| 5644 Homer I1. 13.624–625; Od. 6.207–208; 14.57–58; Euripides Cyc1. 355; Apollonius of Rhodes 2.1131–1133; 3.193; Greek Anth. 7.516. 5645 Tob 5:10–15; 7:8–9; 10:6–10; Ps.-Phoc. 24; m. " Abot 1:5, 15; 3:12; t. Demai 3:9; b. Ber. 63b; Luke 7:36; Acts 16:15; see further Koenig, Hospitality, 16. For lodging in synagogues or school-houses, cf. b. Qidd. 29b; p. Meg. 3:3, §5. Abraham provided the supreme example (Gen. Rab. 48:9; 50:4; Num. Rab. 10:5; Song Rab. 1:3, §3), though sometimes transferred to other figures (T. Job 10:1–4). Among early Christians, e.g., Rom 12:13 ; 1Tim 3:2 ; 1Pet 4:9 ; Heb 13:2. 5649 Talbert, John, 118, citing especially Josephus War 3.459; 7.70–71; cf. War 4.112–113; 7.100–103,119. 5651 E.g., Aeschylus Supp1. 26; Euripides Herc. fur. 48; Aristophanes Frogs 738, 1433; Epictetus Diatr. 1.22.16; Plutarch Borr. 7, Mor. 830B; Arrian Ind. 21.2; 36.3; Pausanias 2.20.6; 4.34.6; 9.26.8; Athenaeus Deipn. 7.288f. 5652 Pausanias 1.40.3 (Artemis); 8.31.2 (Kore); the mother goddess in Orphic Hymns 14.8; 27.12; 74.4. 5653 Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 12.1.8; Josephus Life 244,259; OGIS 90; CPJ 1:185–86, §38; 2:31, §151. Especially Heracles (Demosthenes Or. 60, Funeral Speech §8). 5657 See more fully Longenecker, Christology, 142–43. The title may function in something of a messianic sense in Isa 19:20; cf. «the Lord " s salvation» in Τ Dan 5:10; human deliverers in Judg 3:9, 15 ; 1Sam 10LXX; Neh 9:27. 5658 For special love for onés native land, see also, e.g., Seneca Ep. Lucil 66.26; Menander Rhetor 2.4, 392.8–9; Iamblichus V.P. 32.214. 5659 Davies, Land, 329; Brown, Community, 39; Schnackenburg, John, 1:462; Van Belle, «Faith.» The term applies most easily to onés place of origin, not onés citizenship (Philostratus Hrk. 44.1). 5661 More peripheral, first-time readers might have taken such language philosophically (Anaxagoras called heaven his «fatherland» in Diogenes Laertius 2.7; cf. the world in Musonius Rufus 9, p. 68.15–16, 25; citizenship in the world, ibid. 68.21–22; Diogenes Laertius 2.99; 6.2.63, 72; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 28.4; Marcus Aurelius 12.36), but the sense is clear after reading the Gospel as a whole. |
| 7082 E.g., Plato Cratylus 41 ID and passim; Livy 1.43.13; Aulus Gellius 1.25; 2.21; 3.18; 5.7; Apollodorus 1.7.2; 2.5.10; Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.15, 31. This continued despite the recognition that words changed in meaning over time (Aulus Gellius 4.9). For plays on peoplés names, see, e.g., Homer Od. 1.62; 5.340, 423; 16.145–147; 19.275, 407–409; Aelian Farmers 7 (Dercyllus to Opora) and 8 (Opora to Dercyllus); Alciphron Fishermen passim; Athenaeus Deipn. 9.380b; Phlm 10–11 . Philós use (sometimes indicating weak knowledge of Hebrew; Hanson, «Etymologies») differed considerably from rabbinic etymologies (Grabbe, Etymology). 7083 E.g., Demosthenes Ep. 3.28; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.55; 6.2.68; for discussion in the rhetorical handbooks, see Anderson, Glossary, 59–60 (cf. also 81–82). Some were intended for amusement (Suetonius Gaius 27). 7086 E.g., lQpHab 12.1–10; see Lim, «Alteration.» Revocalizing the consonants was common (Sipre Deut. 357.5.11; see Jub. 26:30; Brownlee, «Jubilees,» 32); for later rabbis, multiple meanings for single referents were certainly not problematic (b. Ber. 55b; Pesiq. Rab. 14:6; 21:6). 7090 Homer Od. 6.207–208; 14.57–58. For charity among Gentiles, see, e.g., Publilius Syrus 274; Cornelius Nepos 5 (Cimon), 4.1–2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 12.1.7; cf. Hesiod Op. 354 (give to the generous); giving to beggars in Seneca Controv. 10.4.intro. 7092 Hom. Od. 17.347, 578. Few, however, took this practice as far as the Cynics (see, e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 3.22.10; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.46, 56, 59; 10.119; cf. 2.82), often to others» disdain (Diogenes Laertius 10.119); for priests of Isis or Cybele, see, e.g., Babrius 141.1–6; Phaedrus 4.1.4–5; Valerius Maximus 7.3.8 (also often to others» disdain, Syr. Men. 262–277). 7095 Cf. perhaps also the implied disgrace in Musonius Rufus 11, p. 80.19, 21. Merely pretending to be in need leads to judgment in Abot R. Nat. 3 A. 7096 E.g., the same epideictic function in Chariton 5.4.1–2 (emphasizing Callirhoés beauty); Xenophon Eph. 1.2. |
