The content of this study is copyright by John Shearman, 2007.
The Adult Bible Study Group is led by Rev. John Shearman. Following are the study notes for each session. You can scroll through the list or click on the links to go directly to that session's notes.
For Spring 2006 group notes on Revelations, click
[here].
For Fall 2005 group notes on finding the New Testament in the Old, click
[here].
For Spring 2005 group notes on Ephesians, click
[here].
For Fall 2004 group notes on Colossians, click
[here].
| To print these notes, right-click in this content window and select 'print'. |
As soon as we start to read it, we are aware that John has written a gospel quite different from the other three. The reasons for that will come out as we study it.
Who was this John who gave us this version of the Good News? To be frank, we don’t know for sure. Tradition from the 2nd century CE has attributed it to the Apostle John, “the beloved disciple” as he is referred to but never named in the text. Parenthetic statements in 19:35 and again in 21:24 assert that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” provided the original testimony from which an unknown narrator derived his knowledge of the story.
Whoever he may have been, it is obvious that the author was a Jew intimately acquainted with Jerusalem and Jewish religious traditions, especially its liturgical festivals and scriptures. Scholars believe that John probably wrote for the Christian community in Ephesus which still had among it members a large representation of Jews as well as Gentiles.
The temple had been razed by the Romans in 70 CE. By 85 CE hostility between Jews and Christians had reached a point where followers of Jesus were no longer welcome in Jewish synagogues. Reflecting this situation, increasing conflict between Jews and Jesus figured prominently in the narrative. From this has come the accusation that the Gospel is anti-Semitic, but that is a modern interpretation of the real distinction John draws between the two traditions.
John’s purpose was to reflect on the meaning of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, not to merely tell the story. In so doing, he made use of many vivid metaphors about what it is like to be in an eternal relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ, “and believing … have life” (20:31).
In Genesis 1:3 creation began with a word from God, “Let there be light ….” The prologue of John’s Gospel begins very much the same way.
In their Westminster Companion to John, Gail R. O’Day and Susan E. Hylen, believe that this was done to take the reader out of the everyday world we inhabit into the cosmic transcendence we know as the presence of God. This is “a reminder that God’s story is not just the human story writ large … (but) wholly other, a story that begins when human beings are not even in the picture. John wants his readers to remember this, so that when God enter the human picture, they will recognize the significance of the moment.” (John. Westminster Bible Companion, 2006.)
God’s Word had a prominent role in the Hebrew Scriptures. All the prophets are quoted as saying, “Thus says the Lord, ... ” or “Hear the word of the Lord ….” They not only believed that they were inspired by God, but that God was speaking to Israel through them. Israel came to know God through God’s word. In the later Jewish Wisdom tradition (Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, etc.) God’s Word and Wisdom came to be equated. In Proverbs 8:22-31 Wisdom was said to be with God “before the beginning of the earth.”
The Greek word logos would have been familiar to John’s Greek speaking audience too. It had been used for several centuries by Greek philosophers. Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus and John, also used it extensively to refer to the creative plan and purpose of God that governs the world.
These were the twin traditions that John called upon as he began his story of Jesus. Would a Galilean fisherman have been sufficiently learned to compose so rich a prologue with such philosophical concepts?
John’s first observations restated the ancient tradition that all of creation and life came about through God’s initiative. As in the creation poem of Genesis 1, light and life are inextricably linked not in any scientific sense but as acts of God. This sets forth one of John’s important insights: life is spiritual. The linking of light and life is one of the themes to which John returns again and again.
John the Baptist’s appearance in vss. 6-8 shifts the gospel story from the cosmic and primordial to the human level. The Baptist is one of the few elements that John’s story has in common with the other gospels. His role was merely as a witness, as a prophet pointing to the “true light, ” the one who is coming to fulfill God’s purpose of bringing spiritual enlightenment to the world. But the Baptist is only one of many witnesses John will reveal as his story progresses.
In a remarkable paragraph (vss. 9-13, but mistakenly differently set out in the New Revised Standard Version) John introduces us to Jesus, but without naming him. Rather, he describes him so as to direct our attention to what God is doing through faith in Jesus. To believe is power, a creative power that makes all who have faith something totally beyond human possibility. God’s action through faith is to make us God’s own children.
This is not something we can do for ourselves. It only comes about when God wills it. That must certainly give us pause at this time when once again faith and religious traditions are playing previously unimagined roles in world events and contemporary history. This is what the Gospel is intended to reveal – a revelation for our times as for the 1st century CE.
In what scholars describe as the third stanza of the opening hymn, vss. 14-18, John becomes very personal, including himself among those who have witnessed to what God is doing. The eternal Word of God, the *Logos,* becomes personal, becomes enfleshed, incarnate, in a real, time-bound human being in the everyday world. “That God chose to express Godself through a human being is the ultimate good news,” wrote Susan O’Day and Susan Hylen. “Jesus shares God’s character and identity, and as ‘the Word made flesh’ embodies God in the world.”
What that means is of utmost importance. Because God is with us, we receive God’s grace. “Grace upon grace,” John said. It never stops. Our relationship with God through faith in Jesus the fullness of gifts that Jesus brings all we need in personal and community life.
When John wrote that “the law indeed was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ,” he stated yet another theme that runs through the gospel. There was a continuity and yet a difference between the revelation that had gone before in the Jewish tradition and what was now witnessed by the Christian community.
Some scholars have seen this as evolution in God’s revelation. If that is so, then we still have some further evolving to do. We have not yet reached the end of our spiritual growth until we know God as Jesus made God known. Or as Paul put it in Ephesians 4:13, “until we come to the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.” That in no way seeks to minimize the significance or value of other religious traditions.
The gospel narrative begins with a series of specific events, the first two involving John the Baptist. Always a controversial figure, John tells Baptist’s story differently. (Cf. Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22.)
The narrative of 1:19-28 gives the impression that by seeking to know who the Baptist really was, the authorities had already initiated the trial by which Jesus was later convicted. The Baptist denied that he was the Messiah, nor Elijah, the prophet who was supposed to come before the Messiah. He also denied that he was prophet at all. Rather he was one who could be described by a prophecy drawn from Isaiah 40 as a forerunner of the Messiah.
When challenged further as to his practice of baptizing, especially those who were already covenanted Jews, he reverted to the claim already made in vs. 8 that “he … was not the light.” The role of the Baptist in John’s Gospel is distinct from that of the other three. There he is identified as Elijah and/or the expected messianic prophet (Matt. 11:14; Mark 9:13: Luke 1:17). Here his ministry of baptizing and preaching was entirely that of pointing to Jesus (vss. 24-27).
The next day, when he saw Jesus coming for baptism, the Baptist witnessed that Jesus is the true Messiah, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” Drawn from the redemptive function of the sacrificial Passover lamb in the Old Testament, this interpretation of the work of Christ has remained in Christian liturgy and theology ever since. Similarly, the dove that the Baptist alone saw has remained to this day as the artistic symbol of the Spirit. Here again we see how symbolical and metaphorical is John’s Gospel.
Discipleship forms a major emphasis in all four Gospels, but in John the process of gathering and teaching them is different. In 1:35-51, the initiative lay with the Baptist and two of his disciples, not with Jesus (vss. 35-42). Among those who followed the Baptist were some who later became disciples of Jesus. Here it was Andrew and another unnamed person who became curious about the man the Baptist had pointed out to them. They sought him out and politely asked where he was staying. Jesus invited them to go and see for themselves. This is a familiar theme to which John often returned: following Jesus because of someone else’s witness.
Unlike the other Gospels, John tells of Peter learning of Jesus from his brother, Andrew, not directly from Jesus. In telling his brother, Andrew also brought out another feature of John’s Gospel: Jesus is immediately identified as the Messiah/Christ. With each new disciples John named Jesus in several ways: Rabbi; Messiah; “him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets spoke;” Jesus, Son of Joseph, the carpenter; Son of God; King of Israel. Throughout the Gospel the struggle to understand Jesus’ true identity continued. Thus John invited his community to see how Jesus fulfilled their expectations, although perhaps at first none of these titles ever fully expressed for everyone who he was and is.
