INTRODUCTION TO JOHN

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. The Composition of the Gospel 2. The Unity of the Gospel - Three Probes 3. Johannine Christology - The Father and the Son 4. The Prologue 5. Judgement 6. John and the Spirit 7. The Johannine Passion Narrative 8. The Resurrection Narratives 4 16 26 39 49 59 69 80

Foreword
This booklet was written for the fifth of the annual courses on Scripture sponsored by the Union of Monastic Superiors. I am grateful to Sister Zoe for suggesting this work, and to the monks and nuns who have constituted such a stimulating, faithful and appreciative group of students over the last four courses. Their prayerful and thoughtful comments have been a constant inspiration and stimulus to me. For this booklet in particular I should like to thank Peter Williamson, whose detailed comments on a draft version were most helpful. I would like to thank also the sisters of Turvey Abbey for the care and devotion lavished on production of the booklets for the course. It makes them a pleasure to use. Particularly the witty illustrations make me hope that the text is up to the same standard! Henry Wansbrough

Bibliography
It will be helpful during this course to have other books to use. They will fill out the information given in this booklet, and often present an alternative viewpoint. Commentaries Raymond E.BrownThe Gospel According to John (Chapman, 2 vols, 1966) - obviously a very thorough commentary. The commentary on each unit of the gospel falls into three sections. By reading the 'General Comment' on a unit one can get quite a good idea of its drift. Barnabas Lindars The Gospel of John (Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972) - less massive than Brown and easier to handle, but sometimes for that reason a little too short on particular passages. D. Moody Smith The Gospel of John (Cambridge University Press, 1995) - intended as a short introduction to the gospel, a central section gives an invaluable orientation (pp. 22-95). Other books John Ashton (ed) The Interpretation of John (SPCK, 1986) - a selection of important scholarly essays, originally published 1962-1972, apart from an important earlier essay by R. Bultmann (1923). These are reasonably short but condensed. John Ashton Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991) - a lively, original, critical and somewhat disrespectful discussion of many aspects of the gospel. It sometimes sets out to shock, but also has many crisp insights. Quite a weighty book. Anthony T HansonThe Prophetic Gospel (T&T Clark, 1991) - a fairly demanding book of some 400 pages, in which some chapters presuppose a scholarly background, it has great insights on the Word, the historical Jesus and 'the ikon of Christ'. John W. Pryor John, Evangelist of the Covenant People (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1992) - easy to read and authoritative, it sketches out superbly the narrative and themes of the gospel, with strong emphasis on Moses, the covenant and Christology. Richard A. Burridge Four Gospels, One Jesus? (SPCK, 1996) - perhaps the best brief introduction to all four gospels, it has of course only one section on John.

CHAPTER 1 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL For many Christians the Gospel of John is the summit of the gospel tradition. St Augustine wrote, In the four gospels, or rather in the four books that make up the one gospel, it was St John who in his teaching soared to heights far loftier than those attained by the other three evangelists, and it was his wish to carry our hearts with him on his flight. The other three walked with the Lord as with a man upon the earth and said little concerning his divinity. But John, as though scorning to tread upon earth, rose by his very first words not only above the earth, above the atmosphere, above the heavens, but even above the whole army of angels and all the array of invisible powers. The sublimity of this beginning was well matched by all that followed, for John spoke of the divinity of our Lord as no other has ever spoken. (36.1) Perhaps the judgement expressed on the other evangelists would now be considered unduly negative, especially what they say little concerning the divinity of Christ. But John is still called 'The Theologian' in the eastern church, and every Coptic priest is obliged to read and meditate on a chapter of St John a day. Before John's theology is considered some position must first be reached about the composition of the gospel that bears this name. Who wrote the gospel and how? Is it one complete work? Was it composed at one thrust, or is it possible to discern various editions and additions? What is its relationship to the synoptic gospels? What were the circumstances of its composition? There are two sections which must be considered apart, namely the last chapter and the story of the woman taken in adultery. John 21 has long been considered a special case. It comes after a passage which must be read as a conclusion, John 20.30-31, There were many other signs that Jesus worked in the sight of the disciples, but they are not recorded in this book. These are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that believing you may have life through his name. Statements of this kind are conventional in contemporary literature at the end of a biography of a hero, as a summing up and final piece of wonder. After this to go straight on to another story, and still more, to conclude that story with another similar conclusion (21.25), is a strong sign of a seam in the composition. There was much else that Jesus did; if it were written down in detail, I do not suppose the world itself would hold all the books that would be written. Two other features make the narrative surprising in this position: 1. It is surprising that the disciples should fail to recognise the risen Christ this third time, when they have already seen him twice in Jerusalem; it should be a first meeting. 2. It is slightly inappropriate to have a further meeting with the disciples after the blessing in the 5

seemingly-final scene of John 20.29 on those who have believed without seeing. There is, then, a strong case that John 21 is to be regarded as an appendix rather than running straight on from the main body of the gospel. Despite the paradox of beginning a detailed treatment at the end of the gospel, it will still be worthwhile to devote some time to this final chapter, since the problems it raises throw useful light on the rest of the gospel. 1. AUTHORSHIP OF John 21 A. Vocabulary and style There is a combination of features specifically Johannine with features distinctly un-Johannine. These were investigated many years ago by M-E. Boismard1. 1. Johannine features Many expressions are used in John 21 which are used frequently in John 1-20, but only rarely elsewhere in the New Testament. What is striking about these features is that they are not specialist words like 'snaffle-bit', but words for which the author easily could have used other equivalent expressions; e.g. for 'Simon Peter' he could have used either 'Simon' or 'Peter'. These features are often easier to see in Greek than in English. Among the easiest to catalogue are: Simon Petros - that is, both names together - (John 1.41; 6.8, 68; 13.6, 9, 24, 36; 18. 10, 15, 25; 20. 2, 6) comes 5 times in John 21, otherwise only in Matthew 16.16; Luke 5.8 (both in passages reminiscent of this). elkuo (= haul, drag) is used 3 times by John 1-20 and twice in John 21; otherwise only Acts 16.19. piazein (= catch) used 6 times in John 1-20, John 21 twice; otherwise Acts twice, once 2 Corinthians and Revelation. meta tauta (= later on, after this) as introductory phrase is used four times by John 1-20, and by John 21.1; otherwise Luke and Acts once each. opsarion (= loaf) John 6.9, 11; John 21 thrice, otherwise not in the NT. Nathanael otherwise occurs only in John 1.45-49. oun (which normally means 'therefore') is very frequent in John 1-20 (195 times) without a real sense of inference, but merely 'so, next, then'. Interestingly, it never comes on Jesus' lips. John 21 uses it nine times. ou mentoi (= though...not) is used by John 4 times; it occurs in John 21.4. A double 'Amen' occurs 25 times in John 1-20, and in John 21.18. Other more general Johannine features include: the numbering of appearances, the interplay between Peter and the Beloved Disciple (see p. 87) and the theme of true witness2.
1 2

Revue biblique 1947 (54), 473-501.

Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John [Anchor Bible] New York, 2 vols 1966, p. 1080. 6

2. Non-Johannine features It is not useful to count the instances of words which occur nowhere else in John, for nowhere else is there the story of a fishing-scene; this in itself brings in a peculiar vocabulary. More striking are expressions used in John 21, but not in John 1-20, where other expressions are used. It is as though John 21 uses expressions which were not part of the main author's normal vocabulary. oi tou Zebedaiou: this pair of disciples is never mentioned elsewhere in John, not even by their personal names. ischuein (John 21.6 = be able) is used 13 times in Luke-Acts whereas John 1-20 never uses it, but regularly uses dunamai for 'be able', 36 times. exetazein (John 21.12 = ask) Elsewhere in the New Testament it is used only twice by Matthew; John 1-20 uses a different verb erotao 26 times, and its cognate eperotao twice. apo is used to mean 'because of' (elsewhere in the New Testament, Matthew twice and LukeActs nine times); John 1-20 uses a different word dia 26 times in the same way. enegkate as an aorist imperative of phero is very rare in any Greek, and is avoided by John, e.g. 20.27 even in combination with other aorist imperatives. Boismard's solution (p. 497) is that the author is a disciple of John, accustomed to hearing John talk and using John's oral tradition, but not John himself. In addition it must be noted that the link of some of these usages to the style of Luke-Acts is remarkable; was the author nearer to the linguistic world of Luke-Acts than the author of John 1-20? 2. RELATIONSHIP OF John 21 TO OTHER NARRATIVES A. Relationship to Luke 5.1-11 Raymond Brown lists several features shared with Luke's special story of the call of the disciples. Luke uses this story to replace the call of the first four disciples in Mark/Matthew, placing the call slightly later in the story of Jesus, when the disciples have had a chance to witness Jesus at work - which makes the response of the disciples historically less strange (or less striking): - The disciples have fished unsuccessfully all night - Jesus' directions produce an enormous catch - Peter has a special part to play, the sons of Zebedee are mentioned, the others remain speechless - Peter's repentance is an outstanding feature - The fishing scene gives occasion for teaching on discipleship and on mission - The scene provides the sole use in Luke of the expression 'Simon Peter' Thus it is possible that the Johannine and Lukan accounts are both based on the oral tradition of the same incident. If this is the case, is it possible to re-establish which is the original location of the encounter with Jesus on a fishing-trip, the call of the disciples early in Jesus' ministry or a post-resurrection appearance? Peter's confession of his sinfulness is especially appropriate after his three denials during the Passion (but Luke always insists that it is necessary to confess sinfulness before being called to be a disciple). The awe of the disciples is particularly appropriate to an appearance of the risen and transformed Christ (but not inappropriate in the 7

earlier position during Jesus' ministry). The question is best left open. B. Relationship to two further Matthean Petrine scenes In the scene of the Walking on the Water in Matthew (Matthew 14.28-33) Peter plays a special part, going alone to Jesus from the boat across the water, and acknowledging Jesus as 'son of God', just as here he three times declares his loyalty to Jesus. In the only Matthean scene where Peter is referred to as 'Simon Peter' (Matthew 16.16-19) he is given the commission to exercise pastoral authority in the community, though with the different image of binding and loosing, instead of the shepherding imagery used here. C. The Beloved Disciple The mysterious figure of the Beloved Disciple plays a central part in this episode. The climax of the story is possibly the forgiveness of Peter and the grant of authority to him, but also possibly the final words of the chapter. The Beloved Disciple is 1. to stay behind, with the consequence that the rumour went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. This is strangely corrected by 'If I want him to stay behind till I come'; this sentence must therefore have special importance in the mind of the writer. 2. the one who vouches for these things and has written them down, and we know that his testimony is true. The enigma of the Beloved Disciple is here at its height. His previous appearances must be detailed: - 13.23-26 at the Supper, where he is closest to Jesus and in his confidence - 18.15-16 ('another disciple' rather than the Beloved Disciple, but usually assumed to be the Beloved Disciple) in the courtyard of the high priest, following Jesus in his Passion - 19.25-27 at the foot of the Cross, entrusted with the care of Jesus' mother and entrusted to her care - 20.2-10 at the empty tomb, supporting Peter and quicker than Peter to recognise the meaning of the empty tomb and to believe, just as here he supports Peter and is the first to recognise Jesus on the shore. Various attempts have been made to identify this figure personally. Recent attempts have veered away from the fisherman of Galilee, on the grounds that he appears only in the Jerusalem episodes. How would a Galilean fisherman know the high priest or a member of the high priest's household (18.16)? It has therefore been suggested (by M-E Boismard and Martin Hengel) that he is Lazarus. But as Lazarus is named in John 11-12, why is the connection not made? Alternatively, identification with John Mark of Acts has been suggested; but, as we know virtually nothing of John Mark, this tells us little. I think, however, that the writer(s) of the gospel did not intend this figure to be identified, or indeed to have a personal identity: this disciple whom Jesus loved has the face of us all. The Beloved Disciple makes four appearances, and in each case stands for any disciple whom Jesus loves. On the first occasion he is close to Jesus at the eucharist, there sharing his love and intimacy of understanding. The 'other disciple' (who may or may not be the Beloved Disciple) in the court of the high priest (18.15) is sharing Jesus' Passion. The Beloved Disciple is at the foot of the Cross, sharing Jesus' Passion. Thirdly he goes with Peter to the tomb; while granting 8

precedence to Peter, who arrives second and enters the tomb first, it is the Beloved Disciple who sees and believes (20.8) - again perhaps through the affinity of love. Is this perhaps an expression of the relationship of two communities, one dependent on Peter, one on the community of the Gospel of John? There is balance rather than rivalry between them; their gifts are different. Finally, in John 21, it is the Beloved Disciples who first recognises the risen Lord on the shore. There follows what seems to be the clue: 'This is the disciple who witnesses [now] to these things and wrote them down [in the past], and we [the present authors, distinguished from the Beloved Disciple] know that his testimony is true' (21.24). And unlike Peter, who is to be martyred, 'if I wish him to remain until I come, what is that to you?' (21.22). This suggests the permanence from the beginning till the end of the witnessing community behind the Gospel, for whom the Beloved Disciple stands. He represents, then, the community which stands behind the gospel and guarantees its truth. 3. THEORIES OF AUTHORSHIP A. Dislocation Theories These attempt to account for various leaps: 1. Dislocation of chapter 5 and 6. Chapter 4 ends in Galilee, 6 is again in Galilee, but 5 suddenly finds itself in Jerusalem. In 7.1 Jesus again goes up to Jerusalem. If 5 is put after 6, this frenetic journeying is avoided, though not entirely: chapters 4 + 6 in Galilee are then continuous, with chapter 5 in Jerusalem and the journey up to Jerusalem at the beginning of chapter 7 which follows immediately. This is still not entirely satisfactory, since the journey shows that Jesus had been elsewhere. Was a page containing on one side chapter 5 and on the other chapter 6 turned round? This requires the coincidence of endings of chapter and page, since at this time writing material was so precious that gaps were never left between chapters, sections or even words. THE PERICOPE OF THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY (7.53-8.11) This little pericope is included only in the Western tradition of ancient MSS, becoming part of the standard Greek text only from c. 900, not present in early Greek, Syriac or Coptic texts. The style is more Lucan than Johannine. But then Luke's style is closest to the normal spoken Greek of the period, so that this statement says only that it was written by an anonymous author of New Testament circles. It may have been inserted here to illustrate either 7.51 (just before), 'Surely our Law does not allow us to pass judgement on anyone without first giving that person a hearing', or 8.15 (just afterwards), 'I judge no one, but if I judge my judgement will be true'.

An alternative solution is given to the geographical unevenness by the suggestion that there are four geographical cycles, each beginning in the countryside where Jesus is accepted and leading to Jerusalem, where he is rejected. 1. 2. 3. 4. From the far side of the Jordan > Cana > Capernaum > Jerusalem (1.19From Judaea > Samaria > Cana > Jerusalem (3.22-5.1). From the other side of the Sea of Galilee > Jerusalem (6.1-7.14). From across the Jordan > Bethany > Jerusalem (10.40-12.12).3 2.13).

Barnabas Lindars4 and John Pryor5 regard chapter 6 as a later insertion to illustrate 5.46, 'it was
3 4

R. Kieffer, 'L'space et le temps dans l'vangile de Jean', NTS 31 (1985), p. 393-409.

The Gospel of John [New Century Bible Commentary], (London, Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 9

about me that [Moses] was writing'. It will be seen later that the Moses-typology for Christ is extremely important for John's Christology. The whole of chapter 6 contrasts Jesus with Moses, using the Moses-feeding-wonder and the crossing of the Sea (of Galilee, standing for the Red Sea) followed by a long discourse based on and formed round Exod 16.1, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat'. The background is different from that of 5.46, for the questioners are no longer the external opponents of chapter 5.18, intent on killing Jesus, but are bewildered murmurers within Jesus' own group rather than hostile antagonists; they could reflect intrachurch Christians who do not share John's view of the eucharist. Pryor suggests real links between John and Mark, and thinks that chapter 6 was an independent piece which existed long before it was incorporated into the gospel where it now stands. This would then account for the geographical jolt. 2. The discourse after the supper ends at 14.30, 'Come now, let us go'. But they don't go till 18.1! Are three chapters inserted? Chapters 15 and 16 are based on love rather than the faith of chapter 14, and have rather a ghetto feeling of persecution which is quite absent in chapter 14. Do they belong to a later period when the community was persecuted? Chapter 17 is a prayer and quite different from either section. 3. The Lazarus-incident and its aftermath (John 11-12) could be a later insertion. John 10.40-42 seems to be a conclusion ('He went back to the other side of the Jordan to the district where John had been baptising at first, and he stayed there...'), while John 11.1 starts abruptly, 'There was a man named Lazarus of Bethany'. Lindars thinks that these two chapters were inserted with considerable displacement, and that the original order after John 10 was much closer to the order of the synoptic gospels: Triumphal Entry (now 12.12-19) Cleansing of the Temple (now 2.13-22) The Priests' Plot (now 11.47-53) Anointing at Bethany (12.1-8) Greeks come to Jesus (12.20-26) Passion Prediction and Epilogue (12.27-43). The second epilogue (12.44-50) would then be an independent passage, inserted subsequently. It is odd that Jesus should give this public (12.44) discourse just after he has gone into hiding (12.36). Lindars' re-arrangement is supported by John Ashton6 with the argument that it is historically more probable. The triumphal entry and the cleansing of the Temple are more likely to have led to the decision to liquidate Jesus than was the Lazarus-incident, over the hill, away from Jerusalem. However, the danger of this line of argument is that in fact we are dealing not with 1972), p. 50 John W. Pryor, John, Evangelist of the Covenant People (London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1992), p. 29
6 5

John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 201. 10

history but with gospel, not with how things actually happened, but with how the gospel-writer wishes to present them: according to 11.47 it is the signs worked by Jesus which provoked the chief priests and Pharisees into action, and Jesus' gift of life to Lazarus may be regarded as the climax of the signs, symbolic of his whole gift of life. The present order of John is telling us that, whatever the history, it was Jesus' gift of life that was unacceptable; it was to this that they were blind (12.37-43). 4. Some other short sections seem displaced, or at least disconnected, such as 3.31-36 (is the speaker the Baptist, Jesus or the evangelist?). Also 10.1-18, the passage on the Gate of the Sheepfold and the Good Shepherd) appears entirely detached from its context, both previous and subsequent. B. Several Editions On several occasions there is a certain doubling of material, as though there were two versions of the same tradition. In addition to the obvious case of the several versions of the Discourse after the Last Supper, already mentioned, there is more sayings-material where it is possible to separate out two complete or almost-complete series of sayings: A striking example of this phenomenon occurs at the interrogation of John the Baptist about Jesus. One version is here printed in Roman, the other in italic type. Each of the two represents an independent version, which suggests that two originally separate accounts of the same incident have been carefully intertwined.
25

And they asked, Why are you baptising? 22 So they said, Who are you? John answered, saying, 23 He said, Standing among you is one unknown to you 30 Behind me comes one who has passed ahead of me 31 I did not know him myself 33 I did not know him myself and yet my purpose in coming to baptise... but he who sent me to baptise said to me 32 I saw the Spirit come down and rest on him the man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest... 35 The next day 29 The next day John looked towards him and said, he saw Jesus coming towards him and said, Look, there is the lamb of God Look, there is the lamb of God7. Similarly, in 5.19-30 there is a series of four double sets of sayings on the role of the Father and cf. M-E Boismard, 'Les Traditions johanniques concernant le Baptiste' in Revue biblique 70 (1963), p. 5-41. 11
7

the Son in judgement. Note that the final saying of the second series (v. 30) corresponds to the first saying of the first version (v. 19). It has been shifted to the end by the author in order to knit the double series together. There is also a difference between the two series of sayings with regard to their expectation of the future: in v. 24 life is already present and death is no more, whereas in v. 28 a resurrection from the grave in the future is envisaged. 19 By himself the Son can do nothing he can do only what he sees the Father doing 30 By myself I can do nothing I can judge only as I am told to judge 21 As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son gives life to anyone he chooses. 26 As the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself 22 for the Father judges no one, he has entrusted all judgement to the Son 27 [the Father] has granted him power to give judgement 24 whoever listens to my words has eternal life such a person has passed from death to life 28 the hour is coming when the dead will leave their graves at the sound of his voice...will come forth to life8. As an example of theories elaborated to respond to these phenomena (there are several which differ slightly from one another) we take Raymond Brown's9. He considers that the gospel developed in five stages. However, he regards this merely as a working hypothesis. [I include Ashton's comments and adaptations10]. Stage 1: A body of traditional synoptic-type material, but independent of the synoptics. [Ashton considers this basis as 'the Signs Source', a missionary document of Jewish Christology, intended to show merely that Jesus was Messiah. Alongside this were other sources, a passion source and an indefinite number of synoptic-type sayings and narratives] Stage 2: Development into Johannine patterns, probably through preaching and over several decades. At this stage entered - dramatic developments, e.g. chapter 9 - weaving of sayings of Jesus into Wisdom-type discourses, e.g. the Bread of Life discourse - techniques of misunderstanding and irony. The unity of thought and style at this stage suggests a 'close-knit school of thought and expression'. The principal preacher was responsible for the main body of gospel material, but other units developed separately, e.g. John 21.

cf. M-E Boismard, 'L'evolution du theme eschatologique dans les traditions johanniques', Revue biblique 68 (1961), 507-524.
9

Anchor Bible Commentary (1966), pp. xxxiv-xxxix Understanding the Fourth Gospel, p.163-166. 12

10

Stage 3: The organisation of this material into the first edition of a written gospel, probably by this same principal preacher. This involved selection and exclusion of some material. [Ashton holds that by now the Johannine group had been expelled from the synagogue, an expulsion of which traces are visible in dialogue of chapters 5, 8, 10, and narrative of 9. This edition did not include the narrative section of chapter 6, nor chapters 15-17; the public ministry ended at end of chapter 10] Stage 4: A second edition by the same principal preacher, designed to answer the needs of various groups, e.g. disciples of John the Baptist, Christians who had not yet left the synagogue. [Ashton envisages this as more extensive than does Brown, seeing in it a slackening of hostility towards 'the Jews' (e.g. in chapter 11, which is less hostile) and - as a result of internal tension within the community - more attention to internal affairs, as evidenced in the allegories of the vine (chapter 15), the door and the shepherd (10.1-18)]. Alternatively, this may be seen as the stage at which the high Christology entered, which disgusted those Jews who were prepared to accept Jesus in some sense as a prophet, but could not tolerate the higher claims. This would therefore be the stage at which the split between Chruch and Synagogue took place (see Chapter 3). Stage 5: Final edition by the 'redactor', probably a close friend or disciple of the principal preacher. [Ashton puts here only chapter 21 and 'a few touches intended to make the Gospel more intelligible to non-Jewish readers'] C. One Possible Verdict It seems to me that there is no need to postulate so complicated or so neat a process of development as is presupposed by these five stages. In the reconstruction Stage 3 is seen against a background of the expulsion from the synagogue of the group for whom the gospel was written. The narrative of chapter 9 is certainly determined by this, and there are marks of Jewish opposition also in chapters 5, 8 and 10. Stage 4 is characterised by more attention to internal affairs, as seen in the parable of the vine (15.1-8), the door and the shepherd (10.1-15), and perhaps the whole of chapters 15-17. It is characterised also by less hostility towards the Jews, as shown in chapters 6 (where 'the Jews' murmur and fail to understand, but are not concretely hostile), and in the Lazarus story, where they are merely curious rather than inimical. I do not, however, see that there is any need to postulate a time-gap between these two elements, merely different emphases, not incompatible with one another. There may be different emphases and interests to be stressed within the same community. In order to demonstrate that material issues from separate communities it is necessary to show some incompatibility between them, so that one point of view positively excludes the other

13

Certainly I see no need to separate the Johannisation of the material from the stage of its writing down; this seems to me merely the end point of the process, not a separate stage. The principal means of differentiation between Stages 3 and 4 is different interests, leading to the exclusion of material from Stage 3 in order to include it in Stage 4. But there is no need to insist that attention to the problems of exclusion from the synagogue and to internal tensions took place at In order to work on the gospel effectively, different times; all these issues could have been it will be useful to have a working copy addressed simultaneously. No distinction can be which you can mark. It might well be made between these separate elements in the useful to make a photocopy, leaving wide matter of style, vocabulary and procedure, such margins for annotations. as the use of misunderstanding and irony. The 1. Work through John 21, argument from unity of style to unity of highlighting in different colours authorship is strong. the Johannine and un-Johannine features. Write a few lines to To me it seems far more attractive to hold, with yourself about your conclusions Boismard, that different versions of the on the authorship. preached gospel existed and were combined, in an eagerness not to let any crumbs vanish. This would account for the three different versions of the final discourse (the combiner being well aware of the signs of conclusion at 14.31, but not worried by them), and for several parallel series of sayings. These two examples given above suggest that the composition or editing process may have been more akin to pasting together existing fragments, alternative versions, than producing a second edition of an alreadyexisting work. 2. Read through the whole gospel, writing out your own table of contents. Note in the margin any incidents which occur also in the synoptic gospels, or which have a partial parallel. Does the geographical pattern given on p. 10 seem to you a sensible overall schema of organisation for the gospel?

