| 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. |
| Dodd regards the vision of God as Greek, contending that the motif has little importance in the OT and Judaism. 2147 He is partly right: Johns language in this case reflects Greek motifs, albeit especially by way of hellenized Judaism. But on another level, the Greek motif is insufficient by itself to explain Johns usage, expecially given his biblical allusions (e.g., 12:40). John never means abstract contemplation of a metaphysical reality; 2148 if anything, the frequency with which he employs vision on the literal level suggests encounter with the incarnate Jesus of history. 2149 Although John does not draw the vision analogy explicitly, his comparison of Jesus with Moses» serpent in John 3may identify faith in the historical Jesus with God " s promise: «Whoever looks will live» ( Num 21:8–9 ). Further, the motif of spiritual sight and blindness in the Jesus tradition (e.g., Mark 4:12; 8:18 ; Matt 13:13–16; 15:14; 23:16; cf. Acts 28:27; Eph 4:18 ) was rooted in the OT images. 2150 The motifs of eschatological vision, 2151 spiritual blindness and sight representing straying from or following God " s way, 2152 and spiritual sight representing spiritual insight into God " s character and mysteries, 2153 persisted in «intertestamental» Palestinian Judaism. Most strands of Judaism continued to apply this language, 2154 often even to revelations of God himself. The rabbis had to explain biblical passages referring to Israel seeing God; 2155 they commented on the rare persons who in some sense «beheld» his presence in the present time 2156 but especially focused on the eschatological vision of God. 2157 According to some later rabbis, obedience to the Law produced nearness to, and in some sense vision of, God; 2158 Merkabah literature stressed the mystical vision of God. 2159 John may use the imagery of heavenly ascents (cf. comment on 3:3, 13; cf. Rev 1:10), but usually he uses the term more figuratively: spiritual perception of the true character of Jesus and the realm «above,» insight which enabled an intimate relationship with (not merely a mystical experience of) God. Given John " s predominantly realized eschatology, it is also possible that he implies a realization of the eschatological vision of God in Jesus (cf. 3:3, 36; 8:51, 56; 12:41; Heb 11:13; 12:14; 1 John 3:2 ; Rev 1:7). 2160 4. Vision of God in the Fourth Gospel |
| As in Paul, realized eschatology in the Fourth Gospel is inaugurated by Jesus» presence and glorification, then realized and anticipated in believers» experience through the Spirit (e.g., Rom 8:11, 23 ; 1Cor 6:14; 15:12–13 ; 2Cor 1:22; 5:5 ). 2776 It is even possible that John intentionally replaces most of the expectation of Jesus» future coming in the Olivet discourse (prior tradition) with an emphasis on the Spirit " s coming to realize among the disciples the life of the new era. 2777 On a reading of the Fourth Gospel that emphasizes realized eschatology without excluding futurist expectation, the Johannine Paraclete thus anticipates the eschatological future. 2778 If leaders in the non-Christian Jewish community raised the obvious objection to Christians that Jesus, if Messiah, should have inaugurated a new era, Christian realized eschatology could have become a major focus in the church " s debate with the Synagogue. 2779 2. Love Although some have stressed the particularly Christian character of the term αγπη, 2780 neither the term nor the concept is uniquely Christian (cf., e.g., Matt 5:46). 2781 Pre-Christian Jewish texts declare Gods love (γαπσαι) for the oppressed of Jerusalem. 2782 God also loved (γπησεν) Wisdom. 2783 Pagan parallels to a deity " s love for a devotee are rarer but do exist. 2784 Judaism also stressed loving God 2785 and his Wisdom. 2786 The Dead Sea Scrolls declare God s love for the elect community and the OT concept of love for God. 2787 What is more significant is that the early Christians fairly consistently used the rarest term for love, 2788 and that αγπη with its cognates represents the supreme virtue so frequently in early Christian writings (e.g., Rom 13:8–10 ; 1Cor 13:1–13 ; Gal 5:14, 22 ; Col 3:14; 1 Thess 4:9; Heb 10:24; 1 John 2:10; 3:14; 4:7–9 ), whereas other literature did not stress it as consistently. This suggests that Jesus» teachings on the subject strongly affected early Christian ethics. The two verbs for love, along with (in the case of γαπω) their cognates, function interchangeably for all practical purposes. |
