| It is not surprising that seeing Jesus walking on the sea would frighten the disciples (6:19). In Mark " s account, they are afraid because they assume Jesus to be a spirit, probably a night spirit 6073 or a spirit of one drowned at sea, 6074 which were thought particularly dangerous. On recognizing him (6:20), they «willed» to «receive» him (6:21), which makes sense on a purely literal level but in the context of the whole Gospel may imply some typical Johannine symbolism (see the comments on «received» in 1:11–12). It contrasts with Jesus» enemies» failure to receive him in 5:43. As after the resurrection, Jesus provides a demonstration of the reality of his epiphany to the disciples (20:27). 6075 Of the four canonical gospels, only John reports that the boat was immediately at land (6:21b); Mark reports instead merely that the wind ceased ( Mark 6:51 ). 6076 Immediacy often, though not always, characterizes miracle reports in antiquity (see also 5:9). 6077 Bultmann compares a hymn in which a ship «reaches its destination with miraculous speed» once Apollo is on board. 6078 Greek tradition could in fact do better than this: in one account, observers reported Pythagoras teaching simultaneously in two different cities! 6079 Rapid teleporting (cf. Acts 8:39) also appeared in Jewish legends, 6080 probably originally rooted in biblical traditions about Elijah (1 Kgs 18:12) and Ezekiel ( Ezek 3:14; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 37:1; 43:5 ). Some have preferred parallels to the exodus event in which God brought his people through the sea, 6081 but, while this fits the Passover and exodus context of the chapter (hence what we should expect to find here), the parallel is not close and John provides at best few clues for this otherwise fertile interpretation. The most analogous phenomenon within the Fourth Gospel itself would be Jesus» sudden appearance in a room behind closed doors (20:19, 26), suggesting that John may close the miracle story proper by alluding forward (albeit not for first-time readers) to the resurrection appearance to the disciples, where Jesus again reveals his divine identity and ultimately is hailed as God by the most skeptical disciple (20:28). The Manna Discourse (6:22–58) |
| The structure of the Fourth Gospel is more difficult to determine than that of a more topically arranged book such as Matthew; themes seem to be developed and expanded in almost spiral fashion throughout the book, as has also been suggested for 1 John. The structure may be chronological, insofar as possible, like those of many Greco-Roman biographies; 939 the book is full of chronological indicators of disputed significance (the «days» of ch. 1, «after this» in 2:12, etc.) As in the Gospel of Mark, the development of controversy and attendant suspense is critical to the plot. 940 The bulk of the Gospel " s body is also built around the feasts in Jerusalem. 941 Nevertheless, on the stylistic level, the Fourth Gospel is a unity. 942 Scholars have often pointed to clear disjunctions in the narrative as a sign of disunity, but disjunction seems simply to represent a common stylistic characteristic of the evangelist. This may not be the practice with which we are familiar from the Synoptic Gospels, but it was hardly unique to John. While some rhetoricians like Lucian and Quintilian recommended linking episodes together (cf., e.g., Mark 1:16–39, 5:21–43 ), Polybius felt that his disconnected narratives were better, providing variety. 943 Sudden shifts in the narrative seem to be part of Johannine style, but even these shifts are not unconnected with their context. For instance, the major geographical break in ch. 6 does not obscure the theological progression from the prophet to whom Moses bore witness (5:45–47) to the gift of new manna (6:32–58). Since the references to motifs which recur throughout the book are in each case integral to the context in which they occur, the impression of thoughtful planning in the book is further reinforced. 944 And since historical works were typically based on an initial draft rehearsing in chronological order (when possible) the events to be covered (hypomnma), such planning and reediting by the same author should be expected. 945 Even stylistic or vocabulary changes from one section to the next–changes which in John are at most minor–need not indicate distinct sources. Arrian need not be quoting Epictetus more accurately in some sections of his Discourses than in others, although some phrases (e.g., τ σο κα μν) predominate in particular sections; other phrases are more evenly distributed throughout. Both Epictetus and Arrian probably had some words and phrases fresher on their minds at specific times, just as writers do today. Robinson is certainly right to observe: |
