| Just as «hearing» Jesus connotes «heeding» him (given a frequent biblical connotation of «hear»), so knowing him (10:14) connotes «following» him (10:27), that is, obedience (1 John 2:3). 7330 Temporary following, perhaps because one saw signs (6:2), is not what John means here, for it cannot yield life (8:21, 24); following means discipleship (1:37–38, 40, 43), implying a new kind of life (8:12) and following to the death (13:36), even as one of the sheep (21:19). The image of the lamb guiding and his people following also appears in Revelation 7:17; 14:4. That the sheep would recognize and follow the shepherd but not a stranger (10:5; in this context, the thief fits the normal behavior of sheep. 7331 Domestic animals like dogs were known to be more receptive to acquaintances than to strangers (Plato Rep. 2.376A). (Greeks could tell stories, however, of another learning an animal herder " s pipe tunes and luring away the animals.) 7332 Kenneth Bailey notes that when a family buys a new sheep from others, it remains unaccustomed to the new family " s cal1. Thus when the new shepherd calls and other sheep leave the fold, it remains behind agitated and stays hungry until it can be trained. It does not respond to an unfamiliar voice. 7333 On παροιμα in 10:6, see the introductory comment on the parablés genre above. Their misunderstanding (10:6, ουκ Εγνωσαν–they did not «know» his words), however, demonstrates that they cannot hear his message (8:43)–which in turn simply demonstrates that they are not his sheep (10:3–4). On John " s misunderstanding motif, see comment on 3:4. 3F. The Fold and the Door (10:2–3, 7,9) A first-century C.E. Roman writer compares a general guarding his troops with a shepherd who sleeps securely knowing that his flock is penned safely with iron bars, protected from the hungry wolves raging fruitlessly against the fortification. 7334 Ancient Jewish sources provide less detail than we might like, but reports of Palestinian shepherds from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries may well preserve longstanding pastoral practice. It is unlikely that all sheepfolds were the same; variation in rank and resources would naturally produce somewhat different arrangements. One could build enclosures for sheep in various ways; one could use a cave ( 1Sam 24:3 ), 7335 a square hillside enclosure made of stone walls to keep out animals and winter wind, a roofed enclosure, or a temporary shelter using thorn-bushes for sides, or (as some think more likely here) «a yard in front of a house, surrounded by a stone wall which was probably topped with briars.» 7336 Such a sheepfold might have only one door, guarded by a porter and providing entrance to both the sheep and the house, 7337 or adjoining a house but with its own separate entrance. 7338 |
| The blind man himself becomes a paradigm of growing discipleship; when he confesses Jesus openly, he moves from recognizing him as a «man» (9:11) to a «prophet» (9:17) and a man from God (9:33), and with Jesus» revelation recognizes him as «Son of Man» and «Lord» (9:35–37). 7011 The end of this account contrasts starkly with the man healed in ch. 5 who did not proceed to become a disciple (5:1–16); for point-by-point contrasts with that account, see comments there. This man, like others who did the truth, would come to the light (3:19–21; cf. 9:3; 5:14). 1. Jesus Heals One Blind from Birth (9:1–7) Blindness «from birth» was considered especially difficult, 7012 though John mentions the duration of the malady (9:1; cf. 5:5) at least partly to lead into the disciples» question of who merited his birth in this state (9:2). Ancients generally believed that, under extraordinary circumstances, blind persons could be healed; 7013 thus some contended that Isis both cured eye diseases and made blind, 7014 and in a list of healings at Epidauros, the lame and blind appear in a summary (perhaps as the most dramatic cures). 7015 The Jesus tradition multiply attests that Jesus healed some blind people; 7016 there the opening of blind eyes, like the healing of the lame (5:9), reflects signs of the messianic era (Isa 35:5–6). Redaction critics often argue that, given Jesus» reputation for healing blindness and the pre-70 character of traditions like the pool of Siloam, the core account (9:1, 6–7) is authentic, the rest being Johannine theologizing on that story. 7017 Most regard 9:22, along with 12and 16:2, as a reflection of the situation with which the Johannine community was struggling. 7018 Whatever John " s degree of adaptation here, he certainly seeks to be relevant to his audience. In contrast to the staging of the rest of the Gospel, Jesus is missing from twenty-seven of forty-seven verses; to merit such extended discussion without Jesus» presence, the circumstances of the story must be particularly relevant to the experience of John " s audience. 7019 1A. The Timing (9:1) |
