| Yet whereas the first eyewitnesses alone received the first postresurrection revelation (20:19–20) like Moses (1:14), here all believers are privileged to experience the same revelation by Jesus» continuing presence among his community (14:23). Jesus is not manifest to the world (14:22) because he is revealed only to those who love and obey him (14:23), not to those who do not (14:23). (The disciples» opponents, who claim to obey Torah yet do not obey Jesus, are not truly obedient to the Father " s law; 5:45–47.) Narrative sequences such as 1:37–39 (and the presence of Jesus» disciples through the Gospel) may suggest that in practice a person can start with some revelation of Jesus, grow to love him more, and thus secure more revelation. John writes not from purely historical interest concerning the first generation but also from theological and apologetic interest for his own. Subsequent generations continue to experience the glory greater than what Moses experienced, sharing with those who knew Jesus in the flesh (1:14–18, on the revelation of his character), because now the Spirit lives in them and reveals Jesus to them. They continue to embrace his glory (1:14) because, after his full glorification (7:39), the Spirit continues to glorify Jesus to the disciples (16:14). 8740 Direct physical sight and hearing like Moses» are significant ( Deut 34:10 ), as are visions and revelations ( 2Cor 12:1 ; Acts 2:17), but for John the greatest revelation seems to be recognizing Jesus» character and walking in the light of his character and presence continually (manifested in love, which provides general direction, and probably also specific prophetic long-range direction in 16:13d). Jesus continually saw (5:19–20) and heard (8:38) the Father, and the Father was continually with him (8:29), though his public activities make it doubtful that he continually experienced visions. The name Judas and its distinction from Iscariot (14:22) probably represents simply a historical reminiscence. Just as many people bore multiple names, 8741 ancient writers often listed others who shared the same name as a person about whom they were writing (sometimes in the same generation), to distinguish them, 8742 and Judas (Judah) was a common Jewish name in the ancient Mediterranean. 8743 If two people with the same name were present, one had to identify by a distinct title the lesser known (e.g., Polybius 9.24.5, using a nickname). |
| Craig S. Keener Jerusalem and its King. 12:12–50 ONCE JESUS ARRIVES IN JERUSALEM (12:12–19), people respond to him in various ways. The Gentiles seek him (12:20–22), provoking his remark that the time for his death had come (12:23–33). His own people, however, whose king he is (12:13–15), remained blind (12:37–43; cf. 9:39–41), unable to see Jesus» glory which Isaiah saw, which is the light (Jesus» discussion of which frames the comment on their blindness–12:34–36,44–50). Yet Jesus remained God " s agent and standard for judgment (12:44–50). The Arrival of Zion " s King (12:12–19) Earlier passages had introduced Jesus as rightful king of Israel (1:49), but also warned that his «own» as a whole did not receive him (1:11; or that they misunderstood his kingship–6:15; cf. 18:36–37). Both themes are present here, but John is careful to emphasize that his people as a whole would have been more open to him (12:17–18), but that it was the leaders who were responsible for their people being led wrongly (12:19). 1. Authenticity of the Core Tradition That someone would go out to meet with respect an important teacher (11:20), signs worker (12:18) or king (12:13) is not unlikely (see comment on 11:20); that crowds already present loudly welcomed many incoming pilgrims is virtually certain. Yet because Jesus» claim to kingship is often doubted, some are doubtful that the triumphal entry happened. If people hailed Jesus as king, why did the Romans not intervene suddenly? But the Gospels present the grandness of the event in the light of their theology about Jesus» identity; most of the accounts do not require us to suppose an originally large-scale notice. 7803 In the bustle of a city milling with pilgrims, more of whom were arriving throughout the day, the Romans need not have noticed this relatively obscure event. 7804 The Roman garrison was concentrated on the Temple Mount, and Jesus was hardly the only Passover pilgrim welcomed by the crowds already present. More importantly, leaders of the municipal aristocracy, normally charged with keeping peace for the Romans, were also concentrated on the Temple Mount at this season (being mainly priests) and had they been notified of the entry in time to stop it–which assumes a much longer period of acclamation than is likely–they preferred not to act in front of the crowd anyway ( Mark 11:32; 14:2 ). In John the leaders, who are now Pharisees, continue to be concerned about the opinions of the crowd (12:19). |
