Part 94
(1:16) becomes very concrete in the image of the living water, which becomes a spring gushing up to eternal life (v. 14). In a similar way Paul alludes to the spiritual drink from the spiritual rock that followed the people in the desert (i Cor 10:4). The theme of living water appears often in the OTas an image of salvation (e.g. Isa 12:3; 55:1; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Sir 24:21). What is new in the Fourth Gospel is not only that the faithful are thirsty but that the spring of water (a symbol of Jesus' teaching and of his Spirit) is now in them as God's gift. Some ancient authorities omit the remark in v. 9 on the Jews and the Samaritans, but there are good attestations for it in different textual traditions. The observation is very similar to others in John.
(4:16—26) The evangelist now describes Jesus' second dialogue with the Samaritan woman, w. 16-18, that the woman has had six men is strange; it reflects the Jews' negative attitude towards Samaritans who are thought to remarry more often than is normally allowed to a woman (two or three times). On this natural level the purpose of the text is to show Jesus' prophetic knowledge. But the distinction Jesus makes between the five husbands and the last one who is not her husband can also favour a symbolic interpretation of the text. The woman represents the Samaritan people, just as Nicodemus in ch. 3 represents the leaders of the Jews. According to Josephus (Ant. 9.288) the Samaritans were composed of five different nations, each one having its special god. The woman's five husbands could symbolize these five gods whom the Samaritans had formerly worshipped, and the one who is not the husband could be YHWH whom the Samaritans are only partly linked to, because they worship him at a different place from that of the Jews (see v. 22). A minor problem with this interpretation is that 2 Kings 17:24-34, on which Josephus' story is built, tells us of five nations two of whom had two gods each (making seven altogether), w. 19—20, the woman identifies Jesus with the coming prophet (Deut 18:15-18), who will vindicate the place of worship on Mt.
969 JOHN
of Judea. Only after the miracle of the bread are there negative reactions also in Galilee, but Jesus is never threatened with death as he is in Judea. According to 7:42 the Messiah comes from Bethlehem in Judea. So it is in Judea that Jesus as prophet and Messiah has no honour, w. 46—7, 54, the Greek word basilikos (a 'royal') could designate a person of kingly dignity, but in the context it is probably a person who serves the king as a soldier or in his household. If he is a soldier he is a pagan like the synoptic centurion. A new introduction to the miracle indicates its link with the first sign. Like the centurion in Mt 8:5, but unlike the one in Lk 7:3-10, the royal official begs Jesus himself and not through intermediaries, w. 48-50, in Matthew and Luke the centurion's words provoke Jesus' admiration and willingness to heal the son. In John the royal official is first criticized like all the others who are eager to see signs and wonders. The evangelist wants the reader to come to faith without seeing miracles (20:29, 31)' but he also knows that Jesus revealed his glory by accomplishing his work, w. 51-3, the royal official gets a confirmation of the miracle by his slaves on his way home. Perhaps the evangelist is aware directly or indirectly of Luke's different delegations from the centurion. For the reader it is important to have the miracle controlled by the father so that the glory of Jesus becomes manifest to all, including the official's household
given: the prophets in the OT; the Baptist and his disciples; Philip in Samaria (Acts 8:4—8). But the most natural interpretation in the context is to consider Jesus and his Father as those who have laboured, and the disciples as those who after Jesus' exaltation on the cross (cf. 12:32) will harvest what they have not sown. In this sense what is told in Acts 8 is only the result of the work Jesus has done in Samaria as the Father's 'apostle'. In a similar way the mission to the pagans in 12:20-1 is related to Jesus' work (cf. 7:35). (4:39-42) Finally we get information concerning the Samaritans' meeting with Jesus. The evangelist has skilfully let the woman inform her people while the disciples had the discussion with their master. Now the Samaritans themselves meet the prophet and Messiah, and can, during two days as eyewitnesses, confirm the testimony of the woman. The evangelist is much concerned about how people come to faith by the testimony of the disciples (cf. 17:20), and about those who believe without having seen (20:29). There are now many more who come to a personal faith in Jesus as the Saviour of the world (cf. 3:16—18). In this way the schismatic Samaritans manifest a deeper understanding than the Jews in Jerusalem (2:23-5). The title 'Saviour', Sotlr, is used for Jesus especially in later NT writings, as it could be associated with the cult of the emperor. Naturally for the evangelist Jesus is a Saviour in a more profound sense than the emperor, since the world has been created in and by him, the Logos (1:3-14). (4:43-54) The Second Sign at Cana: The Healing of the Royal Official's Son Twice the narrator recalls the first sign at Cana (4:46, 54). The two miracles take place when Jesus comes to Galilee and in both the reader is reminded of that location (2:1, ii and 4:43-7, 54). The narrative model is similar: Jesus' mother and the royal official ask the Master to interfere but his attitude is at first negative (2:4; 4:48). When both insist Jesus finally decides to intervene (cf. 2:5, 7-8 with 4:49-50). The miracle is described through the people's reactions (cf. 2:9—10 with 4:51—3) who come to believe in Jesus (2:11; 4:53). In contrast to the following miracles in John there is no sceptical discussion before or after the intervention. Thus the narrator suggests that Jesus was successful in Galilee, in contrast to what happened in Judea. If the royal official is a pagan we can observe that faith now spreads not only to the schismatic Samaritans but also to the Gentiles. The miracle illustrates how Jesus is a source of life, a theme which was important in 3:1—4:14, and will be continued in chs. 5—6.
(cf. Acts 10:2; 11:14; etc-)- The faith that the official had in Jesus' word is now strengthened.
(5:1—47) Jesus Heals a Lame Man: He Gives Life to Whom he Wishes Chs. 5:1—10:39 describe Jesus' confrontation with the Jews, both in Jerusalem and in Galilee. In Jerusalem the hostility leads to different threats to kill him (5:18; 7:1, 19-25; 8:37, 40; 10:31—9). His activity is presented in the framework of Jewish feasts which Jesus replaces by his own person. The exegetes who place ch. 5 after ch. 6 have not been able to give decisive arguments for their hypothesis; but it is possible that ch. 6 has been added in a second edition of the gospel, causing some tensions in the presentation of the material.
