| None of this is to deny that Jesus probably visited Jerusalem on numerous occasions. 4601 Gospel portrayals of Jesus as a Galilean pilgrim fit our expectations for most Galileans; although travel to Jerusalem required a three-day journey, 4602 many Galileans must have traveled frequently to festivals. 4603 Normally they traveled in groups, 4604 so in the logic of the narrative as it stands Jesus» family and disciples may well have traveled together (2:12–13; cf. 7:10). Because this is one of the passages which allows and invites examination from the standpoint of other extant traditions, we examine below some features of historical tradition which John develops. In the Johannine context, however, John " s point is striking. Jesus sets aside a purification ritual «of the Jews» in 2:6; here he disrupts a public festival «of the Jews» (2:13). 4605 The link between the two passages portends his «hour» (2:4), the destruction of his body (2:19–21); the cross overshadows the Gospel from this point forward, and (given his placement of Jesus disrupting the temple) in the looser theological sense in which John likely intends it, John " s Passion Narrative coincides with the whole of his public ministry. (Other links between 2:1–11 and 2:13–23 include the third day 19] and Jesus «showing» a sign which «manifests» his glory 4606 The Jerusalem temple is for Jesus a place of conflict in this Gospe1. Jesus here assaults the dignity of the temple (2:14–15), later finds in the temple one who will betray him (5:14), and encounters in the temple those who wish to kill him (8:59). Granted, he teaches in the temple (7:14; 18:20), but his teaching involves conflict with the Judean religious establishment (7:28; 8:20; 10:23; cf. 11:56), and while in the temple Jesus declares himself the foundation stone of a new temple (7:37–39). While it is undoubtedly true that much of John " s audience was too young to have visited the temple in Jerusalem and would perhaps picture it in terms of local temples in Asia, 4607 there is no question that the role of the temple would have remained a central issue of contention for Jewish Christians in the final decade of the first century C.E. Certainly most Jews had always valued the temple, including Diaspora Jews. 4608 Nevertheless, a minority of Jews before 70, mainly sectarian, opposed the temple or felt threatened by the establishment that controlled it. 4609 After 70 such sentiments undoubtedly appeared vindicated, and those groups able to reorganize themselves may have continued to use the Jerusalem temple as a symbol for the hostility of the Judean religious establishment, those leaders who had had sufficient resources to gain a broader hearing in the wider Judean community. John " s enmity focuses on the Jerusalem authorities; Jerusalem " s crowds are impressed with Jesus» public signs (2:23), but most (cf. 3:2) of the establishment is not (2:18). 2A. Historical Probability |
| Probably more helpfully, some interpreters saw Moses» serpent as a positive alternative to the hostile ones that had bitten the people, which had more in common with the serpent in Eden. 5038 (Egyptians used images of snakes as prophylactic magic against snake bites.) 5039 If this tradition is not ad hoc and might be known by John " s audience, he may play on positive connotations of Moses» serpent. Another possibility is that the Son of Man bears humanity " s judgment in death just «as the deadly serpents were representatively judged in the bronze image.» 5040 Then again, the most natural midrashic interpretation would connect Moses» bronze serpent ( Num 21:8–9 ) with his rod that became a serpent (Exod 4:3; 7:9–10, 15), hence functioned as a sign; 5041 in this case, Jesus» crucifixion is itself a «sign» (cf. 2:18–19). Moses stood the serpent on a σημεου, a standard ( Num 21:8–9 LXX; cf. John 2:11, 18; 3:2 ); 5042 thus everyone (πς) bitten, seeing it, would ζσεται, live (cf. 3:15). As some rabbis interpreted «live» in terms of eternal life when convenient, 5043 so here John can midrashically exegete «live» as «have eternal life.» Given material resembling Wisdom of Solomon in the preceding verses (3:12–13), an allusion to that work here would also make sense; in Wis 16the bronze serpent symbolizes salvation (σμβολον … σωτηρας), thus again functions as a «sign.» 5044 Because John emphasizes soteriological vision (see introduction), one might suppose that he emphasizes looking on the serpent, hence on Jesus; 5045 but while John might have approved of such an application, it is less clear that he intended it. Given his own emphasis on vision, it is all the more striking that he leaves it unmentioned here; it remains a very possible interpretation, but not conclusively so. For John, however, the central element of the image is probably the «lifting up,» which he emphasizes elsewhere (cf. 8:28; 12:32), rather than any comparison with the serpent. 5046 «Lift up» certainly refers to the crucifixion here as elsewhere in the Gospel, a usage it can bear very naturally in Palestinian Aramaic 5047 and in ancient Mediterranean thought. |
