{"id":161995,"date":"2025-12-01T23:32:24","date_gmt":"2025-12-01T21:32:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lifechangingtruth.org\/lctc\/?p=161995"},"modified":"2025-12-01T23:32:24","modified_gmt":"2025-12-01T21:32:24","slug":"the-jewish-gospel-of-john-discovering-jesus-king-of-all-israel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lifechangingtruth.org\/lctc\/the-jewish-gospel-of-john-discovering-jesus-king-of-all-israel\/","title":{"rendered":"the-jewish-gospel-of-john-discovering-jesus-king-of-all-israel"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Jewish Gospel of John
\nDiscovering Jesus, King of All Israel
\n<
\nEli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg
\nISRAEL BIBLE CENTER
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John: Discovering Jesus, King of All Israel
\nCopyright \u00a9 2015 by Eliyahu Lizorkin-Eyzenberg
\nGeneral Editor: Lisa Loden. Editorial content and proofreading committee: Dorothy
\nHealy, Ramon Sanchez, Susan Williams, Kasandra McNeil and Marijke Petri.
\nArcheological consultant: Joe Diaz. Illustrations and layout: Lyda Estrada. My
\nCitadel News (lydaestrada.com) Coordinated by Christy Petri (Quesada Segura) of
\nMy Citadel News (mycitadelnews.com)
\nThe publication of this book was made possible in part by a grant from the
\nfoundation Platform for Christian Politics (Plataforma C) – (plataformac.org) as
\nwell as the generosity of seventy other individual donors without whom the
\npublication and multi-language translations of this book would not be possible.
\nAll Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from The Holy
\nBible, English Standard Version. Copyright \u00a9 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division
\nof Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
\nEli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John: Discovering Jesus, King of All Israel
\n\u00a9 2015 Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg
\nALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO ELI LIZORKIN-EYZENBERG. This book
\ncontains material protected under International and Federal Copyright Laws and
\nTreaties. Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited. No part of
\nthis book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
\nor mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage
\nand retrieval system without express written permission from the author
\n(info@israelbiblecenter.com)
\nTO LISA LODEN MY MENTOR AND FRIEND
\nMay your light never go out.
\n(Prov. 31:18)
\nTO MY YOUNGEST DAUGHTER SHELLY
\nMay you know the King of All Israel.
\n(John 20:31<\/a>)
\nAcknowledgements
\nI want to express my deep gratitude to the following friends,
\ncolleagues, and supporters who were more than generous with their
\nhelp and encouragement in preparation of this book. My thanks go out
\nto the following friends for helping me with this project in a wide
\nvariety of ways:
\nMarina Lizorkin-Eyzenberg (my wife and the biggest supporter of
\nthis project), Lisa Loden, Christy Petri, Lyda Estrada, Cheryl
\nDurham, Dorothy Healy, Marijke Petri, Al Mawhinney, Ramon
\nSanchez, Mark Nanos, Anders Runesson, Daniel Boyarin, Israel
\nKnohl, J\u00fcrgen Zangenberg, Joe Diaz, Ron Weinbaum, Richard
\nHarvey, Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Faydra Shapiro, Susan Williams, Peter
\nShirokov, Julia Blum, Igal German, Paula Fredriksen, Steve Mason,
\nAngel Gozman, David Loden, Rachel Brady and William Rutherford.
\nI am grateful for their support, feedback and corrections. All
\nmistakes and shortcomings of this book are mine alone.
\nTable of Contents
\nTitle page
\nCredits and Copyrights
\nDedication page
\nTable of Contents
\nEndorsements
\nI. Preface viii
\nII. Prologue xii
\nIII. Disclaimer xx
\nIV. The Ministry Narrative 2
\nChapter 1 \u2013 Prologue; the Witness of John the Baptizer; the First Disciples 2
\nChapter 2 \u2013 The Wedding at Cana; The First Passover; The Cleansing of the Temple 24
\nChapter 3 \u2013 Jesus and Nicodemus; John the Baptizer\u2019s Testimony 32
\nChapter 4 \u2013 The Samaritan Woman Encounter; Healing Of a Royal Official\u2019s Son 44
\nChapter 5 \u2013 The Sabbath Healing at the Bethesda Pool; Ensuing Controversy 70
\nChapter 6 \u2013 The Second Passover; The 5000 Fed; Walking on Water; Bread of Life 90
\nChapter 7 \u2013 The Feast of Tabernacles; Jesus Teaches in the Temple; Diverse Reactions 120
\nChapter 8 \u2013 [Adulterous Woman]; \u201cLight of the World\u201d; Truth, Origin and Identity 140
\nChapter 9 \u2013 The Sabbath Healing near the Pool of Siloam; Ensuing Controversy 158
\nChapter 10 \u2013 The Good Shepherd; Feast of Dedication; Jesus Retreats to Bethany 168
\nChapter 11 \u2013 The Raising of Lazarus; Final Plot against Jesus; Jesus Retreats to Ephraim 180
\nChapter 12 \u2013 The Third Passover; The Entry into Jerusalem; The Time Has Come 198
\nV. The Passion Narrative 208
\nChapter 13 \u2013 The Last Passover Meal; Washing of the Feet, Peter\u2019s Denial 208
\nChapter 14 \u2013 The Last Speech of Jesus (Part I) 218
\nChapter 15 \u2013 The Last Speech of Jesus (Part II) 228
\nChapter 16 \u2013 The Last Speech of Jesus (Part III) 236
\nChapter 17 \u2013 The Great High Priestly Prayer of Jesus 244
\nChapter 18 \u2013 Arrest; Meeting in Annas\u2019 House; Peter\u2019s Denial; Jesus\u2019 Trial before Pilate 250
\nChapter 19 \u2013 The Trial Continues; Crucifixion, Death, Burial 260
\nChapter 20 \u2013 The Empty Tomb; The Three Resurrection Appearances 270
\nChapter 21 \u2013 Epilogue: Appearance by the Lake; Peter\u2019s Love; The Beloved Disciple 280
\nVI. The Call 287
\nVII. Bibliography and Further Readings 289
\nEndorsements
\n\u201cA genuine apologetic is one that is true to the texts and the history, akin to the
\nspeeches of a defense attorney with integrity. Using the best of contemporary
\nscholarship in first-century Judaic history and contributing much of his own, Dr.
\nEli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg has demonstrated that the Gospel of John is not an anti-
\nJewish, but a thoroughly Jewish book.\u201d
\nDaniel Boyarin, Hermann P. and Sophia Taubman Professor of Talmudic Culture
\nUniversity of California, Berkeley
\n\u201cDr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg has produced an original and thought-provoking
\nwork. His book is an interesting effort to view this gospel as reflecting north-
\nIsraelite and Samaritan viewpoints. This study brings with it a fresh interpretive
\nair and new light to a challenging field.\u201d
\nIsrael Knohl, Yehezkel Kaufmann Professor of Biblical studies
\nThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem
\n\u201cDr. Lizorkin-Eyzenberg places the text of John\u2019s Gospel in its authentic context
\nby examining the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, rabbinic literature, and suggesting
\ninnovative explanations for the nomenclature, \u2018the Jews.\u2019 His fresh analysis is
\nsure to stir meaningful debate. His creative approach will make an enduring
\ncontribution to the discipline of New Testament studies.\u201d
\nBrad Young, Professor of Biblical Literature in Judeao-Christian Studies
\nOral Roberts University
\n\u201cThe Gospel of John is arguably one of the most powerful and also most
\nproblematic texts of the New Testament. The new book by Dr. Eli Lizorkin-
\nEyzenberg, The Jewish Gospel of John, challenges us to rethink our routinely
\nupheld conventions concerning this Gospel\u2019s role in the so-called parting of the
\nways between Judaism and Christianity.\u201d
\nSerge Ruzer, Professor of Comparative Religion and Syriac Christianity
\nThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem
\n\u201cThis is a refreshing and creative reading of the Gospel of John, focusing on its
\nmilieu of composition. Whether or not readers agree with the author on
\neverything, they will undoubtedly be stimulated, even provoked, to think again
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\nvii
\nabout this Gospel and what it means for understanding the Jew Jesus and his
\nmessage.\u201d
\nDavid Neuhaus, S.J., Latin Patriarchal Vicar
\nSaint James Vicariate for Hebrew Speaking Catholics in Israel
\n\u201cFor some time, research on the Gospels has suffered from stagnation, and there
\nis a feeling that there is not much new that one can say. In light of this, Dr. Eli
\nLizorkin-Eyzenberg\u2019s new commentary on the Gospel of John, with its original
\noutlook on the identity of the original audience and the issues at stake, is
\nextremely refreshing.\u201d
\nIshay Rosen-Zvi, Associate Professor of Talmudic Culture
\nTel-Aviv University
\n\u201cDr. Lizorkin-Eyzenberg has given us an exciting and challenging opportunity to
\nunderstand John\u2019s Gospel within its Jewish environment. It is a significant
\nachievement to make accessible, in a popular and readable way, how John sees
\nJesus, Messiah and King of Israel, within the Judaism(s) of his day. Drawing
\nfrom a wealth of scholarship, the author has produced an excellent study. The
\nJewish Gospel of John will give you a greater love for the King of Israel and his
\npeople, and will transform your own understanding of the meaning of this
\nwonderful Gospel for today.\u201d
\nRichard Harvey
\nThe Author of Mapping Messianic Jewish Theology
\n\u201cIn this book Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg presents a new and innovative reading
\nof the Gospel of John, based on the hypothesis that the book is a Jewish\/Judean
\ntext written to persuade \u2018all of Israel\u2019 to join under one Messianic King: Jesus.
\nThe careful reader, both academic and lay, who seeks a historical understanding
\nof John\u2019s Gospel without having to sacrifice its contemporary religious
\nimportance, will find this book both stimulating and thought-provoking.\u201d
\nAnders Runesson, Professor of New Testament
\nUniversity of Oslo
\nviii
\nPreface
\nThis book represents my personal journey as a Jew who follows Jesus
\nthrough one of the most important and beloved accounts of Jesus\u2019 life \u2013 the
\nGospel of John. It has been said that some divide the world into men and
\nwomen, while others into rich and poor, still others into black and white, and
\nso on, but it could also be said, jokingly of course, that the world is really
\ndivided into those who love the Gospel of Mark and those who love the
\nGospel of John.
\nI have always found the contents of the fourth Gospel in particular, most
\nchallenging and most gripping. Having said that, please allow me to confess
\nthat this Gospel has literally bothered me for over 20 years until finally I was
\nable to find a way through this challenge. As you know, the word \u201cgospel\u201d
\nmeans \u201cgood news\u201d and I just could not see how this Gospel was anything
\nbut bad news for us Jews.
\nYou see, throughout Christian history, the Gospel of John has stood among
\nthe most favorite books of the Bible, alongside perhaps only Psalms, Isaiah
\nand the book of Romans. This Gospel has also been a source of much
\ndiscussion. One of the main reasons for the ongoing discussion is its \u201canti-
\nJewish\u201d rhetoric.
\nIt is possible that as you read this book you will find yourself on the side
\nof those who \u201cstand with Israel\u201d and, like the God-fearers of old, you may
\nfeel attraction to all things Jewish. The last thing you may be thinking right
\nnow is that this beloved Gospel may be read as anti-Jewish. You may even
\nwonder how I could think so. Please, allow me to explain.
\nIn John, as in other parts of the Bible, Jesus has some very hard things to
\nsay. The problem here is that the harsh words do not seem to be addressed to
\na Jewish sub-group, but rather to all \u201cthe Jews.\u201d After all, harsh rhetoric is
\nalso present in the so-called \u201cmost Jewish\u201d of all the four Gospels, the Gospel
\nof Matthew (Matt. 23) and is consistent with the standards of speech of the
\nIsraelite prophets. Just begin reading Isaiah or Amos (among many others)
\nand you will easily see my point.
\nIn Matthew, as well as in Mark and Luke, in most cases it can be clearly
\nseen that Jesus argued with Jewish subgroups, such as Scribes and Pharisees,
\nbut not with all \u201cthe Jews.\u201d It is peculiar that only in the Gospel of John is the
\nun-nuanced \u201cthe Jews\u201d (in most English translations) used repeatedly,
\nreferring to the opponents of Jesus who were often seeking to kill him. (5:18;
\n7:1-10; 8:1-22, 8:40; 10:29-33; 11:8; 18:14; 18:28) Probably the best example
\nof this is found in John 8:44<\/a>. There, John\u2019s Jesus said to \u201cthe Jews:\u201d \u201cYou
\nbelong to your father, the devil.\u201d Bearing in mind the biblical language of the
\nconcept of \u201cthe Children of God\u201d being connected with the people of Israel
\n(Deut. 14:1), is it any wonder that many people, like myself, are puzzled and
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\nix
\nbothered by what John\u2019s Jesus allegedly said to the Jews?!
\nAs a Jew who follows Jesus, and this may be a predicament unique to
\npeople like myself, I simply could not live with my favorite Gospel being an
\nanti-Jewish Christian document. I was acutely and constantly conscious of
\nthis problem. I saw this aspect more often than others (Christian non-Jews)
\nwould. Call it a psychological problem, if you must. You may ask: \u201cIf this
\nwas so painful, why did you stay with this Gospel for so many years?\u201d That
\nwould be a fair question.
\nThe first part of my answer makes me feel a little bit like Tevye the
\nMilkman from the classic film \u201cFiddler on the Roof\u201d (if you have not seen it,
\nshame on you, you must! \u263a), when he reflected that perhaps those who heard
\nhim speak about the importance and variety of Jewish traditions, could ask
\nthe question: \u201cWhere did these traditions come from?\u201d Tevye imagined a
\nconfident answer: \u201cI don\u2019t know.\u201d So, part of the answer is that something
\n(or someone) continued to draw me to this particular narrative of Jesus\u2019 life.
\nWhy did I stay with this conflicting narrative of Jesus\u2019 life so long without
\nresolution? I don\u2019t really know, but as you can imagine I do have a hunch and
\nI have a suspicion that you do too.
\nThere is one other major issue that kept a flicker of hope burning for many
\nyears. You see, other than reading the abundance of what seem to be anti-
\nJewish statements, this Gospel also boasts a large number of pro-Jewish
\nstories and statements that are in fact not present in the other Gospels. Only
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\nx
\nin this Gospel are the Jews actually called \u201chis own.\u201d (John 1:11<\/a>b) Only in
\nthis Gospel Jesus meets the Samaritan woman and tells her \u201cSalvation is from
\nthe Jews.\u201d (John 4:22<\/a>) Only in this Gospel Jesus is said to be buried according
\nto the customs of \u201cthe Jews\u201d (John 19:40<\/a>) \u2013 this too is a powerful statement
\nof belonging. And as a final example, only in this Gospel is Jesus portrayed
\nas experiencing emotional pain, together with the Jews, when he mourns
\nLazarus. (Jn. 11:33) Why such stark contrasts?
\nIt is at this point in your reading of this book (which of course is very
\nearly, after all you are still in the Preface), that you might be saying, \u201cthat
\npsychological problem, you spoke about earlier\u201d may have been deeper than
\nyou first imagined. I can almost hear you say: \u201cAre you saying that the Gospel
\nof John is an anti-Jewish and pro-Jewish document all at the same time?!\u201d
\nYes! (That is exactly what I am saying).
\n\u201cBut how can it be?\u201d (Should be your response).
\nWhy do you think I wrote the book?!
\nCome\u2026
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nxi
\nPrologue
\nWhen I set out to write this book, which I later, after much thought and
\nmany other titles, decided to call \u201cThe Jewish Gospel of John\u201d, I wanted to
\nanswer the question that had disturbed me for years: \u201cHow can this Gospel
\nread so pro-Jewish (for example in Jn. 4:22) and anti-Jewish (for example Jn.
\n8:44) at the same time?\u201d In this very important section of the book, I would
\nlike to present for your attention the conclusions I reached. Having read this
\nprior to reading the book itself, you will be able to judge for yourself if my
\nconclusions really do match up with the text of the Gospel of John verse-byverse.
\n1) The Gospel of John was initially written for a particular audience
\nconsisting of a variety of intra-Israelite groups, one of the main ones being
\nthe Samaritan Israelites. To them, unlike for us today, the word \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9
\n(pronounced Ioudaioi and translated as \u201cJews\u201d) did not mean \u201cthe People of
\nIsrael,\u201d i.e. \u201cthe Jewish people\u201d as we call them today. For these people, the
\npeople I propose are one of the main audiences for the Gospel of John, the
\nIoudaioi, meant something different.
\nOne modern example that illustrates this ancient dynamic comes from an
\nEastern European setting. The Ukrainians often called Russians, with whom
\nthey had an uneasy relationship to say the least, \u201cMaskali.\u201d1 The Ukrainian
\nword \u201cMaskal\u201d comes from the name of the Russian Imperial Capital \u2013
\nMoscow. Those who were either of Russian ethnic descent, or who even as
\nmuch as acknowledged Moscow\u2019s authority or leading role in the region,
\ncould be referred to as \u201cMaskal.\u201d In fact, the Maskal did not have to be from
\nMoscow or be ethnically Russian at all. The individual simply needed to be
\n(or be perceived to be) a supporter of a Moscow-led political agenda. Other
\npeoples outside of the Russian-Ukrainian political conflict, who were familiar
\nwith the issues, never used the designation \u201cMaskali\u201d themselves, knowing
\nthat it was a Ukrainian term for the Russians and Russia\u2019s affiliates.
\nTherefore, using a similar analogy, those who acknowledged the
\nJerusalem-approved authorities in Kfar Nahum (Capernaum) and Cana,
\nwhich were far from Jerusalem, were also referred to by the principal name
\nfor the Jerusalemite formal rulers and leading sect \u2013 the Ioudaioi. All
\nmembers of the Jerusalem-led system became the Ioudaioi in the Gospel of
\nJohn. This is very similar to the way \u201cRussians\u201d became \u201cMaskali\u201d to
\nUkrainians and to others who witnessed their polemic. So when the audience
\nfor John\u2019s Gospel heard these anti-Ioudaioi statements (like John 7:1-2<\/a>), whom
\ndid they think the author\/s had in mind? This is the key question.
\n1 At the time of finalizing this book (2015) Russian and Ukrainian political interests have collided to
\nthe point of war that took place in Eastern Ukraine.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\nxii
\nTo Samaritan Israelites, whatever else the Ioudaioi may have been, they
\nwere certainly Judeans – members of the former Southern Kingdom of Israel
\nwho had adopted a wide variety of innovations that were contrary to the Torah
\nas Samaritans understood it. Judging from this Gospel, the original audience
\nunderstood that, as well as simply being Judeans, the Ioudaioi were: i) Judean
\nauthorities, and ii) affiliated members of this authority structure living outside
\nof Judea. These affiliates were located both in the territories of the former
\nNorthern Kingdom of Israel (Galilee) and in the large Israelite diaspora
\noutside the Land of Israel, both in the Roman Empire and beyond. In this
\nway, the Gospel of John, like the other Gospels, portrayed Jesus\u2019
\nantagonists as representatives of sub-groups within Israel, and not the
\npeople of Israel as a whole. In other words Ioudaioi (\u201cthe Jews\u201d in most
\ntranslations) in this Gospel are not \u201cthe Jewish People\u201d in the modern sense
\nof the word.
\nThe translation of Ioudaioi always and only as \u201cJews\u201d sends the reader in
\nthe opposite direction from what the author intended. While the translation of
\nthis word simply as \u201cJudeans,\u201d is a more accurate choice than \u201cJews,\u201d it is
\nstill not fully adequate – for three reasons that come to mind:
\na) The English word Jews evokes, in the minds of modern peoples, the
\nidea of Jewish religion (i.e. Jews are people who profess a religion called
\nJudaism) and therefore cannot be used indiscriminately to translate the term
\nIoudaioi, since, in the first century, there was no separate category for religion
\n(Judaism, when it was used, meant something much more all-encompassing
\nthan what it means to us today). In a sense, it was only when non-Israelite
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\nxiii
\nChrist-followers, in an attempt to self-establish and self-define, created the
\ncategory called Christianity, that the category called Judaism, as we know it
\ntoday, was also born. Since then most Christian theologians and most Jewish
\ntheologians after them project our modern definition of Judaism back into the
\nNew Testament.
\nb) On the other hand, the English word Judean evokes in the minds of
\nmodern people, oftentimes, an almost exclusively geographical definition (a
\nJudean is the person who lives in Judea or used to live in Judea) and hence
\ncannot be used indiscriminately either, since today it does not imply
\neverything it intended to imply in late antiquity.
\nc) The word Judean, without clarification and nuancing, does not account
\nfor the complex relationship of the outside-of-Judea affiliates with the
\nJerusalem authorities either.
\nBecause of the lack of a perfect word to describe what was meant by
\nIoudaioi in the Gospel of John, I suggest that the word is best left
\nuntranslated.
\n2) The Gospel of John was not composed as a pro-Samaritan or a
\nSamaritan document. It was neither authored by Samaritan followers of Jesus
\nnor sought to portray the Samaritans as more faithful to Torah than Judeans.
\nIt is a Judean-Israelite document that was originally composed to reach
\nSamaritan and other Israelites with the gospel.
\nWhy do I call this Israelite document
\nJudean? Because it is especially in this
\nGospel that Jesus is shown as belonging
\nto the Ioudaioi. As was already
\nmentioned above, Jesus identified on a
\nnumber of occasions with the Ioudaioi
\n(Judeans\/Jews). In John 1:11<\/a>b the
\nIoudaioi are \u201chis own.\u201d In John 4:9<\/a> Jesus
\nis called Ioudaios (Judean\/Jew). In John
\n4:22 Jesus and his disciples affirm that
\nsalvation is from the Ioudaioi; and in
\nJohn 19:40<\/a> Jesus was buried according to
\nthe burial customs of the Ioudaioi.
\nOn the other hand, if this Gospel is not
\nSamaritan, but Judean in origin
\n(ideologically and not necessarily
\ngeographically), what then explains such
\nan acute interest in Samaritan Israelites?
\nThis Gospel was authored by a certain
\nkind of Judean (or more accurately a group of Judeans). He\/they expected the
\ncoming redemption of Israel to include the return of the Samaritan Israelites
\n(Jn. 4:35) as well as all the Children of Israel dispersed among foreign lands.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\nxiv
\n(Jn. 10:16; 11:52) The Gospel was probably written in the aftermath of the
\napostolic mission to the Samaritan lands (Acts 8<\/a>) and probably provided an
\nalternative to the Gospel of Matthew\u2019s anti-Samaritan views. The Gospel of
\nMatthew and the Gospel of John display similar tensions to those in the Books
\nof Kings and Chronicles in the Hebrew Bible\/Old Testament. The Books of
\nKings represent a Judean-centered narrative, telling, in many ways, a story
\nsimilar to that of the Chronicles. One of the main differences was that the
\nBooks of Chronicles, though likely also of Judean authorship, had an \u201cAll
\nIsrael\u201d perspective at the center. (1 Chron. 9:1; 11:1, 4, 10; 12:38; 13:5, 6, 8;
\n14:8; 2 Chron. 1:2; 7:6, 8; 9:30; 10:1, 3, 16) They refused to define Israel
\nonly as the Southern Israelites, later termed Judeans. Similarly, it seems that
\nthe Gospel of John (and most probably the Gospel of Luke) was the
\nalternative to the Gospel of Matthew\u2019s Judean anti-Samaritan views. (Matt.
\n10:5) John\u2019s Gospel, like the Books of Chronicles, called for all Israel to be
\nunited under the leadership of God\u2019s anointed king. In John\u2019s case, he
\nenvisioned Jesus as the King who came to unite representatives\/descendants
\nof both Southern and Northern tribes wherever they may be. (John 10:16<\/a>) Just
\nlike the Gospel of Luke, this Gospel declared its firm belief in the coming
\n\u201cMessianic Reunification\u201d that was promised by the prophets of old.
\n3) The Gospel of John, like the three other Gospels, is technically an
\nanonymous document. Later Christian tradition branded all four Gospels to
\nassociate with one of the great figures of the early Jesus movement. What can
\nbe said, however, is that the Gospel of John was authored by one for whom
\nthe Book of Ezekiel was particularly important. There are an overwhelming
\nnumber of connections between these two Israelite works. This is, of course,
\nnot to say that Ezekiel is the only background for this Gospel; certainly other
\nbooks, like the Book of Daniel, are also extremely important. The use of
\nDaniel in John\u2019s Gospel, however, is almost always connected with the night
\nvisions of Daniel (Dan. 7:13-14); while the Book of Ezekiel is alluded to
\nthroughout the Gospel by a multiplicity of themes. One of these key themes
\nin Ezekiel, just as I think in John, is the reunification of Southern and
\nNorthern Israel under the leadership of God\u2019s anointed King. (Ezek. 37:16;
\nJohn 10:16<\/a>) Some other compelling examples include: the Good Shepherd of
\nIsrael coming in judgment against the evil shepherds who neglect and exploit
\nthe sheep under their care (Ezek. 34:1-31; Jn. 10:11); the vision of the Temple
\nbursting open with streams of running water which reach to the Dead Sea and
\nbeyond with revitalizing power (Ezek. 47:1-12; Jn. 7:38); and the Son of Man
\ncommanding God\u2019s Spirit to come and resurrect the people of Israel. (Ezek.
\n37:9-10; Jn. 16:7)
\n4) Half of the Gospel (chapters 1-12) seems to cover three years of
\nJesus\u2019 ministry, judging from the three Passovers, while the second half
\n(chapters 13-21) is concentrated on his Passion alone – roughly one day,
\nculminating in his death and subsequent resurrection. I conclude, therefore,
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\nxv
\nthat the last half of the work is very important to the author\u2019s argument, with
\nthe chapters 1-12 serving as a disproportionate introduction to the Gospel\u2019s
\ncrescendo.
\nIn this section, Jesus is on trial before the Judean and the Roman
\nauthorities. Yet, from the perspective of its author, the entire Gospel shows
\nthat it is the Judean authorities who are on trial. It is Jesus who has come as
\nthe covenant prosecutor to press charges against the evil shepherds of Israel.
\nNot the other way around, as it may seem. While Jesus stands before his
\naccusers and before Pilate, it is Jesus who has full power and authority. (Jn.
\n10:18; 19:11) From the very beginning, Jesus methodically worked his way
\nto his goal, orchestrating and carefully controlling all the events surrounding
\nhis life (Jn. 11:6; 11:17; 12:14-15) and his Passion. (Jn. 19:28) The idea of a
\ncourt motif is everywhere present in John. Throughout the Gospel, we see
\nmany witnesses. Everyone and everything seems to be testifying in favor of
\nJesus (John 1:7<\/a>; 4:39; 5:32; 19:35; 21:24); mounting evidence, piece-bypiece,
\nis methodically presented. The inadequacy of the current Ioudaioi as
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\nxvi
\nleaders of God\u2019s people Israel is increasingly emphasized. (Jn. 3:9-10; 6:31-
\n32; 8:21-22) Ultimately, their opposition to God\u2019s Anointed One (Jesus) is
\nexemplified by their attempt to preserve Judea\u2019s Temple worship and
\ntherefore to prosper for themselves, their families and their sects, under the
\nterms dictated by the Roman occupation. (Jn. 11:48) Such aims disqualify
\nthem to be the proper leaders of the Children of Israel.
\nEven though seven miraculous signs (Jn. 2:1-11; 4:46-54; 5:1-18; 6:5-14;
\n6:16-24; 9:1-7; 11:1-45) together testify to Jesus\u2019 power and divine authority,
\nin the end, the ultimate justification of Jesus\u2019 person, words and deeds over
\nagainst the formal rulers of Israel, is set forth \u2013 the resurrection of the Son of
\nGod as manifested by the empty tomb and three post-resurrection
\nappearances. (Jn. 20-21)
\n5) John\u2019s Gospel has a very interesting use of the word world (\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2)
\nthroughout its narrative and it does not seem to be what we traditionally
\nunderstand it to mean. The basic working definition of the term, \u201cthe world,\u201d
\nin this Gospel seems to be the order that opposes Israel\u2019s God. (Jn. 7:7; 9:39;
\n12:31; 15:18-19) This opposing order is nevertheless an object of his
\nredemptive love, attention and restoration, (Jn. 1:29; 3:16; 6:33; 14:31; 17:23)
\nbecause it was once created by God through his everlasting Word. (Jn. 1:1,
\n10) The primary identity of the world in this intra-Israelite Gospel is, not
\nsurprisingly \u2013 the current Ioudaioi and their leadership structure, especially.
\n(Jn. 7:4-7; 8:23; 9:39; 14:17-31; 18:20)
\nIn summary, answering my own original question directly (How can
\nJohn\u2019s Gospel seem pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish at the same time?), I can state
\nthe following: This Gospel was written from one of the first century Judean
\nperspectives, where Jesus\u2019 identity and mission was intimately tied up with
\nthe Ioudaioi, as a sub-group within the nation of Israel. This affiliation of
\nJesus with the Ioudaioi was paramount for John\u2019s Gospel. Although Jesus is
\nrejected by his own group, it belonged to him (Jn. 1:11; 4:22; 19:40).
\nReferences like these, among many others, in my mind explain the pro-
\nIoudaioi statements in the Gospel.
\nAt the same time, I propose that this first century Judean perspective
\nincluded a vision for the restoration of the Northern (Samaritan and Galilean)
\nIsraelites, as well as those residing in the Judean and Samaritan diaspora
\ncenters outside of the Land. To the author of this Gospel, Jesus was nothing
\nless than the King of Israel in its entirety.