| Ascension was a recognized-enough category in ancient traditions to require little explanation, although Jesus» ascension was qualitatively different in specific respects from most comparable stories. Ancients could depict the soul rising to heaven (e.g., T. Ab. 20:12A; 7:13; 14:7B), told stories of newly divinized immortals ascending to heaven, 10633 and handed on traditions about Enoch, Elijah, Ezra, and others thought to have escaped death (e.g., 1Macc 2:58; 1 En. 39:3) 10634 and, on a more regular basis, about angels (e.g., Tob 12:20–22). 10635 But whereas Greeks were comfortable with the notion of bodily or non-bodily ascensions, 10636 the central Christian concept of Jesus» bodily resurrection, which the Christian ascension tradition presupposes, was utterly foreign to them. That John accepts an ascension and future eschatology does not mean that his Gospel emphasizes it frequently. To the contrary, as we have already noted, the «ascending to the Father» to which he normally refers is Jesus» ascension by means of the cross that he might now impart the Spirit. John does not narrate an ascension precisely because, through the Spirit " s coming (20:22; cf. 14:16–26), he wishes to emphasize the continuing presence and activity of Jesus (21:12–14). But for John in a theological sense, the passion, resurrection, and imparting of the Spirit (fulfilled in 20:22) are all of one piece. Thus it is not surprising that «ascends» is (in Jesus» message for the disciples) in the present tense (20:17). The present tense could denote the «certainty» involved 10637 but may be another Johannine double entendre: in Johannine terms, Jesus» ascent, his «lifting up,» began with the cross and may be completed only with the giving of the Spirit. 2F. Women " s Witness (20:18) Whereas Mary first announced to the leading disciples that someone had carried off the body (20:2), she now announces that she has seen the Lord and that he told her «these matters» (20:18)–presumably, that his ascension is coming and therefore his revelations to them are urgent (20:17). Mary announces her personal-eyewitness experience even though she must be aware of the prejudice against women " s testimony in her culture; 10638 she could offer it in defiance of such prejudice but most likely offers it simply because it is necessary and because she has nothing else to offer; she trusts the one who sent her to make it adequate (cf. 12:7). |
| The vine image could thus imply a sense of community 8878 the Jewish believers inherited from early Judaism in genera1. Whereas the Eleusinian cult of Demeter, for example, met only annually and did not lead initiates to associate with one another, early Judaism and Christianity were exclusivistic and carried a strong sense of community. 8879 Nevertheless, early Christian literature provides no examples of early Christian communities with the sort of rigid hierarchical structure expected of Qumran Covenanters (e.g., 1QS 5.23–24; 6.2). Most early Jews and Christians associated for common worship and need; formal structures were less rigid than Qumran, but sufficient. If the vine alludes to Israel, the designation «true» (15:1) may forcefully contrast Jesus with Israe1. 8880 One should not overstate the contrast; whereas «true» can exclude any others (17:3), it can also simply contrast with «mere.» «True bread» does not contrast Jesus with Torah but does contrast him with mere manna (6:32, 55); «true light» contrasts him with an inferior though accurate witness (1:9). Such passages may respond to opponents of the Johannine community " s witness who claim that Jesus» way is not «true» (cf. 5:31–32; 7:18; 8:13–17; 19:35; 21:24). John " s «vine» image may function in the same way that Paul " s «olive tree» image does; in both cases, disobedient branches are broken off ( John 15:2, 6 ; Rom 11:17 ), though John, most of whose audience probably already regards itself as Jewish, does not emphasize any grafting on of foreign branches. Here as elsewhere (cf. comment on 3:3–5), for John, «becoming a true Jew and becoming a Christian are one and the same thing.» 8881 2. The Vinedresser " s Pruning (15:1–3) The figure of God as the vinedresser (15:1) is not completely unexpected. Gardeners often belonged to the poorest class (Apuleius Metam. 9.31), such as those who might lease rather than own a vineyard (P.Oxy. 1631.9–13). 8882 Yet not all farmers (γεωργο) were poor, 8883 and in any case, this fact is less significant than other backgrounds for the image; Jesus himself appears as a sort of gardener in 20:15. 8884 Naturally, Greek texts could sometimes portray Dionysus as the ultimate vinedresser (Achilles Tatius 2.3.2). 8885 Far more important, OT images of Israel as God " s vine imply God or his workers as tenders of that vine; Paul speaks of God " s church as his field, his γεργιον ( 1Cor 3:9 ). 2A. A Vinedresser " s Attention |