| The «you are» and «we are» of 9are both emphatic, each clause beginning with a pronoun (though the verbs would have sufficed), heightening the contrast. 7138 The claim to be «disciples of Moses» probably echoes genuine Pharisaic tradition; 7139 regardless of their immediate sources, later rabbis could speak of ultimately receiving tradition from Moses on Sinai. 7140 Moses, «father of the prophets,» was also their teacher and master; 7141 thus a later rabbi could claim that God told Jeremiah to attend to his teacher and his teachers teacher, Moses, who taught all the prophets. 7142 The image probably circulated in the first century; speaking figuratively, Philo claims that he was initiated into the mysteries of Moses and became a student of Jeremiah (Cherubim 49). Likewise, he speaks of biblical psalmists and prophets as Moses» acquaintances (Confusion 39, 62); 7143 Joshua (ησος) was Moses» first pupil (φοιτητς, Virtues 66); 7144 Solomon was one of the pupils (φοιτητν) of Moses (Prelim. Studies 177), and so are all the virtuous (Spec. Laws 1.345; 2.88). 7145 One could also be a «disciple» of other links in the tradition from Moses, such as Ezra. 7146 Yet their claim to be «disciples of Moses» (9:28) is ironically refuted by the rest of Johns Gospel (cf. 5:45–47), as is their trust in Moses (5:45). On a broader level, their claim to speak for all of Judaism is ironically undermined by John " s ecclesiology elsewhere, including the ensuing discourse (10:3–5; cf. pp. 199–201, 214–28). Indeed, their very behavior in this context undermines their claim to be disciples of Moses, for Moses was meek ( Num 12:3 ); the dominant Pharisaic tradition by Johns day was Hillelite, which emphasized the importance of mercifully drawing seekers near rather than thrusting them aside. 7147 Thus Hillel himself reportedly declared that those who loved their fellows and drew them near to Torah were disciples () of Aaron (m. " Abot 1:12). The expression «disciple of» a patriarchal figure would probably make sense in the Diaspora as wel1. 7148 3C. Jesus Is from God (9:29–34) |
| Jesus» tears (11:35) would be considered pious as well as compassionate. 7642 As noted above, Jewish people considered sharing in others» lamentation a religious duty. But showing lavish emotion at the appropriate time, especially grief over bereavement, was considered praiseworthy behavior throughout the ancient Mediterranean world 7643 and could move an audience. 7644 Ancient writers would describe a herós tears for others» pain as part of his praiseworthy behavior, 7645 or the tears of those who loved and sacrificed themselves for others. 7646 (Many philosophers and moralists, who counseled against the value of grief, proved to be the exception; 7647 some others shared their perspective, 7648 though this was probably more often a stereotypical counsel than a genuine expectation. 7649 Brave heroes might also hold out against tears, refusing to be deterred from a mission.) 7650 One might weep out of sympathy for others» grief, though not grieving for the situation itself (e.g., Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 2.21); thus Moses, initially not mourning over his own imminent death, was said to have been moved to tears by his people weeping so much over it (Josephus Ant. 4.321). 7651 That this tradition about Moses was widely known is not likely; that it reflects broader feelings in the milieu about the heroic protagonist " s tears is virtually certain. It is thus not surprising that those who have come to mourn with Mary recognize that Jesus cared deeply for Lazarus (11:36; cf. 11:5). That John contrasts some «others» (11:37) with those who praised his love (11:38) suggests that the latter group, while perhaps recognizing his love, doubted his power to have changed the situation. Some scholars suspect that this is the reason for Jesus» possible «anger» in 11(see comment on 11:33). 6. The Miracle (11:38–44) Lazarus " s rescucitation prefigures Jesus» resurrection for the Fourth Gospel, and parallels of language between the two are more than fortuitous, such as the stone (11:38; 20:1), the essential role of a woman close to the deceased (11:39; 20:1–18), and the wrappings (11:44; 20:6–7). Nevertheless, the primary purpose of the parallels may be to draw attention to the equally explicit contrasts between the two. In Lazarus " s case, people must remove the stone (11:39), but Jesus» resurrection produces an immortal body following a different order of existence (cf. 1Cor 15:42–44 ; Phil 3:21 ); his resurrection may leave the grave clothes untouched (20:5, 7) and allows him to enter closed rooms (20:19, 26). 7652 |
