Tradition nearly unanimously ascribes the authorship to Johannes (Yohanan, John), son of Zebediah, a wealthy fisherman whose family was friendly with the High Priest. However, there have been many scholars who have expressed doubts about the origins of the book.
Hugh Schonfield believed that the memoirs of a Jewish priest who had been a follower of Jesus were collected and expanded by a later person, perhaps "John the Elder" of the II century, and many nineteenth century scholars dated the work in its entirety to the II century. However, since the discovery of manuscript p52, a fragment of Johannes which dates to c. 110 CE, scholars have had to back off on II century dates of composition. Most scholars now believe that the document was composed c. 90 - 95 CE by an unknown author, whom many presume to be the son of Zebediah.
Much of the tradition surrounding the authorship appears to come from within the Johannine writings themselves, rather than being based on actual outside information. For example, many speculate that this account of Jesus' life was written while the author was and old man in exile on the island of Patmos (Rev 1:9). The "fourth gospel" never mentions Patmos, however. The idea that Johannes was an old man when he wrote the writings attributed to him comes from an interpretation of Jn 21:20f. If we remove all speculation based on interpretations of Biblical passages, we see that none of the early "fathers" had any direct knowledge of the author's fate, with some even believing that he had been martyred.
John A. T. Robinson (Redating the New Testament, The Priority of John) posited the theory that the composition of According to Johannes was made before 40 CE, within ten years of Jesus' death and resurrection. If the reference in 10:16 to "other sheep" is taken to refer to Hellenists or dispersed Jews rather than gentiles, then the fact that the writing presumes some knowledge of Judaism takes on a more profound meaning. Perhaps indeed it was written prior to the introduction of gentiles into the New Covenant. The thrust of the work is largely Jewish, and the account has been called the most thoroughly Jewish of the four. When the destruction of the temple is alluded to, it is done so in vague terms throughout the NT (often relating it to the desecration by Antiochus IV or its destruction c. 587 BCE) rather than describing it in the details of 70 CE. It is thought, then, that the work was certainly composed prior to 70, and, Robinson believed, before any of the other accounts.
Comparison to the "third" account, that attributed to Lukas, reveals that Lukas and Johannes share a common timeline. It is much easier to fit Johannes and Lukas together than Lukas and Matthaiah, for instance. Lukas claimed that some of his sources were those of eyewitnesses, so why not a completed copy of Johannes? As The Priority of John indicates, it is quite easy to view Johannes as a source for Lukas (instead of the other way around). Kenneth Gentry (Before Jerusalem Fell) certainly has bolstered support for Robinson's theory with his books on the dating of Revelation.
In addition, there is enough "Johannine thought" intersecting the material found at Qumran that it is easy to realize now that similar ways of thinking were circulating during the second quarter of the first century CE. Given the direction of the work (toward Hellenistic Jews), we accept the thesis that the book was composed very early, prior to the admission of gentiles into the New Covenant (c. 42). The author's sometime rivalry with Peter appears fresh as well; it is unlikely that he would use such description if the work were composed 50 years later, after Peter's execution.
The author makes no claim to identification with Johannes, referring to himself only as "the student whom Jesus loved." However, a reading of chapter 21 reveals that Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebediah, and two others were present. Given the use of "two others," it is likely that the author simply could not remember who had been present. However, the sons of Zebediah -- so prominent in the synoptics -- are entirely absent from the rest of this account. The author also indicates (21:7) that he himself was in the boat. Since the author has already distinguished himself from Peter and Thomas, and probably Nathanael (ch. 1), that makes the author out to be one of the sons of Zebediah -- Jacob or Johannes. If the author were Jacob, then the book is certainly written before the time of Acts 12, when Jacob was executed. This, however, is where we give the unanimous attribution to Johannes some weight and assign the authorship to Johannes, son of Zebediah.
While many have attempted to separate sections of the work from the whole (e.g., chapter 21, 1:1-18), the composition appears to this commentator as a literary whole. The author is largely concerned with establishing Jesus as fulfilling all roles of the Messiah: successor to the prophets and patriarchs; paschal lamb; Ezekiel's shepherd; Davidic king.
Additionally, the book has several central themes, nearly all of which are introduced in the so-called Prologue. These central themes are "talking points" for the author, who provides his reader-student with a review and examination near the close of the book. We can only suppose, then, that the writing is intended as a teaching tool. We shall see that the author is very time-conscious, and although his Greek is somewhat rudimentary, he makes use of it very well, reproducing word games and waxing poetic as well as theological.
ONE
The same one was directed toward God in the beginning.
In this commentators judgment, this is the most misunderstood passage in the entire Bible, yet this is logically the place to commence discussion.
There are many questions which are frequently asked of the translator:
The answer to the last question has no place in this commentary, although the others require answers.
When other translators employ "Word" for logoV in the Prologue, they are doing so because of their interpretation that Johannes intends for logoV to represent a pre-incarnate Jesus. The present translator does not suppose this. The expression "God's message" (the logoV of God) is used throughout the New Testament to represent the spoken message about the Messiah and his teachings. That usage is in full agreement with the use in the LXX, where the expression normally indicates "what God said." Rather than propose a new significance for logoV here, the present translator indicates that the usage in Johannes is the traditional Jewish usage of the word. Thus, sayings such as "Your message is truth" (17:17) are affirmations of the coming of the Messiah.
That the author should represent God's communication to humanity (which here includes the Torah and all of what God has said to the prophets) in such a theoretical manner should be no surprise, since divine Wisdom is personified (female!) in certain Proverbs and since one traditional view of Torah is to represent Torah as God's daughter. Torah, it is said, has always existed in the mind of God. When God created the universe, he had the Torah in mind, so that when God delievered the Torah to Moses, he was not creating something new, but fulfilling his plan. The author of this work applies the same reasoning to all of God's communications with us, culminating in the deliverance of his complete message by sending the Messiah.
The passage begins in the heavens as creation is happening. From the very beginning, the author writes, God has been communicating with humanity. In reality, there has only been one message. (See also Heb 1:1f. where the same notion is expressed.) Thus, the author begins with a review of Genesis 1. "En arch" begins the LXX account of Genesis, and those are the same words here. "In the beginning" leaves no room for doubt in the minds of Greek-speaking Jews. The author means "at creation," and the readers are meant to recall everything they have learned about that creation account. God has been communicating with us since creation began.
There is a certain poetic structure present in Greek, which the present English text reproduces. Generally, each phrase ends with the notion that begins the following phrase. This is interrupted only by a pair of opposites (and dichotomy proves important to the author). Thus, "in the beginning" starts a complete thought which terminates with "in the beginning." Another thought follows.
What does it mean for the message to be "directed toward God"? The author has established that there has been a single ongoing communication between God and his people since creation. What was the purpose of this message? The purpose of this creation was to lead us to him. It was "directed toward God"; it pointed at him. The use of "with" for proV is unjustified and indicates bias, for when the preposition is followed by the accusative case (proV ton Qeon), it means "toward", not "with". The passage never says that Jesus is not God, but neither does it put forth the notion that he is/was a personality of God. Instead, the author has indicated that the purpose of this great communication ("the message") is to point us in the right direction.
What is the content of this message? God is the content. God has been communicating himself, explaining himself to us all of these years. The author sums this up simply by telling us that the message was God. He is not personifying the message as God; rather, he indicates its content, much as we might say, "Joe called. His message was, 'Meet him at Freddie's place.'" He sums up the content of the message by telling us that it was God. God has been telling us everything about himself: as he first taught Adam; as he spoke to Abraham; as he sent the Torah; as he gave warnings to Isaiah and the others; and finally as the Messiah came.
Some have attempted to use the fact that QeoV (God) appears without an article to indicate that the author intended to say "a god." Believing the message to be Jesus, they write that "the Word was a god" indicates that Jesus was a lesser divinity, or at the very least a lesser personality of God. However, the poetry of the passage has created a stumbling-block for these exegetes. The structure points out that the concept which ended the line before, God, should begin this line. Since QeoV is not the subject of the sentence, however, it cannot have the article attached to it. In Greek, when word order is nonstandard, the article is used as a mark to indicate the subject of the sentence. Since "message" and not "God" is the subject of the sentence, QeoV appears without the article.
At the end of the first section, the author indicates that the message has been unchanging. "The same one was directed toward God in the beginning." The promises to Abraham, the message in the Torah, the warnings to the prophets and prophecies in the psalms -- these were the same message that would later come to us through the Messiah.
Through it, all things were done.
And without it nothing was done.
The punctuation of this section has been proven in recent times, evidenced by the existence of punctuation on certain papyri. This is Johannes' first pair of opposites; many more will follow. The author will attempt to force his student-reader to make a choice. Either Jesus was the Messiah, or he was not. He will attempt to remove all ambiguity to make the choice an obvious one. The use of dichotomies is one of his strategies.
Here, he writes that everything God ever did, everything that ever happened, was with the sending of the Messiah (and completion of the message) in mind. His first pair of opposites sets up a point of emphasis: God has done nothing without the Messiah in mind.
What has been done in it was life.
The structure (present earlier) continues. The author is now ready to bring us down to earth, so to speak, out of the land of theoretical concepts.
The Genesis 1 account of creation can be summed up in two words: "life" and "light." These two elements are also present in Jn 1, bringing the reader back to Genesis once more. If God did everything with this communication in mind, what did he do? Life and Light.
But unlike the biological life brought about in creation, this life is a spiritual, permanent, life. Johannes foreshadows many of his central topics here; the life will be fleshed out for us later on.
And the life was the Light of humanity.
For the first time, we encounter Jesus, described only as the Light of Humanity. That the Light represents a human being will be seen later; for now it is just Light. The author wants to point out that this life for all Jewish people comes in the form of "the Light." How did this Light bring the life? For now, he does not say.
And the light shone in the darkness.
But the darkness did not understand it.
The darkness represents the total of all the forces that opposed the Messiah. Ignorance belongs to the darkness, along with stubborn rejection, and the kind of self-blindness that accompanies the mentality of orthodoxy. The Messiah encountered many minds who were turned away from him because they wished to cling to an existing, comfortable, system. They dwelt in darkness, refusing to come into the light.
Light and darkness are first pair of opposing concepts found in Johannes; much more is written about them later. Here, we discover that the darkness did not understand the Light. This too is an important theme, which the author employs as a teaching tool. Whenever Jesus explained an important concept, our author chose an example wherein someone misunderstood what was being said. The reader is expected to take note of what is being explained whenever a misunderstanding occurs.
1:6 It happened that a person whose name was John was sent from God. This one came as a witness, that he might testify about the Light, so that all might trust through him. He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
In this section, the poetry becomes more prosaic, although there is still quite a bit of structure. Coming down out of the heavens of Genesis 1, life and light have been made to appear, and just as the creation account concludes with humanity, so also our author brings us down to one man, simply called John. The single sentence, "It happened that a person whose name was John was sent from God," speaks far more than its simple words.
This man John was the beginning of the end for First Covenant Judaism, although this author is primarily concerned with him as the forerunner of the Messiah. The author is very much concerned with the issue of Identity. Before proceeding to identify the Anointed One (Messiah), he has introduced another figure -- a precursor. An identification of this person is in order.
His purpose is clearly established: he is a witness to the Light (to the Messiah). Witnesses were necessary in Jewish legal thought, and this man John would provide one witness to the identity of the Anointed One. The author testifies that John himself was "not the Light". There appear to have been people who believed that John the Baptizer might have been the Anointed One; the author testifies that this was not the case.
