| 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 |
| On the social level this may suggest some historical implications for responses to the earliest Christian mission (see introduction concerning Galilee, ch. 5), but on the internal literary level also supports John " s emphasis on God " s activity among those marginalized by the attitudes of the elite (7:52; cf. 2:9). Philip " s name is Greek, perhaps inviting the Greeks to approach him first in 12:20–21, but scholars who would therefore dispute Philip " s Jewishness 4261 reckon neither with the hellenization of Palestine 4262 nor with the Palestinian Jewish use of Greek names. 4263 That a few of Jesus» disciples bore Greek names is not unusual; 4264 further, had Jesus had any immediate Gentile followers, his Jewish disciples and especially his opponents would have pointed this out, and the later church, advocating the Gentile mission through less relevant narratives like the centurion and Syrophoenician woman (Matt 8:5–13/Luke 7:1–10; Mark 7:24–30 /Matt 15:21–28), would have surely exploited it. Unless Philip 4265 is the other anonymous disciple of 1:37, 4266 which is unlikely, 4267 Jesus directly initiates the call of Philip without a mediating witness, in contrast to the above narratives. But Philip quickly becomes a witness to Nathanael, inviting him to a personal encounter with Christ which convinces him as readily as it convinced Philip. John seems to indicate that an honest and open heart confronted with the true Jesus himself–and not merely another " s testimony about him without that encounter–will immediately become his follower (3:20–21). Normally disciples were to seek out their own teachers. Joshua ben Perachiah, a pre-Christian sage, reportedly advised this, as well as acquiring a «Π, a companion (presumably for Torah study). 4268 Rabban Gamaliel repeated the same advice in another context. 4269 Likewise, a writer for Socrates in the Cynic Epistles advises choosing a good education and a wise teacher. 4270 In the call of Philip, however, as in some dramatic examples in the Synoptics ( Mark 1:17; 2:14 ; Matt 4:19; 9:9; Luke 5:10, 27), Jesus directly summons one to follow him, like some radical Greek teachers seeking to convert the open-minded to philosophy. |
| 263 The gradual individualization of the eucharist with the introduction of private eucharistic prayers into the structure of the liturgy and finally with the prevalence of the “private mass” in the West, represents a historical development which should be examined in close connection with the development of ecclesiology. 264 Justin, Apol., I, 67. Cf. 65. This situation must have lasted at least until the middle of the third century when the first indications of the formation of parishes appear. The entire problem with its ecclesiological implications is discussed in my The Unity of the Church …, pp. 151 – 188. 267 The presuppositions of faith and love for communion were, of course, creating limitations to this community. It is important to study how a closed liturgical community, which the early Church undoubtedly was, can be related to the “catholic Church.” For this a special study would be necessary. Cf. the works of W. Elert, Abenamahl und Kirchengemeinschaft in der alten Kirche hauptsächlich des Osmens (1954), and S. L. Greenslade, Schism in the Early Church (no date). 269 The connection of the “one Church” with the “one eucharist,” the “one bishop” and the “one altar,” clearly established already in the teaching of Ignatius (Philad., 4; Magn., 7, 2; Eph., 5, 2; Tral., 7, 2, etc.), continues through Cyprian (Ep., 43 5; De unit., 17, 14, etc.) well into the fourth century with the idea of а μονογενς θυσιαστριον (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., X, 4, 68) and a number of deeply meaningful liturgical practices like the fermentum, the antimension, etc. 272 The idea that the bishop is “the image of Christ” lasted at least until the fourth century (cf. Pseudo-Clem. Homil., 3, 62). For material see O. Perler, “L’Evêque, représentant du Christ…” in L’Episcopat et l’Eglise universelle (ed. Y. Congar, et al., Unam Sanctam 39, 1962), pp. 31 – 66. 273 Rev. 4:4. Cf. Ignatius, Smyrn., 8, 1; Eph., 20, 2, and the arrangement of the eucharistic assembly presupposed in such sources as Hippolytus, Ap. Trad. (ed. Dix, pp. 6 and 40 ff.). |
