|
|
The
Gospel according to John
Introductory material by R.E. Brown,
(Introduction to the New
Testament, 1997)
Stylistic Features
§1. Poetic
format.
§2. Misunderstanding?
§3. Twofold meanings.
§4. Irony.
§5. Inclusions and transitions.
§6. Parentheses or footnotes
General Analysis of the Message
Prologue
(Jn 1:1-18)
Part One: The Book of Signs
(1:19-12:50)
Part Two: The Book of Glory
(13:1-20:31)
Epilogue (21:1-25)
Areas to Consider:
Summary of Basic
Information
Date: 80-110. Those who think that the
Gospel was redacted (edited) by another hand after the main writer composed
it may place the body of the Gospel in the 90s and the additions of the
redactor ca. 100-110, about the same time as III John.
Traditional (2d-century) Attribution: To
John, son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve.
Author Detectable from Contents: One
who regards himself as representing (standing in the tradition of) the disciple whom Jesus loved. If
one posits a second redactor, he too may have been in the same tradition.
Plausibly there was a school of Johannine writing disciples.
Place of
Writing: Traditionally and plausibly, the Ephesus area, but some opt for
Syria.
Unity of the Text: Some think sources (collection of
"signs"; collection of discourses; passion narrative) were
combined; others think of a process of several editions. In either case, plausibly
the body of the Gospel was completed by one writer, and a later
redactor made significant additions (chap. 21; perhaps 1:1-18); but no text of the Gospel has
been preserved without these "additions."
Integrity of the Text: The story of the woman caught
in adultery (7:53-8:11) is an insertion missing from many mss.; see Issue
1 below.
Division of this Gospel:
1:1-18: Prologue: An
introduction to and summary of the career of the incarnate Word.
1:19-12:50: Part One:
The Book of Signs:
The Word reveals himself to the world and
to his own,
but they do not accept him.
1. Initial days of the revelation of
Jesus to his disciples under different titles (1:19-2:11).
2. First to second Cana miracle; themes
of replacement and of reactions to Jesus (chaps. 2-4): changing water to
wine, cleansing the Temple, Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman at the well,
healing the royal offi cial's son.
3. Old Testament feasts and their
replacement; themes of life and light (chaps. 5-10): Sabbath - Jesus, the
new Moses, replaces the Sabbath ordinance to rest (5:1-47); Passover - the
Bread of Life (revelatory wisdom and the eucharist) replaces the manna
(6:1-71); Tabernacles - the Source of living water and the Light of the
world, replaces the water and light ceremonies (7:1-10:21); Dedication -
Jesus is consecrated in place of the Temple altar (10:22-42).
4. The raising of Lazarus and its
aftermath (chaps. 11-12): Lazarus raised to life, Jesus condemned to death
by the Sanhedrin, Lazarus's sister Mary anoints Jesus for burial, entry to
Jerusalem, the end of the public ministry and the coming of the hour
signaled by the arrival of Gentiles.
13:1--20:31: Part Two:
The Book of Glory:
To those who accept him, the Word shows
his glory by returning to the Father in death, resurrection, and ascension.
Fully glorified, he communicates the Spirit of life.
1. The Last Supper and Jesus' Last
Discourse (chaps. 13-17):
(a) The Last Supper (chap. 13): the meal,
washing of the feet, Judas' betrayal, introduction to discourse (love
commandment, Peter's denials foretold);
(b) Jesus' Last Discourse (chaps. 14-17)
Division One (chap. 14): Jesus'
departure, divine indwelling, the Paraclete;
Division Two (chaps. 15-16): vine and
branches, the world's hatred, witness by the Paraclete, repeated themes of
Division One;
Division Three (chap. 17): the
"Priestly" Prayer.
2. Jesus' passion and death (chaps.
18-19): arrest, inquiry before Annas with Peter's denials, trial before
Pilate, crucifixion, death, and burial.
3. The resurrection (20:1-29): four
scenes in Jerusalem (two at the tomb, two inside a room).
Gospel Conclusion (20:30-31): Statement
of purpose in writing.
21:1-25: Epilogue: Galilean resurrection
appearances; second conclusion.
John has some
significant stylistic features that should be brought to the readers' attention
from the start. Then, as with the preceding chapters, in the General
Analysis we shall read through the Fourth Gospel in its present form,
tracing its thought patterns before theorizing about the origins of this
Gospel. That theorizing will come in subdivisions devoted to such topics as:
- John
as a genuine Gospel,
- Comparison to the Synoptic Gospels,
- Unity and
cohesiveness,
- Authorship role of the Beloved Disciple,
- Influences on
Johannine thought,
- History of the Johannine community,
- Issues for reflection, and
- Bibliography.
Stylistic Features
John is a Gospel
where style and theology are intimately wedded, as we shall see in features
discussed below.
In a few sections
of John many scholars recognize a formal poetic style, even marked by
strophes, e.g., the Prologue and perhaps Jn 17. But the issue raised here is
much wider: the uniquely solemn pattern in the Johannine discourses that some
would call semipoetic. The characteristic feature of this poetry would not be
parallelism of lines (as in the OT) or rhyme, but rhythm, i.e., lines of
approximately the same length, each constituting a clause. Whether or not one
agrees that the discourses should be printed in poetic format, the fact that
Jesus speaks more solemnly in John than in the Synoptics is obvious. One
explanation draws on the OT, where divine speech (God speaking through the prophets or
personified divine Wisdom) is poetic, signaling a difference from more
prosaic human communication. The Johannine Jesus comes from God, and
therefore it is appropriate that his words be more solemn and sacral.
Although he comes
from above and speaks of what is "true" or "real" (i.e.,
heavenly reality), Jesus, the Word-become-flesh, must use language from below
to convey his message. To deal with this anomaly, he frequently employs figurative language or metaphors to describe himself or to present his
message. In an ensuing dialogue the questioner will misunderstand the figure
or metaphor, and take only a material meaning. This allows Jesus to explain
his thought more thoroughly and thereby to unfold his doctrine. Stemming from
the Johannine theology of the incarnation, such misunderstanding has become a
studied literary technique. (See Jn 2:19-21; Jn 3:3-4; Jn 4:10-11; Jn
6:26-27; Jn 8:33-35; Jn 11:11-13.)
Sometimes playing
into misunderstanding, sometimes simply showing the multifaceted aspect of
revelation, a double meaning often can be found in what Jesus says.
(a) There
are plays on various meanings of a given word that Jesus uses, meanings based
on either Hebrew or Greek; sometimes the dialogue partner may take one
meaning, while Jesus intends the other. (Various terms in Jn 3:3,8 (n. 20
below); "lifted up" in Jn 3:14; Jn 8:28; Jn 12:34 (crucifixion and
return to God); "living water" in Jn 4:10 (flowing water and
life-giving water); "die for" in Jn 11:50-52 (instead or on behalf
of),
(b) The author frequently intends the reader to see
several layers of meaning in the same narrative or in the same metaphor. This
is understandable if we think back to the circumstances in which the Gospel
was composed, involving several time-levels. There is a meaning appropriate
to the historical context in the public ministry of Jesus; yet there may be a
second meaning reflecting the situation of the believing Christian community.
For example, the prediction of Jesus that the Temple sanctuary would be destroyed and replaced in Jn 2:19-22 is reinterpreted to refer to the
crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus' body. The Bread of Life discourse
seems to refer to divine revelation and wisdom in Jn 6:35-51a and to the
eucharist in Jn 6:51b-58. As many as three different meanings may have been
intended in the imagery of the Lamb of God (Jn 1:29,36: apocalyptic lamb,
paschal lamb, and suffering servant who went to slaughter like a lamb),
(c)
Duplicate speeches. Occasionally a speech of Jesus seems to say essentially
the same thing as a speech already reported, sometimes to the point of
verse-to-verse correspondence. A possible solution is that a
redactor (an editor who worked over the Gospel after the evangelist had finished
the basic work) found in the tradition other versions of discourse material
duplicating in part the versions that the evangelist had included and added
them at an appropriate place lest they be lost. (Compare Jn 3:31-36 to
Jn 3:7-18; Jn 5:26-30 to Jn 5:19-25; Jn 10:9 to Jn 10:7-8; Jn
10:14 to Jn 10:11; Jn 16:4b-33 to Jn 14.) At times there is a
different tone in the duplicate material.
A particular combination of twofold meaning
and misunderstanding is found when the opponents of Jesus make statements
about him that are derogatory, sarcastic, incredulous, or, at least,
inadequate in the sense that they intend. However, by way of irony these
statements are often true or more meaningful in a sense that the speakers do
not realize. (Jn 3:2; Jn 4:12; Jn 6:42; Jn 7:35; Jn 9:40-41; Jn 11:50.)
The careful structure
of the Gospel is indicated by certain techniques. By inclusion we mean that
John mentions a detail (or makes an allusion) at the end of a section that
matches a similar detail at the beginning of the section. This is a way of
packaging sections by tying together the beginning and the end. Large inclusions are Jn 1:1 with Jn 20:28; Jn 1:28 with Jn 10:40; smaller
inclusions are Jn 1:19 with Jn 1:28; Jn 2:11 with Jn 4:54; Jn 9:2-3 with Jn
9:41; Jn 11:4 with Jn 11:40. By way of transition from one subdivision of the
Gospel to the next, the evangelist likes to use a "hinge" motif or section - one
that concludes what has gone before and introduces what follows. E.g., the
Cana miracle concludes the call of the disciples in chap. 1, fulfilling the
promise in Jn 1:50, but also opens the next subdivision of Jn 2:1--4:54 that
runs from the first Cana miracle to the second. The second Cana miracle
concludes that subdivision, but by stressing Jesus' power to give life (4:50)
prepares for the next subdivision (5:1-10:42) where Jesus' authority over
life will be challenged.
Frequently John
supplies parenthetical notes, explaining the meaning of Semitic terms or
names (e.g., "Messiah," "Cephas," "Siloam,"
"Thomas" in Jn 1:41,42; Jn 9:7; Jn 11:16), offering background for
developments in the narrative and for geographical features (e.g., Jn 2:9; Jn
3:24; Jn 4:8; Jn 6:71; Jn 9:14, Jn 22-23; Jn 11:5,13), and even supplying
theological perspectives (e.g., clarifying references from a later standpoint
in Jn 2:21-22; Jn 7:39; Jn 11:51-52; Jn 12:16,33; or protecting Jesus'
divinity in Jn 6:6,64). Some of these may reflect a situation where a
tradition transmitted at first in one context (Palestinian or Jewish) is now
being proclaimed in another context (diaspora or Gentile).
Close attention to
the detailed outline at the beginning of the Chapter will be helpful; for, as
§5 above indicates, the Gospel has been carefully arranged to illustrate
themes chosen by the evangelist.
Serving as a
preface to the Gospel, the Prologue is a hymn that encapsulates John's view
of Christ. A divine being, God's Word (Jn 1:1,14), who is also the light (Jn
1:5,9) and God's only Son (Jn 1:14,18) comes into the world and becomes
flesh. Although rejected by his own, he empowers all who do accept him to
become God's children, so that they share in God's fullness - a gift
reflecting God's enduring love that outdoes the loving gift of the Law
through Moses. The background of this poetic description of the descent of
the Word into the world and the eventual return of the Son to the Father's
side (1:18) lies in the OT picture of personified Wisdom (especially Sirach
24 and Ws 9) who was in the beginning with God at the creation of the world
and came to dwell with human beings when the Law was revealed to Moses. In
agreement with the tradition that John the Baptist's ministry was related to the
beginning of Jesus', the Prologue is interrupted twice, viz., to mention John the Baptist
before the light comes into the world (1:6-8) and to record JBap's testimony
to Jesus after the Word becomes flesh (1:15). This testimony will be picked
up in Part One to follow.
This part of the
Gospel will show Jesus bringing different types of people to believe in him
while at the same time provoking many among "the Jews" to
hostility. At the end (12:39-40) the Gospel quotes Is 6:10 to the effect that
God has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts that they might not see.