| Most importantly, in contrast with some of the Hellenistic views noted above, the Fourth Gospel explicitly requires a point or process of turning rather than simply being invested with a particular nature at onés natural birth: everyone needs a new birth to acquire the new nature (3:3–6). On this count, a sinful Samaritan woman (4:23, 29) might fare better than those exposed to Torah all their lives (e.g., 7:47–52). The probable inclusio between «night» (3:2) and «darkness» (3:19–21; cf. 7:7) suggests that Nicodemus belonged on God " s side. But that belonging was still not in effect (3:3) until he believed (3:16), and was not secure until he persevered as a disciple (19:39–42). «People loved darkness» (3:19) seems to articulate general human depravity, which could reinforce Jesus» perspective on Nicodemus in the narrative: rather than commending him for coming, he challenges his evasive misunderstandings (3:4, 9). 5116 One should not read too much into the general statement; the following narrative both affirms that all are coming to Jesus (3:26) and that no one receives his witness (3:32), statements which cannot both be true in the absolute sense. What confirms that Nicodemus has come only partway to the light, lest his deeds be exposed (3:20), is his role in the rest of the Gospel; only after further works of truth (7:50–51; 19:39–42) would he be ready to «come» to Jesus fully (3:21). Some earlier interpreters, relying too much on the apparent predestinarian character of the passage, claim that John " s interest is not ethical, but in two classes of humanity in some semi-gnostic sense, «children of light and children of darkness.» 5117 This sort of choice between ethics and preordained classes is no longer tenable; the Qumran Scrolls divide humanity into just such groups but emphasize appropriate works and entrance into the community. Terms like ελγχω, 5118 ποιω, 5119 and often αλθεια 5120 are the language of ethics; one may likewise compare a Qumran scroll in which «the people of truth» () are those who practice Torah 5121 ( ). Stoic philosophers likewise divided humanity into the wise and the unwise, expecting the «wise» to actualize their status, in a sense, by progressing in wisdom. 5122 |
| Jesus tells his disciples about the betrayal beforehand so that, rather than doubting his foresight in choosing Judas, they will recognize him as a prophet and that he controls the situation (13:19; cf. 14:29). 8221 The fulfillment of a prophet " s words attests the prophet " s accuracy ( Deut 18:22 ). 8222 But Jesus» wording in several passages suggests an allusion to the promises of God in the biblical prophets: he foretold the future so that they might recognize his identity as YHWH (Isa 43:9–10). Similarly here, Jesus speaks so that the disciples might realize that «I am,» 8223 alluding to Isaiah " s «I am» formula, which perhaps by this period already appeared in the Passover haggadah. 8224 Likewise, Jesus had «chosen» them (13:18; 6:70; 15:16, 19) and «knew» those he chose. Rabbis rarely chose their own disciples (see comments on 1:38–43), yet in this context «chosen» suggests more than simply an unusually radical rabbi; it suggests that John again portrays Jesus in biblical language traditionally applied to God " s relationship with Israel (see comment on 15:16). Jesus then sounds an ominous warning in 13:20: Jesus is the Father " s agent (see introduction; cf. Matt 10:40); the disciples as Jesus» agents will face the same sort of suffering and betrayal Jesus faced (13:16,18,21). Whereas brokers of patrons could build their own power base in Roman society, the context promises Jesus» agents suffering and the status of servants. 8225 Interpreting the Washing in Light of the Cross (13:21–38) In the context of the betrayal (13:21–30) and another comment on the imminence of the passion (13:31–33), loving and serving as Jesus did demands sacrifice for one another, potentially to the point of death (13:34–35). On the narrative level, however, John emphasizes that such commitment is more easily offered than demonstrated: the most prominent disciple would fall short of even such sacrifice directly for Jesus (13:36–38). 1. The Betrayal Announced (13:21–30) The intimacy of the gathering implied by the seating arrangements (13:23) and perhaps by Jesus» expression of emotion (13:21) provides a model for believers» relationship with Jesus (14:23) and in the immediate context particularly underlines the heinousness of the betrayal (13:18). |
| Was Jesus Christ religious? He was circumcised a Jew (Luke 2:21) and received a Jewish religious education (Luke 2:46). He taught at the synagogues (Matthew 13:54) and attended the religious holidays in Jerusalem(John 2:23). He upheld the Mosaic law and prophetic teachings, and He instructed others to also keep the commandments of God (Matthew 5:17-20, 7:12). He encouraged those He healed to offer the Mosaic ritual sacrifice (Matthew 8:4). He affirmed that people must obey their religious leaders (Matthew 23:3) and pay the temple tax (Luke 20:25; 21:1-4). He was tried as a Jew (John 18:12-14, 19-24) and was buried according to Jewish religious tradition (John 19:38-42). Jesus also instituted with His followers new religious practices like Baptism (Matthew 3:13-17) and the Eucharist (Matthew 26:26-29). There should be no question that Jesus was religious. Spiritual A typical dictionary definition of “spiritual” is: being concerned with the spirit—the metaphysical, incorporeal, immaterial, ultimate, ideal, etc . You can be spiritual without believing in a deity; instead, you can believe in ghosts, witchcraft, ESP, reincarnation, universal love, etc. Also “concerned” in the above definition is merely an intellectual interest or awareness to something. You can acknowledge the truth of a spiritual principle but not necessarily strive to make it an ongoing rule in your life. Therefore, you do not have to follow any particular system of behavior when being spiritual; there are seemingly no set moral constraints. You may try to develop a particular lifestyle in accordance with your spiritual beliefs, but you’re accountable to no one except yourself. Consequently, there is a lot of freedom to being spiritual—believe and act in whatever way you deem is right. The antonym for being spiritual is “materialism:” involvement with the gathering of wealth, sensual experiences, and physical comfort. Was Jesus Christ spiritual? He went beyond just keeping religious laws and taught that your attitude and character are just as important as your behavior (e.g., “You heard it said. |