\nIt is especially for those Israelites (whether Samaritan, Galilean, or
\nresiding in diaspora) that this Gospel was first written. This, in my mind,
\naccounts for the anti-Ioudaioi statements we find in this Israelite Gospel. The
\nanti-Ioudaioi statements would not be understood by these late first century
\nIsraelites (or Gentile God-fearers for that matter) as criticizing Israel as a
\nwhole. In spite of what Christian and Jewish theologians after them have
\nassumed about John\u2019s Gospel, it was not originally meant to be read by
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\nxvii
\neveryone. It may even be said that the composition of John\u2019s Gospel
\nconstituted a significant lack of foresight on behalf of its (human) author. Had
\nthe author imagined (and the fact that he also didn\u2019t give us insight into the
\nfirst century Jesus movement) that, just few centuries later, it would be
\nprimarily non-Israelites who would read and interpret his magnificent Gospel,
\nbeing removed culturally and socio-religiously from its original setting, he
\nmight have been much more careful with the use of his terminology.
\nSo, how can the Gospel of John seem\/be pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish all at
\nthe same time? Because: i) It is a Judean Gospel at its core, and ii) It was
\noriginally written to Israelites who understood that Ioudaioi were but a subgroup
\nwithin Israel and not \u201cthe Jewish People\u201d as a whole.
\nAlthough the idea that John\u2019s Gospel was at first meant only for Israelites
\nmay be threatening to some people, there is absolutely nothing to fear. Most
\nof the books in the Bible had a specific audience, even if most of the time we
\ncan only guess who that audience really was. The message of these sacred
\ntexts, after being properly understood, can and must legitimately be applied
\nto other contexts as well, and this, my friends, includes everyone who would
\nbe willing to hear the message of this Gospel.
\nAre you ready? If so, let us begin and walk through the Gospel of John, so
\nthat we too can believe and in so doing have everlasting life. (Jn. 20:3)
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nDisclaimer
\nThis section, the disclaimer, is a great section. Here is where the author gets
\nto preempt criticisms of his book (whether fair and not). So this is my attempt to
\nexplain a few things that I think are very important for you, my dear reader, to
\nknow.
\nI wrote this book for a particular kind of audience \u2013 for serious Christian lay
\npersons and clergy members. While I did expect that scholars would eavesdrop
\non occasion, I did not think of them as I composed and wrote my thoughts. My
\nmain audience, therefore, is not one that is particularly impressed with an
\noverabundance of footnotes and does not consider that the ideas need to be found
\nin other scholarly books and articles as a litmus test of any kind. My main
\naudience tends to appreciate clear, thought-provoking material, reinforced by
\nvisual illustrations. This is the reason why you will not find many references to
\nsecondary sources (scholarly literature), but instead there are a fair amount of
\nreferences to original (ancient) sources and an abundance of hand-drawn
\nillustrations by Lyda Estrada, a talented Colombian artist. (For those who are
\ninterested, a good list of secondary sources can be found in the further reading
\nsection at the end of the book.)
\nMy main audience is not the only reason this book is so light on secondary
\nsources. I intentionally adopted a different approach to the one used by most
\nscholars who write commentaries. I wanted to read John\u2019s Gospel in the quietness
\nof my own soul, heart and mind. I purposefully avoided knowing what other
\npeople thought about my subject. I wanted to understand it for myself and by
\nmyself. Talk to my mother. She will tell you that I was born independent.
\nOf course, I had studied other scholars and read extensively for 25 years, so
\nit is inaccurate to say that I was not influenced in this study by others. Of course
\nI was. But at the time of writing the study itself, I purposely stayed away from
\nfurther reading on the subject. Instead, I relied on the feedback of thousands of
\nmy blog readers (Jewish Studies for Christians), where for several years I
\npublished the base material found in this book. Many of those interactions were
\npriceless and very helpful to me in writing this book and in correcting numerous
\nfactual errors and faults of reasoning.
\nAnother possible perceived weakness of this book may be my almost constant
\nrefusal to read the Gospel of John in the light of, and in interaction with, the other
\nGospels. I wanted to read John for John\u2019s sake. I was not interested in discovering
\none nicely packaged, synchronized and harmonized, Gospel story. Those
\nattempts have already been made many times.
\nI think it is this approach, during the period of writing this study, of
\nshutting my ears to all other voices, including the voices of great Christian
\nand Jewish scholars and the voices of the other Gospel writers (Luke,
\nMatthew and Mark), that is to be credited with this book\u2019s uniqueness, insight
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\nxix
\nand strength. Whether you will agree with me or not, this is yours to judge.
\nBut my conscience is clear. I did what I thought was best.
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\n20
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n21
\nChapter 1
\nPrologue; the Witness of John the
\nBaptizer; the First Disciples
\n\uf041 \u201c1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
\nGod, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with
\nGod. 3All things came into being through him, and without him
\nnot one thing came into being.\u201d2
\nFor a long time it has been mistakenly thought that the ideas expressed in
\nthese three verses of John\u2019s prologue are unique to Christianity. It was
\nerroneously believed that this statement constituted nothing less than a
\nground-breaking departure from Judaism. However, nothing could be further
\nfrom the truth. In fact, it is not until verse 14 \u201cand the Word became flesh,\u201d
\nthat an innovative idea, though not contradictory to Judaism, was first
\nintroduced. What we read in these first three verses should enable us to clearly
\nunderstand that the author of this Gospel was a committed Jew, entrenched in
\nthe rich concepts of the Judaism of the Second Temple period. His deep
\nJewish consciousness is evident as he structures his prologue thoroughly
\nwithin the Israelite interpretive traditions of the time.
\nFirst, the author roots his narrative in the foundational verses of the Torah
\n\u2013 \u201cIn the beginning God\u2026\u201d (Gen. 1:1) and \u201c\u2026God said.\u201d Therefore, the
\nnotion that the Gospel of John is a Christian document, set in opposition to
\nJudaism, makes no sense in the light of John\u2019s own priorities. For John,
\nperhaps even more than for the other Gospel writers, everything begins with
\nthe Torah. Secondly, the idea of the Word (Logos\/Memra3) of God possessing
\nextraordinary qualities and functions in relationship to God Himself, was not
\nnew to Second Temple Judaism. For example, Philo, an Alexandrian Jew who
\nwas roughly contemporary with Jesus, but probably never met him, wrote:
\n\u201c\u2026the most universal of all things is God; and in the second place the Word
\nof God.\u201d (Allegorical Interpretation, II, 86); \u201c\u2026the shadow of God is His
\nWord, which He used like an instrument when He was making the world\u2026\u201d
\n(Allegorical Interpretation, III, 96); \u201cThis same Word is continually a
\nsuppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed
\n2 Most quotes are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) with some minor modifications. The
\nreader is encouraged to compare it with other available faithful versions of the Bible such as NASB among
\nothers.
\n3 Memra is a rough Aramaic equivalent of the word Logos in Greek.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n22
\nto affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all,
\nto the subject race\u2026 neither being uncreated as God, nor yet created as you,
\nbut being in the midst between these two extremities\u2026\u201d (Who is the Heir of
\nDivine Things, 205-6)
\nPhilo of Alexandria was not the only Jew in the first century who had a
\nhighly developed concept of the Word (Logos) of God. The Jerusalem
\nTargum, in translating and expanding the original Hebrew of Genesis 3:8<\/a>,
\nstates: \u201c\u2026they heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God walking in the
\ngarden\u2026 and Adam and his wife hid themselves from before the Lord God
\namong the trees of the garden\u201d (Jerusalem Targum). When translating
\nGenesis 19:24<\/a>, the same translator\/interpreter writes: \u201cAnd the Word
\n(Memra) of the Lord Himself had made to descend upon the people of Sodom
\nand Gomorrah\u2026 fire from before the Lord from the heavens.\u201d
\nThese examples from Philo of Alexandria and the Jerusalem Targum are
\nonly a small portion of the many examples that could be cited.4 Therefore,
\nmy simple conclusion here is that the concept of the \u201cWord of God\u201d is
\nthoroughly Israelite, no matter in what language it is expressed, and in no way
\nrepresents an addition or a departure from Israelite thought of the day.
\n4In him was life, and the life was the light of all people. 5The
\nlight shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not
\novercome it.
\nTo the author of this Gospel, the Word of God was both distinct from God
\nand yet at the same time was, in some way, God. This Word of God
\n(Logos\/Memra) played an exclusive role in the creation of the world, as we
\nread in the verses above. Moreover, the life force that makes any of God\u2019s
\ncreation breathe, move, and exist was intricately connected with and
\ndepended upon that very Word of God. (vs.3) In this section, the author of
\nthe Gospel compares this Logos\/Memra\/Word to light shining in the darkness,
\nstating resolutely that the power of darkness was not able to overcome it.
\nThe remainder of this Gospel, including the imagery of light and darkness,
\nwas initially, and for many years, attributed by New Testament theologians
\nto Greek Platonic influence on the author who composed it. However, with
\nthe discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948, and their later availability for
\nscholarship-at-large decades later, a very different picture has finally
\nemerged. The themes of light and darkness, among other similar themes,
\nabound in the Dead Sea Scrolls collection. (1QS 3.13-4.26)5
\n4 See also Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael at Shirta 4 & Bahodesh 5 (ed. Lauterbach); Mekhilta de Rabbi
\nSimeon b. Yohai, Shirta 4. (p. 81 of the Epstein edition) Cf. also Justin Martyr\u2019s discussion of a \u201csecond
\nGod.\u201d (Dialogue 56-60)
\n5 The language of light and darkness is particularly prominent in the War Scroll. (1QM; 4Q491-496)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n23
\nAs an example, we read in a document that was authored by the
\nQumranites roughly a century before Jesus:
\n\u201cWe shall admit into the Covenant of Grace all those who have freely
\ndevoted themselves to the observance of God\u2019s precepts, that they may
\nbe joined to the counsel of God and may live perfectly before Him in
\naccordance with all that has been revealed concerning their appointed
\ntimes, and that they may love all the sons of light, each according to his
\nlot in God\u2019s design, and hate all the sons of darkness, each according
\nto his guilt in God\u2019s vengeance.\u201d (1QS 1.7-11)
\nScholarly debate about the nature of the community that preserved, and in
\nmany cases authored the scrolls, is still far from settled. However, it is certain
\nthat the discovery of the Qumran documents places the Gospel of John finally
\nand firmly in the conceptual thought-world of Israel in late antiquity.
\n6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
\n7He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might
\nbelieve through him. 8He himself was not the light, but he came
\nto testify to the light. 9The true light, which enlightens
\neveryone, was coming into the world.
\nThe ministry of John the Baptist in the Gospel of Mark is set in polemical
\nopposition to the Israelite Qumran community. It is possible that John6 was
\nonce a part of this community. There are many points of agreement and also
\nsharp disagreements between them. One particular example is that both the
\nQumran community and John defined their own ministries as \u201ca voice calling
\nin the wilderness, preparing the way of the Lord.\u201d (Is. 40:3) In the Qumran
\nCommunity Rule we read:
\n\u201c\u2026 they shall separate from the habitation of ungodly men and shall go
\ninto the wilderness to prepare the way of Him; as it is written, Prepare
\n6 Many of the names, including John, come to the New Testament from our Koine Judeo-Greek
\nmanuscripts of the Gospel. Sometimes the texts do actually refer to Greek names such as Timothy
\n(Timotheus, which means honored by God) or Andrei (Andreas, which simply means man or manly).
\nWhile other names were in fact common Hebrew names, these names were Hellenized and Latinized
\nbefore appearing in our English Bibles. As an example, Matthew (\u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2) was Matitiyahu, which in
\nHebrew ( \u05de\u05b7\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc means gift of God) or Bartholomew (\u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2) that comes from Aramaic ( -\u05d1\u05e8
\n\u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05d9 ) and means something like \u201ca son of ploughman.\u201d John (\u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2) was one of these Hellenized
\nnames. His parents called him Yochanan. Yochanan is a combination of two Hebrew words: God and
\ngrace. Now imagine hearing the Gospel read for the first time. Someone struggling to read clearly, loudly
\nenough, and with appropriate voice tone gets to the verse that says: \u201cthere was a man sent from God,
\nwhose name was John.\u201d Now tell me, wouldn\u2019t you hear it differently if you knew that the Hebrew
\nmeaning of Yochanan was the \u201cgrace of God?\u201d
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n24
\nin the wilderness the way of the Lord \u2026 make straight in the desert a
\npath for our God. This is the study of the Torah, which He commanded
\nby the hand of Moses\u2026 and as the Prophets have revealed by His Holy
\nSpirit.\u201d (1QS 8:12b-16a; Cf. 1QS 9:19-20)
\nThis means that the Qumran community believed themselves to be the
\nfulfillment of the prophecy found in Isaiah, as did John the Baptist. Following
\nthe Septuagint Judeo-Greek translation from Hebrew, Mark writes about John
\nthe Baptist, that he was \u201cthe voice of one crying in the wilderness\u2026\u2019\u201d. (Mk.
\n1:1-2) In addition to the Isaiah 40<\/a> interpretation, there was (among others)
\nanother major disagreement. The Qumran Community believed they were the
\nrepresentatives of God\u2019s light, or to use their language \u2013 \u201cthe Children of the
\nLight.\u201d We read in the War Scroll:
\n\u201cThe first attack of the Sons of Light shall be undertaken against the
\nforces of the Sons of Darkness, the army of Belial\u2026 There shall be no
\nsurvivors of [all the Sons of] Darkness\u2026 Then at the time appointed by
\nGod, His great excellence shall shine for all the times of eternity for
\npeace and blessing, glory and joy, and long life for all Sons of Light.\u201d
\n(1QM)
\nJohn\u2019s Gospel, however, is clear. (Jn. 1:7-8) During the ministry of John
\nthe Baptist, he was the only real representative of God\u2019s light. In fact, John
\ncame to testify to the Light of God Himself \u2013 Jesus, the Son of God. This
\nconcept (the Son of God) was familiar to the Jews who followed the way of
\nQumran: \u201cHe will be called great\u2026 Son of God he will be called and Son of
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n25
\nthe Most High they will call him\u2026 His kingdom will be an everlasting
\nkingdom\u2026 He will judge the Earth in truth and all will make peace.\u201d (4Q246)
\n10 He was in the world, and the world was made through
\nhim, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own,
\nand his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did
\nreceive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to
\nbecome children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood, nor
\nof the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
\nThis passage is probably one of the most important passages for
\ndiscovering the meaning of the Gospel of John. Why is this passage so
\nimportant? First of all, it is part of the book\u2019s prologue. It is in the prologue
\nwhere the trajectory for all the material that follows is determined. In other
\nwords, the way the interpreter understands the prologue will affect how he
\nreads the rest of what John has to say. Generally speaking, both Christian and
\nmost Jewish scholars after them read this passage as if the unit of thought
\nbegins at verse 11 and continues until verse 13. (We need to keep in mind
\nthat when the Gospel was first authored, there were no breaks between
\nchapters and verses). However, verse 11 continues to develop the idea that
\nbegins in verse 10. This is significant because without verse 10, verse 11 can
\nbe easily misread. Verse 11 is traditionally interpreted as follows: \u201cHe came
\nunto his own (meaning the Jewish people), but his own (meaning the Jewish
\npeople) did not accept him.\u201d In this traditional interpretation, verse 12
\ncontinues to juxtapose Israel\u2019s national unbelief with the faith of the
\ninternational body of non-Israelite Christ-followers, creating a false
\ndichotomy. However, there are some issues we must take into account.
\nFirst, this verse is grammatically nuanced. Literally the translation of the
\nfirst \u201cown\u201d in verse 11 from the Greek, should be rendered as: \u201cHe came to
\nhis own things.\u201d The Greek word is, in fact, neuter plural, and therefore
\ncannot in anyway refer to the Jewish people, or any people for that matter. It
\nmost probably refers to \u201cthe world\u201d in verse 10 which precedes verse 11 (\u201c\u2026
\nthe world was made through him, yet the world did not receive him.\u201d) The
\nsecond \u201cown\u201d in verse 11 can, in fact, refer to the people. If one is careful to
\ndistinguish the genders used by the author, (the first \u201cown\u201d is neuter and the
\nsecond \u201cown\u201d is masculine), then the traditional interpretation may not be as
\ncertain as previously thought.
\nSecondly, this interpretation is also problematic from a historical
\nperspective, because later history is read back into previous history. Before I
\nlose you, please, let me explain. You see, whether someone thinks that John
\nwas authored early (around 60 C.E.) or fairly late (around 90 C.E.), during
\nthe entire first century Jewish Christ-followers were still present in large
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n26
\nnumbers, together with many non-Jews who had joined the faith.
\nIn the first century, many of the original Israelite leaders of the early Jesus
\nmovement, and their disciples, played an active role in the life of the early
\nChrist-following community. So to say, at any point in the first century, that
\npeople belonging to the variety of Israelite movements by and large rejected
\nJesus, is simply inaccurate. Surely the author of this Gospel would have been
\naware of this. For these reasons, I conclude that something else must be in
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n27
\nview here.
\nThirdly, it is possible, even likely, that this is the first in a series of John\u2019s
\nclaims to the Judean identity of Jesus. Jesus is not being presented in this
\nGospel as Galilean (Mk. 6:1-4; Lk. 4:23-24; Matt. 13:54-57), but as Judean.
\n(Jn. 4:43-45) So it is possible that the way to understand verse 11b \u2013 \u201chis own
\n(people) did not receive him\u201d \u2013 could be to see that, in this Gospel, Jesus
\nbelongs to the Judeans in a way that is not stated in the other Gospels. If I am
\ncorrect, then the rejection of Jesus stated above is not rejection by Israel, but
\nrather by a sub-group within Israel.
\nIf the traditional interpretation of John 1:10-13<\/a> is indeed the correct
\ninterpretation, then the basic assumption about this Gospel is unavoidable \u2013
\nit is in fact an early Christian anti-Jewish document, regardless of its very
\nrich beneficial spiritual message. I am, however, suggesting that there are
\nother ways to read the Gospel of John, as we will see in later sections of this
\nbook.
\n14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, (and we
\nhave seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father),
\nfull of grace and truth. 15John bore witness about him, and
\ncried out, \u201cThis was he of whom I said, \u2018He who comes after
\nme ranks before me, because he was before me.\u2019\u201d
\nIn verse 14 it is interesting that the word translated as \u201cdwelt among us\u201d
\ncould literally be translated \u201ctabernacled\u201d or \u201cpitched a tent among us.\u201d While
\nit communicates virtually the same idea as \u201cdwelling together\u201d in most
\nEnglish translations, in greek it does evoke a far greater degree of connection
\nbetween Jesus and the Tabernacle, and, perhaps, even with the Feast of the
\nTabernacles (Sukkot); between God\u2019s presence in the Tabernacle of old and
\nthe incarnation of God in the person of Jesus. As we will see in many places,
\nJohn\u2019s Gospel should be read against the backdrop of the prophecies of
\nEzekiel, Zechariah and Daniel. Before we move much further, we can already
\nsee Jesus\u2019 connection to the Ezekielian eschatological Temple
\n(tabernacle\/temple), which will be bursting with living water and satisfying
\nthe dry ground of the Judean desert and beyond. (Ezek. 47:1-12; Jn. 7:38; Jn.
\n4:14; Cf. Rev 7:17; 21:6; 22:1; 22:17)
\nAdditionally, in verse 14a, the concept of the sonship of Jesus appears for
\nthe first time in this Gospel. It is important to note that in the Hebrew
\nBible\/Old Testament, kings (especially at the time of their coronation) were
\ngranted the title: \u201cthe Son of God.\u201d We read in Psalm 2:6-9<\/a>:
\n\u201c\u2018As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.\u2019 I will tell of the
\ndecree. The Lord said to me, \u2018You are my Son; today I have begotten
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n28
\nyou. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends
\nof the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron
\nand dash them in pieces like a potter\u2019s vessel.\u2019\u201d7
\nThe very act of crowning someone king over Israel was a symbolic act of
\nenormous proportion within Israel\u2019s narrative history. It signified receiving
\nthe authority of Israel\u2019s God Himself to rule over Israel and to exercise
\nauthority over the nations of the world with the power and the confidence that
\ncome from being God\u2019s own son. We can see this same logic in Luke 3:38<\/a>
\nwhen Adam is referred to as the son of God. So while there are other aspects
\nof Jesus\u2019 sonship that should be taken into account when constructing one\u2019s
\ntheology, we must keep in mind that the most important aspect must remain
\n\u2013 royal authority over all things created.
\n16 For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon
\ngrace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and
\ntruth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God;
\nthe only God, who is at the Father\u2019s side, he has made him
\nknown.
\nFrom the first century, Christian believers continued to debate, mostly
\nwith each other, the importance of the Mosaic Law. While both verse 16 and
\nverse 18 have much that is important and certainly worth being discussed at
\nlength, we will concentrate on verse 17 \u2013 \u201cFor the law was given through
\nMoses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.\u201d (ESV)
\nAs the Protestant Christian movement emerged, one of the biggest
\ndisagreements between those who would one day become Protestants and
\nthose who would remain Roman Catholic was the issue of the function of the
\nlaw in the life of the believer. One of the five most important theological
\nshortcut phrases of the Reformation was: \u201cby faith alone.\u201d This phrase
\nindicated how one was \u201csaved\u201d from God\u2019s eternal judgment. The intention
\nwas to highlight \u201cfaith alone\u201d as opposed to \u201cfaith and good works of the
\nbelievers\u201d or \u201cChrist and good works of the believers.\u201d This 15th-16th
\ncentury conflict between Protestants and Catholics was later read back into
\nthe Pauline writings and projected back into Paul\u2019s own words. Today hardly
\nanyone will object to that fact that Paul must be read through first century
\nIsraelite interpretive lenses and not through the later lenses of Catholic-
\nProtestant conflict historically unrelated to Paul.
\nWhile the juxtaposition of law and the gospel was present in the Church
\n7 Cf. 2 Sam 7:13-14; 4Q174 3:10-13; for other messianic texts at Qumran, see the Messianic florilegia
\nof 4Q175.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n29
\nFathers, it is not until the time of the Reformation that the juxtaposing of law
\nand grace became pronounced.8 This became a dominant emphasis. The
\nopposite of grace became law; the opposite of law became grace. In all
\nreality, the opposite of law was never grace but lawlessness. Just as the
\nopposite of grace was never law but disgrace.
\nLike Paul, John has also been greatly misunderstood and interpreted
\nanachronistically. In John 1:17<\/a>, for example, some important English Bible
\ntranslations (such as KJV and NET Bible) insert the additional word – \u201cbut.\u201d
\nThis word is not present in the original Greek. Moreover, even when the
\ntranslations do not add the word \u201cbut\u201d (see the ESV quoted above) the verse
\nis normally understood as if the \u201cbut\u201d is implied. It is almost impossible for
\nus to read this text and not juxtapose law and grace in our contemporary
\nminds.
\nIn the mind of the author of this Gospel, the Law\/Torah was something
\nvery good. The reason for this was his Israelite heritage, entrusted to his
\npeople Israel by her God and nurtured, treasured and protected for centuries
\nby his people – Israel. If one ignores the negative reading and instead
\ninterprets the phrase (vs. 17) positively \u2013 \u201cThe Law came through Moses;
\n(and) grace and truth comes through Jesus Christ\u201d – then the text will begin
\nto flow organically. In this case, it will be connected with the previous
\nconfession by the Gospel\u2019s author that grace was given in addition to the
\ngrace already provided. (16\u201cFor from his fullness we have all received, grace
\nupon grace.\u201d) Perhaps a translation that can help us get rid of this inbred
\ndichotomy would go like this: \u201cFor the Torah was given through Moses and
\ngrace and truth came through Jesus Christ.\u201d The moment we see that Greek
\nNomos (\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2) does not need to be translated as \u201claw,\u201d or could be translated
\nas Law only in the sense of the Torah of Moses, then more interpretive options
\nbecome available.
\n19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Ioudaioi sent
\npriests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, \u201cWho are
\nyou?\u201d 20 He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, \u201cI am
\nnot the Christ.\u201d 21 And they asked him, \u201cWhat then? Are you
\nElijah?\u201d He said, \u201cI am not.\u201d \u201cAre you the Prophet?\u201d And he
\nanswered, \u201cNo.\u201d 22 So they said to him, \u201cWho are you? We
\nneed to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say
\nabout yourself?\u201d 23 He said, \u201cI am the voice of one crying out
\nin the wilderness, \u2018Make straight the way of the Lord,\u2019 as the
\nprophet Isaiah said.\u201d 24 (Now they had been sent from the
\n8 E.g., Irenaues, Adv. haer. III.11.8. Cf. the Epistle of Diognetus 11:6 and Theophilus Ad Autolycus
\n3.12, there \u201claw\u201d and \u201cgospel\u201d are in harmony.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n30
\nPharisees.)
\nHere for the first time we encounter one of the key characteristics of those
\nwhom John calls the Ioudaioi. Most disputes that Jesus has with his opponents
\nin this Gospel are in some way connected with the concept of authority. Who
\nis in charge? This is the main question asked and answered by the fourth
\nGospel. We read that the Ioudaioi were in a position of authority to send a
\ncommission of Levites and priests from Jerusalem to investigate the activity
\nof John the Baptist. (vs. 19) If we skip to verse 24, we see that the commission
\nwas sent from a particular Ioudaioi authority \u2013 the Pharisees. Josephus
\nFlavius, a Jewish historian hired by the Roman Emperor to write historical
\nworks about the Jews, wrote about the pact made between Queen Alexandra
\nof Jerusalem and the leaders of the Pharisaic movement (141-67 BCE):
\n\u201cUnder Queen Alexandra of Jerusalem the Pharisees became the
\nadministrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and
\nreadmit who they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind.\u201d (Josephus, Jewish
\nWars 1:5:2; Cf. \u201cexpelled from the synagogue\u201d \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 in John 9:22<\/a>;
\n12:42; and 16:2)
\nIt must be kept in mind that Jerusalem had only one spiritual center \u2013 the
\nTemple. There was also a large council of sages, the Sanhedrin, which
\ngoverned the affairs of the Jewish community. The Sanhedrin consisted of
\nthe Temple priests and a large number of leading representatives of the
\nPharisaic movement. (Common people strongly favored Pharisees over
\nSadducees.) John, still recognizing to some degree the authority of \u201cthe ones
\nthat sent\u201d the delegation from Jerusalem, provides his reluctant answers.
\nHowever, we can see (particularly evident in the Greek grammar) that his
\nanswers become shorter and shorter as he replies to the commission\u2019s
\nquestioning. (Jn. 1:20-21)
\n25 They asked him, \u201cThen why are you baptizing, if you
\nare neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?\u201d 26 John
\nanswered them, \u201cI baptize with water, but among you
\nstands one you do not know, 27 even he who comes after me,
\nthe strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.\u201d
\n28 These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan,
\nwhere John was baptizing.
\nIn the previous section, we read that the priests and Levites who came
\nfrom Jerusalem were commissioned by the Pharisaic faction of Jerusalem\u2019s
\nruling elite. They publicly demanded that John provide them with his
\ncredentials. In rapid-fire succession, they asked, \u201cAre you Christ? Are you
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n31
\nElijah? Are you the Prophet?\u201d
\nThese rhetorical questions were really a statement from Jerusalem about
\nJohn\u2019s lack of proper credentials. John was not the Messiah. He was not
\nElijah, who was expected to prepare the way for God\u2019s visitation of his
\npeople, neither was he the eschatological prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18<\/a>. To
\nput it simply, it was implicit in the committee\u2019s questioning that John had no
\nauthority to carry out this mass Israelite water ceremony. In a later Jesusrelated
\nevent, (Jn. 10:24) the Ioudaioi will tell Jesus that if he is the Messiah
\nhe needed to tell them (emphasis on \u201cthem\u201d) clearly. He answered that he did
\nnot need their Temple approval, since he had the approval of the yet higher
\npower that once indwelled the Temple \u2013 the Almighty God of Israel \u2013 his own
\nFather. John\u2019s response bewildered the priests and Levites. He said, \u201cI baptize
\nwith water, but among you stands one you do not know, even he who comes
\nafter me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.\u201d (verses 26-27)
\nFrom this we can deduce the following:
\nFirst, John believed that his authority was based on God\u2019s approval. No
\napproval from the Judean authorities was therefore required. Later on in the
\nGospel, the author will present these Jerusalem authorities as the evil
\nShepherds of Israel prophesied by the prophet Ezekiel. (Ezek. 34:1-16) The
\nauthor will further show Jesus to be the Good Shepherd of Israel who must
\ngovern Israel in their stead. It will be done consistently, in juxtaposition with
\nthe incompetence of Israel\u2019s current rulers. When we come to treating John
\nChapter 10 (and we have a long way to go), we will consider in detail the role
\nof Jesus as the Good Shepherd of Israel, as opposed to the leaders of the
\nIoudaioi (evil shepherds).
\nSecond, John launched the charge of \u201cnot-knowing,\u201d which would become
\na repetitive theme in the entire Gospel, resulting in a fully developed court
\ncase against Israel\u2019s formal leadership. This in turn would show Jesus to be
\nthe Good Shepherd of Israel.
\nIn verses 26-27 John essentially challenges the delegation by saying
\nsomething to this effect: \u201cYou\u2019ve come to me because you\u2019ve been sent from
\nthe official shepherds of Israel. Isn\u2019t it interesting that neither you, nor those
\nwho sent you, know about the One who is coming after me? What I\u2019m doing
\nhere is something \u2013 yes, but it is nothing in comparison to what He is going
\nto do. He is so much greater than I am.\u201d
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n32
\n29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said,
\n\u201cBehold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the
\nworld! 30 This is he of whom I said, \u2018After me comes a man
\nwho ranks before me, because he was before me.\u2019 31 I myself
\ndid not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with
\nwater, that he might be revealed to Israel.\u201d
\nJesus is portrayed in the Gospel of John as the Passover Lamb. You may
\nrecall in the Hebrew Bible\/Old Testament, (Ex. 12; Num. 9) that in order for
\nthe angel of death to pass over the homes of believing Israelite families, the
\nfamilies needed to put a special sign on their doorposts \u2013 the blood of a lamb.
