| Six days before the Passover (12:1) Jerusalem would already be filling, both for purification (11:55) and for Diaspora Jews making pilgrimage who could neither calculate the exact time of their arrival nor risk arriving late. In John " s story world (in which Passover begins Friday evening; see 18:28; 19:14), this timing apparently indicates Saturday evening after sundown, when Martha could serve at table. 7766 Yet Mark strongly implies that the anointing occurred two days before Passover ( Mark 14:1–3 ). Some think that John corrects Mark on the basis of independent tradition; 7767 whether the difference involves a deliberate correction or not, it does emphasize the independence of the tradition. Mark may have moved the anointing closer to Passover to clarify the connection or increase suspense, or to recount it after the fateful meeting of authorities, which he places two days before Passover ( Mark 14:1–2 ) but which John places earlier ( John 11:47–53 ). John may wish to begin passion week with the anointing; having recounted Jesus» conflicts in Jerusalem as early as 2:14–18, he now must bring the passion to an end quickly once Jesus enters the holy city. It is also possible, in view of an early Christian tradition concerning the transfiguration ( Mark 9:2 ; Matt 17:1), that John uses the six days to allude to the waiting period for the revelation of God " s glory at Sinai (Exod 24:16); at the Passover Jesus would be «glorified» (12:23–24), and his disciples would behold his glory as Moses had (1:14). 7768 Less likely (though reflecting the Pentateuch " s most frequent use of «six days») it refers to the period of work preceding a Sabbath (cf. John 19:14,31,42 ). The six days might also allow a careful interpreter to note the transition to the next day (12:12) and thus to suggest that Jesus entered Jerusalem on the day the Passover lambs were set aside (Exod 12:3), four days before their offering (Exod 12:6); but the lack of explicit chronological indication at the time of Jesus» entrance, when it would be most helpful to convey this point, renders unlikely the suggestion that John sought to communicate this impression. |
| Many have taken Jesus» words here as a promise of his future coming. Irenaeus read John 14as a promise of future mansions: those who had performed the greatest works would have the largest mansions; those who produced fruit one hundredfold would live in the heavens; those who produced sixtyfold, in paradise; and those who produced thirtyfold, in the city. 8421 Thus some scholars read this text as a promise of Jesus» future coming. 8422 Holwerda argues this because Jesus will take the disciples to be with him where he is; 8423 his argument falters, however, if «where Jesus is» means simply «in the Father " s presence» (cf. 12:26; 16:28; 17:24; Rev 14:4), the only meaning one would need to derive from the context. He argues that «if His coming is fulfilled in the resurrection appearances, the disciples would again be orphans after the ascension,» 8424 but this assumes that the impartation of the Spirit does not continue Jesus» presence in the same measure as it was experienced in the resurrection appearances, a position John appears to refute (14:16, 23; 20:19–23). Ridderbos suggests that scholars find realized eschatology here only because they deny future eschatology in John " s Gospe1. 8425 This objection cannot apply to all scholars. I do recognize some future eschatology in John " s Gospel (5:28; 6:39–40,44, 54; 12:48), but there is also much realized eschatology (4:23; 5:25; 11:24–26); the question must thus be decided by the immediate context. Others think that the language was originally eschatological but has here been adjusted toward the later Johannine perspective; " 8426 others feel that this is a Johannine double entendre, retaining an eschatological sense while emphasizing the present; 8427 still others believe Jesus is going to the cross and the point is entirely personal communion with Jesus in the present age. 8428 Given the context, one of the two latter views must be correct. Dodd 8429 and Bult-mann 8430 are probably right that John here treats Jesus» death and resurrection as eschatological events, in which case the eschatological language that may be present should be construed in this instance (not everywhere in John) as focusing on Jesus» coming after the resurrection 8431 to impart the Spirit who will continue his presence. 8432 Jesus» return to the Father is how the place is prepared; 8433 the «place prepared» may be connected to Rev 12:8, 8434 developing the Johannine new-exodus motif in which the present age is portrayed as the wilderness ( John 1:23; 3:14; 6:31; 11:54 ). |
