| 1313 Smith, Johannine Christianity, 25, whose notes provide a survey of scholars in the earlier camps. Sloyan, «Adoption,» thinks the corrective of 1 John helped preserved the Gospel for the church. 1314 Kysar, Maverick Gospel, 49; Tenney, John, 51; cf. Becker, Evangelium, 1:147–58. Contrast provides a useful literary and rhetorical tool (see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 110–11; and comment on John 13:23 ). 1315 «Descending» (1:32–33, 51; 3:13; 6:38, 41–42, 50–51; etc.); «ascending» (1:51; 3:13; 6:62); «above» (=God, as in some other early Jewish texts) (1:51; 3:3, 7, 12–13, 27, 31; 6:31, 38, 41–42, 50–51,58; 8:23; 19:11); in later Jewish Christianity, see Daniélou, Theology, 248–63. Cf. J. N. Sanders, John, 223; Ladd, Theology, 291. 1318 E.g., Philo Flight 71; Maximus of Tyre Or. 11.10; Gamble, «Philosophy,» 56–58, understands John in terms of Platonic dualism; see Finegan, World Religions, 90–92; Gordon, Civilizations, 190. Contrast Pétrement, Dualisme, 216–19, on Philo; see comment on John 3:13 . 1319 See Duhaime, «Dualisme»; Brown, Essays, 141–47. Berger, «Bedeutung,» finds gnostic tendencies in what appears to be an early Jewish wisdom text. 1321 See Boismard, «Epistle,» 156–57; Arrington, Theology, 69; Charlesworth, «Comparison,» 409; idem, «Qumran and Odes»; Fritsch, Community, 117–18; Albright, «Discoveries» 168; Bruce, «Jesus,» 79; Painter, John, 6; Black, Scrolls, 171; Kysar, Evangelist, 131–37. Johns dualism is not metaphysical (against Käsemann, Testament, 72), but moral (Boismard, «Epistle»), a demand for decision (Manson, Paul and John, 89). 1322 Spatial dualism occurs in b. Ber. 17a; Gen. Rab. 12:8, 27:4, 38:6; Pesiq. Rab. 25:2; Moses is also portrayed as an ascending/descending redeemer (e.g., Lev. Rab. 1:15), and the ascent/descent language is used of God himself (e.g., Gen. Rab. 38:9); see also Bowman, Gospel, 45–55. For the heaven/earth spatial dualism in Wisdom literature, see Gammie, «Dualism.» 1323 Cf. also the frequent «earth-dwellers» (Rev 3:10; 6:10; 8:13; 11:10; 12:12; 13:8, 12, 14; 17:2, 8). The Gospel tradition already borrows the familiar Jewish image of God " s presence in heaven (e.g., Matt 6:9; Mark 6:41; 7:34; 11:25; 15:38 ). |
| 3456 Most commentators take the Revelation reference more literally than meaning inadequate Christology, however (e.g., Bowman, Revelation, 31). For banquets associated with the imperial cult, cf., e.g., CIL 3.550 (Sherk, Empire, §125, p. 165). 3457 Caird, Revelation, 39, noting that Jezebel " s «harlotry» in the OT (2 Kgs 9:22) was only figurative; cf. 4QpNah. 3.4; perhaps Wis 14:12. It could refer to literal cultic or other prostitution, as at Baal-peor (Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 86–87), although this is not attested in conjunction with the imperial cult; both readings (spiritual or physical fornication) seem contextually possible (Meeks, Moral World, 146). 3458 Also Hooker, «Baptist,» 358; Boice, Witness and Revelation, 26; Wink, lohn, 105; Collins, Written, 8–11. 3462 Kraeling, John, 51–52. While historically Johns «eschatological «radicalisation»» lent itself to political misinterpretation (Hengel, Leader, 36), neither political nor moral proclamation characterizes the Fourth Gospel " s Baptist. 3463 Meier, «John,» 234. For the passagés authenticity, see also Feldman, «Methods and Tendencies,» 591. 3465 See 1:7–8,15,19, 34; 2:25; 3:11, 26, 28, 32–33; 4:39,44; 5:31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39; 7:7; 8:13, 14, 17, 18; 10:25; 12:17; 13:21; 15:26–27; 18:23, 37; 19:35; 20:24. Painter, John, 8, counts forty-seven uses in John and only six in the Synoptics, «4 of which refer to the false witnesses at the trial of Jesus» (cf. further ibid., 90); even if John emphasizes separation from the hostile world more than the Synoptics (Goppelt, «Church in History,» 196–97), he seeks to prevent the flow of influence in only one direction. 3467 E.g., Plutarch Apoll 14, Mor. 108E («το θεον also testifies to this»); Oracles at Delphi 22, Mor. 405A (Homer testifies); Nicias 6.3 («events πεμαρτρει to his wisdom,» LCL 3:226–27); Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.4. Aristotle supposed ancient witnesses the most reliable because they could not be corrupted (Rhet. 1.15.13,1375b; 1.15.17). Trites, Witness, 4–15, shows that they were used in both legal and nonlegal (e.g., historiographie) contexts to establish data. |