\nThe Gospel of John pictures Jesus as the ultimate Lamb of God, who not only
\nsymbolically covered the sins of Israelite households, but took away the sin
\nof the entire world. (vs. 29)
\nA short side trip into church history will make this more interesting for us.
\nIn many predominantly Christian countries, the festival of Easter was called
\nby a different name; It was called the \u201cChristian Passover.\u201d Why? Simply
\nbecause, in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the judgment of God passed over
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n33
\nthe sinners\u2019 heads, just as it passed over the heads of the Israelites in their
\nexodus from ancient Egypt. You see, all early Christians celebrated a festival
\nthat later came to be known as Easter, however, it had been called Pascha
\n(Passover in Syriac\/Aramaic) or Pesach (Passover in Hebrew). Over time,
\nChristian and Jewish leaders worked hard to create a clear separation between
\nthese two believing communities. This process, in spite of popular opinion,
\ntook centuries and did not happen conclusively in the early second century as
\ncommonly thought (the so-called \u201cparting of the ways\u201d). The question for the
\nemergent non-Israelite Christ-following movement was not whether or not
\nBiblical feasts such as Passover should be observed, but rather how and when
\nmost of them should be observed. Some Christians believed that Pascha
\n(Christian Passover\/Easter) had to be commemorated on the same date as the
\nJewish Passover (Quartodeciman position, meaning \u201cfourteen\u201d from the 14th
\nof Nissan), signifying the atoning death of Jesus; while other Christians
\nbelieved that Pascha should be celebrated on a different day than the Jewish
\nPassover, commemorating Jesus\u2019 resurrection instead. The latter view won
\nand the first view was eventually declared heretical.
\nAs we read in verse 33b, Jesus\u2019 baptism was meant to identify and reveal
\nChrist to the sons and daughters of Israel (\u201cI came baptizing with water, that
\nhe might be revealed to Israel\u201d), but this process was only beginning in what
\nwe read in the pages of the Gospel. There were those who were yet to come
\ninto Israel \u2013 both in the North and in the South there would be a witness and
\na testimony that Jesus was indeed its long awaited Messiah, Savior and King.
\n32 And John bore witness: \u201cI saw the Spirit descend from
\nheaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not
\nknow him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n34
\nme, \u2018He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this
\nis he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.\u2019 34 And I have seen
\nand have borne witness that this is the Son of God.\u201d
\nIn verse 32 John evokes a powerful image of a dove landing as a sign. (Cf.
\nMatt. 3:16; Mk. 1:10; Lk. 3:22) It is usual to concentrate on the symbolism
\nof the dove in connection with the Holy Spirit. Without a doubt, such an
\nobvious connection exists, but we will be remiss if we do not also recall one
\nof the greatest stories of the Hebrew Bible \u2013 the story of the dove that, after
\nhaving been released by Noah several times, finally came to rest on dry
\nground. (Gen. 8) The dove became a symbol of safety, hope, peace and future.
\nAt the time of Jesus\u2019 baptism, the dove rested once again on the ultimate
\nsymbol of safety, hope, peace and future \u2013 the King of Israel, Jesus. This is
\nnot the only time in this Gospel that something of enormous symbolic
\nsignificance, like the dove in verse 32, rests on Jesus.
\nIn John 1:51<\/a>, Jesus said to Nathanael, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, you will
\nsee heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the
\nSon of Man.\u201d You will remember, of course, that in the dream of Jacob\u2019s
\nladder, the angels were ascending and descending at the site that became
\nknown as Bethel, or the House of God. (Gen. 28:10-19) Like a dove descending
\non Jesus, soon angels would repeat this highly symbolic act.
\nBethel, in Samaritan tradition, was their ancient center of worship. In fact,
\nthey believed that Mt. Gerizim and Bethel were one and the same place.9 The
\nfact that they were concerned for the spiritual future of Israel demonstrates
\nthat they were Israelites. Yet they were not Jerusalem-oriented Israelites like
\nJesus and his followers. Their center of worship was in Samaria on Mt.
\nGerizim.
\nThe particular interest in topics that appealed, though not exclusively, to
\nSamaritan Israelites, is characteristic of this Gospel. This points to the fact
\nthat it was first intended for various intra-Israelite groups, a major part of
\nwhich were Samaritan Israelites. This would explain why the author uses the
\nGreek word Ioudaioi the way he does. To Samaritan Israelites, the Jerusalemcentered
\nauthorities and their religious subordinates inside and outside of
\nJudea were simply \u2013 Ioudaioi.
\nIn verse 32, the technical term \u201cHoly Spirit\u201d is used for the first time in
\nthis Gospel. If we survey the wide variety of Israelite literature dating from
\nthe Hebrew Bible\/s to Rabbinic literature, we will see that the term \u201cHoly
\nSpirit\u201d is very rarely used. The only place where it appears frequently, other
\nthan in the New Testament, is in the sectarian writings of Qumran (the Dead
\nSea Scrolls). It is reasonable to suppose that either this term was coined in
\n9 The Samaritans, who were themselves Israelites, believed that Bethel, and not Mt. Zion in
\nJerusalem, must forever be the spiritual capital of the people of Israel.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n35
\nQumran, and later, via the nationwide Essene movement with which Qumran
\nwas probably associated, spread to the followers of Jesus, or that both
\nreligious movements inherited it from another source unknown to us.
\nJohn himself witnessed this descent of the Holy Spirit. (Jn. 1:34) But does
\nthis connect with the idea of being chosen by God to be the King of Israel? I
\nbelieve it does. The dove-resting symbolism is actually important in the
\ncontext of Jesus\u2019 role as Israel\u2019s King \u2013 its Good Shepherd. A 17th century
\nChristian collection of questions and answers asks the following question:
\n\u201cHow does Christ fulfill the office of a king?\u201d A succinct and clear answer is
\nprovided for the believer\u2019s instruction: \u201cChrist fulfills the office of a king, in
\nsubduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us, and in restraining and
\nconquering all his and our enemies.10\u201d This answer is profoundly accurate
\nwhen it comes to highlighting one of the most important functions of an
\nIsraelite king: to conquer and defend in order to provide safety. The doverelated
\nimagery in the Bible symbolizes safety, hope, peace and future,
\nexactly the kind of things that Israel\u2019s king was meant to provide for his
\npeople. It is in connection with this concept that the Gospel tells us that John
\nthe Baptist declared Jesus to be the chosen one of God. (Jn. 1:34)
\n35 The next day John was there again with two of his
\ndisciples. 36 When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, \u201cLook,
\nthe Lamb of God!\u201d 37 When the two disciples heard him say
\nthis, they followed Jesus. 38 Turning around, Jesus saw them
\nfollowing and asked, \u201cWhat do you want?\u201d They said,
\n\u201cRabbi\u201d (which means \u201cTeacher\u201d), \u201cwhere are you
\nstaying?\u201d 39 \u201cCome,\u201d he replied, \u201cand you will see.\u201d So they
\nwent and saw where he was staying, and they spent that day
\nwith him. It was about four in the afternoon. 40 Andrew,
\nSimon Peter\u2019s brother, was one of the two who heard what
\nJohn had said and who had followed Jesus. 41 The first thing
\nAndrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, \u201cWe
\nhave found the Messiah\u201d (that is, the Christ). 42 And he
\nbrought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, \u201cYou are
\nSimon son of John. You will be called Cephas\u201d (which, when
\ntranslated, is Peter).
\nIn John 1:35-38<\/a> we are told that, upon hearing John the Baptist
\nproclaiming Jesus to be the Passover Lamb of God, some of John\u2019s followers
\n10 Westminster Shorter CATECHISM,Q. 26.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n36
\nwent after Jesus. They followed him to the place where he stayed. One
\nrelevant issue for this kind of book is to note that they addressed him as
\n\u201cRabbi,\u201d which John also noted meant \u201cTeacher.\u201d (vs. 38)
\nThat Jesus was a Rabbi is nothing new. This fact is known to almost any
\nChristian who has given thought to the Jewishness of Jesus. However, for the
\npurpose of historical accuracy, it is important to note that Jesus was not a
\nRabbi in our sense of the word. In Judaism of the Second Temple period, the
\nword \u201cRabbi\u201d did not mean what it means today. It was not then an ordained
\nposition within the Jewish community, having a specific role attached to it. It
\nwas simply used as a title of respect, along with the acknowledgement that
\nthis person had things to teach others (the function of a teacher worthy of
\npeople\u2019s time).11 But this is only one side of the story. What if the New
\nTestament provides us a better window into the history of Judaism than do
\nother sources? What if Jesus really was a Rabbi in the sense of the word that
\nhas a significant level of continuity with its meaning today? After all, in later
\nrabbinic literature we do read of Rabbi Shammai and Rabbi Hillel, who both
\nlived before Jesus.12 What if later rabbinic texts were right, that there were
\nRabbis even before Jesus?! If so, the New Testament collection can be
\nconsidered the earliest collection of ancient literature that testifies to the
\nexistence of the office of a Jewish Rabbi; even if we still need to concede that
\nthe office of Rabbi was in its infancy.
\nAnother relevant issue that comes up here has to do with translations and
\nexplanations. John often provides translations or simple explanations of
\nHebrew and Aramaic terms or names in Greek. This is normally taken to
\nmean that John had a Gentile audience in view who knew little about Judaism,
\nso the author felt a need to explain all these things from the start. Here are
\nsome examples: Sea of Galilee \u2013 Sea of Tiberius (6:1; 21:1); Cephas \u2013 Peter
\n(1:42); Messiah \u2013 Anointed (1:40-41; 4:25); Rabbi \u2013 Teacher (1:38); Siloam
\n\u2013 Sent (9:7); Rabboni \u2013 Teacher (20:16). Strikingly, several times John
\ntranslates Greek back into Hebrew\/Aramaic as well, such as: Skull Hill \u2013
\nGolgotha (19:17), and Stone Pavement \u2013 Gabbatha. (19:13)
\nLet us imagine an unlikely scenario \u2013 that the Samaritans were indeed the
\nsole audience for the book of John. Could this back-and-forth translation still
\nfit? I believe the answer is \u201dyes.\u201d Just as all Jews\/Judeans\/Ioudaioi did not
\nlive in Judea, so all Samaritans did not live in Samaria. The Samaritan
\nDiaspora was widespread already from the Hellenistic times. These expatriate
\nSamaritans, like the Judeans in the diaspora, may not have had a command of
\nAramaic or Samaritan Hebrew. They may have needed translation and some
\nlimited explanations. Samaritans were not an exception. These expatriates,
\nespecially their children and grandchildren, had far less exposure to
\n11 Cf. John 11:28<\/a>.
\n12 Cf. mBer. 8; mPeah. 6; mShev. 4
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n37
\nSamaritan Hebrew than those who remained in their original communities.
\nThey may have needed Greek translations for the religious terms used. In fact,
\njust as with any immigrant community, the second and third generations may
\nhave had no command of Hebrew or Aramaic at all. The mere existence of
\nthe Samaritikon, the Greek Translation of the Samaritan version of Torah,
\n(like the Septuagint Greek version of Torah) argues for such a possibility.
\nThere was a substantial number of Samaritans in the diaspora and, perhaps,
\neven in parts of their thoroughly Hellenized Israelite homeland itself. The
\nabove argument about a diasporic Samaritan audience, though attractive, is
\nalso unnecessary, because both Samaria and Judah were thoroughly
\nHellenized. Jews in Jerusalem and Galilee had a good command of Koine
\nJudeo-Greek, but so did the Samaritan Israelites.
\n43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found
\nPhilip and said to him, \u201cFollow me.\u201d 44 Now Philip was from
\nBethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found
\nNathanael and said to him, \u201cWe have found him of whom
\nMoses in the Torah and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of
\nNazareth, the son of Joseph.\u201d 46 Nathanael said to him, \u201cCan
\nanything good come out of Nazareth?\u201d Philip said to him,
\n\u201cCome and see.\u201d
\nIn the Gospel of John we read about many witnesses. Everyone is
\ntestifying. The literary context seems to have a strong court motif in which
\nwitnesses are called to tell their story of interaction with Jesus, to help to
\nmake the author\u2019s case. As we come to the end of the first chapter, we meet
\nanother type of witness \u2013 Nathanael. This is a very interesting encounter
\nindeed. Nathanael\u2019s first reaction to Philip\u2019s claim that he and others found
\nthe Messiah, was rather disappointing in verse 46: \u201cCan any good thing come
\nout of Nazareth?\u201d For centuries this phrase has puzzled interpreters. What
\nwas wrong with Nazareth? Nazareth was a small village. In fact, according to
\narcheological evidence, it boasted no more than 200 residents. It was
\novershadowed by the Roman city, Sepphoris (Tzipori) with a cosmopolitan
\npopulation, only six kilometers away. The city served as an administrative
\ncenter for the region of Galilee under Herodian rule. Jesus must have spent
\ntime there as a child and youth, accompanying his parents for a wide variety
\nof reasons related to ordinary living. As a carpenter-builder, Jesus most likely
\nworked in Sepphoris during the city\u2019s extensive construction projects.
\nAlthough this needs to be considered further, it is possible that the fairly
\nsmall (even by the criteria of the time) Nazareth settlement was known as
\nsome kind of Judean affiliate center in Galilee by those who did not embrace
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n38
\nthe current Jerusalem leaders or Jerusalem at all. Nazareth\u2019s Judean
\nideological affiliation was a clear negative and signified that they were indeed
\nJerusalem\u2019s regional representatives in Galilee. The name of the village
\nprobably came from the Isaian Hebrew (Is. 11:1) by \u201cthe Branch\u201d (Netser).
\nAccording to Luke 4:16-30<\/a>, the Nazareth settlement radically rejected Jesus
\nalthough it was his \u201chometown.\u201d This may argue for the view that this village,
\nalong with the village of Cana, was one of those places which was considered
\nto be under Jerusalem\u2019s religious control and under the influence of the
\nIoudaioi, as we have discussed in previous commentary sections.
\nOver all, the Gospel of John paints a very clear picture of Jesus\u2019 reception
\nin Galilee as opposed to his utter rejection in Judea where, ironically, he
\nbelonged more than any other place. Almost every time Jesus was accepted,
\nit happened in Galilee; while his rejections were almost exclusively
\nconnected to the land of Judea. The otherwise important Galilean story of
\nJesus\u2019 rejection, found in Luke 4:14-30<\/a>, is not mentioned in John. It is
\ntherefore probable that: \u201chis own received him not\u201d (Jn. 1:11b), should be
\nread in connection with the largely Judean, Jerusalem-centered rejection of
\nJesus. After all, he was a Jerusalem-centered, Temple-centered Jew who was
\nnot accepted by his own; not in Jerusalem and not in the Jerusalem controlled
\nsettlements in Galilee. Why John does not include the Bethlehem birth
\nnarrative, as Matthew does, is not clear. It is possible the reason it was only
\nimplied, but not explicitly mentioned, is that the city of Bethlehem was too
\nstrongly connected with the Davidic dynasty \u2013 a connection that John
\nconsistently avoided because of his outreach to Samaritan Israelites, as per
\nmy theory. The Samaritans accepted the leading role of Judah, because their
\nown Torah stated such in Genesis 49:10<\/a>,13 but not the leading role of David\u2019s
\nfamily (2 Sam. 7:8-9)14 since this text was outside of \u201cthe canon\u201d for the
\nSamaritans traditions.
\n47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him,
\n\u201cBehold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!\u201d
\n48 Nathanael said to him, \u201cHow do you know me?\u201d Jesus
\nanswered him, \u201cBefore Philip called you, when you were
\nunder the fig tree, I saw you.\u201d 49 Nathanael answered him,
\n\u201cRabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!\u201d
\n50 Jesus answered him, \u201cBecause I said to you, \u2018I saw you
\n13 \u201cThe scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler\u2019s s taff from his descendants, until the
\ncoming of the one to whom it belongs, the one whom all nations will honor.\u201d (Gen. 49:10)
\n14 \u201cNow, therefore, thus you shall say to my servant David, \u2018Thus says the Lord of hosts, I took you
\nfrom the pasture, from following the sheep, that you should be prince over my people Israel. And I have
\nbeen with you wherever you went and have cut off all your enemies from before you. And I will make
\nfor you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth.\u201d (2 Sam. 7:8 -9)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n39
\nunder the fig tree,\u2019 do you believe? You will see greater things
\nthan these.\u201d 51 And he said to him, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you,
\nyou will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending
\nand descending on the Son of Man.\u201d
\nWhen Nathanael followed Phillip\u2019s advice and went to see Jesus, he was
\nwelcomed (in verse 47) with the words: \u201cBehold, an Israelite indeed, in whom
\nthere is no guile!\u201d With these words Jesus assured Nathanael that he saw him
\nunder the fig tree, doing something that only Nathanael understood. Not
\nknowing exactly what it was that Jesus referred to (vs. 48), it is hard to explain
\nwhy Nathanael, whose name means \u201cGod gave,\u201d responded to Jesus\u2019 words
\nwith the declaration: \u201cRabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of
\nIsrael.\u201d (vs. 49) \u201cSon of God\u201d and \u201cKing of Israel\u201d are therefore (in terms of
\nmeaning) one and the same concept. Since a simple Hebraic parallelism is
\nused \u2013 the second statement reiterates the point of the first.
\nIt is highly significant for the kind of questions we are asking in this book
\nthat Jesus referred to Nathanael, not as Ioudaiois (Jew\/Judean) in whom there
\nis no guile, but in a more generic way: \u201can Israelite (\u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03b7\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) indeed in
\nwhom there is no guile.\u201d (vs. 47) This terminology was perfectly fitting for a
\nSamaritan audience as well as for other Israelite movements. (It would
\nprobably have been understood by so-called God-fearers as well.)
\nNathanael\u2019s response, therefore, points in the direction of a non -Judean
\naudience. Nathanael referred to Jesus not as the King of the Ioudaioi only,
\nbut as the King of Israel (vs. 49). The Gospel of John will continue to
\nbuild the dichotomy between those who follow Jesus and the Ioudaioi
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n40
\nwho did not. Those who did not would be shown over and over again as
\nnot possessing necessary insight into the most important matters that
\npertain to Israel and her God.
\nIn verse 51, Jacob\u2019s dream is evoked.15 According to the biblical story,
\nJacob most likely dreamed about an ancient ziggurat-like structure that, in the
\nmind of the ancients, always had a temple on its summit with stairs leading
\nto it. In the dream, Jacob saw angels ascending and descending upon Bethel
\n(house of God), where he had fallen asleep. Remember, the Samaritans
\nthought Bethel and Gerizim were one and the same place. (Even today, the
\nSamaritan village of Luza16 is located essentially next to Mt. Gerizim.) Jesus,
\nin talking to Nathanael, assured him that he had not yet seen what would later
\nbe revealed, \u201c\u2026you shall see the heavens opened and the messengers of God
\nascending and descending on the Son of Man.\u201d In the Genesis story it was
\n\u201cSamaritan\u201d Bethel that was at the foot of \u201cJacob\u2019s ladder\u201d (Gen. 28); but in
\nJohn\u2019s Gospel, the House of God (Bethel), had become the person of Jesus
\n(vs. 51). The implication of this cannot be overstated. In making reference to
\nJacob\u2019s dream, Jesus indicated to Nathanael that he too would see angels
\nascending and descending, but not on Bethel, as in the story of Jacob, but
\nupon Jesus himself. This is, of course, stated here in chapter 1 in anticipation
\nof the monumental encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in
\nchapter 4: \u201c\u2026the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in
\nJerusalem will you worship the Father.\u201d (Jn. 4:21) The basic idea is clear:
\nWhen all is said and done, Jesus, for both Judeans and Samaritans, will be the
\nfocal point of the meeting with Israel\u2019s God.
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\n15 Gen 28:10-22; Josephus Ant. 1.19.1-3.
\n16 Modern Luza was founded in 1980 due to the tensions caused by the first intifada. Luza\u2019s
\nresidents are Samaritan transplants from Nablus.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n41
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n42
\nChapter 2
\nThe Wedding at Cana; The First
\nPassover; The Cleansing of the
\nTemple
\n\uf041 1On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in
\nGalilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was
\ninvited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran
\nout, the mother of Jesus said to him, \u201cThey have no wine.\u201d
\n4 And Jesus said to her, \u201cWoman, what does this have to do
\nwith me? My hour has not yet come.\u201d 5 His mother said to the
\nservants, \u201cDo whatever he tells you.\u201d 6 Now there were six
\nstone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each
\nholding twenty or thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to the servants,
\n\u201cFill the jars with water.\u201d And they filled them up to the brim.
\n8 And he said to them, \u201cNow draw some out and take it to the
\nmaster of the feast.\u201d So they took it. 9 When the master of the
\nfeast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know
\nwhere it came from (though the servants who had drawn the
\nwater knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom
\n10 and said to him, \u201cEveryone serves the good wine first, and
\nwhen people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you
\nhave kept the good wine until now.\u201d 11 This, the first of his
\nsigns, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory.
\nAnd his disciples believed in him. 12 After this he went down
\nto Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his
\ndisciples, and they stayed there for a few days.
\nSo we are now in the second chapter of John and we are being told about
\nwhat happened in the village called Cana of Galilee. Jesus and his family
\nwere there. (2:1, 12). He also invited his disciples. (2:2) The well-known story
\nof the water that was turned into wine follows this introduction. The wedding
\noccurred on Tuesday or the third day of the Israelite week. The irony here is
\nthe third day of the Israelite week in Torah carried certain importance. After
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n43
\nall in Genesis 1:9-13<\/a> the phrase \u201cGod saw that it was good\u201d is stated twice
\n(vs.10 and vs. 12). In other words the wedding happening on the third day of
\nthe week evoked in the ancient Israelite mind the idea of God\u2019s blessing upon
\nthe event. But very quickly we saw that the families who organized the
\nmarriage feast ran out of wine \u2013 one of the symbols of blessing in Israelite
\nculture.
\nThis text is important since it begins a series of seven miracles that Jesus
\nperformed. (2:1-11; 4:43-54; 5:1-9; 6:1-5; 6:16-25; 9:1-41; 11:1-44) Every
\none of the miracles shows how the created order submitted itself to Jesus\u2019
\nauthority. As part of the whole Gospel narrative, these seven miracles testify
\nto Jesus\u2019 authority to do what he does and to say what he says. As we are
\nconsidering the way in which the author uses the Ioudaioi, there is something
\nelse of importance for us as we move through this Gospel. We read in 2:6:
\n\u201cNow there were six stone water pots set there for the purification of the
\nIoudaioi, containing two or three measures each.\u201d It is often argued that the
\nbest way to translate the Ioudaioi is simply \u2013 \u201cJudeans.\u201d It is also often
\nargued, that the Ioudaioi were Jerusalemite authorities. Both of these theories
\nfall short in explaining references like these, when the Ioudaioi were
\npermanently present outside of Judea. A geographical Judean location was
\nnot a necessary condition for people to be classified as Ioudaioi and John 2:6<\/a>
\nis not the only example of this. Cana was in Galilee, and so were the Ioudaioi.
\nIn another instance, opposition from the Ioudaioi was seen in Galilee – in
\nKfar Nahum (Capernaum). In this passage (Jn. 6:24-59), we read that the
\ncrowd, together with the assembled leadership of the Kfar Nahum synagogue,
\nasked Jesus to perform miracles as verification of his authority. Jesus
\ncharacteristically challenged this authority structure, saying that his authority
\ndid not reside with the current Jerusalem leadership but with his Father. (Jn.
\n6:24-59) In this case also, the Ioudaioi in Kfar Nahum should be viewed as
\nthe adherents or religious affiliates of \u201cthe Ioudaioi proper,\u201d the Judeancentered
\nruling elite and the system they administered.
\n13 The Passover of the Ioudaioi was at hand, and Jesus went
\nup to Jerusalem.
\nOn a number of occasions, the Gospel states that Jesus celebrated the
\nfeasts of the Ioudaioi. (5:1; 6:4; 7:2) Given that the first century non-Jewish
\nconverts mostly hailed from the so called \u201cGod-fearing\u201d circles that were
\nsomehow connected to the Jewish synagogues, almost no one in the original
\naudience of this Gospel needed to be repeatedly told that Passover was a
\nJewish (versus Roman) holiday. Anyone with an interest in Christ-related
\nclaims already knew that Passover had something to do with the people of
\nIsrael. After all, the general Jewish presence was numerous and well spread
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n44
\nthroughout the Empire, consisting of between 6-10% of total population.
\nThe designation \u201cJewish\u201d Passover, as many Bibles translate it, or more
\nliterally \u201cthe Passover of the Ioudaioi\/Jews\u201d (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd), is
\nstated each time this feast is mentioned (Jn. 2:13, 6:4; 7:2; 11:51-5517) but
\nstrikingly, the winter Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) never had the word
\n\u201cJewish\u201d attached to it. (Jn. 10:22) This was because the Samaritan Israelites
\ndid not celebrate this holiday and hence there was no need to specify whose
\ncalendar it followed. Keep in mind that the Samaritans rejected the legitimacy
\nof the Jerusalem Temple and would have had no reason to celebrate its
\ncleansing and rededication as the Judean Israelites and their affiliates did.
\nThis point argues that Samaritan Israelites were very much at the center of
\nthe Gospel of John\u2019s audience, and not simply part of it like everyone else.
\nApart from Samaritan and Jewish Passovers, other Passovers were
\ncelebrated according to different Israelite calendars.18 Because of this, it was
\nimportant to specify which Passover Jesus observed. Jesus was not a
\nSamaritan, nor did he observe the Passover according to the calendar of
\nQumranites from the Judean desert (Dead Sea Scrolls community). His
\nholiday celebrations, his birth in and his burial according to the customs of
\nthe Ioudaioi (Jn. 19:40), all harken back to John 1:11<\/a>b (\u201chis own received
\nhim not\u201d), where Jesus\u2019 national, cultural and religious identity as Ioudaios
\n(a Jew) was already firmly established.
\n14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and
\nsheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there.
\n15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the
\ntemple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins
\nof the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 And he
\ntold those who sold the pigeons, \u201cTake these things away; do
\n17 Cf. John 19:42<\/a>
\n18 The author of Jubilees is a strong critic of the lunar calendar. (cf. Jub. 6.32-38)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n45
\nnot make my Father\u2019s house a house of trade.\u201d 17 His disciples
\nremembered that it was written, \u201cZeal for your house will
\nconsume me.\u201d
\nHere we see Jesus perform the highly symbolic act of Temple cleansing
\nby dispersing those who turned the house of God into a profane, but profitable
\nindustry. (2:14-15) It was Jesus\u2019 passion and commitment to purify Israel\u2019s
\nreligion that moved him to take this action. (verses 16-17) Jesus\u2019 concern here
\nseems to be very different from his motivation as described in the synoptic
\nGospels (Matt. 21:12-27; Mk. 11:15-33; Lk. 19:45\u201320:8), which may point
\nto this Gospel\u2019s higher concern for issues of purity. It is striking that the
\nsynoptic Gospels use a different quotation from the Old Testament to describe
\nthe reason for the cleansing of the Temple. While Mark quotes Jesus as saying
\n\u201cIs it not written, \u2018My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the
\nnations?\u2019 But you have made it a robbers\u2019 den.\u201d (Mk. 11:17) John on the other
\nhand, explains Jesus\u2019 action in a very different way. We read in John 2:17<\/a>:
\n\u201c\u2026 Zeal for your house will consume me.\u201d
\nFor Mark and the Synoptic Gospels, the issue seems to be the loss of
\nIsrael\u2019s meaningful engagement with Gentiles (Light of the World idea19).
\nThe emphasis on the purity of the Temple, versus the loss of the Light of the
\nNations outlook in the synoptic accounts, argues that the audience shared
\nthese concerns and presumably would have resonated with this message. For
\nJohn\u2019s Gospel, the issue is the appropriateness and purity of the place used
\nfor the worship of Israel\u2019s God. He hereby declares the Temple in Jerusalem
\nunfit for divine worship. The apostate stewards of the Temple were to blame.
\nIn this way, just like the Qumranites, Jesus believed that the Temple needed
\nto be cleansed of impurity.
\n18 So the Ioudaioi said to him, \u201cWhat sign do you show us
\nfor doing these things?\u201d 19 Jesus answered them, \u201cDestroy this
\ntemple, and in three days I will raise it up.\u201d 20 The Ioudaioi
\nthen said, \u201cIt has taken forty-six years to build this temple,
\nand will you raise it up in three days?\u201d 21 But he was speaking
\nabout the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised
\nfrom the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this,
\nand they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had
\nspoken. 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover
\nFeast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he
\n19 Is. 42:6; 49:6; 51:4; 60:3.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n46
\nwas doing. 24 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them,
\nbecause he knew all people 25 and needed no one to bear witness
\nabout man, for he himself knew what was in man.
\nThe authority that Jesus displayed in the prophetic action of cleansing the
\nTemple was once again highlighting the basic question that was implicitly
\nasked \u2013 \u201cWho is and who should be in charge of God\u2019s people, Israel?\u201d The
\nGospel\u2019s answer, predictably, is King Jesus. The text above, verses 23-25,
\nmust not be separated from the preceding verses 13-22, which describe the
\nsame thing \u2013 Jerusalem during the Passover. We must see verse 23 continuing
\nwhat was begun in Jerusalem some verses earlier. In Greek, \u201cJesus on his part
\ndid not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people,\u201d could and
\nshould (because of the overall context) be translated: \u201cJesus on his part did
\nnot believe in them, because he knew them all.\u201d (Jn. 2:24) With this slight
\ntranslation adjustment, what comes before and what follows in the Gospel
\naccount fits much better, especially with the follow-up of verse 25 (\u201cneeded
\nno one to bear witness\u201d).
