| Yet in the context of the Fourth Gospel, the informed reader might catch another allusion more immediately: the sixth hour was about noon, the heat of day when many country people preferred to find shade, the same time Jesus» human mortality had been revealed in 4(«weary»). Jesus» «hour» had come (2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 16:21; 17:1), the «hour» for the inbreaking of God " s new era (4:21, 23; 5:25, 28). 5D. «Behold Your King» (19:14b-15) Most significant in 19:14–15 are Pilatés presentations of Jesus to the people as their king; 10063 they respond, however, that they have no king but Caesar (19:15). Within the logic of the story, they continue to claim loyalty to Rome, 10064 the pretense on which Jesus as «king» should be executed (18:29–33; 19:12); their preference for the ληστς Barabbas, however, has demonstrated the insincerity of that loyalty (18:40). Nevertheless, John " s description would undoubtedly evoke among his audience more-sinister thoughts concerning the speakers» meaning; the Fourth Gospel is full of ironic statements not intended by the speakers (e.g., 11:49, 50–52; 12:19). Judaism warned against any act that would profane the divine name among Gentiles 10065 –which in Johannine terms is precisely what these leaders do. The same set of benedictions that cursed the minim (see introduction, pp. 207–14) included a prayer for the coming of Messiah, acknowledging daily the hope for a Messiah " s coming; 10066 more to the point, Israel " s ultimate king was God ( Judg 8:23 ; 1Sam 8:7 ). 10067 While it is difficult to ascertain the antiquity of most of the Passover haggadah, John " s paschal context and the similarity of language do suggest an allusion to the hymn sung at the end of the Greater Hallel in the Passover haggadah: From everlasting to everlasting thou art God; Beside thee we have no king, redeemer, or savior,... We have no king but thee. 10068 The deliberate contrast underlines again the association of the opponents of John " s audience with Romés agendas: those who effectively may hand the Jewish Christians over to Roman discipline by denying their fidelity to Judaism function as Romés instruments the way the chief priests of Jesus» day did, leaving the Jewish Christians the faithful remnant true to the religious heritage of Israe1. (For the demands of the imperial cult in John " s setting, see introduction, pp. 178–79.) As Dahl observes concerning John " s portrayal of the «Jews» in this narrative, «They end up representing the world even in putting Caesar at the place of God, whereas they deny the fundamentals of their own faith and forfeit the history of Israe1.» 10069 |
| 6115 Thus in a biblical text God " s great «work» ( Deut 11:7 ) could refer to his acts of judgment on the disobedient (11:2–6) which Israel had «seen» (11:7), inviting Israel therefore to keep God " s commandments (11:8). That Jesus narrows the answer to a single work and that this «work» is faith (6:29) fits Johannine emphases (see discussion on faith in the introduction) and resembles some other early Christian polemic ( Rom 4:2–5 ). Incredibly, the crowd asks for a sign so they may believe, ignoring the previous sign (6:30); this repeats the Judean behavior in 2:18. Their behavior testifies that they do not wish to see and believe him as they claim, for they have already seen and now simply want more free food (6:26, 36)–that is, an earthly gift from a merely earthly messiah (6:27). They seek a political messiah who will bring political liberation, not liberation from sin (cf. 8:32–36). They place the responsibility for their faith on Jesus instead of on themselves; yet while seeing could lead to believing (20:8), such signs-faith was not the ultimate expression of faith (20:29), and in their case proved unsuccessful anyway, for they did see yet failed to believe (6:36). Scholars dispute the specific biblical allusion in 6:31. John may have blended both Exod 16:4, 15 and Ps 78:24 , being familiar with both the Hebrew and Greek texts. 6116 The most obvious direct allusion is Ps 78 , though it would be midrashically informed by the account of Exod 16 that stood behind it. 6117 In any case, they cite a text which they invite Jesus to fulfill: if he is the prophet like Moses (see comment on 6:14–15), he should be able to provide them bread from heaven on a regular basis, as Moses did. Their proof-text, cited in the familiar Johannine style (Jesus and the narrator elsewhere employ γεγραμμνον; 2:17; 6:45; 10:34; 12:14), 6118 becomes a foil for Jesus» ensuing discourse. («It is written» and similar formulas were common in early Judaism.) 6119 Their «from heaven» stems from Exod 16or perhaps Ps 78:24 6120 and in any case was not unnatural (e.g., Mark 8:11 ), but will immediately remind the informed reader of Jesus (1:32; 3:13,31). Jesus understands his interlocutors» text quite differently from the way they do (6:32). They depend on their ancestors (6:31; cf. 4:12), but their ancestors have died (6:49), and Jesus wishes to address their need rather than that of their ancestors (6:32; cf. 8:39). 3. The Bread of Life (6:32–51) |