| Pilatés request for a charge (18:29) reflects the standard procedure of Roman officials, who relied on local subordinates as delatores, or accusers. 9832 John " s informed audience may have experienced the same sort of accusations (see introduction, ch. 5); they may also, however, find it ironic that the accusers bring a κατηγοραν against Jesus (18:29) yet encounter Moses» law, which they are violating (pace their claim in 19:7), as their own κατηγορν (5:45). The leaders» attempt to secure Pilatés cooperation without further investigation (18:30) fits the known «tendency to turn the legal situation to onés maximal advantage,» as illustrated by Josephus " s application of imperial edicts and other defenses of Jewish freedoms. 9833 (Contrast their complaint that he is an «evildoer» here with their inability to convict him of even speaking evil in 18:23; cf. 8:46; Mark 15:14 .) The Romans usually allowed internal religious matters to be handled by Jewish courts, 9834 hence Pilatés reticence to accept the case at first (18:31a). (As the rest of the verse shows, he is not literally permitting them to simply execute Jesus themselves, though Roman officials occasionally handed even Romans over for execution to prevent unrest; cf. 19:6.) 9835 While Pilate in the story world intends his rebuff as a refusal to enter Jewish religious disputes (cf. Acts 18:15), «Judge him according to your own law» serves an ironic function on the level that John " s informed audience may catch: the leaders neither judge rightly (7:24) nor could convict him from their own law (e.g., 10:34). But the local leaders responded that they needed Romés approval to secure capital punishment (18:31b; cf. 19:15), implying that because of limitations Rome had placed on them, they needed Romés cooperation to keep order in such cases. On the theological level, the leaders not only misunderstand God " s word but also accommodate Romés definition of what is lawful; they could not rightly execute him on their own (cf. εξεστιν in 5:10). |
| Because we lack other sources by which to test it, we can comment only briefly on the essential historicity of this narrative. 4750 Its recurrent symbolic significance indicates considerable Johannine interpretation and idiom, but cannot be used to dismiss the possibility of a historical nucleus any more than, say, the Johannine features in his account of the feeding of the five thousand in ch. 6. 4751 Certainly the wordplays indicate a Greek-speaking audience, 4752 but Jerusalems aristocracy probably spoke mainly Greek, 4753 and in any case no one argues for a verbatim transcription of the dialogue without a prior transposition into Johannine idiom. That Jesus historically spoke of a rebirth of some sort is likely. 4754 Jesus probably spoke of some sent «from heaven» (i.e., from God; Mark 11:30 ) and viewed his own role as unique (see introduction, ch. 7). Beyond asserting a basic historical nucleus, however, it is impossible on purely historical grounds to determine the degree to which the dominant Johannine idiom has shaped that nucleus. 1. Nicodemus Comes to Jesus (3:1–2) By appealing to what his community «knows» and broaching the matter of Christology (albeit from an inadequate starting point), Nicodemus " s assertion sets the stage for the rest of the discourse. 4755 Nicodemus suggests that Jesus is a teacher «from God,» 4756 a phrase which for John " s audience, familiar with Johannine idiom, would be equivalent to claiming that Jesus is «from above,» but which to Nicodemus within the story world undoubtedly would bear a less exclusive sense (cf. 1:6). The story includes a contrast between the «teacher of Israel» who fails to comprehend heavenly realities (3:10) and the teacher from God who reveals them (3:2). Although no one doubted that some men of God could still work signs, the general Pharisaic view that prophets were rare or vanished may have contributed to Nicodemus being impressed with the testimony of Jesus» signs (despite their limited halakic value in the same tradition). 4757 Nicodemus points out that «no one can» do signs like those Jesus has done (2:23) unless God is with him (3:2); Jesus develops Nicodemus " s δναται, which is repeated throughout the following narrative (3:3,4, 5, 9): what no one can do is enter the kingdom without rebirth–or, in more general terms, do anything of the Spirit by means of the flesh (cf. 15:5). 4758 1A. Nicodemus (3:1) |
| One suspects that, in discerning that development, Luke was aided by his opportunities to speak with individual Christians in the Holy Land. In pursuing this path to his narrative, the author of Luke/Acts is very distinctive among the New Testament writers. This organic stricture in Luke/Acts has a permeating quality discernible in other ways. Take, for instance, the story about Herod that follows immediately the account of Jesus endowing the Apostles with “power and authority.” The author, adhering to the sequence established in Mark 6, inserts a story about Herod between the mission of the Apostles and the multiplication of the loaves. But how differently! Whereas Mark deftly uses his long account of Herod’s beheading of John the Baptist to indicate the significant interval between the sending of the Apostles (“So they went out . . .”