| 983 Boring, Sayings, 49, citing also Jeremias, Michaels, Gaston, Wilkens, and Leroy. The poetic patterns of the Johannine discourses may be paralleled by early Christian prophecy (Boring, Sayings, 127), but they are also paralleled by much of Jesus» teaching in the Synoptics, as Jeremias has shown. While we cannot here investigate the question of the prophetic character of Q, it should be pointed out that Jesus» teaching may have prophetic rhythms because he was himself a prophet as well as a teacher. 986 Bürge, Community, 218. One may compare Paul " s distinction between the Lord " s words ( 1Cor. 7:10 ) and his own words (7:12), though he believes the latter to be inspired by the Spirit (7:40; cf. 14:37). Even if some prophetic words from Jesus slipped into the tradition, our few accounts of these (e.g., 2Cor. 12:9 ) are clearly enough postresurrection as to imply that this must have been a rare phenomenon. 994 Artemidorus Onir. 4.pref. (describing his dream handbook as inspired by a daimon); Grant, Gods, 38–39. Less relevantly, the OT preserves many oracles in narrative frameworks, especially in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles (Aune, Prophecy, 87–88). 995 Hill, Prophecy, 27; Braun, «Prophet»; Mason, Josephus and NT, 20–21; though cf. Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.41. Silius Italicus 1.19 spoke, with the retrospective of history, of revealing divine purposes in history; but unlike Josephus he approaches history as an epic poet. 998 Hall, «History,» 13–46. For revealed history, see further his more developed discussion in Revealed Histories. 999 Ibid., 296. John might not agree, however, that newer history is written on a lesser level (Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.41). 1001 For a full categorization (e.g., 44 staging asides) of the estimated 191 asides in the Gospel, see Thatcher, «Asides»; see also Tenney, «Footnotes.» On indirect characterization, see Stanton, Jesus, 122; on digression as a literary device, see Aune, Environment, 93–95,102. 1002 E.g., Chariton 1.12.2–4; Achilles Tatius 6.17; cf. especially where the readers know more than the characters (e.g., the irony in Chariton 8.8.4–6, where neither Mithridates nor Plagon is suspected); or narrative foreshadowings through pictoral scenes of myths (Achilles Tatius 5.3); or Homer " s private scenes, not only in Troy and the Achaian camp, but on Olympus (I1. passim). |
| Because Pilate demands Jesus» origin (19:9) after hearing that he claimed to be God " s «son» (19:7), his question may imply an understanding of origin language that Jesus» Jewish interlocutors had earlier misapprehended: he refers to ultimate rather than geographical origin (cf. 1:46; 7:41–42,52), 10014 and Jesus is from God. Jesus is «from heaven» (3:13,31; 6:32–33,38,41–42,51), «from above» (8:23; cf. 3:3; 17:14,16), «from God» (3:2; 7:28; 8:42; 13:3). Jesus» unwillingness to answer at this point (19:9) may exemplify the ancient theme of «divine» philosophers refusing to answer worldly judges 10015 but is broader than that, reminiscent of the Maccabean martyr tradition (see comment on the Passion Narrative) or anyone defying authorities for a higher cause. In this case, Jesus» silence here (although he earlier speaks more than in the Synoptics–18:36–37) fits the Markan line of tradition ( Mark 15:5 ). Pilate responds to Jesus» silence with hostility (19:10). Roman law did not interpret silence as a confession of guilt, 10016 but failure to respond to charges could leave a case onesided and hasten conviction; 10017 if a defendant failed to offer a defense, the judge would normally ask about the charge three times before the defendant would be convicted by default. 10018 Neither legal custom is at issue here: as noted above, Pilate is not bound by the ordo and can act at his own discretion. 10019 Rather, he seems simply exasperated that Jesus fails to recognize both his office and his attempts to act on Jesus» behalf (cf. the amazement in 4 Macc 17:16). It was appropriate to express confidence in the jurors» or judgés integrity, to secure their favor (Lysias Or. 9.21, §116; Isaeus Estate of Astyphilus 35; Cicero Verr. 2.1.7.18; Pro rege Deiotaro 15.43; Quinct. 2.1, 10; 9.34; Rosc. com. 3.7). Sometimes a legal debater might also appeal to the judgés interests; for example, the defendant is said to have slandered the judge (Cicero Verr. 2.4.40.86–41.90; 2.4.42.90). If Pilate had wished to free Jesus, he might view Jesus» failure to cooperate in terms of the sort of philosophers (see comment on 18:37–38) who regarded death as unimportant (beginning with the Socratic tradition)–the sort of passive, harmless philosophers whose martyrdom merely multiplied them. 10020 Whether he sees Jesus as a deluded philosopher, a divine man, or some sort of philosophical divine man (see introduction, pp. 268–72), he is plainly irritated by Jesus» unwillingness to cooperate with the one person who might pose a barrier to his crucifixion. Philosophers without worldly means regularly disdained the masses, 10021 and Brown may be correct that Pilate «understands that by not answering Jesus is somehow looking down on him.» 10022 |