| He communicates in a hermeneutic particularly intelligible in his Jewish milieu. 1430 His use of exodus typology 1431 (though already introduced to the Gentile churches at least as early as Paul and the use of the LXX) and Isaiah 1432 are rooted in Judaism and most easily recognized there. The Gospel is at least partly organized around the Jewish liturgical year, 1433 and while Diaspora Judaism knew the feasts, very few Gentiles who did not attend synagogue would have known them. Although Burney " s arguments for an Aramaic original of John are unconvincing, 1434 they may point to underlying Semitisms in places, particularly in the sayings of Jesus. This at least suggests that some of the traditions were transmitted in a Palestinian milieu or that John was bilingua1. 1435 A much stronger argument for Johns Jewishness is that Revelation, very probably issuing from the same community as John, 1436 would be incomprehensible to someone unfamiliar with Jewish apocalyptic 1437 (although the LXX by itself would be quite helpful). Such subsidiary arguments need not bear the weight of the case, however. As argued in the last chapter, one need only establish Jewish features unintelligible to those unfamiliar with Judaism to contend that a document issues from and probably addresses a Jewish milieu. The strongest argument for John " s Jewishness is the fact that he deals with very Jewish issues in his work, some of which (such as the allusions in 2:6; 7:37–39) would make no sense outside a Jewish context. These issues will recur throughout this commentary, but we treat some briefly here. Though John " s audience, like most Greek-speaking Jews, shared many aspects of the larger Mediterranean culture, the Fourth Gospel drives home apologetic points of special interest for a specifically Jewish audience. These points are clearest in the narrative structure of the main body of the Gospel (the so-called Book of Signs). Readers are expected to understand the significance of various Jewish customs, for example, purification vessels (2:6) and why Jesus comes to Jerusalem at Passover (2:13, 23); also the arguments about circumcision on the Sabbath (7:22–23) and witnesses (8:13–18). 1438 John further structures his Gospel around festivals, whether Passover (chs. 2, 6, 18–19), the Sabbath (ch. 5), Tabernacles (chs. 7–10), or Hanukkah (10:22–39). 1439 |
| 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. |
| The naturalistic explanations always end up explaining away considerable early evidence and arguing from the silence of the lack of evidence that remains. 2604 Let us say that John was quite interpretive in Jesus» discourses, even more than we argued in our chapter on the discourses (above). But we have also argued that John was at most one step removed from an eyewitness account. While disciples often revered their teachers (though many also felt free to disagree respectfully with them in time), even among Greeks first-generation students rarely turned their teachers into gods, at least in the pre-Christian period. Neither Plato (who was quite interpretive) nor Xenophon deified Socrates, nor did they appeal to his resurrection and continuing presence. How much more implausible is it that Jewish monotheists would do so? That we hear of no early Christian reaction against such teaching in the period between Paul and John–that is, during the era from which most or all of our NT comes–suggests that a common understanding developed from something in Jesus» own life or teaching, before or after the event of the resurrection. 3. John " s Christology and Christian Tradition It is true that John does move beyond Wisdom Christology; unlike Wisdom, Jesus is eternally préexistent, 2605 and John brackets not only his prologue (1:1, 18) but the main narrative of his Gospel (1:1; 20:28) with the christological title «God.» 2606 But Paul also seems to assume this identification of Jesus as the divine Lord in his own Christology ( Phil 2:6–7 ) 2607 and exposition of the Scriptures ( Rom 10:9–13 ; Phil 2:10–11 with Isa 45:6, 23); although he occasionally seems to apply the OT title «God» to Christ ( Rom 9:5 ; 2608 cf. 2 Thess 1:12; 2609 Tit 2:13 ), 2610 he usually applies to him the title «Lord,» which usually translates the divine name in the OT, and applies this title far more frequently to Jesus than he does to the Father. 