| John " s audience could be assured that neither those who left the community in John " s day (1 John 2:29) nor Judas (6:64) took Jesus by surprise. As «son of destruction,» 9451 the betrayer was destined or foreknown for his role (17:12). Jewish wisdom texts could call wicked Sodom «people of destruction» (θνος απλειας), that is, «people for destruction» ( Sir 16:9 ). The Dead Sea Scrolls speak of the wicked as «children of the pit» (), that is, those destined for destruction (CD 6.15; 8.14); Jubilees also calls the wicked of past eras «children of destruction.» 9452 Perhaps most strikingly, at least one extant witness to early Christian tradition suggests that some Christians had already designated the anticipated «man of lawlessness» 9453 as a «son of destruction» (2 Thess 2:3; cf. Rev 17:8). Just as many «antichrists» who opposed the true teaching about Christ could reflect the character of a future anticipated antichrist (1 John 2:18) and just as the Fourth Gospel emphasizes the eschatological condition of the present more frequently than future eschatology, Judas functions as a paradigm for human evi1. 9454 Because Judas probably also provides a model for apostate members of the community (cf. 6:66–71; as does the antichrist, 1 John 2:18–19), this association casts apostates in a very negative light (cf. 15:6). Opponents of John " s audience may have complained about what appeared to them an inconsistency in the gospel tradition: Jesus is omniscient, yet he chose a disciple who ultimately betrayed him. John is at pains to point out that Jesus foreknew the betrayer, whose role was part of God " s plan (6:64, 71; 13:21, 26, 27); in support of such a thesis is the point that the only disciple whom Jesus lost was, in fact, the betrayer himself. John reinforces this point by informing his audience that the loss of the betrayer fulfilled Scripture (17:12) and hence was necessary because, as even their opponents recognized, Scripture cannot be broken (10:35). The necessity of a betrayer might be inferred simply from Scripture concerning Jesus» suffering (cf., e.g., 19:24,28,36–37; 20:9), but «Scripture» here probably alludes to the passage already cited in 13about the betrayer. It is not necessary to find a text that directly mentions a «son of destruction.» 9455 When John later refers back to this text, however, it is not only that Scripture (the Hebrew Bible or its Greek translations) might be fulfilled but also that the «word» of Jesus might be fulfilled (18:9); for John, both are God " s message. |
| 3486 In a negative example, cf. T. So1. 18(πντα νθρωπον), though the demon " s power is limited. Torah " s message is free to all who enter the world (Mek. Bah. 5.100–1). 3490 Glasson, « John 1 9» (citing mainly late sources: b. Nid. 30b; Lev. Rab. 14:2; 31:1,6, 8 [but light in the mothers womb here refers to physical light vs. darkness]; his earlier citation of 4 Ezra 7supports the view no more clearly than does John 1by itself). On prenatal sin, see comment on John 9:2 : but Judah ha-Nasi (ca. 200 C.E.) taught that the tempter ruled only from birth (b. Sanh. 91b). 3493 Morris, John, 94; MacGregor, John, 11; Schnackenburg, John,:253, 255; Stuart, «Examination,» 293. The rabbinic phrase «everyone coming into the world» is not irrelevant because it lacks explicit statement of «person» (Stuart, «Examination,» 293) nor simply because John " s usage elsewhere is more important (Morris, John, 93–94), true as the latter argument may be; the rabbinic phrase applies to individuals entering the world (e.g., t. c Ed. 1:15; Sipre Deut. 311.1; 312.1.1; 313.1.3) as well as to «everyone,» hence could apply to Jesus as well as anyone else. 3495 Cf. the rhetorical practice of distributio (Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.47; Anderson, Glossary, 32–33; cf. Rowe, «Style,» 134), though it is normally more elaborate. 