| 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) |
| The discourses that expound the miracles clarify this point further. Although healing the lame (5:5) suggests prophecies of the messianic era (Isa 35:6), Jesus» role in raising and judging the dead (5:17–29) belongs to no mortal in the Bible. Jesus is thus the one of whom Moses wrote (5:45–47)–a fitting introduction to the wilderness feeding where Jesus is the new manna ( John 6 ). When Jesus heals the blind man, the narrative reveals that being his disciple is greater than being Moses» disciple (9:28–29); he is a shepherd of Israel greater than Moses (10:1–18). The raising of Lazarus introduces Jesus as not merely a miracle worker like others (1 Kgs 17:22–23; 2 Kgs 4:35–36) but as the resurrection itself ( John 11:25–26 ). One therefore needs not only the signs but also their inspired interpretation, the testimony of the Paraclete and the disciples (15:26–27). Christology has implications for ecclesiology: Christ " s followers must be one (17:22), including ethnically (ch. 4); they must love one another (13:34–35; 15:12–17). Perhaps the Gospel polemicizes against early stages of division among believers that becomes full schism in 1 John 2 , a situation probably reflecting some of the Johannine communities. Their lives ( John 13:35; 17:21, 23 ; cf. 14:11–12) as well as their words ( John 17:20 ) thus constitute part of their witness, through which the world may believe. The function of witnesses for Jesus is the secondary motif of the proem (expressed in the Baptist material) and a primary focus of ch. 1, in which a witness interprets Christology for those who are not yet believers. But for John, witness includes how believers treat one another as well as what they proclaim. Jesus revealed the unseen God by his character of grace and truth (1:18), but his followers» love for one another must continue to do so (see 1 John 4:12 ). John " s Christological Distinctiveness John " s genre invites another question about his Christology. If John is a biographer and his speeches for Jesus reflect his understanding of the Jesus tradition, to what degree might his Christology reflect that of Jesus? Many features of Johannine Christology are attested in earlier Synoptic tradition, 2421 but John alone makes much of the Isaian divine «I am» claims. 2422 |
| Sending an inquiry to a prophet could fit biblical tradition (2 Kgs 19:2; 22:15; Isa 37:2), but the messengers here seem to inquire more from suspicion of John than from desire to hear his message. What appears most striking, however, is the identity of the senders and their agents. Josephus (Life 1; cf. Ant 4.218), Philo (Spec. Laws 1.131–155, esp. 1.131; 4.190–192), 3804 and the Dead Sea Scrolls (the «wicked priest» in lQpHab 8.8–12; 9.4–7; 12.5; greedy priests in 4QpNah 1.11) indicate the prominence that priests retained in all parts of Judaism before the destruction of the temple. Josephus, who also praises their general piety (Ant. 14.65–68), attests that priests remained the main local rulers of Palestine in this period. 3805 Even the later Pharisees, who joined the Essenes and the Gospels in criticizing the high priesthood 3806 as corrupt (e.g., lQpHab 9.4–5), 3807 respected the high priests office (later, e.g., p. Sanh. 2:1, §2). While some priests seem to have followed Pharisaic practices, even the later rabbis admitted that many (we would say most) did not; 3808 most scholars concur that most of the priestly aristocracy were in fact Sadducees (see, e.g., Josephus Ant. 13.298; 18.17). 3809 Other aspects of this narrative also fail to fit the historical picture gleaned from a variety of other ancient sources. Rabbis who were mainly successors of the Pharisees later sent formal messengers to other dignitaries, 3810 but the practice is well attested in this period and earlier only of the high-priestly temple hierarchy–of those with official authority. 