This was the Light, the True Light which enlightened everyone as it came into creation. In creation he was, and the creation happened through him, and yet the creation did not know him. He went into his own domain, and his own people didn't receive him. But to as many as did receive him, he gave them authority to become the children of God--to those who trust in his name, who were born not of blood, nor out of sexual desire, nor of a man's wishes, but from God. And the message was embodied and lived among us, and we observed its glory: glory like from a father's only son, full of favor and truth.
Before continuing to describe the role of John, the author takes time for an aside to describe in slightly more detail who the Light (Anointed One) was. The True Messiah was not John but someone else. Turning to a common theme among Jewish writers (e.g., Paulus), Johannes indicates that "the creation happened through" the Messiah. "Through" does not indicate agency but rather purpose. The author has identified the sending of the Messiah as the thrust of God's communication (message) from 1:1f.. Everything that happened has happened with the Anointed One in mind. Some call this "historical redemption": from the first teaching to Adam and Eva in the garden to Johannes' own time, God's actions toward us have had the sending of the Anointed One in mind. Even creation itself happened with the Messiah in mind.
And even though this was the case, this creation that was "his" in a sense would not recognize the Light. The Messiah went to Israel ("his own domain"), and the Jewish people at large ("his own people") did not accept him. But just as one Messianic title (not yet introduced) was "God's son," so also the Messiah brought with him the authority for Messianic Jews to be God's children. This is one of God's basic promises to Israel: that they would be God's own (e.g., Ex 19:5).
Who are these children? Lest the reader mistakenly believe that by Abraham's lineage we are made children of God, Johannes commented that these are children "who trust in his name." Well, don't the Jewish people trust in the name of Yahweh? But these are children "not of blood"; Abraham's descendants are reckoned by physical lineage. These children are not born by physical means at all; they are "from God." The Messianic Jew is born "from God" (in later terms, "from above"); the concept is foreign to the reader who might think only in terms of lineage through Abraham. For the whole Jewish identity is based on physical lineage, but the identity of the Messianic Jew will be established through the Anointed One alone.
The author has come full circle, establishing the identity of the Anointed One (to some degree) and his people. The Messiah is the very embodiment of the message. That is, whatever God has had to communicate to us, he expressed through the Messiah. We will discover later that the Anointed One never sinned; he always did what God wanted. By examining his life and his teachings, the student could know God better. While the Light was here, we didn't observe the message itself (a communication) -- like those who read the words of the Torah read an expression of the message -- no, we saw the glory (brilliance, radiance -- Light) of the message. The Messiah showed us how wonderful the message was.
This is "glory like from a father's only son". How beautiful is this teaching from God? It is like the pride that a father expresses in his only son -- a great thing to any Jewish man. Yet again the author is foreshadowing something he will use later, for the sonship possessed by the Messiah is something special indeed, even though all of his followers can become God's children.
When the Anointed One came, he was "full of favor and truth." I defer the explanation of these two things until later.
John testified about him, crying out and saying, "This is the one about whom I said, 'The one who comes after me has become before me; because he is my superior.'"
Returning briefly to the main storyline (that featuring the Messiah's forerunner), the author provides us some of the content of his testimony. John said two things here: first, that the Anointed One would come (soon) after his own advent; second, that no matter what they might observe in John, they must realize that the Anointed One is his superior. John was the last of the great prophets and a humble man, preferring that no attention be drawn to him or to his calling of repentance but to the Messiah whom he was introducing.
Because out of his fullness, we all received favor on top of favor. For the Torah was given through Moses; the favor and the truth happened through Anointed Jesus.
For the last time, and more briefly, the author returns to his introduction about the Light. In moving back and forth, the author has eased us into the concepts at play here and the drama that he will begin to unfold for us.
The Messiah was superior to John because he brought "favor on top of favor" from God. The direct comparison follows, about which Paulus would have much to write. The Torah came through Moses, and it was part of God's overall message, but it was incomplete, and so God's people came to embrace it as a code of actions rather than as a set of internal principles. It took the coming of the Messiah, the culmination of God's message to us, to bring "the favor and the truth" mentioned earlier. The favor, the generosity, is to be contrasted with living life under a legal code. Moses brought the legal code, but Jesus brought the internal principles that would simultaneously supercede and explain that code. This internal explanation of the Torah is "the truth" and its result is "the favor." No more legalism. What is this truth? The author begs our patience.
Here is the first time that the central player is identified, and once again, the author is matter-of-fact in his introductions. The name "Anointed Jesus" is simply thrown in our direction. The reader should not be entirely surprised that Johannes has been describing the Anointed One, but here that Messiah is given an identity: he is not just "the Anointed One" but "Anointed Jesus." In his first identification of the Messiah, Johannes has been clear. And still, we do not see anything of this Anointed One, for the author has said too much for now. He will appear later.
1:18 No one has ever seen God. God's unique one, the one who is at the Father's bosom, has related him.
This passage is problematical because its text has been disturbed. Metzger comments that the reading that appears correct has no logical reading within Jewish thought. On the other hand, the reading which makes the most sense is almost certainly not the original reading.
If monogenhV qeoV is the original reading, should it be understood as a separate sentence, "God is unique"? If not, then the absence of the article would make qeoV either a predicate nominative or a singular object, "a god." If we have a predicate nominative, then it cannot belong with either the sentence before or after it (since "to be" is not the verb in either sentence). If "a god" is intended, then how is "a unique god" to be understood? There are groups who formulate one of their central doctrines from this anomalous expression.
But p75 has the article: "the unique God" or "God is unique". The reading "God's unique one" has been proposed, and while this is possible it has little support except in patristic citations. Later manuscripts emend this to "the unique son", but evidence is by far against the reading. The latest translation sides with Irenaeus and Origen, taking the "God's unique one" conjecture. Here, the author introduces the unique relationship between the Messiah and his God. He is "at the Father's bosom"; metaphorically, he is close to God, enjoying his protection and intimacy.
And this is John's testimony: When the Jews sent priests and Levites to ask him, "Who are you?", he affirmed and did not deny. And he affirmed, "I am not the Anointed One."
"This is John's testimony" signifies "this is what John said about himself." The author is introducing information about the Baptizer himself. Exactly who or what did he claim himself to be?
Johannes indicates that the Baptizer "affirmed" that he was not the Anointed One -- not the Messiah. The use of "deny" would have indicated that he really had been the Messiah but lied to those who came to question him. Instead, the author indicates that John merely stated the facts: "I am not the Anointed One."
The expression "the Jews" indicates the leadership of the Jewish people, various rabbis, priests, and sometimes scribes. They claimed to represent the people (at least in "spiritual" matters), and so Johannes is quick to label them simply "the Jews." Members of this leadership group had heard that a so-called prophet was out in the wilderness baptizing people into a covenant of forgiveness of sins (see Mt 3); consequently, they sent someone out to question him. We are given the impression that those who questioned would-be prophets did so with the intent of catching them in a false statement. It was generally believed, based on an interpretation of Zech 13, that genuine prophecy had ceased. In 65 CE, the Jewish leaders used this interpretation to eliminate from the canon any Jewish writings made from the time of Ben-Sira (c. 132 BCE) onward.
And they asked him, "What are you then? Are you Elijah?"
He said, "I am not."
If this strange new prophet were not the promised Anointed One, than did he claim to
be one of the other figures that had been predicted would come? The author presumes
that the reader knows who all of these figures are. One of those
figures was "Elijah." Mal 4:5-6 indicates,
John appears to have held one of two interpretations of this passage -- that Elijah himself would return. Many other Jews believed that not Elijah but a figure like Elijah would come in advance of the Anointed One. Jesus himself related John the Baptizer to this Elijah figure (see Mt 11:14). In Mark, the Elijah/Elisha relationship between John and Jesus takes a prominent role. According to Malachi, the Elijah figure would herald the end of the age (see Mt 3) when the temple would be destroyed. Additionally, he would proclaim a need for reformation. John the Baptizer was doing both of these things, so although he was not Elijah himself, he was the Elijah figure that had been predicted to precede the Messiah.
"Are you 'the prophet'?"
He answered, "No."
When Moses was identifying the role of the Levitical priests (Dt 18:15-22), he foretold that, "Yahweh your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers. You will listen to him." The story of Moses concludes by saying "since then there has not arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom Yahweh knew face to face." Many Jews believed that this successor to Moses was someone different from the Anointed One. Twice in Johannes' account (6:14; 7:40), people profess Jesus to be "the prophet". Christian Judaism may have been the first school of thought to identify the two figures (Anointed One and prophet) with one another. John freely acknowledged that he was not this Moses figure.
Then they said to him, "Tell us who you are, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"
If John didn't claim to be any of these promised figures, then just who did he claim to be? Why was he calling people into a covenant with God?
He said, "I am "a voice crying in the desert, 'Make straight Yahweh's way,'" as Isaiah the prophet said."
At the beginning of what is termed "Second Isaiah" stands a prophecy about the time of the coming of the Anointed One (ch. 40). A "voice" would be sent by God to announce that something majestic is about to happen. John the Baptizer recognized that it was he who held that role. He was a messenger from God, announcing the coming of the Messiah.
21 And those who had been sent out were of the Perushim, and they asked him,
saying to him, "Why then do you baptize, if you are neither the Anointed One, nor Elijah,
nor the prophet?"
John answered them, saying, "I am baptizing in water. In your midst stands the one who
is coming after me, whom you do not know. I'm not worthy even to loosen the strap of his
sandal."
These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
John viewed his own mission only in relation to the coming of the Anointed One. If people regarded John as a prophet, then they should be aware that the Anointed One would be far greater. In fact, he was already "in their midst."
We know little about John's baptism other than the fact that he was calling people to change their ways of thinking (Mt 3:6) because the destruction of Priestly Judaism was near (Mt 3:7-11). The covenant of forgiveness that John proclaimed involved a public way of identifying with a Jewish reformation movement. That "public way" was baptism. Although we find references to ritual cleansing in the OT and in other Jewish writings, John's washing ritual was unique in some ways.
This completes the testimony about John, fleshing out the description in the Prologue, for the author affirms him to have been a true prophet and forerunner to the Anointed One. Now we are ready to hear what he said about Jesus.
29 On the next day, he saw Jesus coming toward him, and he said, "Look! God's lamb, who is taking away the whole world's sin! This is the one about whom I said, 'A man is coming after me who has become before me; because he is my superior.' And I didn't know him, but I have come baptizing in water for this reason: that he might be shown to Israel."
The first title applied to Jesus by any other person was "God's lamb." It is important that this statement is first, because John establishes the Messiah as an antitype of the Passover lamb. The "killing of the Passover (lamb)" is an event symbolic of Jewish identity. During the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Jews reflect on their flight from Egypt as God's destroying messenger slew the first born children of all those households which had not prepared the lamb sacrifice. The sacrifice of the lamb, then, represented the rescue of the faithful, and so by identifying Jesus as God's lamb, the Baptizer was indicating that Jesus would be slaughtered and that his death would bring about the rescue of the faithful. Those who trusted in the Messiah would be rescued out of the coming anger (the destruction of Priestly Judaism).
Here we read in John's own words that he acknowledged the Anointed One as prominent, as a superior. Indeed he "didn't know" who the Messiah was, for according to Lukas they were cousins, yet until God sent the proper sign to John, he never realized that Jesus was God's Anointed One.
Once again, John identified his purpose -- to introduce the Messiah to Israel.
And John testified, saying, "I observed the Spirit coming down like a dove out of the sky, and it remained on him. And I didn't know him; but the one who sent me to baptize in water told me, 'The one on whom you notice the Spirit coming down and remaining on him, this is the one who baptizes in holy breath.' And I have seen and have testified that this is God's son."
Even though we recognize that John was a prophet, how can we be sure that his identification of Jesus as the Anointed One was correct? What sign came which proved this?