| Craig S. Keener The Response of the Unorthodox. 4:1–54 THE BULK OF THIS SECTION, which actually continues the general thought of 3:1–36, revolves around a sinful Samaritan woman and her response to Jesus. If the initial faith of the best representative from the Judean elite appears ambiguous (3:1–10), the faith of the socially worst representative from an unorthodox and ethnically mixed sect appears far more positive, even allowing her to bring her people as a whole to Jesus (4:39–42; cf. 1:46). She is one of those who believe, not one on whom God " s wrath remains (3:36); but those who exalt themselves will be brought low (3:30–31), and most, like Nicodemus initially, do not receive Jesus» witness (3:32). Yet Christ is available even to the elite. If we place John the Baptist in the special category of witness, 5206 the context surrounding his witness (3:22–36) in fact alternates between the socially powerful and the weak, providing positive and ambiguous or negative examples of each: Nicodemus (elite, open but uncomprehending), a Samaritan woman (receptive), an official of Antipas (receptive), and a lame man (unfaithful). Only Nicodemus, however, is part of the Judean religious elite, for the royal official could be viewed as unorthodox. This section also includes a much briefer healing miracle with no accompanying discourse (4:46–54). The royal official here represents part of a Galilean economic elite, but like many other Herodian aristocrats would have been religiously impure by Pharisaic standards. Through him the Gospel writer illustrates various levels of faith. True Worshipers in Samaria (4:1–42) This extended narrative contrasts starkly with the Nicodemus narrative. 5207 There a religious teacher in Israel proved unable to understand Jesus» message (3:10); here a sinful Samaritan woman not only received the message (though starting with no less daunting social obstacles–cf. πς in 3:4, 9 and 4:9; perhaps πθεν in 4:11), but brought it to her entire Samaritan town (4:28–29, 39–42). Here, as often, John employs ironic contrasts among characters to convey his emphases. 5208 (That the Samaritan woman, in contrast to Nicodemus, is unnamed is probably not as significant. As a woman, her name was less likely to be recorded in John " s tradition; 5209 further, most characters in the context are unnamed, and perhaps their names had not been preserved–2:1; 4:46; 5:5; 7:3; 9:1. |
| The chapter also reflects standard Jewish motifs, such as the unity of God " s people, their love for God, God " s glory, obedience to God " s message, the election and setting apart of God " s people, and the importance of obeying God " s agent (Moses in Jewish tradition). One writer links such motifs specifically to the Cairo Geniza manuscript of the Palestinian Targum to Exod 19–20, 9387 another points to parallels with a hymn from Qumran; 9388 in short, most of the motifs reflect common Judaism, yet reinterpreted in a christocentric manner and reapplied to the christologically defined community. Further, to whatever degree John has adapted the discourse and prayer to encourage his audience in their particular situation, 9389 it is clear that a prayer of Jesus before his passion already stands in the passion tradition ( Mark 14:36 ). 9390 But whereas, in Mark, Jesus prays for the Father to spare him from the passion if possible ( Mark 14:36 ), here he recognizes and accedes to the Father " s purpose, requesting the hour of glorification (17:1). 9391 John does not deny Jesus» reluctance to face the cross (12:27) but places heavier emphasis on Jesus» obedience. 9392 Traditionally some have viewed Jesus» intercession in this passage in terms of the OT role of high priest 9393 (Jesus» role in some early Christian traditions; Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14–15; 5:10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11); the chapter title «Jesus» High-Priestly Prayer» has circulated since the theologian David Chyträus (1531–1600). 9394 But Jewish tradition also emphasized the intercessory role of prophets; 9395 more significantly, the probably testamentary character of the final discourse might point to patriarchal blessings, 9396 particularly the prayer and blessing of Moses ( Deut 32–33 ), 9397 as background. But because the content of these blessings does not parallel John 17 very closely, 9398 » one may need to look to the experience of John " s audience for more of the content. A variety of backgrounds are possible, but most important within the context of the Fourth Gospel is that Jesus becomes, before his exaltation, the first Paraclete, or intercessor ( Rom 8:26; 1 John 2:1 ; see extended comment on 14:16). 9399 This suggests that John 17 models part of the ministry of the Paraclete who would come after Jesus» departure (14:16) and of those who share his ministry (15:26–27). 9400 The Fourth Gospel presents the Paraclete especially as an advocate or prosecutor in the disciples» conflict with the world, but Jesus has also been promising them more direct access to the Father in prayer once he goes to the Father (14:13–14; 15:7, 16; 16:26–27). |
