| 8790 Epictetus Diatr. 3.13.9–11; probably Let. Arts. 273; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 2.2.3; Seneca Dia1. 7.8.6. 8792 Tob 13:14; 1 En. 1:6–8; 5:7–10; 71:17; 105(contrast 98:11, 15; 99:13; 101:3; 103for the wicked); Jub. 1:15; 23:29–30; 31:20; 1QM 1.9; 12.3 (after the battle); Sib. Or. 2.29; 3.367–380,751–755, 780–782; 5.384–385; T. Jud. 22:2; Lev. Rab. 9:9, bar.; Christian material in Γ. Dan 5:11. Ford, «Shalom,» compares the quietistic pacifism/Divine Warrior picture of Revelation with the Gospel " s picture of Jesus submitting to suffering, in defining Johannine «peace» (cf. 16:33; 20:19,21,26). 8793 This wing of Pharisaism was probably a minority in the first century; see, e.g., Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 86, 324. 8794 Cf. the standard rabbinic «Great is peace, for ...» (Sipre Num. 42.2.3; Sipre Deut. 199.3.1; Gen. Rab. 38(Tannaitic attribution); 48:18; 100:8 (Tannaitic attribution); cf. Sipra Behuq. pq. 1.261.1.14). It is associated with keeping the commandments (Sipra VDDen. pq. 16.28.1.1,3) and is a fruit of righteousness (m. Abot 2:7, attributed to Hillel). Cf. AbotR. Nat. 48, §134B; Num. Rab. 21:1. 8796 This joy likewise characterizes the harvest of new believers (4:36; cf. Luke 15:6–7, 9–10, 23–24); cf. the realized eschatology in Abraham " s foretaste of Jesus» day (8:56). In context, 15includes love toward one another. 8799 Many philosophers regarded perfection as superlative (e.g., Seneca Ep. Luci1. 66.8–12) and hence would have to regard Jesus» character, if true deity, as nonsubordinate; but perfection of identity can be easily confused with identity of all that is perfect. For some historic interpretations of 14:28, see, e.g., Whitacre, John, 366–68. For more ontological rankings among pagan philosophers, cf., e.g., Porphyry Marc. 16.269–270 (only God is greater than virtue) 8802 Pagans also regarded fulfilments as confirmations, though they were sometimes deceptive (e.g., Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.9, depending on magic). 8803 This princés «coming» (14:30) may also contrast with his own «coming» back to them after the resurrection (14:3, 28); the antichrist figure of Revelation often parodies God " s Messiah (Rev 13:3–4, 18; 17:8). |
| 6761 E.g., Phaedrus 1.2.1–3, 11–31. 6762 E.g., 4 Macc 3:2; 13:1–2; T. Ash. 3:2; 6:5; T. Jos. 7:8; T. Jud. 18:6; Josephus Ant. 1.74; 4.133; 15.88; War 1.243; Philo Abraham 241; Alleg. Interp. 2.49; Creation 165; Good Person 17; Heir 269; Unchangeable 111; cf. Decharneux, «Interdits»; Let. Arts. 211,221–223; T. Jud. 15:2,5; Sim. 3:4; Rom 6:6; 16:18 ; Phil 3:19 . 6763 Odeberg, Gospel 297–301; idem, Pharisaism, 50–52,56; cf. Gen. Rab. 94:8; Wis 1:4. Cf. freedom from the hostile angel in CD 16.4–6; from the Angel of Death in late material in Exod. Rab. 41:7; 51:8; Num. Rab. 16:24; Song Rab. 8:6, §1; from astrological powers in t. Sukkah 2:6; b. Ned. 32a; Šabb. 156a; Sukkah 29a; Gen. Rab. 44:10; Pesiq. Rab. 20:2. 6764 Odeberg, Gospel 296–97; Whitacre, Polemic, 69,75–76; but cf. Schnackenburg, John, 2:208. 6765 Black, Approach, 171, comparing «abed and »abd. 6766 Also, e.g., Num 5:6–7 LXX; 2Cor 11:7 ; Jas 5:15; 1Pet 2:22 . 6767 Cf. the two spirits and ways in Qumran and elsewhere ( Deut 30:15 ; Ps 1:1 ; m. " Abot 2:9; T. Ash. 1:3, 5; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 8.3; 27.4; Diogenes Ep. 30; see further Keener, Matthew, 250, on 7:13–14). Barrett, John, 345, appeals especially to Greek thought here, but he cites for it only Philo and Corp. herm. 10.8. 