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 difference between internal and external: "the spirit is what makes alive; the flesh profits nothing." We cannot think of Jesus' principles externally, nor of this saying in physical terms. We must look at these things (and the Torah) as spiritual teachings. Thus he added, "The declarations that I have spoken to you" (about eating flesh) "are spirit and life." They are not to be misunderstood as though he meant them physically; on the contrary, in order to understand his sayings, one must spiritualize and internalize.
The present struggle in some of their minds was summed up when Jesus said, "There are some of you who don't trust." Those who were following him for reasons other than his teachings were struggling and would continue to stumble over what he taught. "Does this make you stumble?" It certainly would, unless the listener had learned to spiritualize his sayings. And if this simple analogy was a cause for stumbling, what would happen if the full glory of the Messiah (in God's mind and plan) were revealed to them? They couldn't possibly comprehend it all! Jesus concluded rightly by repeating that "No one can come to me if it has not been given to them from the Father," for only the one who was truly seeking God's guidance could understand.
From this time, many of his students went back to the things they had left behind, and
were no longer walking with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go too?"
Simon Peter answered him, "Sir, to whom shall we go? You have the declarations of
eternal life, and we have believed and have known that you are God's holy one."
Jesus answered them, "Didn't I choose the twelve of you, and of you one is an accuser?"
Now he spoke of Judah, son of Simon Iscariot, for this one--who was one of the Twelve--was
about to betray him.
Stumbling over the difficult principles of the Anointed One, many of his students returned to traditional Judaism -- "the things they had left behind" -- but his closest associates remained loyal. For the first time the Twelve are mentioned as a group, and the reader is expected to have heard of them already. When the Twelve were asked whether they were leaving too, it was Simon Peter -- Simon the Rock -- who confidently answered that there was nowhere else to go. He and the others had believed for the past year that Jesus was indeed the Anointed One, so there really wasn't anyone else to turn to. He was the one who possessed "the declarations of eternal life." They would listen to him and remain with him.
Also for the first time, Johannes refers to the coming betrayal by Judah, who one year later would turn against Jesus and hand him over to the Jewish leaders.
7:1 After these things, Jesus was walking in Galilaiah, for he didn't want to walk in Judea;
the Jews were seeking him to kill him. Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Tabernacles, was
near. Therefore his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that your students
also may view with wonder the deeds that you are doing. For no one does anything in secret,
and a teacher seeks to have freedom of speech. If you are doing these things, show yourself to
creation." Not even his brothers trusted in him.
Then Jesus said to them, "My season is not yet present. But your season is always ready.
The creation cannot hate you; but me it hates, because I am testifying about it: that its deeds are evil.
"You go up to this feast. I'm not going up to this feast because my season hasn't yet
fully come." Saying these things to them, he remained in Galilaiah.
10 Now when his brothers had gone up, then also he went up to the feast, not openly but in secret. Then the Jews sought him in the feast, saying, "Where is he?" And much grumbling
about him existed among the crowds. Some said, "He is good." Others said, "But no. He is
deceiving the crowd." However, no one spoke with freedom about him, because they feared the
Jews.
Sukkot, or the Feast of Tabernacles (Booths) occurs in late September or October just after Yom Kippur and just before the winter rains. The festival originally celebrated the end of the agricultural year. It had come to signify (Lev 23:33f.) a time or remembrance for the forty years that the Israelites spent wandering in the desert with Moses. For the days between Yom Kippur and Sukkot, Jewish males were expected to gather branches for the roof of a booth (sukkah) and to construct the booth, for every Israelite was to live in these booths for the seven days (Lev 23:42) to reflect on the time spent wandering (v. 43).
By this time in his career, Jesus had begun avoiding going to Jerusalem unless it was necessary, since a growing number of Jewish leaders were plotting to kill him. But it was still natural that he should participate in the feast. His brothers (whom we know as Jacob, Yosef, Judah, and Simon -- Mk 6:2f. Mt 13:56 points out that he also had sisters) were encouraging Jesus to reveal himself publically as Messiah at the feast. After all, if he were to do this, they reasoned, even his students would marvel at the signs he displayed! This statement illustrated disbelief on the part of his brothers. They were egging him on. After all, his students did trust him, but the brothers said, "IF you are doing these things, show yourself." This was their way of saying, "So you're the Messiah, eh? Why not go down to the feast and work a bunch of miracles?"
They were right in saying that every teacher was expected to exercise free speech. This was true even among the Greeks, who reasoned that to fail to speak freely and openly was to be ignorant or ashamed of one's beliefs (so Epicurus, for example). But Jesus pointed out that it was still not time for him to announce his anointing to all of Judaism -- that would come later (at his crucifixion). Therefore he told his brothers that he would not be participating in the feast as Anointed One (although we discover shortly that he went to the feast, first in secret and then more openly, but never in the fashion that his brothers desired of him).
In order to discover public opinion about him, Jesus waited until his brothers left and then went by himself, secretly. He discovered that opinions were mixed, but that the people were afraid to speak freely because they feared retribution from the Jewish leaders. If someone expressed an opinion in line with an orthodox school of thought, their participation in the synagogue could be made uncomfortable (politically). As an extreme measure, one might be expelled from the synagogue, although this early in the development of the Nazarene (Christian) group such a measure would be unlikely.
It is quite possible that Johannes used the metaphor of the feast to correspond to the mentality of the people about Jesus. If Sukkot stands for the Israelites wandering in the desert, then Jesus has found the people mentally wandering -- seeking a "promised land" (the Messiah's kingdom, which is "not of this world") but not yet finding it.
14 Now when the feast was already half over, Jesus went up into the temple court and
taught. And the Jews wondered, saying, "How does this one know how to write, without having
learned?"
Then Jesus answered them, saying, "My teaching is not mine, but it comes from the one
who sent me. If anyone may wish to do what he wants, he will know about the teaching,
whether it is from God or if I am speaking from myself. The one who speaks from himself
seeks his own glory. But the one who seeks the glory of the one who sent him, this one is true,
and there is no wrong in him.
19 "Hasn't Moses given you the Torah? And none of you is following the Torah. Why are you seeking to kill me?"
The crowd answered, "You have a spirit being! Who is seeking to kill you?"
Jesus answered, saying to them, "One deed I did, and you all wonder. Through this
Moses has given you circumcision (not that it is from Moses but from the patriarchs) and on a
Sabbath you circumcise a man. If a man receives circumcision on a Sabbath so that the Torah of
Moses will not be let go, are you angry with me because I made a person entirely well on a
Sabbath? Don't judge according to appearance, but judge a just judgment."
25 Then some of the Jerusalemites said, "Isn't this the one that they seek to kill? And look,
he is speaking freely, and they are saying nothing to him. Did the rulers truly know that this is
the Anointed One?
This section of dialog indicates the confusion among the people. In the middle of the feast, Jesus began to teach some members of the crowd about the spiritual Torah ("my teaching"). Jesus is not mentioned as being literate anywhere else in the genuine apostolic writings, although the account of the Woman in Adultery also depicts him writing. Apparently his teaching involved his use of Hebrew, possibly writing references in the sand. The Jewish leaders who were present realized that Jesus had not entered their schooling. How was it that he knew Biblical Hebrew?
Jesus answered their real question: where did this teaching come from? Although he probably taught himself Hebrew, he regarded his scholastic learning as coming directly from God, as his teachings had come. God has been referred to as "the one who sent me," for the Messiah's role existed only in relation to God. Therefore, Jesus said that he never spoke his own opinions but those things that God had given him to say. The rabbis often presented their own opinions or the opinions of other rabbis, so this was a slap at them. It would ahve been especially aggravating for them to hear him accuse them of "seeking their own glory" by holding up their opinions about the Torah as equal to the Torah. Jesus flatly added that the internal principles underlying the Torah were God's principles, which he was merely presenting. Therefore, there could be nothing wrong in what he was doing.
After this, Jesus made another flat accusation about the leaders: that none of them were following the Torah. Why? Because the Torah contained spiritual principles (such as love for one another), and their traditions were all external traditions (such as their added regulations regarding the Sabbath). The crowd, some of whom earlier acknowledged that the leaders were trying to have Jesus put to death, here began to wonder aloud whether Jesus was "possessed" for thinking that they were out to get him. Some believe that they did not yet recognize Jesus, for later on they would again acknowledge that he was the one whom they were trying to kill.
"One deed I did" -- This refers to the healing of the crippled man at the Pool of Beth-saida. He had done a good thing on the Sabbath; why were they so angry? They were upset because their own regulations did not allow it. They had codified the Torah into a set of external laws, but even they recognized that circumcision was to be allowed on the Sabbath. And why was circumcision permitted? Because the Torah itself indicated that Jewish males must be circumcised on their eighth day of life (Gen 17:12). Although the Sabbath is not mentioned, the rabbis presumed that the circumcision was to take place on the eighth day, whether or not it happened to be a Sabbath or feast day, even on Yom Kippur. This is still the practice today, although there are exceptions (if the child is ill, if the delivery was by C-section, etc.).
Jesus intimated that the purpose of the "exception" was the principle of doing something good. Ordinary work was forbidden, yes, but healing a person on the Sabbath is allowed. The Sabbath is a time of rest, but it does not prevent someone from doing a good deed. Jesus urged the leaders to look past the externals (the fact that Jesus had healed and the man had walked on a Sabbath) and "judge a just judgment."
Seeing that Jesus was freely interpreting the Torah and that the leaders were discussing it with him rather than harassing him, they began to wonder whether even they believed he might be the Anointed One. Still, they had their theological objections:
"But this one, we know where he is from. But the Anointed One, when he comes, no one
will know where he is from."
Then Jesus called out in the temple court, teaching and saying, "You know me, and you
know where I am from. And I have not come of myself, but the one who sent me is true. Him
you do not know. I know him, because I am from him, and he sent me."
It was widely believed that the Messiah would spring up as if from nowhere. Some of the people began to object to Jesus' Messiahship on the grounds that his origins were known: he was the son of Yosef the carpenter. So Jesus addressed the crowd directly, attributing not his physical origin but his sending to God. God had anointed and sent the Messiah, and therefore Jesus was "from him." Since the crowd was unwilling to accept him, they didn't "know God" -- by the same argument Jesus had made earlier. Therefore it followed that in one sense, by not knowing God, the members of the crowd DIDN'T know where Jesus was from!
30 Then they sought to seize him, but no one laid hands on him because his hour had not yet come. But many of those in the crowd trusted in him and said, "The Anointed One, when he comes, will he do more signs than this one has?" The Perushim heard the crowd grumbling these things about him, and the Perushim and the high priests sent officers, that they might seize him.
Many members of the crowd knew quite well what Jesus was intimating, and they were upset enough at his accusation (that they did not know God) to want to kill him. Again, though, the crowd stood divided, for some of them realized what he was saying and knew that he must have been sent by God, and yet they were not ready to grasp the fact that he was Messiah. Metaphorically, they were wandering in the desert. The leaders were not so confused; they sent people to apprehend him.
Then Jesus said, "For yet a little time I am with you, and I am going to the one who sends
me. You will seek me, and you will not find. And where I will be, you are unable to come."
The Jews said to themselves, "Where is this that he is about to go, that we won't find
him? Is he about to go into the dispersion of the Hellenists, and teach the Hellenists? What is
this saying that He said: 'You will seek me, and you will not find. And where I will be, you are
unable to come'?"
Next came another point about which there was misunderstanding. Johannes' reader should read carefully to understand where Jesus was going. For he had said that he would be still be with them for a short time, but then he would go to God. The leaders would be "unable" to go to Jesus then because they will have rejected him. If they did not accept him as Messiah, they would never go to be with God.
The leaders believed that he was implying that he was about to leave Palestine and teach his radical teachings to the Hellenistic Jews who were scattered around the world. Indeed, they wouldn't have followed him there! The author leaves us with no response, and the scene immediately changes. The reader must watch for this issue to arise again later.
37 Now on the last, the great, day of the feast, Jesus stood and called out, saying, "If
anyone thirsts, let him come [to me], and let him drink. The one who trusts in me, as the
writing said, "Out of his belly will flow rivers of living water."
Now he said this about the breath, which those who trusted in him were about to receive.
(For there was yet no breath, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.)
Then after hearing the message, many of the crowd said, "This is truly the prophet."
Others said, "This is the Anointed One." Now some said, "The Anointed One doesn't come
from Galilaiah. Didn't the writing say that the Anointed One is coming out of the seed of David
and from the village of Beth-Lehem, where David was?"
In Jesus' day, celebration on the last day of the feast, the Hoshana Rabba, was characterized by singing and by ceremony, including a procession of water jars, for a golden vessel filled with water would be poured out -- symbolizing Israel's dependence on God for the rains. There was also a burnt offering made on this day (Lev 23:36). Johannes' reader was already familiar with such customs, and therefore they are not mentioned explicitly.
However, as the golden water pitcher was carried to the place where it would be poured out, this would have been a natural time for Jesus to have "stood and called out" what he said. For they were providing water from pitchers, stagnant water, whereas Jesus was offering a drink of running (living) water for anyone who would embrace his teachings. I would note, though, that the rabbis taught that water poured from a pitcher did constitute 'running water'.
The admonition to come to the water and drink appears to have been taken from Isa 55:1f., which describes life in the New Covenant, the new Jerusalem. The quoted section, though, comes from a less positive section of the Prophets. Zech 14 describes a coming judgment on Israel during which the city of Jerusalem would be overrun. This too is in the context of the New Covenant (13:1ff.), and historically this is what happened when the Roman armies took Jerusalem in 70 CE. God's faithful Jews were separated from the unfaithful ones (those who had rejected the Messiah), Zech 14:2, and Yahweh God would rule all of his people (through the Davidic King, according to Ezekiel). It is in this context that we read, "On that day living waters will flow out from Jerusalem."
Jesus' paraphrase makes every person who accepts his Messiah into a source for this living water from Jerusalem. In the past (chs. 3-4), Jesus has not explained this living water metaphor, nor does he explain it here, but Johannes introduces an explanation for his reader: "Now he said this about the breath, which those who trusted in him were about to receive."
There would be miraculous signs surrounding the New Covenant, which by the time of the destruction of the temple would divide Israel into Messianists and those who did not accept Jesus as Messiah. When we observe the passages that he was citing, we see that Jesus' invitation was also an admonition to avoid the "stagnant waters" of Priestly Judaism and to receive the holy breath, as followers of the Messiah had been promised (Joel 2-3). Both in Zechariah and in Joel there are references to the destruction of the temple and siege of Jerusalem -- the terminus when Christianity alone would exist.
Some people who heard the message were willing to accept Jesus as the "prophet like Moses," while others were even willing to receive him as Messiah, although they stumbled over his origins again. The author explains that the Anointed One was supposed to come from Beth-Lehem; the reader is supposed to be familiar with the oral tradition that this was Jesus' birthplace. Thus, the reader can already answer the crowd's objection.
Then a division in the crowd occurred because of him. Now some wanted to seize him,
but no one laid hands on him. Then the officers came to the high priests and Perushim, and these
ones said to them, "Why didn't you bring him?"
Replied the officers, "Never has anyone spoken [as this person speaks]."
Then the Perushim answered them, "Have you been deceived too? None of the rulers
trusted in him, nor any of the Perushim, but this crowd, who does not know the Torah, is cursed."
Then Nikodemos (the one who had come to him earlier), who was one of them, said,
"Does our code judge anyone without hearing from him first and knowing what he is doing?"
They answered, saying to him, "Are you also from Galilaiah? Search and notice that
no prophet is arriving out of Galilaiah."
The earlier reference to the prophet like Moses was appropriate during Sukkot, for the crowd here is represented as desperately needing a Moses figure to lead them out of their confusion. Some of the crowd believed he was the Messiah, whereas others now wanted to kill him. The militia that were under the command of the Jewish leaders were confused also, refusing to apprehend Jesus because no one had ever seemed so openly Messianic to them. Certain leaders pointed out that none of them had accepted his claims -- which is presented as ironic, since Nikodemos was among them and believed. The fact that they did not accept him was asserted as proof that he could not be who he claimed to be. Going further, they cursed the crowd. Assuming their own opinions of the Torah to be equal to the original meaning, they cited a reference (Deut 28:15ff.) that indicates that those who refuse to listen to God's voice through the Torah would be cursed.
At this point, the otherwise silent Nikodemos spoke up. Why were his fellow Perushim passing moral judgment on the crowd as well as on Jesus? Shouldn't they listen to Jesus first? The others replied by saying that since Jesus had come from Galilaiah (and not Beth-Lehem), he could not be the Messiah. In fact, neither the Torah nor the prophets mentioned any prophet arising out of Galilaiah. Their retort to Nikodemos was that perhaps he too was Galilaian for suggesting such a thing!
Now the reader is able to see from where Johannes borrowed his light metaphor (ch. 1). His response to the crowd's ignorance and confusion was that he was the light. The darkness of ignorance would be gone to the one who was willing to receive Jesus for who he was.
Then the Perushim said to him, "You are testifying about yourself. Your testimony isn't
true!"
Jesus answered, saying to them, "If I were testifying about myself, my testimony is true,
because I know where I came from and where I am going. But you don't know where I came
from or where I am going. You are judging according to the flesh; I don't judge anyone.
"But even if I did judge, my judgment would be true, because I am not alone, but I am
with the Father who sent me. Now also in the Torah--yours--it has been written that, "The
testimony of two people is true." I am the one who testifies about myself, and the Father who
sent me is testifying about me."
Then they said to him, "Where is your father?" Jesus replied, "You know neither me nor
my Father. If you knew me, you would also know my Father."
These declarations he spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple court, and no one
seized him because his hour had not yet come.
The leaders did not want Jesus to explain the Torah, for they did not want any of what they perceived to be his misguided teachings getting out. Therefore, they distracted him with a talk about his authority. He had already presented witnesses to himself, and the author has provided the reader with still more (from ch. 1 on!), and yet they demanded that since he had claimed to be this "light", it was necessary for him to present the testimony of others to support his view. Otherwise, under the Torah, his testimony about himself should be ignored. By this time, John the Baptizer was dead and could no longer speak up in Jesus' favor as he had done before.
Jesus' reply was directed at their concerns over his having "come from Galilaiah." "I know where I came from," he said, and "you don't know where I came from." They noticed that he lived in Nazareth, and that was enough. Again they were thinking too physically ("according to the flesh") and making judgments based on what little they knew about him. Still, Jesus' point is that neither Nazareth nor Beth-Lehem were important, for God had sent the Messiah.
Jesus also knew "where he was going," for his future had been revealed to him by God, and it was certain that they would kill him, and that he would be resurrected and would go to be with God thereafter. Jesus knew this since God had sent him; therefore, he called on God as his witness: "the Father who sent me is testifying about me."
There was misunderstanding about this point, too, for they assumed that he was referring to his adopted father Yosef, who was probably dead by this time. No wonder they asked him where his father was! This would raise points later about sonship and fatherhood.
