| 2. The Multitude Divided (7:40–44) Because Jesus» gift of living water (7:37–38) could remind hearers of Moses» gift of water (Exod 17:1–7), 6564 the claim that Jesus is «the prophet» (7:40) probably refers to the eschatological Mosaic prophet expected on the basis of Deut 18:18 . 6565 Others suspect that he is the Christ (7:41a); both titles are true, though the popular Jewish conceptions represented in each (cf. 1:20–21) prove short of Johannine Christology (see introduction on Christology, ch. 7). But others were put off by his Galilean origin (7:41), as some had been by his apparent origin in Nazareth (1:46), though such skepticism could be surmounted by revelation and faith (1:47–49). (On regional bias in John " s tradition and its narrative function, see introduction, ch. 5.) In contrast to Jesus» hearers in the story world, the informed reader probably knows that Jesus did after all come from Bethlehem (7:42), casting the hearers» skepticism in an ironic light. 6566 Many ironies in Greek tragedies did not need to be spelled out because the story was already well known to the audience. 6567 The independent infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke–the only two extant first-century gospels with infancy narratives– both attest that many Christians accepted this tradition before John " s time, and at least by the time of Hadrian in the early second century even non-Christian residents of Bethlehem recognized a long-standing tradition of the site of Jesus» birth in a particular cave there. 6568 The tradition was probably sufficiently widely circulated to be taken for granted by John " s audience. Yet John nowhere mentions Jesus» birth in Bethlehem explicitly, because for him the crucial theological issue is not where Jesus was born, but where he was ultimately from: from above, from heaven, from God. 6569 Public divisions and factionalism such as those expressed in 7were common throughout ancient Mediterranean society. 6570 In literary works as in social reality, a public division over a person (7:43; 9:16; 10:19) could indicate that person " s prominence in the public eye. 6571 Apparently some of the officers wanted to carry out their orders (7:44; cf. 7:32) 6572 but could not do so because some of the other officers began to believe, with some of the crowd, that Jesus might be a spokesman for God (7:40–44). Although John " s characterization of Jesus» most vicious opponents is largely «flat " –that is, purely evil–he does concede that even in the Jewish establishment many respected Jesus, even if their Christology was too low to be full disciples (e.g., 3:2; 12:42). |
| On the literary level, Jesus» women supporters form a contrast to the soldiers just described (note the μεν ... δ construction in 19:24–25); but their presence is historically likely as well as theologically suggestive (cf. Mark 15:40–41 ). It is not unlikely that the soldiers would have permitted women followers to remain among the bystanders. 10159 First, they might not have recognized who among the crowds constituted Jesus» followers. Many people would be present merely to watch the execution; 10160 the onlookers could not be immediately beside the cross, of course, but could be within hearing range. Within John " s story world, if anyone pondered the details, more men might be in the temple preparing the paschal lambs, yielding a crowd with more women present; on the more historically likely Synoptic chronology, at least much of the crowd would remain women. But second, soldiers would be less likely to punish women present for mourning; those supposed to be relatives might be allowed near an execution. 10161 Ancient Mediterranean society in general allowed women more latitude in mourning, 10162 and women were far less frequently executed than men, though there were plenty of exceptions. 10163 The Synoptic π μακρθεν must allow a range within eyesight, yet it remains unclear how distant; the Synoptic language might echo Ps 38 (37LXX: π μακρθεν), in which friends and neighbors remain distant from the righteous psalmist " s suffering. 10164 Such factors might render John " s account more historically precise in this instance. 10165 But in any event, John " s language (παρ), if pressed literally (whatever symbolic double entendre John may intend to evoke), requires only hearing distance, and that only for the exchange of 19:26–27. Only historical tradition would seem to account for Jesus» «mother " s sister» and probably for «Mary wife of Clopas» (though cf. a Mary in Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1 ). (Mary Magdalene also appears here without introduction, as if known to John " s audience from other accounts.) 10166 The named women present could be four in number; 10167 if Jesus» mother and brothers are for some reason unnamed, it makes sense that his aunt would be for the same reason. |