6768 CPJ 1:249–50, §135; p. Ter. 8:1; Rawson, «Family,» 7; Dixon, Mother, 16; Safrai, «Home,» 750. 6769 They could be divided at inheritance (P.S.I. 903, 47 C.E.). 6770 Cf. abundant references to freedpersons, e.g., P.Oxy. 722 (ca. 100 C.E.); CIL 2.4332; 6.8583; ILS 1578. Such freedom sometimes had strings attached (see, e.g., Horsley, Documents, 4:102–3); cf. the freedwoman who inherited half her master " s debt (CPJ 2:20–22, §148). 6771 E.g., BGL/5.65.164; 5.66–67.165–70. 6772 E.g., P.Cair.Zen. 59003.11–22; P.Oxy. 95; Terence Self-Tormentor 142–144. 6773 For rare examples of disownment, see, e.g., P.Cair.Masp. 67353 (569 C.E.); Isaeus Estate of Menecles 35; 43; especially in hypothetical declamations, e.g., Seneca Controv. 1.1.intr.; 1.6.intr.; 1.8.7; 2.1.intr.; 2.4.intr.; 3.3; Hermogenes Issues 33; 40.20; 41.1–13; Berry and Heath, «Declamation»; in Roman law, see Garnsey and Sailer, Empire, 137; for the revocation of wills, e.g., P.Oxy. 106 (135 C.E.); for the usual (but not certain) presumption of disinherited sons» guilt, see Hermogenes Issues 47.1–6; the disinheritance could be challenged at times if the grounds were inadequate (Hermogenes Issues 38.12–17; Valerius Maximus 7.7.3). For the son being greater than the servant in this Gospel, cf., e.g., John 1:27 . |
| 5899 E.g., 2 Bar. 51:1–2; cf. t. Ber. 6:6. For distinction after death, see 1 En. 22:9–11; cf. sources in Keener, Matthew, 129, on Gehinnom, and 710–11, on the resurrection of the dead. 5900 It appears in most streams of NT tradition and is denied in none: Acts 24:15; 2Cor 5:10 ; Rev 20:4–6; Matt 25:46; cf. Matt 5:29–30; 10:28; Luke 11:32; Bernard, John, 1:245. 5901 1QS 4.13–14; Gen. Rab. 6:6; most sinners in t. Sanh. 13:3,4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10:4; Pesiq. Rab. 11:5; cf. 2Macc 12:43–45. By contrast, the souls of the wicked will remain in hell on the day of judgment in 1 En. 22:13; 61:5; 108:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 12:12; t. Sanh. 13:5; probably L.A.B. 38:4; Ascen. Isa. 1:2; 3 En. 44:3; t. Ber. 5:31. 5902 Ps 62:12 ; Prov 24:12 ; Sir 16:12,14 ; Matt 16:27; Rom 2:6 ; 2Cor 11:15 ; Rev 22:12; Pesiq. Rab. 8:2; cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.2.3. 5903 It continued in widespread use (Josephus Life 256; Ant. 4.219; b. Sanh. 37b, bar.; p. Git. 4:1, §2; cf. m. Roš Haš. 1:7; 2:6); see further the comment under 8:13. Early Christians also employed this rule; see 2Cor 13:1 ; 1Tim 5:19 ; Matt 18:16. 5904 Boring et al, Commentary, 270–71, cites Cicero Rose. Amer. 36.103. Witnesses confirmed a matter (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 26), and a claim offered without them might be scathingly contested (Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111). 5905 E.g., Lysias Or. 4.5–6, §101; 7.12–18, §§109–110; 12.27–28, §122; 19.24, §154; 29.7, §182; Cicero Quinct. 24.76. Establishing a credible motive was standard procedure for the prosecution (Cicero Rose. Amer. 22.61–62). 5906 E.g., Isaeus Estate of Cleonymus 31–32, §37; Estate of Hagnias 6; Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111; 7.43, §112. Cf. the preference for multiple and diverse testimonies, e.g., in Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 61, §19D; for challenging the credibility of opposing witnesses, see, e.g., Hermogenes Issues 45.5–10. 