| But if «know» is the language of covenant relationship, such as in marital intimacy, it may imply that by virtue of the mutual indwelling of Jesus and believers (14:23; 15:4), believers shared the divine relationship. 7431 Reciprocal knowledge of Jesus and his own is rooted in the reciprocal relationship of Jesus and the Father. 7432 A new husband and wife may not yet have explored the fulness of their intimacy, but they had established a covenant relationship within which such exploration is invited. The rest of the Gospel confirms that such intimacy is indeed meant to be characteristic of believers; they are actually in Gods presence continually ( 14:17) and can continually learn from the Spirit the intimate matters of Jesus» heart and character (14:26; 16:13–15). 7433 Jesus» relationship with the Father–doing always what he sees the Father doing (5:19), doing always the things that please him (8:29), and their mutual love (3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 14:31; 15:9; 17:24, 26)–becomes a model for his followers» relationship with him. Such an emphasis also serves John " s apologetic interests: if believers rather than their accusers held such an intimate relationship with God, they were clearly God " s servants, persecuted like the biblical prophets (cf. Matt 5:12). 4C. Other Sheep and Jesus» Sacrifice (10:16–18) Some have suggested that the «other sheep» (10:16) are the next generation of believers, who have not personally seen the historical Jesus (17:20). But the pregnant imagery for Israel in the context suggests a play on the issue of the people of God, as does the language of scattering (10:12; cf. 11:52) and gathering (10:16). That John uses the imagery of the people of God, however, does not solve all the passagés potential interpretive dilemmas; presumably the original audience may have known what issues John was addressing, but reconstructing them at this distance is speculative. Some suggest that John may refer to the uniting of Ephraim and Judah under one shepherd in Ezek 37:22–24 , and that therefore the «other sheep» are the Samaritan believers of 4:39–42. 7434 In favor of such a suggestion is the clear mention of Samaritan believers in the Gospel, whereas fully Gentile believers may be merely inferred (depending on how one interprets «Greeks» in 12and perhaps 7:35). Against such a suggestion is the fact that the other sheep may not yet have heard Jesus» voice (10:16), in contrast to the Samaritans who had already received him (4:42); further, though the allusion to Ezek 37is probable here, it contextually includes the restoration of Diaspora Israelites to the land ( Ezek 37:21 ). |
| John probably uses his vocabulary for vision interchangeably for the sake of variation, as he uses his vocabulary for knowledge. 2161 John employs vision terminology theologically in two ways: some see God s glory in Jesus, 2162 whereas others have eyes and see, but do not really see (perceive), misunderstanding the signs and Jesus himself. 2163 Johns direct sources for the motif are the vision of God in Exod 33–34 (see comment on John 1:14–18 ) and Isa 6 (see comment on John 12:40 ). By contrasting the blind leaders of the blind and the prophetic remnant (9:39), John encourages his readers to maintain their faith against an opposition that seems intellectually and religiously superior but lacks the intimate relationship with God available in Christ. For Johannine theology, various backgrounds may offer their contributions for a christological purpose: as Moses was glorified by observing Gods glory (cf. 2Cor 3:7–18 ; John 1:14–18 ), so contemplation of the divine character in Jesus transforms believers in him (cf. 1 John 3:2,6 ). In the Gospel, vision often focuses on more initial stages of faith. Because the Fourth Gospel " s object of seeing and believing, as well as the cause of believing and knowing, is often signs, the next section will examine the function of signs in antiquity and their role in the Fourth Gospe1. Signs in Antiquity, the Jesus Tradition, and the Fourth Gospel Signs fulfill a specific literary function in the Fourth Gospel, summoning the reader, like the witnesses in the narratives, to either faith or rejection (with emphasis on the former, 20:27–31). 2164 Because signs also fulfilled important functions in the Greco-Roman world and in early Judaism, John " s first readers (or more accurately, hearers) would, consciously or unconsciously, have evaluated the Johannine signs by contrast or comparison with other signs-claims of the day. Although readers would have placed those signs most securely in the context of OT prophetic signs and those of the Jesus tradition they had already received, we should give adequate attention also to the broader cultural nuances which will be less familiar to most modern interpreters. |
