| That Jesus had many brothers is not surprising; families often had many children with a wide range of ages. 6319 Honoring kinship ties was very important, 6320 and brothers were normally the closest and most trustworthy of allies, 6321 which makes the unbelief of Jesus» brothers (7:5) all the more disconcerting. (Intrafamily strife was considered particularly tragic.) 6322 Although Jesus» younger siblings seem to have achieved prominence in the later church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1Cor 15:7 ; Gal 1:19; 2:9,12 ; Jas 1:1; Jude 1), it is not clear that John is polemicizing against them in that later role here (any more than he polemicizes against Peter, a prototypical disciple). They serve a literary function in the narrative, challenging disciples to have deeper faith and to endure rejection by their families, 6323 a common early Christian situation ( 1Cor 7:15–16 ; 1Pet 3:1 ; Matt 10:21). 6324 The statement that «not even his brothers were believing in him» (7:5) follows immediately after the apostasy of many of his disciples (6:66); likewise, believers experienced both tragic defection from their ranks (1 John 2:19) and familial opposition (cf. Matt 10:21, 35–37). If Jesus» brothers serve any function related to their genetic kinship with Jesus, it might be an apologetic purpose, to counter or guard against the charge of nepotism that would allow Jesus» relatives to assume so much rank in the early church. Josephus defends Moses against such a charge regarding Aaron (Josephus Ant. 4.26–28, 34, 58), and John may wish to show that the charge cannot be laid against Jesus. 6325 Or, if John does qualify popular allegiance to Jesus» physical family, it may be in a manner similar to that in which he challenges thoughtless devotion to Peter, ever reminding believers that Jesus alone is the chief shepherd and lord (cf. 13:24, 38; 21:15–22). (That this Gospel would be sensitive to such questions is not surprising. Early eyewitness tradition indicates that John son of Zebedee, with whose tradition, at least, most scholars associate this Gospel, once shared leadership in the conservative Jerusalem church with both Peter and James; Gal 2:9 .) |
| 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. |
| John is calling his audience to a full confession of resurrection faith: Jesus is God in the flesh, and therefore his claims cannot be compromised, for synagogue or for Caesar. John will settle for no faith less secure than this. Further, while Thomas " s faith by sight is accepted, the faith without sight expected of John " s audience is greater (20:29; cf. 2Cor 5:6–7 ; 1Pet 1:8 ). It is grounded in the beloved disciplés testimony sampled in the Gospel (20:30–31), confirmed to hearers by the Paraclete (15:26–16:15). 10778 E.g., Ellis, Genius, 297–98; Minear, «Functions.» The «signs» include the resurrection chapter (esp. 20:27, 29) but also the rest of the «signs» in this Gospel (with, e.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 336). 10779 E.g., Aeschines Timarchus 196; Cicero Fin. 5.32.95–96; Or. Brut. 40.137; Polybius 39.8.3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Demosth. 32; Thucyd. 55; Musonius Rufus 6, pp. 54.26–56.11 (esp. 54.26; 56.7–11); Aelius Aristides Fifth Leuctrian Oration 43–44; Rhet. Alex. 36,1443b.l5–16; 1444b.21–35; 37, 1445b.21–23; Hippolytus Haer. 10.1; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 181–82; less fully, cf. Matt 28:18–20; Rom 16:17–19 . Of course, open or abrupt endings also appear, as in Mark 16 (see our comments on Mark 16:9–20 above, on the resurrection tradition). 10780 E.g., Isaeus Estate of Cleonymus 48, out of fifty-one paragraphs. Often they come at the conclusion of the proofs, though this might be near the work " s end (Cicero Quinct. 28.85–29.90), possibly relevant here; they could also conclude a section (Xenophon Hel1. 3.5.25, ending book 3; 4.8.19, ending only some events; Polybius 2.71.7–10, esp. 2.71.7–8; Cicero Fin. 3.9.31; Quinct. 19.60). 10781 Aeschines Timarchus 111. After his closing summary (Polybius 39.8.4–6), Polybius adds only closing comments (39.8.7–8). 10782 Achtemeier, «Miracle Workers,» 176. Even if redactional, Homer " s claim that Aeneas would rule the Trojans (Il. 20.303–308) is pre-Virgil and virtually invited the sort of development one finds in Virgil Aeneid. 