| Another text, however, has received some (though less) attention in this connection, namely Gen 22:2 . 4138 The differences between this text and the Markan acclamation are considerably less pronounced. Although γαπητς could conceivably reflect a variant of κλεκτς (cf. Luke 9:35; other manuscripts of John 1:34 ), 4139 in the LXX it sometimes is used to translate yahid (an only son), including in Gen 22 , 4140 where it adds to the pathos of God " s call to a father to sacrifice His son; for Mark, in which Jesus» Sonship is defined in terms of the cross (14:36; 15:39), this makes good sense. That the Fourth Gospel would draw on such a tradition also makes sense, given the prevalence of the «only, that is, beloved» son motif of 1:14,18. New Disciples (1:35–42) The Baptist " s general testimony to the reader (1:29–34) gives way to a specific testimony to his disciples (1:35–36), who trust his witness (contrast 1:19–28) and experience Jesus for themselves (1:37–39; cf. 3:25–30). These disciples in turn become witnesses themselves (1:40–42). John weaves his sources into a theology of witness here, and emphasizes that even those who tentatively accept another " s witness must also experience Jesus for themselves to be fully convinced (1:39,46). On 1:36, see comment on 1:29. 1. Historical Plausibility In contrast to the previous paragraphs of the Fourth Gospel, we lack corroboration from the Synoptic accounts here (a matter which seems not to trouble the writer, in whose day perhaps numerous other sources besides the Synoptics and his own eyewitness traditions were extant; cf. already Luke 1:1). 4141 Although the Fourth Gospel is well aware of the historical tradition of the Twelve (6), 4142 he shows no interest in recounting the occasion of their call ( Mark 3:13–19 ; Matt 10:1–4; Luke 6:12–16) or the Synoptic call stories of the fishermen ( Mark 1:16–20 ; Matt 4:18–22; Luke 5:1–11; although the writer is well aware that some are fishermen and may know the Lukan tradition– John 21:3–6 ). The readiness of those disciples to abandon their livelihoods on the occasion depicted in Markan tradition (or to lend Jesus use of their boat in Luke) may actually make more sense historically if they had encountered Jesus on a prior occasion, as this narrative in John would suggest. 4143 |
| 3721 Kuyper, «Grace,» 14; Pancaro, Law, 541. For a distribution of αλθεια by writer (25 times in John, 20 in Johannine Epistles, 47 in Paul, 1 in Matthew, 3 in Mark, 3 in Luke, etc., and distribution of the adjectival cognate), see Morris, John, 294. 3724 See above. That the Baptist " s voice ends in 1is clear, but Origen Comm. Jo. 6.13 thought it ended in 1(in contrast to Heracleon, who ends it in 1:17). 3725 That John implies temporal precedence (i.e., the Logos " s preexistence) is evident from the context; see Stuart, «Examination,» 318; Hoskyns, Gospel, 151 (contrasting Matt. 3:11); Dodd, Tradition, 272. The logic here resembles the rhetorical form called an νθμημα (enthymeme; see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 44; Vinson, «Enthymemes,» 119). 3729 Fulness of a virtue can mean its epitome ( Sir 1:16 ). Gnostics viewed the Pleroma as the sum of the aeons (Irenaeus Haer. 1.1.1; 1.5; cf. Prayer of the Apostle Paul in NHL, 28; Gospel of Truth in NHL, 37); but against the gnostic interpretation of Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 228, cf. Harris, «Origin,» 417–18 (Colossians, John, and gnosticism drew the word from wisdom motifs; cf. Sir 2:16; 35:14–15 ); Overfield, «Pleroma.» Few current commentators find gnosticism here (Schnackenburg, John, 1:275; Sandmel, Judaism, 474 n. 5). See comment on «full» in 1:14. 3730 Against ÓNeill, «Prologue,» 44–45, who thinks that the last phrase of v. 16 and the whole of v. 17 «form a long interpolation,» but admits that no textual evidence supports his hypothesis. Michael, «Prologue,» 278, likewise suggests an accidental change from an original χριν ντ νμου without any textual evidence. 3732 See DeSilva, Honor, 104–5, 116 (citing esp. Sophocles Ajax 522; Seneca Benef. 2.35.1), though not on this passage. Ancients would associate «grace» with patronal generosity or benevolence (DeSilva, Honor, 104–5, citing esp. Aristotle Rhet. 2.7.1, 1385al6–20; idem, «Patronage,» 768; following Danker, Benefactor). 3733 MacGregor, John, 20, citing Philo Posterity 145; Stevens, Theology, 96; Edwards, «Grace»; Brown, John, 1:16; Moloney, Belief, 46–47; cf. Westcott, John, 14 (citing the thought of m. " Abot4:5); Stuart, «Examination,» 321; note Jeremias, Message, 85; Haenchen, John, 1:120. |
