| 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 ). |
| 4969 E.g., Pesiq. Rab. 23:8. Socrates also reportedly compared the soul with winds that are invisible yet yield clear effects (MacGregor, John, 73, cites Xenophon Mem. 4.3). 4970 One could speak similarly of a quickly disappearing pirate (Chariton 2.4.7: ν οκ οδας οδ» οπθεν λθεν οδ» που πλιν πλθεν); a Tanna spoke of inability to see the womb (where one came from) or the grave (where one was going; " Abot R. Nat. 32, §69B). More analogously, a Tanna commented on Dan 12that the righteous, like the stars, are sometimes visible but sometimes invisible (Sipre Deut. 47.2.8). 4971 Ezek 37 figures prominently in 4Q386; 4Q388; 4Q385 frg.2, lines 7–8; and a Dura Europos mural; perhaps Acts 2:2. See, e.g., Chevallier, Souffle, 23; Robinson, «Baptism,» 17; Bruce, Commentary, 54. Some diverse cultures link «spirit» and «wind» (Kaplan and Johnson, «Meaning,» 205; Egyptian language in Görg, «Wehen») or «wind» with the divine (Mbiti, Religions, 70). 4972 Commentators often recognize «wind» and «Spirit» as a double entendre here (e.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 131; Hunter, John, 38; Sanders, John, 125; Brown, John, 1:131; Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 9; Shedd, «Meanings,» 255). 4973 Bernard, John, 2:313, contends that in John κοω with the genitive implies «hearing with appreciation and intelligence» as distinct from the accusative usage. This observation may summarize too simplistically, but a pattern does emerge. Genitive nouns follow this verb in 1:40; 3:8, 29; 4:42, 47; 5:24–25, 28; 6:45, 60; 7:32, 40; 8:38, 40, 47; 9:35, 40; 11:4; 12:34, 47; 14:24; 15:15; 18:37; 19:13. Nouns in the genitive or dative follow in 1:37; 3:29, 32; 4:1, 47; 5:24, 30, 37; 7:32; 8:26, 43; 9:31–32,35; 10:3; 11:4,6,20,42; 12:12,18,29,34,47; 14:28; 19:8,13; 21:7, which account for most of the book " s secondhand reports, and appear theologically significant far more rarely (esp. in 3:29,32; 5:24, 30, 37; 8:26, 43; 10:3; very rarely in the remainder of the book). 4974 «Hear» is also used in its regular narrative sense, which is not specifically theological, probably in 1:37,40; 4:1,47; 6:60; 7:32,40, 51; 9:27,31, 32, 25,40; 11:4,6,20,29,41–42; 12:12,18,29, 34; 14:28; 18:21; 19:8, 13; 21:7. |
| 1251 . Further, scholars have often suggested that Judaism was more assimilated to local pagan culture in some regions than in others, 1252 although Diaspora Judaism was on the whole no more «lax» than Palestinian. 1253 Thus even the most Hellenistic reading of John s «Hellenism» could be Jewish Hellenism, and while late first century Asian Christianity was certainly not purely Jewish, the Gentiles in the congregations had no doubt become familiar with Judaism and accustomed to Jewish thought, either before or after their conversion. 1254 Thus plainly Jewish elements in a document such as the Fourth Gospel indicate its Jewish milieu, whereas «Hellenistic» elements do not call into question such a proposed milieu. 1255 Arguments offered against the Jewishness of the Gospel are without merit. Thus, for example, some suggest that because John at times includes both a Greek and a Hebrew title (5:2; 19:13,17; 20:16; cf. 1:38,41–42,9:7; 19:20) he must have written primarily to Greeks. Yet the conclusion hardly follows from the data: John is the only extant evangelist to use βραστ in his Gospel; although Mark employs and translates Aramaic ( Mark 5:41; 7:34; 15:22, 34 ; cf. Matt 27:46), John uses more Semitic terms. Granted, some Diaspora Jews knew the title «Rabbi» (presumably most in Matthews circle did); but many would not (see comment on 1:38); some scholars assume that all would know «messiah,» but in the entire NT only John (not even Matthew) employs the Semitic term (1:41; 4:25). To make Johns audience primarily Greek on the basis of his translations would make Matthew " s audience still more Greek. Rather, one need simply assume that John " s anticipated audience includes many Jewish people whose primary language is Greek–the situation of most Diaspora Jews. Likewise, arguing the Fourth Gospel " s non-Jewishness on the basis of its «negative» attitude toward Judaism 1256 ignores the fact that Matthew 1257 and, more tellingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls 1258 complain about the centralized authorities of Judaism, too. 1259 Similarly, the proposal that the Fourth Gospel " s author was a Gentile on the basis of his historiographie style (reading the events of his day into the life of Jesus) 1260 is wide of the mark. Purpose and consequent tendentiousness also characterized Jewish historiography from this period, such as Josephus " s works, more so the allegorical theological biography of Philo, and the anachronism of most ancient haggadic works which remain extant; Jewish historiography was normally intensely theologica1. |
| John apparently declares that Jesus lays down his life 7443 «in order that» he might take it again (10:17); on this reading the resurrection «is not a circumstance that follows the death of Jesus but the essential completion of the death of Jesus.» 7444 The term tva could connote result rather than purpose here, 7445 and appears in some unusual senses in John (e.g., 17:3); but given John " s usual practice, it most likely connotes purpose here. 7446 The cross is necessary in part as a precursor to the resurrection. It is also part of Jesus» obedient relationship with his Father (10:17–18; cf. 14:31; 15:10). Even more explicitly than in the Synoptics, in this Gospel Jesus» cross is his choice and not that of his enemies (10:15,17–18; 15:13; 19:30);he acts on behalf of his sheep (10:15),to save them (11:50; cf. 1:29). Divided Response to Jesus (10:19–21) On the division (10:19), see comment on 7:43; 9:16. The unity of the new flock (10:16) would come at the expense of division in the first-century synagogues (cf. Acts 13:42–50; 18:6–8; 19:8–9). Even to listen to Jesus was offensive to some (10:20), just as some of John " s contemporaries probably felt that it was wrong to listen to the Jewish Christians. 7447 Certainly some early second-century rabbis considered even listening to schismatics a dangerous exercise. 7448 (On the charge of demonization, see comment on 7:20; 8:48.) Others, however, were impressed by the miracle (10:21) which had started the current debate (9:1–38). John closes this section by pointedly referring his audience back to the sign on which the following debate commented. 7010 On the relation between vision and epistemology in the chapter, see also Marconi, «Struttura di Gv 9,1–41»; for the language in general, see introduction, ch. 6. 7013 Witherington, Christology, 170–71, cites, e.g., Tob 11:10–14; SIG 2 807.15–18; 1173.15–18; SIG 3 1168. 7016 Witherington, Christology, 170, citing Mark, John, and Q (the Matthean summary and uniquely Markan examples he cites do not add to these). |
| 4320 Especially in traditional Jewish idiom, e.g., 1 Kgs 4(cf. 2LXX); 2 Kgs 18:31; Isa 36:16; Mic 4:4 ; Zech 3:10; 1Macc 14:12; cf. Bernard, John, 1:63; Hoskyns, Gospel, 182; Barrett, John, 185; Scott, Parable, 332. Koester, «Exegesis,» ingeniously connects this image with the messianic branch of Zech 3:8–10, but given the breadth of OT allusions possible, this connection is improbable. 4321 Sus 54, 58. That the expression in Susanna became proverbial (Moule, followed by Fenton, John, 45), is, however, improbable (Barrett, John, 185). Others (e.g., Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 31) transform the fig tree into a symbol for Judaism; Michaels, «Nathanael,» suggests a midrashic-style allusion to Hos 9:10 , but this would require that text to read, «I saw Israel under the fig tree» rather than as a fig tree. 4322 See also Barrett, John, 185. 4323 In one later story, someone supernaturally (and convincingly) reveals what happened to her inquirer on his journey when he seeks to test her (Eunapius Lives 468); pagans might think such a revealer divine (470). But see esp. comments on 2:24–25. 4324 This Johannine pattern was noticed at least as early as Chrystostom Hom. Jo. 19 (on 1:41–42). 4325 Cf. also Hoskyns, Gospel ρ 182. 4326 Whitacre, Polemic, 81. 4327 See Herzfeld, «Hospitality,» 80. 