| Suggesting that the Fourth Gospel is not directly dependent on the Synoptics need not imply that John did not know of the existence of the Synoptics; even if (as is unlikely) Johannine Christianity were as isolated from other circles of Christianity as some have proposed, other gospels must have been known if travelers afforded any contact at all among Christian communities. 381 That travelers did so may be regarded as virtually certain. 382 Urban Christians traveled ( 1Cor 16:10,12,17 ; Phil 2:30; 4:18 ), carried letters ( Rom 16:1–2 ; Phil 2:25 ), 383 relocated to other places ( Rom 16:3,5 ; perhaps 16:6–15), and sent greetings to other churches ( Rom 16:21–23 ; 1Cor 16:19 ; Phil 4:22 ; Col 4:10–15). In the first century many churches knew what was happening with churches in other cities ( Rom 1:8 ; 1Cor 11:16; 14:33; 1 Thess 1:7–9), and even shared letters (Col 4:16). Missionaries could speak of some churches to others ( Rom 15:26 ; 2Cor 8:1–5; 9:2–4 ; Phil 4:16; 1 Thess 2:14–16; cf. 3 John 5–12 ) and send personal news by other workers ( Eph 6:21–22 ; Col 4:7–9). Although we need not suppose connections among churches as pervasive as Ignatiuse letters suggest perhaps two decades later, neither need we imagine that such connections emerged ex nihilo in the altogether brief silence between Johns Gospel and the «postapostolic» period. No one familiar with the urban society of the eastern empire will be impressed with the isolation Gospel scholars often attribute to the Gospel «communities.» John could have known one, two, or more other published gospels and yet have chosen not to follow their model or employ them as sources in writing his own. 384 (Xenophon, for example, knows of an earlier work recounting the retreat of Greek mercenaries from Persia, mentioned in Hel1. 3.1.2, but later composes his own eyewitness account.) If, as is likely, Mark circulated widely (and hence could provide a primary framework for both Matthew and Luke), John might even safely assume his readers» knowledge of it. 385 Certainly a few decades earlier the tradition was widely known; given its circulation in Jerusalem and Antioch, «it is historically quite unlikely that Paul would have no knowledge of the Jesus-tradition» that circulated in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Damascus, locations he had frequented. 386 By John " s day, such tradition would be even more pervasive. In other words, independence need not mean anything so dramatic as that Mark and John «developed the gospel form independently.» 387 John " s very divergence from the Synoptics probably led to its relatively slower reception in the broader church until it could be explained in relation to them. 388 |
| The cry «Hosanna!» renders the Hebrew of Ps 118:25 , 7820 and similar Hebrew cries for salvation could address kings ( 2Sam 14:4; 2 Kgs 6:26); coupled with the branches (see below), this suggests that the crowds hoped for him as a king or national deliverer. 7821 Hence he is «king of Israel,» as Nathanael recognized (1:49). In John " s Gospel this royal expectation recalls 6:15, but on this occasion Jesus does not retreat, for his hour of enthronement on the cross is approaching. Ironically, the leaders of his people will claim no king but Caesar (19:15). 3. Scripture Fulfilled (12:14–16) The disciples did not recognize the allusion to Zech 9:9 7822 until after Jesus» death and resurrection (12:14–16), 7823 obvious as it may seem in retrospect. 7824 If extant later sources may reflect ideas circulating in the late first century, they suggest that this verse was understood messianically in early Judaism. 7825 Most ancient Mediterranean hearers would honor the image of a ruler who was merciful and kind to his enemies. 7826 John " s special touch is evident even in the details. It was not an unusual practice to abbreviate a narrative by omitting intermediaries, 7827 as Matthew seems to do on some occasions (Matt 8/Luke 7:3–4; Matt 9/ Mark 5:35 ); thus no one will be alarmed that Jesus himself «finds» the donkey (12:14), in contrast to the fuller version in the probably more widely circulated version of the passion week ( Mark 11:1–6 ). 