In vss. 43-51, Jesus met with his first opposition in Nathanael. He scoffed at Philip’s witness. Jesus acknowledged his skepticism, but called his bluff by praising his sincerity as a true Israelite. This implied that Jesus could see intuitively how people would respond to him. In effect, Jesus told him that his disciples would come into the very presence of God.
The content and form of the miracle story about changing water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana would have been familiar to John’s readers. Similar stories about the miraculous production of wine by gods or religious figures were known in the ancient world. The story also had a standard form: the setting, the situation of need, the miracle, the response.
The difference in this story lies in the special nature as Jesus’ reply to his mother that his “hour” had not yet come. This use of the word had an eschatological implication. No mere measurement of time, the word had the special connotation that God was acting to bring in God’s reign on earth. For John, the ultimate use of the term came in the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
Despite the emphasis on the abundance and the sweetness of the wine, the story is not about wine at all, how much was produced, or what happened to whatever might have been left after the feast. The miracle is about the unlimited supply of God’s gifts and grace. It illustrates what John had said in 1:16, “From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.”
John called the miracle “a sign.” This and other similar uses of the term (2:23; 3:2; 6:26; 20:30) signified miracles are more than spectacular actions. They point to what can be seen of God and as manifestations of God’s glory. In the Old Testament, “glory” expressed God’s presence and power (e.g. Exod. 24:15-16; 34:29-35; 40:34-38).
The story opened Jesus’ Galilean ministry with a miracle of hope and abundant possibilities. His departure for Capernaum pointed toward a much more active future. That his mother and brothers also went with him indicates a very good family relationship.
The scene of John’s narrative shifts from Galilee to Jerusalem and from a familiar, family festival to the greatest of all Jewish religious festivals, the Passover. It has been estimated that at this festival 250,000 animals would have been slaughtered. Only traditional shekels were acceptable in payment for a sacrifice. Jews from all over the Mediterranean world, perhaps some on a once in a lifetime visit, would have had to change whatever currency they had into the temple coinage. This was the scene of Jesus’ outrageous actions.
Reconstructions of the temple precincts show that the marketplace for the changing of money and purchase of sacrificial beasts was probably the courtyard around the temple itself. Control of the market was held by the priesthood and produced a considerable profit exclusively for them.
An American scholar, Bruce Chilton, has suggested that under recent chief priests, meetings of the Sanhedrin had been displaced from the courtyard of the temple to the Mount of Olives where the sacrificial market had originally been held. Chilton also argued that Jesus’ anger came primarily from his desire that, according to tradition, each Jew could bring his own sacrifice rather than having to purchase one approved by the priests at exorbitant rates.
Naturally the religious authorities confronted Jesus’, demanding to know his authority (“what sign”) he had for his outrage. The ensuing conversation is not a verbatim account, but John’s assessment of the situation. He related it to the resurrection and a reference in Zechariah 14:21 which the early church regarded as a prophecy of that event. John’s point was that the whole incident caused many more to believe.
The further we read in this narrative (3:1-21) the more we have to wonder how much it records Jesus’ own words and how much consists of John’s theological analysis of the Incarnation. At the same time, the significance of the passage cannot be overemphasized.
Nor can we divide those who responded to Jesus into simple categories of those for and against. Nicodemus represents those Jews who were genuinely puzzled and challenged to re-evaluate their traditional convictions by God’s new revelation in this strange Galilean.
In 3:1-10 John reiterated some of the themes first introduced in 1:1-18 – darkness and light especially. The full meaning of Jesus’ presence and his message was spiritual. From his observations of Jesus’ ministry Nicodemus had realized that God was very much involved. As John tells the story, Jesus’ use of the “born again” metaphor only served to deepen the Pharisee’s confusion. The Greek word anothen also means “from above.”
Jesus explained that there is a dimension of life beyond the material. That is the realm where God’s Spirit is active and creative. Jesus offered to Nicodemus this life of flesh and spirit for this life not the afterlife. He also appeared surprised that Nicodemus, a scholarly rabbi, did not see this in the Jewish tradition.
In vss. 11-15, John begins to comment intensively on the previous conversation. Of course, John wrote for a wide audience of late 1st century Christians, but also appears to quote Jesus. He speaks not only of his heavenly origin, but of his future crucifixion. He also connects these with his messianic mission by using the traditional eschatological term, “the Son of Man.”
With Nicodemus already gone from the scene, John had a much wider audience in mind as he elaborated on the “born again” metaphor. The gift that comes from Jesus’ birth, death, resurrection and ascension is “life” and “life eternal.” For John the two terms were synonymous. Erroneously, we often think of eternal life as coming after death. John thought of it as a characteristic of this present life. When speaking of it he always used the present tense. “Eternal life” simply meant living now in the unending presence of God.
John 3:16 has become the most often quoted verse in the Bible. It simply states that all we know about Jesus is the expression of God’s love, the Word made flesh. What follows in vss. 17-21 gives us the full implications of that love.
“The presence of Jesus as the Incarnate Word confronts the world with the decision to believe it or not, and making that decision is the moment of self-judgment. Belief is how people respond to gift of God with the gift of faith. Because God’s gift of Jesus is the gift of eternal life, to receive and welcome that gift is immediately to receive the gift it offers. If one does not receive that gift, then one cannot receive the life it offers, and in John’s vocabulary, that means that one is condemned – not sharing the gift of life that is offered….
“Eternal life and condemnation are the flip sides of the same experience. If one embraces the gift, one receives life; if not, then one remains trapped in the realm of death and darkness.” (O’Day and Hylen, 46)
In this passage John has given us his whole theology. What began with the conversation with Nicodemus ends with a statement of salvation, love, life, death and the life to come through faith in Jesus.
This is another of those passages where narrative, quotation and reflection create considerable complexity.
The purpose of the passage becomes clear in the Baptist’s final words, “He must increase and I must decrease.” (3:30)
Two curious comments provoke further interest: In vs. 22, the text appears to indicate that Jesus engaged in a ministry of baptism. But in 4:2, John corrects that impression by noting that it was Jesus’ disciples not himself who baptized.
In vs. 24, the author refers to an event which he nowhere else records: John the Baptist’s imprisonment and death. Obviously, the reader was expected to know of that event from other sources, notably the other three gospels.
Also noteworthy is the argument between the Baptist’s disciples and “a Jew.” The issue appears to have been the distinction between Jewish rites of purification and the Baptist’s baptism of repentance. But it provided the context for the Baptist’s disciples to ask about Jesus’ practice of baptism. This provided the Baptist with an occasion to finally witness that Jesus as the Messiah is far superior to him as he had done earlier (1:19-34). Then in a parable he adds directions his own disciples to follow Jesus.
The parable drew on imagery in several OT references to Israel as the bride of God (Isaiah 61:1-10; Jeremiah 2:2; Hosea 1-2). The role of the friend of the bridegroom, of course, was then and still is significant but still secondary to that of the bridegroom. The parable also served to close the Baptist’s witness to Jesus by recognizing him as the Messiah and the fulfillment of God’s loving intention for Israel, the chosen people.
It is impossible to know whether vss. 31-36 were the words of John the author or of the Baptist. The NRSV places them outside the Baptist’s testimony. Either way makes sense, although there is reason to think that this comment on the Baptist’s witness provide a frame similar to his earlier witness to Jesus in 1:19-34.
The content testifies to the unique relationship between Jesus and God. Several key phrases appear in other parts of the gospel suggesting that they were comments by John the author: the one whom God has sent (vs. 34) and the Son whom the Father loves (vs. 35). The phrase “the one who comes from above” also reiterates the same metaphor in 3:3. So also does the statement in vs. 36 connecting belief and life as in 3:16-17. All of these reinforce John the Baptist’s role as the one who provide the authoritative witness to Jesus’ true identity.
