| Or it may mean that Jesus knows their hearts (2:23–25), knowing that when they find him as he really is they want him dead (8:59). In either case his provocation of them merely reveals their established character. Jewish people regularly spoke of «our father Abraham» 6793 and themselves as his children (8:39); 6794 they would have surely bristled at Jesus» challenge. 6795 Perhaps because she did not express excessive trust in it Jesus did not challenge the Samaritan woman " s claim to descent from Jacob (4:12), but he challenges the claim of these Judeans. Nevertheless, the issue in this context is not merely genetic descent, which Jesus seems to grant them (8:37); their claim to be Abraham " s children (8:39) is undoubtedly a related claim to salvation (cf. «our father Abraham» in 8:39, 52; Matt 3:9; Luke 3:8). 6796 Some see here an appeal to Abraham " s merits. 6797 Latter rabbis stressed Israel " s first redemption from Egypt and deliverance through the sea on the basis of patriarchal merits, 6798 reportedly depending on pre-Christian tradition concerning Abrahams merit. 6799 (The idea of God showing favor to descendants for an ancestor " s sake does appear in Scripture, e.g., Deut 7:8; 10:15; 1 Kgs 11:36; 2 Kgs 8:19; 2 Chr 21:7.) Later rabbis sometimes attributed God " s blessings on Israel to merits of the patriarchs, 6800 or occasionally the matriarchs, 6801 though some also emphasized the greater importance of onés own merits. 6802 But opinion was not unanimous even by the end of the second century, 6803 and there appears little explicit connection between merits and personal benefits unrelated to corporate blessing on Israe1. Nevertheless, the notion of dependence on Abrahamic descent for salvation is explicit in early Christian polemical texts (such as Matt 3:9). 6804 That Jewish people could seek God " s blessings for his people on the basis of his covenant with the patriarchs (2Macc 1:2; Sg Three 11) suggests the antiquity of potential dependence on Abraham. |
| In preceding chapters, the law of witnesses is cited in Jesus» debates with the religious authorities (chs. 5, 8), setting those debates into the context of preliminary accusations that prefigure his final tria1. In John 9 , the synagogue authorities exercise their judicial authority to remove a supposed apostate from the community, directly anticipating the situation of the Johannine community spelled out in 16:2. The context would clearly be understood as forensic, for even in the Diaspora the Jewish community normally had its own synagogue courts to address internal religious issues. Because the Spirit continues Jesus» role as advocate, we can look to earlier passages in the Fourth Gospel that exemplify Jesus» advocacy in ways the Johannine community can expect to continue in their own day. Toward the end of John 9 and through the first paragraphs of John 10 , Jesus acts as an advocate: he defends the formerly blind man, representing the true sheep of Israel, and in so doing prosecutes his persecutors who claim to see (9:40–41), showing them to be thieves and robbers. 8675 He thus brings both help and judgment (cf. 9:39). 8676 Jesus appears as the true advocate of his people in times of oppression, and the Spirit stands in for Jesus in the time of the Johannine community, representing the risen Christ through the community to their opponents in all his prophetic force. 8677 Just as Jesus brings judgment while defending his own (9:39), so the Paraclete will prosecute as well as defend (16:8–11). Earlier in the Fourth Gospel, the writer alludes to Moses» function as advocate/accuser of Israel (5:45); but in the following chapter it is Jesus who is the agent of the Father who sends the true bread from heaven, and who is greater than Moses (ch. 6). Moses as a teacher, witness, and mediator of God " s glorious revelation in Torah, and the prophet par excellence, is perhaps the most natural single OT figure whose functions are performed by the Paraclete; but these functions all derive from the character of the Johannine Jesus, who himself parallels both Moses and the Law. 3C. The Spirit as Jesus» Successor |