The evangelist has created a subtle contrast between the healing of the man at the pool Beth-zatha in ch. 5 and that of the blind man at the pool of Siloam in ch. 9. The former is merely a passive object of Jesus' work, whereas the latter illustrates the active response of a man with a growing faith. The special technique of the evangelist transforms the healing at the pool Beth-zatha into a kind of illustration of the transformation from death to life. The sick man is healed (w. 9,15) but Jesus himself is threatened by imminent death (v. 18). Nevertheless, this threat is ineffective, because the Father raises the dead, and the Son can give life to whom he wants (v. 21). This theme introduces the consideration regarding the dead who come out of their graves (w. 28-9). The negative judgement on those who do not believe is evoked (w. 29, 45-7). The opposite theme is that of the Father's love for his Son (v. 20), and the joint life-work of the Father and the Son (w. 17, 21, 26). Jesus is described as the life-giving Son who is not obliged to observe the sabbath laws. (5:1-90) The evangelist describes first the healing, which has some similarities with that of a paralysed man at Capernaum in Mk 2:1—12 par. v. i, 'a festival', without definite article before heorte, is probably the original reading and vaguely indicates one of the Jewish feasts. In v. 9 it is considered a sabbath,
There are strong links between the Johannine scene and the account of the healing of the centurion's son or servant in Matthew and Luke (Mt 8:5-13; Lk 7:1-10; see Neirynck 19840), but the evangelist has also other information. He seems to have reworked his material with the help of the narrative of the healing of a Gentile woman's daughter in Mk 7:24-30 (cf. Mt 15:21-8). (4:43-5) These verses have been composed either by a redactor or by the evangelist in a later edition of his gospel. He seems to have a direct knowledge of Mk 6:1—6 (both, alone in the NT, have the expression exltihen ekeiihen, 'he left that place'). He reworks the tradition of Mk 6:1-6 par. and has the prophet's 'own country' allude not to Nazareth but to Judea or perhaps more precisely to Jerusalem. The contrast in w. 43—5 gives a positive description of Galilee and a negative one
JOHN 97°
on that of the Father. This goes beyond what is said of Moses in Num 16:28. The evangelist uses here the word phileo for the Father's love for the Son, but elsewhere agapao (3:35; 10:17; 15:9; 17:23-6). w. 20/7-23, ^e 'greater works' are those mentioned in w. 21—2: to give life and to possess the power to judge now (v. 22; cf. 3:31—6). This is intended to anticipate what will happen at the end of the world (w. 28—9). As the agent of God Jesus is worthy of the same honour as the Father (v. 23; cf. 15:23). w. 24—5,^3:15 it was faith in the Son of Man that led to eternal life, now it is belief that the Father has sent the Son. In both cases the believer accepts the one who has been sent. As in 4:23, the link between the future and the present is underlined. The evangelist describes the present situation with the help of eschatological expressions. Later Gnostic speculations reinterpreted this passing from death to life in the framework of the soul's delivery from its imprisonment in the body (e.g. Ap. John, 30:33-31:25). w. 26-7, v. 26 reformulates v. 21 with the help of creational terminology (cf. the prologue). Just as in the Greek translation of Dan 7:13-14, there is no definite article before Son of Man; so one could translate 'a son of man', but the context shows that the evangelist refers to the early Christian tradition of Jesus' coming as eschatological judge. This is an exception in the Fourth Gospel, where the theme of the Son of Man is normally connected with Jesus' pre-existence, incarnation, death, and resurrection (cf. 1:51; 3:13-15; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 12:23, 34; I3:31)- w28-30, without sufficient reason w. 28—9 have been considered as redactional (e.g. Bultmann 1971: 261). On the contrary, the entire passage in 5:19-30 shows the connection between future and present judgement. There is a subtle correspondence between w. 19 and 30, 20 and 28—9, 21—3 and 26—7, 24 and 25. The evangelist wants to show that the traditional last judgement already begins in this life. The resurrection of life is for those who have done good (v. 29) and believe in Jesus and his Father
which makes it unnecessary to identify it with Passover or Pentecost, v. 2, the Copper Scroll (3QiJ 11:12—13) refgrs to Bethesdatayin and its water basin, which seems to confirm Bethesda, but Beth-zatha (NRSV) seems to be more satisfactory, as Bethesda may have been substituted because of its meaning, 'house of mercy'. Even less satisfactory are the variants Bethsaida, Bezatha, Belzetha. Near the temple area and St Anna's church archaeologists have found two connected pools, but the five porticoes are missing. At the time of Hadrian there was a cult devoted to the healing god Asklepios. v. 3, the Greek xeroi designates those who have malformed limbs, or who are 'paralysed', whereas choloi are those who are lame (in one foot or both feet). The addition in w. 3/^—4 concerning the angel who stirs the waters is old but not original. It may go back to a local tradition and is inspired by v. 7. w. 5-7, Jesus takes the initiative to heal the sick man, who in a naive way describes his situation. Contrary to the
Synoptic Gospels, Jesus does not require him to believe but asks only if he wants to be made well. The stirred water maybe due to a system of pipes conducting the water from one pool to the other, or is a confusion with movement of water at the pool of Siloam. The addition in v. 4 attributes it to an angel, v. 8, Jesus' admonition is nearly identical with that of Mk 2:9, n, one of the many indications that the author of the Fourth Gospel had a direct knowledge of Mark (Kieffer 1992). v. ga, in a similar way the evangelist mentions the sabbath rather late in the narrative on the healing of the blind man (9:14). From 2:13 onwards the Jewish feasts play an important role in Jesus' stay in Jerusalem. By walking the man shows that he is healed, as in Mk 2:12, but there the mat he carries has a natural function. Contrary to the two first miracles the healing does not lead to faith in Jesus, but to violent discussions in w. 9/7-18. (5:9^-18) The fact that Jesus healed on a sabbath leads to difficulties with the Jews. w. 10—n, as early as Jer 17:21 and Neh 13:19 it was not permitted to carry a burden on a sabbath (cf. also the Mishnah, Sabb. 7:2). The healed man refers to Jesus' authority in response to the prohibition, w. 12-14, Jesus
(v. 24). The resurrection of condemnation is for those who have done evil (v. 30; cf. 3:18). We meet this double resurrection also in Acts 24:15 (cf. Dan 12:2), whereas other Jewish traditions let the unrighteous remain in their graves. According to John the resurrection will take place at the voice of the Son of Man, whereas in i Thess 4:16 Paul uses Jewish apocalyptic imagery: the commandment from God, the archangel's call, and the sound of God's trumpet. In John Jesus' judgement follows the Father's decrees (cf. v. 30).
disappears for a while in order to allow a discussion to be raised with the man who was healed (cf. a similar device in ch. 9). When he meets him in the temple, Jesus seems to establish a link between sickness and sin, just as in the synoptic tradition (Mk 2:5—12 par), but contrary to Jn 9:2—3. The sick man is depicted in a rather negative way, in contrast to the blind man in ch. 9, who is an example of how to believe in Christ, w. 15-18, thanks to the healed man identifying Jesus, the evangelist can introduce his main theme of the Jews' persecutions. Jesus' provocative statement is reinforced when he compares his activity with God's creative work even on a sabbath. For the first time the Jews want to kill him as a blasphemer. This will be stated even more clearly in 10:33.
(5:31—47) In the second part of his answer Jesus is concerned about the fourfold testimony that justifies the great claim he makes to judge and to give life, as his Father does. w. 31-2, an implicit objection to what Jesus has hitherto said could be: 'You consider yourself as judge, but we judge your testimony as not valid' (cf. 8:13). Therefore Jesus relies upon the supreme testimony of his Father. At the same time the evangelist perceives that the Son's testimony has great value, because Jesus knows where he has come from and where he is going (cf. 8:14). w. 33—6, the Baptist's testimony to truth in 1:19—36 was only a human testimony and cannot therefore be compared to the greater one of the Father, which leads to the third testimony, the Son's works (cf. 10:25; 14:10—11). The Baptist is again presented as inferior to Jesus: only a shining lamp, but not the light (cf. 1:7-8). In v. 35 the audience is implicitly criticized for not having understood the Baptist's witness
(5:19—47) Jesus Gives the Jews a Thorough Answer
(5:19—30) In the first part of his long answer Jesus elucidates v. 17 on the joint work of the Father and the Son. It anticipates the sign of Lazarus' resuscitation and Jesus' own resurrection, w. 19-200, just as in 1:51; 3:3, 5, n, the formula 'very truly' (in the text a double amen) introduces here and in w. 24—5 a solemn revelation. At that time a son learned much from his father; the work of the Son is presented as entirely dependent
971 JOHN
Jesus is also expressed by his walk on the sea during a storm and his leading of the disciples to the land (w. 16—21). The following discussion (w. 25—59) is introduced by w. 22—4, and because of the contents and the different protagonists can be divided into four parts (w. 25-7, 28-40, 41-51, 52-9). Jesus opposes the perishable food to that which endures for eternal life. Even the bread that Moses gave in the desert is contrasted to the bread of life that the Father gives from heaven. The concrete allusions to Jesus' flesh and blood (w. 52-9) give rise to sharp reactions from the crowd and the disciples. Peter's confession contrasts with Judas' future betrayal (w. 60—71).
