| 183 The unity of the divine activity ad extra is emphasized very strongly by the Fathers. See e.g. Athanasius, Ad. Serap. I:20; Basil, De Spir. 19:49; Cyril of Alexandria, In Jo. 10 etc. This is also true of the Western Fathers. Cf. Y. Congar, “Pneumatologie ou ‘Christomonism’ dans la tradition Latine?» in Ecclesia a Spiritu Sancto edocta (Melanges G. Philips, 1970), pp. 41 – 63. 184 This is discussed at greater length in J.D. Zizioulas, “Die Pneumatologische Dimension der Kirche,” in Communio (1973). 187 This “de-individualization” of Christ, His identification with a pneumatic “body,” makes sense only if the echatological realities are introduced into history. The Spirit is associated with the “last days” (Acts 2:17) and a pneumatic Christology draws its “truth” only from the fact of the resurrected Christ, i.e, from the historical “verification” of this eschatological truth. If one accepts the resurrected Christ, then it is no longer possible to have an individualistic Christology. Any reference to the person of Christ will inevitably imply what we have called here a de-individualization, i.e. it will present Christ as a person (not an individual), as a being whose identity is established in and through communion. The New Testament was written by those who had accepted Jesus’ resurrection as a historical fact, and therefore Christ’s identity is always presented in the New Testament in pneumatological terms (for some Gospel writers, such as Matthew and Luke, even from the moment of Jesus’ biological conception). Given this, it was now impossible for the Church to speak of Christ other than in terms of communion, i.e. identifying Him with the “communion of the saints.” The pneumatological and eschatological approaches to Christ equally imply His community. The raised Christ is unimaginable as an individual; He is the “first-born of many brothers,” establishing His historical identity in and through the communion-event which is the Church. 190 Cf. W. Elert, Der Ausgang der alt-kirchlichen Christologie (1957), where the important point is made concerning the role of the Christusbild as contrasted with that of the Christusbegriff in the development of classical Christology. |
| In preceding chapters, the law of witnesses is cited in Jesus» debates with the religious authorities (chs. 5, 8), setting those debates into the context of preliminary accusations that prefigure his final tria1. In John 9 , the synagogue authorities exercise their judicial authority to remove a supposed apostate from the community, directly anticipating the situation of the Johannine community spelled out in 16:2. The context would clearly be understood as forensic, for even in the Diaspora the Jewish community normally had its own synagogue courts to address internal religious issues. Because the Spirit continues Jesus» role as advocate, we can look to earlier passages in the Fourth Gospel that exemplify Jesus» advocacy in ways the Johannine community can expect to continue in their own day. Toward the end of John 9 and through the first paragraphs of John 10 , Jesus acts as an advocate: he defends the formerly blind man, representing the true sheep of Israel, and in so doing prosecutes his persecutors who claim to see (9:40–41), showing them to be thieves and robbers. 8675 He thus brings both help and judgment (cf. 9:39). 8676 Jesus appears as the true advocate of his people in times of oppression, and the Spirit stands in for Jesus in the time of the Johannine community, representing the risen Christ through the community to their opponents in all his prophetic force. 8677 Just as Jesus brings judgment while defending his own (9:39), so the Paraclete will prosecute as well as defend (16:8–11). Earlier in the Fourth Gospel, the writer alludes to Moses» function as advocate/accuser of Israel (5:45); but in the following chapter it is Jesus who is the agent of the Father who sends the true bread from heaven, and who is greater than Moses (ch. 6). Moses as a teacher, witness, and mediator of God " s glorious revelation in Torah, and the prophet par excellence, is perhaps the most natural single OT figure whose functions are performed by the Paraclete; but these functions all derive from the character of the Johannine Jesus, who himself parallels both Moses and the Law. 3C. The Spirit as Jesus» Successor |