God had told the Baptizer that a man would come to be baptized, to publically identify himself with the reformation movement. And as he was being baptized, something miraculous would happen. A representation of the holy Spirit -- God in communication with us -- would come down and light upon Jesus. The others represent this as a shape which resembled a dove and as a voice. God had told him that when this happened, John would know that this person was the Anointed One. For every anointed one in the OT had an anointing; this was Jesus' anointing by God -- his dedication for his work. The Messiah would baptize not in water but in "holy breath" -- he would work miracles. John's testimony of him is that Jesus is "God's son" -- a term for "Messiah."
35 On the next day, John again was standing with two of his students. And after looking at
Jesus walking, he said, "Look! God's lamb!" And the two students followed Jesus when they
heard John say that. Now Jesus turned around and watched them following him. So he said to
them, "What do you seek?" To him they replied, "Rabbi," [which, translated, means "teacher"]
"Where do you live?" He said to them, "Come, and you will see."
Then they went and saw where he lived, and they stayed with him that day.
Notice how time-conscious the author is being. v. 29 happened one day after the Jewish leaders came to question John. Now, it is another day later. From the first day mentioned until the showing of the first sign (Jn 2), the author marks out six days. It is possible (given the Prologue) that these are intended to mirror the six days of creation. Indeed, the revelation of the Messiah slowly builds during these six days until finally he displays the holy breath granted to him by God.
On the day following Jesus' anointing as Messiah, Jesus remained near the site of his baptism, and John was pointing him out to others, including his own students. One of those students is normally considered to have been the author himself, for the author appears anonymously throughout the book. The other, as we will see shortly, was Peter's brother, Andreas.
As Jesus collects his core group of students, they call him by progressively greater Messianic titles. The first with which they label him is "Rabbi." Johannes introduces the Aramaic word for teacher, then translates it into Greek for the reader. The title is important, for in using it the two students were recognizing Jesus as a superior and a teacher. Realizing his importance, they followed Jesus to his home and stayed with him from that time on.
39 It was about the tenth hour. Andreas, Simon Peter's brother, was one of those two who had heard from John and followed Jesus. The first thing he did was to find his own brother Simon. And he said to him, "We have found the Messiah." [which, translated, means "Anointed One"] He brought him to Jesus. After looking at him, Jesus said, "You are Simon, the son of Yohanan. You will be called Kefa." [which, translated, means "Rock"]
Later that same afternoon, Andreas sought out his brother, Simon, who had not been present to see Jesus' anointing. Once again translating from Aramaic, the author reveals that Andreas believed Jesus to be "the Messiah." Again the word is important. Whenever the Greek-speaking Jews heard the word "Messiah," they should recognize that it referred to Jesus, and that the word indicated that Jesus had been anointed by God. Jesus was the promised Anointed One, just as John the Baptizer had also proclaimed.
The account indicates that Simon and Jesus met one another for the first time, and that Jesus recognized in that short time Peter's great character. And so, he nicknamed him "Kefa." This too was important, for the readers might very well have heard Simon referred to as Kefa. Translated into Greek, "Kefa" signifies "Rock" -- a testimony to Simon's personality. Of course, "rock" is the same word as the name we know him by: "Peter," and the author will normally use "Peter" from now on.
43 On the next day, Jesus wanted to go out into Galilaiah. And so he found
Filippos. And Jesus said to him, "Follow me."
Now Filippos was from Bethsaida, the city of Andreas and Peter. Filippos found
Nathanael and said to him, "We have found the one written about in the Torah by Moses, and in
the Prophets: this Jesus, Yosef's son, from Nazareth."
Jesus traveled further out into Galilaiah and located a man named Filippos (the name means "loves horses"). The author's comment that Filippos was from the same city as Andreas and Peter hailed from may be an indication that Peter or his brother had suggested their friend to Jesus; the author says nothing directly. At any rate, Filippos spent some time talking with Jesus and also discerned who he was; he had the same reaction as Andreas had had. Filippos went to find Nathanael, referring to Jesus by yet another title of distinction. Jesus is the one that Moses and the Prophets predicted would come; he is a fulfillment of prophecy. To be more precise as to Jesus' identity, this is "Yosef's son, from Nazareth," and the author included this statement because Jesus (Yoshua) was a common enough name. Indicating his father's name and town of residence made for a more precise identification.
And Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come from Nazareth?" And Filippos
replied to him, "Come and see."
Jesus noticed Nathanael coming toward him and said about him, "Look! A true
Israelite, in whom there is no deceit." Nathanael said to him, "Where do you know me from?"
Jesus replied, saying to him, "Before Filippos called you, I noticed you under the fig tree."
Nathanael answered, "Rabbi, you are the son of God. You are the King of Israel."
Nathanael's reply to such a strong statement by Filippos was one of skepticism. In reply, he quoted a popular saying, "Can any good thing come from Nazareth?" Yet see followed Filippos to meet Jesus, to see if indeed he was the Messiah. Upon his arrival, Jesus removed all skepticism. While it is possible that Jesus had been observing Nathanael, the author and the reaction of Nathanael give us the impression that Jesus had seen a vision of Nathanael. Realizing that Jesus was a gifted prophet, he proclaimed him "God's son" (i.e., the Anointed One) and a new Messianic title: "King of Israel." The Davidic king was the most majestic of all the figures for whom the Jewish people were waiting. This is the most powerful title that any Jewish man might lay on any other, for Nathanael recognized Jesus not only as a superior teacher ('rabbi') but also as all of Israel's God-ordained leader.
Jesus answered, saying, "Because I told you that I noticed you beneath the fig tree, you believe. You will see greater things than this." He continued, "Indeed I assure you, you will see heaven opened, and God's messengers ascending and descending on the Son of Man."
Jesus' reply to Nathanael praises Nathanael's insight and assures him that he would "see greater things" -- he would see spiritual things. Nathanael would be able to perceive God's messengers waiting on the Messiah. It is quite possible that Jesus intended this to be taken as a metaphor: Nathanael would be able to perceive just how important the Anointed One was. His knowledge of Jesus would be intimate.
Also of note here is Jesus' humble reference to himself. Borrowed from Ezekiel, the term "Son of Man" was also taken as a Messianic reference. However, the term literally signifies "a mortal." After being called "King of Israel," Jesus refers to himself simply as "mortal."
At first, we were only told of Jesus.
Then the author showed us Jesus standing around John, not even speaking.
Following that, we see Jesus walking around and talking -- collecting his students.
Finally in this section, Jesus does something. The action involving Jesus has
built toward this event.
A situation is described briefly and matter-of-factly, as the author simply relates what was going on. The event was a marriage feast. Normally, "weddings" as religious ceremonies did not exist back then. At most, the father might accompany his daughter to the groom's house -- indicating that he approved of the relationship. Instead, a party was often thrown in celebration of the relationship (similar to a "reception"). Johannes tells us that there was one of these, tells us when it was, and where it was.
Why was Jesus at this party? His mother had been invited and had been allowed to bring guests, so Jesus and his students had also been invited. A problem developed, "They have no wine." It was Jesus' mother, Miriam, who reported this to her son, indicating not only that of the two she was the primary guest but also that she realized who her son was.
Jesus said to her, "O woman, what do you want with me? My hour has not yet come."
Jesus' reply shows that Miriam had expected her son to announce his presence to all of Israel, but if he had done this it is quite possible that he might have been put to death before he disseminated God's message. Still, a mother's pleading carries considerable weight, and so he agreed to solve the problem.
His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he might tell you to do."
Although the author has mentioned Jesus' father by name, again he refers to Jesus' mother simply as "his mother." This is Johannes' normal form of address for her; out of respect, he never calls her by name. Johannes tells us later that Jesus' mother was entrusted into his care after Jesus' death; it would not have been appropriate for him to refer to Jesus' mother by her first name.
Here, Miriam instructed the servants of the feast to do as Jesus might instruct. Some have mentioned this point as a possible indication that Miriam was more than just a guest at the reception; she may have had a role in preparing the feast. If this is the case, then it may have been her responsibility to see to it that the guests were well fed. If this were so, then her son's gesture in bringing wine for the guests helped his mother to save face.
Now there were six stone water pots, set down according to a Jewish cleansing ritual, each holding two or three measures. Jesus told them, "Fill the water pots with water." And they filled them to the top. And he told them, "Now draw some out and carry it to the ruler of the feast." And they carried some to him.
The author views it as quite appropriate that the water pots used for the water/wine had been set aside for a cleansing ritual. In a manner of speaking, this "sign" will serve as Jesus' own ceremonial preparation for his work for God. The "ruler of the feast" was a chief steward -- the "toastmaster" whose role it was to discharge the wine.
Now when the ruler of the feast tasted the water (which had become wine), and didn't know where it was from (although those servants who drew out the water knew), the ruler of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, "Everyone puts out the good wine first, and when the guests are drunk, he puts out the cheaper wine. But you have kept the good wine until now." This first of the signs Jesus did in Kana of Galilaiah, and he displayed his glory, and his students trusted in him.
Once again, Johannes understates the situation, indicating only as an aside that a miracle had occurred: the water had suddenly changed into wine! This was a sign to which the servants of the feast could readily attest, for they knew that they had put water, not wine, into the jars. The toastmaster's remark was one of social convention. Normally, the best-tasting wine was poured out at the beginning of the feast. Once the guests had drunk enough wine that they could no longer distinguish better wine from cheap wine, a substitution would be made. The toastmaster remarked, however, that contrary to form, the best-tasting wine had been saved until late in the party. Naturally, Jesus had provided the best wine.
This was "the first of the signs" for Jesus, proving that he was indeed the Messiah. Prior to this, he had not provided a demonstration of the power that God had granted him, and as a result, his (twelve) students trusted in him.
If According to Johannes is regarded as being divided into sections, then the first division ends here (or, one might reckon, after v. 12). John and Jesus have been introduced to us, and the basic framework of a proof of Jesus' identity has been established. In the section that follows, Jesus will establish himself as a fulfillment of elements of the Torah and Prophets.
12 After this, Jesus and his mother and his brothers and his students all went down to Kafar-Nahum. But they didn't stay there for many days. The Passover of the Jews was near, and so Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And in the temple courts, he found money changers sitting there, along with those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves. So he made a whip from rushes and drove them all out of the temple court, including the sheep and oxen. He also poured out the money changers' coins and overturned the tables. And to those selling doves he said, "Take these things away. Don't make my Father's house a marketplace." And his students remembered that it was written, "Jealousy for your house will consume me."
The expression translated "they didn't stay there for many days" might also be rendered "stayed there for not many days." Either way, the intent is to indicate that he spent only a short time in "Nahum's village". Again, Johannes' time-conscious nature is evident, as one of the feasts, the Passover, was near. Consequently, Jesus wanted to go to Jerusalem to be part of the feast there.
Jesus "cleansed the temple" on at least two occasions. This cleansing occurred near the beginning of his work and was an act of great symbolism. A new order was coming, and it was necessary for the temple to be "cleansed" to make way for the Messiah. Jesus' actions are also indicative of the state of affairs that had necessitated the sending of prophets (in the past and in Jesus' day). For example, we recall the situation in Malachi, where the sacrifices have become little more than symbolic for the people, and where animal salespeople have set themselves up in order to profit financially -- even stooping so low as to sell blemished animals for the sacrifices. Jesus objected to more than simply the blemished beasts of Malachi. The very concept of greed entering the temple courts was more than he could stand. "Don't make my Father's house a marketplace," he called out, as he drove them from the courts. A house of God should not be a means of making money. The citation is from Psa 69:9. The Davidic psalm depicts the Anointed One surrounded by enemies and subject to ridicule, with only he standing up for God's honor. Even this early, Jesus viewed himself among the Jewish rulers in such a fashion. Lukas reports the rejection that he was already facing at this time (Lk 4).