| Both documents reflect some knowledge of sayings of the Jesus tradition behind the Synoptics (e.g., Rev 2:7; 3:3,5; 1066 John 12:25 ). «After these things» serves a literary function in each (Rev 4:1; 7:9; 15:5; 18:1; 19:1; cf. 7:1; 20:3; John 5:1; 6:1; 7:1 ). 1067 The normal expression «come and see» in John 1:39, 46 , may find apocalyptic expression in Rev 4:1; 11:12; 17:1; 21:9. 1068 Similar metaphors (such as the OT linkage of bridegroom with joy, Rev 18:23; John 3:29 ) appear. Although such examples are not decisive by themselves, they are at least as significant as the often-acclaimed differences, once the respective settings and genres of the two works are taken into account. Differences Due to Situation or Genre. Revelation " s omission of significant Johannine vocabulary often relates to the genre and subject matter the document addresses. For instance, Revelation makes a much more direct assault on emperor worship and presupposes a more cosmopolitan, Roman setting. While the Gospel advocates a high Christology against its opponents and naturally addresses the life of Jesus in a purely Jewish context, these factors are not sufficient to explain the difference. The Gospel and Apocalypse seem to address different situations in the circle of Johannine readership. Similarly, Revelation, set in a context of public worship, includes more liturgical language (e.g., «amen,» 1:7; marana tha, cf. 22:20). 1069 The difference in genre is perhaps more significant than the difference in life-setting. Although «walk» in the halakic sense is at best rare in Revelation (3is only slightly helpful), in contrast with its dominance in 1 John and much early Christian paraenetic tradition, this is to be expected because Revelation includes little paraenesis; its exhortations are primarily prophetic and apocalyptic. Still, Jesus» commandments are as crucial for his followers in Revelation as in the undisputed Johannine texts (Rev 12:17,14:12; John 13:34, 14:15, 21 ). This apparently includes the love commandment (Rev 2:4; 1070 John 13:34–35 ). |
| Craig S. Keener Conflict at Hanukkah. 10:22–42 THE ENTIRE SECTION FROM 7to 10occurs at Sukkoth, the festival of Tabernacles. This passage (10:22–42) occurs at the festival of dedication, not long afterward. Sukkoth motifs dominate 7:1–10far more than Hanukkah motifs dominate this section, which is shorter and overshadowed by it, perhaps as a continuation of it (cf. 4:46–54 with 4:1–42). The conflict about Jesus» identity escalates, with Jesus revealing his identity (10:30) and provoking deadly hostility (10:31) more rapidly than on his previous visit to Jerusalem (8:58–59). In this case as in the last one, Jesus speaks in terms whose meaning is obvious enough in an early Jewish or biblical framework (10:33), but which leave his claim sufficiently inexplicit that he can again escape their grasp (10:34–39). His hour, in other words, had not yet come (7:30; 8:20). The Setting (10:22–23) The setting provides a transition from the festival of Tabernacles (7:1–10:18), if only to emphasize that the debates of that festival continued here not many weeks later. Because the intensity of conflict in 10:19–21 is not great enough to require a transition for narrative reasons (as was necessary in 8:59–9:1, where, however, the transition was by location rather than by time), a historical reminiscence seems the best explanation for it. Some parallels between Jesus and Hanukkah appear, but had John exercised total creative freedom he could have provided much more explicit ones. 1. Hanukkah (10:22, 36) In the Jewish year, Hanukkah, the «feast of dedication» 7449 (10:22), came soon after Sukkoth, the festival of tabernacles, indicating another journey to Jerusalem. That both feasts were seven days in length also linked them in popular thought. 7450 In view of their temporal proximity and the brevity of this section, it is not surprising that motifs would carry over from the previous section, 7451 as if this section somehow stands in the shadow of the previous one. That this feast commemorated national liberation but did not appear in the Bible 7452 would be telling for Johns Jewish-Christian audience; Jesus could also attend an extrabiblical festival as a sign of solidarity with his nation " s heritage. But it is also strikingly ironic that the promised Messiah, Israel " s deliverer, would face rejection at a festival commemorating a national deliverance (cf. 1:11). 7453 |