| 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! |
| 6641 For attestation of the figure in the Jesus tradition, cf. Luke 2:32; applied differently, Matt 5:14. «Light of the world» also appears in pagan texts, not surprisingly in an invocation to Helios the spirit, power, and life of the world (Macrobius Sat. 1.23.21, in Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 225). 6642 Comfort, «Pericope.» 6643 See Hanson, Gospel, 116, noting that John employs Zech 14in John 7:38 . 6644 E.g., Westcott, John, 123; Glasson, Moses, 60; Dodd, Interpretation, 349; Brown, John, 1:343–44; Longenecker, Exegesis, 153; Yee, Feasts, 80. Philo also associated the festival with light (Bernard, John, 2:291). 6645 E.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.118; m. Sukkah 5:3–4; h. Sukkah 52b-53a (a Tanna); see also Safrai, «Temple,» 895. Glasson, Moses, 60–61, less convincingly finds an allusion in Zech 14:6–7, the Tabernacles lection (see comment on 7:38). Although Hanukkah ( John 10:22 ) is «the feast of lights» (Josephus Ant. 12.325), John only makes the association with the biblical festival of Sukkoth. 6646 Noted here by, e.g., Hunter, John, 86; Longenecker, Exegesis, 154; some may have expected its eschatological restoration (Glasson, Moses, 64). The older ritual may have revered God as the creator of light (Urbach, Sages, 1:60). 6647 Scripture ( Ps 105:39–41 ; Neh 9:12, 15) and subsequent Jewish tradition connected these various symbols of wilderness sojourn (Glasson, Moses, 62–63; see comment on 7:38). 6648 See Prov 4:19 ; cf. also, e.g., Gen. Rab. 60:1. 6649 E.g., 1QS 3.21; 4.11 (the way of those outside the community); a hymn in 1QS 11.10 ( ); Pesiq. Rab. 8:5; see also Charlesworth, «Comparison,» 414. 6650 E.g., Job 33:30 ; Ps 56:13 ; cf. Job 3:16; 18:18 ; Ps 38:10; 36:9; 49:19 ; Prov 29:13 ; Eccl 12:2 . 6651 Cf. 1QS 3.7 ( ); see also Charlesworth, «Comparison,» 414; Coetzee, «Life,» 64. 6652 Odeberg, Gospel 286–87. Charlier, «L " exégèse,» thinks Jesus claims deity here. 6653 E.g., Isocrates Nie. 46–47, Or. 3.36; Plutarch Praising 15, Mor. 544D; see further references under the introductory comment on John 5:31–47 . |
| The general description of the world " s hatred in 15:18–19 becomes more concrete and specific in 15:20–21: the disciples would face severe persecution. 9131 The «persecution» that Jesus endured and in which believers followed (15:20) could easily escalate into the threat of death (5:16, 18; cf. Rev 12:13). That Jesus promises persecution for his own «namés» sake (15:21) probably connects him with the Father, again underscoring his divinity. Jewish people spoke of persecution for the sake of God " s commandments ( Ps 119:23, 157, 161 ) 9132 and God or his name ( Ps 44:22 ); 9133 the hope of resurrection should encourage one not to fear sinners» abuse (1 En. 103:4). «On account of my name» could represent a Semitic expression meaning simply «on my account,» and Mark also reports that disciples would suffer for Jesus» name ( Mark 13:13 ); but in the context of the Fourth Gospel, it more likely recalls that Jesus bears the divine name. 9134 If Jesus suffered, disciples must suffer for his name (15:20–22). Jesus would die for his friends (15:13), those who kept his commandments (15:14); but keeping his commandments involved especially loving as he loved, that is, dying on one another " s behalf (13:34). Betraying others in the face of persecution may be a common response to persecution (cf. Mark 13:12 ), 9135 but true followers of Jesus dare not respond in this manner (cf. 1 John 3:16 ). If dying for friends was a rare but praiseworthy practice, the same may be said of dying for a master. 9136 That Jesus» disciples must be prepared to die for his name reflects earlier Jesus tradition (cf., e.g., Matt 10:22; 5:11). 