| 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) |
| Interestingly, while some moralists of Jesus» day opined that it was good to allow some of one day " s provision to remain over for another day, 6015 manna was not supposed to be left over for the next day (Exod 16:19–20), because God would continue his miraculous supply as long as Israel remained in the wilderness. As in the Synoptics, Jesus offers this sign on a special occasion of need rather than desiring disciples to depend on it continually (6:26)– just as the manna stopped once natural means of providing food became available (Exod 16:35; Josh 5:12). 6016 Thus Jesus instructs the disciples to gather the food that remains, to be used later (6:12). Although miserliness was regularly condemned, 6017 ancient moralists regularly exhorted against waste and squandering, preferring frugality; this was both a Jewish view 6018 and a broader Mediterranean one. 6019 The ideal was frugality coupled with generosity toward others. 6020 Jewish teachers even instructed passersby to pick up food lying beside the roadside, which could be given to Gentiles for whom it would not prove unclean. 6021 One could argue that the bread symbolizes God " s people, on the basis of the number twelve, the term «lost» (6:12; cf. 6:27, 39 in the ensuing discourse), or other terms here like «gathering.» 6022 But the following discourse plainly applies the symbol of bread to Christ alone (6:32–35, 41, 48, 50–51, 58). That the disciples filled twelve baskets (6:13) simply underlines afresh the abundance of the miracle; there is no need to allegorize the baskets. 6023 Twelve is the maximum number that these disciples could reasonably carry. Guests who slipped out with leftover food in their baskets could be thought to be greedy, stealing the host " s food, or at best ill-mannered; remains belonged to the host. 6024 4. The Prophet-King (6:14–15) The narrative proper includes a christological climax (6:14–15), but the inadequacy of the confession will pave the way for the contrast between the Spirit and mere flesh in 6:63. Jesus» identity did include being a prophet (1:21, 25; 4:19,44; 7:40; 9:17) and a king (1:49; 12:13–15; 18:33,37), but such titles necessarily proved inadequate for him. Those who defined his prophetic and royal identity by the eschatological beliefs of their contemporaries sought a political or military leader (see introduction on Christology)–a fleshly role rather than one from the Spirit (6:63). In John " s day the emperor cult demanded earthly worship (see introduction); Jesus was a higher sort of king (cf. Rev 5:13). But in contrast to the response to Jesus in Judea, the Galilean response, which affirms him to be a prophet and a king, is at least partly correct (cf. Mark 8:29–33 ). 6025 In Galilee he is not altogether a «prophet without honor» (4:44). |
| Conversion: heart and works Recall the introductory quote to this article: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also (Matthew 6 21). Consider Our Lord’s words to the Pharisees: “You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. " ” (Matthew 15: 7-9) Apparently what we have taught one another about ourselves are the “precepts of men.” Wives and husbands, fathers and mothers, their children see each other in terms of the values of the world. Where are the values of Christ? Where is reference to Christian holiness, virtue and sanctity? Where are answers like: I see (husband, wife, mother, father, child): Let us recall that our primary purpose on earth is to know, love and serve God; eventually attain Him indwelling in us that we may “become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) We are called to be saints. Since we are called to be saints, let us look at the lives of three saints who grew up in Orthodox Christian homes. In his description of the upbringing of St. Dorotheos of Gaza, Wheeler (1977) writes that the saint’s life experiences ” … would argue [for] a solid Christian home life.” George Bebis in his introduction to the Spiritual Counsels of St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain (Chamberas, 1989) writes of the early life of the saint: “His parents were pious people…he was distinguished by his exceptional alertness, his industry, his labors and his love for religious and secular learning.” Monk Paisius in describing the young life of St. Paisius Velichkovsky, (St. Paisius Velichkovsky, 1994), who revitalized Orthodox spirituality in the 18th century, tells us in his early years his “..soul and heart tasted the truth through the Church services, the writings of the Holy Fathers, and above all the Sacred Scriptures — and he wanted the fullness of Christ’s revelation.” And later the biographer monk writes: “This distinguished St. Paisius from a 17-year-old of today. Having a foretaste of the life to come, he clearly knew what was being sought — union with the Truth.” |