Most crucial to the narrative, however, are the Baptist’s final words in 3:30, “He must increase and I must decrease.” From this point on, the gospel makes no further reference to John the Baptist. This is distinctly different from the way the other gospels deal with the Baptist’s imprisonment by the cruel Herod Antipas and subsequent execution at the behest of Herod’s wily wife whom the Baptist had so severely condemned. Matthew 14:1-13 and Mark 6:17-29 give similar and the most complete accounts of that tragedy.
It is impossible to know exactly why John gives so much attention to the Baptist. It has been suggested that his role was a literary device used by John to lift up the true character of Jesus as the Messiah for Jews and Christ for Gentiles, and also persuade the Baptist’s disciples who still remained separate to follow Jesus.
This is another incident when John weaves conversation and narrative with exceptional creativity. It began with a correction about Jesus not baptizing as John the Baptist had done and as the Pharisees had heard. Jesus’ return to Galilee, however, had the potential for an even greater controversy: contact with the hated Samaritans.
Enmity between Jews and Samaritans dated back to 701 BCE when the Jews of the Northern Kingdom of Israel had been exiled by the Assyrians never to return. The exiles had been replaced by other ethnic groups who intermarried with remaining Jews and established their own centre of worship at a temple on Mount Gerazim in Samaria. (See 2 Kings 17)
Imagine a request for a drink of water causing so much religious conversation! But this was no ordinary woman. Jesus violated several taboos in asking. Was the woman alone because none of the other woman of her village wanted to associate with her? Jesus’ offer of “living water” was similar to his offer to Nicodemus of being born anew and was misunderstood in the same way. Both were offers of a new life, but stated metaphorically. But was the woman only thinking of a miraculous source of water rather than eternal life? If so, she was for the wrong reason.
When Jesus asked to go get her husband, she could not do that, although perhaps only for accidental reasons: none of her husband’s relatives would accept her after she had been widowed. Or was she a disreputable woman known for her promiscuity?
Thinking him a prophet, the woman wanted to talk about religious things, not morality. Jesus cut through to give an eschatological response: the time for the breaking in of God’s reign had begun.
When Jesus’ disciples arrived back from looking lunch, they were surprised to find him in conversation with this woman. Taking her leave, the woman hastened back home to spread the news about her conversation with the Messiah. She also invited her neighbours to come and see for themselves. Like other disciples we met in ch. 1, she was a successful witness. Crowds came from the town to see his surprising visitor.
The wordplay about food between Jesus and his disciples (4: 31-34) is another example of a theme John often returns to: deliberate misunderstanding. As in other instances, Jesus quickly sets them right; he was speaking metaphorically. He goes further in the same vein by speaking about the harvest. Seeing the approaching villagers, he recognized them as the fulfillment of his mission. John drew on imagery from the Old Testament in putting these words into his narrative. (Cf. Isaiah 27:12; Joel 3:13; Matthew 13:30, 39.) He clearly recognized the eschatological intent of Jesus’ ministry: to bring all people into a living relationship with God.
Essentially, this is a story about effective witnessing. The townsfolk asked Jesus to stay with them, he stayed two days and many more believed that he was indeed the Saviour of the world. This was exceptional because it these were the first non-Jews to believe.
Next stop: Galilee, Cana again and Capernaum (4:43-54). A royal official begged Jesus to heal his son. Without even going to the man’s home, he gave the healing word. Presumably the official was not a Jew, yet his whole household believed. This is another example of Jesus as the Saviour of the world.
Scholars debate whether 7:53-8:11 belong at this point in John’s Gospel. The earliest manuscripts do not have it. The setting and form of the story seem more suitable for the Synoptic tradition where controversies with the Jewish authorities are reported (e.g. Matt. 21:23-37; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 21:20-26). O’Day and Hylen, however, retain it here as an interlude associated with this section of John.
In 7:19 and 51-52 the question arose as to what extent Jesus’ opponents really knew and followed the law. In 8:21-59, Jesus turned to the subject of sin and being set free from the slavery to sin. The story of the woman caught in the act of adultery enacts these themes. In 7:24, the ability of Jesus’ opponents to judge rightly had been at issue. The discussion about right judgment continued in ch. 8, so the woman’s story provided a good example of his judgment.
Nonetheless, the story disrupts the flow Jesus’ teaching in the temple. Some manuscripts placed it after Luke 21:37-38. O’Day and Hylen feel that it belongs in John because it showed how the scribes and Pharisees actually violated the law by not bringing forward witnesses instead of the woman. The Mosaic law required that both should have been charged and executed. (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22)
The point of charging only the woman was to trap Jesus, not resolve a legal problem. He showed his independence and disengaged from his questioners, then called them to be accountable for their own actions. They sheepishly distance themselves from Jesus and the woman, whom Jesus then acquits and urges her to begin a new life.
As it stands in John’s Gospel, it does resonate with the events in Jerusalem at the festival.
John resumes the dialogue of ch. 7 at 8:12 with Jesus declaring, “I am the light of the world.” This statement has obvious connections with the image of light throughout the Old Testament and particularly in the celebration of the Festival of Booths. As pillar of light, God guided the Israelites through the wilderness. Light was a metaphor for the law by which God guided the people (Ps. 119:105). During the festival lampstands symbolizing the light of God were lit in the temple. By making this declaration, Jesus claimed to be the light that the festival celebrates.
Strangely, the Pharisees did not respond to Jesus’ declaration, but returned to a previous argument about the validity to his witness to himself and his mission. He depended on his self-knowledge of who he is and where he has come from. They judged solely on what was visible (vs. 15: “according to the flesh”) and did not see his divine origins. Immediately, Jesus seemed to contradict himself by saying that he both judges no one, but still judges correctly. As in previous situations, both statements were true, if paradoxical (cf. 3:19-21; 5:25-29). Jesus’ forgiveness of the adulterous woman placed everyone present under judgment.
Jesus went on to meet the Pharisees demand for two witnesses – himself and God. This was a dangerous assumption for it left him open to arrest for aligning himself so closely with God. In so saying, John reiterated that Jesus’ as the Son of God, something he has done from the very first words of the gospel.
However, the authorities were still reluctant to arrest Jesus because, as John put it, “his hour had not yet come.” It is God’s timing, not that of human intentions and machinations, which governed Jesus’ life and ministry.
The ensuing dialogue running from 8:21-59 contains many metaphors which the Pharisees totally misunderstood. Consequently, the debate becomes increasingly confrontational to the point where Jesus’ opponents tried to stone him. Nonetheless, Jesus’ death is a prominent subject in all that is said.
The passage also raises the subject of sin and the death of others. Jesus referred to himself as the “I am,” the divine name by which Moses was to know God (Exodus 3:14). He thus identified himself as the one in whom God is visible and made known. Sin, therefore, is not a catalogue of individual faults or misdeeds, but the condition of not recognizing God in Jesus.
Totally misunderstanding what Jesus meant, his opponents continued to ask who he is. He responds that they will have greater understanding after his death. Although the hostility and misunderstanding of many continued, some did believe, yet even they soon reverted to their former opposition.
Their loss of faith came from Jesus’ challenge that those who know the truth would be free. That was something no Jew could ever admit. As descendants of Abraham and members of the traditional covenant with God, they asserted that they have never been slaves to anyone. This was a great irony for the festival celebrated the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt.
At vs. 33 the subject of discourse changed again. Who can rightly claim to be a descendant of Abraham or of God? Jesus challenged that their desire to kill him showed that they were indirect conflict with God’s word. He judges them by what they do, not what they say, which proves that they are not true sons of Abraham. Because they do not love him, neither are they sons of God, but widely distanced from God.
The discourse deteriorated further as the Pharisees called Jesus a Samaritan possessed by a demon. Jesus retorts by focusing attention on the contrast between his actions and those of his opponents. His actions honour God, but theirs demonstrate how distant they are from doing God’s will. Again they try to question his origins and identity. Jesus disputes their interpretation of his words by turning the argument away from himself and toward God (vss. 54-55). He contrasted his knowledge of God against theirs and called them liars because their words and deeds did not match up.