3811 The Levites appear rarely elsewhere in the NT but often appear together with priests in OT narratives and in passages such as Luke 10:31–32; they fill the same literary function as the priests here. 3812 John, who prefers to emphasize the authority of the «Pharisees» (more than Matthew, and far more than Mark or Luke, probably because he writes at a period when their authority was far more advanced and hostile to Palestinian Jewish Christians), nowhere else mentions «priests and Levites.» 3813 One might suggest that the Fourth Gospel generally transforms the priestly leaders in traditional sources into Pharisees (leaders whose role in repressing minority factions in John s day corresponded to aristocratic priests in Jesus» day), and here perhaps even transforms crowds into priests. |
| That the Fourth Gospel plays John " s role down in light of some contemporary exorbitant claims for him is likely (see comment on 1:6–8), especially since the Fourth Gospel refuses to grant him even the role of Elijah which he seems to have played to some extent in pre-Markan tradition ( Mark 1:6 ; Matt 3:4; 3829 cf. 1 Kgs 17:6; 2 Kgs 1LXX; Mark 9:13 ; Matt 17:12–13; Luke 1:17), 3830 even though he does not explicitly transfer those claims to Jesus. 3831 It may also merit mention that the Synoptic miracle traditions which applied Elijah " s miracle-working role to Jesus and passages such as Luke 9:61–62 (cf. 1 Kgs 19:20) and 10(cf. 2 Kgs 4:29) already transferred some Elijah images to Jesus, but for Jesus these were clearly inadequate (cf. Luke 9:8, 19–20, 33–35, although Luke omits Mark " s parallel acclamation of the deceased Baptist as Elijah here). Of course, even the Synoptic writers did not suppose that John was literally Elijah ( Mark 9:4 ; Matt 17:3; Luke 1:17; 9:30). 3832 If the historical John saw himself as a forerunner, he may have seen himself as an Elijah at least in a figurative sense (cf. 1:23; Mal 4:5 ); if he saw himself as a forerunner for Elijah, he would have seen the one coming after him as literally «before» him (1:30). 3833 Jewish tradition naturally developed the promise of Elijah " s return in Mai 4:5–6 (MT 3:23–24), which appears as early as Ben Sira ( Sir 48:10 ). Later rabbis particularly seized on this feature of eschatological expectation, although they developed it in very different ways from nonrabbinic streams of thought. 3834 That Elijah remained alive was safely assumed from the biblical text (2 Kgs 2:9–12; Mal 4:5–6 ; cf. 1Macc 2:58; Sir 48:9 ), and later rabbis continued to work from this assumption. 3835 In these later rabbis, however, his role in the present period before the final time became more prominent than his eschatological function, perhaps due in part to the de-emphasis of messianic eschatology after the sufferings under Hadrian. (The rabbis also tended to view the prophets as proto-scribes.) 3836 Like other biblical prophets, Elijah became a master halachist, often sent to settle rabbinic disputes; 3837 also sometimes described with a role comparable to that of angels, 3838 the rabbinic Elijah often was sent on divine errands to miraculously aid rabbis. 3839 Other rabbinic evidence, however, does point to Elijah " s eschatological role. The rabbis were clearly aware of Malachís prophecy and they anticipated Elijah " s return at the end of the age 3840 alongside rabbinism " s other eschatological figures. 3841 Elijah would also exercise an eschatological halakic role, 3842 especially (in line with the rabbinic interpretation of Malachi) in determining proper lines of descent (Israelites vs. proselytes, etc.). 3843 Although the bulk of this evidence derives from the more numerous Amoraic texts, some of it is also Tannaitic. 3844 |