(v. 33). This could also imply that the Baptist is now dead, w. 37—8, the evangelist continues to move in a kind of circular demonstration: only a positive relation to the Son who has been sent can enable you to grasp the testimony of the Father! Those who have not heard the voice of God or seen him are implicitly contrasted to Jesus who has both seen and heard the Father (cf 1:18; 5:19, 30; 6:46). Those who believe in Jesus see howthe Father's testimony is presentinthe Son. w. 39-40, 'to search' is a technical expression (Heb. dams). One could also translate ereunate as an imperative (so Origen, Tertullian, and probably the Egerton Papyrus 2 from the second century). But the indicative goes better with 'because you think'. The fourth testimony is that of Scripture, but the Johannine community knows by experience that many Jews cannot discern its testimony, w. 41—4, one of the reasons for their shortcomings before the different testimonies is a lack of love for God and for his glory (cf. 12:43). Jesus underlines his own contempt for human glory, a theme that we also find among philosophers who prefer to speak the truth than to earn human glory (e.g. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32:11). But the evangelist is moreover especially interested in the Son's and the Father's glory (Gk. doxa; cf. 1:14; 2:11; 7:18; 8:50, 54; 9:24; 11:4,40; 12:41, 43; 17:5, 22, 24). Jesus also contrasts his own coming from the Father with those who come in their own name, perhaps an allusion to antichrists (cf. i Jn 2:18). At Jn 5:44 MSS as early as P?s and Pss leave out theou, 'God', but this is probably due to the copyists' error, and overlooked because its abbreviated form resembled too much the final vowels in the preceding word monou ('alone'), w. 45-7, in Jewish tradition Moses is often depicted as Israel's intercessor or advocate before God (cf. Ex 32—4; Deut 9—10; Aurelius 1988). In John he is turned into the accuser of those who do not believe in Jesus, because they do not really read what Moses has written. The evangelist either alludes to the coming Prophet (Deut 18:15; see Jn I:2I> 4:I8; 7:40), or more generally to the books of Moses, as in 5:39. The audience reads the Scriptures in a superficial way and does not see how the Father's testimony becomes evident in Jesus' mission and work, to which even Moses testifies.
Ch. 6 has much in common with the two miracles in Mk 6:30-52 par., and even with Mk 8:11-13 (me sign requested), Mk 8:14—21 (discussion on bread), Mk 8:27—30 (Peter's confession), Mk 8:31—3 (the Son of Man's rejection). The evangelist seems to follow Mk 6:30-52 and 8:11-33, omitting the duplicate feeding miracle in Mk 8:1-10 par., but adding his own material and his personal theology.
(6:1—15) Th£ evangelist describes the feeding of the five thousand, w. 1—4, only the Fourth Gospel underlines in this context the crowd's interest in Jesus' signs. That prepares the reader for Jesus' criticism in w. 26—7. The location of the miracle is more vague than in the Synoptic Gospels. The starting-point of Jesus' journey seems to be Capernaum, mentioned in 2:12 and 4:46. If John follows Mark, the 'other side of the Sea of Tiberias' is not too far away from Capernaum, so that people can arrive on foot ahead of Jesus (Mk 6:33). But in Jn 6:23 one gets the impression that the place is also near Tiberias (mentioned only in John). Still, most important is the location on 'the other side', perhaps the pagan area of Decapolis or Bethsaida (cf. 1:44; 12:21). The 'mountain' has a symbolic meaning of proximity to God's authority, as in Mt 5:1 and 28:16. That Jesus sits down with his disciples (probably the twelve mentioned in 6:71) possibly underlines his special function as a teacher (cf. Mk 4:1; 9:35; Mt 5:1). The miracle takes place shortly before Passover, an indication that is absent in the Synoptic Gospels. It is possible that parts of the Johannine text were used in a Christian Passover feast where the eucharist was celebrated. Therefore Jesus' words are reformulated as a kind of homily on readings from the Jewish synagogue, w. 5-9, in the first synoptic feeding miracle (Mk 6:30-44 par.) the disciples take the initiative, whereas here and in the second feeding (Mk 8:1—10 par.) it is Jesus who does so. In John the Master does not ask collectively all the disciples but only Philip. Andrew also intervenes and mentions the boy with the five loaves and the two fish, whereas in the first synoptic account the disciples themselves had the five loaves and the two fish (in the second, seven loaves and some fish). It is clear that the author of the Fourth Gospel has made the stage-setting more dramatic by indicating Jesus' test. He also underlines Jesus' sovereign attitude and knowledge, v. 10, if John follows Mark, he replaces the finer word anaklinomai ('sit down') with the more common anapipto found in Mk 6:40 and 8:6. The grass is also mentioned in the first miracle of Mark and Matthew; in Mk 6:39 it is even 'green', which suits the Passover in John. v. n, as in most synoptic accounts of the feeding of the people, the evangelist uses words that recall the eucharist during Jesus' last meal. John underlines the thanksgiving in connection with the bread (cf. Lk 22:19; i Cor 11-24),
(6:1-10:39) Third Geographical Grouping
(6:1^71) Jesus Feeds 5,000 and Walks on the Sea: He is the Bread of Life Ch. 6 is a well-defined unit about Jesus as the bread of life. Even w. 51—9 belong originally to this unit
(against Bultmann's redactional hypothesis, see Kieffer (1968: 152-4)). Possibly ch. 6 has been inserted between ch. 5 and ch. 7 after a first sketch of the gospel, or in a second edition, causing an interruption of the discussion in Jerusalem from ch. 5 to ch. 10. Nevertheless, chs. 2—4 have prepared the reader for Jesus' travels to Galilee. The whole of ch. 6 can also be considered as a concrete example of how Moses wrote about Jesus (5:46).
The approach of Passover in ch. 6 anticipates the last Passover in chs. 13-17, where the evangelist replaces the words spoken over the bread and the wine with the washing of the disciples' feet. As in ch. 5, a miracle is the occasion of a long discussion. The stage-setting begins with Jesus' stay on a mountain and the contrast between the five barley loaves and two fish on one side, and on the other the superabundant food for the five thousand people (w. 1—15). The greatness of
JOHN 972
eternal Jife he can give. In w. 14—15 the peopJe considered Jesus as the Prophet and wanted to make him a king, but now they address him as a teacher. In the following discussion he wiJJ speak as a reveaJer of wisdom. The reader already knows the extraordinary way in which Jesus came to Capernaum, but the Master rebukes the peopJe for seeking him because of the signs and the food. The food he wants to give is salvation offered by God in the Son of Man. The allusion to the eucharist will come later in Jesus' discourse. In Isa 54:9—55:5 the Lord invites his peopJe to be fed by his word. In a similar way Jesus speaks of a spiritual hunger. In v. 27 the seaJ which the Father has set (cf. 3:33) consists in his attestation of the Son's roJe, perhaps an allusion to 1:32.
whereas the fish pJay a minor roJe. StrangeJy enough he does not mention that Jesus broke the Joaves, a detaiJ we find in aJJ other descriptions of the feeding miracJes and of Jesus' eucharistic meaJ. w. 12-13,as in aU feeding miracJes the evangelist emphasizes that the peopJe were satisfied and that there was much Jeft over. In the first synoptic feeding miracJe there were tweJve baskets of fragments of bread and fish, in the second onJy seven. In John Jesus himseJf orders the peopJe to gather what is Jeft. Again the evangelist is onJy interested in the bread, w. 14—15, after the miracJe the peopJe think that Jesus is the expected prophet according to Deut 18:15—18 (cf. Jn 1:21; 4:19; 7:40). OnJy the Fourth GospeJ mentions that the peopJe want to make him a king, which Jesus refuses because he is 'king' in a quite different sense (cf. 18:33—4).