| Interestingly, while some moralists of Jesus» day opined that it was good to allow some of one day " s provision to remain over for another day, 6015 manna was not supposed to be left over for the next day (Exod 16:19–20), because God would continue his miraculous supply as long as Israel remained in the wilderness. As in the Synoptics, Jesus offers this sign on a special occasion of need rather than desiring disciples to depend on it continually (6:26)– just as the manna stopped once natural means of providing food became available (Exod 16:35; Josh 5:12). 6016 Thus Jesus instructs the disciples to gather the food that remains, to be used later (6:12). Although miserliness was regularly condemned, 6017 ancient moralists regularly exhorted against waste and squandering, preferring frugality; this was both a Jewish view 6018 and a broader Mediterranean one. 6019 The ideal was frugality coupled with generosity toward others. 6020 Jewish teachers even instructed passersby to pick up food lying beside the roadside, which could be given to Gentiles for whom it would not prove unclean. 6021 One could argue that the bread symbolizes God " s people, on the basis of the number twelve, the term «lost» (6:12; cf. 6:27, 39 in the ensuing discourse), or other terms here like «gathering.» 6022 But the following discourse plainly applies the symbol of bread to Christ alone (6:32–35, 41, 48, 50–51, 58). That the disciples filled twelve baskets (6:13) simply underlines afresh the abundance of the miracle; there is no need to allegorize the baskets. 6023 Twelve is the maximum number that these disciples could reasonably carry. Guests who slipped out with leftover food in their baskets could be thought to be greedy, stealing the host " s food, or at best ill-mannered; remains belonged to the host. 6024 4. The Prophet-King (6:14–15) The narrative proper includes a christological climax (6:14–15), but the inadequacy of the confession will pave the way for the contrast between the Spirit and mere flesh in 6:63. Jesus» identity did include being a prophet (1:21, 25; 4:19,44; 7:40; 9:17) and a king (1:49; 12:13–15; 18:33,37), but such titles necessarily proved inadequate for him. Those who defined his prophetic and royal identity by the eschatological beliefs of their contemporaries sought a political or military leader (see introduction on Christology)–a fleshly role rather than one from the Spirit (6:63). In John " s day the emperor cult demanded earthly worship (see introduction); Jesus was a higher sort of king (cf. Rev 5:13). But in contrast to the response to Jesus in Judea, the Galilean response, which affirms him to be a prophet and a king, is at least partly correct (cf. Mark 8:29–33 ). 6025 In Galilee he is not altogether a «prophet without honor» (4:44). |
| The evidence for Elijah " s eschatological role in post-OT sources is hardly limited to later rabbinic texts, however. 3845 Aune finds reference to him as forerunner in 1 En. 90:31; 3846 4 Ezra 6assumes him among historic figures with special roles at the end of the age (among those who never died); 3847 and Matthew (17:10) unhesitatingly follows Mark (9) in presupposing that this role was widely known in Jewish circles. Sirachs portrayal of Elijah as a restorer and forerunner of the end time (if not explicitly of the messiah) is very close to this. 3848 2B. Not the Prophet (1:21b) Some of these texts may coalesce the image of Elijah with that of the Mosaic eschatological prophet many Jewish people saw in Deut 18:18 . 3849 A Tannaitic midrash on Deut 18 declares that this prophet could even temporarily suspend a commandment of Moses, as Elijah did. 3850 Expectations of this prophet were not solely linked with Elijah, however; that represented only one conceptual option among severa1. 3851 The expectation may appear in 1Maccabees (4:46; 14), 3852 although these texts more likely focus on the restoration of prophecy in general and not a Mosaic prophet in particular. 3853 Some other texts are clearer, although not attesting that all segments of Judaism expected a Mosaic prophet distinct from Elijah. 3854 A Qumran text links an eschatological prophet with the messiahs of Aaron and Israel while distinguishing all three figures; 3855 the historic Teacher of Righteousness apparently reflected some functions of the «prophet like Moses,» but after his passing the complete fulfillment seems to have awaited the eschatological generation. 3856 Samaritan expectation, with its emphasis on the Pentateuch, naturally emphasizes this prophet more than most Jewish texts do, although Qumran expectation is similar. 3857 In our text, Johns interlocutors are careful to question whether he is Elijah or the Prophet if he is not the Christ. «The Prophet» here refers to Deut 18:15–18 , 3858 and early Christian tradition found this text " s fulfillment in Jesus 3859 (e.g., Acts 3:22; 7:37; 3860 cf. Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7 ; Luke 9:35). «Hear him» in the transfiguration story probably alludes in this context to Deut 18:15 ; 3861 likewise the mountain; cloud; allusion to tabernacles; transfiguration (cf. Exod 34:29); presence of Moses and Elijah on the mount (Exod 34:2; 1 Kgs 19:8); and the timing («six days,» cf. Exod 24:16) all suggest allusions to Moses. 3862 The present text, however, distinguishes various roles, suggesting that more than mainstream Christian theology stands behind it. It is possible that the segment of Judaism from which much of John " s community and/or its opponents sprang laid heavy emphasis on the eschatological prophet (1:25; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17); while a prophet Christology would be inadequate (4:19, 25–29; 6:14–15; 7:40–41), Jesus is clearly a prophet (4:44; 9:17), 3863 hence foreshadows the prophetic ministry of the Johannine community (16:7–15). 3864 |
| Johns use of double entendres, clear to the informed reader but missed by Jesus» continually dense opponents, reflects a broader pattern of polemical irony in the Fourth Gospe1. 1884 In John, Jesus» opponents repeatedly make ironic self-indictments and glaring errors in understanding Jesus» words. This is first of all evident in regard to Jesus» origin (8:14). On the one hand, «the Jews» assume that they know his origin (6:42): Jesus is not from Bethlehem (7:42), and his alleged Galilean origin is hence nonmessianic (7:41; cf. 1:46). 1885 On the other hand, «the Jerusalemites» (7:27) and «the Pharisees» (9:29) admit that they do not know his origin. 1886 Jesus replies that in one sense they really do know: he is from God, and they misconstrue this only because they do not know God (7:28). They cannot know Jesus» real place of origin, that is, from above, because they do not know the Father (8:19). They are also inconsistent in their accusations against Jesus. Jesus, whom the reader knows to be really God " s Son, is not permitted to say that he is (5:18; 10:36), but his opponents claim the title (with an admittedly different significance) for themselves (8:41). Likewise, the leaders want Jesus crucified so that the Romans will not take away their place and nation (11:48). But unless J. A. T. Robinson " s early dating of John is correct, the original reader would have known that the Romans did in fact take away these leaders» place and nation, either in spite of or because of Jesus» crucifixion. 1887 Further, Pilate acknowledges Jesus as the Jewish king, but the Jewish leaders deny it. Indeed, they acknowledge no king but Caesar (19:15; contrast the language of 8:41), 1888 although this acknowledgement may be meant to remind the Johannine community of the claims of the imperial cult. Those who claim to interpret the Law properly repeatedly appear obtuse in their interpretation. Nicodemus, for instance, though a teacher of Israel, misunderstands Jesus (3:1–21), thereby comparing unfavorably with the Samaritan woman in the next chapter (4:7–42). The fact that he later appears to be paradigmatic for first the secret (7:48–51; cf. 12:42–43) and then the open (19:39) believer does not reduce the harshness of this first portraya1. |
| John plays on a contrast with faith δια τν λγον of the woman (4:39) and that of Jesus (4:41). 5639 Like Nathanael, the Samaritans» initial level of faith is based on another " s testimony (4:39), which is acceptable for initial faith (15:26–27; 17:20; 20:30–31). Once they «come» and «see» (4:29; cf. 1:46), however, they progress to a firsthand faith (4:42), which characterizes true disciples (10:3–4, 14–15). Thus the Samaritans do not denigrate the woman " s testimony in 4:42; rather, they confirm it. 5640 Jesus stayed with the Samaritans briefly (4:40), but long enough for them to get to know him more fully and respond to him appropriately (4:41–42; cf. 1:39). Mediterranean culture in general heavily emphasized hospitality, from classical Greek 5641 through Roman 5642 and modern times; 5643 pagans held that the chief deity was the protector of guests, hence guarantor of hospitality. 5644 This general statement was also true in particular of Mediterranean Jewry, especially toward fellow members of their minority in the Diaspora. 5645 One should not show hospitality to false teachers, 5646 such as Jewish and Samaritan teachers would regard each other to be, but Jesus had surmounted the usual Samaritan mistrust of Jews. Thus it would have been rude for the Samaritans not to offer hospitality and rude for Jesus to have refused once they insisted, though he does not stay long. That another passage in the gospel tradition indicates that Jesus sought lodging in Samaria may indicate the friendship Jesus shared with some Samaritans (Luke 9:52); if that account is later in Jesus» ministry than this one (as it must be if, as in Luke, that occasion is linked with Jesus» final journey to Jerusalem), it may also suggest that Jesus» plan to go to Jerusalem (Luke 9:53) severely disappointed them. 5647 Then again, John actually recounts the conversion of «many» in only one Samaritan village, which could include fewer than a hundred adults despite the symbolic value he grants it; on the historical level, it is difficult to press this text " s portrait against Lukés different claims about Samaritan responses (Luke 9:51–56; Acts 8:4–25). 5648 |