4328 Theissen, Stories, 161 (citing among early Christian references Matt 12:23; 14:33; Luke 5:8; 7:16; John 6:14 ; Acts 8:10; 14:11–12; 16:30; 28:6). 4329 Howton, «Son,» 237, suggests that John infuses the term with more meaning than it had previously carried. 4330 Tilborg, Ephesus, 33–38, notes «king» titles in Ephesian inscriptions; an audience in Asia might have contrasted Jesus with the emperor, as in the East the title would connote the king of Persia or Parthia (Aristophanes Ach. 65). 4331 For God as king, see Zech 14:9,16; Jdt 9:12; Tob 13:6; 2Macc 12:15; 1 En. 25:3,5; 91:13; Sib. Or. 1.73; 3.11,56,499,560,704; T.Ab. 15:15A; Philo Good Person 20; 1Tim 1 (pace Oke, «Doxology»); Aristophanes Plutus 1095; Epictetus Diatr. 1.6.40; Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus (Stobaeus Ecl 1.1.12, in Grant, Religion, 153); references to «King of kings» below. The royal image for the supreme deity was natural; in unrelated societies, see Mbiti, Religions, 58–59. For Roman imperial propaganda concerning the cosmic implications of imperial rule and its applicability to early Christian proclamation of Jesus, cf., e.g., Fears, «Rome.» |
| 10799 The issue is difficult to settle textually: the aorist subjunctive has the broader geographical support and makes more sense in a summons to initial faith; the present subjunctive depends on the earliest manuscripts and makes more sense in a summons to persevere. 10800 But the matter can hardly be settled purely by appeal to the divided textual witness; if this is a conclusion, it should end where the rest of the Gospel " s evidence points. Thus many scholars would concur with Luke Timothy Johnson: «The present tense seems the more likely reading, and the whole tenor of the Gospel suggests less a document for proselytism than one of propaganda for the converted.» 10801 Undoubtedly John would like to invite faith from his opponents; certainly he wants the closet believers among them to go public with their faith (12:42–43; 19:38–40). But by what means would John get the Gospel into the hands of unbelievers except through the preaching of believers? From the perspective of marketing strategies, the intrinsic probabilities favor a primary audience of believers. But the Gospel itself suggests the same. Throughout the Gospel, many people become initial believers, but their initial faith proves insufficient without perseverance (2:23–25; 8:30, 59). John " s goal is not simply initial faith but persevering faith, discipleship (8:30–32; 15:4–7). 10802 John " s purpose is to address believers at a lesser stage of discipleship and to invite them to persevere as true disciples. The immediate context of Thomas provides the climax immediately preceding the conclusion and offers a paradigm for the sort of faith John seeks to elicit. Thomas had been a disciple; he was prepared to die for Jesus (11:16) and to follow where he led (14:5); but his faith was insufficient (20:29). Only when Thomas embraced the full testimony of the resurrection and offered the climactic christological confession that Jesus was Lord and God (20:28) had he become a developed model of faith for John " s audience. |
| Jesus gives up his πνεμα so that now his πνεμα may be multiplied and available to his followers as he had promised (7:39). 10226 If 19reflects the more popular tradition of Jesus breathing his last ( Mark 15:37 ), it links «spirit» and «breath» in a Johannine way (cf. 3:8) that climaxes in 20:22, when the glorified Jesus who gave up his spirit/breath on the cross now imparts it to his disciples. This is not to deny the distinguishability of the Spirit and Jesus, 10227 which is clear in the Fourth Gospel (14:16,26; 15:26), but to suggest that John, ever quick to offer double entendres, provides symbolic import in the events of the cross. 10228 Again the narrative emphasizes Jesus» control over his situation. Jesus» final words, in contrast to the last recorded words in Mark ( Mark 15:34 ), announce the completion of his mission ( John 19:30 ), though Mark also recognizes a theophany in Jesus» death ( Mark 15:38–39 ). John " s term παραδδωμι («hand over,» «deliver,» «betray») in 19connects Judas (18:2, 5,36), the chief priests (18:30, 35; 19:11), and Pilate (19:16) in a chain of guilt but here reminds the informed reader that Jesus ultimately embraced his own death (10:18). 