| One may compare some Greek texts about the abode of the soul after death, such as one of the Cynic Epistles attributed to Heraclitus: Yet my soul will not sink, but, since it is a thing immortal, it will fly on high into heaven [εις ορανν]. The ethereal dwellings [αιθριοι, δμοι] will receive me. 8401 Some texts may refer to an eternal dwelling in the world to come, rather than one entered immediately at death. Second Enoch 65parallels eternal dwelling places (A has the singular) and paradise, 8402 and in 2 En. 36:3A (not J), an eternal «place» is «prepared» for Enoch before God " s face; in both recensions of 9:1, paradise «has been prepared» for the righteous (as Gehenna is for the wicked, 10:4; cf. Matt. 25:34, 41). These references may all be too late to accurately reflect any Jewish eschatology in the Johannine period, but they may also act as commentary on J En. 91:13, in which the righteous in the final time receive «houses» as rewards, 8403 and some passages in the Similitudes (39:5,41:2,45:1). In T. Ab. 20A, the σκηνα of the righteous ones and the μονα of the holy ones, Isaac and Jacob, are in paradise. 8404 Some also suggest an early eschatological reading of Ps 42:3 , although the LXX (42:3) has σκηνματα. 8405 A rabbinic tradition, apparently established by the early Amoraic period, promises a sukkah in the world to come to those who keep the commandment of dwelling in sukkoth in this world; 8406 if such a tradition were substantiated as early, it could suggest that John develops a motif related to Jesus» fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles (chs. 7–9). In a tradition attributed to the Tanna R. Meir, the abode of the righteous «on high» is contrasted with that of the wicked in Gehenna; 8407 some Amoraim spoke of ranks of canopies in the world to come, according to onés merit. 8408 But the term used here, μον, is rare in Greek and occurs only twice in John–here and in v. 23, where the present reference is explained; 8409 it is related to its verbal cognate μνω, which assumes prominence in the first paragraph of ch. 15 and is a theologically loaded term throughout the Gospe1. 8410 Both v. 23 and the use of the verb in ch. 15 indicate that the present experience of believers in God " s presence is the point of «dwelling place» in John 14:2 . 8411 The idea is that the Shekinah will always be among them (cf. Matt 1:23; 18:20; 28:20) and the community ought always to recognize this. 8412 2D. A Place Prepared (14:2) |
| In ch. 6, those whom Jesus will engage in midrashic discussion similarly misunderstand him. He tells them what to work for (6:27) and how to work for it (6:28–29: believe). But they fail to do what he requires, and having just seen a sign, they demand another one before they will believe (6:30; cf. 20:8, 29). They want him to do another work (6:30), because they want, not a sign pointing to the truth, but more earthly food (6:26,31), perhaps corresponding to their earthly Christology (6:15). They fail to see where the signs point. More significantly, they often indict themselves on their own ignorance of the Law. They argue that Jesus is wrong because none of the rulers or Pharisees believes in him (7:48), but their argument works against them in the narrative, since the reader knows that their view is mistaken for both groups (3:1; 7:50; later 12:41). And in light of 5(and perhaps 7with 2 Kgs 14:25), the Pharisees pronounce a curse on themselves in 7:49. They are right that one who does not keep Gods Law is not from God (9:16); but the reader, guided by the normative perspective of 7:19, 8and 8:55, sees this as an indictment of those who declare it, rather than of Jesus. Jesus» opponents are unable to discern who really belongs to the people of God (9vs. 9:3). The Law in the Fourth Gospel consistently favors Jesus. It bears witness to him (1:45), yet his opponents use it to crucify him (19:7) because they have misunderstood his explanations of his sonship, thinking that he made himself the Son of God (5:19–30; 10:34–36). Indeed, he himself is the Word made flesh, revealing God " s covenant character without Moses» veil; thus he is a fuller expression of that Law than even the written Law (1:14–18). 1889 His opponents» obedience to the Law is only in ritual matters (18:28; 19:31), and thus ritual purification is repeatedly contrasted with the life of the Spirit in John " s water motif, either by substitution or by supplementation. 1890 Jesus» opponents further violate the Law when they call Jesus a «sinner» (9:24) without sufficient proof (8:46; and Jesus» appeals to his Father " s witness have gone unanswered), for the Law forbids this sort of judgment (7:51). But while they suppose that Moses is their witness (9:28–29), he will ultimately testify against them (5:45; cf. 3:14; 6:32). 1891 |