\nThis kind of formula, \u201cshow\/tell us\u201d (18 \u201cWhat sign do you show us for
\ndoing these things?\u201d), will be raised again by the Ioudaioi on several
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n47
\noccasions. On each occasion, the point was that they were formally in charge
\nof religious life in ancient Israel under Roman occupation. Jesus\u2019 response
\ncould not have been more explicit than what he says in 2:19: \u201cDestroy this
\ntemple, and in three days I will raise it up.\u201d The authorities could not have
\nbeen more devalued. This was the case whether or not they understood it as
\nthey did (2:20), or as they should have (2:21). Without bothering to explain
\nwhat he really meant, Jesus denied the authority of the Ioudaioi.
\nOne of the clearest examples of this \u201cshow us\/I refuse\u201d dynamic is found
\nin John Chapter 10. The Ioudaioi challenged Jesus to submit his candidacy
\nfor Messiahship to them \u2013 the Jerusalemite leadership. Jesus refused, saying
\nthat his Father and his own deeds were enough to prove his authority, thus
\nrejecting their authority:
\n\u201cThe Ioudaioi gathered around him, saying, \u2018How long will you keep us
\nin suspense? If you are the Anointed One, tell us plainly.\u2019 Jesus answered, \u2018I
\ndid tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father\u2019s name
\nspeak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.\u2019\u201d (Jn.
\n10:24-27)
\nThis text is most often read as an instance of Jesus\u2019 general lack of clarity
\nin declaring his Messiahship. However, I think this is unwarranted. The
\nrequest of the Ioudaioi should not be read: \u201cHow long will you keep us in
\nsuspense? If you are the Anointed one, tell us plainly,\u201d but rather, \u201cHow long
\nwill you keep us in suspense? If you are the Anointed One, tell us plainly.\u201d
\nFrom the standpoint of the Ioudaioi, their authority to validate Jesus\u2019
\ncandidacy for Messiahship was not being honored. Jesus drew large crowds
\nwho followed him. The blind saw, the lame walked, lepers were cured, the
\ndeaf heard, and the dead came back to life. (Matt. 11:2-5; Is. 29:17-21) Jesus\u2019
\nidentity as Messiah was self-evident, but he had failed to declare himself as
\nsuch to the Jerusalem authorities. This was the reasoning behind their
\ndemand. (How long will you keep us in suspense?) Jesus, however,
\nconsistently stated that his miracles, and therefore his Father\u2019s witness of his
\nMessiahship, were enough to establish him as God\u2019s Messianic Servant. (Jn.
\n10:25-42) He refused to acknowledge the Jerusalem rulers\u2019 authority over
\nhim and by extension, over the whole of Israel. Jesus was the one to whom
\nIsrael\u2019s covenantal God had entrusted such authority and therefore,
\nsubmitting himself to the illegitimate, or at least lower level authority of the
\nIoudaioi, was out of the question. (Matt. 26:63-64)
\nWe see that the Ioudaioi assumed they had the right to approve or
\ndisapprove of Jesus, and were already engaged in the process of judging him.
\nThey challenged him at that time, and more explicitly later, to prove who he
\nwas. Jesus refused.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n48
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\n49
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n50
\nChapter 3
\nJesus and Nicodemus; John the
\nBaptizer\u2019s Testimony
\n\uf041 1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named
\nNicodemus, a ruler of the Ioudaioi.
\nNicodemus is named here as ruler of the Ioudaioi. While we cannot know
\nthis for sure, it is probable that Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin,
\nthe Jewish ruling council, whose limited authority was sanctioned by the
\nRoman government. It is obvious that Nicodemus had an uneasy connection
\nwith the Ioudaioi. On the one hand, he was an integral part of it; on the other,
\nhe was afraid and pressured by it. As such, he often felt he did not belong.
\nFor example, we see that Nicodemus came to Jesus at night. In John 7:50-52<\/a>
\nwe read that when Nicodemus raised doubts about the legitimacy of Jesus\u2019
\narrest, he was immediately questioned concerning his loyalty: \u201cNicodemus,
\nwho had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them,
\n\u2018Does our Torah judge a man without first giving him a hearing and
\nlearning what he does?\u2019 They replied, \u2018Are you from Galilee too?\u2019\u201d
\nNicodemus\u2019 final appearance, this time with Joseph of Arimathea, can be
\nfound in John 19:38-40<\/a>:
\n\u201cAfter these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus,
\nbut secretly for fear of the Ioudaioi, asked Pilate that he might take
\naway the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came
\nand took away his body. Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus
\nby night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventyfive
\npounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in
\nlinen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Ioudaioi.\u201d
\nThe meaning of the name Nicodemus, in Koine Judeo-Greek20, the
\n20 The entire original text of the document we have come to know as the New Testament was
\nwritten by Christ-following Jews (in the ancient sense of the word) in a language that can be best
\ndescribed, not simply as Koine (or Common) Greek, but as \u201cKoine Judeo-Greek.\u201d First of all what is Koine
\nGreek? Koine Greek (which is different from Classical Greek) was the common multi -regional form of
\nGreek spoken and written during Hellenistic and Roman antiquity. However, I do not think that the kind
\nof Greek we see in the New Testament can be best described ONLY as Koine Greek. There is another
\ncomponent to this Koine Greek and that is its significant Jewish and Hebrew connection. I prefer to call
\nit \u201cJudeo-Greek\u201d (or Judeo Koine Greek). What is Judeo-Greek? Well\u2026 Judeo Greek, like the well-known
\nJudeo-German (Yiddish), Judeo-Spanish (Ladino), and the less familiar Judeo-Farsi, Judeo-Arabic, JudeoThe
\nJewish Gospel of John
\n51
\nlanguage in which this Gospel was written, is
\n\u201cconqueror of the people.\u201d A reader of the
\nBible in its English translation must reimagine
\nhow a Greek speaker would have heard these
\ntexts. This \u201cConqueror of the People\u201d
\n(Nicodemus) was consistently afraid of the
\nIoudaioi \u2013 a closed network of people of which
\nhe was an honored member as long as he
\ncomplied with the agenda and abided by the
\ngroup\u2019s rules.
\n2 This man came to Jesus by night
\nand said to him, \u201cRabbi, we know
\nthat you are a teacher come from
\nGod, for no one can do these signs
\nthat you do unless God is with him.\u201d
\nItalian, and Judean-Georgian languages, is simply a form of Greek used by Jews to communicate. This
\nlanguage retained many words, phrases, grammatical structures, and patterns of thought characteristic
\nof the Hebrew language.
\nSo is Judeo-Greek really Greek? Yes, it is, but it is Greek that inherited the patterns of Semitic
\nthought and expression. In this way, it is different from the types of Greek used by other people groups.
\nSo I disagree that the New Testament was first written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek.
\nInstead, I think it was written in Greek by people who thought Jewishly, and what is perhaps more
\nimportant, multi-lingually. You see\u2026 the speakers of a variety of languages manage to also think in a
\nvariety of languages. When they do speak, however, they always import into one language something
\nthat comes from another. It is never a question of \u201cif,\u201d but only of \u201chow much.\u201d
\nWe must remember that the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek by leading
\nJewish scholars of the day. Legend has it that the 70 individual Jewish sages made separate translations
\nof the Hebrew Bible and when they were completed, all of it matched perfectly. As I said, \u201cit is a legend.\u201d
\nThe number 70 is likely symbolic of the 70 nations of the world in ancient Judaism. This translation was
\nnot only meant for Greek-speaking Jews, but also for non-Jews so that they too could have access to the
\nHebrew Bible. You can imagine how many Hebraic words, phrases, and patterns of thought are present
\non every page of the Septuagint. So, other than the authors of the New Testament thinking Jewishly and
\nHebraically, we also have the main source of their Old Testament quotations coming from another
\nJewish-authored document \u2013 the Septuagint. So is it surprising that the New Testament is full of Hebraic
\nforms expressed in Greek?!
\nAs a side note, the use of the Septuagint by New Testament writers is actually a very exciting
\nconcept. The Jewish text of the Hebrew Bible used today is the Masoretic Text (MT for short). When the
\nDead Sea Scrolls were finally examined (a subject covered in my video about Dead Sea Scrolls and the
\nNew Testament), it turned out that there was not one, but three different families of Biblical traditions
\nin the time of Jesus. One of them closely matched the Masoretic text, one closely matched the
\nSeptuagint, and one seems to have connections with the Samaritan Torah. Among other things, this of
\ncourse shows that the Septuagint quoted by the New Testament has great value, since it was based
\nupon a Hebrew text that was at least as old as the original base text of the later Masoretic Text (MT).
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n52
\nNicodemus addresses Jesus using the
\nrespectful term \u201cRabbi,\u201d (\u1fec\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03af), which
\nacknowledges that, despite the acrimony
\ntowards him, Jesus was still someone
\nimportant, even for a powerful member
\nof the Jerusalem ruling elite. The term
\n\u201cwe know\u201d most likely refers to a group
\nof leaders inside the Sanhedrin who
\nthought Jesus was indeed a very positive
\nfigure. Although there may have been
\nother reasons for doing so, it is likely that
\nthe reason Nicodemus came to Jesus at
\nnight was to avoid being seen and
\nquestioned about him by others within
\nthe Ioudaioi system.
\n3 Jesus answered him, \u201cTruly,
\ntruly, I say to you, unless one is
\nborn again he cannot see the
\nkingdom of God.\u201d 4 Nicodemus
\nsaid to him, \u201cHow can a man be
\nborn when he is old? Can he
\nenter a second time into his
\nmother\u2019s womb and be born?\u201d
\n5 Jesus answered, \u201cTruly, truly, I
\nsay to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he
\ncannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the
\nflesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do
\nnot marvel that I said to you, \u2018You must be born again.\u2019 8 The
\nwind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you
\ndo not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with
\neveryone who is born of the Spirit.\u201d
\nAncient Judaism celebrated several rituals which marked the stages of the
\nJewish life cycle, beginning with birth and circumcision (Gen 17:10-14;
\nJosephus, Ant. 1.10.5), continuing on to ordination and various levels of
\nJewish leadership, and culminating in the death of that individual at a ripe
\nage. Nicodemus was in his final stage of such a life cycle (ripe age and highlevel
\nJewish leadership status) when Jesus surprised him with his statement
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n53
\nthat \u201cyou must be born again.\u201d Later in the story, Jesus respectfully
\nchallenges Nicodemus\u2019 affiliation with the Ioudaioi by saying: \u201cAre you the
\nteacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?\u201d (Jn. 3:10)
\nIn verse 8 we read that Jesus explained to Nicodemus that God\u2019s Spirit is
\nan unbridled personal cosmic force that submits to the leadership of God
\nalone. This personal cosmic force brings about the new birth that allows
\nsomeone to be counted among those belonging to the Kingdom of God. Jesus\u2019
\nrhetorical question to Nicodemus was also a challenge to the authority of the
\nIoudaioi of which Nicodemus, at least for the time being, was still a part.
\nThroughout the Gospel we see that the Ioudaioi show themselves to be
\nclueless and insensitive to the things of the Spirit. It is no wonder that
\nNicodemus, the best and most spiritually aware of them, does not know what
\nthe One sent by God has in mind.
\nOn one hand, this challenge showed the Jerusalem leaders in a negative
\nlight, while at the same time it was meant to provoke an appropriate question
\nin the mind of the Samaritan and other Israelite readers: \u201cWhat if my
\nsages\/leaders are also just as blinded and spiritually incapable as the
\nleadership of Jerusalem?\u201d The story was a Judean self-critique that was meant
\nto provoke Samaritan Israelites, among others, to challenge their own
\nauthorities and to seriously consider pledging their allegiance to Jesus. The
\nmain challenger to the current Judean and Samaritan leadership structures
\nwas talking with Nicodemus at night. His name was Jesus. He was the Son of
\nthe Living God.
\n12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe,
\nhow can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one
\nhas ascended into heaven except he who descended from
\nheaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent
\nin the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that
\nwhoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16 \u201cFor God so
\nloved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever
\nbelieves in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For
\nGod did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
\nbut in order that the world might be saved through him.
\n18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever
\ndoes not believe is condemned already, because he has not
\nbelieved in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the
\njudgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved
\nthe darkness rather than the light because their works were
\nevil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n54
\nand does not come to the light, lest his works should be
\nexposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light,
\nso that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried
\nout in God.\u201d
\nJesus continued his conversation with
\nNicodemus around the familiar theme of the Son of
\nMan. This was a well-known concept at the time of
\nJesus. For example, the Book of Enoch speaks
\nabout a divine eschatological figure: the Son of
\nMan. We read:
\n\u201cAnd in that place I saw the fountain of
\nrighteousness which was inexhaustible: and
\naround it were many fountains of wisdom; and
\nall the thirsty drank of them, and were filled with
\nwisdom, fountains of wisdom\u2026 And at that hour
\nthat Son of Man was named in the presence of
\nthe Lord of Spirits, and his name before the Head
\nof Days. Yea, before the sun and the signs were
\ncreated, before the stars of the heaven were
\nmade, His name was named before the Lord of
\nSpirits. He shall be a staff to the righteous
\nwhereon to stay themselves and not fall, and he
\nshall be the light of the Gentiles\u2026 All who
\ndwell on earth shall fall down and worship
\nbefore him, and will praise and bless and
\ncelebrate with song the Lord of Spirits. And for
\nthis reason hath he been chosen and hidden
\nbefore Him, before the creation of the world and
\nfor evermore.\u201d (1 Enoch 48) \u201c\u2026 and from
\nhenceforth there shall be nothing corruptible; for
\nthat Son of Man has appeared, and has seated
\nhimself on the throne of his glory, and all evil
\nshall pass away before his face, and the word of
\nthat Son of Man shall go forth and be strong
\nbefore the Lord of Spirits.\u201d (1 Enoch 69)
\nThis Enochite Jewish tradition is of course
\nworking very closely with texts like Daniel 7:13-14<\/a>:
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n55
\n\u201cI kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of
\nheaven One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the
\nAncient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given
\ndominion, glory and a kingdom that all the peoples, nations and men of
\nevery language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting
\ndominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will
\nnot be destroyed.\u201d
\nIt is based on this passage in Daniel that Jesus told Nicodemus no one
\ncould go up to heaven if he had not first come down from heaven (3:13). Jesus
\nthen predicted that the Son of Man would also be lifted up (3:14) just as the
\nbronze serpent was raised up by Moses (Num. 21) when the Israelites were
\ndying in the desert. Before we continue, let\u2019s stop and think about this
\nanalogy. We almost automatically connect the pole and the serpent with the
\nwooden cross where Jesus was crucified. We do so mostly because, in many
\npictorial presentations, Christian artists have painted Moses holding up the
\ncross with the bronze serpent pictured on it. However, does the \u201clifted up\u201d
\nrefer only to Jesus\u2019 crucifixion? We must remember that Jesus said this to
\nNicodemus before the crucifixion took place, not after.
\nWhat is important at this moment is that we also continue to reimagine
\nJesus talking to Nicodemus in 3:16-21 in the famous \u201cfor-God-so-loved-theworld\u201d
\ntext. Why is this important? Because normally, our reading ends with
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n56
\nverse 15 and we think of verse 16 as the beginning of a new section with new
\nideas. I would like to suggest that such a division is arbitrary and problematic.
\nIf read separately, these words are no longer the words of Jesus, but rather a
\ntheological commentary by the author of the Gospel on the preceding words
\nof Jesus. While possible, nothing in the text necessitates such a conclusion.
\nThe most natural reading of the text is to see it being fully continuous
\nwith the previous words of Jesus to Nicodemus. It is Jesus who continues to
\nspeak to Nicodemus with the words: \u201cfor God so loved the world.\u201d If this is
\ncorrect, then what Jesus tells Nicodemus does not refer primarily to the future
\nevent of Jesus\u2019 crucifixion and death, but to Israel\u2019s God\u2019s appointment of
\nJesus to rule over Israel.
\nI fully realize that Jesus\u2019 death on the cross is very important to John and
\nin another sense it would become part of what \u201cGod gave,\u201d however, since
\nJesus\u2019 death has not yet taken place, Nicodemus could not be expected to
\nunderstand it the way we do. It is much more likely that Nicodemus would
\nhave understood \u201cthe lifting up\u201d as the ascension of Jesus as the Son of Man
\naccording to Daniel\u2019s night visions. This is why this section directly follows
\nthe discussion about the Son of Man who comes down in order to go up. (Jn.
\n3:13 and Dan. 7:13-14) On the other hand, it would be a mistake to think that
\nJesus was not also preparing Nicodemus for another intermediary \u201clifting up\u201d
\n– the kind that the enemies of Israel\u2019s God did to Jesus on Calvary\u2019s cross. In
\nthe Torah, looking up at the bronze serpent on the pole destroyed the venom
\nof the serpent\u2019s bite and brought life to the people of Israel. Likewise, Jesus\u2019
\nsuffering and death on the cross also speaks of judgment and victory over the
\n\u201cvenom of the serpent\u2019s bite.\u201d The ascension is a glorious picture of victory
\nover the enemies of God and his Israel, but one must first look to the Cross
\nwhere Jesus, the King of All Israel, is first lifted up. When Nicodemus saw
\nthe Son of Man crucified\/lifted up, he must have recalled Jesus\u2019 words, and
\nyes, also by faith understood that his ascension was soon coming. At the time,
\nJesus\u2019 statement sounded strange and disconnected. After the crucifixion, one
\nimagines that Nicodemus waited quietly to see the fulfilment of what he
\nbelieved Jesus had said.
\nThe above discussion brings Psalm 2<\/a> to our minds.21 There we read:
\n\u201cWhy do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the
\nearth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the
\nLord and against his Anointed, saying, \u2018Let us burst their bonds apart
\nand cast away their cords from us.\u2019 He who sits in the heavens laughs;
\nthe Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath
\nand terrify them in his fury, saying, \u2018As for me, I have set my King on
\nZion, my holy hill.\u2019 I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, \u2018You
\n21 Cf. 2 Sam 7:12-14.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n57
\nare my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the
\nnations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You
\nshall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a
\npotter\u2019s vessel.\u2019 Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers
\nof the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss
\nthe Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is
\nquickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.\u201d
\nIn a surprising twist, the unworthy shepherds of Israel, whom Jesus had
\ncome to judge, have joined the nations raging against the Covenant Lord of
\nIsrael and the God-appointed King. It is they who have raised their voices and
\nfists against the Lord and His Anointed One, Jesus. Yet, the royal decree
\nappointing and installing Jesus as the King over Israel has made things clear:
\nThey must honor God\u2019s royal Son or perish in their ways. (Jn. 3:18-21)
\n22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean
\ncountryside, and he remained there with them and was
\nbaptizing. 23 John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim,
\nbecause water was plentiful there, and people were coming
\nand being baptized 24 (for John had not yet been put in prison).
\n25 Now a discussion arose between some of John\u2019s disciples
\nand a Jew over purification. 26 And they came to John and said
\nto him, \u201cRabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to
\nwhom you bore witness \u2013 look, he is baptizing, and all are
\ngoing to him.\u201d 27 John answered, \u201cA person cannot receive
\neven one thing unless it is given him from heaven. 28 You
\nyourselves bear me witness that I said, \u2018I am not the Christ,
\nbut I have been sent before him.\u2019 29 The one who has the bride
\nis the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands
\nand hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom\u2019s voice.
\nTherefore this joy of mine is now complete. 30 He must
\nincrease, but I must decrease. 31 He who comes from above is
\nabove all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and
\nspeaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above
\nall. 32 He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no
\none receives his testimony. 33 Whoever receives his testimony
\nsets his seal to this, that God is true. 34 For he whom God has
\nsent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without
\nmeasure. 35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n58
\ninto his hand. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life;
\nwhoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath
\nof God remains on him.\u201d
\nJohn very briefly draws our attention back to John the Baptist. He brings
\nus back, only to move us forward in his narrative presentation of Jesus\u2019 life
\nas he continues to make his case for Jesus\u2019 supremacy. The crucial time has
\ncome. The ministry of Jesus is to supersede the well-established, prophetic,
\nanointed ministry of John the Baptist. If we are to see this story in connection
\nwith the thesis that the Gospel may have been written with Samaritan
\nIsraelites, among other Israelites, in mind, its literary setting will be even
\nmore significant than it may seem at first. The Samaritan Israelites were
\npersuaded that they had always followed a more faithful way than had the
\nJudean Israelites.
\nWe are not told the specifics of what the debate was about (vs. 25), but
\nwe are told that, following this apparently heated discussion with one Judean
\n(\u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2), the followers of John the Baptist came to question him about the
\nrising popularity of Jesus\u2019 ministry among the people. (Jn. 3:25-26) The
\nBaptist then confirmed to his disciples that Jesus is the one who has
\nsupremacy, reminding them that he had previously told them so. (Jn. 3:27-
\n28) John compared himself to the best friend at a bridegroom\u2019s wedding who
\nrejoices with the bridegroom but is not the center of the celebration. John the
\nBaptist\u2019s disciples needed to follow John in allowing Jesus to take the lead.
\n\u201cHe,\u201d said John, \u201cmust increase, but I must decrease.\u201d (vs. 30) In fact, this
\nstatement by John foreshadows Jesus\u2019 statement to the Samaritan woman that
\nwill soon follow \u201c\u2026 believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this
\nmountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.\u201d (Jn. 4:21)
\nHere, like earlier in the chapter (Jn. 3:16-21), we must remember that
\nJohn the Baptist is continuing to speak. The Gospel\u2019s author places the words
\nrecorded in verses 31-36 in his mouth. John the Baptist makes a statement
\nstrikingly similar to Jesus\u2019 statement to Nicodemus. You will recall Jesus\u2019
\nwords to Nicodemus: \u201cFor God did not send his Son into the world to
\ncondemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in
\nhim is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned
\nalready because they have not believed in the name of God\u2019s one and only
\nSon.\u201d (Jn. 3:16-18) John the Baptist says to his followers: \u201cThe Father loves
\nthe Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son
\nhas eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath
\nof God remains on him.\u201d (Jn. 3:35-36)
\nIt is essential to note that both John the Baptist and Jesus expected
\nNicodemus and the Jewish disciples of John the Baptist to understand and
\nrelate to the language of the supremacy of the royal Son of God. In other
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n59
\nwords, for this phrase to be used so openly and freely, it must not, as we are
\naccustomed to think, have been a new or foreign concept to them. After all,
\nthe sonship of God concept was the very argument that both Jesus and John
\nthe Baptist employed to prove their point.
\nThe Samaritan Israelites, among others, needed to accept that Jesus was
\nthe chosen King with legitimate authority from above (not from Jerusalem,
\nwhich they opposed). He was the Son of Israel\u2019s God \u2013 His royal appointee.
\n(Ps. 2) To listen to Jesus meant to listen to God himself; to disobey Jesus
\nmeant to disobey God himself. Jesus was not optional for John\u2019s disciples,
\nfor Samaritan Israelites, or for anyone else who might stumble over these
\nwords in years to come \u2013 His capable rule over God\u2019s people was an
\nunavoidable necessity and their only real hope for prosperity and peace.
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n60
\n61
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n62
\nChapter 4
\nJesus and the Samaritan Woman:
\nRereading a Beloved Story
\nThis chapter, that relates the story of Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman
\nat Jacob\u2019s well, begins by setting the stage for what will take place later in
\nSamaria, and is rooted in what has already, by this time in the Gospel\u2019s
\nprogress, taken place in Judea. Jesus\u2019 rapidly growing popularity resulted in
\na significant following. Jesus\u2019 disciples performed an ancient Jewish ritual of
\nceremonial washing with water (known to us today as \u201cbaptism\u201d), just as John
\nthe Baptist and his disciples did. The ritual represented people\u2019s confession
\nof sin and their recognition of the need for the cleansing power of God\u2019s
\nforgiveness. When it became clear to Jesus that the crowds were growing
\nlarge, and especially when he heard that this alarmed the Pharisees, he
\ndecided it was time to go to Galilee through Samaria. (verses 1-3)
\nGeography
\nSamaritan lands were sandwiched between Judea and Galilee, though not
\nexclusively. They were situated within the borders of the land allotted to the
\nsons of Joseph, Ephraim and
\nMenashe. (Today most Samaria and
\nlarge parts of Judea constitute the
\ndisputed\/occupied territories
\nlocated in the Palestinian
\nAuthority). Given Judeo-Samaritan
\ntensions, which are similar in many
\nways to today\u2019s Israeli-Palestinian
\nconflict, both groups tried to avoid
\npassing through each other\u2019s
\nterritories when traveling. The way
\naround Samaria for Judeans
\ntraveling to Galilee took twice as
\nlong as the three-day-direct journey
\nfrom Galilee to Jerusalem, since
\navoiding Samaria required crossing
\nthe river Jordan twice to follow a path running east of the river. (Vita 269)
\nThe way through Samaria was more dangerous because Samaritan-Jewish
\npassions often ran high. (Ant. 20.118; War 2.232) We are not told the reason
\nJesus and his disciples needed to go through Samaria. John simply says that
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n63
\nJesus \u201chad to go,\u201d22 implying that, for Jesus, just as it was for all other Jews,
\nthis was unusual.
\nIt is of course possible that Jesus needed to reach Galilee relatively
\nquickly. But the text gives us no indication that he had a pending invitation
\nto an event in Galilee for which he was running late. The text only states that
\nhe left when he felt an imminent confrontation with the Pharisees over his
\npopularity among Israelites was unavoidable. This was coupled with Jesus\u2019
\nunderstanding that the time for such a confrontation had not yet come. In the
\nmind of Jesus, the confrontation with the religious powerbrokers of Judea at
\nthis time was premature, and more needed to be done before going to the
\nCross and drinking the cup of God\u2019s wrath on behalf of his people.
\nThe way Jesus viewed Samaritans and his own ministry among them may
\nsurprise us as we continue looking into this story.
\nJesus\u2019 journey through hostile and heretical territory has a meaning
\nbeyond any surface explanation. In a very real sense, God\u2019s unfathomable
\nplan and mission, from the time His royal Son was eternally conceived in His
\nmind, was to bind all of his beloved creation in redemptive unity. Jesus was
\nsent to make peace between God and man, as well as between man and man.
\nThe accomplishment of this grand purpose began with the mission to unify
\nSamaritan Israelites with the Israelites of Judea. Jesus\u2019 movements and
\nactivities were all done in accordance with his Father\u2019s will and leading. He
\nonly did what he saw the Father do. (Jn. 5:19) This being the case, we can be
\ncertain that Jesus\u2019 journey through Samaria at this time was directed by his
\nFather, and so too, was his conversation with the Samaritan woman.
\n22 The word \u201cit is necessary\u201d (\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6) occurs 10x in John (3:7, 14, 30; 4:4, 20, 24; 9:4; 10:16; 12:34;
\n20:9). Cf. the use of \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 in Luke-Acts.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n64
\nThe Samaritans
\nFirst, the Samaritan Israelites defined their own existence in exclusively
\nIsraelite terms. The Samaritans called themselves \u2013 \u201cthe sons of Israel\u201d and
\n\u201cthe keepers\u201d (shomrim). Jewish sources refer to the Samaritans as \u201ckutim.\u201d
\nThe term is most likely related to a location in Iraq from which the non-
\nIsraelite exiles were imported into Samaria. (2 Kings 17:24<\/a>) The name Kutim
\nor Kutites was used in contrast to the term \u201cshomrim\u201d which means the
\n\u201ckeepers\u201d \u2013 the terms that they reserved for themselves. Jewish Israelite
\nwritings emphasized the foreign identity of Samaritan religion and practice
\nin contrast to the true faith of Israel. The Samaritan Israelites believed that
\nsuch identification denied their historical right of belonging to the people of
\nIsrael. The Samaritan Israelites were the faithful remnant of the Northern
\ntribes \u2013 the keepers of the ancient faith.
\nSecond, Samaritan Israelites had always opposed the worship of Israel\u2019s
\nGod in Jerusalem, believing instead that the center of Israel\u2019s worship was
\nassociated with Mt. Gerizim\u2013 the mount of YHWH\u2019s covenantal blessing
\n(Deut. 27:12). On the other hand, Jewish\/Judean Israelites believed Mt. Zion
\nin Jerusalem was the epicenter of spiritual activity in Israel. One of the
\nreasons for the rejection of the prophetic Jewish writings by the Samaritan
\nIsraelites was that the Hebrew prophets supported Jerusalem and the Davidic
\ndynasty.
\nThird, the Samaritans had a fourfold creed: 1) One God\u2013YHWH, 2) One
\nProphet\u2013Moses, 3) One Book\u2013Torah, and 4) One Place\u2013Mt. Gerizim. Most
\nJewish Israelites of Jesus\u2019 day agreed with the Samaritan Israelites on two of
\nthese points: \u201cone God\u201d and \u201cone Book.\u201d They disagreed on the identity of
\nthe place of worship and on other books that should also have been accepted
\nby the people of Israel \u2013 the Prophets and the Writings.
\nFourth, the Samaritans believed the Judean Israelites had taken the wrong
\npath in their religious practice of the ancient Israelite faith, which they
\nbranded as heretical, as the Jews did of the Samaritan\u2019s faith expression. The
\nrelationship between these two ancient groups can be compared to the sharp
\ndisagreements between Shia and Sunni Muslims today. To those outside, both
\ngroups are Muslim, but not to the Shia and the Sunni. To them – one is true
\nand the other is false; one is real and the other is an imposter. The Samaritan-
\nJewish conflict was in this sense very similar. In many ways, this conflict
\ndefined the inner-Israelite polemic of the first century.