| John " s vertical dualism with Jesus in 3:13; 6:62; 20:17) and descending (cf. the Spirit «descending» from «heaven» «upon» Jesus in 1:32; Jesus in 3:13; 6:33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 58). 4341 Thus, he is not only the «Son of Man» who will come from heaven ( Dan 7:13–14 ), but is the mediator between heaven and earth, on whom the angels must trave1. The «angels of God ascending and descending» is a direct quote from Gen 28:12 . Thus, in short, Jesus is Jacob " s ladder, the one who mediates between God in heaven and his servant Jacob on earth (cf. 14:6); thus the «true Israelite» (1:47) may receive the revelation of God as his ancestor did ( Gen 28:12 ; cf. 32:1, an inclusio). 4342 As Jacob " s ladder, he is also Bethel, God " s house ( Gen 28:19 ), 4343 an image that naturally connects with Jesus as the new temple (1:14; 2:19–21; 4:20–24; 7:37–39; 14:2,23). Many commentators have investigated subsequent Jewish, particularly rabbinic, traditions about Jacob as background for the present passage. Because the Hebrew reference to angels descending «on it» (bn) could be translated «on him,» that is, «on Jacob,» some Jewish traditions portrayed angels traversing Jacob. 4344 In some rabbinic traditions angels beheld Israel " s heavenly image engraved in heaven, then descended to find the earthly Jacob on earth. 4345 The Palestinian Targum also indicates that angels ascended and descended to see Jacob; thus some commentators suggest that 1portrays Jesus as the true Jacob. 4346 Others, also pointing to Philós earlier picture of a heavenly Israel, find an analogous portrait in John, in which Jesus represents the heavenly and Nathanael the earthly Israe1. 4347 While contemporary Jewish backgrounds are welcomed and later evidence is sometimes all that we have, this passage makes more sense against the widely available background in Genesis itself than against the uncertainly dated and possibly not widely available background many scholars have suggested. Although John s «upon» could be read in support of the rabbinic interpretation that angels descended on Jacob, the LXX attests the more widepread interpretation in his day that angels ascended and descended the ladder (which, like the pronoun, is feminine in Gen 28LXX), the more natural contextual sense in Genesis. |
| Jesus» opponents in this Gospel maintain that they are born from God (8:41), whereas Jesus replies that they are born from the devil instead (8:44). In this Gospel " s radical moral dualism, mere fleshly birth is inadequate and leaves one a child of the devil until one is born from above, from God by means of the Spirit. 3A. Nicodemus Misunderstands (3:4) Like most characters in the Fourth Gospel, especially Jesus» opponents, Nicodemus fails to understand Jesus» heavenly message (cf. 3:11–12). 4858 Greek sages and others sometimes employed metaphoric language 4859 and spoke in riddles. 4860 Jewish sages were likewise expected to speak in and understand riddles (cf. Sir passim). 4861 Yet Jesus» interlocutors repeatedly fail to grasp the meaning of his riddles. 4862 Jesus» metaphors in this Gospel in general and this passage in particular function like the Synoptic parables, 4863 many of which proved impenetrable to those outside Jesus» circle (cf. Mark 4:10–12 ). Nicodemus " s failure to comprehend Jesus» point, which Jesus regards as inexcusable for a teacher of Israel (3:10), encourages the Johannine believers that their message is dismissed through ignorance rather than through the intellectual prowess their opponents» claim. The darkness could not apprehend the light ( John 1:5 ). Jerusalem " s leaders and others often understand Jesus partly correctly–but only on a purely physical leve1. They cannot be reborn physically (3:4), nor can they eat Jesus» flesh physically (6:52), nor can one younger than fifty have seen Abraham (8:57), and so forth– their preunderstanding of what Jesus should mean makes it impossible for them to truly hear him. 4864 Usually they misunderstand Jesus by interpreting him solely within the framework of their own culturés