14

CHAPTER TWO THE UNITY OF JOHN - THREE PROBES Whatever the origin and previous history of the Johannine material, it is undeniable that there is a unity throughout the gospel in its present form (with the possible exception of the pericope on the Woman Taken in Adultery). The final editor has moulded his material consistently, giving a unity to the whole gospel. So much will become clear from the treatment of theological themes and motifs in the gospel. Before proceeding to examine these themes it will be useful to make three probes of the consistency of John as the gospel now stands. - The first will be a matter of terminology, John's use of the expression 'the Jews'. John is marked by considerable hostility towards a group called 'the Jews', but also - and paradoxically - by unmistakable loyalty to Jewish tradition. On the other hand, in some ways John outdoes the synoptics in presenting Jesus as essentially a Jewish figure. These two attitudes will need to be accounted for and explained, but first John's peculiar usage of the expression 'the Jews' should be established. - The second probe of consistency throughout John will be an examination of the use of irony which pervades the whole gospel. - The third concerns the duality which characterizes the gospel. There is a close link here to the writings of Qumran. These probes cannot, of course, show that every single verse bears these finger-prints, but it can show that they occur throughout the gospel. These three features give an unmistakable unity to the gospel. 1. JOHN AND THE EXPRESSION 'THE JEWS' John stands out from the synoptic gospels, and especially from Mark and Matthew, in making no attempt to differentiate between the different groups among the Jews who oppose Jesus; they are simply 'the Jews'. Most of our contemporary evidence The synoptic gospels retain a distinction which is at comes from Josephus, whose evidence least broadly historically correct between different is suspect. He was himself a Pharisee, leading groups of the Jews with whom Jesus came which no doubt led him to exaggerate their influence. Furthermore, after the in contact. destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD the A. The Pharisees constitute a group of the Pharisees were the only leading party Jews - their name is derived from the word of the Jews to survive. It was therefore meaning 'separate' - who were distinguished especially important to Josephus that in by their rigorous observance of the Law. his apologetic writing for Roman eyes How widespread their influence was it is he should make them seem as acceptable as possible to the Romans. now hard to determine. In the gospels one of their chief characteristics seems to be hypocrisy, which is always a danger where legalism is paramount. In fact, at their best they could be most edifying, seeing in the Law the expression of God's will and nature, and responding to this with love. They were well aware - or so later stories of the Mishnah indicate - of the danger of 15

hypocrisy, and capable of laughing at themselves about this. Josephus says there were 6,000 of them. If this figure is correct, they would have constituted a significant but not overwhelming number among the population of Palestine. In the gospels it is remarkable that the Pharisees have no part in the arrest and condemnation of Jesus. Their opposition to him is entirely on legal questions, and when it comes to action against him, they disappear from the scene. In fact the Pharisaic code of law which began to be worked out at Yavneh in the reconstruction of Judaism after the sack of Jerusalem is so protective of the rights of defendants that it would have been difficult for any criminal to be condemned, let alone executed. The Yavneh code remained, of course, merely theoretical, and was never operative as a practical code of justice. It could well be that the same principles and scruples forbade them taking part in the condemnation of Jesus. It was also true that the initiative in Jesus' trial came from the Temple authorities, who would have been Sadducees. B. The Sadducees The Sadducees were the aristocracy of Jerusalem, the priestly families, by their name claiming descent from Zadok, the priest of David. They would have had the sort of weight and authority which an aristocracy has in any traditional society. It was from their number that the high priest was chosen, and other Sadducees would have worked with him. He was the local ruler under Rome, in charge of day-to-day administration. In the synoptic gospels the Sadducees occur little (Mark 12.18; Matthew 3.7; 16.1-12). The chief priests,however, may be considered another name for the Sadducees, since the chief priests were drawn from Sadducean families. They appear outside the Passion only at the Cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11.18, 27) and the subsequent challenge to Jesus' authority and (in Matthew only) reacting to the following parable of The Wicked Vinedressers. This is just where one would expect them to appear, and it is already a preparation for the arrest of Jesus. In the passion-narrative, of course, they are allimportant. C. The 'Scribes' or Lawyers These experts in Jewish Law appear in the synoptic gospels chiefly in an advisory capacity, rather than as leaders in their own right. It is interesting that Matthew regarded himself in fact as a Christian scribe or lawyer. He certainly does his best to deflect criticism from them as a party. John's usage is very different from that of the synoptic gospels. He never uses the term 'scribe', nor 'Sadducee'. Until the passion narrative the 'high priests' never occur unless paired with the Pharisees. Instead, John uses very frequently the term, 'the Jews'. With a single exception each (Matthew 28.15; Mark 7.3; Luke 7.3) this term is used by the synoptics exclusively of the title 'king of the Jews', that is, very rarely. In John, apart from Nicodemus and the Jews who go out to see Lazarus in John 11.45, those designated by this term are uniformly hostile to Jesus, and blankly hostile, without any change in attitude throughout the gospel. These are not real exceptions, for Nicodemus obviously stands out (timidly) from his own group, and the Jews who go out to see Lazarus occasion the meeting which condemns Jesus. The only other possible exception is 'a Jew' in 3.25, who is having a discussion about purification with some of John's disciples. 16

Does John mean these 'the Jews' to stand for the whole people? Was Jesus greeted by the Jewish nation with blank and unwavering hostility? Is this a justification for anti-Semitism? There are two passages which are unclear, John 6.41 and 52, 'Meanwhile the Jews were complaining' and 'the Jews started arguing among themselves'. In both these cases they are merely a Johannine prop, to further the dialogue (a Johannine technique, as we shall shortly see, p. 21), from which no story-line can be deduced. Apart from these usages the term always designates the Jewish authorities: 1.19; 5.10-18; 7.13, 15; 9.18-22; 18.12, 14, 36; 19.38; 20.19 certainly; probably 7.1, 11; 8.22-57; 10.24-33; 13.33; 18.31 ,38; 19.7). It can be said, therefore, that with the exception of chapter 6 and 11 (which may well stem from a later edition of the gospel, or at least from a special source) the Jews in John stand for the unmitigated opposition to Jesus, the authorities of the nation. On occasion they seem to be differentiated from the crowds, who seem to be open to Jesus ('What must we do if we are to carry out God's work?', they ask in 6.28), and some of whom at least believe in Jesus (7.12, 31). This occasions the paradox that 'the Jews' are resolutely opposed to Jesus, but Jesus is (as we shall see, p. 25-29), in this gospel perhaps more thoroughly than in any other New Testament writing, presented as the fulfilment of Judaism. Note on John's use of the term 'Jews' as indication of the date of the gospel. The ambivalent attitude of John towards Judaism has long been considered an indication of the date of the final edition of the gospel. On the one hand John seems bitterly hostile to 'the Jews'. The threat of exclusion from the synagogue hovers in the background on three separate occasions (9.22; 12.42; 6.2). On the other hand much of John's theology is based on Jewish models and requires both from author and from reader a firm understanding of much that is Jewish. This finely-balanced situation suggests at least the beginning of a rift between Christianity and Judaism. If the final rift can be dated, this will be a guide to the dating of the more anti-Jewish attitude of elements in the gospel. After the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 the process of recovery of Judaism was centred upon Yavneh (or Jamnia, in its Greek transliteration), a small village where a rabbinic school had been founded a few years before, with Vespasian's approval. In the later years of the century, as the Jews began to see that Christian practice was at variance with their own interpretation of Judaism, controversy with Christianity became bitter. At a certain stage there was included in the daily prayer of 'The Eighteen Benedictions' a curse on the 'Nazarenes' and the minim or 'heretics': 'may the Nazarenes and the heretics perish quickly, and may they be erased from the Book of Life'. This curse made it impossible for Christians to recite the daily prayer, and so to take part in synagogue worship. It would therefore have been decisive in the split between Christianity and Judaism. Until recently it was widely held that this curse was formulated and inserted at the Council of Jamnia, sometime in the final decade of the century. Recent research, however, has established that there is no real evidence for this Council and that 'formative Judaism' (a term widely used, following Jacob Neusner) developed more gradually. Furthermore, the curse on the minim itself cannot be securely dated to the first century, nor, in ites early form, be proved to include the Nazarenes. Therefore it is no longer possible to use this evidence to date the split between Christianity and Judaism to the final decade of the century. 2. JOHANNINE IRONY 17

The Jews are the prime, but not the sole, recipients of a technique very common in John, that of Johannine irony. This is used widely throughout the gospel, and must be considered a stylistic feature of the author responsible for the final composition of the gospel. By 'irony' I mean two clashing layers of meaning, of one of which either speaker or hearer is unaware. This is particularly used - in the mouth of Jesus' opponents about his identity: 4.12 (sarcastically) Are you greater than our father, Abraham? 8.53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? Who are you making be? 8.57 Are you still not 50 and have seen Abraham?

yourself out to

- in their making blind accusations, often with swaggering claims, and especially with a selfimportant hemeis/'we' 7.27 We all know where he comes from 8.41 We were not born illegitimate, the only Father we have is God. 9.24 We are satisfied that this man is a sinner. 10.33 We are stoning you for blasphemy, because you claim to be God. 19.15 We have no king but Caesar. - on the larger scale, whole incidents can be ironical: Chapter 9: The cure of the man born blind, when the Pharisees protest that they can see when in fact they are blind, and, by their insistent refusal to accept the evidence, gradually nudge the cured man towards faith in Jesus. The reader of the gospel can see them all the time, as in a Greek tragedy, harming their own cause, not only by denying what the reader knows to be the truth, but also by pushing the cured man into more and more stubborn opposition. Chapter 18-19: The trial before Pilate, when they think they are condemning Jesus, but in fact Jesus presides over the self-condemnation of 'the Jews'. Jesus is in the position of judge, while they think they themselves hold the upper hand. By their casual protestation 'We have no king but Caesar' they annihilate all their claims to their position, for if God is not Israel's king, Israel has no longer any reason to exist (see p. 56). The disciples, too, can be ironical, often through bewilderment or over-confidence: 1.46 From Nazareth? Can anything good come out of that place? 11.16 Let us also go to die with him. 16.17 What does he mean, 'In a short time you will see me no longer'? This technique of irony is used not only with the opponents and disciples of Jesus, for Jesus himself can be ironical, often with questions introduced by the ironical Greek word mh: 3.10 You are the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 7.23 Now if someone can be circumcised on the Sabbath, why are you so angry with me for making someone completely healthy on the Sabbath? 10.32 For which [of my good works] are you stoning me? 13.38 Lay down your life for me? In truth I tell you...you will disown me. 16.31 Do you believe at last? Listen: the time will come... 18

Particularly the Johannine Jesus uses different levels of understanding and misunderstanding as a vehicle for teaching: - The incident of the Samaritan Woman is built on the misunderstanding of 'living water'. She understands it (legitimately) to mean 'fresh water', but Jesus means 'the water which gives life' - The incident of Nicodemus is built on the misunderstanding of the word anothen, meaning either 'from above' or 'anew'. - The bread of life discourse centres on a profounder understanding of the meaning of 'bread from heaven'. It is understood, by opposition to the bread from heaven given by Moses in the desert, firstly as the revelation from heaven, and finally as the eucharistic bread from heaven. - Other examples are in the riddling use of upsothenai in the passion-narrative, suggesting either being lifted up on the Cross or exalted in glory. But that this is Johannine rather than Jesus' own technique is clear from the supreme example on the Cross, when Jesus exclaims, with the same ambiguity, tetelestai ('it is fulfilled'- what is fulfilled, the life of Jesus or the scriptures?)and paredoken to pneuma ('he gave over his spirit/his life' or 'he gave over the Spirit/the holy Spirit'?). John is perfectly aware of this, for he deliberately advances the dialogue by puzzled questions, especially from those who are at least slightly hostile to Jesus, or unsure of him and still questioning his identity or credentials: - In the scene with Nicodemus: 'How is this possible?' says Nicodemus, twice (3.4, 9). - In the dialogue with the Samaritan woman: 'How is it that you ask me, a Samaritan, for something to drink?' (4.9), 'How do you get this living water?' (4.11), 'Our fathers worshipped on this mountain' (4.20), says the Samaritan woman, each time advancing the dialogue one stage further. 'Has someone brought him food?' continue the disciples (4.33). - Similarly in the Bread of Life discourse (6.9, 28, 42, 52). - In the Light of the World dialogue: 'Where is your father, then?', 'Is he going to kill himself?', 'Who are you?', 'What do you mean, "You will be set free"?' (8.19, 22, 25, 33) ask Jesus' interlocutors. Such is John's technique of advancing understanding step by step, a little at a time, through misunderstanding and through questioning. He never suggests that the mystery is easy to grasp, nor - as Mark does - that the listeners are unduly obtuse. 3. JOHANNINE DUALITY Another characteristic which runs throughout the gospel and therefore reinforces the present uniformity of the gospel (whatever the previous sources on which it draws) is duality. John Ashton, who devotes a chapter to the dualism of the main edition of the gospel, speaks of the 'fundamental bipolarity of John's vision of the world' (p. 231), and concludes that 'John had dualism in his bones' (p. 237). John thinks in a series of contrasts (heavenly realities and earthly realities, openly and in secret, true and false, accept and deny). Some of these contrasts are more fundamental than others. The most fundamental bipolarity of the gospel is itself dual, horizontal and vertical. A. The horizontal bipolarity consists in the division associated with judgement, those who 19

encounter Jesus being divided into those who respond to Jesus and those who refuse belief (see p.50). This is conveniently (for those who understand German) termed by Bultmann Entscheidungsdualismus (a dualism of decision). It is already proposed in the prologue, immediately after the introduction, in the fundamental division of light and darkness: 'life that was the light of men, and light shines in the darkness' (1.4). The contrast in response is initially characterised, 'He was in the world and the world did not recognise him. He came to his own, and his own did not receive him, but to those who did accept him he gave the power to become children of God' (1.10-12). But the dualism goes further than this, continuing into such contrasts as that between Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman, embodying respectively the contrast of male and female, night and day. The duality continues throughout the judgement-controversies. The judgement-discourse in John 5 is worked out in terms of life and death, or its equivalent, life and judgement: 'as the Father raises the dead and gives them life...' (5.31), 'the dead will leave their graves; those who did good will come forth to life and those who did evil will come forth to judgement' (5.38). The controversy with the Jews in John 8 is dominated by the two contrasts, truth and falsehood, freedom and slavery. The confrontation after the cure of the blind man is naturally dominated by the pair, sight and blindness: 'It is for judgement that I have come into this world so that those without sight may see and those with sight may become blind' (9.39); the blind man who recognizes that his sight is the gift of Jesus sees who Jesus is, while the Pharisees who protest their clear vision are progressively shown to envelop themselves in increasing blindness. In the scenes of the trial of Jesus the duality is between the judged who judges and the judges who are judged. B. The vertical duality between heavenly and earthly things is even more fundamental than the horizontal duality 'He who comes from above is above all others; he who is of the earth is earthly himself and speaks in an earthly way' (3.31, cf. 3.12). This is reflected in a duality of power, heavenly and earthly authority ('my kingdom is not of this world', 18.36). In Johannine language 'the world' is a cypher for this dichotomy. The world (kosmos in Greek) is not simply the cosmos; it stands for the dark side of things to which Jesus, who is 'not of this world' (17.16) brings light. The gap is no less real by the fact that it is constantly being bridged by Jesus' gifts from heaven of light, life and salvation. C. Truth in John. The dichotomy between heavenly and earthly realities comes to expression in a special use of 'true' throughout the gospel, referring to a heavenly reality and suggesting that the worldly reality is in some way faulty or imperfect. Witness that is true is from above (5.31-32). Such truth is related to the heavenly world, for 'the one who sent me is true' (8.26). In this there is, of course, a contrast between 'true' and 'false'; but the aura of reverence attached to this value is greater than would be earned by any mere contrast to falsehood. 'True' is a value-word, expressing the ultimate value, for the truth is a sort of window through to heaven. Another aspect of this is expressed by means of the presentation of Jesus as the true light (1.9), the true bread from heaven (6.32), the true judge (8.16), the true vine (15.1), the good shepherd (10.11). These claims carry the implication that the institutions of Israel, which Jesus here supersedes (see p.57), were at best provisional, in some way not the real thing, not the heavenly reality. The bread which Moses gave in the desert was not the true bread from heaven (6.32). Israel was not the true vine (Isaiah 5.1-7). The shepherds of Israel were not the true shepherds (Ezekiel 34). 20

If there is any one concept which bridges the two spheres of the heavenly and the earthly, it is this concept of truth, summing up the gifts which come from the Father through Jesus. On the one hand truth is the essence of the gift brought by Jesus. On the other, Pilate's airy dismissal of this value seals his failure and his rejection of the light: 'What is truth?' 'Grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ', 1.17. Here the two words represent two fundamental qualities of God. 'Grace' is an inadequate translation of carij, which in its turn stands for the Hebrew dsj, the quality of love and forgiveness proclaimed as the meaning of 'Yahweh' in Exodus 34 and echoing down the Bible as the generosity and affection of God (e.g. Hosea 2 and 11). 'Truth', its partner, translates the Hebrew tma, the firmness and trustworthiness of God, the quality which means that God can be relied on as a rock of refuge when the world totters and fails. It is the task of Jesus Christ to bridge the gap between two worlds by bringing to the world these divine qualities of heaven.