| It is in this context that Jesus speaks of rejection by his «country» or «fatherland.» Onés «fatherland» tended to be an object of great loyalty, even to the death (Isocrates To Philip 55, Or. 5). 5658 Scholars debate the meaning of the «country» in which Jesus would have no honor. He left Samaria after two days because a prophet has no honor in his own country; but Samaria was honoring him, and Samaria was hardly «his own country.» Many insist that Jesus» «fatherland» in this Gospel is Galilee, since it seems clear in this Gospel that Jesus hails from there. 5659 They argue correctly that Jesus was more welcomed by the Samaritans than by the Galileans, 5660 so it is not impossible that Galilee is his «country» that rejects him here. But while Galilee was Jesus» own country in some sense, that observation belongs primarily to others (e.g., 1:45–46; 7:3,41, 52), whereas his true, ultimate origin is heaven (3:13, 31; 6:38,51); 5661 thus the question of origin apart from the question of rejection cannot settle the object of the saying. It is not primarily Galilee that rejects him in this Gospel (see our introduction, ch. 5). Thus the writer seems to indicate that Judea was Jesus» own country. 5662 John here provides not so much «a historical judgment» as «a theological one.» 5663 After all, as messiah, Jesus would be a son of David (cf. 7:42), and of Judahite descent (4:9; 18:35), according to the flesh (1:14; Rom 1:3 ), even if he was also more than a son of David ( Mark 12:36–37 ). Perhaps more critically, the ideal reader recalls 1:11: Jesus came to «his own,» and they did not receive him. His own are «Jews» (4:9; 18:35), «Judeans» in the broad sense of the term, which allows for a contrast with the welcome reception by the Samaritans. 5664 Further, in this context the Galileans explicitly welcome him (4:45). 5665 Thus the writer applies the saying quite differently from Synoptic writers, who apply it to Nazareth ( Mark 6:4 ; Matt 13:57; Luke 4:24). 5666 John probably also reflects here the assumption that his audience knows and accepts the tradition in which Jesus was born in Bethlehem (see comment on 7:42). |
| Thus part of the Paracletés defense of the disciples is to turn the tables, bringing charges against their accusers, 9219 just as Jesus usually managed to turn the tables on his accusers in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., 5:16, 45–47; 8:46; 9:39–41). 9220 (It was standard judicial rhetorical practice to invert opponents» claims about right and wrong, wisdom and folly.) 9221 In ancient courts, a persuasive accuser could generally demolish defendants of lower status; a persuasive patronal advocate with ties to the judge would also be difficult to defeat. In fact, in many ancient judicial proceedings, social inferiors could not even bring suit against social superiors; 9222 before God " s court, the Christians» accusers would have no case.) As Jesus proclaims God and refutes his adversaries» charges in the Fourth Gospel, so the Paraclete equips the Johannine community for witness and apologetic in the setting of conflict. 9223 Likewise, as Jesus is the intercessor before God " s throne, the Spirit is «another advocate» aiding the disciples before an earthly tribuna1. 9224 Whereas the «world» personified in the community " s opponents trusts in Moses, Moses will accuse them (5:45; cf. λγχω in Jas 2:9); the Spirit who inspired the law of Moses and continues the work of Jesus will continue the prosecuting work of each. 2. Background in the Biblical Prophets The Paraclete here is thus both intercessor and prosecutor of those who bring a charge against God " s servants. The idea of God pleading the case of the afflicted against their adversaries appears in an eschatological context 9225 in Jer 50:34; 51 (RSV): Their Redeemer is strong; the LORD of hosts is his name. He will surely plead their cause, that he may give rest to the earth, but unrest to the inhabitants of Babylon. Therefore thus says the LORD: «Behold, I will plead your cause and take vengeance for you ... and Babylon shall become a heap of ruins ...» The work of prosecution, or accusation, was regarded as primarily the work of Satan if directed against God " s people. 9226 Satan, 9227 or Mastema, 9228 regularly appears as Israel " s accuser in early Jewish texts; by the Amoraic period, he accuses Israel continually except on Yom Kippur 9229 (cf. Rev 12:10; see further the note on John 14:16 ). But God himself was perfectly able to prosecute his people or the nations for breach of covenant faithfulness (e.g., Ps. 50:8–21 ); later teachers could envision the law accusing God " s people when they disobeyed it. 9230 More to the point in the context of this Gospel, it was really the accusers who were on trial in the accusations and trial of Jesus (3:19–20). As Schnackenburg observes: |