expectations, 4865 even when Jesus seeks to accommodate their language by speaking «of earthly things» (3:12). But those who think an ancient audiencés sympathy would have gone to the perplexed interlocutor rather than to Jesus the protagonist 4866 miss the point. To be sure, the audience may identify with the perplexity of disciples in 14:5, for even the text has not yet clarified the point for the first-time reader. At the same time, the misunderstanding of the Jerusalem elite, as in 7or 7:52, merely confirms their ignorance; God had provided insight into his mysteries only to babes (cf. Matt 11:25; Luke 10:21). Further, the idea that an ancient audience would have identified with the interlocutors fails to reckon with ancient literary expectations, in which misunderstanding served a valuable literary function. It sometimes functioned as an ironic or suspense device, for instance, when characters interpret a literal statement too figuratively. 4867 Such misunderstandings often provided the audience humor at the misunderstander " s expense; 4868 at other times they intensified the tragic pathos of a protagonist misunderstanding a warning that is clear to the reader or dramatic observer. 4869 |
| «One who is sent» (13:16) represents an agent, a familiar concept in this Gospel (see introduction; on the interchangeability of πμπω and αποστλλω, see 20:21). That those who received an agent received the sender (13:20) fits this motif and is attested elsewhere in extant Jesus tradition ( Mark 9:37 ; Matt 10:40–41). Jesus» promised blessing to those who serve one another takes the form of a beatitude (13:17), which appears on only one other occasion in this Gospel (20:29), although it is frequent in Revelation (Rev 1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7,14). That the form occurs in this Gospel only twice need not link these two passages together; the form was common in early Christian texts, 8197 in the early Christians» Bible, 8198 in early Judaism, 8199 and appeared in non-Jewish Greek sources as wel1. 8200 If the two passages are to be compared, however, it appears significant that 20is a strategic verse which casts its theological shadow over the signs-faith of the entire Gospe1. The beatitude here may similarly function to underline the importance of mutual service. Verse 17 also echoes a familiar line of Jewish and other ancient ethics, namely, that behavior should correspond to knowledge (cf. Jas 1:22; 4:17; 1 John 3:18 ). 8201 Although John will address the betrayal in more detail (13:21–30), he introduces the matter here (13:18–19), framing it with the warning that Jesus» disciples will share his experience of betrayal and suffering (13:15–16, 20; cf. 15:18–20). Judas lifting his heel in betrayal at a meal (cf. 13:2) appears in striking contrast to Mary " s washing Jesus» feet in service at another meal (12:2–3); Judas lifting his heel likewise contrasts with Jesus washing his disciples» (including Judas " s) feet in this immediate context. The mention of the «heel» therefore serves an immediate literary function in the narrative in addition to its presence in a biblical quotation and its general cultural significance. The specific image in the psalm that Jesus quotes ( Ps 41:9 ) might be that of a horse or mule kicking the person feeding it; 8202 probably more likely here, showing another the bottom of onés foot is an expression of contempt (cf. Mark 6:11 ). 8203 |
| The testimony of women, slaves, children, imbeciles, and Gentiles was suspect, 6898 and since Jesus fell into none of these categories, his testimony (8:14–18) could only be suspect if he could be convicted of a moral offense. 6899 In the Fourth Gospel, properly «convicting» the world is the work of Jesus (3:20) and the Spirit (16:8); Jesus exposed concealed sin (15:22,24). 6900 Jesus invites Jerusalem aristocrats to try their hand at a rhetorical exercise in which they should have had some proficiency; in public disputes in the ancient Mediterranean, one often described someonés character to make the case (e.g., Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.50.63). Rather than being a sinner (8:46; cf. 9:16,24–25), Jesus is from God hence speaks his words (8:47; cf. 3:34). Because most early Jewish circles acknowledged that everyone, 6901 occasionally barring at most some extremely rare saints like one of the patriarchs, 6902 had sinned, Jesus» claim would appear remarkable. Immediately after Jesus complains that they do not hear Gods message because they are not (born) from God (8:47), they prove his point by demonstrating that they are not listening (8:48). Public censure was so humiliating that many Jewish teachers prohibited it; 6903 that Jesus appears to challenge their dignity publicly invites insults in return. Jesus was challenging their spiritual, not their ethnic, ancestry (8:37,56); if they were children of the devil, it was not because they were Jewish, but in spite of it, for this was the condition of the whole world unresponsive to the message (1 John 3:8; 5:19). 