9137 Through the Spirit, disciples carry on Jesus» mission (15:26–27; 16:7–11) and hence experience the same opposition as he did. 9138 Jesus» coming unveiled the «world " s» sin (15:22, 24); this claim fits both his earlier exposures of his enemies» sin (8:21, 34) and the claim that those who try to conceal their sin are those who cannot be rid of it (3:20; 9:41). 9139 Moralists sometimes opined that wrongdoers could not keep their sins concealed indefinitely. 9140 In Jewish tradition, the law could expose sin and leave sinners without excuse. 9141 Philo declares that God " s angel and priest, reproof (λεγχος), exposes such impure thoughts (Unchangeable 135) and those who do not listen will face destruction (Unchangeable 182–183); this image reinforces the sense that the Paraclete continues Jesus» mission in this Gospel (ελγξει in 16:8–11). |
| Like the rest of the Fourth Gospel, John here insists that Jewish believers remain faithful to the God of Israel through fidelity to Jesus, not through satisfying the synagogue leadership (12:42–43). This is because Jesus is God " s faithful agent; he neither spoke (14:10; cf. 16:13) nor acted (5:30; 8:28, 42) on his own (12:49), but only at the Father " s command (12:49; see comment on 5:19). 7989 By again reinforcing the portrait of Jesus as God " s faithful agent, John reminds his hearers that their opponents who in the name of piety opposed a high view of Jesus were actually opposing the God who appointed him to that role. «The Father " s commandment is eternal life» (12:50) is presumably elliptical for «obedience to the Father " s command produces eternal life,» but also fits the identification of the word (1:4), Jesus» words (6:68), and knowing God (17:3) with life. For John, the concept of «command» should not be incompatible with believing in Jesus (6:27; cf. 8:12; 12:25), which is the basis for eternal life (3:15–16; 6:40, 47; 11:25; 20:31); faith involves obedience (3:36; cf. Acts 5:32; Rom 1:5; 2:8; 6:16–17; 15:18; 16:19, 26; 2 Thess 1:8; 1Pet 1:22; 4:17 ). Jesus always obeys his Father " s commands (8:29), including the command to face death (10:18; 14:31); his disciples must follow his model of obedience to his commandments by loving one another sacrificially (13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10,12). 7803 Matthew " s stirring of «the entire city» (Matt 21:10), however, may invite the reader to compare this event with an earlier disturbance of Jerusalem (Matt 2:3). 7804 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 306; Catchpole, «Entry.» In favor of reliability, see also Losie, «Entry,» 858–59. 7805 In view of ancient patronal social patterns, Jesus» numerous «benefactions» would also produce an entourage, seeking favors, that could potentially double as a political support base, exacerbating his threat to the political elite (DeSilva, Honor, 135). 7806 Also for Matthew (Matt 21:10–11); in Luke those who hail him are disciples (Luke 19:37, 39); even in Mark, where «many» participate, those who go before and after him are probably those who knew of his ministry in Galilee ( Mark 11:8–9 ). This may represent a very different crowd from the one that condemned him (Matt 27:20–25; Mark 15:11–14 ; Luke 23:13, 18, 21, 23)–certainly in John, where the condemning «Jews» are the «high priests» (19:6–7, 12–15). |
| 6654 Cf. Pilch, «Lying,» 128. 6655 E.g., Thucydides 3.61.1. Circumstances, however, varied, so that sometimes one should open a speech with self-praise, sometimes with accusing opponents, and sometimes with praise of the jury (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 17). 6656 Normally the prosecutor would speak first, so the accused would be able to respond to the charges specifically (e.g., Cicero Quinct. 2.9; 9.33; Terence Eunuch 10–13; Chariton 5.4.9; Apuleius Metam. 10.7; t. Sanh. 6:3; Acts 24:2–8; cf. a legal exception in t. Sanh. 7:2). But the prosecutor offered entire speeches, not the trading of charges and countercharges found here (though even court transcripts were at best summaries, e.g., P.Oxy. 37; 237.7.19–29; P.Ry1. 