Thus this "Book" illustrates the theme from the Prologue (Jn 1:11):
"To his own he came; yet his own did not accept him."
1. Initial Days of
the Revelation of Jesus to His Disciples, under Different Titles (1:19-2:11).
In a pattern of separate days (Jn
1:29,35,43; Jn 2:1)12 John shows a gradual recognition of who Jesus is. On
the first day (Jn 1:19-28) John the Baptist explains his own role, rejecting
laudatory identifications and predicting the coming of one of whom he is
unworthy. On the next day (Jn 1:29-34) John the Baptist explains Jesus' role. As
befits "one sent by God" (Jn 1:6), John the Baptist perceptively recognizes
Jesus as the Lamb of God, as one who existed beforehand, and as God's chosen
one (or Son - disputed reading of 1:34). On the next day (Jn 1:35-42)
Jesus is followed by Andrew and another disciple of John the Baptist (the one who by the
second part of the Gospel will have become the disciple whom Jesus loved?).
Andrew hails Jesus as teacher and Messiah, and Simon (Andrew's brother) is
brought to Jesus, who names him "Cephas" (i.e., rock = Peter; cf.
Mk 3:16; Mt 16:18). On the next day (Jn 1:43-51) he (Andrew, Peter,
or Jesus?) finds Philip, who in turn finds Nathanael, and Jesus is
identified successively as the one described in the Mosaic Law and the
prophets, as the Son of God, and the King of Israel. Yet Jesus promises that
they will see far greater things and speaks of himself as the Son of Man upon
whom the angels ascend and descend. The "far greater things" seem
to begin in Cana on the third day (Jn 2:1-11) when Jesus changes water to
wine and his disciples come to believe in him.
Certain Johannine
theological emphases appear in this first subsection. A legal atmosphere
colors the narrative, e.g., John the Baptist is interrogated by "the Jews," and he testifies and does not deny - an indication that some of the Johannine
tradition was shaped in a forensic context, possibly in a synagogue where
Christians were interrogated about their belief in Jesus. As for christology,
it can scarcely be accidental that John places in these initial days
confessions of Jesus under many of the traditional titles that we find
scattered in the other Gospels, most often later in the ministry (see Mt
16:16). It is almost as if the evangelist wants to portray as elementary the
christological tradition known to the other Gospels and to begin his Gospel
at a stage where the others end. For the other Gospels the sight of the Son
of Man accompanied by the angels will come only at the end of time; for John
that occurs during the ministry because the Son of Man has already come down
from heaven. Also this subsection portrays discipleship. Jesus poses an
initial question in Jn 1:38, "What are you looking for?" and
follows in Jn 1:39 by "Come and see." Yet it is only when they
remain with him that the first followers become believers. Then in a
consistent pattern the initial disciples go out to proclaim Jesus to others
with a christological perception deepened through that very action, as
illustrated in the "higher" titles given to Jesus day after day.
2. First to Second
Cana Miracle (chaps. 2-4).
The Cana scene is
"the first of his signs"15 (2:11); and thus like a swinging door (Stylistic
Feature §5 above), it both closes the initial revelation and opens the
next major subdivision that terminates in Jn 4:54, where we are told that the
healing of royal official's son announced at Cana "was the second sign
that Jesus performed on returning again from Judea to Galilee." The
theme of replacement runs through Jesus' actions and words in the three
chapters thus marked off.
In the initial
Cana miracle (2:1-11), which John calls a sign,
Jesus replaces the water prescribed for Jewish purifications (in stone jars
containing more than 120 gallons) by wine so good that head waiter wonders why
the best has been kept until last. This represents the revelation and wisdom
that he brings from God (Pr 9:4-5; Sirach 24:20(21)), fulfilling the OT
promises of abundance of wine in the messianic days (Am 9:13-14; Gn
49:10-11). An intertwined motif involves the mother of Jesus, whose
family-style request on behalf of the newly married ("They have no
wine") is rebuffed by Jesus on the grounds that his hour had not yet
come. Yet the mother's persistence that honors Jesus' terms ("Do whatever
he tells you") leads him to grant her original request - similarly in
the second Cana sign where the royal official's persistence wins his request
after a rebuff (Jn 4:47-50; cf. Mk 7:26-29). The mother of Jesus will
reappear at the foot of the cross (Jn 19:25-27), where her incorporation into
discipleship will be completed as she becomes the mother of the Beloved
Disciple. Meanwhile, in a transitional verse (2:12) we find that she
and Jesus' "brothers" followed him to Capernaum, but no farther
when he began his public ministry by going to Jerusalem.
Situated in
Jerusalem near Passover,17 the next subsection (2:13-22), treats
Jesus' attitude toward the Temple. It has parallels in two Synoptic scenes:
the cleansing of the Temple (Mk 11:15-19, 27-28 and par.) which takes place
not long before Jesus is put to death, and the witnesses at the Sanhedrin
trial on the night before the crucifixion, who falsely testify that Jesus
said he would destroy the Temple sanctuary (Mk 14:58; Mt 26:61; cf. Ac 6:14).
In John the scenes are combined and placed early in the ministry; the
sanctuary statement is on Jesus' lips (phrased, however, as "You destroy,"
not as "I will destroy"); and the replacement is not another
sanctuary but the same one which will be raised up. Leaving aside the insoluble
issue of which tradition is more historical, we note two peculiar Johannine
theological emphases. By showing the antagonism of "the Jews" from
the very beginning, John illustrates the utter incompatibility between Jesus
and his own who do not receive him (see Jn 1:11). Also in John's
interpretation the sanctuary is Jesus' body, "destroyed" by
"the Jews" but raised up by Jesus. Thus the Jerusalem Temple, which
has been turned into a marketplace, has been replaced by the body of Jesus as
the true holy place. According to 2:23-25 many in Jerusalem believed in
Jesus because of signs he was doing, but he did not trust their faith
because it stopped at the miraculous aspect of the sign and did not perceive
what was signified. This transitional observation introduces one of these
would-be believers to Jesus who appears in the next subsection.
The Nicodemus
scene (Jn 3:1-21) is the first of the important
Johannine dialogues. This Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin, comes to Jesus
"at night" (i.e., because he does not yet belong to the light) and
acknowledges him as a "teacher who has come from God." By that
designation Nicodemus means only "raised up by God," whereas Jesus
has actually come from God. Thus Nicodemus is a representative spokesman of
an inadequate faith,19 as becomes evident when Jesus explains that only
begetting from above enables one to enter the kingdom of God, i.e., begetting
of water and Spirit. The Johannine Jesus speaks of the very life of God
acquired only when one is begotten by God ("from above"), which
takes place when one is baptized in water and receives God's Spirit.
Nicodemus is thinking of natural birth from a Jewish mother that makes one a
member of the chosen people, a people that the OT considers God's child (Ex
4:22; Dt 32:6; Ho 11:1). Such a pedigree is rejected in Jn 3:6, for the only
thing that flesh can beget or give birth to is flesh. The Johannine Jesus,
then, is radically replacing what constitutes the children of God,
challenging any privileged status stemming from natural parenthood. Typical
Johannine irony surfaces in 3:9-11: To the Nicodemus who came saying "We
know" but cannot understand, Jesus, speaking on behalf of those who do
believe, counterpoises: "We are talking about what we know and we are
testifying to what we have seen." Jesus' surety about the need for
begetting from above stems from his own having come from above. The dialogue
now becomes a monologue as Nicodemus fades into the darkness whence he came
(until he reappears still hesitantly as a hidden follower in Jn 7:50-52, and
finally publicly in 19:39-42). In Jn 3:15-21 Jesus proclaims for the first
time the basic Johannine theology of salvific incarnation: He is God's Son
come into the world bringing God's own life, so that everyone who believes in
him has eternal life and thus is already judged.
John the Baptist's final
witness to Jesus (Jn 3:22-30), resuming Jn 1:15,
Jn 19-34, is in the context of Jesus' own baptizing22 (which helps to
reinforce the baptismal reference in the "water and Spirit" of
3:5). Opposition to Jesus on the part of John the Baptist's disciples enables John the Baptist once
more to clarify just who he is not and the greatness of the one for whom he
has prepared. The image is that of the bridegroom's best friend protectively
keeping watch over the house of the bride (Israel), waiting to hear the
approach of the bridegroom (Jesus) as he comes to take her to his home.
The style of the
puzzling speech in Jn 3:31-36 is that of the Johannine Jesus; and it
seems to duplicate things said in Jn 3:7, Jn 11-13, Jn 15-18, thus supporting
the thesis of those who claim that the redactor supplemented the work of the
evangelist by adding other forms of material already found there. However,
the context suggests that John the Baptist is the speaker. Like Jesus he has been sent by
God, and so does he speak like Jesus? Following this, 4:1-3 supplies a
geographical transition from Judea toward Galilee.
On this journey
Jesus stops in Samaria at the well of Shechem/Sychar. The dialogue with
the Samaritan woman and its aftermath (4:4-42) is the first full example
of Johannine dramatic ability. In it a character who is more than an
individual has been developed in order to serve as a spokesperson for a
particular type of faith-encounter with Jesus. The portrayal centers on how
one first comes to faith and the many obstacles that stand in the way.
Smarting from the
injustice of Jewish treatment of Samaritan women, she rebuffs Jesus' request
for a drink. Jesus does not answer her objection but responds in terms of
what he can give her, i.e., living water which she misunderstands as flowing
water, contemptuously asking him if he thinks he is greater than Jacob. By
Johannine irony, Jesus is greater; but once again Jesus refuses to be
sidetracked and explains that he is speaking of the water that springs up to
eternal life, a water that will permanently end thirst. With masterly touch
John shows her attracted on a level of the convenience of not having to come
to the well. Then in typical Johannine style Jesus shifts the focus to her
husband in order to make progress in another way. Her reply is a half-truth
and the all-knowing Jesus shows that he is very aware of her five husbands
and her living with a man who is not her husband. The very fact that the
story continues shows that Jesus' effort to bring her to faith will not be
blocked by the obstacle of a far-from-perfect life, even though that is
something she must acknowledge. Confronted with such surprising knowledge of
her situation, the woman finally shifts to a religious level, seeking to
avoid further probing by bringing up a theological dispute between Jews and
Samaritans as to whether God should be worshiped in the Jerusalem Temple or
on Mount Gerizim in this very area. Again Jesus refuses to be sidetracked;
for although salvation is from the Jews, a time is coming and is now here
when such an issue is irrelevant, for cult at both sacred sites will be
replaced by worship in Spirit and truth. Nimbly the woman once more seeks to
avoid the personal issue by changing the perspective to the distant future
when the Messiah comes; but Jesus will not let her escape. His "I am
(he)" confronts her with a current demand for faith.
John now (4:27-39)
adopts the double-stage technique, reporting the reaction of the disciples as
they return to center stage at the well, while the woman goes off backstage
to the village. Although the disciples have been with Jesus, their
misunderstanding of Jesus' food is just as crass as the woman's
misunderstanding of the water. The woman's hesitant "Could this be the
Messiah?" means that she is seeking reinforcement, which is supplied by
the Samaritans from the village who come to believe when they encounter Jesus
(4:40-42). Their words to her, "No longer is our faith dependent on your
story, for we have heard for ourselves," reflect Johannine theology that
all must come into personal contact with Jesus. Plausibly this story reflects
Johannine history in which Samaritans came into the community alongside Jews,
but that is beneath the surface. More obvious is the continued theme of
replacement (here of worship at the Temple) and the contrast between the more
open faith of the Samaritans and the less adequate belief of those at
Jerusalem (2:23-25) and Nicodemus.
