| Only John mentions the «garden» (18:1, 26; 19:41); gardens often were walled enclosures. 9586 Perhaps John alludes to the reversal of the fall (cf. Rom 5:12–21 ) in the garden of Eden ( Gen 2:8–16 ); 9587 but John nowhere else uses an explicit Adam Christology, and the LXX uses κπος for the Hebrew " s garden of Eden only in Ezek 36 (and there omits mention of Eden, normally preferring παρδεισος), rendering the parallel less likely. (John could offer his own free translation, but the proposed allusion, in any case, lacks adequate additional support to be clear.) The Markan line of tradition suggests that perhaps olive trees grew nearby; its name, Gethsemane, suggests an olive press and hence was probably the name for an olive orchard at the base of Mount Olivet. 9588 In the LXX, a κπος appears as an agricultural unit alongside olive groves and vineyards (e.g., 1 Kgs 21:2; 2 Kgs 5:26; Song 6:11 ; Amos 4:9; 9:14). If the garden has symbolic import (which it might not), it may connect Jesus» arrest with his tomb and the site of his resurrection (19:41) or perhaps allude to the seed that must die (12:24) or to the Father " s pruning (15:1). Some scholars doubt the participation of a betrayer in Jesus» arrest, 9589 but Romans normally did work through local informers, including in their dealings with Christians less than a century later. 9590 Further, given the shame involved, early Christians would surely not have invented the betraya1. Judas " s betrayal may also be attested in pre-Pauline tradition in 1Cor 11:23 , though the phrase could (less probably) refer to Jesus» betrayal by the elite to the Romans. As elsewhere, John sometimes anticipates questions the answer to which may have been assumed in the earliest passion traditions: that Judas knew the place because Jesus gathered his disciples there on other occasions (18:2) comports with other gospel tradition ( Mark 13:3 ; Luke 21:37; 22:39), and this is a plausible explanation of how the authorities found Jesus. 9591 By contrast, John does not dwell on disciples sleeping instead of «watching» as in Mark " s line of tradition ( Mark 14:34–41 ). This is not due to a higher opinion of the disciples» fidelity than in Mark (cf. 12:38; 16:32, though this is less John " s emphasis than Mark " s); perhaps John omits the «watching» because it was closely connected with the Passover, which he has apparently rescheduled (18:28). 9592 2. The Troops (18:3) |
| But Jesus seems to have been able to blend into the crowds and merits no physical description from the author of the Gospe1. Presumably he looked like most of his Palestinian Jewish contemporaries, 6374 wearing a beard; 6375 more likely than not he had a light brown complexion with black hair. 6376 That the crowd was divided (7:12; cf. 12:29) is not surprising; early Judaism was very diverse on a variety of matters, 6377 and a crowd of Jews from around the world gathered for the feast might prove even more diverse than our literary and epigraphic sources revea1. While part of the crowd repudiates Jesus, another part seems to grow in christological awareness (cf. 7:12, 26, 31,41); yet people feared to express their views openly «because of the Jews» (7:13) 6378 –which here can refer only to the elite (cf. 12:42; 20:19; unless we are to believe that John portrays the crowds of 7as wholly Gentile, a view which does not fit Johns narratives). Contrary to common scholarly tradition, John does not portray all the Jewish people, even all Jerusalemites, as hostile to Jesus. In fact, his emphasis on the Judean elite in his Passion Narrative reduces the emphasis on the behavior of the people as a whole (e.g., 19:6). The view that Jesus led «the multitude» astray (7:12; cf. 7:47) suggests two possible charges: the first was the aristocratic view of Jesus as a populist demagogue seeking influence with the masses (cf. 7:48–49). The second was the biblical injunction against false prophets leading astray the people. Although it may never have been implemented in the first century, the official penalty for this crime was death for both the prophet and thepeople who followed him ( Deut 13:12–18 ). This latter charge, based on Deut 13 , continued to warrant discussion in the Dead Sea Scrolls and later Jewish texts. 6379 Some later rabbis felt that one who led the multitudes to sin should not even be given an opportunity to repent, lest he be spared the eternal judgment into which he had led his unwitting followers. 6380 From John s perspective, however, this charge is a dangerous slander; and nearly all ancient moralists, both pagan and Jewish, condemned slander. 6381 |