6904 Yet they think Jesus challenges their descent from Abraham, and so accuse him of being of Samaritan descent (8:48), perhaps implying his mother " s immorality (8:41), more probably extrapolating from reports that Jesus was received in Samaria (4:40). 6905 Samaritans rejected the Judeans» exclusive claim to be children of Abraham (cf. 4:12); interestingly, this exclusive claim probably lies at the heart of the Gospel " s situation and John " s ironic use of «the Jews» (see introduction, ch. 5). 6906 |
| «The Jews» in John normally, though not always, implies «Judeans.» 1860 This usage may have some parallels in other early Christian literature, for instance, in Acts 28:21. 1861 The meaning «Jerusalemites» 1862 or (even more often) «Judeans» 1863 would usually not be far from the mark in this Gospe1. But Fortna may be correct in arguing that «John " s point is not that the Jews are representative of Judea, thought of in a concrete geographical way, but rather that Judea is the place of " the Jews» and symbolizes the mentality, the response to God " s truth, which they represent.… It is finally not Judea but the Jews who stand for negative human response.» 1864 It remains quite likely, of course, that regional considerations did influence the choice of Judea over Galilee for the dubious distinction of this negative role (see our next section), but the several exceptions to the meaning «Judeans» (6:41, 52; but 4is supported by 4:44) suggest that John was aware of other associations of the term which his readers might naturally infer as wel1. 1865 The term is mostly, although again not always, used for the authorities headquartered in Jerusalem. 1866 They are the center of Judean opposition to Jesus, and naturally become the spiritual predecessors of the opposition the Johannine community faces in John " s own day. 1867 In this case, «Judea» embodies these authorities and those who follow them. Some ancient writers were fond of synecdoche, the use of a part to represent the whole or vice-versa. 1868 But as noted above, John sometimes applied the broad term «Jews» to non-Judeans as well, portraying them negatively. «His own» as a whole did not receive him (1:11), reflecting genuine historical tradition about early conflict. 1869 This does not mean that all Jewish people rejected him (any more than 1means that all Gentiles did), but reflects the disappointment that merely a remnant (1:12) rather than the whole nation turned to Christ (cf. Rom 11vs. 11:26). John lays the responsibility for this rejection especially on the elite. |
| Jesus intimately shares the secrets of his heart with his disciples, treating them as friends, as God treated Abraham and Moses by revealing himself to them. The parallels with John 16:13–15 indicate that the Spirit of truth would continue passing down the revelations from the Father and Jesus to the disciples. Jesus passed on what he heard from the Father (5:20; 8:26); the Spirit would pass on to disciples what he heard from Jesus (16:13). Just as Jesus heard and saw the Father (5:19–20; 8:38), his disciples would see and hear him. (It is doubtful that the Fourth Gospel restricts this relationship to the literal level of visionary experience, but at least in the Pauline apostolic circle, visions were probably part of such experience– 2Cor 12:1 ; cf. Acts 2:17.) 9099 John therefore portrays friendship with Jesus as an intimate relationship with God and his agent, one that John believed was continuing in his own community, and one that no doubt set them apart from the synagogue, which had a much more limited understanding of continuing pneumatic revelation. They are his friends, and therefore objects of his self-sacrifice (15:13), if they do what he commands them (15:14). The paradoxical image of «friends-not-slaves» who «obey» Jesus» commandments is meant to jar the hearer to attention; friendship means not freedom to disobey but an intimate relationship that continues to recognize distinctions in authority. (Authority distinctions remained in patron-client relationships; at the same time, Jesus» complete sharing with his disciples resembles the Greek notion of «equality» in friendships.) 