(6:28-40) In this passage Jesus speaks about God's work and the bread of heaven. The citation in v. 31 is decisive for the whoJe discourse up to v. 59. w. 28—9, as often in the Fourth GospeJ the discussion is carried on with the heJp of a catchword, in this case 'the work of God', in v. 28 in the pJuraJ and in v. 29 in the singular. The peopJe have not understood that the point is not to achieve many things but to Jet God do his unique work through a Jiving faith in the Son he has sent, w. 30-1, even if Jesus has already given a sign by feeding the crowds, they want a further sign from heaven, as requested in Mk 8:11—13. They express their solidarity with the Patriarchs, and especially with Moses and his signs (cf. Ex 16:4—5). w. 32— 3, in v. 31 the people had quoted Ps 78:24 (combined with Ex 16:4, 15): 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' In a typically rabbinic way Jesus underlines that 'he' alludes to the Father and not to Moses; one ought to say 'gives' and not 'gave', as the consonants n-th-n in Hebrew can be read both as nathan ('he gave') and nothen ('he is giving'). So God is the origin of both the manna and the true bread which gives Jife to the worJd. The God of the OT is called 'my Father'. Jesus' mention of'true bread', as opposed to both manna and ordinary bread, is reminiscent of the Lord's prayer, addressed to the Father for bread for tomorrow (Mt 6:9—13). In v. 33 the Greek definite article ho may refer to Jesus ('he who comes down') or better, as in NRSV, to the bread ('that which comes down'; cf. v. 34). v. 34, just as the Samaritan woman had a very limited understanding when she said 'give me this water' (Jn 4:15), so the people's simple demand 'give us this bread always' is onJy a starting-point for Jesus' fuller revelation in the following verses, v. 35, in Greek ego eimi can be used in different contexts. It can answer the questions: 'Who are you?', 'What are you?', and 'Of whom are we speaking?' In the first case it underlines a person's identity, in the second his or her qualifications, and in the third that one recognizes him or her. In w. 35,41,48, 51, we have to do above aJJ with this third kind of understanding: it is Jesus who is the bread of which we are speaking (cf. aJso 8:12; 10:7, 9, n, 14; 15:1). 'The bread of Jife' means the bread which gives eternal Jife (cf. v. 27: 'the food that endures for eternal Jife') and is synonymous with 'the Jiving bread' in v. 51. Similar expressions are found in Isa 55:1— 2 (to thirst and be hungry for the word of God). Perhaps there is even a subtle allusion to the contrary statement in Sir 24:21: 'Those who eat of me will hunger more, and those who drink of me will thirst more.' In w. 31—5 the author has passed from the OT 'bread from heaven' to 'bread of God' and finally to 'bread of life' (cf. Joseph and Asenath 16.8-9). v3^» this
(6:16—21) Jesus Walks on Water. In Mk 6:48 Jesus comes to the discipJes in the morning, in John when it is dark (Jn 6:16). The discipJes have rowed 'twenty-five to thirty stadia' (v. 19, Jit. tr), about 5 or 6 km.; that means that they are in the middle of the sea. The stage-setting separates Jesus from the crowd and prepares the discipJes for the following heated discussions where they have to decide about their own reJationship to their master (w. 60-71). We can compare two kinds of synoptic texts: Jesus walking on the sea (Mk 6:45—52 par.) and Jesus stilling the storm (Mk 4:35—41 par). In both cases there is a strong wind blowing which Jesus caJms, but in the first case Jesus is apart from the discipJes whereas in the second case he is with them, sleeping in the boat. It is possible that both stories go back to the same event. In Mk 6:45—52 the evangelist shows that the discipJes do not really recognize the saving epiphany of Christ, whereas in Mt 14:22-33 the scene is concluded with the discipJes' confession: 'Truly you are the Son of God'. In John the epiphany is in the foreground, with the formuJa 'it is I', ego eimi. This sentence is used in John either with a compJement, or without, as here. In three cases, in 8:24, 28, and 13:19, the absence of a compJement makes the expression allude to dni hii which designates YHWH in Deut 32:39; Isa 43:10; 52:6. It is possible that even in Jn 6:20; 18:56, 8, there is more than a simple statement 'it is I'. The miraculous landing during a storm is similar to that which is attributed to YHWH in Ps 107:23—30. There may aJso be an allusion to Jewish passover readings on the crossing of the Red Sea under Moses' guidance (GibJin 1983). (6:22-4) The introduction to the discussion is awkward and may reflect a redactor's work (cf. JN 4:1—3; 4:43—5). The diminutive ploiarion ('a little boat') is used three times instead of the former ploion (in w. 17,19,21-2). The words 'after the Lord had given thanks' in v. 23 are found in different oJd textual traditions and are probably originaJ, but the designation kyrios reflects a ChristoJogy of the Lord which the evangelist normally reserves for the texts after the resurrection. The discussion with the people can take place only if they come to Capernaum where Jesus and the discipJes have Janded. But the author aJso wants the crowd to discover that Jesus had not used the discipJes' boat (v. 22). The boats which come from Tiberias (v. 23) are meant to create a Jink between the unspecified pJace where Jesus fed the peopJe and the locality of the discourse. The textual tradition in v. 23 is rather confused.
(6:25—7) These verses introduce a discussion on seeking Jesus in a wrong way (cf. 7:34-6), instead of looking for the
973 JOHN
blood (cf. 1:14). Implicitly Jesus alludes to his own death which gives life. In w. 35 and 48 Jesus spoke of'the bread of life', in v. 51 he speaks of the 'living bread', just as in 4:10 he mentioned the 'living water'. These metaphors describe Jesus as the Saviour of the world (cf. 4:42). The discussion has moved from the scriptural texts on the manna to the Son who has been sent from heaven in order to give life to believers. (6:52-9) This explicit statement on the eucharist is the climax of the whole discussion and leads to strong reactions in w. 60—6. v. 52, the Jews'negative reaction atthe content ofv.5i is the starting-point of Jesus' even clearer statements in the following verses, w. 53-4, in contrast to v. 51 Jesus also emphasizes the importance of drinking the Son of Man's blood, which is even more provocative (cf. v. 35). He uses both a negative and a positive formulation to characterize those who do or do not partake of the Son of Man's life. In v. 40 the importance of faith was underlined for those who will be raised by Jesus, whereas here it is the importance of the eucharist. v. 55, the reading alethos (adv. 'truly') is probably original, since it is attested in different textual traditions, in contrast to alethes (adj. 'true', NRSV), which probably arises from an early alteration in the Alexandrian traditions. The use of alethos as specifying the predicate is typically Johannine (cf. 1:42; 4:42; 6:14; etc.; Kieffer 1968: 152 ff). 'Flesh' and 'blood' underline again Jesus' real humanity, w. 56-7, just as he will in the image of the vine and the branches (15:1—11), Jesus stresses the mutual abiding of the believer and himself. The expression 'the living Father' is rare (cf. Gos. Thorn. 3), but may have been coined in parallel with 'living bread' in v. 51. The Greek preposition dia with accusative normally means 'for the purpose of, but in our context it has nearly the meaning of 'by', 'through' (cf. i Jn 4:9). There is a link between the sending of the Son and the fact that the believer can live through the Son (who himself lives through the Father, cf. 5:26). In w. 55 and 57 the future life is mentioned, whereas in v. 56 the present relationship is in view. v. 58, the evangelist sums up what has been said hitherto. The shortest reading 'the ancestors ate' is probably original, as the copyists were tempted to add words borrowed from v. 49 ('the manna' and 'in the wilderness'), v. 59, because of the absence of an article in en synagogei one could translate 'in an assembly', but since John probably knows Mk 1:21-8 he is thinking of the synagogue at Capernaum. (6:60^71) After the mention of the Jews' repeated complaints we now get the disciples' reactions. The miracles at Cana resulted in faith (2:11; 4:53), whereas the healing of the lame man in Jerusalem provokes the Jews to such a degree that they seek to kill Jesus (5:18). The miracle of the bread and the following discussion meet both positive and negative responses, but this time even some of Jesus' disciples leave him. v. 60, 'many of his disciples' will leave Jesus in v. 66 and are distinct from the twelve in w. 67—71. One can also translate: 'who can listen to him?' (the Greek autou can refer either to 'his teaching' or to Jesus), v. 61, the evangelist often stresses that Jesus knows what people are thinking or doing (e.g. 1:47—8; 2:25; 6:64). v. 62, there is no main clause in the conditional sentence, therefore different ways have been proposed to complete it: 'then the offence will be even greater'; 'then the offence will be diminished'; 'then the offence will be
critique is similar to that in v. 26. It interrupts Jesus' selfrevelation, which will be continued in the following verses. Since this corresponds to a typical Johannine technique there is no reason to displace the verse, as Bultmann (1971) and Brown (1966) do. w. 37-40, in these verses v. 38 is in the centre of a composition where v. 36 is the opposite of v. 40 and w. 37 and 39 express a similar idea. v. 37 introduces the main theme: the Father gives the believers to Jesus. The three other verses describe the connection between the Father and the
Son (v. 38; cf. 5:30), and the relationship of the believers to the Father and to the Son. Even if there is no direct link between w. 36-40 and the theme of the bread of life from heaven in w. 35 and 41, these verses give information on connected themes about Jesus being sent from heaven and the difficulty of believing in his self-revelation. 'Everything' in v. 37 corresponds to Aramaic kol de. The evangelist likes to consider believers as the totality of people who have been given to Jesus by the Father (cf. 6:39; 17:2, 24). In Mt 18:14 it is the Father's will that not one of these little ones should be lost, whereas in Jn 6:39 it is the will of the Son. The Father's will is that believers should have eternal life, but it is the Son who will raise them on the last day (cf. v. 44), a rather unique affirmation in the NT. Contrary to 5:28—9 here the evangelist mentions only the believers' resurrection. In v. 40 to see the Son is nearly synonymous with believing in him.