D. John and Qumran A fascinating link may be seen between John and the documents of Qumran in both factors which have been here discussed, the duality and the special meaning of 'truth'. The documents of Qumran are shot through with a series of dualities: insiders/outsiders, good/bad, sons of light/sons of darkness. Some, but not all, of these derive from the beleaguered situation of the sectarians as a minority group, defensively distinguishing itself from a more powerful parent body from whom it has split off and whose mantel it has assumed. (The sectaries at Qumran claimed to be the only true Israel, the ideal from which majority Judaism had fallen away). A whole series of such dualities is expressed in a short passage of the Community Rule: He has created man to govern the world, and has appointed for him two spirits in which to walk until the time of his visitation: the spirits of truth and injustice. Those born of truth spring from a fountain of light, but those born of injustice spring from a source of darkness. All the children of righteousness are ruled by the Prince of Light and walk in the ways of light, but all the children of injustice are ruled by the Angel of Darkness and walk in the ways of darkness (1QS 3.17-21, cf. The War Scroll, especially 1QM 14.913). This is not, of course, sufficient to postulate a The documents also express the same value of special link between John and Qumran. The Truth, virtually equating it with holiness and value of the Qumran documents is that we have reality. 'The Council of the Community shall be no other first-hand sketch of a community and established in truth. It shall be an everlasting its beliefs and attitudes. We know that the plantation, a house of holiness for Israel, an devotees of these documents stood apart from assembly of supreme holiness for Aaron. ... It shall mainstream Judaism, but we do not know how be a house of perfection and truth in Israel' (1QS widespread their ideas were, not to what extent 8.5, 10). The Angel of Truth is God's agent in they used, and applied for their own purposes, securing and helping the sons of light, and God is a concepts that were current elsewhere. All the father to all the son of Truth (1QS 3.25; 1QH 9.35). comparison to Qumran shows is that John's Throughout the documents it is clear that the ideas did not stand alone in first-century authors are using 'truth' in the biblical sense Judaism. outlined above, designating by it primarily of the reliability, sureness and holiness of God. 21

Conclusion These three features described above run right through the gospel. characterizing not, of course, every verse, but at least every section. Perhaps the most widespread are the irony and doublesense. These patterns of thought and expression are sufficiently strong to show that the gospelmaterial has been moulded, shaped and thought through into its present form by a single mind. Personal Work 1. Work through the gospel (photocopy?), marking in features discussed in this chapter: instances of 'the Jews' in John's special sense, puzzled or disgruntled questions, double meaning and irony, contrasts and dualism (e.g. 'above' 'below'; use arrows), 'true/truth'. Highlighting may be a useful way of bringing them out. 2. Do these features cover the whole gospel sufficiently to suggest that it really is the work of one mind? Do you still see underlying some major differences of approach in some sections of the gospel? Bibliography de la Potterie, I La Vrit dans Saint Jean (Rome, 1977) de la Potterie, I 'The Truth in Saint John' (1963) in John Ashton (ed.), The Interpretation of John (SPCK, 1986), p. 53. Paul Duke Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta, 1985) U. von Wahlde 'The Johannine Jews, a critical survey' N.T.S. 28 (1982), p. 3360, U. von Wahlde The Earliest Version of John's Gospel

22

CHAPTER THREE JOHANNINE CHRISTOLOGY - THE FATHER AND THE SON In view of the hostility between the Johannine group and Judaism it is all the more striking that the Old Testament continues to form a background to the presentation of Christ. He is the fulfilment of Judaism - and more. It was not, however, to a Jewish Christology that Augustine was referring when he said, 'But John, as though scorning to tread upon earth, rose by his very first words not only above the earth, above the atmosphere, above the heavens, but even above the whole army of angels and all the array of invisible powers'. 'THE GOD STRIDING OVER THE EARTH' Ernst Kaesemann coined the superb phrase for the Johannine Jesus, 'der ber die Erde schreitende Gott', and others have echoed this judgement. Anthony Hanson writes, 'The fiction that we are listening to the historical Jesus talking to his contemporaries has worn very thin indeed'11. C. H. Dodd12 says Jesus is 'a stranger to the world'. And Loisy remarked 13, 'The fourth gospel is a perpetual theophany, where the scene of the Transfiguration cannot be maintained, having no reason to exist'. John Ashton14 calls the Johannine Jesus 'a pre-existent divine being, whose real home is in heaven; he even orchestrates his own death; he shows no trace of incomprehension or bewilderment or Geworfensein [having been rejected]'. On the one hand he is omniscient (he sees Nathanael under the fig-tree; cf. 6.6, 64; 7.14-31) and is the ladder of communication between the divine and the human (1.35-51); he openly claims equality with God (5.19), speaks of his own pre-existence (6.64; 9. 49-50; 12.4 since Isaiah saw his glory in the Temple); he knows the thoughts of his opponents (7. 14-31); he has the power to take up his own life again, and so is active even in death (10.17-18). He is supremely confident of himself: he knows where he has come from and where he is going (7.33; 8.14, 21); he knows that his hour has not yet come (2.4); he knows the eventual fate of his own followers (17.5, 24). So the Johannine Jesus is in some ways a godlike, superhuman figure. On the other hand, the Johannine Jesus is in some ways the most human of the gospel portraits: he feels tired, he eats and drinks by the well, he loves Lazarus and grieves at his death. These two facets can indeed be held together by the attitude which is at the heart of the Johannine portrait: Jesus is the revealer of the Father, who makes the Father known, or brings the Father into the world, in human form. This can be seen under various aspects which we will treat in turn: Wisdom, the Son doing the works of the Father, the shaliah, and finally the use of the concept of glory. The first basic fact to be noted (with Sanders and Davies15) is the difference between the
11 12 13 14 15

The Prophetic Gospel, p. 263 Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 261 Le 4e Evangile, p. 105-6 Understanding the Fourth Gospel, p. 239 Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London, SCM Press, 1989), p. 3-5. 23

Johannine and the synoptic approach: whereas in the synoptics Jesus is revealing the Kingship of God, the centre of the teaching of John is the person of Jesus and the relationship of Jesus to his Father. Of this a perfect example is the use of the sheep/shepherd image: in the synoptics there is a parable on sheep, seeking out the lost sheep and stressing the joy at the return of the sheep; in In expressing the inexpressible we experience a John there is a long monologue on the good certain difficulty. Often we resort to poetry or shepherd, unrealistically centred on the good to music. These are, after all, the languages of shepherd laying down his life for his sheep love, which attempts to express the rationally which is the last thing a shepherd should do! and logically inexpressible by music or poetry. I would even be so bold as to question whether It must be granted that the personality of Jesus is Chalecedonian definitions - that is, the central element in the gospel of John. Or Chalcedonian images - are any clearer than the rather it might be more accurate to say that what imagery of John. John is trying to convey is the relationship between Jesus and God. The opinions quoted above do not adequately reflect what John is trying to teach about Jesus. Nor are they adequate caricatures. The Johannine Jesus is completely human - it goes without saying - but this fact often fades into the background by comparison to the way in which John is trying to show that he is more than human. This is done by means of several different images. 1. JESUS AND WISDOM We start with the figure of Wisdom in the Old Testament, partly as a parallel example of definition by imagery and partly because this particular imagery is also used in John about Jesus. In the later Wisdom literature of the Old Testament the figure of Wisdom is personified, and the relationship of Wisdom to God is described in images which portray identity in separation: 'the breath of the power of God, the reflection of the eternal light, the mirror of God's active power and image of his goodness (Ws 7.27). All these are poetic, imaged attempts to convey that Wisdom is in some way identical, in some way separate, wholly dependent on but somehow distinct yet attached. Breath ceases if the person is not present; a reflection ceases if the light is turned off, a mirror-image remains only so long as the originator is there. This same Wisdomlanguage to describe Christ and his relationship to the Father had already been used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1.24-30 and in Colossians 1.15-20 (see my The Letters of St Paul, p.48-49 and p. 92); it may well have been current Christian usage. Wisdom language is also used of the Johannine Jesus. Just as Wisdom came down to be with men, 'delighting to be with the children of men' (Prov 8.31), so Jesus: 'he who comes from above is above all others' (John 3.31). Just as Wisdom leads men to life, 'Keep your eyes on Wisdom, she is your life' (Prov 4.13), so Jesus is the source of life. Just as Wisdom has long discourses about herself, so Jesus, and also invitations to eat and drink at her (and his) table. All this is merely the outline to which John attaches more detail. The most important expressions of the Wisdom-Christology occur in the Prologue (see p. 41). 2. JESUS THE SECOND MOSES This use of the figure of Wisdom is only one example of how in John Jesus is the fulfilment of the hopes of Israel. It comes across perhaps most clearly in the representation of Jesus as a Second Moses. This was deep in the hope of Israel. The prophet who was to come was to be a second Moses: 'Yahweh your God will raise up a prophet like me', says Moses in Deut 18.15, 24

'you will listen to him.' Already in the Prologue the comparison is made with Moses: for the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ (1.17). It has become scholarly orthodoxy to associate Far from being a rejection of Moses, this treats the interest in a Moses figure with the Moses as a step on the way to Christ. Christ Samaritans, whose fourth century AD texts completes what Moses began. As so often, the make great play with the figure of Moses. Prologue is a true prologue or overture, giving Brown and other authorities connect the in a nutshell the themes which will be Johannine interest in Moses (usually asserting important and will recur throughout the gospel. that John has a polemic against Moses) with the influx of Samaritan converts which is suggested Immediately after the prologue John the Baptist by the success of Jesus among the Samaritans denies to the investigating authorities that he is in John 4. Ashton, however, insists that fourth the Messiah, Elijah or the Prophet. Jesus is then century evidence is worthless in this case, and hailed by his new disciples successively by compares its value to that of the Cappadocian each of these Jewish titles, by Andrew as Fathers for determining first century doctrine. Messiah, by Peter as Elijah and finally by Philip as the Prophet (1.41-45). It is surprising how often this theme of Moses occurs. Indeed it may be in this connection that the miracles of Jesus in John are called principally Signs (and Bultmann, it will be remembered, attributed a large part of the gospel to a Signs Source). Other messianic claimants in the first century put forward the signs they claimed they could do, e.g. parting the Jordan, as evidence that they were prophets like Moses, that is, the Messiah (cf. Dt 18.18). See Josephus, Bellum 2.259; Antiquities 20.97-98). - In the conversation with Nicodemus, where the main theme is the inappropriateness of the ignorance of Nicodemus as 'the teacher in Israel', the lifting up of the son of man (one of those important ambiguous terms) is compared to the scene in the desert: as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert so must the son of man be lifted up (3.14). Here, as so often, Jesus himself takes centre-stage, in comparison to some object provided by Moses. So later he is the true bread, in comparison to the manna provided by Moses; now he himself takes the place of the brazen serpent which was lifted up in the desert to save the people (Num 21.4-9). - The symbolism of living water in the conversation with the Samaritan woman and at the Feast of Tabernacles again has reference to the Law given through Moses. Conventionally, the Law was often symbolised by living water, often in the psalms, particularly Ps 119, but especially in the lovely poem spoken by the Law in Sir 24.25-31: And I, like a conduit from a river like a watercourse running into a garden, I said, 'I am going to water my orchard, 25

I intend to irrigate my flower-beds'. To the Samaritan woman Jesus promises himself to give living water (John 4.13-14). At the Feast of Tabernacles he proclaims himself as being that living water, Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, Let anyone who believes in me come and drink (7.37-39)! So again, Jesus takes the place of the Law as the source of life. - In 5.39-47 he takes the place of the scriptures provided by Moses as the means of life. With Johannine irony Jesus points out that they can make no progress by poring over the scriptures, claiming to be true followers of Moses: You have placed your hopes on Moses and Moses will be the one who accuses you, ... since it was about me that he was writing. - And then the whole of chapter 6 comments on this (perhaps, as we have said, p. 10, this is the reason for its position here, despite the awkward geographical consequences). The two miraclestories at the start (the multiplication of loaves and the walking on the sea) recall Moses' provision of manna in the desert, and perhaps the crossing of the sea under the leadership of Moses. Then comes the bread of life discourse, which is in the form of a midrash-sermon on Ex 16.1, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat', commenting on each phrase in turn, 'He gave them bread' (Jesus is the true bread), then 'from heaven' (Jesus as heavenly revelation), and finally 'to eat' ('my flesh is real food', etc). From our view, the point is that Jesus fulfills and completes the gift of Moses. - But the greatest irony occurs in the story of the healing of the blind man, when the Pharisees reject Jesus precisely with the claim that they are followers of Moses, It is you who are his disciple; we are disciples of Moses; we know that God spoke to Moses, but this man, we don't know where he comes from (9.28-29). They claim to be followers of Moses in order to refuse to follow the fulfilment of Moses. The irony reaches a further (but slightly less explicit) climax at the trial-scene, when they appeal to the Law to condemn Jesus, 'We have a Law, and according to this Law he ought to die' (19.7). Once these obvious similarities between Jesus and Moses are established, it is possible to see other less obvious, but perhaps more profound, links. In Matthew Jesus is most obviously a second Moses by his giving a new Law in the Sermon on the Mount. In John the most profound similarity is by his revelation of the Name. In Exodus there are two stages of the revelation of the Name of God. The first is at the burning bush, where God reveals to Moses the actual name, YHWH. To my mind, whatever the LXX later made of it (something The revelation of the Law itself is also, of like 'I am who am', or 'I am being'), the etymologisation course, a revelation of God, and was treasured of the name there merely covers a meaninglessness. At as such: it is the code by which Israel must live best God means, 'I am who I am - and that is all you are in order to associate with God. As such it to know'. The second stage, in Ex 33-34 is where he reveals the sort of God the covenant-giver is. reveals the meaning of the name, as a God of love and tenderness, full of forgiveness and kindness. In just the same way, the Johannine Jesus reveals the name and meaning of God (17.26): I have revealed your name to them 26

and will continue to make it known so that the love with which you loved me may be in them. This Name consisting of love, which Jesus speaks of revealing in the prayer before his Passion, is the love between the Father and the Son. It is at the moment of the Passion that it is made most clear. It would be possible also to show how John thinks of Jesus in terms not so much of Moses as of Israel itself. Jesus is the true vine (15.1-8), contrasting with the unfaithful vine of Israel so prominent in the prophets from Isaiah 5.1-9 onwards. He is the Son as Israel is God's son (Ho 11.1-3, etc). He is the Servant, washing the disciples' feet and suffering for the people (John 11.50; 13.13-16), as the Servant who is Israel in Deutero-Isaiah. All this is focussed in the Prologue, for the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth through Jesus Christ (1.17). The Passion is not a moment when the Father vents on his Son the anger and vengeance for human sin, when he 'plunges the knife in the heart of his Son', as some mediaeval theologians held. It is the moment of supreme union between Father and Son because the Son perfectly does his Father's will, in the supreme expression of love.

It has been suggested that this strictly Jewish conception of Christ, comparing him to Moses and other figures of the Jewish hopes (especially in the first week, 1.19-40) is the remains of a primitive Christology, which was later surpassed. This earlier Christology would have been acceptable - or at any rate not offensive - to many of the Jews, for there was no blasphemy in claiming to be Messiah. This Christology was, however, succeeded by another Christology, which made more profound, far-reaching claims for Jesus. It was this Christology which was offensive to many Jews, and which caused the Christians to be ejected from the synagogues. The offence caused is reflected in such passages as 9.22, where the parents of the man born blind are afraid of being put out of the synagogue for accepting Jesus. The contrast between the two Christologies may be seen in 1.51, You will see greater things than this, followed by the suggestion of a fuller revelation than that of 1.19-40, or in the contrast between the first impression and the final acknowledgement of Jesus in Samaria (I see you are a prophet, sir! in 4.19, and He is indeed the saviour of the world in 4.42), or in the gradually increasing understanding of the man born blind (He is a prophet in 4.17 and Lord, I believe and he worshipped him, 4.37). This high Christology certainly has hints of pre-existence (No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, 3.13). See C. Tuckett, Christology and the NT, EdinburghUP, 2001, pp. 151-171. 3.THE SON The basic idea of the relationship is expressed not by 'Son of man' or 'Son of God', but simply by the unadorned expression 'the Son'. This is used seldom in the synoptics, only three times, but each time significantly, and the first two times on Jesus' lips, stressing the intimate relationship between son and father (Mark 13.32; Matthew 11.27; 28.19), and once by Paul (1 Corinthians 15.28). This is perhaps enough to justify the claim that John is merely enlarging the synoptic usage which may be Jesus' own expression. The address of God as pater or abba (Galatians 4.6; Romans 8.15-17) is one of the startling expansions of Jewish usage by Jesus which the early community adopted from the Master as a hallmark of the relationship to God received by the Christian through participation with Jesus. 27

The passage which best fills out the meaning of the relationship between Father and Son is the discourse after the cure of the sick man at Bethesda. The scene for this is set by Jesus curing on a Sabbath, and by his assertion of his right to work on the Sabbath, just as God does. It was accepted in Judaism that God has the right to work on the Sabbath, for example in giving life babies are born even on the Sabbath - and in judging - people also die on the Sabbath. Jesus claims this right for himself, 'My Father still goes on working, and I am at work too' (John 5.18), which is recognised by the Jews as a claim to make himself equal to God. This claim is then expanded in the discourse which follows. The crucial section is 5.19-30, which is bracketed by the inclusio at beginning and end: by himself the Son can do nothing, he can do only what he sees the Father doing and whatever the Father does the Son does too (5.19) I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me (5.30). It has been persuasively suggested that the scene envisaged is that of father and son engaged on the same trade - for a Jewish father was obliged to teach his son a trade - in the same workshop. In such circumstances the aims, techniques and achievements are often exactly the same: when they have worked together for some time, the master can leave his pupil to carry out or finish off a design; they share the same skills and the same approach. It is, of course, typical of the biblical mind to express itself not statically, as a Greek would, in terms of essences, in order to express what a thing is, but in dynamic terms of what a thing can do. Between these two general brackets the theme is expressed in two particular matters which are of crucial importance in the gospel, giving life and judging. 1. To give life is supremely the prerogative of God ('beside me there is no other God. It is I who deal death and life' Dt 32.39; compare the story of Naaman the Syrian, 2 K 5.7). But throughout John it is Jesus who not only gives life, but is life and has come that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Jesus' gift of life is implied in the living water of John 4 and John 7. It is his gift of life to Lazarus which is deliberately presented by John as the break-point which led the Jews to decide to liquidate him. The ability to impart this gift of life has passed from the Father to the Son. 2. To judge is also the divine prerogative. The theme of judgement runs through the gospel, but with a curious shimmering between Father and Son. The Father has given all judgement to the Son (5.22). The Son judges no one, but if he judges his judgement is true (8.16). The resolution of this tension is perhaps in 12.48, 'the word which I have spoken will judge him'. Jesus does not himself exercise judgement, but judgement of itself occurs through the reaction of his interlocutors to him (on Jesus as Judge, see below, chapter five). In both these ways, then, Jesus is exercising powers which belongs to God alone. 4. SHALIAH Peder Borgen has shown that the clue to several of the ways in which the Johannine Jesus describes his relationship to God is that of an agent, shaliah, one who is sent as a representative. The relationship of agent to sender described in rabbinic literature corresponds to that between 28

Jesus and his Father. This appears in six overlapping elements: a. An agent is like one who sent him 12.44-45: Anyone who trusts me trusts him who sent me, anyone who sees me sees him who sent me (and 14.9); 15.23: Anyone who hates me hates my Father too. b. An agent ranks as the sender's own person 5.23: Anyone who denies honour to him denies honour to the Father who sent him. c. An agent carries out the mission of the sender 6.38: I have come down from heaven to do the will of him who sent me. d. A sender transfers his legal rights and property to the agent 17:6 They were yours and you have given them to me. e. Agent reports back to sender 13.3: Knowing that he was returning to the Father... f. Agents can appoint agents in their turn 20:21: As my Father sent me, so I am sending you. Jesus therefore is sent into the world as the Father's agent, with his full plenipotentiary mission, to do his work and with his own powers. It is another way of saying that Jesus is the Father acting in the world. 5. GLORY The clearest way of all in which the relationship between Son and Father comes out is not so much in the Shaliah-relationship as in the purpose of this link. This is summed up in the concept of 'glory'. Jesus reveals the glory of the Father, which is at the same time his own glory. 1. Glory in the OT is an awesome concept. BOX We should be warned by the fact that when the LXX came to translate the idea, there was no word current in Greek, just as there was no word to translate the Hebrew concept of love, and the obscure word agape had to be pressed into service and filled with new meaning. So the Greek doxa normally means 'good repute', 'popular estimation', 'what people think about you', based on the frequent verb dokei, 'it seems'. In biblical Greek, however, it translates the Hebrew dbk, whose basic meaning is 'weight'. END OF BOX No human being can see God's glory and live; glory is what makes God awesome and unapproachable, utterly different. Even Moses is protected from seeing it (Ex 33-34). From too prolonged association with God on the mountain his face becomes horned or calloused, so that he has to wear a veil over his face to protect the people from it: 'the skin on his face was so radiant that they were afraid to go near him' (Exodus 34.30). In the vocation-vision of Isaiah 6 this is the impression created by the billowing clouds, the train of Yahweh, filling the sanctuary, which make even the self-confident Isaiah fall to the ground aware only of his own unworthiness. This is the dominant impression of Yahweh in Isaiah, expressed forcefully in the poem of Isaiah 2.6-22, whose refrain is Go into the rock, hide in the dust, in terror of Yahweh, at the brilliance of his majesty, when he arises to make the earth quake. It is that which makes the prophets and all who encounter God fall abject to the ground. In the synoptics the reaction occurs when they see Jesus walking on the water, when Peter in Luke says, 'Depart from me, lord, I am a sinner', and above all in the reaction of the women at the empty tomb, when they experience God's power breaking out in the resurrection, and flee in 29

terror. It is the central idea of godhead, characterised perhaps best of all in Rudolf Otto's indispensible work The Idea of the Holy as 'Das Tremendum'. One should not be able to speak of it without awe; it is the basis of the Jewish refusal to pronounce the name of God, and the instinctive Jewish wearing of symbolic sacred clothing at any mention of the divine. 2. In John the theme of glory is already adumbrated in the Prologue, 'and we saw his glory' (1.14) awesomely summing up the content of the gospel; this is 'the glory which he has from the Father as the only son of the Father', which already hints that it is a divine quality. The climax of the first miracle at Cana is given in 'he showed his glory and his disciples believed in him' (2.11); belief is related to sight of the glory; it must be somehow an experience of the divine quality of Jesus. Already the divine is seen to be somehow shining through. It is 'his' glory, though 'glory' is a derived quality which immediately directs one's attention to the divine. It is significant that in 12.41 John interprets the glory seen by Isaiah in Isaiah 6 as being that of Jesus: 'Isaiah said this because he saw his glory, and his words referred to Jesus'. The welding, or even the wedding, of the glory of God and the glory of Jesus becomes clear in the approach to the Passion-narrative. Both are achieved by the final act of Jesus' glorification at the hour of the passion and resurrection, in which both are intertwined: Now has the Son of man been glorified and in him God has been glorified. If God has been glorified in him, God will in turn glorify him in himself (13.31-32). The Father is glorified in the Son, and the Father also glorifies the Son, and in so doing glorifies his name (12.28; 14.13; 15.8; 16.14; 17.1-5). It is clear that the glory of the Father is expressed and revealed in the glorification of the Son. But it is not yet clear precisely in what this glorification consists. It must be something which reveals the glory of both. If the hour is considered strictly to comprehend the resurrection as well as the death of Jesus, this is what may be intended, though the resurrection is never spoken of by John in these terms. John links rather the 'exaltation' of Jesus on the cross to his glorification. Here John is referring to the supreme expression of God's love as shown in the crucifixion. On the realistic level it is not easy to see this messy, bloody, disgusting and depraved method of execution as in any way an expression of love. It was not a pretty or dignified sight; the early Christians, who knew about it, did well to avoid representations of it. On a certain level of medieval theology it is similarly difficult to see it as an expression of love: the Father vents his wrath on the Son; the punishment due to humanity is exacted from the Son as perfect representative of humanity; the Son suffers the pains of the damned and utter separation from the Father, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'. BOX This is, of course, a pietistic misunderstanding of the whole scene, which is certainly not consonant with John's idealised scene, but not either with that of the synoptics. The opening verse of the psalm must be understood - whether at the historical or on the theological level - as intoning the whole psalm, which hymns the movement through humiliation and suffering to the glory of God and the vindication of the sufferer: The whole wide world will remember and return to Yahweh, all the families of nations bow down before him. And those who are dead, their descendants shall serve him, 30

will proclaim his name to generations yet to come. (Ps 22.27, 30-31) END OF BOX John's interpretation of this messy scene comes principally in John 17, Jesus' prayer at the end of the last discourses. There the thought circles round revelation of the Name of God, revelation of the mutual love of Father and Son, and revelation of the glory of the Son and the Father. Thus, 17.5-6 Now, Father, glorify me with that glory I had with you before ever the world existed. I have revealed your name to those you took from the world to give to me. 17.24 ...so that they may always see my glory which you have given me because you loved me. 17.26 I have made your name known to them and will continue to make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them. The ideas circle around in a way which is not easy to grasp or interrelate exactly. The moment of Jesus' glorification and exaltation is the hour of the passion. This is also the moment of the revelation of God's glory. It is the summit of the revelation of his Name. It makes known the mutual love of Father and Son, and their love for those who have been entrusted to the Son. For our purposes of investigating the relationship of the Son to the Father the most important point is that this climax expresses the union of the two. This,indeed, is the meaning of the final tetelestai; the loving union of Father and Son has been completely expressed. 3. _ - 'I am' In all the gospels this expression is of course used frequently by Jesus in a perfectly normal sense, just as anyone might say 'I am thirty-five years old' or 'I am short-sighted'. It is also the natural Greek equivalent to (in answer to a response to a knock on the door) 'It's me!' or (on the part of those who have been bullied by Dr Samuel Johnson) 'It is I'. In the synoptic gospels it is not easy to say that it has any special sense. It is used by the disciples questioning Jesus, 'Is it me, Lord?' (Matthew 26.22). It is used by Jesus in response to the disciples when he comes to them walking on the water (Mark 6.50): 'It's me, do not be afraid!' Here there may be a deeper sense, for (i) There are certainly overtones of the divinity in Jesus' walking on the water, for in the Old Testament only God walks on the water and controls the seas. (ii) In the Old Testament 'Do not be afraid' is the stock reassurance offered to those who experience a visit of an angel or other divine revelation (or Luke 1.13; 2.10). (iii) There is a generally awed feeling about the scene: 'They were utternly and completely dumbfounded' (Mark 6.50. In Matthew (14.33) it leads on to the explicit recognition of Jesus as Son of God. But it is certainly not clear whether this sense of awe and divinity comes from Jesus' action or his words. In John the expression is used in two ways, without and with predicate: a. Without predicate (8.24, 28; 13.19). This is commonly regarded as a divine claim, related either to the revelation of the divine name on Ex 3 or to Deutero-Isaiah. Barrett16 argues that the first of these is an illegitimate connection, since the LXX translation into Greek gives a different
16