Jesus concluded his defense by appealing to Abraham as a witness on his behalf (vs. 56). To the Pharisees that seemed only foolishness, yet it was a typical argument used by the apostle Paul and later their own rabbis. Jesus reiterated his claim to be divine, using the “I am” saying. That incited the threat of stoning, the punishment prescribed for blasphemy. But were they attacking him because they misunderstood him, or because they actually did realize the full importance of what he was telling them?
This discourse reflected contemporary events of the 1st century when Jews and Christians struggled with the challenge of a new interpretation of their common religious traditions. Yet it also has relevance for Christians today. O’Day and Hylen ask, “Is it necessary for one faith group to exclude another so absolutely and with such invective in order to secure and establish its own community identity? For John’s community, which seems to have sensed itself to be the outcast and marginalized member of the family, hearing such strident language in the mouth of Jesus may have restored its power and dignity.”
The same themes of belief and unbelief, light and sin carry on through 9:1-41. The passage is also full of irony too because the people who should “see” were more blind than the man whom Jesus healed. The actual miracle is less important than the subsequent series of six separate dialogues packed with theological nuance. An interpretive theological discourse continues into 10:1-18.
In 9:1-12 the simple story of the healing of the blind man is told. Similar stories appear in Matt. 9:27-31, Mark 10:46-52, and Luke 18:35-42. What is different here is the inclusion of a discussion about the cause of the man’s blindness from birth.
Jesus rejected the disciples’ assumption of the traditional view of disease and infirmity in the Old Testament that there was a connection between his blindness and sin. Neither the man himself nor his parents caused the man’s blindness which now provided an occasion to reveal God’s presence in Jesus. In John’s Gospel, sin is not a moral category about behaviour, but a theological category about one’s response to the revelation of God in Jesus. The opening words of vs. 6 links Jesus’ words with the man’s need.
Unlike other miracles of healing blindness, the initiative is entirely that of Jesus. So far in the narrative the man had not even spoken. But the man also needed to act on Jesus’ unusual command that he wash in the pool of Siloam. When the man obeyed and came back seeing, everyone who knew or had seen him was astounded and wanted to see Jesus.
In this series of dialogues a significant truth underlay the facts of the case: By this miracle Jesus presented himself as the one through whom God was transforming the ancient Jewish tradition.
1. (Vss. 1-7) The disciples set the stage by asking whether the blind man or his parents had sinned to cause his impairment. Jesus put the issue in a totally different light than the ancient tradition that linked sin and sickness. Then he used the opportunity to give the man his sight.
2. (Vss. 8-12) When neighbours of the man born blind realized that he could see, they could not believe that this was the same person or that a miracle could have happened. Do we really get so used to seeing the disabled around us?
3. (Vss. 13-17) Then the neighbours involved the Pharisees who were infuriated that a miracle had been performed on the Sabbath. They asserted that the miracle worker healer must be a great sinner, but the man himself thought he was a prophet.
4. (Vss. 18-23) Next, the Pharisees interrogated the parents of the formerly blind man. The parents readily acknowledged that he was their son, but did not want to be involved in any religious controversy with the authorities. So they opted out, claiming that their son was of age and could answer for himself.
5. (Vss. 24-34) The Pharisees pressed the man to give God the glory for his healing because the still unidentified miracle worker must have been a sinner and could not have done it. An intense theological argument ensued in which the Pharisees accused the man of wanted to become a disciple of Jesus. In fact, he challenged them by getting to the crux of the matter by claiming that if the healer were not from God, he could do nothing like this. The Pharisees drove him out of the community.
6. (Vss. 35-41) Jesus found the man and helped him confess his faith much to the Pharisees dismay.
John 10:1-21 is a continuation of the commentary on the miracle of ch. 9 and the various responses to it. All but vss. 19-21 are words John attributes to Jesus himself. The two superb metaphors of Jesus as the gate of the sheepfold and as the good shepherd characterize him as the one who brings us to faith and guards us in faith.
The distinctive relationship between shepherd, stranger, sheepfold and sheep carries forward Jesus’ positive relationship to the blind man in contrast to Pharisees’ negative relationship to him. The passage builds on metaphors in Ezekiel 34 where kings of Israel are depicted as bad shepherds (Ezek. 34:1-10) in contrast David, the ideal king and messianic example (Ezek. 34:11-31).
Faced with the Pharisees’ lack of understanding, Jesus utters a series of “I am” sayings again echoing Ezekiel 34 and identifying Jesus with God as Israel’s shepherd. Vss. 11-18 elaborates on the metaphor of the good shepherd in contrast to the hired hand by introducing the idiom of “laying down his life for the sheep.” While this idiom expressed incidents of high risk in the Old Testament, Christians in John’s community and ever since have associated it with Jesus’ death. (Cf. Judges. 12:3; 1 Sam. 19:5; 28:21; Job 13:14.)
Who are the sheep? At first the designation refers to a specific small flock. But then Jesus expands his understanding of the metaphor to include “other sheep …not of this fold.” In ch. 4 he had hinted at the Samaritans. In 11:52 and 12:32, he says that all who faithfully listen to him also belong.
Vss. 17 & 18 speak openly of Jesus’ death and resurrection, of which John knew well.
The next section, John 10:22-42, deals with a further controversy with the Jews at the time of the winter festival of Dedication which we know as Hannukah. It celebrated the rededication of the temple after the Maccabean revolt of 167-164 BCE. Jesus’ mention of his sheep, his works, witnesses on his behalf and his unity with God bring the previous conflicts to a climax. His adversaries also charge him with blasphemy and attempt to arrest him.
There may be a connection between this passage and the cleansing of the temple in ch. 2. That event occurred at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry; this one as he approached the end. Both occurred in the temple precincts. Thus the entire ministry has revealed God’s presence in the world.
The whole section, however, underlies the difference between Jesus and his opponents. The question is whether in Jesus we experience the presence of God in the world. Jesus’ identity as Messiah is put directly in vss. 24-31 and as the Son of God in vss. 32-39. But he never specifically answers the question. Only those who believe can effectively respond.
Throughout the passage as before, John brings forth witnesses to indicate who Jesus is: his works (10:21, 25, 37-38); God (10:29, 30, 36 cf. 5:36) scripture (10:34-36; cf. 5:39); and John the Baptist (10:40-42; cf. 5:35). Referring to certain people as gods reflects Ps. 82:6, but is intended to refute the charge of blasphemy and to witness to his relationship with God.
Finally, Jesus again appeals to the witness of his works (vss. 37-38), asserting that these are the works of God and showing how he is God incarnate, a truth that many come to believe.
This story occurs only in John’s Gospel and expresses John’s particular theology. The miracle reveals not only God’s glory, but also the glory of God’s Son (vs. 4). This statement indicates a positive outcome from the very beginning. Yet the whole experience of death exhibits the very real human loss it always brings. The cost cannot be blithely discounted as a prelude to heavenly bliss.
The raising of Lazarus is a metaphor for the kind of life Jesus offers to all believers. It is not an other-worldly life, but one that abides in the midst of life’s real tragedies. Yet it also proclaims how a life of faith overcomes even the power of death and the grave.
Apart from the actual raising of Lazarus, two dialogues with the disciples and with the two sisters, Mary and Martha, form important elements of John’s story. By trying to dissuade Jesus from going to Bethany, the disciples give him another chance to repeat, albeit metaphorically, the basic themes of light, darkness and human choice found earlier in the gospel. This encourages believers to continue their faithful work in the face of danger. But the disciples still do not fully understand, as Thomas’ bold declaration clearly shows (vs. 16).
Ever the outspoken one, Martha remonstrates with Jesus for his delay, but still hopes he can do something about her brother’s death. Her response to Jesus’ assurance that Lazarus will live again expresses the typical view of those times – only in the general resurrection of the messianic age.
To quote O’Day and Hylen, the mourning of the neighbours, Mary’s flash of anger, Jesus’ compassion and his own grief at the graveside “highlight the bitter cost and the power of death in human lives and so underscore the significance of Jesus’ ultimate victory over death…. Like Martha, when we minimize the scope of this story Christians show that we do not trust the power of Jesus over life, not do we want to name the reality of death.”