9100 By obeying, they continue to make themselves more open recipients of God " s love, «abiding» and persevering in ever deeper intimacy with God. Disciples as Jesus» «friends» might stem from Jesus tradition 9101 and may have become a title for believers (3 John 15) as in some philosophical groups. 2G. Chosen and Appointed (15:16) Jesus several times refers to the chosenness of his disciples (6:70; 13:18; 15:16, 19). It may be relevant that the choosing of apostles or other special groups of ministers appears elsewhere in early Christian tradition; 9102 normally disciples chose their own teachers, but according to the Synoptic tradition, Jesus had chosen these disciples. 9103 Yet John probably invites deeper theological reflection than that observation alone entails, fitting his theme elsewhere of Jesus» foreknowledge (e.g., 1:51; 2:19; 6:70–71). If one argued for an Abraham allusion in 15(I think a Moses allusion more likely), one might also see an Abraham allusion in the «chosen» of 15:16. Jewish teachers commented frequently on Israel " s «chosenness.» 9104 But both in the Bible ( Gen 18:19 ; Neh 9:7; Ps 105:6 ; Isa 41:8) and in some later Jewish traditions, 9105 this chosenness stemmed from God " s initial choice of Abraham. Nor could it be neglected that God had chosen Abraham and the other patriarchs because of grace ( Deut 26:5 ; cf. Deut 7:7–8 ). 9106 |
| Crucifixion victims often had wounds, and those who had been wounded often showed their wounds to make a point (see comment on 20:20); that Jesus did so stems from pre-Johannine tradition (Luke 24:39–40, though 24is textually uncertain). Soldiers who carried out crucifixions often used rope 10755 but also used nails through the wrists, 10756 which seem to have been used for Jesus (20:25, 27). Dibelius, noting that Matthew and Mark omit the piercing of hands and/or feet, which appears only as hints in the Easter narratives of Luke (24:39) and John (20:20,25,27), thinks the hints of piercing stem from Ps 22rather than historical recollection. 10757 But Dibelius " s skepticism on this point is unwarranted for several reasons: all four extant first-century gospels omit it in descriptions of the crucifixion (as well as many other explicit details, such as the height of the cross, shape of the cross, and other variables we must reconstruct secondhand); Mark and Matthew include the briefest resurrection narratives, Mark without any appearances, so one would not expect them to recount it there; and finally, Luke and John probably supply independent attestation of a tradition that predates both of them, yet neither allude clearly to Ps 22:17 . 10758 Putting hands into Jesus» wounds would convince Thomas that this was the same Jesus (see comment on 20:20); no trickery would be possible. 10759 John omits another tradition in which Jesus confirms his bodily resurrection by eating with the disciples (Luke 24:41–43), preferring the stronger proof of his corporal resurrection. 10760 In the third-century Vita Apollonii by Philostratus, Apollonius invites two of his disciples to grasp him to confirm that he has not, in fact, been executed; 10761 but the Christian resurrection narratives were widespread in the Roman Empire by the time Philostratus dictated his stories. 10762 2C. The Climactic Christological Confession (20:28–29) Ancient writers often used characterization to communicate points about «kinds» of people. Nicodemus was slow to believe (3:2; cf. 7:50) but eventually proved a faithful disciple (19:38–42). Likewise, Thomas had missed the first corporate resurrection appearance, which convinced most of his fellow disciples; given the problem with secessionists in some Johannine communities (1 John 2:19), his missing might provide a warning to continue in fellowship with fellow believers (to whatever extent Thomas " s fellow disciples had already been disciples and believers when Jesus first appeared at that point!) Nevertheless, Thomas becomes the chief spokesman for full christological faith here (20:28–29)–and the foil by which John calls his readers to a faith deeper than the initial resurrection faith of any of the twelve disciples (20:29). |
| 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 |
|
|
