| In 3:34, Jesus speaks God " s words (cf. 8:47; 12:47; 14:10,24) because God attested him by the Spirit (cf. also 1:32–33; 15:26); this declaration is primarily christological but also supplies a model for Jesus» followers, who will speak his words because the Spirit is with them (15:26–27; 20:22). Jesus might be the dispenser of the Spirit to humanity (cf. 15:26), 5199 just as the waterpots in 2were to be filled «to the brim.» Jesus is the giver in 4:10; 6:27; 14(cf. Rev 2:7), and the Son indeed exercises delegated authority to carry out God " s works («all things into his hand,» 3:35; 13:3). 5200 In the nearest of the texts in which Jesus is giver, he gives living water, presumably the Spirit (4:10). Conversely, if the subject and object of «give» are the same in 3and 3:35, then the Father gives Jesus the Spirit in limitless measure to Jesus in 3:34. 5201 The Father is the giver to humanity in 3:16,27, to the disciples through Jesus» intervention in 14and 16:23, but specifically to the Son in 3:35; 5:26; 11:22; 13:3; 17:2. That Jesus has the Spirit «without measure» would indicate that the Spirit abides on him (1:32–33) and could contrast him with the prophets, who, even according to later rabbinic tradition, had the Spirit only «by weight,» that is, by measure, meaning that each prophet spoke only one or two books of prophecy. 5202 Jesus provides a well springing forth within each believer (4:14), but the unlimited rivers of water flow from him (7:37–39). If this Gospel leaves a hint that these words reflect John " s thought, John " s words about the Spirit probably allude to his own witness of the Spirit attesting Jesus in 1:32–33. In this context the Son is clearly the special object of the Father " s love (see comment on love in the introduction), which the Father demonstrates by entrusting all things into his hand (3:35; cf. 5:27; 17:2). But the lack of specified object for «gives» (and perhaps its present tense) might support the idea of giving to the world, so in the end it is difficult to settle on the preferred interpretation; but «receives» the Spirit without measure might fit Jesus as the recipient better. The Father " s enormous love for the Son (3:35) becomes the Johannine measure of God " s love for the disciples (17:23), as Christ " s sacrifice attests (3:16). |
| 10258 While blood in the Fourth Gospel might allude to the paschal lamb, however (cf. 6:53–56), the primary emphasis in this passage is on the anomaly of water. The theological significance of the water from Jesus» side is clear enough in the context of the entire Gospe1. Given John " s water motif (1:31,33; 2:6; 3:5; 4:14; 5:2; 9:7; 13:5) and especially its primary theological exposition (7:37–39), the water has immense symbolic value. Granted, a substance that appears like water could flow from the pericardial sac around the heart along with blood, 10259 and this could explain the source of John " s tradition. But he specifically records the event for theological reasons (cf. 20:30–31; 21:25), reasons clarified in his water motif, which climaxes here. 10260 Now that Jesus has been glorified (7:39), the water of the Spirit of life flows from him as the foundation stone of God " s eschatological temple (see comment on 7:37–38). Just as Revelation speaks of a river of water flowing from the throne of God and of the lamb in the world to come (Rev 22:1), a Johannine Christian who emphasized the realized aspect of early Christian eschatology could drink freely from that river in the present (Rev 22:17). As Jesus was enthroned by humans as «king of the Jews» ( John 19:19–22 ) and crowned with thorns (19:2,5), the river of the Spirit began to flow in a symbolic sense from his throne. As in 7:37–39, this passage may suggest secondary allusions to the rock in the wilderness (cf. 1Cor 10:4 ), as frequently in early Christian exegesis. 10261 Rabbinic tradition mentions that when Moses struck the rock twice, first blood and then water flowed from it; 10262 but the tradition is of uncertain date and may reflect the water-blood tradition from the plagues in Egypt (Exod 7:15–21; cf. Rev 8:8; 11:6; 16:3–6). Although we have expressed some skepticism concerning the degree to which John " s audience would have connected the particular time of Jesus» death to the Passover sacrifice in the temple, it may be significant that in early popular tradition the water libation for the festival of Tabernacles was poured out at the time of the daily offering. |