| More to the point, the Jerusalem high priest no longer held the office for life. Some have suggested that the text could allude «to a Roman insistence on an annual confirmation of the Jerusalem high priest,» though this is unattested elsewhere. 7701 Others suggest that it simply means, «the (memorable) year in which Jesus was executed»; this seems the most common position. 7702 This view takes the genitive temporally («in that year»), probably emphasizing especially εκενου, «that.» 7703 One may compare «that day» (11:53), 7704 John " s words about Jesus» «hour» (e.g., 2:4; 7:30; 8:20) or «time» (7:6, 8), or John " s mention of other special moments in revelation (e.g., 4:53). This view accounts for the emphatic, threefold mention of the priesthood «in that year» (11:49, 51; 18:18) better than do proposals that John simply made a mistake 7705 or accommodated audience expectations here. If, however, John can presuppose some knowledge of Jerusalem politics on the part of transplanted Judeans in his audience, he may strike a note of irony: Rome could depose priests at will; deposed high priests like Caiaphas " s father-in-law Annas could still meddle in the city " s affairs (cf. 18:13); and only a high priest who cooperated well with Rome could rule so long. Perhaps John even cynically presents the high priest as a Greek-type caretaker, an honorary office, rather than a divine appointment; he recognized that the high priesthood was an honor no one should take to oneself (Heb 5:4). Thus, for example, whereas Egyptians had hereditary priesthoods, Romans allowed Greek temples in Egypt to perpetuate Greek customs, but these temples «had no clergy, only officiators and administrators, a laity that the métropolites selected from their own class, in annual rotation, to see to the physical upkeep and cultic requirements of the shrines.» 7706 He also may link this ρχιερες with the other αρχιερες of which he is a part; 7707 he acts on behalf of the whole corrupt group. John " s complaint against the Jerusalem elite, which he believes executed Jesus and prevented a wider acceptance of the Jesus movement among his people, is political as well as religious. 7708 2C. The Leaders» Reasoning (11:47–50) |
| 5909 It is so pervasive that scholars often recognize the trial motif in this Gospel as a central one (e.g., Lincoln, Lawsuit Motif; van der Watt and Voges, «Elemente»). 5910 As some commentators observe (e.g., Bernard, John, 1:247), the argument should have made sense in an early Jewish milieu; see Odeberg, Gospel, 232–34, for parallels of phrasing in rabbinic texts for every verse of 5:31–47. 5911 Isocrates Nic. 46-A7, Or. 3.36; Publilius Syrus 597; Plutarch Praising, Mor. 539A-547F (esp. 15, Mor. 544D); Dio Chrysostom Or. 57.3–9; Quintilian 11.1.17–19; Phaedrus 1.11; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 1.1.1; Prov 27:2 . See further Lyons, Autobiography, 44–45,53–59; Marshall, Enmity, 124–29. 5912 Apocrit. 2.7–12 (probably Porphyry); in the strictest sense, the objection confuses legal testimony with other claims. 5913 " Abot R. Nat. 11A. Cf. Prov 27:2 ; 2Cor 11:12 . 5914 " Abot R. Nat. 1, §1B; cf. Heb 5:4. 5915 E.g., Babrius 114. Revelation applies λαμπδες … καιμεναι to the spirits of God (Rev 4:5; but cf. judgment language in 8:10), whereas λυχνα refers to churches (Rev 1:12–13, 20; 2:1, 5; cf. 11:4). 5916 Moloney, Signs, 21. 5917 So also Brown, John, 1:224, citing also Matt 17:12–13; Mark 9:13 . Moses is presumably the lamp in 2 Bar. 18:1; see further the comments on John 1:4 . Barrett, John, 265, cites also other figures who were lamps, though they are probably less relevant here. 5918 Cf. Ellis, Genius, 96. 5919 Cf. Dio Chrysostom Or. 77/78.37–45, in Malherbe, Exhortation, 51; Stowers, Letter Writing, 140; 1Cor 9:19, 22 . 5920 Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.27.37; Sallust Letter of Gnaeus Pompeius 6; Ovid Metam. 4.276, 284; cf. Virgil Georg. 2.434; Seneca Benef. 3.12.4; Demosthenes Crown 268; Cicero Sest. 26.56; Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 408, §§138D-139D; Phlm 19 . This is specifically applied to quoted testimony in Maximus of Tyre Or. 24.1. See many different sources in Lane, Hebrews, 382–83, on 11:32; rhetorical handbooks in Anderson, Glossary, 88–89; Rowe, «Style,» 149. |
| 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. |
| 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). |