10783 E.g., Valerius Maximus 2.7.5; 3.8.ext.l; Musonius Rufus 10, p. 78.22. Epideictic bards might also complain that time provided the only limit on their praises (Pindar Nem. 4.33–34; O1. 2.95; Pyth. 4.247–248; cf. Heb 11:32). In many oral genres, one should limit onés examples (Menander Rhetor 2.4, 393.25–30). 10787 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Thucyd. 55; Isaeus 19–20; Demosth. 42,46, 58; Lit. Comp. 11. More detailed discussion might await another occasion, but he needed to use most wisely the space that he had (Demosthenes 32; Isaeus 14); he wanted to avoid wasting the reader " s time (Demosthenes 40). |
| But the fact remains that another extant tradition places the priests» question here on the hearts of «the people» (Luke 3:15), and despite the Fourth Gospel " s fuller report of other details in the narrative, it is easier to understand why the Fourth Gospel would have narrowed this question to messengers of the Pharisees than to hypothesize why the Third Gospel or its traditions would have softened the question " s source to the crowds (cf. similarly Luke 3:7; Matt 3:7). 3823 2. John " s Denials (1:20–23) John " s questioners ask him about Elijah and the Prophet (a new Moses figure), both of whom were end-time prophetic figures expected in this period. 3824 Earlier tradition concurs with the Fourth Gospel " s claim that some thought John the Christ (Luke 3:15), and that he responded that one mightier than he would come after him to bestow the Spirit (Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16), but the Fourth Gospel elaborates the discussion more fully than our other extant traditions do. The language of the denial may reflect a deliberate contrast with the confession the tradition reports for Jesus before the Jerusalem elite ( Mark 14:61–62 ; cf. 8:28). John " s emphatic «I» in his denial of his messiahship in the Greek text of 1(also 3:28) may suggest that John is about to confess another as the Christ (cf. 1:23, 27). 3825 Certainly John " s confession contrasts with Jesus» positive «I am» statements in this Gospel (e.g., 4:26; 11:25), fitting the running contrast created by John " s abasement and Jesus» exaltation (1:15; 3:28–30). 3826 That John both «confessed» and «denied not» is more than mere Semitic parallelism at work; 3827 it is varied repetition for the sake of emphasis, sounding almost like a response to the charge that John claimed to be more than a prophet. 3828 The reader will later learn that the leaders who sent messengers to John prove unwilling to confess Christ or permit others to do so (9:22; 12:42); John himself, however, «confesses» him openly (cf. Matt 10:32; Luke 12:8, a tradition likely known to the Johannine community–Rev 2:13; 3:5). 2A. Not Elijah (1:21a) |
| One may compare some Greek texts about the abode of the soul after death, such as one of the Cynic Epistles attributed to Heraclitus: Yet my soul will not sink, but, since it is a thing immortal, it will fly on high into heaven [εις ορανν]. The ethereal dwellings [αιθριοι, δμοι] will receive me. 8401 Some texts may refer to an eternal dwelling in the world to come, rather than one entered immediately at death. Second Enoch 65parallels eternal dwelling places (A has the singular) and paradise, 8402 and in 2 En. 36:3A (not J), an eternal «place» is «prepared» for Enoch before God " s face; in both recensions of 9:1, paradise «has been prepared» for the righteous (as Gehenna is for the wicked, 10:4; cf. Matt. 25:34, 41). These references may all be too late to accurately reflect any Jewish eschatology in the Johannine period, but they may also act as commentary on J En. 91:13, in which the righteous in the final time receive «houses» as rewards, 8403 and some passages in the Similitudes (39:5,41:2,45:1). In T. Ab. 20A, the σκηνα of the righteous ones and the μονα of the holy ones, Isaac and Jacob, are in paradise. 8404 Some also suggest an early eschatological reading of Ps 42:3 , although the LXX (42:3) has σκηνματα. 