3497 If John envisions chronological specificity, perhaps 1implies his birth (or préexistence?), but 1the beginning of his public ministry later in this chapter (Luther, 5th Sermon on John i), though this is unclear. Westermann, John, 7, thinks 1:11–12 outlines John " s story (coming to his own in 1–6, rejected by them in 7–12, empowering those who received him in 13–17). 3501 See Boccaccini, Judaism, 251–65; Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 52–74; in Let. Aris., see Boccaccini, Judaism, 176–79. 3502 E.g., 1Macc 5; Jub. 1:9; 15:34; 22:16–18, 20–22; 23:24; 24:25–33; LA.B. 7:3; 12(OTP also cites 4 Ezra 6:56; 2 Bar. 82here); 1Q27 1.9–11; 4QpNah. 1.1; m. c Abod. Zar. 2:1; Ter. 8:12; Sipre Deut. 213.1.1; Gen. Rab. 80:7; Pesiq. Rab. 21:2/3. Texts such as p. Ter. 1:1; 3:8; Pesiq. Rab. 48address Gentiles» sacrifices. |
| 6467 So also Holwerda, Spirit, 17–24; Hunter, John, 82. 6468 So also, e.g., Hunter, John, 83. 6469 Fenton, John, 93, cites Isa 55:6; cf. also Ezek 7:25–26 ; Hos 5:6 ; Amos 8:12; contrast Deut 4:29 ; Jer 29:13 ; Whitacre, John, 191, adds Prov 1:28–31 . 6470 Hunter, John, 83; Köstenberger, John, 137. 6471 Cf. Robinson, Trust, 88; idem, «Destination.» 6472 E.g., Isocrates Nic. 50, Or. 3.37; Paneg. 108, Or. 4; Helen 67–68, Or. 10; Plato Alc. 2, 141C; Theaet. 175A; Laws 9.870AB; Strabo Geog. 6.1.2; 13.1.1; 15.3.23; Plutarch Agesilaus 10.3; Timoleon 28.2; Eumenes 16.3; Bride 21, Mor. 141A; Dio Chrysostom Or. 1, On Kingship 1, §14; Or. 9, Isthmian Discourse, §12; Or. 12, Olympic Discourse, §§11, 27–28; Or. 31.20; Or. 32.35; Or. 36.43; Sextus Empiricus Eth. 1.15; Diogenes Laertius 6.1.2; Athenaeus Deipn. 11.461b; Tatian 1,21,29. 6473 E.g., Josephus War 5.17; Ant. 1.107; 15.136; 18.20; Ag. Ap. 1.201; 2.39; Philo Cherubim 91; Drunkenness 193; Abraham 267; Moses 2.20; Decalogue 153; Spec. Laws 2.18,20,44,165; 4.120; Good Person 94, 98; Contemp1. Life 21; Embassy 145,292. 6474 E.g., Bar 2:13 ; Tob 13:3; Pss. Sol 8:28; Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.33; Jas 1:1. John also applies the expression to the scattering of believers (10:12; 16:32; cf. Acts 8:1,4; 11:19; 1Pet l:l;perhaps Jas 1:1). 6475 Cf. Brown, John, 1:349. 6476 Talbert, John, 145 (following Lindars). Cf. the repetition some scholars find in the discourses of chs. 6, 14–16. 6477 E.g., Westcott, John, 123; Grigsby, «Thirsts.» 6478 The public part of the procession was in the court of women (Safrai, «Temple,» 866–67, 894–95; for women " s participation, Safrai, «Relations,» 198); processions were also central to pagan religious festivals (Grant, Gods, 53; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 151; SEG 11.923 in Sherk, Empire, 58, §32; Xenophon Eph. 5.11; Chariton 1.1.4–5; Dunand, Religion en Egypte, 96,103; Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 52–53; Bleeker, Festivals), including carrying sacred objects (Xenophon Eph. 1.2; Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.20.602). |
| 10931 As suggested, e.g., by Augustine Tr. Ev. Jo. 123.5; Westcott, John, 303; Sandmel, Judaism, 389. Threefold repetition of a basic question with a threefold answer also appears in Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.16 (with the third answer the most honest), though that work " s earliest possible date is a generation after John. 10934 Héring, Corinthians, 135 n. 4 (though wrongly differentiating it too much from φιλα; it obviously differs from ρως). 10938 Tälbert, John, 261. The two terms for «ear» are distinct diminutive forms of one term, almost certainly neither retaining diminutive force. 10939 E.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 343; Thiselton, «Semantics,» 93; Culpepper, John, 248; Ridderbos, John, 665–66; cf. Smith, John (1999), 218 (on 11:3, 5). 10942 Hunter, John, 196, noting that Peter claimed his loyalty greater than theirs (13:37); but «these» is in the genitive, not the nominative. 10945 One could likewise view Moses and Aaron as sheep from the flock (1 En. 89:18). Begg, «Sheep,» thinks the three sheep of 1 En. 89refer to Zerubbabel and Joshua, plus either Ezra or more likely) Nehemiah. 