| 95 The rest of this section is fairly closely dependent on Nemesius, On human nature 42 (Morani 1987 , 120, I. 25–121, I. 6) 96 For this argument for the unmoved mover, see Aristotle, Physics VIII.5, Metaphysics F.8. 97 ‘Constituent powers’ (systatikai dynameis): relating to essence or being as accidents to substance. See Gersh (1978), 247, n. 205. 98 Maximus sees diastoli as moving down the branches of the ‘Tree of Porphyry’ and systoli as moving up it. The ‘Tree of Porphyry’, taken from Porphyry’s Introduction to Aristotle’s Categories, represents the various universals as an interrelated structure – a kind of ‘tree’ – with the more specific universals as branches of the more general universals. 99 Cf. John Damascene, Exposition of the Faith 13. 100 This introduces a borrowing from Nemesius, On human nature 3 (Morani 1987 , 41–2), also cited by John Damascene, Exposition of the Faith 13 (Kotter 1973 , 37). This definition of place ultimately derives from Aristotle, Physics IV.4. 101 Maximus here and elsewhere (e.g. in sections 5 and 40) seems to use the third person singular imperfect of ‘to be’ (en) in an absolute way to mean ‘exists eternally’. I do not think this is a Neoplatonic usage– Plotinus regards eternity (let alone the One) as being beyond past and future tense, and characterized by an absolute use of the present tense (see Enneads III.7.3.34–6). It is, perhaps, a Christian usage, derived from John 1:1 (En archei en ho logos): Cyril of Alexandria, in his Commentary on St John’s Gospel, comments that ‘Used of God, the word “was” introduces the meaning of his absolute eternity, his being older than any temporal beginning, and removes the thought that he might be made’ (Book 1, c.7, on John 1 :6f.: Pusey 1872 , I.91, II. 5–8). It is also found in the scholia on the Corpus Areopagiticum, ascribed to Maximus (many of which are, however, by John of Scythopolis): on Divine Names 5.8 (which explains how tenses apply to God), we read: ‘“He was”, and what is understood to be included in this, agrees with nothing else than God, because “he was”, considered as anterior to every beginning’ (PG 4. 328A8–11), which is very close to Cyril, but not actually a citation: see also 316BC where the use of en is justified specifically in relation to John 1:1 , though it is not explained there what it means. |
| Here John came so «all» might believe through him; John s mission as depicted elsewhere limits the force of this language; the «all» in a testimony to «all» could be limited by context (3:26). 3477 Jesus is for «all» (1:9; cf. 5:23,28; 11:48; 12:19), and his witness must likewise impact all (13:35). John was «sent» from God (1:6), 3478 fitting the shaliach theme of the Gospel (see introduction), but also reflecting the tradition that he fulfilled ( Mal 3:1 ; see Luke 7:27). Long before the advent of the current emphasis on literary criticism, Karl Barth noted that the verses about the Baptist (1:6–8,15) which intrude so noticeably on the rest of the prologue are there for a purpose. By standing out from the rest of the prologue, 3479 he proposed, they draw our attention to the issue, «the problem of the relation between revelation and the witness to revelation.» 3480 The literary purpose of beginning the Gospel with a witness, John (1:6–8, 15, 19–51), and closing with another witness (whom tradition also calls John, 19:35; 21:24), seems to be to underline the importance of witness for the Johannine community. If God was invisible till Jesus revealed him (1:18), he and Jesus would now remain invisible apart from the believing community modeling in their lives the character of Jesus (1 John 4:12; John 13:35; 17:21–23 ). The World Rejects the Light (1:9–11) The light could overcome darkness, and a witness was provided so people could believe the light. When the light came to them, however, «the world» as a whole rejected the light; even Christ " s own people as a whole rejected him. The remnant who did embrace him, however, would be endued with the light " s character, so they, too, might testify of the light (cf. 1:12–14). 