| Goppelt suggests that «kingdom» was a Palestinian Jewish concept more or less incomprehensible to Hellenistic readers, so John substituted a rarer term from the Jesus tradition, namely «life» (cf. Mark 9:43,45 [=the kingdom in 9:47]; 7:14; 10[cf. 10:15, 23]; Matt. 25[=the kingdom in 25:34]; Luke 10:25). 2819 He may well be correct concerning the substitution itself, but it is unlikely that John chose «life» simply to accommodate a Hellenistic audience, if, as we think likely, his audience was primarily Jewish. Indeed, Greeks and Romans could imagine a long life without perpetual youth (as in the case of the Sibyl), 2820 which differs appreciably from the Jewish emphasis on the transformed, immortal life of the resurrection. More likely, «kingdom» ( John 3:3,5 ) had political ramifications (cf. comments on 18:36–38) that would be particularly unhelpful for Christians in Roman Asia in the mid-nineties, given the demands of the state, not least of which was imperial religion. 2821 Life is related to divine knowledge in Hellenistic sources, especially in the Hermetica, 2822 but the connection is also an OT 2823 and early Jewish one. 2824 «Eternal life» occasionally appears in Hellenistic sources; for instance, Plutarch employs it to describe Gods character (της αωνου ζως). 2825 But it is rare in pagan circles in this period; 2826 the vast majority of its occurrences are in Jewish sources, beginning with Dan 12:2 , where it refers to the life inherited at the resurrection of the dead; at that time the righteous would be «raised up to eternal life.» 2827 Jewish sources often speak of «the life of the world to come " ( ) or «life of the age» («eternal life»), 2828 often abbreviating it as «life» 2829 as in John. Thus the righteous are preserved for the life of the coming world at death, 2830 or (in more Hellenistic sources) the righteous dead currently «live out the age of blessing.» 2831 Most early Christian literature also employs it as the «life of the coming age,» 2832 though «eternal life» is more frequent in the Gospel (about seventeen times) and Epistles (six times) of John than in other NT documents (less than thirty times in all non-Johannine texts, one-third of them in Pauline literature). |
| Presumably Philip knows Nathanael from his home town (1:45). 2. Philip Seeks Nathanael (1:45–46) Philip «finds» Nathanael (1:45) as Jesus had «found» him (1:43). 4279 «Nathanael» (1:45) was «a real if uncommon Semitic name.» 4280 Some have identified this character with Bartholomew of the Synoptic tradition, 4281 but because Jewish people did not usually have two Semitic names, other scholars prefer to follow «early patristic suggestions that he was not one of the Twelve.» 4282 Arguments for both sides of the debate are inconclusive: «Bartholomew» may represent the Greek form of Aramaic «Bar Tholmai,» son of Tholmai, a patronymic rather than a proper name; 4283 but the apparent association of Philip with Nathanael in Synoptic lists ( Mark 3:18 ; Matt 10:3; Luke 6:14) may be the only genuine evidence for the identification, and it is inadequate. Nathanael may figure prominently in the Fourth Gospel not because he is one of the Twelve but because he is a primary source of the Gospel " s Galilean tradition, being from Cana (21:2; cf. 2:1; 4:46), or perhaps a close friend of the author or his source (cf. 21:2). His role in the Gospel makes it likely that he was one of the Twelve (a group John knows, 6:70), and if he was one of the Twelve, he was likelier Bartholomew than anyone else; 4284 but the identification remains uncertain. By announcing to Nathanael that Jesus is the one of whom Moses and the prophets wrote (1:45; cf. 5:46), 4285 Philip utters a confession identical in sense to that of Andrew: «We have found the Messiah» (1:41). For John, all the Scriptures point to Jesus (e.g., 2:17, 22; 7:37–39; 12:15–16; 20:9). Philip " s confession, however, is more explicit in its appeal to the authority of Scripture–witness to Christ is the most common function of Moses in the Fourth Gospel 4286 –and climaxes in Nathanael " s own confession of Jesus» messiahship(l:49). Jesus» status as Joseph " s son (1:45; 6:42) is also attested in Synoptic tradition (Matt 1:16; Luke 3:23; 4:22; cf. Mark 6:3 ), where it can be linked with his Davidic heritage (Matt 1:6; Luke 3:31), so this confession need not imply the Johannine community " s ignorance of or opposition to the virgin birth tradition (which would probably be known throughout early Christianity by the Johannine period since it is clearly pre-Lukan and pre-Matthean). Similarly, it may but need not imply the imperfection of Philip " s christological understanding, though readers would not have reason to suppose that he understands the virgin birth nor does John anywhere make use of the virgin birth tradition (cf. 7:42). It is possible, though not likely, that John intends an additional theological allusion here; Jesus is the spiritual descendant of Joseph (cf. 4:5), the noblest son of Jacob. But the allusions to Jacob in 1:47–51 suggest Jesus» infinite superiority to Jacob, as his God or mediator, not a mere identification with him or his descendants. |