| 1. The Sin-Bearing Lamb (1:29, 36) In the Fourth Gospels distinctive chronology, Jesus dies on Passover; the temple cleansing, which in the Synoptic tradition occurs in his final Passover, opens his public ministry, framing his whole ministry with the shadow of the passion week and its Johannine association with Passover. «Lamb of God» is thus a very appropriate title. 1A. Proposed Backgrounds Scholars have proposed four main backgrounds for the lamb of 1:29: apocalyptic lambs; the lamb of Isa 53:7; and Passover and sacrificial lambs (we have treated these last two together). On the first reading, the Baptist announced an apocalyptic lamb, like the eschatological horned lambs of the messianic era in 1 Enoch. 4007 In this case, the Baptist " s public confession in 1(as opposed to the relative clause in the possibly unattested confession of 1:29, which defines the lamb " s mission in terms of sin-bearing) could make historical sense in the context of the Baptist being an eschatological prophet. The evidence for this position is weak, however. 4008 Apocalyptic lambs before John the Baptist appear only in materials from portions of 1 Enoch (chs. 89–90), and probably bear no specific function worthy of special attention by the Baptist or the Fourth Gospe1. 4009 Other works that use lambs to convey other images were more widely read in this period. 4010 Another apocalyptic work from the Johannine community includes one central lamb (Rev 5:6,13; 6:16; 7:10; we read the Greek terms for «lamb» interchangeably), but no allusion to the lambs of 1 Enoch; even in Revelation, the lamb is a Passover lamb that delivers God " s people from the plagues (cf. 5:6,9; 7:1–8,17). 4011 Others have found here the language of Isaiah " s Suffering Servant. 4012 Although the servant is clearly Israel in most of the Servant Songs (41:8–9; 43:10; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3), in 49and 53:4–8 the innocent servant suffers on behalf of Israel, which failed to carry out its mission fully (42:19). Although extant sources suggest (against some scholars) 4013 that Judaism lacked a messianic reading of the servant passages in this period 4014 (and later continued to lack it with regard to the suffering aspects of these passages), 4015 this became the prevailing interpretation in early Christian sources (e.g., Acts 8:32; 1Pet 2:22–24 ), 4016 and may hark back to Jesus» self-definition as presented in Mark 10:45; 14:24 . |
| Some later Jewish texts expressed Isaiah " s vision in the language of respectful circumlocution, noting that Isaiah witnessed God " s «glory,» as here. 7954 Isaiah was one of the chief prophets after Moses, 7955 and in the context of the Fourth Gospel, Isaiah becomes a link between Moses and the apostles, who also witnessed Jesus» glory (1:14–18, alluding to Exod 33–34), as did Abraham (8:56). 7956 By contrast, those without spiritual eyes to see could not recognize the glory among them (3:3; 6:30; 9:39–41). The glory revealed to both Moses and Isaiah was rejected by many of their contemporaries; early Christians applied this pattern to many of Jesus» «own» (1:11) rejecting him (cf. Matt 23:31; Luke 11:50; Acts 7:39, 52; 28:25–27; 2Cor 3:13–15; 1 Thess 2:15), though some had seen his glory (1:14–18). 7957 Jewish tradition naturally expanded on Isaiah " s revelations, 7958 and the mystic stream of tradition undoubtedly interpreted Isaiah " s vision as including «a visionary ascent to heaven.» 7959 Some early Hellenistic Jewish texts adapted Hellenistic motifs concerning visionary ascents; thus, for example, a throne-vision may have in some sense deified Moses or at least made him God " s second in command over creation. 7960 Yet Jesus is greater than Moses; as the one who descended from heaven to begin with, he is the supreme revealer (3:11–13). In any case, most of John " s audience would know the biblical accounts to which John has alluded, whereas a smaller part of his audience might know these other traditions. (It is difficult to say how early, popular, or geographically widespread such traditions were, but safe to say that the biblical stories themselves would be most accessible to the broadest range of people.) As in other biblical theophanies, not the visionary but the one beheld is the object of worship. In Isaiah the glory belongs to God; here it belongs to Jesus (12in context). 7961 As Isa 52is contextually implied in the citation of 53:1, Isa 6 relates to Christ " s «glory.» 7962 |