| Some scholars read this pericope as a portrait of the obsolescence of Judaism or Jewish ritua1. 4361 Others, pointing to the new application of the pots and purifying of the temple, argue that this chapter supports a renewal within Judaism, rather than its repudiation. 4362 Still others see both tendencies, suggesting both Judaism " s fulfillment and its destruction. 4363 Onés particular perspective will depend on whether one concludes, on reading the whole Gospel, that the Johannine community still considered itself part of Judaism. As argued in our introduction (ch. 5), the Johannine community probably retained its attachment to Judaism; one may thus read this passage as arguing that Jesus has brought an eschatological renewal to Judaism, which the Jerusalem (and perhaps Yavneh) hierarchy have rejected. The water motif throughout the Fourth Gospel consistently represents Jesus and the Spirit superseding Jewish traditions (often by fulfilling rather than negating them). Although there is no explicit mention of the Spirit in this chapter, 4364 parallels from the water motif in 3and 7:37–39 suggest that the old purification has become less important only because Jesus is ready to make the new purification of the Spirit available. 4365 A careful first-time reader of this passage might have already caught that cue from 1:33. 4366 Some see the figure of wine here as an allusion to the messianic banquet (cf. Isa 25:6–9; Rev 19:9); 4367 rabbinic literature 4368 and possibly 4369 the Dead Sea Scrolls 4370 speak of an eschatological banquet for the righteous. 4371 Supernatural abundance of wine would mark the future era. 4372 This image and some other clues could suit a sacramental reading of this text if something pointed clearly in this direction, 4373 but banquets were common, and little in the passage supports a sacramental reading with sufficient clarity to make the case. 4374 More importantly, wine does not always symbolize the future banquet. In late rabbinic texts, for instance, it seems more often to symbolize the Torah. |
| Classifying the Gospels as ancient biography is helpful only if we define some of the characteristics of ancient biography, particularly with respect to its historiographie character. As noted above, although biographies could serve a wide range of literary functions, 112 ancient biographers intended their works to be more historical than novelistic. 113 First-century historiography often focused on notable individuals. 114 The central difference between biography and history was that the former focused on a single character whereas the latter included a broader range of events. 115 History thus contained many biographical elements but normally lacked the focus on a single person and the emphasis on characterization. 116 Biographies were less exhaustive, focusing more on the models of character they provided (Plutarch Alex. 1.1–3). Ancient biography differed from modern biography in some historiographie respects. For instance, ancient biographies sometimes differed from their modern namesakes by beginning in the protagonists adulthood, as in many political biographies (e.g., Plutarch Caesar 1.1–4), the first-century Life of Aesop, 117 and in Mark. In contrast to modern historical biography, ancient biographers also did not need to follow a chronological sequence; most felt free to rearrange their material topically. 118 Some scholars maintain that Peripatetic biographies were literary biographies ordered chronologically, insofar as was possible; 119 Alexandrian biographies were arranged more systematically or topically. 120 Although these types were never followed exactly, and chronological biographies appear to have been rare, 121 Luke seems to fall into the former category (following the order of Mark almost exactly except for several very significant exceptions), whereas Matthew (who is influenced more by Jewish encomium conventions) follows the more common topical format (compare his five topical discourse sections). Many Jewish interpreters doubted that the biblical accounts of Moses at Sinai were arranged chronologically (cf. 4Q158). 122 Nor did early Christians expect the Gospels to reflect chronological sequence; Augustine suggested the evangelists wrote their Gospels as God recalled the accounts to their memory (Cons. 21.51; for Mark, see Papias in Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.39). 123 |
| 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 |