| Following the OT designation of Abraham as God " s friend (Isa 41:8; 2 Chr 20:7), early Jewish literature especially applies the title to Abraham. 9083 This is especially because of his intimate relationship with God, so that God could take Abraham into his confidence, not treating him as a servant (cf. John 15:15 ): For wisdom is rather God " s friend than His servant. And therefore He says plainly of Abraham, «shall I hide anything from Abraham my friend?» (Gen. xviii.17). 9084 Or it is because of his obedience to God instead of his own spirit " s will (cf. John 15:14 )? 9085 It would not at all be unnatural, therefore, if John 15:13–15 were making an allusion to Abraham, 9086 particularly given the emphasis on election in 15:16. But another OT allusion is also possible, one that perhaps was more prominent to early readers of the OT because it was in the Torah proper. In Exod 33:11, Moses is the friend of God; this becomes the basis on which he can appeal to God for a revelation of his glory. This designation also appears in early Jewish texts; 9087 it is the most common usage in Tannaitic parables (though not by a large margin). 9088 This allusion becomes likely in John 15because in 1:14–18 the disciples are compared to a new Moses to whom God revealed his glory in Jesus, the embodiment of Torah in flesh (cf. 2Cor 3 ). 9089 Although Jesus fills the role of God here, friendship with Jesus would also bring one into a welcome relationship with the Father. Individuals» friendships provided ties, whenever feasible, between households. 9090 2E. Friends, Not Servants (15:15) The earlier contrast between servants and children ( John 8:33–35 ; cf. Gal 4:7 ) is here supplemented with a contrast between friends and servants. The contrast was familiar enough in Mediterranean antiquity; a Roman, for example, could describe conquered people as «slaves» but allies as «friends» (Sallust Jug. 102.6). Under Jewish law, a slave could not inherit, no matter how many goods were left to him, unless the will freed the slave or granted him «all» his master " s goods (including himself; m. Pêah 3:8). There would be no point in Jesus promising to share his words or goods with the disciples unless they were friends and not slaves. The image especially involves what Jesus entrusts the disciples with, as he states in 15:15; as noted above, one difference between servant-master relationships and those between friends is that servants withhold secrets from the master but friends do not withhold them from each other. 9091 |
| That Jesus» hearers do not understand his appeal to his Father at this point indicates that they do not know Jesus or the Father (8:19). 6669 They do not know where his father is (8:19a), hence cannot know who he is, for the Father is above (8:23), where Jesus is going (8:21). ). On the level of the characters in the story world, their question, «Where is your father?» may function as a mock demand: If you cite a witness, produce him! Wehere is this «father» of whom you speak? That they suspect that Jesus is going to die to get to his Father (8:22) may suggest that they think he refers to a deceased human father; perhaps they could interpret this as dependence on a «ghost» or spirit-guide (cf. 7:20; 8:48). One could construe the matter differently; if 8indicates that some still wished to seize him and could not (rather than that they simply did not do so because they did not understand), it could suggest that they knew he spoke of God hence were enraged by his claim that knowing him was inseparable from knowing his Father (8:19). In the end, however, Jesus» comments show that they probably were unaware that he spoke about God (8:27). In either case, God " s sovereign purpose was the factor restraining the hour (8:20; cf. 7:30). As generally in the biblical tradition and in John in particular (10:4,14; see introduction, ch. 6, on the knowledge of God), «knowing God» implies «no theoretical knowledge of God but spiritual communion with him.» 6670 Jesus came to reveal the Father (1:18), so it is only through him that others know the Father and come to where he is (14:4–10), there worshiping him in truth (4:23–24). Jesus offered these words in the vicinity of the temple treasury (8:20), 6671 where another extant tradition also locates some of his public teaching ( Mark 12:41 ; Luke 21:1). Treasuries were standard in ancient temples, 6672 so that a temple which lacked one was noteworthy. 6673 John " s tradition presupposed some intimate knowledge of the temple on the part of its audience, many of whom must have made pilgrimage to the temple before 70. Yet even after the templés destruction, a Jewish writer could expect some readers to know of «the treasury» (Josephus Ant. 19.294). 6674 This chamber reportedly adjoined the court of women, where the lighting of torches and dances commemorated the light in the wilderness. 6675 Those who had made pilgrimage while the temple remained might well recall such details, and therefore conclude that Jesus» message was available to all Israel gathered at the temple on that day. John " s audience may find a strange sense of disjunction between the holy temple and the opposition to God " s Son occurring there. On Jesus» «hour» not having come, see comment on 7:30; cf. 2:4. |