| 5932 Jesus is essentially the Father " s voice in 5:37–40; one might compare him to a bat qo1. 5933 E.g., Westcott, John, 91; Morris, John, 330; Michaels, John, 82; Bruce, John, 136; Beasley-Murray, John, 78. 5934 Schnackenburg, John, 2:125, cites, e.g., 1QS 5.11; CD 6.7. See most fully Culpepper, School, 291–99, on darash and ζητω. 5935 So here, e.g., Dodd, Interpretation, 82; Hunter, John, 62; Brown, John, 1:225, citing, e.g., m. " Abot 2:7; see comment on 1:4. It was «the most meritorious of all good deeds» (Sandmel, Judaism, 184). 5936 So also Odeberg, Gospel, 224. 5937 Refuting someone on the basis of the very arguments or witnesses that person cites in his support was good rhetorical technique (e.g., Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 311, §101D; 340, §112D; 343–344, §114D; 446, §150D; Matt 12:37; Luke 19:22; Tit 1:12–13 ). 5938 See Culpepper, School, 298–99. They do not «will» to come to him (5:40), though they had «willed» to listen to John momentarily (5:35). 5939 DeSilva, «Honor and Shame,» 520 (citing Seneca the Younger De constantia sapientis 13.2,5; Epictetus Ench. 24.1). 5940 Not needing such glory was commendable (e.g., Scipio in Macrobius Comm. 2.10.2, in Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 225), though Diogenes the Cynic claimed to deserve public praise (Diogenes Laertius 6.62). 5941 Seeking glory was honorable only if sought in the right places ( Rom 2:7 ; Polybius 6.54.3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 5.25.1; 5.27.2; Cicero Earn. 10.12.5; 15.4.13; Sest. 48.102; Valerius Maximus 2.8.5, 7; 4.3.6a; 5.7.ext.4; 8.14; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 94.63–66; Orphic Hymn 15.10–11; Prov 22:1 ; see comment on 12:43). 5942 Cf. Michaels, John, 82. Brown, John, 1:226, suggests an allusion to Moses (leading naturally into 5:45–47), who sought God " s glory (Exod 34:29); cf. comment on 1:14–18. At least some later rabbis believed that Moses exalted God above everything else and after death God exalted him (Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:20). 5943 See comment on 14:13–14; comment on agency, pp. 310–17 in the introduction. Cf. also Sanders, John, 73. It is unlikely that this stems from Isaiah (pace Young, «Isaiah,» 223); though God " s name is a dominant motif in Isaiah, «coming» in his name more likely alludes to Ps 118:26 . |
| 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 |
| 2:11: signs lead to disciples» faith 2:23: signs produce faith of untrustworthy people 4:48: Jesus complains about those who require signs for faith 6:30: crowds demand a sign before faith, although they have already received signs 7:31: many members of the crowds believed Jesus because of his signs 11:47–48: people are believing because of Jesus» signs 12:37: the crowds refused to believe despite Jesus» signs (though even some rulers did believe secretly–12:42) One should also factor in texts which link Jesus» «works» with faith: 10:25: they refuse to believe despite Jesus» works 10:37–38: they should at least believe his works 14:10–11: believe on account of the Father " s works done by Jesus 14:12: those who believe will replicate the same kind of works 2411 Various texts are clear that God provided Jesus» signs or works to produce faith (10:37–38; 11:15, 42; 13:19; 14:10–11, 29; cf. 6:40); texts that indicate the obduracy of those disbelieving despite signs (10:25; 12:37) or despite encountering Jesus himself (6:36,64; 8:46) also fall into this category. Faith as a result of signs is not bad (1:50; 2:11, 22; 10:41–42; 11:45; 12:11; 16:30; 17:21; 20:8), but it must proceed to discipleship (8:30–31; 9:35–38), and is by itself inadequate (2:23–24; 3:2–3; 4:48; 9:18). Demands for signs usually presuppose unbelief (6:30; 7:4–5) or inadequate faith (20:25); often faith must precede signs (4:48,50; 11:40). (The inadequacy of «signs-faith» also appears in the Synoptic tradition: Mark 8:11–12; 15:32 ; Matt 