5907 Cicero Quinct. 23.75. 5908 The witness of one person was inadequate in many kinds of cases (Boice, Witness, 47, cites m. Ketub. 2:9; Roè Haï. 3:1); self-accusation, by contrast, could invite condemnation (Achilles Tatius 7.11.1; though in early Judaism cf. Cohn, Trial, 98). In some matters, however, onés self-testimony was held reliable (e.g., m. Ketub. 2:10), even against two witnesses (m. Tehar. 5:9). |
| 3614 Boismard, Prologue, 48–49; Morris, John, 103–4; survey of background in Coloe, Temple Symbolism, 31–63; against Barrett, John, 165. Jesus thus becomes the new temple (Jerusalem was God " s tabernacling-place, κατασκνωσις–Tob 1:4); see comment on 2:19–21; 4:21–24; 7:37–39; 10:36; 14:2–3; and cf. Brown, Community, 49; Painter, John, 57; cf. commentators on the hidden manna and ark under Rev 2:17. 3615 Stuart, «Examination,» 311; Hoskyns, Gospel, 148; Gaston, Stone, 209; contrast Barrett, John, 165. 3616 Sir 24:8 ; the parallel is widely noted (Harris, «Origin»; Vos, «Range,» 404; Haenchen, John, 1:119; Gaston, Stone, 209; Glasson, Moses, 66; Hoskyns, Gospel, 148; cf. Barrett, John, 166). Cf. Bar 3:37 ; Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.46 and Congr. 116 (the tabernacle represents Wisdom); Posterity 122 (the λγος θεος ενοκει among those who contemplate eternal things); cf. T. Levi 2:11; 5:2; 6:5; the name in Did. 10.2. 3618 On the sukkah recalling the wilderness cloud of glory, hence God " s sheltering presence, in rabbinic texts, see Rubenstein, «Sukkah» Isa 4suggests an eschatological cloud of glory for a new exodus (even more emphatic in Tg. Isa. 4:5). 3619 Wis 12:1; See further Isaacs, Spirit, 23. Isaacs suggests that Philós doctrine of immanence may reflect dependence on biblical tradition as well as on the language of the Stoa (Spirit, 29). 3620 «Abot R. Nat. 1 A; b. Yoma 4a (early Tannaitic attribution); Num. Rab. 11:6; Pesiq. Rab. 21:6; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1(citing m. »Abot 3:2, the oldest comment on the Shekinah); Abelson, Immanence, 143–45; with the Word, 146–49. Wisdom has glory in Wis 9:11, and functioned as God " s glory or Shekinah in the wilderness, guiding the righteous and being a covering by day and flame of stars by night (Wis 10:17; cf. Exod 13:21). 3621 4Q504 4.2–6; Num. Rab. 12:3; 14:22; Song Rab. 3:11, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 5:7, 9; 7:4; Tg. Neof. on Exod 25:8; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:51–53; for transferral of the idea to synagogues, see Lev. Rab. 11:7; glory is associated with booths in the wilderness, but again only rarely (b. Sukkah lib, attributed to R. Eliezer vs. R. Akiba). Some Amoraim sought to harmonize the universality of God " s presence with its localization in the tabernacle (e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:2; Num. Rab. 12:4; Song Rab. 3:10, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 5:7). On glory and the tabernacle, see Exod 40:32–36; 1 Kgs 8:10–11; Boismard, Prologue, 144. |