Then the Jews answered, saying to him, "What sign will you show us to justify your doing these things? Jesus answered, saying, "Knock down this temple, and in three days I will raise it." Then the Jews said, "This temple took forty-six years to build, and in three days you will erect it?" But he was speaking about the temple of his body: therefore when he was raised from the dead, his students remembered that he had said this, and they trusted the writing and also the saying which Jesus had said.
Driving the moneymakers from the temple naturally raised quite a few eyebrows, causing some of the Jewish leaders to question him about it. If Jesus is going to do such a thing, he must have authority. Having no authority from the priests, could he present a sign to prove his authority from God? His reply is the greatest of his predictions: "Knock down this temple, and in three days I will raise it." The author points out in advance for the reader that Jesus was predicting his own return from the dead, less than three days from the date of his death.
Here we see our first misunderstanding, for both the Jewish leaders (who were vocal) and Jesus' own students (who only understood later) believed that he was talking about the temple structures that surrounded him. Jesus was using "temple" as a metaphor for his own body, giving the "cleansing" in the previous section perhaps a new meaning. At any rate, Jesus was planning to give them the greatest sign of all: he would return from the dead. Jesus' students remembered this later on, reminds Johannes, and then they knew to what extent Jesus really was jealous to see God honored. Remember, the reader should make note of what Johannes is trying to say through the misunderstanding: that Jesus would raise from the dead.
While he was staying in Jerusalem, that first Passover, he gained many followers and performed signs proving his identity. Did he trust them with his fate? No, for it is likely that they would have either tried to kill him or make him into a military leader. It was commonly believed that the Anointed One (more properly, the Davidic king) would "restore the kingdom," a phrase that was understood to signify a long period of Jewish self-rule. They would be out from under the Romans, the Seleucids, the Greeks, the Persians, and the Babylonians. Jesus knew what their motivations were, and so he did not entrust himself to them, or they might have tried to crown him king.
3:1 And there was someone whose name was Nikodemos, from the Perushim. He was a ruler of the Jews. This one came to Jesus at night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, because no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him."
The writer presumes that his readers know who the Perushim were -- a class among Jews who were devoted to legalistic study of the Torah. Their name appears to signify "sticklers for details." In contrast to the people who would have tried to make him king was a certain man called Nikodemos, a Perush, one of the leadership. Here was a man who was sincerely trying to understand the role of the Messiah.
His approach to Jesus at night has been commented on by more than a few commentators. Normally, it is written that Nikodemos approached Jesus at night because he feared retribution from his fellow Perushim. After all, Jesus was already regarded as somewhat of a rebel, theologically. While this may very well have been Nikodemos' reason for sneaking in at night to see Jesus, the author appears to have been making a theological statement: Nikodemos comes out of the darkness in order to visit the light. We will find out, however, that the darkness within him does not understand the light. Nikodemos does understand one thing: he knows that God must be behind this Messianic movement of his. The signs have him convinced, but can he comprehend the teachings?
Jesus responded, saying, "Indeed I assure you, unless someone is born from above, he is
unable to notice God's kingdom."
Nikodemos said to him, "How can someone be born if he is old? He can't enter his
mother's womb a second time and be born!"
It is often written of this section of Johannes that "Jesus doesn't respond to what the person is actually saying; he responds to what is in their hearts." Indeed, when Nikodemos comments that he knows Jesus must have been sent by God, Jesus branches from there to what it means for someone to be from God. It is not about signs and wonders that one might work -- being from God means experiencing a spiritual birth. Still, Jesus is answering Nikodemos directly.
In saying this, Jesus uses an expression that literally means "from the top" -- an expression by which he means to say "from God". You must be God's child in a spiritual sense, or you won't even be able to notice "God's kingdom" -- you won't even notice where God is or what he is doing.
But Nikodemos interpreted this temporally. By "from the top," does he really mean "all over again?" You can imagine his confusion at trying to contemplate being stuffed into his mother's womb and being born a second time!
Answered Jesus, "Indeed I assure you: unless someone is born of water; that is, spirit, he is unable to enter into God's kingdom. Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh; and whatever is born of the spirit is spirit. Don't wonder that I said to you, 'You must be born from above.' The wind blows wherever it wants to, and you hear its sound, but you don't know where it comes from or where it's going. This is how it is with everyone who has been born of the spirit."
Maybe a more direct explanation would do, so Jesus explained what he meant by "born from above." You must experience a spiritual birth. Now surely, Nikodemos would understand what he meant. Jesus used "water" to signify "spirit" here, mentioning it only briefly. This is typical of the foreshadowing present in Johannes; a fuller explanation will come later (chs 4, 7). Suffice it to say that Jesus did not use "water" to signify "baptism", nor does "water" represent "physical birth" (so Fairfield, 1893). Rather, "water" is to be regarded as a metaphor for "spirit".
Jesus' explanation is somewhat simplistic: you need a physical birth to become a physical being; so too you need a spiritual birth to become a spiritual being. Therefore, Jesus added, it shouldn't be a surprise that Jesus had used the metaphor of spiritual birth -- of being "born from above."
In further explaining spiritual birth, Jesus lights upon the results of spiritual birth -- namely, spiritual freedom. This basic concept is something that the reader needs to take home: that there is no spiritual freedom in conventional Judaism, but the Messiah is bringing spiritual birth, which leads to true spiritual freedom.
The words "wind," "spirit," and "breath" are all related concepts (and nearly identical words in Greek or Hebrew). Therefore, the blowing of the wind wherever it pleases is likened to the freedom experienced by the person who accepts the spiritualized Torah -- the person who has been born spiritually. Jesus has explained that a spiritual birth or awakening is necessary to make someone a truly spiritual person, a person who is indeed free. (Jesus will say more about freedom later as well.)
Nikodemos answered, saying to him, "How can these things be?"
Jesus replied, telling him, "You are a teacher of Israel, and you don't know these things?
Indeed I assure you that we are talking about what we know, and we are testifying about what
we've seen. And you don't receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you don't
believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"
But Nikodemos was still trying to contemplate a second spiritual birth, the wind blowing, and what spiritual birth might mean. He was clueless. Although he was open-minded to a degree, he was not yet willing to embrace a different way of thinking, and a new paradigm would be necessary if he was going to break free of legalistic Judaism.
It is clear from this portion, though, that Jesus was trying to explain matters to Nikodemos quite directly; he wasn't trying to confuse. Nikodemos was a teacher -- didn't he understand? Jesus had spoken in metaphor of birth and wind. If Nikodemos did not understand about the wind blowing, how could he indeed understand the truly deep spiritual concepts?
And no one has ascended into heaven except the Son of Man who descended from heaven.
Johannes inserts a comment: that the Messiah sees these spiritual concepts more clearly than anyone. In metaphor, he "ascended into heaven." This is not indicating his ascension after his resurrection but the things that Jesus has just told Nikodemos. Jesus saw all of the spiritual concepts because God sent him. In Jesus' own metaphor, he was "from above."
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, in this way it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up, so that everyone who trusts in him may have eternal life."
After realizing that he struggled so much, Jesus' parting statement to Nikodemos was a prediction of his own death. Perhaps he might grasp this one final metaphor:
In Numbers, the Jewish people were complaining about the manner in which God was leading them from Egypt. Weren't they better off in bondage? The state of Israel then compared to the state of Israel in Jesus' time. Their religion was bondage, but God had intended to set them free. Just as God provided a means of salvation for Israel back then, so also the Messiah would be their salvation now. The bronze serpent had been "lifted up"; Jesus himself would be mounted on a cross. Anyone who looked at the serpent would live, and so any Jew presently who might trust in the Anointed One would live in the face of the God-sent destruction of Priestly Judaism. Did Nikodemos understand? We do not know, but Nikodemos did become a follower of Jesus, so it is likely that he understood at some time.
16 For God loved creation so much that he gave the unique son, so that whoever trusts in
him would not be destroyed, but would have eternal life. For God did not send the son into
creation so that he might judge the creation, but so that the creation might be saved through him.
Whoever trusts in him is not judged,
because he has not trusted in the name of God's unique son.
Now this is the judgment: that the light has come into the creation, and people loved the
darkness instead of the light; for their deeds were evil. For anyone who practices foul things
hates the light and doesn't come toward the light, where his deeds would be detected. But the
one who does the truth comes toward the light, so that his deeds may be displayed, because they
have been done in God.
Johannes concludes the thought with theological commentary. Jesus was about to be crucified because God loved his people. To what extent? So much that he gave up his special anointed son to be crucified at other peoples' hands. For what purpose? To bring salvation to Israel during a time of Israel's judgment.
For judgment would soon come upon Israel, taking the form of the Roman armies, and the Jewish state would be destroyed. The follower of Jesus would not enter this judgment; in fact, Jesus taught his followers to leave Jerusalem to the Romans when they noticed the armies coming. But the one who clung to traditional Judaism and to the traditional view of the promised land would have that land taken from him; he would have no hope for salvation.
And so Johannes indicates the verdict of the coming judgment: the Messiah was here, but people chose rather to follow traditional Judaism and remain in ignorance. Here, the writer returns to his "light and darkness" metaphor, with which he introduced the work and which subtly began the story of Nikodemos. Now we learn more about the light and darkness. In Johannes' metaphor, the darkness of legalistic Judaism is only loved by those who refused to accept the Messiah. Anyone who retains an atmosphere of religiosity -- a legalisitic mentality -- will not accept Jesus as Messiah, because his own hypocrisy would be detected. But anyone who really loves God would accept the Messiah, knowing that the pure nature of his devotion toward God will be made known.
22 After these things, Jesus and his students went into the Judean land, and he stayed there with them and was baptizing. Now John was also baptizing in Aenon, near Saleim, because there were many springs there. And people were coming and being baptized (for John had not yet been thrown into prison).
Note in translation: some translations read "much water" in the description of Aenon; that rendering is inaccurate. Literally, the passage reads "many waters," and since Aenon roughly signifies "a spring," the term does not refer to a large body of water but to the many springs found at Aenon. This was a natural place for John to stay because people often used the area to replenish their water supply as they traveled. There was more than enough water there, also, for a washing ritual. The author presumes that the reader understands John's fate -- that he had been imprisoned and executed.
Jesus, or rather his students (who had been John's students) were baptizing people nearby. And so, the author indicates the degree to which the reformation was spreading.
A dispute then occurred between John's students and a Jew about ritual cleansing. And
they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, look! The one who was with you beyond the
Jordan -- the one for whom you testified -- he is baptizing, and everyone is coming to him."
John answered, saying, "No person is able to receive anything unless it has been given
to him from heaven. You yourselves are testifying to me that I said, 'I am not the Anointed One;
but I have been sent before him.'"
As Jesus and John were near one another, both making converts to the reformation of Judaism, one of the members of the Jewish leadership came by -- intentionally stirring up trouble. Hoping that the Baptizer would become jealous that Jesus was converting more people to the reformation than he himself was, the troublemaker pointed this out to John. But John's reply indicated that he knew his role. All of the converts are from God, converting to Messianic Judaism because their hearts reveal it to them. He is only a catalyst in conversion. And the leader had approached John referring to Jesus as the one he'd testified about earlier; John throws this back at him. "You know who he is and what I said there? Then you know I said I'm not the Anointed One -- he is."
"The one who has the bride is the bridegroom, but the bridegroom's friend, who stands
and hears him, rejoices greatly to hear the bridegroom's voice. So, my joy has been made
complete in this.
"He must increase, but I must decrease. The one who comes from above is above all
things. The one who comes from the land, is of the land and speaks of the land. The one who
comes from heaven is above all things."