| 3547 E.g., Philo Confusion 170; Moses 2.238; Decalogue, 51, 105, 107; Spec. Laws 1.14, 22, 32, 41, 96; 2.6, 165; 3.178,189; Virtues 64, 77, 218; Rewards 24; Contemp1. Life 90; Eternity 13; Embassy 115, 293; QG 2.60; the Logos is the Father in Confusion 41. 3548 E.g., Sib. Or. 3.726 (second century B.C.E.: God as γενετρ, «begetter»), 604 (God as the αθνατος γενετς, «the immortal begetter»); perhaps Pr. Jos. 1 (maybe second century C.E.; similar to other magical texts and probably Jewish). Although Montefiore, «Father,» contends for this universal usage in the NT, it probably appears only in Acts 17:28–29 (cf. the critique of Jeremias, Prayers, 43 n. 70); but in other early Christian literature, cf. also Theophilus 1.4; Athenagoras 13, 27. 3550 Vellanickal, Sonship, 50, and Dodd, Interpretation, 60, citing Philo Confusion 145. On a birth from God, cf. QG 3.60; Dreams 1.173; Alleg. Interp. 3.219, in Vellanickal, Sonship, 51. For divine son-ship in Philo in general, see Vellanickal, Sonship, 50–52. 3551 Hagner, «Vision,» 83–85. Argyle, «Philo and Gospel,» 385, cites Philo Confusion 147 to indicate that Philós Logos also makes people God " s (or at least the Logos " s) children. 3552 E.g., 4QDibrê ham-Méorôt 3.4–10 (in Vellanickal, Sonship, 31); 1QH 9.35–36 (often applying only to the true remnant of Israel, not to ethnic Israel as a whole). Cf. «son» in Jub. 2:20; 19:29; and God as Israel " s father in Jub. 1:25. 3555 Wis 2:13,16,18; 5:5. At least the latter applies especially to Israel as wel1. See also 4Q416 frg. 2 (4Q417) 1.13 (in Wise, Scrolls, 384); 4Q418 frg. 81, line 5. 3558 Cf., e.g., Wis 5:5; Pss. So1. 17:30; Sib. Or. 3.702–704 (second century B.C.E.); Jub. 1:28. Even here, however, the title is not conferred but recognized eschatologically (e.g., cf. Jub. 1:25). Israel " s sonship in the OT also had eschatological associations; see in Vellanickal, Sonship, 25–26. 3559 Cf. m. " Abot 3:15. Later rabbis contended that one who teaches his neighbor Torah is as if he begot him (e.g., b. Sanh. 19b). In Pesiq. Rab. 21God gave Torah to his children Israe1. |
| 10582 E.g., Homer Od. 13.189–193; see more fully the comment on 8:59. 10583 See Gen 18 ; Tob 5:4–6, 12; 9:1–5; Philo Abraham 114; Sipre Deut. 38.1.4; p. Péah 3:8, §3; Heb 13:2; cf. Luke 24:16, 31. Also Satan in T. Job 6:4; 17:2/1; 23:1; cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:2. 10584 Sipre Deut. 47.2.8 speaks of the righteous as sometimes unseen but not in the sense of disguised (may be intended corporately). 10585 One need not regard him as a custodian (Brown, John, 2:990). Suggit, «Gardener,» finds here Jesus as a new Adam; but in this Gospel he is likelier Adam " s life giver instead (cf. 20:22). 10586 The term is a NT and LXX hapax legomenon, but the cognate κπος appears in 18:1,26; 19:41; Luke 13:19; and thirty-one times in the LXX; the use of κπος in 19dictates the use of κηπουρς here. Cf. the sacred gardener of Philostratus Hrk. 4.11–12 (though it is third century C.E.). 10587 Strachan, Gospel, 225, argues this on the basis of the term βαστζω (cf. 19:17; but cf. also 10:31), but John uses αρω for Mary " s offer, which need not connote heaviness (2:16; 5:8). It is, however, intrinsically likely given the usual relative weight of men and women. 10588 Stibbe, Gospel, 1, presses the parallel too far in calling it an inclusio. 10589 The parallels should not, however, be pressed as if John expected his audience to catch all of them; to some extent, «Whom/What do you seek?» is merely language characteristic of the author (4:27). 10590 Derrett " s attempt to parallel her with the earlier Miriam who watched over Moses» infant body (Exod 2:3–8; «Miriam») is farfetched. 10591 Most commentators note the parallel here (e.g., Kysar, John, 300; Quast, Reading, 133). 10592 E.g., to Abraham in Gen 22:1 ; Jub. 18:1, 14. 10593 Gen 22:11; 46:2 ; Exod 3:4; 1Sam 3:10 ; Luke 10:41; 22:31; Acts 9:4; 4 Ezra 14:1; 2 Bar. 22:2 ; Apoc. Mos. 41:1; Jos. Asen. 14:4; T. Ab. 14:14; 15:1A; T. Job 3:1; 24:1; 25:9. Such doubling provided rhetorical emphasis (Demetrius 5.267; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:4) or endearment (t. Ber. 1:14; Sipra VDDen.par. 1.1.4.3–4). |