The second sign
at Cana (4:43-54) terminates this subdivision. It
resembles the first Cana story in that the petitioner is rebuffed but
persists, and so has the petition granted. The story of the royal official's
son (huios) is probably a third variant of the story of the
centurion's servant (pais), which has two slightly different forms in
Mt 8:5-13 and Lk 7:1-10. The variants are of a sort that could arise in oral
tradition, e.g., English "boy" (one translation of pais) can
mean both son and servant. In the sequence of Johannine themes the
transitional 4:43-45 speaks of an inadequate faith that gives no honor to a
prophet in his own country (cf. Mk 6:4; Lk 4:24). This sets up a contrast to
the faith illustrated by the royal official who believes that what Jesus has
said will happen and returns home on the strength of it, ultimately leading
his whole household to faith (cf. Ac 10:2; Ac 11:14; Ac 16:15,34). To
Nicodemus Jesus had spoken of a (life-giving) begetting/birth from above; to
the Samaritan woman he had spoken of water springing up to eternal life; now
he gives life to the royal official's son. This prepares for a key saying in
the next subdivision that the Son grants life to whomever he wishes (Jn
5:21).
3. OT Feasts and
Their Replacement (chaps. 5-10).
That theme of life
which will be developed in Jn 5-7 will yield to the theme of light in Jn
8-10- both of them motifs anticipated in the Prologue. A more dominant motif,
however, is the sequence of Jewish feasts that move through this subdivision
(Sabbath, Passover, Tabernacles, Dedication), and on each something Jesus
does or says plays on and to some extent replaces a significant aspect of the
feast.
On the Sabbath
Jesus heals and thus gives life, leading to a hostile dialogue (Jn 5:1-47). The combination of a miracle and a
discourse/dialogue that brings out the miracle's sign-value is a Johannine
technique (see also Jn 6). Here, on the occasion of an unnamed "feast of
the Jews" that is also a Sabbath (Jn 5:9), Jesus cures a lame man who
has been waiting to be healed at the pool of Bethesda. His instruction to
take up the mat violates the Sabbath law (as verified later in the codified
directives of the Mishna). The explanation that Jesus offers to "the
Jews" does not appeal to humanitarian grounds, as in Lk 13:15-16; Lk
14:5, but to his supreme authority, as in Mk 2:28 and par. The logic seems to
be that, although people should not work on the Sabbath, God continues to
work on that day. God is Jesus' Father, and the Father has given to the Son
power over life and death. "The Jews" recognize what is being
claimed; "They sought all the more to kill him because not only was he
breaking the Sabbath but, worse still, he was speaking of God as his own
Father, thus making himself God's equal" (5:18). Thus, more than in
other Gospels, in John a lethal antipathy toward Jesus appears early and
consistently, and a claim to divinity comes through clearly. Understandably
many scholars think that we have here double exposure: memories of hostility
to Jesus during his ministry on which have been superimposed the later
experiences of his followers who were accused of ditheism by Jewish
authorities, i.e., of making a God of Jesus and thus violating the
fundamental tenet of Israel: The Lord our God is one. The answer in 5:19-30
is subtle: the Son does nothing of himself, but the Father has given all
things to him. In 5:31-47 five arguments are advanced as testimony as if they
were advanced in synagogue debates: God (Another) has testified on Jesus'
behalf; so also John the Baptist, and the works that Jesus is doing, and Scripture, and
finally Moses who wrote about Jesus.
At Passover time
Jesus multiplies the loaves and fish and gives a discourse on the Bread of
Life (6:1-71). There are two Synoptic accounts of
the multiplication (followed in the first instance by the walking on the
sea); and charts in BGJ 1:239-44 show how in some details John's account
seems closer to the first Synoptic account and in other details closer to the
second Synoptic account. The introduction of Philip and Andrew as characters
who prepare for Jesus' response is typically Johannine (Jn 1:40, Jn 43-44; Jn
12:22); and John has peculiar features that could heighten the eucharistic
symbolism in the multiplication. The combination of marvelously supplied food
and walking on water echoes Moses' miracles in the Exodus after the first
Passover (manna, Red Sea), even as the murmuring of 6:41 matches the similar
action of Israelin the desert wanderings (Ex 16:2,8). Accordingly a
comparison of Jesus and Moses follows: Moses did not give the true bread from
heaven because those who ate the manna died (Jn 6:32,58). Whereas the
Synoptic accounts do not tell us the reaction of those for whom the bread and
fish were multiplied, John has the crowd find and put demands on Jesus the
next day as evidence that they did not really see beyond the miraculous to
what was signified. Jesus did not come simply to satisfy earthly hunger but
to give a bread that would nourish people for eternal life, and the discourse
that follows31 seems to give two interpretations of how this would be done.
First, in Jn
6:35-5la Jesus is the Bread of Life in the sense that his revelation
constitutes teaching by God (6:45), so that one must believe in the Son to
have eternal life. The language, "No one who comes to me shall ever be
hungry, and no one who believes in me shall ever again be thirsty"
(6:35), echoes the promise of divine Wisdom32 in Sirach 24:21(20). Second, in
Jn 6:51b-58 Jesus is nourishment in another sense, for one must feed on his
flesh and blood to have eternal life. The themes of 6:35-51a are duplicated
but now in language evocative of the eucharist. Indeed 6:51b, "The bread
that I shall give is my own flesh for the life of the world," might well
be the Johannine eucharist formula comparable to "This is my body which
is (given) for you" of Lk 22:19; 1 Co 11:24. Taken as a whole the two
parts of the discourse in Jn 6 would reveal that Jesus feeds his followers
both through his revelation and his eucharistic flesh and blood. In response
some of Jesus' disciples murmur about this teaching (6:60-61) even as did
"the Jews" (6:41-43,52). On the level of Jesus' ministry this
unfavorable reaction is to his claims about the heavenly origins of the Son
of Man; on the level of community life it may reflect a rejection by other
Christians of a high view of the eucharist. Simon Peter and the Twelve are
among those who do not go away, for they recognize that Jesus has the words
of eternal life. (Thus despite its failure to speak of "apostles"
or give a list of the Twelve, John's Gospel inculcates respect for them.) The
Synoptic confessional scene refers to Peter as "Satan" (Mk 8:33; Mt
16:23), but for Jn 6:70-71 Judas is the devil who, Jesus already knows, will
give him over.
The next Jewish
feast, Tabernacles (Tents, Booths), seems to
cover 7:1 to 10:21, before the mention of the feast of Dedication in 10:22.
This eight-day-long pilgrimage-feast on which Jews went up to Jerusalem,
besides celebrating the Sept./Oct. grape harvest, was marked by prayers for
rain. A daily procession from the pool of Siloam brought water as a libation
to the Temple where the court of the women was lighted by immense torches -
thus themes of water and light. Refusing a request of his
"brothers" that smacks of disbelief, Jesus goes up to Jerusalem at
his own initiative and secretly (7:1-10). Thoughts about him produce a
division (7:11-15), reflecting John's theme that Jesus causes people to judge
themselves. Jesus' dialogue with "the Jews" in 7:16-36 recalls
previous hostility over violating the Mosaic Law and culminates with a warning
that he will not remain much longer and is going away to the One who sent
him. The replacement for the water theme of the feast comes to the fore on
the last day of Tabernacles in 7:37-39 as Jesus announces that from within
himself (the more likely reading) shall flow rivers of living water, i.e.,
the Spirit that would be received when he was glorified (see 19:34). The
division over Jesus, leading to a failed attempt to arrest him (7:40-49),
brings Nicodemus back on the scene, defending Jesus but still not professing
that he is a believer (7:50-52).
The continuation35
in 8:12-59 introduces the replacement for the light theme of the feast as
Jesus proclaims himself to be "the light of the world." The legal
atmosphere of defensive testimony against Jewish charges returns,36 and the
situation becomes very hostile, e.g., suggestions of illegitimacy, charges
that the devil is the opponents' father. It ends with one of the most awesome
statements attributed to Jesus in the NT, "Before Abraham even came into
existence, I AM" (8:58), which brings about an attempt to stone Jesus
(implicitly for blasphemy).
Chap. 9, describing
how the man born blind came to sight, is the masterpiece of Johannine
dramatic narrative, so carefully crafted that not a single word is wasted.
"The light of the world" motif (9:5) and the reference to the pool
of Siloam (9:7,11) provide a loose relationship with the Tabernacles feast
that evidently has kept Jesus in Jerusalem. The man born blind is more than
an individual; he has been developed as a spokesperson for a particular type
of faith-encounter with Jesus. The Samaritan woman exemplified the obstacles
encountered in coming to believe in Jesus on the first encounter. The blind
man, having washed in the waters of Siloam (the name is interpreted as "the
one sent," a Johannine designation for Jesus), exemplifies one who is
enlightened on the first encounter, but comes to see who Jesus really is only
later - after undergoing trials and being cast out of the synagogue. This
could be seen as a message to Johannine Christians who have had a similar
experience, encouraging them that through their trials they have been given
an opportunity to come to a much more profound faith than when they first
encountered Christ. The intensifying series of questions to which the man
born blind is subjected, the increasing hostility and blindness of the
interrogators who eject him from the synagogue, the blind man's growing
perceptiveness about Jesus under the interrogations, and the parents'
apprehensive attempt to avoid taking a stand for or against Jesus - all these
are developed masterfully into a drama that could easily be enacted on a
stage to illustrate how, with the coming of Jesus, those who claim to see
have become blind and those who were blind have come to sight (9:39).
In the narrative
sequence the metaphorical discourse on the good shepherd (10:1-21), although
it has a certain autonomy, is directed to the Pharisees whom Jesus accused of
being blind in 9:40-41. This and the description of the vine in 15:1-17 are
the closest that John comes to the parables so common in the Synoptics. In
John there is a mixture of metaphors offering different ways of looking at
the same reality: Jesus is the gate by which the shepherd goes to the sheep,
and by which the sheep come into the fold and go out to pasture; and Jesus is
the model shepherd who both knows his sheep by name and is willing to lay
down his life for them. On the level of Jesus' ministry this would be aimed
at the Pharisees who are the pictured audience; on the level of Johannine
church life this may be a critique of other Christians who have introduced
human shepherds (pastors) who might seem to rival the claims of Christ. The
famous passage in 10:16 where Jesus, referring to other sheep not of this
fold, expresses his goal of one sheep herd, one shepherd suggests that, when
the Gospel was written, division among Jesus' followers was a problem.
The next Jewish
feast is Dedication (Hanukkah: 10:22-42) that
celebrates the dedication of the altar and the reconstruction of the
Jerusalem Temple by the Maccabees 164 bc) after several years of desecration
under Syrian rulers. This festal theme is replaced when in the Temple portico
Jesus claims to be the one whom the Father consecrated and sent into the
world (10:36). The issues raised against Jesus about being the Messiah and
blaspheming because he said he was God's Son resemble the substance of the
Sanhedrin inquiry recounted by the Synoptic Gospels just before Jesus died
(cf. Jn 10:24-25,36 and Lk 22:66-71). Faced with attempts to stone and to
arrest him, Jesus defiantly proclaims, "The Father is in me, and I am in
the Father." By way of inclusion the evangelist now has Jesus go back
across the Jordan to where the story began in 1:28, and there the witness of
John the Baptist still echoes (10:40-42).
4. The Raising of
Lazarus and Its Aftermath (chaps. 11-12). This subdivision serves as a bridge
between the Book of Signs and the Book of Glory. Jesus gives life to i
Mzarus (11:1-44), even as he gave light to the blind man (see 11:37) and
thus performs the greatest of his signs; yet paradoxically the gift of life
leads to the decision of the Sanhedrin that Jesus must die (11:45-53), a
decision that will bring about his glorious return to the Father. In the
account of the man born blind a dialogue explaining the sign-value followed
the healing; but in the raising of Lazarus the dialogue that explains this
sign precedes - to have conversation after Lazarus emerges from the tomb
would be an anticlimax. In the dialogue Martha already believes that Jesus is
the Messiah, the Son of God (comparable to Peter's confession in Mt 16:16),
and that her brother will rise on the last day; but Jesus leads her to an
even deeper faith. Jesus is not only the resurrection but also the life, so
that whoever believes in him will never die. Lazarus's miraculous return to
life fulfills Martha's aspiration but is still only a sign, for Lazarus will
die again41 - that is why he emerges from the tomb still bound with the
burial clothes. Jesus comes to give an eternal life impervious to death, as
he will symbolize by emerging from the tomb leaving his burial clothes behind
(20:6-7).