Here, Jesus said simply that if they knew him, they would know God. For to really know the Messiah would mean understanding his identity and his message. If they had been capable of understanding the principles underlying the Torah, and if they had observed that his behavior was indeed everything that God wanted, then they would have also known God. But they did not know God because they were rejecting the Messiah that God had sent, and whom God himself directed.
The section commonly called the account of the woman taken in the act of adultery does not belong here, having been inserted into Lukas and Johannes by later scribes who regarded it as an authentic tradition about Jesus. The NET treats that section separately; it is discussed elsewhere.
10 Then again he said to them, "I am going, and you will seek me, and in your sin you will die. Where I am going, you are unable to come."
Therefore the Jews said, "Will he kill himself, that he says, 'Where I am going, you are
unable to come'?"
Then he said to them, "You are from below. I am from above. You are from this world.
I am not from this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you don't
believe that I am the Anointed One, you will die in your sins."
This account did not happen at the same time, but slightly later -- sometime that fall. Once again there was misunderstanding over where Jesus was going and how. In Johannes, this continues all the way until his final dinner with his students, where he explains more fully that he is going to die and will go on to be with God. This time, the leaders rightly realized he was referring to death, but they believed incorrectly that he was going to commit suicide.
Another theme is brought in from earlier in Jesus' career (Jn 3): that of being "from above". Here it is clearly contrasted with being "from below." Being "not from this world" and "from this world" are brought in as parallel concepts. The person who is "from this world" (as Jesus himself said earlier) can only speak of the things of this world -- he is unable to grasp deeper, spiritual concepts. The person who is "from above" is able to understand even God's deepest teachings, for he seeks the spiritual meaning out of seemingly mundane things (i.e., Jesus' analogies about life).
Here again, Jesus uses "I am" to refer to himself as Messiah. Unless the leaders were willing to recognize who Jesus was, they would die in their sins. Their religion, with all of its later traditions, would soon become nothing.
14 Then they said to him, "Who are you?"
Jesus said to them, "Even what I told you from the beginning. Many things I have to say
about you -- and to judge -- but the one who sent me is true, and what I heard from him, these are
the things that I am saying to the world." They didn't know that he was speaking to them
about the Father.
Therefore, Jesus said [to them], "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know
that I am he. And from myself, I am doing nothing, but I am saying these things just as my
Father taught me.
Jesus has been trying to explain himself since his baptism, and as he explained, he has been exactly what he has claimed to be. Jesus would like to say many things, but as he has said before, he has only said what God has told him to say. Therefore, "the one who sent me" -- God -- told Jesus what to say, and these are the things that he has said. Indeed, Johannes presents Jesus as explaining many of the same things over again, using analogies that become more plain the further we read in the account. The Jewish leaders misunderstood, but Johannes hopes that by now the reader will be answering, "He's the Anointed One," silently as he reads.
"And the one who sent me is with me. He hasn't left me alone, because I always do the
things that are pleasing to him." As he was saying these things, many trusted in him.
20 Then Jesus said to the Jews who trusted him, "If you remain in my message, you are
truly my students, and you will know the truth, and the truth will free you."
They answered him: "We are the seed of Abraham, and to no one have we been slaves at
any time. How can you say, 'You will become free'?"
Jesus answered them, "Indeed I assure you that everyone who does a sin is a slave to the
sin. Now the slave does not remain in the house for the age; the son remains for the age.
Therefore if the son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
Most leaders didn't understand "who sent Jesus," but the people with reasonably open minds knew that he was speaking of God, and they came to trust in him. Maybe he was the Messiah after all! To the ones who were listening, he imparted the power of the internal view of the Torah. If they would keep his message (the principle of love behind the Torah), then they would indeed be his students -- because a student follows the teachings of his teacher. Furthermore, those who kept the message would be "freed" by this truth.
They had been taught that the Jewish people had been freed from slavery in Egypt, which brought them to a land promised to Abraham. As Abraham's descendants, then, they were "free", weren't they? This misunderstanding is yet again a difference between internal and external -- spiritual and physical.
"Whoever sins is a slave to the sin." Most commentators believe that Jesus was talking about any problem or struggle that a person might have or might indulge in. But here, he was talking to pious Jews who were seeking God. His comment was not about things such as sexual sins but about one thing and one thing only: the mentality brought on by adhering to the Torah as an external code. (Paulus wrote a lot about this same topic.) When one regards the Torah externally, then ones actions are seen as a violation of law -- the code serves only as a reminder of sin. The intent of the Torah, which Jesus has explained, is that no one be under a code of actions. Instead, the devout follower would be guided by the internal principles underlying the Torah. In keeping these principles but not being enslaved to the 613 "commandments," the person born "from above" becomes entirely free of the guilt that accompanies sin. He is "free."
Therefore, he said that "the slave does not remain in the house for the age." The slave is the Jewish person who continues in legalism. He won't remain with God forever, because his way of devotion will soon be removed. But a son, a person who truly follows his father (God), will remain forever. One becomes a son by following God's son -- the Messiah. Therefore, if the Messiah makes you free, "you will be free indeed." The Messianic Jew would become free of the guilt accompanying sin, and his devotion to God would continue after the destruction of the temple.
26 "I know that you are Abraham's seed, but you are seeking to kill me, because my
message holds no place in you. I am speaking about what I have seen from the Father,
and so you are doing what you have heard from your father."
They answered, saying to him, "Our father is Abraham."
Jesus said to them, "If you were children of Abraham, you would do the deeds of
Abraham. But now you are seeking to kill me, a person who has spoken the truth to you, which I
learned from God. This Abraham didn't do. You are doing the deeds of your father."
Then they said to him, "We were not born out of prostitution. One Father we have:
God."
Jesus said to them, "If God were your father, you would love me, for I came out from
God and am now here. For neither did I come of my own will, but he sent me.
32 "You do not know my speech for this reason: because you cannot hear
my message. You are from your father the Accuser, and you want to do your father's desires.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and he hasn't stood in the truth because there is no
truth in him. When someone tells a lie, he speaks like his own family does, because his
father is also a liar. But because I am telling the truth, you don't trust me. Which of
you convicts me of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you trust me?
"The one who is from God hears God's declarations. You don't hear for this reason:
because you are not from God."
Jesus focused his address on those who listened but were rejecting what they were hearing. They still wanted to rely on their physical lineage from Abraham, but Jesus would teach them a lesson about "fatherhood." For Jesus, one's father is whomever one follows. If you follow Buddha's teachings and example, then he's your father. Therefore, when Jesus said that he was speaking what the Father had shown him, he introduced what he meant by God being his father (in a non-physical sense), following this up by asserting that they were doing what their father taught them as well. This assertion would be later made clear. In dichotomy, there are ultimately only two fathers: God and the Enemy.
But the leaders asserted that Abraham was their father. The word "father" means also "ancestor," and so in their eyes they were stating a fact: that they were Jewish and therefore God's chosen people. But Jesus applied the higher standard of fatherhood: "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the deeds of Abraham." Abraham received God's teaching, but the Jewish leaders were refusing to receive the teachings of the Messiah, whom God had sent. In rejecting the internal Torah, they proved that they could not be "Abraham's children" in a spiritual sense, even though physically they were his descendants.
Their retort indicates that they understood what he was saying at least partially. For while "we were not born out of prostitution" could be interpreted as simply a statement on lineage -- "No, we really are Abraham's legitimate descendants" -- their followup claim shows that they realized that he was accusing them of a form of idolatry. They were not following God (through Abraham); they were following someone else. "Prostitution" and "adultery" are frequently-used terms indicating idolatry. Therefore, they logically asserted that God was their only father, the only one whom they worshipped.
Jesus was now ready to divide the fatherhood into two categories. Had God actually been their father, they would have accepted God's Anointed One instead of accusing him. Therefore God was not their father. The reason God was not their father ran deeper than that. The real reason they could not accept Jesus was that they could not accept "his message" -- the internal Torah. If they had been willing to receive that, then everything he told them would have made sense, for this was the message that God had sent his Anointed One to teach.
No, Jesus continued, there could be only one "father" for these people who were rejecting God. The Enemy was referred to in his traditional role as Accuser of God's people (see, e.g., Job 1), for this was precisely what the Jewish leaders were doing. Just as they were seeking to have Jesus executed, so also the Accuser's influence began with the murder of Abel by his brother. Knowing their hearts, Jesus recognized their impure motives. His opponents had been seeking to trick him and to accuse him falsely, at times (see the other three accounts) pretending that they were willing to learn from him. Anyone who practices such deception is following their father, the father of all lies. Since Jesus' message to them (spiritualizing the Torah) was truth, these deceivers could not accept it. Lies and truth; the Accuser and God; below and above -- to these pairs Jesus was about to add death/life. But first he summed up the defense of his teachings by saying that whoever was from God would understand. Therefore, since they did not understand, they were not following God. A most strong claim indeed, and one sure to anger.
37 The Jews answered, saying to him, "Do we say well, that you are a Samaritan, and you have a spirit being?"
Having no exegesis to combat Jesus' assessment of them and no way to refute his claim
that they were trying to have him killed, the leaders responded by insulting him personally.
They called him "a Samaritan" -- he was a half-breed and not a true Jew.
They said he had a spirit being -- he had been driven mad by "possession."
The first insult allowed them to dismiss him because his lineage was corrupt; the second
insult allowed them to dismiss everything he said.
Answered Jesus, "I have no spirit being, but I am honoring my Father, and you are dishonoring
me. Yet I am not seeking my glory. There is one who seeks and judges. Indeed I assure you:
if anyone may keep my message, he will by no means behold death -- for the age."
The Jews said to him, "Now we know that you have a spirit being! Abraham died, as
did the prophets, and you say, 'If anyone may keep my message, he will by no means taste
death -- for the age.'
"Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died. Whom
do you make yourself to be?"
Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. The one who is glorifying me
is my Father, whom you say is your god. And you haven't known him, but I know him. If I
were to say that I don't know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him and keep his
message.
"Abraham your father rejoiced that he might notice my day: and he noticed, and was
happy."
Then the Jews said to him, "You aren't even fifty years old, and you have seen
Abraham?"
Jesus said to them, "Indeed I assure you: before Abraham was born, I am."
Jesus ignored the insult, bringing the elements of life and death into the discussion. "I am honoring my Father, and you are dishonoring me." Therefore the leaders were showing disrespect to God as well, by dishonoring the one whom God sent. Was Jesus claiming greatness? No, he was only pointing to God's own greatness. For God had promised eternal life to those who kept the message that God had given Jesus.
These Jewish leaders were likely only Perushim, for Zadokites would have engaged him in a debate about the afterlife. Therefore, they believed in an afterlife, but they misunderstood Jesus, thinking that he was talking about physical life. Consequently they themselves asked him if he was Abraham's successor? Was he greater than Abraham, just as he was greater than Jacob and Moses? "Whom do you make yourself to be?"
They thought that Jesus was claiming superiority for himself, and so he replied that there was no need for him to brag. Yahweh had made his Anointed who he was, and that was enough. Jesus slapped back at them that his Father was someone whom "you say is your god," for to Jesus, they only claimed to worship God. Jesus knew God, he said, because he kept the internal principles underlying the Torah (instead of adhering to legalistic codes).
"Abraham your father" -- Jesus acknowledge that Abraham was their ancestor. In traditional
understanding, this meant that Abraham was their greater, their superior.
"rejoiced ... and he noticed, and was happy." -- God had shown Abraham of things to come.
God had revealed to Abraham that he would eventually send the Messiah. When Abraham was
shown this, it pleased him because he was following God -- unlike the leaders who saw
Jesus come and were displeased.
"You aren't even fifty..." -- The leaders misunderstood, thinking that Jesus was telling them that he existed in Abraham's day. Was he really claiming that Abraham was still alive to see Jesus born? No, for they were understanding things literally and not figuratively. Jesus' final statement on the subject proved him Abraham's superior -- because God had planned for the Messiah even before Abraham. "I am" again indicates that Jesus was Messiah. He was the Anointed One even before Abraham was born. The leaders misunderstood him to be lying -- claiming to have existed in Abraham's day and failing to comprehend that he was talking about God's great plans for sending the Messiah.
48 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus hid and left the temple
court. And as he passed through town, he noticed a person who was blind from
birth. And his students asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned -- this one or his parents -- that
he should be born blind?"
9:3 Jesus answered, "Neither did this one sin nor his parents, but he is blind
so that God's deeds may be displayed in him. It is necessary for us to work the
deeds of the one who sent us while it is day. Night is coming, when no one is able to work.
"While I am in the creation, I am the light of the creation."
The leaders believed him to be a blasphemous liar, claiming to be Abraham's superior because he was as old as Abraham. As they came at him, he left the area. Passing through town with his students, they encountered a man who had been born blind. There were many superstitions about illness, one of which is that sin was the cause of every sickness and malady. Therefore, his students' question was a logical one for them, and it gave Jesus an opportunity to introduce yet another spiritual analogy.
"Who sinned ... that he should be born blind?" Jesus' direct statement was that sin did not always cause illness. In fact, this man had been born blind just so he might meet the Messiah!
"It is necessary to work...while it is day." Jesus brought the truth, and so he was the Light. Therefore, the time of Jesus' being on earth is "the day." It is contrasted with "Night is coming" -- Jesus would soon be dead and in the grave. He concluded by telling them flatly, "While I am in the creation, I am the light of the creation." Jesus was the light because he had brought them understanding of the Torah that God had given to his people.
Saying these things, he spit on the ground and made clay out of the spit and rubbed the
clay onto the blind man's eyes, and he said to him, "Go. Wash in the pool of Siloam [which,
translated, means "having been sent"]." So he went away and washed himself, and he came
away seeing.
Then his neighbors and those who had beheld him before (because he was a beggar) said,
"Isn't this the one who sits and begs?" Others said that it was he, but still others said that he only
looked like him. He said, "I am he." Then they said to him, "How then were your eyes
opened?"
He answered, "The person who is called Jesus made clay and rubbed my eyes and said to
me, 'Go into the Siloam and wash.' Then when I went and washed myself, I obtained sight."
Then they said to him, "Where is he?" He said, "I don't know."
Jesus backed up his analogy of light and darkness, of day and night, with a physical demonstration. In sending the man to a pool named "sent", through the power of God Jesus healed the blind man. This man was known among the community, so that when people realized that he was no longer blind, nor was he begging, they concluded rightly that he had somehow received a miracle. Or maybe that wasn't really him? Maybe it only looked like him. The man made a personal identification: "I am". He was exactly who they believed him to be: the blind beggar, but "the person who is called Jesus" had caused him to obtain sight.
13 They led the man who was once blind to the Perushim, and it was a Sabbath on the day
Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. Therefore (again) the Perushim also asked him
how he obtained sight.
Now he said to them, "He put clay on my eyes, and I washed myself, and I can see."
16 Then certain ones of the Perushim said, "This person is not from
God, because he does not keep the Sabbath." Others said, "How can a sinful person
perform such signs?" And there was a division among them.
Then they said again to the blind man, "What do you say about him, because he
opened your eyes?" And he said that Jesus was a prophet.
Again, Jesus had healed a man on the Sabbath. His making of clay had been forbidden by the sages, and yet Jesus had done it. Overlooking the fact that Jesus had performed a miracle, and at first they acknowledged it as such, the Perushim were obsessed with the fact that he had made clay on the Sabbath.
The blind beggar himself was not so "shortsighted." If the man had performed such a miracle, then God must have sent him. He was a prophet, not a Sabbath breaker.
18 Therefore the Jews didn't believe about him that he was blind and obtained sight, until
they called the parents of the one who had received sight. And they asked them, "Is this your
son, whom you say was born blind? Then how can he see now?"
His parents then replied, "We know that he's our son and that he was born blind, but how
he now sees we don't know, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him. He's an adult. He
will speak about himself." This his parents said because they feared the Jews. (For already the
Jews had agreed that if anyone should acknowledge him to be the Anointed One, they would be
cast out of the gatherings. Because of this, his parents said, "He's an adult," and, "Question
him.")
At the man's testimony that Jesus was a prophet, the leaders refused to accept that he had ever been blind at all. Calling the man's parents together, they questioned the parents in a legal setting. The parents were bound to tell the truth, but their answer deliberately placed all legal obligation on their son. "He's an adult" signifies that he was legally qualified to answer questions, especially about what had happened to him. Additionally, they claimed no knowledge of the event.
Johannes informs us that the leaders had circulated rumors that they would expel anyone from their gatherings who acknowledged Jesus as the Anointed One. As the Nazarene group grew, though, this became less possible. Later on, however, as tensions increased, Christians were indeed expelled from the Jewish gatherings.
24 Therefore they called the person who was blind a second time and said to him, "Give
glory to God. We know that this person is a sinner."
Then he answered, "I don't know if he's a sinner. One thing I know: I was blind;
now I can see."
Then they said to him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?"
He answered, "I told you already, and didn't you hear? Why do you want to hear it
again? Do you want to become his students too?"
And they verbally abused him, saying, "You are his student! But we are students of
Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses; but this person, we don't know where he is
from."
The man answered, saying to them, "Here's a wonder: that you don't know where he is
from, yet he opened my eyes! We know that God doesn't hear a sinner. However, if anyone
is God's worshipper and does what he wants, him God hears.
"From the beginning of this age it's unheard of that someone opened the eyes of someone
who was born blind. If he were not a person sent from God, he wouldn't be able to do
anything."
They answered, saying to him, "You were born totally sinful, and you are teaching us?"
And they threw him out.
Questioning the man for a second time, and now convinced that Jesus had somehow cured his blindness, they demanded to know how he had done this. Perhaps they believed that he had performed some sort of trick. The man was confused, for he had already told them what Jesus had done. Maybe they wanted to learn more about Jesus so that they could follow him -- after all, he was a prophet.
This brought verbal abuse from the Perushim, and they refused to acknowledge Jesus as a
prophet. Their retort is quite interesting:
"We are students of Moses" -- Jesus has already asserted that none of them were truly following
the Torah.
"We know that God has spoken to Moses" -- they knew this only from tradition, but they
had proof standing before them that Jesus had performed miracles, yet they would not
believe.
Once again, the beggar saw things more clearly, and he proceeded to exposit to them about God. "Whoever Jesus is, he healed me, so he must be from God, because the Torah teaches that God doesn't hear sinners." The logic was impeccable: "if he were not ... from God, he wouldn't be able to do anything." The leaders became angry that this unlearned man was attempting to teach them about the Torah. Knowing he had been born blind, they equated this malady with sin, and just as they had dismissed Jesus they found themselves able to ignore this man's testimony because he "was born totally sinful."
Jesus had heard that the man had stood up for him in the legal proceeding. This beggar, then, was open to hearing the message and accepting Jesus for who he was. When Jesus met up with him, some members of the Perushim were still with him, perhaps escorting him home or rebuking him further.