-6:12) and their return (“Then the Apostles assembled with Jesus”-6:30), Luke has in mind a completely different purpose, conveyed in a peculiar organic narrative: First, Luke had already removed John the Baptist from the story back in 3:19-20. Indeed, he removed John so thoroughly that the Baptist is not even mentioned in the account of Jesus baptism (2:21-22)! Second, Luke joins this story of Herod to the things ( ginomena panta —9:7) the dispersed Apostles are doing. This conjunction ties the present account to the narrative in Acts, which further extends the relationship of the Apostles to Herod’s family. Third, in the introduction of Herod at this point in the Gospel, Luke prepares for Herod’s later appearance at Jesus’ trial (23:6-12). He does this in a curious way: He takes various popular assessments of Jesus (“Elijah” or “one of the old prophets”) and makes them rumors in the Herodian court. In portraying Herod as “weighing” (dieporei) these popular interpretations of Jesus, Luke likely relies on the witness of Johanna, who was tied to the Herodian court (cf. 8:3; 13:31). Luke ends the account with the comment that Herod wished to “see” Jesus, thus setting up the later trial scene, when the king does see Jesus. |
| Yet John and Revelation hardly would have stressed these warnings unless severe tensions with the synagogue or other reasons led them to believe that such conflicts were on the rise. Conditions may have changed somewhat in the second century; Justin claims that «Jews» kill Christians whenever they are able, specifically noting that Bar Kokhba had ordered the execution of Christians and only Christians (1 Apo1. 31.6). 9174 But atrocity reports were often exaggerated in the course of circulation; 9175 hyperbole was a regular feature of polemic and invective (generally from both sides). 9176 Some non-Christian Jews actually protected Christians during Roman persecutions; 9177 and in any case, lynchings would have been far less prevalent among Jews under Roman rule than during the Bar Kokhba revolt, when Roman scruples about executions without Roman supervision would have been dismissed. More likely is the proposal that the Jewish Christians felt that their Jewish opponents, by expelling them from synagogues (see introduction), were deliberately delivering them over to the sword of the Roman governor. 9178 Surely in time Christians, once portrayed as apostates no longer welcome in the synagogue community, would face death for their unwillingness to worship Caesar (Rev 13:15). Indeed, early-second-century sources testify that some Christians had been executed for such an offense (Pliny Ep. 10.96). Roman prosecution also depended on delatores, private accusers, 9179 as Pliny " s correspondence with Trajan likewise indicates; 9180 at a later stage of mutual antagonism, the second-century Martyrdom of Polycarp reproaches the Jewish community in Smyrna not for merely expelling the Jewish Christians (cf. Rev 2:9) but for actively supplying the accusers of the Christians (Mart. Po1. 17.2). 9181 4C. Johannine Irony Nevertheless, the context supplies the warning with abundant Johannine irony. Believers would be on trial before the world, personified in local synagogue courts (16:2; cf. Mark 13:9 ), 9182 just as Jesus would be on trial before the world (the Pharisees and the Roman governor) in succeeding chapters (18–19). But in the end, the believers joined the Advocate as witnesses (15:26–27), and became vehicles for the Advocate as he prosecuted the world (16:7–11). 9183 The world, not believers, was on trial before the highest court! 9184 Some other thinkers in the ancient world also opined that the justice of judges» sentences reflected on themselves no less than on the accused. 9185 |
| Wfaat seems most significant is that, as in 2:2, Jesus» disciples remain with him in a family setting. Given the significance of «remain» in 1:38–39, it is reasonable to suspect that their continuance with Jesus here indicates the intimate, familial relationship Jesus has with his followers who persevere (cf. 8:31, 35; 14:23; 15:4); they have become members of his extended household (cf. 20:17; Mark 3:34–35 ). 4592 2. Purifying the Temple (2:13–15) Unless Jesus cleansed the temple twice, which is unlikely, 4593 it is impossible to harmonize John " s chronology for cleansing the temple with that of the Synoptics, as some early interpreters recognized. 4594 One might suggest that John depends on a separate tradition or that Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke, dischronologized the cleansing due to his emphasis on the passion. But more likely John adapts the more familiar chronology of the passion tradition to make an important point. (As noted in the introduction, ch. 1, ancient readers did not expect ancient biographies to adhere to chronological sequence.) The mention of Passover is critical here, framing the unit (2:13, 23); 4595 this context significantly informs Jesus» words about his death in this pericope (2:19). 4596 Together with the final Passover (13:1; 18:28,39; 19:14), this Passover (2:13) frames Jesus» ministry in the Fourth Gospe1. Interpreters have traditionally insisted that the repeated Passovers of the Fourth Gospel provide a chronological outline of Jesus» public ministry, 4597 but they miss the symbolic significance John finds in the Passover. 