| Peter " s question about the beloved disciple reflects some continuing (albeit not hostile) competition between the two figures (21:21; cf. 20:4). 10958 That Jesus may respond harshly («What is that to you?» 21:22; cf. 2:4) also would send a message to early Christians divided in devotion to different Christian leaders, a problem that had existed decades earlier in the urban house-churches of the East ( 1Cor 1:10–13 ; cf. the principle in Rom 14:4, 10 ). In supposing that the beloved disciple would remain alive until Jesus» eschatological return, the other disciples misunderstood what Jesus was saying. In other words, even disciples were continuing to take Jesus too literally at times, just as many people had misunderstood Jesus throughout the Gospe1. Certainly, the return of which Jesus speaks cannot be the coming to which he had previously referred in 14(and 14:3), which was fulfilled in the resurrection appearances of ch. 20, especially in 20:19–23; nor may it refer to Christ " s «coming» for a believer at death (cf. 13:36), unless John intends a tautology applicable to all believers. 10959 Instead it must refer to an eschatological coming, as in 1 John 2:28 ; rare though this idea is earlier in the Gospel, 10960 it is not absent (5:28–29; 6:39). John may have avoided much emphasis on future eschatology, which could have distracted from his emphasis on the coming in ch. 20, but now that this coming has taken place, he may indulge more freely in future eschatology. Perhaps John implied in this promise a subtle double entendre, playing on the usual sense of μνω in his Gospel, 10961 although one would hope for more explicit clarification to that effect, since the misunderstanding appears to have already caused some problems for John " s audience. Most likely, John emphasizes ν θλω, «if I will»; Jesus was not telling Peter that the beloved disciple would live until Jesus» return but that it was not Peter " s business to know the beloved disciplés fate. 10962 This seems the most logical way to take τι προς σ, «What is it to you?» (21:22); precisely the same question appears with the same force when Epictetus declares that another " s death is not onés own business (Epictetus Diatr. 3.18.2). |
| In any case, she hears of his arrival (11:20). Although it was expected that during mourning Martha should stay in the house and let Jesus come to her, she paid him great respect by going out to meet him (cf. 12:13), 7613 though leaving Mary behind to continue mourning and receive visitors (11:20). Perhaps, too, she knew of the danger Jesus might be in if word spread that he was back in Judea; Jesus delays entering the village as long as possible (11:28, 30). In any case her going forth at such a time shows him special honor. But in the following context Jesus will demand more than such expressions of honor: he will demand faith. The brief dialogue between Jesus and Martha that ensues (11:21–27) emphasizes for John " s audience the symbolic import of the narrative: 7614 Christology realizes eschatology, so that Jesus brings resurrection life in the present era. Occasionally in narratives people appear unable to speak because of grief (e.g., Josephus Ant. 6.337; cf. Mark 9:6 ), but Martha articulates a degree of faith in Jesus» power: his presence could have healed Lazarus (11:21; cf. 11:32). Jesus demands greater faith: he is present now; is his power limited even by death itself (11:23)? 7615 When Martha indicates that she trusts that whatever he asks of God, God will give him (11:22), she is probably making an implied, oblique request as in 11(cf. 2:3, 5). Her expression of confidence in Jesus–that God would grant whatever he asked (11:22; cf. 3:35; 13:3)–thus would illustrate the sort of prayer God might hear in Jesus» name (16:24). While this could be a request for comfort, it is more likely a request that Jesus raise her brother. Some suggest that in 11she forgets the request, hence allowing Jesus to articulate more Johannine theology; 7616 misunderstanding motifs are common in miracle stories, 7617 and it is not unlike John to narrate one of this nature (5:7). But it is no less possible that she is continuing her insistence by seeking clarification; from the standpoint of Johannine theology, confession in a future resurrection was correct (5:28–29; 6:39) even if not Jesus» point here. |