| 7:12, 26, 31, 41). As we have repeatedly suggested, John is undoubtedly familiar with the more popular passion tradition, but here he focuses on the theological significance of Jesus» condemnation by the crowds: it is their elite who led Israel astray. This portrait has important implications for the identity of «the Jews» in this Gospel and the question of the Jewish commitment of John " s own ideal audience. The crowd (equivalent in John, as we have noted, to the Jerusalem elite) now explains why Jesus» execution is so urgent (19:7). Instead of regarding Jesus as no threat (19:5), the crowd responds that their law sentenced Jesus to death for making himself God " s Son (19:7). 10010 The response bristles with Johannine irony: Jesus» very identification with humanity (19:5) opened him to the charge of «making himself» God " s Son (10:33, 36). Further, those who cry out that the law condemns Jesus have never answered Nicodemus " s objection that the law does not condemn one unless he has first been heard (7:51). Yet the informed reader knows that the Father, rather than Jesus himself, has chosen this title for Jesus; and perhaps most dramatically of all, the law to which they appealed was the very word now enfleshed they sought to execute (1:1–18). The law required Jesus» death–but that he might save the world and, by their lifting him up, fulfill his mission as God " s Son (8:28; 12:32–33; cf. υν του νθρωπου in 3:14). 4. True Authority (19:8–11) Jesus truly is God " s Son (19:7) and king of the Jews (19:14), but he has come in obedience to his Father " s mission. In submitting to his Father " s authority, he therefore acknowledges the delegated authority God provided Romés representatives–which underlines all the more his rejection of the Jerusalem hierarchy " s authority, likely viewing them as usurpers of Israel " s rightful leadership roles (19:11). 4A. Pilatés Question and Demand (19:8–10) That Jesus claimed to be God " s «son» (19:7) could fit an occasional self-understanding of philosophers (cf. comment on 18:36–38) 10011 or, more dangerously, that of rivals to the emperor. 10012 But Pilatés actions in the narrative suggest that he entertains this charge on a more religious level, hence his fear (19:8). As a Roman, he would have known many stories of deities appearing in human form and of judgment coming on the mortals who rejected them. 10013 Naturally, a polytheist would be more open to multiple claims of divine sonship than a monotheist, but on the level of Johannine theology as a whole, this feature of the account likewise exudes irony: the agent of Rome proves more ready to believe something divine about God " s son than his own people do (cf. 1:11; Mark 15:39 ). |
| John prepares the way of Yahweh (1:23)–and hence of Jesus–and testifies of Jesus» preexistence (1:30). Jesus proves to be one greater than Moses (2:1–11). Jesus would come down from heaven more like divine Wisdom or Torah than like Moses (3:13, 31). Like Torah or Wisdom, Jesus is the bread of life (6:48). He existed as divine before Abraham existed (8:56–59). Jesus is far greater than the «gods» to whom God " s Word came at Sinai (10:33–39). Repeatedly in John the Scriptures testify to Jesus» identity and mission, but the climax of this motif appears when we learn that Isaiah spoke of Jesus when he beheld his glory in the theophany of Isa 6 ( John 12:39–41 ). Jesus is the perfect revelation of the Father (14:8–10) and shared the Father " s glory before the world existed (17:5,24). His self-revelation can induce even involuntary prostration (18:6), and confession of his deity becomes the ultimately acceptable level of faith for disciples (20:28–31). Where Jesus parallels Moses, he is greater than Moses (e.g., 9:28–29), as he is greater than Abraham and the prophets (8:52–53) or Jacob (4:12). Elsewhere, however, Jesus parallels not Moses but what Moses gave (3:14; 6:31), and even here, Moses should not get too much credit for what was «given through» (cf. 1:17) him (6:32; 7:22). Moses may have given water in the wilderness from the rock, but Jesus is the rock himself, the foundation stone of the new temple (7:37–39). How do Jesus» «signs» contribute to this high Christology (as they clearly must– 20:30–31)? Even though John has specifically selected them (21:25), most signs in the Fourth Gospel are of the same sort as found in the Synoptic tradition, which often applies them to the messianic era (Isa 35:5–6 in Matt 11/Luke 7:22). As in the Synoptics, the closest biblical parallels to Jesus» healing miracles are often the healing miracles of Elijah and Elisha. But in some other signs, John clearly intends Jesus to be greater than Moses: for his first sign he turns water to wine instead of to blood (2:1–11; cf. Rev 8:8). Later he feeds a multitude in the wilderness and, when they want to make him a prophet-king like Moses (6:15), he indicates that he is the new manna that Moses could not provide (6:32). The walking on water sign (6:19–21) probably reflects faith in Jesus» deity even in Mark. In this broader Johannine context, the healing miracles themselves may further evoke one story about Moses: people who beheld the serpent he lifted up would be healed. Yet Jesus parallels not Moses but the serpent, through which healing came directly (see 3:14, in a context addressing Wisdom, Torah, and Moses). Those who «see» him (parallel Johannine language to «believe» and «know» him) are healed. |