| Craig S. Keener Introductory issues. 13:1–17:26 JUST AS MARK 13 INTERPRETS the imminent passion of Mark 14–15 for the disciples in terms of their future tribulation, so Jesus» final discourse in John " s Gospel interprets the meaning of Jesus» passion for his disciples: they will share both his sufferings and his resurrection life. 7994 Unity of the Discourse Source critics have detected a variety of clues, especially alleged changes of focus and editorial seams, that indicate divergent sources in the discourse. 7995 Most commonly, scholars divide ch. 14 from chs. 15 and 16, suggesting that they are either alternative versions (perhaps both hallowed by time, or one perhaps older than the other), 7996 or a reworked version in addition to an original version (the original is more often thought to be John 14 ). 7997 Talbert suggests that John varies these discourses, since ancient critics recognized that repeating words exactly wearies the hearer. 7998 Some scholars have challenged the thesis of duplicate discourses, 7999 others have argued for distinct discourses offered by Jesus himself on different nights of the Passover week, 8000 and a minority of scholars have argued for the discoursés unity. 8001 Some relatively recent source-critical work takes a chronological approach to the development of the discourse: thus Painter thinks that John composed three versions of the Farewell Discourse, the first before conflict with the synagogue (13:31–14:31), the second during rejection by the synagogue (15:l-16:4a) and the third (16:4b-33) in opposition to the synagogue. 8002 Berg largely concurs but adapts this position slightly, 8003 thinking that 15:1–17 is probably «an independent unit» from the time of that conflict. 8004 Such a detailed reconstruction requires so much dependence on hypothetical reconstructions, and assumes John " s lack of creative revision of his sources to such a degree, that it is not likely to commend much assent today despite its brilliance. More speculatively, some, especially earlier source critics, also have suggested displacements in parts of the discourse, 8005 or alterations made in the the use of the discourse in various recensions of the Fourth Gospe1. 8006 Most such source-critical theories remain speculative, although at least one editorial seam (14:31) appears convincing enough to allow the possibility (albeit not the certainty) that John 14 and John 15–16 represent two versions, or two sections, of an original discourse now bound together. This seam in 14may be disputed (see our comment), but it is the strongest argument for the composite nature of the current discourse. 8007 Apparent inconsistencies such as 13and 16are also possible indicators, 8008 though they may simply reflect John " s deliberately ambiguous use of language. |
| 8334 The misbehavior of a disciple might require other disciples to provide apologetic: it was the disciplés failure to imitate the teacher " s ways that led to this misbehavior; such a practice could prove relevant for John " s response to Judas " s betrayal (13:11, 21). 8335 The behavior of disciples also was held to reflect, positively or negatively, on the reputation of their teachers. 8336 Fruitful branches would prove to be his disciples (15:8), and unfruitful ones be cast away from him (15:6); in context, the fruit involves the command to love (15:9–12). The presence of the Spirit (14:16, 26) continues Jesus» presence for the disciples, who by the fruit of that presence (15:4–5) continue Jesus» activity in the world, experiencing his love through one another, so revealing what Jesus is like. From the standpoint of Johannine theology, one cannot persevere as a true disciple of Jesus without learning to love other true disciples. Given the First Epistlés polemic against the secessionists, persevering in love includes remaining part of the community of faith (1 John 2:9–11; 3:10, 14; 4:20). 