| The predicative «I am» christological images emphasize the relationship between Jesus and believers, but they remain more christological than ecclesiologica1. Granted, the latter was by this period a serious issue; but for John, ecclesiology is determined entirely by Christology, because the community is defined solely by allegiance to Christ, who is the only way to the Father (14:6). John " s vertical dualism (e.g., the man from heaven in 3:13, 31) and other contrasts such as «flesh» and «Spirit» (3:6; 6:63) repeatedly appear in the service of his emphasis that all humans are utterly inadequate before God apart from Christ and the Spirit. 2743 Like Mark, though to a lesser extent, he emphasizes some obduracy among the disciples (e.g., John 11:13 ; Mark 8:16–18 ); but «the world» is wholly blind and alienated from God ( John 9:39–41; 15:18–25 ; Mark 4:12 ). Some of the predicative «I am» images emphasize relationship in more familiar relational images. Jesus is the shepherd, and sheep must trust the guidance of their shepherd, heeding his voice and knowing that he will provide pasture and safety (10:9, 11, 14). The Synoptics support John " s association of this image with the Jesus tradition ( Mark 6:34; 14:37 ; cf. also Matt 25:32; Luke 15:4). A related image, though not directly relational, is Jesus as the light of the world; here Jesus is the guide who enables one to walk without falling in the darkness outside him ( John 1:4–5; 8:12; 9:4–5 ). Most of the predicative «I am» images, however, are more organic, taking relationship beyond the boundaries normally possible in human intimacy. Thus Jesus is living bread from heaven, the bread of life (6:35, 48, 51); people depend on bread as a basic staple of life, and Jesus summons his followers to depend on him the same way. Related images would be the Spirit (who mediates Jesus» presence) as living water (4:14; 7:37–38) and perhaps Jesus as the giver of wine (2:4–7; less clear) and the paschal lamb which would be eaten (1:29; 6:51–56; 19:36). The Synoptics do use metaphors of light (cf. Matt 5:14–16; 6:23; Luke 8:16; 11:33–35), bread (Matt 7:9; 13:33; Mark 8:15 ; Luke 11:5,11–13), drinking ( Mark 10:38–39 ), and so forth, though only occasionally are these metaphors explicitly christological ( Mark 14:22–24 ). |
| Jesus withdraws from the intense conflict in Jerusalem (ch. 5) and encounters a different sort of response in Galilee (ch. 6). The «other side» of the lake (6:1) contrasts with Jesus» usual Galilean location on the west side of the lake (e.g., 2:1, 12; 4:45–46), though the exact location is uncertain. 5972 That crowds would flock to Jesus (6:2) fits the rest of the gospel tradition (e.g., Mark 9:15 ; Matt 4:24) and what we know about the response of crowds to popular teachers. 5973 Johns mention of the «mountain» in v. 3 could reflect a minor allusion to the Moses tradition that will dominate the following discourse, especially given the repetition of the mountain in 6:15; probably Matthew had already employed the mountain image to this end (Matt 5:l). 5974 Its primary literary function here, however, appears to be an inclusio with 6:15, 5975 suggesting either that Jesus withdrew on both occasions from overzealous multitudes (6:2) or that Jesus withdrew from militant but uncomprehending followers (cf. 2:23–25) the way he had from active opponents (5:45–6:1). The nearness of the Passover (6:4) explains the flourishing of grass (6:10), which was not always available in much of the «wilderness» (e.g., 1 En. 89:28). The grass already present in the gospel tradition (Matt 14:19)–especially the «green» grass ( Mark 6:39 )–suggests that the nearness of the Passover is a genuine historical reminiscence. 5976 Grass could recall biblical images of abundant provision for livestock sometimes linked with God " s provision for his people ( Deut 11:15 ), but John " s audience would probably not seek biblical allusions in this aspect of the setting. 