\nFifth, as was mentioned before, the Samaritans are not to be confused with
\na syncretistic people group that also lived in Samaria (gentile Samarians),
\nwho were most probably the people who approached returnees to Jerusalem
\nto help them build the Jerusalem Temple and were rejected by them. (Ezra
\n4:1-2) Due to their theology, the Samaritan Israelites, the remnant of the
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n65
\nNorthern Kingdom of Israel, could not support Temple building in Jerusalem.
\nIn 2 Chronicles 30:1-31<\/a>:6 we are told that not all the people from the northern
\nkingdom of Israel were exiled by the Assyrians. Most of them remained even
\nafter the Assyrian conquest of the land in the 8th century BCE, preserving
\nancient Israelite traditions that would differ from later innovations of the
\nJudean version of Israel\u2019s faith.
\nSixth, the Samaritan Israelites used what is now called \u201cSamaritan
\nHebrew\u201d in a script that is the direct descendent of Paleo-Hebrew (ancient
\nHebrew), while the Jewish Israelites adopted a new form of square, stylized
\nletters that were part of the Aramaic alphabet. Moreover, by the time of Jesus,
\nthe Samaritan Israelites were also heavily Hellenized in Samaria proper and
\nin the diaspora. Just as the Jewish Israelites had the Septuagint, the Samaritan
\nIsraelites had their own translation of the Torah into Greek, called
\nSamaritikon.
\nAnd lastly, the Samaritan Israelites believed that their version of the Torah
\nwas the original version and the Jewish Torah was the edited version, which
\nhad been changed by Babylonian Jews. Conversely, the Judeans charged that
\nthe Samaritan Torah represented an edition edited to reflect the views of the
\nSamaritans. As you can see, this was not an easy relationship.
\nThe Encounter
\nIn describing the encounter, John makes several interesting observations
\nthat have major implications for our understanding of verses 5-6: \u201cSo he came
\nto a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given
\nto his son Joseph. Jacob\u2019s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the
\njourney, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour.\u201d John mentions
\nthe Samaritan town named Sychar. It is not clear if Sychar was a village very
\nnear Shechem or if Shechem itself is in view. The text simply calls our
\nattention to a location near the plot of ground Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
\nWhether or not it was same place, it was certainly in the same vicinity, at the
\nfoot of Mt. Gerizim. While this is interesting and it shows that John was
\nindeed a local, knowing the detailed geography of the place, it is no less
\nimportant, and perhaps even more significant, that the Gospel\u2019s author calls
\nthe reader\u2019s attention to the presence of a silent witness to this encounter: the
\nbones of Joseph.23 This is how the book of Joshua relates that event:
\n\u201cNow they buried the bones of Joseph, which the sons of Israel brought
\nup from Egypt, at Shechem, in the piece of ground which Jacob had
\nbought from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for one hundred
\npieces of money; and they became the inheritance of Joseph\u2019s sons.\u201d
\n(Josh. 24:32)
\n23 Josh. 24:32; Josephus, Ant. 2.8.2.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n66
\nThe reason for this reference to Joseph in verse 5 will only become clear
\nwhen we see that the Samaritan woman suffered in a manner similar to
\nJoseph. If this reading of the story is correct, just as Joseph endured
\nunexplained suffering for the purpose of bringing salvation to Israel; likewise
\nthe Samaritan woman endured suffering which led to the salvation of the
\nSamaritan Israelites in that locale. (4:39-41)
\n\u201c6Jacob\u2019s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from
\nthe journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour.\u201d
\nIt has traditionally been assumed
\nthat the Samaritan woman was a
\nwoman of ill repute. The reference to
\nthe sixth hour (about midday) has been
\ninterpreted to mean that she was
\navoiding the water drawing crowd of
\nother women in the town. The biblical
\nsixth hour24 was supposedly the worst
\npossible time of the day to leave one\u2019s
\ndwelling and venture out into the
\nscorching heat. \u201cIf anyone were to
\ncome to draw water at this hour, we
\ncould appropriately conclude that they
\nwere trying to avoid people,\u201d the
\nargument goes. We are, however,
\nsuggesting another possibility.
\nThe popular theory views her as a
\nparticularly sinful woman who had
\nfallen into sexual sin and therefore was called to account by Jesus about the
\nmultiplicity of husbands in her life. Jesus told her, as the popular theory has
\nit, that He knew that she had five previous husbands and that she was living
\nwith her current \u201cboyfriend\u201d outside the bonds of marriage, and therefore she
\nwas in no condition to play spiritual games with Him! In this view, the reason
\nshe avoided the crowd was precisely because of her reputation for short-lived
\nmarital commitments. But there are problems with this theory:
\nFirst, midday is not the worst time to be out in the sun. If it was 3 pm
\n(ninth hour) the traditional theory would make better sense. Moreover, it is
\nnot at all clear that this took place during the summer months, which could
\nmake the weather in Samaria altogether irrelevant. Secondly, is it possible
\nthat we are making too much of her going to draw water at \u201can unusual time?\u201d
\n24 Hence the shock of the darkness at the sixth hour when Jesus died. (Matt. 27:45; Mk. 15:33; Lk.
\n23:44)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n67
\nDon\u2019t we all sometimes do regular things during unusual hours and could it
\nbe possible that this is such a case? This does not necessarily mean we are
\nhiding something from someone. For example, we read that Rachel came to
\nthe well with her sheep probably also at about the same time. (Gen. 29:6-9)
\nThere are also other problems with this reading of the text:
\nWhen we try to understand this story with the traditional mindset, we can\u2019t
\nhelp but wonder how it was possible, in this conservative Samaritan Israelite
\nsociety, that a woman with such a bad track record of supporting community
\nvalues could have caused the entire village to drop everything and go with
\nher to see Jesus. (4:30) The standard logic is as follows: She had led such a
\ngodless life that when others heard of her excitement and newfound spiritual
\ninterest, they responded in awe and went to see Jesus for themselves. This
\nrendering, while possible, seems unlikely to the author of this book, and
\nseems to read much later theological (evangelical) approaches into this
\nancient story, which had its own historical setting. I am persuaded that
\nreading the story in a new way is more logical and creates less interpretive
\nproblems than the commonly held view.
\nLet us take a closer look at John 4:7-9<\/a>:
\n\u201cWhen a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said
\nto her, \u2018Will you give me a drink?\u2019 (His disciples had gone
\ninto the town to buy food.) The Samaritan woman said to him,
\n\u2018You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you
\nask me for a drink?\u2019 (For the Ioudaioi do not associate with
\nSamaritanoi\/Samaritans.)\u201d
\nIn spite of the fact that, to the modern eye, the differences were
\ninsignificant and unimportant, Jesus and the nameless Samaritan woman were
\nfrom two different and historically adversarial people, each of whom
\nconsidered the other to have deviated drastically from the ancient faith of
\nIsrael. As mentioned above, a modern parallel to the Judeo-Samaritan conflict
\nwould be the sharp animosity between Shia and Sunni Muslims. For most of
\nus today Muslims are Muslims, but within Islam this is not an agreed upon
\nproposition. Both parties consider each other as the greatest enemy of true
\nIslam. So, too, for the people in the ancient world. These two warring people
\ngroups were Israelites and were both part of the same faith. However, they
\nwere bitter enemies. This was not because they were so different, but
\nprecisely because they were very much alike. Both Israelite groups
\nconsidered the other to be imposters. While we don\u2019t have Samaritan sources
\nto tell us their official position, we do know that a later source, the Babylonian
\nTalmud, referring to the views and practices of the distant past, states:
\n\u201cDaughters of the Samaritans are menstruants from the cradle\u201d (bNidd. 31b)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n68
\nand therefore any item that they
\nhandled would be unclean to the
\nJudean.25
\nThe Samaritan woman probably
\nrecognized that Jesus was Judean by
\nhis distinctive Jewish traditional
\nclothing and his accent (It is highly
\nlikely that the conversation took place
\nin the tongue familiar to them both.)
\nJesus would have most certainly worn
\nritual fringes (tzitzit) in obedience to
\nthe Torah\/Law of Moses (Num. 15: 38
\nand Deut. 22:12), but since Samaritan
\nIsraelite men observed Torah as well,
\nthis would not have been a
\ndistinguishing factor (Samaritan
\nmeans the \u201ckeepers\u201d of the Law and
\nnot the people who lived in Samaria).
\nThe difference between these two
\ngroups was not whether the Torah of
\nMoses must be obeyed, but how it
\nshould be obeyed.
\nJesus continues:
\n10\u201c\u2018If you knew the gift of
\nGod and who it is that asks you
\nfor a drink, you would have
\nasked him and he would have
\ngiven you living water.\u2019 11\u2018Sir,\u2019
\nthe woman said, \u2018you have
\nnothing to draw with and the
\nwell is deep. Where can you get
\nthis living water? 12Are you
\ngreater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank
\nfrom it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and
\nherds?\u201913 Jesus answered, \u2018Everyone who drinks this water
\nwill be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him
\nwill never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in
\n25 The Mishnah also explores the ritual and ethnic identity of Samaritans. (mDem. 3:4; 5:9; 6:1; 7:4;
\nmShev. 8:10; mTer. 3:9; mSheqal. 1:5; mKetub. 3:1)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n69
\nhim a spring of water welling up to eternal life.\u2019 15The woman
\nsaid to him, \u2018Sir, give me this water so that I won\u2019t get thirsty
\nand have to keep coming here to draw water.\u2019 16He told her,
\n\u2018Go, call your husband and come back.\u2019 17\u2018I have no husband,\u2019
\nshe replied. Jesus said to her, \u2018You are right when you say you
\nhave no husband. 18The fact is, you have had five husbands,
\nand the man you now have is not your husband. What you have
\njust said is quite true.\u2019 19\u2018Sir,\u2019 the woman said, \u2018I can see that
\nyou are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain,
\nbut you Ioudaioi claim that the place where we must worship
\nis in Jerusalem.\u2019\u201d
\nThis passage has often been interpreted as follows: \u201cJesus initiates a
\nspiritual conversation. (vs. 10) The woman begins to ridicule Jesus\u2019 statement
\nby pointing out his inability to provide what he seems to offer. (verses 11-12)
\nAfter a brief confrontation in which Jesus points out the lack of an eternal
\nsolution to the woman\u2019s spiritual problem (verses 13-14), the woman
\ncontinues with a sarcastic attitude. (vs. 15) Finally, Jesus has had enough and
\nhe then forcefully exposes the sin in the woman\u2019s life \u2013 a pattern of broken
\nfamily relationships. (verses 16-18) Now, cut to the heart by Jesus\u2019 allknowing
\nx-ray vision, the woman acknowledges her sin in a moment of truth
\n(vs. 19) by calling Jesus a prophet. But then, as every unbeliever usually does,
\nshe tries to avoid the real issues of her sin and her spiritual need by raising
\ndoctrinal issues, (vs. 20) in order to avoid dealing with the real issues in her
\nlife.\u201d Though this may not be the only way this text is commonly understood,
\nit does follow a generally negative view of the Samaritan woman.
\nBecause this popular interpretation presupposes that the woman was
\nparticularly immoral, it sees the entire conversation in light of that negative
\nviewpoint. I would like to recommend a wholly different trajectory for
\nunderstanding this story. Though it is not an airtight case, this alternative
\ntrajectory seems to be a better fit for the rest of the story, and especially for
\nits conclusion. At the very least, it deserves your attention and evaluation.
\nRereading the Story
\nAs was previously suggested, it is possible the Samaritan woman was not
\ntrying to avoid anyone. But, even if she was, there are explanations for her
\navoidance other than feeling guilty about her sexual immorality. For example,
\nas you well know, people don\u2019t want to see anyone when they are depressed.
\nDepression was present in Jesus\u2019 time, just as it is present in people\u2019s lives
\ntoday. Instead of assuming that the Samaritan woman changed husbands like
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n70
\ngloves, it is just as reasonable to think of her as a woman who had experienced
\nthe deaths of several husbands, or as a woman whose husbands may have
\nbeen unfaithful to her, or even as a woman whose husbands divorced her for
\nher inability to have children. In ancient Israelite society, women did not
\ninitiate divorces. Any one of these suggestions, and others, are possible in
\nthis instance.
\nThe book of Tobit (2nd century BCE), for example, speaks about a Jewish
\nwoman named Sarah who had seven husbands who, with the help of demonic
\nforces, each died on the day
\nof his wedding. She was
\nscorned by the community,
\nlooked upon as cursed and
\nguilty of their deaths.
\nDepressed to the point of
\nsuicide, Sarah prayed to God
\nto end her shame, insisting
\non her purity to the end.
\n(Tobit 3:7-17) People
\nbehaved harshly toward
\nSarah. No doubt the social
\nstanding of the Samaritan
\nwoman brought her great
\nanguish as well. My own
\nGreat Aunt had four
\nhusbands and she outlived
\nthem all. So I know this
\nhappens.
\nJesus stated that she lived
\nwith a man who was not her
\nhusband. Many assume this
\nmeant the woman lived with
\nher boyfriend, but that is not
\nstated. Perhaps she needed help and lived with a distant relative, or in some
\nother undesirable arrangement, in order to survive. Jesus was not nailing her
\nto the cross of justice, but instead was letting her know that he knew
\neverything about the pain she endured. This is certainly more in keeping with
\nthe Jesus we know from other instances in his life.
\nIf I am correct in my suggestion that this woman was not a \u201cfallen
\nwoman,\u201d then perhaps we can connect her amazingly successful testimony to
\nthe village with John\u2019s unexpected, but extremely important, reference to the
\nbones of Joseph. It is worthy of note that for the Samaritan readership of this
\nGospel, the reference to the place of Joseph\u2019s bones and Jacob\u2019s well would
\nbe highly significant. When we understand that the conversation took place
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n71
\nnext to Joseph\u2019s bones, we are immediately reminded of Joseph\u2019s story and
\nhis mostly undeserved suffering. As you may remember, only part of Joseph\u2019s
\nsuffering was self-inflicted. Yet in the end, when no one saw it coming, the
\nsufferings of Joseph turned into events leading from starvation and death to
\nsalvation.
\nNow let us consider the connection with Joseph in more detail. Shechem
\nwas one of the cities of refuge where a man who had killed someone
\nunintentionally was provided a safe haven in Israel. (Josh. 21:20-21)26 As
\ninhabitants of Shechem were living out their lives in the shadow of the
\nTorah\u2019s prescription, they were no doubt keenly aware of the unusual status
\nof grace and God\u2019s protective function that was allotted to their special city.
\nThey were to protect people who were unfortunate, whose lives were
\nthreatened by avenging family members, but who were not actually guilty of
\nany intentional crime deserving the threatened punishment.
\nJoseph was born into a very special family, where grace and salvation
\nshould have been a characteristic description. Jacob, the descendent of
\nAbraham and Isaac, had eleven other sons, whose actions, (apart from
\nBenjamin) instead of helping their father raise Joseph, ranged from outbursts
\nof jealousy to a desire to get rid of their spoiled but \u201cspecial\u201d brother forever.
\nBut there was more. It was in Shechem that Joshua assembled the tribes of
\nIsrael, challenging them to abandon their former gods in favor of YHWH and,
\nafter making a covenant with them, he buried Joseph\u2019s bones there. We read
\nin Josh. 24:1-32:
\n\u201cThen Joshua assembled all the tribes of Israel at Shechem. He
\nsummoned the elders, leaders, judges and officials of Israel, and they
\npresented themselves before God\u2026 But if serving the LORD seems
\nundesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will
\nserve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or
\nthe gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me
\nand my household, we will serve the LORD. \u2026On that day Joshua
\nmade a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem he drew up for
\nthem decrees and laws. And Joshua recorded these things in the Book
\nof the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under
\nthe oak near the holy place of the LORD\u2026 Israel served the LORD
\nthroughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him
\nand who had experienced everything the LORD had done for Israel.
\nAnd Joseph\u2019s bones, which the Israelites had brought up from Egypt,
\nwere buried at Shechem in the tract of land that Jacob bought for a
\nhundred pieces of silver from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem.
\nThis became the inheritance of Joseph\u2019s descendants.\u201d
\n26 Cities of refuge: Num. 35:1-15; Shechem as city of refuge. (Josh. 20; 1 Chr. 6:67)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n72
\nIt is interesting that the place for this encounter with the Samaritan woman
\nwas chosen by the Lord of providence in such a beautiful way: an emotionally
\nalienated woman, who felt unsafe, ironically lived in or near a city of refuge
\nand is having a faith-finding, covenant-renewing conversation with God\u2019s
\nRoyal Son, Jesus, who has come to reunite all Israel with her God. She does
\nso at the very place where the ancient Israelites renewed their covenant in
\nresponse to God\u2019s words, sealing them with two witnesses: 1) the stone (Josh.
\n24:26-27) – confessing with their mouths their covenant obligations and faith
\nin Israel\u2019s God, and 2) the bones of Joseph (Josh. 24:31-32) – whose story
\nguided them in their travels.
\nIn a sense, the Samaritan woman does the same thing as the ancient
\nIsraelites – confessing her faith in Jesus as the Christ and covenant Savior of
\nthe world, to her fellow villagers, as we read in John 4:29-39<\/a>:
\n\u201cCome, see a man who told me everything. Could this be
\nthe Christ?\u201d They came out of the town and made their way
\ntoward him\u2026 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed
\nin him because of the woman\u2019s testimony\u2026\u201d
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n73
\nThe connection between Joseph and the Samaritan woman does not end
\nthere. We might recall that Joseph had received a special blessing from his
\nfather at the time of Jacob\u2019s death. It was a promise that he would be a fruitful
\nvine climbing over a wall. (Gen. 49:22) Psalm 80:8<\/a> speaks of a vine being
\nbrought out of Egypt, whose shoots spread throughout the earth, eventually
\nbringing salvation to the world through the true vine. In John 15:1<\/a> we read
\nthat Jesus identified himself as this true vine. Like Israel of old, Jesus was
\nalso symbolically brought out of Egypt. (Matt. 2:15) In his conversation with
\nthe Samaritan woman, Jesus \u2013 the promised vine in Jacob\u2019s promise to Joseph
\n\u2013 was in effect climbing over the wall of hostility between the Judean and
\nSamaritan Israelites to unite these two parts of His Kingdom through His
\nperson, teaching and deeds. In a deeply symbolic fashion, this conversation
\ntakes place at the very well that was built by Jacob, to whom the promise was
\ngiven!
\nNow that we have reviewed some of the relevant Hebrew Bible\/Old
\nTestament symbolism, let us now reread this story through a different lens. It
\nmay have gone something like this:
\nJesus initiated a conversation with the woman: \u201cWill you give me a
\ndrink?\u201d His disciples had gone into town to buy food. The woman felt safe
\nwith Jesus because, not only is he not from her village, but he didn\u2019t know
\nabout her failed life or even how depressed she may have felt for months. In
\nher view, he was part of a heretical, though related, religious community.
\nJesus would have had no contact with the Israelite Samaritan leaders of her
\ncommunity.
\n\u201cIf you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for
\na drink, you would have asked him and he would have given
\nyou living water,\u201d says Jesus.
\nIt is important that we picture the woman. She was not laughing; she was
\nhaving an informed, deeply theological and spiritual discussion with Jesus.
\nThis was a daring attempt to ascertain truth that was outside her accepted
\ntheological framework and surely would not pass the test of cultural
\nsensibilities of \u201cfaithful\u201d Samaritans. She took issue with Jesus, precisely
\nbecause she took the word of God (Samaritan Torah) seriously:
\n\u201c\u2018Sir,\u2019 the woman said, \u2018you have nothing to draw with and
\nthe well is deep. Where can you get this living water? Are you
\ngreater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank
\nfrom it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?\u2019
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n74
\nJesus answered: \u2018Everyone who drinks this water will be
\nthirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will
\nnever thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him
\na spring of water welling up to eternal life.\u2019 The woman said
\nto him, \u2018Sir, give me this water so that I won\u2019t get thirsty and
\nhave to keep coming here to draw water.\u2019\u201d
\nThis theme of water27 will be repeated many times in John\u2019s Gospel, but
\neven at this point, we can see Jesus\u2019 and John\u2019s preoccupation with water as
\nbeing related to Temple imagery. We will return to this theme in the coming
\nchapters.
\nAfter the above interaction, which strikes a familiar chord for the Christian
\nwho has experienced the life-giving power of Jesus\u2019 presence and spiritual
\nrenewal, Jesus continued the conversation. He let the nameless Samaritan
\nwoman know that He understood her troubles much more fully than she
\nthought. He did this by showing her that he was aware of the pain and
\nsuffering she had endured during her life.
\n\u201cHe told her, \u2018Go, call your husband and come back.\u2019 \u2018I
\nhave no husband,\u2019 she replied. Jesus said to her, \u2018You are
\nright when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have
\nhad five husbands, and the man you now have is not your
\nhusband. What you have just said is quite true.\u2019\u201d
\nWe must try and disconnect from the usual view of this passage and allow
\nfor another interpretive possibility. Do you recall the seemingly obscure
\nreference to Joseph\u2019s bones, which was very meaningful to first century
\nIsraelites, being buried near this very place where the conversation took
\nplace? At the beginning of the story, John wanted us to remember Joseph. He
\nwas a man who suffered much in his life;28 but whose suffering was ultimately
\nused for the salvation of Israel and the known world. Under Joseph\u2019s
\nleadership, Egypt became the only nation that acted wisely by saving grain
\nduring the years of plenty and then being able to feed others during the years
\nof famine. (Gen. 41:49-54) It is highly symbolic that this conversation took
\nplace in the presence of a silent witness: the bones of Joseph. God first
\nallowed terrible physical, psychological and social injustice to be done to
\nJoseph; He then used this suffering to greatly bless those who came in contact
\n27 Cf. John 1:26-33<\/a>; 2:6-9; 3:5, 23; 4:7-28; 4:46; 5:7; 7:38; 13:5; 19:34.
\n28 It is intriguing to think that, perhaps, there is also some connection to the rape of Dinah and the
\nfurther violence that followed as a result (Gen.34) since these events too are associated with this
\nlocation.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n75
\nwith him. Instead of reading this
\nstory in terms of Jesus nailing the
\nimmoral woman to the cross of
\nGod\u2019s standard of morality, we
\nshould read it in terms of God\u2019s
\nmercy and compassion for the
\nbroken world in general, and for
\nmarginalized Israelites (Samaritans)
\nin particular.
\nAccording to the popular view, it
\nis at this point, convicted by Jesus\u2019
\nprophetic rebuke, that the woman
\nseeks to change the subject and
\navoid the personal nature of the
\nencounter by engaging in
\nunimportant theological
\ncontroversy. The problem is, although these matters may be unimportant to
\nthe modern reader, they were of very real concern to the ancient readers,
\nespecially those who lived with the Judean-Samaritan conflict. Therefore, let
\nus consider an alternative interpretation: Having seen Jesus\u2019 intimate
\nknowledge of her miserable situation and his compassionate empathy, the
\nwoman felt secure enough to also break tradition and climb over the wall of
\nforbidden associations. She makes a statement that invites Jesus\u2019 commentary
\non the subject of the key theological difference between the Ioudaioi and the
\nSamaritans.
\n\u201c\u2018Sir,\u2019 the woman said, \u2018I can see that you are a prophet.
\nOur fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Ioudaioi
\nclaim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.\u2019\u201d
\nThe Samaritans were Mt. Gerizim-centered Israelites in their
\nunderstanding of the Pentateuch (Torah), while the Jews were Mt. Zioncentered29
\nin their interpretation of essentially the same body of literature,
\nadmittedly with occasional variations. This question seems trivial to a modern
\nChristian who usually thinks what is really important is that one can confess:
\n\u201cJesus is in my life as a personal Lord and Savior.\u201d But, while the Samaritan
\nwoman\u2019s question may not concern us today, it was a major issue in the first
\ncentury. Indeed this deeply theological and spiritual conversation was a very
\nimportant intersection on the road of human history, because of the
\ntremendous impact it has had on the entire world, ever since this encounter
\n29 Mt. Zion as epicenter. (Ps. 2:6; 9:11, 14; 14:7; 20:2; 48:2; 48:11-12; 50:2; etc.; 1QM 12:13; 19:5)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n76
\ntook place.
\nWith fear and trepidation, the Samaritan woman, putting away her feeling
\nof humiliation and bitterness towards the Judeans\/Jews, posed her question in
\nthe form of a statement. What she received from Jesus, she definitely did not
\nexpect to hear from a Judean:
\n\u201cJesus declared, \u2018Believe me, woman, a time is coming
\nwhen you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor
\nin Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know;
\nwe worship what we do know, for salvation is from the
\nIoudaioi. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true
\nworshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they
\nare the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and
\nhis worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.\u2019\u201d
\nShe must have been stunned by his statement. Jesus challenged the main
\npoint of the Judean-Samaritan divide \u2013 the Mt. Gerizim vs. Mt. Zion
\ncontroversy \u2013 arguing that the time had come for another type of worship
\naltogether. In English we can say \u201cwe will worship on that mountain,\u201d but
\nwhen we are talking about the city we say \u201cwe will worship in that city.\u201d This
\nis also the case in Greek, but in Hebrew, in which no doubt this conversation
\ntook place, Jesus would literally have said: \u201cBelieve me, woman, a time is
\ncoming when you will worship the Father neither \u201cin\u201d this mountain nor \u201cin\u201d
\nJerusalem. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers
\nwill worship the Father \u201cin\u201d spirit and truth. The third \u201cin\u201d therefore suggests
\nthat the enigmatic phrase: \u201cto worship God in Spirit and in Truth,\u201d should be
\nunderstood in the context of three mountains, not two (Mt. Gerizim, Mt. Zion
\nand the Mt. [of] Spirit and Truth.) Jesus is saying to the Samaritan woman
\nthat she must look up to another mountain. The choice was not between
\nJerusalem and Shechem (Mt. Zion and Mt. Gerizim). The choice was between
\nMt. Gerizim and the Mountain [of] Spirit and Truth.
\nThe stunning phraseology that Jesus used in his next statement: \u201cYou
\nSamaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know,
\nfor salvation is from the Ioudaioi,\u201d (4:22) spells the end of the idea that this
\nGospel is Samaritan, as some scholars (noting in-depth Samaritan interest)
\nhave erroneously concluded. Jesus could not have made this point any clearer.
\nWhen it came to the Judeo-Samaritan conflict, he was with the Judeans. \u201cWe
\n(Judeans) know\u201d and \u201cyou Samaritans do not know\u201d what we worship. The
\nmost striking statement in the entire Gospel, however, given its
\noverabundance of anti-Judean rhetoric, is \u2013 \u201cSalvation is from
\nIoudaioi\/Judeans.\u201d What could Jesus possibly mean here? Certainly it cannot
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n77
\nbe seriously entertained that he was saying that the sub-group that sought his
\ndeath and, at least in its leadership, decisively rejected him, was going to lead
\nall Israel to salvation. What then did he mean? The preliminary question to
\nask is whether, upon hearing this statement of Jesus, the Samaritan woman,
\nwho we now realize was well versed in Torah and Torah-observance, would
\nhold her peace. What must Jesus appeal to in order for the Samaritan woman
\nto be convinced? The answer is: the shared Torah tradition between Judeans
\nand Samaritans. There is one text in Torah that fits this perfectly.
\nIn Genesis 49:8-10<\/a>, a passage that is in both the Judean and Samaritan
\nversions of the Torah, we read:
\n\u201cJudah, your brothers will praise you; your hand will be on the neck of
\nyour enemies; your father\u2019s sons will bow down to you. The scepter
\nwill not depart from Judah, nor the ruler\u2019s staff from between his feet,
\nuntil he to whom it belongs shall come and the obedience of the nations
\nshall be his.\u201d
\nDomination of enemies and guarantee of security were the essential
\nelements of the ancient concept of salvation. No one at that time had thought
\nof salvation in Western individualistic terms. Judah would lead and rule all
\nothers until someone comes, whom even the nations will joyfully serve. When
\nJesus referred to this text, the Samaritan woman silently agreed.
\nYou will recall that Jesus had already stated that the center of earthly
\nworship was to be relocated from physical Jerusalem to the heavenly, spiritual
\nJerusalem, concentrated in Himself, when he spoke to Nathanael. (1:50-51)
\nHe had invoked the great Torah story of Jacob\u2019s dream of the angels of God
\nascending and descending on the Holy Land of Israel where he was sleeping.
\n(Gen. 18:12) He said to Nathanael that very soon the angels would be
\nascending and descending, not on Bethel (in Hebrew \u2013 House of God), which
\nSamaritans identified as Mt. Gerizim, but upon the ultimate House of God \u2013
\nJesus himself. (Jn. 1:14; Jn. 2:21)
\nThe official Samaritan religion, at least as far as we know from much later
\nsources, did not include any prophetic writings, which means the Samaritan
\nwoman would have only Torah to rely upon in her definition of a Messiahlike
\nfigure. \u201cThe woman said, \u2018I know that Messiah (called Christ) is coming.
\nWhen he comes, he will explain\/teach everything to us.\u2019\u201d We read in
\nDeuteronomy 18:18-19<\/a>, that is perfectly consistent with what the woman
\nsaid: \u201cI will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers;
\nI will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command
\nhim. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my
\nname, I myself will call him to account.\u201d
\nThough a later Samaritan text speaks of a Messiah-like figure (Taheb,
\nMarqah Memar 4:7, 12), the Samaritans of Jesus\u2019 time only expected a great
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n78
\nteacher-prophet. The \u201cMessiah\u201d as King and Priest was a Jewish Israelite, and
\nnot a Samaritan Israelite concept, as far as we know. For that reason, the reply
\nof the Samaritan woman shows this was not an imaginary or symbolic
\nconversation (\u201che will explain everything to us\u201d). In view of this, it seems
\nthat now the woman graciously used distinctly Jewish terminology to relate
\nto Jesus \u2013 the Jew. Just as Jesus was choosing to climb the wall of taboos, so
\nnow was the Samaritan woman.