| Craig S. Keener The Response of the Unorthodox. 4:1–54 THE BULK OF THIS SECTION, which actually continues the general thought of 3:1–36, revolves around a sinful Samaritan woman and her response to Jesus. If the initial faith of the best representative from the Judean elite appears ambiguous (3:1–10), the faith of the socially worst representative from an unorthodox and ethnically mixed sect appears far more positive, even allowing her to bring her people as a whole to Jesus (4:39–42; cf. 1:46). She is one of those who believe, not one on whom God " s wrath remains (3:36); but those who exalt themselves will be brought low (3:30–31), and most, like Nicodemus initially, do not receive Jesus» witness (3:32). Yet Christ is available even to the elite. If we place John the Baptist in the special category of witness, 5206 the context surrounding his witness (3:22–36) in fact alternates between the socially powerful and the weak, providing positive and ambiguous or negative examples of each: Nicodemus (elite, open but uncomprehending), a Samaritan woman (receptive), an official of Antipas (receptive), and a lame man (unfaithful). Only Nicodemus, however, is part of the Judean religious elite, for the royal official could be viewed as unorthodox. This section also includes a much briefer healing miracle with no accompanying discourse (4:46–54). The royal official here represents part of a Galilean economic elite, but like many other Herodian aristocrats would have been religiously impure by Pharisaic standards. Through him the Gospel writer illustrates various levels of faith. True Worshipers in Samaria (4:1–42) This extended narrative contrasts starkly with the Nicodemus narrative. 5207 There a religious teacher in Israel proved unable to understand Jesus» message (3:10); here a sinful Samaritan woman not only received the message (though starting with no less daunting social obstacles–cf. πς in 3:4, 9 and 4:9; perhaps πθεν in 4:11), but brought it to her entire Samaritan town (4:28–29, 39–42). Here, as often, John employs ironic contrasts among characters to convey his emphases. 5208 (That the Samaritan woman, in contrast to Nicodemus, is unnamed is probably not as significant. As a woman, her name was less likely to be recorded in John " s tradition; 5209 further, most characters in the context are unnamed, and perhaps their names had not been preserved–2:1; 4:46; 5:5; 7:3; 9:1. |
| While one cannot prove the veracity of the contents of the trial narrative at this remove, skepticism that the first followers of Jesus would have had access to such information 9693 also assumes too much. Sources for the trial narrative may derive from Joseph of Arimathea ( Mark 15:43 ), from connections within the high priest " s household ( John 18:15–16 ), from others who later became disciples or sympathizers ( John 19:39 ; cf. perhaps Acts 6:7), or Jesus himself (cf. Acts 1:3); it is unthinkable at least that the early Palestinian tradition would have neglected the witness of anyone, such as Joseph, who could have had contacts present at the tria1. That leaks from within the Jerusalem council occurred on other occasions in the first century (Josephus Life 204) does not prove that such a leak occurred in Jesus» case, but it does challenge the claims of those who suppose such a leak implausible. 9694 Together the cleansing of the temple (which would offend the Sadducean aristocracy) and crucifixion by the Romans suggest the intermediary step of arrest by the priestly authorities; as Sanders observes, conflict with the Romans, crowds, or Pharisees would not explain subsequent events, but the continuing enmity of the chief priests against Jesus» followers (e.g., Acts 4:1–7; 5:17–18; 9:1–2) points to the priestly aristocracy as the main source of opposition. 9695 Given high-priestly involvement, the Gospel writers are not so generous as to have alleged even the pretense of a hearing if in fact they had no tradition that one occurred. Like most modern preachers, the Gospel writers were more interested in applying their text than in creating a wholly new source to be applied. 3. Annas and Caiaphas (18:12–14) Some writers have charged that John " s use of the name Annas reflects Jewish-Christian tradition but lacks historical foundation, since Annas had long since retired from office. 9696 Yet this approach reads too much into Annas " s «retirement»; it is likely that he continued to exert power within his household (especially if they privately recognized the biblical tradition concerning the lifelong character of a high priest " s calling), including through his son-in-law Caiaphas, until his death in 35 C.E. After Vitellius, legate of Syria, deposed Caiaphas in 36 C.E., he replaced him with Jonathan son of Annas; 9697 in time all five sons of Annas followed in office, suggesting that Annas had in fact exercised considerable influence. 9698 In any case, even though it was customary to refer to the entire high-priestly family by John " s day as «high priests,» 9699 John labels only Caiaphas here as «high priest,» not Annas (contrast Acts 4:6). |
