The Word Became Flesh

1 aIn the beginning was bthe Word, and cthe Word was with God, and dthe Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 eAll things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 fIn him was life,1 and gthe life was the light of men. 5 hThe light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man isent from God, whose name was jJohn. 7He came as a kwitness, to bear witness about the light, lthat all might believe through him. 8 mHe was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

9 nThe true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet othe world did not know him. 11 He came to phis own,2 and qhis own people3 rdid not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, swho believed in his name, the gave the right uto become vchildren of God, 13 who wwere born, xnot of blood ynor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And zthe Word abecame flesh and bdwelt among us, cand we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son4 from the Father, full of dgrace and etruth. 15 (fJohn bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, g‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’ ”) 16 For from hhis fullness we have all received, igrace upon grace.5 17 For jthe law was given through Moses; kgrace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 lNo one has ever seen God; mthe only God,6 who is at the Father’s side,7 nhe has made him known.

The Testimony of John the Baptist

19 And this is the otestimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, p“Who are you?” 20 qHe confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” 21 And they asked him, “What then? rAre you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you sthe Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” 22 So they said to him, “Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23 He said, “I am tthe voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight8 the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.”

24 (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.) 25 They asked him, u“Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” 26 John answered them, v“I baptize with water, but among you stands one you do not know, 27 even whe who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.” 28 These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Behold, the Lamb of God

29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, xthe Lamb of God, who ytakes away the sin zof the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, a‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but bfor this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” 32 And John cbore witness: d“I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and eit remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but fhe who sent me to baptize gwith water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, hthis is he who baptizes gwith the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son9 of God.”

Jesus Calls the First Disciples

35 The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, “Behold, ithe Lamb of God!” 37 The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, j“What are you seeking?” And they said to him, k“Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” 39 He said to them, “Come and you will see.” So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.10 40 lOne of the two who heard John speak and followed Jesus11 was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found mthe Messiah” (which means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of nJohn. You shall be called oCephas” (which means pPeter12).

Jesus Calls Philip and Nathanael

43 qThe next day Jesus decided rto go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” 44 Now sPhilip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found tNathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom uMoses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus vof Nazareth, wthe son of Joseph.” 46 Nathanael said to him, x“Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, yan Israelite indeed, zin whom there is no deceit!” 48 Nathanael said to him, “How ado you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49 Nathanael answered him, b“Rabbi, cyou are the Son of God! You are the dKing of Israel!” 50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51 And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you,13 you will see eheaven opened, and fthe angels of God ascending and descending on gthe Son of Man.”

Adoniram, Son of Abda (אֲדֹנִירָם, adoniram). Also called Adoram (אֲדֹרָם, adoram) and Hadoram (הֲדוֹרָם, hadoram). The person in charge of conscripting forced labor during the reigns of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam (2 Sam 20:24; 1 Kgs 4:6; 5:14; 12:18; 2 Chr 10:18). In 2 Samuel 20:24 and 1 Kgs 12:18, his name is spelled “Adoram” (אֲדֹרָם, adoram). In 2 Chronicles 10:18 (the parallel to 1 Kgs 12:18), the name is spelled “Hadoram” (הֲדוֹרָם, hadoram). The spelling variations are either spelling errors or alternative forms of the name. The Septuagint uses Αδωνιραμ (Adōniram) when he is named at 2 Sam 20:24; 1 Kgs 4:6; 12:18; and 2 Chr 10:18. The equation of Adoniram and Adoram is likely based on the overlap in the named officials of David and Solomon in 2 Sam 20:23–26 and 1 Kgs 4:1–6.

Adoni-Zedek (אֲדֹנִי־צֶדֶק, adoni-tsedeq). The king of Jerusalem during the conquest of Canaan (Josh 10:1). After hearing of the fall of Ai and the surrender of the Gibeonites, he joined together with four other kings to resist the Israelites and attack Gibeon (Joshua 10:3–4). The Gibeonites called Joshua for help, and Joshua defeated him (10:6–14). Adoni-zedek and his four allies fled from the battle and were trapped in a cave near Makkedah. When the battle was over, they were taken out, put to death, and executed by impalement (though many translations used “hanged” in Josh 10:22–27).

Adoption (υἱοθεσία, huiothesia). A Greek phrase that describes the act of raising a child who is not biologically related. Used by Paul to describe God adopting humans—implied elsewhere in the Bible to represent membership in the family of God.