12:38–39; 16:1–4; Luke 11:16, 29.) The ultimate basis of faith is the Spirit-inspired witness to the truth (1:7; 4:39, 41–42; 5:38, 46–47; 15:26–27; 19:35). Saving faith (e.g., 1:12; 3:15–16, 18, 36; 5:24; 6:35, 40, 47; 7:38–39; 8:24; 11:25–27; 12:36, 46; 16:27) normally goes beyond this. It is persevering faith (6:67–69; 8:30–31, 45; 16:30–33), and suggests integrity of heart–and perhaps an initial stage of faith–as a prerequisite (1:47; 3:19–21; 5:38, 44; 10:26; 12:38–43). One passage explicitly distinguishes two levels of faith (4:50, 53) even though the second only implies discipleship. Likewise, though unbelief in general is the essence of sin (16:9), narratives seem to imply that some levels of unbelief may produce greater measures of hostility than others, when such hostility becomes the only way to maintain the unbelief of others (12:9–11 ). The connection between faith and signs is a theme that climaxes, appropriately, in the climax of the Gospel: blessed are those who believe without seeing (20:29), such as the audience which believes on the basis of the apostolic witness (20:31). God ultimately demands a commitment tht runs deeper than mere acceptance of what should be obvious. (See more detailed discussion of «faith» in ch. 7 of the introduction.) 5D. Signs-Faith as a Biblical Allusion |
| I was still a young man when the tragedy of historical events far outdid anything that I had read in books. (I refer to the outbreak of the First World War, soon to be followed by the Revolution in Russia.) My youthful hopes and dreams collapsed. But at the same time a new vision of the world and its meaning opened before me. Side by side with devastation I contemplated rebirth. I saw that there was no tragedy in God. Tragedy is to be found solely in the fortunes of the man whose gaze has not gone beyond the confines of this earth. Christ Himself by no means typifies tragedy. Nor are His all-cosmic sufferings of a tragic nature. And the Christian who has received the gift of the love of Christ, for all his awareness that it is not yet complete, escapes the nightmare of all-consuming death. Christ’s love, during the whole time that He abode with us here, was acute suffering. ‘O faithless and perverse generation,’ He cried. ‘How long shall I suffer you?’ (Matt. 17.17). He wept for Lazarus and his sisters (cf. John 11.35). He grieved over the hard-heartedness of the Jews who slew the prophets (cf. Matt. 23.37). In Gethsemane his soul was ‘exceeding sorrowful, even unto death’ and ‘his sweat was as it were drops of blood falling down to the ground’ (Matt. 26.38; Luke 22.44). He lived the tragedy of all mankind; but in Himself there was no tragedy. This is obvious from the words He spoke to His disciples perhaps only a short while before His redemptive prayer for all mankind in the Garden: ‘My peace I give unto you’ (John 14.27). And a little further on: ‘I am not alone, because the Father is with me. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world’ (John 16.32, 33). This is how it is with the Christian: for all his deep compassion, his tears and prayers for the world, there is none of the despair that destroys. Aware of the breath of the Holy Spirit, he is assured of the inevitable victory of Light. The love of Christ, even in the most acute stress of suffering (which I would call the ‘hell of loving’), because it is eternal is free of passion. Until we achieve supreme freedom from the passions on this earth suffering and pity may wear out the body but it will only be the body that dies. ‘Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul’ (Matt. 10.28). |
| – Tertullian, Apology, 37:4. Hence [from the days of Cain and Abel] finally begin the first hatreds of the new brotherhood; hence the abominable parricides, when the unjust Cain is jealous of the just Abel, when the evil persecutes the good out of jealousy and envy … He was unjustly oppressed who had been the first to show justice; he endured hatred who did not know how to hate; he was slain impiously who while dying did not fight back. What other than the stimulus of jealousy provoked Saul the king also to hate David, to desire to kill that innocent, merciful man, patient with a gentle mildness, by often repeated persecutions? Because, when