| 6 It is useless to fast from food, protests St. Basil, and yet to indulge in cruel criticism and slander: ‘You do not eat meat, but you devour your brother’ . 7 The same point is made in the Triodion, especially during the first week of Lent: As we fast from food, let us abstain also from every passion. . . Let us observe a fast acceptable and pleasing to the Lord. True fasting is to put away all evil, To control the tongue, to forbear from anger, To abstain from lust, slander, falsehood and perjury. If we renounce these things, then is our fasting true and acceptable to God. Let us keep the Fast not only by refraining from food, But by becoming strangers to all the bodily passions. 8 The inner significance of fasting is best summed up in the triad: prayer, fasting, almsgiving . Divorced from prayer and from the reception of the holy sacraments, unaccompanied by acts of compassion, our fasting becomes pharisaical or even demonic. It leads, not to contrition and joyfulness, but to pride, inward tension and irritability. The link between prayer and fasting is rightly indicated by Father Alexander Elchaninov. A critic of fasting says to him: ‘Our work suffers and we become irritable. . . . I have never seen servants [in pre-revolutionary Russia] so bad tempered as during the last days of Holy Week. Clearly, fasting has a very bad effect on the nerves.’ To this Father Alexander replies: ‘You are quite right. . . . If it is not accompanied by prayer and an increased spiritual life, it merely leads to a heightened state of irritability. It is natural that servants who took their fasting seriously and who were forced to work hard during Lent, while not being allowed to go to church, were angry and irritable.’ 9 Fasting, then, is valueless or even harmful when not combined with prayer. In the Gospels the devil is cast out, not by fasting alone, but by ‘prayer and fasting’ (Matt. 17: 21 ; Mark 9: 29); and of the early Christians it is said, not simply that they fasted, but that they ‘fasted and prayed’ (Acts 13: 3; compare 14: 23). In both the Old and the New Testament fasting is seen, not as an end in itself, but as an aid to more intense and living prayer, as a preparation for decisive action or for direct encounter with God. Thus our Lord’s forty-day fast in the wilderness was the immediate preparation for His public ministry (Matt. 4: 1-11). When Moses fasted on Mount Sinai (Exod. 34: 28) and Elijah on Mount Horeb (3 Kgs. 19: 8-12), the fast was in both cases linked with a theophany. The same connection between fasting and the vision of God is evident in the case of St. Peter (Acts 10: 9-17). He ‘went up on the housetop to pray about the sixth hour, and he became very hungry and wanted to eat; and it was in this state that he fell into a trance and heard the divine voice. Such is always the purpose of ascetic fasting – to enable us, as the Triodion puts it, to ‘draw near to the mountain of prayer’. 10 |
| 6346 Cf. Michaels, John, 114, denying a double entendre. 6347 Hunter, John, 79; Brown, John, lxxxxv. Given the significance of Galilee in the Gospel, his «remaining» in 7could also then be a double entrendre (cf. 1:38–39; 2:12; 4:40; 10:40; 11:6, 54). 6348 This might be especially the case if the first «yet» (οπω) in 7is a scribal addition (missing in and the easier reading); arguments for this variant " s originality, however, are stronger than often noticed (see Caragounis, «Journey to Feast»). 6349 Essenes vowed not to conceal any secrets from one another (Josephus War 2.141), behavior Josephus regarded as ideal (Ag. Ap. 2.207). 6350 E.g.,Tob 7:10–11; 1Macc 7:18; 1QS 10.22; Let. Aris. 206,252; Josephus Ag.Ap. 2.79; Ps.