| 3311 Nothing comes into being against God " s will except evil deeds (Cleanthes» Hymn to Zeus in Stobaeus Ed. 1.1.12, in Grant, Religions, 153). 3312 1QS 11.11. This comparison was offered as early as Brownlee, «Comparison,» 72, and has often been offered subsequently (Wilcox, «Dualism,» 89; Cross, Library, 215 n. 34). Freed, «Influences,» 146, in fact, calls it «the closest parallel from the Dead Sea Scrolls yet known to any passage in the NT.» 3314 1QS 11.17. Schnackenburg similarly comments on the contrasts between «all» and «nothing» in creation language in this document (John, 1:238); cf. a similar contrast in 1 En. 84:3. 3315 1QS 3.15. Hengel, Judaism, 1:218–19, regards this as analogous to Greek philosophical language. 3316 On the universés or matter " s uncreatedness and consequent eternality (the Peripatetic view), cf. Aristotle Heav. 1.9 (the heavens, not the elements, 3.6); Cicero Tusc. 1.23.54 (the heavens); an Epicurean in Cicero Nat. d. 1.9.21–22; Plotinus Enn. 2.1.1; Philo Eternity passim; Chroust, «Fragment»; idem, «Comments.» On its eternality in particular, cf. Macrobius Comm. 2.10, 19 (Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 223); Lucretius Nat. 1.215–264, 958–1115; Sidebottom, James, 119; on its continual re-creation till the present (closer to the Platonic view, cf. Bauckham, Jude, 301; cf. Stoicism in, e.g., Seneca Berief 4.8.1; Dia1. 6.26.7; Heraclitus in Diogenes Laertius 9.1.7), Gen. Rab. 3:7; Ecc1. Rab. 3:11, §1; cf. disputes in Gen. Rab. 1:5. 3317 A view often espoused, even as late as the late-fourth-century writer Sallustius in Concerning the Gods and the Universe §§7,13,17 (Grant, Religion, 184–85,190–91,192–94). 3318 Plato Tim. 29A-30. The universe thus originates from what is eternal, not from what has become (το γεγονς). 3319 Cf. the Loeb introduction to Plutarch " s Gen. of Soul (Moralia, LCL 13:137); others may have simply echoed the language (e.g., Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 379, §126D; Menander Rhetor 2.17,438.16–17). 3320 Cf. Epitome of Gen. of Soul 2, Mor. 1030E; the note there refers to 1016C, 1017AB, 1014B, 1029DE, and 1030C. Stoics in Paul " s day could picture God as the universés soul (Seneca Nat. 2.45.1–2). |
| 6920 T. Ab. 8:9A. Cf. Homer Il. 21.107, where Achilles reminds Lycaon that Patroclus was a better man than he and died anyway (then slays him, 21.115–119). 6921 Commonly noted, e.g., Barrett, John, 351; Morris, John, 469. 6922 Q also polemicizes against false claims to descent from «Abraham our father» (Matt 3:9; Luke 3:8). 6923 See further comments by Neyrey, «Shame of Cross,» 126–27; our comments on 5:18. 6924 Publilius Syrus 597; Plutarch Praising, Mor. 539A-547F (esp. 15, Mor. 544D); 2Cor 12:11 ; see our introductory comment on John 5:31–47 . 6925 Also Bar 2:35 . 6926 Some later Jewish traditions allowed him to share it with Israel (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:2); see further the comment on 5:44. 6927 The claim is ad hominem (so Michaels, John, 144; Barrett, John, 351), but it does not strictly reject their physical ancestry here; rather, he exhorts them to function as children of Abraham ought (cf. 1Cor 6:6–11 ). 6928 Cf. revelation on the «Lord " s Day,» possibly an eschatological double entendre (cf. Shepherd, Liturgy, 78), in Rev 1(on the noneschatological aspect of the phrase, see Did. 14.1; Deissmann, East, 358–59; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 65; perhaps also Ign. Magn. 9.1, but cf. Lewis, «Ignatius»). 6929 So Schnackenburg, John, 2:221, citing Jub. 15:17; Targum Onqelos; Philo Names 154, 161, 175; cf. Haenchen, John, 2:29. In Genesis, however, Abraham " s laughter undoubtedly functions as Sarah " s would (18:12–15; cf. 21:6). 