| Of specific candidates outside the circle of the Twelve, the most entertaining suggestion is probably Paul (whom the Gospel " s author allegedly thought to be one of the Twelve). 726 But one of the more commonly proposed and most defensible candidates is Lazarus, «whom Jesus loved» (11:3). 727 This makes sense of the phrase, though it makes less sense of the frequency with which, and locations in which, the disciple appears in the narrative, if an earlier case of anonymous disciples (1:37–40) includes him (which is uncertain). One might propose that Lazarus of Bethany would have readier access to the high priest " s house in 18:15–16 than a Galilean disciple (if the disciple of 18:15–16 is the beloved disciple, which is uncertain); the Synoptics might also have omitted Lazarus to protect him because of his location. 728 Yet the case for Lazarus suffers from the primary objection to anyone outside the Twelve– the beloved disciplés prominence in Jesus» circle (13:23). Unless the beloved disciplés tradition is either originally deliberately false or a literary device (on the latter see below), he assumes a role that the Synoptic tradition would allow only for one of the Twelve, and probably for one of the three (Peter, James and John). Certainly 21assumes his prominence. One could argue that the Synoptic tradition is biased in favor of the Twelve–despite Peter " s repeated failures in Mark–but it is difficult to dispute the reliability of the tradition that Jesus had a group of twelve special disciples who were closest to him. 729 Other arguments against identification with the Twelve falter on similar grounds. Of the Twelve, the best specific candidate besides John son of Zebedee would be Thomas. 730 Although Charlesworth " s case for Thomas is novel, it is brilliant. Yet it poses problems that Johannine authorship does not. Since Thomas is explicitly named in the Gospel, why is the beloved disciple sometimes anonymous and sometimes not? Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, 731 the first audience would likely not assume that the beloved disciple was Thomas unless they already knew this to be the case, which we cannot. In favor of Thomas is his demand to touch Jesus» side in 20:25, though only the beloved disciple saw the wounds at the cross (19:34–35). 732 But that Thomas announces this demand to his fellow disciples probably presupposes that they all knew about the wounded side, which is plausible in the story world if the beloved disciple was one of the Twelve and could have informed them. It would be literary genius if Thomas verified both the cross and the physicality of the resurrection, 733 but it is hardly necessary. Thomas is not the only witness of the resurrection that balances Johns witness in 1:19–36; he is merely the climactic one. |
| How historically likely is the crowd " s desire to make Jesus king, which the Synoptics do not report? Against its likelihood, one must consider that, if crowds did attach political connotations to Jesus» miracle in the wilderness, word might have eventually reached Antipas, who would have then viewed Jesus as a political threat. 6035 Yet in the whole context of Jesus» ministry, it is unlikely that he escaped political speculation in any case. Self-proclaimed prophets were ideal candidates for leaders of revolts in the pagan world, 6036 especially if they could claim to work miracles. 6037 Further, in first-century Palestine, wilderness prophets who promised signs like Moses usually gained large fallowings that lent themselves to political interpretations (Josephus War 2.261–263; Ant. 20.169–171 ); 6038 it is thus likely that at least some among the crowds understood Jesus in potentially political terms. Perhaps Jesus defused the crowd " s political aspirations by dispersing them quickly (6:15); perhaps Antipas was not fully aware (the reports that reached him seem to have focused on Jesus» miracles–Luke 23:8) or his enmity ( Mark 6:14–16 ; Luke 13:31–32) was not seriously enough aroused to take quick action. Titular acclamations after miracles were common in the Greco-Roman world, and not only in the NT. 6039 John certainly has reasons (such as the emperor cult) in his own milieu to emphasize 6:14–15, but the desire to make Jesus king fits what we know of Jesus» milieu. 6040 Writing closer to the time of the Judean-Roman war, Matthew and Luke, following Mark, may not have wished to emphasize how easily Jesus could have been misinterpreted by those with revolutionary sentiments. Jesus» knowledge of the crowd " s intentions (6:15) fits the Jesus tradition ( Mark 2:8 ), but also fits John " s picture of Jesus knowing the human heart (e.g., 2:25; 6:61). He was a prophet and coming one (6:14), a king (6:15; cf. 1:49; coming king in 12:13); but he was not the sort they expected, nor could he receive his kingship from merely human acclamation or support (18:36). Both those who wished to make him a king by «force» and those who forcibly arrested him on the charge of kingship (18:12, 33) misunderstood, failing to recognize that his kingdom was not «of this world» (18:36). He would be king only by continuing to be prophet–continuing to proclaim the truth (18:37), and ultimately by being lifted up on a cross (19:3, 12,14–19). |
|
|