2611 Pauls usage presumably goes back to the tradition of the Aramaic speaking church of Palestine ( 1Cor 16:22 ), 2612 probably to Jesus» first Galilean followers; the more hellenized portion of the urban churches of Jerusalem and Antioch (cf. Acts 6:1, 9; 11:19–20) would have spoken more Greek. Like other early Christian writers, Paul applies OT language for Gods coming to Jesus» return, 2613 and Paul already does this in 1 Thessalonians–roughly two decades after Jesus» resurrection, and in one of Paul " s most «Jewish» letters (in the sense of reflecting Jewish eschatological motifs uncommon among Gentiles). Likewise, the writer of Hebrews (1:8–13; 3:3–4) and other early Jewish Christian authors affirm that Jesus is God, though distinct from God the Father. 2614 |
| Second, the Baptist " s own traditions would hardly be anti-Jewish; and if the character of the traditions could be modified after John " s time to yield anti-Judaism, why could they not have also originated in a later period? Third, all evidence for Mandean belief is too late to be of value; like supposed evidence in the Slavonic Josephus, it is medieva1. 3444 If we recognize Jewish or orthodox Christian roots in anti-Jewish and anti-orthodox gnostic texts as early as the second century, how much more should we reject Reitzenstein " s suggestion of Mandean doctrinés independence based on its anti-Christian character? Bultmann thinks that the Fourth Gospel has christianized material originally applied to John the Baptist by adding 1:6–8, 15, and possibly 1:17; 3445 but this postulates that followers of the Baptist had ideas for which we lack a shred of first-century evidence, and against which in fact is any evidence we do have (such as Acts 19:3–5). Still, the text suggests an intentional contrast between Jesus and John, and a polemical agenda is difficult to dismiss. Other texts in the Fourth Gospel reinforce this impression. The Baptist waxes eloquent in 3:27–36 concerning Jesus» obvious superiority; cf. also 1:15, 24–27, 29–34; 4:1; 5:36; 10:41. (Some see in such texts a sign of positive relations between John " s community and the Baptist sect, 3446 but one wonders how positively Johannine Christians would view a sect that they considered to have defective Christology and thus soteriology; cf. 14:6.) One may ask why the Baptist, as distinct from other characters, should need to be so self-effacing. If one responds that it is merely because he appears to be the only unambiguously positive witness in the Gospel, we may point to the beloved disciple and ask why he is not similarly self-effacing. It is reasonable to suppose that our author was concerned about John " s reputation vis-â-vis that of the Lord. Further, in contrast to the Synoptics, where the Baptist " s ministry paves the way for that of Jesus but the ministries overlap little, the Fourth Gospel overlaps the period of the two ministries (3:23–24). 3447 Conflicts with followers of the Baptist could stand behind this difference, whether the Synoptics minimized the overlap or (more likely) John emphasized it, or both. 3448 More important, Painter has demonstrated the polemical intention of 1:6–8 by contrasting its various assertions with the prologués much greater confessions of Jesus. 3449 |
| Wfaat seems most significant is that, as in 2:2, Jesus» disciples remain with him in a family setting. Given the significance of «remain» in 1:38–39, it is reasonable to suspect that their continuance with Jesus here indicates the intimate, familial relationship Jesus has with his followers who persevere (cf. 8:31, 35; 14:23; 15:4); they have become members of his extended household (cf. 20:17; Mark 3:34–35 ). 4592 2. Purifying the Temple (2:13–15) Unless Jesus cleansed the temple twice, which is unlikely, 4593 it is impossible to harmonize John " s chronology for cleansing the temple with that of the Synoptics, as some early interpreters recognized. 4594 One might suggest that John depends on a separate tradition or that Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke, dischronologized the cleansing due to his emphasis on the passion. But more likely John adapts the more familiar chronology of the passion tradition to make an important point. (As noted in the introduction, ch. 1, ancient readers did not expect ancient biographies to adhere to chronological sequence.) The mention of Passover is critical here, framing the unit (2:13, 23); 4595 this context significantly informs Jesus» words about his death in this pericope (2:19). 