5977 The primary function of the grass in 6is probably simply to indicate that the ground was easier to sit on (e.g., Virgil Ed. 3.55). The mention of Passover and spring further suggests that at least a year has passed since 2in the story world, developing John " s plot. The language of this verse probably alludes to the language of 2(especially εγγς and «feast of the Jews»; cf. also 11:55; Tabernacles in 7:2), suggesting that one read both passages in light of the impending Passover; Jesus encounters rejection in both passages because he defies traditional expectations of his messianic role. 5978 The most important function of John s mention of Passover is thus that it sets the rest of the chapter in the context of the paschal lamb, and perhaps in the context of the earlier gospel tradition " s passion narrative. Just as Jesus» entire ministry becomes a transfiguration (1:14) and John places the temple cleansing before the public ministry (2:14–22) to bracket the whole, John again invites us to understand Jesus» whole ministry in terms of the passion leading to the cross. (See comments on eucharistic interpretations of the discourse, below.) |
| In the Q traditions Jesus portrays himself not as a mere human teacher but as judge in the day of judgment who will be addresses as «Lord, Lord» (Matt 7:21–23; Luke 13:25). Even John the Baptist recognizes the coming one as greater than a merely human, natural messiah or teacher. He presents him as one whose sandals he was unworthy to unloose or carry (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7 ; Luke 3:16)–that is, as one whose servant he is unworthy to be (see commentary on John 1:27 ). This supernatural figure would not baptize in mere water, but in the Spirit of God; he would perform the divine role of judge, separating the righteous for eternal life and the wicked for damnation (Matt 3:10–12; Luke 3:9, 16–17). If Matthew and Luke believed Jesus to be merely a natural messiah, they did an inexplicably sloppy job of editing Q. Early Christian writers preferred to make their case through a variety of images rather than to focus on answering a small number of precise christological questions no one was yet asking in this century; but these images from the start include a superhuman role beneath the authority of the Father. 3B. Diverse but Complementary Christologies There is, in fact, little evidence for any strands of early Christianity that did not recognize Jesus as deity; the usual view of Christological development rests on speculation concerning the way views should have developed, rather than on the evidence of early Christian texts themselves. Although Wisdom Christology by itself could portray Jesus» divinity in a merely Arian sense (to borrow the later description), various NT writers modified such Christology by portraying Jesus as the divine Lord, often applying to him OT and Jewish language and imagery for YHWH (cf., e.g., 8:58; Mark 1:3 ; Acts 2:21, 38; Rom 9:5; 10:9–13 ; 1Cor 8:6 ; Phil 2:6,9–11 ; Rev 1:17; 2:8; 22:12–13). Neither John nor other first-century Christians felt constrained to distinguish Wisdom and divine Christologies; they adapted both by adding them together, coming to understand Israel " s one God as a composite unity. Interestingly, however, they did avoid the later Jewish-Christian compromise of an angel Christology. 2650 Neither Gal 4:14 2651 nor 1 Thess 4:16 2652 actually teaches it, though Michael is the most likely guess, if any, 2653 for the «archangel» of the latter text, 2654 being the most common archangel in early Jewish texts ( Dan 10:13,21; 12:1 ). 2655 Further, Col 1:16; 2:8–11,18; 2656 and Heb 2:5–16 2657 may effectively polemicize against the temptation of an angel Christology. |
| 6457 E.g., Homer I1. 15.612–614; 16.441; see further the discussion on John 2:4 . 6458 E.g., Homer Il. 6.487–488. 6459 Excepting his military victories (Pss. So1. 17:21–25); Martyn, Theology, 96. But on new-Moses signs of some of the «signs prophets,» see our introduction, pp. 270–72. 6460 Martyn, Theology, 93. 6461 Tilborg, Ephesus, 101–7, suggests that John " s audience will read «high priests» through the lens of those in Ephesus; but even uninformed Ephesian readers would know of Jewish high priests (cf. Acts 19:14), and believers might know them from the gospel tradition preserved in the Synoptics. Still less likely is Derrett " s association of «rulers» in 7with cosmic powers («ρχοντες»); though this association appears in some passages (see Keener, Paul, 64–65), «rulers» were normally human (e.g., Rom 13:1 ). 