| 5617 . Jesus may have drawn an illustration from local agriculture, pointing to fields still four months from the harvest (4:35). While this explanation is possible, it assumes large chronological gaps in John " s story world: Jesus went to Jerusalem for Passover, in April (2:13); he baptized in Judea for an indeterminate period after this (3:22); now four months before the harvest would place the conversation in the following winter around late December through early February, 5618 hardly the best time of year to travel 5619 and well before the next major pilgrimage festival of Pesach. But the chronological gaps are not a major problem; while they do not usually characterize his style (cf. 1:29,35,39,43; 2:1), the story world assumes them in the passing from one festival to another (e.g., 6:4; 11:55). Another view, however, seems more likely. Many commentators think «four months, then the harvest» was probably a proverb otherwise unknown to us. 5620 The proverb might mean, «Labor hard in sowing now, and in four months we shall reap.» Egyptians harvested grain four to five months after plowing, 5621 and the interim between sowing and reaping in Palestine ranges from four to six months. 5622 It is also possible that some treated the length of four months until the harvest as an excuse not to labor in the present; farmers could relax and feast more in winter. 5623 The image should not have been unfamiliar elsewhere in the Mediterranean, whether or not the proverb was known; although some planting was in the fall, most was in the spring, 5624 and in most of the Mediterranean grain usually ripened in early summer. 5625 The exact timing is less certain and less important; part of this depends on whether Jesus envisions the barley harvest (more easily seen as «white») or the wheat harvest. 5626 The nearness of the harvest after sowing may also imply eschatological abundance, as in Amos 9:13; 5627 Jesus elsewhere used harvest as an end-time image (Matt 9:37–38; 13:39; Mark 4:29 ; Luke 10:2), as did some of his contemporaries. 5628 When Jesus calls on his disciples to «lift their eyes» (4:35; cf. 6:5; 17:1), he employs a regular Semitic idiom for «look» (e.g., Gen 13:10, 14; 18:2; 22:4, 13; 24:63–64; 43:29 ; Jer 13:20 ). 5629 |
| 19:12). 10321 Mere association with one condemned for treason could lead to a person " s execution under paranoid rulers; 10322 » granted, Pilate hardly viewed Jesus as a threat, but Joseph could not be sure of this. Although Joseph " s social status might have afforded him some measure of protection, the general aristocratic view in the ancient Mediterranean (although particularly severe under Pilatés patron Sejanus in Rome) was that the prominent were the most notorious targets 10323 and that prominence often aroused envy, hence hostility, from others. 10324 Even detention on criminal charges involved great shame, which created severe social pressure on people of status to abandon ties with the prisoner. 10325 Burying the dead despite prohibitions against this practice, 10326 or in the face of other dangers, 10327 functions as a model of courage in ancient texts, and disciples could elsewhere perform this function ( Mark 6:29 ; Iamblichus V.P. 30.184; 35.252). Thus the tradition prefers Joseph " s devotion at this point to that of the long-term disciples, 10328 though perhaps Joseph " s status (like the women " s gender, 19:25) would render him less vulnerable to retaliation. 2C. Nicodemus But whereas tradition strongly urged some comment about Joseph, John " s distinctive interest is in Nicodemus. 10329 Both texts that mention Nicodemus after the first occasion explicitly recall the reader to the first occasion (7:50; 19:39). Nicodemus had come to Jesus «by night» (3:2; 19:39) but, as a ruler of the Jews (3:1; 7:48), had subtly defended him (7:50–52); now he openly risks his reputation and security to honor him. Nicodemus becomes a paradigm for the secret believers among the «Jews» (12:42–43): John invites them to go public with their confession of faith in Jesus. 10330 Yet both Joseph, here said to be a «secret» disciple of Jesus (19:38), and Nicodemus, who came «by night» (19:39), now render a service to Jesus that is potentially dangerous– a service the long-term disciples were unwilling to offer (cf. |