10947 Slaves and prisoners of war regularly had to act at others» bidding, e.g., Homer I1. 6.455–458. 10948 That the dependence of old age is at least partly in view is frequently noted, e.g., Hunter, John, 196. 10949 E.g., Sophocles Oed. tyr. 402–403, 1153; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 10.29.1; Cornelius Nepos 19 (Phocion), 4.1; Herodian 2.5.8; Dig. 47.21.2; 2Macc 6:21–22; Mart. Po1. 9.2. 10951 E.g., Livy 1.26.7,11 ; Ovid Amores 1.2.19–20. Many regarded it as shameful to die at another " s hand (e.g., Cornelius Nepos 23 [Hannibal], 12.5). 10952 Tertullian Scorpiace 15 (including his binding, though this could reflect John 21:18 ); Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 2.25.5–8; see Bruce, History, 403; on Peter " s martyrdom, see 1 Clem. 5. Other evidence also supports his stay in Rome, e.g., Ign. Rom. 4.3; perhaps Falasca, «Bones.» 10953 Acts of Peter; Origen according to Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.1 (for crucifixion in this posture, see also Seneca Consolation to Marcia 20; references from Talbert, John, 262; Culpepper, John, 249). |
| 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. |
| 1206 Fr.Seraphim Rose. Bishop Sava and the Glorification of Archbishop John Maximovitch//The Orthodox Word. 1972. Р.270; см. также: Fr.Seraphim Rose and Fr. Herman Podmoshensky. Blessed John the Wonderworker. Р.23. Русский пер. см.: Блаженный Иоанн Чудотворец. С.16. 1207 Fr.Seraphim Rose. Bishop Sava and the Glorification of Archbishop John Maximovitch//The Orthodox Word. 1972. Р.271–272; Blessed John the Wonderworker. Р.23–25. 1208 Father Seraphim Rose. The Chronicle of Bishop Sava of Edmonton//The Orthodox Word. 1976. Р.46; также см.: Blessed John the Wonderworker. Р.20. 1210 Из «Некролога епископа Саввы» архиеп. Аргентинского Афанасия//Наша страна. 1973. 6 февр. (Буэнос-Айрес); см. также: The Orthodox Word. 1972. Р.270; в русский пер. см.: «Блаженный Иоанн Чудотворец». 1214 Fr.Seraphim Rose and Fr.Herman Podmoshensky. Blessed John the Wonderworker. Р.471. Русский пер. см.: Блаженный Иоанн Чудотворец. С.317. 1216 Fr.Seraphim Rose. Bishop Sava and the Glorification of Archbishop John Maximovitch. Р.272; Blessed John the Wonderworker. Р.25. 1217 Fr.Seraphim Rose. The Chronicle of Bishop Sava of Edmonton. Р.46; Blessed John the Wonderworker. Р.18–20. Русский пер. см.: Блаженный Иоанн Чудотворец. С.13–14. 1218 Величание святому иерарху, например архиепископу Иоанну, звучит иначе, нежели святому иноку: «Величаем тя, святителю отче наш Иоанне, и чтим святую память твою, ты бо молиши о нас Христа, Бога нашего». 1220 Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco and Western America//Orthodox America. Vol.19. (166). Р.5. 1221 Fr.Seraphim Rose. Bishop Sava and the Glorification of Archbishop John Maximovitch. Р.272–273; Blessed John the Wonderworker. Р.26–27. 1223 Десять лет спустя о.Михаил Помаэанский подтвердил оценку архиепископа Иоанна. Отец Серафим отмечал в письме: «Мы спросили о. Михаила Помазанского , кто сейчас является ведущим истинно православным богословом, и тот ответил: архиепископ Аверкий» (письмо к Алексию Янгу от 4 ноября 1975г.). 1224 Fr.Seraphim Rose. Archbishop Averky: His Significance for the Ecumenical Orthodox Church//The Orthodox Word. 1981. Р.222. |
| 413 That John arranges his Gospel by seasons as Thucydides did (e.g., 5.26.1) could suggest deliberate chronologization; but for the dischronologization of the temple cleansing, see comments ad loc. 417 Setzer, Responses, 84, noting that John " s use of Jesus is emblematic but not allegorical, and his sources not necessarily less historical than the Synoptics. 418 This would even be the case if one accepted the putative «signs source»; Fortna, «Locale,» 60, suggests that John adapted the topography of the source, making geography more theologically prominent. 419 See Higgins, Historicity, 39. Barrett, John, 53–54, and Westcott, John, lxxxiii, do not regard the differences as irreconcilable, viewing them as in some way superficia1. 