'Symbolism', in Essays in John (London, SPCK, 1982) p. 69 31

phrase, _ _v ('the one who is'). The allusion is more probably to the usage frequent in DeuteroIsaiah. There the prophet, speaking in the name of God, frequently uses this expression as a selfidentification by God, Is 41.4; 43.10 (especially close to the Johannine usage, 'in order that you may know and believe that _); 46.4; 48.12, cf. 45.10. By itself, the fact that Jesus uses this expression means nothing special, nothing more than the common, daily use outlined at the beginning of this section. But the meanings of John's gospel are so multi-layered that it is impossible to rule out a deeper and more intense and significant meaning. If we are to understand what John intends, much of our understanding must depend on the context and on the reaction of the hearers. Notably in John 18.5, 8 the expression superficially seems to be a mere self-identification ('It's me, I am the one you are looking for'), but the reaction of the soldiers in falling to the ground is the standard reaction to the experience of the divine, and is appropriate to a divine declaration (p. 73). Only slightly less clearly in 8.24, 28, 58 the awkwardness of the expression, and the final reaction of the hostile audience in picking up stones to throw at him, are strong indications that some profounder meaning is intended, which must therefore be understood as a divine claim. b. With predicate By this phrase Jesus makes claims which appropriate some of the most important religious values of the Old Testament: 6.35, 51 I am the bread of life - Jesus is being considered the fulfilment not only of the Manna in the desert, but of the invitation to the Wisdom-banquet. 8.12 I am the light of the world - Wisdom is the reflection of the eternal light (Ws 7.26), and God is the fullness of light (1 Jn 1.5-7). 10.11, 14 I am the Good Shepherd - possibly an allusion to the imagery of God as shepherd in Ps 23 and Ezek 34. 11.25 I am Resurrection and Life. 14.6 I am the way, truth and life 15.1, 5 I am the true vine - the true Israel, Jesus replacing in his own person the feasts and institutions of Judaism. Rather than Jn teaching a ditheism which would be incompatible with Jewish monotheism, it would be better to say that Jn stretches the concept of God, so that it may be seen to embrace also the phenomenon of Jesus. Conclusion The way John struggles to express his vision of Jesus is, then, deeply rooted in Judaism, but at the same time stretches or even bursts the frontiers of Jewish thought about God. His significance can be explained only in function of terms already known, and for these terms John draws on the most precious values in Judaism. In the background stands the figure of Moses, as both witness and prototype. The institutions and feasts of Judaism are seen as provisional markers, looking towards Jesus and reaching their fulfilment in him. Running through the whole presentation are the ways in which God has revealed himself to Israel, as Truth, Light, Life, the Shepherd, and above all as Wisdom, an entity somehow already conceived in the Wisdom Literature of the Bible in terms of a person expressing God's own nature. All these ways of God's self-revelation reach a fuller expression and greater clarity in Jesus. It makes no sense to say brutally that God became a human being, for the two concepts are too 32

far apart. Throughout his gospel John teases out this statement in different ways. Again and again in his gospel it is clear that Jesus is human, but this is not all. The climax of the prologue evokes the awesome concept of the divine glory, 'we saw his glory'. The conclusion points to belief in this message as the way to life. Suggestions for Further Reading Hanson, Anthony The Prophetic Gospel (T&T Clark, 1991), pp. 254-292. Meeks, Wayne 'The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism' (1972), in The Interpretation of John, ed. John Ashton (SPCK, 1986), p. 141 Pryor, John W John, Evangelist of the Covenant People (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1992), pp. 117-180. Peder Borgen 'God's Agent in the Fourth Gospel' (1968), in John Ashton, supra Personal Work From now on schemes of marking up the text will not be suggested. But such marking may well be a useful means of making the text your own. Write a short essay on one of the two following topics: 1. Outline how John shows Jesus to be the fulfilment of Judaism. 2. 'A god striding over the earth' How satisfactory do you find this as a description of the Johannine Jesus?

33

CHAPTER FOUR THE PROLOGUE 1. GENRE The three synoptic gospels begin with a preface or prologue which could be said to be historical in form. An elementary consideration of Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 shows that they are in fact theology under the form of history. The first 13 verses of Mark also constitute a theological prologue under the form of history17; though less obviously an interpretation of Jesus, these verses nevertheless are not straight history; rather they set the scene for all that is to come and prepare the reader for the story which is beginning. The story of Mark begins at the Baptism, where Jesus is declared Son of God by the Voice from heaven. The prologues of Matthew and Luke go further back, Matthew to the preparation for his birth, Luke to the conception of Jesus itself. The object of each is to show that Jesus already was from the beginning what he was seen to be (or what Mark shows him to be) at the Baptism. The Baptism, they are showing, was not an investiture with a new status; it was simply a demonstration of what had been the case since the beginning. John's Prologue goes even further back in history, or indeed beyond history to 'the beginning', by its first words echoing the first words of the Book of Genesis. Another important difference between the prologue of John and those of the synoptics is that John's prologue is obviously not even presented as history. What, then, is its genre? Is it a poem, or independent meditation? How do the two mentions of the Baptist fit in? Allied to this question is the further question of its relationship to the rest of the gospel. The first and most important concept used is the Logos, to which we shall of course return (p. 40). This concept is used nowhere else in the gospel. On the other hand other ideas important in the prologue return in full force later: light, life, acceptance and rejection, the contrast between Moses and Jesus, the revelation of the Father. There is the same repetitive style, circling round ideas like the symbolic eagle. There is the same theology of pre-existence: as we have seen, the whole of John hints in various ways at the divinity of Jesus, but the only two places where the divinity of Jesus is securely stated in the gospels form an inclusio from the prologue: theos en o logos (1.1.), and the words of Thomas in John 20.28. These two statements bracket the whole gospel of John into a single unit. The prologue cannot be from a different stable than the rest of the gospel. The solution to both these questions lies in the classification of the Prologue as a hymn. This gives it more legitimate independence. It is not simply like a musical overture, announcing all the themes of the forthcoming opera. It does indeed have these themes, but has also the initial independent idea of the Logos. More significant is the comparison between the prologue and the other early Christian hymns from the New Testament, namely Eph 1.3-14; Col 1.15-20 and (slightly different) Phil 2.6-11. We know from the pagan Roman writer Pliny that in the next generation the Christians gathered together 'on a set day' (presumably Sunday) to sing a hymn Christo ut deo, 'to Christ as to a god'. This practice may well have developed a pattern for such hymns, to which they seem to adhere.
17

See Morna Hooker, The Gospel according to St Mark (London, A & C Black, 1991), p. 3134

32

2. ELEMENTS OF THESE HYMNS (Ephesians 1.3-14; Colossians 1.15-20; Philippians 2.6-11) It is instructive to compare the prologue of John to these hymns of the Pauline corpus. BOX Discussion of the authorship and origin of the hymns is a luxury we cannot afford (but see my booklet, The Letters of Saint Paul, p. 63, 89, 91). Briefly, the hymn of Philippians may be a pre-Pauline hymn, current among the early Christians, which Paul took up into his letter to the Philippians, and expanded slightly. The 'Captivity Epistles' (Ephesians and Colossians) have traditionally been considered to have been written by Paul. More recent scholarship tends without any certainty towards the view that they form a meditation and summing up of Paul's message, written by a disciple. The hymns serve to show the emphases and spirituality of Christians towards the end of the first century. END OF BOX A. All the hymns begin with God, before creation, with Christ as the principle of creation: Jn: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. Through him all things came into being (1.1, 3). Col: He is the image of the unseen God, the first-born of all creation, for in him were created all things. Eph: Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; he chose us in Christ before the world was made. Phil: who, being in the form of God,... B. Believers becoming united to God (as children of God): Jn: He gave power to become children of God to those who believed in his name (1.12). Col: He is the head of the body, that is, the Church. Eph: Marking us out for himself beforehand to be adopted sons C. The idea of receiving benefits from him: Jn: From his fullness we have, all of us, received (1.16). Col: Through him to reconcile all things to himself. Eph: It is in him that we have received our inheritance. D. The fulfilment of God's will and glory: Jn: We saw his glory (1.14), from his fullness (1.16). Grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ (1.17). Col: for in him God wanted all fullness to be found. Eph: for the praise of his glory. Phil: to the glory of God the Father E. Revelation of God in him: Jn: It is the only Son who has made him known (1.18). Col: The image of the unseen God. Eph: He has let us know the mystery of his purpose. It appears, then, that these were themes common to Christian hymnody. This tracing of the themes common to the hymns enables us to see better by contrast the particular function and theme of each. The hymn of Philippians, the shortest, lacks several of the elements; it concentrates on the contrast between the disastrous disobedience of Adam and the fruitful 35

obedience of Christ, the Second Adam. Colossians, confronting the emphasis at Colossae on other claimed supernatural forces, centres on the superiority of Christ to every other being. Ephesians, whose theme throughout is unity, concentrates on God's plan to unite all in Christ. In the case of the Johannine hymn the puzzle has long been how it is that the concept of Logos appears only here in the gospel. Other concepts used in the hymn, the Baptist, Light, Life, Reception and non-Reception, occur prominently later in the gospel, but not the Logos. It may be that the reason for the appearance of the Logos is precisely that it expresses so well several of the five themes which are not attached to these concepts, such as the part in creation (and before it), the revelation of God, the fulfilment of his promises or his words. 3. THE SHAPE OF THE HYMN The shape of the hymn has been described as a parabola, beginning in heaven, coming down to earth and returning to heaven. Heaven of course is not mentioned; there is no need to accuse John of subscribing to the theory of a three-decker universe. The hymn is in fact a chiasmus, each first element balancing a last element on the 'onion-skin' pattern (cut an onion down the centre, and the successive layers of onion-skin balance each other in reverse order). It starts and end with God, and centres on adoption as children of God, which is the nub of the gospel as a whole. BOX A preliminary word might be said about the two mentions of John the Baptist. They are oddly placed, and this gives a clue to the pattern of the hymn; there is no obvious reason why they should be so placed, except to balance each other. At the same time the two mentions of John the Baptist serve to knit the prologue into the historical narrative of the gospel. It has been suggested that these two may even have been an original opening of the gospel, for the first mention, 'A man came, sent by God' (1.6) is an opening typical of the beginning of biblical stories, introducing the central personality. The second, with its mention of John's witness to Jesus (1.15) knits into this gospel's specific presentation of the Baptist in 1.19-31. It is all about the Baptist's witness to Jesus, without mention either of the Baptist's moral message, so prominent in Matthew and Luke, or of his baptising Jesus, as in Mark and Matthew. Witness is, as we shall see (p. 57) an important element in the gospel. END OF BOX The chiasmus may be thus set out: 1: Origin with God: The Word was with God. 3: Creation: What has come into being in him was life. 6: John the Baptist 9: The Word gives light 10: Rejection 12: Power to become Sons of God 12: Acceptance 14: We saw his glory 15: John the Baptist 16: Re-Creation: From his fullness we have all received. 18: Return to God: No one has ever seen God; it is the only Son who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known. This chiasmus and its themes provide the programme for the rest of our consideration of the 36

prologue. We should consider each of the pairs of members in turn. The first half of the chiasmus seems to be concerned with nature, the second half with faith and its results. - Thus to the origin of the Word with God corresponds the expansion of the vision of God through the revelation by the only Son. - To creation responds re-creation in the fullness of the Word. The concept of 'fullness' and the contrast of Christ, building on Moses, has been touched upon in the matter of Johannine Christology. - To light (a natural entity) corresponds glory, which can be seen only with the eyes of faith. - To rejection by the world and his own people corresponds acceptance by those who believed in his name, who were born not of human stock, etc, but of God himself. These two pairs will be considered later, under the heading of judgement in John. - This patterning again reinforces the observation that the turning-point is 'sons of God'. It is odd that this concept, central to the prologue, is less central in the gospel of John than elsewhere. In Paul the adoption as sons is an important theme. In 1 John, especially 3.1-10, it is the special designation of Christians who love one another. In the gospel, however, it occurs only rarely, once quite incidentally, 'to gather together the scattered children of God' (11.52), once in contrast with children of Abraham (8.39), and by implication from 'being born again' in the conversation with Nicodemus. 3. THE WORD The Logos is a symbol so rich that it is difficult to know where to start. Whichever aspect or background one views seems to be the important clue to its whole meaning in this passage. A. In Judaism the Word of God is in many ways the mediation (I do not say 'mediator') between God and the world. The clue to all life is the Law. This was the bond which joined Judaism to God as the beloved child to the Father, nourished by the Father and corrected by him in love. The law is summed up in the Ten Commandments, which provide a sort of ikon of the Law. They are called the Ten Words: they are words of life because they reveal the Father's will and nature, and obedience to them provides the thread of life. Later on, especially in the prophets and in the psalms, the word of God is a word of judgement, of stern and penetrating correction, which accomplishes its own judgement. It is not like a human judgement, merely an advisory opinion, an assessment that something was or was not the case. What God pronounces he accomplishes. BOX There is a faint echo of this in some legal judgements, where the decision not merely assesses what is the situation, who is guilty, but creates a situation: a judge's decision can actually create ownership. END OF BOX Once God's judgement is given it is fulfilled and cannot be revoked. In the New Testament the effectiveness of God's judgement is expressed in that famous passage of Hebrews, 'The Word of God is a two-edged sword'. The breadth of meaning of the Hebrew word dabar contributes to the sense of power of 'the word'. Besides meaning a word spoken or written, it can also mean a fact or event, a 'thing' which can be witnessed and which has concrete reality; it is not a matter of evanescent breath which is spoken and heard or not heard before disappearing on the soundwaves. Once a dabar has occurred, the world can never be quite the same again. B. Nor must the hellenistic dimension be neglected. Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, attempts to explain Judaism to the hellenistic world in terms of philosophy, just as Josephus 37

attempted to explain it in terms of history. In Greek logos means not only 'word', but also 'system', 'reasoning', 'method', anything which we would call logical. It is the logos which makes the difference between an ordered world and chaos, a difference which was especially important to the intellectual Greeks, which gives the world is nature, order, good sense, rationality, acceptability. Philo uses logos more than 1200 times to explain Jewish wisdom and good sense to the hellenistic world. A rich range of parallels to the prologue in the Greek bible is tabulated by C.H. Dodd18. C. In Christian preaching, too, which had of course already occurred by the time of the writing of John, the logos is the message of the preaching. In the explanation of the parable of the Sower the logos is the seed which is sown. In the Acts the logos is the Christian preaching. Since this message is Christ, such a usage is already preparing for the Johannine usage: those who 'die for my sake and for the sake of the gospel' will have eternal life. This indicates that the gospel, or the word, is equivalent to Jesus himself. D. But in the present context the specific background is that of Wisdom. In the later wisdom literature of the Bible there are especially three passages where Wisdom is treated essentially in the same way as the Word is treated in the prologue and as Christ is considered throughout John. In these poetic passages Wisdom is personified in the same way as the Logos in John, and is described as present to God and yet God's agent in the world, existing only through a living bond with God, yet not wholly identified with God. (i) The earliest passage is Proverbs 8.22-31. Poetry achieves its effect by the accumulation of imagery, so that it is crippled when quoted in part; it will, therefore, be far more profitable to read the whole passage than merely an excerpt. There are, however, two passages which bring out especially the two principal ideas of the prologue, the presence of Wisdom with God before creation, and the part of Wisdom in creation: Yahweh created me, the first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works. From everlasting I was firmly set, from the beginning, before the earth came into being. ... When he assigned the sea its boundaries, when he traced the foundations of the earth, I was beside the master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence. In the prologue the scene before creation is immediately recalled by the opening Greek words en arche (in Hebrew breshit), recalling the first word of Genesis. The part of the Logos in creation is also immediately obvious. (ii) A second passage is Ben Sira 24, where Wisdom or the Law is speaking of her relationship more especially to Israel and to Jerusalem. BOX This is a poem which is redolent of the Land of Israel and of Jerusalem. Ben Sira was a Jerusalem scribe and loved the land; he speaks with affection of the beloved city, the
18

in The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (1965), p.276-7. 38

palm trees of Engedi, the rose-bushes of Jericho. END OF BOX I came forth from the mouth of the Most High. ... The Creator of all things instructed me, he said, 'Pitch your tent in Jacob, make Israel your inheritance. From eternity, in the beginning he created me, and for eternity I shall remain. In the holy tent I ministered before him. Here again are the ideas of presence with God before creation and presence also in Israel. The idea of participation in creation is present ('I covered the earth like a mist', recalling Genesis), but less important. The element in the prologue which is most closely recalled is that of presence among his own. The notion of 'tenting' in the holy people is twice used, as in the prologue, eskenosen en hemin, from the sound skn recalling the Shekinah or awesome glory of God dwelling among men in the Temple. But by contrast with the unruffled peace of the presence of Wisdom in Jerusalem in Ben Sira, the prologue tells of the rejection of the Logos by his own, which will be such an important theme of the gospel. (iii) The third passage from the Wisdom Literature which forms an essential background to the concept of Logos in the prologue is Wisdom 7.21-8.1. The centre of this passage is a catena of 21 epithets of Wisdom (a multiple of the special numbers of perfection, 7 x 3!). But the poem also expresses the themes of Wisdom's part and presence in creation and the attempt to convey the relationship of Wisdom to God. A further element close to the prologue of John is that Wisdom is the means of adoption of holy souls by God to make them his friends: Wisdom, the designer of all things, has instructed me. She is a breath of the power of God, pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty. She is the reflection of the eternal light, untarnished mirror of God's active power and image of his goodness. She passes into holy souls and makes them into God's friends. Compared with light, she takes first place, for light must yield to night. Against the background of these ideas there is almost nothing new in the prologue. It is only that what was said in the Wisdom literature about Wisdom has now been transferred to the Logos. Among the ideas which are circling around both in this poem and in the prologue are: 1. The presence of Wisdom with God and the attempt to describe the relationship between them. The idea of a reflection of light and a clear, untarnished mirror (mirrors in those days were made of polished metal, so easily tarnished) is a brilliant image of dependence and independence. The mirror-image or the reflection exists, but only so long as the original remains. Breath is separate from the person who breathes, but stops if the person stops breathing. In the prologue the same living relationship is expressed by the two dynamic, directional prepositions of motion pros ton theon (v. 2, literally 'towards God') and eis ton kolpon tou patros (v. 18 literally 'into the bosom of the Father'); the Word is not merely related to the Father, but is in constant motion towards the Father, almost, if this were not too childish a metaphor, 'diving into the embrace of the Father'. 39

2. The relationship to God's chosen ones. Wisdom is the means by which they become God's friends, just as the Logos is the means by which those who accept the Logos become Sons of God. 3. Light. Wisdom is lighter or brighter than the light itself, so that the light itself must give way to Wisdom as night gives way to light. In the same way, the Word is the true light that gives light to everyone. Conclusion In the Prologue, then, the Logos is represented as the culmination of the Wisdom tradition of the Old Testament, as the figure of Wisdom, whose implications are worked out in the chiasmus on which the Prologue is formed. The Prologue as a whole must be seen as a sort of hymn, comparable to other hymns of the New Testament which celebrate Christ and his work in bringing humanity back to peace with the Father. It is, however, no random hymn, simply joined on to the front of the gospel. It is typically Johannine in several ways: it has the same circling technique with which we have become familiar, the same way of using language which is meant to be understood on at least two different levels of meaning. It has a typically Johannine vocabulary, and especially uses several of the key concepts which occur in the rest of the gospel. Only the concept of Logos itself does not return in the body of the gospel, but it is the concept which serves to bring together all the themes of the Prologue. Suggestions for Further Reading Dodd, C.H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 263. Hanson, Anthony The Prophetic Gospel (T&T Clark, 1991), chapters 4,5,7,8. Lamarche, Paul 'The Prologue of John' (1964) in The Interpretation of John, ed. John Ashton (SPCK, 1986), p. 36. Personal Work Write one of two essays: 1. Assess the suitability of the description of the Prologue as an 'Overture' to the gospel of John. 2. What does John seek to convey by describing Jesus as the Logos?