| Ascension was a recognized-enough category in ancient traditions to require little explanation, although Jesus» ascension was qualitatively different in specific respects from most comparable stories. Ancients could depict the soul rising to heaven (e.g., T. Ab. 20:12A; 7:13; 14:7B), told stories of newly divinized immortals ascending to heaven, 10633 and handed on traditions about Enoch, Elijah, Ezra, and others thought to have escaped death (e.g., 1Macc 2:58; 1 En. 39:3) 10634 and, on a more regular basis, about angels (e.g., Tob 12:20–22). 10635 But whereas Greeks were comfortable with the notion of bodily or non-bodily ascensions, 10636 the central Christian concept of Jesus» bodily resurrection, which the Christian ascension tradition presupposes, was utterly foreign to them. That John accepts an ascension and future eschatology does not mean that his Gospel emphasizes it frequently. To the contrary, as we have already noted, the «ascending to the Father» to which he normally refers is Jesus» ascension by means of the cross that he might now impart the Spirit. John does not narrate an ascension precisely because, through the Spirit " s coming (20:22; cf. 14:16–26), he wishes to emphasize the continuing presence and activity of Jesus (21:12–14). But for John in a theological sense, the passion, resurrection, and imparting of the Spirit (fulfilled in 20:22) are all of one piece. Thus it is not surprising that «ascends» is (in Jesus» message for the disciples) in the present tense (20:17). The present tense could denote the «certainty» involved 10637 but may be another Johannine double entendre: in Johannine terms, Jesus» ascent, his «lifting up,» began with the cross and may be completed only with the giving of the Spirit. 2F. Women " s Witness (20:18) Whereas Mary first announced to the leading disciples that someone had carried off the body (20:2), she now announces that she has seen the Lord and that he told her «these matters» (20:18)–presumably, that his ascension is coming and therefore his revelations to them are urgent (20:17). Mary announces her personal-eyewitness experience even though she must be aware of the prejudice against women " s testimony in her culture; 10638 she could offer it in defiance of such prejudice but most likely offers it simply because it is necessary and because she has nothing else to offer; she trusts the one who sent her to make it adequate (cf. 12:7). |
| 18:31). This underlines the primary responsibility of the leaders of Jesus,» and John " s audiencés, own people. The greatest irony, however, is the claim that the law demands Jesus» execution for claiming to be God " s Son (19:7) when in fact the rest of the Gospel demonstrates that Jesus provided ample evidence that he was God " s Son (10:34–38) and that the law supported his claims against theirs (e.g., 5:45–47). 3A. «Behold the Man» (19:4–5) Whether or not one accepts a proposed chiastic structure for this section, 9998 these two presentations of Jesus by Pilate to «the Jews» are closely parallel, with Pilate offering titles for Jesus and with «the Jews» responding (19:4–7, 13–16; cf. 18:39). 9999 Some suggest that «man» (19:5) is a messianic title; 10000 the late Samaritan text Memar Marqah applies the title frequently to Moses, the Samaritan messianic prototype. 10001 But the title is too rare for us to infer that it was probably known both to John and to his audience; «man» was also an occasional euphemism for «God,» 10002 but it is unlikely that John alludes to that usage here. Nevertheless, in the context of the soldiers» mockery (19:2–3), «Behold the man!» probably parallels 19and functions as a mock royal acclamation; Jesus stands before them in royal apparel (not explicitly removed as in Mark 15:20 ), and Pilate mocks the ceremony of acclamation (acclamatio). 10003 S Some sources use «That is he!» as an acclamation; 10004 here John may well expect the more biblically literate members of his audience to recall Samuel " s acclamation of Israel " s first king with identical words: «ιδο νθρωπος» (1Sam 9LXX). 10005 In the final analysis, however, John is less interested in the mocking significance of Pilatés title in his tradition than in Jesus» opponents speaking unwitting and ironic truth. Thus, in the context of the Fourth Gospel, the title «man» epitomizes Jesus» enfleshment: 10006 Jesus revealed God " s glory in his mortality, especially in the ultimate expression of that mortality, his death (see comment on 1:14). |