Jesus' question presumed his own Messiahship. Did the man trust the Anointed One? The man's reply was one of slight misunderstanding, so that the reader should mark the question as an important one. "Who is he?" Jesus told him flatly, just as he had told the Samaritan woman, and Jesus gave him the final statement on spiritual sight and blindness: that there were people who simply lack the knowledge of God. Jesus came for those people, so that they would be able to receive the Messiah for whom they had waited. But there were also people who claimed to know God and who were "blind."
By this time, the leaders knew exactly what he meant: "are we blind?" He had implied that they could not know God. "If you were blind, you wouldn't have any sin." -- If you were merely ignorant, I would have given you the truth, and you'd be fine. "But now you say, 'We can see.' Your sin remains." -- They claimed to already know the truth. Therefore, they couldn't see the truth in the Messiah when he was right there with them. They would be judged by God for what they had done.
10:1 "Indeed I assure you: the one who does not enter the sheepfold through the gate
but goes up another way, he is a thief and a robber. But the one who enters through
the gate is a shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate to him, and the
sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name, and he leads them out.
"When he has called out all of the sheep, he walks in front of them. And the sheep
follow him because they know his voice. But they will by no means follow a stranger. On the
contrary, they will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."
6 This analogy Jesus said to them, but they didn't know what it was that
he was saying to them. So Jesus said to them again, "Indeed I assure you that I am
the rshepherd of the sheep. All those who came
before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep didn't hear them.
There had been many false Messiahs, but Jesus was the true one. All those "who came before Jesus" had been impostors, and so God did not open the way to the sheep for them. The true sheep, Messianic Jews, hear only the true Messiah's voice. This is a true analogy in terms of how sheep are able to recognize the voice of their shepherd. It is also a Messianic prophecy from Ezekiel.
In Ezekiel's prophecy, God sends a shepherd (a successor to David, 34:24) to tend his flock, largely because the would-be shepherds have been eating the flock (34:1f.)! All of this happens in the context of the new covenant (37:25-8), brought by the Davidic king. In citing it with reference to himself, Jesus identified himself as the successor to David.
"I am the door. If anyone enters through me, he will be rescued and will come in
and go out of the sheepfold and will find pasture.
"The thief doesn't come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I came
so that you might have life [and abundance].
Jesus made a secondary identification of himself with the door to the sheepfold. As the door, he is the way into the fold of believers. No one listening could enter the sheepfold (representing the true Jews) except through the Messiah, but whoever accepted the Messiah's teachings would find "pasture" or "life and abundance." The "life" signifies eternal, spiritual, life; the "abundance" probably represents the fact that this life would be free of the guilt accompanying sin.
The reading "door" in v. 7 is probably a mistake in reading. A scribe most likely borrowed the reading from v. 9. "Shepherd" is supported in v. 7 by various non-Greek manuscript traditions and the important manuscript p75. It is the reading adopted by the NET.
11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life on behalf of the
sheep. Since he is not a shepherd and the sheep are not his own, when a hireling
observes the wolf coming, he leaves the sheep and flees. Then the wolf snatches and
scatters them, because a hireling is only a hireling. He doesn't care about the sheep.
14 "I am the good shepherd, and I know my sheep, and my sheep know
me, just as the Father knows me, and I know the Father. And I am laying down my life
on behalf of the sheep.
"And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. It is necessary for me to
lead them
also. And they will hear my voice. And there will be one flock, one shepherd.
Returning to the Davidic identification, Jesus identifies himself ("I am") clearly as Messiah and shepherd (and the door, above), for to be the shepherd and the Anointed One are one in the same. This time, however, Jesus added elements to the analogy of Ezekiel. Here, there are "hirelings." The good shepherd, the Messiah, is willing to die on behalf of his sheep -- something that Jesus would soon do. The hireling, whom some identify with the priests (those leaders who were sincere enough but whose status was chosen by lineage -- not because of their concern for Israel), would be unwilling to die for the sheep.
Jesus presented it then as necessary that the Messiah (shepherd) die for his flock. This tied the Davidic figure together with the "suffering servant" of Isaiah, although he did not mention Isaiah at the time. Instead, he continued to allude to Ezekiel. The Hellenists ("other sheep"), who were not Palestinian (mainstream) Jews, would be brought into the fold, so that (as God promised) there would be only one flock, united under one Davidic shepherd (Ezek 37:24).
17 "Through this the Father loves me, because I am laying down my life so that I may
receive it again. No one is taking it from me, but of my own free will I am laying it down. I
have power to lay it down, and I power to receive it again. This precept I received from my
Father."
Again a division took place among the Jews because of these sayings. Now many of
them said, "He has a spirit being and is insane. Why are you listening to him?" But others said,
"These declarations are not those of one who is affected by a spirit being. Can a spirit being
open the eyes of the blind?"
Jesus knew that God loved him, for he would get his life back after laying it down. Once again, this time more overtly, Jesus predicted his return from the dead. Even more bluntly, he claimed power from God to give or take back his own life.
This man Jesus had now claimed to succeed every major figure in Jewish history. Paulus would refer to him also as "second Adam." In order to accept these things, and the fact that he was going to suffer and die, someone had to truly trust in him as Messiah. As time passed, Jesus' sayings separated the crowds into believers and disbelievers; they had to choose. The attesting signs and wonders proved that he was from God, but his radical treatment of the Torah was hard to accept. Eventually, each person would be forced to make a choice: to accept his claims or reject them.
22 Then the Feast of Dedication happened in Jerusalem. It was winter. And Jesus was
walking in the temple court in Solomon's Porch. Then the Jews surrounded him and said to
him, "When will you also stop holding us in suspense? If you are the Anointed One,
speak freely to us."
Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not trust. The deeds that I do in my Father's
name, they testify about me. But you don't trust because you aren't my sheep. My sheep hear
my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and I give them eternal life. And they will by
no means ever be lost, even into the next age. And no one will snatch them out of my hand.
"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than everyone: no one can snatch
them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one."
Again several weeks passed, and by now it was winter. The Feast of Dedication celebrated the restoration of the temple (164 BCE) after Antiochus IV had desecrated it. As if symbolizing his own dedication, Jesus made his strongest Messianic claim during the feast, bluntly calling himself the Anointed One, God's son.
As the leaders surrounded him, they demanded to know whether or not he claimed to be
the Messiah. More likely, they were trying to trap him in a specific claim that they
could refute. Once again, Jesus pointed not only to his own claims of anointing but also
to his attesting signs which proved that God had anointed him. Still, the leaders
would not believe because:
"You are not my sheep" -- The leaders were not God's people, for all of God's people
followed and belonged to the Messiah. That is, they recognized the Anointed One when he
came ("they heard his voice"); these leaders refused to accept him.
"No one will snatch them out of my hand." -- Those who truly knew that Jesus was the Messiah
would never be dissuaded, not by these leaders or anyone else.
"No one can snatch them out of the Father's hand." -- Jesus' followers were those Jews who
really belonged to God, and God was powerful enough to keep them from going astray.
"I and the Father are one." -- The Jewish leaders misunderstood Jesus as stating that
he was deifying himself. Once again, though, this misunderstanding was included by
the author to point to something spiritual. As "God's son," the Messiah, Jesus was intimate
with God. He always did what God wanted him to do, always listening to God's voice. He
was united with his Father. Jesus will later say that he wants for his own students to be
one in the same way that he and his Father are one (17:11) Just as he understood God (and of
course God understood him), he wanted his followers to have intimate relationships with
one another. Many commentators have fallen into the same trap as the Jewish leaders,
misunderstanding Jesus' words as a claim of divinity.
31 Again the Jews picked up stones so that they could stone him. Jesus said
to them, "Many good deeds I have shown you from the Father. For which of these deeds
are you stoning me?"
The Jews answered him, "We are not stoning you regarding a good deed, but regarding
evil speaking, and because you, a human being, are making yourself a god."
Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your Torah, "I said you are gods."?
If them he called 'gods' to whom God's message came, and the writing cannot be dismissed,
are you saying that I am speaking evil because I have said that I am God's son, I whom
the Father set apart and sent into creation?
Jesus had not claimed to be God, but "God's son" -- the Messiah. Even so, Jesus recognized that if even the horrible leaders of Psa 82 could be called "gods" by the author of the psalm, Jesus had made the relatively lesser claim of being "God's son," and the titles were irrelevant, for God himself had sent his son into creation -- so that Jesus truly was what he claimed to be.
"If I am not doing the deeds of my Father, don't trust me. But if I am, and if you don't
trust me, trust my deeds, so that you may know (and you do know) that the Father is in me, and I
am in the Father."
Therefore they sought again to seize him, and he went away out of their hands.
Returning to his earlier spiritualization of "fatherhood and sonship," Jesus suggested that they apply it to him. He claimed that God had sent him and that he was doing God's deeds, making God his father. If he had been lying, they shouldn't trust him, but if he truly was doing the deeds of God (making God his father), then they should use those signs as a means for accepting him. For then they might understand that he and God had such an intimate relationship.
By now it was late winter, and Jesus had come full circle, having returned to the place where he was baptized. Apparently the people who approached Jesus while he was there had been followers of John, for they recognized him to have been a prophet. Unlike Jesus, John is not on record as having performed any signs. Instead, he had maintained the traditional role of prophet: warning Israel about something to come and calling the people to return to God. Just as many of Jesus' early followers (including some of the Twelve) had been part of John's reformation movement, now also during this last winter, Jesus gathered up many of John's group, who knew that John had foretold the coming of the Anointed One.
Jesus and his students might have spent the whole winter there; however, the death of a friend intervened. The author assumes that the reader is familiar with the stories of Miriam and Martha, for his introduction to them is by association to the oral traditions about them. Like his two sisters, Lazaros lived in Bethany, although apparently he did not live with them.
The verb translated "affectionately love" normally indicates a friendship, and so Jesus' friendship with Lazaros was well known. When word was sent to him that Lazaros was ill, he remarked that the illness would not ultimately result in his friend's death. Instead, Jesus was about to perform a sign from God revealing him to have power even over life and death. This sign would become a further indication that Jesus was the Messiah.
Oddly, Jesus waited for two days -- long enough for Lazaros' condition to worsen -- then collecting his students to travel to Bethany. This was risky on his part, because the Jewish leaders were now actively seeking to have him killed. When his students brought this up in discussion, probably trying to pursuade him not to go, he replied that work must be done while there is still light. "Aren't there twelve hours in the day?" This refers to the traditional Jewish reckoning (6AM to 6PM), but Jesus' mentioning it implied that although it was late in the day -- although he was soon to die -- it was still light, for he was still here. Therefore, he must still work. While in the grave, he would not be able to work. "We must walk while there is still light," and so Jesus and his students walked to Bethany.
11 These things he said, and after this he said to them, "Lazaros our
friend has fallen asleep, but I am going to wake him up."
Then the students said to him, "Sir, if he has fallen asleep, he will be safe."
But Jesus had spoken about his death; they thought that he was speaking about the repose
of sleep. So Jesus then said freely, "Lazaros has died, and I rejoice on your behalf that
I was not there, so that you may trust. Now let's go to him." Then Thomas, who is called
twin, said to his fellow students, "Let's go too, so that we may die with him."
Using a traditional metaphor for death, Jesus explained the reason for the trip: to wake up Lazaros. There was a slight misunderstanding, but Jesus explained the matter freely to his students. (Read the analogy of the sower in, e.g., Mk 4, where Jesus relates that he always explained the meaning of things to his students but not to everyone.) The reader is expected to recognize here that Jesus would raise Lazaros, for God had given him power over death.
Assuming that Jesus was going to be murdered by the Jewish leaders, Thomas made a bold statement: "Let's go ... so that we may die with him." By this time, Jesus' students were so convinced of his identity that they were willing to die alongside him. Yet they did not fully realize that he would return from the dead. In particular, this Thomas would be nicknamed "Doubting Thomas" because he refused to believe that Jesus was raised.
17 Then as Jesus came, he found that Lazaros had already been in the tomb for four days.
Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about fifteen stadia away. Now many of the Jews had come
to Martha and Miriam to comfort them about the loss of their brother. Then when she heard that
Jesus was coming, Martha met him. But Miriam was sitting in the house.
Then Martha said to Jesus, "Sir, if you had been here, my brother wouldn't have died, but
I also know now that whatever things you may ask from God, God will give to you."
Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."
Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection, in the
last day."
"four days" -- It was taught that the body was considered to be decaying after four days. Lazaros had been in the tomb that long, and so his body was in a state of decay. By contrast, Jesus' body would "not see decay" -- he would be raised "during the third day" after his death.
"fifteen stadia" -- a couple of miles. Since the distance was so short, a number of the Jewish leaders had gone to comfort the two sisters. Martha appears to have feared that these leaders would apprehend Jesus on the spot, for when she heard that he was on his way, she went out by herself to meet him.
Martha's trust in God was strong -- for she had finally come to realize ("I know now") that the Messiah was powerful enough to do anything. The implication is that she hoped for him to be raised from the dead, although she may have only hoped that Jesus would see to it that Lazaros went to be with God.
At any rate, there is some misunderstanding (over the same point as earlier with his other students) at the comment that Lazaros would rise again. The misunderstanding is different this time, for Jesus would raise his friend bodily from the dead. This would be done as a symbol of the spiritual and everlasting life brought by the Messiah.
"I know that he will rise again" -- a confidence that her brother would go to be with God (or perhaps a hope). "In the last day" = "finally". Ultimately, Lazaros would have spiritual eternal life, for the Messiah taught this. Martha indeed listened to the Anointed One's teachings. "The Resurrection" = "the afterlife."
25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who trusts in me will live,
even if he may die, and all who are living and who trust me will by no means ever die, even into
the next age. Do you believe this?"
She said to him, "Yes sir, I have trusted that you are the Anointed One, the son of God,
the one who came into creation." After saying these things, she went and called her sister
Miriam privately, saying, "The teacher is here and is calling you."
"I am..." -- another identification of himself as Messiah.
"the resurrection and the life" -- This has two meanings. For "resurrection" signifies
both the act of being raised from the dead (as he was about to do for Lazaros) and the
afterlife. Jesus is both the afterlife and the life: his teachings are everything
important to spiritual existence. On the other hand, he is "the resurrection" -- the
act of making alive the (spiritually) dead, as he has already told his followers (5:25f.).
The two statements that follow are parallels, but the former speaks of physical death, and the latter speaks of spiritual death and life. Whoever trusts Jesus will live (spiritually) even though he will die physically. No one who follows his teachings will ever die (spiritually). As we have pointed out, Martha was a good student of Jesus, and she expressed her firm belief that Jesus was indeed the Messiah sent by God. It is interesting to note that it is Martha's affirmation and not Peter's (Mt 16) which appears in this time frame in Johannes' account. The testimony of women (the Samaritan, Martha, those at the tomb) is important in Johannes.
Now when she heard, she rose up quickly and went to him. Now Jesus had not yet
come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha met him. Therefore when the
Jews who were with Miriam in the house comforting her noticed that Miriam got up quickly and
went out, they followed her, thinking that she was going to the tomb to cry there.
32 Then when Miriam got to where Jesus was and noticed him, she fell at his feet,
saying to him, "Sir, if you had been here, my brother would not have died."
Therefore, when Jesus noticed that she and those Jews who came with her were crying,
he groaned in his spirit and became troubled, and said, "Where have you laid him?" They said
to him, "Sir, come and see." Jesus cried.
Then the Jews said, "Notice how he affectionately loved him."
But certain of them said, "Couldn't he, who opened the eyes of the blind, have acted so
that this one wouldn't have died?"
As Martha called her sister out to meet Jesus, the Jewish leaders who were with her followed her. He could no longer approach them secretly, but at this solemn occasion the leaders chose not to be disruptive by apprehending Jesus. Like Martha, Miriam believed that Jesus was the Messiah, with the power to have saved her brother's life. Everyone was crying, and Jesus' own feelings for his friends caused him to cry also, so that even his opponents noticed what good friends Jesus and Lazaros had been. Admitting that Jesus had healed the blind man (ch. 9), they wondered (perhaps genuinely) why he did not have the power to save his friend's life.
38 Then Jesus, again groaning within himself, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave,
and a stone was lying on top of it. Jesus said, "Remove the stone." Martha, the sister
of the one who had died, said to him, "Sir, he stinks now, for it is the fourth day."
Jesus said to her, "Didn't I tell you that if you would trust, you would see God's glory?"
So they removed the stone. And Jesus lifted his eyes above and said, "Father, I thank you
because you heard me. Now I knew that you always hear me, but I have spoken on account of
those who are standing here, so that they might believe that you have sent me."
When he said these things, he called out with a loud voice, "Lazaros, come out!" The
one who had been dead came out, still bound hand and foot with bandages, and his face covered
with a head wrapping. Jesus said to them, "Release him, and let him go."
Therefore many of the Jews who had come to Miriam and who observed what he did
trusted in him. But certain ones went to the Perushim and told them what Jesus had done.
As Jesus approached his friend's tomb, he was overwhelmed with emotion, even though he knew what he was about to do. "It is the fourth day" -- another verbal affirmation that Lazaros' body was already decaying. It was giving off the stench of death; there was no way that he could have been feigning death. Naturally, the reader is supposed to know this tradition.
"Didn't I tell you that if you trust..." -- The two sisters did trust God, and they earnestly believed that he was the Anointed One sent by God. Jesus' public statement before Lazaros' return from the dead was spoken not for his own benefit, but as an indication that what he was about to do was a sign of his identity.
"Lazaros, come out!" -- Some commentators claim that if Jesus had not spoken his friend's name, merely saying, "Come out," that all of the dead would have been raised! While this preaches well, it is quite unlikely that God's power could be accidentally unleashed in such a manner, for Jesus has already proven that he needn't even have been present in order to cause someone to become well.
When Lazaros emerged, he was pale with death, wrapped in the traditional wrappings of the dead. When this happened, even "many" of the Jewish leaders who were there changed their minds about Jesus and began to accept him, but some of them were aggravated even further and reported back to the Perushim.
47 Then the high priests and the Perushim gathered the Sanhedrin together and said, "What are we going to do? This person is performing many signs. If we let him do this, everyone will trust in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."
When the Perushim heard, the high priests had been given word of this as well, so that they all gathered together. The priestly class were generally Zadokites, who did not believe in an afterlife. For them, return from the dead was impossible, since one ceased to exist at the moment of death. It is therefore distinctive that at this time they chose to join the Perushim (who opposed them on this issue) in the conspiracy against Jesus.
The Sanhedrin expressed one singular concern: they were worried that his signs would cause people to recognize him as Messiah. The wording is suspicious, for Johannes gives us the impression that these leaders realized who Jesus was but deliberately rejected him. This impression is backed up by their ultimate concern. They were not worried that people might follow a false Messiah. Instead, they were troubled that the Romans might "take away both our place and our nation." Look at what is mentioned first: the leaders' social standing. The nation of Israel, already subject to Roman rule, was regarded as secondary. The author represents these certain Jewish leaders as being chiefly concerned with maintaining their own status. If Jesus were proclaimed the Messiah, they would lose their status. But note that some commentators believe that "our place" was a soft reference to the temple.