| Those who were seeking him in the temple (11:56) probably included these Jewish people from outside Jerusalem (11:55) who remembered hearing Jesus at earlier recent feasts (thus presumably they were mostly Galileans rather than distant foreigners, who could make pilgrimage only rarely); in contrast to the leaders mentioned in 11:57, they do not appear uniformly hostile to Jesus. They had good reason to wonder whether he would come to the feast (11:56); although it was considered pious behavior to come, they were also aware that the leaders wanted to kill Jesus (11:57; cf. 8:59; 10:31; 11:8). Thus John again builds suspense as his narrative begins to climax in Jesus» final coming to, and suffering in, Jerusalem. 4. Mary " s Lavish Devotion (12:1–8) Even though Jesus» passion overshadows the entire body of the Gospel from ch. 2 on, fully one-third of the Gospel specifically occurs during the week of Jesus» execution, mostly in or near Jerusalem. This reflects and further augments the sort of emphasis on the passion that one finds in Mark. In contrast to most modern biographies, some ancient biographies devoted an extensive proportion of their space to events immediately preceding and surrounding their protagonists» deaths. 7745 R. Alan Culpepper points to structural parallels between John 12 and 13: Category John 12 John 13 Six days before Passover Before Passover Companion Lazarus Beloved disciple Washing feet Mary washed Jesus Jesus washed disciples Jesus» death Day of my burial Took off robe (implied) Jesus» departure You do not always have me Hour to depart from the world As Culpepper notes, this repetition increases pathos. 7746 The repetition also builds toward a climax, the discourse making Jesus» death and departure more explicit. Most of ch. 12 is transitional, closing Jesus» public ministry and (with 11:45–57) leading into the Passion Narrative. 7747 Mary " s anointing at Bethany contrasts starkly with the preceding scene of calculated plans to have Jesus killed: «a supreme act of ignorant unbelief and a supreme act of intelligent faith.» 7748 The smaller units (11:45–46, 54–57; 12:9–11) in this section underline the mixed response to Jesus; the two longest units, however, contrast the high priests (11:47–53) and Mary (12:1–8), while linking Judas with the attitude of the Judean elite (12:4–6). 7749 After the leaders have plotted against Jesus» life (11:47–53), Mary lovingly anoints him for burial, Jesus is acclaimed king of Israel (12:13) as he will be at the cross (18:39; 19:3, 14–15, 19), and Jesus» brief discourse elaborates on his impending death (12:23–33), preparing the way for the Passion Narrative. 7750 4A. The Tradition |
| Arhiva Preafericitul Patriarh Kiril a avut o întâlnire cu preedintele Alianei Mondiale Baptiste pastorul John Upton 29 martie 2012 22:47 La 29 martie 2012 la reedina de lucru Patriarhal din stradela Cistâi a avut loc întâlnirea Preafericitului Patriarh al Moscovei i al întregii Rusii Kiril cu preedintele Alianei Mondiale Baptiste pastorul John Upton, preedintele Federaiei Europene Baptiste pastorul Hans Guderian i reprezentanii Federaiei Euroasiatice ai uniunilor cretinilor evangheliti-baptiti. Din partea Bisericii Ortodoxe Ruse la întâlnire au participat vicepreedintele Departamentului pentru relaii externe bisericeti egumenul Filaret (Bulekov), secretarul interimar al DREB pentru relaii intercretine protoiereul Dimitrie Sizonenko, secretarul executiv al Comitetului consultativ cretin interconfesional al rilor CSI i rilor Baltice Iu.V. Zudov. În componena delegaiei Federaiei Euroasiatice a uniunilor cretinilor evangheliti–baptiti la întâlnire au participat: preedintele uniunii CEB din FR A.V. Smirnov, preedintele uniunii bisericilor CEB din toat Ucraina V.V. Nesteruk, preedintele uniunii CEB din Republica Bielorus V.N. Krutiko, preedintele uniunii ruso-ucrainene CEB din SUA Gheorghie Harlov, eful Departamentului relaii externe bisericeti al uniunii CEB din FR V.C. Vlasenko. Salutând oaspeii, Preafericitul Patriarh Kiril a menionat cu satisfacie c în pofida distorsiunii semnificative teologice, la momentul actual poziia Bisericii Ortodoxe Ruse i poziia comunitilor baptiste se afl pe poziii apropiate într-un ir de probleme fundamentale antropologice. La rândul su, pastorul John Upton a salutat cordial pe Preafericitul Patriarh în numele Alianei Mondiale Baptiste i l-a mulumit pentru mrturisirea statornic despre adevrurile perene, pe care Biserica Ortodox Rus le duce în Rusia i în afara hotarelor ei. Apoi el a menionat c în lume, unde „principiile fundamentale sunt supuse eroziunii în aa fel, încât chiar i adevrul absolut devine relativ”, comunitile baptiste, precum i Biserica Ortodox, doresc s înapoieze societii contemporane noiunile juste despre bine i ru, ndejdea cretin, înelegerea corect a familiei cretine, se strduie s se contrapun prin toate mijloacele rspândirii avorturilor i diferitelor maladii sociale. |