| 13 Anathema 11 of Constantinople II: Tanner (1990), 119. 14 Sherwood (1952), 3; see his full analysis of Amb. 7 in Sherwood (1955a), 72–222. 15 On Messalianism and the Macarian Homilies, see Stewart (1991). 16 See the footnote, ad loc. Other allusions to the Macarian Homilies can be found by consulting the index fontium in the editions of Maximus’ works in Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca. See the Bibliography. 17 See, e.g., Amb. 20 (1236D-1241D) and Myst. 5 (672D-684A). 18 See, e.g., Amb. 19:1236C, Myst. prologue: 660B. 19 On Maximus’ understanding of religious experience, see Miquel (1966). 20 See des Places (1966), 9–10, citing Marrou (1943). 21 The quotation is from Century on Spiritual Knowledge 5 (des Places 1966 , 86) and concerns the meaning of thelesis: Opusc. 26:277C; Dialogue with Pyrrhus [Opusc. 28], 28:301 C. 22 See des Places (1966), 66–7, and also his article in Heinzer and Schonborn (1982), 29–35. 23 See Louth (1981), 125–31. 24 On Cappadocian thought see Otis (1958), and also, more recently but hardly as succinctly, Pelikan (1993). On the influence of the Cappadocians on Maximus, see G.C.Berthold in Heinzer and Schonborn, (1982), 51–9. 25 For a brief attempt to tackle this question see Louth (1993a). 26 See below, chapter 5 of the Introduction, and Amb. 41. 27 For more detail on Denys the Areopagite, see Louth (1989) and Rorem (1993). 28 See Suchla (1990), 1–91. 29 See Siddals (1983) and (1987). 30 See Louth (1986). 31 Translation from Luibheid (1987), 153f. 32 See the important paper: Gould (1989). 33 There has been considerable scholarly dispute about Maximus’ debt to the Areopagite; for further detail, see Louth (1993b). 34 See Amb. 71, below, and Andia (forthcoming). 3 MAXIMUS’ SPIRITUAL THEOLOGY 1 LP l. 97–106 (CCSG 23, pp. 32f.). 2 Psa. 44.3, quoted by Maximus in CT I.97 and Amb. 10.17:1128A, in reference to the transfigured Christ. 3 Bousset (1923), 304, cited by Sherwood (1955b), 235, n. 356. 4 For an introduction to Evagrius, see Louth (1981), 100–13; and for more on his influence among the Greek and the Syrians, see Guillaumont (1962). For Maximus’ attempt to correct Evagrian metaphysics, see below, chapter 5 of the Introduction. |
| The disciples have reason to be fearful of «the Jews» within the story world. These authorities (see introduction, pp. 214–28) engineered the execution of their teacher, and the authorities» Roman allies normally sought to stamp out followers of leaders regarded as treasonous. 10669 But their fears do not take into account Jesus» promise to return to them (which they do not at this point believe); they act like the secret believers John has so often condemned for acting «on account of fear of the «Jews»» (7:13; 19:38; cf. 12:42). But whereas some secret believers became more public with their faith under persecution (19:38), those who had been faithful to Jesus in happier times now have abandoned and denied him (16:31–32; 18:25, 27). If the first disciples had reasons to fear, John " s audience probably has similar reasons to fear the successors of the Judean authorities in their own day and therefore will learn from the model of assurance Jesus provides in this passage. Although John informs his audience only that the doors were «shut,» this itself is sufficient, given the circumstances for which they were shut (20:19), to imply that they were secured shut, that is, locked or bolted (cf., e.g., Matt 25:10). Normal residences had doors with bolts and locks, 10670 which one might especially secure if expecting hostility (T. Job 5:3). Those familiar with the passion tradition might envision a spacious room in well-to-do upper-city Jerusalem ( Mark 14:15 ; Luke 22:12; Acts 1:13), where such features would also be likely to be assumed. John may record that the doors were locked for two reasons. First, he may wish to underline the nature of the resurrection body 10671 –corporeal (20:20) but capable of acting as if incorporeal (20:19), 10672 though presumably not like the «phantoms» of Greek thought that could pass through the thong of a bolt in a door 10673 (which would contradict the image of 20:20). Some have argued that Jesus» body was not yet glorified, on the basis of 20(some cite also Luke 24:39–43); they suggest that John merely neglects to mention that the disciples opened the doors for him. But the repetition of the closed doors in 20:26, again as the context of Jesus» sudden appearance among them, is emphatic; John wishes to underline that Jesus appeared despite closed doors and to the disciples» astonishment. 