| That Jesus reminds the guards that they have come to arrest him rather than the disciples (18:8) provides a vivid illustration of his mission to offer himself on their behalf (10:11, 15). Though Jesus» disciples may betray, deny, or abandon him, he remains faithful to them. 9623 (It also provides an example for believers to lay down their lives for one another, 15:13; 1 John 3:16.) That guards working for the chief priests or even Rome would allow Jesus» followers to escape is not surprising; Romans normally did prefer to execute ringleaders rather than all those involved in a revolt. 9624 Jesus» self-revelation, «I am» (γ εμι, 18:5, 6, 8), can mean simply «I am (he),» that is, «I am the one you are seeking.» But the reader of the Gospel by this point understands that the Jesus of this Gospel means more than this; he is declaring his divine identity (see comment on 8:58). 9625 Lest anyone fail to grasp this point, the response even of Jesus» opponents in the story world confirms it (as in 8:59; 10:31, 33,39): the divine name causes their involuntary prostration (18:6). That this passage is Johannine theology does not render incredible the possibility that it also reflects tradition. Those familiar with the history of revivalism are aware of the frequency of involuntary motor responses to sublime encounters; 9626 such phenomena also appeared in ancient Israel ( 1Sam 19:24 ). It is also possible that, given their suspicion that Jesus was a magician (7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20), they might have fallen back in terror when he pronounced the divine name. 9627 Indeed, within the story world, some of these officers (18:3) may have already been fearful of apprehending Jesus (7:45–46). But because we lack external corroboration, the historical accuracy of this report is beyond verification on purely historical grounds; what remains open to investigation is the significance John may wish his audience to find in the event. Other ancient texts report falling backward in terror–for instance, fearing that one has dishonored God. 9628 More important, if Eusebius correctly records his words, a Hellenistic Jewish writer roughly three centuries before John reports a significant and perhaps widely known tradition about the divine name. When Moses pronounced the name of his God in Pharaoh " s ear, Pharaoh fell to the ground, unable to speak until raised by Moses; a priest who ridiculed the divine name was then struck dead. 9629 Thus it is likely that John provides still another hint of Jesus» deity in his narration. Likewise, that Jesus» word (referring to 17:12) had to be «fulfilled» (18:9; cf. 18:32) functionally places it on a par with Scripture; John employs the same fulfillment formula for both (12:38;13:18; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36). 9630 4. Peter " s Resistance (18:10–11) |
| Third, Turner argues that the Paraclete is a substitute or replacement for Jesus» presence (14:16–17) yet Jesus continues appearing to the disciples after 20(20:26–29; 21:1). Again, I would respond that this weights the meaning of replacement too heavily; after all, the Spirit also replaces Jesus» presence in Acts (Acts 1:8–11), but this does not preclude a very rare subsequent resurrection appearance (Acts 9:3–4). We might expect overlap even more in John, for whom the cross and exaltation are theologically a single event, than for Luke, whose scheme of salvation history is more chronologica1. Turner adds here that no empowerment of the disciples convinces Thomas. But Thomas, like Nathanael and the Samaritans, «comes and sees» (1:46; 4:29; cf. 1:39)–now, however, in the midst of the community. Fourth, Turner points out that the disciples remain behind locked doors in 20and still do not understand in 21:15–17, and argues that these experiences appear too anti-climactic to fulfill the glorious promises of John 14–16 . In my opinion, this is a stronger argument, pointing at least to a strand of dissonance in John " s narrative, created by the historical experience of a later Pentecost that his narrative must stop before recounting. It does not, however, negate the fact that in this short encounter (20:19–23) nearly every promise associated with the Spirit " s coming appears at least proleptically. 10655 Part of the conflict between views here may be semantic: are we speaking of the historical events behind John " s Gospel or of the theological points he is emphasizing by the arrangement of the elements in his narrative? Some of Turner " s observations may suggest legitimate complexities or incongruities in John " s language. These in turn may suggest that John is aware of a subsequent Pentecost event and lays emphasis on an earlier event that also provided an encounter with the Spirit. 10656 On the level of Johannine theology, however, this event ties together diverse elements of Jesus» promise of the Spirit, fulfilling a function theologically analogous to Pentecost in Acts: the promised Spirit has come, so the church must live in the empowerment provided. (Even in Acts, on the theological level, the gift of the Spirit is of a piece with Jesus» resurrection and exaltation; as in Acts 2:32–33 [even though they are chronologically distinct; Acts 1:3–5].) |