| Because αρει in 15apparently comes from αρω, «to lift,» rather than from αρω, «to take away,» some commentators suggest that the operation in 15is not the destruction of the branch but its salvage; a vinedresser would lift a fallen vine from the ground, where it was easily damaged, back into place to hea1. 8951 While by itself such a position might seem insightful, it falters on four points: first, it is not the vine but a «branch» that is lifted. Second, «lifting» can refer to removal no less than «taking away» does (cf. 1:29; 2:16; 5:8–12; 10:18; 11:39, 41, 48; 16:22); John never employs αρω. 8952 Third, Palestinian farmers may have often done without supports, 8953 marring the image of «lifting» the vine back into place; admittedly this knowledge was probably foreign to much of John " s audience. Finally, and most significantly, the branch is lifted away because it bears no fruit, the result in this context of failing to «abide» (15:4–5), a condition that 15explicitly claims results in being cast away and eventually burned. Thus it is probable that the image of 15:2, like the image of 15:6, addresses apostate branches who have failed to persevere. 8954 The vinedresser wields his pruning-knife (see comment on 15:2–3) against both fruitful and unfruitful branches, but to different ends. The purpose of the vine is to bear fruit, and fruitless plants are useless (cf. Luke 13:7). 8955 The cutting (15:2) and burning (15:6) of unfruitful branches repeats the vital Johannine warning against falling away (2:23–25; 8:30–31). Such an image would have made sense in an ancient Mediterranean context; applying the figure to the human rather than a covenant community, a Stoic philosopher warns that as a branch (κλδος) cut off (ποκοπες) from a neighboring branch is necessarily disconnected from the entire plant, so a person who cuts himself off from another person has severed himself from the circle of humanity. 8956 Because most biblical passages in which the vine represents Israel conclude with the vinés corruption, some scholars find also an implied reference to Judas " s apostasy. |
| Jesus would be in a more pleasant state with his Father, he says, «because the Father is greater than I» (14:28). Elsewhere he speaks of the Father " s greatness (5:36; 10:29); as Jesus is greater than those he sends (13:16; 15:20), so is the Father greater than Jesus as his sender. Ancient Mediterranean culture regarded fathers as greater in rank than sons, 8797 and dependence on the abundance of a benevolent father or patron was a far superior state to dependence merely on onés own lesser means. Those who suggest, on the basis of texts such as 14:28, that John denies Jesus» deity 8798 read them outside the broader context of John " s theological framework. In the whole of his Gospel, John plainly affirms Jesus» deity (1:1; 8:58; 20:28) but distinguishes Jesus from the Father (1:1b, 2), a perspective that confuses modern logic (and not a few ancient thinkers, considering the christological arguments of early centuries) unless one proposes some sort of construct like the more explicit later Trinitarian thought. 8799 The issue is not Jesus» nondeity, or even his distinction from the Father (which is assumed), but his subordination to the Father, 8800 which portrays Jesus as the Father " s obedient agent and therefore appeals to those who honor the Father to honor him. By announcing his departure before it happens, Jesus guards his disciples against their faith being caught totally unprepared (14:29; cf. 16:4; Mark 13:23 ; Matt 24:25). Jews recognized that God normally declared his purposes in advance, through his servants the prophets; 8801 the fulfillment of such prophecies would also vindicate the prophetic spokespersons who declared them (e.g., Sib. Or. 3.8 1 6–8 1 8). 8802 Early Jewish sources echo the biblical perspective that the fulfillment of such warnings would prove that God was with his people (Jub. 1:6), but because the Bible was the most widely shared theological source for early Judaism, John " s wording here probably suggests a specific allusion to God " s advance warning in Isaiah, also given so that people might believe (Isa 41:26; 48:5–7). 2. The Coming Prince of the World (14:30) |