6930 Hanson, Gospel, 126–28. 6931 4 Ezra 3:14; 2 Bar. 4:4; L.A.B. 23:6; Apoc. Ab. 9–32; Gen. Rab. 44:12. In Philo, Abraham encounters the Logos (Migration 174, in Argyle, «Philo,» 38; on Philo here, cf. more fully On the Change of Names in Urban and Henry, «Abraham»). 6932 E.g., Hunter, John, 94; Cadman, Heaven, 115; Morris, Studies, 221; Brown, John, 1:360; Bell, I Am, 197. Contrast McNamara, Targum, 144–45. 6933 E.g., b. B. Bat. 16b-17a, bar. Others also receive such visions; e.g., Adam (2 Bar. 4:3; " Abot R. Nat. 31A; 42, §116B; b. Sanh. 38b; Gen. Rab. 21:9; 24:2; Pesiq. Rab. 23:1); Joseph (Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 45:14 ); Amram (4Q544 lines 10–12; 4Q547 line 7); Moses (Sipre Deut. 357.5.11); and R. Meir (Num. Rab. 9:20). |
| See «Abot R. Nat. 2 A; »Abot R. Nat. 2, §13 B; b. Hag. 14a; Ber. 12b; c Abod. Zar. 16b-17a (R. Eliezer; cf. Ecc1. Rab. 1:8, §3), 27b (R. Ishmael with a Christian faith healer); Ecc1. Rab. 1:8, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 13:6; Justin Dia1. 35; cf. Herford, Christianity, 218–19; Schiffman, Jew, 64–67. On Justin in the above connection, see Williams, Justin, xxxii, 74 n. 3. Kalmin, «Heretics,» finds the emphasis on their seductiveness especially in early Palestinian materia1. 1638 E.g., b. Sanh. 33b; Hu1. 84a (Amoraic); Herford, Christianity, 226–27; Dalman, Jesus, 36–37. The discussions may be simply a literary form to glorify the rabbis and to present the minim as foolish, but the substance of the debates suggests that some genuine controversies occurred (e.g., perhaps memories of conflicts in Lydda; cf. Schwartz, «Ben Stada»). 1640 Palestinian rabbinic anti-Christian polemic appears sophisticated by the fifth and sixth centuries C.E.; cf. Visotzky, «Polemic.» 1642 Num. Rab. 4:9, 9:48; Ecc1. Rab. 2:8, §2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:2, 4(all purportedly from the Johannine period); p. Meg. 1:11, §3 and 3:2, §3 (claiming to reflect Tannaitic tradition); see Barrett, «Anecdotes.» Some antipagan polemical collections may have later been adapted against Christians (Hirschman, «Units»). 1646 E.g., m. «Abot 2:14; b. Sanh. 38b [=»Abot 2:14]; cf. t. Sanh. 13:5; p. Sanh. 10:1, §7; see Geiger, «Apikoros.» 1647 E.g., b. Sanh. 39a; Bek. 8b; Ecc1. Rab. 2:8, §2 (all purportedly Tannaitic; this category is probably fictitious, maybe in response to anti-Jewish propaganda like Acts of Alexandrian Martyrs). 1649 B. Hu1. 84a; Sanh. 38b (purportedly Tannaitic), 39a, 43a, 90b, 99a; Meg. 23a; Ber. 10a; cf. b. Yoma 56b-57a (textual variant and probably a Sadducee); cf. further Moore, «Canon,» 123–24; Maier, Jesus in Überlieferung, 170–71; Bagatti, Church, 98ff. 1650 The forms are culture-specific and are even used of God with his angels (e.g., b. Roš Haš. 32b). Despite this stylization of form, there may have been some similarity to actual debate techniques and issues; cf. Stylianopoulos, Justin, 124. |