Martha’s protest of the stench of death, Jesus’ response and prayer at the grave delay the miracle and heighten the climax of the story. The prayer serves as a teaching moment: all that Jesus says and does come from God, for God’s glory and the glorification of God’s Son.
As in earlier instances, many believed, but Jesus’ opponents seized the opportunity to attack and plan his death. This last of the six signs around which John built his narrative also marks the end of Act 1 of the dramatic action. Enter Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, the high court of religious justice. The high priest’s prophetic remark, “It is better for one man die for the nation than to have the whole nation destroyed,” sets the stage for the final act of redemption in the cross and resurrection.
Faced with impending doom, Jesus withdrew to the wilderness with his disciples while other Jews purified themselves for the coming Passover. People speculated whether Jesus would come for the festival. The Pharisees and religious authorities put a watch out for Jesus. His movements would be determined only in God’s own time.
It is perhaps best to regard ch. 12 as an interlude between two acts of the gospel. It separates the ministry of Jesus from his death, resurrection and ascension. Yet it also maintains the theme of separating those who believe in him as sent by God and speaking God’s word from those who do not.
The story of Mary of Bethany anointing Jesus’ feet links the death and resurrection of Lazarus to the life and death of Jesus. Judas Iscariot complained causing John in an aside to accuse him of theft while Jesus rebuked Judas. Jesus’ presence at Bethany, so close to Jerusalem, brought many curious folk to see Lazarus. All too aware of the threat to their authority, the chief priests plotted to put Lazarus to death.
The following day, Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem caused a great celebration as he was greeted as a truly messianic figure. Testimony from those who had seen the raising of Lazarus convinced many others. The Pharisees responded in futility that “The whole world has gone after him.”
Another brief interjection in John’s narrative seems to reflect the response of the Greek-speaking people in John’s own community. It has another purpose of pointing to the fulfillment of the eschatological promise of universal salvation.
This elicits an extended statement by Jesus about the arrival of the time for his glorification. Vss. 24-36 include three different teachings about the meaning of his death and the urgent need for response. These have as much relevance for today as in that time.
John attributes several sayings to Jesus’ to show how his death with bring about inestimable results. In a parable of a seed being sown to produce much fruit, the first interpretation states that Jesus’ death will have immeasurable effect. “Fruit” is a symbol for the community of faith.
A second saying repeats similar passages in the other gospels about the relationship between sacrifice and gain. To this Jesus added a third saying that those who serve him by following him in a life of loving sacrifice would share with him the Father’s blessing of eternal life.
Vss. 27-28 reveals that John knows of other traditions of Jesus’ death and takes issue with them. Predominant is the Gethsemane experience of Jesus appealing for relief from the impending sacrifice. John quotes Jesus as being troubled, but at the same time places his complete trust in God praying that in his death God would glorify God’s name (i.e. reveal God’s true nature).
A voice from heaven reassured him. Jesus tells the crowd that the voice was for their sake, not his. His death would not only judge the world, but draw all people to himself.
In the end, as usual, the people do not understand what he said to them. They acknowledge that he might be the Messiah, but do not recognize the messianic nature of his sacrifice.
John reflects on this lack of understanding by reintroducing Jesus’ earlier reference to light remaining for only a little longer. His reflections and a quotation from Isaiah end the narrative of Jesus public ministry.
It has long been assumed that chs. 13-17 gave us John’s narration of the Last Supper, including actions and discourse not included in the other Gospels. But was this actually “the Last Supper?” In a recent discussion of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Prof. Ben Witherington III attributes much of the stories behind the gospel to Lazarus, “the Beloved Disciple.” This conclusion depends on selected references references in John 11, 13, 20 and 21. (See his full argument at this address: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/01/was-lazarus-beloved-disciple.html)
Witherington points out that the supper described in John 13:1 was not the Passover meal of the other Gospels, and may not have occurred in Jerusalem. It could have been merely another familiar gathering of the company of disciples in the home of Lazarus, Martha and Mary in Bethany. Lazarus, “the disciples whom Jesus’ loved” served as host and reclined next to Jesus. (Meals were eaten while reclining on benches rather than sitting at a table.)
What distinguishes the activities at this meal is that it occurred on an unidentified date “before the festival of the Passover.” The foot washing, not the Eucharist (i.e. Lord’s Supper), was the central event of that meal. As Hylen and O’Day assert: “The foot washing has similar roles to the Lord’s Supper in the Synoptics: it enacts and makes visible Jesus love for his own, and his followers are instructed to do likewise.” The practice is celebrated still as a sacrament in some traditions and as an ordinance suitably marking Maundy Thursday.
Of special note is Jesus’ awareness that his hour has come too end his ministry and return to the Father. The humble act of washing the disciples feet is not to cleanse them, but as an enactment of their special relationship with him and sets an example of their relationship to others (vss. 14-15). Not everyone will accept Jesus’ offer of love, but even his betrayal will reveal who Jesus really is.
In the subsequent section (vss. 21-38), John has Jesus speak more clearly of his betrayal and identify Judas as the one who will do it. The unnamed disciple “whom Jesus loved” played a role in this. Jesus then appeared to send Judas out on some errand. But some of the disciples either had not heard or did not understand what Judas was about to do.
At this point Jesus began to speak of his departure as glorification. He told the disciples that they could not now go with him and gave them his commandment to love one another as he had loved them. He also said that they would not be able to go with him. Appearing not to understand Peter argued that point. He forcefully asserted that he would lay down his life for Jesus.
Before we criticize Peter’s aggressive words, remember that he was willing to follow Jesus example of love. But that led Jesus to predict that Peter would deny him three times “before the cock crows” (i.e daybreak). Note too that this counters Witherington’s point that this meal may not have been the Last Supper.
John 14-17 are usually referred to as Jesus’ final discourse to his disciples delivered at the Last Supper. Scholars have discerned its similarity to other discourses in the Old Testament, especially the address of Moses in Deuteronomy. In that context, the discourse was given to the wilderness travelers who had not yet entered the promised land, but was written down by a later group of people who had lived in the land for a long time. In John’s Gospel, the final discourse performs similar functions by incorporating the perspective of later followers within the narrative of Jesus’ life and ministry.
Many of Jesus’ well-known sayings from this discourse have a past, present and future reference as well as recurring themes: Jesus’ abiding presence, the necessity of his return to the Father, the promise of the Spirit (Paraclete), the future of the community, the centrality of love. Another important emphasis is role of prayer in the disciples’ lives and their understanding of their relationship to Jesus following his ascension.
In this passage John used a great many metaphors to describe this complex relationship. In so doing he expressed the mystery of human relationships to God.
Never is this more evident that in 14:1-14. Having acknowledged his own distress in the face of impending death, Jesus sought to calm the disciples’ minds even as he reiterated his departure from them. Everything about the future rested on their faith in him.
Often used in funeral services to reassure mourners that their loved ones are with God, the metaphor of “dwelling” in 14:1-4 goes much further. Jesus’ impending death creates new opportunities for relationship with God in the present life of the believer.
Thomas’ misunderstanding of the “way” (vss.4-7) brought forth another characteristic “I am” statement similar to those of the gate and the shepherd in 10:7 & 11. Jesus thus identified himself as the point of access to life with God. As O’Day and Hylen put it: “Judaism affirmed that the way to God was through the practice of and meditation on God’s law (Pss. 86:11; 119:1, 3, 5, 27, 33; Prov. 2:8, 12, 13, 20). John affirms this basic sentiment and specifies that Jesus, God’s Word, is that way of life.”
In 14:6, John “summarizes the central theological conviction of the gospel: Jesus is the tangible presence of God in the world.” This has nothing to do with exclusiveness and superiority as some would contend. It is not a statement about the relative worth of the world’s religious traditions. Rather John is concerned with helping Christians – of his time and ours – “recognize and name their God and claim the distinctiveness of their identity as a people of faith.”
In vss. 12-14 Jesus spoke of the works his disciples would do after he had gone. These works, some even greater than his, would be continuous with his works in glorifying God.