(6:41-51) repeats certain affirmations made in w. 28-40, but at the same time prepares the reader for the identification of the bread with Jesus' flesh in w. 51—8. w. 41—2, the evangelist replaces the crowds by the 'Jews' who murmur (egoggyzon; cf. w. 43, 61), as did the people in the desert (Ex 16:2, 7-12). He probably thinks of Galileans who know Jesus' family and therefore challenge his heavenly origin. They resist Jesus, but without threatening him with death as the Jews in Judea do. They call him 'the son of Joseph', as in 1:45 and Lk 4:22, whereas in Mk 6:3 par. Jesus is 'the son of Mary'. Jesus' mother has been already mentioned in 2:1—12 and will be present at the crucifixion in 19:25—7. w. 43—7, Jesus answers in an indirect way by speaking of his heavenly Father's work in those who believe (cf. w. 37-40). In v. 44 the Father draws the believers to Jesus, whereas in 12:32 itis the elevated Jesus on the cross who draws all people to himself. Probably the evangelist is alluding to love's power to attract (cf. Hos 11:4; Song 1:4; Jer 31:3 (= 38:3 LXX)). As in v. 40 Jesus himself will raise the dead. The quotation in v. 45 from Isa 54:12—13 LXX is very free (perhaps with the help of Jer 31:34). Just as in the prologue, the evangelist in w. 46-7 encourages the reader to rely on the Father and on the Son who alone has seen him. Once again the believer is said to have eternal life (cf. 3:15—16, 36; 5:24; 6:40). w. 48—51, in v. 31 Jesus had emphasized that it was God and not Moses who gave the manna. Now he underlines that the manna, in contrast to the bread from heaven, could not prevent the ancestors from dying. In v. 49 Jesus says 'your ancestors' as if he himself were not a Jew. The evangelist writes from a later perspective when Jews and Christians were already separated (cf. 7:19; 8:17; 10:34). To eat of the bread in v. 50 prepares for the eating of Jesus' flesh in v. 51. The Greek word sarx ('flesh'), like soma ('body') in the other eucharistic texts, is a translation of the Aramaic besar. Possibly the evangelist chose sarx in order to underline that the Word really became flesh and
JOHN 974
The chronological indicators, the content of the discussion, and the people's different interventions can help us to divide the text into seven sections: (i) Jesus hesitates to go up to Jerusalem at the festival of Booths (7:1-13). (2) Jesus' teaching and Moses' law (7:14—24). (3) The mysterious origin of Jesus (7:25—36). (4) Jesus, Messiah and prophet (7:37—52). (5) The Father's testimony to Jesus (8:12—20). (6) Jesus' return to his Father (8:21-30). (7) Jesus and Abraham (8:31-59). These sections are organized into three scenes. About the middle of the festival Jesus suddenly appears atthe temple (sect. 2—3). The next scene is on the last day of the festival (sect. 4). The third scene is introduced in 8:12 with a vague indication, 'again', and takes place in the treasury of the temple (cf. 8:20; sects. 5—7). The three scenes are linked together with the help of three main actors: Jesus, the people, and the official authorities (see among others Rochais 1993). (7:1-13) Jesus hesitates to go up to Jerusalem at the festival of Booths. His secret journey from Galilee to Jerusalem and its temple is only a reflection of his even more mysterious journey from the Father to this world and back to him (cf. w. 25-36 and 8:21-30). But what Jesus expresses clearly is not understood by the Jews, who know only his human origin and instead of seeking God rely upon their law (cf. 7:14—15). v. i, 'After this' (Gk. mcta tauta) is a typical Johannine transition (cf. 5:1, 14; 6:1; 19:38; 21:1). Sometimes it is changed to meta touto (2:12; 11:7, n; 19:28). The variant reading 'was not at liberty' is probably not original, since it is less well attested in different textual traditions than NRSV's 'he did not wish'. Jesus' hesitation is due to the threat in 5:18. w. 2-5, between the Passover in ch. 6 and the festival of Booths in chs. 7—8 is a time-span of about six months. Jesus' brothers have already been mentioned in 2:12. In the Synoptics they are named: James, Joses, Judas, and Simon (Mk 6:3; Mt 13:55). A comparison with Jn 19:25 makes it probable that in the Fourth Gospel they are half-brothers or cousins. In Mk 3:21, 31—2 Jesus' relatives fail to understand his mission. In a similar way the brothers in John are incredulous, in contrast to the beloved disciple. The disciples may be either those named in 2:23 and 4:1, or (better) those who left him in 6:66 and want to see a spectacular sign in Jerusalem (cf. 6:14—15). The sceptical brothers seem to reformulate a sentence of Jesus that we find in the Synoptics (Mk 4:22 par.). The evangelist knows that Jesus will in fact show himself to the world (cf. 18:20). w. 6-9, as in 2:1-11 Jesus wants to keep the initiative. He knows that when the time of his clear manifestation will come, it will provoke hatred from the world, a theme developed in 15:18—25. Only here does the evangelist use the word kairos ('time') and not his usual hora ('hour'), perhaps under the influence of Mk 1:15 par. In v. 8 P66, P", and B have oupo
both greater and diminished'. This last suggestion fits the context best, because the ascension of the Son of Man will be as mysterious as his descent from heaven and the consumption of his flesh and blood. In this interpretation v. 62 corresponds not only to v. 61, w. 48-50, or 51-8, but to the whole foregoing discussion, v. 63, the flesh and blood of the
Son of Man must be understood in the light of Jesus' connection with the living Spirit of God (cf 3:5-8; 4:24; 7:38-9). Jesus lives through the Father (v. 57) and after the resurrection will transmit this life through the eucharist. v. 64, the remark on Jesus' knowledge refutes possible objections concerning the choice of Judas, v. 65, the Father's action is mentioned in v. 44 (cf. also 6:37; 8:47). v. 66, The strange Greek expression apelthon eis ta opiso is also used in 18:6 and means literally 'they went away, backwards'. In Isa 1:4 and 50:5 a similar Hebrew expression means 'to leave', v. 67, the twelve are mentioned here and in w. 70-1 for the first time and will appear also in 20:24. ^ is possible that they already are understood to be with Jesus in 6:3. The narrator assumes that the reader knows them as a chosen group, but (in 1:35-51) he describes the call of five disciples only. The question with me (not: lit. 'Not also you wish to go?') introduces here not the expected negative answer but an indecisive one. w. 68—9, Peter answers in the name of the twelve. He says rhetorically, 'to whom can we go?'; he accepts what Jesus has said in v. 63; he makes a solemn declaration about Jesus, similar to that at Caesarea Philippi in Mk 8:29 par. 'The Holy One of God' is the best reading, whereas many M S S have changed the text under the influence of Mk 8:29; Mt 16:16; and Jn 11:27. As the evangelist has already shown that Jesus is the Messiah, he stresses here another aspect of Jesus, w. 70—1, the evangelist knows that according to the Synoptics Jesus chose the twelve
(cf. 13:18; 15:16), even if he does not describe the circumstances oftheir call (cf. Mk 3:14 par.). The devil is named Satan in 8:44 and 13:2. Judas betrays Jesus under the influence of Satan (cf. 13:2). In the Synoptics and in Jn 12:4 and 14:22 Judas is called Iscariot, whereas here and in 13:2, 26 this is his father Simon's surname. Perhaps the original name was Scarioth (Codex Bezae; cf. Kieffer 1968: 201—4).