4. Devotion to the Death? (13:36–38) Following Jesus (13:36) must involve following his example of loving self-sacrifice (13:33–35). Yet Peter changes the subject back to the question of where Jesus is going (13:36a), as will another disciple shortly thereafter (14:5). On the level of the story world, Peter may prefer the discussion about Jesus» destination to contemplation of a difficult commandment (although the full intensity of «as I have loved you» would not yet be obvious to him). 8337 On the level of John " s literary artistry, however, the resumption of the theme of 13:31–33 allows John to frame the new commandment in the context of the passion; loving one another and following Jesus to the death are one and the same. 8338 When Jesus tells Peter that Peter cannot «follow» Jesus at this point (13:36), he refers to death. 8339 Earlier he told his enemies that they cannot go where he is going (7:34; 8:22); instead they will die «in sin» (8:21). |
| 4978 This is not a perspective limited to the redaction-critical era; Strachan, Gospel, 95, helc the view in 1917. Suggit, «Nicodemus,» 97, suggests that John addresses his audience directly here-dispensing with Nicodemus, who has fulfilled his function in the narrative; Schnackenburg. «Redestücke,» ends the conversation in 3:12; Michaels, John, 40, ends it at 3:13. 4979 So Heraclitus Ep. 8, commenting on the Ephesians. In general, true testimony rendered one accountable for having heard it (Holwerda, Spirit, 50). 4983 This title would carry great honor; cf. comments about R. Abbahu in Urbach, Sages, 1:610. For the irony, see more fully Duke, Irony, 45–46. 4986 Cf. the similar statement used for ridicule in Pesiq. Rab. 21:2/3, although there R. Joshua defeats his interlocutor in the conclusion. 4987 Nicholson, Death, 89. Brown, John, 1:132, cites b. Sanh. 39a: «You do not know that which is on earth; should you know what is in heaven?» If not influenced by Christian language, Heliodorus Aeth. 10.12 may testify to the more widespread structure of such comparisons (though you marvel at lesser truths, I am about to reveal greater). 4988 Jewish parables in general often attested divine or heavenly realities through banal or earthly analogies (Johnston, Parables, 600); at the same time, a philosopher might refuse to answer questions about divine matters, which were not as lightly discussed as earthly matters (Eunapius Lives 371–372). Theophilus 1.13 reproves those who accept myths but deny God " s revelation. 4990 Cf. Strachan, Gospel, 96 (wind and physical birth). Perhaps also the signs-faith based «on earthly realities» (Collins, Written, 66). 4991 T. Job 38(OTP 1:858), 38(Kraft, 68); cf. 36(OTP 1:857). The date of Testament of Job is debated; hence one cannot absolutely rule out the influence of Johannine logic on it; cf. also with regard to the third-century Philostratus Hrk. 33.6–7 (and 1.2 as interpreted by Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, lxxxi-lxxxii). 4994 Wis 9:15–16. For various parallels between John and Wisdom of Solomon, see Reim, Studien, 193–95. For liberation from «heavy» earthly elements, allowing the soul to rise, see, e.g., Musonius Rufus 18A, p. 112.20, 27–28; Maximus of Tyre Or. 1.5. |