| 6097 Like Roman clients, the crowds join Jesus» «entourage» just for «a handout of food»; 6098 clients in return sought to advance their patrons» political ambitions (which makes sense of 6:15). It was also known that people commonly listened to famous speakers for leisure or entertainment, not with an intention to change. 6099 They seek bread which «perishes» (6:27; cf. 6:12), so that those who depend on it alone likewise perish (cf. 6:39; 12:25). Jesus summons them to seek instead the bread which «endures» or «abides» (6:27; cf. 6:56) for eternal life (cf. 6:40; 10:28), which the Son of Man would give them (cf. 6:33; 10:28). In the beginning, their misunderstanding parallels that of the Samaritan woman (6:34; 4:15), 6100 though unlike her, most of them do not come to faith in Jesus within the duration of the narrative. Works (6:27–29) were central in Jewish ethics (e.g., Wis 9:12; see further below); John returns to this theme from a different angle in 8:39–41 (cf. also 3:21; 7:7). Some circles of early Christian polemic opposed faith and works to each other against traditional Jewish soteriology or some early Jewish-Christian soteriology ( Rom 3:27–28; 9:32 ; Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5 ); 6101 but John redefines the term «work» rather than disparaging it. 6102 That he redefines it is fairly plain: rather than laboring for actual food (as most of them would do during most of the year), they should work for what the Son of Man would «give» them–the familiar sense of «giving» providing an image disjunctive with the familiar sense of «work» (except perhaps to servants). Here Jesus» hearers, invited by him to work for eternal life (6:27), wish to know how Jesus defines «work» (6:28). 6103 Jewish tradition never isolated works from faith. 6104 Yet in contrast to their tradition (in which faith was often one work among many), Jesus defines the work essential for eternal life as faith in him (6:29); this proves to be the one work they are unwilling to do (6:30; cf. 6:41, 52, 66). With typical Johannine double entendre, they identify Jesus» «signs» with his «works» (6:30; cf. |
| John came baptizing so that Jesus would be manifest to Israel (1:31), and indeed the true Israelite would recognize him even before his exaltation as Jacob " s ladder (1:47–51). «His own» who did not receive him (1:11) are ultimately no longer attached to the vine (15:6), whereas those who did receive him become God " s children, heirs of the covenant (1:12; cf. 8:34–47), that is, «his own» (10:3, 14). In John " s distinctive irony, disciples–especially those officially excommunicated from the people of God (9:34–41)–inherit the ancient covenantal images for Israel, while their opponents, who claim to uphold Judaism, are presented in OT language as profaners of the covenant (10:1–8). Whether John writes of Jewish Christians only, or of Gentile Christians as well, may be debated; what is clear is that John and his opponents define the people of God in distinct and generally antithetical ways. Some scholars use John " s clear emphasis on his Jewish heritage to «deconstruct» what they regard as John " s simultaneous «anti-Judaism» for modern readers. 1896 But we should not think John " s first audience needed to deconstruct one part of his message by appealing to another part. In a world where most monotheists and adherents to Israel " s Bible were Jewish by birth or conversion, the distance between affirming Jewish heritage and repudiating Jewish people would appear even more obvious than it does in our modern period, when Christians (and, to a slighter extent, Muslims) have claimed that heritage. John " s emphasis on his Jewish heritage (feasts, biblical citations, etc.) is so thoroughgoing that it seems doubtful he could have been anti-Judaic in his first setting; and his ideal audience must have shared the inside information that made sense of his less savory uses of the term «Jews.» 5. “The Jews» and the Johannine Sitz: Pharisaic Power We will not repeat our discussion of the Sitz im Lehen of the Fourth Gospel treated earlier, but merely point out here that that discussion seems to be relevant here. Because the Galileans turn out to be more receptive than the Judeans, for instance (1:43; 2:1; 4:3, 43; 7:1, 9; etc.), we may suspect that some regional factionalism is in view (cf. 7:41, 52; see our following chapter). Assuming that John wrote in the last decade of the first century, Jerusalem no longer stood as the center of Judean Judaism, but Yavneh had no doubt begun to take its place. There many Jewish leaders, including many of particular Pharisaic persuasions, freed from much of their ideological competition by the destruction of the temple cult, wanted to centralize and reformulate Judaism. 1897 |
| 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). |