| 9490 Beasley-Murray, John, 302. 9491 Ibid., 307. 9492 Pamment, «17:20–23.» Contrast the oneness (unum) of Stoic writers, who tended toward pantheism (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 95.52). 9493 Cf. Kysar, Maverick Gospel, 100. 9494 See esp. Epp, «Wisdom,» 144. 9495 The Father " s love for the Son before the «foundation of the world» (17:24) is equivalent to «in the beginning» (1:1–2; cf. 9:32; καταβολ in Matt 13:35; Luke 11:50; Heb 4:3; 9:26; it often appears in the NT in predestinarian contexts, such as Rev 13:8; 17:8; Matt 25:34; Eph 1:4 ; 1Pet 1:20 ); they shared glory before the world began (17:5). 9496 Sipre Deut. 97.2 , on Deut 14:2 . 9497 With Beck, Paradigm, 132 (following Kurz, «Disciple,» 102), which he rightly takes (pp. 133–36) as evidence for reader identification with the beloved disciple. 9498 This refers to the experience of the Spirit, not merely to heaven after death (pace, e.g., Witherington, Wisdom, 271). 9499 Even Glasson " s moderately worded connection with Moses» préexistent mission in As. Mos. 1(Moses, 77; cf. Bernard, John, 2:580, based on a few words) is too far from the mark; the preexistence here is divine (Barrett, John, 514), the sort of préexistent glory attributed to Wisdom and Torah (see comment on 1:1–2). 9500 The long discourse of chs. 13–17 concludes with a note that Jesus had «said these things» (18:1), a familiar way for a narrator to close a discourse (Jub. 32:20; 50:13; Musonius Rufus 8, p. 66.26; Acts 20:36; it becomes standard in Matthew–7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1; cf. Keener, Matthew, 256). 9501 Cf. 1 En. 90(«Lord of righteousness,» which could be rendered «righteous Lord»). This was appropriate for a ruler (cf. Prov 20:28; 25:5 ); cf. the address to Ptolemy (βασιλε δκαιε) in Let. Arts. 46. 9502 See Painter, John, 61. Cf. Isa 1:27; 56:1; 58:8; 1QS 10.11; 11.2, 5, 9, 12–14; 1QH 4.29–32, 36–37; Przybylski, Righteousness, 37–38; in the LXX and elsewhere, see Stendahl, Paul, 31; Dahl, Paul, 99; Piper, Justification, 90–96; in the rabbis, e.g., Gen. Rab. 33:1; Ruth Rab. proem 1. |
| 5 See Jerome, Ep. 133.3 (ed. J.Labourt, VIII, [Paris, 1963], 53). 6 To use the usual English equivalents, which are not always quite appropriate: the Greek terms are gastrimargia, porneia, philarguria, lype, orgi, akidia, kenodoxia, hyperiphania. 7 Evagrius, Logos Praktikos 81 (Guillaumont et al. 1971 , 670). 8 Idem, ibid. 64 (Guillaumont et al. 1971 , 648). 9 Evagrius, On Prayer 53 (cf. Palmer 1979 , 62). 10 See Garrigues (1976), esp. 176–99; and Heinzer (1980), 181–98. 11 On the vexed question of Greek and Latin words for love, Oliver O’Donovan’s comment is pertinent: ‘It may be convenient for modern thinkers to label certain motifs by the Latin or Greek words which they think incapsulate them, but they should not then suppose they have discovered a lexicographical statute to which ancient writers can be held’ (O’Donovan 1980 , 10–11). On the language of love in Plato and the Fathers, see most recently Osborne (1994). 12 CC II.8, and cf. his doctrine in Ep. 2 (397BCD). 13 Cf. also CC I.55, II.14, III.56, IV.21.60f. 14 Cf. Ep. 2:405A. 15 See, for instance, CC II.16 (definition of passion) and II.17 (definition of vice). 16 Diadochus of Photike, Century on Spiritual Knowledge 17, cf. 72 (des Places 1966 , 94, 131). 17 For ‘sabbath’, cf. Isa. 66:23; for ‘sabbaths’, cf. Exod. 31:13; for ‘sabbaths of sabbaths’, cf. Lev. 16:31 (LXX). 18 For a more detailed analysis of the bulk of this Difficulty, see chapter 5 of the Introduction, below. 19 Makarios, Hom. 15.38 (ed. H.Dorries, E.Klostermann and M.Kroeger, Patristische Texte und Studien, 4, Berlin, 1964, pp. 149f.). 4 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 1 See Opusc. 20: PG 91:237CD, 244C-245A; 28:328C-329B. 2 Translation from Tanner (1990), 86–7 (slightly modified). 3 For an account of the historical development of the logos/tropos distinction and its use by Maximus, see Sherwood (1955a), 155–66; and Heinzer (1980), 29–58. 4 Gregory Nazianzen, Sermon 39.13 [PG 36:348D]. Gregory’s sermon is for the Feast of Lights, i.e., the Theophany (or the Epiphany). |