| 146 John 19:12 . Crook, Consilium Principis, 23 f. The connotation, originally political rather than personal in Republican usage, becomes markedly official in imperial documents, with the suggestion that so and so is the official representative of the Princeps. Cf. A–J, nn. 49, 59: ‘Plantam Iulium amicum et comitem meum.’ The term ‘friend of Caesar’ is used in a very similar way to that of the Gospel in passages of the contemporary Philo. Cf. In Flaccum, 2. 40. 148 P. Winter’s book on the trial of Jesus, cited 32 n. 1, appeared after the delivery of this lecture. His legal argument, here refuted, is merely a summary of Leitzmann’s, and hence of Juster’s, as indeed his whole thesis is an expansion of Leitzmann. Its legal foundations are equally fragile. Much more accurate, if old-fashioned, in its Roman background, is J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu 2 (Regensburg, i960), esp. 163 ff., 198 ff., 248 ff. 156 Cadbury’s appendix ‘Roman Law and the trial of Paul’ in Jackson–Lake, op. cit. v. 297 f., is the most accessible modern discussion. Mommsen, GS, iii, ‘Die Rechtsverhältnisse des Apostels Paulen’, 441 f. 168 ξ ο μεζονας πονοας ναγκασθσομαι λαβεν. P. Lond. 1912 ad fin. in M. Charlesworth, Documents Illustrating the Reign of Claudius and Nero (Cambridge, 1939), C. n. 2. 172 Acts 24:5. Though there is no impossibility in taking λοιμν after κινοντα, the text reads as if a participle had been omitted before it. 180 Mommsen, GS, 444. Cf. D. Pen. R. ii. 176–177. D. 48. 16. 15. 5 mentions occupationes praesidum as a ground for the law’s delay, but the Roman law was more concerned to prevent destitutio by accusers than to speed up the courts themselves. See Lecture Four, pp. 112 ff. 187 Cadbury, op. cit. 304–305, is correct here, though he very oddly calls the incident an anquisitio, a term proper to the Republican procedure of iudicium populi. 194 The kingdoms are well documented chronologically from Augustus to Claudius, e.g. Dio, 54. 9. 2, 59. 8. 2, 60.8. 2. Tac. Ann. ii. 42, vi. 41, xii. 55. Strabo, xii. 1.4 (p. 535), xiv. 5. 6 (p. 671), and ibid. 18 (p. 676), shows that they were confined to the mountainous sector of Cilicia Tracheia in the west and the Amanus in the east, excluding the maritime plain from the river Lamus (west of Soli and Pompeiopolis) eastwards to the Amanus. The existence of a provincial regime in Cilicia is not well documented, though implied by Strabo, xiv. 5. 6, and more directly indicated (ibid. 14, p. 675) in a reference to Athenodorus of Tarsus as ‘honoured by the governors (γεμσι) and in the city’. Cf. also Tac. Ann. ii. 58 for another implication of a provincial regime. J. G. Anderson, Cl. Rev. (1931), 190. CAH, loc. cit. and x. 261, 279, 745. The ‘coast’ which Antiochus ruled in A.D. 52 is evidently that of Cilicia Tracheia (Tac. Ann. xii. 55, cf. Dio, 59. 8. 2), which he must have held until his deposition in A.D. 72; cf. CAH, xi. 603 f. |
| More important for our consideration is the specific function of this prayer in its Johannine context. Although the Fourth Gospel emphasizes Jesus» deity, it also underlines his obedience to the Father " s will and offers significant prayers of Jesus to the Father. Jesus prays in 11:41–42 that the sign may produce faith in his divine mission. Essentially he prays for the Father " s glory (11:40), as he will soon offer prayers for the Father to be glorified by his own death and resurrection shortly to follow that prayer (12:27–28; 17:1–5). He expects the crowd to hear the prayer before God acts so that when God does act they may understand why he acted (cf. 14:29). In the same way, God speaks to Jesus in 12for the sake of the crowds (12:30). John may want his audience to understand how important it is to their Lord «that the world may know» that Jesus is the Father " s agent in part because, as he will soon inform them, they must share in that mission by their unity (17:23). Jesus begins with thanks, as in the closest parallel to an earlier pre-miracle prayer in the Gospel (6:11). By emphasizing that the Father has heard him, Jesus reiterates his dependence on the Father, a frequent Johannine theme; 7664 the Father «always» heard him because of his perfect obedience (8:29), a model for John " s audience (14:12–15; 15:7). That signs provide an opportunity for faith (11:42) 7665 is also a frequent Johannine motif (2:11), though this context illustrates the increased hostility invited by such signs from those who choose to continue in unbelief (11:45–47). Jesus spoke loudly to Lazarus (11:43), presumably partly so the crowd could also hear (cf. 7:37; 11:42). 7666 That he calls his name may recall 10:3: Jesus calls his own sheep by name, and leads them forth; 7667 that he raises him with his voice recalls 5:28–29, the future resurrection to which this points on a temporal, symbolic level (cf. 11:24–26). 7668 Unlike in the Synoptics, there is no emphasis on Jesus touching the impure in John; even Lazarus is raised not by a touch (cf. Mark 5:41 ; Luke 7:14) but by a command. 7669 John would, of course, agree with Mark " s perspective that Jesus» signs sometimes challenge purity customs (2:6); but he illustrates the point differently. |