421 Cf., e.g., Ensor, « John 4.35 .» Although I have occasionally pointed these out in the commentary, I usually have not, since historical setting, rather than historicity of genre, is this commentary " s primary focus. 423 Hunter, «Trends.» Streeter, Gospels, 393–426, thinks that John knew Mark " s and Lukés Passion Narratives but had firsthand knowledge of Jerusalem. 424 See Robinson, Historical Character, 15–16; cf. Strachan, Gospel, 85; Hunter, «Trends (Continued).» 426 Charlesworth, «Scrolls and Gospel,» 66. Robinson, Priority argued that John " s portrait of Jesus was earlier than the Synoptics (though not certain that John wrote earlier). 427 Dunn contends for theological as well as historical differences, underlining the diversity of early Christianity (Dunn, «Question»). 428 Ancient writers understood that different historians would report different points according to their emphases (Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 5.56.1), but they did not believe that true histories or other works should contradict one another (Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.15, 37–38). 429 Ancient critics also took style into account–e.g., noting how a writer employed terms elsewhere (e.g., Philostratus Hrk. 11.5, on Homer Od. 18.359, using I1. 21.197). 430 Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, §492; cf. also Stamps, «Johannine Writings,» 618–19. This could be acceptable in some sense if appropriate for the audience (cf. Rhet. Alex. 22.1434b.27–30); the Gospels, like most novels and other popular works, did not primarily address elite audiences (cf. Dowden, «Callisthenes,» 651). |
| 4121 The arguments for this position are summarized in Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 327; Marshall argues (pp. 327–32) that υις is origina1. 4124 On Acts 13:32–33 (interpreting the psalm concerning Jesus» resurrection/enthronement), cf. Dahl, «Abraham,» 148; Goulder, Acts, 53; Hengel, Son, 23. Cf. Midr. Pss. 2, §9 (messianic, after the woes). 4125 See, e.g., Longenecker, Exegesis, 177. The emphasis of Lindars, Apologetic, 211, on the metaphysical as over against the resurrection interpretation of Heb 1:5, appears to me mistaken. Ps 2:7–8 and 110are also linked in 1 Clem. 36.3–5 (ANF 1:15), but Clement is probably dependent on Hebrews here, citing Heb 1:3–4 and also Ps 104 (Heb 1:7). 4126 E.g., Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 332–33; but this is also the view of nearly all the commentators below. 4127 See Bright, History, 225–26; Harrelson, Cult, 86–87; cf. De Vaux, Israel, 109, for comparison with ancient coronations. Later Judaism generally regarded the psalm as specifically messianic (e.g., b. Sukkah 52a; Longenecker, Christology, 113). 4130 Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 335; Jeremias, Theology, 53–54; Kingsbury, Christology, 40, 65; Bruce, History, 168; Hurtado, Mark, 6; Schweizer, Matthew, 37; Robinson, Studies, 162; Taylor, Mark, 162 (with Isa 44:2); Bürge, Community, 61. We do not here contest the possibility of influence by the language («echoes»; Robinson, Taylor), but doubt that the phrasing here is intended to evoke the picture of the Servant (in contrast to Matthew). 4137 Pace Rodd, «Spirit.» Matthew changes the more Semitic «finger» to fit his own context, perhaps as midrash on Isa 42 just cited; Luke includes the Spirit whenever he can, suggesting it was there missing from his source (cf. also Schweizer, Matthew, 287; Gundry, Matthew, 235). 4138 Best, Mark, 81. Others admit it as probable (e.g., Marshall, «Son or Servant,» 335; Kingsbury, Christology, 65) or find echoes (Taylor, Mark, 162). 4141 Matthew and Luke seem to have followed the standard biographical procedure of following one primary (Mark) and another secondary source (presumably Q) before weaving in material around it, whereas John goes his own way. See introduction. |
