| Craig S. Keener Conflict Over the Healing of a Blind Man. 9:1–10:21 This narrative demonstrates Jesus» claims in the previous context and chronologically follows directly on Jesus» departure from the temple on the last day of the festival (7:37; 8:59). It probably begins not far from the temple (cf. 9:7). This section opens with the healing of a blind man (9:1–7) and closes with the recognition that this miracle was not what one expected from a demon (10:21). The narrative between includes Pharisaic charges that Jesus» healing cannot be from God (9:16,22,24), a response from the formerly blind man that challenges the logic of their paradigm (9:25, 27, 31–33), and a response from Jesus, who reverses the charge and shows that it is his opponents who are not from God (9:40–10:18). 7009 Jesus» claim in this section to be the good shepherd (10:11) implicitly advances his previous claim to deity (8:58). Blindness and Sin (9:1–34) Contrary to what the elite supposed (9:34), the man was not born blind due to a sin (9:2–3), nor was his healer a sinner (9:16, 24); by contrast, the elite themselves are sinful and spiritually blind (9:39–41). The true connection between blindness and sin links together the entire section 9:1–41. But because 9:40–41 begin the response to the Pharisees which is continued in 10:1–18 and 9:35–39 begins Jesus» defense of the healed man, we have limited the first section to the material directly related to the healing and responses to it (9:1–34). The following section (9:35–10:18) traces Jesus» own response to the varied responses to his act, especially the responses of the healed man and the Jerusalem elite. Moreover, the contrast between physical and spiritual blindness (dependence on Christ and opposition to him) of 9:39–41 is already implicit at the beginning of this section. Jesus became invisible in some sense to his enemies in 8:59, so they could not see him; but here Jesus cures a man physically blind and so despised by his enemies (9:2, 34). (Indeed, worldly evaluations of the reasons for blindness form an inclusio around Jesus» healing and the man " s fidelity to him; 9:2, 34.) Epistemological terms («know») dominate the dialogue scenes and probably provide the metaphoric meaning of «sight» language also prominent in the chapter. 7010 |
| John Anthony McGuckin World Religions, Orthodoxy and TIMOTHY J. BECKER The Orthodox Church understands itself as the full completion of the covenant with Israel. From the outset, Orthodoxy has claimed continuity with a Jewish past, and so has assumed its monotheism, Scriptures, and critique of idolatry. Yet it has also stood in significant discontinuity with that past heritage, orienting the Jewish dispensation according to Jesus Christ, whom it proclaims as the true goal of the Law and the Prophets, and who exceeds them all (cf. Mt. 12.6; 12.41–2 ). However, most who became Orthodox Christians came from the nations surrounding Israel and, while accepting the Jewish critique of their cults, progressively resisted Jewish culture. This differentiation between cult and ethnic culture saw the emergence of the new and distinctive category of “religion,” in which cult took precedence but no longer necessarily corresponded to a particular culture. Thus, Orthodoxy has encountered the world with a restricted cult but an unrestricted attachment to culture; in this sense every culture can house Orthodoxy, while Orthodoxy can house only one cult, which it offers to all nations as the fulfilment of their own cultures. Nearly all the fathers of the church saw Judaism in a closely relational mode to Christianity. Even those hostile to it were hostile likely because of local tensions rather than systematic theological reasons. The religions of other nations around them, however, were not seen positively. St. Athanasius (296–373) taught that the pagan cults were failures (at a basic logical and moral level) at assessing the innate Image of God properly, which was a live possibility. In a very influential early 4th-century treatise on the pagan cults, he said that rather than worshipping their uncreated Master, humans were swayed by evil to establish created things as God. Evil, which lacks existence, is thus the cause of false gods, which also lack existence (Contra Gentes 1.8). For Athanasius, the religions are not just errors in religious style, they are metaphysically the undoing of the world, the deification of ontologically diminishing forms of existence. Athanasius is also clear that this practice is widespread, implicating, among others, the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Persians, Syrians, Indians, Arabs, Ethiopians, and Armenians (Contra Gentes 1.23). |