(7:1—8:59) Jesus at the Festival of Booths With the exception of 7:53-8:11, which originally did not belong to the Fourth Gospel (see JN APP), these verses form a narrative unity devoted to Jesus' stay in Jerusalem during the festival of Booths
(or Tabernacles). Some verses describe how Jesus the Messiah replaces the Jewish rites at Tabernacles, both the ceremony with water (7:37-9) and the celebration of light (8:12). At the same time the conflict with the Jews in Jerusalem is increasing: they do not understand Jesus' identity and therefore discuss in a polemical way the Messiah, the son of David, the law of Moses, their kinship with Abraham. In 7:32 and 7:45 the reader is for the first time informed that the Pharisees and the chief priests try to arrest Jesus but do not succeed. This anticipates their new initiatives in chs. 9-12 where they finally achieve their plans. In 7:15-24 the discussion in ch. 5 is continued, just as 7:37—9 extends the theme of water in chs. 1—4. The theme of the light in 8:12 will be in the centre in ch. 9, and the relation of Jesus to God, discussed in chs. 7-8, will be treated extensively in chs. 13-17.
('not yet') in place of ouk ('not'), but that seems to be an early correction in order to avoid a contradiction between what Jesus says in w. 6—8 and what he finally does. w. 10—13, in
v. 10 the NRSV's 'as it were'renders hos which we find in many important MSS, but which is missing in others. It might have been added very early in order to soften the meaning. The Jews in v. n probably represent the official authorities, as in v. 13. They want to seize Jesus (cf. w. 32 and 45). They are not identical with the crowds in v. 12 or the people of Jerusalem in v. 25 who react in quite different ways. The 'complaining' in
975 JOHN
(7:25—36) The discussion turns towards the question of Jesus' origin, w. 25—7, the people of Jerusalem (Hierosolymeitai) are in the NT named only here and in Mk 1:5. In contrast to the people who have come to Jerusalem for the festival they are informed about the authorities' plans to kill Jesus (5:18; 7:19). As they let Jesus speak openly they seem to accept him as the Messiah. Ironically the evangelist notices that the people of Jerusalem both know and do not know where Jesus comes from. Their expectation of a hidden Messiah corresponds to elements of Jewish literature, as attested by Justin (Dial. 8:4; 110:1; cf. i Enoch, 48:6; 4 Ezra 13:52). w. 28-9, Jesus'answer is introduced by a solemn 'cried out' (ekraxen; a verb used for Jesus in 7:37 and 12:44, and f°r the Baptist in 1:15). The audience knows only Jesus' human origin and not that he comes from God, who alone is true (cf. 17:3; i Jn 5:20). In 5:46 Jesus said that if they really believed in Moses they would also believe in him. Now he is contrasting his own knowledge of God and of his origin in God with their lack of knowledge, w. 30-2, those who try to arrest him are probably inhabitants of Jerusalem. They do not succeed because the 'hour' has not yet come, just as the official actions from the authorities in w. 32 and 45 are without result. But some of those who came up to Jerusalem have a more positive attitude towards the signs of Jesus. Here the evangelist reflects the Christian conception that by his miracles Jesus proved himself to be the Messiah, which corresponds to Jewish expectations according to Josephus (Ant. 18.85 ff-> 20.168 ff). The favourable attitude of the crowd provokes the Pharisees and the chief priests to send the police which are at the disposal of the official council (cf. 18:3). v. 33, for the first time Jesus describes his death as a departure in order to go to God (cf. 8:14, 21—2; 13:3, 33, 36; 14:4-5, 28; 16:5, 10, 17). The theme of the 'little while' before the death will reappear in 12:35 and !3:33In 14:19 and 16:16—20 it is transformed into the 'little while' the disciples will not see Jesus and then see him again. All these passages express Jesus' sovereign power over human time, which is short in comparison with the time before his incarnation and after his return to his Father, v. 34, hitherto the Jews have sought Jesus in a negative way, in order to arrest him (7:11, 19-20, 25, 30). Now seeking has a positive quality but is frustrating when one cannot find Jesus (cf. Gos. Thorn. 38). Perhaps the evangelist alludes in an ironic way to the synoptic saying, 'search, and you will find' (Mt 7:7; Lk 11:9). The Jews will not find Jesus if they refuse to recognize his divine origin. In a similar way Wisdom says: 'They will seek me diligently, but will not find me' (Prov 1:28). There is no need to understand hopou eimi ego ('where I am') in connection with the formula ego eimi we have encountered before. The present tense stands probably for a future, 'where I shall be' (after my departure), w. 35—6, the Dispersion among the Greeks may designate the area of the Decapolis. The evangelist is interested in those outside Judaism who believe in Jesus (e.g. the Greeks in 12:20-2; other people in 10:16; 11:52; 17:20—4). The Jews' na'ive interpretation of the words of Jesus contains an ounce of truth: they prophesy that the teaching of Jesus will be spread among the Greeks. (7:37-52) Jesus is both the Messiah and the prophet. Even if this part of the discussion takes place on a day other than that of w. 14—36 we meet the same three aspects: Jesus' teaching
v. 12 is probabJy a 'muttering' as in v. 32, unJike the stronger compJaining recorded in 6:41, 43, 61. Very earJy the Jews accused Jesus of deceiving the crowds (cf v. 47 and Mt 27:63-4; in Lk 23:2, 5 this even becomes a JegaJ charge). Later Jewish and Christian sources refer to Jesus as a magician who has seduced IsraeJ (b. Sank. 433; iO7b; Justin, Dial. 69; 108). John answers those accusations. Jesus himseJf warned against those who wouJd Jead the discipJes astray (Mk 13:5-6). (7:14-24) These verses compare Jesus' teaching with Moses' Jaw. In 2:13-22 Jesus had cJeansed the tempJe and spoken of his risen body as the new tempJe. In chs. 7—8 he is showing how he replaces the Jaw of Moses and the Jewish festival of Booths, v. 14, the evangelist distinguishes between the beginning of the festival which Jesus does not want to attend (v. 9), the middle when he is teaching (v. 14), and the Jast day (v. 37) when he cries out his soJemn message. It is impossible to know which day is meant in v. 14 (the third, the fourth, the fifth?), but perhaps it is on a sabbath (cf. w. 22—3). Jesus' teaching in the tempJe of Jerusalem is given greater esteem than that in the synagogue at Capernaum in 6:59. v. 15, as the wordgrammata (learning) aJso appears in 5:47 some exegetes want to insert w. 15-24 immediately after 5:47 (see BuJtmann 1971: 268 ff). But in 5:47 the word means what Moses has written, his 'teaching', and in 7:15 the instruction in the Scriptures, the learning', w. 16-18, Jesus' seJf-defence is similar to that in 5:19, 30,41,44: he does not speak on his own, he does not do his own will, or seek his own glory. Only in the Fourth Gospel is Jesus' teaching directly attributed to God who has senthim. To do the will of God is the necessary presupposition for recognizing that Jesus seeks only God's glory. He is true, as God himself is true in 3:33 and 8:26. This implies also the negative statement that there is no falsehood (adikia) in him. This word is not found elsewhere in John, but we have it in i Jn 1:9 and 5:17. v. 19, Jesus speaks as if he himself was not a Jew (cf. 8:17; 10:34). Th£ text is written from a later perspective when Jews and Christians had parted their ways. To keep the law is to do God's will. Therefore the Jews go against his will when they want to kill the one whose teaching comes from God. Possibly there is also the reflection of a later polemic against Jews who are proud of their law but circumcise on a sabbath (v. 22). v. 20, the crowd is divided concerning Jesus (v. 12), and therefore, unlike the authorities, does not make plans to kill him. But they think he is possessed, an assertion we find in Mk 3:20—2, and which Jesus will refute in Jn 8:48-52; 10:20-1. w. 21-3, Jesus defends his healing of the lame man on a sabbath (5:1-9) by citing the circumcision the Jews themselves practise on a sabbath (cf. the Mishnah,
Ned. 3:11; Sabb. 18:3; 19:2). He uses a rabbinic argument, qal wahomer, which proceeds from a lesser case (circumcision of a man's foreskin) to a greater one (the healing of a man's whole body). A similar argument is found in b. Yoma 85b and t. Sabb. 15:16. The remark concerning the patriarchs can reflect a later Christian polemic against Jews who attributed circumcision to Moses' law, whereas it originated in the time of Abraham
(Gen 17:10; 21:4; see also Paul's argumentation in Gal 3 and Rom 4). v. 24, if the aorist krinate is the original reading, one ought to translate, 'Cease judging by appearances'. In 8:16 Jesus will speak of his own judgement as a valid one, because it is entirely dependent on his Father's judgement.