75.1–12; P.Strassb. 22.10–24; P.Thead. 15; P. Bour. 20). 6657 Deut 17:6; 19:15 ; 11QT 61.6–7; 64.8; CD 9.3–4,17–23; Josephus Ant. 4.219; T.Ab. 13:8A; see Daube, «Witnesses»; and further citations under the introductory comment to John 5:31–47 . Cf. Rabinovitch, «Parallels,» though he may minimize too much the difference between Qumran and rabbinic approaches. 6658 E.g., Josephus Ant. 4.219; Life 256. 6659 Secondary «even if» claims (here, «Even if I testify concerning myself») appear elsewhere in ancient rhetoric (e.g., Hermogenes Issues 48.19–23). 6660 Cf. also the philosophical condemnation of evaluating by physical standards (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 14.1; 94.13); some philosophers even appeared to condemn sensory knowledge (Plato Phaedo 83A), but most did not (Aristotle Soul 3.1,424b; Seneca Dia1. 5.36.1 ; 7.8.4; Diogenes Laertius 7.1.52, 110; Let. Aris. 156; Philo Spec. Laws 4.92; Confusion 19; Heb 5:14; Murray, Philosophy, 26; Long, Philosophy, 21), and John certainly does not move in a philosophic framework that would condemn the senses. Many writers shared an emphasis on moral discernment (Cicero Off. 3.17.71; Leg. 1.23.60; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 45.6; Epictetus Diatr. 1.4.1; 1.7.8; 2.3.1; Marcus Aurelius 2.1, 13; 4.41; 9.1.2; Diogenes Laertius 7.1.122). |
| That one disciple would be particularly «beloved» does not contradict the Synoptic tradition, where some disciples were closer to Jesus than others. Given the tradition in Mark 10:37 , it is possible that John son of Zebedee often reclined near Jesus in historical reality. 8252 Brown contends that the beloved disciple represents a real person, 8253 but not John son of Zebedee, 8254 a community hero in whom the community is idealized. 8255 We have argued earlier that, against the consensus of modern scholarship, the ancient view that the beloved disciple is indeed John son of Zebedee has strong support; 8256 further, the third-person description cannot be weighed against it. Although participants in accounts often described themselves in the first person, they also often chose the third person, particularly if their identity was already known to their audience. 8257 Of course, it was also not unusual to name the eyewitness who supplied one the information, 8258 sometimes even with consistent reminders that the writer is conveying another " s report. 8259 It is more essential here to note that the beloved disciple also serves an idealized literary function. As Jesus resided in the Father " s bosom (1:18), so the beloved disciple rested in Jesus» bosom (13:23); 8260 yet, by implication, the same is true of believers (cf. 14:23; Luke 16:22). So also believers, like the «beloved» disciple (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:20), were special objects of Jesus» affection (14:21; 15:9, 12; cf. 3:16; 11:5, 36), including in the immediate context (13:1,34). Other disciples such as Martha, Mary, and Lazarus also receive the same title of affection (11:5); rather than meaning «favorite» to the exclusion of others, it may be the voice of one marveling that he is the object of such love (cf. Gal 2:20 ; 1Tim 1:12–16; 1 John 4:10–11 ). When Paul speaks of Christ loving him and dying for him ( Gal 2:20 ; perhaps even showing him special mercy,l Cor 15:10), he invites reader identification. Noting that God loved Moses very much, some could designate Moses as God " s «favorite»; 8261 but in the context of the whole Fourth Gospel, the beloved disciple here probably does allude in some sense to Jesus» favor toward all his followers (as all of them function as a new Moses, 1:14; 14:8). One could even name onés child «beloved by God» without implying that such love was exclusive to the child (cf. the common compounding of Geo- and φιλ-roots with each other in antiquity). 8262 |