| Losing onés life in this age would be a small price to preserve it in the eternal age to come, a notion not unfamiliar to Jesus» Jewish contemporaries. 7857 Philosophers talked about being ready to face death, 7858 as did military historians 7859 and an oath of loyalty to the divine emperor. 7860 Biographers could praise statesmen who sacrificed their lives for their people. 7861 Generals typically warned troops before battle that those who risked their lives ultimately were more apt to preserve them. 7862 Some felt that prayer for onés life would demean that person " s heroic character (Longinus Sub1. 9.10, on Ajax). Despite similarities in wording, the Fourth Gospel " s Jewish audience and sources would probably understand Jesus» words more in line with the biblical tradition of preparedness to suffer for God " s honor. Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah, and David suffered for God " s honor, but none of them suffered gladly; Jesus likewise suffers, but not because he desires to suffer (12:27). First-century texts frequently portray Jewish people prepared to die for the honor of their ancestral customs, 7863 and early Jewish texts speak of loving eternal life more than life in the present world, so enduring the world " s hostility (1 En. 108:10). 7864 Jesus here provides such a choice between two ways. 7865 Johannine literature elsewhere speaks of loving not the world (3:19; 1 John 2:15), its honor (12:43), or onés life even to the point of death (Rev 12:11). Serving Jesus (12:26) demanded seeking humility rather than honor (cf. 12:2) and required following Jesus» model of servanthood, which shortly follows in the narrative (13:5, 14–16). 7866 Yet those who shared Jesus» suffering would also share his glory: wherever Jesus would be, 7867 there his servants would be as well (12:26), both in death and in the Father " s presence (14:3). Those who suffered for Jesus should seek only God " s honor (5:23), and themselves would be honored by the Father (12:26) rather than by mortals (5:41,44; 12:43). 2C. Glorifying God by Suffering (12:27–30) |
| 2A. Thomas " s Skepticism (20:24–25) Jesus has lost none except Judas (17:12), and «the Twelve» remain a defined group even without Judas (20:24). 10741 Thus Jesus must appear once more while Thomas is present; this happens after eight days (20:26) to suggest the following Sunday, perhaps to emphasize the worship experience of early Christians as the context for Jesus» revelations (cf. Rev 1:10). Thomas may suppose that his fellow disciples had seen merely a ghost 10742 if in fact they had seen anything at all; but ghost stories were not resurrections (see comments above), and Thomas is unwilling to believe. Because Thomas plays no significant individual role in other extant first-century traditions (i.e., the Synoptics), some scholars have proposed special reasons for Thomas being the particular disciple to fill this role here, proposing a specific Thomas tradition existing in this period. One approach connects Thomas with the beloved disciple, thereby affecting how readers encounter that disciple as a model for faith. 10743 Yet it appears difficult to reconcile the anonymous disciple with Thomas. 10744 Another approach takes Thomas " s appearances in this Gospel as instances of polemic against the Thomas tradition that stood behind the Gospel of Thomas and its community. 10745 If we nuance this view to allow for traditions that later became the Gospel of Thomas rather than that work itself, this approach is possible and plausible. It is not, however, by any means certain. Synoptic tradition recognizes that the disciples responded with skepticism, and some more than others (Matt 28:17; Luke 24:11, 24, 38, 41); it is not impossible that John simply preserves a more detailed tradition where a notably skeptical disciple is named, one who was eager to follow Jesus (11:16; 14:5) though too devastated by Jesus» death to accept the apostolic witness of his colleagues (20:25). That a tradition that later became the Gospel of Thomas adapted some ideas once related to Thomas is possible, but it is also possible that it merely exploited his name. |