| Although a unity rooted in love would address other issues as well, one matter of unity the Gospel surely addresses is ethnic unity. The emphasis on the Samaritans» ready acceptance of Jesus points in this direction (4:39–42), as does Jesus» objective of «one flock,» probably referring to the influx of Gentile Christians to follow (10:16; cf. 11:52). Unity also challenges the secessionists of 1 John. John 17:22–23 repeats and amplifies the basic thoughts of 17:21: Jesus wants the disciples to be one as he and the Father are one that the world may recognize the divine origin of both Jesus and his disciples. 9489 Beasley-Murray notes that the Qumran community «called themselves the unity» but sought unity between themselves and angelic saints above, whereas in John the unity is rooted in God " s work in Christ. 9490 The church has already «achieved in Christ» the miracle of unity, as in Gal 3:28 , though in practice the early church clearly continued to experience divisions (Acts 6:1; 3 John 9–12 ); 9491 believers must work to keep the unity of the Spirit that Christ established. But in any case, the loving unity between the Father and the Son provides a model for believers, not necessarily a metaphysical, mystical ground for it. 9492 Jesus and the Father mutually indwell each other (17:21; also 10:38; 14:10); by Jesus dwelling in them and with the Father dwelling in him (cf. also 14:23), Jesus» followers would experience God " s presence in such a way that unity would be the necessary result (17:23). John would probably view the inability of believers to walk in accord with one another as, first of all, a failure to accede to the demands of the divine presence both share. Jesus receives glory (17:22, 24) and gives it to believers (17:22) that they may glorify God (cf. 17:21, 23; 15:8); 9493 if they are to glorify God as Jesus does, however (17:4), they must love him and one another to the extent that he did, to the point of death (21with 12:32–33). As in Paul " s theology, believers who would share Jesus» glory must first share his suffering ( Rom 8:18 ; 2Cor 4:17 ; cf. Eph 3:13; 2 Thess 1:5–6, 10). Jesus shared with them teaching (17:14) and everything he had received from the Father (15:15), as the Spirit continues to mediate to believers (16:13–15). Now Jesus says that he has shared with his disciples God " s «glory» (17:22); this statement directly fulfills 1:14, for the glory that Moses could see only in part the disciples now witness in full (see comment on 1:14–18). The law was given through Moses, but the full revelation of God " s character is given to the disciples in Jesus Christ (1:17). 9494 Believers who walk in this revelation of God " s character cannot divide from one another (17:22). |
| 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) |
| 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. |
| Jesus warned that rejecting him meant rejecting God " s agent, for he and the Father were one (10:30). That Jesus» hearers would regard his words as blasphemous, hence take up stones (10:31), would not be surprising under such circumstances; nor would one normally hope to escape such a situation alive (11:8). As noted earlier (comment on 8:59), some others in the first century confronted such actions on the part of an angry mob; 7486 careful Roman legal procedure was undoubtedly not on their minds. John " s audience, however, would think of Jesus as God " s true agent rather than a blasphemer, and so would interpret the scene in a very different framework. As Glasson points out, Israel often murmured aganst Moses, and stoning was conjoined with murmuring in Exod 17(with Joshua and Caleb in Num 14:10 ). 7487 They might also think of the Jewish wisdom tradition in which the wicked complain because the righteous one boasts that God is his father (Wis 2:16). When Jesus» enemies seek to stone him ( 10), John uses a regular term for such stoning (λιθζω, 10:31–33; 11:8; cf. 8:5) that appears twice in the LXX, both times in passages about a descendant of Saul opposing David ( 2Sam 16:6,13 ). Whereas the Maccabees were honored for good works at the feast (10:22), Jesus» enemies seek to stone him, the true Davidic Messiah, for his good works (10:32). 7488 Jesus reveals his opponents» character by contrasting their attempt to kill him with his good works (10:32; cf. 8:39–40; Acts 4:9); comparison was a standard rhetorical technique (e.g., Demosthenes On the Embassy 174), 7489 as was reductio ad absurdum (cf., e.g., commentaries on Gal 5:12 ). Jesus in fact declares that they seek to kill him because of his good works (10:32)–such as healing on the Sabbath (5:9; 9:14). 7490 In their minds, the issue at this point is not Jesus» works but his claims (10:33); 7491 for John, however, the works support Jesus» claims (10:25, 37–38). Ironically, though his opponents do not believe, they do «understand» his claim (10:38): they believe that he is claiming deity. |
|
|