Remembering that all scriptures were written in capital letters without punctuation helps us to see the links in Jesus’ remarkable statements in John 14:12-17. John has Jesus promise his disciples that they would do greater works that he had done, then makes a promise that if they prayed “in his name,” he would do what they asked. The key to those claims, however, was obedience to his commandment and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
As O’Day and Hylen point out, the disciples are to understand that Jesus’ departure “does not mean an end to the life he has enabled but the beginning of their own realization of and participation in that life.”
Prayer “in Jesus’ name” does not mean that all our prayers will be answered as we would wish. “The test of any prayer,” wrote Scottish scholar William Barclay, “is (whether) I can make this prayer in the name of Jesus….Or am I praying this out of my own desires and aims and ambitions. The prayer which can stand the test of that consideration, and the prayer which in the end says, Thy will be done, is always answered.” Even Jesus’ own prayer in Gethsemane was answered with a silent, “No.”
Another clue to the meaning of prayer “in Jesus’ name” is found in the second part of vs. 13: “so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” Jesus guaranteed only what will advance God’s purpose to bring the whole world under God’s reign of love and so enhance God’s glory.
So one of our first prayers could well be to have deeper insight into and commitment to God’s purpose for the world in our time and place. That is where vss. 15-17 come into clearer focus. It is the Spirit of love that will guide us.
The Greek word parakletos (Paraclete, Counsellor, Comforter) is virtually untranslatable. Greeks used it in a wide variety of ways. Technically, it referred to a person called into help. It could be a friend, a technician or a professional one consults, anyone to help make a difference in a difficult situation.
“Comforter” was the first English word used by the 14th century scholar John Wycliffe to translate it. But “comfort” then meant bringing strength or bravery (Latin fortis) to someone. There is still no better translation for the work of the Spirit. To quote Phillips Brooks, a noted preacher of the 19th century: “The truest help one can render to anyone who has any of the inevitable burdens of life to carry is not to take the burden off but to call out his best strength that he may be able to bear it.”
To put it another way, the Spirit Jesus promised does not take away our independence or our inadequacies for the struggles of life, but makes it possible for us to cope with life whatever happens.
Are we who believe in Jesus, the Son of God, Saviour and Lord, the only ones who have the Spirit within us? Or is it also true to say that where love abides and obedience to love makes life livable, there the Spirit is doing the greater works that Jesus promised? Could it be a case of both/and?
The remainder of ch. 14 contains three promises Jesus makes to the believing community. These are all related to the sending of the Paraclete, i.e. the Spirit. The first is found in vss. 18-19 where Jesus says, “I am coming to you…. Because I live you will live also.” The life Jesus offers is “one that is like Jesus’ own life, both as witnessed during his earthly life and in his life on the other side of resurrection.” The key to that life is love fully expressed in obedience and discipleship.
The second promise (vs. 26) points to the continuity between what Jesus said during his ministry and what the Spirit will teach in his absence. For John and his community circa 85 CE this would be more than just remembering what Jesus had said. It would also be their inspiration to live the Christ-like life of love and to interpret this in new ways in their own time and place.
To elaborate: The world John’s community knew was significantly different from that which Jesus and his disciples knew in Galilee and Jerusalem. Fifteen years earlier the Romans had completely destroyed the temple, its priesthood and its sacrificial practices. The religious traditions of Israel had been totally transformed. Judaism was now dominated by the rabbis of the Pharisees who sought to interpret the ancient laws and liturgical practices in terms these new circumstances. One of their chief tasks was to determine once and for all which documents were the authoritative scriptures of Judaism. This we call the Hebrew canon.
The followers of Jesus too were adjusting to a completely different environment. The Christian communities in mainly Gentile cities far from Israel were predominantly Gentile. Fewer and fewer Jews were in their midst. The Romans also began to regard them seriously as different from but often just as dangerous as the Jews. The apostles were no longer available to give leadership, most having been martyred in the years prior 70 CE. A second and third generation of believers was now taking their place in the Christian fellowship.
The challenge for the rapidly growing church in this new age was to live creatively in keeping with what they had learned about Jesus. They depended on the oral tradition communicated by the apostles and a few written documents like some of Paul’s letters and remembered sayings of Jesus that may have been in circulation. In this milieu, the authoritative faith tradition of the early church and its Christology took written form in what we now know as the New Testament.
Jesus’ final promise to his disciples to be fulfilled by the Spirit was a peace enabling them to overcome the inevitable doubts, fears and distressing experiences they would encounter. “Shalom” (peace) was the conventional Jewish word for both greeting and leave-taking. Jesus offered this and much more. His words carried the full weight of God’s profound and abiding presence found in several Old Testament passages such Isaiah 52:7; 54:10; Ezekiel 37:26-28; Zechariah 9:10. This is how his mission as Messiah/Christ would be carried on by those who believed in him.
In ch. 15-16:4a John uses the striking metaphor of a vine and its branches to describe the relationship of the community of believers to Christ when it is motivated by love. This is set on equally striking contrast to hatred of the world of non-believers to the Christian community.
The metaphor of the vine, its branches and its fruit comes straight out of the prophets of the Old Testament, especially Isaiah 5:1-7. (See also Jeremiah 2:21; Ezekiel 19:10-14; and Hosea 10:1 for the opposite view of Israel as an unproductive vine.) Note that it is God who cares for, prunes and purges the vine so that it may be more fruitful. Because water was (and still is) scarce and often polluted, wine was the common drink of Middle Eastern culture, the image had special relevance for John’s community.
The prophetic metaphor has been carefully adapted for Christian purposes. The emphasis is on the special relationship of the vine and its branches. Jesus is the source of the community’s identity and fruitfulness. If their life in their own neighbourhood and in the world as it was is shaped by love and intertwined with the abiding presence of God and Jesus, all will be well. The same stands for the Christian community today. In very real terms, to do works of love (metaphorically yield fruit) is the explicit sign of discipleship.
But that love is and will always be sacrificial. That is what is meant by the many instances where Jesus showed by word and action that his love for them would lead inevitably to his death. “Great love has no one than this,” John attributes Jesus saying in this instance.
This sets up the sharp contrast between the Jesus people and the world outside the believing community. “The world” means all who are not believers in word and deed. The faithful may expect only the same hostility and hatred from them that they showed Jesus, even to the point of persecution and death simply because they follow him. This behaviour can be expected because of lack of understanding and isolation from God.
This hostile relationship between the believing community and the world outside reflects similar attitudes of judgment expressed in 3:19-21; 8:15-16; and 9:39-41. Psalms 35:19 and 69:4 ironically reflect a scriptural interpretation of what the Christians will experience.
Yet they will not be left alone in their travails. They stand in a long line of witnesses to Jesus: John the Baptist, the Samaritan woman, Jesus own words and works, the Jewish scriptures and even God. They too will be called to testify on Jesus’ behalf with the help of the Spirit.
In 16:1-4a John attributes Jesus with words that speak directly to John’s audience, the threat of being “put out of the synagogue.” Although this was a theological controversy about the true Messiah, it would be regarded as an act of faithfulness to God. Yet the world is not lost and forever excluded from God’s presence. God loves the world and that is where Jesus and those who follow him carry on God’s redemptive ministry of love.
Jesus’ farewell discourse makes two more promises to the disciples and offers a ringing declaration that all will be well because they will overcome as he has. This surprisingly positive approach to his forthcoming death is based solely on his earlier promise that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide and strengthen them for whatever may happen. Thus Jesus can make the astonishing claim that it to the disciples’ advantage that he leave them (16:7).
Vss. 8-11 pick up the legal imagery which John has used before (3:17-19; 5:31-47; 8:14-18; 12:47-48). Here it is the world that is on trial with the Spirit as the prosecuting attorney. In John, sin is a theological, not a moral category. The issue is not good or bad behaviour, but faith or faithlessness. The Spirit exposes the sin of belief or unbelief. “Righteousness” is used in the sense of “vindication.” The Spirit proves the world wrong by exposing how by Jesus’ life and death, all that is opposed to God and God’s loving purpose, even death itself, is shown to be powerless before God.