| 14:24; 1 John 5:1 ); 6856 it was a commonplace expectation that one loved onés siblings (cf. 1 John 2:10; 3:10, 14; 4:20–21; 5 :l-2). 6857 The possible allusion to Cain s murder of Abel in 8should, however, remind Johns audience that the principle does not always apply in cases of merely genetic ties (cf. also Gen 27:41; 37:18–20 ). Yet whereas Jesus has been speaking of paternity on a spiritual level, his interlocutors are probably hearing him on a literal level, as his interlocutors in this Gospel often do (e.g., 3:4; 4:11); without the Spirit, they cannot hear him (8:43) any more than they could have seen the kingdom (3, 6). 6858 Alongside Johns stress on God " s sovereignty is his affirmation that Jesus» opponents «want» to do the devil " s desires (8:44). 6859 Their character, exemplified in rejecting Jesus» message of truth (8:32, 43, 45) and wishing to kill him (8:40), shows their true (spiritual) origin: 6860 they resemble their father the devil (8:44; cf. 1 John 3:8 ; Acts 13:10). Most interpreters associate the devil " s start as a «murderer» with the fall of humanity, 6861 an association supported by its link with the devil " s role as deceiver. 6862 This makes sense on the frequent association of the devil with the serpent of Gen 3 both in early Judaism 6863 and in probably Johannine circles (Rev 12:9; 20:2). That the devil " s deception was «from the beginning» (as in 1 John 3:8 ) probably refers here not to the absolute beginning in Gen 1 (as in John l:l-3) 6864 but to the primeval era as a whole, here including Gen 2–3 (as in Mark 10:6 ). 6865 The devil had deceived Eve in the beginning with regard to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ( Gen 3:1–6 ); in so doing, he brought death on humanity. 6866 Although God created humanity for immortality, the devil " s envy introduced death to the world, a death for which all who took his side were destined (Wis 2:24; cf. Heb 2:14; Matt 25:41). 6867 Jewish texts, especially in Essene circles, call the devil (also Belial, etc.) Mastema, 6868 which can mean enmity, one who accuses, disturbs, hates, or persecutes. |
| 5:17, 20, 36; 7:3) and put the burden of demonstration back on him. 6105 This is sheer dissembling, for they have already seen adequate signs–and desire another simply so they may have more free food (6:26). 6106 Elsewhere the Jesus tradition confirms that Jesus refused to grant a sign to those who demanded it after he had fed a multitude ( Mark 8:11–12 ). 6107 God had attested Jesus with his own seal (6:27). 6108 Merchants and those executing legal documents used seals to attest the character of an item " s contents before its sealing (see more fully comment on 3:33); rulers also conveyed their seals to those highest officials who would act on their behalf ( Gen 41:42 ). 6109 In view of the aorist tense, Jesus» «sealing» by the Father may refer to a particular act, in which case it would probably point back to the Spirit descending on Jesus in 1:32–33. 6110 In this context, however, the Father s sealing of Jesus probably refers to the signs by which God has attested him (6:2, 26; cf. 5:36). 6111 No one would dispute that God " s seal would always attest matters accurately. Thus, for example, in Amoraic texts God " s «seal,» indicating his identity and name, is «Truth,» which begins with the first letter and ends with the last letter of the alphabet, hence also signifies the «first and the last» (cf. «alpha and omega» in Rev 1:8). 6112 Their question, «What shall we do … ?» (6:28), might function as a sort of early Christian shorthand for «How shall we be saved?» (Luke 3:10,12,14; Acts 2:37). 6113 The «work of God» may suggest a typically Johannine double entendre (cf. 4:34; 17:4). The «works of God» (6:28) often refers to God " s own works, his mighty deeds (9:3; Tob 12:6; 1QS 4.4; 1QM 13.9; CD 13.7–8; Rev 15:3), 6114 which in Johannine theology is the source of other works (15:1–5; cf. Eph 2:10 ; Phil 2:12–13 ). But they can also indicate commandments ( Bar 2:9–10 ; CD 2.14–15), as they do most obviously here; «works» can be ethical in John (3:19–21; 7:7; 8:39, 41). |
|
|