Goliath had been killed and so great an enemy had been slain by divine assistance and condescension, the admiring people burst forth into approbation unto praise of David, Saul through envy conceived the furies of hatred and persecution. – St. Cyprian of Carthage, Jealousy and Envy, Chapter 5. Not one of us fights back when he is apprehended, nor do our people avenge themselves against your unjust violence though numerous and plentiful. Our certainty of the vengeance which is to come makes us patient. The harmless give way to the harmful; the innocent acquiesce in the punishments and tortures certain and confident that whatever we suffer will not remain unavenged, and that the greater is the injury of the persecution, the more just and serious will be the vengeance for the persecution. Long ago divine Scripture laid down and said, “Vengeance is mine, I shall repay, says the Lord,” and let the Holy Spirit again warn us saying, “Say not: I will avenge myself on my enemy, but wait in the Lord so that He may aid you.” Thus it is clear and manifest that not through us but for us do all these things happen which come down from the anger of God. – St. Cyprian of Carthage, To Demetrian, Chapter 17. Our enemies do good when they are hostile and thereby cause no dishonor. The devil assists Job instead of harming him ( Job 1 ff.); the king of the Assyrians helps Daniel ( Dan. 3:1 ff.); the three youths in the furnace profess God’s grace ( Dan. 3:24 ); Isaiah praises the Hebrews when he was sawed in half (cf. Heb. 11:37); Zachariah blessed his murderers while standing between the temple and altar of incense (Matt. 23:35–7); John proclaimed God’s help when Herod beheaded him (Matt. 14:1 ff.); the Apostles blessed those who bound and persecuted them; all the martyrs loved their persecutors and could not hold fast unless these athletes maintained their courage. |
| 31 . Do not think that those who bring you reports which fill you with resentment and make you hate your brother are affectionately disposed towards you, even if they seem to speak the truth. On the contrary, turn away from them as if they were poisonous snakes, so that you may both prevent them from uttering slanders and deliver your own soul from wickedness. 32 . Do not irritate your brother by speaking to him equivocally; otherwise you may receive the same treatment from him and so drive out both your love and his. Rather, rebuke him frankly and affectionately, thus removing the grounds for resentment and freeing both him and yourself from your irritation and distress. 33 . Examine your conscience scrupulously, in case it is your fault that your brother is still hostile. Do not cheat your conscience, for it knows your secrets, and at the hour of your death it will accuse you and in time of prayer it will be a stumbling-block to you. 34 . In times of peaceful relationships do not recall what was said by a brother when there was bad feeling between you, even if offensive things were said to your face, or to another person about you and you subsequently heard of them. Otherwise you will harbour thoughts of rancour and revert to your destructive hatred of your brother. 35 . The deiform soul cannot nurse hatred against a man and yet be at peace with God, the giver of the commandments. ‘For’, He says, ‘if you do not forgive men their faults, neither will your heavenly Father forgive you your faults’ (cf. Matt. 6: 14–15). If your brother does not wish to live peaceably with you, nevertheless guard yourself against hatred, praying for him sincerely and not abusing him to anybody. 36 . The perfect peace of the holy angels lies in their love for God and their love for one another. This is also the case with all the saints from the beginning of time. Most truly therefore is it said that ‘on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets’ (Matt. 22: 40). 37 . Stop pleasing yourself and you will not hate your brother; stop loving yourself and you will love God. |