Jesus’ final promise clarifies the work of the Spirit in aiding the disciples by carrying on his work of instructing them in God’s truth. Even after his departure they will hear afresh his teachings and understand what he meant. More than that, this new teaching will “glorify” Jesus, by making visible the presence of God in the world just as Jesus himself had done.
To quote O’Day and Hylen: “This promise also extends beyond the limits of the Gospel story, as it points to the power and possibility of ongoing revelation. The Spirit of Jesus will bring the teaching of Jesus forward into times and places far removed from the first century. The promise of these verses keeps the teachings of Jesus fresh and names how the good news can and will be available to successive generations of believers.”
This is how we too meet and experience Jesus and the presence of God through scripture.
After vs. 16 the discourse turns to Jesus’ imminent departure and the pain and confusion this will cause the disciples. The metaphor of childbirth draws on a common life experience as well as an Old Testament antecedent (Isaiah 66:7-17). In their joy, their questions will cease, but their prayers in Jesus’ name will continue because they will share fully in Jesus’ relationship with God. Vss. 26-27 elaborates by placing prayer in the context of God’s love for the Christian community and the community’s love for God.
Vs. 28 summarizes not only the whole chapter but the whole Gospel. “Jesus’ origins are with God; he came from God to reveal God in the world. Hus death and return to God will complete his work in the world and make possible the gift of the Paraclete and the disciples’ joy.” (O’Day and Hylen)
That is not to say that all will go easily for them. But they will be empowered to face whatever happens and to overcome as he has through love.
At the end of the supper and knowing that his hour is upon him, Jesus entrusted the future of the community to God in prayer. He prayed first for his glorification in faith that his death, resurrection and ascension will reveal God’s love and make visible God’s presence. We can assume that the exact words of the prayer are John’s reflections on the meaning of this glorification.
Next, John reintroduces the concept of eternal life which had been prominent in earlier chapters, but in the farewell discourse had been replaced by correlated ideas of love and abiding. Eternal life is not a gift of immortality or a future life in heaven, but a knowledge of the one true God whom Jesus has revealed. This revelation is now finished. The existence of the believing community is the evidence of that. Thus, Jesus is glorified in them (vss. 6-9).
Jesus then prayed for the protection of the community he was leaving in the world. While he was with them, he could protect them, but now they would only have their faith in him as they encountered a hostile world to which they no longer belong (vss. 11-19). These verses also combine the past, present and future, embodying what he had been saying throughout the farewell discourse. In this way, the faith of the community is for both the time of the narrative and the reader’s time (i.e. Jesus prayed for us.)
The experiences of all the disciples are embedded in this prayer. The community’s treatment by the world is an extension of their relationship with Jesus. Like the “ruler of this world” Jesus had previously mentioned (12:31; 14:30; 16:11), the evil one is the embodiment of all that is opposed to God. The community will live and work in the midst of this opposition, hence their need for the God’s protection.
The work of the community parallels Jesus’ own work, and also reflects God’s holiness. Hence, the request that God sanctify them. In Greek, the words for sanctify and holiness have the same root.
In vss. 21-24, Jesus prayed that the unity and oneness of the community would reflect the unity of Jesus with God. This unity will serve as a witness to the world and so come to know that God sent Jesus as an extension of God’s love for the world. “The fullness of God’s glory comes into view when the believer sees the events from the prologue to Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection and ascension as one expression of God’s love.” (O’Day and Hylen)
The prayer concludes with a review of Jesus’ ministry in the world. His death and departure will not end the work; it continues in the believing community and through the presence of the Holy Spirit. The result of Jesus’ making God known is love. This leads to the final revelation of that love in his death, resurrection and ascension.
Many regard the historic divisions in the Christian community as a denial of Jesus’ life and work. Or is our lack of respect and appreciation of each other’s faith and witness more revealing of our failure to be like him and to live in love for one another as he loves us?
John gave a relatively brief description of the crucifixion. Like the narrative of the trial, it often differs from that of the Synoptic authors, but is true to the portrayal of Jesus as being in full control of all the events of his hour. John’s theological purpose was to show that during the whole process from his arrest to his death, Jesus completed the work that God had given him to do.
The actual nailing of Jesus to the cross, brutal and gruesome as that would have been, and the record of the two crucified with Jesus, further emphasized brevity of John’s narrative. In contrast, John lavishes attention on the details of Pilate’s inscription on the cross. The wording defined the crime for which Jesus was executed: political sedition.
But was there once more some savage irony in the inscription? Pilate’s obstinate refusal to change the inscription at the request of the Jewish authorities only served to ridicule them. But did Pilate really believe what he wrote or was he just covering his own failure to carry out Roman justice? By describing the plaque as written in three languages, John made it clear that Pilate had unwittingly enthroned Jesus as the king he really was.
The division of a prisoner’s clothing among the soldiers was a common Roman practice. This fulfilled a text in Psalm 22:18 of which John would have been fully aware. He thus placed the crucifixion within the context of scripture.
The presence of the women shows how they remained faithful witnesses to the end, however much they mourned the loss of their Lord. In John’s time, many women would have been left to mourn the death of martyred Christian husbands.
Many interpretations have been proposed of Jesus giving his mother into the care of the beloved disciple. It would seem possible that John had two things in mind:
1) Mary had been at the wedding at Cana at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Now she was also present at his death. The beloved disciples had been at the last supper and perhaps at many other occasions. By linking Jesus’ mother and his closest friend to the events of his life from beginning to end John provided a prime instance of Jesus’ commandment that his followers love one another as he had loved them.
2) In the moment of dying John expressed in familial language the bond of unity for which Jesus had prayed, one that reflected the unity of Father and Son. He was also expressing the continuity of Jesus’ ministry with John’s own community and the church of all ages. We are still a community bonded only by love.
There undoubtedly was a growing body of skeptics who questioned Jesus’ real humanity. John’s insertion of the simple complaint of the crucified, “I am thirsty” emphasized the end of Jesus’ incarnation. The fulfillment of his ministry came in his last words from the cross, “It is finished.” In control to the last, he gave up the Spirit so God would give it to us.
The aftermath of Jesus’ death, as John told it, maintains the solemnity of the moment as well as the element of conflict that had followed Jesus from the beginning. Not content that their will had been done, the Jewish authorities wanted still more.
Exercising their mandate to keep the Passover holy, they sought to have the bodies of the crucified removed from the crosses before sunset. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the victims broken to hasten their death. Pilate agreed, but when the soldiers went to do so, they found that Jesus was already dead. Instead one of the soldiers thrust his spear into Jesus’ side which caused an outpouring of blood and watery serum.
Why such details now when the gruesome aspects of the crucifixion had been overlooked? John had liturgical reasons: He was writing for a community which already celebrated the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Here again, as in chs. 4 & 6, he introduces the basic elements of those sacraments – water, bread and blood. But he does so symbolically. The elementary fluids of Jesus’ body are there to remind Christians of every age of what the sacraments mean. In baptism and in the Lord’s Supper we have the means by which we are “en-Christed” for living the life of faith in the world as he had lived.
There was a witness to this incident, John states in an aside: the one who watched from a distance. Was it the Beloved Disciple, whoever he may have been – John, son of Zebedee, or Lazarus?
To affirm that this as a historical moment, John added two scripture quotations that emphasize its significance as the fulfillment of divine purpose. Jesus’ unbroken bones were associated with the unbroken bones of the Passover lamb. At the same moment that Jesus was crucified, the unblemished lambs for the Passover meal all Jews were about to celebrate were being slaughtered. The piercing of Jesus’ side also fulfilled a prophecy in Zechariah 12:10 which linked the death of Jesus with the promise of the Davidic Messiah who would bring God’s sovereignty to pass. The cross had become his coronation.