JOHN 976
JN 3:1). His prudent advice, which may be based on Lev 19:15 and Deut 1:16—17 is rejected by his colleagues, because Jesus comes from Galilee, contrary to messianic prophecies (see JN 7:40-4). Despite the fact that the prophet Jonah came from Galilee, the Jews can assert v. 52, that the Scripture nowhere affirms that a prophet will arise from Galilee. Moreover Galileans are often considered as unclean by the inhabitants of Jerusalem because they live in close proximity to pagans.
(w. 37-9), the people wondering about who Jesus is (w. 40-4), and the authorities' project to arrest Jesus (w. 45—52). v. 37, NRSV, JB, and TOB link 'and let drink' (kai pineto) in v. 37/7 with 'who believes' in v. 38; others, such as many Greek Fathers and P66, prefer to relate it to v. yja: 'come to me and drink'. In the first interpretation one can connect 'out of the heart' (lit. belly) in v. 38 with Jesus or the believer, in the second it is more natural to connect it with the believer. Because of v. 39 and the witness of P66 we prefer this second reading. The last day is either the seventh or the eighth. On the seventh day there was a procession with water from Siloam to the temple, and a ceremony of light in the women's court (cf. Sukk. 3-5). These ceremonies were missing on the eighth day, but people could still mentally associate them with Jesus' teaching (see w. 37—9; 8:12), just as in chs. 4 and 6 one can see the connection with Isa 55:1, 'Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters'. During the water ceremony people sang, 'With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation' (Isa 12:3; b. Sukk. 48b). The water was not drunk but was taken up to the temple. The combination of these two passages of Isaiah shows that the believer can now drink the water of salvation from Jesus, w. 38—9 Bultmann (1971), Brown (1966), and Schnackenburg (1977—9: ii) think that the waters flow from Jesus; NRSV, Barrett (1978), and Lindars (1972), from the believer. The comment on the Spirit in v. 39 favours the second interpretation. The believer who receives the living water from Jesus has it in his heart (lit. his belly) through the influence of the Spirit. The water becomes in the believer 'a spring of water gushing up to eternal life' (4:14). Those who favour a Christological interpretation often establish a link with 19:34, but there blood and water come from Jesus' side
(7:53-8:11) see JN APP. (8:12-20) In 7:25-52 the Jews discussed the qualifications of the Messiah and the prophet, whereas Jesus underlined his own divine origin. Here Jesus speaks of his Father's testimony, a subject he has already treated in 5:31—8. In 8:21—30 he will allude to his going back to his Father, and in 8:31-59 he will invite the audience to become his disciples, v. 12, this solemn declaration is similar to Wisdom's disclosure (e.g. Prov 8—9). In Wis 7:26 wisdom is described as a reflection of God's eternal light. Light in the Jewish tradition is often an image of salvation (e.g. Isa 9:2; 42:6; 60:19). Th£ people have to choose between two ways, between light and darkness (e.g. Jer 21:8; Deut 30:15; iQS 3:3). In the Synoptics Jesus fulfils the prophecies concerning the future light (e.g. Mt4:i6; Lk 1:789; 2:32), and his disciples are in their turn 'the light of the world' (Mt 5:14). Even ifwe have there a similar formulation to v. 12, Jesus' self-revelation is of a higher order: in him the world meets the fountainhead of light (cf. Jn 1:5, 9; 9:5; 11:910). There is also an implicit allusion to the festival of Booths with its ceremony of light in the women's court (see above). Jesus fulfils the deeper meaning of the feast, w. 13—15, contrary to the Pharisees' objections against his own witness (cf. 5:31), Jesus argues first that they judge by human standards, knowing neither where he comes from nor where he is going, w. 16—18, the reading alethine ('right') attested in v. 16 by among others P"( B, D, and W is probably original, since it is different from the nearby occurrences of alethes ('valid', NRSV) in w. 13-14, 17. Jesus' second argument is that he is not alone when he judges or gives his testimony. So there are two witnesses, as the Jewish law prescribes (cf. Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15). But in fact it is through Jesus that the audience is given information on the Father's testimony. Just as in 5:31—47, the arguments are circular: only those who accept Jesus' divine origin can understand both his and his Father's witness, and conversely those who accept the witness of each can see in Jesus the Son whom the Father has sent. It is possible that the sentence, T judge no one' (cf. 3:17) encouraged an editor to insert the pericope on the adulteress in this Johannine context, w. 19-20, the audience has hitherto not really understood the relation between Jesus and his Father. The reason is that they know neither Jesus nor his Father. This time the discussion is near the treasury of the temple (the Greek preposition en is scarcely used here in the sense of'inside'). The treasury is probably the room for the people's gifts, near the women's court (cf. Mk 12:41).
(pleura) and not from his belly (koilia). These exegetes are obliged to consider v. 39 on the Spirit as secondary. It is difficult to know which passages of Scripture the evangelist is alluding to in v. 38, perhaps such texts as Prov 18:4; 13358:11; Sir 24:30-4. In a Jewish environment it is usual to compare the Spirit with water (e.g. iQS 4:18-21). In the later Midrash,
Gen. Rab. 70:8, the water at the festival of Booths symbolizes the Spirit. In the early Christian tradition the Spirit is linked with the water of baptism (Jn 1:35; 3:5). Paul makes explicit the connection between drinking water and being baptized in water (i Cor 12:13). Thgre may therefore be an implicit allusion to Christian baptism even in Jn 7:39. In the Fourth Gospel the Spirit is given after Jesus' death and resurrection (cf. 14:16, 26; 15:26; 20:22). w. 40-4, the discussion on Jesus' messianic origin, which began in w. 25—31, is now continued. Some people think that Jesus is the prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15; cf. Jn 4:19-29; 6:14). The evangelist wants to show that he is both the prophet and the Messiah. He also implicitly accepts that Jesus comes both from Galilee (cf. Isa 9) and from Bethlehem (v. 42). He seems to be informed about Jesus' birth at Bethlehem but wants to underline that his divine origin is much more important (cf. w. 25-31 and 8:14-19). Those who want to arrest him could be the men whom the Pharisees and the chief priests had sent out in v. 32 (cf. also w. 45—9). w. 45— 52, there is some irony in the statement that the temple police could not arrest Jesus, because they were impressed by his teaching. The Pharisees therefore stress that the authorities, in contrast to the vulgar crowd, do not believe in Jesus. Nicodemus is a Pharisee who probably belongs to the synedrion (cf.