John clarifies his role further, both for the troublemaking leader and for Johannes' readers. By comparison, he is "the bridegroom's friend" -- the "best man". The Messiah is "the bridegroom." It is enough for the bridegroom's friend to participate in the joy of the groom. It is necessary then for the groom's friend to become less important, because the groom is more important -- just as the Messiah is more important than his forerunner.
The next comments may be the author's and not John's. This is a second mention, in the work, about being "from above." The one who is "from above" is "above all things." Anyone who has his heart set on following God -- in this case Jesus -- is above all other things. But the one who is "from the land" (or "from below," later) -- the person who has his mind fixed on earthly matters, belongs here and can only speak of earthly matters. The term "from above" (mentioned with Nikodemos) is elaborated further here and is compared with "from the land." Being "born from above" and "born of the spirit" are the same thing in ch. 3, so we know that there is no freedom in being "from the land." Those Jews who maintain the Judaism of the rabbis are restricted "to the land" -- to earthly matters. They will not even notice God's kingdom.
32 What he has seen and heard, this he testifies about, yet no one receives his testimony. Whoever receives his testimony has set his seal that God is true. For the one that God has sent speaks the declarations of God; for he doesn't give the breath by measure. The Father loves the son, and everything has been given into his hand. Whoever trusts in the son has eternal life. Whoever is not persuaded by the son will not see life, but God's anger stays with him.
Being still more pointed in application, the writer provides further information. Jesus has been testifying about being "from above" and "from below," but relatively few people (in extreme, "no one") are listening. Those who recognize the internal principles underlying the Torah -- something that Johannes has only alluded to so far -- know that "God is true," that God is not a god who deals in external matters.
God sent Jesus the Anointed One, and therefore what Jesus says comes straight from God, who gave Jesus "breath without measure." Rather than providing only limited inspiration, as with some of the prophets, God gave the Anointed One full inspiration. Jesus himself will return to this later, but here the author makes a related comment that God has indeed given his son everything. In some respect, as the Davidic king, the Anointed One is God's heir.
The central dichotomy is expressed well here: "whoever trusts the Messiah has life"; "whoever doesn't will not see life." Every Jew who hears of the Anointed One must step down from off the fence -- he must decide. Either Jesus is the Anointed, and you must acknowledge it, or decide that he is not and behave accordingly. Those who are really following God will make the right decision. Those who remain in Priestly Judaism would experience the "anger" that was to come; they would see their religion destroyed by God.
Another detail is provided about the person who visited John the Baptizer: he had been one of the Perushim. The author reports that when Jesus got word that the Perushim were investigating his popularity, he headed north. It was still not time for him to openly proclaim his Messiahship. The necessity to pass through Samaria may have indicated that it was winter -- that harsh weather prevented him from taking another route.
This is where Johannes points out that Jesus himself baptized no one. John's followers had brought along baptism as a means of identifying with the reformation. It was enough that they were baptizing; Jesus did not need to do it. He may have avoided personally baptizing anyone so that no one could later claim that their baptism was somehow special because Jesus himself had administered it.
Therefore, he went into a city of the Samaritans called Suchar, near the field that Jacob gave to his son Yosef. And Jacob's well was there. Then Jesus sat down at the well because he had become tired from travelling. The hour was about the sixth.
In this section, Jesus is shown to be both greater than Jacob and his successor. The statement of the necessity for passing through Samaria would placate the consciences of any Palestinian Jews who read the work, because they normally had no association whatsoever with Samaritans. Most Samaritans rejected the later writings altogether, retaining only the Torah. Since they lived outside of traditional Judaism, and since some had even intermarried, there were various superstitions that surrounded Samaritans. We will examine one of them shortly.
The author points out that the land had been given by Jacob to Yosef (Gen 33:18-20; 48:21-22 -- Yosef was buried there, Josh 24:32), and more particularly that Jacob's well was the very location at which Jesus had chosen to rest. The time was noon, a likely time for Jesus to be thirsty.
Jacob's well had already become a landmark. The site is still known today; it is situated in land owned by Palestinians. Supposedly, the well is 120 feet deep, and its water is cool and refreshing. Drinking from a well had already become symbolic of salvation: "With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation." (Isa 12:3)
A Samaritan woman came to draw out water. Jesus said to her, "Give me some to drink." (For his students had gone into the city to buy provisions.)
Again the author explains what could have been a sticky situation. Jesus only spoke to the Samaritan woman because his students were not with him. It had been necessary for them to leave, because the group needed more food. Jesus' comment was brief and to the point; he did not initiate a conversation. Instead, he merely said, "Give me (some water) to drink."
The Talmud records a few comments about speaking in public with women -- comments
which are not flattering:
"He who speaks much with a woman draws down misfortune on himself, neglects the words of the Law, and finally earns
Gehenna." (Mishnah Aboth 1,5). The sages taught that one ought to use as few
words as possible. "Give me to drink" is short and concise.
And we have
"One is not so much as to greet a woman." (Talmud bBerakhoth 43b).
Rabbis in Jesus' day were expected not to meet with women, especially alone. Schonfield, Swidler, and others have indicated that the tradition was so strong as to forbid greeting one's own mother or sister in the street. As a rabbi, Jesus was expected to keep the traditions of the earlier rabbis.
Further, since Samaritans did not keep the purification rituals in the same manner as Judean Jews, and since the accompanying social customs were different, when one did meet a Samaritan, it was considered impossible to discern whether or not they were ritually clean. A tradition in which we are interested is the precept against coming into contact with a woman during her period (Lev 15:19f.). How could one tell whether a Samaritan woman were menstruating? Customs arose that Samaritans should be avoided altogether. These were later written down:
“The daughters of the Samaritans are menstruants from their cradles.” (Mishnah, Nidd, 4:1)
Therefore, the author presents us with a picture of Jesus saying only what was necessary. However, he chooses to allow her to draw the water for him. If she were indeed impure, then the bucket used to draw the water would be unclean, making the water itself ceremonially unclean as well. Jesus ignored this.
Then the Samaritan woman said to him, "How is it that you, a Jew, are asking for a drink from me--a woman of Samaria?" (For the Jews and Samaritans do not associate.)
The Samaritan woman, too, is well aware of the pervading superstitions regarding here people. "Jew" here should be understood as "Judean" -- as an indication that he was recognized as a mainstream Jew. Her question is compound -- why are you asking for a drink from a woman, and a Samaritan no less? Jesus was violating two traditions, and the tradition which rendered her unclean was particularly ruinous, socially.
Jesus answered, saying, "If you had known the gift of God and who it is who is speaking with you, you would ask him, and he would give you living water."
The Samaritans had very little tradition surrounding the Anointed One, since they did not regard the Prophets as having the same authority as the Torah. They did acknowledge such a figure, however (called Taheb, a restorer), and Jesus clearly hinted that he was the promised one.
The use of the term "living water" is a play on words. First of all, it signifies "running water." Jacob's well came from a spring, which produced running water. Running water was regarded as ritually pure, whereas stagnant water was unclean. Jesus indicated that he would have given her some running water if she had only asked. He is about to be misunderstood again, and the reader should take notice of his explanation.
She said to him, "Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. So where do you get the living water from? Are you greater than our father, Jacob, who gave us the well--which he and his sons drank from, and so did his cattle?"
We may think that the misunderstanding here is quite natural, for they are standing by a well, and Jesus is receiving water from the woman. Still, Jesus is using the expression in the senses in which we find spring water being used in the OT. Jeremiah 2:13 reads, "...my people have...forsaken me, the fountain of running waters and have hewn cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns than cannot hold water." The running waters from a fountain symbolize the salvation that comes from following God (as in Isaiah), whereas the stagnant waters (from a cistern) represent spiritual stagnation. Jer 17:13 also employs the metaphor.
But even in her confusion, the woman gleaned more from Jesus than his being merely a Judean or a rabbi. "Are you greater than Jacob" was her next question -- one that was quite appropriate.
Jesus answered, saying, "Everybody who drinks this water will thirst again. But whoever drinks the water that I will give him will never thirst. Rather, the water that I will give him will be in him a well of water springing into eternal life."
Jesus' answer is circuitous, but he indicated that, yes, he was greater than Jacob. Why? Because Jacob provided ordinary physical water: people drink it, but they still die. Jesus was willing to provide her with "water" that will quench her thirst forever. And what is more, the salvation-water provided by Jesus would convert her into a wellspring -- she would have permanent life. Thirst appears here as a motif; it will reappear later contrasted again with its opposite.
The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I would not thirst, nor have to come to this place to draw." Said Jesus to her, "Go call your husband and come here." The woman answered, saying, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have said correctly that you have no husband. For five husbands you have had, and the one that you have now is not your husband. This you have said truthfully."
Gleaning only partially what Jesus was telling her, the woman asked for physical water that would have such an effect. This prompted his answer: "Go call your husband." At first, Johannes presents this as simply an element of the conversation. The reader might question, "Do we know she's married?" We have been told nothing in advance, so that Jesus' miraculous knowledge will be more stunning.
Her reply that she has no husband is met with Jesus' analysis of her life. She had made commitments to five men, and had forsaken those men. Her current lover she will not commit to. Under the Torah, a woman could divorce her husband for certain reasons, and Jesus never addressed her reasons for separation, but they were causing her to lose all intimacy.
Did he say this to humiliate her? No, but to make her realize that the "living water" of which he spoke was something spiritual, something indeed that he as Messiah was bringing her.
19 The woman said to him, "Sir, I observe that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where it is necessary to worship."
Now realizing that Jesus was a true prophet -- something greater than an ordinary scholar-rabbi -- she posed a theological question. Since at least 400 BCE, the Samaritans had been constructing shrines on Mt. Gerizim. Gerizim held such a high place of import that it appeared on Samaritan coins. Possessing only the Torah, the Samaritans reasoned that the proper place to worship God was on the mountain. Judeans taught that the temple in Jerusalem was the place where God wanted people to worship. Knowing now that Jesus was a true prophet, she asked a hotbutton question that underlied the foundations of her people's beliefs: "what is the proper place of worship?"
Jesus said to her, "Woman, trust me: an hour is coming when you will worship the
Father neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You worship what you do not know. We
worship what we know, because salvation is of the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is here,
when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit; that is, truth. For the Father is also
seeking those who worship him that way.
"God is a spirit, and it is necessary for those who worship him to worship in spirit; that
is, truth."
Here, Jesus supercedes not only Jacob but all forms of locational worship. When asked, "What is the place of worship?" Jesus did not say, "the temple," or "that mountain," or "a church building." Instead, Jesus made the first truly controversial statement of his career. In saying, "neither," Jesus removed the very concept of "places of worship"!
The use of "in spirit" signifies "spiritually," and so Jesus indicates that all worship must be done spiritually, that is, truthfully. Jesus equates spiritual and truthful later on (as Johannes records), so that following the internal Torah is "truthful worship". "An hour is coming" he said, because the end of Priestly Judaism was quickly approaching. "An hour is coming, and now is" because God has always regarded only worship from within. Where is the proper place of worship? Inside. No building or place is a "place of worship," but a heart devoted to God is the only place of worship. Not only is this how "it is necessary to worship the Father," but also God is seeking for people who worship him internally. Imagine the intimacy involved in true worship, when God actively seeks people with a worshipful attitude! For following the internal Torah, we shall see, does not mean obeying various rules; instead, it necessitates the right attitudes in the heart.
"Worship" -- literally the act of bowing down -- must be done internally. We cannot kneel at an altar externally. It is not worship to sing praises unless you mean those words. It is not worship to sit in a synagogue or church as part of a ritual. For worship is not external but internal.
