium.5

A better parallel is perhaps to be seen much closer to hand, in the other

gospels. The opening chapters of Luke, like the Johannine Prologue, are most
often discussed in terms of authorship, style and sources. If instead we think
about the function of these chapters, it is noticeable that they provide us with
the same kind of information as the Marcan and Johannine Prologues, and
that they do so by spelling out the truth about Jesus with the help of titles and
descriptions which are rarely used in subsequent chapters. In the 'infancy
narratives' Luke gives his readers the key to understanding the events which
follow: the angels announce the identity of Jesus, and the various psalms
explain the significance of what is happening, and its relationship to God's
activity in the past. As in Mark and John, we have emphasis in these chapters
on a new significant activity of God (in terms of his Spirit, here associated
especially with the birth of Jesus) and on the relationship between Jesus and
John the Baptist. When Luke reaches the point which is for Mark the begin1

op. at. p. 78.

Ibid. p. 11. Cf. C. K. Barrett's comment on John i. i: 'John intends that the whole of his gospel
shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words ofJesus are the deeds and words of God;
if this be not true the book is blasphemous.' The Gospel according to St John (1955), in loc.
3
4
J.B.L. XLIX (1930), 292-305.
Ibid. p. 298.
6
Philo also begins De Vita Mosis with a declaration of his purpose in writing.
a

4-2

52

MORNA D. HOOKER

ning of the gospel, we find that we have embarked on the story proper, and
these events no longer, as in Mark, form a key, but are part of the narrative.
Those who have read chapters i and ii know why John should now appear as
forerunner; the descent of the Spirit and the voice from heaven confirm what
we already know.1
Matthew's infancy narrative offers us a less rewarding parallel, though once
again we are given significant information about Jesus: his descent from
Abraham and David; his conception through the Holy Spirit; the promise
that he will save his people from their sins. The stories in chapter ii symbolize
the later events of the gospel: the coming of the magi with their gifts, and the
slaughter of the innocents, point to the kingship ofJesus and to the rejection
and suffering associated with it; the death of the children and the flight to
Egypt mark him out as a Mosaic figure, who will shortly challenge the
current interpretation of the Torah. Here, too, we find titles such as 'Christ'
and ' the king of the Jews' being used of Jesus.2
A parallel of a different kind with the Johannine Prologue can, of course,
be found in the wisdom Christology of Heb. i. 1-4 and Col. i. 15-20. There is
perhaps a parallel in function, as well as content, since both these Christological
statements form a foundation on which the argument of the subsequent pages
is based. In Hebrews, the first four verses set out the relation of Christ to God,
to the universe, to God's previous activity in the world, to humanity and to
angels; the rest of the epistle spells out the consequences. In Colossians, the
statements about Christ's relation to God, to the universe, and to mankind,
set out in i. 15-20, form the basis of Paul's arguments in the rest of the epistle.
In Hebrews, as in John, this wisdom Christology demonstrates Christ's
superiority to the revelation of the Old Testament, and this may well be the
case also in Colossians.3
Professor Kasemann, writing on the purpose of the Johannine Prologue,4 has
suggested that the key to understanding it is to be found in vv. 14-18. In the
last part of this paper I turn to an examination of these verses.
1
The title 'Son of God' has already been used, together with'Son of the Most High','Saviour',
'Christ' and 'Lord'; the fact that Jesus is the expected King of David's line has also been stressed.
Throughout Luke iii angels and Spirit-inspired men and women act in the role of a Greek chorus,
pointing out the significance of events, and showing how Old Testament expectation is being fulfilled.
Cf. P. S. Minear, 'Luke's Use of the Birth Stories', in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. L. E. Keck and J. L.
Martyn (1966), pp. 111-30.
2
A similar suggestion that the birth-narratives in Luke and Matthew are parallel to the Marcan
and Johannine Prologues (identified as Mark i. 115 and John i. 1-34) has been made by O. J. F.
Seitz in ' Gospel prologues: a common pattern?', J.B.L. LXXXIH (1964), 262-8. Contrast H. van den
Bussche, Jean, Commentaire de VEvangile Spirituel (1967), p. 65, who compares with the Johannine
Prologue the formal introductions in the other gospels - Mark i. i, Luke i. 1-4, and Matt. i. 117.
8
SeeW. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (2nd edn 1955), pp. 147-52, 172-5; M. D. Hooker,
'Were there False Teachers in Colossae?', pp. 315-31 in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament,
ed. B. Lindars and S. Smalley, 1973.
4
E. Kasemann, New Testament Questions of Today (1969), p. 152, trans, from Exegetische Versuche
und Besinnungen, 11 (2nd edn 1965).