| Undoubtedly the woman means the «our» in «our Father Jacob» emphatically (4:12); certainly she emphasizes her own ancestry in the later claim about «our ancestors» in 4:20. Samaritan tradition seems to have heavily emphasized the Samaritans» descent from Jacob 5399 –and Samaritans knew the Jewish version of their ancestry, which emphasized their impure lineage (2 Kgs 17:24–41). Josephus complains that the Samaritans deceptively try to profess themselves «Jews» when matters are going well for the Jewish community, but admit the truth by denying their kinship when hard times come to the Jewish people (Josephus Ant. 9.291; 11.340–341). Later traditions declare that some rabbis openly contended against the Samaritan claim to descent from Joseph (Gen. Rab. 94:7), and some marshall evidence from the Qumran scrolls for the same idea. 5400 Jewish teachers also frequently used the expression «our father Jacob.» 5401 The woman may not practice all the moral tenets of her Samaritan ethnic faith, but she knows on which side of the ethnic divide she stands. The implied, expected answer to such questions, «Surely you are not greater than (one of the patriarchs),» is, of course, «No» 5402 –precisely because the questioners begin with a defective Christology, not recognizing Jesus» identity. In the whole context of the Fourth Gospel, however, this ethnic subtext may serve an ironic function. Just as she questions whether Jesus is «greater than our father Jacob,» Jerusalem " s leaders question whether Jesus is «greater than our father Abraham» (8:53). 5403 But whereas this Samaritan woman ultimately embraces Jesus» claim and proves a true worshiper outside Jerusalem (4:21, 23, 29), the Jerusalem leaders desire his death (8:59). 5404 5B. Jesus» Gift of Water (4:10–11,13–14) In warning that those who drink the water of Jacob " s well would thirst again (4:13), Jesus is not demeaning bodily needs in some gnostic or neoplatonic fashion (cf. 4:6; 19:28). Rather, he is demeaning the Samaritan holy site by comparison with the greater water that he offers. |
| At the same time, if the Fourth Gospel reacts against an exaltation of Peter in some strands of early Jewish-Christian tradition (such as is later manifested in the Pseudo-Clementines), it may be noteworthy that despite Peter " s continuing visibility in the Fourth Gospel (Andrew here is defined in terms of Peter " s identity, 1:40), 4222 Andrew is the one who comes to Jesus first and leads Peter to him (1:41–42; contrast the impression of simultaneity in Mark 1:16–18 ; Matt 4:18–20; and the complete omission of the less central Andrew in Luke 5:1–11). Others have often proposed that the Fourth Gospel plays down Peter, 4223 or perhaps more accurately treats him and the other disciples ambiguously, 4224 whether to play up sectarian Johannine Christianity against apostolic Christianity, or, more likely, to demonstrate that Peter does not truly outrank an ordinary faithful disciple. 4225 (Those who think that Peter " s negative or ambiguous role signals a Gospel in competition with the apostolic tradition preserved in the Synoptics should reconsider: Mark " s picture of the disciples is far more negative.) For Simon " s brother Andrew to confess Jesus as «Messiah» 4226 (also 4:25) before Peter does so (cf. Mark 8:29 ) may indicate some desire to set the record straight by putting Peter in his place. Such theological motives need not deny prior historical tradition. 4227 Peter is, at the least, in character with the Synoptic Peter most of the way through this Gospel, often speaking and acting boldly and on impulse, for good (6:68; 13:9; 18:15; 20:3–6; 21:7) or ill (13:6–8, 36–37; 18:10). 4228 For instance, it is interesting that the Gospel does not report Peter " s response to Jesus» words at this point, nor a call to «follow» Jesus, despite the exalted response of Nathanael in the parallel narrative which follows (1:49). The faith implied here is not yet that of a disciple who leaves his occupation behind to study with a traveling teacher (although even the latter was sometimes seasonal; if rabbis followed a school year similar to the Greek practice of October to June, 4229 even agrarian workers would have difficulty maintaining a livelihood while following a traveling teacher). |
| To question whether «good» might come from something or someone may have been a way of demeaning them, though the remark here sounds more flippant than hostile. 4287 Nathanael takes apparent offense at Jesus» origin in Nazareth, although he as a Galilean does not seem to rule out the whole of Galilee as Judean Pharisees were prepared to do (7:52). 4288 Nazareth was a relatively small town, 4289 but few towns and villages of Galilee were large; 4290 many villages would have included fewer than 300 inhabitants, 4291 and only Tiberias and Sepphoris were technically cities in the Hellenistic sense. 4292 Thus size may not be the problem. Further, although Nazareth existed in the shadow of the hellenized Jewish city of Sepphoris, 4293 reputed impiety is probably not the problem, either. 4294 Sepphoris remained faithful to Judaism 4295 despite its unwillingness to revolt, 4296 the surrounding region was acknowledged to be Jewish, 4297 and Nazareth " s inhabitants seem to have been entirely orthodox. 4298 Moreover, Galilean villages and towns required no economic or cultural dependence on the two Galilean cities, 4299 though, like most villages and towns, they would have been influenced by larger currents in the Roman empire. 