40

CHAPTER FIVE JUDGEMENT We have considered a related clutch of topics, the composition of John, John's treatment of 'the Jews', and the relationship of the Prologue to the rest of the gospel through the use of the concept of Wisdom. This chapter concerns a story-line which runs through the whole of the gospel, namely judgement. The gospel of John can suitably be regarded as one great judgement scene. Already in the prologue the major theme is acceptance or rejection of Jesus. On either side of the central member of the chiasmus (becoming children of God) the two proximate members set up the balance of acceptance and rejection of Jesus. He was in the world...and the world did not accept him (v. 10) But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God (v. 12). The first two major incidents of the gospel enshrine each one of these alternatives: at Cana the disciples believe and see his glory (acceptance), after which in the scene of the Cleansing of the Temple the Jews refuse his sign and see him only as an impostor. But who is being judged, the disciples/the Jews or Jesus? The same ambiguity hangs over the final scene of the judgement before Pilate, when Jesus appears to be being condemned, when in fact it is the Jews who are being condemned. The whole gospel is caught up in this ambiguity. It is possible to see what Dodd called 'the Book of Signs' (chapters 2-12) as representing the first half of the dichotomy of the Prologue, namely 'he came to his own, and his own people did not accept him', followed in the second half of the gospel by the private instruction to his own who did accept him, 'those who believed in his name' (principally in the last supper discourse). Certainly the clear division between public instruction in the Book of Signs and private instruction in the Book of Glory constitutes a notable difference from the synoptic account: in the synoptics, contact with the crowds and special instruction to the disciples alternate frequently, whereas in John there is no obvious private instruction at all in the Book of Signs. Then, after the private instruction, in the passion narrative the theme of judgement again returns. 1. THE TERMS: BELIEF, LIFE, JUDGEMENT The themes of belief and eternal life are firmly contrasted with that of judgement. Belief leads to life; refusal to believe leads to judgement. Belief and eternal life are linked, and are the obverse of judgement or condemnation (John makes little difference between these two terms, using krino in such a way that it must be translated now by one, now by the other). The purpose of the whole gospel is stated in the conclusion of the gospel: 'so that you may believe, and believing you may have life' (20.31). Similarly, in the conclusion of the first part, the finale of John 12, belief and eternal life stand on one side, and judgement on the other (12.44-50): I have come into the world as light, so that no one who believes in me should remain in the dark If anyone hears my words and does not keep them faithfully if is not I who shall judge such a person, since I have come not to judge but to save the world. The word that I have spoken will be his judge. 41

In the synoptic gospels Jesus has come to proclaim the Kingship of God. This is the message of his preaching, 'The Kingship of God is near'. It is the sense of his expulsion of evil spirits and of his miracles of healing. It is the purpose of his moral requirements: 'Blessed are the poor in spirit, the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs.' In John, eternal life replaces the synoptic emphasis on the Kingdom/Kingship of God. The expression 'kingdom' occurs in John only in 3.3-5 (the kingdom of God) and 18.36 (my kingdom). On the other hand 'life' occurs 7-4-5-3619, and 'eternal life' 3-23-17. Similarly, it is striking how often the terminology of judgement occurs in John as compared with the synoptic gospels: truth aletheia 1-3-3-21 true alethes 1-1-0-13 sin amartia (apart from phrase 'forgiveness of sin') 2-1-0-14 convince elengcho 1-0-1-3 judge krino 4-0-5-18 judgement krisis (in Mt usually the day of judgement) 12-0-4-11 witness martureo 1-0-1-32 witness marturia 0-3-1-14 advocate parakletos 0-0-0-4 false pseustes, pseudos 0-0-0-3 In some ways it is true to say that the whole gospel is one great law-court scene, and the coming of Christ is the moment of judgement. 2. EXAMPLES OF JUDGEMENT In John those who encounter Jesus are judged by their reaction to him. He does not execute judgement; rather they judge themselves by their reaction to him. John Ashton points out an important difference between the synoptics and John: in the synoptics (and particularly explicitly in Matthew) there is a rich variety of moral options which provide the criteria for judgement; these are clearest in the Sermon on the Mount and especially in the Last Judgement scene of Matthew 25. In John, on the other hand, the one criterion of judgement is faith. [Again, a lexicographical indication of the importance of belief in John: pisteuo (=I believe) occurs 11-109-88]. Thus, as we have said, the preliminary division in the first two scenes of Jesus' ministry comes between the disciples who believed in him when he revealed his glory at Cana (2.11), and 'the Jews' who refuse belief at the Cleansing of the Temple (2.20). Then follows the intermediate reaction of Nicodemus, a half-believer. He begins with a positive This is a convenient shorthand for the number of occurrences in the four gospels. Thus on this occasion the term under discussion occurs 7 times in Matthew, 4 times in Mark, 5 times in Luke and 36 times in John. Sometimes a fifth figure is added, standing for the number of occurrences in the Acts of the Apostles (often closely allied to the frequency in Luke, which is by the same author).
19

42

statement, acknowledging that Jesus has come from God as a teacher (3.2). Thenceforth, however, he manages only three questions, never progressing further than, 'How is that possible?' (3.9). He seems to have goodwill, but he certainly never arrives at full faith, leaving his situation ambiguous. Jesus' last word to him, before he starts to speak in the plural (and so probably to all Israel), is the reproachful question, 'You are the Teacher of Israel, yet you do not know these things?'. After the Nicodemus scene comes the Samaritan incident, where the movement is quite opposite. The woman starts with reserve and even sarcasm. Jesus gradually wins her by his refusal to be needled, by his calm strength and unostentatious knowledge of her. She passes on her enthusiasm to the other Samaritans, and they too come to believe - enthusiastically and insisting that it because of what they themselves have experienced (4.39-41). In the story of Nicodemus there is no mention of life, but in the Samaritan story the disciples are told on their return that 'the reaper is already bringing in the grain for eternal life' (4.36). In the following story too, where the court official at Capernaum comes to believe, the result is also life. BOX The synoptic story of the cure of the centurion's son at Capernaum must surely stem from the same oral tradition. Here the stress is on faith (pistis, the noun, which John oddly never uses), but there is no mention of life. The boy is 'cured' (Matthew) and is 'healthy' (Lk). The interpretation in terms of life, 'your son will live' (4.50, 53) - with typical Johannine ambiguity, is it eternal life or transitory life? - stems from the Johannine author who has remoulded the story in terms of his own theology. END OF BOX 3. TRIAL SCENES After these initial scenes of various individual responses to Jesus - responses which issue in belief and life, or fail to do so - there follows a series of great trial scenes. Superficially it is Jesus who is on trial; at a deeper level his judges are themselves on trial. A.. The Sick Man at the Pool of Bethesda (5) The whole aura of this incident is the censoriousness of the Jews and their willingness to condemn, rather than to listen and to put their trust in another. The chapter starts with a classic synoptic-type healing-story not unlike the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2.1-12. If the two stories are to be identified, it must at least be granted that John has given it good Jerusalem colouring, or that Mark has given it good Galilean colouring and has sandwiched in a story about forgiveness of sin. BOX The pool of Bethesda, near/at/above the Sheep Pool has been identified with the pool near the ancient Sheep Gate, the present Lion Gate of Jerusalem. This is just north of, and slightly higher than, the Temple, filled with water from the high ground further north, whence the water was easily channelled into the Temple. A great pool, 'a reservoir as huge as the sea' (Sira 50.3), was excavated here by the High Priest Onias (c. 200 BC). Many healing shrines have been identified around it. END OF BOX Mark's miracle is located in Capernaum, to which the village atmosphere fully corresponds. There is a one-roomed house. The stripping of the roof suggests a village house roofed with slats and palm-branches, with perhaps some mud layered over it. Capernaum, on the shore of the Lake of Galilee, is well below 'Sea Level', and the roof 43

would be designed to keep out sun rather than snow and rain. At the end of John's healing-story (5.9b) the theme of sabbath-healing seems suddenly to be added from outside. The healing has no necessary connection with the sabbath, and at least in the synoptic stories such a setting would have been mentioned at the beginning of the story. It is the sabbath-element which gives rise to the controversy. The Jews accuse the healed man of breaking the Sabbath. He passes the blame on to Jesus for telling him to carry his sleeping-mat20. Jesus' defence is typically Johannine, concerned not (as it might well have been in the synoptic gospels) with mercy or pity for the sufferer, or with merely relative importance of Sabbathobservance, or with showing the arrival of God's Kingship, but going straight to the Christological point: Jesus has as much right to work on the Sabbath as his Father has. This defence takes the argument onto a new plane where Jesus is not so much defending as stating his relationship to his Father. With the assumption that the reader accepts the word of Jesus, it then becomes clear that the Jews are no longer in the position of accusers. They are now themselves under judgement for their blank, even unjustified, opposition to Jesus. As soon as Jesus makes the statement of equal right to work on the Sabbath, the Jews become 'even more intent on killing him' (5.18) - with the emphasis that, whatever the present situation, their previous desire to kill him was wholly unjustified. The emphasis of the subsequent discourse on judgement throws their hostility even more into an evil light, for its main concerns are: 1. Jesus' power to give life to believers without their coming to judgement (19-30). 2. The witness of John the Baptist to the truth (31-35). 3. The witness of the works which the Father has given Jesus, and of the Father himself (36-38). 4. Finally, the witness of Moses in the scriptures (39-47), so that Moses is not their support and defence, but their accuser. The emphasis on witness and the failure of 'the Jews' to be convinced by the witnesses, gives a specially forensic tone to the scene. Thus by the end it has become clear that the tables have been turned: it is not Jesus on trial but the Jews, for their stubborn refusal to accept these three witnesses. BOX A.E. Harvey's book Jesus on Trial (SPCK 1976, especially pp. 20-21) is based on the difference between Hebrew and modern Western processes of law: in a modern, Western court the purpose is to establish the facts of the case, what actually happened, by means of cross-examination of witnesses. In Hebrew law the emphasis was, he claims, on the reliability and standing of the witnesses. In the case of Susanna, the young Daniel does not produce any new facts; he merely discredits the witnesses, who are then disgraced and punished for bearing false witness. The same is true to a certain extent even in Roman law in Cicero's day: that greatest of Roman advocates lays great stress (when it suits him) on the standing of those who support his client, frequently adducing a personification of the city, Roma herself, as a witness by the rhetorical device of prosopopeia. I doubt that such a stance can be rigidly maintained, for in the Mosaic legislation of the Bible there is too much emphasis on facts and what a person has Raymond Brown (The Gospel according to John, p. 209) has an amusing character-study of the man, showing how dull, dozy and unimaginative he is.
20

44

actually done. But in the absence of more scientific methods of evidence, the standing of the witnesses was undoubtedly important. END OF BOX B. The Feast of Tabernacles After the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 - which we have regarded as an additional expansion on the witness of Moses to Jesus in the last verses of John 5 (5.45-47) - the theme of confrontation with the Jews and judgement on them continues and intensifies in John 7-8. These two chapters do not have the satisfying narrative unity of John 5 or John 9, and seem almost a rag-bag (which is another way of saying that commentators have not succeeded in making a coherent pattern of them). Raymond Brown21 suggests that it represents a collection of what Jesus said in replies to attacks by the Jewish authorities on his claims on several different occasions. Instead of the miracle-story out of which a discourse develops, the only preliminary narrative is a little notice about Jesus going up to the feast (7.1-14). Among these attacks there are positive and eirenic individual passages, such as the promise of living water (7.37-39) and the light of the world (8.12); these are connected to the theme of the feast, which was centred largely upon water and light. It remains difficult to discern any rationale of progression in the discussion. BOX If we are to find any order in this chapter, it is through the usual Johannine technique of questions introducing answers, in this case mostly hostile questions or accusations: 7.15: 'How did he learn to read? He has not been educated.' To this Jesus replies with a resumption of the teaching of John 5, that his message comes form God. 7.25-27 Questions on the origin of Jesus and the Messiah. To this Jesus replies with a statement about his origin. END OF BOX Nevertheless, the constant feature is the attempt of the Jews to judge or discredit Jesus, and by contrast their own inability to 'get their act together'. They wanted to arrest him, but his hour had not yet come (7.30). Some wanted to arrest him, but no one actually laid a hand on him (7.44). The Pharisees are attempting to judge him. They impugn his testimony, to which Jesus replies by showing that his judgement and his testimony are true (8.13-18). Finally in 8.31-58 the issue becomes who are the true descendants of Abraham. C. The Man Born Blind (9) Another ironic judgement-story, very similar to the healing at Bethesda, is that of the man born blind. It also starts with a synoptic-type healing story (this time most similar to the healing of Bartimaeus at Jericho - possibly another Johannine transference to Jerusalem), suddenly at the end curling into a Sabbath-healing. Similarly the Jews begin by directing their fury against the recipient of Jesus' miracle. He refers them eventually to Jesus, and the tables are gradually turned, as the Jews are shown more and more to be at fault and to be blindly stubborn and unreasoning in their opposition to Jesus. There are interesting differences from the scene in chapter 5. Elements which occur here but not
21

The Gospel according to John, p. 315.

45

in the Healing at the Pool of Bethesda are: 1. The dramatic foil provided by the parents. Their timidity contrasts amusingly with the fierce championship of Jesus by the man who had been blind. 2. The threat of exclusion from the synagogue, which helps to locate the passage in the context of the exclusion of Christians from the synagogue in the last years of the first century. 3. The symbolism of light and darkness or sight and blindness. This contrast has been running throughout the gospel. Jesus is the light of the world, and, by the dichotomy which is so deep in John, darkness is the symbol of evil, the powers of darkness, the hour of darkness, etc. 4. The irony that the pressing hostility of the Jews is precisely the factor which drives the man onwards step by step to full faith in Jesus. But the chief point remains that, starting from the attempt to condemn Jesus, the Jews clearly and obviously condemn themselves by their encounter with Jesus. He does not judge them; rather they judge themselves. Nevertheless, It is for judgement that I have come into this world, so that those without sight may see and those with sight may become blind (9.39). D. In the Portico of Solomon (10.22-39) The appearance of a trial is again given in the little final scene, before the insertion of the Lazarus episode, which may well have formed the final scene of Jesus' ministry before that insertion. On this occasion, at the Feast of Dedication, the Jews put to Jesus in the Temple the same question as the high priest in the synoptic trial scene, 'If you are the Christ, tell us openly' (Lk 22.67=John 10.24 - interestingly, John adds his characteristic parrhesia [forthright, courageous speech, often leading to martyrdom], which occurs 0-1-0-9-522, and the corresponding verb parrhesiazomai [meaning 'speak with parrhesia'] 7 times, so a word shared almost exclusively by Lk and John). They accuse Jesus of blasphemy for claiming to be God, but again the legal terminology comes out against them: they refuse to believe the witness of Jesus' works (10.25), and so in condemning Jesus are themselves condemned. E. The Decision to liquidate Jesus (11.45-54) Another, highly ironic, trial scene might be considered the meeting of the Jews after the raising of Lazarus, when the chief priests and Pharisees decide to do away with Jesus. Jesus is not present, so it is a trial without the defendant, but again the reader can see, through Johannine irony, that the judges are condemning themselves. It is here that the summit of irony against Caiaphas occurs, when - prophesying in virtue of his office - he unwittingly recognises the truth 'that it is to your advantage that one man should die for the people' (11.50). The gospel-reader, knowing how universally true is that statement about Jesus, is led to reflect on the wilful refusal of the Jewish leaders to acknowledge the truth and so their self-condemnation. F. Judgement before Pilate (18.28-19.16) The most astonishing climax of the gospel, however, is the judgement scene before Pilate. This is the climax of the theme of judgement. It is carefully formed on a chiasmus. Additionally the
22

see footnote 19.

46

scenes alternate topographically, outside and inside the Praetorium. 28-32 The Jews demand death sentence 33-38a Pilate questions Jesus 38b-40 Jesus declared innocent 1-3 Jesus declared king 4-7 Jesus declared innocent 8-11 Pilate questions Jesus 12-16 The Jews obtain death sentence outside inside outside inside outside inside outside

The refusal of the Jews to incur defilement by entering the praetorium, a concern which is of such minimal importance compared to the deed they are doing, is what enables the author to alternate the locations. In the Johannine passion-narrative one of the main themes is the kingship of Christ, so that the centrepiece of this scene is the declaration of Jesus' kingship. Furthermore, any real possibility that Jesus is in fact being condemned is also ruled out by the flanking scenes of declaration of his innocence. The emphasis is on the contrast between the Jews' thirst for condemnation (the first and last scenes) and the royal innocence of Jesus (at the centre). But in a way the final scene is equally a climax. The Greek verb kathizo can be either transitive or intransitive, so that v.13 can be translated either 'Pilate led out Jesus and sat down on the judgement seat' or 'Pilate led out Jesus and sat him down on the judgement seat'. The expression is used twice in the New Testament in this form, of God seating Jesus at his right hand (Ac 2.20; Eph 1.20), so both times transitively. It is standard Greek grammar that the object of two verbs, if given after the first, need not be repeated after the second, and it is certainly in accordance with John's style to omit the repeated object ('him') in a second limb of a sentence. The historical improbability of Pilate seating Jesus on the judgement-seat is lessened if it is not a throne but a stone bench, which is well possible. In any case, the author is a theologian, giving an impression of Jesus, rather than a chronicler recording facts. The impression is certainly left open, by a typical Johannine ambiguity, that Jesus is seated on the judgement-seat. The full horror of the Jews' final statement then bears its full force: 'We have no king but Caesar'. The whole reason for the existence of Judaism was to maintain the kingship of Yahweh. Such is the constant theme of the Old Testament, such the constant claim of the inter-testamental literature. Their statement is apostasy, declaring the total bankruptcy of Judaism - and this before Jesus, seated as judge. It is the final judgement on Judaism. When Jesus appears to be being judged, he is in fact presiding over the self-condemnation of the Jewish leaders. What was intended as a judgement on Jesus has turned back fully on his would-be judges. Such a position can seem racist and anti-Semitic. It must, however, be remembered that in John 'the Jews' designates always not the nation as a whole, but the leaders of the Jews who rejected Jesus. On the contrary, John values highly the institutions and traditions of Judaism. It is only those who refuse to accept Jesus who are condemned. In fact 'the Jews' becomes almost a cypher or cryptogram for the opposition to Jesus. D. THE INSTITUTIONS OF JUDAISM Closely allied to the theme of judgement on Judaism and its practitioners is the fact that one of the motifs which runs through John is the judgement on Judaism as a whole by the appropriation 47

by Jesus of the institutions of the Jews. Jesus' fulfilment of the hopes and promises of Israel is a constant groundswell in the New Testament, expressed in various ways by the different theologians of the New Testament. Whereas the synoptic writers concentrate on the fulfilment of individual passages of scripture, and emphasise constantly by quotation or allusion that Jesus' action fulfils one or another passage of scripture, John shows Jesus taking over for himself, absorbing into himself and fulfilling in turn each of the ceremonial institutions of Judaism. Thus he is seen as being in himself the fulfilment of Judaism. - in 2.1-12 he takes the place of the Law by turning the water of the Law (the water of purifications) into the new wine of the messianic wedding-feast. - in 2.13-22 Jesus replaces the Temple itself with the Temple of his body. BOX This forms one of the most interesting links between the New Testament and the commmunity which produced the Scrolls of Qumran. One of the principal reasons why the community withdrew into the desert to await the Messiah was their rejection of the Temple, whose worship they considered impure, both by reason of their incorrect Calendar (the community at Qumran followed a strictly lunar calendar) and by reason of the defilement of the High Priesthood (the mother of a former High Priest had at one time been a captive in war; she was therefore presumed not to have been a virgin). But, beyond rejecting the Jerusalem Temple, they also held that the Temple was replaced by their own community, and that the new Temple consisted in their community. In the Qumran document 4QFlor (=4Q174) a midrash on scripture gives the interpretation that in the last days God 'will build himself a Temple of men', and numerous texts interpret this as the elect Qumran community itself. END OF BOX - in 5.1-18 Jesus takes possession of the Sabbath, claiming that as God has the right to work on the Sabbath (he must continue to bring the new-born to birth and to judge the dead), so has he. - in 7-8 at the Feast of Shelters he claims to provide the living water which was an important feature of the ritual, symbolising the blessings of the messianic age. - in 9 perhaps in giving light to the blind he is alluding to the aspect of the Sabbath as a feast of light, the light of the Law. - in 19.24 by locating the crucifixion at the hour of the slaughter of paschal lambs, John shows Jesus' sacrifice replacing that of the paschal lambs. All these passages contribute to the demonstration that Jesus incorporates in himself the true Israel. Without Judaism he cannot be understood at all. He grows out of the institutions of Israel, and in his own person has fulfilled and superseded them. Conclusion The thread of judgement runs throughout the gospel, interweaving with each of the other threads present in it, as an ever-present reality, threat or promise. Jesus does not exercise judgement; he judges no one. Instead judgement is self-operated by everyone in the encounter with Jesus. Nor is 48

judgement in the remote future: it is occurring at each moment. Judgement is a matter or acceptance or rejection of Jesus: 'in all truth I tell you, whoever listens to my words and believes in the one who sent me, has eternal life. Without being brought to judgement such a person has passed from death to life' (5.24). Suggested Further Reading C.H. Dodd The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (CUP, 1953), p.208. John Ashton Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, Clarendon, 1991), p.220. Personal work After studying the gospel passages, give your own account of either how the gospel could be considered an extended account of judgement or how Jesus takes over and supersedes the institutions of Judaism.

49

CHAPTER SIX JOHN AND THE SPIRIT In the whole of Luke-Acts, the double work of Luke, the Spirit is seen at work in the community which the author knew. Luke and his community were thoroughly aware of and sensitive to the working of the Spirit in the community. We can imagine the background of the works of the Spirit as seen in Galatians and - with all its luxuriant disorders - at Corinth. So Luke is eager to show that this Spirit-filled life of the Christian community carries on the work of the Spirit in Jesus' own lifetime. He shows the miracles, witness and martyrdom of the members of the community as echoing and prolonging the miracles, witness and martyrdom of Jesus. Not only is the Spirit seen to be at work in the nascent communities. In the gospel of Luke the Spirit is already seen to be present in the ministry of Jesus in a way which is far less clear in Matthew and Mark. Thus Jesus is conceived by the holy Spirit. A deliberate parallel is painted between the Coming of the Spirit at the beginning of Jesus' ministry and at the beginning of the ministry of the Church, namely at the Baptism of Jesus (which in Luke is more appropriately named 'the Descent of the Spirit at Jesus' baptism') and Pentecost. In both works this is closely followed by a discourse explaining the significance of this event, namely Jesus' opening proclamation at Nazareth (Luke 4.16-30), centred on the text, 'The Spirit of the Lord is on me (Isaiah 61.1), and Peter's speech at Pentecost (Acts 2.14-36), centred on the text, 'I shall pour out my Spirit on all humanity' (Joel 3.1-5).23 The way the Spirit is shown to have influenced the portrayal of Jesus in his life and ministry leaves no doubt that the gospel of John, even more than Luke, is written from the standpoint of the existent community of believers, living by the Spirit. Although in the lifetime of Jesus the Spirit had not yet been given (7.39: 'there was no Spirit as yet, because Jesus had not yet be glorified'; 2.22: 'when Jesus rose from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scriptures and what he had said'), in the description of Jesus' activity the presence of the Spirit is already anticipated. The reader is constantly aware that we are looking back on the life of Jesus from the viewpoint of the community of the risen and glorified Christ. 1. TWO ERAS In Johannine studies attention to the Spirit has often been confined to the four Paraclete-sayings contained in the final discourses about the future of Jesus' disciples after his death. Jesus will send another paraclete after his glorification. One valuable lesson to be learnt from this is that for John there are two definite eras, the era of Jesus and the era of the Spirit. The fact that these two occasionally appear to intertwine is a testimony to the eye to the future which in John conditions the story of Jesus. Separate the two eras certainly are. John constantly stresses that the era of the Spirit had not yet arrived during the lifetime of Jesus. Most clearly he says: 'there was no Spirit as yet because Jesus had not yet been glorified' (7.39). Then in the hour of his glorification there are two significant moments of giving the Spirit. A. At the death of Jesus he breathes forth the Spirit (19.34). At the same moment his side is
23

See my The Lion and the Bull (London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1996), p. 131-137).