10229 The departure of the spirit was a common enough Jewish expression for death; Jesus» surrender of his spirit, however, is rare language, and probably underlines the point that Jesus died voluntarily. 10230 As Tertullian emphasizes (Apo1. 21), Jesus dismissed his spirit with a word, by his own wil1. 6. Breaking Bones (19:31–37) The Roman execution squad breaks the bones of those crucified with Jesus, but not his because, in God " s sovereign plan revealed in Scripture, Jesus has already died. God confirms Jesus» prior promise of the Spirit at his glorification (7:37–39) with water flowing from his wound (19:34), which provides a context for the meaning of Jesus «handing over his Spirit» (19:30). Talbert suggests that this section parallels the activity of the previous section: (a) Jewish authorities act and request Pilate, or request Pilate that they may act (19:31; cf. 19:17–22); (b) the soldiers act (19:32–34; cf. 19:23–25a); (c) the beloved disciplés presence (19:35–37; cf. 19:25–27); (d) those who love Jesus act (19:38–40; cf. 19:28–29); (e) Jesus» death (19:30) and burial (19:41–42). 10231 By reinforcing the activities of various characters through repetition, John highlights the division in humanity (cf. 15:18–25). 6A. The Soldiers Break Bones (19:31–33) |
| 2. The Multitude Divided (7:40–44) Because Jesus» gift of living water (7:37–38) could remind hearers of Moses» gift of water (Exod 17:1–7), 6564 the claim that Jesus is «the prophet» (7:40) probably refers to the eschatological Mosaic prophet expected on the basis of Deut 18:18 . 6565 Others suspect that he is the Christ (7:41a); both titles are true, though the popular Jewish conceptions represented in each (cf. 1:20–21) prove short of Johannine Christology (see introduction on Christology, ch. 7). But others were put off by his Galilean origin (7:41), as some had been by his apparent origin in Nazareth (1:46), though such skepticism could be surmounted by revelation and faith (1:47–49). (On regional bias in John " s tradition and its narrative function, see introduction, ch. 5.) In contrast to Jesus» hearers in the story world, the informed reader probably knows that Jesus did after all come from Bethlehem (7:42), casting the hearers» skepticism in an ironic light. 6566 Many ironies in Greek tragedies did not need to be spelled out because the story was already well known to the audience. 6567 The independent infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke–the only two extant first-century gospels with infancy narratives– both attest that many Christians accepted this tradition before John " s time, and at least by the time of Hadrian in the early second century even non-Christian residents of Bethlehem recognized a long-standing tradition of the site of Jesus» birth in a particular cave there. 6568 The tradition was probably sufficiently widely circulated to be taken for granted by John " s audience. Yet John nowhere mentions Jesus» birth in Bethlehem explicitly, because for him the crucial theological issue is not where Jesus was born, but where he was ultimately from: from above, from heaven, from God. 6569 Public divisions and factionalism such as those expressed in 7were common throughout ancient Mediterranean society. 6570 In literary works as in social reality, a public division over a person (7:43; 9:16; 10:19) could indicate that person " s prominence in the public eye. 6571 Apparently some of the officers wanted to carry out their orders (7:44; cf. 7:32) 6572 but could not do so because some of the other officers began to believe, with some of the crowd, that Jesus might be a spokesman for God (7:40–44). Although John " s characterization of Jesus» most vicious opponents is largely «flat " –that is, purely evil–he does concede that even in the Jewish establishment many respected Jesus, even if their Christology was too low to be full disciples (e.g., 3:2; 12:42). |