\n25The woman said, \u201cI know that Messiah\u201d (called Christ)
\n\u201cis coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.\u201d
\n26Then Jesus declared, \u2018I who speak to you am he.\u2019
\nThe story quickly switches to the return of the disciples, their reaction and
\ncommentary-like interaction with Jesus. This interchange is sandwiched
\nbetween the encounters with the Samaritan woman and the men of her village.
\nThe disciples were surprised at seeing him conversing with the Samaritan
\nwoman, but no one challenged him about the inappropriateness of such an
\nencounter.
\n27 Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find
\nhim talking with a woman. But no one asked, \u201cWhat do you
\nwant?\u201d or \u201cWhy are you talking with her?\u201d 28 Then, leaving
\nher water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to
\nthe people, 29 \u201cCome, see a man who told me everything I ever
\ndid. Could this be the Christ?\u201d 30 They came out of the town
\nand made their way toward him. 31 Meanwhile his disciples
\nurged him, \u201cRabbi, eat something.\u201d 32 But he said to them, \u201cI
\nhave food to eat that you know nothing about.\u201d 33 Then his
\ndisciples said to each other, \u201cCould someone have brought
\nhim food?\u201d 34 \u201cMy food,\u201d said Jesus, \u201cis to do the will of him
\nwho sent me and to finish his work.\u201d (John 4:27<\/a> -34)
\nWhile it is possible that the disciples were surprised that he was alone in
\nconversation with a woman, the general context of the story seems to indicate
\nthat their response had more to do with him conversing with a woman who
\nwas a Samaritan. It is interesting that none of the disciples could even imagine
\nthat Jesus would partake of the food from the nearby Samaritan village (once
\nagain due to the issues of variant purity requirements among Samaritans and
\nJudeans). Instead, they wondered if some other disciples had gone to bring
\nhim food. (The Gospel does not say that all the disciples went to buy food in
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n79
\nthe nearby town.) Later on, Jesus would show his disciples that he had no
\nproblem with the purity laws the Samaritans followed. Later in the story, we
\nsee that he lodged with them for two days. (Jn. 4:40) But before that
\nhappened, Jesus had a lot to explain.
\nLeaving behind her jar, the woman rushed to town to tell her people about
\nJesus, posing an important question to them: \u201cCould this be the one whom
\nIsrael has been awaiting for so long?\u201d Speaking as he did in the context of the
\nencounter, Jesus pointed out to his disciples that what he was doing was
\npurely and simply God\u2019s will. Doing the will of his Father gave him his divine
\nlife energy. This divine energy enabled him to continue his work. We
\ncontinue reading:
\n35\u201cDo you not say, \u2018Four months more and then the
\nharvest?\u2019 I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They
\nare ripe for harvest. 36Even now the reaper draws his wages;
\neven now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the
\nsower and the reaper may be glad together. 37Thus the saying
\n\u2018One sows and another reaps\u2019 is true. 38I sent you to reap what
\nyou have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and
\nyou have reaped the benefits of their labour.\u201d
\nIn these verses, Jesus challenged his disciples to consider the crop that was
\nready for harvest. It is almost certain that Jesus\u2019 disciples thought the spiritual
\nharvest pertained to the Jerusalem-affiliated Israelites alone. Jesus challenged
\nthem to look outside their box, to the neighboring heretical and adversarial
\ncommunity, for the harvest \u2013 a harvest field they had not considered until this
\nencounter. The significance of Jesus\u2019 commentary on the encounter was not
\nto highlight the importance of evangelism in general, but rather to bring
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n80
\nattention to fields that were previously unseen, or thought of as unsuitable for
\nthe harvest.30
\nHe, the King of Israel, will unite the North and the South as part of his
\nrestoration program for Israel. We read in Amos 9:11-15<\/a>:
\n\u201c\u2018In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair
\nits breaches, and raise up
\nits ruins and rebuild it as
\nin the days of old, that
\nthey may possess the
\nremnant of Edom and all
\nthe nations who are
\ncalled by my name,\u2019
\ndeclares the Lord who
\ndoes this. \u2018Behold, the
\ndays are coming,\u2019
\ndeclares the lord, \u2018when
\nthe plowman shall
\novertake the reaper and
\nthe treader of grapes him
\nwho sows the seed; the
\nmountains shall drip
\nsweet wine, and all the
\nhills shall flow with it. I
\nwill restore the fortunes
\n30 We might recall Jesus\u2019 post-resurrection instructions to the disciples not to leave Jerusalem. He
\ntold them \u201c\u2026 you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to
\nthe remotest part of the earth.\u201d (Acts 1:8<\/a>) It has been traditionally assumed that Samaria was simply a
\ngeographical half-way point between Jewish Judea and the Gentile ends of the earth. As I will argue
\nlater, this was certainly not the case. We read that the apostles preached the Gospel in the Samaritan
\nvillages, actually implementing Jesus\u2019 directive: \u201c\u2026 they started back to Jerusalem, and were preaching
\nthe gospel to many villages of the Samaritans.\u201d (Acts 8:25<\/a>) We are told \u201cthe apostles in Jerusalem heard
\nthat Samaria had accepted the word of God.\u201d That is to say, in comparison to many others, the Samarian
\nlands were very receptive to the gospel. (Acts 8:9-14<\/a>) The Samaritan Israelites, unlike today, constituted
\na sizable number of people who claimed to have been a remnant of the Northern tribes of Israel. Some
\nrecent studies in reputable secular scientific journals on DNA research show that there is a genetic link
\nbetween modern Samaritans and Israelite priests of old (see article by Oefner, Peter J. and others in the
\nsuggested readings list). It is very difficult to speak in precise numbers, but scholars who focus their
\nresearch on Samaritans suggest that their first century population was roughly equal (or almost equal)
\nto the size of Judean Israelites, both in the Land and in Diaspora. The other Gospels, especially Matthew,
\nwere too Judea-centered, and even anti-Samaritan, to be suitable for use among Samaritan Israelites.
\nWe read in Matt. 10:5-6: \u201cThese twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: \u2018Do not go in the way of
\nthe Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house
\nof Israel.\u2018\u201d Matthew\u2019s Jesus couples Gentiles with Samaritans and emphasizes the command (at least at
\nthis stage of the ministry) not to go to Samaritan villages. In his great commission (Matt. 28:19-20),
\nMatthew again displays this view by having Jesus command his Jewish Israelite disciples to simply make
\ndisciples of all nations, without paying special attention to the Samaritan Israelites.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n81
\nof my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit
\nthem; they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine, and they shall
\nmake gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant them on their land, and
\nthey shall never again be uprooted out of the land that I have given
\nthem,\u2019 says the Lord your God.\u201d
\nIn the book of Acts, we read of a significant move of God\u2019s Spirit among
\nSamaritans and the openness that the Judean Jesus-following communities
\nhad for these new-found brothers and sisters in the faith. (Acts 8<\/a>)
\nWhile Jesus was no doubt conversing with his followers about the
\nsuitability of teaching the Samaritans God\u2019s ways, he heard voices from the
\ncrowd approaching him from a distance. The faithful witness of this Gospel
\ndescribes it like this:
\n\u201cMany of the Samaritans from that town believed in him
\nbecause of the woman\u2019s testimony, \u2018He told me everything I
\never did.\u2019 So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged
\nhim to stay with them, and he stayed two days. And because of
\nhis words many more became believers. They said to the
\nwoman, \u2018We no longer believe just because of what you said;
\nnow we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man
\nreally is the Saviour of the world.\u2019\u201d (verses 39-42)
\nInterpreting the Bible is a difficult task. We bring our past, our
\npreconceived notions, our already formed theology, our cultural blind spots,
\nour social standing, our gender, our political views, and many other
\ninfluences to our interpretation of the Bible. In short, all that we are in some
\nway determines how we interpret everything. This does not imply that the
\nmeaning of the text is dependent on its reader. The meaning remains constant.
\nBut the reading of the text does differ and is dependent on many factors
\nsurrounding the interpretive process. In other words, how a reader or listener
\nunderstands the text can differ greatly from person to person.
\nOne of the biggest handicaps in the enterprise of Bible interpretation has
\nbeen an inability to recognize and admit that a particular interpretation may
\nhave a weak spot. The weak spot is usually determined by personal
\npreferences and heartfelt desires to prove a particular theory, regardless of
\nthe cost. I consider that, having an awareness of our own blind spots and being
\nhonestly willing to admit problems with our interpretations when they exist,
\nis more important than the intellectual brilliance with which we argue our
\nposition.
\nOne opportunity to exercise an honest approach is when commentators
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n82
\nrecognize that there is something in their interpretation that does not seem to
\nfit with the text and they do not quite know how to explain it. What I feel can
\nbe legitimately suggested as a challenge to our reading of the story of the
\nSamaritan woman, are the words the Gospel author places on her lips when
\nshe tells her fellow villagers about her encounter with Jesus. She says: \u201cHe
\ntold me everything I ever did.\u201d It would have matched the traditional
\ninterpretation perfectly, if her words had been: \u201cHe told me everything that
\nhappened to me\u201d or better yet \u201cwas done to me.\u201d
\nI think, once again, we are so preconditioned to think in Christian terms
\n(\u201cwe are all fallen people, but especially the Samaritan woman\u201d kind of
\napproach) that we are unable to read this sentence positively. In other words,
\neverything I ever did, may be just that – a simple statement that the entire life
\nof the woman was known to Jesus (not necessarily a life of sexual
\nimmorality). In other words, this verse should be understood differently \u2013 \u201che
\nknows everything about me.\u201d Indeed, she would hardly have gone bragging
\nto the townspeople that \u201cthis stranger told me all the sinful acts I have done
\nin my life.\u201d When we think of it, that would hardly have sent them running
\nto meet him, but rather sent them running in the other direction! But I realize
\nthat getting over preconceived notions and interpretive preconditioning is not
\neasy. It was Krister Stendahl who said \u201cOur vision is often more abstracted
\nby what we think we know than by our lack of knowledge.\u201d
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n83
\n43 After two days he departed for Galilee 44for Jesus
\nhimself had testified that a prophet has no honor in his own
\nhometown. 45So when he came to Galilee, the Galileans
\nwelcomed him, having seen all that he had done in
\nJerusalem at the feast. For they too had gone to the feast.
\n46 So he came again to Cana in Galilee, where he had made
\nthe water wine. And at Capernaum there was an official
\nwhose son was ill. 47 When this man heard that Jesus had
\ncome from Judea to Galilee, he went to him and asked him
\nto come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of
\ndeath. 48 So Jesus said to him, \u201cUnless you see signs and
\nwonders you will not believe.\u201d 49 The official said to him,
\n\u201cSir, come down before my child dies.\u201d 50 Jesus said to him,
\n\u201cGo; your son will live.\u201d The man believed the word that
\nJesus spoke to him and went on his way. 51 As he was going
\ndown, his servants met him and told him that his son was
\nrecovering. 52 So he asked them the hour when he began to
\nget better, and they said to him, \u201cYesterday at the seventh hour
\nthe fever left him.\u201d 53 The father knew that was the hour when
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n84
\nJesus had said to him, \u201cYour son will live.\u201d And he himself
\nbelieved, and all his household. 54 This was now the second
\nsign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee.
\nAs the reporting of the events connected with Jesus\u2019 stopover in Samaritan
\nShechem finishes, we come to John 4:43-45<\/a>. Here we see that Jesus does not
\nreturn to Judea but continues his journey to Galilee. In addition to the absence
\nof the incident with the Samaritan woman from the Synoptics, there is another
\nsignificant feature in which the Synoptics and John part company. John states
\nthe reason Jesus did not return to Judea, but went on to Galilee, was because
\n\u201cJesus himself had testified that a prophet has no honor in his own homeland.\u201d
\n(Literally: \u201cfatherland\u201d in the sense of \u201cmotherland\u201d in the English language).
\n(4:44) What is of course striking here is that John names Judea as Jesus\u2019
\nhomeland, his fatherland, and not Galilee as do the Synoptics. (Mt 13:54-57,
\nMk. 6:1-4, Lk. 4:23-24) It is likely that the Synoptics treat Galilee, the place
\nof Jesus\u2019 upbringing, as his fatherland. For John, however, Jesus is Judean
\nbecause of his birth in Bethlehem of Judea. To John, Jesus lived in Galilee
\nbecause of God\u2019s mission and not because of his Galilean identity. To John
\nhe was a Judean (but more about this later).
\nTogether with this alternative reading of Jesus\u2019 identity, John paints a
\npicture for his readers of Jesus\u2019 rejection and acceptance, which is also very
\ndifferent from the picture in the Synoptics. Galilee and Samaria were very
\nresponsive to Jesus. People there welcomed him with very few exceptions;
\nwhile everything he did in his homeland of Judea seemed to meet significant
\nopposition.
\nThere is paradox and tension here. In Judea (Jesus\u2019 motherland in John)
\nJesus faced persecution. He was born there and his Father\u2019s house, the
\nTemple of Israel\u2019s God, was in Jerusalem (not in Galilee and not in Samaria),
\nbut it is from there that the real opposition to his ministry came. It is not that
\nunbelief was found only in Judea, after all some Galilean Jewish disciples
\nwould leave Jesus after his statements about his body and blood. (Jn. 6:66)
\nBut all in all, it cannot be denied that Samaria and Galilee were far more
\nreceptive to Jesus than was Judea. I suggest once again, therefore, that we
\nshould understand John 1:11<\/a> within this context of: \u201cHe came to his own, and
\nhis own people did not receive him.\u201d
\nJesus departs Samaria and arrives in Cana. Why did Jesus return to Cana?
\nThis was the place where his first miracle was performed. (John 2:1<\/a>\u201311) It is
\nimportant, as we read in John 4:47<\/a>, that his second miracle also takes place
\nhere. (vs. 46) Cana was very likely a Judean settlement in Galilee. We
\nremember when Jesus turned water into wine, there were vessels that were
\nused for ritual purification according to the custom of the Ioudaioi. (John 2:6<\/a>)
\nIn other words, Jesus went to continue his ministry at \u201ca home, away from
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n85
\nhome.\u201d
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n86
\n87
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n88
\nChapter 5
\nThe Sabbath Healing at the
\nBethesda Pool; Ensuing
\nControversy
\n\uf041 1 Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for one of
\nthe Jewish festivals. 2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep
\nGate a pool, in Hebrew called Bethesda, which has five
\nroofed colonnades. 3 In these lay a multitude of invalids\u2014
\nblind, lame, and paralyzed.
\nWhen it comes to determining the level of the Gospel\u2019s historical
\nreliability, the story that will end in the healing of a paralyzed man, is one of
\nthe most fascinating textual units in the Gospel of John. Until the recent
\ndiscovery of the pool with five-roofed colonnades near the Sheep Gate
\n(everyone was looking for a pentagon shaped pool at first), many did not
\nconsider the Gospel of John to be historically reliable. It was thought to be
\neither allegorical (truthful only in the sense similar to apocalyptic literature)
\nor simply inaccurate (written by someone who was not from Judea and was
\nwholly unfamiliar with Jerusalem\u2019s geography and topography). However,
\nboth pools mentioned in the Gospel of John have now been identified \u2013 the
\nPool of Bethesda (John 5:2<\/a>) and the Pool of Siloam. (John 9:7<\/a>) The pool
\nmentioned in this chapter turned out to have five colonnades (as described in
\nthe Gospel), but it was not structured as a pentagon. There were four
\ncolonnades separated in the middle by another one, thus forming the five
\ncolonnades, just as the Gospel describes.
\nIt is possible, though unlikely, that the pool of Bethesda was a ceremonial
\nwater cleansing facility, a mikvah, associated with the Jerusalem Temple. But
\ntoday\u2019s archeological discovery shows, if indeed it was separate at all, it was
\nadjacent to the Jerusalem Asclepion. Archeologists date the recently
\ndiscovered Asclepion to several centuries after Jesus, but it is built upon the
\nfoundation of an earlier Asclepion.
\nThere are many good reasons to believe that this structure was situated
\nwithin walking distance of the walls of the city of Jerusalem and that it was
\npart of a healing center dedicated to the Greco-Roman god of well-being and
\nhealth \u2013 Asclepius. Devotion to Asclepius was widespread throughout the
\nlands dominated by the Roman Empire. There were more than 400 Asclepions
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n89
\n(Asclepius-related facilities) throughout empire, functioning as healing
\ncenters and dispensers of the god\u2019s grace and mercy towards those in need.
\nThe god\u2019s mythical daughters, for example, included the goddesses Hygeia
\nand Panacea. We can hear in their Greek names our modern words for
\n\u201chygiene\u201d and \u201cpanacea\u201d \u2013 key concepts associated today with medicine and
\nhealth. Snakes were a key characteristic of Asclepius\u2019s cult of health and
\nhealing. Even today, one of the key symbols of modern medicine is a pole
\nwith a snake around it.
\nNow stop and think for a moment. If this is correct, it may change our
\nperception of the entire story described here. You see, it is possible that the
\nblind, lame, and paralyzed were not waiting for Israel\u2019s God to heal them, but
\nrather for the merciful healing act of Asclepius. Before you begin to think
\nthat the above reconstruction is far-fetched, please consider the following:
\nThe second century Christian apologist Justin Martyr mentions a popular
\nobsession with Asclepius among his contemporaries, saying: \u201cWhen the
\nDevil brings forward Asclepius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all
\ndiseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the
\nprophecies about Christ?\u201d (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, 69)
\nAnd in a statement attributed to the second century Jewish sage, Rabbi Akiva,
\nwe read: \u201cOnce Akiva was asked to explain why persons afflicted with
\ndisease sometimes returned cured from a pilgrimage to the shrine of an idol,
\nthough it was surely powerless.\u201d (Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 55a)
\nThe Pool of Bethesda\/Asclepion was probably part of the Hellenization of
\nJerusalem, along with several other important projects such as a Roman
\ntheater and a Roman bathhouse. It is probably referring to such Hellenization
\nof Jerusalem that Qumranite devotees, authoring their commentary on the
\nProphet Nahum, wrote: \u201cWhere is the lion\u2019s den, the cave of the young lions?
\n(Nah. 2:12b) The interpretation of this concerns Jerusalem, which had
\nbecome a dwelling for the wicked ones of the Gentiles\u2026\u201d (4QpNah)
\nIn that case, the pool of Bethesda (\u201chouse of mercy\u201d in Hebrew) does not
\nhave to be a Jewish site at all, but rather a Greek Asclepion-affiliated facility.
\nIt is very important to notice that in this particular healing, Jesus does not
\ncommand the one he healed to wash himself in the pool (of Bethesda), while
\nin the story of the healing of the blind man, he did issue a direct command to
\ngo and wash at the pool of Siloam. (Jn. 9:6-7) It therefore appears that, while
\nthe pool of Bethesda was a pagan place (an Asclepion), the pool of Siloam
\nwas indeed connected with the Jerusalem Temple. Of course, Jerusalem was
\nthe center for the Ioudaioi in Jesus\u2019 days, but it was also the center for
\nHellenized ideals in Judea and was under strict Roman control.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n90
\n[\u2026 waiting for the moving of the waters; 4 for an angel of
\nthe Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and
\nstirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up
\nof the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease
\nwith which he was afflicted.]
\nWhile some modern Bibles still include the above text in brackets (3b-4),
\nit is not contained in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts available to us
\ntoday and therefore should not be treated as authentic. It seems that the
\nChristian copyist, unfamiliar with cult of Asclepius and the Pool of
\nBethesda\u2019s affiliation with it, added the explanation about the Angel of the
\nLord stirring up the waters, in an attempt to clarify things for his readers. In
\nreality, he ended up sending all the following generations of readers in the
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n91
\nwrong interpretive direction, missing the whole point of the story.
\nContrary to popular opinion, ancient scribes were not always accurate in
\npreserving every jot and tittle of the text they were copying. They did not
\nembellish things, but certainly were not afraid to \u201cclarify issues\u201d when they
\nthought something was missing. Hence, the new character in this story, the
\nangel of Israel\u2019s God, was added by a well-meaning, but misguided copyist.
\nThe copyist, unlike the author of John\u2019s Gospel, was not aware of the Greek
\nreligious identity of Bethesda. It sounded to him, from the text he had before
\nhim and without any evidence of the contemporary culture, like the \u201chouse of
\nmercy\u201d of the God of Israel. He was simply mistaken.
\n5 One man was there who had been an invalid for thirtyeight
\nyears. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that
\nhe had already been there a long time, he said to him, \u201cDo
\nyou want to be healed?\u201d 7 The sick man answered him, \u201cSir, I
\nhave no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred
\nup, and while I am going another steps down before
\nme.\u201d8 Jesus said to him, \u201cGet up, take up your bed, and
\nwalk.\u201d 9 And at once the man was healed, and he took up his
\nbed and walked.
\nTwo types of people were often seen on the porches of the pool of
\nBethesda – those who came to try their luck as part of the quest for healing on
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n92
\nthe way, as it were, to another promising healing solution; and those who had
\nalready given up all hope for any kind of healing. In response to Jesus\u2019
\nquestion about whether or not he wished to get well, we read an answer that
\nwas anything but hopeful. In the words of the sick man: \u201cI have no one to put
\nme into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going, another
\nsteps down before me.\u201d (vs. 7) The stirring up of the water was likely
\nhappening when the priests of the Asclepius cult opened the connecting pipes
\nbetween the higher and the lower portions of the pool. The water in the upper
\nreservoir would then flow into the lower portion of the pool.
\nAs the Gospel tells us, the \u201cinstitutionalized\u201d man had been for a long time
\nin the context of a deeply religious, albeit Greek religious, environment. He
\nwas a man with a significant personal need and he was without hope. In Greek
\nmythology, Asclepius was known, not only for his healing and life-giving
\npowers, but also for an attitude of benevolence to the people. This made him
\none of the most popular divinities in the Greco-Roman world. Later in the
\nstory, in Israel\u2019s Temple, Jesus would meet the man he had healed, and would
\nwarn him not to continue his life of sin. This fits well with the idea that the
\nPool of Bethesda was an Asclepion.
\nThis is a powerful story. Sickness \u2013 the symbol of human chaos \u2013 was
\ncalled into order by the power of Jesus\u2019 word; in the same way that precreation
\nchaos was once called into the order of creation by Israel\u2019s Heavenly
\nKing. Now, the royal Son of Israel\u2019s God (Jesus) came into the pagan abode
\n(Asclepion) and healed a Judean man without any magical formulas and
\nspells. Jesus did so simply by telling the man to get up and walk. In other
\nwords, Jesus healed the man in the same way Israel\u2019s God once created the
\nworld \u2013 simply by the power of His spoken word.
\nNow that day was the Sabbath. 10 So the Ioudaioi said to the
\nman who had been healed, \u201cIt is the Sabbath, and it is not
\nlawful for you to take up your bed.\u201d 11 But he answered them,
\n\u201cThe man who healed me, that man said to me, \u2018Take up your
\nbed, and walk.\u2019 \u201d 12 They asked him, \u201cWho is the man who said
\nto you, \u2018Take up your bed and walk\u2019?\u201d 13 Now the man who
\nhad been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had
\nwithdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. 14 Afterward
\nJesus found him in the temple and said to him, \u201cSee, you are
\nwell! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.\u201d
\n15 The man went away and told the Ioudaioi that it was Jesus
\nwho had healed him.
\nIt was a Sabbath day. We read in verse 10 that once Jesus healed the man,
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n93
\ncommanding him \u201cto get up, pick up his bed and walk,\u201d the Ioudaioi objected
\nto the man carrying his rolled-up mattress because it was the Sabbath day.
\nReferring to Jesus, the man said: \u201cthat man who healed me commanded me
\nto do so.\u201d When asked, he could not identify or give a description of Jesus.
\nEverything happened too quickly. He was healed and then Jesus simply
\ndisappeared into the crowd. Sometime later, the man encountered Jesus in the
\nTemple complex. Jesus warned him that unless he stopped sinning (in this
\ncontext, away from idol worship) something worse could happen to him
\n(verses 9-14).
\nJesus\u2019 comment about the man\u2019s sin seems uncharacteristic. I therefore
\nconclude that, either the reference was made to something in particular that
\nJesus knew about in connection with this man\u2019s past, or more probably, that
\nthe man, being Jewish, had succumbed to adulterous involvement in Greek
\nreligious worship. In other words, Jesus\u2019 rough words to the man had
\nsomething to do with the place where Jesus found him \u2013 the pool of Bethesda
\n\u2013 the pool dedicated to the healing power of the Greek god Asclepius. While
\nthere may be other reasons, it seems that the man who was healed probably
\ndid not like Jesus\u2019 rebuke and went to the Ioudaioi to tell them about his
\nhealer\u2019s identity. Of course, it\u2019s possible that the man went out because of his
\nsense of naivet\u00e9 (reporting the great things God has done, as it were), but the
\nnatural reading of the story seems to indicate that the healed man reported
\nJesus to the authorities because of Jesus\u2019 earlier rebuke and warning against
\nfuture idol worship.
\n16 And this was why the Ioudaioi were persecuting Jesus,
\nbecause he was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus
\nanswered them, \u201cMy Father is working until now, and I am
\nworking.\u201d
\nThe Temple leadership heard of Jesus\u2019 rising popularity. Something
\nhappened, however, to incense them. Jesus did the unthinkable. He went to
\nthe Greek Temple complex where the god Asclepius was worshiped, or at
\nleast honored, by many common people in Judah seeking healing. (In the
\nancient mind, worshiping and honoring a divinity was not one and the same
\nthing.)
\nJesus declared his redeeming\/healing Kingship over Israel by physically
\nhealing one of the lost sheep of Israel, thus demonstrating full authority over
\nsickness and, like the Israelite prophets of old, putting to shame the false
\nclaims of pagan worshipers and those among God\u2019s people who had joined
\ntheir beliefs in the condoning silence of approval. With this healing, the
\nIoudaioi\u2019s authority, popularity and communal influence were threatened to
\nthe core by this unprecedented challenge issued by Jesus to the temple
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n94
\nauthorities.
\nThis happens often in life. When a pioneer in any field takes a strong lead
\nover other members, the challenged and threatened establishment attempts to
\nlaunch an attack against the challenger\u2019s character. In this case, they
\nattempted to disown what was most dear to Jesus himself in the context of his
\nlife \u2013 obedience to the Torah. The Jerusalemite authorities went after him,
\ncriticizing him regarding one of the most important things in the life of an
\neveryday Judean \u2013 Sabbath observance. The goal was to discredit him by
\nmaking him someone he was not \u2013 a Sabbath-breaker.
\nBut there\u2019s more here than first meets the eye. In verse 16 we read: \u201cthis
\nwas why the Ioudaioi were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these
\nthings on the Sabbath.\u201d In most interpretations of this story, the emphasis is
\nplaced on the Sabbath, so we understand that \u201cthis was why the Ioudaioi were
\npersecuting Jesus \u2013 because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.\u201d But
\nwhat if we are simply placing the emphasis on a wrong word? What if the
\nsentence should instead be read: \u201cthis was why the Ioudaioi were persecuting
\nJesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.\u201d
\nIn other words, the issue really was not that Jesus was not a Sabbathobservant
\nJew. The issue was that Jesus was demonstrating his incredible
\nmiracle-working power, which in turn demonstrated his unprecedented
\nconnection with the Divine. The influence of the Ioudaioi was already
\njeopardized (due to many other factors unrelated to Jesus) and now it was
\njeopardized even more. What Jesus did was simply not acceptable.
\nJesus had stepped into the abode of the god Asclepius and healed someone
\nwho had been sick for many years. In other words, the Jerusalem Temple
\nauthorities knew that Jesus could not continue performing such powerful
\nmiracles without them (the Ioudaioi \u2013 Judean authorities) losing their
\nauthority over the Jewish communities in Judea and abroad. So they falsely
\naccused him of breaking the laws of the Holy Sabbath \u2013 a very serious
\noffense, which would surely disqualify anyone with Messianic claims or
\nhopes. In other words, the Sabbath was not the reason for persecuting Jesus.
\nIt was their slanderous excuse. It was his miracles and prophetic words, not
\nonly in distant Galilee, but especially the miracle in the nearby Asclepion in
\nJudea. This miracle took place right next to the Jerusalem Temple and this
\nthreatened them to the core.
\nIn verse 17, we read that Jesus defended himself with a well-known Jewish
\ntraditional concept: \u201cGod rested on the Sabbath day after the initial creation
\ndescribed in Genesis, but He has continued to work each Sabbath ever since.
\nHe endows children with human souls and brings them into covenant
\nrelationship with Himself at the time of their circumcision.\u201d Jesus put it this
\nway: \u201cMy Father is working until now, and I am working.\u201d The logic was
\nvery simple \u2013 If children are born on the Sabbath day, then it means that God
\nworks to give them life on the Sabbath day. If children are allowed to be
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n95
\ncircumcised on the Sabbath, then surely God also works, making the covenant
\nwith them on the Sabbath.
\nTherefore, Jesus\u2019 reasoning was already accepted by many Ioudaioi as a
\nJewish Torah-observant opinion and an honorable life-style of a fellow
\npracticing Jew. He was not saying anything new in that regard. Healing on
\nthe Sabbath was not something that violated the Torah, contrary to the
\nobjections of the Ioudaioi.
\nAs we will see shortly, the real problems were connected with Jesus\u2019 other
\nclaims. Not only did he claim general Sonship of God, but he claimed to have
\na particularly close relationship with the Heavenly Father. He was His Son,
\nand therefore equal to God in some very important areas. This claim was
\nrightly perceived by the Ioudaioi as threatening their standing in the
\ncommunity, their ability to lead, influence and control. Regrettably, their
\nleadership reached the conclusion that they must do something. Jesus was
\nbecoming too dangerous for them. Something needed to be done to discredit
\nhim and stop the momentum he was gaining. At the threat of such a grave
\ndanger, almost anything seemed justified.