(8:21—30) Jesus' return to his Father is unique, v. 21, the discussion continues with a vague 'again he said to them', as before,in v. 12. Anew aspect in comparison with 7:32-6 is that the audience will die in their sins, because they do not believe
(cf. v. 24). v. 22, according to w. 30—1 many ofthe Jews believed in Jesus. But others do not understand what Jesus is saying
977 JOHN
your father', w. 39—40, since the explicit identification of their father with the devil has not yet been made, the Jews continue to consider Abraham as their father. This causes Jesus to reply that they should then do the good deeds that were connected with his faith (cf. Jas 2:22). Abraham believed in God and relied on God's truth, which is contrary to their intention to kill the one who tells them the truth from God. In my opinion both este (you are) and epoieite ('you would do') in v. 39 are original. Different MSS have tried to improve the poor Greek of this sentence, w. 41—5, Jesus still does not explicitly say who their father is. The Jews insist on their legitimate claims to be the children of God, probably in contrast to all Gentiles (cf. i Thess 4:3, 5). There might be an implicit accusation that in this respect they are different from Jesus whose father is unknown (cf. the accusations of Celsus in Origen, Contra
about his return to the Father. In 7:35 they thought he would go to the Greeks, now that he intends to commit suicide. But Jesus will freely give up his life without committing suicide (10:11, 17-18). v. 23, in Jewish apocalyptic literature there is a contrast between this world and that to come. In the Fourth Gospel God and the world from above replace the world to come. The Johannine dualism between two worlds is different from later Gnostic systems because it is moral (Jesus' message from above is rejected) and not cosmic (even this world was created by God), v. 24, the ego eimi has no complement (see JN 6:16—21). It is possible that this 'I am he', spoken as it is during the festival of Booths, is also an allusion to YHWH (cf Sukk. 4:5). v. 25, the words tin archen can mean 'at all' (NRSV) and be an expression of exasperation. But since archeis important in the theology of the Fourth Gospel (1:1—2; 2:11; 6:64; 8:44; 15:27; 16:4) the literal translation 'at the beginning, which is what I tell you' might be better, with the force, 'I am the One at the beginning, which is what I keep telling you' (see Miller 1980). w. 26—9, the judgement of condemnation supplements the promise of salvation in 3:17 and 12:32, 34. It will be more explicit with the sending of the Helper in 16:8. Jesus once again underlines his close link with the Father: he says what he has heard from him, he is not left alone, and he does what pleases the Father (see 5:19-47). But the ego eimi in v. 28 concerning the uplifted Son of Man, which extends the thought of v. 24, adds a new dimension to the question of Jesus' identity. Only believers will be able to recognize the divine 'I am' revelation on the cross, v. 30, the Jews who believe in Jesus still need further teaching, as is shown by w. 31-59.
Celsum, 1:28, and later Jewish literature). But this point remains uncertain. If God were their Father they would accept Jesus who comes from him (cf. 5:43). Jesus now gives the explicit reason for their resistance: their father is the devil (cf. i Jn 3:8), who is the father of lies and a murderer from the beginning. Probably the evangelist alludes to Cain who was from the evil one and killed his brother (i Jn 3:11—12). The strong contrast between truth and falsehood resembles the one we find in the Dead Sea scrolls between the spirit oftruth and the spirit of deceit (e.g. iQS 3:i8ff; cf. also the Man of Lies in iQpHab 2:2; 5:11). w. 46—47, since Jesus does not sin when he speaks the truth about God, those who do not believe in him cannot have God as their Father, w. 48-51, the Samaritans were considered by the Jews to be an unclean people (cf. Jn 4:9). They could be considered as 'illegitimate children' (8:41), but also as possessed by a demon. The evangelist, unlike the Synoptics, does not explicitly present Jesus as an exorcist, but it is possible that he is here alluding to the scribes' accusations that Jesus drives out demons with the help of Beelzebul (Mk 3:22—30 par). Jesus refutes the Jews by stressing his own interest in God's glory (cf. 5:44) and appeals to God's judgement, w. 52-3, just as in the discourse on the bread of life, Jesus promises eternal life to his disciples. Without knowing it the Jews indirectly speak the truth: Jesus is greater than Abraham who died, just as he is greater than Jacob (4:12). w. 54-6, Jesus once again affirms that his glory comes from his Father and that he keeps his Father's word. The Jews' question in v. 53 allows him to affirm that in fact he is greater than Abraham, since the latter rejoiced that he could see Jesus' day. Perhaps the evangelist is thinking of Gen 17:17 when Abraham laughed at the promise of a child. The comparison with Gal 3:16 shows that in Isaac Abraham could greet his descendant, the Christ. There are also texts that underline Abraham's prophetic knowledge of the future (cf. Heb 11:13 and the Jewish texts quoted in Str-B ii. 525—6). w. 57—9, the evangelist is interested in chronology, but 'fifty years' is a conventional indication. Some MSS have transformed it into forty years in order to fit Lk 3:23. Since Abraham is the most important figure for the Jews, they now ask how Jesus can have met him. Jesus answers with an ego eimi formula different from that in w. 24 and 28, because it is part of a normal sentence. He contrasts Abraham's birth with his own sovereign being that transcends time. One might compare Ps 90:2, 'Before the mountains were brought forth... you are God.' Jesus has been able to see Abraham because he was before
(8:31—59) The question oftruth in w. 32,40,44—6 gives rise to a discussion about Jesus and Abraham, w. 31-2, in 5:31 Jesus criticized the audience for not having God's word abiding in them. Now he admonishes the Jews who believe in him to abide in his word (cf. also v. 51), if they want to be truly his disciples. This anticipates the teaching Jesus will give his disciples after his last supper (chs. 15-17). There are different ways to believe in Jesus, the superficial way as in 2:23—5 an(^ 6:14—15, 26, and the deeper way of real discipleship that is described here and in 13:35; 15:8-9. The truth that makes the disciples free is not obtained by their own investigations but is revealed from above, v. 33, the Jews often boasted of being the descendants of Abraham, which Paul criticizes by showing that the pagans are also included in Abraham's faith (cf. Galatians and Romans). But already the Baptist (Mt 3:9; Lk 3:8) had attacked the Jews' superficial attitude when he noted that God can raise up new children to Abraham (cf. also Jesus' critique in Mt 8:11-12; Lk 13:28-9). The Jews have often been politically dependent on foreigners but they have kept their own religion, w. 34—8, the Jews cannot be free if they sin by wanting to kill Jesus, who declares what he has seen in the Father's presence. There is a sharp contrast between the disciples who share all the rights of the Son, and the slaves of sin who have no rights. In a similar way Paul opposes the son of the free woman, Sarah, and the son of the slave woman, Hagar
(Gal 4:21-31; cf. also Heb 3:5-6). In v. 38 NRSV understands poieite as an imperative: 'you should do what you have heard from the Father'. Because their father in v. 44 is identified with the devil, it is probably better to take poieite as a present indicative and translate: 'you do what you have heard from
JOHN 978
3:5) are able to 'see' the one who has been sent by the Father. w. 8—12, just as in the miracle at Beth-zatha, and in contrast to the two first miracles in Galilee, there are at first negative reactions to Jesus' action. But in the end the healed one will come to an explicit faith. In contrast to all those who hesitate concerning his identity, the once-blind man confesses what Jesus has done for him. He does not mention that the mud was made with the help of saliva. He only knows that the healer is called Jesus, but does not know where he is. This prepares the reader for his arrival in v. 35. In v. n the Greek word anebkpsa, which properly means T saw again', is used of the one who was born blind (cf. Dittenberg., SIG 1173. 15-18).