50

pierced, so that blood and water flows out. This may be seen as the fulfilment of the promise made at the Feast of Tabernacles, 'From his heart shall flow streams of living water' (7.38). Behind this, in its turn, lies rich symbolism of the Old Testament, and particularly of two passages. In general in the Old Testament water stands for the gift of life. BOX In the arid country of the Judean desert the streams which flow down to Jericho and Engedi create a blessedly fertile ribbon of greenery across the infertile waste. One needs to be lost in the desert of Sinai under the burning sun only for a few hours - let alone forty years - to appreciate the transforming gift of water. Most Israeli hikers are psychotic about the need to carry several litres of water. To come across water even trickling is an almost unbelievable miracle which gladdens the heart and delights the eye of the traveller. END OF BOX 1. Nb 20.8 The water flowing from the rock at Meribah. This event is taken up by Paul in 1 Cor 10.4, 'they all drank from the spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ'. The fact that Paul uses this symbol shows that it was already not only in the Jewish mind but in the Christian mind as well. It is the more important as part of John's Mosaic symbolism, for we have seen that John presents Christ as being in many ways the fulfilment of the Mosaic hope. 2. More central (and to my mind less obscure and more secure) are the texts which speak of water flowing from Jerusalem in the eschatological times. The wonderful vision of water flowing from the Temple and making the whole countryside, and even the Salt Sea, fertile formed an important part in the expectations of the last times (Ezek 47.1-12). In Zechariah too it is a sign of the Day of the Lord: 'When that Day comes, living waters will issue from Jerusalem, half towards the eastern sea, half towards the western sea; they will flow summer and winter' (14.8).24 The hour of Jesus' glorification is the turningpoint of the eras, already long awaited in the gospel. The flowing of the Spirit is one element of this. B. In the upper room the risen Christ breathes his Spirit on the disciples (see p. 81). This is surely John's equivalent of the Pentecost scene in Ac 2. There are obvious similarities, on which Luke will have built, employing his talent for creating little scenes as the vehicle of his theology: - the key to both is breath/wind, the same word jwr in Hebrew or in Greek pneu=ma. - Both are in Jerusalem, both behind closed doors. - In both scenes the disciples are commissioned for a task. In fact there is no stream which flows between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea, except for a few hours after winter storms. Looking eastwards from the Mount of Olives, the traveller can see the whole area of sand-coloured rocky waste down to the cliffs above Qumran, about eight hours' walk. In this expanse the brimming river such as Ezekiel describes would be a green strip of unbelievable splendour.
24

51

- In both there is the motif of forgiveness (in Acts this occurs at the end of Peter's speech). In John the importance of this scene is increased by its position. It is the last 'frame' of the gospel, corresponding to the first. As the first 'frame' begins breshit ('in the beginning'), with the allusion to the scene of creation, so the final frame has allusion to the Spirit of God moving over the waters, and God breathing life into the Man, echoing Gen 2.7 - the same Greek word emphusan is used in both texts. The same the allusion to the last times characterises Ezekiel 37's vision of the dry bones, over which the prophet breathes so that they come to life again - a revival of the nation of Israel. Here the eschatological community is being brought into life. They are not to be left orphans, but as Jesus is about to leave them he gives them the Spirit as his replacement, and so inaugurates the new era. 2. THE PARACLETE The basic meaning of 'paraclete' is 'advocate', a forensic term in a law-court, so part of John's lawcourt/judgement terminology. Genuinely a Greek word, it is also used, simply transliterated, in first century Aramaic; it would have been a familiar concept. It is used for an advocate in a lawcourt, who speaks on behalf of his client. It is also used frequently of the heavenly advocate. It was pictured that at the heavenly judgement there would be on one side an accuser (this was Satan's original function, see Job 1.6-12; 2.1-8) and on the other a defender. This defender was the paraclete. In his instructions to the disciples Jesus promises that after his departure he will send such an advocate (14.16, 26; 15.26; 17.6). The functions of the paraclete are, however, wider than the merely forensic function suggested by the term. They are to carry on the work of Jesus when Jesus is with the Father - one is tempted to say 'when Jesus is absent', but the principal point is that the Paraclete will make Jesus present. Raymond Brown points out that the Old Testament contains several instances of 'tandem relationship', in which a principal figure hands on his work to a successor: Moses/Joshua, Elijah/Elisha, to which might be added John the Baptist/Jesus. In our case this relationship is strengthened by the shaliah-Christology presented earlier (p. 32-33). This applies not only to the relationship between Christ and his Father, but also to that between the Paraclete and Christ. a. An agent is like one who sent him b. An agent ranks as the sender's own person c. An agent carries out the mission of the sender d. A sender transfers his legal rights and property to the agent e. Agents reports back to sender f. Agents can appoint agents in their turn. The Paraclete thus carries on the work of Jesus as his own shaliah. In this way John personalises the functions which in the synoptics are undertaken by the Spirit of God. A. The forensic sense of the term is most evident in two of the sayings: 15.26, 'When the paraclete comes, he will be my witness, and you too will be witnesses'. This is a Johannine equivalent of the synoptic sayings, 'It is not you who will be speaking, it is the Spirit of your Father who will be speaking in you' (Matthew 10.20), or 'when the holy Spirit comes, he will teach you what you are to say' (Luke 12.12). In the Paraclete sayings, however, Jesus - and John 52

- envisages that the trial which has been such a prominent feature of the ministry of Jesus will continue. In John the passages about the Paraclete are the only explicit indication that there will be such a confrontation in the future. By contrast, the synoptics amply provide for persecution and legal confrontation between the community and various authorities in the future (e.g. Mark 13). The outcome is quite different, too: in the synoptics there is ultimate triumph and vindication by God only after trial, suffering and bloodshed. In John there is almost no sign of effective opposition. The furthest the threats go is the very general, 'if they persecuted me, they will persecute you too' (John 15.20), and no further outcome of this persecution and hate is mentioned than 'They will expel you from the synagogues', coupled with the single threat 'when anyone kills you he will think he is doing a holy service to God' (16.2). On the other hand, in the second of the forensic uses of the expression, the Paraclete 'will show the world how wrong it was' (16.8). The superiority is effortless and unquestioned; the issue is never in doubt. We shall see the same effortless control in the Johannine passion narrative: Jesus orchestrates and commands his own passion. This is just a hint to suggest that the trial and judgement portrayed so amply in John looks partly to the future. The attempt to pass judgement on Jesus will be reflected by attempts to pass judgement on his disciples. The witness of the paraclete is essentially coupled with the witness of the disciples, and takes place through and in their witness. And in turn, the judgement in fact passed on the Jews during the lifetime of Jesus will be reflected by judgement passed on the opponents of his disciples by their refusal to accept Christ. This may also explain John's lack of interest in the precise colouring of the opponents of Jesus, his way of lumping them all together, without differentiation, as 'the Jews': this may be because the Jews are simply the paradigm case of the opponents of Christianity at the end of the century (see p. 19). B. The emphasis on the interior life of the community is stronger than the emphasis on its external relations. Conflict is more evident in the first discourse after the supper (John 14) than in the second (John 15-16), and in the former there are still some overtones of conflict with 'the world' and those who will not accept. But the Paraclete is described in terms of the abiding presence of Jesus with his disciples. This occurs in the form of a neat little chiasmus: 14.15: If you love me you will keep my commandments 16: another Paraclete to be with you for ever 17: the world cannot accept him but you know him 18: I shall not leave you orphans 19: the world will no longer see me, but you will see that I live 20: you in me and I in you 21: Whoever loves me will keep my words. There the presence of the Paraclete is equivalent to the presence of Jesus, instrumental in preventing the disciples from being orphans after his departure. The chiasmus is exactly balanced except for the second and penultimate members: in the second the Paraclete, in the penultimate Jesus. The Paraclete is to continue to fulfil the function which was so important for the Word in the prologue, to be among his own people, and yet rejected by the world - the process which took place throughout the ministry of Jesus. In the discourse after the supper one of the principal themes is that Jesus will abide (menein) with his disciples, as in the parable of the vine and the branches. But the same verb is used of the Paraclete (14.17): the Paraclete, no less than Jesus, is 53

therefore the sap of the vine. BOX The resting of the Spirit upon Jesus at the Johannine baptism scene (1.33), and upon his disciples in the final discourse is a valuable indication of the prophetic role of both Jesus and the disciples, for in the Old Testament the spirit rests upon the prophets (Nb 11.2829; 2 Kg 2.15), upon the servant of God in Isaiah 11, upon the Servant of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah and upon the final prophet in the intertestamental literature (Gary Burge, The Anointed Community [1987], p. 55 for references). The prophetic nature of Jesus is very much at issue in John: the Samaritan woman acknowledges it with her pretty little sarcastic witticism, 'I see you are a prophet, sir!' (4.19), and continues to treat him as a prophet: 'he told me everything I have done', she declares to her townsfolk (4.39). The crowds in Jerusalem acknowledge it, and the Jews as strenuously deny it, 'The prophets are dead. Who are you claiming to be?'(8.52). 'Go into the matter and see for yourself, prophets do not arise in Galilee' (7.52). END OF BOX C. The function of revelation, which was so important in Jesus' ministry in John, is also to be transferred to the Paraclete. 'The Paraclete, the holy Spirit, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you' (14.26). Similarly a later passage on the coming of the Paraclete, makes the same promise, but uses the expression 'Spirit of truth', 'When the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth' (16.13). Here two important identifications to be made: 1. The Paraclete is performing the function of the Spirit in the passage from which we started (7.39), which explained that they did not understand because the Spirit had not yet been given. So the Paraclete is to be identified with the Spirit of Truth. The same future full understanding is hinted at also elsewhere (2.22): they understood only after Jesus' resurrection (when he has 'given over his spirit' and has breathed upon them in the Upper Room) that at the cleansing of the Temple he was speaking of the Temple of his body. 2. John's expression, the spirit of truth must draw upon the documents of Qumran. The Community Rule has a long passage on the two spirits, the spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood, which dwell in man, and on the struggle between them (1QS3-4, quoted on p. 24). This must form the background to John's expression. The two spirits, the good tendency and the evil tendency, or the good spirit and the evil spirit in human beings, become classic in rabbinic moral theology. But the striking difference is that in John, much as he likes duality and contrast (see p. 22), there is no sign of the spirit of falsehood to balance the spirit of truth. Another difference between John and Qumran lies in the timing: in Qumran the conquest and disappearance of the spirit of falsehood is an exclusively eschatological event: 'God has allotted these spirits in equal parts until the final end, the time of renewal ' (1QS4.25). 'God has set an end to the spirit of falsehood, and at the time of his visitation he will destroy it for ever...He will cause the spirit of truth to gush forth upon every man like lustral water' (1QS4.18, 21). If John is in harmony with this train of thought, it is an indication that he considers the final visitation already to have taken place, and the Spirit already to have gushed forth like lustral water. BOX It may also be allied to another puzzling phenomenon already mentioned: nowhere in John are there any of the exorcisms, castings out of unclean spirits, which are so common in the synoptic gospels. Conflict with the powers of darkness occurs only in the passion narrative. Satan enters into Judas for his betrayal (13.27). The 'ruler of this world' is at work in 12.31; 14.30; 16.11, and the powers of darkness at the Cross (20.1). Thus John 54

works on two levels here too, or rather in two time-spheres, on one level in the time of Jesus and on another already in the time of the post-resurrection community. END OF BOX 3. THE SPIRIT IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH These three functions, witness, prophetic presence and guidance into all truth, are promised for the future by Jesus in his sayings on the Paraclete who will fulfil his functions when he is with the Father. It may be unreasonable to search in the account of Jesus' ministry for evidence of the results of these promises for Church life in the future era, that is, after the resurrection. Nevertheless, indications there are, with regard to both baptism and the eucharist. A. The context and background of worship, and of the post-resurrection Christian life in general, is vividly laid down beforehand in the dialogue with the Samaritan woman (4.21-24): The hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. The hour is coming - indeed is already here when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. God is spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth. In context, 'God is spirit' is not a Greek philosophical definition, but a claim that the relationship to God must be in spirit rather than through any material means. In the same way 'God is love' (1 John 4.8) bespeaks that worship and the whole relationship to God must be in love and that no other medium of communication has any value in this relationship. 'The hour is coming - indeed is already here' must be a means of bursting out of the time-limitations of the story. B. Baptism is conceived virtually exclusively in terms of the Spirit, almost to the exclusion of water. Jesus' own baptism is described not at all in terms of water: 'He who sent me to baptise with water had said to me, "The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptise with the holy Spirit".' (1.33) It is as though water played a part in John's baptism, but not in the baptism of Jesus or the baptism to be administered by him. When Jesus does come to baptise, he does it at Aenon, 'where there was plenty of water', but there is no mention of water being used, and John describes Jesus' superiority to himself only in terms of the Spirit: 'for God gives him the Spirit without reserve' (3.34). It is as though water has been forgotten. Similarly in the conversation with Nicodemus, when Jesus is explaining what is meant by the ambiguous 'being born anothen', he mentions once that 'no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit', but in the other two mentions water is forgotten; it is simply 'born of the Spirit' (3.5, 6, 8). Baptism, then, is conceived almost entirely in terms of re-birth by the Spirit. This is reinforced by the long monologue following the dialogue (3.11-21), which centres on belief and on the death and exaltation of Jesus, so the moment of the giving of the Spirit. C. The Eucharist, similarly, is understood only in function of the Spirit. At the end of the eucharistic discourse comes the Johannine equivalent of the words of institution, 'the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world' (6.51). This corresponds to the traditional saying given in I Corinthians 11 and in the synoptic gospels, 'this [the bread] is my body, given for you'. But the Johannine saying is supplemented - or almost contradicted - by the final statement, 'It is 55

the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer' (6.63). So the mode of the eucharist has to be in the Spirit also. It is striking that here again, as in the treatment of baptism, the material element of the sacrament is completely overshadowed by what John has to say about the Spirit. D. The promise of living water in 7.37-39 must, in the light of this, be seen as summing up the Christian life. BOX The controversy over the punctuation and therefore the meaning of this passage is notorious. There are two schools of thought, that of the eastern Church Fathers and writers (e.g. Origen and Eusebius), which sees the believer as the immediate source of this living water, and the western Church Fathers and writers (e.g. Cyprian and Augustine), which sees Christ as the source. It depends on where a full stop is placed. The earliest manuscripts are written without division between words or punctuation. These are therefore simply a matter of interpretation by readers. The earliest text was written: EANTISDIYAERXESQWPROSMEKAIPINETWOPISTEUWNEISEMEPOTA MOIEKTHSKOILIASREOUSIN The eastern interpretation has a stop after 'let him drink', joining 'he who believes in me' with the second half of the passage, 'rivers of living water will flow from him'; the believer is then the source of living water. The western interpretation yields, 'Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, Let anyone who believes in me come and drink'. This sees Christ as directly the source of living water, that is, of the Spirit. END OF BOX Modern exegesis on the whole tends towards the western interpretation on the grounds of rhythmic parallelism of the two lines, and of consistency with the fulfilment of the prophecy at the crucifixion, when water flowed from Jesus' side. It is also more consonant with Jesus' attitude to the Samaritan woman, and his promise to her of living water. 4. SITZ IM LEBEN Raymond Brown considers the Sitz im Leben of the paraclete-sayings to be the moment when the last disciple, or possibly the Beloved Disciple, was dying or recently dead, when the community felt additional need for the security of a link to the historical Jesus-tradition. This link was seen in the Paraclete. I doubt that particular circumstances can be pressed that exactly. We know from Paul, particularly First Corinthians, and to a lesser extent Galatians, how important and manifest was the power of the Spirit in the early Christian community. Luke has perhaps the strongest claim of all the New Testament writers to reflect in his two-volume work (and especially the second volume, the story of the first communities) the atmosphere of the life of the community and its leaders. He paints it as a continuation of the earthly life of Jesus, guided by the presence of Jesus in and through the Spirit. Each community, however, and the writers who reflect the atmosphere and the problems of that community, express this presence of the Spirit differently. Luke's expression of it has been sketched in my The Lion and the Bull, p. 124-130. Some of the Pauline emphases are sketched in my The Letters of Saint Paul, p. 46, 74. Matthew again has different concerns, and correspondingly expresses the presence of Christ in the Spirit differently. His emphasis on the 56

new community as the New Israel, where the living presence of Christ in the midst of his people corresponds to the living presence of God for the old Israel in the Temple of Jerusalem. Thus his gospel is clamped together by the name 'Immanuel, God with us' at the beginning (1.23) and the promise 'I am with you always, yes, to the end of time' (28.20) at the end of the gospel. The effective presence of Christ in the community is reiterated at the centre of the gospel, in the chapter on the community and how to deal with various difficulties which are bound to arise, by the promise 'Where two or three meet in my name, there am I among them' (18.20). The presence of Jesus in Church life through his Spirit was certainly an important focus of attention in John's community, as in other communities. The same empowering and invigorating presence of Christ is expressed differently in each of those communities. Such pluriform expressions are evidence of harmonious richness rather than of debilitating disharmony. Conclusion The emphasis on the Spirit in John's gospel comes from the awareness of the active presence of the Spirit in the Church of the author's own time, and from the understanding that the Spirit makes Christ present in his community now and for ever. The Spirit leads the community into all truth and is, so to speak, the mode in which Christ is now perceived, alive, in the community. This is expressed with the help of the legal language of 'the Paraclete', derived from imagery of the advocate in the law-court of the final judgement. Suggested Further Reading Study the discussions in the commentaries on the passages mentioned in this chapter, particularly on John 7.37-39 and the passages on the Paraclete. Among the most useful may be the commentaries of Raymond E. Brown and Barnabas Lindars. Personal Work Look up the passages in John in which 'Spirit' or 'Paraclete' occur (1.32-33; 3.5, 6, 8, 34; 4.23-24; 6.63; 7.39; [11.33; 13.21]; 14.16-17, 26; 15.26; 16.7, 13; 19.30; 20.22). Write a short commentary on each for yourself. Then write an essay, putting it all together: 'How does John view the Spirit?'

57

CHAPTER SEVEN THE JOHANNINE PASSION NARRATIVE The Johannine Passion Narrative is very different from those of the synoptics. There is a certain amount of detailed difference in the story, but above all the atmosphere is different. We have discussed earlier (p. 56) how at the judgement scene it is the Jews rather than Jesus who are judged: the roles are reversed, and Jesus is the judge, seated on the bema or judgement-seat, as the Jews condemn themselves. But throughout the narrative Jn leaves no doubt that Jesus is in charge of his own execution; he is the king, reigning from the cross. Instead of an agonised cry, he calmly breathes forth the Spirit; he dies only when he is ready and has said tetelestai, 'it is fulfilled/accomplished'. Similarly John insists in 10.17-18 that Jesus' offering is voluntary and unconstrained, 'I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me; I lay it down of my own free will'. This is only consistent with the attitude to the passion shown throughout the gospel of John: it is not the final humiliation before the vindication of the resurrection. It is itself the final triumph. 1. PREPARATION Martin Khler's dictum is well-known, that the gospels are passion narratives with extended introductions. On the other hand, about John, Kaesemann has said the passion-account was an embarrassment which John could neither omit nor integrate into his gospel (Jesu letzter Wille, p. 23). Such a position is difficult to maintain in view of the care with which John prepares for the event. In the synoptic gospels, stemming from Mk, the second half of the gospel is staked out by the three great prophecies of the passion, the humiliation leading to triumph. But the death of Jesus was already signalled as early as Mk 3.6, the plot to kill him at the end of the first series of controversies with the leaders of the Jews. In John the preparation starts perhaps even earlier, with the mention of Jesus' 'hour' at the miracle of Cana. Certainly the preparation is of a different kind. It can be characterised by the words used: A. Negative There is no mention in John of the expression central to the synoptic predictions, polla pathein/to suffer much; the word pathein/suffer nowhere occurs in John. Nor apodokimasthenai/be contemned, nor empaizo/mock, nor emptuo/spit upon. In short, all the words connected with the humiliation of the passion are simply passed over. B. The Hour of Jesus The hour to which Jesus is looking forward from the time of Cana is already there hinted to be the hour of his glorification. At Cana he first appears to refuse his mother's request, 'My hour has not yet come', and then accedes to it, with the result that his glory is revealed. Twice more the hour is mentioned as not yet having come (7.30; 8.20), a reason for the failure of his enemies to arrest him. When it does come, it is the hour of his glorification: 'The hour has come for the son of man to be glorified' (12.23), and in him the Father to be glorified, 'It is for this very reason I came to this hour; Father, glorify your name! (12.27); 'Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, so that your son may glorify you' (17.1). It is notable that already in this idea of the glory of Father and Son, revealed in this moment of the Son's death, the special union of Father and Son at this moment becomes clear. Far from the attitude sometimes read into the synoptic account, of the dereliction of the Son by the Father, it is the highest moment of union. C. Exaltation Another expression used with typical Johannine ambiguity is upsothenai/to be 58

lifted up. This is typical of John's movement on two levels, imparting at the same time history and interpretation: the crucifixion is the moment for Jesus to be lifted up (historical) and so exalted (interpretation). This first appears as comparison to the salvific brazen serpent lifted onto the standard in the desert (3.14), but the meaning of this becomes ever clearer. First, in the controversy in the Temple about the identity of Jesus, 'When you have lifted up the son of man you will know that I am He' (8.28), the expression 'I am He' is at least a hint of the revelation at that moment of the identification of Jesus with the Father. Later, this moment is described as the moment when he draws all people to himself (12.32). The same word is, of course, common in Christian parlance for the raising of Jesus to the right hand of the Father (Acts 2.33; 5.31); it must have evoked the same overtones in John. The hour, then, which dominates the expectation of the passion in John, is an hour of triumph, glory and exaltation. The only indication that this hour has another side to it comes in the Johannine equivalent of the Agony in the Garden, in 12.27, when Jesus contemplates praying to be delivered from it, but then does not do so: 'Now my soul is troubled. What shall I say? 'Father save me from this hour'? But it is for this very reason that I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.' He cannot be delivered from his hour because it is the hour of his glorification and the summit of his earthly activity. But in the last analysis he does not, in John (by contrast with the synoptics) even pray that the cup should pass him by. 2. FACTUAL DETAILS It is best to begin the consideration with an overview of the factual details. Factually there is a number of divergencies between the synoptic passion narratives and the Johannine. Among them are: Synoptics Arrest by Jews alone Trial before Sanhedrin & Caiaphas accusations, witnesses, verdict Mockery as prophet Trial by Pilate Scourging after trial Mockery after trial Crucifixion - many details John Roman soldiers present at arrest Interrogation before Annas Rebuke for speaking Interrogation by Pilate Mockery in middle of trial Scourging in middle of trial Crucifixion - many details.