| Although the purification aspect of the Spirit is important here, the other main aspect of the Spirit, as prophetic anointing to declare God " s message, is explicit in this text. 10716 Immediately before Jesus commands them to receive the «Holy Spirit» (the phrase connects the Spirit of purification in 1and the Spirit of prophecy in 14:26), he commissions them to carry on his own mission from the Father (20:21). (This phrase appears only three times in the Gospel, including its first and final uses. Just as the Gospel proper concludes with Thomas " s confession of Jesus» deity, forming a christological inclusio with the prologue, this passage closes a slightly smaller pneumatological inclusio.) These relate to the prophetic mission of his disciples. John 20:19–23 binds together the two main pneumatological motifs in the Fourth Gospel, showing that only those who are purified or regenerated by the Spirit will be empowered by him to experience and proclaim the risen Christ. For John, all those who believe are to «receive» the Spirit after Jesus» glorification (7:39), so the experience depicted here for the disciples functions proleptically for the whole church. The language of «receiving the Spirit» (also 14:17; cf. 1 John 2:27 ) accords with early Christian tradition, normally for the experience of new relationship ( Rom 8:15 ; 1Cor 2:12 ; 2Cor 11:4 ; Gal 3:2, 14 ) or empowerment for mission (Acts 1:8) temporally at (Acts 10:47), or theologically implicit in (Acts 2:33; 19:2), conversion, although in the early church " s experience it may have applied to a postconversion experience in some cases (Acts 8:15, 17). 10717 That John uses λαμβνω rather than δχομαι here (20:22) does not merit more than passing interest, although the former term could sometimes bear stronger force. In the whole Gospel, John employs the latter term only once (4:45, and nowhere in the Epistles; probably interchangeably with λαμβνω; cf. 4:44; 1:11) and the former forty-six times (plus six times in the Epistles). The imperative may, however, connote that although the gift is freely offered to all, it must be embraced by those who would accept the offer. 10718 «Receiving» the Spirit here also refers to the beginning of an indwelling (14:17,23) and hence implies a fuller inspiration than that reported among the biblical prophets. 10719 |
| But the Samaritans receive Jesus with more than hospitality here; the pattern of going to meet him (4:40a), inviting him to the town (4:40b), and calling him Savior (4:42b) fits the way peoples embraced rulers, especially the emperor. 5649 The Samaritan confession of Jesus as the «savior of the world» (4:42) is significant. First, it shows that they embraced the «salvation» which was «of the Jews» (4:22). Second, believers outside Judea (in Samaria and just before a transition to Galilee) acknowledge the universality of Jesus» rule. 5650 Pagans regularly employed the title «savior» for deities like Zeus, 5651 and other deities, 5652 as well as for exalted human benefactors (like rulers) and heroes. 5653 The title would perhaps most easily evoke the emperor, 5654 who ruled the Samaritans but now found competition in Christ; 5655 but Jews would find in it a biblical term, especially applicable to their deity (Isa 43:3, 11; 45:15, 21). 5656 «Savior of the world» seems to have become a recognized title for Jesus in Johannine circles (1 John 4:14; cf. John 12:47 ); both Jewish and Gentile early Christians employed the title. 5657 Received in Galilee (4:43–54) Untrustworthy disciples (2:23–3:9) and hints of hostility (4:1–3) characterized Jesus» reception in Judea; by contrast, Samaria (4:4–42) and Galilee (4:43–54) received his ministry. It is important to remember that John works with context but not with a tightly structured outline such as we follow here. The faith of the Samaritans (4:39–42) cannot be separated from the response of the Galileans, and the contrast with rejection by Judea. Together we could title the entire section «His Own Received Him Not» (4:39–45). But because 4:39–42 is part of the Samaritan woman account and 4:42–45 provides the transition into another Galilean story (4:46–54), it cannot get the unified treatment in our outline that it deserves. 1. Prophet without Honor (4:43–45) The Galileans received Jesus because they had seen «the things he had done at the feast» (4:45), perhaps referring primarily to his overturning the tables in the temple (2:18), though signs might be included (cf. 3:2; 7:3–4). If the former is in view, it suggests that many Galilean pilgrims to the temple were annoyed at the way the temple establishment or merchants acted; in any case it reinforces the cultural divide between Judea and Galilee implied throughout this Gospel and the gospel tradition. |
|
|