| Some think that the high priest " s line of interrogation (18:19) could have appeared unethical to some of John " s audience. 9732 Although Jewish law did not explicitly prohibit condemning a prisoner on his own testimony in a capital case before Maimonides, opposition to this practice, based on inference from the biblical text, may have been more ancient. 9733 Others argue, building from forensic language earlier in John and from Jewish law, that Jesus, already publicly vindicated, recognizes that he cannot be legally tried again here. 9734 Either proposal might answer why Jesus refuses to answer directly (18:20–21). But perhaps both proposals require more knowledge of Jewish law, especially Pharisaic law, than most of John " s audience would recognize. John " s audience would, however, have been familiar with the powerful " s ability to pervert justice. As already mentioned, law codes themselves favored those of higher status, 9735 and municipal aristocracies acting in secret might not even answer to such law codes. 9736 Given the submissive cringing expected by those who appeared before the municipal authorities (e.g., Josephus Ant. 14.172–173), Jesus» lack of fear would also strike the audience as noteworthy. 9737 Jesus» response makes good sense in this context (18:20–21). 9738 Many teachers offered only private teachings, 9739 some sectarian Jews believed they had special insight into mysteries hidden from others, 9740 and some later rabbis offered particular esoteric teachings only in private settings; 9741 Jesus has in fact provided some intimate teaching for his disciples privately in this Gospel (13:31–16:33). At the same time, Jesus in this Gospel has stated his identity much more openly than is recorded in the Synoptics (e.g., 8:58–59). Challenges that Jesus» teaching was private may have been important in John " s setting (cf. 7:3–4), demanding a response. 9742 If our reconstruction of the situation under Domitian is correct, some Roman officials were undoubtedly increasingly harsh with unregistered, secret religious associations. 9743 Even in general, those who acted secretly were often thought to have much to hide. 9744 Some later Jewish teachers also criticized false prophets as teaching secretly whereas teachers of Torah work publicly. 9745 Perhaps some opponents of John " s audience challenged the frequent high Christology of early Christians, especially Johannine Christians, in view of Jesus» less exalted claims in many of Jesus» public sayings–although it is admittedly unlikely that many of the opponents would have invested the time in learning much of the Jesus tradition. 9746 |
| 3976 John " s initial failure to recognize him (1:31) may underline the fact that he is known only by revelation (1:33; Smith, John 70), by the Spirit " s witness (15:26; 16:7–11). 3977 See Malina, World, 78. 3978 The two Greek words for knowledge used here function interchangeably in the Fourth Gospel; see on «Knowledge and Sight» in the introduction, ch. 6, above. 3979 See comment on 13:5. 3980 E.g., Diogenes Laertius 6.2.44; b. B. Bat. 53b (though both sources ridicule treating slaves in such a demeaning manner); Aeschylus Agamemnon 944–945; see Daubés and Urbachs citations below. Other commentators have noted that this is the work of a slave (Westcott, John, 19; Hunter, John, 23). 3981 Exod 24:13; 33:11; Josh 1:1; 1 Kgs 19:21; 2 Kgs 5:20; 6:15; 8:4; Zeno in Diogenes Laertius 7.1.12; Cleanthes in Diogenes Laertius 7.5.170; t. B. Mesfa 2:30; cf. «Abot R. Nat. 27, §56B; p. Sotah 5:5, §4; perhaps more like fatherly counsel in Xenophon Anab. 3.1.5–7. Lachs, Commentary, 45, and Daube, Judaism, 266, cite also b. Ketub. 96a. Cf. Joshua as Moses» disciple and other «disciples of the prophets» (CD 8.20–21; Mek. Pisha 1:150–153; »Abot R. Nat. 11, §28 B). 3982 B. Ketub. 96a, cited by various commentators (many following Billerbeck), cf. Davies, Sermon, 135; Morris, John, 141. 3983 E.g., 2 Kgs 9:7,36; 10:10; 14:25; 17:13,23; 21:10; 24:2; Ezra 9:11; Isa 20:3; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4 ; Dan 3:28; 6:20; 9:6, 10 ; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6; cf. " Abot R. Nat. 37, §95 B; Martin, Slavery, 55–56; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 3; Käsemann, Romans, 5. 3984 E.g., 2Sam 3:18; 7:5,8,19–21,25–29; 1 Kgs 3:6; 8:24–26,66; 11:13,32,34,36,38; 14:8; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6; 1 Chr 17:4, 7, 17–19, 23–27; 2 Chr 6:15–21, 42; Ps 78:70; 89:3, 20; 132:10; 144:10 ; Isa 37:35; Jer 33:21–22,26 ; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25 ; cf. " Abot R. Nat. 43, §121 B. 3985 E.g., Exod 14:31; Num 12:7–8 ; Deut 34:5 ; Josh 1:1–2, 7,13,15; 8:31,33; 9:24; 11:12,15; 12:6; 13:8; 14:7; 18:7; 22:2,4–5; 1 Kgs 8:53,56; 2 Kgs 18:12; 21:8; 1 Chr 6:49; 2 Chr 1:3; 24:6,9; Neh 1:7–8; 9:14; 10:29; Ps 105:26 ; Dan 9:11 ; Mai 4:4; cf. 4Q378 frg. 22, line 2; L.A.B. 30:2, famulum; " Abot R. Nat. 43, §121 B. |