8405 A rabbinic tradition, apparently established by the early Amoraic period, promises a sukkah in the world to come to those who keep the commandment of dwelling in sukkoth in this world; 8406 if such a tradition were substantiated as early, it could suggest that John develops a motif related to Jesus» fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles (chs. 7–9). In a tradition attributed to the Tanna R. Meir, the abode of the righteous «on high» is contrasted with that of the wicked in Gehenna; 8407 some Amoraim spoke of ranks of canopies in the world to come, according to onés merit. 8408 But the term used here, μον, is rare in Greek and occurs only twice in John–here and in v. 23, where the present reference is explained; 8409 it is related to its verbal cognate μνω, which assumes prominence in the first paragraph of ch. 15 and is a theologically loaded term throughout the Gospe1. 8410 Both v. 23 and the use of the verb in ch. 15 indicate that the present experience of believers in God " s presence is the point of «dwelling place» in John 14:2 . 8411 The idea is that the Shekinah will always be among them (cf. Matt 1:23; 18:20; 28:20) and the community ought always to recognize this. 8412 2D. A Place Prepared (14:2) |
| Craig S. Keener The close of the Gospel. 21:24–25 MANY SCHOLARS THINK THAT the emphasis on the conditional nature of the questions (21:22–23) suggests that disappointment with the beloved disciplés death existed in the early church. 10963 That is, Jesus apparently said something about some disciples remaining until he returned, which the Synoptics already apply to the transfiguration ( Mark 9:1–2 ; Matt 16:28–17:2; Luke 9:27–29); the death of the last disciple could well provoke some confusion about the meaning of such a saying. In such a case, 21:24–25 would likely constitute a later addition to the text (especially if one accepts the rest of ch. 21 as part of the Gospel), which is the view of most scholars. It can read like a miniature letter of recommendation (cf. Rom 16:2 ; 1Cor 4:17; 16:10 ; Phil 2:19 ; Col 4:7; Phlm 17; 3 John 12 ). 10964 At the same time, the disciple himself could issue the same sort of warning as he was recognizing his age and impending death; the Lord might well not return in his lifetime. If the disciple remains alive at the time of the Gospel " s completion, this could help explain the present tense of μαρτρων in 21:24, 10965 although one could also interpret 21otherwise (e.g., the disciplés witness continues to live even if the disciple does not; see comment on 19:35). The community («we») may second the verdict of the singular voice in 19:35, which commends the truth of the beloved disciplés witness, unless this represents an editorial «we,» 10966 which many argue, on the basis of Johannine style in general, seems less likely. 10967 The concluding verse (21:25) harks back to 20:30, 10968 suggesting that it stems either from the author or from those close enough to the author to understand and articulate his mind. At least the plural in 21:24, however, would seem to represent others, 10969 perhaps the Johannine circle of disciples, 10970 confirming the veracity of the beloved disciplés witness. 10971 Ancient Mediterranean legal documents typically listed witnesses at the end of the document, 10972 just as the book (perhaps of life?) in Revelation is sealed with seven attesting seals. 10973 Nonlegal documents could also follow the legal pattern and cite a past figurés saying as if citing a closing legal testimony (Seneca Nat. 5.18.16). |
| 5899 E.g., 2 Bar. 51:1–2; cf. t. Ber. 6:6. For distinction after death, see 1 En. 22:9–11; cf. sources in Keener, Matthew, 129, on Gehinnom, and 710–11, on the resurrection of the dead. 5900 It appears in most streams of NT tradition and is denied in none: Acts 24:15; 2Cor 5:10 ; Rev 20:4–6; Matt 25:46; cf. Matt 5:29–30; 10:28; Luke 11:32; Bernard, John, 1:245. 5901 1QS 4.13–14; Gen. Rab. 6:6; most sinners in t. Sanh. 13:3,4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10:4; Pesiq. Rab. 11:5; cf. 2Macc 12:43–45. By contrast, the souls of the wicked will remain in hell on the day of judgment in 1 En. 22:13; 61:5; 108:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 12:12; t. Sanh. 13:5; probably L.A.B. 38:4; Ascen. Isa. 1:2; 3 En. 44:3; t. Ber. 5:31. 5902 Ps 62:12 ; Prov 24:12 ; Sir 16:12,14 ; Matt 16:27; Rom 2:6 ; 2Cor 11:15 ; Rev 22:12; Pesiq. Rab. 8:2; cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.2.3. 