10674 As Witherington notes, «The one who could pass through the grave clothes and leave a neat pile behind would not find locked doors any obstacle.» 10675 Second, through the locked doors, John underlines the fear of the disciples before Jesus» coming, a deliberate contrast to the boldness implied for their mission to the world after he has imparted his presence to them(20:21–23). 10676 |
| 2340 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 3. Cf., e.g., Vermes, Religion, 5,73–74; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 257. 2342 For Elijah and Elisha as examples of healing miracles in Josephus, see Betz, «Miracles,» 219–20. 2346 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 171; Meeks, Prophet-King, 163–64; Horsley, «Prophets»; see Josephus Ant. 20.97–99, 168–172; War 2.259, 261–263; 6.283ff. For a Greco-Roman context for signs-prophets, consult Kolenkow, «Miracle» (her Jewish examples are actually less convincing). 2348 See further Betz, «Miracles,» 222–30, on the «signs» (smeia) of the messianic prophets; their signs invited faith, but some responded with unbelief (pp. 224–25). 2350 E.g., Isa 12:2; 35:1, 8–10; 40:3; 51:11; Hos 2:14–15; 11:1–5, 10–11 ; Zech 10:10. In Isaiah, see Glasson, Moses, 15–19. Daube, Pattern, addresses exodus typology through the OT; he notes that no other OT patterns of deliverance are comparable to the exodus motif (11–12). 2351 E.g., t. Ber. 1:10; b. Ber. 12b (attributed to Ben Zoma); Exod. Rab. 2:6; Lev. Rab. 27:4; Deut. Rab. 9:9; Pesiq. Rab. 31:10; Teeple, Prophet, 51; in Matthew, see Davies, Setting, 25–93. Note the exodus as «Israel " s first salvation» (CD 5.19) and «first visitation» (CD 7.21). 2352 Deut 18:18 ; Gen. Rab. 100:10; Deut. Rab. 9:9; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:8; see further Meeks, Prophet-King, 246–54; Longenecker, Christology, 34–37,72–73; Mauser, Wilderness, 55–56; Patte, Hermeneutic, 173 (on Pss. Sol); and on the «hidden Messiah» tradition some commentators find in John 7 ; in the DSS, see Aune, Prophecy, 126 (who cites 1QS 9.10–11; 4QTest 1–20). Many scholars appeal to the new Moses picture in NT interpretation (e.g., Georgi, Opponents, 174; Hengel, Mark, 56), although its prominence in Judaism increased in the later period. 2353 Jub. 48:4; L.A.B. 9:7; Sipre Deut. 9.2.1; 4Q422 frg. 10 line 5; see further Meeks, Prophet-King, 162–63. 2356 Cf., e.g., Smith, «Typology,» 334–39; Meeks, Prophet-King, passim; Schnackenburg, John, 1:527. The ten plagues of Exodus (cf. the ten miracles for Israel at the sea in Mek. Bes. 5.1, Lauterbach 1:223) are paralleled in the seven plagues of Revelation, but probably also in the Fourth Gospel " s seven signs; compare the water turned to blood with water turned to wine as the first sign in each (Smith, «Typology,» 334–35, on John 2:1–11 and Exod 7:14–24). The seven signs may follow the midrash on Exodus implied in Wis 11–19 (Clark, «Signs»); the seven miracles of Pirqe R. E1. 52 are probably irrelevant (the document probably dates to the ninth century; see Strack, Introduction, 225–26). |
| Because Pilate demands Jesus» origin (19:9) after hearing that he claimed to be God " s «son» (19:7), his question may imply an understanding of origin language that Jesus» Jewish interlocutors had earlier misapprehended: he refers to ultimate rather than geographical origin (cf. 1:46; 7:41–42,52), 10014 and Jesus is from God. Jesus is «from heaven» (3:13,31; 6:32–33,38,41–42,51), «from above» (8:23; cf. 3:3; 17:14,16), «from God» (3:2; 7:28; 8:42; 13:3). Jesus» unwillingness to answer at this point (19:9) may exemplify the ancient theme of «divine» philosophers refusing to answer worldly judges 10015 but is broader than that, reminiscent of the Maccabean martyr tradition (see comment on the Passion Narrative) or anyone defying authorities for a higher cause. In this case, Jesus» silence here (although he earlier speaks more than in the Synoptics–18:36–37) fits the Markan line of tradition ( Mark 15:5 ). Pilate responds to Jesus» silence with hostility (19:10). Roman law did not interpret silence as a confession of guilt, 10016 but failure to respond to charges could leave a case onesided and hasten conviction; 10017 if a defendant failed to offer a defense, the judge would normally ask about the charge three times before the defendant would be convicted by default. 