| Most likely, asking «in his name» signifies asking «as his representative, while about his business,» just as Jesus came in his Father " s name (5:43; 10:25). 8529 It involves prayer «in keeping with his character and concerns and, indeed, in union with him.» 8530 This usage («in the name of» meaning «as onés representative») was common 8531 and fits the context (14:26; 15:21; cf. 15:26–27). (Later rabbis also spoke of passing on traditions in another " s name, i.e., on another " s authority, e.g., m. " Abot 2:8.) 8532 Jesus» promise, «I will do it» (14:13), may well echo God " s word to Moses in Exod 33:17; 8533 this epitomizes the apparent paradox of Johannine Christology: like the Father, Jesus answers prayer (14:13–14), but the Father " s rank remains superior, so that the Father is glorified in the Son (14:13). 8534 Such prayer naturally implied desiring the sort of thing that Jesus would desire–hence praying, as best as one knows, according to God " s will (cf. 1 John 5:14 ). Some other thinkers in antiquity also recognized that people often prayed for what was not best from the divine perspective; 8535 they regarded prayer as conversation with the gods rather than petition 8536 and opined that deities would reward the deserving whether or not they prayed. 8537 An analogous emphasis on intimacy with God did not lead early Christians, however, to avoid praying for themselves as it led some ancient thinkers to do. 8538 Nor did Christians likely expect, as in some myths, 8539 that their deity would grant destructive gifts for which they wrongly asked in their ignorance. As in early Judaism, right motives in prayer mattered. 8540 That anything believers ask in Jesus» name would be granted far exceeds the more specialized guarantees attached to most magical charms. 8541 Such guarantees of answered prayer appear in early Jewish texts but are unusua1. 8542 For the most part, such broad expectations of answered prayer apply to special pietists such as Honi the Circle-Drawer or Hanina ben Dosa, with their Elijah-like faith; but the Jesus tradition invites all believers to that level of bold faith ( Mark 11:23–24 ; Matt 7:7–11; Luke 11:8–13), a confidence continued in early Christianity (Jas 5:16–18; cf. Heb 4:16). 8543 The Johannine circle of believers is no exception (15:16; 1 John 3:22); for them, the Gospel provides models of prayers through the confident example of Jesus (11:41–42; 17:1–26). Perhaps the primary object of asking, under which other enablements are subsumed, is the Holy Spirit, which Jesus will request for them (14:16, admittedly with a different term for asking) as in Luke 11:13 " s adaptation of Q (a more traditional form of which appears in Matt 7:11). 8544 |
| This birth makes one a participant in the whole new creation inaugurated by the messianic woes undertaken by Jesus and his followers (16:21). Birth from God is discussed in greater detail under John 3:1–13 , below. How was it possible for humans to be «born from God»? The chasm was unbridgeable from the human side; but God " s divine Word became flesh in 1:14. 3586 The narrativés logic implies a transferral: the Word that had been forever «with God» (1:1–2) became «flesh» (1:14) so others could be born not from flesh but from God (1:13; cf. 3:6). The New Sinai (1:14–18) Although we will explore various contexts for particular nuances of the text, the guiding imagery for 1:14–18 is from Exod 33–34, where God, in the context of giving Torah from Mount Sinai a second time, revealed his character to Moses. As in Exodus, in John " s prologue the Word comes to God " s people; but here the one who tabernacles among his people and whose glory is revealed is the Word (cf. similarly John 12:41 ). Here (as in 2Cor. 3 ) not Moses but the eyewitnesses of Jesus behold and testify to God " s glory; and here the character of covenant love and faithfulness which is the substance of that glory is expressed in Jesus» enfleshment as a mortal human being, which enfleshment climaxes (in the course of the Gospel) in the cross. Many scholars have observed the points of contact between Exod 33–34 and John 1:14–18 , 3587 although not all have recognized the connection between John " s Logos and Judaism " s Torah that explicitly climaxes in this section (1:17–18). 1. The Revelation (1:14) As God revealed his glory to Moses in Exod 33–34, «full of grace and truth,» so here he reveals his glory in Jesus to the disciples, whose mission is now to announce the more glorious new covenant. 1A. The Word " s Incarnation (1:14) Some have seen in John " s announcement of the Word " s incarnation a polemic against Hellenistic or gnostic ideas of an impassive deity. 3588 To be sure, the highest God of Greek philosophy was not material or semi-material like the woundable deities of Homeric mythology. |