5903 It continued in widespread use (Josephus Life 256; Ant. 4.219; b. Sanh. 37b, bar.; p. Git. 4:1, §2; cf. m. Roš Haš. 1:7; 2:6); see further the comment under 8:13. Early Christians also employed this rule; see 2Cor 13:1 ; 1Tim 5:19 ; Matt 18:16. 5904 Boring et al, Commentary, 270–71, cites Cicero Rose. Amer. 36.103. Witnesses confirmed a matter (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 26), and a claim offered without them might be scathingly contested (Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111). 5905 E.g., Lysias Or. 4.5–6, §101; 7.12–18, §§109–110; 12.27–28, §122; 19.24, §154; 29.7, §182; Cicero Quinct. 24.76. Establishing a credible motive was standard procedure for the prosecution (Cicero Rose. Amer. 22.61–62). 5906 E.g., Isaeus Estate of Cleonymus 31–32, §37; Estate of Hagnias 6; Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111; 7.43, §112. Cf. the preference for multiple and diverse testimonies, e.g., in Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 61, §19D; for challenging the credibility of opposing witnesses, see, e.g., Hermogenes Issues 45.5–10. 5907 Cicero Quinct. 23.75. 5908 The witness of one person was inadequate in many kinds of cases (Boice, Witness, 47, cites m. Ketub. 2:9; Roè Haï. 3:1); self-accusation, by contrast, could invite condemnation (Achilles Tatius 7.11.1; though in early Judaism cf. Cohn, Trial, 98). In some matters, however, onés self-testimony was held reliable (e.g., m. Ketub. 2:10), even against two witnesses (m. Tehar. 5:9). |
| 9309 Cf. Schlier, «Begriff,» 269, who says that the Spirit illuminates the work of Jesus in his glory. In Wis 8:3, Wisdom δοξζει, but the object is her own nobility. 9310 John Chrysostom believed that the Spirit would glorify Jesus by performing greater miracles, as in 14(Hom. Jo. 78). 9313 E.g., 1 En. 1:2; 72:1; 74:2; 75:3; Jub. 32:21; 3 Bar. 1:8; 5:1; 6:1; 4 Ezra 4:1; Rev 1:1; b. Ber. 51a; Ned. 20ab; cf. gnostic traditions in Paraphrase of Shem (NHL 308–28) and Hypsiphrone (NHL 453). It also appears in negative polemic ( Gal 1:8 ; Col 2:18), some of which reflects the Prometheus myth (b. Sabb. 88a; Gen. Rab. 50:9; 68:12; 78:2). 9314 T. Mos. 1:14; 3:12; Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.15; b. Ned. 38a; Acts 7:38; cf. Isaacs, Spirit, 130. Aelius Aristides claimed that Athena passed on what she received from her Father (37.4–7, in Van der Horst, «Acts,» 57). 9316 Cf., e.g., Diogenes Laertius 6.1.11 (Antisthenes); Achilles Tatius 3.10.4; 1Macc 12:23; T. Job 18(OTP 1:847)/18(ed. Kraft, 40). 9317 Diogenes Laertius 6.2.37 (LCL); cf., e.g., Crates Ep. 26–27 (to the Athenians); Anacharsis Ep. 9:12–14 (to Croesus). In early Christian literature, see, e.g., Sent. Sext. 228. See further the comment on 15:15. 9321 In the Q tradition cf. Matt 11:27; Luke 10:22; for Jesus passing to the disciples what he received from the Father, cf., e.g., Luke 22:29. 9322 Cf., e.g., Holwerda, Spirit, 132. Brown (John, 2:728) divides 16:16–33 into a chiasmus: prediction of a test and subsequent consolation (16:16, 31–33); intervening remarks of disciples (16:17–19,29–30); and promise of blessings to be enjoyed by disciples (16:20–23a, 23b-28). But the structure is too general to be clear, and remarks about a test and consolation appear elsewhere in the section (16:20–21). 9324 Pass, Glory, 233 (cf. also Westcott, John, 231–32; Phillips, «Faith,» 89; Derrett, «Seeing»), tentatively suggests a distinction between the two terms here «behold» (for bodily sight) and «see» (for spiritual vision); in view of Johannine usage, however, the terminological distinction cannot hold (see «vision» in our introduction; also Sanchez Navarro, «Acerca»). |