7828 After all, even in that version, Jesus was ultimately responsible for locating the donkey ( Mark 11:2 ). But what is most theologically significant is that in John " s language Jesus finds the donkey–just as he gives the sop (13:26) and in other ways shows himself sovereign over the details of the Passion Narrative. That the disciples did not understand at first fits John " s version of the Messianic Secret. After Jesus» glorification, the Spirit would come (7:39) and cause the disciples to remember Jesus» message (14:26); his glorification thus allowed the disciples to recall Jesus» action and understand it in light of Scripture here (12:16). John had earlier offered a similar comment about the disciples after the resurrection remembering Jesus» costly zeal for the temple (2:22). The repetition suggests a key hermeneutical point for John: the biblical record and Jesus» ministry and glorification should be read in light of one another, led by the Spirit who continues his presence. 4. Immediate Responses to Jesus» Entry (12:17–19) |
| Like Paul ( Phil 3:3 ), John may contrast true worship in the Spirit with traditional measures of religious devotion, in this instance sacrifices and rituals in the temple; the use of «true» in 1(ληθς) may support this contrast. Such a contrast would not be surprising given John " s teachings about God " s house elsewhere in the Gospel (2:16–17; 8:35; 14:2); the believer becomes the place where the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit make their home (14:23). That John indeed refers to the sort of worship viewed in Revelation is confirmed by his «hour is coming» (4:21; cf. 5:28) and his «hour is coming and already is» (4:23; cf. 5:25), which (especially in the latter case) is the language of realized eschatology in the Fourth Gospel (5:25; 16:25, 32), inaugurated by the «hour» of Jesus» cross (7:30; 8:20; 12:23–24, 27; 13:1; 16:21; 17:1). 5556 As Aune puts it, «worship in the Spirit» is «a proleptic experience of eschatological existence.» 5557 John " s «worship in the Spirit» is a foretaste of the eschatological worship around God " s throne depicted in Revelation. Both prophets and philosophers critiqued worship based merely on sacred space, such as a temple cult. 5558 Thus philosophers «reconceptualized» sacred space, making philosophy the genuine cultic activity. 5559 John similarly reconceptualizes sacred space, but in terms of «the manner of worship: in spirit and truth.» 5560 This is not to deny that some could emphasize both the Spirit and sacred geography; some rabbinic traditions restricted prophecy primarily to the land 5561 and often associated the Spirit with the holy place. 5562 But as post-70 rabbis often used the language of biblical prophets to redefine the cultus ethically, John redefines it here especially pneumatically. In its most dramatic divergence from traditional Jewish expectations, however, this context speaks of a worship in the Spirit that ultimately transcends ethnic allegiances (4:20–24), just like the worship in Revelation (Rev 5:9–14; 7:9–10). |
| Jesus» own teaching provokes a crisis that drives away some and confirms the commitment of others. Sometime in the decade in which this Gospel was written some Johannine communities experienced similar division over what the author of the First Epistle believed was the truth of Jesus» teaching (1 John 2:19–20). For those who heard Jesus through the grid of their cultural presuppositions rather than allowing his parabolic language to challenge their preunderstanding, Jesus» words proved too incompatible with their beliefs. Jesus explains the nature of his metaphor (6:63), but only those who persevere as his disciples will ultimately comprehend his teaching (16:25–30). 1. Too Hard to Accept? (6:59–65) The misunderstanding Jesus» words allow perpetuates John " s misunderstanding motif (cf. comment on 3:4). Jewish sages, like other ancient Mediterranean sages, often spoke in riddles; the historical Jesus, like other Palestinian Jewish sages, employed parables. 6237 His audience in this Gospel, however, proves incapable of understanding, just as those who heard his parables without persevering into his inner circle for the interpretations often failed to understand. The language used for the dispute it provokes as it divides Jesus» hearers (such division being frequent in responses to Jesus–cf. 7:43; 10:19) could even suggest that the disputants came to blows (6:52). 6238 If so, such blows could well préfigure also the times of violent conflict in which John was writing. 1A. Setting (6:59) Although narratives more frequently open with a setting, John concludes Jesus» discourse by informing us of its specific setting (6:59): a synagogue in Capernaum. 6239 While John reports little about Capernaum (2:12; 4:46), members of John " s audience familiar with the Jesus tradition will probably recall that Jesus received a significant hearing in Capernaum (e.g., Mark 2:1–2 )–but may also recall that it proved inadequate for widespread salvation, given the measure of revelation Jesus offered there (Matt 11:23/Luke 10:15). 6240 If some of them recalled the opening scene from the body of Mark " s Gospel, they would also recall that Jesus encountered conflict with a demon in that synagogue ( Mark 1:21–28 ). |