| The most immediate context suggests «request,» given the remainder of 16:23–24 and the typical usage in prayer (16:26; 17:9,15,20); but the context also speaks of asking questions (16:5, 19, 30). If it refers to asking questions, 9355 perhaps Jesus is saying that the Paraclete will teach them all they need to know (16:12–13), 9356 or that their lack of understanding of God " s plan will be met by the fulfillment of that plan (16:19–20), or that God will guide them even before they need to ask (16:30). Perhaps he refers to the fulness of eschatological knowledge ( Jer 31:34 ; 1Cor 13:12 ), which obviates the need for questions. 9357 Probably he is telling the disciples that instead of depending on Jesus to request the Father for them, they can approach the Father immediately as Jesus» representatives (16:26–27), which nevertheless implies Jesus» continued mediation (14:6). Jesus» previous use of obscure speech (16:25; cf. 6:60) will give way to the open speech others had long wanted from him (16:25; 10:24; 11:14; see comment on 7:4). 9358 Previously he had shown them the Father (14:7–9), but now he would explain openly about the Father (16:25; cf. 4:25), and the Spirit would continue this work (16:13–15). Perhaps, given the semantic range of ερωτω, John and his first audience would have felt less concern to distinguish these nuances. John is, in any case, a master of double entendre. 9359 The second part of 16:23, however, clearly concerns requesting in Jesus» name. 9360 They can make their requests directly to the Father (16:26) because the Father loves them on Jesus» behalf (16:27; cf. 15:9–10; 17:23). 9361 We have discussed this motif more fully under 14:13–14; cf. 15:7, 16. This Gospel elsewhere stresses God " s gracious benevolence (e.g., 1:12; 3:16; 4:10; 6:32), and even oblique requests may receive answers (2:3; 11:21) The fulness of joy (16:24) reflects not only Jesus» resurrection (16:20–22; 17:13) but its consequences for their continuing life with him (15:10–11; 16:24). |
| The Father γαπ the Son: 3:35; 10:17; 15:9; 17:23–24, 26 The Father φιλε the Son: 5:20 The Son γαπ the Father: 14:31 The Son φιλε the Father: no examples The Father γαπ believers: 17:23; cf. 3:16 The Father φιλε believers: 16:27 The Son γαπ believers: 11:5; 13:1, 23, 34; 15:9, 12; 19:26; 21:7, 20 The Son φιλε believers: 11:3, 36; 20:2 Believers γαπσι Jesus: 8:42; 14:15, 21, 23, 24, 28; 21:15–16 Believers φιλοσι Jesus: 16:27; 21:15–17 Believers γαπσι God: cf. 5:42; no references for φιλοσι People γαπσι a sinful object: 3:19; 12:43 People φιλοσι a sinful object: cf. 12:25; the world " s love in 15:19 Believers should γαπσι one another: 13:34–35; 15:12, 17 Believers should φιλοσι one another: no examples Given a frequency of αγαπω greater than φιλω, the few categories in which their uses do not overlap surely reflect the sort of coincidence one would expect if the terms were essentially interchangeable. One passage (21:15–17) clearly uses the two terms interchangeably, unless we are to suppose that Jesus diminished the intensity of his own request to accommodate Peter s desire. Against many scholars, 2789 John employs his two terms for love interchangeably. 2790 Stylistic changes from one section of the Gospel to another no more need indicate separate sources or redactors than similar changes from one part of Epictetus to another indicate that Arrian quotes him more accurately at some points; both Epictetus and Arrian probably had certain words or phrases more on their minds at certain times. 2791 Variation was a common feature of ancient writing; 2792 some writers, in fact, explicitly asserted their preference for variation in vocabulary against «the pedantic precision» of some philosophic trends of their era. 2793 As Nock pointed out, their pleasure in variety «often works havoc with the neat differentiations of meaning we seek to establish.» 2794 It is not surprising that it is a standard feature of Johannine style. 2795 John " s call to love is a call to church unity, 2796 whether against the outside opposition ( John 15 ) or against the secessionists (1 John 3). Love also adds a moral context to «knowing God» ( 1 John 4:7–8,16,20) that goes beyond the amoral mysticism some false teachers may have been proclaiming ( John 8:55; 1 John 2:3–5; 3:6 ). 2797 3. Faith |
|
|