Ironically, within 40 years the Romans would do just as they feared, but not on account of Jesus proclaiming himself a king. The Zealot faction would become strong enough that they would stage a revolt. While Nero's reign was somewhat troubled, and while the Caesars after him failed to last very long, the command of Vespasian Caesar was strong militarily. Under Vespasian, Titus (who would later become Caesar) sieged the strongholds of the Zealots, overrunning Jerusalem and the temple and defeating the Jews ultimately at Masada (c. 73-4 CE).
Now a certain one of them, Kaiaphas, who was a high priest that year, said to them,
"You know nothing, nor are you considering that it makes more sense for us that one man die on
behalf of the people, and not that the whole nation should be destroyed."
Now this he did not say from himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that
Jesus was about to die on behalf of the nation, and not only on behalf of the nation alone, but
also so that he would gather into one the children of God who had been scattered.
So from that day, they were plotting to kill him. Therefore Jesus no longer freely
walked among the Jews, but went away from there into the country near the desert, into a city
called Ephraim, and there he remained with his students.
Kaiaphas (in Aramaic form, Kaifa) was the high priest who eventually would preside over Jesus' condemnation to death. It was his suggestion in the council that Jesus be assassinated. This was an official measure, so that now the Jewish leaders were openly and actively plotting to have him arrested for whatever cause they could concoct.
Kaifa's prophecy is noteworthy, as the author indicates. For Jesus would indeed become one man dying on behalf of the nation. Not only would he die for the Jews living in Israel, but also for all Jews everywhere. "Gathering the scattered (sheep)" (Ezek 34) was a function that God would accomplish through his Messiah.
Unable to go anywhere near Jerusalem without encountering hostile enemies, Jesus retreated to Ephraim until the Spring.
As winter thawed and Passover approched, the leaders knew that Jesus would be returning to Jerusalem for the feast of Unleavened Bread (of which Passover was a part). They began to look for Jesus in the city approximately a week before the feast. It was customary to arrive at the feasts early, to ensure that one was cerimonially pure during the feast. For if someone was ceremonially impure at the beginning of the feast, then that person could not participate in the feast. Assuming that Jesus must be preparing to sneak into town, they passed the word around that anyone who saw him should report his location to them.
As a somewhat humorous aside, F.F. Bruce notes (New Testament History, p.62) that in 5 BCE, the high priest (Matthias) defiled himself immediately before Yom Kippur and therefore could not make the sacrifice on behalf of the people; a relative had to take his place. Consequently, he was removed from his position before the next Day of Atonement.
12:1 Then six days before the Passover, Jesus went into Bethany, where Lazaros was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Therefore they made him dinner there, and Martha served. And Lazaros was one of those who were reclining with him.
From here on, Johannes pinpoints the dates for us. This is 9 Nisan ... six days before the day when the Passover dinner would be eaten. Although the term "Passover" was sometimes used of the day when the lamb was killed, and although by the time of Jesus the expression "Passover" had become synonymous with the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Johannes always uses the term in reference to 15 Nisan. As we shall see later on, this day was a Sunday.
Mariam, Martha, and Lazaros had invited Jesus and his entourage to dinner, at which Martha served. We discover in another account (Lk 10:38-42) that Martha was more comfortable providing table service in the traditional female role, whereas her sister was most interested in studying the Torah under Jesus.
Then after taking one litra of ointment of genuine -- expensive -- spikenard Miriam anointed Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the aroma of the ointment. Now Judah Iscariot, one of his students, the one who was about to betray him, said, "Why wasn't this ointment sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" Now he said this not because he was concerned about the poor but because he was a thief, and he held the money box and stole the things that were put in it.
Lukas 7:36ff. tells a similar story of a woman who had lived a sinful life anointing Jesus' feet. Details of the accounts, though, are very different. They represent entirely different events. This account resembles those told in Mt 26 and Mk 14 but is dissimilar to Lukas', although the other accounts are not chronological. This dinner took place in the house of Simon the Leper (according to Matthaiah and Markus). In this case, the ointment was spikenard, an herbal remedy and perfume still used today in aroma therapy. Extracts of the spikenard root were used in anointing the dying and dead.
For the first time, the reader is introduced to Judah Iscariot. Judah is a familiar personage in the Jesus story, and so the reader's introduction to Judah is most brief. Here quite possibly, the author's emotions show through. It was Judah who objected to Miriam's "wasting" of the spikenard by anointing Jesus, with his explanation being that since it was an expensive ointment, she should have sold it and donated the proceeds to help the poor. Johannes flatly states that Judah's true motive was to embezzle some of the proceeds from the money bag, which he had been entrusted with carrying. According to the parallels, the value of the spikenard was approximately 300 denarii, which was ten months' wages for the common laborer.
Judah's last name may be a reference to his place of origin -- "ish-Kerioth," man of Kerioth -- or it may signify his devotion to the Zealot cause if translated "man of the dagger." Neither view is certain.
Therefore Jesus said, "Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my
embalming. For you will always have the poor with you, but me you won't always have."
Therefore a great crowd of the Jews knew that he was there, and they didn't come on
account of Jesus alone, but also so that they might notice Lazaros, whom he raised from the
dead. Now the high priests were plotting, so that they might kill Lazaros also, because many
went away from the Jews and trusted in Jesus because of him.
Jesus' reply was a stern rebuke and an indication of what was to follow. Here, Jesus spoke of the act as a preparation for his death -- Miriam would keep the rest of the spikenard in order to anoint his dead body. In Markus' account (14:3ff.), this is a pivotal point, since when Judah heard this, he left immediately in order to find a way to betray Jesus (Mk 14:10-11). There are indications that Judah's intent may have been to force Jesus to claim his place as King of Israel, but Johannes says nothing about the story, assuming that it was already known via oral tradition.
This event brought notariety to Miriam (see also Mt 26:13), and people became immediately attracted to the house, not only because Jesus was there but also because Lazaros was with him. The fact that the priests were the ones plotting to kill Lazaros is significant, remember, because he was proof that there was an afterlife -- he had returned from it!
12On the next day, after hearing that Jesus had come into Jerusalem, a great crowd that
had come to the feast took branches of the palm trees and went out to meet him, and they called
out, "Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of Yahweh: the King of Israel!"
Now after finding a young donkey, Jesus sat on it, as it had been written, "Do not fear,
daughter of Zion. Look, your king is coming, sitting on a foal of a donkey."
The date here is significant. This is 10 Nisan, five days before the meal. Assuming that this was the daytime (and not the previous evening), Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem on Palm Monday corresponded precisely to the date when the Passover Lamb was to be brought into the household before its slaughter:
"On the tenth day of this month, each man must take an animal from the flock, one for each family: one animal for each household...You must take into account how much each can eat in deciding the number for the animal. It must be an animal without blemish, a male one year old; you may take it from either sheep or goats. (Ex 12:4f.)
The readers being Jewish, they would have been familiar with the date; consequently, this represents subtle forshadowing on the author's part. Jesus' death was imminent, at least from the moment he rode into Jerusalem.
The first quote is from the Hallel, a section of the Psalms which is read during the Passover meal. "The King of Israel" refers to the Messiah, so that the crowd was openly acknowledging his identity. The quotation (Psa 118:26) is followed by an admonition to "Bind up the festal procession with branches" (v. 27), and so the crowd spread palm branches in Jesus' path. "Hosanna" ("save") is found in verse 25 of the song, and is a cry to God for salvation through his anointed one. Readers of the psalm will be familiar with the "cornerstone" passage which immediately precedes this one (v. 22). The original psalm identifies the Anointed One as a rejected sufferer. The parallel accounts indicate that some of those present spread out their clothes before Jesus as well; all of these offerings are expressions of adoration.
At least part of the procession took place while Jesus was riding a young donkey. In a traditional parade of triumph, the king would have been seated on the most majestic animal available, but Jesus arrived in humility. The quotation made in reference to Jesus' arrival comes from Zech 9:9, which reads in full: "Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, daughter of Jerusalem! Look, your king is coming to you; he is victorious and triumphant, humble and riding on a colt -- the foal of a donkey." In the original prophecy, the arrival on a donkey rather than a war animal signifies that the king would ultimately bring peace.
16 These things his students did not know at first. But when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written about him, and that the people had done these things to him. Then the crowd that was with him testified that he called this one called Lazaros out of the tomb and raised him from the dead. For this reason the crowd met him, because they heard that he had performed this sign. Therefore the Perushim said among themselves, "Observe that you are gaining nothing! Look, the whole world is going away after him."
Johannes makes another admission that he and his fellow envoys did not know about the prophecy until after their minds were opened to understand all of the writings about him (which happened after Jesus returned from the dead). At the time, those members of the crowd who knew about the raising of Lazaros began to testify to everyone else about the event. They were unaware that he was about to perform an even greater sign: having himself resurrected from the dead.
The jealousy that existed among the Jewish leaders is spelled out again for the reader here. They began to argue with one another because none of their measures had caused Jesus to lose popularity. Rather than wondering who he must be (since he was able to raise Lazaros from the dead), they were concerned with the fact that he was gaining a wider audience for his radical teachings.
20Now there were some Hellenists among those who were going up to worship during the
feast. So these people came to Filippos from Beth-saida of Galilaiah, and asked him, "Sir, we
want to view Jesus." Filippos went and told Andreas. Andreas and Filippos went and told
Jesus. Now Jesus answered them, "The hour has come so that the Son of Man may be glorified.
"Indeed I assure you: unless the grain of wheat which falls to the ground should die, it
remains alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit.
"The one who affectionately loves his life [[soul]] will lose it. And the one who hates his
life [[soul]] in this world will keep it into eternal life. If anyone serves me, let him follow me.
And where I am, there my servant will be as well. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor
him."
The peace brought by the Messiah would involve, in part, the gathering of all Jewish believers into one fold. Therefore, Johannes presents us with an account (immediately following the previous one) of Hellenists approaching Jesus. The details are incidental here, but they provide two "mainstream" Jews as witnesses to Jesus' sayings about himself.
The first saying is a lesson in horticulture. A seed itself ceases to become a seed when it begins to grow into a stalk of wheat. In some sense, then, the seed must "die" in order for the grain to flourish. The explanation, to come, shows that this was an illustration of the necessity of Jesus' death.
The saying about losing one's life has two meanings. First and foremost, Jesus is referring to himself. He was about to die, but his life would continue forever in a spiritual capacity. The secondary meaning is a teaching for all those who follow him. Just as he was about to die, and yet to live again, so also any of them who truly followed Jesus' teachings would have eternal life. Just as Jesus would go on to be with God, so also all those who followed his teachings would join him.
There is a word game here in Greek, and most likely in the underlying Aramaic. The word play revolves around two words for "life." The soul-life, animal life, is not to be treasured by Jesus' followers. The term is used, as in the LXX, for the life which ends at the moment of death. But those who are able to look beyond the physical life will receive not an eternal physical life, but an eternal spiritual life. The word zwh in Hellenistic usage was an important word, in part equate with biological life. Using the LXX term yuch in contrast to it, Jesus separated the physical and spiritual concepts. Apart from the physical aspects, then, zwh signifies a life force, the vitality which causes life. It has been called "the potency on which life rests." Zwh, then, permeates and is necessary for physical life, but the concept transcends it. In some LXX manuscripts, "live" (zaw) is interchanged with the word for "resurrect", indicating that some Hellenists did understand zwh to go beyond biological life. Jesus depicts trading one's pursuit of physical life in for a life that transcends all things physical.
27 "Now, "My soul is troubled," and what shall I say: 'Father, save me from this hour?' On
the contrary, I came to this hour on this account.
"Father, glorify your name."
Then a voice came out of heaven: "I both glorified and again will glorify." Then the
crowd who stood and heard said, "Thunder has happened." Others said, "A messenger has
spoken to him."
Jesus answered, "This voice has not happened on my account, but on your account.
"Now there is a judgment of this world. Now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
And I will draw all to myself, if I am lifted up from the ground." Now this he said signifying by
what method of death he was about to die.
"My soul is troubled" -- the brief citation stems from Psa 6:3, which depicts the singer in conflict with others who appear about to take his life. "Yahweh, do not rebuke me in your anger, nor chasten me in your rage. Have mercy on me, Yahweh, for I am weakening. O Yahweh, heal me, for my bones are troubled, and my soul is troubled severely. Yahweh, how long will you be?"
The psalm represents a man pleading to God for his life, a feeling that Jesus felt during this last week in his own life. He wanted to be spared the death to come, but "what shall I say...?" Should Jesus ask to be spared when he knew that it was for this very reason -- his death -- that he "came to this hour"? The answer is no. Jesus would continue to do God's wishes, even over the instinct of self-preservation.
At that point, Jesus displayed himself as being the ultimate example of seeking what is beyond this life rather than seeking the things of this life. Instead of sparing himself, he remained subject to God. Therefore, God himself spoke, not only glorifying his own name in so doing but also praising Jesus' perseverence, for "again will glorify" refers to the crucifixion. The suffering endured by Jesus would be a glory to God.
"Now there is a judgment of this world." -- This refers to Judaism and should not extend
beyond Judaism. "World" is used by Johannes frequently to signify those people who are
in rebellion against God. Here, the Jewish leaders (and all following them) who were clinging
to their traditions despite what the Messiah was telling them were about to be judged.
"The ruler of this world will be cast out." -- The prime mover behind the rebellion against
God was the Enemy, just as Jesus has already referred to him as the "father" of the Jewish
leaders. His being "cast out" is a metaphor for experiencing defeat. The Enemy would
experience a defeat by Jesus' accepting his own crucifixion.
"I will draw all to myself, if I am lifted from the ground." -- As the author points out,
this referred directly to the crucifixion of Jesus. The defeat suffered by the Enemy would
manifest itself in Jesus gathering more followers even as he died. Nazarene Judaism,
unlike many movements of the past, would not disappear after the death of its founder.
To the contrary, there would be many more followers after Jesus' death than before!
34 Therefore the crowd answered him, "We have heard from the Torah that the Anointed
One will stay for the age. So how can you say that it is necessary for the Son of Man to
be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?"
Then Jesus said to them, "The light is among you for yet a little time. Walk while you
have the light, so that darkness may not overtake you. The one who walks in darkness doesn't
know where he is going. While you have the light, trust in the light, so that you may become
sons of light." Jesus spoke these things and went away, and he hid from them.
The crowd's reply illustrated the obstacles to their trust in the Anointed One. Jesus had not said, "the Son of Man" (i.e., the Messiah) must be lifted up. He said that he would be lifted up. They recognized Jesus as the Anointed One; that wasn't the problem. Their confusion arose over their tradition that the Anointed One would not die, but would remain physically on earth forever. Again their interpretation was valid (given the predictions) but incorrect:
"I will not break my covenant. I will not alter the word that went out from my lips. Once and for all I have sworn by by holiness; I will not lie to David. His dynasty will last forever. His throne will last as long as the sun before me; like the moon it will be established forever. The witness in the skies is sure." (Psa 89:35-37)
However, the crowd's misunderstanding again arose out of the difference between a physical presence and a spiritual presence. Jesus would guide his followers through their keeping his principles. Their following the truth would lead them to him forever. Therefore, he answered their question directly: "The light is among you for yet a little time." He would be with them physically for only a short time -- less than a week, in reality. He urged the crowd to continue to listen to him while he was with them, so that they might become "sons of light" after he departed. The term "sons" is used just as Jesus used it earlier -- as followers. His wish was that they would follow his own example.
37 Now although he had performed so many signs in their presence, still they didn't trust in him, so that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which said, "Lord, who has believed our report? And the arm of Yahweh, to whom was it revealed?"
As the dialog ends, Johannes interrupts the natural flow to make a point: that the real obstacle to their being able to accept him was not based in theological debate over minutiae of the Torah. The signs alone would have convinced them to listen to Jesus if that had been the case. Instead, "who has believed our report" (Isa 53:1)? Isa 52:13-53:12 had already pointed out to them that the Messiah was to be a sufferer, but they did not believe Isaiah. Then what was the obstacle to their trust?
On this account they could not trust Jesus: because again Isaiah said, "He has blinded
their eye and has hardened their hearts, so that they may not view with the eyes, and understand
with the heart, and turn back, and I should heal them."
41 These things Isaiah said because he noticed Jesus' glory and spoke about
him. Nevertheless, many--truly, even some of the rulers--trusted in him, but on account of the
Perushim they did not acknowledge this, so that they would not be put out of the gatherings. For
they loved the glory of humanity more than the glory of God.
Their eyes had been blinded. Their hearts had been hardened to the point where they could not turn to God (Isa 6:9-10). Again, the author introduces the concept of being spiritually blind, this time borrowing from an earlier prophet. Just as God had told Isaiah that the when they heard his message, the people would ignore his message, so also the saying applied to the Messiah: there would be an obstacle to their learning. The passage in Isaiah continues: "For how long, Lord?" And he said, "Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without men, and the land is utterly desolate." Originally the context referred to the siege of the land and destruction of the temple by the armies of King Nabu-kudurri-usur (Nebuchadrezzar), but much of this portion of Isaiah had been understood as Messianic. In applying it to himself, Jesus explained that those Jews who rejected the Anointed One that God had sent them would see everything they stood for ruined as the Roman armies took Jerusalem and Masada and as they destroyed the temple once again. Note also that the other three accounts of Jesus' life (notably Mt 24-25) also depict Jesus as predicting the devastation of Judaism during this last week.
The reason, then, for the people's stubbornness to receive their Messiah was that they were afraid of the Perushim, those rabbis who were able to expel them from their gatherings if they were angered enough to do so. Rather than lose their place in society, many people rejected the Messiah as a social necessity. Johannes says that they loved to receive praise from human beings (the Perushim) rather than from God (as Jesus was doing); they refused to share in the persecution faced by Jesus.
44 Now Jesus called out, saying, "The one who trusts in me is not trusting in me, but
in the one who sent me. And the one who observes me is observing the one who sent me.
"I have come into creation as a light, so that everyone who trusts in me would not
remain in darkness. And if anyone hears my declarations and doesn't keep them, I am not
judging him, for I didn't come so that I might judge the creation, but so that I might
save the creation.
"The one who sets me aside and does not receive my declarations has this judging
him: the message that I spoke, that will judge him in the last day. Because I didn't speak from
myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a precept: what I should say and what I should
speak. And I know that his precept is eternal life. Therefore the things I say, I am speaking
as the Father has spoken to me."
These remarks were spoken on another day, 12 or 13 Nisan, but they maintain the light/darkness theme mentioned earlier and return to the concept of the judgment of Israel which was coming soon.
Throughout his career, Jesus has been creating a separation between receiving him as the Anointed One and rejecting him. In the end, there are only two options and the Jews would have to choose between Jesus and traditional Judaism. Therefore, his point was plain: to accept Jesus' teachings was to accept God. The character observed in Jesus' life was the loving character of God (although the author deliberately does not mention the word "love" yet). Jesus presented the choice as being clear...clear as light.