| Seeing Jesus, like seeing the manna or the serpent in the wilderness (3:14), invited faith (6:36,40); perhaps it implies witnessing also his attesting works (10:37–38; 14:10–11). Nevertheless the «seeing» crowds fail to believe (6:36): seeking merely what Jesus could provide for them but not Jesus himself was not faith; further, the most genuine faith normally preceded signs (1:50; 4:48; 11:40; 20:25). 6165 That Jesus predicts his hearers» unbelief before they reveal it reflects his knowledge of their hearts ( John 2:23–25 ; cf. 8:31–59). But the Father would insure that some had eternal life (6:37, 39), and this was his Father " s purpose, for which Jesus had come into the world (6:38). 6166 Those who truly came to him would never be «cast out» (6:37), a fate delineated more graphically in 15as relevant to those who failed to persevere. In the whole of John " s theology, true «coming» to Jesus implies more than initial faith, for it demands perseverance. 6167 Thus, whereas Jesus sought disciples among the Samaritans (4:23), these Galileans who sought Jesus for the wrong reason were not truly «coming» to him (6:37). People could come to Jesus only through the Father " s will (6:37), just as they could come to the Father only through Jesus» work (14:6). Jesus obeys the Father " s will (6:38–39) in saving those who come to him; he «came down» from heaven (6:38; cf. 3:13,31; 6:33, 41–12, 58) for this purpose, and he desired above all to fulfill the Father " s purpose (5:30). Jesus» appeal to the resurrection at the last day here (6:39), as in 5:28–29, indicates that John has not abandoned future eschatology, though he emphasizes realized eschatology. 6168 The repetition of «raise it up on the last day» in 6and 6is emphatic. 6169 That the sentences each begin 6170 by speaking of God " s will indicates a double repetition, 6171 underlining the point no less than John " s double αμν but expanding the point in the second line (as, e.g., frequently in the psalms). That Jesus «himself» (the explicit pronoun εγ was already implicit in the verb) will raise believers is also emphatic because, as in 5:21,24–25, Jesus» involvement in the resurrection indicates his participation in a divine prerogative (see comment on 5:24–30). |
| By claiming that he has life in himself, Jesus seems to make a claim to deity. By claiming that the Father delegated this authority to him, however, he acknowledges the Father " s superior rank (5:26). He also claims to live because of the Father (6:57). Polytheistic syncretism could lead to considerable confusion in roles; thus one could address Helios as the «greatest of gods,» «god of gods,» then entreat him for access «to the supreme god, the one who has begotten and made you.» 5892 But in a Jewish context, one might think best of God " s agent, Wisdom or the Logos (see comment on 1:1–18). The claim that the Son would participate in the judgment would probably shock most of Jesus» hearers (see 5:22, above), but now Jesus explains why he will judge (5:27). The Father has committed judgment to his Son, 5893 because his Son is also the Son of Man. The point could be that Jesus participates fully in humanity (1:14) and hence is an appropriate judge for humanity (cf. Heb 5:2); hence the distinctively anarthrous use of «Son of Man» here. 5894 Even in the LXX of Dan 7:13 , however, «Son of Man» is anarthrous, and it is the allusion to that Son of Man that most fully explains Jesus» authority here. (On Jesus» likely historical claim to be Son of Man, see the Christology section in chapter 7 of our introduction, esp. p. 304.) People should not marvel at Jesus» claims, for he would one day demonstrate them by raising all the dead (5:28). 5895 The future form of 5(«an hour is coming») without the present (cf. 5:25) shows that Johns eschatology is not wholly realized, as do other references such as the last day (6:39; cf. 11:24) and the explicit mention of «tombs» in 5:28. (Other texts connect «tombs» with the final resurrection, 5896 but the most likely source of the language here is Isa 26LXX.) 5897 The «tombs» call attention to the later mention of Lazarus " s and Jesus» tombs (11:17,31,38; 12:17; 19:41–42; 20:1–11), from which the physically dead are restored, and in the most dramatic way in the second case. |
|
|