In the midst of this stands the sentence, "We worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews." Although the Samaritans possess the Torah, they reject other prophetic writings. Salvation will not come through a Samaritan Messiah but through a Jewish one.
Said the woman to him, "I know that the Messiah is coming--the one called Anointed. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." Jesus said to her, "The one that is speaking to you, I am he."
Speaking to a Jew, the woman used the Aramaic term "Messiah." Like the Judeans, the Samaritans had their own traditions about the Messiah, who would come as a revealer. Up until now, Jesus has not made such a straightforward identification of himself, but here -- to a woman and a Samaritan -- he introduces himself plainly. "I'm the Messiah."
In doing so, he also introduces one of his own verbal devices (relayed to us frequently by the author): the "I am" statement. In Greek, the verb alone, eimi, is enough to identify one's self. Adding the pronoun marks a point of emphasis. There is no special meaning to egw eimi ("eggo amy"); it merely means either "I am" or "it's me." It is the normal way to identify yourself. Some people have wrongly speculated that in using "I am" to describe himself, Jesus is identifying himself with God, for Ex 3:14 has God saying, "I am what I am" to describe himself. However, the descriptive in the Greek Old Testament -- the divine name" -- is NOT egw eimi; it is o wn, which literally means "the one who is" -- the Self Existent One. When Jesus uses "I am", he identifies himself as Messiah in the context of this written work. This is normally the case, and here we experience the first occasion of his self-identification.
27 And when he said this, his students came, and they were wondering why he was talking
with a woman. Still, no one said, "What do you seek?", or, "Why are you talking to her?"
Then the woman left and went into the city and said to the people, "Come notice
someone who told me everything I ever did! Isn't this the Anointed One?" They went out of
the city and were coming toward him.
Just after Jesus identified himself as the Anointed One, something that must have been truly shocking, his students returned from purchasing their provisions. The gender bias present at the time shows immediately, for while they might have assumed Jesus would be speaking with someone (who would have been Samaritan), they were still wondering "why he was talking with a woman." In fact, not only had Jesus treated this Samaritan woman like the equal human being that she was, but also he had spoken more plainly of himself to her than to anyone previously. Recognizing that their social prejudices were the cause of their wonder, no one dared to ask him why he was doing this.
The woman returned to her city and announced that the guy she'd met at Jacob's well was indeed greater than Jacob. He's the Anointed One. Natural curiosity overwhelmed her associates, and they came out to meet Jesus.
Now in the meantime, his students were offering food
to him, saying, "Rabbi, eat." But he said to them, "I have food to eat that you don't know
about."
Then the students said to one another, "Has anyone brought him food?"
34 Jesus said to them, "My food is that I may do what the one who sent me wants and that I
may finish his work. Don't you say that, 'it is only four months until the harvest comes'? Look,
I'm telling you: lift up your eyes and observe the fields -- they are white to harvest already. The
reaper receives a reward and gathers fruit for eternal life, so that both the sower and the reaper
may rejoice together. For in this, the saying is true, that, 'One person is the sower, and another is
the reaper.' I sent you to reap where you didn't labor. Some people labored, and you have
entered into their labor."
Meanwhile, Jesus' students offered him some of the food they had just purchased, assuming that he must be hungry. The author mentioned this incident because it provides the readers with another one of Jesus' analogies -- food and hunger. Hunger and thirst will reoccur later. For now, there is misunderstanding. Jesus already has food? Didn't they run out? Who brought him food?
For Jesus, the metaphor of "food" is something internal (spiritual) rather than external (physical) food. The Messiah was fed by doing what God wants. Should Jesus take time to eat? There was work to do, and this was food enough. If the saying quoted by Jesus is factual as to time, then the saying is probably about spring wheat, which is harvested in late Spring, but the saying may not be timely. Although Johannes never presents us with an account of the sending of the Twelve, this is his indication to us that they have been sent. The Twelve are depicted as reapers, gathering wheat where Jesus sowed. Jesus brought the message of the interal Torah, and the students have only to introduce them to more specifics of the new covenant. Jesus says, "I sent you," indicating that the Twelve have already been sent out. "Some people labored" may refer to the prophets, who taught about the Messiah. In gathering followers for the Anointed One, the Twelve entered into the labor of the prophets -- since the prophets had also announced that an Anointed One was coming.
Now out of that city, many Samaritans trusted in him on account of the woman's
message. She was testifying, "He told me everything that I've done." Therefore, the Samaritans
came to him, asking him to stay with them. He stayed there for two days.
And many more trusted on account of his message and said to the woman, "We no
longer trust on account of your words, for we ourselves have heard, and we know that this truly
is the savior of creation."
Out of her own free choice, and not because anyone had sent her to do so, the Samaritan woman began telling people in her city about the Messiah, a man who had provided to her details of her private life. Wishing to hear such a person, many people in the city begged Jesus to remain there for two days. Since it is important that each person's trust be entirely personal to them, their remarks were preserved by the author: they weren't just taking her word for it any longer. They had verified for themselves that Jesus was the Anointed One, the savior of creation.
43 Now after the two days, he went out from there into Galilaiah but not into Nazareth, for Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country. Therefore, when he came into Galilaiah, the Galilaians embraced him, having seen all that he did in Jerusalem at the feast. (For they had also gone to the feast.)
The supplied words are necessary in order to understand the author's intent. Jesus circulated throughout the region of Galilaiah, but Johannes deliberately does not say that he returned home, because he had already proven that the people there did not accept him. This saying of Jesus was to have been known to the readers. But the people of the area did accept him for who he was, and many of them had seen him the preceding Spring in Jerusalem.
Then he came again into Kana of Galilaiah, where he made the water wine. And there
was a certain courtier whose son was sick in Kafar-Nahum. When he heard that Jesus had
come out of Judea into Galilaiah, he went to him and asked him to come down and heal his
son, who was about to die.
Therefore, Jesus said to him, "If you all don't notice signs and omens, you won't believe."
The courtier said to him, "O sir, come down before my child dies." Jesus said to him, "Go. Your
son is alive." The man trusted the saying that Jesus said to him and went. And already, as he
was going back, his slaves met him, saying that his boy was alive. Then he inquired of them as
to the hour in which he was better, and they said to him, "Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever
left him." Then the father knew that this was the time when Jesus said to him, "Your son is
alive." And he and all his household trusted in Jesus. This again, a second sign, Jesus did,
after going from Judea into Galilaiah.
This second division of the work concludes where the first ended -- in Kana -- and like the first, it ends with a sign. Here for the first time in Johannes' account, Jesus expressed frustration that people were following him on account of the signs that accompanied his teaching. It is more important (as Johannes included in the previous section) that people realize who he is and embrace his teachings. Thus, we have here a contrast between the people of Kana and the Samaritans of Suchar.
This time, Jesus proved that the powers given by God to his Anointed were so great that he need not even be present in order to cause healing. For the one who trusts, like the courtier, God would work wonders through the Messiah. The courtier had already known that the Anointed One could do such things, but the performance of the sign caused his entire household to realize who Jesus was.
5:1 After these things, there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now
there is in Jerusalem, by the sheep gate, a swimming pool, called in Hebrew Beth-saida, which
has five covered porches. Under these a large number of sick people were lying, with the blind,
lame, and withered. And a certain man was there who had been in feeble health for thirty-eight
years.
Noticing him lying there, and knowing that he had been that way for a long time, Jesus
said to him, "Do you want to become well?" The one who was sick replied, "Sir, I have no one
who would put me into the swimming pool when the water is stirred up. But just as I am
coming, another goes down ahead of me."
Jesus said to him, "Rise. Take up your mat and walk." And the man immediately
became well, and took up his mat, and walked.
The feast mentioned in the passage was probably a minor feast, possibly even a new moon, since Johannes ordinarily mentions the important feasts. However, the festival of Purim was coming into widespread practice during the time of Jesus. Since it was a relatively new feast (no references to it prior to the I century BCE), the author may have mentioned it simply as "a feast of the Jews" -- a feast that was not mentioned in the OT but which the Jewish leaders celebrated. At any rate, Jesus chose to celebrate the feast and returned to Jerusalem.
The location of the pool has been determined by archeological excavations. There are several pools in the area; this one is commonly known as the Probatic Pool. The first paragraph of the account provides us with a legend -- that people might be cured at the pool (during the feast?).
Jesus observed a feeble man who had been sick for 38 years (thus, his physical state was well-documented). As long as the water remained stagnant, the people waiting by the pool were inactive, but the pool sat over an intermittent spring. When the spring brought forth water, the pool bubbled, and all of the people sitting beside it would leap in, believing that they would be healed while the pool was bubbling. The account indicates no truth to the superstition, although an addition to the text attempts to mystify the superstition.
Once again, the author makes use of the dichotomous analogy between stagnant and running (living) water; the people believed that only when the water was "living" could they be healed. But the Anointed One would provide the healing that the pool could not (since he possessed the true "living water"). Jesus had only to ask whether the man wished to be healed, and he had only to listen and to trust God.
Jesus' simple instruction would have been useless to a man who refused to trust God: get up and walk. There was no need to try to slip into the pool while it bubbled; God had the power to heal at any time. The man believed Jesus, he arose, and he found himself able to walk after 38 years of being feeble.
9 Now that day was a Sabbath. Therefore, the Jews said to the one who had been healed,
"It is a Sabbath, and it is illegal for you to carry the mat."
But he answered them, "The one who made me well said to me, 'Take up your mat and
walk.'"
They asked him, "Who is the one who told you to take it up and walk?" But the man
who had been healed didn't know who it was, for Jesus had slipped out easily, since there was a
crowd in the place.
Some of the Jewish leaders noticed the man carrying his mat out of the covered area. There were (and are) traditions as to how much weight one may carry and how far one may carry it on the Sabbath, and the leaders judged this man to be in violation of those traditions. When questioned, the man brought attention to his healing: "the one who made him well" told him to carry his mat. Surely this was from God -- an exception to the traditions of the rabbis.
But this made the leaders all the more curious, not about the healing but about who might be going around telling people to violate the traditions of the Sabbath! Jesus was gone by this time, having made his way through the crowd, and so they were unable to question him about the directions he had given the formerly crippled man. At the same time, they completely overlooked the fact that the man could now walk on sound legs.
14 After these things, Jesus found him in the temple courts and said to him, "Look! You
have become well. Sin no longer, so that nothing worse may happen to you." The person went
away and told the Jews that Jesus was the one who had made him well. And for this reason the
Jews persecuted Jesus: because he did these things on a Sabbath.
But he replied to them, "My Father works until now, and so I am working." Therefore,
because of this, the Jews sought even more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the
Sabbath, but also he said that God was his own father, making himself equal to God.
Some time passed -- possibly a few weeks -- and Jesus encountered the man again. This time, he was in the temple courts (possibly there to praise God). In saying, "You have become well," the Anointed One pointed out that the man's healing was permanent. It had been no fluke that God had healed him. However, if this man waivered in his trust in God -- if he took his healing for granted and began to ignore the Deity who had healed him -- something even worse might happen to him.
Johannes gives us the impression that the man's reaction to the admonition was a poor one. He did not appreciate Jesus' warning and went straight to those who were hunting him, telling the Jewish leaders who had healed him. The author is careful not to say that Jesus "profaned the Sabbath," because he had not violated the Torah itself. Instead, he writes that Jesus "did ... things." Jesus had acted, but had he acted inappropriately?
The leaders tracked Jesus down, although the author says nothing of the beginning of his encounter with them, nor of the wording of their accusation. His reply was that since his Father, God, was working, so also would he work. None of them had said they were going to kill him, but Johannes explains that it was at this time that they began to consider the idea -- not because he had violated the Sabbath, but that he claimed a special privilege. Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah, "God's son." He had claimed a relationship with God that was greater than their own. They rationalized that this implied that he was claiming equality with God, and those who put themselves equal to God must die. The author is showing his readers to what logical extremes these leaders would go in order to twist the Torah into convicting Jesus.