| 8521 Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 129; cf. also Plutarch Cor. 25.3; Camillus 5.7 (concerning Roman rituals); Jeffers, World, 90; Aune, «Religion,» 919–20,923; in the rabbis, cf. p. Her. 1:5, §5. 8522 E.g., Homer II. 1.39–41; 10.291–294; Od. 1.61–62, 66–67; 4.762–764; 17.240–242; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.417–419; Virgil Aen. 12.778; cf. also Maximus of Tyre, who reports the first Iliad example (Or. 5.2) but rejects its literal plausibility (5.3). When sacrifices did not achieve their effect, people might complain they were in vain (Alciphron Farmers 33 [Thalliscus to Petraeus], 3.35, par. 1); Zeus was too busy elsewhere (par. 2). 8523 See comments on John 8:33–39 ; for the efficacy of Abraham " s intercessory prayer, see T. Ab. 14:8; 18:10–11A; lQapGen 20:16,28–29, though many religious figures shared this power (Harrington, «Abraham Traditions,» 171). 8525 E.g., Lacomara, «Deuteronomy,» 80; Dowd, «Theology,» 333, because believers are «in the Father and the Son.» Compare «in the name» with being «in» Jesus (Westcott, John, 204, citing 6:56; 14:20; 15:4–7; 16:33; 1 John 5:20 ). 8527 Xenophon Cyr. 1.4.1; cf. Apol1. Κ. Tyre 17; a member of the household normally had special access ( John 8:35 ). Alexander reportedly encouraged people to ask boldly, depending on his generosity (Plutarch Alex. 39.3–4; cf. Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 2.21; 3.6). Objects of such favor were always selective; e.g., people might grant any special requests to heroes (Hermogenes Issues 81.5–23; Libanius Declamation 36.13); one ruler invited his teacher to request whatever he wished (Musonius Rufus 8, p. 66.28–29). 8528 1 En. 6(if Semyaza means «he sees the Name»); perhaps 1 Chr 13LXX; Jeremias, Theology, 10; Longenecker, Christology, 43; Bietenhard, «νομα,» 268–69. Bonsirven, Judaism, 7, cites m. Ber. 4:4; Yoma 3:8. 8529 Sanders, John, 324, comparing also Acts 3:6,16; 4:10; 16:18; also Schnackenburg, John, 3:73; Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 247–48. 8530 Whitacre, John, 355, citing Augustine Tr. Ev. Jo. 73.3. Augustine also notes that one receives what one asks only if one does not ask wrongly (Tr. Ev. Jo. 73.1.1, citing Jas 4:3). |
| (4) A possibly first-century Diaspora Jewish text assumes that even Gentiles know the Jewish practice of baptisms in running water when turning from sins. 3973 (5) Most other initiation rituals in the ancient Mediterranean (whether to mystery cults or Qumran) at least included ceremonial washing, even if they viewed it as merely one washing among many (see comments above). (6) Given the facts that rabbinic Jews were in a position of far greater power than the early Jewish Christians in their area of geographical influence, and usually ignored or condemned the Christians teachings, it is quite unlikely that they would have borrowed initiatory baptism from Christians, and hardly more likely that they would have developed and approved it on their own once it had become associated with the Jewish Christians. 3974 Other arguments, for instance that some definite symbol of transition was necessary for women converts, are less substantial but can supplement the case. 3D. John and Proselyte Baptism In short, then, John s baptism historically summoned Israelites to turn to God the same way Jewish people expected Gentile proselytes to do so; like the Qumran sect, but with a more radical and public symbolism, he regarded only the true remnant of Israel as prepared for the Lord (see the Q material in Matt 3/Luke 3:8), and sought to turn the larger community of Israel to repentance. 