| The comparison between their anguish and that of a birthing mother (16:21) is not incidenta1. 9335 Some considered any mother " s labor in birth as bringing her close to death. 9336 Even on the Sabbath, Jewish pietists expected midwives and others to proceed to whatever lengths possible to insure a mother " s comfort during childbirth. 9337 Nevertheless, ancient childbearing lacked the benefits of modern means to reduce pain, and a mother " s pain became proverbial for great travai1. 9338 Although joy following birth pangs was expected, 9339 this did not reduce the intensity of the pain involved; the epitome of ignorance, in fact, might be a fool who publicly asked his mother how her pangs were at his birth and then lectured her that nobody can have pleasure without having some pain mixed in as wel1. 9340 Some had compared the unspeakable grief of losing those close to oneself, 9341 or the experience of being violently repressed for onés piety, 9342 with birth pangs. Such birth pangs were said to strengthen the mother " s sympathy and love for her children (4 Macc 15:7). The common eschatological associations of this image are critical here, as commentators often recognize. 9343 The biblical prophets employed birth pangs as an image of extreme anguish. 9344 In Jewish literature, these birth pangs came to illustrate the period of intense suffering immediately preceding the end, 9345 as the final sufferings giving birth to a new world. 9346 Here, too, the birth pangs are eschatological, except that they relate to the realized eschatology inaugurated among believers through Jesus» resurrection. The image may most directly reflect Isa 26:16–21, which uses «little while,» labor pains, and resurrection. 9347 An equally valid or perhaps better candidate is Isa 66:8–14, in which Zion travails to bring forth the restored people of God (66:8), and when God " s people «see» (ψεσθε), they become «glad» (χαρσετοα, 66:14). 9348 Revelation (which we argued in the introduction, pp. 126–39, derives from a Johannine community) employs this same image to mark Jesus» glorification (Rev 12:2) at the time that the dragon is «cast out» (Rev 12:8–10; John 12:31 ; cf. 16:11) and the beginning of the interim period of suffering and divine provision for the rest of the woman " s seed (Rev 12:6,14–17). Revelation employs the image in a manner analogous with John; in contrast with the Synoptics, the messianic woes begin not after Jesus» death ( Mark 13:8 ) but in it ( John 16:20–22 ). 9349 Thus the woman experiences «tribulation» (16:21), which the disciples also must anticipate (16:33; Rev 1:9; 7:14). 9350 |
| Yet Jesus is clearly more than a «son» simply in the sense of being an Israelite or even a messiah; in the context of the repeated Father-Son imagery of the Gospel, Jesus appears as the Father " s imitator, agent, and image–in short, as divine Wisdom. That the Father «sanctified» Jesus (10:36) could be ambiguous, though as noted above, in the context of Hanukkah it could present Jesus as a new temple. 7524 Israel was sanctified for God, specially committed to him. 7525 Perhaps more relevant for John was the Jewish tradition that God had hallowed his Torah (cf. 1:1–18), 7526 or sanctified Israel specifically by his commandments (cf. 17:17). 7527 John " s readers know that Jesus is not merely one to whom God " s word at Sinai came (10:35), but is the word revealed in part to Moses at Sinai and now more fully still in the flesh (1:1–18, esp. 1:17). That the Father «sent» Jesus makes the latter the agent of the former; see comments on agency under Christology in the introduction, pp. 310–17. If they would not believe Jesus» words and identity directly, Jesus invites them to believe by means of his works (10:38; cf. 14:11); these were his Father " s works (10:37; cf. 5:17), hence revealed his origin. Such an invitation should have fit the logic patterns of his contemporaries; thus some Tannaim taught that if Israel in the wilderness did not believe God " s future promises, they could at least gain confidence by believing his past works on their behalf. 7528 Likewise, according to some later rabbis, even if one did not study Torah with the highest motives, that is, for its own sake, one should study it nevertheless, and one would eventually study it for its own sake. 7529 The result of such investigation would be the recognition that Jesus was in the Father and the Father in Jesus (10:38; cf. 14:10,20; 17:23), which explained why the Father worked in Jesus. But his opponents, unmollified, again seek to seize him (10:39; cf. 5:18; 7:30; 8:59; 11:57), and he again escapes (10:39). 7530 Responses to Jesus (10:39–42) |