JOHN'S

P R O L O G U E AND T H E MESSIANIC S E C R E T

53

It has been argued recently by Professor Borgen that the opening verses of
the Prologue are an exposition of Gen. i. 1-5. It has also been suggested by
several writers that the background of vv. 14-18 is found in the revelation
on Sinai described in Exod. xxxiii.2 The links with the latter passage are, I
believe, even closer than has hitherto been recognized.
In xxxiii. 12-23, Moses makes two requests of Yahweh. First, in v. 13, he
asks: ' If I have found favour in thy sight, show me now thy ways, that I may
know thee and find favour in thy sight.' This request is apparently granted in
the promise: ' My presence will go with you'; through God's presence with
them, God's people will be distinct from all other people. The second request
comes in v. 18, where Moses says: ' I pray thee, show me thy glory'. This
request is only partly granted: the Lord will make his goodness pass before
Moses, and will proclaim his name, Yahweh, but Moses may not see his face.
The subject of vv. 14-18 in John i is glory, and this, together with the
contrast between Christ and Moses in v. 17, and the phrase TTATIPTIS x^PlTS
Kal &Ar|0Eias in v. 14, which has been interpreted by many commentators as
equivalent to the phrase na.Ni TCrrai found in Exod. xxxiv. 6,3 all point us
at once to Exod. xxxiii-xxxiv. When we examine that passage more carefully,
we discover other ideas which are echoed in John i. We have already noted
the promise that God will be present with his people, and that his presence
will distinguish Israel from other nations. The term nJ"Otf is used in v. 16 by
the Targums, and already God's presence has been symbolised by the tent
in vv. 7-11 (LXX OTcnvri). With this we may compare the reference to 'his
own' in John i. 11 and the phrase eoKi'ivcoaev EV f|niv in v. 14. The form of
Moses' request in Exod. xxxiii. 13 is interesting: 'If I have found favour,
show me thy ways, that I may.. .find favour in thy sight.' The noun jn
used twice here is, of course, the term which is normally translated by
XOtpiS-4 Is it this idea of favour given to one who has already received favour,
which lies behind the notoriously difficult phrase in John i. 16, x^P lv a V T ^
XOtpiTOS? Those who have received the grace of being God's own people
receive also the grace of his presence among them (v. 14).
1
P. Borgen,' Observations on the Targumic character of the Prologue of John', JV. T.S. xvi (1960),
288-95.
8
E.g. M. E. Boismard, St John's Prologue (1957), pp. 136-40.

3
E.g. C. H . Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (1953), p. 175; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel
according to St John (1955), in loc. Note the equivalence between 3T and trAi^pris.
* Although, as we have already noted, many commentators associate the phrase x^P'S KCCI &W|9EKX
in B. 14 (see also v. 17) with the Hebrew DBKl *TOn> the usual L X X rendering of that phrase is EXeos

a, and almost every occurrence of the word x^P'S represents the Hebrew lfj. It is used for
only in Esther ii. 9 (and in ii. 17, where it renders both terms). C. H. Dodd, loc. cit., argues that
occurrences in Ecclus. and in Symmachus and Theodotion indicate that x^P'S later replaced EAeo;
as a translation for "IDfi- This may explain its use in John i. 14 and 17. As far as x<ip'S is concerned,
however, the weight of Old Testament evidence suggests that the background is to be found in the
term m.