A Sanhedrin
session (11:45-53) is provoked by the size of the
following gained by Jesus and the fear that the Romans might intervene to the
detriment of the nation and the Temple ("holy place"). Caiaphas,
high priest in that fateful year, is enabled to utter a prophecy, though he
does not recognize it. He means that Jesus should die in place of the nation,
but John sees this to mean that Jesus will die on behalf of the nation and
indeed "to gather together even the dispersed children of God and make
them one." Jesus' fate is sealed by the Sanhedrin who plan to kill him,
and the intermediary verses (11:54-57) prepare for the arrest at
Passover.
The two scenes that
follow have parallels in the Synoptics but in reverse order. At Bethany
six days before Passover Mary, the sister of Lazarus, anoints Jesus' feet (Jn 12:1-11). This action is closely paralleled in Mk 14:3-9; Mt 26:6-13,
where at Bethany two days before Passover an unnamed woman pours ointment on
Jesus' head. Both forms of the story have the motif of preparing Jesus for
burial. The scene on the next day when Jesus triumphantly enters Jerusalem (Jn 12:12-19) has a close parallel in the entrance into Jerusalem in Mk
11:1-10; Mt 21:1-9; Lk 19:28-40, which took place considerably earlier. Only
John mentions palm branches, and Jesus' choice of an ass seems almost by way
of corrective reaction pointing to the king promised in Zechariah who is to
bring peace and salvation (Zc 9:9-10).
The end of the
public ministry is signaled by the arrival of Gentiles (12:20-50), which causes Jesus to exclaim "The hour has
come" and to speak of a grain of wheat that dies in order to bear much
fruit. The atmosphere resembles that of Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane on the
night before he dies in Mk 14:34-36 and par. In both scenes Jesus' soul is
troubled/sorrowful. In Mark he prays to the Father that the hour might pass
from him; in John he refuses to pray to the Father that he might be saved
from the hour since this was why he had come - different reactions mirroring
what would later be called the humanity and divinity of Jesus. In Mark he
prays that God's will should be done; in John he prays that God's name be glorified
- variants of petitions in the "Our Father" and thus reflections of
Jesus' prayer style. The responding voice from heaven in Jn 12:28-29 is
mistaken for an angel; this resembles the appearance of an angel as a
response in Lk 22:43 and Jesus' claim that if he wanted the Father would have
sent more than twelve legions of angels in Mt 26:53 - interesting examples of
variation within different preservations of the Jesus tradition. The failure
of the crowds to accept the proclamation of the Son of Man becomes in John
12:37-41 a fulfillment of Isaiah's prediction that they will never believe.
True, some in the Sanhedrin believe in Jesus; but fearing the Pharisees and
not willing to confess, they do not proclaim the glory of God (12:42-43).
Once more we suspect that the evangelist also has in mind those in the
synagogues of his own time who do not have the courage to confess Christ. The
last word of Jesus in the ministry summarizing the Johannine message
(12:44-50) resembles the opening summary addressed to Nicodemus in 3:16-21:
The light has come into the world constituting the occasion of self-judgment
between those who believe in him and are delivered from darkness and those
who reject him and are condemned.
The theme of chaps.
13-20 is enunciated in 13:1 with the announcement that Jesus was aware that
the hour had come for him to pass from this world to the Father, showing to
the very end his love for his own who were in this world. In the five
chapters that describe the Last Supper only "his own" are present
to hear Jesus speak of his plans for them, and then in the three chapters
that describe the passion and death and resurrection Jesus is glorified and
ascends to his Father who now becomes their Father (20:17). Thus this
"Book" illustrates the theme of the Prologue (1:12-13): "But
all those who did accept him he empowered to become God's children,"
i.e., a new "his own" consisting of "those who believe in his
name," not those who were his own people by birth.
1. The Last Supper
and Jesus' Last Discourse
(chaps. 13-17).
In all the Gospels Jesus speaks at this
meal on the night before he dies, but in John the discourse lasts much
longer.
(a) In initial
sections of the Last Supper (chap. 13), John's narrative has parallels to
Synoptic material where at table Jesus talks about Judas44 and (there or
afterwards) warns that Simon Peter will deny him three times. Yet in place of
Jesus' words over the bread and wine, John has the washing of the disciples'
feet, a loving act of abasement that serves as an example for his disciples.
Also unique to John is the presence of "the disciple whom Jesus
loved." Acting as an intermediary for Simon Peter, who is placed at a
distance from Jesus, this Beloved Disciple leans back against Jesus' chest to
ask the identity of the one who will give Jesus over. Mentioned only in the
Book of Glory, characteristically the Beloved Disciple is close to Jesus and
contrasted with Peter (see p. 369 below).
After Judas has
gone out into the night (symbolic of Satanic darkness), John supplies a short
introduction (13:31-38) to the Last Discourse as Jesus speaks once more of
his coming glorification and issues his new commandment: "As I have
loved you, so you too must love one another." This is "new"
not because the OT was lacking in love but because there are now two
peculiarly Christian modifications: The love is to be empowered and modeled
on the way Jesus manifested love for his disciples by dying and rising for
them (see also Rm 5:8), and it is a love to be extended to one's fellow
Christian disciples.
(b) In the body of
Jesus' Last Discourse (chaps. 14-17) he speaks to "his own" as he
contemplates his departure. This Discourse is a unique composition,
comparable to Matthew's Sermon on the Mount or to Luke's collection of Jesus'
words spoken on the way from Galilee to Jerusalem. John's Discourse presents
as one final message diverse material found in the Synoptics not only at the
Last Supper but also scattered through the public ministry. Poised between heaven
and earth and already in the ascent to glory, the Johannine Jesus speaks both
as still in the world and as no longer in it (Jn 16:5; Jn 17:11). This
atemporal, nonspatial character gives the Discourse an abiding value as a
message from Jesus to those of all time who would believe (Jn 17:20). In
terms of form and content it resembles a "testament" or farewell
speech46 where a speaker (sometimes a father to his children) announces the
imminence of his departure (see Jn 13:33; Jn 14:2-3; Jn 16:16), often producing
sorrow (Jn 14:1,27; Jn 16:6,22); he recalls his past life, words, and deeds
(Jn 13:33; Jn 14:10; Jn 15:3,20; Jn 17:4-8), urging the addressees to emulate
and even surpass these (Jn 14:12), to keep the commandments (Jn 14:15,21,23;
Jn 15:10,14), and to keep unity among themselves (Jn 17:11, 21-23). He may
wish the addressees peace and joy (Jn 14:27; Jn 16:22,33), pray for them (Jn
17:9), predict that they will be persecuted (Jn 15:18,20; Jn 16:2-3), and
pick a successor (Paraclete passages).
Division One of
the Last Discourse (chap. 14). Stressing the
theme of departure, Jesus consoles his disciples by a promise to return to
take them to himself so that they may be with him. Throughout, the flow of
the Discourse is furthered by those present who pose questions reflecting
their misunderstanding, and so Thomas' question (14:5) leads to one of the
most famous proclamations in the Gospel: "I am the way and the truth and
the life," and Philip's question (14:8) leads to Jesus' "Whoever
has seen me has seen the Father... I am in the Father and the Father is in
me." This mutual divine indwelling leads, in turn, into the theme of how
the Spirit (14:15-17), Jesus (14:18-22), and the Father (14:23-24) will all
dwell in the Christian.
Of particular interest
is the designation of the Spirit as the Paraclete. Unlike the neuter word (pneuma)
for Spirit, parakletos, literally "the One called
alongside," is a personal designation picturing a Spirit called in after
Jesus' departure as "advocate"49 to defend Christians and
"consoler" to comfort them. Just as Jesus received everything from
the Father and while on earth is the way to know the Father in heaven, so
when Jesus goes to heaven, the Paraclete who receives everything from Jesus
is the way to know Jesus. Jesus, however, is the divine Word incarnate in one
human being whose stay in this world with his followers is temporary; the
Paraclete does not become incarnate but dwells in all who love Jesus and keep
his commandments and is with them forever (14:15-16). Two features are
characteristic: He is in a hostile relationship to the world which cannot see
or recognize him (14:17) and he serves as a teacher explaining the
implications of what Jesus said.
The latter motif
appears in the second Paraclete passage of chap. 14 (v. 26), and then Jesus
gives his gift of peace, accompanied by a warning that the Prince of this
world is coming (14:27-31b). Jesus' final words in the chapter (14:31c),
"Get up! Let us leave here and be on our way," seem to signal the
end of the Last Discourse and would lead perfectly into 18:1, "After
this discourse Jesus went out with his disciples across the Kidron
valley."
Division Two of
the Last Discourse (chaps. 15-16).
That three chapters
of Discourse follow Jn 14:31c is very surprising and has led many to posit an
insertion added later to the original work of the evangelist by a redactor
(p. 367 below). That Jn 16:4b-33 seems to treat many themes of Division One
and yet to suppose that the audience knows nothing of those themes has suggested
that this insertion consisted of an alternative Last Discourse which the
redactor did not want to have perish. Be all that as it may, let us look at
the individual subsections.
Jn 15:1-17: The
vine and the branches. Alongside the shepherd comparison of chap. 10, this is
the other significant Johannine instance of parabolic/ allegorical language.
In the OT Israel is frequently pictured as God's choice vine or vineyard,
nurtured with consummate care only to yield bitter fruit. We have seen Jesus
replacing Jewish institutions and feasts; now he portrays himself as the vine
of the New Israel. As branches united to him, Christians will bear fruit
pleasing to God, the vinedresser. Although the vine will not wither and fail,
branches will fall and have to be removed and burned. Some would compare this
image of the Christian community to Paul's image of the body of Christ (1Co
12:12-31); but while Paul's imagery is invoked to regulate the relation of
Christians to each other, John's imagery is concerned only with their
indwelling in Jesus. As part of his comments on the image, Jesus proclaims
again his commandment, "Love one another as I have loved you" (Jn
15:7-17, esp. 12; cf. Jn 13:34-35). That love includes a willingness to lay
down one's life for others.
Jn 15:18-16:4a: The
world's hatred; witness by the Paraclete. Jesus' stress on the necessity of
love among his followers is related to his perception of how the world hates
him and those whom he has chosen out of the world. If at the beginning of the
Gospel we were told that God loved the world (Jn 3:16), "the world"
is now coterminous with those who have rejected the Son whom God sent to save
it. The fact that Jesus has come and spoken makes this rejection sinful (Jn
15:22). The Paraclete will come and continue the witness on behalf of Jesus,
and those who have been with Jesus from the beginning must bear witness (Jn
15:26-27). They should recognize, however, that they will be expelled from
the synagogue and even put to death for such witness. This section of the
Johannine Last Discourse resembles part of the final speech of Jesus before
the Supper in Mk 13:9-13 (see also Mt 10:17-22).
16:4b-33: Themes
resembling those of Division One (Jn 14). In Jn 16:4b-7 Jesus reiterates what
he said at the beginning of the Discourse (Jn 14:1-5) as he announces his
departure, discusses where he is going,52 and recognizes that his disciples'
hearts are troubled. Once more there are two Paraclete passages: The first in
Jn 16:7-11 matching that in Jn 14:15-17 in the theme of his conflict with the
world (and the Prince of this world: cf. Jn 14:30); the second in Jn 16:13-15
matching that in Jn 14:25-26 in the theme of his teaching anew what Jesus
taught. Whereas in Jn 14:16,26 the Father is said to give or send the
Paraclete, in Jn 16:7 Jesus is said to send him - an illustration of Jesus'
claim that the Father and he are one (10:30).
Although earlier in
the Supper (Jn 13:33; Jn 7:33; Jn 12:35) Jesus spoke of being with his
disciples only a little while, the development of that theme in Jn 16:16-22
has no close parallel elsewhere in the Last Discourse. Jesus' painful death
and his subsequent return are compared to labor pangs and subsequent birth
(see the similar imagery for the birth of the Messiah in Rv 12:2,5). In Jn
16:23-24, however, with the issue of asking and receiving, we have once more
a theme found in Division One of the Discourse (Jn 14:13-14). The section Jn
16:25-33 also has some themes that we have heard before ("The Father
loves you because you have loved me" in Jn 16:27 and Jn 14:21,23;
"I am going to the Father" in 16:28 and Jn 14:12; the promise of
peace in Jn 16:33 and Jn 14:27); but the contrast between figures of speech
and speaking plainly and the prediction of the scattering of the disciples
are new. Although in terminating Division One of the Discourse Jesus spoke of
the Prince of this world having no hold on him (Jn 14:30), the simpler
"I have conquered the world" is a more resounding termination for
this Division.