| By Jesus» day, however, a nearer context for a Galilean teacher was certainly early Judaism, and whatever the measure of Greek influence on its preference for the language, its most direct source was the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible recognized God as Israel " s father by adoption in redemption 7904 and Jewish literature in general continued this tradition (e.g., Wis 2:16; 3Macc 5:7; 7:6). Jewish literature regularly calls God Israel " s (occasonally in Diaspora Judaism, humanity " s) «father.» 7905 Jewish tradition also employed this biblical image in prayer, though in a relatively restrained manner (3Macc 6:8). 7906 The form of synagogue Judaism we know from later rabbinic literature commonly calls God «our Father in heaven,» 7907 as scholars conversant in the material regularly point out. 7908 But even Jewish texts not intended for corporate use only rarely designate God as personally «my Father,» 7909 whereas Jesus nearly ahvays did. 7910 Matthew and John, the most explicitly Jewish of the extant gospels, also emphasize Jesus» use of «Father» most frequently. But while «Father» should be clear to John " s primarily Jewish audience and its peripheral Gentile adherents, the titlés significance should have been lost on anyone in the story world. For John, their failure to understand emphasizes their denseness, and appears to stem from a failure to believe. The voice came for their sakes (12:30; cf. 11:42); Jesus did not doubt his own identity (11:42), but they needed testimony and signs to believe (5:34; 10:38). Now the climactic time of Jesus» glorification had come; at the very point where the world system would seem to crush Jesus (12:32–33), the spiritual ruler of the world would be convicted and cast out (12:31). 2D. Judgment on the World " s Ruler (12:31) Jesus came not to judge the world (3:17; 12:47), but the moment of judgment nevertheless arrived in him. The world " s judgment was at hand: the context is Jesus going to the cross (12:32–33); that judgment was coming «now» (12:31) revealed the eschatological significance of the cross in history (cf. 12:27; 13:31, 36; 16:5, 22; 17:5, 13). Jesus» death signaled defeat for the «prince of the world» (12:31; cf. 14:30; 16:11). Another document probably circulating in the same circle of believers as this Gospel depicts Satan being «cast out» from heaven in strikingly similar language, at the time of Jesus» exaltation (possibly on the cross; Rev 12:4, 9). |
| 5452 Mercantile or urban aristocratic women might have more substance, but they would not need to come to draw at the well; a favorable and significant divorce settlement might also require both her innocence and having entered the marriage with a substantial family dowry. 5454 Many ancient hearers would assume dangerous a woman who had outlived many husbands (Martial Epigr. 9.15; Tob 3:7–10); some Tannaim even ruled that she should be forbidden to marry after the second or third husband (t. Šabb. 15:8). 5456 Juvenal Sat. 6.229–230. Commentators often declare that Jewish teachers prohibited divorcing and marrying more than three times (Lightfoot, Gospel, 134; Hunter, John, 48). 5459 Men also viewed a woman known to have been immoral as «cheap» (Catullus 62.46–47) and able to be treated as a prostitute without serious blame to the man (Cicero Cael 20.48–49). 5461 Smith, John (1999), 115. On the perceived morality of such behavior, see 4B above; but the position of «your» is not necessarily emphatic. 5463 Aristippus reportedly defended living with a woman who had lived with many other men by comparing her to a used house or boat (Diogenes Laertius 2.74). 5464 Taylor, Immerser, 121; John Chrysostom regards this narrative s woman similarly before her conversion (Hom. Jo. 12). Gentiles also viewed a «loose» woman as a prostitute but, so long as she was unmarried, did not condemn much the men who took advantage of her (Cicero Cae1. 20.49). 5466 Brant, «Husband Hunting,» seems right to suggest that she could have viewed Jesus, a round character, as desirable, though this narrative (in contrast to 12:1–8) includes a comic upturn; this fits the woman-at-the-well-type scene (Zimmermann, «Brautwerbung»; comments above); Fehribach, Bridegroom, 45–81, esp. 80–81 (her and her people as symbolically married to Jesus). 5467 See Xenophon Mem. 3.9.18; this may be comparable to stories about his academic concern for Alcibiades, in whom most men had other (sexual) interests. 5468 Bruns, Art, 25 attributes the absence of a festival here to the fact that Samaritans did not celebrate Jewish festivals. But the Samaritans did keep (and still do keep) Passover on Mount Gerizim. Conversely, Guilding " s lectionary thesis here expects the reader to believe that a Samaritan woman knew the Jewish synagogue lectionary, which is not reasonable (Morris, Lectionaries, 34, 209). |