54

MORNA D. HOOKER

In Exod. xxxiii. 17-23 the Lord promises that he will make his glory pass
by Moses, who will see only a rear view, for 'you cannot see my face; for
man shall not see me and live' (v. 20). As John puts it in i. 18, 'no one has
ever seen God'; but John continues: he ' who is in the bosom of the Father,
he has made him known'. Is John here deliberately contrasting Moses, who
was placed at God's side, but allowed to see only God's rear view, and Christ,
who is in the bosom of the Father? 1
In Exod. xxxiii. 19 we read that God is to make all his goodness pass before
Moses, and that he will proclaim his name, Yahweh. In vv. 5-7 of the next
chapter we read how God fulfils his promise: he descends in the cloud and
stands with Moses there; passing before him, he proclaims 'Yahweh,
Yahweh, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in
steadfast love and faithfulness' - nNl nDn~2"iV Later Jewish exegesis
understood these verses as an exposition of the thirteen divine attributes,2
and we have already seen that two of these are echoed in the Johannine
phrase TtAripris X&PITOS KCCI &Ar|0eias. They are all summed up, apparently,
in the phrase used in Exod. xxxiii. 19 - aitj-bs :3 are they perhaps also
summed up by John in the word TrAripoopia? In Exod. xxxiv the divine name,
Yahweh, heads the list of divine attributes, all of which are concerned with
God's dealings with his people; in the rest of John's gospel the divine name,
' I am', will be used repeatedly by Jesus in making various claims - many of
them associated in Jewish thought with the role of the Torah. In every case,
the evangelist stresses the importance of what Jesus is for the believer;4 as he
puts it in i. 16, 'of this irAripcoua we have all received'.
In Exodus, Yahweh himself proclaims the name Yahweh. In John i. 18
it is uovoyevfis 0e6s (or Yios) who ' declares' :5 the verb used by John is
riyelcr0ai, and though this is not used by the Septuagint in Exod. xxxiiixxxiv, it conveys well the sense of the divine self-proclamation - expressed in
xxxiii. 19 and xxxiv. 5 in the rather odd Hebrew construction np2 Nip which reveals the character of God. John's language here seems to have been
1
Cf. John v. 37 and vi. 46. The background of the former passage is perhaps also the theophany
on Sinai; cf. W. A. Meeks, The Prophet-King, Nov. Test. Supp. xiv (1967), 299 f. There may also be an
intentional contrast with Ecclus. xlv. 1-5.
2
Cf. T. Bab. RoshHashanah 17*; Rashi on Exod. xxxiii. 19 and xxxiv. 6. Already within the
biblical tradition, we see the beginning of this development, with the reiteration of the themes of
these verses; cf. Numb. xiv. 18; Neh. ix. 17; Pss. lxxxvi. 15, ciii. 8, cxlv. 8; Joel ii. 13; Jonah iv. 2.
3
The LXX reads here: 'Eycb trapeAcuaoprai -n-p6TEpds crou Tfj 66^ nov. This may reflect a variant
Hebrew reading, "Hiapa, but more probably shows influence by v. 22. The reading underlines the fact

that the disclosure of God's glory is his self-revelation.

4
Note the verbs used with the ' I am' sayings; 'come' in vi. 35, 'follow' in viii. 12, 'enter' in
x. 7, 9, 'know' in x. 11, 14, 'believe' in xi. 25, 'come' (to the Father) in xiv. 6 and 'abide in'
xv. 1, 5.
6
It is appropriate that it is the one who is the X6yos madefleshwho performs this function. At this
point in the Prologue, we are reminded again of the unity between God and the A6yo;, now expressed
in terms of the unity between Jesus Christ and the Father. Cf. H. van den Bussche, op. cit. pp. 105 f.,
who suggests that v. 18 b corresponds to v. 1.