Division Three
of the Last Discourse (chap. 17).
This sublime
conclusion to the Last Discourse is often evaluated as the
"Priestly" Prayer of Jesus, the one who consecrated himself for
those whom he would send into the world (Jn 17:18-19). In the first section
(Jn 17:1-8) Jesus prays for glorification (i.e., the glory that he had before
creation) on the grounds that he has completed all that the Father has given
him to do and revealed God's name. This is not a selfish prayer, since the
goal of the glorification is that the Son may glorify the Father properly. In
the second section (Jn 17:9-19) Jesus prays for those whom the Father has
given him that they may be kept safe with the name given to Jesus. He refuses
to pray for the world (which by rejecting Jesus has become the realm of
evil), for his disciples do not belong to the world. Quite unlike a gnostic
savior, Jesus does not ask that his disciples be taken out of the world, but
only that they be kept safe from the Evil One (who is the Prince of this
world). Praying that they will be consecrated as he consecrates himself,
Jesus sends them into the world to bear witness to truth. In the third
section (Jn 17:20-26) Jesus prays for those who believe in him through the
word of the disciples - a prayer that they may be one just as the Father and
Jesus are one. (As in Jn 10:16 we get the impression that already in John's
time Christians are not one.) A unity brought to completion among believers
will be convincing to the world. Magnificent statements about these believers
are addressed to the Father: "I have given to them the glory which you
have given to me"; "You loved them even as you loved me";
"They are your gift to me"; and finally (Jn 17:26) "To them I
made your name known, and I will continue to make it known so that the love
you had for me may be in them and I may be in them." With that assurance
the Johannine Jesus goes on to be lifted up on the cross in his return to the
Father.
2.
Jesus' Passion and Death (Jn 18-19).
Here John is closer
to the overall Synoptic (Marcan) outline than elsewhere. Even though major
individual details differ, the same pattern of four "acts" may be
detected in both accounts: arrest, interrogation by Jewish high priest, trial
before Pilate, crucifixion/burial.
Arrest in the
garden across the Kidron (Jn 18:1-12). The Synoptic
designation for the locale to which Jesus and his disciples went after the
Last Supper is Gethsemane and/or the Mount of Olives. John speaks of Jesus
crossing the winter-flowing Kidron58 to a garden. The prayer to the Father
about being delivered from the hour, which is found in this context in Mk
14:35, has occurred earlier in John (Jn 12:27-28), so that the whole
Johannine scene centers on the arrest, with Jesus eager to drink the cup the
Father has given him (cf. Mk 14:36).. There are peculiar Johannine features:
Jesus, knowing that Judas is coming, goes out to meet him; and when he
identifies himself with the words "I am," the arresting party,
consisting of Jewish police and a cohort of Roman soldiers, fall back to the
ground before him. This corresponds to the depiction of Jesus in control that
governs the passion in John: "No one takes my life away from me; I lay
it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to
take it up again" (Jn 10:18).
Interrogation by
Annas; Peter's denials (Jn 18:13-27). All the
Gospels have the arresting party deliver Jesus to the Jewish high priest's
court/palace to be interrogated by that authority - an interrogation that is
accompanied by accounts of an abuse/mockery of Jesus and of Peter's three
denials. In John alone there is no session of the Sanhedrin to decide on
Jesus' death (that took place earlier: Jn 11:45-53); and although Caiaphas is
mentioned, Annas conducts the inquiry. Peter's denials are introduced by the
presence of another disciple who is known to the high priest - probably the
Beloved Disciple who appears only in John.
Trial before
Pilate (Jn 18:28-19:16). All the Gospels have
Jesus led from/ by the high priest to be tried by the Roman governor, but in
John this trial is a much more developed drama than in the Synoptics. Careful
stage setting is supplied, with "the Jews" outside the praetorium
and Jesus inside. Seven episodes describe how Pilate shuttled back and forth
trying to reconcile the two adamant antagonists (diagram in BGJ 2:859). Only
John explains clearly why Jesus was brought to Pilate (Jn 18:31: the Jews
were not permitted to put anyone to death)61 and why Pilate rendered a death
sentence even though he knew that Jesus did not deserve such a punishment (Jn
19:12: he would be denounced to the Emperor for not being diligent in
punishing a so-called king). Jesus, who scarcely speaks to Pilate in the
other Gospels, explains that his kingship is not political; moreover
"the Jews" admit that the real issue is not the charge of being
"the King of the Jews" but that Jesus claimed to be God's Son (Jn
19:7). Pilate is challenged by Jesus as to whether he belongs to the truth
(Jn 18:37), and thus the scene becomes the trial of Pontius Pilate before
Jesus, over whom Pilate has no real power (Jn 19:11). The scourging by the
Roman soldiers (at the end after condemnation in Mark/ Mt) is moved to the
center of the trial so that Pilate can present the abused and mocked Jesus to
"the Jews" in the famous Ecce homo scene, with the vain hope
that they will give up their request for the death penalty. Although Pilate
yields, "the Jews" are compelled to give up their messianic
expectations by saying, "We have no king other than the Emperor"
(Jn 19:15). In Pilate John has dramatized his thesis that those who would
avoid the judgment provoked by Jesus do not themselves belong to truth (Jn
9:18-23; Jn 12:42-43).
Crucifixion,
death, and burial (Jn 19:17-42).
Here too John is
more dramatic than the Synoptics, making major theological episodes out of
details in the tradition. In slightly different wording all four Gospels
mention the charge "King of the Jews," but in John this becomes the
occasion for Pilate's finally acknowledging the truth about Jesus,
proclaiming it in the style of an imperial inscription in three languages.
All four Gospels mention the division of Jesus' clothing; but in John the way
in which the Roman soldiers thus fulfilled the Scripture to the
"nth" degree is spelled out as an illustration of how Jesus
remained in charge. After the death of Jesus the other Gospels mention
Galilean women standing at a distance; John has them near the cross while he
is still alive. There are two other figures whose presence John alone notes
and whose names he never gives us: the mother of Jesus62 and the disciple
whom he loved. Jesus brings them into a mother-son relationship and thus
constitutes a community of disciples who are mother and brother to him - the
community that preserved this Gospel. With this the Johannine Jesus is able
to make his final word from the cross, "It is completed," and to
hand over his Spirit to the believing community he is leaving behind (Jn
19:30). The scene of the piercing of the dead Jesus' side is peculiarly
Johannine, fulfilling both Jn 7:37-39 that from within Jesus would flow
living water symbolic of the Spirit, and (since the bones of the paschal lamb
were not to be broken) Jn 1:29 that he was the Lamb of God. Peculiar to John
is Nicodemus (Jn 3:1-2; Jn 7:50-52), who had not openly admitted that he
believes in Jesus. Now he reappears and (together with the traditional Joseph
from Arimathea) publicly gives an honorable burial to Jesus, fulfilling
Jesus' promise to draw all to him once he had been lifted up (Jn 12:32).
3. Four Scenes in
Jerusalem and Faith in the Risen Jesus (Jn 20:1-29).
Like Luke and Mk 16:9-20
and unlike Mt and Mk 16:1-8, Jn 20 places all the appearances of the risen
Lord in Jerusalem, with no indication of appearances to take place in
Galilee. In John four different types of faith-response to the risen Jesus
are dramatized, two in scenes that take place at the empty tomb, two in a
room where the disciples are gathered. The second and fourth concentrate on
individual reactions: Mary Magdalene and Thomas. Some of the material has
parallels in the Synoptic Gospels,64 but the arrangement of that and new
material reflects John's love for personal encounter with Jesus.
At the tomb (Jn 20:1-18). An introduction (Jn 20:1-2) consisting of Mary
Magdalene's coming to the tomb, finding it empty, and reporting this to Simon
Peter and the Beloved Disciple prepares for the two scenes at the tomb. The first
scene (Jn 20:3-10) involves Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple who run
to the tomb. Both enter and see the burial wrappings and head cloth; yet only
the Beloved Disciple comes to faith. The fourth evangelist does not challenge
the tradition that Peter was the first of the Twelve to see the risen Lord
(Lk 24:34; 1 Co 15:5); but in his consistent desire to exalt the Beloved
Disciple, John has that disciple come to faith even before the risen Lord
appears or prophetical Scripture is recalled. Thus the Disciple becomes the
first full believer. The second scene (Jn 20:11-18) has Mary Magdalene
return to the tomb where now two angels are present. Neither their speaking to
her nor the sudden appearance of Jesus, whom she mistakenly identifies as a
gardener, brings her to faith. That is accomplished when Jesus calls her by
name - an illustration of the theme enunciated by the Good Shepherd in Jn
10:3-4: He calls his own by name, and they know his voice. Mary is sent to
proclaim all this to the disciples,66,66 who are now called Jesus' brothers
because as a result of the resurrection/ascension Jesus' Father becomes their
Father. In the language of the Prologue (Jn 1:12), Jesus has empowered those
who believe in him to become God's children. In typical Johannine outlook,
these two scenes at the tomb relate resurrection faith to intimacy with
Jesus; now the Gospel turns to scenes of a more traditional character, where
faith and doubt greet the appearance itself.
Inside a room (Jn 20:19-29). The first scene (Jn 20:19-25) takes place on
Easter Sunday night in a place where the doors are locked for fear of
"the Jews." It involves members of the Twelve (v. 24) and resembles
a culminating scene in the other Gospels (Mt 28:16-20; Lk 24:33-49; Mk
16:14-20) where Jesus appears to the Eleven (Twelve minus Judas) and sends
them forth on a mission. After extending peace in echo of 14:27 and 16:33,
the Johannine Jesus gives to the disciples a mission that continues his own.
In a symbolic action evocative of God's creative breath that gave life to the
first human being (Gn 2:7) and of the demand to be begotten of water and
Spirit (Jn 3:5-8), Jesus breathes on them and gives them a Holy Spirit with
power over sin, continuing his own power over sin. The other Gospel
appearance scenes always include an element of disbelief on the part of the
Eleven, but John more dramatically embodies it in Thomas who vocalizes a
determined incredulity (in vv. 24-25, which serve as a transition to the next
episode).
The second scene (20:26-29) is localized in the same place a week later with Thomas present.
Although the proof offered Thomas, viz., examining Jesus' hands with his
fingers and putting his hand in Jesus' side,68 presents a tangibly corporeal
image of the risen Jesus, one should note that Thomas is not said to have
touched Jesus. To have done so would probably have signified that Thomas'
disbelief remained. Rather, his willingness to believe without touching Jesus
is genuine faith, with the ironical result that the one who embodied
disbelief now utters the highest christological confession in the Gospels,
"My Lord and My God" - an inclusion with the Prologue's "The
Word was God." In response, Jesus blesses all future generations who
will believe in him without having seen (20:29), thus showing an awareness of
the Gospel audience for whom John had been writing throughout.
Gospel Conclusion
(20:30-31): Statement of purpose in writing. Luke explains his purpose
at the beginning of his Gospel (1:1-4), but John saves his statement of
intention till the end. In selecting material to be included in the Gospel,69
his goal has been to have people come to faith or increase in faith (disputed
reading) in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, and through this faith to
possess eternal life in his name. This statement is true to the constant
emphases of the Gospel, but also warns against a literalist interpretation of
John as if the main purpose were to report eyewitness testimony.
Although the Gospel
concludes at the end of chap. 20, there follows another chapter of
resurrection appearances (this time in Galilee)70 with another conclusion.
This chapter contains two scenes, one involving fishing (21:1-14), the other
preserving sayings of the risen Jesus to Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple
(21:15-23). The connection between the two scenes and their internal harmony
are questionable, but theologically the themes are related.