| John " s vertical dualism with Jesus in 3:13; 6:62; 20:17) and descending (cf. the Spirit «descending» from «heaven» «upon» Jesus in 1:32; Jesus in 3:13; 6:33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 58). 4341 Thus, he is not only the «Son of Man» who will come from heaven ( Dan 7:13–14 ), but is the mediator between heaven and earth, on whom the angels must trave1. The «angels of God ascending and descending» is a direct quote from Gen 28:12 . Thus, in short, Jesus is Jacob " s ladder, the one who mediates between God in heaven and his servant Jacob on earth (cf. 14:6); thus the «true Israelite» (1:47) may receive the revelation of God as his ancestor did ( Gen 28:12 ; cf. 32:1, an inclusio). 4342 As Jacob " s ladder, he is also Bethel, God " s house ( Gen 28:19 ), 4343 an image that naturally connects with Jesus as the new temple (1:14; 2:19–21; 4:20–24; 7:37–39; 14:2,23). Many commentators have investigated subsequent Jewish, particularly rabbinic, traditions about Jacob as background for the present passage. Because the Hebrew reference to angels descending «on it» (bn) could be translated «on him,» that is, «on Jacob,» some Jewish traditions portrayed angels traversing Jacob. 4344 In some rabbinic traditions angels beheld Israel " s heavenly image engraved in heaven, then descended to find the earthly Jacob on earth. 4345 The Palestinian Targum also indicates that angels ascended and descended to see Jacob; thus some commentators suggest that 1portrays Jesus as the true Jacob. 4346 Others, also pointing to Philós earlier picture of a heavenly Israel, find an analogous portrait in John, in which Jesus represents the heavenly and Nathanael the earthly Israe1. 4347 While contemporary Jewish backgrounds are welcomed and later evidence is sometimes all that we have, this passage makes more sense against the widely available background in Genesis itself than against the uncertainly dated and possibly not widely available background many scholars have suggested. Although John s «upon» could be read in support of the rabbinic interpretation that angels descended on Jacob, the LXX attests the more widepread interpretation in his day that angels ascended and descended the ladder (which, like the pronoun, is feminine in Gen 28LXX), the more natural contextual sense in Genesis. |
| Rather than a specific allusion to Torah study, John " s contemporaries would more likely have thought of the apocryphal story of Daniel and Susanna in the LXX: when Daniel asked each of the false witnesses separately under which tree they had seen her commit adultery, they gave different responses and proved themselves false witnesses. 4321 Jesus, by contrast, had actually seen Nathanael under the fig tree (whatever he was doing there) although not present. (The tree may be mentioned because some specific landmark is necessary, rather than for any symbolic import attaching to fig trees in particular.) 4322 Jesus» knowledge of Nathanael " s positive character (1:47–48) fits the Gospel " s claim concerning his knowledge of others» untrustworthiness (2:23–25). Later in the Gospel John reinforces the point that Jesus foreknew his betrayer (6:70–71; 13:26), perhaps because this had become a point of apologetic contention. In any case, Jesus demonstrates divine knowledge of human character. Such insight was normally attributed only to prophets, magicians, and God, the last source being the likeliest one in view of this Gospel " s Christology). 4323 Such encounters in which Jesus demonstrates to people that he already knows them often move the inquirer toward faith (cf., e.g., 1:42; 4:17–18; 16:30; perhaps 3:10); 4324 an encounter with Jesus becomes the Fourth Gospel " s ideal apologetic for those with open hearts. Jesus, who knows his own sheep and «calls» them (10:3; cf. through Philip in 1:48), here demonstrates his intimate knowledge of Nathanael, 4325 just as Nathanael quickly recognizes his shepherd (1:49; 10:4) and demonstrates «that he is a member of the people of God.» 4326 3B. Jesus as Israel " s King (1:49) Jesus» revelation of Nathanael " s true identity parallels not only his revelation of Simon " s identity, but also Nathanael " s revelation of Jesus» own identity (1:49) and Jesus» revelation of Jesus» own identity (1:50–51). Exaggerated compliments (especially to those of disadvantaged status) may characterize Mediterranean culture, 4327 but Nathanael " s response bursts the bounds of propriety if it is not intended sincerely. Nathanael " s response to this divinely revealed knowledge is a christological confession; titular acclamations occurred after other miracles in other early Christian texts and elsewhere in the Greco-Roman world. 4328 Nathanael " s ready faith contrasts starkly with the difficulty of full resurrection faith leading to the Gospel " s climactic confession in 20:24–29. It illustrates, however, the Johannine principle that those who are genuinely «from God» heed others who are from God (3:20–21; 1 John 4:6). |
