| 551 See Robbins, «Pronouncement Stories» (around 200 in Plutarch " s Lives); Alsup, «Pronouncement Story» (in Plutarch " s Moralia); Poulos, «Pronouncement Story» (close to 500 in Diogenes Laertius). 552 These seem to have been substantially rarer in strictly Jewish works; cf. VanderKam, «Pronouncement Stories» (finding only nineteen «intertestamental» examples, mainly in Γ. Job and Ahiqar); Porton, «Pronouncement Story» (few in the tannaitic stratum, though Porton may limit them too much, as Theissen, Gospels, 120 n. 143 also observes); Greenspoon, «Pronouncement Story» (Philo and Josephus did not add these to biblical narratives, and used them only rarely). 554 Bultmann, Tradition, 88–89, may, however, be too optimistic at how quickly it may have grown in a relatively short span of time; his evidence (e.g., Sir 29:1–6 ) does not adequately support his conclusions. His evidence on 194 presupposes a longer period of time than is likely in the transmission and then redaction of gospel traditions. 555 «Abot R. Nat. 22, §46 B, on R. Akiba and Ben Azzai; m. »Abot 3:9,17 (R. Hanina ben Dosa and R. Elazar ben Azariah). 556 Cf. Diogenes Laertius 2.60; Ariston 1 in Plutarch Sayings of Spartans, Mor. 218A; Themistocles 2 in Plutarch Sayings of Kings and Commanders, Mor. 185A, and Alexander in Dio Chrysotom Or. 2; Alcibiades 1 in Plutarch Sayings of Kings and Commanders, Mor. 186D, and a Spartan in Mor. 234E; Plutarch Marcus Cato 2.4; the story in Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.485; Athenaeus Deipn. 550; and Diogenes Laertius 4.37 (Philostratus LCL 14–15 n.2); note also Musonius Rufus frg. 51, p. 144.3–7, 10–19. See Aune, Environment, 35, on the transference of Greek chreiai, because «they tended to represent what was useful rather than unique» (Malherbe, Exhortation, 100). Sometimes one teacher reused his own speeches; cf. Crosby " s Loeb introduction to Dio Chrysostom Or. 66 (LCL 5:86–87). 558 Still, some of them, such as Taylor, Formation, passim; and Dibelius, Tradition, 62, saw much of the tradition as essentially historical; Bultmann, Tradition, passim, was more radica1. |
| 8324 Probably the direct source for most Jewish teachings on love of neighbor (Barrett, John, 452). 8325 Cf. Hillel " s exhortation to love humanity in m. " Abot 1:12; others in T. Iss. 7(text B); cf. rabbinic examples in Dutheil, «Aimeras.» Despite the ethnic perspective of Jubilees, love of neighbors appears to cross ethnic lines at least among nations descended from Abraham in Jub. 20:2; 36:4. Boer, Morality, 62–72, argues (against some) that Greek sources reveal little evidence of universal love of neighbor. 8326 One Tannaitic tradition may harmonize these emphases: love him if he acts like your people ( " Abot R. Nat. 16 A). 8327 E.g., CD 6.20–21 (though also advising help of strangers); cf. 1QS 8.4, 13; 9.21–22. Boismard, «Epistle,» 159, also notes this characteristic of community cohesion in Josephus (Josephus War2.119) and Philo (in Eusebius Praep. ev. 8.11.2). 8328 Flusser, Judaism, 27–28, contrasting the Scrolls and early Christianity. Flusser (p. 483) sees the Essene doctrine as a reaction against the trend toward love of humanity attested in later rabbinic sources. 8329 Cf., e.g., Menander Rhetor 2.3,384.23–25, which advocates both internal community cohesion and like treatment of strangers. 8330 Kelber, «Metaphysics,» 152–53. His claim that the Gospel is anti-Jewish is addressed in our introduction, ch. 5, under «The Jews,» pp. 214–28. 8333 Less relevant are 9:30; 16:30; this is a matter of Johannine style, though often significant (fourteen times in 1 John, including 1 John 2:3–5; 3:10,16; 4:2,9–10 ); in 1 John it is often a criterion by which believers may test themselves (1 John 2:3, 5; 3:19, 24; 4:13, 17; 5:2; cf. 3:10). 8334 Xenophon Mem. 1.2.3; Quintilian 1.2.26; Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 5.21; Josephus Life 11; Kirschner, «Imitatio»; for an extreme example, see Seneca Controv. 9.3.12–13. Rabbis» behavior might even function as legal precedent (t. Piska 2:15–16; Sipre Deut. 221.1.1; p. B. Mesfa 2:11, §1; Nid. 1:4, §2; Sanh. 7:2, §4; Yebam. 4:11, §8), and in an entertaining illustration one later rabbi hid under his master " s bed to learn from his private ways (b. Ber. 62a). |