| 10113 Cullmann, State, 42–43; Blinzler, Trial, 251; Winter, Trial, 109; Reicke, Era, 186; Brown, Death, 963, cite Suetonius Calig. 32.2; Dom. 10.1; Dio Cassius 54.3.7; 54.8; Tertullian Apo1. 2.20; Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 5.1.44; cf. the herald in b. Sanh. 43a. The posting of the accusation on the cross is not well attested, either because those describing crucifixion had already mentioned it being carried (Bammel, «Titulus,» 353) or because the practice was not in fact standard although, given the variations among executions, in no way improbable (Harvey, History, 13); wearing tablets around the neck was not unusual in the broader culture (students in Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.1.557). Blinzler, Trial, 254, thinks the tablets included «black or red letters on a white ground.» 10119 Epigraphic data suggest that Aramaic probably predominated in Galilee (Horsley, Galilee, 247–49) despite Hebrew " s use as a holy language and the ideal of its use (pace Safrai, «Literary Languages»; idem, «Spoken Languages»; Let. Aris. 11, 30, 38; Sipre Deut. 46.1.2). 10122 E.g., Jub. 12:25–27; p. Meg. 1:9, §1; hence its use in the Mishnah, many DSS, and the Bar Kokhba materials (cf. Carmon, Inscriptions, 73). 10123 Brown, Death, 965; he also cites the five languages (Greek, Latin, Persian, Hebrew, and Egyptian) at Gordian Ill " s tomb. Talbert, John, 243, cites these plus the Greek and Latin warnings in the temple (losephus War 5.194). 10125 Tob 1:20; Sallust Cati1. 51.43; 52.14; CPJ 2:251–52, §445; 2:255–57, §448; BGU 5.16.51–5.17.52; P.Oxy. 513; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 4.5.3; 4.15.6; Appian C.W. 4.5.31; Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades), 4.5; Herodian 7.3.2; Josephus Life 370–371; Heb 10:34. 10126 E.g., Polybius 11.30.1–2; also in illegal lynchings (e.g., Herodian 8.8.6); also in beatings (Longus 2.14); see comment on scourging, above. 10127 Artemidorus Onir. 2.61; Brown, Death, 870, adds Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.69.2; Valerius Maximus 1.7.4; Josephus Ant. 19.270. 10129 Brown, Death, 870, thinks the Gospels might «reflect a local concession,» noting that Josephus War 2.246 and Ant. 20.136 do not mention Celer " s disrobing; but this would be an argument from silence. (Brown, citing Melito of Sardis On the Pasch 97 in favor of nakedness and Acts of Pilate 10.1 in favor of a loincloth, ultimately doubts that we can know either way [p. 953].) Nakedness was probably the rule of thumb (in public Roman punishments, e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.69.2; in non-Roman executions, e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.191; 2.53). |
| 6332 Plutarch Educ. 17, Mor. 13B; Arrian Alex. 4.8.4–5; 4.9.9; Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.26; 3.24.45; Herodian 5.5.6. 6333 Epictetus Diatr. 4.8.35–36. One should not do good deeds to earn others» praise; God would reward only those whose motives were pure («Abot R. Nat. 40A; 46, §129B; m. »Abot2:8; p. Hag. 2:1, §12; cf. Seneca Ep. Luci1. 5.1–2). 6334 E.g., Appian R.H. 9.11.3; cf. Arrian Alex. 5.28.1. 6335 For the favor attaching to its appropriate use in rhetoric, see Anderson, Glossary, 94; Rowe, «Style,» 139. 6336 Augustine Tr. Ev. Jo. 28.5.1 thinks that Jesus» brothers wanted him to pursue worldly honor; in the context of this Gospel such an attitude expresses unbelief ( John 12:43 ). 6337 Also observed, e.g., by Smith, John (1999), 168. 6338 1 John employs παρρησα somewhat differently, for believers» boldness with God and Christ (1 John 2:28; 3:21; 4:17; 5:14; cf. Eph 3:12 ; Heb 3:6; 4:16; 10:19, 35). 6339 Meeks, Prophet-King, 58. 6340 Cf. Cullmann, Circle, 21; Haenchen, John, 2:3. 6341 On the «time,» see, e.g., Ellis, Genius, 143; pace Bernard, John, 1:269. Cullmann, Time, 42, suggests that Jesus informs them that they do not operate with thought to especially significant redemptive history; see Odeberg, Gospel, 271, for many rabbinic examples of the belief in divinely appointed times. 6342 Westcott, John, 117. 6343 Public reproof or invective usually led to enmity with not only the person reproved but all his allies (see Marshall, Enmity, passim; see comment on 15:18–25). 6344 Greco-Roman moralists emphasized kinship of character over genetic relations (DeSilva, Honor, 194–95, citing 4 Macc 13:24–26; Philo Virtues 195; Spec. Laws 1.52, 316–317). Cf. Valerius Maximus 3.8.ext.4: a prosecutor must fulfill his duty and convict the accused even if the latter is someone the prosecutor loves. 6345 People normally traveled to festivals in local groups (see references in Sanders, Judaism, 128), so his brothers undoubtedly expected him to accompany them. Strict pietists would not travel with a caravan if its members were en route to an idolatrous festival (t. c Abod. Zar. 1:16), but this caveat is probably irrelevant even in the harshest reading of this passage. |
| 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). |
|
|