The first scene (21:1-14), in which the risen Jesus is not recognized by the disciples (who
are supposed to have seen him twice in chap. 20), involves a miraculous catch
of fish similar to that during the ministry in Lk 5:4-11. Since Simon Peter
hauls the 153 fish ashore and the net is not torn, the catch becomes symbolic
of missionary success in bringing people into the one community of Christ.
Typically Johannine is the greater perceptiveness of the Beloved Disciple who
in 21:7 is the first of the disciples to recognize the risen Lord. The unity
of the scene is imperiled by the fact that Jesus suddenly has fish on shore
in v. 9 before the catch is brought ashore. The meal he provides of bread and
fish (vv. 12-13) may be the Johannine form of the tradition that the risen
Lord appeared at meals, often with eucharistic overtones (see chap. 6).
The second scene (21:15-23) shifts symbolism abruptly as, leaving aside Peter's catch of fish,
Jesus talks to him about sheep. Probably this represents a second stage in
Peter's image: Known as a missionary apostle (fisherman), Peter has now
become a model for pastoral care (shepherd: see 1Pt 5:1-4; Ac 20:28). This
development may have involved a late Johannine concession to church
structure, for chap. 10 portrayed Jesus as the sole shepherd. But the
qualifications remain faithful to Johannine idealism: Peter's shepherding
flows from his love for Jesus; the flock still belongs to Jesus ("my
sheep"); and Peter must be willing to lay down his life for the sheep.
The unity of the scene is somewhat challenged by the sudden appearance of the
Beloved Disciple, but the contrast between him and Peter is typically
Johannine. The tradition that Peter is the symbol for apostolic authority is
not challenged, but without that authority the Beloved Disciple still has a
position that Peter does not have - the Disciple may last until Jesus
returns. The concern for the exact implication of this statement (21:23:
"did not say he was not to die"), which has circulated as Johannine
tradition, suggests that the Disciple is now dead.
The conclusion
in 21:24-25 identifies the Beloved Disciple as
the witness who stands behind the Gospel narrative and certifies the truth of
his testimony. It also reminds us that the whole Jesus cannot be captured in
the pages of any book, even a book such as the Fourth Gospel!
Combined Sources or Development of Tradition?
Is John a Gospel in
the same sense in which Mark, Matthew, and Luke are Gospels? According to the
majority view, the Synoptic Gospels had their roots in memories of what Jesus
actually did and said, even though the material stemming from those memories
has undergone selection, theological reflection, narrative embellishment, and
simplification in the course of a preaching (and initial writing?) that
separated the actual occurrences in the late 20s and the final written
composition thirty to seventy years later. Is that description true also of
John?
From the 2d to the
18th century that question was answered in the affirmative, with the
assumption that John, one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus, not only supplied
the memory of what had happened but also wrote it down. Thus John's Gospel
was a surer guide than Mark or Luke, neither of which had been written down
by an eyewitness. The differences between John and the Synoptics were
explained by supposition that in his old age the apostle read the other
Gospels and decided to supplement them with his own, more meditative
memories.
In the last two
centuries, however, a more critical mind-set recognized that there is in John
not the slightest sign that its author intended a supplement, nor has he
supplied any key as to how his material could be fitted together with the
Synoptic material to which he makes no reference. Accordingly the majority of
scholars shifted toward the position that John was not authored by an
eyewitness. Initially that perception had the effect of moving the pendulum
to the other extreme in relation to historicity: The material in John was now
judged to have no historical value (unlike the material in the Synoptic
Gospels). Within this approach it was first assumed that for information
about Jesus the author of John was entirely dependent on the Synoptics from
which he imaginatively reshuffled material into fictional narratives. A
number of studies from different perspectives, however, began to gain
dominance for the view that John was written independently of the Synoptics.
The theory then emerged that the fourth evangelist drew, not on the Synoptics,
but on nonhistorical sources. Bultmann's theory of three sources attracted
much attention: (a) a Signs (Semeia) Source consisting of miracles
selected from a larger collection75 - according to Bultmann miracles do not
happen, and so these were fictional stories designed to make projected image
of Jesus more competitive in a world that believed in miracle workers; (b) a
Revelatory Discourse Source, originally in Aramaic poetic format, containing
the speeches of a revealer come down from heaven; these were translated into
Greek, adapted to serve as speeches of the Johan-nine Jesus, and then
combined with the Signs material; (c) a Passion and Resurrection Account,
drawing on Synoptic material.
By the middle of
the 20th century the pendulum began to swing back. Studies in German by E.
Schweizer and E. Ruckstuhl77 found the same stylistic peculiarities in all
three sources proposed by Bultmann, an observation leading to the ironic
suggestion that the author of the Fourth Gospel would have had to write all
three sources himself. Dodd, Historical, had a leading role in arguing
that at times in the words and deeds of Jesus in John there is tradition that
has every right to be considered as old as traditions in the Synoptics. The
theory gained followers that John was a Gospel not unlike the others,
undergoing three stages of development even as they did - a theory that I
espouse. (1) At its beginning there were memories of what Jesus did and said,
but not the same memories preserved in the Synoptics (specifically in Mark);
perhaps the difference stemmed from the fact that unlike the pre-Synoptic
tradition, John's memories were not of standardized apostolic origin (see
below under Authorship). (2) Then these memories were influenced by
the life-experience of the Johannine community that preserved them and of the
Johannine preachers who expounded them. (3) Finally an evangelist, who
plausibly was one of the preachers with his own dramatic and creative
abilities, shaped the tradition from the second stage into a written Gospel.
Both the Synoptics and John, then, would constitute independent
witnesses to Jesus, witnesses in
which early tradition has been preserved78 and also undergone theological
reflection as the message about Jesus was adapted to ongoing generations of
believers. Although John has sometimes been deemed the most theological of
the Gospels, the theological difference becomes one of intensity and of the
extent to which theological insight is woven creatively and imaginatively
into the memories of Jesus.
Although the
approach just described has a respectable following, in the last decades of
the 20th century one cannot speak of a unanimous approach to John. There are
those who think they can detect with great precision the Gospel's sources (or
at least the Signs Source, usually seven signs), even if the Bultmannian
judgment about nonhistoricity is no longer necessarily part of the picture.
Frequently the source is presumed to have originated within the same
community that gave rise to the Gospel, so that the difference between a
source and an earlier edition becomes somewhat nebulous. As for relationship
to the Synoptics, although the majority probably still holds Johannine
independence of the Synoptics, an articulate group (whose arguments are urged
with determination by F. Neirynck80) contends that John drew on Mark and even
the other Synoptics. Observations pertinent to these differences will be made
in subsections to follow.
A comparison of the
Fourth Gospel to the first three Gospels shows obvious differences.
Peculiarities of John include: a Jesus conscious of having preexisted with
God before he came into the world (Jn 17:5); a public ministry largely set in
Jerusalem rather than in Galilee; the significant absence of the kingdom of
God motif (only in Jn 3:3,5); long discourses and dialogues rather than
parables; no diabolic possessions; a very restricted number of miracles
(seven?), including some that are unique (changing of water to wine at Cana,
healing a man born blind, and the raising of Lazarus). According to
statistics supplied by B. de Solages in a French study 1979) there are
parallels to Mark in 15:5 percent of John's passion narrative; the parallels
to Mark in the Matthean and Lucan passion narratives would be four times
higher.
Yet there are also
important similarities to the Synoptics, especially in the beginning
narrative of the ministry featuring John the Baptist and in the concluding narratives of
the passion and empty tomb. In particular, the closest similarities are with
Mark, e.g., in the sequence of events shared by Jn 6 and Mk 6:30-54; Mk
8:11-33; and in such verbal details as "genuine nard of great
value" (Jn 12:3), 300 denarii (12:5), and 200 denarii (6:7). There are
parallels with Luke,82 but more of motif than of wording, e.g., figures like
Martha and Mary, Lazarus (parabolic in Luke), and Annas; lack of a night
trial before Caiaphas; the three "not guilty" statements in the
Pilate trial; postresur-rectional appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem to
his male disciples; the miraculous draught of fishes (Jn 21). There are fewer
similarities with Matthew; yet compare Jn 13:16 with Mt 10:24; and Jn
15:18-27 with Mt 10:18-25.
A variety of
solutions has been suggested. At one end of the spectrum, some would posit
John's knowledge of Mark or even of all three Synoptics. (Such proposals may
disagree as to whether John also had an independent tradition.) At the
other end of the spectrum, the fourth evangelist is thought not to have known
any Synoptic Gospel and occasional similarities between John and the others
are explained in terms of the Synoptic and Johannine traditions independently
reproducing with variations the same deeds or sayings. In between the
extremes a median position (that I espouse myself) maintains that Mark and
John shared common preGospel traditions, oral or written; and that although
the fourth evangelist had not seen the final form of Luke, he was familiar
with traditions incorporated later into Luke. Some who make a distinction in
John between an evangelist and a final redactor would posit that only the
latter knew one or more of the Synoptic Gospels.
If we lay aside the
issue of sources employed in John, the question remains whether the Gospel is
a cohesive whole. There are abrupt transitions (called aporias)
between parts of John, e.g., with only minimum transitions chap. 4 ends in
Galilee; chap. 5 describes Jesus in Jerusalem; chap. 6 has Jesus back in
Galilee. Some scholars would rearrange these chapters to the order 4, 6, and
5 on the supposition that the original order was confused. Indeed
commentaries have been written on a reconstructed order. The rearrangement
proposal faces serious difficulties. First, there is no manuscript evidence
to support any such rearrangements, and any theory that the pages of John
were confused by chance has to depend totally on imagination. Second, the
order that emerges from rearrangements still presents problems unless one
makes changes in the wording, e.g., while the order 4, 6, 5, makes better
geographic sequence, the transition from the end of chap. 5 to the beginning
of chap. 7 is awkward. Third, such rearrangements are based on assumptions
about what should have interested the evangelist. Yet John gives us a very
schematic account of Jesus' ministry, and does not worry about transitions
unless they have theological purpose (e.g., the careful sequence of days in
chaps. 1-2). In the series of feasts in chaps. 2, 5, 6, 7 and 10 that serves
as the framework for Jesus' ministry, little attention is paid to the long
intervals that separate the feasts. Someone was responsible for the Gospel in
its final form; and unless one is willing to suppose incompetence, he could
scarcely have missed the obviously imperfect sequence, if he regarded that as
important.
Yet one cannot deny
the presence of certain transition difficulties for which another solution
may be proposed. The most awkward is the relatively clear ending of the
Gospel in 20:30-31 where the writer acknowledges that there was other
material that he could have included but did not choose to do so. The
presence of still another chapter (21) and another ending (21:24-25) raises
the possibility that, after an earlier form of the Gospel was completed (but
before any preserved form of the Gospel circulated), someone made additions.
Presumably this someone was not the person who composed the earlier
form and now had afterthoughts, for that person should have felt free to
insert the material of chap. 21 before the ending he had earlier composed in
20:30-31,84 Accordingly the present Gospel is thought to involve the work of
two hands, an evangelist who composed the body of the Gospel and a redactor
who later made additions.
In that theory what
would have been the goal of this redactor and how did he work? Bultmann, who
attributed major sections of the Gospel to redaction, created the image of an
Ecclesiastical Redactor. In this approach, the writing left by the evangelist
was too radical in its theology; and in order to make it acceptable to the
wider church (hence "Ecclesiastical"), a type of censor added
sections. For example, to a nonsacramental gospel the Ecclesiastical Redactor
added the references to baptism in 3:5 and the eucharist in 6:51b-58 and to
both sacraments in 19:34b-35; to a gospel that understood the last things
(coming from heaven, judgment, eternal life) to have been already realized in
Jesus' ministry, the Ecclesiastical Redactor added the motif of final
judgment (Jn 5:28-29; Jn 12:48). Positing such censorship smacks too much of
a modern mind-set governed by a thesis-antithesis pattern and is unnecessary
in the redactor theory.