6462 Despite the same Greek term as in Luke 4(and CIJ l:xcix; 1:124, §172; Leon, Jews, 190), these bear no relationship with the hazzan of the synagogue (cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 49); the term had a broader usage ( Prov 14:35 ; Isa 32:5; Dan 3LXX; Wis 6:4; John 18:3,12, 18,22,36; 19:6 ; Matt 5:25; Mark 14:54,65 ; Luke 1:2; Acts 5:22,26; 13:5; 26:16; 1Cor 4:1 ). John 7:32, 45–46 refers to the templés Levite police (Jeremias, Jerusalem, 210); see also comment on 18:3. 6463 Cf. here also Von Wahlde, «Terms,» 233. Probably by the end of the second century, the head of the rabbinic movement could dispatch troops, authorizing arrests of wayward rabbis (p. Hor. 3:1, §2; Sanh. 2:1, §3, though probably fictitious). 6464 See Keener, Matthew, 351–53, 538–40. 6465 Thus Pharisees and chief priests are linked especially by Matthew (Matt 21:45; 27:62) and, writing after those who saw themselves as Pharisaism " s heirs had gained greater power (led by the Pharisaic leader Gamaliel II), John (7:32,45; 11:47,57; 18:3). See further comment on our introduction to 1:19–28. 6466 John probably recycles his material in various contexts, which was acceptable rhetorical technique (Theon Progymn. 4.73–79; 5.388–441); cf. Brown, John, 1(citing 8:21–22). |
| 4052 The saying may, however, reflect eschatological nuances concerning the expected «coming one» (cf. the participle in 3:31). 4053 The Baptist s original saying concerning one mightier than himself may have alluded to Daniel 7s Son of Man, as Kraeling assumes, 4054 in which case the Fourth Gospel may merely clarify the idea of préexistence already implicit in the tradition of the Baptist " s words here. 4055 In the Fourth Gospel, the Baptist declares paradoxically, «One comes after me who came before me, for he was first before me.» The first «came before me» may be read as a reference to preeminence; status-conscious ancients allowed those of higher rank to enter or be seated before them as a mark of respect. 4056 Such respect was typically accorded the aged, 4057 but for the Gospel " s informed audience, the respectable antiquity to which the Johannine Baptist refers is no mere matter of primogeniture or age, but préexistence itself (1:1–3). 3. Jesus and the Abiding Spirit (1:32–33) Although the Baptist " s «witness» resounds throughout the surrounding narrative, the author underlines John " s testimony at this point in the narrative («And John witnessed, saying»), 4058 which recounts John " s eyewitness experience. Michaels feels that none of the extant gospels contradicts the Markan portraits of Jesus alone seeing the dove and hearing the voice; 4059 but given the usual nature of «heavenly voices» in Jewish texts, it may be more likely that all four intended the event publicly. Thus one need not regard this encounter as merely an ecstatic experience of Jesus. 4060 This passage fits John " s theology: the Spirit is prominent in this Gospel (1:32–33; 3:5,6, 8, 34; 4:23–24; 6:63; 7:39; 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13; 20:22), and draws attention to and attests Jesus (14:26; 15:26; 16:13); 4061 the Spirit " s descent accords with the Gospel " s vertical dualism; that John «sees» (1:32,34) the Spirit " s descent fits another motif in this Gospel (e.g., 1:14; see introduction). The title «holy spirit,» frequent in Judaism by this period, is reserved for the first, last, and one other pneumatological passage in the Gospel; this title thus frames the books pneumatology as a large inclusio (1:33; 14:26; 20:22). 4062 Yet despite the author " s employment of this title in his literary design, the first reference derives from his tradition (all four extant gospels concur at this point in the tradition: Mark 1:8 ; Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16). The Baptist " s words here are again rooted in tradition (cf. Mark 1:8–10 ; Matt 3:11,16; Luke 3:16, 22); where he can be checked against other extant sources, our author again makes his point by adapting available tradition rather than by fabricating what suits him. |