Adoption in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible

The absence of a word that translates as “adoption” in Hebrew suggests that Israel did not practice legal adoption. However, this does not mean that adoption as a concept did not exist (Scott, Adoption as Sons, 61): there are certainly instances of someone taking a child into his or her care. For example, “Mordecai took [Esther] to be his daughter” because she had no mother or father (Esth 2:7). Despite the absence of a term, it is clear that the concept of adoption existed.

There are several other instances in the Hebrew Bible where adoption is represented:

• Moses grows up in Pharaoh’s household (Exod 2:1–10). The story of Moses also says that Pharaoh’s daughter agreed to pay wet nurse fees (Exod 2:9). In ancient Near Eastern legal codes, a person who pays the wet nurse fees to keep a child alive—particularly a foundling, or child who has been abandoned shortly after birth—assumes the child in his or her household (Malul, “Adoption of Foundlings,” 107–108).

• Ezekiel 16:1–7 uses much of the same legal terminology for adoption as the Babylonian code in its metaphor for God’s relationship to Israel (Malul, “Adoption of Foundlings,” 98–99). The metaphor suggests that God gradually becomes Israel’s father, not through sexual procreation, but through adoption (Miles, “Israel as Foundling”).

• Ruth’s formulaic declaration to stay with her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16–17) might represent a rite of adoption. This is comparable to Jesus’ declaration from the cross, when he places his mother into the family of the disciple he loved (John 19:26–27).

• Abraham “adopts” his slave Eliezer of Damascus to be his heir before the birth of Ishmael and Isaac (Selman, “The Social Environment,” 125–127).

• Josephus describes Abraham as adopting Lot (Antiquities, I.7.1), although he was writing in a Graeco-Roman context where legal adoption was practiced.

Adoption in the Graeco-Roman World

Adoption was a legal act in the Graeco-Roman world. In ancient Greece, there were three types of adoption. In each of these three cases, adoption is necessary only to preserve the estate (Edwards, “Introduction,” 8–10).

1. Inter vivos adoption occurred when someone adopted a son during his lifetime.

2. Testamentary adoption involved designating an adopted son in a will (Isaeus, “On the Estate of Appolodorus,” 119).

3. If a man died without appointing a legitimate heir, the next of kin’s offspring would be adopted in the third type: posthumous adoption (Isaeus, “On the Estate of Hagnias,” 192–193).

In the Roman world, social standing (i.e. slave or free, male or female) determined who had the right to adopt, and who could be adopted under what terms. As in Greece, women were virtually removed from this system: They could not legally adopt because they were under the guardianship of their male relatives. They were also adopted at a far lower rate than males, since the usual reason for adoption was to provide an heir—women were restricted in inheritance rights. Additionally, children under the age of puberty were rarely adopted.

Adopting someone of age had an advantage in that “the adopter has the opportunity to engage with the individual before making a final choice” (Lindsay, “Adoption,” 201). Someone who had already proven abilities for managing a household would be a good investment as an heir. For this reason, young men who had at least reached puberty or adulthood were more likely to be adopted than an infant.

In the Roman Empire, there are also three types of adoption.

1. Adoption (adoptatio) and adrogation (adrogatio) both involve outsiders becoming children in another family, but the difference is in the overseeing authorities.

• For adoptatio, the praetor, or local magistrate, must approve of the new relationship. The adoptee in this case is moving from one paterfamilias to another, so his social status has not changed.

• In the case of adrogation, the adoption must be approved via a commission called the comitia curiata. This commission was located in Rome. Adrogation occurs “when persons who are their own masters deliver themselves into the control of another, and are themselves responsible for the act” (Gellius, Attic Nights, V.19.4). The people were suspicious of adrogation because one paterfamilias (literally father-family; the basic familial organization of the Roman world) was dissolved into another. In a culture where the authority of a paterfamilias was the pinnacle of personal relations, someone’s willingness to go from independent to dependent status needed to be reviewed. The extinction of the adoptee’s family of origin was legally and socially serious. There were some acceptable motivations under which adrogation might occur, like the intention of seeking an heir (Lindsay, “Adoption,” 203).

2. Testamentary adoption is often mentioned in literary works, but does not appear separately in the writings of legal authorities. In this case, the beneficiary does not even leave his own family to become part of the household of the adopter. This type of adoption appears to allow someone to inherit at least a portion of an estate without dissolving his own ties to his paterfamilias (Lindsay, “Adoption,” 203).

Roman emperors frequently had to adopt an heir. The emperors were plagued both with reproductive difficulties and the reality that their heirs were frequent targets of enemies. Emperors also sought competent heirs, and their natural biological children did not always fit the bill. In the span of accessions in the 97 years between Nerva and Commodus, every heir to the throne was legitimized by adoption (Goodman, The Roman World, 67).