\n18 This was why the Ioudaioi were seeking all the more to
\nkill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he
\nwas even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with
\nGod.
\nHow can this strong negative language toward Jesus be explained? After
\nall, we read that the Ioudaioi sought to kill him. It is known that in the vast
\nmajority of premeditated murder cases, the actions of the murderer are based
\non feelings of anger that eventually lead to the murder itself. This is probably
\nwhy Jesus taught that in some way anger towards a fellow human, is the same
\nas actual murder. (Mt. 5:21-22) When people become angry, and continue to
\nbe very angry for a long period of time, they often cannot bear the heavy
\nburden of their anger, but will seek to take some action to satisfy and nullify
\nthe anger that causes them so much emotional pain. They must end the pain
\nthat their own anger causes them. The stronger the anger, the stronger is the
\ndesire to end it. In the absence of a better way, people resort to evil actions
\nsuch as violence, and even murder.
\nIncidentally, the word in Greek translated here as \u201cbreaking\u201d the Sabbath
\ndoes not need to be translated this way.31 It is equally possible to speak of
\nJesus \u201csetting the Sabbath free.\u201d It is not that the author of John thought Jesus
\nwas breaking the Sabbath. He, in fact, was persuaded that Jesus could not
\nbreak a command of his own (John holds to high Christology, meaning that
\n31 Although \u03bb\u03cd\u03c9 occurs in 7:23 in a way that would indicate \u201cbreak\u201d is an acceptable and
\nappropriate translation in this context.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n96
\nJesus is the incarnation of the LORD God himself). So by definition, Jesus
\ncould not be everything John said he was and at the same time be a Sabbath
\nbreaker. But, in John\u2019s account, it was the Ioudaioi who accused him of
\nbreaking the Sabbath, because they were seeking to discredit him in the eyes
\nof the people, whose heart-allegiance they did not possess, but whose
\nrebellion they still feared.
\nJesus\u2019 very presence (His person), as well as his teachings (His words),
\nand his signs (His deeds), were spelling trouble for the Jerusalem Temple
\nelite and others who fed off the same budget and status. Jesus was gaining a
\nmore and more popular following. He was performing miracles and giving
\nprophetic speeches almost exclusively outside of Judea, (the headquarters of
\nthe Ioudaioi). As a matter of principle, he did not respond to their requests to
\nsubmit to their authority. In this chapter, however, the anger and plans to kill
\nJesus are only beginning. They reach a crescendo when Jesus crosses the red
\nline of the patience and tolerance of the Ioudaioi. Jesus\u2019 final threat to the
\nIoudaioi leadership will be his most spectacular miracle: the resurrection of
\na well-known and respected member of the Ioudaioi, a man named Lazarus.
\nWe read in John 11<\/a> that Jesus\u2019 coming to Bethany (very near Jerusalem)
\nand resurrecting Lazarus, resulted in two significant events. Many members
\nof the Ioudaioi placed their faith in Jesus. As a result, an emergency meeting
\nof the top-level leadership was called. In John 11:47-48<\/a>, we read: \u201c\u2026 the
\nchief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, \u2018What are we to
\ndo? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone
\nwill believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place
\nand our nation.\u2019\u201d
\nWe will look at this story in detail when we get to Chapter 11, but for now,
\nit is clear that the accusations of the Ioudaioi in this section did not have to
\ndo with Jesus\u2019 seemingly \u201cliberal\u201d Sabbath observance, but with his person,
\nwords and deeds. It is not that his claims to be the Son of Man\/Logos of God,
\ndid not have a place in the Judaism of the time, but simply that Jesus was not
\nallowed to take that place. The Jerusalem leaders calculated that if things
\ncontinued as they were, Jesus, with his prophetic speeches that were validated
\nby his great miracles,32 would surely have put them out of a job.
\nIn the following sections we will see how the roles of Jesus will merge
\ntwo normally separate concepts: \u201cSon of God\u201d and \u201cSon of Man.\u201d
\nChiastic Structure
\nWe now come to a very interesting text in John 5:19-30<\/a>. If you have been
\nreading this book carefully, you may be surprised to find that I\u2019ve taken such
\n32 Use of the word \u201cmiracles\u201d is slightly misrepresentative of John\u2019s gospel, which consistently
\npresents Jesus\u2019s acts of wonder as \u201csigns\u201d (\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1). This is not the case in the Synoptics, which do speak
\nof Jesus performing \u201cmiracles\u201d or \u201cworks of power\u201d (\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2).
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n97
\na long text for consideration, instead of dividing it into a number of smaller
\npieces as I have been doing. The reason is, that in this text we encounter a
\nclear and unquestionable (at least to my mind) example of an ancient form of
\nliterary design \u2013 a chiasm. One of the many functions of chiasm is to help the
\ninterpreter clearly see where the literary unit begins and where the unit is
\nbrought to a literary conclusion. First, I will show a diagram of chiastic
\nstructure, before attempting to explain it. The literary unit, when analyzed,
\nhas the following structure:
\nThe sentence, either word-by-word or at the very
\nleast, thought-by-thought, is repeated at the
\nbeginning and at the end of the literary unit. It is as if
\nthe original author moves from A1 to B1, from B1 to
\nC1, from C1 to D1 and then suddenly switches gears
\nand moves backwards according to exactly the same
\norder (D2, C2, B2, A2).
\nJohn 5:19-30<\/a> is structured as a clear-cut chiasm.
\nNot only are thought-by-thought parallel repetitive
\nstructures present, but my positive identification of it
\nas a true chiasm is verified by clearly repetitive word-by-word occurrences
\nas well. Let us take a look:
\nA1 19 Jesus therefore answered and was saying to them, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, the Son
\ncan do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the
\nFather does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
\nB1 20 \u201cFor the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n98
\nis doing; and greater works than these will He show Him, that you may marvel.
\n21 \u201cFor just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also
\ngives life to whom He wishes.
\nC1 22 \u201cFor not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all
\njudgment to the Son, 23 in order that all may honor the Son, even as they
\nhonor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the
\nFather who sent Him.
\nD1 24 \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My
\nword, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life,
\nand does not come into judgment, but has passed out of
\ndeath into life.
\nD2 25 \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming
\nand now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the
\nSon of God; and those who hear shall live.
\nC2 26 \u201cFor just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave
\nto the Son also to have life in Himself; 27 and He gave Him authority
\nto execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.
\nB2 28 \u201cDo not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in
\nthe tombs shall hear His voice, 29 and shall come forth; those who did the good
\ndeeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection
\nof judgment.
\nA2 30 \u201cI can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is
\njust, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
\nAt this point, the chiastic structure of John 5:19-30<\/a> is very clear. We will
\ncontinue this exciting journey and see how this structure should not just make
\nan impression on us, but also help us to understand the original, intended
\nmeaning more clearly and accurately.
\nBecause of the chiastic structure, we can easily see that John 5:19-30<\/a> is a
\nclear literary unit. While this unit should still be read in the context of what
\nprecedes and what follows, these verses should primarily be read and studied
\nas a unit. Another extremely important function of the chiasm is to point the
\nreader\/hearer to the key concept within the literary unit. While everything in
\nJohn 5:19-30<\/a> can be said to be important, there is a section that is highlighted
\nas being of greater importance. Which verse or verses are the most important?
\nSimply put, it is the center verse\/s – the point at which the forward movement
\nstops and the reverse begins. In this case, D1 and D2 are emphasized as the
\ncrucial point of the entire literary unit.
\nThrough his brilliant literary creation, the author of John first states, and
\nthen essentially restates in reverse order, the following three ideas:
\n1) Jesus is utterly dependent and reliant on his Father, who causes him
\nto act only in accordance with His will. (A1 and A2)
\n2) The Father and the Son, in equal measure, give life to the dead.
\nBecause of the arrival of the Son, the hour of resurrection for the
\nwicked and the righteous draws near. (B1 and B2)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n99
\n3) The Father has fully commissioned the Son to rule\/judge in his place.
\n(C1 and C2)
\nAt this point, the author makes us aware of the chiastic center, thereby,
\nshowing the emphasis he meant to give this literary unit. In this text, the
\nemphasis might be summarized as follows: Eternal life rests on one\u2019s
\nresponse to the words of Jesus, believing that He is the Son of God sent by
\nthe Father to bring victory over death and sin. (D1 and D2). We see this in
\nverses 24-25:
\nD1 24 \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes
\nHim who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment,
\nbut has passed out of death into life.
\nD2 25 \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when
\nthe dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear
\nshall live.
\nAs we look into the Old Testament background of the theological
\nstatements clearly presented and highlighted in John 5:19-30<\/a>, we are of
\ncourse drawn to several key passages from the prophets. The prophetic words
\nof Daniel in 12:2 and his earlier vision in 7:13-14 are evoked, and play a
\nmajor role in this text.
\nDan. 12:2 \u201cAnd many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall
\nawake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting
\ncontempt.\u201d
\nDan. 7:13-14 \u201cI saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of
\nheaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient
\nof Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion
\nand glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages
\nshould serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall
\nnot pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.\u201d
\nAfter reading both texts from Daniel, we see: By the time of the writing
\nof Daniel, there was already a clear prophetic hope and expectation
\nconcerning resurrection from the dead (A section of this text reminds us of a
\ndepiction of Israel\u2019s return from exile, back to the Lord her God and to the
\nLand of Israel promised to her for an everlasting possession. [Ezek. 37:1-14]
\nIt is also a powerful image of the massive\/collective resurrection of the dead).
\nDaniel\u2019s vision spoke of someone to whom Israel\u2019s God (the Ancient of
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n100
\nDays) would give his own full, legitimate authority. The figure of the Son of
\nMan, commissioned in Daniel 7:14<\/a> to rule the world, is only literally fulfilled
\nat the time of Jesus\u2019 ascension. (Lk. 24:50-52)
\nIn John 5:19-30<\/a>, the texts cited from Daniel are then merged with the idea
\nof the Royal Son of God, from Psalm 2<\/a>.
\nNarrator: Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings
\nof the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the
\nLord and against his Anointed, saying,
\nThe Nations: \u201cLet us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords
\nfrom us.\u201d
\nNarrator: He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in
\nderision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury,
\nsaying,
\nHeavenly King: \u201cAs for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.\u201d I
\nwill tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, \u201cYou are my Son; today I have
\nbegotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the
\nends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron
\nand dash them in pieces like a potter\u2019s vessel.\u201d
\nNarrator: Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the
\nearth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest
\nhe be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled.
\nBlessed are all who take refuge in him.
\nFrom this we can clearly see that the ideas presented in John 5:19-30<\/a> are
\na composite of collected ideas. Together they find, in this brilliant Johannine
\nchiasm, a new and more systematized emphasis.
\n31 If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not
\ntrue.
\nAs we continue to journey together through this ancient world with Jesus,
\nwe will compare and pay special attention to obvious differences between the
\nSynoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John.
\nWhen we don\u2019t spend most of our time attempting to harmonize the
\nGospel accounts, surprising insights can emerge. Moreover, it is by
\nhighlighting the sometimes sharp differences between the accounts of Jesus\u2019
\nlife, that we encounter what otherwise has proven to be an enigmatic
\nenterprise: discovering John\u2019s original intention, context, and purpose for
\ncomposing this Gospel. This time I would like to highlight one very important
\ndifference \u2013 the almost complete absence of the courtroom motif in the
\nSynoptic Gospels and its dominance in the Gospel of John. The words, \u201cto
\nwitness\u201d or \u201cto testify,\u201d occur throughout John. Everything and everyone
\nseem to be testifying on behalf of Jesus.
\nIn John 5:31<\/a>, Jesus is reminding his accusers of how the testimony of
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n101
\nwitnesses was to function according to Mosaic legislation in ancient Israel.
\nJesus appeals to a Mosaic Law summarized in Deuteronomy:
\nDeut. 17:6-7 \u201cOn the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the
\none who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on
\nthe evidence of one witness.\u201d
\nDeut. 19:15 \u201cA single witness shall not suffice against a person for any
\ncrime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed.
\nOnly on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be
\nestablished.\u201d
\nThere are other examples in the Hebrew Bible\/Old Testament that do not
\ncarry exclusively negative (prosecuting) connotations when it comes to using
\nthe principle of two or more witnesses. In Exodus 32:15<\/a>, Moses calls the two
\nstones upon which the Ten Commandments were engraved, the \u201ctablets of the
\nTestimony.\u201d In the Temple, above the mercy seat, there were also two
\nsupreme witnesses \u2013 cherubim who covered the ark of testimony with their
\nwings.
\n32 There is another who bears witness about me, and I know
\nthat the testimony that he bears about me is true. 33 You sent
\nto John, and he has borne witness to the truth. 34 Not that the
\ntestimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so
\nthat you may be saved. 35 He was a burning and shining lamp,
\nand you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.
\nIn this passage, Jesus will make a case that he has two witnesses to
\nestablish the veracity of his claims regarding his person, and therefore, his
\ndeeds and teachings. First is the lesser testimony of John the Baptist. Jesus
\ncontinues to talk with the Ioudaioi recalling, in verse 33, the Jerusalem formal
\ninquiry into the ministry of John the Baptist. There we read, \u201c\u2026the Ioudaioi
\nsent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, \u2018Who are you?!\u2019\u201d (Jn.
\n1:19) We can clearly see that Jesus is not debating with the Jewish people as
\nsuch, but with the Temple authorities and those who worked for them outside
\nthe Temple. We are introduced to the interesting fact that John\u2019s ministry was
\nnot rejected from the outset. (vs. 35) In several ways, John looked like many
\nother aspiring Jewish prophets who inspired followings and, in the end, were
\nnot themselves important. It is only when John\u2019s activity began to gain
\nmomentum that the investigation from Jerusalem was commissioned.
\n36 But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John.
\nFor the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the
\nvery works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n102
\nFather has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself
\nborne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his
\nform you have never seen, 38 and you do not have his word
\nabiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has
\nsent.
\nSecondly, the stronger witness to the person, deeds, and words of Jesus,
\nwas the Lord \u2013 the Covenant God of Israel Himself. Jesus made a two-fold
\nargument from this point:
\nConsider the incredible miracle-working power I have. That power is God\u2019s
\nseal of approval. God\u2019s testimony is that the message that accompanies
\nthe manifestations is indeed also true.
\nWhile the baptismal event is not recorded in John, it was no doubt already
\npart of the Jesus\u2019 tradition. The heavens were opened and God\u2019s voice
\nthundered from above, echoing the words of Psalm 2<\/a>.
\nWe read, related to this theme, a passage in Luke 7:18-22<\/a>:33
\nThe disciples of John reported all these things to him. And John, calling
\ntwo of his disciples to him, sent them to the Lord, saying, \u201cAre you the
\none who is to come, or shall we look for another?\u201d And when the men
\nhad come to him, they said, \u201cJohn the Baptist has sent us to you, saying,
\n\u2018Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?\u2019\u201d In that
\nhour he healed many people of diseases and plagues and evil spirits,
\nand on many who were blind he bestowed sight. And he answered them,
\n\u201cGo and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their
\nsight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead
\nare raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.\u201d
\nWe read in another related passage, incidentally also in Luke 3:21-22<\/a>:
\nNow when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been
\nbaptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit
\ndescended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from
\nheaven, \u201cYou are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.\u201d
\n39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them
\nyou have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about
\nme, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. 41 I
\ndo not receive glory from people. 42 But I know that you do
\n33 Cf. Mark 1:9-11<\/a>.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n103
\nnot have the love of God within you.
\nIt is possible that we have long misinterpreted this verse. You may ask,
\nwhat is there to misinterpret!? Jesus says he does not seek praise from people,
\nbut only from God Himself. It\u2019s pure and simple, and knowing the
\ngrammatical nuances of Greek, Aramaic and\/or Hebrew languages would not
\nchange the message. Well\u2026 it\u2019s true that in this case, knowing linguistics
\nwould not help, but knowing the background of the New Testament would.
\nDuring the Second Temple period, in addition to Pharisees, Sadducees,
\nEssenes and Samaritans, there were other Israelite groups. Sometime later,
\nsome rabbis derogatorily referred to a group that is of particular interest to us
\nhere, as the \u201cpeople of the land.\u201d34 These were Israelites who were the
\ndominant people group in Lower Galilee. They did not engage heavily with
\nthe teachings of the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem and, even if they were
\nlearned, they were not considered as such by the elitist standards of the
\nIoudaioi.
\nWhen we look, especially in John\u2019s Gospel, for the type of person who
\naccepted Jesus\u2019 authority and supported his ministry, we reach an obvious
\nconclusion. Jesus was largely rejected in Judea, but largely accepted in Jewish
\nGalilee. Since Judea was dominated by the Ioudaioi, and Jewish Galilee by
\nthe Israelite am ha\u2019aretz (the people of the land), we conclude that it is
\nentirely possible that Jesus was not referring, in verse 41, to people as a
\nwhole, but to the people among whom he was quickly becoming a major
\ncelebrity. These people were the Jewish Galilean \u201cpeople of the land.\u201d
\nThroughout the Gospel of John, you will recall that the Ioudaioi
\nchallenged Jesus to submit his ministry to their approval – Jesus consistently
\nrefused. In this section (especially in verses 42-47), Jesus leveled a strong
\ncritique against the Ioudaioi, explaining his reasons for not honoring their
\nauthority. They accused him of accepting praise\/approval from the people (of
\nthe land) instead of from them. Jesus, however, expressed his non-acceptance
\nof their authority in verses 43-47. Let us see what he said:
\n43 I have come in my Father\u2019s name, and you do not receive
\nme. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him.
\nThe second part of this verse (if another comes in his own name, you will
\nreceive him) has been interpreted to be a reference to the coming of Anti-
\nChrist. Even if this is a new thought for you, you can see how this idea might
\nbe relevant in this context. However, I do not think it is possible to confidently
\nstate what Jesus was referring to here.
\n34 Am ha\u2019aretz occurs 40 times in the Mishnah, prominently in tractates Demai, Avot, and Toharot.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n104
\nThere is another possibility that has been largely overlooked. In Jesus\u2019
\ntime, the concept of the Wicked Priest was known among Essene-influenced
\nIsraelites. Writings regarding the Wicked Priest are well represented in the
\nQumran Collection. (1QpHab 1:13; 8:8; 9:9; 11:4; 12:2, 8) Presumably the
\nQumranite Israelite residents, who left Jerusalem in protest and established
\nthe headquarters of the Israelite Essene movement in the Judean Desert (a
\ncentury before Jesus), were persecuted by this Wicked Priest of the Jerusalem
\nTemple. The Wicked Priest may have been a symbolic figure representing all
\nhigh priestly figures. The Essenes also had a figure they called the Teacher
\nof Righteousness (CD 1:11; 20:32; 1QpHab 1:13; 5:10; 7:4; 8:3; 11:5), who
\nwas the oppositional counterpart to the figure of the Wicked Priest.
\nWe read about both of them in the Qumranite Commentary on the Book
\nof Habakkuk (words in italics below are from the prophet Habakkuk, and in
\nregular fonts from the Qumran leaders):
\n\u201cBecause of the blood of men and the violence done to the land, to the city,
\nand all its inhabitants. Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked Priest whom
\nGod delivered into the hands of his enemies because of the iniquity
\ncommitted against the Teacher of Righteousness and the men of his Council,
\nthat he might be humbled by means of a destroying scourge, in bitterness of
\nsoul, because he had done wickedly to His elect.\u201d (1QpHab 9.8-12)
\nAmong many other references, we cite this passage:
\n\u201c\u2026 the arrogant man seizes wealth without halting. He widens his
\ngullet like Hell and like Death he has never enough. All the nations are
\ngathered to him and all the people are assembled to him. Interpreted,
\nthis concerns the Wicked Priest who was called by the name of truth
\nwhen he first arose. But when he ruled over Israel his heart became
\nproud, and he forsook God and betrayed the precepts for the sake of
\nriches. He robbed and amassed the riches of men of violence who
\nrebelled against God, and he took the wealth of the peoples, heaping
\nsinful iniquity upon himself \u2026\u201d (1QpHab 8.4-11)
\nTheories as to the identity and dating of both of these figures vary greatly.
\nThere is certainly no consensus. There is, however, an influential theory that
\nthe Wicked Priest is a composite figure who includes a series of various
\nwicked priests whose administration of the Jerusalem Temple covered several
\ncenturies.
\nThough one cannot be certain, I speculate here that it is possible in verse
\n43b that Jesus referred either to present or past events involving the Wicked
\nPriest\/s (Remember Jesus was very familiar with the Essene movement and
\nno doubt was aware of these interpretations). However, I want to underscore,
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n105
\nwe cannot be sure to what Jesus referred. It could have been something
\nparticular, such as the above-mentioned possibility, something hypothetical,
\nor something that was yet in the future – like the Anti-Christ.
\n44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one
\nanother and do not seek the glory that comes from the only
\nGod?
\nJesus\u2019 argument is simple. How can I trust you (the Ioudaioi) to make a
\njudgment about me if you yourselves need each other\u2019s approval to remain in
\npower? His point is also simple: there is a conflict of interest. A judge who
\nstood to lose or gain, or was in some way personally connected with a case,
\nwould be disqualified because he would not be thought able to judge
\nrighteously. Jesus strongly criticized the entire temple establishment,
\nparticularly its leadership and its administration. Those leaders were in
\ndanger of losing their position and authority. It was logical, therefore, for
\nJesus to refuse to submit to their judgment.
\n45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is
\none who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope.
\n46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he
\nwrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will
\nyou believe my words?\u201d
\nJesus justified and defended himself, but he was also consistent. He did
\nnot come to condemn those whose evil was clearly exposed by the light of his
\nperson, words and deeds. He insisted that judgment was not his role. His job
\nwas to save and not to condemn. The chief prosecutor of Israel had long since
\nbeen appointed by the God of Israel himself. His name was Moses.
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\n106
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n107
\nChapter 6
\nThe Second Passover; The 5000
\nFed; Walking on Water; Bread of
\nLife
\n\uf041 1 After this Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea
\nof Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberias.
\nIf we read this Gospel account carefully, we would be somewhat
\nbewildered to discover that a conversation starting in John 5:17<\/a> in
\nJerusalem ends on one of the shores of the Sea of Galilee.
\nIt has long been thought that John was either inaccurate or unconcerned
\nabout issues of chronology, geography and details in general; but rather was
\nconcerned with the larger theological view of Christ-related events. Since we
\nhave already walked together through the first five chapters of this Gospel,
\nwe see that this is not the case. John is accurate. He writes, knowing nuanced
\ngeography and paying careful attention to details, even if at times he provides
\na different chronological rendering than that of the Synoptic Gospels.
\nIt is not clear why John tells us
\nnothing about Jesus\u2019 travel from
\nJerusalem to Galilee. A number
\nof suggestions to solve this
\nproblem have been raised.
\nHowever, the suggestions seem to
\nraise more questions. Rather than
\nbeing a case of neglect, it is
\npossible that this was the author\u2019s
\nintention and was part of his
\ncareful design, which we saw
\nearlier (Jn. 5:19-30). One
\npossibility is that John
\nintentionally wanted us to know
\nthat conversations that began in
\nJerusalem always spread to other
\nareas. Or, did this have a
\nsymbolic meaning? We will
\nexplore this possibility further in
\nthe next section and you may be surprised by what you will see. What is clear,
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n108
\nhowever, is that John expected this to be noticed. We know this because, in
\nthe first centuries of the Common Era, the expectation (due to the absence of
\ncopy machines and the printing press) was that this Gospel would be read out
\nloud in communal settings. Most probably, the Gospel would have been read
\nin its entirety, or at least in large sections. Whatever the reason for John\u2019s
\nomission, the answer is likely to be found in his original design for this
\nGospel.
\n2 And a large crowd was following him, because they saw
\nthe signs that he was doing on the sick. 3 Jesus went up on the
\nmountain, and there he sat down with his disciples. 4 Now the
\nPassover, the feast of the Ioudaioi, was at hand.
\nVery soon, in verse 10, we
\nwill read that the \u201clarge crowd\u201d
\nwas a crowd numbering
\napproximately 5,000 men.
\nTaking into consideration that in
\nancient times only men were
\ncounted, the number may have
\nbeen even higher. Nevertheless,
\nwe know that a large crowd of
\npeople followed Jesus and
\nwitnessed his miracles. At the
\ntime, when the village of
\nNazareth had a population of no
\nmore than 200 people,
\n(according to archeological
\ndata), one can see that 5000 was
\nindeed a very large number.
\nTherefore, it can be safely stated
\nthat Jesus\u2019 following had now
\ntransitioned from being local to
\nbeing regional. Even more of a
\nconcern was that Jesus purposely
\nrecast himself as the Moses-like
\nfigure. In this case, like Moses,
\nhe gave his teachings from a
\nmountain (vs. 3), and provided his followers with food. His teaching was the
\nTorah. Not the new Torah to replace the old, but the new Torah to continue
\nwhat the Mosaic Torah had already set forth.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n109
\n5 Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a large crowd
\nwas coming toward him, Jesus said to Philip, \u201cWhere are we
\nto buy bread, so that these people may eat?\u201d 6 He said this to
\ntest him, for he himself knew what he would do. 7 Philip
\nanswered him, \u201cTwo hundred denarii worth of bread would
\nnot be enough for each of them to get a little.\u201d 8 One of his
\ndisciples, Andrew, Simon Peter\u2019s brother, said to him,
\n9 \u201cThere is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish,
\nbut what are they for so many?\u201d 10 Jesus said, \u201cHave the
\npeople sit down.\u201d Now there was much grass in the place. So
\nthe men sat down, about
\nfive thousand in number.
\n11 Jesus then took the
\nloaves, and when he had
\ngiven thanks, he distributed
\nthem to those who were
\nseated. So also the fish, as
\nmuch as they wanted.
\n12 And when they had eaten
\ntheir fill, he told his
\ndisciples, \u201cGather up the
\nleftover fragments, that
\nnothing may be lost.\u201d 13 So
\nthey gathered them up and
\nfilled twelve baskets with
\nfragments from the five
\nbarley loaves left by those
\nwho had eaten. 14 When the
\npeople saw the sign that he
\nhad done, they said, \u201cThis
\nis indeed the Prophet who
\nis to come into the world!\u201d
\nJohn is once again paying attention to details when he states that the place
\nwhere the people gathered had much grass. He was either highlighting the
\nimagery of the shepherd pastoring his sheep, or simply mentioning this as an
\notherwise unconnected detail. (This may then point to the fact that the
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n110
\nmemories were still fresh and vivid when he wrote the Gospel).
\nIn verse 13 we see that Jesus provided so much food that twelve baskets
\nof bread were left when all the people had finished eating. The number twelve
\nis significant and should not be overlooked or considered coincidental. Given
\nthe great importance of the number twelve in Israelite history \u2013 twelve tribes
\nof Israel \u2013 the number of baskets is, therefore, a significant symbolic number.
\nThe meaning of 12, which is considered a perfect number, is that it
\nsymbolizes God\u2019s power and authority, as well as serving as a perfect
\ngovernmental foundation. It indicates that Jesus\u2019 provision is enough, not
\nonly for Galilean Israelites, plus those residing in Judea, but also for all Israel
\n\u2013 for all twelve tribes. If I am correct that the Gospel of John understands the
\nSamaritan Israelites as one of the major Israelite people groups to which it
\nwas addressed, this reference to all the tribes of Israel (twelve baskets) would
\nalso be most appropriate.
\n15 Perceiving then that they were about to come and take
\nhim by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the
\nmountain by himself.
\nThe mountain was a place away from people. It was a place where one
\ncould be alone with God to commune with him in a personal way. All the
\nactivity, all the hustle and bustle of the nearby town, was now silenced. The
\nmountains were also often used as hiding places.
\nPerhaps, Jesus\u2019 early statement in John 5:41<\/a> (I do not receive glory from
\npeople), addressed in the previous section, is connected with this verse. Not
\nonly did Jesus not submit to the power-hungry authority of Jerusalem\u2019s ruling
\nelite, he also did not submit to the blind, often misguided excitement of the
\npeople of the land (am ha\u2019aretz) who, in opposition to the Ioudaioi, wanted
\nto make him King of Israel.
\nBoth the Ioudaioi (who were rejecting him), and the Galilean Israelite
\nPeople of the Land (who were accepting him), failed to see who Jesus really
\nwas and what he had come to do. The idea of both Galilean Israelites and
\nJudean Israelites missing the point with Jesus, may have functioned as a
\nliterary device when John\u2019s Gospel was first composed. The idea behind the
\nnarrative was simple enough: If those who should have known missed the
\npoint entirely, was it not also possible that Samaritan Israelite leaders, and
\nancient Israelites in general, could also miss Jesus\u2019 true purpose? After all in
\nverse 14 the well-fed Galileans say: \u201cThis is indeed the Prophet who is to
\ncome into the world!\u201d This is very similar to what the Samaritan crowd said
\nto the Samaritan woman after speaking with Jesus \u2013 \u201cwe know that this man
\nreally is the Savior of the world.\u201d (John 4:42<\/a>) The key thing to see here is that
\nthe designation of \u201cprophet who is to come into the world\u201d is strictly Mosaic.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n111
\n(Deut. 18:18) This fits perfectly with Samaritan expectations of the future
\nredeemer as the prophet-teacher (they only accepted the Torah and did not
\naccept the rest of the writings whereas the Jewish Messianic expectations
\nbecame far more pronounced).
\n16 When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea,
\n17 got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum.
\nPart of the problem is that we can only know with limited certainty where
\nthe miracle of feeding of the 5000 was performed. The most likely location
\nis at a place where Jesus\u2019 journey from Jerusalem to the Sea of Galilee would
\nhave taken him. He therefore probably performed the miracle of feeding the
\nlarge crowd not far from the southern shore of the lake. It is not easy to track
\nthe movements of Jesus, the disciples, and the crowds in this intense story
\nfull of faith, actions, signs, unexplained behavior, and challenging teachings.