4598 Not only we who have read the Synoptics and their Markan passion outline, but presumably all early Christians who celebrated the Lord " s Supper, were familiar with the paschal associations of the events of the Passion Narrative ( 1Cor 5:7; 11:23–25 ). More than likely, they also knew of the temple cleansing in this context. 4599 It is historically implausible that Jesus would challenge the temple system by overturning tables yet continue in public ministry for two or three years afterward, sometimes even visiting Jerusalem (although in Johns story world, Jesus does face considerable hostility there: 7:30–52; 8:59; 10:20–21, 31–39; 11:46–57). More than likely, John alludes to common knowledge about the place of the temple cleansing in the tradition, and opens Jesus» ministry with it for theological reasons. Now Jesus» entire ministry is the Passion Week, overshadowed by his impending «hour» (see comment on 2:4). 4600 |
| Probably more helpfully, some interpreters saw Moses» serpent as a positive alternative to the hostile ones that had bitten the people, which had more in common with the serpent in Eden. 5038 (Egyptians used images of snakes as prophylactic magic against snake bites.) 5039 If this tradition is not ad hoc and might be known by John " s audience, he may play on positive connotations of Moses» serpent. Another possibility is that the Son of Man bears humanity " s judgment in death just «as the deadly serpents were representatively judged in the bronze image.» 5040 Then again, the most natural midrashic interpretation would connect Moses» bronze serpent ( Num 21:8–9 ) with his rod that became a serpent (Exod 4:3; 7:9–10, 15), hence functioned as a sign; 5041 in this case, Jesus» crucifixion is itself a «sign» (cf. 2:18–19). Moses stood the serpent on a σημεου, a standard ( Num 21:8–9 LXX; cf. John 2:11, 18; 3:2 ); 5042 thus everyone (πς) bitten, seeing it, would ζσεται, live (cf. 3:15). As some rabbis interpreted «live» in terms of eternal life when convenient, 5043 so here John can midrashically exegete «live» as «have eternal life.» Given material resembling Wisdom of Solomon in the preceding verses (3:12–13), an allusion to that work here would also make sense; in Wis 16the bronze serpent symbolizes salvation (σμβολον … σωτηρας), thus again functions as a «sign.» 5044 Because John emphasizes soteriological vision (see introduction), one might suppose that he emphasizes looking on the serpent, hence on Jesus; 5045 but while John might have approved of such an application, it is less clear that he intended it. Given his own emphasis on vision, it is all the more striking that he leaves it unmentioned here; it remains a very possible interpretation, but not conclusively so. For John, however, the central element of the image is probably the «lifting up,» which he emphasizes elsewhere (cf. 8:28; 12:32), rather than any comparison with the serpent. 5046 «Lift up» certainly refers to the crucifixion here as elsewhere in the Gospel, a usage it can bear very naturally in Palestinian Aramaic 5047 and in ancient Mediterranean thought. |
| The impact of the synagogues» response to the Johannine Christians must have shaped the polemic of the community, and many scholars agree that the secessionists in 1 John seem to be heading toward fully-developed docetism. But neither of these suggestions is original with Brown, and some of the details of his reconstruction, as well as the ingenious manner in which he develops them, are more questionable. His first phase, similar to that proposed by some other scholars, envisions a situation in which the Johannine community consisted of Jews with a low Christology 890 related to the teachings of the Twelve. 891 The situation is not inherently implausible, but it may be debated whether any traditions preserved in the Fourth Gospel address it. In John, the Christology of all true believers (this excludes those who remained in the ranks of Jesus» opponents) is higher than that of any believers described in the Synoptics. Brown himself does not contend that John disagreed radically with his sources; he points out that the terminology of this lower Christology appears in virtually every stratum of NT theology. His hypothesis is logical and explains some of the data, but other hypotheses could explain these features equally wel1. For instance, these terms of «lower» Christology could be included because they reinterpret messianic language from Judaism or other Christian sects with which the community had once been in dialogue; some terms were the heritage of early Christians in genera1. Brown proposes that a second group with a higher Christology subsequently entered the Johannine community, but apparently distinguishes this group from the original group on the basis of the frequent assumption that high Christology is not a primitive feature. This premise, however, is open to serious challenge. Pauline or pre-Pauline material in 1Corinthians, Philippians, and Colossians describes Jesus in similar terms (see ch. 7 of our introduction), and Brown " s reply that these traditions are lower in their Christology than John " s 892 misses the point. |
|
|