| Lest readers misunderstand the reason for Jesus» delay (11:6), John explicitly emphasizes Jesus» love for the family (11:5; cf. 11:36), 7578 an emphasis that particularizes more general statements about divine love toward humanity or the disciples in the Gospel (3:16; 13:1, 34; 14:21). John " s community, like other early Christian communities (cf. 1 Thess 4:13), not unlike Christian communities today, undoubtedly experienced untimely deaths and suffering that on the level of human understanding seemed to conflict with the assurance of God " s love (cf. 11:21). Assurance that Jesus did care, that God did have long-range purposes in the suffering, even that Jesus joined in weeping with the bereaved as well as ultimately held power over life and death, would mean much to believers facing that universal human predicament of death, whether or not related to persecution (cf. 1 John 3:16; 2:10, 13 ). Jesus had been «remaining» in Perea (10:40) and now «remained» two additional days, as he had among the Samaritans (4:40), leaving to raise Lazarus on the third day. Nevertheless, Jesus» delay (11:6) apparently did not prolong Lazarus " s suffering. Bethany was only a single day " s journey, so if Jesus delayed two days after receiving the message and arrived to find that Lazarus had been dead four days (11:39), 7579 Lazarus may have been dead by the time the messengers reached Jesus, dying shortly after they left to seek him. 7580 That many members of John " s audience would not know the area around Jerusalem suggests that this information is not central to John " s point in the narrative; but the information is explicitly there is the text for anyone who did in fact remember Judean geography, which some of John " s audience probably did (since some were probably Judeans who left Judea after the war with Rome, although on our dating these would be primarily the older nucleus rather than the majority of the community). 3. Going to Judea (11:7–16) Jesus had had good reason to avoid Judea (cf. |
| 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 |
| On the one hand, the term might be qualified by a parallel expression in 13(cf. 12:27; 14:1), suggesting that John figuratively stretches the sense to include emotional disturbance without anger per se; it may stem from observing Mary " s grief and wailing (11:33). 7633 Some think that «anger» overstates the case, though «troubled» is too weak. 7634 But 13may refer to a similar yet different emotion, and the term employed here does indicate anger when applied to humans. 7635 If Jesus is angry, one may think he is angry at sin, Satan, or death as a consequence of sin. 7636 While that proposal may be good theology (and may also fit the experience of some subsequent healers and exorcists, and perhaps of Jesus as well, cf. Mark 1:25; 4:39; 9:25 ; Luke 4:39), it lacks direct support in this text. More likely, he is angry at the lack of faith on the part of those who should be exercising it, 7637 as God was angry at Israel " s unbelief despite his previous signs (e.g., Num 14:11 ) or Jesus was angry with the unbelief of disciples in Mark (e.g., Mark 4:40 ; cf. Mark 1:43; 3:5 ). In both cases (11:33, 38), it occurs immediately after statements that Jesus could have done something before Lazarus died (11:32,37)–perhaps implying disbelief that he could do something now. Jesus is not, however, angry with their grief itself; he seems emotionally moved more by Mary " s tears (11:33) than by Marthás words, and responds by weeping himself (11:35). 7638 In any case, Jesus» internal disturbance over others» pain emphasizes his humanity «and/or the passionate nature of his divinity.» 7639 It reveals his character, which leads to his suffering on others» behalf (cf. 1:29; cf. Heb 4:15–5:8). By weeping, Jesus shows his solidarity with the mourners (11:35). That Jesus asked where the burial site was (11:34) would have suggested to his hearers that he wanted to join in mourning at the burial site (cf. 11:31); their invitation to «Come and see» (11:34) is an invitation to join in the mourning. 7640 Perhaps more significantly, his question, «Where have you laid him?» anticipates Mary Magdalenés question about where Jesus has been laid (20:15), 7641 underlining the implicit contrast between Lazarus, who awaits Jesus to raise him, and Jesus whose body is already gone (as well as the contrast between Lazarus " s burial by his family and Jesus» by two leaders of «the Jews» yet not the expected disciples). |
|
|