4596 Together with the final Passover (13:1; 18:28,39; 19:14), this Passover (2:13) frames Jesus» ministry in the Fourth Gospe1. Interpreters have traditionally insisted that the repeated Passovers of the Fourth Gospel provide a chronological outline of Jesus» public ministry, 4597 but they miss the symbolic significance John finds in the Passover. 4598 Not only we who have read the Synoptics and their Markan passion outline, but presumably all early Christians who celebrated the Lord " s Supper, were familiar with the paschal associations of the events of the Passion Narrative ( 1Cor 5:7; 11:23–25 ). More than likely, they also knew of the temple cleansing in this context. 4599 It is historically implausible that Jesus would challenge the temple system by overturning tables yet continue in public ministry for two or three years afterward, sometimes even visiting Jerusalem (although in Johns story world, Jesus does face considerable hostility there: 7:30–52; 8:59; 10:20–21, 31–39; 11:46–57). More than likely, John alludes to common knowledge about the place of the temple cleansing in the tradition, and opens Jesus» ministry with it for theological reasons. Now Jesus» entire ministry is the Passion Week, overshadowed by his impending «hour» (see comment on 2:4). 4600 |
| The call material in 21:19–23 may link with the call story of 1:37–39, bracketing the Gospe1. 4158 The presence of an anonymous disciple here who might match the beloved disciple in the later passage is not, however, a necessary part of the link. One disciple is later named as Andrew (1:40), whereas the other remains anonymous. Some think that the other disciple here is the «beloved disciple» (13:23; 19:26–27; 20:2–8: 21:7, 20, 24). 4159 Granted, this would fit the Gospel " s contrasts between Peter and the beloved disciple, since the anonymous disciple here functions with Andrew as a witness to Peter («we» in 1:41). 4160 But the text never emphasizes the other disciple, and there is no reason to identify the latter with the «beloved disciple» who first appears explicitly in 13:23. 4161 2A. Low-Key Hospitality Because travel was less safe after dark (robbers normally acted at night; Job 24:14 ; Jer 49:9 ; Obad 5) and because people did not normally follow others around without reason, the reader would know that Jesus understands the two disciples» motives even if the reader were as yet unfamiliar with Jesus» supernatural knowledge (1:42, 48). 4162 Like God " s questions to Adam in the garden or to Cain in the field ( Gen. 3:9,11; 4:9 ; see 4:10), Jesus» in 1is thus rhetorical (as with the more hostile crowd in 18:4, 7). One could «seek» Jesus for more than one reason (e.g., 7:19; 18:4). In a status-conscious culture, it was appropriate for the disciples (whether wishing to become his disciples or merely to express respect) to defer to Jesus with the title «Rabbi» 4163 (although this did not identify Jesus with the post-70 C.E. rabbinic movement, it did imply their recognition that he was a teacher). 4164 This was a title that both his disciples (1:49; 4:31; 9:2; 11:8; 20:16) and other inquirers (3:2; 6:25) would apply to him; it also applied to John the Baptist (3:26). For John it seems an honorable title, but ultimately means only «Teacher» (1:38; 20:16), 4165 hence proves christologically incomplete. Those who would doubt John " s Jewishness because he translates «Rabbi» read the later dominance of the title into an earlier period or assume too much knowledge of Semitic languages on the part of Diaspora Jews. Interestingly, while John often interprets Semitic terms for his audience (also 1:41; 9:7), Matthew, whose Jewishness is also almost certain, 4166 rarely translates. But Matthew usually omits Marks Aramaic (except for Jesus» cry of dereliction in Mark 15:34 , which he changes to Hebrew) and does not use «Messiah» (as John twice 4:25], and alone, among the earliest extant Christian writers, does; Matthew uses «Christ»). 4167 |