| It is in 6that Jesus explains the nature of his metaphors, explicitly defining the character of «the words I spoke to you.» Others consistently misinterpret Jesus» figurative pronouncements literally (3:4; 6:52; 11:12). It is not the literal flesh (cf. 6:51) that brings life, but the Spirit, 6258 a point also underlined in 3:6. 6259 The Spirit thus joins the Father and Son (5:21; cf. Rom 4:17 ; 1Cor 15:22 ) in giving life (6:63; cf. Rom 8:11 ; 2Cor 3:6 ; 1Pet 3:18 ; perhaps 1Cor 15:45 ). 6260 One may also note that flesh cannot comprehend divine truth adequately (cf. 3:12); elsewhere in the Jesus tradition as well, this comprehension requires a revelation from the Father (Matt 16:17; cf. ll:25–27/Luke 10:21–22). A merely human, «fleshly» perspective on Jesus and his words is inadequate ( 2Cor 5:16 ). 6261 Thus disciples must imbibe his Spirit, not his literal flesh (cf. 20:22); his life is present also in his words (6:68; cf. 15:7). In John, the «flesh» includes the best of human religion (see comment on 3:6), which, as here, profits nothing (φελε οδν; cf. 12:19). (Philosophers used «profit» as a moral criterion, 6262 though this provides merely a specialized example of the more general use.) Only religion birthed from the Spirit of God himself proves adequate for true worshipers (4:23–24). Jesus» words are from the Father (3:34; 12:47–50; 14:10; 17:8), like those of Moses (5:47), and only those taught by the Father would embrace them (6:45; 8:47). It is Jesus» message, his «words,» rather than his literal flesh, that communicates the life he has been promising through the heavenly bread (6:27, 33, 35, 40, 47–48, 51, 53–54, 57); it is those who «come» and «believe» whose hunger and thirst will be quenched (6:35; 7:37–38). They «stumbled» (6:61) and could not understand (6:60) because they did not believe (6:64), hence proved to be not from those the Father gave to Jesus (6:65; see comment on 6:37). Their unbelief or apostasy as uncommitted, unpersevering seekers of Jesus» gifts was of a piece with Judas " s apostasy (6:64), on which see comment on 6:71. (The designation of Judas as «the one who would betray him» appears to be antonomasia, a familiar form of periphrasis.) 6263 That Judas could therefore typify unfaithful professors of Christ suggests the distaste John holds for such persons, people undoubtedly known to John " s audience; ( 1 John 2:18–26). Their very failure to believe confirmed Jesus» warning that only those whom the Father drew would come to him (6:44,65). While this claim would not have qualified as an argument among ancient rhetoricians much better than it would today, 6264 the Johannine Jesus intends it not as an argument but as a warning in obscure language, the sort of riddles found among Mediterranean sages and assumed among sectarian interpreters like those at Qumran, intelligible only to those already inside the circle of understanding. 6265 2. Stumbling or Persevering (6:66–71 ) |
|
|