All along, Jesus has talked about the basis for the coming judgment. Would it be Jesus himself? Only in metaphor, for his teachings would serve as the ultimate basis for jugdment. Earlier, Jesus pointed out that in a manner of speaking, Moses would make the judgment as well, for he and the prophets had spoken of the coming of the Anointed One, but people did not receive him when he came. Now the focus has shifted to the core ideas of the spiritual Torah. If keeping Jesus' teachings or staying in traditional Judaism were the only options, then the internalization of the Torah would be the basis for escaping the coming judgment. This proved to be true, since Priestly Judaism was about to cease to exist.
Jesus flatly said that the reason that his teachings would be so important was simple: because God had told Jesus to explain the Torah in such a way, and it was God would be bringing the judgment on Israel. Finally, then ("in the last day"), the message would be the basis for judgment, since this had been the message that God had been trying to communicate to humanity since the beginning (ch. 1). Keeping the message meant eternal life; rejecting the message signified national ruin. For the reader who is undecided, by now the choice should be a simple one.
This section begins the final division in this written work, for Jesus has taught everything to the crowds that he will teach. The final teachings, including the complete revelation of the message, would be repeated for his students (and for the reader who is still willing to accept who Jesus was).
This section begins, then with the first direct statement that Jesus' love for his students was the motivation for everything he was doing and had done for them. The events that were to follow, including both the final advice to the Twelve and his journey to the cross were his way of "loving them to the end."
Judah had already gone to the Jewish leaders and arranged for Jesus' arrest, but Johannes mentions this as though it were an aside. He writes only enough information to remind his readers about what is about to happen.
The 13th of Nisan was just ending, and the evening that started 14 Nisan was beginning. Johannes clearly depicts Jesus as dying at the time when the Passover lambs were slaughtered -- the afternoon of 14 Nisan. Although others have attempted to claim that Jesus' death is timed differently in the other three accounts, this author contends that all four accounts are in agreement. For information about this subject, please consult my paper, Passover and the Crucifixion, which is available from my main religion page.
Jesus knew three things:
that God had "given all things to his hands" -- the choices were all his. He could serve God
and die, or he could save his own life.
"and that he came out from God" -- His sending had been a genuine one. God had sent him
with the message for the Jewish people.
"and was going to God" -- This means more simply than Jesus realized he was dying. While
that would certainly be the case if Jesus chose to continue on God's path, Jesus knew for
certain that after his death he would enter the afterlife to be with God forever.
Knowing all of these things, Jesus expressed his love for his close friends by serving them. His humble attitude of serving others had always been there, just as he had always served God, but even as he was about to serve God completely in death, he chose a visible means of depicting his love for his friends as well: he would wash their feet.
Travel in sandals along dusty roads always soils the feet, and so it was normally the role of a household servant to wash the feet of those who were returning from travel. Jesus' "putting on the towel" was an immediate sign that he himself would fulfill the role of servant. Reducing himself to a person with no status whatsoever, he would wash the dirt-covered feet of his friends, all of whom recognized that he was their superior.
Then he came to Simon Peter. He said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"
Jesus answered, saying to him, "Now you don't understand what I'm doing. But after
this, you will understand."
Peter said to him, "You will by no means wash my feet, even for the age!" Jesus
answered, "You have no part with me unless I wash you."
Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head!"
Jesus said to him, "The one who has bathed has no need to wash anything but his feet,
but he is wholly clean. And you are clean ones, but not all."
For Jesus knew the one who was betraying him. On this account he said, "You are not
all clean ones." Then when he had washed their feet, he took his cloak, reclined again, and said
to them, "Do you know what I've done to you? You call me 'teacher' and 'lord', and you say
well, for I am these things. So: if I, lord and teacher, have washed your feet, you are bound
also to wash one another's feet. For I gave you an example, so that you would also do as I did
to you.
The Twelve were largely silent, although it is quite likely that they looked around at one another, trying to interpret Jesus' actions. Peter, here referred to as "Simon the Rock", was the first one to voice his concerns. Referring to Jesus as "Lord" -- a term which denotes anyone in a superior position, Peter's question reflected his knowledge that Jesus was a superior performing the tasks of a social inferior.
Jesus knew that Peter would understand, because these close associates of his (except for Judah) had embraced the internal Torah. It would not be long before his attitude made perfect sense to them. At the moment, though, Peter experienced a misunderstanding. The reader was expected to take careful note of the point that Jesus was making. Peter's refusal was met with a very strong, "You have no part with me unless I wash you." Service out of love is the very cornerstone of the internal Torah. If Peter had refused to allow such service, then he did not truly understand Jesus' teachings. Consequently, he would not have belonged with those who did understand.
Peter's next reaction was to take the "rocklike" leap of trust and suggest that Jesus wash his face and hands as well! He understood the connection between the act and the teachings of Jesus, but then he left behind the fact that the washing of the feet stemmed from their preparations for the Passover seder, which they were about to eat (one day earlier than usual). Therefore, Jesus replied in gentle correction that since Peter had already bathed, only his feet needed to be washed. He concluded by making a statement that had a double meaning: "you are clean ones, but not all." This meant that they had been wholly clean apart from their feet, but he also meant to suggest that in a spiritual sense, all of them except Judah were "clean," for Judah had betrayal on his mind.
The teaching that Jesus drew from the physical act is to be taken spiritually. It is the loving, giving attitude that he expected his students to follow. Therefore, he asked whether they understood what he had done. While he was physically washing their feet, it was the attitude of love for one another, to the point of putting the other person first, that Jesus was hoping they would understand by then.
They knew by this time (see also Mt 20:20-8; 23:1-12) that they were all equals, but Jesus was their superior. Since their superior had shown the serving attitude, and since they were only equals, none of them could claim that they were above loving one another genuinely.
16 "Indeed I assure you: a slave is not greater than his lord, nor is an envoy greater than the one who sent him. If you understand these things, you are blessed if you do them.
An inferior can never claim privileges that his superior does not possess. Since Jesus had served them, it was enough for them to treat one another like he treated them. Since this was central to internalizing the message, any of the Twelve would be blessed if they understood that message and served the others humbly. Although Jesus' statements were specifically geared toward the Twelve, the author has intended for the reader to understand that the teachings about love were meant for everyone; the specific applications, though, are situational.
"I am not speaking about all of you. I know the ones whom I chose. But so that the writing may be fulfilled, "The one who eats the loaf with me lifted up his heel against me." I am telling this to you at this time, before it happens, so that when it happens, you may trust that I am the Anointed One."
Ahead of time, Jesus predicted his betrayal by Judah. In this account, this is the first occasion on which Jesus has plainly suggested that he would be betrayed by one of them -- something that must have shocked them. Psalm 41 is about the person -- the Anointed One -- who puts all of his trust in Yahweh God. Even though his enemies plot against him and one of his friends betrays him (v. 9), still he looks to God for vindication. In the end, then, he would triumph. In citing the passage in reference to himself, Jesus identified himself as the Messiah. Therefore, the Twelve would see within a matter of hours that the prophecy about him was going to be fulfilled -- further proof that he was the Anointed One.
20 "Indeed I assure you: the one who receives anyone that I may send, receives me. And the one who receives me receives the one who sent me."
This was a saying for the eleven who would remain faithful -- that God was with them -- and for Judah, that in turning Jesus over to be killed, Judah was rejecting God.
21 Having said these things, Jesus was troubled in the spirit and testified,
saying, "Indeed I assure you that one of you will deliver me over."
The students looked at one another, wondering who he was speaking about. Now one of
the students, whom Jesus loved, was reclining on Jesus' chest. So Simon Peter nodded to him
to ask who it might be that he was speaking about. So he leaned back on Jesus' chest and said
to him, "Lord, who is it?"
Jesus answered, "He is the one for whom I have dipped the little piece, and to him I
will give it." And when he dipped the little piece, he gave it to Judah, son of Simon
Iscariot. And after the little piece was passed, the Enemy entered into Judah. So
Jesus said to him, "Do quickly what you are doing." Now none of those who were
reclining with him knew why he spoke to Judah. For some, seeing that Judah had the money
box, thought that Jesus said to him, "Buy what we need for the feast," or said that he
should give something to the poor.
Again and even more bluntly, Jesus asserted that one of his most trusted associates, all of whom were friends, would hand Jesus over to his opponents. The statement was stunning, and the degree to which the students began to wonder about this betrayal rapidly increased.
At this point and for the second time only, the author introduces himself. At the beginning of the account (and for the purpose of promoting himself as a witness to all of Jesus' activities), Johannes had simply called himself "another student." Now, years later, he mentions himself once again, as "one of the students, whom Jesus loved." He was one of the Twelve, with whom Jesus had a close relationship. The other three accounts indicate that Peter, Jacob, and Johannes were his inner circle of friends. Since the author was in the position of favor -- leaning on Jesus' chest as they all reclined together at the table -- surely he was a member of that inner circle. The author's point in mentioning himself this way was to give a clue as to his own identity while still advancing the plot: who was going to betray the Messiah?
At the dinner, they would all likely be dipping matzoh into the bitter herb sauce. Therefore, unless they were watching Jesus constantly it is unlikely that they would notice something so small as his offering a piece to Judah. So although the others did not notice what happened, Judah was greatly upset when given the piece of bread. With the things that had already been said, it appears that Judah was filled with emotion to the point where he left immediately to inform the Jewish leaders of Jesus' itinerary for that night. Johannes poetically describes this as the Enemy entering into Judah -- he was now not his own, but he belonged entirely to God's Enemy. Just as all are made to choose, Judah had chosen.
30 So when Judah took the little piece, he went out immediately. Now it was night. So
when he went out, Jesus said, "Just now the Son of Man was glorified, and God was glorified
in him. And God will glorify him personally, and he will immediately glorify him.
"Children, for a little while still I am with you. You will seek me, and as I said to the
Jews that, 'Where I am going, you are not able to come,' I say this also to you.
Judah got up and left, and Johannes points out that it was night, for Judah had left the light, having chosen to enter the darkness. After his departure, Jesus explained something that would make more sense later that night:
"Just now the Son of Man was glorified" -- In tipping Judah off so that he would set in motion the events of the day that was to come, Jesus embraced God's will for his life. Barring a miracle, the Messiah would now become the suffering servant that he was intended to be, dying a peaceful but humble death at the hands of the shepherds who made themselves fat by preying on the sheep of Israel.
Jesus also made sure his students understood that he was about to die. "You will seek me," he said, but he wouldn't be there for them any longer - at least not physically. He would only be with them in that capacity "for a little time."
34 "A new precept I give to you: that you should love one another; that just as I have loved
you, you should love one another. In this, all will know that you are my students, if you have
love among one another.
Although Jesus has expressed love, has indicated that love is characteristic of his followers, and has implied that God requires it of every faithful Jew, so far he has not defined the word in terms of his actions toward them. More exactly, the author has deliberately suppressed a discussion of love until now. The "new precept" is the one that sums up the Torah and the Prophets. It is the single internal principle that underlies everything that God has communicated to humanity. Love is the message in one word, and the internal Torah is the truth -- the Jewish expression of that message. Any student of the Messiah must practice love, because no internalization of the Torah could exist without it. Loving one another is all that there is; understanding this and putting it into practice are life's duty and purpose.
He had told them that he was leaving them, but this should not bother them, because if they trusted God they would realize that the Twelve would occupy special places ("on thrones, judging the twelve tribes," according to the synoptics) alongside Jesus in God's spiritual kingdom.
"Where I am going, you know the way." -- By this time, the Eleven knew that by following the principle of love (the internal Torah) they too would go to be with God.
Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you're going. How can we know the way?"
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No
one comes to the Father, except through me. If you knew me, you will know my Father also.
And from now on, you do know him and have seen him."
Thomas misunderstood what it meant for Jesus to be the way -- reader, take note! Jesus' reply was straightforward. As Messiah, he was the way. The Anointed One had been sent to them with the internal Torah, and Jesus himself had shown it to them by his attitude. Knowing Jesus, they did know the way to God. The message of the internal Torah is "the truth," for the Torah without its guiding principle is nothing. It is the message of life, just as the author has been writing since the beginning of his work. Spiritualizing the Torah brings life, but interpreting it as physical profits nothing.
The Jews that were living at that time had observed miracles that they could not dispute. Therefore, it was left to them only to choose. None of them could follow God any other way than "spiritually; that is, truthfully." It was necessary for them to spiritualize the Torah in order to have the life, and Jesus had brought that internal Torah. Mere ritual would not suffice.
Filippos said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."
Jesus said to him, "I have been with you for such a long time, and you don't know me,
Filippos? The one who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the
Father'?
"Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The declarations that
I speak to you, I am not speaking from myself. But the Father dwelling in me is doing his
deeds. Trust me because I am in the Father, and the Father is in me. But if not, trust me on
account of his deeds."
Once again, Filippos' statement appears as a teaching tool for the one who seeks to understand. "Show us the Father" -- Filippos asked the impossible, that God himself be revealed, but by observing the character of Jesus, he should have known all that he ever wanted to know about God. "The one who has seen me has seen the Father:" this signifies that Jesus always did what God wanted. He was a perfect example -- so complete an example that they were learning about God merely by observing him. After all, "the declarations" (everything he said) had been told to him by God.
"I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." Yes, Jesus did everything that God wanted him to do. His relationship with God was so close that God guided his every action. Jesus will soon hope that the Eleven share the same kind of relationship.
12 "Indeed I assure you: the one who trusts in me, he will also do the deeds that I am
doing. And greater than these he will do, because I am going to the Father. And whatever you
may ask in my name, this I will do so that the Father may be glorified in the son. If you should
ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.
15 "If you love me, you will keep my precepts, and I will ask the Father, and he will give
you another advisor, that it may be with you for the age -- the spirit of the truth -- which the
creation cannot receive because it neither beholds it nor knows it. You know it because it's
dwelling with you and will be in you. I won't leave you orphans: I am coming to you. In just a
little time, the creation will observe me no longer, but you will observe me. Because I live, you
will also live. In that day, you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.
21 "The one who has my precepts and keeps them, this is the one who loves me.
Now the one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will show myself
to him."
This special message for the Eleven shows his close relationship with them. He had sent them out to work miraculous signs -- just as he himself had been working. Therefore, if they only trusted, God would work even more wonderful things through them. "I will do" -- this refers to the time that was then present. As long as Jesus was alive, and since he knew that they were sincerely devoted to his teachings, he would do whatever they asked and whatever God would have him do for them.
"If you love me, you will keep my precepts." -- Jesus directly connected love with the keeping of the internal Torah. If they truly loved Jesus, then they would live lives of love, as he knew that they would.
Jesus' departure was to be followed by the coming of a miraculous advisor. God himself
(in his role as holy Spirit -- Yahweh in communication with humanity) would provide
a miraculous reminder to the Eleven of everything that Jesus had told them. In a metaphorical
sense, this would be for them just as though Jesus himself were still with them.
"The spirit of the truth" -- the very essence of the internal Torah, which Jesus embodied.
The Eleven knew the truth because they had spent time with Jesus, whose every moment of
life expressed the Torah.
"The creation will observe me no longer," because Jesus would be gone, physically, "but you will observe me" -- They would constantly be reminded of Jesus' teachings, and so it would feel like he were always with them, at least until the destruction of the Temple ("end of the age", Mt 28:20). "I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you." -- The Eleven had such a close relationship with Jesus that it paralleled the relationship he had with God. If they continued in his teachings, this relationship would continue (so to speak), even though he were no longer with them, and they would realize that they now would have this close connection to God that he had.
"I will show myself to him." -- Again, Jesus was speaking in metaphor to the Eleven. He would show himself to them not physically or even in visions but through his teachings. Jesus started the train of thought by saying, "The one who keeps my precepts." By keeping Jesus' teachings about love being the core of the Torah, they would be loved by God and would realize that Jesus would never really be gone from them, for everything that they believed and held dear was part of Jesus.
22 Judah (not the Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how has it happened that you are about to
show yourself to us, and not to the creation?"
Jesus answered, saying to him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my message, and my
Father will love him, and we will come to him and will make a dwelling with him.
"The one who does not love me does not keep my sayings -- and the message that you are
hearing is not mine, but the Father's who sent me.
25 "These things I have spoken to you while remaining with you. But the advisor,
the holy Spirit -- which the Father will send in my name -- it will teach you all things and
will remind you of all the things that I told you.
As the author subtly reminds us that Judah was somewhere else arranging Jesus' arrest, the others were showing confusion at Jesus' statement. How was it, precisely, that the Eleven would be able to see Jesus? Jesus' answer is the same as we have descibed above. In keeping the internal Torah, they would always have Jesus with them, for his whole person was (metaphorically) an expression of the message. It was everything that he stood for, and if they remembered his principles, then they were remembering him. Again, though, Jesus put the emphasis not on himself but on God, who had sent him to them with the message.
"The advisor" is a legal term. In the Roman Judea of Jesus' time, the function of an advisor was to remind the plaintiff or defendant in a legal proceeding of the laws which related to his situation. The advisor did not argue on behalf of the litigants (as our lawyers do), instead his role was to provide "advice." Thus, in addition to their own memories, the holy Spirit would endow the Eleven with a miraculous reminder of "all the things" that Jesus had taught them -- so that as long as they were alive they would be able to apply the teachings of the Messiah correctly.
"Peace I leave to you. My peace I am giving to you. I am not giving to you as the
creation gives.
"Don't let your hearts be troubled or afraid. You heard that I said to you, 'I am going
away' and 'I am coming to you'. If you loved me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to
the Father, because my Father is greater than I.
"And now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may trust. I
will not speak much more with you, for the one who rules the creation is coming, and he has
nothing with me, but that the creation may know that I love the Father, and that I do just what
the Father instructed me. Rise. Let's leave here."
His envoys were still struggling with the notion that he was leaving and would return through his teachings and through miraculous guidance from God. At this point, they had been able to perform various signs (Mt 10), but there is no indication that the Eleven were prophets -- receiving guidance and warnings directly from God. Jesus' hope for them was that this knowledge would provide them peace rather than upsetting them. In fact, they should be rejoicing that Jesus was about to die, because his destination would eventually be "heaven", and God would begin guiding them. If they appreciated his guidance, then God's guidance would be even better, for he was greater than Jesus (or any of them).
"The one who rules the creation is coming" -- This is normally understood to be the Enemy, seen as having control over the rebellion against God. This may refer either to his struggle in the garden, but given what the author has said about Judah, it more likely refers to his arrest. Jesus warned the Eleven about his arrest ahead of time, but he wanted them to know that in the end, the result would be that people would realize that God had sent Jesus, and that Jesus was being convicted falsely -- having always done what God wanted.
At this point in the conversation, the group left dinner and proceeded toward the garden called Gethsemane. The author has intentionally omitted any elements of the dinner, for to him Jesus himself was the true paschal lamb. Likely, though, the group had participated in a full dinner, including lamb.
As they walked, no doubt they passed various vines that grew in the area, making a natural jumping off point for Jesus to further explain himself. "I am the True Vine." This is a metaphor often used of Israel in the Hebrew Bible. In contrast to Israel, then, Jesus is the true vine. A vine provides sustinence to its branches, and only through their Messiah could Jews receive "true" sustinence.