| 9816 Shepherd, «Date.» Carson, «Matthew,» 529 also mentions other proposals, e.g., that Pharisees and Sadducees followed divergent calendars (Strack-Billerbeck) or that the Galileans followed the Pharisaic (and Synoptic) one and Judeans the Sadducean (and Johannine) one (though Josephus places most Pharisees in Jerusalem). But I suspect that a major difference in observance in the temple would have left more trace in extant first-century sources concerning feasts (such as Josephus). 9817 France, Matthew, 365. One cannot argue this, however, from the lack of mention of purification or lamb; these would be taken for granted (everyone in the Roman Empire expected animal sacrifices and purifications for festivals), and it would be their omission that would have required comment (Sanders, Figure, 251). 9818 See Blomberg, Reliability, 238, 254 (citing esp. Smith, «Chronology of Supper»; Carson, John, 589–90, 622; Geldenhuys, Luke, 649–70; and linguistic data in Billerbeck, Kommentar, 837–38), taking the «high» Sabbath as a Sabbath that falls on a festival (19:31), and John " s «preparation» (19:14) as for the Sabbath (cf. Mark 15:42 ) and merely during Passover ( John 19:14 ). If we did not have the Synoptic tradition, however, no one would pursue such expedients; the language more naturally suggests the preparation was for Passover as well as the Sabbath. This is not to deny that John may depend on historical tradition (with this as the most workable suggestion) but to suggest that he at least exploits the ambiguity to present Jesus as the Passover lamb (1:29; 19:36). 9822 Ibid., 16, citing, e.g., Pliny Ep. 10.97; cf. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51. On delatores, see, e.g., ÓNeal, «Delation.» 9823 Sherwin-White, Society, 47. More fully, the Roman trial scheme may be summarized as arrest (18:4–11); charges (18:29–32); exam (18:33–37); verdict (18:38–40); warning (19:1–3); charges (19:4–8); exam (19:9–12); verdict (19:13–15); sentence (19:16; see Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 249). |
| Nicodemus calls Jesus «teacher» (3:2), which is a correct term for disciples to employ (1:38; 11:28; 13:13–14; 20:16), 4764 even if it is not a complete Christology by itself. Although the leaders may have thought themselves the appropriate guardians of sound teaching (9:34), Jesus teaches (6:59; 7:14, 28, 35; 8:20; 18:20), just as do the Father who sent him (5:20; 6:45; 8:28) and the Spirit who carries on his teaching (14:26). In this context, the most striking point is that Jesus is much more truly a teacher than the ignorant «teacher of Israel» who comes to him to learn (3:10). Although Nicodemus is not a completely reliable voice in the narrative, John elsewhere confirms Nicodemus " s recognition that God is with Jesus (8:29; cf. 1:1–2). 1B. Nicodemus Comes by Night (3:2) Scholars propose various reasons why Nicodemus came by night. Jewish teachers often studied at night, 4765 especially those who had to work during the day; 4766 thus Nicodemus may have come to receive instruction from a greater sage, namely, Jesus. More likely, he comes at night to avoid being seen (cf. 7:51–52; 12:42–43; 19:38); night was the time for secret (sometimes antisocial) deeds and whatever one wished not to be known. 4767 Nicodemus remains a secret believer at this point, not a disciple. 4768 Nicodemus here remains in solidarity with those who fear to confess Jesus lest they be expelled from the synagogue (12:42). 4769 In the story world, fear accounts for Nicodemus coming by night, but John probably also mentions «night» on a more symbolic level for his audience (cf. 13:30), bracketing the narrative with Nicodemus coming «by night» (3:2) and true believers leaving darkness to come to Jesus» light (3:21). 4770 In so doing, John foreshadows Nicodemus " s ultimate discipleship in 19:39–42. 4771 2. Birth from Above (3:3) Jesus responds to Nicodemus " s observation about Jesus» identity by calling him to a greater level of recognition. 4772 For this reason, some suggest that 3is a christological assertion. |
|
|