4300 Large cities usually tended to be economically parasitic on the countryside, 4301 and most Galileans hated the two cities. 4302 (This situation is hardly surprising; a cultural rift divided cities from countryside throughout the empire.) 4303 Sepphoris " s prominence and later Christian tradition about it make its absence in the Gospels all the more striking; Jesus probably had little contact with it. 4304 Perhaps Nathanael " s hostility is conditioned by the «prophet from onés own country» mentality (4:44; Matt 13:54–57; Luke 4:24), but more likely from civic rivalry in the region, 4305 which was common more generally in antiquity. 4306 On a theological-literary level, however, Nathanael " s question is parallel to that of Jesus» opponents: they object to his putative origin (7:41–42, 52), though Nathanael, unlike Jesus» opponents, is quickly convinced that his home town does not disqualify him from the identity Philip attributed to him. 4307 Most important, Philip " s invitation to «come and see» parallels that of Jesus in 1:39; an encounter with Jesus accomplishes more than an extended debate would (the Johannine debates produce no explicit conversions). (As noted on 1:39, «come and see» was a standard phrase in ancient literature, including for halakic investigation.) 4308 This invitation reflects the characteristic Johannine epistemology: the synagogue leadership may know the written Torah, but disciples of Jesus, Torah made flesh (1:1–18), have a personal experience with God (cf. 9:25; 10:4) and lay claim to the Spirit, which the opponents admit they do not have. 4309 |
| Jesus now identifies for them clearly where he is from (8:14)–and why they cannot understand it, because they are not from there (cf. 3:3, 10–12; 8:43): he is from above (cf. 3:13,31), not from the world (17:14), whereas they are from below, from the world. Rabbis sometimes considered discussions of the realms «above» and «below» (8:23) esoteric subjects, 6683 but in the apocalyptic thought world of much of early Judaism, the contrast was simply between the celestial realm of God and his angels on the one hand and that of mortals on earth on the other. 6684 A modern reader might link «below» with birth from the devil (8:44) and envision a world below earth, but whereas Greeks thought of dark deities of the dead in the chthonic or underworld, 6685 Jewish people were more apt to associate Satan with the world of humanity where he worked. 6686 Even in Jewish traditions about fallen angels imprisoned below, which are not in view here, though most versions of the story envisioned them imprisoned below, 6687 some envisioned them imprisoned in the atmosphere. 6688 Jesus does not belong to the world; he comes from God (8:23). (See on vertical dualism in the introduction, pp. 162–63.) 6689 Thus they would die in their sins (8:24; see comment on 8:21,34; cf. 9:41) unless they believed Jesus was «he» (8:24; cf. 3:18; 16:9). Some think Jesus» use of «I am [he]» in 8(cf. 8:28; 13:19) means «I am the Messiah.» 6690 More than likely, however, it reflects a theophanic formula from Isa 43:10, as 8confirms. 6691 If our traditions are accurate, this particular title revealing God " s character was already in use at the festival of Tabernacles. 6692 The ambiguity of Jesus» language («γ εμι» signifying «I am he» or «I am») fits the Gospel " s pattern of double entendres inviting misunderstanding from those disinclined to persevere. This ambiguity is fully resolved in 8:58, however. 6693 Meanwhile, their failure to believe (8:24) announces to the reader their condemnation (3:18). Despite John " s witness in 1:19–27 (cf. 5:35), they appear to have no idea of Jesus» identity (8:25; cf. 8:19). The sense of their question, «Who are you?» (8:25) resembles 10far more than 1:19–22; in this context, Jesus has been clear enough that their lack of understanding says more about their spiritual perception than about his identity. Jesus responds obliquely, as in 10:25, but with a context that would clarify his ambiguity if they cared to understand it. (In both contexts, he invites only anger when he ultimately clarifies his point as explicitly as they desire–8:58–59; 10:30–31). Some translate την αρχν ο τι και λαλ μν (8:25b) as a direct answer to their question about his identity (8:25a): «The one who is (at) the beginning, who is also speaking with you.» 6694 Although this translation is grammatically defensible, most commentators read Jesus» response as a question, perhaps an expression of despairing that they will understand. 6695 |