"Each branch in me which doesn't bear fruit, he takes away." -- Anyone who claims to be a follower of the Messiah but who does not practice his teachings (to live a life of love) will not be sustained. "And each one that bears fruit" -- each one who lives in love -- "he cleanses". In Greek, the word for "take away" and the word for "cleanse" are somewhat similar, so that a Hellenistic reader would recognize a word play. Also, "cleanses" and "prunes" signify the same thing, but "cleanses" has a greater significance (which Jesus uses). The Jew who has been cleansed becomes capable of loving even more.
"You are already clean." -- Since the Eleven had already embraced the Messianic message internalizing the Torah, they were "already clean." They were already capable of such love. "Remain in me, and I in you" -- already we see the parallel between their relationship with Jesus and Jesus' relationship with God.
"Apart from me you can do nothing" -- Judaism without the Messianic interpretation of the Torah is meaningless. If the Twelve were to leave the Messiah, they would become "fruitless" -- practicing an external religion like the others. The branches that left Jesus -- the Jews who had no Messiah would have their whole religion destroyed, in the end signifying their own destruction, and fire is the traditional metaphor of destruction.
7 "If you remain in me, and my declarations remain in you, you will ask whatever you want, and it will happen. My Father was glorified in this, so that you might bear much fruit -- and you will have become my students. As the Father loved me, and I loved you, remain in my love. If you keep my precepts, you will remain in my love, as I have kept the Father's precepts and remain in his love. These things I have spoken to you so that my joy may be in you, and so that your joy may be fulfilled.
This personal admontion to the Eleven went to the heart of their relationship with him. As long as they continued to live the internal Torah, God would grant them their every request. He would provide them the signs and wonders necessary to establish the Messianic message among the Jewish people. If they would indeed do this, then they would truly be Jesus' students (by following the teachings of their teacher) and would bring glory to God. Just as the love of God was shown and taught to Jesus, so also while he was on earth, he showed and taught love to the Eleven. His hope was that they continue practicing that love.
Therefore, Jesus continued by saying, "If you keep my precepts, you will remain in my love." This is parallel to what he said earlier: "if you love me, you will keep my precepts." Their continued close relationship with Jesus was entirely connected to whether or not they kept on living lives of love. Their continued love would result in joy for them.
12 "THIS IS MY PRECEPT: that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has
greater love than this: that one should lay down his life on behalf of his friends. You are my
friends, if you do what I instruct you. I no longer say you are slaves, because the slave
doesn't know what his lord is doing. But I have called you friends, because all that I have
heard from my Father I have made known to you.
"You didn't choose me. On the contrary, I have chosen you -- and set you down -- so that
you might go and bear fruit, and that your fruit may remain, so that whatever you may ask the
Father in my name, he would give you. These things I instruct you so that you may love one
another.
This is the central point of the entire written work. While Johannes has omitted much of the discussion of the Torah, he has included the focus of Jesus' teaching -- that the whole duty of humanity can be summed up in one principle: love. "Keep my precepts" signifies this one statement precisely -- that they love one another. This is what he wanted for the Eleven, but his next statement was a larger principle: that everyone should strive to have "greater love." We learn from the other accounts that during this last week, Jesus has summed up the Torah in the two precepts: "Love Yahweh" and "Love your neighbor." Of these, one cannot love God without loving others (see also Jacob), and therefore love for others is the guiding principle of life.
Jesus' commentary on the value of friendship was not unique. The philosopher Epicurus said that, "The wise man...will on occasion die for a friend" (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Book X). And "The noble man is chiefly concerned with wisdom and friendship; of these, the former is a mortal good, the latter an immortal one" (Vatican Saying #78). Jesus' application never extended beyond the Eleven, who were his friends (so long as they lived in love).
Jesus must have stunned them by declaring that they were his friends. The terminology of "lord" and "slave" is used to indicate a relationship where one person is over another. The term "friend" connotes equality and is related to one of the words for "love." He had told the Eleven all about him and felt that they understood him. Therefore, they were then indeed his friends. This triple sense of love, equality, and intimate knowledge is the cornerstone of Jesus' concept of friendship.
"You didn't choose me" -- Jesus had selected twelve from among his various followers to become his closest associates (and friends). He had been confident from the beginning that all of them (except Judah Iscariot) would be able to retain his teachings, so that the message would continue after his death, and God would provide the accompanying apostolic signs for them. So, once again, Jesus admonished them to continue to love one another.
18 "If creation hates you, you know that it has hated me before you. If you were part of creation, then the creation would have affectionately loved its own, but because you are not a part of creation--on the contrary, I chose you out of creation--the creation hates you because of this.
He was about to leave the Eleven to face their Jewish opposition without him. They were to be prepared for this, because there was a rebellion against God, and they did not belong to that rebellion. "Affectionately loved" is the verb denoting close friendship. They were Jesus' friends, and so they could not be friends of those who had hated him. In fact, the enemies of Jesus would hate them too, and already hated them.
"Remember the saying that I said to you: 'A slave is not greater than his lord.' If they
persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my message, they will also keep yours.
But they will do all of these things to you on account of my name, because they don't know the
one who sent me.
"If I hadn't come and spoken to them, they would have had no sin, but now they have no
excuse for their sin. The one who hates me hates my Father also. If I hadn't done the deeds
among them that no other has done, they would have had no sin, but now they have both seen
and hated both me and my Father. But this is so that the saying which was written in their
Torah may be fulfilled, that, "They hated me without cause."
26"When the advisor comes, which I will send to you from the Father --
the spirit of the truth which is coming out from the Father -- it will testify about me. Now
you will also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning.
16:1"These things I have spoken to you so that you may not stumble.
They will put you out of the gatherings, but an hour is coming when everyone who kills you
will think that this offers service to God. And they will do these things because they
know neither the Father nor me."
Continuing the same point, Jesus pointed out that since they persecuted the Messiah himself, nothing would prevent them from persecuting his friends. This persecution would happen because of Jesus and because the Jewish leaders had opposed God. Parallel to this, those who had been willing to accept the internal Torah from Jesus would still be willing to hear the Eleven explain its principles.
"If I hadn't come" -- Before the Messiah came and explained exactly how the Torah should be understood, Israel in general was not accountable for understanding it properly. However, since Jesus proved himself to be the Anointed One and explained the Torah, those Jews who were rejecting his message were accountable.
The saying that Jesus quotes is not specifically from the Torah, so perhaps nomoV could be rendered "code". This is "their code" meaning that the Jewish leaders had it to read and were therefore without excuse as to what it said. Psa 35:17ff. is a call to God for rescue. It is not the point of this Davidic psalm to mention that they hate the Messiah for no reason; rather, it is their unfounded hatred which causes the suffering of the Davidic figure. Jesus applied this as an indication as to the reason for their hatred. The Jewish leaders had no real (legal) cause for hating their Messiah, but the underlying reason behind their hatred was that he had pointed out their need to change from following an external code to living lives of love.
"When the advisor comes" -- After Jesus departed, the holy Spirit (God) would remind them of everything Jesus had taught them. The core message, the internal Torah, is "the truth", and thus they would receive the spirit of the truth. Jesus considered them qualified to deliver this message because they had been with him "from the beginning." We see in Acts 1 that the distinguishing feature between being a member of the Twelve and simply an envoy (apostle) was this point -- that they had to have been Jesus' associates since the days when he was with John the Baptizer.
Again Jesus predicted the suffering that the Twelve would endure in his name. Just as his opponents were about to have Jesus killed, so also they would persecute some of the Twelve to the point of death. Johannes mentions only Peter in his account, but if tradition is reliable on this point, then few of the Twelve died a natural death. Jesus' warning to his friends as to how they would be treated was brought up in order to prepare them, for in being prepared they would be strengthened.
"But these things I have spoken to you so that when their hour comes, you may
remember that I told you about them. And I did not say these things to you from the
beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to the one who sent me, and none of
you asks me, 'Where are you going?' But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has
filled your heart.
"But I am telling you the truth, it makes sense for you that I should go away. For if I
don't go away, the advisor will not come to you, [but if I go, I will send it to you].
"And, when it comes, it will reprove the creation regarding sin, and regarding what is
right, and about judgment:
12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you are unable to bear them now.
But when the spirit of truth comes, it will lead you in all the truth. For it will not
speak from itself, but it will speak what it hears, and it will announce to you the things
that are coming. It will glorify me, because it will take from what is mine and will
announce to you. All things that the Father has are mine. For this reason, I said that
it is taking from what is mine and is announcing to you.
"A little while and you will observe me no longer. And again a little while and you
will see me."
The warning about their own persecution was intended to serve as a reminder in advance, because Jesus would no longer be with the Eleven and would therefore not be able to provide personal comfort for them later. Expanding slightly on what he already told them, Jesus simply announced that he was going to be with God -- this time wondering why none of them had asked him anything about where he was going.
His coming departure had upset his friends, and the mood was certainly dark at this point in the conversation, but Jesus returned the focus to the future. The Eleven would not receive this divine guidance he had talked about unless Jesus were to go away. Therefore, Jesus' departure was necessary, and so the Eleven should not be so sad.
As the advisor, the reminder of Jesus, the spirit of the truth, God would bring reproof upon Israel. This reproof would come in three areas: sin, right, and judgment. In other words, the restored Twelve would be able to separate absolutely between right and wrong. Judgment on Israel would come very soon, and ultimately the nation would be separated into those who were truly following God (by keeping the Messianic truths) and those who were not. The Twelve would be bearers of this message.
"concerning sin, because they don't trust in me." -- The Twelve would be sent to continue
pointing out the sins of the Jewish leadership who deliberately rejected the Anointed One.
"concerning what is right" -- Since Jesus was leaving, he would no longer be around to point out
what was the right life to live, but the Twelve would be able to do this with the same sort
of divine guidance that Jesus had received.
"concerning judgment" -- There are different opinions on this line. "The one who rules this
world" may refer to the Enemy: since the Enemy had been judged, all of his followers (the
Jews who rejected the Anointed One) would be judged. Or it may refer to Jesus: since they
had judged their Messiah, they too would be judged. Finally, this may signify God: in
rejecting the Anointed One sent by God, they had passed judgment on God; therefore, they
would undergo judgment. Regardless of to whom this refers, the ultimate result would be
swift judgment on Israel.
"The spirit of truth ... will lead you in all the truth." The Twelve's knowledge of the internal principles of the Torah was still budding. God would lead them into a full understanding of the teachings that Jesus had brought. They would also receive warnings about the coming destruction of Jerusalem: "it will announce to you the things that are coming." Some people interpret this as a universal saying for all Christians -- that everyone is guided into all truth -- but the context shows that Jesus intended these statements for these friends of his only. In the first place, not all Christians have the miraculous guidance that gives them knowledge of the future. That "the truth" is intended once again to signify Jesus' teachings about the Torah are evident in his statement that "it will take from what is mine and will announce to you." The holy Spirit would remind them of what Jesus had taught -- this is just what he had told them earlier. Also, we are told later that by "the truth" Jesus means God's message (about the internal Torah). The expression is used the same way throughout the work. Finally, his concluding statement about them seeing him for a little while, then not seeing him, then seeing him again in metaphor was clearly intended for the people with whom he was speaking.
17 Then some of his students said to one another, "What is this that he is saying to
us: 'A little while and you will not observe me. And again a little while and you will
see me,' and that, 'I am going to the Father'?" Therefore they said, "What is the 'little
while' [that he is talking about]? We don't know what he is talking about."
Jesus knew that they wanted to ask him this, and he said to them, "Are you inquiring
with one another about this because I said, 'A little while and you will not observe me. And
again a little while and you will see me'?
"Indeed I assure you that you will cry and mourn, but the creation will rejoice. You will
be sorrowful, but your sorrow will become joy. When she is giving birth, a woman has sorrow
because her hour has come. But when she has given birth to the child, she remembers the
anguish no longer, on account of the joy, because a human being was born into the creation.
"And therefore you now have sorrow indeed, but I will see you again. And your hearts
will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you. And in that day, you will ask me nothing.
Indeed I assure you: whatever you may ask the Father in my name, he will give you. Until
now, you asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, so that your joy may be made
full.
Because of the existing confusion, Jesus explained himself again, using the metaphor of childbirth. The Eleven still did not understand that Jesus' death would be so close in coming. And how would they "see" him after he died? Jesus explained that although they were sad that he was going to die, they should be happy instead, because they would always have God's guidance with them, and God would remind them of everything that he had said and done while with them. Therefore, they would always have him in their hearts.
The birthing metaphor, then, is simple. The Eleven were "in labor" because they knew that Jesus was about to die. But once he had died, they would be happy, realizing that this was what must happen and knowing God in a more intimate way than ever before. "You will ask me nothing" -- Jesus would no longer be an intermediary between them and God. Instead, whatever they (as his representatives) asked God, God would grant.
24 "These things I have spoken to you figuratively. An hour is coming when I will no
longer speak to you figuratively, but I will tell you openly about the Father.
"In that day, you will ask in my name, and I am not saying to you that I will ask the
Father about you: for the Father affectionately loves you, because you have affectionately
loved me and have trusted that I came out from God. I came out from the Father and have come
into the creation. Again, I am leaving creation and am going to the Father."
29 His students said, "Look! Now you are speaking freely, and you aren't telling even one analogy. Now we know that you know all things, and you don't need anyone to ask you. In this we trust that you came out from God."
Although Jesus had told them by way of analogy about his departure, he was just about to tell them bluntly that there would soon be no barriers between them and God. "I am not saying...that I will ask" -- because they would be able to ask for themselves and receive answers from God. "The Father affectionately loves you, because you have affectionately loved me" -- This is a stronger statement than at first it appears to be. Jesus had stunned them earlier by referring to them, his students, as his friends. Now he adds the more stunning notion that since they had been his friends, they were God's friends also! Recall that the verb "affectionately love" and the noun "friend" are related; Jesus was stating plainly that God was their friend. Just as God had sent Jesus with his teachings, so also now Jesus must go to be with God, and saying this provided a nice closure for these grieving friends who were sure to miss him.
All of them looked around at each other, probably signifying that they understood. Yes, Jesus was indeed sent by God, and yes, it was necessary for him to return. They understood and would have the closure that Jesus intended.
31 Jesus answered them, "Now you trust!"
13:36 {Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?"
Jesus answered him, "Where I am going, you are unable to follow me now, but you will
follow me afterwards."
Peter said to him, "Lord, why can't I follow you now? I will lay down my life on your
behalf."
38 Jesus said, "You will lay down your life on my behalf? Indeed I assure you: a rooster
((or watch trumpet)) will by no means sound until you deny me three times.} Look, an hour is
coming, and now has come, when you will be scattered -- every man for himself -- and will leave
me all alone. And I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
16:33 "These things I have spoken to you so that you may have peace in
me. In the world, you have affliction. But be of good cheer! I have been victorious
over the world!"
The Eleven finally understood why Jesus must leave and how he would always be with them in memory, and so now Peter was prepared to ask about the immediate future (whereas earlier they had been unwilling to ask this). Jesus answered, "You are unable to follow, but you will follow me afterwards." It was not their time to die, but they would eventually join him with God.
Peter's strong personality leapt to the foreground. He knew what was about to happen and was prepared to die with Jesus. Peter would indeed die for Jesus (see also chapter 21), but for the time being, Jesus predicted, not only would Peter deny Jesus three times before a certain night watch trumpet blew, but also all eleven of them would abandon him at some point during the next few days, leaving him all alone. Still, God would be with him through the whole ordeal, and the warning should serve to remind them that as long as they lived on earth among those who opposed God, they would have affliction. But Jesus had conquered the opposition to God and was about to save Israel.
At this point, Jesus began his final prayer on behalf of his students and the world. Having been told by God that he was about to be apprehended, Jesus asked to be glorified -- to be given the strength to continue, so that God would be glorified. As the Anointed One, Jesus was a superior not only to John the Baptizer, but he also had authority over everyone, because the eternal life could only be offered by someone in a position of superior knowledge. The nature of the eternal life was in the internal Torah. In practicing the internal Torah, Jesus followers would have a relationship with God and would know that Jesus had been the Anointed One.
"I glorified you on the land. I have finished the work that you have given me to do.
And now, O Father, glorify me alongside you -- with the glory that I had, which was directed
toward you, before creation existed. I showed your name to the humans that you gave to me
from out of creation. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your
message. Now they know that whatever things you have given to me, all of them are from you,
because I have given them the declarations that you gave me. And they received and knew truly
that I came out from you. And they believed that you sent me.
9 "I am asking about them. I am not asking about the world, but about
those whom you have given to me, because they are yours. (And all of mine are yours, and
yours are mine, and I have been glorified in them. And I am no longer in the world, and
they are in the world, and I am coming to you.)
"O holy Father, keep in your name those whom you have given to me, [so that they
may be one as we are]. When I was with them, I kept them in your name. I also guarded those
whom you have given me. None of them was destroyed except the son of destruction, so
that the writing would be fulfilled.
Again Jesus indicated that his job was over -- he was about to die. Whereas on earth he had not been universally accepted, after he went to be with God he would have (in heaven and in the hearts of those who had known him) the glory that God had envisioned for his anointed one even as he was putting Adam into the garden. For it had always been part of God's plan to send a beautiful and unique son to finish teaching his people.
Next, he made special mention of his students, the Eleven. Referring to them as having been given by God, he praises the fact that "they have kept your message" -- that is, they learned about the spiritual principles behind the Torah and were practicing them. These are "the declarations that you gave me".
This building up of his students was for their own benefit, so that the Eleven would be confident of Jesus' belief in them. Furthermore, he urges God to take care of them after his departure from the earth. For the first time in this prayer, he seeks that the Eleven be one with one another in the same way that he and God are one. He hopes that they have a close and loving relationship with one another. And here, he speaks of all of them except Judah, "the son of destruction," who was betraying him as he spoke.
"But now I am coming to you. And I am saying these things while in creation so that
they might have my joy completed in them. I have given them your message, and the creation
has hated them, because they aren't part of the creation, just as I am not part of the creation.
"I am not asking that you should take them out of creation, but that you would keep
them from the Evil One. They are not part of the creation, just as I am not part of the creation.
Make them holy in the truth. YOUR MESSAGE IS TRUTH. Just as you sent me into creation,
also I sent them into creation. And I am making myself holy on their behalf, so that they
would also be made holy in the truth.
"Now I am not only asking about these ones, but also about those who trust in me
through their message, so that all may be one--as you, Father, are in me and I in you, so that also they may be in us so that the creation may trust that you sent me. And I have given them the glory which you have given me, so that they may be one as we are one (I in them and you in
me), so that they may be completed into one, so that the creation may know that you sent me
and loved them as you loved me.
24 "Father, I want that those whom you gave me may also be with me where I am, so that
they may observe my glory, which you gave me because you loved me before the laying down
of the creation.