| This transition must have occurred early in the Palestinian church. The marana tha invocation of 1Cor 16 " is clear evidence that in the very earliest days the Aramaic-speaking church referred to Jesus by the title that in the OT belongs to God alone.» 2571 In other words, the title «is the ascription to Jesus of the functions of deity.» 2572 Yet apart from occasional asides by the narrator (11:2; 20:20) and the frequent but indeterminate use of the vocative, characters rarely call Jesus «the Lord» before the resurrection, even in John (20:2,13,18, 25; 21:7,12); this suggests some constraints established by historical tradition. Jesus» Deity in Early Christian Tradition We have noted some arguments against Jesus» deity from the synagogue leaders and rabbis above and we will address John " s particular focus on the issue in the many relevant texts in the commentary. Here, however, we consider the tradition and doctrine which early Christianity made available to the Fourth Gospel " s author, whose special contributions on the subject are best first understood in the context of early Christian views already existing in his day. The opponents of the Johannine community challenged its Christology; John makes that Christology the centerpiece of his message to the community. As God " s people had to respond obediently to each new stage of revelation in biblical history (Abraham, the law, successive generations of prophets), so now people were to respond to Christ (cf. Heb 1–10). Just as the dividing line between true and false Christians focused on their understanding of Jesus (1 John 2:22–23; 3:23–4:6; 2 John 7–11 ) and their response toward his community (1 John 2:9–11, 19; 3:10–23; 4:7–8, 12, 20–21; 3 John 9–11 ), the dividing line between the true and false heirs of Israel was the person of Jesus, response to whom was expressed by response to his Spirit and his community (cf. Rev 2:9; 3:9). 1. Greek Divinization or Jewish Monotheism? It has often been asserted that John " s high Christology is a late, Hellenistic development. |
| 2. The Multitude Divided (7:40–44) Because Jesus» gift of living water (7:37–38) could remind hearers of Moses» gift of water (Exod 17:1–7), 6564 the claim that Jesus is «the prophet» (7:40) probably refers to the eschatological Mosaic prophet expected on the basis of Deut 18:18 . 6565 Others suspect that he is the Christ (7:41a); both titles are true, though the popular Jewish conceptions represented in each (cf. 1:20–21) prove short of Johannine Christology (see introduction on Christology, ch. 7). But others were put off by his Galilean origin (7:41), as some had been by his apparent origin in Nazareth (1:46), though such skepticism could be surmounted by revelation and faith (1:47–49). (On regional bias in John " s tradition and its narrative function, see introduction, ch. 5.) In contrast to Jesus» hearers in the story world, the informed reader probably knows that Jesus did after all come from Bethlehem (7:42), casting the hearers» skepticism in an ironic light. 6566 Many ironies in Greek tragedies did not need to be spelled out because the story was already well known to the audience. 6567 The independent infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke–the only two extant first-century gospels with infancy narratives– both attest that many Christians accepted this tradition before John " s time, and at least by the time of Hadrian in the early second century even non-Christian residents of Bethlehem recognized a long-standing tradition of the site of Jesus» birth in a particular cave there. 6568 The tradition was probably sufficiently widely circulated to be taken for granted by John " s audience. Yet John nowhere mentions Jesus» birth in Bethlehem explicitly, because for him the crucial theological issue is not where Jesus was born, but where he was ultimately from: from above, from heaven, from God. 6569 Public divisions and factionalism such as those expressed in 7were common throughout ancient Mediterranean society. 6570 In literary works as in social reality, a public division over a person (7:43; 9:16; 10:19) could indicate that person " s prominence in the public eye. 6571 Apparently some of the officers wanted to carry out their orders (7:44; cf. 7:32) 6572 but could not do so because some of the other officers began to believe, with some of the crowd, that Jesus might be a spokesman for God (7:40–44). Although John " s characterization of Jesus» most vicious opponents is largely «flat " –that is, purely evil–he does concede that even in the Jewish establishment many respected Jesus, even if their Christology was too low to be full disciples (e.g., 3:2; 12:42). |