| 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 |
| They could not come to Jesus without the Father " s enabling, Jesus claims, because Scripture promised that God " s eschatological people would learn directly from him (6:45). Yet Jesus» interlocutors here fail to «hear» him (cf. 5:37; 6:60; 7:51; 8:38,43,47; 10:3). Jesus claims the fulfillment of the promise that God " s people in the time of restoration would learn from God (Isa 54:13; cf. 1 Thess 4:9); 6184 the Father " s witness should therefore besufficient to bring those who are truly the remnant of Gods people to Jesus ( John 6:45 ). Like other midrashic interpreters, Jesus is explaining the text from the Torah proper in light of a text from the prophets; indeed, allusions to the larger context of Isa 54–55 seem to be presupposed in the rest of the discourse. 6185 (The direct allusion to Isaiah obviates the need to appeal to other ancient claims to direct instruction by God, though they did appear.) 6186 That Jesus appears as the «teacher» from God par excellence in this Gospel is significant (3:2; 6:59; 7:14, 28, 35; 8:20; 18:20); Jesus learned from the Father (8:28; cf. 7:15–17; cf. 8:26, 40) and the Spirit would continue Jesus» ministry (14:26; cf. Luke 12:12; 1Cor 2:13 ). Again, Christology impacts ecclesiology (see our introduction, on background; and comment on 10:3–4). God had taught Israel at Sinai, 6187 and would teach them again at the eschatological giving of his Word (Isa 2:2–4). Here the Father, the great teacher, sends his disciples to Jesus, as John the Baptist had (l:36–37). 6188 Interpreters could debate the identity of the one who sees God in 6:46. On the one hand, Jesus could speak generically about all who see God in him (1:18; 14:7–9). Although that may seem out of place at this point in the Gospel, it fits the context quite well: those who learn from the Father (6:45) also see the Father " s glory as reflected in the Son (6:46; cf. 1:51; 5:37; 11:40; 12:41; 15:24; 1 John 3:6; 3 John 11 ). These believers contrast starkly with Jesus» accusers, who never did see God, despite their claims about Sinai (5:37). On the other hand, and more likely, one could view the «one who has seen God» (6:46) as Jesus (cf. 8:38), the only one in the Father " s bosom (1:18; cf. 1 John 4:20 ) and the one sent directly παρ God (7:29; cf. 1:6). In this case, Jesus as the only one from above (3:13) is the one who causes others to be born from above and see God " s kingdom (3:3). John could therefore be providing an aside: «hearing» and «learning» from God (6:45) differs from «seeing» him (6:46). 6189 In either case, believers ultimately see God " s revelation only by means of the Son. And in either case, this language may allude to the theophany at Sinai as in 1:14–18. 6190 |
| 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. |
| In 3:34, Jesus speaks God " s words (cf. 8:47; 12:47; 14:10,24) because God attested him by the Spirit (cf. also 1:32–33; 15:26); this declaration is primarily christological but also supplies a model for Jesus» followers, who will speak his words because the Spirit is with them (15:26–27; 20:22). Jesus might be the dispenser of the Spirit to humanity (cf. 15:26), 5199 just as the waterpots in 2were to be filled «to the brim.» Jesus is the giver in 4:10; 6:27; 14(cf. Rev 2:7), and the Son indeed exercises delegated authority to carry out God " s works («all things into his hand,» 3:35; 13:3). 5200 In the nearest of the texts in which Jesus is giver, he gives living water, presumably the Spirit (4:10). Conversely, if the subject and object of «give» are the same in 3and 3:35, then the Father gives Jesus the Spirit in limitless measure to Jesus in 3:34. 