A much more likely
supposition is that one who took the trouble to add to the evangelist's work
agreed with it substantially and was of the same community of thought. Indeed
the style of the proposed additions shows respect for what was already
written and a desire not to tamper with the established pattern, e.g., adding
a chapter of resurrection appearances (chap. 21) after the existing ending in
Jn 20:30-31 rather than breaking up the careful arrangement of appearances in
chap. 20. There are several possible types of material that the redactor
would have been adding. (1) Omitted material. There are several indications
(Jn 20:31; Jn 21:25) of a wider body of tradition that was not included. Some
of it may not have been known to the evangelist or have suited his purpose,
e.g., the appearances in Galilee. (2) Duplicate material. In the final form
of John there appear to be slightly variant collections of substantially the
same words of Jesus. E.g., Jn 3:31-36 (which awkwardly lacks a clear
indication of the speaker) seems to duplicate things said in Jn 3:7, Jn
11-13, Jn 15-18. Also parts of Jn 16:4b-33 (spoken at the Last Supper,
considerably after the indication in Jn 14:31 that Jesus was leaving)
duplicate closely themes already enunciated in Jn 14; and Jn 6:51b-58
duplicates sayings in Jn 6:35-5l.
Why would the
redactor have added such material to the evangelist's work? We must speculate
from the nature of the proposed additions. At times the added material is not
significantly distinctive in tone or emphasis and so may have been included
simply because it was in the tradition and the redactor did not want to lose
it. At other times the putative additions reflect a different theological
emphasis, best explained if community thought varied over time. For instance,
Jn 6:51b-58 brings out the eucharistic aspect of the Bread of Life,
supplementing the emphasis on the bread as divine revelation or teaching in Jn
6:35-5la. This need not be hardened into a corrective imposed by
ecclesiastical censorship, for there were already symbolic references to the
eucharist in the account of the multiplication of the loaves (Jn 6:1-15) that
served as the basis for the Bread of Life discourse. Plausibly the dialogue
in Jn 21:15-17 that gives Simon Peter shepherding responsibility was included
because it offered justification for the development of human pastoral
authority in a community that hitherto had looked on Jesus as the sole
shepherd - a development, some would theorize, necessitated by the type of
schismatic division visible in 1 John. In such an instance, however, one
should not jump to the conclusion that, if the motive for the redactor's
addition was prompted by circumstances in ongoing community history, the
added material itself was necessarily late. Sayings about the manner of
Peter's martyrdom (Jn 21:18) and the possibility that the Beloved Disciple
would not die (Jn 21:23) are so vague that they surely preceded the
respective deaths. In some instances the redactor would have been reviving
and incorporating old tradition.
Plausible as that
may be, at most the theory of a redactor solves some of the features
observable in the Gospel as it has come to us.
The Gospel calls
attention to an eyewitness at the cross (Jn 19:35) who seemingly is "the
disciple whom Jesus loved" (Jn 19:26). Jn 21:20,24 claims that this
anonymous Beloved Disciple both bears witness and "has written these things."
Irenaeus (ca. ad 180) identified the Disciple as John (one of the
Twelve) who lived at Ephesus86 till Trajan's time (ca. 98). (As a boy
Irenaeus had known Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who is supposed to have known
John.) This identification of the Beloved Disciple and evangelist as John
(son of Zebedee), with the minor variation that he had assistants,
subsequently received church acceptance. Nevertheless, as pointed out above
(p. 109), it is now recognized that such late-2d-century surmises about figures
who had lived a century before were often simplified; and that authorship
tradition was sometimes more concerned with the authority behind a
biblical writing than with the physical writer. As with the other Gospels it
is doubted by most scholars that this
Gospel was written by an eyewitness of the public ministry of Jesus.
Who was the Beloved
Disciple? There are three approaches. First, some propose a known NT
figure. In addition to the traditional candidate (John, son of Zebedee),
other proposals have included Lazarus, John Mark, and Thomas (Charlesworth).
Although there may be a passage to support each identification, if the long
tradition behind John is rejected, one is reduced to guessing. Second, some scholars have evaluated the Beloved Disciple as a pure symbol, created
to model the perfect disciple. That he is never given a name and that he
appears alongside Peter in scenes known to us from the Synoptic Gospels where
no such figure is mentioned88 have been invoked as a proof of nonhistoricity.
However, another unnamed Johannine figure who has a symbolic role and appears
where she is absent in the Synoptics, namely, the mother of Jesus (Jn 2:3-12;
Jn 19:25-27), was certainly a historical figure. The Beloved Disciple's
presence at the foot of the cross when all the Twelve had fled need indicate
only that he was neither one of the Twelve89 nor an apostle - a term never
used in John. Third, still other scholars (with whom I agree) theorize
that the Beloved Disciple was a minor figure during the ministry of Jesus,
too unimportant to be remembered in the more official tradition of the
Synoptics. But since this figure became important in Johannine community
history (perhaps the founder of the community), he became the ideal in its
Gospel picture, capable of being contrasted with Peter as closer to Jesus in
love.
Was the Beloved
Disciple the evangelist? That would be the impression given by Jn 21:20,24:
"has written these things." Could this, however, be a
simplification by the redactor who added chap. 21, hardening the more
accurate 19:35: "This testimony has been given by an eyewitness, and his
testimony is true; he is telling what he knows to be true that you too may
have faith"? The passage in 19 could mean that the Beloved Disciple was
not the evangelist but a witness to Jesus and thus the source of
tradition that has gone into the Fourth Gospel. The evangelist who wrote that
passage could have been a follower or disciple of the Beloved Disciple (whom
he describes in the third person) and not himself an eyewitness of the
ministry. Indeed, if one posits both a different writer for the Epistles (p.
389 below) and a redactor for the Gospel, one could agree with those who
posit a "Johannine School," i.e., various disciples employing both
a style and material that were traditional in this community - traditional
because in whole or in part they were shaped by the Beloved Disciple.
The thesis would
explain how some factors in John91 plausibly reflect origin in the ministry
of Jesus, while other factors seem distant from that ministry:
(a) Familiarity
with Palestine. John knows the location of Bethany (11:18), the garden across
the winter-flowing Kidron (18:1), Solomon's porch in the Temple (10:23), the
pools of Bethesda (5:2) and of Siloam (9:7), and the Lithostrotos (19:13).
These sites are not mentioned in the other Gos pels, and sometimes external
evidence supports Johannine accuracy. Other Johannine geographical references
(Bethany beyond the Jordan in 1:28; Ae- non near Salim in 3:23) have not yet
been identified, but we should be cau tious about resorting to purely
symbolic interpretations of the names.
(b) Familiarity
with Judaica. Jewish feasts are mentioned in Jn 5:9b; Jn 6:4; Jn 7:2; and Jn 10:22;
and the ensuing dialogue shows a knowledge of festal cere monies and
theology. Jewish customs are mentioned both explicitly (purity regulations in
Jn 2:6; Jn 18:28; paschal lamb in Jn 19:36) and implicitly (perhaps the
makeup of the high priest's tunic in Jn 19:23).
If the tradition
behind John is firmly rooted in Judaism and Palestine,92 the presentation of
that tradition has moved considerably beyond Jesus' ministry. Indeed the
evangelist acknowledges this (Jn 2:22) and defends such development as guided
by the Spirit-Paraclete (Jn 16:12-14). Those who confess Jesus have been
expelled from the synagogue (Jn 9:22; 12:43); indeed, Christians have been
killed by pious devotees of the synagogue (Jn 16:2). We have seen in n. 13
above that the Johannine use of "the Jews" reflects attitudes
developed in the history of the Johannine community. Unlike the Jesus of the
Synoptic Gospels, the Johannine Jesus speaks explicitly of his divinity and
his preexistence (Jn 8:58; Jn 10:30-38; Jn 14:9; Jn 17:5). He is hailed as
God (Jn 20:28); and the basic argument with "the Jews" is not
merely about his violation of the Sabbath rules but about his making himself
equal to God (Jn 5:16-18; Jn 19:7). Traditional deeds of Jesus, like healing
the crippled, multiplying loaves, and opening the eyes of the blind, have
become the subject of long homilies involving theological reflection and
debate along the lines of the Jewish interpretation of Scripture (Jn 5:30-47;
Jn 6:30-5la; Jn 9:26-34). Contrary to the Synoptic tradition, a significant
group of Samaritans believes in Jesus independently of Jesus' first followers
(Jn 4:28-42).
Such development
may be explained best if tradition about Jesus stemming from the Beloved
Disciple has been reflected upon over many years and expanded in the light of
Johannine community experiences. Beginning with the acceptance of Jesus as
the final prophet and the Messiah of Jewish expectations (Jn 1:40-49), the
tradition has gone on to "greater things" (1:50). Jesus is not only
the Son of Man who will come down from heaven at the end of time to judge the
world; the hour is already here and he has already come down from heaven.
That is the secret of his ministry: What he does and says is what he saw and
heard when he was with God before the Word became flesh (Jn 5:19; Jn 8:28; Jn
12:49). The teachers of Israel believed in a Moses who climbed up Sinai, had
contact with God there, and came down to repeat what he had heard; but Jesus
is greater than Moses. He did not have to go up to God but came from heaven
above where he saw God, so that whoever believes in him is never judged (Jn
3:10-21). The Beloved Disciple may have lived through the historical
development of the community (and perhaps through expulsion from the
synagogue), and so there may have been a certain symbiosis between him and
the Gospel that committed to writing a tradition that not only had its roots
in his experience of Jesus but also embodied decades of his ongoing
reflection on that experience. The evangelist, who wove the theologically reflected
tradition into a work of unique literary skill, would presumably have been a
disciple of the Beloved Disciple, about whom he writes in the third person.
And the redactor, if there was one, may have been another disciple.
John is often
characterized as a Hellenistic Gospel. Its usage of abstract ideas like light
and truth; its dualistic division of humanity into light and darkness, truth
and falsehood; its concept of the Word - all these were once widely held to
be the product of Greek philosophical thought, or of combinations of
philosophy and religion (e.g., the Hermetic literature), or of the Pagan
mystery religions. An intermediary proposal was that the works of the Jewish
philosopher Philo (before ad 50) served as a channel of such thought,
particularly in relation to "the Word."94 Another group of scholars
has stressed the relationship of John to (incipient) gnosticism. The
Johannine picture of a savior who came from an alien world above,95 who said
that neither he nor those who accepted him were of this world (Jn 17:14), and
who promised to return to take them to the heavenly dwelling (Jn 14:2-3)
could be fitted into the gnostic world picture (even if God's love for the
world in 3:16 could not). Hitherto, very few actual gnostic works were known,
and our knowledge of 2d-century gnosticism came from the reports of the
Church Fathers. From them we knew that the first commentator on John
(Heracleon, disciple of Valentinus, mid-2d century) was gnostic. Now,
however, with the discovery at Chenoboskion (Nag Hammadi) in Egypt in the
late 1940s, we have gnostic works in Coptic (some translated from original
Greek of the 2d century ad). Although there are occasional stylistic
parallels to John (n. 76 above), overall these new documents are very
different from a narrative Gospel like John; and most doubt that John
borrowed from such gnosticism. Still another proposal would see parallels
between John and the later Mandaean writings (p. 92 above), with their
syncretistic mixture of Jewish lore and gnostic myth. In substance all these
theories agree that the Johannine idiom of language and thought did not stem
from the Palestinian world of Jesus of Nazareth.
A very different
approach would see the basic origins of Johannine Christianity within that
Palestinian world with all its Jewish diversity - a world that had been
influenced by Hellenism but where reflection on the heritage of Israel was
the primary catalyst. That heritage would be judged not simply from the books
of the Law and the Prophets, but also from the protocanonical and
deuterocanonical Wisdom Literature (see p. xxxv above), and from apocryphal
and intertestamental literature. In particular, the enrichment supplied by
the DSS comes into the picture. We find in these documents ideas and
vocabulary that the critics once thought were not authentically Palestinian,
viz., a world divided into light and darkness (Jn 3:19-21); people under the
power of an evil angelic principle (1 Jn 5:19); people walking in light or in
darkness (8:12; 1 Jn 1:5-7); walking in truth (II Jn 4; 3Jn 4); testing the
spirits (1 Jn 4:1); the spirits of truth and perversity (1 Jn 4:6). The
resemblance in vocabulary and thought between the DSS and John should banish
the idea that the Johannine tradition could not have developed on Palestinian
soil.