| It is in this context that Jesus speaks of rejection by his «country» or «fatherland.» Onés «fatherland» tended to be an object of great loyalty, even to the death (Isocrates To Philip 55, Or. 5). 5658 Scholars debate the meaning of the «country» in which Jesus would have no honor. He left Samaria after two days because a prophet has no honor in his own country; but Samaria was honoring him, and Samaria was hardly «his own country.» Many insist that Jesus» «fatherland» in this Gospel is Galilee, since it seems clear in this Gospel that Jesus hails from there. 5659 They argue correctly that Jesus was more welcomed by the Samaritans than by the Galileans, 5660 so it is not impossible that Galilee is his «country» that rejects him here. But while Galilee was Jesus» own country in some sense, that observation belongs primarily to others (e.g., 1:45–46; 7:3,41, 52), whereas his true, ultimate origin is heaven (3:13, 31; 6:38,51); 5661 thus the question of origin apart from the question of rejection cannot settle the object of the saying. It is not primarily Galilee that rejects him in this Gospel (see our introduction, ch. 5). Thus the writer seems to indicate that Judea was Jesus» own country. 5662 John here provides not so much «a historical judgment» as «a theological one.» 5663 After all, as messiah, Jesus would be a son of David (cf. 7:42), and of Judahite descent (4:9; 18:35), according to the flesh (1:14; Rom 1:3 ), even if he was also more than a son of David ( Mark 12:36–37 ). Perhaps more critically, the ideal reader recalls 1:11: Jesus came to «his own,» and they did not receive him. His own are «Jews» (4:9; 18:35), «Judeans» in the broad sense of the term, which allows for a contrast with the welcome reception by the Samaritans. 5664 Further, in this context the Galileans explicitly welcome him (4:45). 5665 Thus the writer applies the saying quite differently from Synoptic writers, who apply it to Nazareth ( Mark 6:4 ; Matt 13:57; Luke 4:24). 5666 John probably also reflects here the assumption that his audience knows and accepts the tradition in which Jesus was born in Bethlehem (see comment on 7:42). |
| 262 See AH 3.3.4 and his letters to Florinus and to Victor (excerpted in Eusebius, EH 5.20.6; 5.24.16). See also AH 4.27.1 and Hill, Lost Teaching, 37 – 40; 80 – 1; 171 – 7. 263 Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. 2, History and Literature of Early Christianity (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1982), 306. 264 Michael W. Holmes, ‘Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians and the Writings that Later Formed the New Testament’, RNTAF 187 – 227, at 197; cf. 194. 266 J. N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, ed. and completed by B. A. Mastin (New York, 1968), 35; Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons (London and New York: Routledge, 1997), 37; Hill, JCEC 416 – 20. 267 Some of the Greek manuscripts of the letter say ‘you’ instead of ‘us’, but both Ehrman and Holmes decide for the originality of‘us’. 268 There is a long history of debate about both the genuineness of his letters and their date. Most scholars accept the so-called ‘middle recension’ of his letters (as I do, with Holmes and Ehrman) as genuine. I accept Eusebius’ date of 107 – 8. Others argue for a somewhat later date. 269 R. M. Grant, ‘Scripture and Tradition in St. Ignatius of Antioch’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 25 (1963), 322 – 35, at 327. 270 Paul Foster, ‘The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament’ RNTAF 159 – 86. In response to Foster’s scepticism about John’s Gospel, see Charles E. Hill, ‘ “The Orthodox Gospel’’. The Reception of John in the Great Church Prior to Irenaeus’, in Tuomas Rasimus, The Legacy of John (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 233 – 300, at 274 – 85. 271 C. E. Hill, ‘Ignatius and the Apostolate: The Witness of Ignatius to the Emergence of Christian Scripture’, in M. F. Wiles and E. J. Yarnold (eds.), Studia Patristica 36 (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 226 – 48, at 234. 273 In Magnesians 13.1 he also tells his readers to ‘be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles’, where ‘decrees of the Lord’ seem to stand in the place of‘the gospel’. Didache 11.3 – 4 apparently refers to Jesus’ instructions in Matt. 10.40 – 1 as ‘decrees of the gospel’. SeeJ. A. Kelhoffer, ‘ “How Soon a Book” Revisited: EY AΓΓEΛION as a Reference to “Gospel” Materials in the First Half of the Second Century’, ZNW 95 (2004), 1 – 34. |
|
|