| 10263 Hoskyns suggests that the water of life flows from Jesus» side to recall Adam " s side as the origin for Evés life ( Gen 2:21–22 ), which he connects to his portrayal of Jesus» mother ( John 19:26–27 ) as a new Eve. 10264 Yet as widely used as the Genesis creation account was, 10265 one would hope for clearer clues than this if John intended such an allusion, and we have already expressed some skepticism concerning the proposal that Jesus» mother appears as a new Eve in 19:26–27. 6C. The Witness of the Disciple and Scripture (19:35–37) The beloved disciple (19:26–27) offers eyewitness testimony of water and blood from Jesus» pierced side (19:35); Scripture provides the meaning for that event (19:36–37). Early readers of the Gospel noted and discussed reasons for the eyewitness claim at this point; Theodore of Mopsuestia suggested that it referred to personal revelation seen only by John; John Chrysostom felt that such a degrading experience for the Lord demanded particularly documented testimony. 10266 Of the two opinions, Chrysostom would be nearer the truth; but most likely John underlines the eyewitness claim here to emphasize its veracity for the sake of the symbolism he will draw from it. The narrator 10267 claims that his source, presumably the beloved disciple (19:26), is an eyewitness (19:35). Eyewitnesses, particularly participants, were considered the most reliable sources. 10268 Some have argued that the use of the third person here requires a distinction between the beloved disciple (the eyewitness source of the tradition) and the narrator or author. 10269 Such a distinction of language makes sense and is possible (cf. the first-person testimony in Rev 22:8) but, given John " s style, is not a necessary inference from the text; Jesus speaks of himself both in the first (3:11–12; 5:24, 30–47; 12:44–50; 17:4–26) and the third person (3:13–18; 5:19–23, 25–29; 12:35–36; 17:1–3). Further, narrator-authors often described themselves in the third person (see comment on 13:23). |
| 1F. Authority for Forgiveness (20:23) Immediately after breathing on them and announcing the Spirit, Jesus grants them the authority of representative forgiveness. 10720 It is anachronistic to read into this passage the later Catholic doctrine of penance or others» views about admission to baptism; 10721 it is likewise anachronistic to read into it Protestant polemic against the Catholic interpretation of the passage. Read on its own terms, the passage makes good sense as it stands. Because the Spirit would continue among them (20:22), they would be able to carry on Jesus» work (cf. 16:7–11); 10722 given the backdrop of 16:7–11, which explains the meaning of the Spirit " s coming here, the disciples announce both righteousness and judgment based on peoplés response to Christ (cf. 14:6). 10723 Although the promise is given directly to those present at the time (20:19), it will no more exclude later generations of Christians (such as John " s audience, 17:20–22) than it would Thomas once he believes (20:24). If the Spirit is for later Johannine Christians as well as for the first ones (3:5; 1 John 2:20, 27), then they, too, will bear witness (15:26–27) and be recipients of the Spirit (16:7), who prosecutes the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment (16:8–11). 10724 The passive is a divine passive; forgiveness comes from God; further, in John " s perspective, only Jesus» sacrifice takes away sin (1:29). In the perspective of Johannine Christians, however, believers can play a role in other believers» forgiveness, at least by prayer (1 John 5:16–17); 10725 the present passage speaks of believers» ministry to nonbelievers, mediating God " s forgiveness through the word they bring (20:21; 16:8–11). 10726 (We mean «word» in its Johannine sense; by proclaiming the message of Jesus, to whom the Spirit testifies, believers proclaim Jesus the word himself, who is revealed by the Spirit to unbelievers.) In the Synoptics, the disciples had already exercised such discretion based on evidence of repentance ( Mark 6:11 ; Matt 10:14; Luke 9:5); John has, however, omitted that preresurrection ministry of the disciples, probably to avoid playing down the full role of Christ before the resurrection and the full role of the Spirit and believers after 20:19–23. 10727 Some take the perfect tense as meaning that «the apostolic sentence is forthwith confirmed–is effective as soon as spoken.» 10728 Others suggest that the perfect tense here, like the future perfect in Matt 16:19; 18:18, may be intended literally, that is, that those who pronounce forgiveness are merely confirming what has already taken place from God " s perspective. 10729 |
|
|