JOHN'S

PROLOGUE

AND T H E MESSIANIC SECRET

55

influenced also by Ecclus. xliii. 31: TIS EopotKEV CCUTOV KCU EK5iriyr)aETai;1
In John xvii Jesus says that he has manifested the Father's name to those
who have kept God's word: the context links this with the mutual glorifying
of Father and Son.
It may possibly be objected that the suggested use of Exodus lacks consistency, since John is at one and the same time seeing Christ's glory as
continuous with that revealed on Mount Sinai, and contrasting Christ with
the figure of Moses. This, however, is precisely John's point - and one repeated
throughout his gospel;2 Christ is not only the one who has seen the face of
God, but is himself the source of divine 86oc, full of grace and truth. The
difference is brought out in the use of different verbs in i. 17; the Law was
given through Moses (in the theophany on Mount Sinai) - but grace and
truth themselves have come through Jesus Christ. There is therefore not only
a partial antithesis between Christ and Moses,3 there is also an antithesis
between Christians and Moses, who are both recipients of the revelation.
So it is we (v. 14) who have seen his glory, and the glory is that of the Logos;
it is we (v. 16) who have received x<*Plv CVT' XPlTS- This double theme Christ as the revelation of God's glory, and as the fulfilment of the Torah,
to which Moses only pointed forward - is the theme of the rest of the
gospel.
If this interpretation is correct, we can understand the strange insertion of
the reference to the Baptist in v. 15; his witness is necessary at this point
so that we may understand that the one who follows him in the story Jesus - is in fact the one who was before him, whose glory is spoken of in the
pages of the Old Testament.4 We understand also why certain terms
- xPlS5 irAripcoua - should be appropriate here, when they are not used
elsewhere.
The term -rrAripconoc gives us an interesting verbal link with another
important passage where wisdom Christology is employed, namely Col. i.
15-20. The link is not merely a verbal one, however, for there is a close parallel between the two passages. In John i we are told first of the relation of the
Aoyos to God, of his work in creation, and of this continuing role in the
world; then, in v. 14, we learn of the Aoyos made flesh and the revelation of
God's glory, and the fact that men receive of the TrAT)pcoj|UDC embodied in him.
In Col. i. 1520 we are told first of the relation of the Son to God (65 EOTIV
SIKCOV TOO EOU), of his work in creation, and his continuing sustaining role (vv.
15-17); then we are told of his role in relation to the Church, and his work
in redemption, which is dependent upon the fact that EV ocuTcp
1

Cf. also Ps. xxii (xxi). 23.

Cf. T. F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (1963), p. 24 n.; W. A. Meeks, op. cit. pp.
288 f.
3
M . E. Boismard, loc. cit., understands the parallel with Exodus to mark Christ out as the new
Moses of a new covenant. But in John, Christ is the one whose glory we see.
4
See John xvii. 5. Cf. A. T. Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (1965), pp. 108-13.
8