| Some later Jewish texts expressed Isaiah " s vision in the language of respectful circumlocution, noting that Isaiah witnessed God " s «glory,» as here. 7954 Isaiah was one of the chief prophets after Moses, 7955 and in the context of the Fourth Gospel, Isaiah becomes a link between Moses and the apostles, who also witnessed Jesus» glory (1:14–18, alluding to Exod 33–34), as did Abraham (8:56). 7956 By contrast, those without spiritual eyes to see could not recognize the glory among them (3:3; 6:30; 9:39–41). The glory revealed to both Moses and Isaiah was rejected by many of their contemporaries; early Christians applied this pattern to many of Jesus» «own» (1:11) rejecting him (cf. Matt 23:31; Luke 11:50; Acts 7:39, 52; 28:25–27; 2Cor 3:13–15; 1 Thess 2:15), though some had seen his glory (1:14–18). 7957 Jewish tradition naturally expanded on Isaiah " s revelations, 7958 and the mystic stream of tradition undoubtedly interpreted Isaiah " s vision as including «a visionary ascent to heaven.» 7959 Some early Hellenistic Jewish texts adapted Hellenistic motifs concerning visionary ascents; thus, for example, a throne-vision may have in some sense deified Moses or at least made him God " s second in command over creation. 7960 Yet Jesus is greater than Moses; as the one who descended from heaven to begin with, he is the supreme revealer (3:11–13). In any case, most of John " s audience would know the biblical accounts to which John has alluded, whereas a smaller part of his audience might know these other traditions. (It is difficult to say how early, popular, or geographically widespread such traditions were, but safe to say that the biblical stories themselves would be most accessible to the broadest range of people.) As in other biblical theophanies, not the visionary but the one beheld is the object of worship. In Isaiah the glory belongs to God; here it belongs to Jesus (12in context). 7961 As Isa 52is contextually implied in the citation of 53:1, Isa 6 relates to Christ " s «glory.» 7962 |
| Most importantly, in contrast with some of the Hellenistic views noted above, the Fourth Gospel explicitly requires a point or process of turning rather than simply being invested with a particular nature at onés natural birth: everyone needs a new birth to acquire the new nature (3:3–6). On this count, a sinful Samaritan woman (4:23, 29) might fare better than those exposed to Torah all their lives (e.g., 7:47–52). The probable inclusio between «night» (3:2) and «darkness» (3:19–21; cf. 7:7) suggests that Nicodemus belonged on God " s side. But that belonging was still not in effect (3:3) until he believed (3:16), and was not secure until he persevered as a disciple (19:39–42). «People loved darkness» (3:19) seems to articulate general human depravity, which could reinforce Jesus» perspective on Nicodemus in the narrative: rather than commending him for coming, he challenges his evasive misunderstandings (3:4, 9). 5116 One should not read too much into the general statement; the following narrative both affirms that all are coming to Jesus (3:26) and that no one receives his witness (3:32), statements which cannot both be true in the absolute sense. What confirms that Nicodemus has come only partway to the light, lest his deeds be exposed (3:20), is his role in the rest of the Gospel; only after further works of truth (7:50–51; 19:39–42) would he be ready to «come» to Jesus fully (3:21). Some earlier interpreters, relying too much on the apparent predestinarian character of the passage, claim that John " s interest is not ethical, but in two classes of humanity in some semi-gnostic sense, «children of light and children of darkness.» 5117 This sort of choice between ethics and preordained classes is no longer tenable; the Qumran Scrolls divide humanity into just such groups but emphasize appropriate works and entrance into the community. Terms like ελγχω, 5118 ποιω, 5119 and often αλθεια 5120 are the language of ethics; one may likewise compare a Qumran scroll in which «the people of truth» () are those who practice Torah 5121 ( ). Stoic philosophers likewise divided humanity into the wise and the unwise, expecting the «wise» to actualize their status, in a sense, by progressing in wisdom. 5122 |
|
|