Legends have grown up since early times about Joseph of Arimathea as the secret disciple who gave his own sepulcher for Jesus’ burial with the help of that another seeker, Nicodemus. John’s narrative says no more than that they were respectful Jews in doing what they did. Both men were likely members of the Sanhedrin, the religious Supreme Court. They wanted to be faithful Jews in seeing to the burial before sunset on the eve of the Passover. They were also aware of the miscarriage of justice they had witnessed and respectful of this man Jesus who so intrigued them. They represent the countless folk through the ages who have been or are afraid to commit to full discipleship because of the personal cost involved.
At the end of the story we can now see how John wove what may well have been unique historical recollections from the oral tradition with theological purpose into a masterful narrative very different from the other three Gospels.
Note that the resurrection is never described in any of the four Gospels. All we have are witnesses to the resurrection. The closest we can come to a portrayal of what may have happened is in John 20: 5-7, but even that is only by implication.
The whole chapter may be an adaptation and weaving together of several earlier stories from the tradition which came to John separately. John’s theological intent was to show that the resurrection was not just a miraculous act of God in and of itself, but fulfilled what had gone before in both the signs of the early part of John’s narrative and the promises of the farewell discourse. Two parts of the chapter (vss. 1-18; 19-29) were meant to be complimentary. Both revealed how the several witnesses moved from unbelieving to believing.
Other Gospels do not mention Mary Magdalene alone at the tomb, only in company with at least one other woman. The visit of Peter and the Beloved Disciple, instigated by Mary’s fear-filled report, also differed from other gospel narratives. Mary’s meeting with Jesus, finally recognizing him and what had happened may be the most beautifully told story of all the resurrection appearances.
A striking contrast is drawn between the reaction of Peter and the Beloved Disciple to seeing the empty tomb. The Beloved Disciple outran Peter as they raced to the tomb. Ever the bold one, when he arrived, Peter entered right into the tomb and saw the empty shroud linen. But we are not told that believed what the evidence showed. Although first to look into the tomb, the Beloved Disciple only entered after Peter, but he instantly recognized what he saw. He believed, but not completely understanding what he was seeing. John’s interpreted their belief as incomplete with scriptural confirmation.
Mary’s experience of the resurrection came through the resolution of her grief. Fearing first that the body had been stolen, she first had what may have been a hallucinatory vision of angels. Then she saw Jesus, but mistook him for a gardener. Was Jesus trying to comfort her when he asked her why she wept and whom she was seeking? On the other hand, mistaken identity is part of the Emmaus story in Luke and may have been an original aspect of the early tradition.
The moment of recognition came for Mary when Jesus spoke her name. That recalls 10:16 and 24 where John wrote of Jesus as the good shepherd whose voice his own sheep would recognize. Possibly without understanding, Mary would have clung to her risen master. Jesus prevented her from doing so by pointing to the on-going process of his returning to the Father as he had previously told the disciples he would do.
John’s narrative presented Jesus’ glorification as beginning during his life, and continuing during his trial, crucifixion, death and resurrection, but would reach its fulfillment only at his ascension. Hence Jesus’ instruction to Mary to go and tell his disciples not only that she had seen the Lord, but give them his message of what was yet to come. Mary was the first to witness to the whole story.
The complementary story in 20:19-29 told of Thomas coming to believe a week after the other disciples saw the risen Jesus and believed that he had indeed risen from the dead. The final two verses (30-31) have been the subject of much debate among scholars as to whether or not they conclude John’s Gospel as the evangelist wrote it.
Jesus’ greeting when he first appeared in a locked room where the disciples were hiding in fear had a double meaning. “Shalom” (“peace be with you”) is still a conventional greeting, but it also recalled Jesus earlier promise to give his peace to the disciples (14:27). His repeated “Shalom” had much greater meaning after the disciples had recognized him. His words echoed his farewell prayer, “as the Father has sent me, so I send you.” He commissioned them for their ministry and that of the whole believing community who would carry on the work God had sent him to do.
Jesus breathing on the gathered disciples was meant for all believers, not just this small assembly. His parting gift of peace would be for all time. That is the meaning of his words, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” It reflected the breath of God at the creation (Gen. 2:7) and Israel’s return from exile in Babylon (Ezekiel 37:9). In fact, the new community of faithful believers was indeed a new creation.
Granting the community the right to forgive sins was not about an act of penance in relation to individual deeds. John’s view of sin was refusing to recognize and accept God’s revelation in Jesus as stated in throughout the Gospel (3:17-21; 8:21-24; 9:2, 39-40; 15:22-24.)
In that light was Thomas’ doubt sinful? No, he wanted to see the evidence for himself. But Jesus reprimanded him for refusing to accept the word of the other disciples and being superficially concerned with the miraculous. In fact, John told of four different ways of coming to believe the resurrection: 1) The Beloved Disciples saw the grave wrappings. 2) Mary Magdalene heard her name spoken. 3) The gathered disciples saw Jesus and believed. 4) Thomas saw and overcame the miraculous aspect of his unbelief.
O’Day and Hylen describe Thomas’ experience this way: “The story is not about Thomas’ doubt and skepticism, but about the abundant grace of Jesus who meets Thomas’ demands point for point in order to move him to faith. Notice that John does not narrate that Thomas actually puts his finger in Jesus’ hands or side. The story moves directly from Jesus’ invitation to Thomas’ confession of faith.” His confession fulfills Jesus earlier promise to him that those who knew him would know the Father also (14:7).
The subsequent blessing reassured future generations that seeing Jesus is not a prerequisite to faith. Proclamation by word of mouth and in the written words such as John had done would bring the same gift of faith as seeing the risen Jesus. Subsequent copies of the original manuscript vary about “coming to” or “continuing to believe.” Yet even those who do believe do not fully understand.
The Gospel comes to a conclusion with the story of a final appearance of Jesus to a few disciples by the Sea of Galilee. Most scholars agree that this is an epilogue, no originally included in John’s Gospel and presumed to be from another author. But there are no early manuscripts in which it does not appear.
Many themes of the Gospel appear again in this chapter: Jesus’ self-revelation, a miraculous provision of food, a command to love, and the future life of the disciples are only some of these. All underscore the truth that Jesus is still with the disciples and his presence still available to John’s community – and to us.
The number or identification of the disciples has some significance. Nathanael appears only for the second time in the Gospel. His presence recalls Jesus’ promise to him in 1:47-50 that he would see “greater things than these.” The miracle that follows in 21: 4-8 establishes continuity between the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and the beginning of the community’s life after the resurrection.
The disciples recognized Jesus because of the abundant catch of fish. Like previous signs he had seen, the Beloved Disciple saw this new one as an act of the same Lord. Jesus’ ability to provide for his disciples is repeatedly emphasized in vvs. 9-14. The meal is the same as that in ch. 6: bread and fish, once again pointing to the abundance of Jesus’ gifts. It serves the purpose of aligning the work of the disciples with Jesus’ own work. The traditional place where this occurred is named “the seven springs” and is close by the hillside where the five thousand were fed.
The next part of the story is sometimes referred to by tourist guides as “the primacy of Peter.” Jesus asked Peter if he loved him and instructs Peter to “feed my sheep.” He repeated the instruction three times, counterbalancing Peter’s three denials of Jesus. His former denials did not prevent him from participating in the work to come.
More significance than there should be is given to the different Greek words Jesus used for “love” (phileo/agapao) and “sheep/lambs.” Neither the varieties of love nor the object of that love is important, but Jesus’ charge to love as he has loved. Peter’s love for Jesus should translate into his care for Jesus’ flock, i.e. the gathering community.
Vss. 18-19 introduced a new subject – Peter’s martyrdom. Most scholars read the words “stretch out your arms” as a reference to Peter’s own crucifixion, a tradition that appeared very early. Peter’s question about the beloved disciple’s future, however, does not suggest that he would not die before Jesus returns. Rather, it refers to the beloved disciples remaining with the Christian community and communicating to them the story of the Gospel. As Peter bore witness to Jesus by dying a martyr’s death, the Beloved Disciple – presumably John – would bear witness by telling the story.
The Gospel ends by pointing to the ongoing presence of Jesus in the Church, then and now.