56

MORNA D. HOOKER

uXripcoua xcrroiKficrai.1 In John, the glory of God is revealed in the

Xoyos made flesh, and those who see him receive of this irAripcoiJia. In
Colossians, the TrAripco|joc dwells in Christ, and the Church is filled in him (i.
19; ii. 9 f. Cf. Eph. i. 23). In Heb. i. 1-4, also, we find linked together the
ideas of Christ's unique relationship with God, his role as agent of creation,
his continuing work in upholding all things, his character as reflection of
God's glory and expression of his being, and his work in redemption. These
themes are expanded throughout chapters i and ii, and here too we find
that men are given a share in what has been revealed in Christ - sonship and
glory (ii. 10).
But why should John, in his exposition of these ideas, bring together the
term Aoyoj and the imagery of Exod. xxxiii-xxxiv? There is, of course, an
immediate and obvious link between the A6yos and the idea of the Torah,
God's word, which was itself symbolized by light and life, terms which have
been used already in the opening verses of the Prologue -just as there is an
obvious link between the ideas of light and a glory which can be seen. Is
there perhaps also another link with the word Xoyos to be found in the Exodus
passage in Yahweh's words to Moses in xxxiii. 17:' even this word which you
have spoken I will do'? Certainly John might have described his gospel as the
account of God performing the word spoken by Moses.
John spells out this truth for us in v. 37 f., a passage which appears to be
another echo of Sinai. In rejecting Jesus, the Jews are showing that they have
never heard God's voice or seen his form or received his word. They search
the scriptures - which bear witness to Jesus - and fail to recognize that they
speak of him. God himself is glorified - i.e. revealed 2 -in what Jesus does:
throughout the gospel, discourses and signs and the arrangement of the
material round the pattern of Jewish festivals spell out the truth that this
revelation is the fulfilment of everything that went before, and that Moses is
the witness who speaks of Jesus.
We have seen that it is Christians, as much as Christ, who stand in contrast
to Moses in John i. A similar idea is to be found in II Cor. iii. 1 -iv. 6, where
the contrast between Moses and Christ slides into a contrast between Moses
and the Christian: for it is we whose faces are unveiled and unashamed. The
theme of this passage, too, is glory - though now it is the glory which Moses
reflected after speaking to God on Sinai; Moses' irradiation was, however,
according to Paul, only temporary and imperfect, whereas the glory Christians now see and reflect is the glory of Christ. What kind of glory is this?
Its source, we learn in II Cor. iv. 6, is God, who said, at creation, 'Let light
shine out of darkness'; Paul, in a pattern the reverse ofJohn's, leads us back
from the light of the glory glimpsed on Sinai and seen in Jesus Christ to the

TTOV T6

1
The two terms used to introduce the two sections in Col. i, E!KCOV and &p)tf, are used by Philo in
association with A6yos in de Conf. 146.
2
Cf. G. B. Caird, 'The glory of God in the Fourth Gospel: an exercise in biblical semantics',
N.T.S. xv (1969), 265-77.

J O H N ' S P R O L O G U E AND T H E MESSIANIC SECRET

57

light of creation. For both Paul and John, Christ is the fulfilment of God's
eternal purpose, which was only partly revealed on Sinai. The full unveiling
of God's glory is now seen by Christians.1
In the course of his argument in II Corinthians iii, Paul speaks of faith in
Christ in terms of the removal of the veil; the veil is removed not only from
Moses' face, but from the scriptures and from the hearts of those Jews who
turn to Christ. So we return to the theme of the messianic secret. For the veil,
here, serves the same purpose as the blind eyes and hard hearts spoken of by
the evangelists. And the truth which is obscured is the same as in John - it
is the glory of Christ; it is the fact that the old covenant points forward to the
new, and that the glory as revealed by Moses is brought to completion in
Christ. As Paul sums it up in Rom. x. 3 f., where he is grappling again with
the problem of Israel's failure to see the truth, Christ is the TAOS of the Law.
The Jews seek to establish their own righteousness, and are ignorant of the
righteousness of God; they do not realize that though the Law speaks of a
righteousness based on works, it also points forward to a righteousness based
on faith.2
It seems likely that Paul's argument in II Corinthians has developed out of
the kind of understanding of the Law which we find in Jewish writings, and
which forms the background of the opening verses ofJohn i. In passages such
as Proverbs viii and Ecclesiasticus xxiv, wisdom is associated with God's work
of creation, and identified with the Law: the divine plan was with God from
the beginning, and was revealed to Israel at Sinai.3 We find the Rabbis speaking of the Torah as part of the eternal purpose of God - created before the
world: a passage in the Babylonian Talmud, for example, describes the angels
as asking what Moses is doing on Mount Sinai. 'He has come to receive the
Torah,' replies the Lord, at which they exclaim, 'That secret treasure, which
has been hidden by Thee for 974 generations before the world was created,
Thou desirest to give to flesh and blood.'4 To Paul it is clear that it is Christ
himself who is the secret treasure or wisdom, hidden by God from all eternity.5
John expresses this same belief in his own way: ' In the beginning was the
1