| 6272 Ibid., 46–47, arguing that earlier rabbinic opinion tended against it; cf. unpardonable sins in 1QS 7.15–17, 22–23 (and possibly 1Q22; 4Q163 frg. 6–7, 2.6–7); Jub. 15:34; p. Hag. 2:1, §9. For deliberate acts of rebellion, see, e.g., CD 8.8; 10.3; p. Sebu. 1:6, §5. Greeks also felt that those who were once good but became bad merited stricter punishment (Thucydides 1.86.1); Pythagoreans treated apostates as dead (Burkert, «Craft,» 18). 6275 Diogenes Laertius 6.2.21; 6.2.36; 6.2.75–76; 6.5.87; 7.1.22; Diogenes Ep. 38; Aulus Gellius 19.1.7–10. 6276 Some MSS include «Christ» here, but probably for harmonistic reasons; «Holy One of God» is the most probable reading (Bernard, John, 1:223; Metzger, Commentary, 215). 6278 E.g.,Tob 12:15; 1 En. 1:3; 10:1; 14:1; 25:3; 84:1; 92:2; 97:6; 98:6; 104:9; 3 En. 1and passim. Three of the five uses of γιος in John apply to the Spirit (1:33; 14:26; 20:22), as often in early Judaism. Witherington, Wisdom, 161, applies the title to incarnate Wisdom, but Johns contemporaries did not limit the title thus. 6281 Cf. Collins, Witness, 56–78; idem, «Twelve,» who thinks the Johannine community is more adequate than apostolic Christianity, a dubious distinction. Anderson, Christology, 249, contrasts a higher view of Peter in Matt 16:17–19; but compare Matt 16with John 6:70 . 6282 Students often competed in Roman schools, but even a younger student might achieve leadership in the class (e.g., Seneca Controv. 1.pref.24); for whatever reasons, Peter «stood out.» 6284 Cf. the relatively rare plural form of «Satans» in ] En. 40:7; 65(though cf. the singular in 1 En. 54:6); more frequently in incantation texts (Incant. Texts 23.3–4; 58.1; 60.10; 66.5). 6285 E.g., CIJ 1:15, §12; 1:26, §33; 1:84, §121; 1:85, §122; 1:270–71, §345; 1:271, §346; 1:272, §347; 1:272, §348; 1:273, §349; 1:274, §350; 1:274–75, §351; 1:455, §636; 1:472, §657; 1:479, §668; 2:46, §791; 2:133–34, §§923–926; 2:190, §1039; 2:196, §§1070, 1072; 2:197, §§1073, 1075; 2:219, §1171; 2:261, §1255; 2:272, §§1280,1282; 2:273, §1283; 2:389, §1465; 2:441, §1533; CP/2:137, §235; for fuller listing of papyri occurrences for Egyptian Jews, see CP/3:180. |
| In illud Exiit qui seminat (Luc., VIII, 5), 771–6. In secundum adventum Christi, 775–8. In paralyticum (Joan., V, 51), 777–82 ( Amphitochii). In parabolam do drachma (Luc, XV, 11), 781–4. De scientia et de presbytero, 783–6. In parabolam villici iniquitalis (Luc, XVI), 785–8. De jejunio, 787–90. In filium Viduæ, 789–94. Contra Judæos (in serpentem æneum), 793–802. 62 (XI). De sacrificiis Caini et de fato, 719–22. In S. Parasceven et in Passionem Domini, 721–4. In Publicanum et nharisæum, 723–8. In ingressum jejuniorum, 727–8. In Assumptionem Christi, 727–30. De jejunio, 731–32. De jejunio, 731–38. De oratione, 73.7–40. In illud Ignem veni (Luc., XII, 49), 739–42. Admonitione? Spirituales, 741–4. In principium jejuniorum, 745–8. In adorationem crucis, 747–54. In resurrectionem Christi, 753–6. In parabolam Samaritani, 755–8. De jejunio, 757–60. De jejunio et de Davide, 759–64. In Annuntiatio tem Deiparæ, 763–70. De eleemosyna, 769–70. De caritate 769–72. In Lazarum 1–3, 771–6, 775–8, 777–80. 63 (XII). In illud In principio erat Verbum (Joan., 1, 1), 543–50. De mansuetudine, 519–56. In novam Dominicam et in apost. Thomam, 927–30, In S. Stephanum, 1–3. 929–32; 931–4, 933–4. In S. Pentecosten, 933–8. De patientia et consummatione sæculi, 937–42. Encomium S. Gregorii Illuminatoris, 943–54. 64 (XIII). De jejunio et prophetis, 15–16. De jejunio et Davide, 17–18. De non contemnenda Dei clementia, 17–18. De hemorrhoissa, 17–20. De mari (Luc., VIII, 22), 19–22. De similitudine sinapis (Matt., XIII, 31), 21–26. In illud Si qua nova creatura (2 Cor., V, 17), 25–34. In illud Hic esi Filius (Matt., XVII, 5), 33–8. De virginitate, 37–44. De cognitione Dei in S. Theophania, 13–46. In Assumptionem D.-N. J.-C.. 45–48. In stagnum Genesaret et in S. Petrum, 47–52. JOANNES CINNAMUS, s. XII, 133. Historiarum libri, 1–7, 309–678. Tollii præfatio, 299–304. Du Cange. Præfatio,299–304; de Cinnamo, 305–8. Du Cange. Appendix ad Cinnamum . Tabulæ seu stemmata, 679–94. Du Cange. Descriptio urbis CP., ex Christophoro de Bondelmontibus, cum notis Du Cange, 695–708. |