Then Jesus answered, saying, "Indeed I assure you: the son can't do anything of himself, except what he sees the Father doing. For whatever he may do, in the same way the son does these things as well. For the Father loves the son and shows him everything that he does. And he is showing him greater deeds than these, so that you may wonder.
Still, Jesus explained exactly what he implied of his relationship with God. Jesus only does what God wants him to do. Consequently, if he was responsible for the healing, then it was only by God's own action. His relationship with God was an open one, where even God's motives were open to him -- "the Father...shows him everything." And in predicting "greater things than these," Jesus alluded to his own resurrection, also providing Jesus with an analogy for his teachings: the dichotomy of life and death.
"For as the Father raises and makes alive the dead, so also the son makes alive whomever
he wishes. For not even the Father judges anyone, but he has given all judgment to the son, so
that all may honor the son just like they honor the Father.
"Whoever does not honor the son is not honoring that Father who sent him. Indeed I
assure you that whoever hears my message and trusts the one who sent me has eternal life and is
not coming into judgment but has passed out of death into life.
The "Father makes alive the dead" is referring to a physical resurrection. God has raised people from the dead in the past. But the analogy is figurative, spiritual: the Messiah "makes alive whomever he pleases." Here, Jesus defines life in terms of genuinely following God. The one who truly follows God (and therefore adheres to the teachings of his Anointed One) is "alive"; those who follow their traditions are "dead." It is within the scope of this analogy that Jesus brings up judgment. He said, "he has given judgment to the son." Later on, he will say that he doesn't judge anyone. What he means here is something different. The son is not in a position of judge here. Instead, the Messiah becomes the basis for judgment (just as Moses and one's own words will be later on). In simple terms, there would be Jews who accepted their Messiah and those who did not. That decision (honoring the Messiah or not) would be the basis for their judgment.
Therefore Jesus continued by saying that "whoever does not honor the son is not honoring [the] Father." More specifically, he added, "whoever hears my message and trusts the one who sent me has eternal life." Thus, no judgment will be passed against those who follow the internal Torah taught by the Messiah. So far, this internal Torah has still been barely alluded to in Johannes, whereas Matthaiah's account (for instance) shows that he has been teaching it all along. The reader is expected to have some degree of familiarity with the idea that the Torah can be understood as a set of internal principles; Johannes will bring up the basics of life by the Torah later on. For now, the necessity of living that life is the thrust of his thesis.
25 "Indeed I assure you that an hour is coming, and now is here, when the dead will hear
the voice of God's son, and those who have heard will live. For as the Father has life in himself,
similarly he gave the son life to have in himself. Also he gave him authority, even to execute
judgment, because he is a mortal.
"Don't wonder about this, because an hour is coming in which all those in the tombs will
hear his voice and will come out: those who have done good things will come out to a
resurrection of life; and those who have practiced foul things will come out to a resurrection of
judgment.
An hour is coming -- again because Priestly Judaism will soon vanish -- and is now here -- because the Messiah is present -- when those who are dead spiritually will recognize God's son (i.e., the Anointed One) and give themselves over to the internal Torah. "Those who have heard will live" -- the teachings provide salvation from the coming anger. In being able to teach the message of life, the son "has life in himself" in this sense, just as God has life in himself.
The Messiah's authority here involves the discernment between those who have accepted his message and those who have not. Being human, the Messiah was granted such authority among his siblings by God. The teachings of the Messiah constituted an expression of that authority -- for he wished that everyone accept the message. Everyone alive in Jesus' day was "in the tombs," according to the analogy, because only the Messiah had the message directly from God. Therefore, their encounter with the Anointed One would produce in them a "resurrection," following which they would enter an "afterlife" (the word "afterlife" and "resurrection" are the same). This life, after their existence in spiritual death, would either be an afterlife of "life" -- of salvation from the coming anger -- or an afterlife of judgment -- when the Jews who did not accept their Messiah would have their religion as they knew it destroyed by the Romans.
30 "By myself, I can do nothing. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I
am not seeking what I want but the wishes of the one who sent me. If I were to testify about
myself, isn't my testimony true? Another person is testifying about me, and I know that the
testimony that he gives on my behalf is true. You have sent for John, and he has testified to the
truth.
"But I am not receiving testimony from a human being. On the contrary, I am saying
these things so that you might be saved. He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were
willing to rejoice for an hour in his light. But I have greater testimony than that of John, for the
deeds which the Father gave me to finish, these deeds that I do testify about me: they testify
that the Father has sent me.
"And the Father who sent me, he himself has testified about me. You have neither heard
his voice at any time, nor have you seen his form, and you don't have his message dwelling in
you, because you don't trust the one that he sent. You search the writings because you think
that they have eternal life in them. And they are the ones who are testifying about me, yet you
aren't willing to come to me so that you might have life.
With that, Jesus introduced a brief discourse concerning the testimony of various witnesses that would prove that he was the Messiah. The bridge between this concept and the previous one is the thought of judgment. Is Jesus indeed judging? The Messiah can only do as God directs -- after all, he was a perfect expression of God's principles for humanity. Therefore, any judgment that the Anointed One should bring would be a just judgment.
However, he recognizes that the testimony of two or three witnesses is necessary under the Torah in order to pass any judgment. Whose testimony was there, aside from his own, to prove that Jesus was exactly who he claimed to be? First there was John's. The Jewish leaders had already spoken to the Baptizer, who pointed to Jesus as the Messiah. (And Jesus pointed out that his purpose for bringing this up in the first place was so that they would indeed know who he was -- not merely to brag about the high opinions of others.)
John was "a lamp" -- because he too had some light in him, although he was not "The Light." Still, the deeds done by Jesus also provided testimony that he was who he claimed he was, for he had done nothing wrong -- only doing what God had directed.
Finally, God himself has testified that Jesus was the Messiah. How? Because God had given prophecies about him to Moses, David, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and others. Therefore, the leaders were right in "searching the writings," because the Torah, Prophets, and other writings did have the teachings of life in them. But the teachings of life were not the regulations of the Torah; the true teachings of life were in the internalization of the Torah as explained by the Messiah. Therefore, they should have seen that he had fulfilled the prophecies and listened to his teachings. Thus, Jesus had three witnesses -- his great deeds; John (a prophet); and the prophecies about him, which came from God himself. Jesus has never used the word "Anointed," but he has just proven himself to be the Messiah.
"Glory from people I do not receive, but I have known you: you don't have God's love in
you. I have come in my Father's name, and you don't receive me. If another came in his own
name, you would receive him. How can you trust when you are receiving glory from one another
and are not seeking that glory from the only God?
"Don't think that I will accuse you to the Father. Moses, in whom you have hoped, is
the one who is accusing you. For if you trusted Moses, you would certainly trust me, since he
wrote about me. But if you don't trust his writings, how will you trust my oral declarations?"
"Glory from people I do not receive" -- again he reminded them that his purpose in bringing these things up was not to talk about how great he was; he had a message to get across. That message, that internal Torah, is alluded to here for the first time: love. The whole reason why the Jewish leaders could not embrace his teachings was that they were more interested in "receiving glory from one another" -- in being esteemed as great -- than in living lives of love. Only this way would they receive the only glory that matters, glory from God.
Spelling out more about the "judgment" he mentioned earlier, he explicitly indicated that it would not be Jesus who accused them before God -- it would be Moses, and Moses would not literally accuse them either. The reason why they were not accepting Jesus' teachings was because they did not really trust in Moses' writings. Jesus uses "Moses" here as an inclusive term for all of the prophecies. The writings that they claimed to follow but followed externally were the reason why they would not trust the Messiah. These people would not accept the internal Torah, and so Moses would judge them. In refusing to understand the Torah on a spiritual level, they would not accept their Messiah, and so Jesus would judge them.
6:1 After these things, Jesus went over the Sea of Galilaiah called Tiberias. Now a large
crowd was following him because they had been watching with amazement the signs that he was
performing on those who were sick. Now Jesus went into the mountain, and he was sitting there
with his students. And the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near. Then Jesus lifted up his
eyes and, watching a great crowd heading his way, said to Filippos, "Where will we buy loaves,
so that these folks may eat?" Now this he said to test him, for he knew what he was about to
do.
Filippos answered him, "Two hundred denarii worth of loaves is not enough for each one
to receive a little!"
By now it was Spring, and a second Passover week was near. Jesus was still in Galilaiah, not yet having gone down to Jerusalem for the feast (as would be customary). By this time, the fame of Jesus as a prophet who could work miracles was widespread, and "a large crowd was following him." Matthaiah writes of a different account where something similar happened, although Johannes would make it appear that this "feeding" occurred earlier.
Jesus' question to Filippos is a test. Does Filippos truly know that the Messiah is not limited by anything but his unlimited trust in God? The account is also a question for the reader. Does the reader realize now who Jesus was and how powerful indeed he was? Jesus and Filippos surveyed the crowds, and he asked, "Where will we buy loaves" to feed the crowd? Filippos failed his exam, for his reply was one of despiration -- that they didn't have enough money to give even a morsel to each member of the large group. Filippos was still seeing limitations on his trust in God (and on Jesus' power).
One of his students, Andreas, Simon Peter's brother, said to Jesus, "One little boy is here who has five barley loaves and two small fish, but what are these for so many?"
Andreas' trust was slightly greater. He realized that perhaps Jesus might be able to do something with the boy's five loaves and two fish, but what?
Said Jesus, "Make the people recline." Now there was a lot of grass in the place. Therefore the men reclined: they numbered about five thousand. And Jesus took the loaves and, after giving thanks, distributed to those who were reclining. In the same way also he passed out what they wanted of the fish. And when they were full, he said to his students, "Collect the remaining pieces, so that none would be lost."
Jesus was not concerned with counting the loaves; his focus was on feeding the many. The wording of his instruction is not present in the account, but likely he simply told them to feed the crowd. For these people, shortly before the Passover, Jesus provided his own feast -- a feast that he would use as a teaching tool -- and so much food was available that after the crowd was full, there were baskets of bread left over! Being well fed is about to become a useful metaphor.
So they collected the pieces and filled twelve baskets with pieces from the five loaves
of barley that were left by those who had eaten. Therefore when the people noticed that sign
that Jesus had performed, they said, "This truly is that prophet coming into creation."
Then, knowing that they were about to come and take hold of him to make him a king,
Jesus retreated again into the mountain alone by himself.
As the first part of this narrative closes, we find the crowd proclaiming Jesus as the successor to Moses. There had never been a prophet "like Moses" since Moses' own days, but the crowd recognized Jesus as being "that prophet" who had a relationship with God that was as strong as Moses'. Their desire to crown him king is understandable, but it was still not time for Jesus to boldly announce who he was to all the people. (And notice that Jesus tells the crowd many things, but he never simply announces "I'm the Anointed One," as he did to the Samaritan woman.)
16 And as evening occurred, his students went down on the sea and got into the boat.
They were going over the sea into Kafar-nahum. It had now become dark, and Jesus had not yet
happened by them. And the sea was being stirred by a great wind that was blowing.
Then, after sailing for about twenty-five or thirty stadia, they observed Jesus walking on
the sea and coming near the boat, and they were afraid. But he said to them, "It is I; don't be
afraid."
Therefore, they were willing to let him come into the boat, and immediately the boat
happened to be at the land where they were going.