-Phoc. 7; Sib. Or. 3.38,498–503; Γ. Dan 3:6; 5:1–2; Eph 4:25 . 6351 E.g., Plutarch Educ. 14, Mor. 11C; frg. 87 (in LCL 15:190–191); Diogenes Laertius 1.60; Phaedrus 4.13; Cornelius Nepos 25 (Atticus), 15.1. 6352 E.g., Quintilian 2.17.27; 12.1.38–39; T. Jos. 11:2; 13:7–9; 15:3; 17:1; for war or the service of the state in Xenophon Mem. 4.2.14–15; Seneca Controv. 10.6.2. In the epic period, deception for useful purposes could indicate cleverness (Homer Od. 19.164–203, esp. 19.203; Gen 27:19, 24; 30:31–43 ), though Odysseus " s cleverness (e.g., Sophocles Phi1. 54–55, 107–109, called «wisdom» in 119,431) appears unscrupulous to some (Sophocles Phi1. 1228). 6353 E.g., Exod 1:19; 1Sam 16:2–3; 21:2,5,8,13 ; 2Sam 12:1–7; 17:14; 1 Kgs 20:39–41; 22:22; 2 Kgs 8:10; 2 Chr 18:22; 1er 38:27; probably 2 Kgs 10:19; probably not acceptable in 1 Kgs 13:18. 6354 E.g., t. Ta c an. 3:7–8. 6355 " Abot R. Nat 45, §§125–126 B. 6356 E.g., Phaedrus 4.pro1.8–9; 2Cor 1:17–18 ; on fickleness, Virgil Aen. 4.569–570 (applied to women); Cicero Fam. 5.2.10; Marshall, Enmity, 318–19. 6357 Carson, John, 309, citing Porphyry C. Chr. in Jerome Pelag. 2.17. 6358 E.g., P.Ry1. 174.6–7; P.Lond. 334.6; P.Oxy. 494.31. 6359 Stanton, Jesus, 124; Aune, Environment, 32; e.g., Plutarch Marcus Cato 1.3; Sulla 2.1; Philostratus Hrk. 10.1–5; 34.5; 48.1 (cf. Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xlix). For handsomeness listed as a virtue in biographies, see, e.g., Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades), 1.2. |
| 2703 P. Git. 1:1, §1. For discussion of how a sender could nullify an agent " s task, see p. Git. 4:1, §1; the stricter rule required speaking to the agent (see m. Git. 4:1). 2704 E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 6.88.2; Diodorus Siculus 40.1.1; Josephus Life 65, 72–73, 196–198; 2Macc 1:20. Cf. Zenós dispatch of two fellow scholars in his place in Diogenes Laertius 7.1.9. 2705 Diodorus Siculus 4.10.3–4; Josephus Ant. 8.220–221. 2706 Cf. Euripides Herac1. 272; Xenophon Anab. 5.7.18–19, 34; Apollodorus Epitome 3.28–29: Polybius 15.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 8.43.4; Diodorus Siculus 36.15.1–2; Dio Cassius 19.61; Appian R.H. 3.6.1–2; 3.7.2–3; 4.11; 8.8.53; Valerius Maximus 6.6.3–4. This was important, since receivers of news sometimes responded positively or negatively to messengers depending on the news they received (e.g., Homer Il. 17.694–696; 18.15–21; Euripides Medea 1125–1129; Appian R.H. 12.12.84; Arrian Ind. 34.4; 35.1; 2Sam 1:15; 18:20, 22 ; Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.35, 37). 2707 Homer Il. 1.334; 7.274–282; 8.517; Aeschines Timarchus 21; Cicero Phi1. 13.21.47; Herodian 6.4.6. Ambassadors who risked their lives merited special honor ( Phil 2:25–30 ; Cicero Phi1. 9.1.2). 2708 M. Demai 4:5; t. Demai 2:20; cf. also Aeschines Timarchus 21. 2709 B. B. Qam. 102ab. 2710 Wenham, Bible, 114–15. In the broader Mediterranean culture, cf., e.g., Demosthenes Or the Embassy 4–5. 2711 E.g., Appian R.H. 9.9.3 (196 B.C.E.). 2712 E.g., the ideal herald Aethalides in Apollonius of Rhodes 1.640–648. 2713 Cf. Euripides Herac1. 292–293. 2714 The sense of a cognate noun and verb need not agree, but given the noun " s absence in the LXX and the verb s prominence there in a manner analogous to early Christian usage, it seems likelv that the noun here reflects a Christian usage coined to match the cognate LXX verb (albeit in less technical use in secular vocabulary). 2715 Joshua by Moses (Josh 14:7; cf. Josh 11:15); Barak by Deborah ( Judg 4:6 ); Saul " s messenger? ( 1Sam 19:20 ); David (allegedly) by Saul ( 1Sam 21:2 ); angels from God (e.g., Judg 13:8 ; Tob 12cf. Gen 24:7 ); cf. messengers in 1 Kgs 18:10; 19:2;2Kgs 1:2,6,9,11,13; etc. A disciple may be " sent» as his master " s representative (the false but believable claim in 2 Kgs 5:22; cf. 2 Kgs 9:1–4). |