| Jesus returns to the image of sheep (10:1–16) in 10:26–27, continuing a dispute from the recent festival of Tabernacles about the true people of God. 7474 One might believe to become one of Jesus» followers (e.g., 6:47), but it was also those who were his sheep who could believe (or believe adequately; 10:26). John envisioned a conflict between free will and predestination no more than did most of his Jewish contemporaries (see comment on 6:44–45). The point in this text is not the impossibility of apostasy; apostasy appears elsewhere in this Gospel (e.g., 6:66, 70–71; 15:6). But none of those examples contravene the principle here: sheep abandoning the fold is not the same as a wolf «snatching» them; sometimes Jesus appears to have provoked his professed followers (in chs. 6, 8) simply to reveal what was already in their hearts. Many early Christian texts warn of apostasy; one could experience God " s grace and yet fall away. 7475 Johannine theology, however, emphasizes that Jesus knows peoplés responses before they make them; from God " s omniscient standpoint, only those who will ultimately persevere belong to Christ in any event (6:37–39; 10:29; 17:2,9,12; 18:9; 1 John 2:19). These would never perish (cf. 3:16; Rev 2:11; 20:6). 7476 No one could snatch sheep from Jesus the shepherd (this recalls the image of thieves and wolves seeking to seize sheep in 10:1, 8, 10, 12; especially the wolf in 10:12, where αρπζω also appears), just as they could not seize them from the Father (10:28–29). (Possibly the inability of his enemies to seize him before his Father allowed it illustrates the principle on a narrative level; the term differs, but ρπζω would not be as appropriate there.) Although technically this shared power probably reflects Jesus» role as divine agent, it may also suggest some degree of functional (not necessarily ontological) equivalence of the Father and Son here. (This does not require an equivalence of rank; the Father who was greater than all in 10was greater than Jesus in rank as well–14:28.) Certainly this does not identify the Father and Son as the same entity. 7477 |
| The testimony of women, slaves, children, imbeciles, and Gentiles was suspect, 6898 and since Jesus fell into none of these categories, his testimony (8:14–18) could only be suspect if he could be convicted of a moral offense. 6899 In the Fourth Gospel, properly «convicting» the world is the work of Jesus (3:20) and the Spirit (16:8); Jesus exposed concealed sin (15:22,24). 6900 Jesus invites Jerusalem aristocrats to try their hand at a rhetorical exercise in which they should have had some proficiency; in public disputes in the ancient Mediterranean, one often described someonés character to make the case (e.g., Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.50.63). Rather than being a sinner (8:46; cf. 9:16,24–25), Jesus is from God hence speaks his words (8:47; cf. 3:34). Because most early Jewish circles acknowledged that everyone, 6901 occasionally barring at most some extremely rare saints like one of the patriarchs, 6902 had sinned, Jesus» claim would appear remarkable. Immediately after Jesus complains that they do not hear Gods message because they are not (born) from God (8:47), they prove his point by demonstrating that they are not listening (8:48). Public censure was so humiliating that many Jewish teachers prohibited it; 6903 that Jesus appears to challenge their dignity publicly invites insults in return. Jesus was challenging their spiritual, not their ethnic, ancestry (8:37,56); if they were children of the devil, it was not because they were Jewish, but in spite of it, for this was the condition of the whole world unresponsive to the message (1 John 3:8; 5:19). 6904 Yet they think Jesus challenges their descent from Abraham, and so accuse him of being of Samaritan descent (8:48), perhaps implying his mother " s immorality (8:41), more probably extrapolating from reports that Jesus was received in Samaria (4:40). 6905 Samaritans rejected the Judeans» exclusive claim to be children of Abraham (cf. 4:12); interestingly, this exclusive claim probably lies at the heart of the Gospel " s situation and John " s ironic use of «the Jews» (see introduction, ch. 5). 6906 |
|
|