"O just Father, the creation did not also know you, but I knew you, and these ones knew
that you sent me. And I made known your name to them, and I will make it known, so that the
love with which you loved me may be in them, and I in them."
Just as Jesus had told the Eleven that he wanted them to be joyous after his death, so also he prayed to God to make this happen. "The creation" (kosmoV) or "world" signifies here the universe where there is rebellion against God. Jesus was in creation at the time, and so were his students, but "they aren't part of the creation" -- meaning that they were not participating in the opposition to God's plan (nor was Jesus).
What kept them out of this rebellion? The Truth. The internal, spiritual, Torah -- that extended far more deeply than the ritualistic religion of the Jewish leaders. "Your message is truth" -- this is another key saying, explaining much of Johannes' work. Jesus brought the truth, although Moses had brought the Torah (ch. 1). Worshipping spiritually, truthfully, signifies worship from within (which can never be attached to a building or location). "Your message is truth" is second only to "Love one another" in this discourse. These two brief sayings explain the message.
Jesus sent the Eleven "into creation" -- to the people who did not believe, into the darkness, to teach (as his envoys) just as he had taught (as God's envoy). Jesus' completing his mission on behalf of the message "made him holy" (truly God's own), and he prayed that God would make sure that the Eleven never deserted the message.
Expanding the application, Jesus hoped that all those who would come to hear the message of the internal Torah would put it into practice and would therefore have the same close relationship with one another and with God that he had with God. This love would be observed by others, who would then know that they were Jesus' and that God had sent Jesus.
Returning to his prayer for the Eleven, Jesus added the request and hope that they would remain to the point of death, so that they would be with him (their friend) when they died. In the afterlife, they would fully realize how wonderful the plan to send the Messiah really was -- the plan that was present at creation. And Jesus would continue to fulfill his Messianic role, living a life of love until death, so that the Eleven would see and would share in God's love (just as he had).
With this touching prayer, Jesus prepared for his arrest. He had provided full instruction for his students, and thus the author has provided full instruction for his reader. The reader who sought the truth now should know everything that Jesus had been sent to teach. The reader could now know the kind of love about which Jesus had spoken.
The Arrest
18:1 After saying these things, Jesus went out with his students beyond the brook of Kedron,
where there was a garden, into which he and his students entered. Now Judah -- the one who
betrayed him -- also knew the place, because Jesus often met there, together with his students.
Therefore, after taking a manipule of soldiers from the high priests and officers from the
Perushim, Judah came there with torches, and lamps, and weapons.
Then Jesus, who knew all the things that were going to happen to him, said to them as
he went out, "Whom do you seek?"
They answered him, "Jesus the Nazarene."
He said to them, "I am he."
Now Judah who betrayed him was also standing with them. Then when he said to
them, "I am he," they went back and fell to the ground. Then again he asked them, "Whom do you
seek?" And they said, "Jesus the Nazarene."
Jesus answered, "I told you I am he, so if you are seeking me, permit these ones to go,"
that the saying that he said would be fulfilled, "Of those whom you have given me, I lost
none of them."
Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave and cut
off his right ear. (Now the name of the slave was Malchus.) Then Jesus said to Peter, "Put the
sword into the sheath. The cup which the Father has given to me, shouldn't I drink it?"
12 Then the manipule and the commander and the officers of the Jews apprehended
Jesus, and bound him, and led him to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Kaiaphas, who
was high priest that year. Now Kaiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that, "It makes
sense that one person should be destroyed on behalf of the people."
The departure into the garden called Gethsemane marks a transition in the work. In this section, the author will show that the remaining prophecies about Jesus were fulfilled and that his trial was unfair. Johannes is very particular about the path taken by Jesus and the location of his arrest, just as he recalls the name of the servant; again this establishes him as providing eyewitness testimony.
A manipule of soldiers had been placed by the Roman government under the command of the priests in order to defend the temple. There may have been 100 men combing the area for Jesus at this time; clearly the high priests and Perushim considered him a threat to their livelihood.
Jesus' answer to their request for him was stunning because they realized that he was identifying himself not merely as "Jesus the Nazarene" but as the Anointed One. Earlier, Jesus had said that he would give his life up willingly. This is precisely what happened, for he prevented his students from using the swords that (the others report) he had told them to carry. In not defending himself, Jesus showed his students that he did have the power to fight, but that he had chosen rather to do God's will. "Shouldn't I drink the cup"?
It was Peter, always such a strong character, who leaped to his teacher's defense, but in front of those who arrested him -- including Judah and some of the Perushim -- Jesus stopped the bloodshed and healed Malchus. Allowing himself to be taken, Jesus went with the soldiers to defend himself before Annas the former high priest, who still had a great deal of influence.
The Triple Denial and Defense Before the Priests
15 Now Simon Peter and another student followed Jesus. Now that student was
known to the high priest and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
But Peter stood at the door outside. Therefore, the student (the other one, who was
known by the high priest) went out and spoke to the door keeper, and brought Peter in.
Then the servant woman, the door keeper, said to Peter, "Aren't you also this person's
student?" He said, "I am not."
Now the slaves and the officers, who had made a coal fire, stood by it and warmed
themselves, because it was cold. And Peter was standing with them and warming himself.
Then the high priest asked Jesus about his students and about his teaching. Jesus
answered him, "I have spoken freely to the world. I always taught in a gathering and in the
temple courts, where all the Jews come together, and I have said nothing in secret. Why are
you asking me? Ask those who have heard what I said to them. Look, they know what things
I said."
22 Now after he said these things, one of the officers who was standing by threw a punch
at Jesus, saying, "You answer the high priest in this manner?!" Jesus answered them, "If I have
said a bad thing, testify about the bad thing. But if I said good, why are you beating me?" Then
Annas sent him, bound, to Kaiaphas the high priest.
25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, "Aren't you
also one of his students?" He denied, saying, "I am not." One of the slaves of the high priest,
who was a relative of the one whose ear Peter had cut off, said, "Didn't I notice you in the
garden with him?" Then again Peter denied, and immediately a rooster crew. ((watch trumpet
sounded))
Johannes himself was from a wealthy family, possibly even of priestly lineage, so he was permitted to enter the proceeding against Jesus. Although he would stand by Jesus at the cross, Johannes did not speak up to defend Jesus when others were falsely accusing him.
Annas asked Jesus about his teaching -- about his radical treatment of the Torah. Jesus refused to defend himself, and although Johannes was present to answer, he still said nothing. One of the officers (possibly a Jewish officer, not a Roman one) punched (or possibly slapped) Jesus for refusing to answer. The other three accounts point out that the leaders were also trying to twist Jesus' statements about 'destroying the temple' into a plot against the Torah itself.
Meanwhile, Peter was standing outside, in a position where he could watch from without and where Jesus could see him. Just as Jesus had predicted, when Peter was confronted with his association with Jesus, he denied it three times -- more vehemently each time, for Peter was afraid of being mistreated like Jesus. The next several days would give Peter strength, however, and he would never deny knowing Jesus again.
Jesus' trial before Kaiaphas is omitted entirely, along with any formal charges against him. The author viewed those charges as being so spurious that he could omit them. Instead, he included only Jesus' statement that he had done nothing wrong.
Pilatus's Questions
28 Then they led Jesus from Kaiaphas into the Praetorium. Now it was morning, and
they didn't go into the Praetorium, so that they would not be defiled but might eat the Passover
meal. So Pilatus went out to them, and he said, "What charge are you bringing against this
person?" They answered, saying to him, "If this one were not an evildoer, we wouldn't have
delivered him over to you."
Then Pilatus said to them, "You take him and judge him according to your 'Torah'." The
Jews said to him, "It is illegal for us to kill anyone," (so that Jesus' saying would be fulfilled,
which he said pointing out by what method of death he was about to die).
This section consists of a test for the reader. Pilatus will ask several questions. The reader is expected to know the answers to these questions.
The hypocrisy of the priests and Perushim is the first thing that the author makes a subtle note of -- any Jewish reader would spot this. It was now the middle of the night, the day of the killing of the paschal lamb. In concocting a false trial, they were already defiled to the point where they could not participate in the feast. Yet their concern was an external one: they were concerned about trodding on soil dedicated to the Roman gods.
"What charge are you bringing against this person?" The reader knows that there were no legitimate charges, but that Jesus was being tried because of his treatment of the Torah as a set of internal principles. He had rejected everything that made up the "religion" of Judaism, claiming instead that the true devotion to God was fully spiritual.
The Jewish leaders' response shows that they did not have any charges which would have condemned Jesus under Roman law. Pilatus is portrayed as an innocent dupe in the proceeding, out to save his own skin. Already he realized that Jesus had not violated any Roman laws, but the leaders wanted to have him executed. There were certain executions that the Jewish leaders could perform without the blessing of the Roman state, but crucifixion for claiming to be the Messiah was not one of them. It was illegal for them to execute anyone for such a charge, and so they petitioned the Governor (a title which would become Procurator).
33 Then Pilatus went again into the Praetorium and called Jesus, and said to him,
"Are you the King of the Jews?"
Jesus answered, "Are you saying this from your own understanding, or have others told
you about me?"
The Jewish leaders had accused him of claiming to be the Davidic king. In Roman
understanding, if he claimed to be a king, then he was rivaling Roman rule. Pilatus asked:
"Are you the King of the Jews?" -- The reader knows that the answer is more than just "yes."
The answer includes all of the roles of the Messiah, including the "suffering servant."
Yes, Jesus was all of these things.
Jesus did not answer, but we know the answer. Jesus' reply was meant to test Pilatus' own understanding of the expression that he had just used. Did Pilatus really know what it meant to be the Messiah?
Pilatus answered, "I'm not a Jew. Your nation and the high priests have turned you over
to me. What did you do?"
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world,
my officers would fight, so that I wouldn't be turned over to the Jews. But now my kingdom is
not from this place."
No, Pilatus did not understand, for he was not a Jew.
"What did you do?" -- The reader knows that what Jesus did was to explain the Torah in terms
of internal principles, and Jesus' answer actually says this. "My kingdom is not of this
world." Of course not -- the kingdom is within, for God's rule through his Anointed One
would be in the hearts of those who love.
There could never be an earthly "Christian nation," for if there had been such a concept, Jesus' own students would have fought to forge one out of Israel. But because they did not fight, but Jesus had gone willingly, Jesus had proven that he was not trying to establish an earthly kingdom.
Therefore Pilatus said to him, "Then are you not a king?"
Jesus answered, "You are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born and for this I
have come into creation: that I might testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears
my voice."
"Then you are not a king"? The reader realizes that Pilatus' misunderstanding comes from his failing to internalize Jesus' saying. While Jesus was not planning to rival Rome and establish Israel as a sovereign nation, Pilatus had been right in first claiming that Jesus was a king (in a spiritual setting). Jesus took the opportunity to point to what it was that made Jesus a spiritual king: "the truth." The subjects in Jesus' spiritual kingdom are those who adhere to "the truth."
38 Pilatus said to him, "What is truth?"
And saying this, he again went out to the Jews and said to them, "I find not one fault in
him. Now it is a custom of yours that I release one prisoner to you during the Passover. So, are
you willing that I release to you the King of the Jews?"
Then again they cried out, saying, "Not this one, but Bar-Abbas!" (Now Bar-Abbas was
a robber.) So Pilatus then took Jesus and had him whipped. And the soldiers, braiding a crown
of acanthus, placed it on his head. And they threw a purple cape around him, and they came
toward him and said, "Hail! King of the Jews!" And they punched him.
As far as we know, Pilatus did not wait for an answer to his final question at trial, but this is the most important question of all. If the reader can respond by acknowledging the spiritual Torah, the message of love that God has been communicating to us since the beginning, then the reader is ready to become a true follower of the Messiah.
Pilatus did not grasp the entirety of what Jesus was teaching him, but he understood enough of it to realize that Jesus was a good man. Invoking a custom of clemency, he offered to release Jesus to the people. He referred to Jesus as "King of the Jews," at least realizing that Jesus did not intend to set up a physical kingdom.
The one that they preferred over Jesus was Bar-Abbas. According to the others, Bar-Abbas had been arrested during an uprising, and apparently he was a looter and perhaps had killed someone. Jesus would take his place on the cross, alongside two thieves who were apparently his cohorts.
As Jesus was whipped and mocked (see Isa 53 and Psa 22), the soldiers did so in a way that mocked his kingship. Instead of providing the laurel wreath worn by the Caesars, the soldiers gave Jesus a crown made of acanthus. The acanthus is a stickered plant, but the purpose in placing it on Jesus' head was not to injure Jesus but to mock his claim of being a king. This was not a "crown of thorns," as people often depict it. Since purple and red were normally colors associated with royalty, the soldiers placed a purple cape on Jesus' back and struck him.
19:4 And Pilatus went out again and said to them, "Look! I am bringing him out to you, so
that you may know that I find not one fault in him."
5 Then Jesus came out, wearing the acanthine crown and the purple cape. And Pilatus said
to them, "Look at the man." Then when the high priests and the officers noticed him, they called
out, "Crucify! Crucify!"
The Governor's intent at having Jesus mocked and flogged was to appeal to the crowd's emotions. Possibly they would see the humiliation that Jesus had suffered and come to believe that he had been punished enough. Therefore, when Pilatus emerged and brought Jesus out, he repeated the judgment that Jesus was blameless. But the high priests stirred up the crowd, so that they began calling for Jesus' crucifixion.
Pilatus said to them, "You take and crucify him, for I don't find fault with him." The
Jews answered him, "We have a code, and according to the code, he is bound to die, because he
made himself to be a god's son."
8 Therefore when Pilatus heard this saying he was more afraid, and he went into the
Praetorium again and said to Jesus, "Where are you from?" But Jesus did not give him an
answer.
At first, Pilatus stood up to the leaders, wanting no responsibility for Jesus' death, believing him to be an innocent man. When the leaders identified Jesus as "a god's son," a phrase which would signify "demigod," Pilatus became afraid. He knew that the leaders were trying to have him killed for no reason, but now instead of merely being a would-be pretender to the throne, Jesus was a demigod. This frightened Pilatus because he believed it was possible, and so he asked Jesus "Where are you from?" The reader is expected to know that the correct answer is that God had sent Jesus with a message for the Jewish people.
So Pilatus said to him, "You aren't speaking to me? Don't you know that I have the
authority to release you and the authority to crucify you?"
And Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over me if it had not been given to
you from above. On this account, the one who delivered me up to you has greater sin."
Pilatus claimed the authority to have Jesus physically released. He claimed the authority over life and death. But Jesus replied that he had authority from God. Jesus' authority was "from above," and the reader is supposed to remember that anyone who is born from above (by experiencing a spiritual birth, by internalizing the Torah) is above and beyond all physical things.
We see from Pilatus' reaction (below) to Jesus' assessment of the Jewish leaders that he believed Jesus and not them. If even this gentile believed Jesus, would the reader fail to believe?
12 From this time, Pilatus sought to release him. But the Jews called out, saying, "If you
release him, you're not Caesar's friend. Everyone who makes himself king is speaking against
Caesar."
Then when Pilatus heard these words, he brought out Jesus and sat down on the Tribunal
in a place called the Pavement [Gabbatha in Hebrew]. Now it was the Day of Preparation of the
Passover. It was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, "Look at your king!"
Then they called out, "Away! Away! Crucify him!"
Pilatus said to them, "Shall I crucify your king?"
The high priests said, "We have no king except for Caesar." So then he turned Jesus
over to them so that he would be crucified.
The leaders began to goad Pilatus into having Jesus crucified, even passing a veiled threat to claim to his superiors that in supporting Jesus he was rivaling Caesar. If such a charge were proved, Pilatus would have been executed. Previously, the Jewish leaders and the crowd had been unwilling to accept responsiblity for Jesus' death, but at the end of their dialog with Pilatus they acknowledged their own responsibility -- the others add "his blood be on us and on our children).
Although Pilatus continued to (correctly) identify Jesus as their king, the crowd refused to accept him, calling for his death. At this point, Johannes slips in a note of the time. It was 14 Nisan (the Day of Preparation of the Passover). The time was around noon when Pilatus allowed them to crucify Jesus. In the other accounts, Pilatus makes the symbolic gesture of washing his hands, freeing himself of any responsibility for the death.
16 Then they took Jesus, [and as he carried his cross,] he went out into the place that is
called a Skull [which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha], where they crucified him -- and with him
two others, on the left and right, and Jesus in the middle. And Pilatus also wrote a title and
placed it on the cross. And what was written was, "Jesus the Nazarene: King of the Jews."
Consequently, many of the Jews read this title because the place where Jesus was
crucified was near the city. Also, it had been written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. Then the
high priests of the Jews said to Pilatus, "Don't write, 'The King of the Jews', but that he said, 'I
am a king of the Jews.'"
Pilatus answered, "What I have written, I have written."
The Roman crosses at this time were normally "T" shaped. Those condemned to die would carry the crossbar, as the central pole was already at the place of crucifixion (in this case, "Skull Place"). Normally, the charge against an executed criminal was placed on a tablet around his neck as he carried the crossbar and then nailed to the cross above him, so that everyone would know why the man was being put to death. Pilatus wrote the accusation in several languages, with each of them clearly stating that Jesus was the Messiah. The high priests objected to his wording, preferring him to have written that this was his claim and not the truth. The Governor's refusal to change the wording indicates his realization that Jesus was whatever he claimed to be. Again, this puts pressure on the Jewish reader to realize for himself that Jesus was the Anointed One.
23 Then when they crucified Jesus, the soldiers took his garments [and coat] and made four parts--a part for each soldier. But the coat was seamless, woven from the top through the whole. So they said to one another, "Let's not tear it, but let's cast lots about it, to determine whose it will be." So that the writing would be fulfilled which said, "They divided my garments for themselves, and they cast a lot on my clothing." So indeed the soldiers did these things.
Not only this portion of Psalm 22 but the remainder of the psalm was being fulfilled at this time as Jesus was being crucified. Johannes only alludes to it, expecting the reader to realize the rest.
Now his mother stood by Jesus' cross; also his mother's sister, Miriam the wife of Klopas ((Alphaeus)), and Miriam the Magdalene. Therefore, when he noticed his mother and the student whom he loved standing by, Jesus said to his mother, "Woman, look at your son." Then he said to the student, "Look at your mother." And from that hour, the student took her into his own care.
It remained for Jesus (as firstborn son) to discharge his duty to take care of his mother as long as she lived. Had Yosef, his father, still been alive, this would not have happened; he was dead by this time. Instead of entrusting his mother (still not called by name) to one of his brothers, Jesus chose his closest student, the author, to take care of her from that point on, which Johannes claims that he did.
25 After this, Jesus (who knew that everything had already been completed) said, "I am thirsty," so that the writing might be fulfilled. A vessel full of vinegar was standing there. So they put a sponge full of vinegar onto a "hyssop stalk" and brought it to his mouth. Then when he took the vinegar, Jesus said, "It has been completed!" And, nodding his head, he gave up the spirit.