| 4459 In later times, wine was actually necessary for the Sabbath Kiddush and other festivities: b. Pesah. 102a, bar.; purportedly Tannaitic tradition in B. Qam. 69b; Šabb. 23b; Ta c an. 24a; cf. t. Ber. 3:8; Safrai, «Home,» 747. 4460 Safrai, «Home,» 759, citing b. Ketub. 7b-8a; cf. m. Ber. 1(where guests return from a wedding feast between midnight and dawn). 4462 T. Šabb. 17:4. Perhaps there is an implicit contrast between the original host of John 2and the host (Jesus) of 6:13, since in both cases Jesus must multiply the resources available to sustain a crowd. 4465 Derrett, Law, 235: the women, nearer the domestic quarters, could have learned of the situation before the men in the dining area. Hellenistic banquets with ample facilities typically separated women from men (e.g., Cicero Verr. 2.1.26.66–69; Cornelius Nepos pref.6–7; Mark 6:24 ), as did homes large enough to have separate quarters (in Hellenistic architecture, Xenophon Oec. 9.5; Lysias Or. 3.6, §97; Heliodorus Aeth. 5.34; 6.1). Like the waterpots (2:6) she was εκε (2:1), though not just as a prop (cf. Ashton, Understanding, 268). 4466 Safrai, «Home,» 759. Women may have drunk wine less than men (see Safrai, «Home,» 747). In much of ancient Mediterranean culture wives did not accompany husbands to banquets (Isaeus Estate of Pyrrhus 13–14), or at least to the male areas. 4467 Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 69, suggest some of the pots may «have been borrowed from neighbors» for the wedding. But these were for purification (2:6), presumably for Passover (2:13); a bride would wash before a wedding ( Eph 5:26 ; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 54–55), but she would hardly need six pots! (Nor would guests for ritual handwashing before taking wine–p. Ber. 6:6.) 4469 Jacob in Gen 32:26–30 ; Moses in Exod 33:12–34:9; the Shunammite woman in 2 Kgs 4:14–28; Elisha in 2 Kgs 2:2, 4, 6, 9; and Elijah in 1 Kgs 18:36–37, 41–46 are cases in point. Mayer, «Elijah,» finds Elijah/Elisha imagery in this passage. 4470 Mark 5:27–34 (in light of the fact that it was ritually forbidden for her to touch the teacher, Lev 15:25–27 ); 7:24–30; 10:46–52; Matt 8:7–13 (taking v. 7 as a question) are cases in point; on insistent faith, cf. also ÓDay, «Faith.» Jesus» teachings on «obnoxious» persistence in prayer fit this image as well: e.g., Luke 11:5–13 (though αναδεια is, as Bailey and others have pointed out, related to shame and not to persistence, the idea of boldness in prayer is still present); 18:2–14. Examples of wise chutzpah could be multiplied in Cynic stories; e.g., Diogenes in Diogenes Laertius 6.2.34. Whitacre, Polemic, 84, points out that like the first disciples of ch. 1, she takes the initiative, but allows Jesus to dictate what will be done after that point (2:5). |
| 206 E.g., Josephus Life 359–366. Of course, the events were freshest in a witness " s mind immediately after the events (Lysias Or. 20.22.160), but testimony within the generation was accepted. 207 E.g., Diogenes Laertius 1.23: «But according to others»; 6.1.13; 8.2.67–72; Plutarch Lycurgus 1.1; Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.21.516; 2.5.576; p. Sotah 9:13, §2. Historical distance also increased the possibility of gratuitous errors, as in 4 Macc 4(Antiochus Epiphanes was Seleucus " s younger brother rather than his son, but the mistake is understandable). 208 Cf. also Pausanias 9.31.7; Plutarch Isis 8; and Theon " s reasons for thinking the account of Medea murdering her children implausible (Progymn. 