Throughout the gospel of John the reader finds a number of usually small factual divergences from the synoptic gospels. In the last century it was held that John's gospel was so late and so concentrated on the 'spiritual' meaning of events that it was factually quite unreliable. More recently these divergences have led to discussion whether John is deliberately correcting the synoptics. Alternatively, John can be seen as entirely independent of the synoptic tradition, certainly not knowing the text of any of the first three gospels, thoughat some points conversant with the oral tradition on which they too were founded. It is not perhaps necessary to decide whether John deliberately set about correcting the synoptics or not. The answer to that question presupposes answers to other previous questions: whether he knew the text of those gospels, what his view of his task as gospel-writer was, whether he 59

thought such factual accuracy important. It is undoubtedly the case that John has many factual details and topographical references which better fit an accurate knowledge of the scene than do those of the synoptics. One cannot neglect the problem of the swine in Mark running 30 miles from Gerasa (Mark 5.1) to throw themselves into the Lake, or even the ten miles in Matthew from Gadara (Matthew 8.28) - for those are the distances between the two towns and the Lake of Galilee. Did Matthew and Mark really know where the places were? On the other hand the detailed knowledge of Jacob's Well at Sychar and the healing tradition at the Pool of Bethesda bespeak John's foundation in firmly-grounded topographical knowledge. Particularly John's knowledge of Jerusalem (where, by contrast, the local knowledge shown by the synoptics is especially sparse) suggests that a local source of tradition lies not far below the surface. BOX Excursus: John and the synoptics Can any pattern be discerned which would determine the relative accuracy of John and the synoptics, or of the relationship between them? In detail the links between John and the synoptics are diverse. (i) Some actual stories are obviously similar in both John and the synoptics, including verbal and structural similarities, though re-worked to express the special theology of each author (the Multiplication of Loaves and the Walking on the Waters). (ii) In other cases Johannine miracle-stories are based on stories of the same general type as the synoptic stories: controversial healings on the Sabbath, John 5 and 9. A dead person, Lazarus in John, is raised to life, as Jairus' daughter or the son of the widow of Naim are in the synoptics. It may be argued that in John the raising of Lazarus is so crucial to the decision to get rid of Jesus that, had it been known to the synoptic tradition, it could not have been omitted. (iii) There are sayings so close that they may simply be different translations of the same original (e.g. John 1:26-27; 2:19 compared to Matthew 3:11 and Mark 14:58 respectively). In such cases the very form of the saying may be affected by the theology of the writer, and its positioning and use can certainly impart to it a different force, but the underlying tradition may be the same, even to the extent of verbal similarity. (iv) Some sayings in John appear in the form of stories in the synoptics (e.g. John 12:27 and the Prayer of Jesus in the Garden, as we shall see). The saying of John 3:3, 5, is very similar to Matthew 18.3; it is the only mention of 'the kingdom' in John, and forms the nucleus of a little development. A special link between Luke and John is manifest. Luke and John share several omissions from the Mark-Matthew tradition (e.g. the mention of the Baptist baptising Jesus). Some passages show a close relationship between Luke and John (the Call of the Disciples in Luke 5:1-11 and John 21; the Anointing in Luke 7:36-50). This special link between John and Luke is clearest in the Passion and Resurrection Narrative. Normally it is assumed that, if there is any direct dependence, it is John who is dependent on Luke. It has also, however, been argued by F. Lamar Cribbs25, that dependence goes in quite the opposite direction, and that Luke depends on John. There is a remarkable series of 20 passages where Luke departs from the Mark-Matthew tradition precisely to agree with John. It remains, however, most probable that the link with Luke, as with Mark and Matthew, remains at the oral level.
25

'St Luke and the Johannine Tradition', in Journal of Biblical Literature 90 (1971), p. 42260

450.

END OF BOX On this basis, however, the factual likelihood of each difference still remains to be discussed individually. This cannot, however, be done without prior attention to the theological interests expressed in John's account, for the two are inextricably interwoven. 3. THEOLOGICAL EMPHASES A. The Kingship of Jesus As mentions of suffering and humiliation are omitted from the passages in the main body of the gospel about the expectation of the Passion, and all the emphasis is on the 'exaltation' and 'glorification' of Jesus, so within the passion narrative itself Jesus is seen already as the exalted and glorified Lord.26 - The Agony in the Garden in Mark is psychologically the lowest point of Jesus' career. He stumbles to the ground (this is the meaning of the imperfect tense), and the two verbs (Mark 14.33) which express his state of mind suggest an almost stunned and delirious condition. Matthew (26.37) calms this to mere 'grief', and Luke again tones it down: with all dignity and deliberation Jesus kneels for prayer, and the emotion suggested is more the intensity of prayer and the flow of adrenolin in preparation for a contest than distress (22.41-44, see my The Lion and the Bull, p. 168-169). For John the preparatory scene does not exist at all. The oral tradition behind it leaves traces only in John 12.27-30, but there - far from begging his Father to remove the cup - Jesus, though distressed, refuses to pray for release from the hour for which he came (see p. 70). - At the scene of the arrest (18. 1-11) Jesus himself takes the initiative by coming forward to meet his captors. In modern police practice the liberty of the person arrested must be at least symbolically restricted by the arresting officer, and the arresting officer(s) must surely make the running. In this scene Jesus is in total control: he exercises command; he decides what will happen and when it will happen. and captors merely follow his directions. First Jesus accosts his captors and interrogates them. When to his question they answer that they seek Jesus of Nazareth, he replies to them with the mysterious phrase 'I am he', at which they fall to the ground, with the reaction which in the Bible is regularly made to the divinity (see p. 37). His control of the scene is all the more awesome for being inexplicable, and for being thrice repeated. It is only when he has commanded them to let his followers go, has explicitly forbidden In the first centuries of Christianity, when crucifixion was a familiar occurrence in the Roman world, in all its horror and degradation, Christian crucifixes did not represent Jesus hanging on the cross. Nor, for that matter, do the synoptic evangelists dwell on the actual events of crucifixion. Early Christian crucifixes (a good, slightly later, example may be found in the Ravenna mosaics) were bejewelled crosses. It is these jewelled representations which are most expressive of the Johannine spirituality.
26

61

any resistance and has indicated his willingness to 'drink the cup that the Father has given me' that he is ready to be arrested. - In the interrogation before Annas (18.12-24) Jesus speaks openly and imperiously. Jesus again calls the shots. The spotlight falls on Jesus, while the high priest lurks in the shadows; the statements of Jesus are explicit, but the high priest's words are never quoted. The high priest questions Jesus, but there is no suggestion of any accusation, charge or condemnation, none of the detailed interrogation and charges given in the synoptic gospels. Instead, Jesus reproaches his captors. Jesus is seen, as throughout John's gospel, as the teacher. The overall impression is of Jesus continuing his role as the public teacher of Israel, rather than as a captive under interrogation by the highest authorities in the land. One of the guards strikes Jesus, but Jesus replies with undaunted nobility, and points out the injustice of the blow. Finally they simply send him on bound to Pilate, without any charge or complaint. BOX It is not easy to reconcile John and the synoptics with each other historically here. There is an especially marked difference from the synoptic gospels, which suggests that the historical basis of the scene may be quite different. Mark and Matthew recount a 'trial' before the Sanhedrin during the night. Luke recounts a meeting of the chief, priests, scribes and elders at daybreak. These are usually considered to be the same event. As so often, Luke seems to stand nearer to John than Mark and Matthew, for he (Luke 22.54-64) juxtaposes Peter's denial to an earlier nocturnal scene at the high priest's house, rather than to an official meeting of the Jewish authorities; similarly John places Peter's denial on either side of the scene at Annas' house (John 18.15-18, 25-27). In John the elements are differently combined: some time before the arrest there had been a meeting of the chief priests and Pharisees, including Caiaphas, where it had been decided to liquidate Jesus (11.45-53). Jesus was not present, and subsequently withdrew to a place called Ephraim (11.54). John even refers to this event in his account of the interrogation before Annas ('Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas. It was Caiaphas who had counselled the Jews, "It is better for one man to die for the people"', 18.13-14). Nowhere in John is there even the semblance of a Jewish legal trial of Jesus. This is, indeed, precluded theologically, for throughout the gospel the reverse situation prevails: Jesus is the judge and those who encounter him are on trial. END OF BOX - Far the longest, most prominent and most carefully-crafted scene of the passion narrative is the trial before Pilate (18.28-19.16). Here it is, as previously discussed (p. 56), Jesus who presides while the Jews condemn themselves and their nation. The centrepiece of the chiasmus is the ironic crowning of Jesus as king by the soldiers and the homage done before him by them. In the dialogue with Pilate it is Jesus who dominates, until Pilate is forced into the feeble rejoinder, 'What is truth?' In reply to Pilate's feeble, even feverish, questioning, Jesus unflinchingly points out Pilate's lack of authority over him, and indeed his 'greater guilt'. As in the interrogation (if it may be called an 'interrogation') before Annas, the scene is an occasion for the continuance of Jesus' teaching role, a dialogue in which the Roman governor is shamed and reduced to evasion. Jesus conducts himself throughout as the governor's superior. - On the way to Calvary John points out that Jesus carries his own cross. There is no room for Simon of Cyrene: for no help is required. 62

- In the crucifixion-scene itself the first emphasis is on the titulus, where the universal kingship of Christ is stressed. When the Jews suggest that it would be more appropriate to put that he merely claimed kingship, Pilate - with Johannine irony - insists on proclaiming that Jesus is king, not merely that he made this claim. The three world-languages, Hebrew, Latin and Greek, also serve to make this proclamation universal. Throughout the account the dignity of the scene is marked: there are no mocking bystanders, no cry of dereliction, no agonising thirst. Jesus cries 'I am thirsty' so that the scriptures should be completely fulfilled (19.28). He is in perfect control as he commends his mother and the Beloved Disciple to one another. Instead of the soldiers guarding the cross and keeping even the faithful women at a distance (Mark 15.40), there seems to be nothing to prevent Mary and the Beloved Disciple from standing at the foot of the cross in dignified communion with Jesus. Jesus' control is shown throughout the passion narrative also by his knowledge of what is to come; no detail comes as a surprise to Jesus. On the contrary, from the beginning of the second half of the gospel, Jesus acts 'knowing that his hour had come to pass from this world to his Father' (13.1). He knew who would betray him (13.11) and tells him when to start the betrayal ('What you have to do, do quickly' 13.25-27). When he strides forward to be arrested, it is 'knowing everything that was to happen to him' (18.4). So now, he knows that everything has been accomplished. It is only when he has stated tetelestai/it is fulfilled that - again voluntarily and in his own time he gave up the spirit. We have already discussed (p. 55) the significance of his 'giving the Spirit' at this moment. It is also worth pointing out that the telos is no haphazard event, but is well prepared and announced beforehand: at Jacob's Well he already announced his intention of completing the Father's work. The works that the Father has given Jesus to complete are his witness (5.36), and he glorifies the Father by completing them (17.4). Thus the final tetelestai refers not merely to the course of Jesus' life, but to his witness and to his task of glorifying the Father, of which he is constantly aware throughout his life. It is only when he has completed all these that he wishes to die. - Even after the death the same reverence continues, with the placement of the body in a new tomb and the staggering quantity of spices, 35 kilos, fit for a royal burial (19.39). B. Witness to the Truth An important aspect of John's passion narrative is that it continues and sums up Jesus' witness to the truth (see p. 23). Rather than being a prisoner on trial, he continues to teach and to witness to the truth. This becomes clear by a comparison between the trial scenes in the synoptics and in John. BOX The synoptic interrogation before the high priest Caiaphas has been described by Conzelmann as a compendium of Markan Christology. It is at any rate a compendium of the Christological charges for which Mark wishes us to know that Jesus was in fact condemned. The first charge relates to Jesus' action in purging the Temple. Historically it seems most likely that this is the reason why the authorities decided at this moment (before the thronged festival of the Passover) to get rid of Jesus, though John, putting the decision in 11.45-54, immediately after the raising of Lazarus, relates it to Jesus' gift of life to Lazarus. In Mark the final charge is Jesus' acceptance of the claim to be 'son of the Blessed One'. This in effect sums up the basic content of Jesus' claims throughout his 63

ministry, and so constitutes the real reason why Jesus was unacceptable to the Jewish authorities. It enables the authorities, however, to present Jesus to Pilate as claiming to be messiah and so king of the Jews END OF BOX In the same way the Johannine interrogation before Annas harks back to Jesus' earlier ministry in John by evoking the earlier clashes in the Temple between Jesus and the Temple authorities. There is not the same reference as in the synoptics to the silence of Jesus, alluding to the silence of the Suffering Servant before his tormentors. On the contrary, Jesus is the revealer, and answers the high priest's questions simply by referring back to these scenes in the Temple, 'I have spoken openly for all the world to hear. I have done nothing in secret. Ask my hearers what I taught' (18.20-21). The narrative no more than sums up and confirms the refusal of the Jews to accept his teaching which we have seen throughout the Jerusalem ministry, echoing 'If I speak the truth, why do you not believe me? The reason why you do not listen is because you are not from God' (8.40-41). The scene before Pilate is again typically Johannine in the same way. In the synoptic gospels hinges on the claim presented to Pilate that Jesus claims to be king of the Jews (Mark 15.2), and Pilate's protestations that he has done no wrong (Mark 15.14). And again there is the silence of Jesus, recalling that of the Suffering Servant. In the Johannine version the atmosphere is quite different. The two themes of the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate are truth and the origin of Jesus. It stretches the imagination well beyond breaking-point to suppose that this is the dialogue which actually took place between the governor and the prisoner. Rather John employs the hellenistic convention of speeches in which is related what should have been said, the issues which were at stake, as is often the case in the speeches attributed in hellenistic histories to generals before a battle. It is tempting to cast Pilate as a 'goodie'. After all, he differentiates himself from 'the Jews' (18.35). He asks the right questions, 'Are you a king, then?'. He three times announces that he can find no case against Jesus (18.38; 19.4, 6), and his insistence on the title 'King of the Jews' on the titulus of the cross underlines the real rather than the claimed kingship of Jesus. But in the only matter of importance he fails, through his throw-away question, 'What is truth?' So in the dialogue he is no more than a foil to prompt Jesus' three statements. The first (18.36) is on his kingship, that it is not of this world. The second (18.37) characterises his whole mission as witness to the Truth. The third (19.11) explains that all his authority is from above. So here again, the discussion receives its especial importance derivatively from the previous discussions on Jesus' mission and origin in the course of the gospel: it sums these up and brings them to their climax. The scene of the Johannine passion narrative which differs most markedly from the synoptic account is that of the crucifixion itself. Some elements of it have already been discussed, namely Jesus' command even of his moment of death, and the gift of the Spirit as his shaliah. There remains the unique incident of the mother of Jesus and the Beloved Disciple (19.26-27). This is entirely unique to the Johannine account, having only the slightest hint in the synoptic accounts in the form of the mention of women - but certainly none of the male disciples - at the Cross. It has been claimed, and perhaps rightly, that this scene is so vital that it is specifically to this that refers the immediately following phrase, 'Jesus knew that everything had now been completed...'. The atmosphere of peace, tranquillity, command and liberty of action is typical of the Johannine account. C.. The Role of Mary 64

The Beloved Disciple has earlier been interpreted as the ikon of the community (p. 5), of every disciple whom Jesus loves. But what of the mother of Jesus? Can a similar typical role be attributed to this figure? Various interpretations have been put forward - beyond the mere banal fact that Mary happened to be there and that John was asked to look after her in her now childless widowhood. Any interpretation should take into account the scene at Cana, where she is also present, where she is also addressed by the stiff and unfamilial (but not at all rude) title, gune, and where the hour of Jesus is already hinted. At least this must indicate some sharing with Jesus in his messianic activity, for at Cana she occasions the beginning of his miracles. At the Cross, too, she surely is seen to be sharing in his passion. The two scenes, at the beginning and the end of Jesus' ministry, look to each other for their meaning. Raymond Brown also brings into the equation the passage 16.21, 'A woman in childbirth suffers because her time has come, but when she has given birth she forgets the suffering'. This in turn evokes passages in Deutero-Isaiah about desolate Israel bringing forth children - a sign of the rebirth of Israel. Neither of these seems to me compelling, and the double step even less likely. I would prefer to put the passage in relation to Rv 12, where the woman clothed with the sun and standing on the moon gives birth to a male child. BOX The Book of Revelation three times claims to be written by John. Christian tradition identified the two authors John as the same person. But there is no particular reason in the text to believe that the prophet John who wrote this book is the same as the evangelist. The style of writing is very different. Most striking is the difference in attitude to eschatology: the author of the gospel stresses more than any other New Testament writing that the end-time has in some sense already come ('the hour is coming and now is...'), while the author of the Book of Revelation looks forward more eagerly than any other New Testament writing to a decisive intervention of God in the future. END OF BOX This woman must surely stand for the nation of Israel giving birth to the Messiah. The great dragon pursues the woman into the desert, but does not succeed in destroying her. The child is the son who is to rule all nations with an iron sceptre, and is taken straight up to God and to his throne (12.5). So at the Cross the mother of Jesus is standing for the new Israel, the Church, who is united to the Beloved Disciple, the ideal member of the Church. The gospel here presents, at the climactic moment of Jesus' exaltation, when he draws all people to himself, an image of the fruit of the crucifixion, male and female, Israel and Church, mother and son, redeemed humanity. This is the open-ended conclusion which enables Jesus to proclaim that all is accomplished. Suggestions for Further Reading Donald Senior The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of John (Gracewing, 1991) Raymond E. Brown The Death of the Messiah (Chapman, 1994) Personal Work Write an essay, either 'Detail and account for the differences in John's Passion Narrative and those of the Synoptic Gospels', or 'In what way is John's Passion Narrative the climax of his Gospel?'

65

CHAPTER EIGHT THE RESURRECTION NARRATIVES 1. THE PROBLEM OF THE RESURRECTION NARRATIVES Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus was originally founded on and expressed in the experience of the Risen Christ rather than the narratives of the empty tomb. Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15.3-7 a brief formula which he had learnt by heart and passed on to his communities. From his introduction to this formula and from the slightly un-Pauline language employed it is clear that this was not his own formulation. In the introduction he uses the technical terms of the handing on of rabbinic tradition: The tradition which I handed on to you in the first place, a tradition which I had myself received, was that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that on the third day he was raised to life, in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas and later to the Twelve, and next he appeared to five hundred of the brothers at the same time. ...Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. The gospels present us with a variety of accounts of appearances of the Risen Lord and also of the empty tomb, which are not easy to harmonize with one another in place, time or content. Mark recounts no appearance of the risen Jesus. He merely alludes to a future appearance in Galilee: 'You must go and tell his disciples and Peter, "He is going ahead of you to Galilee; that is where you will see him"' (Mark 16.7). It is generally accepted that the original gospel of Mark ends at 16.8, and that the subsequent verses are a later addition, culled from and secondary to the later gospels and the Acts of the Apostles; they have, therefore, no independent importance for establishing what actually happened. Matthew describes an appearance of Jesus to 'the women' at the tomb, followed by the final mission charge to the Eleven in Galilee. There on the mountain in Galilee Jesus is represented, as so often in Matthew, as the Second Moses, and also as the Son of Man of Daniel 7, empowered with all authority in heaven and on earth. Luke confines the appearances to the area of Jerusalem, Emmaus and finally the outskirts of Bethany. For Luke Jerusalem is all-important. His gospel begins and ends in Jerusalem, just as his Infancy Narrative itself begins and ends in Jerusalem. Much of the teaching of Jesus is framed by Jesus' final journey to Jerusalem, to die (as a prophet must) in Jerusalem. When he reaches Jerusalem hecleanses and takes over the Temple as his stand for preaching, instead of merely symbolizing its supersession and destruction by purging it, as in the other synoptic gospels. In the Acts of the Apostles Jerusalem is the home of the ideal young community, as well as being the focal point from which the message spreads and to which Paul returns regularly to maintain the unity of the young community. It is therefore in function of this theology that Luke's restriction of the appearances to the Jerusalem area must be understood. It is not easy to harmonise these data, especially when the data of John are also taken into account. Are we to suppose that after the two Sundays mentioned in John 20 the disciples migrated to Galilee for the fishing-appearance of John 21and the mission charge on the mountain 66

in Galilee before returning to Jerusalem and Bethany or (in Acts) the Mount of Olives for Luke's great final blessing and the Ascension? But the greatest objection to the whole project of harmonisation is that the contents of the accounts seem to be independent of one another. The disciples in any one account do not seem to be aware of events described in the others. The most glaring example is the final parting, and the mission which then occurs. The charge of Matthew 28.16-20 surely reduplicates in function the final blessing in Luke, and the final instructions in John 21. Nor is the situation with the stories of the empty tomb much better. What was the reason for the women coming to the tomb, to anoint the body (Mark) or to carry out the pious Jewish custom of visiting the tomb to mourn the beloved departed (Matthew)? Was there one angel (Mark) or two (Matthew)? Did the women fail to deliver the message, saying nothing to nobody (Mark), or pass it on excitedly to the disciples (Matthew)? Who were the disciples who went to the tomb? A whole range of possibilities is proposed, a group of women, Mary Madgalene, Peter, the Beloved Disciple. Rather than attempting forcibly to harmonise the accounts it is therefore more reasonable to accept that the each of the evangelists received material from the oral tradition and shaped it to express his own theological message. The basic tradition passed on by Paul contained little detail, and certainly no details of place or circumstances. (On the other hand it is remarkable that none of the canonical gospels chose to take up the appearance to James which Paul mentions.) The most striking example of how unimportant are such material details occurs in Luke, 'the historian', for he can in his two volumes describe quite differently what is obviously basically the same event: in his gospel he can describe the final departure of Jesus as taking place at Bethany, seemingly on the very day of the resurrection (linked together by 'that very same day' v. 13, and the seemingly immediate 'then' v. 44, 'then' v.50), while in the Acts he locates it on the Mount of Olives and 40 days after the resurrection. Admittedly, Bethany and the Mount of Olives are a mere fifteen minutes walk apart, but they are quite distinct places, and the time-differential cannot be smoothed away. This should be sufficient indication that the narratives are not to be treated like evidence in a police-court. 2. CATEGORISATION OF THE ACCOUNTS C.H. Dodd made a famous distinction of the narratives into three types: 1. Concise narratives, which contain a recognition and a mission. He cites as paradigm examples of these Matthew 28.8-10 (the appearance to the women at the tomb, in which they are charged to go and tell the disciples that they must leave for Galilee to meet him), Matthew 28.16-20 (the appearance and mission charge to the disciples in Galilee) and John 20.19-21 (the appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem, in which he sends them as his Father sent him). 2. Circumstantial narratives, dramatic tales of an appearance and recognition which contain no charge. Of these the paradigm examples are Luke 24.13-35 (the disciples on the road to Emmaus) and John 21.1-14 (the appearance to the disciples on the Lake of Tiberias). 3. Mixed narratives. These include Luke 24.36-49 (the appearance to the Eleven in Jerusalem) and John 20.26-29 (the appearance to Thomas). An alternative classification which introduces some categorisation into the picture is the distinction between narratives which concentrate on the reality of the resurrection, centred on and proceeding from the empty tomb, and those which lead up to a mission charge. Of these the 67