1. The True Light Enlightens Everyone (1:9) In contrast to John (1:8), who was merely a «lamp» (5:35), Jesus was the true light itself (1:9). In this Gospel, adjectives signifying genuineness can apply to Jesus» followers (1:47; 8:31; cf. 1 John 2:5 ), but most often apply to Jesus (5:31; 6:32, 55; 7:18; 8:14; 15:1; cf. 7:26; Rev 3:7) or the Father (3:33; 7:28). In a pagan environment with pluralistic options, designating God as the «true» God (17:3; 1 John 5:20; 1 Thess 1:9) made sense; when contrasting Jesus with lesser alternatives in a Jewish context–here John the Baptist–the designation remained valuable. |
| Thieves and wolves are often listed together as enemies of onés animals, 7422 and a keeper of animals who suspected a thief of stealing animals might find the «thief» to be a natural predator instead. 7423 In a Greek novel, one goatherd complained that no wolf had successfully seized any goats, but that now the enemy (invaders) had taken the goats and would harm them. 7424 Sheep were safer in a flock; once scattered, they became easier prey for attackers ( Ezek 34:8 ); God had complained that Israels leaders had allowed his flock to be scattered 7425 for lack of a genuinely concerned shepherd ( Jer 23:1–2 ; Ezek 34:5–6 ; cf. Ezek 34:21 ; Zech 11:16–17). 7426 God himself would gather and restore his scattered flock ( Jer 23:3 ; Ezek 34:11–16 ; cf. John 16:32–33 ). Here the wolf seeks to «snatch» members of the flock (10:13), but Jesus promises that no wolf can snatch them from his or his Father " s hand ( 10:28–29); a superhumanly empowered shepherd (contrast Gen 31:39 ), Jesus lost none of the flock the Father entrusted to him (6:39; 17:12; 18:9). 4B. The Shepherd " s Relationship with the Sheep (10:14–15) Jesus» sacrifice expresses his care for the sheep (10:11–13) as well as obedience to his Father (10:15,17). His «own» (τα μ) are those sheep the Father has given him (17:9–10), those who are his own (τ δια) mentioned earlier in the passage who are intimate with him. The theme of his relationship with the sheep picks up the image from 10:3–5 (see comment there) and provides a pivotal statement of the theme of knowing God that pervades the Fourth Gospel (see introduction). The healed man came to know Jesus; his opponents admitted that they lacked knowledge of him (9:29; see comment on 9:13–17). Background for the passage lies close at hand, given the likely assumption that John " s ideal audience was biblically literate. God summoned Israel to «know» him in terms of recognizing him and acknowledging his authority. 7427 When John speaks of «knowing» the shepherd " s voice, one could hear this phrase merely in terms of recognition. But the Scriptures could also use «knowing» God as part of the covenant motif (Exod 6:7), especially with regard to the new covenant ( Jer 24:7; 31:33–34 ). In the new covenant, such knowledge of God would stem from God " s word in his peoplés hearts ( Jer 31:33–34 ), and may allude also to the language of covenant marital intimacy ( Jer 31:32 ; Hos 5:4 ), a familiar image (e.g., Gen 4:1 ). 7428 That Jesus» own (his sheep) 7429 «know» him as the Father knows him and he knows the Father (10:14–15) indicates an intimacy that would exceed that of the biblical prophets. 7430 Given the behavior and misunderstandings of the disciples on a narrative level (and Jesus» acknowledgement of it, e.g., 13:38), and its contrast with the perfect relationship in which Jesus walks with the Father, it is doubtful that John wishes us to understand this equation in a quantitative sense even after his resurrection (cf. 1Cor 13:9,12 ). |
| By claiming that he has life in himself, Jesus seems to make a claim to deity. By claiming that the Father delegated this authority to him, however, he acknowledges the Father " s superior rank (5:26). He also claims to live because of the Father (6:57). Polytheistic syncretism could lead to considerable confusion in roles; thus one could address Helios as the «greatest of gods,» «god of gods,» then entreat him for access «to the supreme god, the one who has begotten and made you.» 5892 But in a Jewish context, one might think best of God " s agent, Wisdom or the Logos (see comment on 1:1–18). The claim that the Son would participate in the judgment would probably shock most of Jesus» hearers (see 5:22, above), but