| In 12:41, John attributes to Isaiah " s revelation of Christ " s glory both Isaiah quotations (ancients did not speak of two or more Isaiahs), one about a scene of glory in the temple (12:39–40; Isa 6:1–10) and the other about the servant being glorified and lifted in suffering (12:38; Isa 52:13–53:1). Early Christians would have undoubtedly linked Isa 6with 52:13, because both texts use «exalted and lifted up,» as does 57:15. If so, they would have noticed that 6and 57spoke of God, and may have concluded that it was actually Jesus» lifting up by crucifixion that revealed his identity as deity (cf. 8:28). 7963 This fits 12:23–24 and the place of 1:14–18 in the context of John " s whole Gospel: Jesus» death is the ultimate theophany. 2. Preferring Their Own Glory (12:42–43) But not everyone loved the divine glory that Isaiah saw (12:41); some preferred their own (12:43; cf. 5:41, 44; 7:18), hence feared to confess Jesus openly, though as rulers they could have influenced many people and so brought Jesus glory. Their failure to confess Jesus openly resembles the healed man " s parents in 9but contrasts starkly with the boldness of the witness, John the Baptist, in 1:20. «Loving» onés own honor, like loving the world (1 John 2:15) or onés life ( John 12:25 ), demonstrated inadequate love for God and his agent. The sample «ruler» John has in mind is Nicodemus (3:1), but he would ultimately come out into the open as a disciple of Jesus (19:39); this fact indicates that John still has hope even for some of the leaders of the people who were persecuting the believers. But the price of coming out could be severe, including some sort of excommunication, as here (9:22; 16:2), and potentially death, perhaps from Roman governors (cf. 12:24–26; 16:2). One would clearly have to love God " s honor more than onés own. The specific mention of rulers recalls Nicodemus, but may also respond to and refute the implicit assurance behind the Pharisees earlier question: «Surely none of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in him!» (7:48). (John " s use of «ruler» is interesting; some aristocrats may favor Jesus, but the Pharisees on the whole oppose him. This emphasis may reflect elements of John " s audiencés milieu, appearing opposite of the pre-70 situation depicted in Acts.) 7964 |
| The Baptist again intrudes into the narrative; in this instance, his general «witness» to the light becomes more specific in terms of a contrast between himself and the Christ, reinforcing the earlier suggestion of a polemical downplaying of John " s role in the Gospe1. 3724 Here the Gospel declares that, though John " s public ministry preceded that of Jesus, Jesus not only outranked him but existed before him. 3725 Jesus was, after all, «in the beginning with God» (1:1–2). If Jesus «came after» John in the sense that some could claim that Jesus was John " s disciple 3726 –not only did John baptize him but the Fourth Gospel suggests that their ministries overlapped and that John was initially the more prominent of the two (3:22–24, 30)–the pains the author takes to explain the temporal and positional superiority of the Logos to his mere witness are understandable. Normally an inferior would follow a superior; 3727 but John " s theology of the incarnation challenges that assumption anyway (cf. 13:14–16). Although it is unlikely that the Baptist used precisely the words here attributed to him (see ch. 2 in the introduction for ancient writers» liberty to paraphrase), the Synoptics also attest that John humbled himself before the one whose climactic, eschatological ministry was to follow his own chronologically. The Fourth Gospel knows that John recognized the one coming after (οπσω) him, based on a tradition (1:27, 30) also preserved in Mark 1 (cf. Matt 3:11). 3. Greater than Moses» Revelation (1:16–18) Christ is greater than Moses as the one whom Moses saw is greater than Moses; in the Fourth Gospel, the glory witnessed by Israelite prophets was that of Jesus himself (12:41). But the glory of the new covenant is also greater than the glory of the first covenant (cf. 2Cor 3:3–18 ). 3A. Receiving the Fulness of Grace and Truth (1:16) Those who receive Jesus (1:12) receive the full measure of grace and truth present in him, not just the partial, veiled measure in the law. «Fulness» has a wide semantic range, and could allude to God filling the cosmos with his wisdom or his Spirit. 3728 In the context, however, it seems most natural to construe «fulness» in 1as a reference to «full of grace and truth» in 1:14. 3729 The first person plural would naturally refer primarily to the eyewitnesses of v. 14, but the verb indicates that it embraces also all who believe through their witness (1:12; 17:20). (The «all,» πντες, applies only to those in the πντες and πντα of 1:7, 9 who believe the light, not all those to whom it is available.) |
|
|