| More critically, Jesus» act in this passage prefigures the passion. 8074 The interspersing of the foot washing and its significance (13:3–10) with the betrayal (13:2,10–11) clearly indicates Jesus» impending death. Other clues in the narrative support this thesis; «lay aside» and «take up» (13:4,12) are not specifically sacrificial language, but a careful reader might recognize that the terms elsewhere appear together in John only in 10:17–18, perhaps also investing «rise» (13:4) with its usual significance in this Gospe1. 8075 The more widespread early Christian chronology attested in the Synoptics makes the context of Jesus» final teaching to the disciples a Passover meal commemorating his death; John reserves the Passover for Jesus» actual death and makes the context of Jesus» final teaching a prefiguring of his death and the teaching focusing on Jesus» continuing presence with his disciples through the Spirit. Whereas the Synoptics agree with Paul ( 1Cor 11:23 ), and presumably most of early Christianity, in instituting the Lord " s Supper commemoration on the betrayal night, John includes a summons to foot washing (whether symbolically or literally), by which believers are called to exemplify the same pattern of self-sacrificial service to the death. It seems natural to connect the image of water with its function earlier in the Gospe1. It is true that the focus of the passage is on the sign of foot washing, not on the water it-self; 8076 in fact, however, most earlier passages where the water motif occurs also emphasize the sign rather than the water (2:6; 4:17–19; 5:8–9). Water earlier serves a salvific function (e.g., 3:5; 4:14; 7:37–38); this comports well with Jesus» suffering servanthood here. By prefiguring his death in his act of service to his disciples, he indicates the cost he is ready to pay to save them. By washing one another " s feet, disciples would prefigure their service and love for one another after Jesus» model (13:14–17, 34–35); that is, they would declare their readiness to die for one another. 8077 |
| 10270 More important, the distinction may fail to account for some of the versés language. The disciplés «witness» is in the perfect tense in 19:35, suggesting completed past action with continuing effects in the present; this could be used, however, even of a present speaker about a completed witness (1:34; cf. 3:26; 5:33). 10271 Yet the present tense of λγει probably suggests that the subject of the verb is the narrator (as in 21:24). One could argue that the witness of the beloved disciple continues to speak because inspired by the Paraclete (16:7–15), like that of John the Baptist (historical present in 1:15); but usually the Baptist " s completed witness appears in the aorist (1:7–8, 32) or perfect (1:34; 3:26; 5:33) tense. One need not read λγει as the voice of the narrator, but it seems the most natural way to take the verb here. We argued in the introduction that the narrator appears identical with the beloved disciple (the witness in 21is said to be the writer), although dispute on the matter will surely continue (especially among those skeptical concerning the testimony of 21:24, which most regard as an addendum or an addendum to an addendum). In any case, the beloved disciple is likely the witness in this text. He appears primarily in the narrative concerning the night and day of the eve of Passover and after the resurrection (13:23; 20:2–10; 21:7,20–23, 24); most significantly, he is the only «disciple» so designated to appear in this scene (19:26–27), which supports the likelihood of his presence here. 10272 John declares that Jesus had to die before the soldiers could break his legs (19:31–33) to fulfill the Scripture about none of his bones being broken (19:36); blood and water flowed from his side (19:34) to fulfill the Scripture about looking on the one whom they pierced (19:37). Once Jesus died, the Father spared his body this final indignity. That Jesus» bones remained unbroken to fulfill Scripture (19:36) invites the informed reader to consider which text or texts John intends. |