| 6920 T. Ab. 8:9A. Cf. Homer Il. 21.107, where Achilles reminds Lycaon that Patroclus was a better man than he and died anyway (then slays him, 21.115–119). 6921 Commonly noted, e.g., Barrett, John, 351; Morris, John, 469. 6922 Q also polemicizes against false claims to descent from «Abraham our father» (Matt 3:9; Luke 3:8). 6923 See further comments by Neyrey, «Shame of Cross,» 126–27; our comments on 5:18. 6924 Publilius Syrus 597; Plutarch Praising, Mor. 539A-547F (esp. 15, Mor. 544D); 2Cor 12:11 ; see our introductory comment on John 5:31–47 . 6925 Also Bar 2:35 . 6926 Some later Jewish traditions allowed him to share it with Israel (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:2); see further the comment on 5:44. 6927 The claim is ad hominem (so Michaels, John, 144; Barrett, John, 351), but it does not strictly reject their physical ancestry here; rather, he exhorts them to function as children of Abraham ought (cf. 1Cor 6:6–11 ). 6928 Cf. revelation on the «Lord " s Day,» possibly an eschatological double entendre (cf. Shepherd, Liturgy, 78), in Rev 1(on the noneschatological aspect of the phrase, see Did. 14.1; Deissmann, East, 358–59; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 65; perhaps also Ign. Magn. 9.1, but cf. Lewis, «Ignatius»). 6929 So Schnackenburg, John, 2:221, citing Jub. 15:17; Targum Onqelos; Philo Names 154, 161, 175; cf. Haenchen, John, 2:29. In Genesis, however, Abraham " s laughter undoubtedly functions as Sarah " s would (18:12–15; cf. 21:6). 6930 Hanson, Gospel, 126–28. 6931 4 Ezra 3:14; 2 Bar. 4:4; L.A.B. 23:6; Apoc. Ab. 9–32; Gen. Rab. 44:12. In Philo, Abraham encounters the Logos (Migration 174, in Argyle, «Philo,» 38; on Philo here, cf. more fully On the Change of Names in Urban and Henry, «Abraham»). 6932 E.g., Hunter, John, 94; Cadman, Heaven, 115; Morris, Studies, 221; Brown, John, 1:360; Bell, I Am, 197. Contrast McNamara, Targum, 144–45. 6933 E.g., b. B. Bat. 16b-17a, bar. Others also receive such visions; e.g., Adam (2 Bar. 4:3; " Abot R. Nat. 31A; 42, §116B; b. Sanh. 38b; Gen. Rab. 21:9; 24:2; Pesiq. Rab. 23:1); Joseph (Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 45:14 ); Amram (4Q544 lines 10–12; 4Q547 line 7); Moses (Sipre Deut. 357.5.11); and R. Meir (Num. Rab. 9:20). |
| Like the rest of the Fourth Gospel, John here insists that Jewish believers remain faithful to the God of Israel through fidelity to Jesus, not through satisfying the synagogue leadership (12:42–43). This is because Jesus is God " s faithful agent; he neither spoke (14:10; cf. 16:13) nor acted (5:30; 8:28, 42) on his own (12:49), but only at the Father " s command (12:49; see comment on 5:19). 7989 By again reinforcing the portrait of Jesus as God " s faithful agent, John reminds his hearers that their opponents who in the name of piety opposed a high view of Jesus were actually opposing the God who appointed him to that role. «The Father " s commandment is eternal life» (12:50) is presumably elliptical for «obedience to the Father " s command produces eternal life,» but also fits the identification of the word (1:4), Jesus» words (6:68), and knowing God (17:3) with life. For John, the concept of «command» should not be incompatible with believing in Jesus (6:27; cf. 8:12; 12:25), which is the basis for eternal life (3:15–16; 6:40, 47; 11:25; 20:31); faith involves obedience (3:36; cf. Acts 5:32; Rom 1:5; 2:8; 6:16–17; 15:18; 16:19, 26; 2 Thess 1:8; 1Pet 1:22; 4:17 ). Jesus always obeys his Father " s commands (8:29), including the command to face death (10:18; 14:31); his disciples must follow his model of obedience to his commandments by loving one another sacrificially (13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10,12). 7803 Matthew " s stirring of «the entire city» (Matt 21:10), however, may invite the reader to compare this event with an earlier disturbance of Jerusalem (Matt 2:3). 7804 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 306; Catchpole, «Entry.» In favor of reliability, see also Losie, «Entry,» 858–59. 7805 In view of ancient patronal social patterns, Jesus» numerous «benefactions» would also produce an entourage, seeking favors, that could potentially double as a political support base, exacerbating his threat to the political elite (DeSilva, Honor, 135). 7806 Also for Matthew (Matt 21:10–11); in Luke those who hail him are disciples (Luke 19:37, 39); even in Mark, where «many» participate, those who go before and after him are probably those who knew of his ministry in Galilee ( Mark 11:8–9 ). This may represent a very different crowd from the one that condemned him (Matt 27:20–25; Mark 15:11–14 ; Luke 23:13, 18, 21, 23)–certainly in John, where the condemning «Jews» are the «high priests» (19:6–7, 12–15). |
|
|