10018 Neither legal custom is at issue here: as noted above, Pilate is not bound by the ordo and can act at his own discretion. 10019 Rather, he seems simply exasperated that Jesus fails to recognize both his office and his attempts to act on Jesus» behalf (cf. the amazement in 4 Macc 17:16). It was appropriate to express confidence in the jurors» or judgés integrity, to secure their favor (Lysias Or. 9.21, §116; Isaeus Estate of Astyphilus 35; Cicero Verr. 2.1.7.18; Pro rege Deiotaro 15.43; Quinct. 2.1, 10; 9.34; Rosc. com. 3.7). Sometimes a legal debater might also appeal to the judgés interests; for example, the defendant is said to have slandered the judge (Cicero Verr. 2.4.40.86–41.90; 2.4.42.90). If Pilate had wished to free Jesus, he might view Jesus» failure to cooperate in terms of the sort of philosophers (see comment on 18:37–38) who regarded death as unimportant (beginning with the Socratic tradition)–the sort of passive, harmless philosophers whose martyrdom merely multiplied them. 10020 Whether he sees Jesus as a deluded philosopher, a divine man, or some sort of philosophical divine man (see introduction, pp. 268–72), he is plainly irritated by Jesus» unwillingness to cooperate with the one person who might pose a barrier to his crucifixion. Philosophers without worldly means regularly disdained the masses, 10021 and Brown may be correct that Pilate «understands that by not answering Jesus is somehow looking down on him.» 10022 |
| 1 John 3:17 ); but in the gospels which record the saying, the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus and/or the urgency of serving him while he remains with them, since he was soon to depart. 5. The Danger to Lazarus (12:9–11) The narrative (12:10–11) rings with irony: Jesus went to Judea, risking his life to give life to Lazarus; now Lazarus " s new life may cost him his life. The paradigm for disciples could not be clearer: those who would follow Jesus must be prepared to die (12:25,27), for the world will hate them and wish to kill them (15:18; 16:2). But faith would not be decreased by such martyrdom-producing new life; the sign of Lazarus " s new life brought others to faith (12:11; cf. 11:45,48). 7534 He would also go to Lazarus, who was dead (11:14–15), which Thomas ironically misinterprets–yet inadvertently correctly applies–as lesus going to the realm of death and his disciples following him there (11:16). 7535 Since «friend» applies to all disciples (15:15), there is no reason to find in the cognate «beloved» (11:3) an allusion to the «beloved» disciple (pace Nepper-Christensen, «Discipel,» and others; see our introduction, pp. 84–89) or to one of two such disciples in the Gospel (Vicent Cernuda, «Desvaido»). 7537 There are other exodus parallels (e.g., 3:14), but paralleling the signs and plagues could work at best only at the level of general categories (contrast explicit parallels in Rev 8–9; 16): perhaps darkness for healing the blind (Exod 10:21–22; John 9:5 ), but then why does John mention darkness in 8and 12:35, 46 but mention only «night» in 9:4? Crop-destroying locusts (Exod 10:13–14) could oppose the bread of life, but its exodus background is really manna; likewise, Jesus heals (4:50–53; 5:8–9; 9:7) but the object is not boils (Exod 9:9–11). 7538 Pearce, «Raising»; cf. the caution of Smith, John (1999), 217. A connection with Luke 10:38–39, while unlikely, is more plausible than the allusion to the parable of Lazarus (Luke 16:20; the figure in the parable–who is not raised–could as easily derive from the event later reported in John; both stories are quite different, as noted by Streeter, Gospels, 389); Eleazar was a common name (see below). |