| The response of confusion (6:40–41) stems from an inadequate hermeneutic; they knew Jesus according to the flesh but missed his genuine identity, which could be understood only by the Spirit ( John 3:3, 11–12 ; cf. 2Cor 5:16–17 ; Matt 11:25; 16:17; Luke 10:21). 6172 Their grumbling (6:41; cf. 6:61; 7:32) recalls the grumbling of Exod 16:2, 6173 but in that case Israel grumbled before receiving the manna, whereas these hearers complain after receiving bread and the invitation of the ultimate satiation for their hunger. 6174 Perhaps because of their attitude at this point, these Galileans finally receive the ironically pejorative title «Jews,» that is, «Judeans.» 6175 The rejection of Jesus based on familiarity with him (6:42) undoubtedly reflects historical tradition ( Mark 6:1–6 ; Matt 13:53–58), 6176 while also serving John " s particular emphasis (1:11). Johns readers probably know the virgin birth tradition, which is earlier than either Matthew or Luke (their testimonies appear in accounts independent from one another), and if John does know this tradition (see comment on 7:41–42), 6:42 may presuppose the reader " s knowledge that the crowd " s claim to knowledge reveals ignorance. 6177 But John is more interested in their ignorance of Jesus» ultimate place of origin. That other outsiders admit ignorance of his place of origin (7:27) makes the present inadequate claim to know his place of origin all the more ironic. Jesus notes that the Father draws some to him (6:43–44), using biblical language for God drawing Israel to himself in the wilderness or the exile ( Jer 31:3 ; Hos 11LXX); 6178 the reader later learns that the Father draws such adherents through the proclamation of the cross ( John 12:32–33 ). 6179 Only those whom the Father gives to Jesus «come» to him in faith (6:37, 44). Jewish prayers such as the fifth benediction of the Amidah recognized God " s sovereignty even in granting repentance (cf. Rom 2:4 ). 6180 Like most of his Jewish contemporaries, John felt no tension between predestination and free wil1. 6181 Antinomies were in any case standard fare both in Greco-Roman rhetoricians and in Jewish writings. 6182 Because of increasing cosmic fatalism in late antiquity, philosophers had to begin defending a doctrine of free will previously taken for granted, and early Christian commentators likewise proved careful to emphasize that Jesus» statements do not deny free wil1. 6183 |
| 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. |
| Second, the Baptist " s own traditions would hardly be anti-Jewish; and if the character of the traditions could be modified after John " s time to yield anti-Judaism, why could they not have also originated in a later period? Third, all evidence for Mandean belief is too late to be of value; like supposed evidence in the Slavonic Josephus, it is medieva1. 3444 If we recognize Jewish or orthodox Christian roots in anti-Jewish and anti-orthodox gnostic texts as early as the second century, how much more should we reject Reitzenstein " s suggestion of Mandean doctrinés independence based on its anti-Christian character? Bultmann thinks that the Fourth Gospel has christianized material originally applied to John the Baptist by adding 1:6–8, 15, and possibly 1:17; 3445 but this postulates that followers of the Baptist had ideas for which we lack a shred of first-century evidence, and against which in fact is any evidence we do have (such as Acts 19:3–5). Still, the text suggests an intentional contrast between Jesus and John, and a polemical agenda is difficult to dismiss. Other texts in the Fourth Gospel reinforce this impression. The Baptist waxes eloquent in 3:27–36 concerning Jesus» obvious superiority; cf. also 1:15, 24–27, 29–34; 4:1; 5:36; 10:41. (Some see in such texts a sign of positive relations between John " s community and the Baptist sect, 3446 but one wonders how positively Johannine Christians would view a sect that they considered to have defective Christology and thus soteriology; cf. 14:6.) One may ask why the Baptist, as distinct from other characters, should need to be so self-effacing. If one responds that it is merely because he appears to be the only unambiguously positive witness in the Gospel, we may point to the beloved disciple and ask why he is not similarly self-effacing. It is reasonable to suppose that our author was concerned about John " s reputation vis-â-vis that of the Lord. Further, in contrast to the Synoptics, where the Baptist " s ministry paves the way for that of Jesus but the ministries overlap little, the Fourth Gospel overlaps the period of the two ministries (3:23–24). 3447 Conflicts with followers of the Baptist could stand behind this difference, whether the Synoptics minimized the overlap or (more likely) John emphasized it, or both. 3448 More important, Painter has demonstrated the polemical intention of 1:6–8 by contrasting its various assertions with the prologués much greater confessions of Jesus. 3449 |
|
|