3975 His greater subordination to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel does not diminish this function there, but his mission to bring Israel to repentance becomes still more christologically focused (1:31). The view that Johns mission in some sense redefined the remnant of Israel seems a legitimate interpretation of the function of John s baptism; the connection of repentance baptism with John " s christological message in the Synoptics suggests that the Johannine interpretation of 1is likewise consistent with prior tradition. To the Johannine community, expelled from the synagogues (perhaps by persons who found their christological claims more objectionable than the views that the Baptist was a prophet), the critical fact of John " s baptismal mission was that he came to reveal Israel " s king to Israel (1:31; 12:13). While some of Israel " s self-appointed guardians might remain clueless (3:10), the genuine Israelites would recognize Israel " s rightful king (1:47, 49). While his interlocutors, like the world (1:10, οκ εγνω), might fail to recognize their king (1:26, οκ οδατε), the Spirit would enable others to recognize him (1:33, οκ δειν). 3976 |
| 4052 The saying may, however, reflect eschatological nuances concerning the expected «coming one» (cf. the participle in 3:31). 4053 The Baptist s original saying concerning one mightier than himself may have alluded to Daniel 7s Son of Man, as Kraeling assumes, 4054 in which case the Fourth Gospel may merely clarify the idea of préexistence already implicit in the tradition of the Baptist " s words here. 4055 In the Fourth Gospel, the Baptist declares paradoxically, «One comes after me who came before me, for he was first before me.» The first «came before me» may be read as a reference to preeminence; status-conscious ancients allowed those of higher rank to enter or be seated before them as a mark of respect. 4056 Such respect was typically accorded the aged, 4057 but for the Gospel " s informed audience, the respectable antiquity to which the Johannine Baptist refers is no mere matter of primogeniture or age, but préexistence itself (1:1–3). 3. Jesus and the Abiding Spirit (1:32–33) Although the Baptist " s «witness» resounds throughout the surrounding narrative, the author underlines John " s testimony at this point in the narrative («And John witnessed, saying»), 4058 which recounts John " s eyewitness experience. Michaels feels that none of the extant gospels contradicts the Markan portraits of Jesus alone seeing the dove and hearing the voice; 4059 but given the usual nature of «heavenly voices» in Jewish texts, it may be more likely that all four intended the event publicly. Thus one need not regard this encounter as merely an ecstatic experience of Jesus. 4060 This passage fits John " s theology: the Spirit is prominent in this Gospel (1:32–33; 3:5,6, 8, 34; 4:23–24; 6:63; 7:39; 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13; 20:22), and draws attention to and attests Jesus (14:26; 15:26; 16:13); 4061 the Spirit " s descent accords with the Gospel " s vertical dualism; that John «sees» (1:32,34) the Spirit " s descent fits another motif in this Gospel (e.g., 1:14; see introduction). The title «holy spirit,» frequent in Judaism by this period, is reserved for the first, last, and one other pneumatological passage in the Gospel; this title thus frames the books pneumatology as a large inclusio (1:33; 14:26; 20:22). 4062 Yet despite the author " s employment of this title in his literary design, the first reference derives from his tradition (all four extant gospels concur at this point in the tradition: Mark 1:8 ; Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16). The Baptist " s words here are again rooted in tradition (cf. Mark 1:8–10 ; Matt 3:11,16; Luke 3:16, 22); where he can be checked against other extant sources, our author again makes his point by adapting available tradition rather than by fabricating what suits him. |
|
|