This interlude in the narrative shows that the Anointed One was given power over the elements. Jesus had sent his students across the Sea of Galilaiah toward Kafar-nahum. By Jewish reckoning, it was now the next day, for night had fallen. A storm whipped up as the boat was a few miles from shore -- too far to simply sail or row back. The students were stranded on a large lake in the midst of a storm. With the wind whipping up, the ship might have capsized, killing them all. Suddenly they noticed Jesus walking toward the boat -- walking on the water as though it were dry land. Jesus' reply "It is I; don't be afraid" has a double significance. They were not to be afraid because the person on the water was Jesus, but more importantly, they should not be afraid because he was the Messiah. This is another identification using egw eimi ("I am"). Jesus was also saying, "I'm the Anointed One; don't be afraid."
That was only the first of two miracles which occurred that night, for as they took Jesus into the boat, it teleported to the shore. Johannes writes this as though he were writing for a newspaper: "immediately the boat happened to be ... where they were going." For the author, this is simply a statement of fact; his reader should come to expect such things.
22 On the next day, the crowd that was standing across the sea noticed that no other boat was there but the one, and that Jesus hadn't gone with his students--but his students had gone away alone. [Now, other boats came from Tiberias near the place where they ate the bread when the Lord gave thanks.] So when the crowd noticed that neither Jesus nor his students were there, they themselves entered into boats and went to Kafar-Nahum, seeking Jesus. And, after finding him across the sea, they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?" Jesus answered, saying, "Indeed I assure you: you're not seeking me because you noticed the signs, but because you ate the loaves and were well fed.
When morning came, the crowd realized that Jesus had somehow vanished -- or perhaps escaped during the night. They knew that Jesus' students had gone ahead to Kafar-nahum, so they followed him there. Upon finding him, they were astonished that he had somehow slipped away to Kafar-nahum, but even greater than their astonishment was their desire to have him work more miracles that benefited them. Jesus would use their experience to build another lesson for them.
"Don't work for perishable food, but for that food which remains into eternal life,
which the Son of Man will give you, for the Father, God, has sealed him."
So they said to him, "What should we do, so that we may work the works of God?"
Jesus answered, saying to them, "This is God's work: that you trust in the one whom he
sent."
Once again, the difference in the analogy is one of internal vs. external. There is no point in craving food that spoils, but there is spiritual food that will never spoil -- it remains forever. Physical food feeds physical life, but this spiritual food feeds "eternal life". And God has anointed his Messiah to provide this spiritual food, if only they will listen.
The question from the crowd is the first one of import recorded by the author, for apparently they had been content simply to receive a meal on the previous day. "What should we do?" What does God want? Now at last they were recognizing him as the prophet that he was. Jesus' response was that they should trust in their Messiah. God wanted every Jew to acknowledge their Anointed One for who he was and to follow his teachings.
30 Then they said to him, "What sign are you doing, so that we may notice and trust you?
"What are you working? Our ancestors ate the manna in the desert, as it was written,
"Bread from heaven he gave them to eat.""
They had heard Jesus speak of the internal principles underlying the Torah (although the author has omitted them for later), and they were unwilling to follow those principles. They preferred instead to see whether this would-be Messiah was willing to grant them more favors. So they asked what sign he would perform for them, even though he had just fed them all. After all, Moses had given them manna. The reader is expected to realize the similarity between Moses' prayers to God that had provided manna and Jesus' prayers to God that had provided food for the five thousand. Again we are driven to the crowd's own acknowledgement that the Messiah, Jesus, was the successor to Moses.
Then Jesus said to them, "Indeed I assure you: Moses didn't give you the bread from
heaven. On the contrary, my Father is giving you the true bread from heaven. For God's bread
is the one that descends from heaven and gives life to the creation."
They then said to him, "Sir, always give us this bread."
35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will by no means
hunger, and the one who trusts in me will by no means ever thirst.
Here again, Jesus internalizes and spiritualizes the expressions that he uses. "The true bread" -- which provides the spiritual nourishment "that remains" -- is the Messiah. God gave them the Messiah directly; Moses only prayed for physical food. God's bread, the Messiah, gives spiritual life to those who realize who he is and follow the spiritual teachings.
Once again, though, there is misunderstanding, even though Jesus has emphatically declared "indeed I assure you" -- literally, "A-mein, A-mein, I am telling you." A single "a-mein" was an attestation of truth; a doubled "a-mein" was an assurance on one's honor. Jesus staked his reputation on the fact that indeed the Messiah was the true "manna from heaven".
Thus, the food given to the crowd had only been symbolic of God's having provided them with the Messiah that was capable of filling them spiritually, with abundance left over. "I am the bread of life." Another "I am" indicating that he himself, as Messiah, was the true bread.
And at last Johannes returns to the coupling of hunger/filling and thirst/filling. The trusting Jew who was hungering and thirsting for truth and what is right would find all he needed in his Messiah.
"But, I said to you that you have even seen me, and you don't trust. All that the Father
gives to me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will by no means cast out,
because I have come down from heaven--not so that I may do what I want, but to do what the
one who sent me wants.
"Now this is what the one who sent me wants: that I might not lose any of what he has
given to me, but might raise it up in the last day.
"For this is what the one who sent me wants: that all who observe the son and who trust
in him would have eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day."
Jesus bluntly confronted them with the fact that they were questioning his identity even though he had performed a sign for them. "You have seen me, and you don't trust." What sign could possibly convince them, if they were unwilling to accept his teachings? He explained further:
God had sent him, the Anointed One, to take in anyone who was ready to receive his teachings. No one would be turned away; everyone's spiritual needs would be met. For Jesus' purpose was to do what God wanted for him, and God wanted everyone who could accept the Messiah to be spared from the coming anger. Indeed "all who ... trust in him" would live not only past the destruction of the temple but forever, and they would be elevated even as Judaism was destroyed.
41 Then the Jews were grumbling about him because he said, "I am that bread that came
down from heaven." And they said, "Isn't this Jesus, Yosef's son, whose father and mother we
know? How then can he say this, 'From heaven I have descended?'"
Jesus answered them, saying, "Don't grumble with one another. No one can come to me
unless the Father who has sent me draws him, and I will raise him up in the last day.
"It is written in the Prophets, "And they will all be taught of God." Each one who has
heard from the Father and has learned, comes to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father, except
the one who is from God; this one has seen the Father.
But still there was misunderstanding, with the crowd refusing to accept the responsibilities of accepting their Messiah. Could this man be the Messiah? Isn't he just Yosef's son? The added disagreement here is over his saying that the Anointed One was bread "from heaven". Was he saying he came from heaven?
As with all of these disagreements, Jesus did not intend to say literally that he had come from heaven. Instead, this was a figure to signify that God had sent him, and that as Messiah he always did what God wanted for him to do. Thus, he was "from above", "spiritual," "from heaven." Jesus replied by focusing them not on himself but on God, for anyone who truly sought to follow God would discover Jesus' identity and follow him as well.
The quotation describes the new covenant, brought by the Messiah. If only they would search with open hearts, they would be taught by Yahweh God (Isa 54;11f., esp v. 13) and would come to accept their Messiah. In the section in Isaiah, God promises protection to those who accept him and allow themselves and their children to be taught by him. Thus, those who entered the new covenant would be spared from the coming anger of the First Revolt.
No one has ever (physically) seen the Father, but whoever is "from God" has "seen" the Father in metaphor. The author does not elaborate here, nor has Jesus, but Jesus was indicating that whoever truly followed God would examine their Messiah, and anyone who does so openly will realize that the Anointed One was presenting God to them. As he would say later, "The one who has seen me has seen the Father."
47 "Indeed I assure you: the one who trusts has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your
ancestors ate the manna in the desert, and they died. This is that bread which comes down
from heaven, so that anyone may eat of it and may not die.
"I am the bread, the living bread, which has come down from heaven. If anyone should
eat of this bread, he will live for the age.
"Now also, the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give on behalf of the life of
creation."
"The one who trusts" (in the Messiah and his teachings) "has eternal life." Jesus could not have made it more plain, but the crowd was blinded, stumbling over his analogies. He would attempt to explain the analogy again:
"I am the bread of life" -- Jesus, the Messiah, was sent from God to bring spiritual life
through his teachings.
"Your ancestors ate the manna..., and they died." -- Physical food, however miraculous,
only brings temporary physical life. Why was the crowd seeking more physical food, when
there was spiritual food, "true bread," available?
"This is that bread which comes down from heaven," -- It comes from heaven because it is
spiritual in nature. The Messiah was sent by God; his principles are not physical.
"anyone may eat...and not die." -- Whoever follows the internal Torah will live forever
with God.
"I am the ... living bread." -- Jesus was alive, and he was about to allude to his sacrificial
death. But those who heard him needed to "eat of the bread" (follow his teachings) in order
to live and grow, spiritually.
"Now also," -- Jesus is about to reapply the analogy of "bread" to something else.
"the bread ... is my flesh, which I will give...." --
Passover was near, and so Jesus identified himself as the passover lamb in the Passover that would come one year later. Accompanied by the emblem of bread, the lamb gave its flesh (Ex 12) to save the lives of his faithful ones, when God's anger was being poured out. It is this final identification that is the reason for the author's having mentioned the Passover. That he replaces the Passover lamb is also alluded to by the fact that the author does not provide an account of this Passover itself.
The Jews therefore were contending with one another, saying, "How can this man give us
his flesh to eat?"
53 Then Jesus said to them, "Indeed I assure you: unless you should eat the Son of Man's
flesh, and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves. The one who eats my flesh and
drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day.
"For my flesh is the true food, and my blood is the true drink. The one who eats my flesh
and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and as I live
through the Father, also the one who eats me, he will also live through me.
"This is that bread which has come down from heaven, not bread like the ancestors ate
and died: the one who eats this bread will live for the age."
The Torah expressly forbade the eating of human flesh and the consumption of blood. This was so extreme as to demand that all blood be drained from a "clean" animal (Lev 11:1ff.) before it could be cooked and eaten. "If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that stay among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you to make atonement on the altar for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, since it is the life." (Lev 17:10-11)
Therefore, when Jesus said "the one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood," he was bound to disrupt the consciences of those Jews who were unable to internalize what he was saying. Yet he was referring to his teachings, which internalized the Torah. Here, Jesus was teaching the principle of spiritualization.
"The one who eats ... and drinks ... remains in me and I in him." If taken physically, this hearkens back to the notion of ritual impurity. If someone ate (or even touched) an unclean animal, that uncleanness passed on to the person touching it (Lev 11). But Jesus intended for the crowd to interpret "remains in me and I in him" in a spiritual setting: whoever embraces the teachings of the Messiah has a connection with him. He remains in the Anointed One by holding to the proper attitudes, and in so doing, the Anointed One (through his teachings) remains in that person.
Still again, Jesus pointed out that by eating physical bread, even manna, one cannot live forever -- "the ancestors ate and died" -- but by eating the spiritual bread of the teachings of the Anointed One, one might live forever.
59 These things he said as he taught in a gathering in Kafar-Nahum. Therefore many of his
students who heard said, "This saying is hard. Who can hear it?"
But Jesus, knowing within himself that his students were murmuring about this, said to
them, "Does this make you stumble? Then what would happen if you should view with wonder
the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
"The spirit is what makes alive; the flesh profits nothing. The declarations that I have
spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who don't trust." For Jesus knew
from the beginning who those were who were untrusting and who was the one about to betray
him.
And he said, "Because of this, I have said to you that 'No one can come to me if it has
not been given to him from the Father.'"
Not only the present crowd but even those who had been following Jesus for some time struggled with this admonition to cannibalize and drink blood. What could be more disgusting? Anyone who refused to internalize his sayings now, to think of them as analogies and not as literal, would surely be compelled to desert him, and the account says that many of them did.
Yet Jesus explained that he was teaching them the dif