| For John, a background in the Word may also reflect to a degree the most familiar early Christian use of the word as the proclaimed message of Christ (e.g., 5:24; 8:31,37,43, 51; 17:20; Acts 6:2,4,7; Rom 10:17 ; 1Cor 1:18 ), which in Johannine theology actually mediated Jesus» presence ( John 16:7–15 ). Thus this Gospel already appears to load Jesus» «word» with christological significance (cf. 12:48; 17:17). 3060 Because the Word and Wisdom were identified, this option naturally coalesces with divine Wisdom and we should not read them as exclusive alternatives for the prologués background. 2. Wisdom Observers have long noted that virtually everything John says about the Logos–apart from its incarnation as a particular historical person–Jewish literature said about divine Wisdom. 3061 This background for the prologués Logos probably represents the majority consensus for the latter half of the twentieth century. 3062 What makes this suggested background so appealing is that we have clear evidence that texts in which Wisdom is personified or functions hypostatically circulated widely before John wrote, and John and his readers would naturally have shared a common understanding of this background. Wisdom usually functions as mere personification (e.g., Sir 15:2 ), 3063 but in some texts may be hypostatic, especially in Wisdom of Solomon (Wis 9:4) and Ben Sira ( Sir 1; 24 ), 3064 texts to which early Christians, many of whom would have used recensions of the LXX containing these works, had ready access. 3065 Wisdom was not only a feminine term grammatically, but a distinctly feminine image ( Sir 15:2 ; Wis 8:2–3), 3066 perhaps one factor in inviting John to replace σοφα with λγος 3067 (though not, as we will suggest below, the primary one). Bauckham argues that Wisdom and Word personify and hypostatize divine aspects, hence are within God " s identity, allowing distinctions within God " s identity. 3068 To the extent that this was true, it would further provide John a bridge to articulate his Christology. 3069 |
| The wounds in the «hands» means wounds in the forearms; «hand» can carry this sense and very likely carries the sense here, since crucifixion nails had to be driven higher up the arm than the hand unless ropes were also used; otherwise a person " s weight would tear the hands rather than allow the nails to suspend one on a cross. 10688 Whether or not John knows the tradition about Jesus showing his feet as well as hands (Luke 24:39–40), 10689 he mentions only the hands and the side; the side recalls the source of living water ( John 19:34 ) he has now come to give (20:22; 7:37–39). That the disciples rejoice when they see him is to be expected; one need not seek parallels in mystery religions. Granted, worshipers of Isis rehearsing the recovery of Osiris might cry, «We have found him; let us rejoice!» 10690 But joy is the natural response to finding what was lost in general (Luke 15:6, 9, 32), characterized arrival speeches, 10691 and was certainly a natural response to receiving their teacher back from the dead. Johannine literature often refers to joy (15:11; 16:20,22,24; 17:13; 1 John 4; 2 John 12; 3 John 4 ) but derives it from more commonplace images than dying-and-rising mystery deities (3:29; 4:36; 16:21). If one need seek parallels, joy was sometimes eschatological in early Judaism 10692 –as was the resurrection; perhaps less revealing, some later texts also associate joy with the Torah, 10693 and Jesus is the Word (1:1–18). Given the circumstances in the story, it is hard to imagine the disciples failing to rejoice, but John mentions it specifically because it fulfills Jesus» promise in 16:20–24. 1D. The Commissioning (20:21) Comparing Jesus» final commissions in Matthew and Luke-Acts (which also reflect characteristics of OT commissions), 10694 it is clear that John preserves substantial elements of his commission from the tradition. 10695 More important, however, are the ways John adapts both traditional and distinctive elements to climax a commissioning hinted throughout his Gospe1. Both John (1:19–36) and the first disciples (1:41–42, 45–46; 4:39) are prototypical witnesses; Jesus himself functions as the narrative model for the activity of the Spirit-Paraclete, who empowers disciples after Jesus» resurrection to continue his mission (14:16–17,26; 15:26; 16:7–11); the announcements concerning the risen Jesus also serve as narrative illustrations of this proclamation (20:18, 25, 28). |
|
|