| John apparently declares that Jesus lays down his life 7443 «in order that» he might take it again (10:17); on this reading the resurrection «is not a circumstance that follows the death of Jesus but the essential completion of the death of Jesus.» 7444 The term tva could connote result rather than purpose here, 7445 and appears in some unusual senses in John (e.g., 17:3); but given John " s usual practice, it most likely connotes purpose here. 7446 The cross is necessary in part as a precursor to the resurrection. It is also part of Jesus» obedient relationship with his Father (10:17–18; cf. 14:31; 15:10). Even more explicitly than in the Synoptics, in this Gospel Jesus» cross is his choice and not that of his enemies (10:15,17–18; 15:13; 19:30);he acts on behalf of his sheep (10:15),to save them (11:50; cf. 1:29). Divided Response to Jesus (10:19–21) On the division (10:19), see comment on 7:43; 9:16. The unity of the new flock (10:16) would come at the expense of division in the first-century synagogues (cf. Acts 13:42–50; 18:6–8; 19:8–9). Even to listen to Jesus was offensive to some (10:20), just as some of John " s contemporaries probably felt that it was wrong to listen to the Jewish Christians. 7447 Certainly some early second-century rabbis considered even listening to schismatics a dangerous exercise. 7448 (On the charge of demonization, see comment on 7:20; 8:48.) Others, however, were impressed by the miracle (10:21) which had started the current debate (9:1–38). John closes this section by pointedly referring his audience back to the sign on which the following debate commented. 7010 On the relation between vision and epistemology in the chapter, see also Marconi, «Struttura di Gv 9,1–41»; for the language in general, see introduction, ch. 6. 7013 Witherington, Christology, 170–71, cites, e.g., Tob 11:10–14; SIG 2 807.15–18; 1173.15–18; SIG 3 1168. 7016 Witherington, Christology, 170, citing Mark, John, and Q (the Matthean summary and uniquely Markan examples he cites do not add to these). |
| Applying his motif of agency, John reports that just as those who opposed the disciples opposed Jesus (15:18–21), so those who oppose Jesus oppose his Father, who sent him (15:21, 23). The world " s hatred (15:19, 24–25; 17:14) will not surprise a reader by this point; Jesus had already warned that those who did evil were those who hated the light (3:20) and that the world hates one who reveals its sin (7:7). Jesus» «signs» and other works revealed enough of his identity and sender that those who hated him could be said to have beheld both him and his Father (15:24; cf. 14:7). 9142 Those who rejected him were without excuse; as Jesus has repeatedly emphasized, his works revealed his identity and sender, and hence rejection of him exposed the true state of his opponents» hearts (14:11; see comment on 10:32, 37–38). Jesus cites their own law against them (15:25). Because Jewish literature reports pagans speaking to Israel of «your law,» 9143 one could argue that the Fourth Gospel here preserves a non-Jewish perspective. But John repeatedly enlists the support of the law, which he accepts as authoritative (e.g., 2:17,22; 5:45–47; 19:36–37). Jesus applies to Scripture the formula «in order that [the word] might be fulfilled» (15:25; 13:18; 17:12), which elsewhere in this Gospel refers to Jesus» own teaching (18:9, 32) as well as to Scripture (12:38; 19:24, 36); it is difficult to think of a more authoritative claim for Scripture than that the events of the passion had to occur to fulfill it. The use of «your» or «their» law means «the law which even they profess to accept» (10:34) 9144 and probably implies irony (see our introduction, pp. 214–28). 9145 «They hated me without cause» reflects the language of various psalms ( Ps 35:19; 69:4; 109:3 ; cf. 35:7); 9146 because Ps 69comes from the same context as Ps 69:9 , quoted in John 2:17 , commentators generally prefer this reference if a specific text is in view. 9147 3. Witnesses against the World (15:26–27) In the context (15:18–25; 16:1–4), the passage about witness refers not to some timid words (cf. 20:19) but to a bold counteroffensive; the «world» far outnumbers believers, but believers depend on God, whose power can at any time overrule the purposes of the world (cf. 18:9; 19:11). That the world " s hostility frames these comments on witness does not imply that they are simply a later insertion into a foreign context: both 15:18–25 and 16:1–4 are constructed distinctively. The previous pericope (15:18–25) includes two quotations, one from Jesus himself (15:20) and one from Scripture (15:25). The following pericope (16:1–4) is carefully constructed and set apart from 15:18–25 by its inciusio, suggesting an intended break between 15:18–25 and 16:1–4. |
|
|