first includes Mark 16.1-8; Matthew 28.1-10; Luke 24.1-12; John 20.1-16. Also centred on the reality of the resurrection and its acceptance by the disciples, though not localised at the tomb is Luke 24.13-35. The central motif of all these is the arousal of belief in those who thus experience the Risen Lord; they therefore often include some apologetic material in proof of the physical nature of the risen body. Thus the episodes in Mark 16.1-8, Matthew 28.1-8 and Luke 24.1-11 include the message of the angel, the angel's explanation of the empty tomb - and the message of such a divine envoy is presented as sufficient proof. The appearance to Mary Magdalen in Matthew 28.9-10 is seen as self-authenticating (though this episode has little different probative force than the previous one, and seems to function more as a transition to Matthew's final episode). The story of the journey to Emmaus seems to achieve proof, or rather the gradual dawning of understanding, through the explanation of the scriptures, clinched by the breaking of bread. The second category includes Matthew 28.16-20; Luke 24.36-39; John 20.19-21 and the appendix John 21.1-19. These include the arousal of belief, but conclude in a mission charge to the world. A striking element is that although these incidents all follow a scene in which the disciples have already come to belief in the resurrection, they all include the gradual dawning of belief, as though the previous incident had not already provoked belief. One purpose of this may be the evangelists' desire to underline the reality of the Risen Lord by stressing the unwillingness of the disciples to believe, which has to be overcome again and again. In Matthew 28.17 'some hesitated'. In Luke 24.27, despite the message to the Eleven from the disciples returned from Emmaus, 'The Lord is indeed risen and has appeared to Simon' (Luke 24.34), they were still thrown into 'a state of alarm and fright, and thought they were seeing a ghost'. In John 21.12 there is at any rate enough uncertainty for the indication, 'None of the disciples was bold enough to ask, "Who are you?".' This is an indication that each of the stories may at one time have been an independent story, a conclusion of the gospel not lined up in a series with the story of the empty tomb and the proofs of Christ's resurrection which these stories contain. 3. THE RESURRECTION NARRATIVES IN JOHN 20 The author of John had a challenging task before him: resurrection-language was not his natural mode of thought with regard to the sequel of the crucifixion. Mark, and following him the other evangelists, had staked out the latter part of their narratives, leading up to the final events, by the three great prophecies of the Passion and Resurrection (Mark 8.31; 9.31; 10.32-34). Each one ended 'and on the third day he will rise again'. So resurrection-language came naturally to them. However, as we have seen at the beginning of this chapter, bodily resurrection was not the earliest way of expressing Jesus' triumph over death. Nor was it the only way. The kerygma handed on by Paul expressed it, 'he was raised to life...and appeared'. The New Testament, however, abounds in other formulations of his vindication. The early Christian hymn of Philippians 2.6-11 (which was probably taken up by Paul into his letter) does not mention bodily resurrection, but describes Christ's victory in terms of being 'raised high' and given the (divine) name which is above every other name. It is a different concept from the bodily raising, egeirw, and the verb used, uperuyow, occurs nowhere else in Paul or anywhere else in the New Testament. Other formulations are linked with the notion in the oft-quoted Psalm 109, 'seated at the right hand' of the Father; this occurs in Jesus' own mouth during the synoptic trial scenes and in the apostolic speeches in Acts. Throughout his gospel John has spoken of the 'hour' of Jesus' exaltation and glorification. The 68

Johannine narrative itself of the passion presents the lifting of Jesus onto the cross as the moment of exaltation and triumph, in such a way that there is hardly a need for subsequent confirmation of this by a resurrection. The fact that John nevertheless is compelled to treat the tradition of the empty tomb and the appearances of the Risen Lord, despite their being somewhat at variance with his own way of seeing the salvific moment as completed on Golgotha, underlines the centrality of these events in the main Christian tradition. Nevertheless, there are points at which a certain jarring between the two conceptions remains visible. Perhaps the most obvious of these is the statement of the glorified Lord to Mary Magdalene, 'I have not yet ascended to my Father'. John 20.1-2, 11-18 Mary Magdalen at the empty tomb After these preliminaries it is possible to begin the examination of the resurrection narratives in John 20. First, however, it must be clear that there is not necessarily any definite sequence between them. John Ashton states, somewhat sardonically, 'To attempt to make sense of 20.1-23 as a continuous narrative as, for instance, Dodd does, is to enter an Alice-in-Wonderland world where one event succeeds another with the crazy logic of a dream'27. Raymond Brown had already made the point more positively (twenty years previously), 'the editor put together different types of material that have come down to him, and has added some theological insights of his own'28. He then details a number of jolts in the narrative which suggest a combination of disparate material: a. In v. 2 Mary Magdalene already knows that the body is missing, yet she actually looks into the tomb only in v. 11, as though for the first time (unless the angels had been stationed there in the meantime). Further, there is no mention of the angels when Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple look into the tomb in v. 5-6. b. She seems to be alone, but in v. 2 says in the plural 'We don't know where they have put him', as though she was accompanied by others, as in Mark and Matthew. c. The Beloved Disciple's faith in v. 8 seems to have no effect on the other disciples; in v. 19 they are all still huddled away in fear of the Jews. Particularly instructive for the fluidity of the resurrection narratives is the mixture of traditional and Johannine material. This shows the liberty with which the evangelists felt able to re-arrange and to interpret the tradition which they received. John uses two pieces of tradition, and in each case focusses on a particular person (he will do the same with Thomas later): 1. There was a tradition, evidenced in all the synoptics, that some women went to the tomb. This John takes and focusses on one of them, Mary Magdalene, though traces of the others remain in the 'We' of v. 2.. In fact Mary had been the first in all the lists of the women. Instead of the women giving the message to the apostles (Matthew) or failing to do so (Mark) after they have received an explanation of the empty tomb from the angel(s), Mary gives the message before she has received any explanation.

27 28

Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 503. The Gospel according to John (London, Geoffrey Chapman, 1971), p. 996.

69

2. Matthew 28.9-10 suggests that there was also a tradition of Jesus appearing to the women, who clasp his feet. In Matthew it is a strange little piece, for the appearance of Jesus does not add proportionately as much as one would expect to the message of the angel; having said 'Do not be afraid' (which throughout the Bible is the standard reassurance of a heavenly being to human reverence), Jesus merely repeats the same message. But the failure of Matthew to exploit this incident is all the stronger proof that, rather than forming it himself, he took it over from a tradition. In John's version there are several typically Johannine features. a.There is the Johannine feature of the advance of understanding by questioning (see p. 21): first the angels question Mary, then Jesus himself. b. Jesus' question takes the reader right back to Jesus first question in John 1.38, 'What are you looking for?', the same verb being used here. Throughout the gospel people are seeking Jesus, and this bracket at beginning and end of the gospel indicates that the whole process consists in a search for Jesus. c. The Johannine interest in minor characters comes to the fore. In Mark and Matthew there is little life in any of the characters apart from Jesus. Particularly in Matthew's parable the characters are stereotypical and wooden, almost marionettes. Luke shows great interest in the characters in his parables, and paints them with variety, humour and vigour; but he does little to enlarge on the real-life persons of the gospel. John brings in a whole host of new minor characters, Nathanael, Nicodemus, the Samaritan Woman, Lazarus, the Blind Man, each of whom is memorable for some quirk or liveliness. For this case, a glance at who in the gospel is shown weeping is instructive: in Mark only the professional mourners at Jairus' house and Peter after his triple denial; in Matthew only the latter; in Luke there are added the Sinner at Simon's House (7.38, often identified with Mary Magdalene), Jesus weeping over the city (19.41), and by implication the Widow of Nain (7.13). In John both Jesus and Mary weep over Lazarus (11.31, 33), and Mary Magdalene weeps here. This is only an example of the way John is willing to show emotion in his characters. A whole character-study of his minor personalities is possible: Nathanel's explosive contempt for Galilee, the Samaritan Woman's flirtatious skittishness, the Blind Man's aggravated sarcasm against the Pharisees, Pilate's dismissive superiority. d. The most difficult element in the story is Mary's attempt to cling to the risen Christ and his reply. Some idiotic explanations have been given for the former, such as that he was coy because of nakedness, or that his wounds were still sore. The real difficulty comes from the clash between Jesus' explanation that he is still only on the way to his Father, not yet ascended, and the concept of the 'hour' of exaltation which has hitherto prevailed in John. Hitherto, the 'hour' of his exaltation and glorification is the one moment of the exaltation onto the Cross. There has been no suggestion that there could be any interruption of interval between the two. This incident, however, might almost suggest a Lukan concept of ascension. The clue to the solution comes in the verb anabainw, translated 'ascend'. On two other occasions it is used in John on Jesus' lips to allude to the communication between heaven and earth. In 1.51 it is the two-way communication of Jacob's ladder, 'You will see the angels of God ascending and descending over the Son of man'. At the end of the Bread of Life discourse it again refers to the communication of heavenly truths, 'What if you should see the Son of man ascend to where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives life...' This suggests that Mary should not somehow hold him back from fulfilling his mission of giving the full revelation, the full communication from heaven to earth. Similarly, the total sense of Jesus' reply ('I am ascending to my Father and your 70

Father, to my God and your God') becomes clear only with a grasp of the two allusions, to Ruth 1.16 and Jeremiah 31.33. The foreigner Ruth says, 'Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God', looking forward to her assimilation into the people of God. Jeremiah prophesies a renewal of the convenant, when 'I shall be their God and they will be my people'. The ascension/exaltation of which Jesus speaks is his return to the Father in order to unite his people to God and renew the open communication between heaven and earth. This threatens to be impeded by the Magdalene, whose limited, earth-bound exclamation, 'Rabbuni/my Rabbi' shows that her understanding has not yet transcended the state of Jesus' earthly ministry. John 20.3-9 Peter and the Beloved Disciple at the Tomb The visit of Peter and the Beloved Disciple is another instance of John taking an incident from the tradition and using it for his own theological purposes. The relationship of Peter's visit to the tomb to Luke 24.12 is intriguing and enlightening: 'Peter, however, went off to the tomb, running. He bent down and saw the linen cloths but nothing else; he then went back home, amazed at what had happened.' BOX This single verse in Luke is absent in some important manuscripts of the Western text of the gospel. This particular textual tradition of Luke-Acts omits many little details contained in the rest of the tradition; they are called 'Western non-interpolations'; this is not sufficient grounds to reject them. END OF BOX Here again John develops the tradition in his own way. Typically, John introduces that special figure of his, the Beloved Disciple, absent from the other gospels (see p. 5). On almost every occasion where he occurs the Beloved Disciple is alongside Peter. It has often been suggested that the two disciples represent a rivalry between two communities which claimed the two apostles respectively as their founders or authority-figures. But, though their function is clearly different, they work together, so that there is not so much rivalry as partnership between the two. It would be better to postulate partnership between the two communities, rather than rivalry. At the Supper Peter pushes the Beloved Disciple to ask his question. If the 'other disciple' of 18.15 is the Beloved Disciple, it is he who introduces Peter into the courtyard of the high priest. Again on the Lake in 21.7 it is the Beloved Disciple who stimulates Peter to action. Here at the tomb the Beloved Disciple defers to Peter, acknowledging some superiority of authority, just as on the lakeside Peter is first made the shepherd of the sheep, before the Beloved Disciple is given his mysterious commission. Perhaps the purpose is that Peter should first witness authoritatively to the emptiness of the tomb, and then the Beloved Disciple show the sensitivity and love to appreciate what this means. John adds the details about the grave-clothes. Such a plethora of clashing explanations of the probative value of the arrangement of the clothes has been given, showing why this proved that the body was risen rather than stolen, that it is difficult to know where to begin. At any rate, it made no sense to Peter, and did not lead him to belief! Perhaps this is only one of those little visual and practical details which make John's stories so vivid: the lack of bucket at the Well of Jacob in Samaria, the lanterns and torches of the arresting-party in Gethsemane. Perhaps John is particularly aware of clothing: Lazarus emerges from the tomb still entangled in his graveclothes, and Peter wraps his cloak around him before jumping into the Lake. John 20.19-29 Final dispositions for the disciples The final scene of John's gospel - granted that John 21 is an appendix - passes Johannine breath 71

through traditional lungs, integrating Johannine themes into a traditional framework. 1. Johannine themes The short narratives of John 20 are shot through with John's theological interests and emphases. They express in the form of narrative theological themes which have been important earlier in the discourses, particularly the Farewell Discourses after the Last Supper. John Ashton even suggests that the process of composition may have gone in the reverse direction: the narratives of the appearances being written first, and the theological expression in the Farewell Discourse being composed in the light of this passage, almost as a reflexion upon it (p. 510, note 48). At the Last Supper Jesus tells his disciples that he will go away but return to them. He promises them peace and joy, gifts allied with the coming of the Spirit. He also will also send them as his Father sent him. All these important preparations are here brought to completion. a. Peace: Peace I bequeath to you, my own peace I give you, a peace which the world cannot give, this is my gift to you. You heard me say I am going away and shall return (John 14.27-28). In the Farewell Discourse this promise comes immediately after the promise of the gift of the Spirit (14.26); so now it comes immediately before Jesus' act of breathing the Spirit upon his disciples. This is the fuller meaning in the context of the greeting of 'Peace' twice given now (20.19, 26), a greeting which is otherwise the common Jewish greeting, both at the time and in later ages, but in this case takes on a deeper, eschatological sense. b. Joy: You are sad now, but I shall see you again, and your hearts will be full of joy, and that joy no one will take from you (16.21). Accordingly 'the disciples were filled with joy at seeing the Lord' (20.20). In the Revelation of John (possibly by the same author, possibly not, but certainly formed in the same school of thought) an allied expression is given to this eschatological joy in the hymn of the new Jerusalem, 'Alleluia! The reign of the Lord our God Almighty has begun; let us be glad and joyful and give glory to God' (Rv 19.7). c. The Spirit: When the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who issues from the Father, he will be my witness, and you too will be my witnesses (15.26; cf. 14.16, 26; 16.13). Already at the crucifixion Jesus had 'given over his spirit' (19.30) at death, which in John's writing must carry a further sense than simply 'breathing his last' (see p. 55). This is allied to the Johannine conception of the death of Jesus being also his exaltation and glorification, the 'hour' which completes his mission and beings the eschatological moment. Yet now, in his version of the series of resurrection appearances, John accommodates to another point of view, and represents Jesus as breathing upon them and saying 'Receive the Holy Spirit' (20.22) in fulfilment here of that promise. C.H. Dodd29 sees this as the ultimate gift of eternal life, 'the ultimate climax of the personal relations between Jesus and His disciples'.
29

The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, University Press, 1965), p. 227. 72

More than a mere continuation of the giving over his spirit on Golgotha, this also has a rich sense from the Old Testament. In the Old Testament this breath is creative, for it is allied to the act of creation, when the divine breath 'swept over the waters' (Gen 1.2), and when God created human life by blowing the breath of life into Adam's nostrils (Gen 2.7). It could not fail also to recall the wonderful image of the re-creation of the people of Israel in the future restoration, seen in Ezekiel's vision (37.1-14) of the Valley of the Dead Bones, when the prophet breathes the breath of God into the bones, and as 'the breath entered them, they came to life and stood on their feet, a great, an immense army'. So the breathing on the disciples must be seen as the imparting of new and eschatological life. d. Mission: As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world, and for their sake I consecrate myself, so that they too may be consecrated in truth (17.18). This is only one of the many passages in the Farewell Discourse which speaks of the future mission of the disciples. Here explicitly it stresses the need for sanctification before they are sent. Accordingly, in the fulfilment of this at the appearance to the disciples, the Risen Lord breathes the Holy Spirit on them to empower them for sanctification before giving them the mission to the world (20.22). 2. A framework from the tradition a. As all the narratives of appearances of Jesus, this has the motif of doubt and coming to belief. That they should be doubting after the Beloved Disciple has already come to believe, and Mary Magdalene has given them the message of the Risen Lord, is historically difficult; it again suggests that this was originally a story independent of others (see p. 84). The scenes are certainly joined on artificially in the Johannine manner: 'in the evening of the same day' and 'eight days later' (vv. 19, 26) are reminiscent of the time-indications which construct the first week of Jesus' ministry (John 1.29, 36, 43; 2.1). Again this scene shows the characteristics of John's composition: as in the two previous scenes, with Mary Magdalene and with the Beloved Disciple, the message is personalized by being centred on Thomas' doubt. This makes a double scene, which may be regarded either as awkward or as a deliberate reduplication, as the doubt first of the other disciples and then of Thomas are overcome. Jesus' demonstration of the reality of his risen body makes crisper sense after Thomas' expression of doubt than before, though in Luke's account the demonstration is offered spontaneously. b. The demonstration must have some relationship to the very similar Lukan story, which is concentrated on the apologetic theme of the physical reality of the risen body: there Jesus shows them his hands and his feet, assures them that he is no ghost and eats a piece of grilled fish 'before their eyes' (Luke 24.36-43). John's story has very similar elements, but also some Johannine touches. In John they are huddled together 'for fear of the Jews', a motive which has been at work also earlier, in 7.13 ('No one spoke about him openly for fear of the Jews') and 19.38 (Joseph of Arimathea's secret discipleship 'for fear of the Jews'). John also adds that Jesus showed them his side, as well as his hands and his feet, accommodating his details to the wound in his side at the crucifixion. It would perhaps be too strong to argue that such an interest in the physical must derive from Luke, and that therefore the Lukan narrative is prior and the Johannine dependent on the Lukan. True it is, however, that the physical is a concern of Luke: it is he who insists that the dove at the Baptism of Jesus descended 'in physical form' (3.22), and the recognition by the disciples at Emmaus finally occurs when Jesus joined them at a meal (though 73

we are not told that he actually ate there). c. The formula of forgiveness is another traditional element, found in Matthew. Matthew has three sayings, the authority imparted to Peter as one facet of his leadership (Matthew 16.19), 'Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven'. Secondly, he has the same saying imparting the power to forgive as one facet of community relationships in the Community Discourse (18.18). Thirdly, the work of the Spirit enters in when on the mountain in Galilee Jesus imparts to the Eleven the commission to 'Make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' (28.19). Luke also associates two elements of these instructions with the appearance of the Risen Christ, including in the final instructions from Jesus to the disciples, 'So it is written that repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be preached to all nations', together with a promise of 'the power from on high' (24.46-49). There are, then, traditional elements which John feels constrained to include in his last appearance of Christ to the disciples. In his gospel they fit less comfortably, for nowhere else does John consider the forgiveness of individual sins. In marked contrast to the synoptic gospels, the noun afesij (forgiveness) and the verb afihmi (I forgive) do not occur elsewhere in John. Elsewhere in John conversion is framed in terms of forgiveness of individual sins but of turning to the truth by the acceptance of Jesus. 3. Outlook on the Future In the course of this investigation it has been continuously stressed that John is writing on two levels, that of the past history of Jesus and that of the community enlivened by the active presence of Jesus now, through his Spirit (for example, p. 62). This is here confirmed by two elements, Thomas' full confession of the divinity of Jesus, 'My Lord and my God' (20.28). With the prologue (see p. 32) this makes a bracket to the whole gospel, pronouncing the full understanding of Jesus which comes only at the end of the development at which so much of the gospel of John has hinted in images and at the end of the development of the New Testament. BOX The combination of these two appellations in this climactic confession makes it hard not to see30 an allusion to the primary confession of the faith of Israel, 'The Lord our God is the one Lord' (Deuteronomy 6.5). As early as 1 Corinthians 8.6 Paul seems to have referred to this confession, 'Yet for us there is one God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ'. N.T. Wright argues forcefully that what Paul is here doing is not introducing two Gods or ditheism. Instead, he is maintaining monotheism, but is expanding the concept itself of God to include the Lord Jesus31. 'The Shema ['Hear, O Israel', the opening of the passage in Deuteronomy] is actually expanded so as to contain Jesus within it'32. Thomas' confession similarly, but perhaps to a greater extent, puts the Risen Christ wholly within the terms of the Shema of Israel's faith. END OF BOX The reply of Jesus, his last saying in the original gospel, prepares the gound for future believers. though commentators do not seem to have seen it, even B. Gerhardsson, The Shema in the New Testament (Lund, Novapress, 1996).
31 32 30

The Climax of the Covenant, (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1991) p.128-132. ibid., p. 115 74

It may at first sight seem a rebuke to Thomas, who had demanded proof. But in the end he had come to believe without making the physical test. It merely presses beyond his faith. In so doing it recurs to a sentiment which has appeared occasionally earlier in the gospel, crticising a reliance on signs. This criticism is first expressed a mild reservation 'Many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he did, but Jesus knew all people and did not trust himself to them' (2.2223), but at two moments Jesus expostulates, on the occasion of the healing of the royal official's son ('Unless you see signs and portents you will not believe', 4.48) and after the miracle of the loaves one stage further ('You are looking for me not because you have seen the signs, but because you had all the bread you wanted to eat', 6.26). Now, with this blessing on those who come to believe without seeing, Jesus seems to envisage directly the audience of the future to which John has been hinting throughout. Raymond Brown compares it to the lights in the auditorium being turned up at the end of a perfomance, to reveal the audience which has been present, unseen, throughout the drama: 'now, as the curtain is about to fall on the stage drama, the lights in the theater are suddenly turned on. Jesus shifts his attention from the disciples on the stage to the audience that has become visible'33. Personal Work Either 1. 'John spoke of the divinity of our Lord as no other has done' (St Augustine). Compare the portrait of Jesus given by John with that of the Synoptic Gospels. or 2. What striking new insights into John's Gospel has this study given you?

33

The Gospel of John, p. 1049. 75