"After this" -- by this time it was late afternoon. The others report that it was approximately three o'clock. Late afternoon on 14 Nisan was the correct time for slaughtering the Passover lamb.
Jesus was still alive and receiving sustinence (from a Roman spear, "hyssop stalk") at this time, and so it was his own choice to declare that his mission was completed. The thirst and vinegar is a fulfilment of Psa 69:21 -- "They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." No one took his life; even at the end he gave it willingly. Thus the wording, "he gave up the spirit," rather than simply, "he died."
31 Then, since it was the Day of Preparation, the Jews asked Pilatus to have the legs of
those on the crosses broken, and to have them taken away, so that the bodies would not remain
on the cross on the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a great one). Therefore the
soldiers came and indeed they broke the legs of the first, and of the other that had been
crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and noticed that he had already died, they did
not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water
came out immediately.
And the one who saw these things has testified, and true is his testimony. And he knows
that he is saying true things, so that you also might trust. For these things happened so that
the
writing might be fulfilled: "No bone of his will be broken." And again another
writing says, "They will see into the one whom they pierced."
Although Johannes deliberately does not say "Jesus died at the time when the lambs were slaughtered," because he preferred that the reader draw this conclusion, he provides so many clues that the reader should reach no other conclusion. It was 14 Nisan, it was the afternoon, and Jesus' legs were not broken so that the stipulation that the paschal lamb have no broken bones (Ex 12:46) would be fulfilled. From John the Baptizer's first declaration until this moment, the reader has had it in the back of his mind that Jesus would fulfill the role of the Passover lamb, dying not for one family but for all Israel.
The coming Sabbath "was a great one." That is, it was a normal Sabbath (Friday night and Saturday) and it was also the day when the Passover lamb would be eaten (which Johannes always calls "Passover"). The author points this out because Jesus had mentioned that he would rise again "during the third day" after his death.
The other writing stems from Zech 12:10, which reads more fully: "And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of mercy and supplication, so that, when they look into the one whom they pierced, they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him as one weeps over a firstborn son." The passage continues into chapter 13, which is the one that begins, "On that day there will be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness." The author identifies the beginning of the new covenant with the slaughter of God's lamb. Some commentators have tried to glean something from the "blood and water" that came from Jesus' side. Nothing was likely intended, however, since blood was not an important symbol for Johannes.
Finally, in this section the author provides his own eyewitness testimony to the events that took place at the cross, giving this testimony in the hopes that the reader would understand and trust Jesus.
38 Now after these things, Yosef from Arimathaiah (who was a student of Jesus, although
hidden on account of his fear of the Jews) asked Pilatus to allow him to take away Jesus'
body, and Pilatus allowed it. Therefore, he came and took away his body. Now Nikodemos
also came (the one who came to him by night at the first), bringing a mixture of myrrh and
aloes--about a hundred litra in weight.
So they took Jesus' body and wrapped it with linen cloths--with the spices, just as it is
customary for Jews to embalm. Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified,
and in the garden was a new tomb, in which no one had yet been placed. So they laid Jesus
there, on account of the Preparation of the Jews, because the tomb was nearby.
As this section comes to a close, we are introduced briefly to the wealthy man whose tomb Jesus occupied. Nikodemos, whom we first met in darkness, makes his third appearance. The reader can see that he is now fully public in his acceptance of Jesus as the Anointed One, as he and Yosef made the public application to receive Jesus' body for burial. No mention is made in Johannes' account of the women bringing spices to anoint Jesus' body, but when they do arrive (below) that will be their purpose. Instead, Johannes points out again that it is still 14 Nisan when Jesus is laid in the tomb. By their own reckoning, then, 14 Nisan would constitute his first day in the earth.
The other accounts indicate that it was right around dawn when Miriam (and the women with her) went to the tomb to anoint Jesus' body. Significant for Johannes is that it was "still dark" -- that is, the light (Messiah) had not yet been revealed to them as returned. The tomb was a cave, and over the door to the cave had been rolled a very large boulder -- too large to be moved by a few people. The other accounts mention here the fact that the tomb had been guarded since the moment Jesus' body had been laid in it. Yet now it was empty.
This is the morning of the first day of the week; in other words, it was Sunday. Jesus had been put into the tomb on 14 Nisan, spending some of 14 Nisan, all of 15 Nisan, and some of 16 Nisan in the grave. This was the third day since he expired.
Miriam had seen the empty tomb. However, Johannes is providing his own eyewitness testimony, and he had not yet seen Jesus resurrected. When Miriam approached the author and Peter, they were all confused. It would be necessary for them to see for themselves what had happened.
So Peter and the other student went out, and they came to the tomb. Now the two ran
together, and the other student ran ahead of Peter, faster, and came to the tomb first. And,
stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there; however, he didn't go in.
Then Simon Peter following him reached the tomb and went inside, and he observed the
linen cloths lying there, and the head wrapping which was on his head (not lying with the linen
cloths, but folded up in a separate place). So then the other student (the one who had arrived at
the tomb first) went in, and saw, and trusted her. For they didn't yet know the writing which
said that it was necessary for him to rise from among the dead.
Johannes was younger, and therefore he outran Peter to the tomb. Again this illustrates briefly the friendship between Peter and Johannes, which at times seems almost a rivalry. Johannes' refusal to enter may have been related to his priestly connections. Had he come into contact with a corpse, he would have been defiled. But Peter was not concerned with such a triviality; he needed to see what was going on inside the tomb. Lukas indicates that the others did not believe Miriam's account and therefore did not go with her.
Inside, both he and Johannes discovered the wrappings that had been around Jesus' head and body. There was no corpse, but the cloths were neatly wrapped in two bundles, as our eyewitness tells us in detail. Still they did not understand fully how and when Jesus' resurrection would come. Maybe his body had been stolen.
10 Then the students went away again by themselves, but Miriam stood just outside the
tomb, crying. Therefore as she cried, she stooped down into the tomb and beheld two
messengers in white, seated one at the head and one at the feet of where Jesus' body had been
put. And they said to her, "Woman, why are you crying?"
She said to them, "Because they took away my Lord, and I don't know where they have laid
him."
After saying these things, she turned around and beheld Jesus standing there; yet she didn't
know that it was Jesus.
Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you crying? Whom do you seek?"
Assuming that he was the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you carried him off, tell me
where you laid him, and I will take him away."
Jesus said to her, "Miriam."
Turning around, she said to him in Hebrew, "Rabboni!" [that is to say, "Teacher!"]
Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father.
Now go to my brothers, and say to them that I am ascending to my Father and your Father:
that is, my god and your god."
Miriam the Magdalene came and announced to the students that she had seen the Lord,
and that he had said these things to her.
Miriam is this author's focus, although the other women may have been with her: left alone by Peter and Johannes, she met two messengers and an unknown person who was actually Jesus incognito. Just as Jesus had said (ch. 10) that his sheep know him, and that he calls them by name, when Jesus called Miriam's name she immediately realized who he was.
"Stop clinging to me" -- This literally signifies that she hold him no longer. Why? Because although he was with them, this was not his final departure. He did not want his students to believe that he had "gone" and "returned" already. In following Jesus' admonition to tell the others, Miriam became the first person to receive an admonition from the risen Jesus to spread the message of his resurrection.
19 Then, it was the evening of the first day of the week, and since the doors had been shut at the place where the students were staying (on account of their fear of the Jews), Jesus came and stood in their midst, and he said to them, "Peace to you." And after saying this, he showed them his hands and side. So the students rejoiced upon seeing the Lord. Then again [Jesus] said to them, "Peace to you. As the Father sent me, also I am sending you." And having said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive holy breath. Whoever's sins you may let go, they are let go. Whoever's sins you hold, they have been held."
By early evening (just before the second day of the week), Jesus had already visited with Cleopas and another on the road to Emmaeus (Lk 24). Ten of the Eleven (all but Thomas) were gathered in the room where they had eaten their last meal with Jesus. The door was locked, yet Jesus suddenly appeared. Standing amongst them, he greeted them, "Peace to you." This was more than a mere greeting, though, for earlier he had comforted them by telling them that after he was gone, they should feel peace and joy. He provided for them a clear proof that he was Jesus and not an imposter, and they felt both the peace and the joy that he had promised.
At this time, Jesus renewed the commission of the Twelve. He would do this again shortly before leaving, for this passage is not parallel to Lk 24:45f., and so on this occasion his words were brief. As God had sent him, so also he sent them, and as he had had the holy breath to work various signs, so also they would receive this holy breath. Jesus' act was symbolic: in breathing the Messiah's breath on them, he symbolically endowed them with the ability to perform the miraculous signs even in his absence. The "power of binding and loosing," which they had used while he was alive (Mt 18:18), was now explicitly allowed to them after his final departure. With the holy breath, his envoys could see into human motives, knowing absolutely whose were pure and whose were not (e.g., Hananiah and Sapphira in Acts 5). Thomas, too, and Matthaiah (who would replace Judah) were likely given the holy breath, although no account mentions it explicitly. For Johannes this would be unnecessary.
24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, the one called a twin, wasn't with them when Jesus
came. So the other students said to him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger
into the mark of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will by no means believe."
And after eight days, his students were again inside, and Thomas was with them. After
the doors had been shut, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and he said, "Peace to you."
Afterwards, he said to Thomas, "Bring your finger here, and look at my hands, and bring
your hand, and put it into my side; and do not be distrusting, but trusting."
Thomas answered, saying to him, "My Lord, and my God!"
Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen me, you trust. Blessed are those who haven't
seen and still have trusted."
Jesus left, although the author only implies this, but given the author's time-conscious nature (see v. 26) it was probably still the same evening, although it may have lapsed into the second day of the week by the time Thomas arrived. The others announced confidently that they had seen Jesus. Thomas' "doubtful" comment is most likely based on the fact that the other ten had seen the nail marks in Jesus' hands and the point of the spear that had been thrust into his side.
Thomas flatly denied that the others had seen Jesus, believing that they were duping him, and they spent eight days without seeing him again. After this time had passed, Jesus appeared to all Eleven of them in the same place. Again Jesus bypassed the locked doors, and again he greeted them with peace. This time, however, he addressed Thomas directly, asking him to acquire whatever proof he needed. Although there had been Jewish leaders who had seen Lazaros resurrected and still did not believe, Thomas was one of Jesus' friends, and he came to trust in Jesus immediately -- without the need to touch him.
Thomas' cry to God illustrates the instant humility and trust which overwhelmed him. Thomas would never doubt the power of God again, and his knowledge of Jesus' identity was secured -- as it should be for the reader. It is for his reader that the author includes Jesus' statement to Thomas (which was not his final word that day) -- that those who haven't seen and still have trusted are blessed.
And then indeed, Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his students which have not been written in this scroll. Now these have been written so that you might believe that Jesus is the Anointed One--God's son--and so that, trusting, you might have life in his name.
Many commentators have mistaken this for the intended ending to the work, claiming then that chapter 21 is an "appendix." However, this is not so. It was the author's intent here to point out that while the Eleven were gathered together in the upper room, Jesus performed various signs in their presence, proving that he must be who he claimed to be. Only his miraculous appearance in the room (twice) and their witness to the nail marks and spear mark have been written down for the reader. These signs should be enough to convince the open-minded reader that Jesus is indeed the Anointed One.
The Catch of Fish
21:1 After these things, Jesus showed himself again to the students, on the Sea of Tiberias. Now he showed himself this way:
Simon Peter, and Thomas (the one called a twin), and Nathanael (the one from Kana of
Galilaiah), and the sons of Zebediah, and two of his other students were together. Simon
Peter said to them, "I am going to fish." They said to him, "We're going with you too."
They went out and entered into the boat, and during that night they caught nothing. But
after morning occurred, Jesus now stood at the shore. However, the students didn't know that it
was Jesus. Then Jesus said to them, "Children, do you have any food?" They answered him,
"No."
Now he said to them, "Cast the net off the right side of the boat, and you will find."
So they cast the net, and they were not strong enough to draw it up, due to the great
number of fishes. Then that student whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It's the Lord!"
Therefore, when he heard that it was the Lord, Simon Peter wrapped himself with
his outer garment (for he was undressed) and threw himself into the sea. But the other students
came by boat, dragging the net of fish, for they were not far from the land, but about two
hundred pecus away.
This event parallels one recorded by Lukas (Lk 5) -- an event with which the author did not assume his reader was familiar, for such familiarity was unnecessary. Our knowing of that event will explain the students' reactions better, though.
First of all, the reader was expected to know the occupations of certain of the Twelve. Peter and the others were going fishing not for sport but because it was their occupation. For the first time, Johannes mentions "the sons of Zebediah." All of the other characters mentioned by name have been introduced to us before. His purpose in this late introduction is to identify himself, for we will shortly discover that he was among the fishermen.
Having spent some time apparently without gainful employment, the fishermen in the group went fishing in order to support themselves. They fished all night but "caught nothing." At morning, they saw a figure standing on the shore, calling to them. No, they had no food, for they had caught nothing.
"Cast the net," he instructed. At this point, they probably assumed that he was another man of their trade who knew where the schools were running. They cast their net, and it was filled to beyond capacity. Johannes remembered what had happened earlier -- how they had once doubted Jesus regarding their catch of fish and how their net had broken on account of the great number of fish. This time, there was no doubt: Johannes realized right away that this man could only be Jesus.
Upon realizing that this was Jesus, Peter immediately dove into the water and swam to Jesus' location. Since they had been on the boat alone all night, Peter had undressed down to his underwear, and so he did take the time to clothe himself first. The others were more subdued, dragging the net alongside the boat as they piloted it toward the shore.
9 So when they went up onto the land, they saw a coal fire burning there, and a fish lying on it, and bread. Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish that you caught just now." So Simon Peter went up and drew the net up to the land, full of one hundred fifty-three large fish. And though there were so many, the net was not torn.
There are two interesting things to note here. First, Jesus already had both bread and fish -- the same two elements that had been used in the miraculous feeding (ch. 5). So that they might eat together, he directed that they retrieve some of their fresh catch. The second thing of note is that Johannes presents exact testimony to the catch, even counting the number of large fish. Unlike the time when they had doubted (Lk 5), this time the net did not break, even though the catch was so great.
The Triple Assent
Jesus said to them, "Come eat breakfast."
But none of the students dared to ask him, "Who are you?", knowing that it was the
Lord. Jesus came and took the bread, and he gave some to them -- and the fish likewise. This
third time now Jesus showed himself to the students after being raised from among the dead.
15 Then when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon,
son of Yohanan, do you love me more than these?"
He said to him, "Yes, Lord. You know that I affectionately love you."
He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of
Yohanan, do you love me?"
He said to him, "Yes, Lord. You know that I affectionately love you."
He said to him, "Tend my sheep." The third time, he said to him, "Simon, son of
Yohanan, do you affectionately love me?"
Peter was upset because he said to him the third time, "Do you affectionately love
me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know all things. You know that I affectionately love
you."
Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. Indeed I assure you: when you were younger, you
dressed yourself and walked where you wanted. But when you are old, you will stretch out
your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go." (Now this
he said to signify by what method of death he would glorify God.) And after saying this, he said
to him, "Follow me."
This time, no one doubted. Everyone realized for certain that this was the resurrected Jesus. Their trust had come far in the few weeks that had passed.
There are several word plays in this section, and therefore we must take them one at a time. The most significant thing to recognize is that this account parallels Peter's triple denial that he was one of Jesus' students. Assuming "love me more than these" refers to the other ten, Peter was now able to confidently assert three times that he loved Jesus, even more than the others. Some have suggested that "these" refers to the boat, the fish, and the trappings of earthly life. This suggestion does not alter the fact that Peter affirmed his love for Jesus three times.
Word game: the words for "tend" or "feed" are changed each time Jesus phrases his response to Peter's affirmation. Feed, tend, feed. The implication is that "feed" and "tend" are used synonymously. Since Peter affirmed that he really does love Jesus, he must do as Jesus suggested they all do -- he must love them. "Feed my sheep" signifies loving his fellow Christians.
Word game: the words for "sheep" or "lambs" are changed. "Lambs" is probably used as a term of affection, and therefore these words also are meant to be taken as synonyms. Peter is to love his fellow Christians, to help take care of them.
Word game: the words for "love" are changed. This is the most significant of the three word plays, for Johannes points out for his reader that Peter became upset at the way Jesus changed his own wording the third time.
The first two occasions, Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me," using the verb agapaw. This was the kind of love that Jesus had urged his students to have for one another. Both times, Peter replied that he was affectionate for Jesus -- that he was Jesus' close friend (filew). While Peter was affirming his love for Jesus, he was not quite willing to make the step to agapaw. Thus, Jesus admonishes him to love the others if he is going to truly love Jesus.
The third time, Jesus used Peter's own words. This upset Peter, for he was really trying to reach that level of love that Jesus had talked about. Jesus continued in response to acknowledge that Peter indeed had and would continue to have that greater love, for there would come a day when Peter would die for Jesus.
Tradition has it that this reference indicates Peter carrying a crucifixion bar just as Jesus had carried (and that he was crucified upside-down). The passage here may only indicate that he would die in captivity.
20 When Peter turned around, he noticed that the student that Jesus loved was following
(the one who also reclined on his chest at supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who is
betraying you?"). When he noticed him, Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, now what of this one?"
Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come back, what is it to you? You
follow me."
Then this saying went out among the brothers that this student would not die. But Jesus
didn't say that he wouldn't die, but, "If I want him to remain until I come back, what is it to
you?"
24 This is that student who is testifying about these things, and who wrote
these things. And we know that his testimony is true. Now there are also many other
things that Jesus did, which (if each one were written down), I suppose that not even
the universe itself could hold the written scrolls.
"Follow me" (v. 19) had at first only the primary meaning. Taking Peter aside, Jesus wished to speak with him privately. As they were leaving the others, Peter noticed Johannes following behind and asked whether Johannes would die like Peter was being told he himself would die.
Jesus' answer -- that what happened to someone else was irrelevant -- was passed along to others and mistakenly believed to refer to eternal life for Johannes. The author affirms that this was not the intended meaning. All Jesus had been saying was that what happens to others is irrelevant, "You follow me." This time, the word "follow" is used in a spiritual sense, of course.
Finally, the author testifies for the last time that he was in a position to witness all of the things that he mentions and that these things are certainly true. The Jewish reader would recognize the solemnity of Johannes' offering his testimony on Jesus' behalf, for the false witness would be severely punished. The hyperbole at the end is a classic confirmation of someone's greatness. Jesus' tale was so great, our author tells us, that there haven't been enough scrolls made to tell it!
The reader leaves, then, with a decision to make: whether to believe the good things that they had heard about Jesus and to realize that he really was the Anointed One or to reject him despite so much testimony and so many signs. If they accepted him, they had to embrace a radical treatment of the Torah: that all worship is internal, so that the single precept underlying all of God's instruction to his people is simply love. This would mean rejecting the vast portion of the traditions that had been handed to them, but the truth-seeker would find the truth in this spiritual message that Johannes has painstakingly written down for him.