| 3061 Harris, Prologue, 43; Dodd, «Background,» 335; May, «Logos,» 438–47; ÓNeill, «Prologue,» 49; Brown, John 1:520,523; Weder, «Raum»; cf. Tobin, «Prologue.» See especially the list in Dodd, Interpretation, 274–75. 3062 See Kysar, Evangelist, 107–11; cf. Stevens, Theology, 78–81; Lee, Thought, 97–100; Martens, «Prologue,» 268; Bruce, «Myth and History,» 94; Epp, «Wisdom,» 130–32; Ladd, Theology, 240; Gaston, Stone, 209; Kreitzer, John, 28–30; Perkins, «John,» 944; Wainwright, «Sophia.» 3063 Wisdom may be personified, as in Prov, also in 4Q381, frg. 1, line 1; 11Q5 28.10. In Wis, even the literary device of personification «is not consistently employed» (Isaacs, Spirit, 54). But Stuart, «Examination,» 26–28, may go too far in seeing Wisdom as only an attribute and not a hypostasis. 3064 This is often recognized, e.g., by May, «Logos,» 447, especially in Wis, where it is clearer (Vos, «Range,» 399; Urbach, Sages, 1:40; DeSilva, «Wisdom of Solomon,» 1271–72). Ringgren, Word, 104, even regards Prov 8 " s portrayal of Wisdom as hypostatic. 3065 Cf. this point in Moeller, «Motifs,» 98. Stuart, «Examination,» 26–28, is certainly mistaken to think John probably unacquainted with apocryphal literature. 3066 Cf. Muraoka, «Hymn,» 173 (who suggests that it portrays Wisdom and its seeker like «a man and his chaste, youthful, and attractive woman»); Schroer, «Grenzüberschreitungen.» 3067 ÓDay, «John,» 519. Cf. Valentinian use of Sophia (Hippolytus Haer. 6.29). By contrast, Scott, Sophia, 250–51, relates the feminine image of Wisdom to the positive role of women in John " s community; but this seems unlikely precisely because John does not use the feminine term here. 3069 Ibid., 26, 39–40. Early Judaism seems not to have systematized its view quite so distinctly, however, in that Wisdom was viewed as created, a point that John needs to modify (see comment on 1:1–2). 3070 For Wisdom Christology in John, see more fully Witherington, Sage, 368–80; also Dunn, «John,» 314–16; Ringe, Wisdom " s Friends. |
| The final verses of the section wrap it up, again emphasizing the division among the people (7:43; 9:16). John writes not to an audience alienated from its Jewish heritage, but to one Jewish group alienated from other Jewish groups. Some wished to seize Jesus (10:39); others believed him because of his works and the Baptist " s witness (10:41–42), as Jesus had requested (10:38). This concluding cap to the section also provides a geographical transition (10:40), allowing John to move into ch. 11 and the following passion materia1. Jesus returned to the area where John had been preparing the way (1:23), especially in Perea (10:40), 7531 and Jesus «remained» there (10:40; cf. 1:39; 11:6) safe from his opponents (10:39) until it was time for him to return to Judea to face death there (11:7–10). This passage attests the effectiveness of Johns «witness» so heavily emphasized in the Gospel (1:6–8, 15); here, where John had been preaching, Jesus was temporarily safe from his Judean opposition, and many believed him through John s earlier testimony (10:41–42). (This was a region controlled by Herod Antipas, but Antipas apparently interfered with John only when he became a political threat, 7532 and Antipas does not figure in the Fourth Gospe1.) Although the crowds must have known some of Johns testimony about Jesus (5:33), most of Johns denials and confessions in 1:19–36 and 3:27–36 were only to his inquirers or to the disciples; nevertheless, these texts probably functionally supply the reader with what the author wishes to emphasize as the substance of the Baptists testimony. Again, however, the author contrasts the forerunner and Jesus: John did no signs, but properly attested Jesus» identity (10:41). That many believed in Jesus in Perea (10:42) is a positive note, but previous texts supply an ominous warning that such faith must be proved through perseverance (2:23–25; 8:30–31). 7449 The Greek term here (εγκανια) means «renewal» and appears in the LXX for rededications; it also vaguely resembles the sound of «Hanukkah,» «dedication,» also used of consecration in the MT (Brown, John, 1:402; Moore, Judaism, 2:49). |
|
|