5201 The Father is the giver to humanity in 3:16,27, to the disciples through Jesus» intervention in 14and 16:23, but specifically to the Son in 3:35; 5:26; 11:22; 13:3; 17:2. That Jesus has the Spirit «without measure» would indicate that the Spirit abides on him (1:32–33) and could contrast him with the prophets, who, even according to later rabbinic tradition, had the Spirit only «by weight,» that is, by measure, meaning that each prophet spoke only one or two books of prophecy. 5202 Jesus provides a well springing forth within each believer (4:14), but the unlimited rivers of water flow from him (7:37–39). If this Gospel leaves a hint that these words reflect John " s thought, John " s words about the Spirit probably allude to his own witness of the Spirit attesting Jesus in 1:32–33. In this context the Son is clearly the special object of the Father " s love (see comment on love in the introduction), which the Father demonstrates by entrusting all things into his hand (3:35; cf. 5:27; 17:2). But the lack of specified object for «gives» (and perhaps its present tense) might support the idea of giving to the world, so in the end it is difficult to settle on the preferred interpretation; but «receives» the Spirit without measure might fit Jesus as the recipient better. The Father " s enormous love for the Son (3:35) becomes the Johannine measure of God " s love for the disciples (17:23), as Christ " s sacrifice attests (3:16). |
| 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 ). |
| At the same time, John may also adapt the phrase to recall the biblical conception of God " s «voice» to his people, which was often equivalent to his covenant word to them through the law or prophets. 7318 Israel especially heard Gods voice at Sinai ( Deut 4:33, 36; 5:22–26; 18:16 ), as some early Jewish interpreters recognized (1QM 10.10–11). 7319 In Scripture, God s voice was his message to his people through the law and/or prophets; thus Israel was to «hear,» that is, «hearken to» or «obey» God " s voice (Exod 15:26; 19:5). 7320 Jewish tradition commented less on the divine voice, except in terms of the heavenly bat qol and prophetic inspiration; 7321 but for the most part God was held to speak only to the very righteous. 7322 Illustrating this principle, we may note that some rabbis even thought that only Moses could hear God " s voice, despite its power. 7323 The point is that God " s true people hear Jesus because they recognize him as the shepherd; thus the very authorities who have excluded the healed man from the synagogue now prove excluded from the people of God. 7324 John often emphasizes «hearing» Jesus 7325 or the Father; 7326 he speaks of hearing God s «voice» in terms of knowing and recognizing God (5:37), of recognizing Jesus» voice (10:3, 16, 27; 18:37; cf. 3:29), of being resurrected by his voice (5:25, 28) and of the mysterious voice of the Spirit (see comment on 3:8). If John and Revelation stem from the same community (as we argued in the introduction), some in John " s audience may have believed they experienced that voice in physical visions or auditions (e.g., Rev 1:10, 12; 3:20; 4:1); in the total context of John " s Gospel, however, the Spirit might reveal Jesus to all believers in ways not always so dramatic (cf. 16:13–15). In the Fourth Gospel, the community continues to hear Jesus through the word, the orally presented message of the enfleshed word (17:20), and the Spirit who reveals Jesus in that word (16:7–15). 7327 Knowing Jesus» voice (10:4) also means knowing Jesus (10:14), a covenant relationship of intimacy no less serious than Jesus» relationship with the Father (10:15; cf. 10:30). The present tense of 5suggests that Jesus obeyed the Father by continuing revelation, and 10:14–15 suggests that the ideal relationship John envisions for believers is one in which they continually receive divine direction as they carry out God " s wil1. Their experience of this life in the Spirit (16:13–15) distinguishes them from their adversaries but links them with the biblical prophets, undergirding their polemic. 7328 The word of the Lord was not innate (5:38; 8:37), 7329 but dwelled in the righteous community (15:7; 1 John 2:14, 24), as a sign of the new covenant ( Jer 31:33 ). |