There is no
evidence for a direct familiarity of John with the DSS; rather there is the
possibility of indirect acquaintance with a type of thought and expression
current at Qumran, and perhaps in a wider area. There are interesting
parallels between what we know of John the Baptist and the beliefs attested in the
Scrolls (even though we need not think that John the Baptist was a member of the Qumran
community), and in the NT John shows the greatest interest in John the Baptist's
disciples. In portraying the first disciples of Jesus as disciples of John the Baptist
and Jesus as conducting at least a brief baptizing ministry, John may be
historical. This leaves open the possibility that the disciples of John the Baptist were
a channel whereby Qumran vocabulary and ideas came into the Johannine
tradition. That much of the Qumranlike vocabulary appears in the speeches of
Jesus in John (to a much greater extent, than in the Synoptics) need not lead
us to conclude hastily that the raw materials in those speeches were the artificial
compositions of the evangelist. If Qumran exemplifies a wider range of
thought, Jesus could well have been familiar with its vocabulary and ideas;
for the Word-made-flesh spoke the language of his time. The Johannine
tradition, with a special affection for this style of thought, may have been
more attentive in preserving it," as well as remembering and emphasizing
other ideas that did not seem important to the Synoptic writers. The
possibility of Palestinian and Jewish origins for the Johannine presentation
of Jesus leads us to the issue of Johannine community development.
As noted in
discussing the Synoptic Gospels, because the Jesus material was shaped by
each evangelist for an intended audience, indirectly the Gospels may give us
theological and sociological information about the Christians who preserved,
shaped, and/or received the memories of him. John's Gospel presentation of
Jesus is strongly characterized by debates and adversarial situations, and we
have three Epistles of John clearly echoing Johannine thought but more openly
addressed to an audience and its problems. Consequently it may be that one
can reconstruct more of the background of John than that of any other Gospel.
Yet one should not confuse such reconstructive research with exegesis, which
has to do with what the Gospel meant to convey to its readers. The evangelist
tells us his purpose in Jn 20:31, and it was not to recount background.
I shall now present
a reconstruction of the community history,100 warning that while it explains
many factors in the Gospel, it remains a hypothesis and "perhaps"
needs to be added to every sentence. The reconstruction covers not only the
Gospel and its redaction but also the Johannine Epistles (to be treated in
more detail in Jn 12-14). Four phases are involved. (1) A phase preceding the
written Gospel but shaping its thought (up to the 70s or 80s). In or near
Palestine, Jews of relatively standard expectations, including followers of
John the Baptist, accepted Jesus as the Davidic Messiah, the ful-filler of the
prophecies, and one confirmed by miracles (see the titles in Jn 1). Among
them, insignificantly at first, was a man who had known Jesus and become his
disciple during the public ministry and who would become the Beloved Disciple.
To these first followers were added Jews of an anti-Temple bias who made
converts in Samaria (Jn 4). They understood Jesus primarily against a Mosaic
background (as distinct from a Davidic one): Jesus had been with God, whom he
had seen and whose word he brought down to this world. The acceptance of this
second group catalyzed the development of a high, preexistence christology
(seen against the background of divine Wisdom101) that led to debates with
Jews who thought that Johannine Christians were abandoning Jewish monotheism
by making a second God out of Jesus (Jn 5:18). Ultimately the leaders of
these Jews had Johannine Christians expelled from synagogues (Jn 9:22; Jn
16:2). The latter, alienated from their own, turned very hostile to "the
Jews," whom they regarded as children of the devil (Jn 8:44). They
stressed a realization of the eschatological promises in Jesus to compensate
for what they had lost in Judaism (whence the strong theme of replacement in
the Gospel). At the same time the Johannine Christians despised believers in
Jesus who did not make the same public break from the synagogue (exemplified
by the parents of the blind man in 9:21-23; also 12:42-43). The disciple
mentioned above made this transition and helped others to make it, thus
becoming the Beloved Disciple.
(2) The phase
during which the basic Gospel was written by the evange list. Since "the
Jews" were considered blind and unbelieving (12:37-40), the coming of
the Greeks was seen as God's plan of fulfillment (12:20-23). The community or
part of it may have moved from Palestine to the diaspora to teach the Greeks
(7:35), perhaps to the Ephesus area104 - a move that would cast light on the
Hellenistic atmosphere of the Gospel and on the need to explain Semitic names
and titles (e.g., rabbi, Messiah). This context brought out universalist
possibilities in Johannine thought, in an attempt to speak to a wider
audience. Rejection and persecution, however, convinced Johannine Christians
that the world (like "the Jews") was opposed to Jesus. They looked
on themselves as not of this world which was under the power of Satan, the
Prince of this world (Jn 17:15-16; Jn 14:30; Jn 16:33). In their relation to
other Christians, they rejected some as having so inadequate a christology
that they were really unbelievers (Jn 6:60-66). Others symbolized by Simon
Peter truly believed in Jesus (Jn 6:67-69) but were not deemed so perceptive
as the Johannine Christians symbolized by the Beloved Disciple (Jn 20:6-9).
The hope was that the divisions between them and the Johannine community
might be healed and they might be one (Jn 10:16; Jn 17:11). However, the
Gospel's one-sided emphasis on the divinity of Jesus (shaped by struggles
with the synagogue leaders) and on the need for love of one another as the sole
com mandment (Jn 13:34; Jn 15:12,17) opened the way for some in the next
generation whose whole knowledge of Jesus came from that Gospel to develop
exag gerated views.
(3) The phase
during which the Johannine Epistles, I and 2 John, were written (ca. ad
100). The community split in two: (a) Some adhered to the view represented by the author of 1 and 2
John (another Johannine writer distinct from the evangelist). He complemented
the Gospel by stressing the humanity of Jesus (come in the flesh) and ethical
behavior (keeping the commandments); (b) Many seceded (at least, in the view
of the author of 1 Jn 2:18-19) and were antichrists and children of the devil
because they had so exaggerated Jesus' divinity that they did not see any
importance in his human career or in their own behavior (beyond simply
believing in Jesus - see pp. 390-91 below). Yet in the Johannine community
there was no structure sufficiently authoritative to enable the author to
discipline the secessionists who were actively seeking more adherents; he
could only urge those who were puzzled about truth to test the Spirits (1 Jn
4:1-6).
(4) The phase
during which III John was written and the redactor added chap. 21 (ad
100-110?). The disintegration of the Johannine community led to a development
of pastoral structure and brought those sympathetic to the christology
described under 3a closer to the larger "church catholic." In III
John, even though the writer did not like him because he had become
authoritative, Diotrephes probably represented this new trend which was alien
to the preceding Johannine reliance on the Spirit alone as teacher. Similarly
in Jn 21:15-17 Jesus gives Simon Peter the task of feeding the sheep and thus
recognizes human pastors alongside Jesus, the model shepherd. This development
would ultimately bring some Johannine Christians into the larger church and
preserve the Johannine heritage for that church. On the other hand those
sympathetic to the christology described under 3b above (perhaps the larger
group) fed their interpretation into docetism (where Jesus was deemed not
truly human) and gnosticism (where this world was considered so distorted
that it was not God's creation106) and ultimately Montanism (where Montanus
became the embodiment of the Paraclete to guide the church).
(1) The passage in
7:53-8:11 dealing with Jesus' judgment on the woman caught in adultery is
missing from the best Greek mss. While for many (including Roman Catholics)
the story is canonical, inspired Scripture, almost certainly it is out of
context here in John, despite possible relationship to 8:15,46a. Some mss.
place the story after Lk 21:38 as a continuation of the cunning questions
presented to Jesus before his arrest (Lk 20:20-40). We may have here an old
story about Jesus' mercy toward sinners (see Papias in EH 3:39.) that
traveled independently of the four Gospels and could not be included until
there was a change in the church's reluctance to forgive adultery (Shepherd
of Hermas, Mandate 4:1). The passage supplies an occasion for reflecting
on the relationship between the Jesus tradition and church teaching.
(2) In Matthew's
Sermon on the Mount (5:44), Jesus says, "Love your ene mies, and pray
for those who persecute you." In the "Love one another" of Jn
13:34; Jn 15:12,17 John's Jesus thinks of love for one's fellow believers who
are God's children; but nothing is mentioned of enemies. (And indeed the
Johannine Jesus does not pray for the world (Jn 17:9; see 1 Jn 5:16c).) Thus
the Johannine "new commandment" of love may seem narrow to some and
even sectarian. Yet from another point of view, love of those one has to live
with can be the most difficult exercise of love. Christian prayers for those
outside the Christian faith and concern for them can be compromised by a lack
of love for other believers in Christ. Ironically, churches have fought each
other bitterly in missionary areas where they were all pro claiming their
love for those who did not yet believe in Christ!107
(3) There is sharp
division on the question of Johannine sacramentalism. One group of scholars
sees few or no references to sacraments (especially baptism and eucharist);
and indeed some would characterize John as antisacramental. Their case is
based on the absence of overt references to baptism (cf. Mt 28:19; Mk 16:16)
and to the eucharist (cf. Mk 14:22-24 and par.). From this springs Bultmann's
thesis of an Ecclesiastical Redactor who introduced sacramental references to
make the Gospel acceptable to the church. Others contend that John is the
most sacramental of the Gospels; indeed, they detect some twenty allusive or
symbolic references to baptism and the eucharist in John's use of water,
bread, wine, gaining sight, etc. To prevent too imaginative a search for
these, exterior controls have been suggested, e.g., insisting that the
proposed Johannine sacramental symbols be verified in sacramental contexts in
other NT or early church writings and/ or catacomb art. An in-between
position maintains that the Johannine Jesus' words and actions are prophetic
anticipations of the sacraments rather than direct references. Beyond the
baptismal/eucharistic interpretations, John has been seen as the most
sacramental NT writing in the broader sense that the Johannine Jesus used
the language of this world to refer to the realities of the world from which
he came - the earthly used to symbolize the heavenly. In my view the
broader sacramental understanding of Johannine symbolism, which is certainly
verifiable, tilts the odds in favor of seeing specific symbolic references to
baptism and eucharist.
(4) Above (p. 346)
a twofold interpretation of the Bread of Life was sug gested: Jesus'
revelation and Jesus' flesh and blood. In Lk 24:27-35 there are two ways in
which the presence of the risen Jesus is recognized: the interpretation of
the Scriptures and the breaking of the bread. One may have here incipiently
the format of the liturgical service in which through the centuries
Christians have sought nourishment: the service of the word (read ing and
preaching the Scriptures) and the service of the sacrament (eucha rist).
Churches have at times been divided as to which deserves the most emphasis,
but often the ideal has been to include both in the Sunday service. Readers
may wish to reflect on their own experience of church life, espe cially if
there have been changes in these last decades, to see how the balance works
out.
(5) I insisted
above that the investigation of the history of the Johannine community and
the discussion of John's sources and composition did not constitute exegesis
in the sense of determining what the author intended to convey to his
audience. Perhaps proportionately too much attention has been devoted to the
background issues and too little to the Gospel's helping read ers to believe
that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and thus to possess life in his
name (20:31). Clement of Alexandria called John "the spiritual
Gospel." Many Johannine emphases facilitate that insight, e.g.: the
pedagogically simple picture that through begetting/birth in water and Spirit
believ ers receive God's own life and that through Jesus' flesh and blood
that life is fed and nourished; the dramatic stress on one-to-one contacts
with Jesus; the everyman and every woman role of Johannine figures like the
blind man and Samaritan woman, personifying different faith reactions; the
language of love binding believers to Jesus just as love binds the Son with
the Father; the indwelling Paraclete through whom Jesus remains attainable;
the impor tance of discipleship which is a role that all can share. For John
there are no second-class citizens among true believers; all of them are
God's own children in Christ.
|
These Courses