5.487–501; cf. 3.241–276, 4.112–116, 126–134). Arguments from probability and/or internal consistency had become standard (e.g., Demosthenes On the Embassy 120; Against Pantaenetus 23; Aristotle Rhet. 1.15.17,1376a; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 3.35.5–6; 11.34.1–6; Arrian Alex. 3.3.6; Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.219–220,267,286; 2.8–27, 82,148; Life 342, 350; Acts 26:8). 209 E.g., 1 Kgs 14:19, 29; 2 Kgs 23:28; 1 Chr 27:24; 29:29; 2Macc 2:24–25; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 1.6.1; Arrian Alex. 6.2A; Plutarch Alex. 31.2. Rabbis, too, emphasized citing sources for traditions (e.g., m. Abot 6:6; b. Nid. 19b). Even a novelist might occasionally remember to provide verisimilitude by providing a source (Apuleius Metam. 9.30). 210 E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 1.87.4; 3.35.1–4; 8.79.1; Livy 9.44.6; 23.19.17; 25.17.1–6; Appian R.H. 11.9.56; 12.1.1; Plutarch Alex. 31.3; 38.4; Demosth. 5.5; 29.4–30.4; Them. 25.1–2; 27.1; 32.3–4; Apollodorus 1.4.3; 1.5.2; 1.9.15, 19; 2.3.1; 2.5.11; Ovid Fasti 6.1–2, 97–100; Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.4.570; Pausanias 2.5.5; 2.26.3–7; Arrian Alex. 4.9.2–3; 4.14.1–4; 5.3.1; 5.14.4; 7.14.2; 7.27.1–3; Herodian 7.9.4; 7.9.9; Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades), 11.1; 9 (Conon), 5.4; p. Sotah 9:13, §2; see further Livy in LCL 12n. 2. Occasionally historians also found ways to harmonize traditions (Diodorus Siculus 4.4.1–5). Outside history, see, e.g., Contest of Homer and Hesiod 323; Parthenius LR. 11.1–3; 14.5. Cf. Ovid " s account of Lichas " s end (Metam. 9.225), which diverges from Sophocles Trach. 777–782; he claims dependence on prior tradition, but his emphasis on metamorphoses certainly accounts for which tradition he prefers! |
| Asen. 14:12). 5421 E.g., Plutarch Nat. Q. 33 (after Mor. 919E, but preserved only in Latin). Cf. Athenaeus Deipn. 8.352a, where a traveler to Pella abstained after noticing that those who depended on the local well water looked sickly. 5428 For the connecting of these passages, see comment on 7:37. Allison, «Water,» is undoubtedly correct that the primary imagery in 4:10–14, as in 7:37–39, is the fountain of living water in the new Jerusalem. 5432 Cullmann, Worship, 83, sees the connection though he wrongly emphasizes baptism here, citing gnostic sects that drank baptismal waters. 5434 Beasley-Murray, John, 61. For magicians transmuting one substance into another, see Homer Od. 10.239–240; Ovid Metam. 14.414–415; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Sanh. 6:6, §2. But Moses brought water from the rock (Exod 17:6; Num 20:11 ; Deut 8:15 ); and a prophet miraculously provided continuing sustenance for an unmarried woman in need (1 Kgs 17:12), who recognized a sinful background (1 Kgs 17:18). 5435 Many commentators note the misunderstanding (e.g., Bultmann, John, 181; Schnackenburg, John, 1:432). 5436 ÓDay, Revelation, 53, starts a new section with this command, which parallels Jesus» command in 4:7. 5438 Augustine Tract. Ev. Jo. 15.18.1 denied that Jesus merely wished to teach her through her husband (as, he thinks, in 1Cor 14:35 ; but that is probably not the sense even there–see Keener, Paul, 70–100), noting that he did not teach Mary in that way (he cites Luke 10:39–40; but then he reads allegorically: Bring your understanding, 15.18.2–15.20.1). 5440 She may also lack the head covering normally required for married women (sources in Keener, Paul, 22–30; more fully, idem, «Head Coverings»), but, given the midday sun, could be wearing one anyway. Given the emphasis on early marriage or speedy remarriage for most women in the broader culture (sources in Keener, Marries, 72–75; more fully, idem, «Marriage,» 681–82), people would wonder why an adult woman (five marriages suggests some age) would be unmarried. |
|
|