| If we extract separate texts and ideas from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, it is easy to find seeming contradictions in them. Genuine theology, in its understanding of revelation, always applied the principle of (if we can say so) “gnosiological catholicity.” The entire content of Scripture and Tradition expressed in so many books, texts, and ideas must be considered as one whole, of which each element depends on the others and on their totality. Only this understanding which unites the particular with the whole and comprehends everything in the light of the truth in the totality of its content is right. In Scripture and Tradition everything is complementary and each element explains the other. All is necessary for the understanding of the whole. But the foundation of theology is the knowledge of God. Theology must be built in the perspective of this knowledge. There is only one teacher and one true doctrine for the Church, that is: Jesus Christ and His teaching (Matt. 23:8). “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God” (II John: 9). The preservation of the purity – that is the Orthodoxy–of Christ’s teaching has exceptional importance ( Gal. 1:6–12; II Cor. 4:1–6). All teachers who do not follow Christ or who deform His teaching are useless even for themselves – as food of bad quality (Heb. 13:7–9). All the fleshly, worldly, purely human doctrines and all myths can be harmful (Col. 2:4–23; Phil. 3:17–21; II Tim. 4:2–5). St. Paul violentiy rejects Pharisaical Judaism ( Gal. 1:6–12 ; Phil. 3:1–11 ). Our Lord Jesus Christ proclaims that all that is purely human (inasmuch as it is consciously or unconsciously opposed to God), and Judaism (which is opposed to Him) is derived from Satan (Matt. 16:22–23; John 8:49 ). VIII. Catholicity and Ethics God is holy because His existence and life are perfect. If the life of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit is from the Father ( John 5:26, 15:26 ), their holiness is also from the Father. Is the Son of God not the truth and the Logos of holiness, and the Holy Spirit the very holy hypostatical life? 12 Thus divine holiness, like divine truth, is manifested in three hypostatical forms. |
| 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 |
| The charge of demonization recalls what we know from the Synoptic tradition ( Mark 3:22 ). 6407 Here it may involve madness (here specifically paranoia). 6408 Greek sources describe madness in terms of divine possession 6409 and employ δαιμνιον and its cognates (though Greek thought typically lacked the pejorative connotations attached in Judaism) to refer to someone insane, often employing the designation as an insult (i.e., «you are crazy»), as here. 6410 But it in this context may also involve an additional component. The claim that Jesus has a «demon» (7:20; cf. 8:48–49; 10:20–21) may associate his works with sorcerers or false prophets, 6411 who were associated with demons or tried to manipulate their spirit-guides through incantations. 6412 Some ancient circles may have revered Moses as a «magician,» necessitating careful nuancing by writers, like Josephus and Philo, who wished to avoid such associations. 6413 Most circles, both Jewish 6414 and Gentile, 6415 regarded magicians as dangerous, 6416 and many sought to avoid the label for themselves or their heroes, 6417 or to charge opponents with the crime. 6418 Some other prophetic figures who acted in a bizarre, antisocial manner seem to have received this label as well (Josephus War 6.303, 305), 6419 including (according to the Q tradition in Matt 11:18; Luke 7:33) John the Baptist. Some contended that false prophets were moved by demons acting as familiar spirits (Irenaeus Haer. 1.13.1, 3). But because sorcery carried a capital sentence in biblical law (Exod 22:18; cf. Rev 21:8; 22:15), 6420 the charge functions ironically: at the very moment they accuse him of having a demon, they profess to be unaware of who might wish to kill him (7:20)! Jesus frequently claims not to act on his own but in obedience to the one who sent him (e.g., 7:16); by treating his father as a «demon,» they are guilty (like the religious leaders in the Markan tradition) of blaspheming against the Spirit ( Mark 3:22, 29–30 ; Matt 12:24, 32; cf. Luke 12:10). Jesus ultimately reverses the charge of de-monization, calling their father the devil ( John 8:41, 44 ). Such references to the devil and possession ( John 13:2, 27 ) suggest that Johns omission of exorcisms reflects his theological emphasis and not necessarily a disagreement with the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus as an exorcist. 6421 |
|
|