Paul brings out clearly the idea that Christians in turn reflect this glory by becoming what Christ
himself is. See especially II Cor. iii. 18 and iv. 4. Cf. similar ideas in John i. 12 f., Col. ii. g f., iii. 10,
and Heb. ii. 10.
2
A similar argument is used by Paul in I Cor. ii, where he speaks of a hidden wisdom, concealed
from the rulers of this age, but revealed to Christians. Paul uses language appropriate to the Corinthian situation, speaking of wisdom instead of righteousness, but the argument that man must rely
on God's wisdom, not his own, is parallel to his argument in Romans and Galatians that man must
rely on God, and not his own works. The two ideas are brought together in I Cor. i. 30, in the statement that Christ is both our wisdom and our righteousness. If Paul is thinking of Christ as the fulfilment of God's age-long purpose, the one to whom the scriptures pointed, though theirmeaning
was until his coming veiled, it was perhaps a simple step for him to express this in terms of wisdomnot simply because the Corinthians had a special interest in that term, but because Judaism had
already identified the Torah with wisdom. For other expressions of this idea of the secret now
revealed in Christ, see Rom. xvi. 25 f; Col. i. 25 f., ii. 2 f.; Eph. iii. 3 ff.
3
Cf. also'the identification of Torah and wisdom in rabbinic writings, e.g. Gen. R. 1. 1. 4;
Lev. R. xi. 3.
* T. Bab. Shabbath 88 A.
5
I Cor. ii. 7; cf. Col. i. s6. The 'end' in both cases, as in II Cor. iii-iv, is our glorification.

58

MORNA D. HOOKER

word. . .the word became flesh.. .and we saw his glory.. .full of grace and
truth.' Over against the Jewish claim that God's eternal purpose was finally
revealed at Sinai, we have the Christian claim that the Torah only pointed
forward to the revelation made in Christ.1
In both II Corinthians and Romans we see Paul wrestling with the problem of reconciling faith in Jesus as Christ not only with his conviction that
God had spoken through the Old Testament, but also with the failure of
the Jews to recognize the truth. In thinking about possible situations in the
early Church, reconstructing various so-called false Christologies, heresies and
problems, it is easy to overlook the obvious and most pressing problem which
confronted these early Christians - the relation of Christian faith to their
Jewish heritage. It is difficult for us, nineteen centuries or so after the division
between Jew and Christian has been made, to appreciate the trauma of
those who found the new wine of Christian faith bursting the skins ofJudaism
- yet knew that God had spoken both through Moses and the prophets, and
most decisively in Jesus of Nazareth. It is not surprising to find the Fourth
Evangelist, like Paul, still grappling with this basic problem - and this, I suggest, is the reason why he wrote his Gospel, and his Prologue, as he did. The
secret which he and the readers share, but which is hidden from the Jewish
nation, is the truth spelt out for us in the first eighteen verses of his gospel that in Jesus Christ the God who has spoken in time past is fully revealed.
There is no contradiction between old and new, only glorious fulfilment,
because the scriptures themselves speak of Christ. Those who are blind to
this are indeed in darkness - but those who possess this key see the glory
of God.
1

The question which so often puzzles commentators, as to the precise point in the Prologue where

the author first speaks of the incarnation, would perhaps be for him a meaningless question. The
A6yos now made flesh was with God at the beginning, and has made God known throughout history;
the light has always shone in darkness, and the coming of the light has continually been rejected by
men, both in the past and in the events described by John in his gospel. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the Baptist, whose function is to witness to Jesus, should appear in both sections of the
Prologue, binding the two parts together and assuring us that the historical figure to whom he
points is the A6yo; made flesh - that the one who reveals the glory of God is himself the light which
has shone since creation, and that the one who comes after the Baptist in time is the one who has
existed since before time began.