now Jesus explains why he will judge (5:27). The Father has committed judgment to his Son, 5893 because his Son is also the Son of Man. The point could be that Jesus participates fully in humanity (1:14) and hence is an appropriate judge for humanity (cf. Heb 5:2); hence the distinctively anarthrous use of «Son of Man» here. 5894 Even in the LXX of Dan 7:13 , however, «Son of Man» is anarthrous, and it is the allusion to that Son of Man that most fully explains Jesus» authority here. (On Jesus» likely historical claim to be Son of Man, see the Christology section in chapter 7 of our introduction, esp. p. 304.) People should not marvel at Jesus» claims, for he would one day demonstrate them by raising all the dead (5:28). 5895 The future form of 5(«an hour is coming») without the present (cf. 5:25) shows that Johns eschatology is not wholly realized, as do other references such as the last day (6:39; cf. 11:24) and the explicit mention of «tombs» in 5:28. (Other texts connect «tombs» with the final resurrection, 5896 but the most likely source of the language here is Isa 26LXX.) 5897 The «tombs» call attention to the later mention of Lazarus " s and Jesus» tombs (11:17,31,38; 12:17; 19:41–42; 20:1–11), from which the physically dead are restored, and in the most dramatic way in the second case. |
| 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). |
| What is most significant about the interaction, however, is that while Jesus» own people accuse him of being a «Samaritan» (8:48) or a «Galilean» (7:40–52), the Samaritan woman recognizes Jesus as a «Jew» (4:9), and he agrees (4:22). 5392 This is one of the clues that John " s use of the title «Jews» in the Fourth Gospel is usually an ironic polemical device. Jesus» opponents» right to the title is then undermined by various clues in John " s narrative (see section on «the Jews» in our introduction, ch. 5). 5. The Gift of Living Water (4:10–14) Jesus provides water greater than that of Jacob and greater than Samaritan holy sites. The informed reader will probably think back to «born of water» in 3:5. Whether her tone includes ridicule or not cannot be ascertained on the basis of her respectful address κριε (4:11, 15, 19; cf. 4:49; 5:7; 6:34). 5393 On Jesus addressing her as γυν (4:21), see comment on 2:4. Jesus» identity, which she will later understand (4:25–26) and declare (4:29), is as yet unknown to her, for if she knew, she would ask for his gift (4:10). 5394 5A. Greater Than Our Father Jacob (4:12) Jesus» superiority to Jacob is central to this story. When the Samaritan woman asks whether Jesus can be greater than Jacob (4:12), it is possible that her tone is mocking; 5395 in any case, she recognizes that to provide water the way he claims, Jesus would have to be greater than Jacob who once provided water (according to a later Jewish and perhaps Samaritan tradition, miraculously). 5396 Nevertheless, the informed reader, knowing the true answer, catches John " s irony, a technique the author also applies elsewhere (7:42; 11:50; 18:38; 19:2–3). 5397 At a different well, Jacob provided water for the flocks ( Gen 29:10 ), but Jesus provides water for whoever would drink, perhaps alluding to the Johannine portrait of disciples as Jesus» sheep (10:3–4). Jacob allegedly «gave» this parcel of land to Joseph (4:5,12); 5398 but the «gift» of God (4:10; cf. 3:16,27; perhaps 3:34) is greater. That Jesus has asked the woman to «give» him a drink (4:7) explicitly contrasts with his own gift (4:10), contrasting (or linking) the human weakness he has endured with the great source of divine blessing he remains. She eventually does ask him for his gift (4:15), although asking with the same sort of misunderstanding found in the crowd " s request for bread in 6:34. |
| The informed reader, however, knows that Jesus is not really a Samaritan: the reader recalls that Jesus denied the centrality of Mount Gerizim as well as that of Jerusalem " s temple (4:21), and told a Samaritan woman that salvation was from the Jews as a people (4:22). John " s Jewish-Christian readers, whose faithfulness to their heritage is being challenged by the synagogues (see introduction, ch. 5), would take heart: Jesus» fidelity to Israel was also wrongly questioned. Many of his own people charged him with being a Samaritan, whereas a Samaritan rightly identified him as a Jew (4:9). They also take the opportunity to respond to another charge of Jesus in their accusation (8:48). If Jesus has accused them of being from the devil (8:44), they hope to return the charge by claiming that he has a demon (8:48; cf. 7:20; 10:20). 