| Craig S. Keener Jerusalem and its King. 12:12–50 ONCE JESUS ARRIVES IN JERUSALEM (12:12–19), people respond to him in various ways. The Gentiles seek him (12:20–22), provoking his remark that the time for his death had come (12:23–33). His own people, however, whose king he is (12:13–15), remained blind (12:37–43; cf. 9:39–41), unable to see Jesus» glory which Isaiah saw, which is the light (Jesus» discussion of which frames the comment on their blindness–12:34–36,44–50). Yet Jesus remained God " s agent and standard for judgment (12:44–50). The Arrival of Zion " s King (12:12–19) Earlier passages had introduced Jesus as rightful king of Israel (1:49), but also warned that his «own» as a whole did not receive him (1:11; or that they misunderstood his kingship–6:15; cf. 18:36–37). Both themes are present here, but John is careful to emphasize that his people as a whole would have been more open to him (12:17–18), but that it was the leaders who were responsible for their people being led wrongly (12:19). 1. Authenticity of the Core Tradition That someone would go out to meet with respect an important teacher (11:20), signs worker (12:18) or king (12:13) is not unlikely (see comment on 11:20); that crowds already present loudly welcomed many incoming pilgrims is virtually certain. Yet because Jesus» claim to kingship is often doubted, some are doubtful that the triumphal entry happened. If people hailed Jesus as king, why did the Romans not intervene suddenly? But the Gospels present the grandness of the event in the light of their theology about Jesus» identity; most of the accounts do not require us to suppose an originally large-scale notice. 7803 In the bustle of a city milling with pilgrims, more of whom were arriving throughout the day, the Romans need not have noticed this relatively obscure event. 7804 The Roman garrison was concentrated on the Temple Mount, and Jesus was hardly the only Passover pilgrim welcomed by the crowds already present. More importantly, leaders of the municipal aristocracy, normally charged with keeping peace for the Romans, were also concentrated on the Temple Mount at this season (being mainly priests) and had they been notified of the entry in time to stop it–which assumes a much longer period of acclamation than is likely–they preferred not to act in front of the crowd anyway ( Mark 11:32; 14:2 ). In John the leaders, who are now Pharisees, continue to be concerned about the opinions of the crowd (12:19). |
| The Pharisees will attribute the sin either to them or to the man before birth (9:34; cf. 9:2), yet the parents fear to differ with them openly. The repetition of their statement of 9in slightly different words in 9may be meant for clarification to prevent the reader losing the flow of the narrative after the narrator " s aside in 9:22. 7129 In any case, however, it underlines the point (as in the analogous case of repetition 13:10–11); here it reinforces their unwillingness to commit themselves. They resemble others who fear to contradict the authorities (7:13), especially lest they be dismissed from the synagogues (12:42), because they cared more for human honor (12:43). That 12:42–43 alludes to this passage in part may be concluded from their unique joining of the key phrases «confess» (μολογω) and «become out-synagogued» (πο-συνγωγος with the aorist subjunctive of γνομαι). As argued in the introduction, the dilemma posed to the formerly blind man is equivalent to the dilemma being posed to most of John " s audience; Johannine scholarship as a whole is therefore undoubtedly correct to see a challenge to the Johannine Christians through this character. Many members of John " s audience, at least the younger members not from those Jewish-Christian families which may have migrated from Palestine (possibly as long as two decades earlier), may have faced the unbelief of their families (cf. comment on 7:5). This paragraph also underlines the dogmatism of the elite which keeps them from hearing (or «seeing " –9:39–41) the truth, and the cost that believers pay in terms of their own families (see commenton 7:3–9). The Johannine Christians, perhaps in conflict with the established and wealthy leaders of synagogue communities in Roman Asia, 7130 could not expect justice from Roman courts, within synagogues, and perhaps from family members. They had to recognize a principle applicable in most cultures, that the elite often command more respect by virtue of their powerful status than does the testimony of otherwise believable close associates. 3. Debating Jesus» Identity (9:24–34) This scene is an interrogation of the healed man (9:23), but turns more into a legal debate. The Pharisees wish to guide the man " s response (9:24,28–29), which violates the objectivity that was supposed to attend legal procedures. 7131 The healed man in turn seems at first oblivious to the leaders» bias, but knows his experience and by the end of the discussion hopes to persuade them accordingly (9:30–33). Their predetermined commitment to expel from the synagogue anyone who affirms Jesus» positive character–despite the miracle–exposes their bias (9:22,34). This is the sort of description that a frustrated minority perspective, convinced of the absolute Tightness of its testimony, might offer concerning those they believe to be intentionally repressing their testimony. 3A. Is Jesus a Sinner? (9:24–25) |
|
|