| While one cannot prove the veracity of the contents of the trial narrative at this remove, skepticism that the first followers of Jesus would have had access to such information 9693 also assumes too much. Sources for the trial narrative may derive from Joseph of Arimathea ( Mark 15:43 ), from connections within the high priest " s household ( John 18:15–16 ), from others who later became disciples or sympathizers ( John 19:39 ; cf. perhaps Acts 6:7), or Jesus himself (cf. Acts 1:3); it is unthinkable at least that the early Palestinian tradition would have neglected the witness of anyone, such as Joseph, who could have had contacts present at the tria1. That leaks from within the Jerusalem council occurred on other occasions in the first century (Josephus Life 204) does not prove that such a leak occurred in Jesus» case, but it does challenge the claims of those who suppose such a leak implausible. 9694 Together the cleansing of the temple (which would offend the Sadducean aristocracy) and crucifixion by the Romans suggest the intermediary step of arrest by the priestly authorities; as Sanders observes, conflict with the Romans, crowds, or Pharisees would not explain subsequent events, but the continuing enmity of the chief priests against Jesus» followers (e.g., Acts 4:1–7; 5:17–18; 9:1–2) points to the priestly aristocracy as the main source of opposition. 9695 Given high-priestly involvement, the Gospel writers are not so generous as to have alleged even the pretense of a hearing if in fact they had no tradition that one occurred. Like most modern preachers, the Gospel writers were more interested in applying their text than in creating a wholly new source to be applied. 3. Annas and Caiaphas (18:12–14) Some writers have charged that John " s use of the name Annas reflects Jewish-Christian tradition but lacks historical foundation, since Annas had long since retired from office. 9696 Yet this approach reads too much into Annas " s «retirement»; it is likely that he continued to exert power within his household (especially if they privately recognized the biblical tradition concerning the lifelong character of a high priest " s calling), including through his son-in-law Caiaphas, until his death in 35 C.E. After Vitellius, legate of Syria, deposed Caiaphas in 36 C.E., he replaced him with Jonathan son of Annas; 9697 in time all five sons of Annas followed in office, suggesting that Annas had in fact exercised considerable influence. 9698 In any case, even though it was customary to refer to the entire high-priestly family by John " s day as «high priests,» 9699 John labels only Caiaphas here as «high priest,» not Annas (contrast Acts 4:6). |
| However, the formality of worship really goes back to Judaic practices starting 13 centuries before Christ with the exodus of Israel from Egypt. God, through Moses, gave explicit details about a very orderly and elaborate form of worship centered around the Tabernacle or Temple. Why? Because God knows how easy it is for mankind to argue about worship practice differences to the point of confusion (Acts 19:32), prejudice (John 4:20), and violence (Genesis 4:3-8). It is not hard to look through the history of mankind and find wars which were in part justified over disputed religious beliefs and practices. Though inter-faith conflict will likely continue (John 17:14), God wants to prevent intra-faith conflict within His Church (John 17:22-23). Therefore, it is necessary the Church be unified in Her worship practices. The Orthodox Church has kept the unity of the Faith in part by preserving a precise formula in Her worship. In doing so, the Orthodox Church has avoided a lot of dissension that has plagued other branches of Christianity. The Need For Attention and Remembrance “Observance” denotes the need to pay attention and to remember. Six times during the Divine Liturgy the priest or deacon is giving the exhortation “Let us be attentive.” God doesn’t want us to just show up at church and habitually say and do the rites while our minds are occupied with work, grocery lists, or a recent argument with our spouse. Such worship is not “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24). God desires we focus on what every word said and every gesture made alludes to within the Divine Liturgy (and other worship services). This takes discipline on our part, but it is through discipline we become righteous sons and daughters of our Father (Hebrews 12:4-11). Observing the Divine Liturgy disciplines us to “fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2). It is only by being attentive we will gain understanding (Proverbs 4:1, 20; 5:1; 7:24; 22:17), find God’s direction for us (Exodus 23:20-21), and enjoy His blessing (Deuteronomy 7:12-13; 28:13). Attending to the teachings of the Church both through Scripture (2 Peter 1:19) and Tradition (Hebrews 2:1) keeps us from drifting into heresy. A good Biblical definition of observance, that we should remind ourselves of as we enter a church, is: “Mortal, look closely and listen attentively, and set your mind upon all that I [God] shall show you, for you were brought here in order that I might show it to you” (Ezekiel 40:4; see also Isaiah 28:23; 34:1). |
|
|