| 11 This way of seeing virtue as a life in accordance with nature, or with the logos, is typically Stoic, and Maximus’ language here has other Stoic echoes. 12 I.e., he led other human beings, viz. Sarah and the rest of his household, as he led himself, since they all possess the same human nature. 13 ‘Things that are after God’: after, that is, in the scale of being. It is a Neoplatonic use, which in Christian (Maximian) metaphysics has the radical meaning of ‘created beings’. 14 Cf. Luke 10:27 (not exact, the first part is much closer to Deut. 6:5 ). 15 Cf. John 14:6 . 16 Cf. John 10:9 , together with Heb. 9:11–12. 17 Cf. John 15:1 , together with Rom. 11:17 (though Maximus does not use the more appropriate language of grafting from Romans). 18 One of the ‘Chalcedonian’ adverbs. 19 1 John 4:8. 20 Cf Matt. 13:22 and parallels (parable of the Sower). Maximus may, however, have in mind (since he speaks of the thorns planted ‘from the beginning’) the immediately following parable of the Tares (Matt. 13:24–30), even though he speaks of thorns rather than tares. 21 Theosophia: a word first found in Porphyry (who quotes an earlier use), popular among the Neoplatonists, and also used by Denys the Areopagite (e.g., Mystical Theology I.1:997A). 22 The Septuagint reads ‘book’. 23 A cento from Jeremiah: Baruch 4:1–4, 3:14, Jer. 38 [Heb: 31]: 3–4, 6:16. 24 A cento composed of: Bar. 5:1–2 , spliced with Eph. 4:22 and Col. 3:10. DIFFICULTY 10 1 See chapter 5 of the Introduction. 2 Discussed above, chapter 4 of the Introduction. 3 See Jeauneau (1988), 10–11. 4 From St Gregory Nazianzen’s Sermon 21.2, in praise of St Athanasius (PG 35.1084C). 5 This introduces a borrowing from Nemesius, On human nature 12 (Morani 1987 , 68). 6 This again introduces a borrowing from Nemesius, On human nature 41 (Morani 1987 , 117). 7 On these three kinds of motion of the soul, cf. Denys the Areopagite, Divine Names IV.8–10 (704D-705C), who calls the three kinds of motion circular, in a straight line, and spiral. See Gersh (1978), 253, n. 229. |
| 7932 Xenophon Mem. 1.1.4 (divine direction); Boring et a1., Commentary, 292–93, cites Plutarch Oracles at Delphi 21. 7935 McNeil, «Quotation,» and Whitacre, John, 318, also cite Targumic support for a use of Isa 9relevant to this passage, but cf. Chilton, «John xii34.» 7936 E.g., 1 En. 41:1; 2 Bar. 40:3; Midr. Pss. 72:17; cf. Pss. So1. 17:4; see introduction to Christol-ogy; Keener, Matthew, 487–88 and sources cited there. 7937 E.g., 1QS 2.16; 3.13,24,25; 1QM 1.1,9, 11, 13; 3.6; 13.14–15; 4Q176 frg. 12, 13, co1. 1, lines 12, 16; frg. 10–11, 7–9, 20, 26, line 7 (Wise, Scrolls, 235); 4Q298 frg. 1, co1. 1, line 1; 4Q548 lines 10–15. The parallel between Qumran and NT usage (also Luke 16:8; 1 Thess 5:5) is often noted, e.g., Charlesworth, «Comparison,» 414; Vellanickal, Sonship, 36; Wilcox, «Dualism,» 95. The stereotypical expression «sons of light» is the only point at which the Gospel and the Johannine Epistles fail to observe the distinction between Jesus as God " s «son» (υις) and others as his «children» (τκνα, τεκνα, παιδα; see Snodgrass, «ΠΝΕΥΜΑ,» 197 η. 54). 7944 With Michaels, John, 218. See comment on 3:14. Tg. Isa. 52:13–53:4, however, speaks of the Messiah " s strength (52:13) and of only Israel " s sufferings (53:3–4). 7948 Evans, «Isaiah 6:9–10,» also noting that church fathers found in it a predestinarian emphasis. Hollenbach, «Irony,» suggests that the language is ironic because Isaiah " s Judah and John " s «Jews» do not wish to turn or see. 7950 In the NT as a whole, it appears 26 times, especially in Luke-Acts (15 times); and 61 times in the LXX. 7951 E.g., T. Dan 2:2, 4; T. Jos. 7:5; T. Levi 13(associated with hardness, as here); Seneca Ep. Luci1. 50.3; Benef. 5.25.5–6; Epictetus Diatr. 1.18.4; 2.20.37; 2.24.19; 4.6.18; Marcus Aurelius 4.29. For classical parallels, see Renehan, «Quotations,» 20 (though noting that the NT source is the OT– «Quotations,» 21). 7953 Perhaps referring to Sinai. In 2 En. 65:2, eyes to see and ears to hear constituted part of the divine image in humanity. |
|
|