6907 In ancient Mediterranean public culture, 6908 particularly in early Judaism, 6909 slander was no small crime. Theirs may represent a charge, not that Jesus is possessed per se, but that he has a spirit under his control, the typical way to do magic (see more fully comment on 7:20). 6910 Charges that Jesus was a magician or guided by an evil spirit figure prominently in early anti-Christian polemic. 6911 Demonization could also be associated with insanity, 6912 as it is explicitly in 10:20. Ancients employed such labeling to control marginal voices viewed as a threat, and evidence suggests that opponents raised such charges even during Jesus» public ministry ( Mark 3:22 ). 6913 That they seem to identify Jesus» Father with an evil spirit suggests to us other attested Jesus tradition ( Mark 3:29–30 ); perhaps John " s first audience also might hear this passage in the context of such traditions (as well as the Johannine traditions themselves, for us no longer extant apart from this Gospel). Jesus honors not a demon but his Father, so by dishonoring Jesus, God " s faithful agent, they dishonor God ( John 8:49 ; cf. 5:23; 1 John 2:23 ), and will answer to the only who who assigns the ultimate honor or disgrace in the end (8:50). In honoring his Father (8:49) Jesus does not seek his own glory (8:50), in contrast to his accusers (5:44; 7:18; 12:43); it was his Father who would vindicate him with glory (5:41; 8:54; 17:5), for he alone had the right to evaluate and bestow glory (8:50). The irony is that in this Gospel Jesus glorifies the Father and receives glory through the cross–truly a glorification his opponents would not seek for themselves. |
| That Jesus» hearers do not understand his appeal to his Father at this point indicates that they do not know Jesus or the Father (8:19). 6669 They do not know where his father is (8:19a), hence cannot know who he is, for the Father is above (8:23), where Jesus is going (8:21). ). On the level of the characters in the story world, their question, «Where is your father?» may function as a mock demand: If you cite a witness, produce him! Wehere is this «father» of whom you speak? That they suspect that Jesus is going to die to get to his Father (8:22) may suggest that they think he refers to a deceased human father; perhaps they could interpret this as dependence on a «ghost» or spirit-guide (cf. 7:20; 8:48). One could construe the matter differently; if 8indicates that some still wished to seize him and could not (rather than that they simply did not do so because they did not understand), it could suggest that they knew he spoke of God hence were enraged by his claim that knowing him was inseparable from knowing his Father (8:19). In the end, however, Jesus» comments show that they probably were unaware that he spoke about God (8:27). In either case, God " s sovereign purpose was the factor restraining the hour (8:20; cf. 7:30). As generally in the biblical tradition and in John in particular (10:4,14; see introduction, ch. 6, on the knowledge of God), «knowing God» implies «no theoretical knowledge of God but spiritual communion with him.» 6670 Jesus came to reveal the Father (1:18), so it is only through him that others know the Father and come to where he is (14:4–10), there worshiping him in truth (4:23–24). Jesus offered these words in the vicinity of the temple treasury (8:20), 6671 where another extant tradition also locates some of his public teaching ( Mark 12:41 ; Luke 21:1). Treasuries were standard in ancient temples, 6672 so that a temple which lacked one was noteworthy. 6673 John " s tradition presupposed some intimate knowledge of the temple on the part of its audience, many of whom must have made pilgrimage to the temple before 70. Yet even after the templés destruction, a Jewish writer could expect some readers to know of «the treasury» (Josephus Ant. 19.294). 6674 This chamber reportedly adjoined the court of women, where the lighting of torches and dances commemorated the light in the wilderness. 6675 Those who had made pilgrimage while the temple remained might well recall such details, and therefore conclude that Jesus» message was available to all Israel gathered at the temple on that day. John " s audience may find a strange sense of disjunction between the holy temple and the opposition to God " s Son occurring there. On Jesus» «hour» not having come, see comment on 7:30; cf. 2:4. |
|
|