\nBut if we walk slowly and carefully through the text, we should be able to
\ntrace with some clarity almost all the movements described here.
\nWe begin (vs. 16) with the location of where the feeding of the 5000 took
\nplace, probably at the southern end of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus hid himself
\non the mountainside and the disciples boarded a boat for their short journey
\nto the other side of the lake. They landed at Kfar Nahum – literally the village
\nof Nahum (Capernaum). It sounds strange that the disciples left the place
\nwithout waiting for Jesus, but this is what the text says. It is likely that he
\ngave instructions to his disciples to meet him in Capernaum, his northern
\nheadquarters, where Peter\u2019s mother-in-law had a house. Jesus\u2019 popularity
\nthere was huge. We can see that even when he spoke to the worshipers and
\nfollowers in the town\u2019s synagogue about \u201cdrinking his blood and eating of his
\nflesh,\u201d he did not seem to have been harassed. The story simply ends with the
\nwords \u201cJesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.\u201d
\n(Jn.6:59)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n112
\n17b It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.
\nIt is possible that Jesus\u2019 agreement with the disciples was that he would
\ncome on a separate boat and would catch up to them mid-way through the
\nlake. We find out from what unfolds that his disciples were in for a very big
\nsurprise.
\n18 The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing.
\nLake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) is situated between the mountains,
\napproximately 200 meters below sea level. Because of this geography, during
\ncertain seasons rather violent storms can occur, easily capsizing a small boat.
\nThis is still true today. I personally know someone, an experienced fisherman,
\nwho once fished there. In spite of his experience, when a storm like the one
\ndescribed in verse 18 occurred, Israeli emergency aid services were called in
\nand the man was airlifted to safety. (Now, he carefully checks the weather
\nbefore he goes fishing.)
\n19 When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw
\nJesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they
\nwere frightened
\n.
\nJust to give you some perspective, today the pear-shaped lake is about 23
\nkilometers (14 miles) long from north to south, with a maximum width of 13
\nkilometers (8 miles) in the north, covering 166 square kilometers
\n(64 square miles). The lake is not large but is nevertheless sizeable. We are
\ntold that the boat with the disciples had just passed the 3-4-mile mark which
\nis roughly a quarter of the entire distance. It was night and the lights of the
\ncoastal cities were still glimmering in the distance. All of the sudden they saw
\na man walking on the water towards them. Fear was but a natural reaction to
\nthis unnatural event.
\n20 But he said to them, \u201cIt is I; do not be afraid.\u201d 21 Then
\nthey were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the
\nboat was at the land to which they were going.
\nJesus did not make them wait. He responded quickly with comforting
\nassurance. The disciples were astounded and excited to see their leader
\nexercising his lordship over the fiercest force of nature (water), by walking
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n113
\non it. As we move through the
\nstory, we need to keep in mind
\nthe big picture of Jesus being
\npainted for us by the evangelist.
\nIt is not about the miraculous \u2013
\nrather it is about the lordship of
\nJesus over everything. One other
\nimportant point must be made if
\nwe are to take the connection
\nbetween this Gospel and the
\nTorah of Moses seriously, as we
\nshould. One of the key stories in
\nthe Torah is Noah\u2019s ark. It glides
\nover the waters of judgment,
\nsaving people. Jesus does the
\nsame. The parallels are obvious
\n(perhaps too obvious) and
\nironically can be easily missed.
\nThere was no time to think when this was happening and a very curious
\nthing occurred. Although the distance was still sizable, approximately 20
\nkilometers (or 10 miles) to reach Kfar Nahum (Capernaum), the boat
\nimmediately and safely touched the stony beach. This may sound like an
\nunconnected-to-anything incident, but we will be at theological fault if we do
\nnot recognize that distance and time are also, as is all creation, under the sole
\nlordship of God himself. He alone lives outside of time and outside of
\ndistance, and as such, he is eternal and omnipresent. Therefore, this curious
\noccurrence is actually very important because it shows that when the God-
\nMan Jesus (Jn. 1:1, 14) is in the boat with the disciples, the boat is able to
\ndisappear from one place on the map and re-appear in another in an instant.35
\nWe previously discussed another similar curiosity. Jesus was in Jerusalem
\nin John 5<\/a>, but as soon as he finishes his talk with the Ioudaioi – by the very
\nbeginning of Chapter 6 – we find that he was already on one of the shores of
\nthe Sea of Galilee, ready to board his boat and cross over. John\u2019s Gospel is
\nfull of Jesus\u2019 miraculous activity. The evangelist calls Jesus\u2019 miracles signs,
\nreminding the readers and hearers of his Gospel story that these miraculous
\nevents (signs) point away from themselves to the reality they signify.
\n22 On the next day the crowd that remained on the other side
\nof the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and
\nthat Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that
\n35 Cf. Phillip\u2019s disappearance and physical relocation in Acts 8:26-40<\/a>.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n114
\nhis disciples had gone away alone.
\nThe crowd wondered what had happened. They must have reasoned, \u201cThe
\ndisciples could not have left Jesus behind on the shore.\u201d The crowd carefully
\nwatched the place where he could have boarded another boat. However, he
\nhad mysteriously disappeared after their crowning attempt. Where was he?
\nHe was made of flesh and blood; so he had to be somewhere. The crowds
\nreasoned that perhaps he went to Capernaum. How? They did not know.
\n23 Other boats from Tiberias came near the place where they
\nhad eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So
\nwhen the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples,
\nthey themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum,
\nseeking Jesus.
\nIt is helpful if we can see the chronology of the story. When the boats from
\nneighboring Tiberias came to the southern point of the sea (the last place Jesus
\nwas seen and the same place where Jesus fed the 5000), the crowds thought,
\n\u201cJesus must have boarded the boat to Tiberias where his disciples must have
\ngone as well.\u201d It was night so the crowds could not see that the disciples did
\nnot go northwest toward Tiberias, but northeast toward Capernaum.
\nTherefore, in verse 24 we read that when the crowds discovered that neither
\nJesus nor the disciples were in the boats that came from Tiberias, some of
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n115
\nthem got into boats and sailed to Capernaum from there. They wanted to see
\nJesus and nothing was going to stop them.
\n25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they
\nsaid to him, \u201cRabbi, when did you come here?\u201d 26 Jesus
\nanswered them, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me,
\nnot because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves
\nand were satisfied.
\nJesus rejects the excitement and zeal of the crowds once again and he lets
\nthem know that they are not understanding him. Contrary to how the situation
\nappears, Jesus does not accuse the people of simply having their physical
\nneeds met (food), rather than being interested in the spiritual content
\n(salvation). In my opinion, such interpretive dichotomy is simply incorrect.
\nIt is definitely foreign to the Israelite theological context in which the Gospel
\nwas authored. There is, however, a true dichotomy present. It is not the
\ndichotomy between physical and spiritual, but rather the dichotomy between
\nsigns (\u201cnot because you saw signs\u201d) and miracles (\u201cbecause you ate of the
\nloaves\u201d). Surprisingly, Jesus says that the people were only able to see his
\nmiracles, which was not enough. They needed to see the signs. A sign always
\npoints away from itself to the thing or person that it signifies – in this case,
\nJesus.
\n27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food
\nthat endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to
\nyou. For on him God the Father has set his seal.
\nIn ancient times, people were not only paid for their work with coin; they
\nalso used the fair-value exchange system. Sometimes workers were paid in
\ngoods and at other times they were paid in a combination of goods and money.
\nJesus is using the familiar to imply something similar to: \u201cImagine yourself
\nworking, but only getting paid with perishable goods. Would your work be
\nworth your while? Would you even be able to save anything, or put something
\naside?\u201d The answer is implicit in this question – it is a simple \u201cno.\u201d Jesus calls
\nthe workers not to settle for less. He wants them to receive fair wages, not
\nsomething that perishes but something that lasts. In this case – something that
\nlasts forever. It is in this context that rejecting Jesus\u2019 authority can only be
\ncompared to \u201cworking for the food that perishes,\u201d while believing in him
\nequals working for the kind of wage that endures to eternal life.
\nThe traditional assessment of this passage is that it is concerned with socalled
\n\u201cJewish literalism\u201d as well as with \u201cJewish deficient understanding\u201d –
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n116
\nseeking the material\/the physical at the expense of the ultimate, spiritual
\nrevelation of God. This is an inaccurate assessment made by many Christian
\ntheologians regarding Judaism. It is an interpretive error to read this passage
\nin the context of a religious polemic of a \u201cChristian Jesus\u201d and \u201cJewish Jews.\u201d
\nIt should rather be read in the original context of an intra-Israelite polemic.
\nPerhaps now you can see my point. Our almost automatic interpretation of
\nverses 26-27 is along these lines and shows how conditioned we are by the
\nlong history of such interpretation. It seems so obvious that we have a hard
\ntime seeing it as simply \u201cimposed later theology\u201d on the ancient original line
\nof thinking. I wish to be clear that the type of interpretation that associates
\nJudaism with the literal\/corporal and Christianity with the spiritual\/ultimate
\nis not necessarily anti-Semitic in nature. However this does not make it
\naccurate, and therefore it must be rejected by responsible interpreters of the
\nBible. It is important that we critically question our patterns of thinking and
\nalso the thinking of others that have led to our current patterns of thought.
\nSurprising discoveries may emerge when we become conscious of blind spots
\nlike this one.
\nIn the new version of the Sherlock Holmes films (the one with Robert
\nDowney), Holmes and John Watson are recast in a very different and one
\nmight add, refreshing way. Their friendship is redefined on a more or less
\nequal basis and benefit relationship. However, even in this recast of the
\noriginal, Holmes gets to share his brilliant thoughts with his faithful
\ncompanion. In one of the episodes, Holmes critiques Scotland Yard\u2019s
\napproaches to investigation by telling Watson: \u201cNever theorize before you
\nhave data. Invariably, you end up twisting facts to suit theories, instead of
\ntheories to suit facts.\u201d
\nSystematic theology is a human (I mean this in a positive sense) attempt
\nto summarize a variety of scriptural witnesses about a variety of topics
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n117
\ndiscussed in the Bible. Because it is a human attempt, even the best
\nsystematizing of the biblical data is still theory. There is, of course, no
\nproblem with theories as such. We need theories because theories and systems
\nhelp us humans make sense of things around us. We need cohesion and
\nwholeness. The question is not if we accept a theory\/system, but which
\ntheory\/system we accept, and how we can test it to make sure that it is, in
\nfact, accurate.
\n28 Then they said to him, \u201cWhat must we do, to be doing the
\nworks of God?\u201d 29 Jesus answered them, \u201cThis is the work of
\nGod, that you believe in him whom he has sent.\u201d
\nThese verses are regularly used, in Protestant circles in particular, to
\nsupport and illustrate the historical reformation doctrine of \u201cjustification by
\nfaith alone,\u201d as scriptural. The above-mentioned Westminster Shorter
\nCatechism (a collection of questions and answers that was once used for
\nchildren\u2019s instruction and is now used for the preparation of ministers), asks
\nand then answers the question about justification in the following way:
\nQuestion 33: What is Justification?
\nAnswer: \u201cJustification is an act of God\u2019s free grace in which he pardons all
\nour sins and accepts us as righteous in his sight for the sake of the righteousness
\nof Christ alone, which is credited to us and received by faith alone.\u201d
\nMost modern churches in the Protestant tradition would whole-heartedly
\nagree with this statement and subscribe to the core Protestant doctrine of
\n\u201csalvation by faith alone.\u201d I would like to point out, however, that interpreting
\nJohn 6:28<\/a> as scriptural proof of this theological construct (no matter how
\naccurate it may be) is nothing less than reading a later theological system,
\nborn from Catholic-Protestant debates of the 16th century, back into a first
\ncentury Jewish document.
\nI will use bold italics to show the variety of available textual emphases so
\nthat you can see how easily the meaning can change. Pay careful attention,
\nbecause the nuances here make a major interpretive difference.
\nA Protestant version:
\n28 Then they said to him, \u201cWhat must we do, to be doing the works of
\nGod?\u201d – Viewed through the lenses of 16th century Catholic-Protestant debate
\nthis means \u201cBy what works of ours can we be saved from God\u2019s wrath?\u201d
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n118
\n29 Jesus answered them, \u201cThis is the work of God, that you believe in him
\nwhom he has sent.\u201d – Once again, viewed through the lens of 16th century
\nCatholic-Protestant debate, this means, \u201cGod grants people ability to believe
\nand in this way justifies the believer, by faith alone.\u201d
\nA likely original version once we take off the interpretive glass of
\nReformation theology is:
\n28 Then they said to him, \u201cWhat must we do, to be doing the works of
\nGod?\u201d Viewed through the lens of the first-century\u2019s Jewish movements, this
\nmeans, \u201cHow can we be faithful to the Covenant God of Israel?\u201d
\n29 Jesus answered them, \u201cThis is the work of God, that you believe in him
\nwhom he has sent. Once again, viewed through the lens of the first century\u2019s
\nJewish religious context, this means \u201cYou can be faithful to the Covenant
\nGod of Israel only by believing in his authorized representative (Jesus vs. the
\nIoudaioi).
\n30 So they said to him, \u201cThen what sign do you do, that we
\nmay see and believe you? What work do you perform?\u201d
\nNow the truth emerges. The questions that sounded pious and sincere turn
\nout to be the very same questions with which the Ioudaioi in Judea and their
\nGalilean representatives had already challenged Jesus. Notice that, according
\nto this narrative these are the same people who, a short time before, had seen
\nthe sign of the feeding of the 5000 on the shore of the Sea of Galilee.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n119
\nIt is not as if Jesus was refusing to substantiate his claims and his teaching
\nministry by miracles and signs. He showed them to the Galilean Jewish
\nPeople of the Land, but not to the Jerusalem Temple authorities. The refusal
\nto submit his candidacy for Messiahship to the Jerusalem authorities was at
\nthe core of this polemic.
\n31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is
\nwritten, \u201cHe gave them bread from heaven to eat.\u201d 32 Jesus
\nthen said to them, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses
\nwho gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you
\nthe true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who
\ncomes down from heaven and gives life to the world.\u201d
\nAs had already happened many times, and will continue as we follow
\nthe story of Jesus, the Gospel of John will portray many (if not most)
\nrepresentatives of the Ioudaioi system as clueless and insensitive to the
\ntruth. Jesus will set the record straight.
\nFirst, he will argue that the Ioudaioi do not understand the basic facts of
\nthe Torah they claim as their own. It was not Moses who gave bread to people,
\nbut Moses\u2019 God.
\nSecondly, the manna God gave the ancient Israelites through Moses was
\nbut a picture of the true sustenance for the human soul: the incarnate, crucified
\nand finally resurrected Logos of Moses\u2019 God. Jesus called the manna simply
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n120
\n– the \u201cBread of God.\u201d
\nAs we reread and reconsider John 6:28-31<\/a>, inasmuch as we are able within
\nthe context of intra-Israelite polemic of the first century, we must be
\ndisciplined and adjust our theories to fit the facts, not the facts to our theories.
\nIf we learn to live with this methodology, our interpretations will be far more
\naccurate.
\n34 They said to him, \u201cSir, give us this bread always.\u201d
\nIn response to Jesus\u2019 early claims, the Galilean representatives of the
\nIoudaioi who followed Jesus to Capernaum give their response: \u201cSir, give us
\nthis bread always.\u201d (Jn. 6:34) This response is reminiscent of the Samaritan
\nwoman\u2019s earlier response to Jesus\u2019 words: \u201cSir, give me this water, so that I
\nwill not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.\u201d (Jn. 4:15) There are
\na number of other similarities between the two stories. For now we can say
\nthat in this chapter, the Samaritan woman\u2019s faith, having only heard Jesus\u2019
\nwords, is compared and contrasted with the unbelief of those who actually
\nwitnessed Jesus\u2019 miracles and failed to see them as signs. Let me demonstrate
\nthis exciting insight.
\n35 Jesus said to them, \u201cI am the bread of life; whoever comes
\nto me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never
\nthirst.\u201d
\nIn the book of Deuteronomy, the book from which Jesus most often
\nquoted, we read Moses\u2019 reasons for God\u2019s provision of manna to the
\nIsraelites:
\n\u201cAnd he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which
\nyou did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know
\nthat man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes
\nfrom the mouth of the LORD.\u201d (Deut. 8:3)
\nIt is interesting that Jesus speaks of himself being the \u201cbread of life\u201d that
\nsatisfies the ultimate hunger and thirst of human existence. He said this in
\nresponse to representatives of the Ioudaioi\u2019s demand that he show them a
\nsign. \u201cMoses gave manna,\u201d they argued. \u201cWhat do you give?\u201d Just like Moses
\nbefore him, Jesus too must prove that he could be trusted. What is striking,
\nhowever, is that Jesus says almost exactly the same words he had previously
\nsaid to the Samaritan woman. Let\u2019s review and compare them.
\nJesus to the Ioudaioi: \u201cI am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall
\nnot hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.\u201d (Jn. 6:35)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n121
\nJesus to the Samaritan woman: \u201cEveryone who drinks of this water will
\nbe thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will
\nnever be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a
\nspring of water welling up to eternal life.\u201d (Jn. 4:13-14)
\n36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not
\nbelieve.
\nThe Samaritans, who did not see a single miracle of Jesus \u201cbelieved in him
\nbecause of the woman\u2019s testimony\u2026\u201d and \u201cmany more believed because of
\nhis (Jesus\u2019) word.\u201d (Jn. 4:39-42) Compare this to John 6:36<\/a>, where Jesus said
\nto the Ioudaioi: \u201cyou have seen me and yet do not believe.\u201d The Ioudaioi,
\nwho saw the miracles, were not able to see them as signs, and therefore they
\ndid not believe.
\nMiracles were not enough for the Judean Israelites, yet God\u2019s words were
\nenough for the Samaritan Israelites. Perhaps this is the reason that, in another
\nGospel tradition, Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 8:3<\/a>, \u201cMan shall not live by bread
\nalone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.\u201d (Matt. 4:4) The
\nimplication is clear, especially in John – Jesus is God\u2019s \u201cWord.\u201d True
\nIsraelites will live by God\u2019s Word, which means they will live by Jesus
\nhimself.
\n37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever
\ncomes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down
\nfrom heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who
\nsent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should
\nlose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the
\nlast day.
\nAs I have mentioned previously, when reading the Bible we can easily
\nread modern theological interpretations into the ancient text, giving it
\nmeaning that would have been foreign to the first-century context. John,
\nespecially, is often read in this way, particularly against the background of
\n16th century Catholic-Protestant theological debates that eventually spilled
\nover into inter-Protestant discussion and debate. Please, allow me to explain.
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n122
\nIf you have spent time in
\nChristian circles, you have
\nprobably encountered the five
\npoints of Calvinism, which
\nCalvin\u2019s disciples systematized
\nfrom the teachings of this
\nbeloved Swiss Reformer who
\nwas, in my opinion, a great man
\nof God. If you have done any
\ntheological studies, especially
\nwithin a Protestant context, then
\nyou are familiar with the terms:
\nfour-point and five-point
\nCalvinism. These terms are shortcuts for very complex theological constructs.
\nOne of the key teachings of Reformed Christian theology (a direct heir of
\nthe Protestant Reformation) when it comes to salvation, is the doctrine of the
\n\u201cperseverance of the saints.\u201d In other circles it is also, but less accurately,
\ncalled, \u201ceternal security.\u201d
\nBasically, the question is: Can a believer in Jesus ever lose his or her
\npersonal salvation already gained through belief in Christ? Once a person is
\n\u201csaved\u201d (using an evangelical term), is he saved forever? Or is it possible that
\nhe can step into the darkness and never come back? Debates on this question
\ncontinue to rage until now. However, the reason I am raising this issue is not
\nthat I arrogantly think I can settle this age-old debate. I do so rather because
\nverse 39 is a supporting verse for this doctrine. It, along with many other
\nverses from the Gospel of John, is often quoted to substantiate the doctrine of
\neternal security. In this verse, Jesus states that he will not lose anything that
\nwas given to him by his Father to preserve. (vs. 39)
\nWhile I do think that personal application may be in order here, I also think
\nreading this passage on a purely personal level is a serious interpretive
\nmistake. If we consider a wider context for the Gospel of John, we notice that
\nthis same passage, if read on a national (and not on a personal) level, will
\naffirm a very different message.
\nThe Judean Temple authorities (and their followers) accused Jesus of
\nseeking approval from the Galilean Jewish People of the Land (Am
\nHaAretz). Given this background, it is possible that this verse does not
\nrefer to a personal experience of the salvific power of God at all, but to
\nJesus\u2019 royal commitment to the salvation of \u201call Israel,\u201d which would
\ninclude other Israelites, such as the Samaritan Israelites. This is not the
\nfirst time something like this happens in the Bible. For example, the author
\nof the books of Chronicles, in contrast to the author of the books of Kings,
\nessentially retells more or less the same stories, but from a very different
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n123
\nperspective and with a different goal in mind. The Chronicler, for example,
\nmakes all his points in the context of unification language: constantly
\nbringing the message that God is concerned with \u201call Israel,\u201d the entire people
\nof God; while the writer of Kings has a different purpose and therefore a
\ndifferent emphasis. It is, therefore, strikingly Judean-centered.
\nSo imagine the same Jesus who told the Samaritan woman that he was the
\nMessiah expected by all the ancient Israelites, who now says to the
\nrepresentatives of the Jerusalem Temple authorities in Galilee: \u201cI will not lose
\nanything my Father has entrusted to me.\u201d In a sense he is saying, \u201cI have not
\ncome only for Judeans, or only for
\nSamaritans, or only for Essenes or
\nexclusively for any group; I have come
\nas a true King of Israel to reunite and
\nlead \u2018all of Israel\u2019 out of exile to the
\nlong-awaited redemption.\u201d
\n40 For this is the will of my
\nFather, that everyone who looks
\non the Son and believes in him
\nshould have eternal life, and I will
\nraise him up on the last day.\u201d 41 So
\nthe Ioudaioi grumbled about him,
\nbecause he said, \u201cI am the bread
\nthat came down from heaven.\u201d
\nThe words of Jesus in this discourse
\nbecome increasingly more provocative and intense. This is so, because more
\nand more he is showing those who follow him that he is not just another
\nMessianic candidate whom the Jerusalem authorities could accept or reject
\n(not that it was a practice of any candidate to first check with Jerusalemite
\nauthorities). He is Israel\u2019s King, the one anointed by Israel\u2019s God. He is God\u2019s
\nLogos\/Memra, who has come from heaven to the people of Israel. He will
\nmeet all their needs and unite them in the coming redemption.
\nTherefore, Jesus here underscores a point that is nothing less than
\nscandalous (unless Jesus really is who he says he is). We read in verse 40:
\n\u201c\u2026 everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal
\nlife, and I will raise him up on the last day.\u201d Jesus claimed to have the power
\nto give life. In ancient Israelite theology, such a claim was rightfully reserved
\nfor Israel\u2019s God alone. (Ps. 30:3; Hos. 6:2; Neh. 9:6)
\nWhat is surprising, as we carefully read the text, is not that the Ioudaioi
\nobjected to Jesus\u2019 words, but to which words in particular they objected.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n124
\nNotice that it would have been more logical for them to object to the words:
\n\u201cI will raise him up on the last day.\u201d (vs. 40) Instead, we read that they
\nobjected to the earlier words of Jesus: \u201cI am the bread that came down from
\nheaven.\u201d (verses 35, 38) \u201cWhy is this so?\u201d you should be asking. The answer
\nis simply that there is not much difference between the two statements. If one
\nis true, so is the other. Jesus being the bread of life, sustaining life by coming
\nfrom heaven, is the same Jesus who is the source of life, giving life to the
\ndead. We will see more on this subject very soon when Jesus speaks the most
\ndifficult words the disciples and others would ever hear from his mouth. On
\nhearing them, many would leave him, but those who had ears to hear would
\nstay.
\n42 They said, \u201cIs not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose
\nfather and mother we know? How does he now say, \u2018I have
\ncome down from heaven\u2019?\u201d 43 Jesus answered them, \u201cDo not
\ngrumble among yourselves.
\nThe Ioudaioi who followed Jesus to Capernaum were probably from
\nNazareth, the village where Jesus\u2019 family resided after returning from Egypt.
\nThey asked how it was possible that Jesus came down from heaven, since
\nthey knew his parents. At first, this seems like an honest question with no
\nhidden agenda. However, as we continue to read, we see Jesus, who sees the
\nhearts of men, accuse them of grumbling among themselves. It is important
\nthat we note the literary connection with the Israelite grumbling in the desert
\n(Deut. 1:27; Ps. 106:25). The Israelites complained – even when God was
\nproviding them with manna from heaven! Earlier in this chapter, the Ioudaioi
\nwere proudly saying that Moses gave them manna from heaven. Jesus said he
\nwas not manna, but bread -which was much better – and he also came down
\nfrom heaven. Now we see them grumbling in the same way as Israel had
\ncomplained to Moses in the desert.
\n44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me
\ndraws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
\nIn the previous section, I argued that the passage should be read as
\nreferring to national salvation and not simply to individual salvific
\nexperience. Here I want to mention an important point. Reading it in a
\nnational sense does not preclude individual application. The nation of Israel
\nis in fact made up of individual tribes, families, and individuals. Although the
\nstory needs to be understood in the national context, it must also include the
\nindividual faith of every Israelite. Jesus clearly says that it is not possible for
\nanyone (particularly for those included in this context) to follow him
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n125
\nunless the Father personally draws them. Given the context, these words
\napply to members of the Ioudaioi. This is a truly humbling verse. No
\nperson in the world has come to Jesus in true faith by his own volition
\nand power. It is the gracious activity of Israel\u2019s God that has worked in
\nthe hearts of all people who believe.
\n45 It is written in the Prophets, \u2018And they will all be taught
\nby God.\u2019 Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father
\ncomes to me\u2014 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except
\nhe who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I
\nsay to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread
\nof life.
\nAt this point, Jesus makes reference to Jer. 31:31-33:
\n\u201cBehold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a
\nnew covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like
\nthe covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them
\nby the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that
\nthey broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is
\nthe covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,
\ndeclares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on
\ntheir hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And
\nno longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying,
\n\u2018Know the LORD,\u2019 for they shall all know me, from the least of them to
\nthe greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I
\nwill remember their sin no more.\u201d
\nThis reference of Jesus to Jeremiah\u2019s New Covenant text is an important
\nwitness that supports his belief that he had come to restore both houses of
\nIsrael (Judah and Israel). The Samaritan Israelites, who lived in Samaria,
\nsymbolizing36 the ten Northern tribes of Israel, would certainly be part of this
\namazing eschatological restoration of Israel. If this is kept in mind as we read
\nthe rest of John\u2019s Gospel, then the Samaritan themes, especially John 4<\/a>,
\nbecome much clearer.
\n49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they
\ndied. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that
\n36 The Northern Kingdom of Israel included more than just Samaria. Samaria was a territory of
\nEphraim and Manasseh only. However, Samaritan Israelites have defined themselves as remnants of the
\nNorthern Israel and, therefore, may have symbolized the Northern part of Israel.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n126
\none may eat of it and not die.
\nEarlier Jesus had made a sharp distinction between the unbelieving
\nIoudaioi and other Israelites. Here he says that the entire generation that came
\nout of Egypt were their fathers; the ones who ate manna in the wilderness and
\ndid not enter the Land of Promise. In this, he exposes the hypocrisy of his
\nchallengers, who dared compare God\u2019s gracious provision of the true bread
\nfrom heaven, with Moses\u2019 provision of manna in the wilderness. Jesus
\nskillfully and prophetically challenges their unbelief with their own
\nargument. As we look at this, we need to see that Jesus\u2019 polemic against the
\nIoudaioi is an inner Israelite, and even inner Judean polemic.
\n51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If
\nanyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread
\nthat I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.\u201d
\nYou will recall that Jesus said to the Samaritan woman: \u201cEveryone who
\ndrinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that
\nI will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will
\nbecome in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.\u201d (Jn. 4:13-14)
\nNow, he says virtually the same thing to the Ioudaioi. This same theme was
\npresent in the earlier chapters of John in which the Samaritan Israelites
\nbelieved by simply hearing Jesus\u2019 words, and the Ioudaioi did not believe, in
\nspite of seeing Jesus\u2019 miracles. They were just like the generation of
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n127
\nunbelieving Israelites in the wilderness.
\n52 The Ioudaioi then disputed among themselves, saying,
\n\u201cHow can this man give us his flesh to eat?\u201d 53 So Jesus said
\nto them, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of
\nthe Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
\n54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal
\nlife, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is
\ntrue food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my
\nflesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the
\nliving Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so
\nwhoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This
\nis the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread
\nthe fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live
\nforever.\u201d 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he
\ntaught at Capernaum. 60 Many of his disciples, when they
\nheard it, said, \u201cThis is a hard saying; who can listen to it?\u201d
\nDid Jesus make a rhetorical error by comparing the earthly real union with
\nhim (Communion\/Eucharist) to eating flesh and drinking blood? If not, our
\nquestion is, knowing the risk, why did he do this? (Later Christ-followers
\nwould be accused of holding meals where human flesh served as food.) Could
\nthe answer be obvious? Could it not be that Jesus chose the hardest metaphor
\npossible in order to make sure that only those who perceived its true meaning
\nand were not afraid of being misunderstood would have the privilege of being
\ncalled his disciples? I think there is some truth to this theory. However, I think
\nthat Jesus\u2019 main reason for making such a radical pronouncement was simply
\nbecause it was true. Let me state it differently. I think Jesus said this because
\nnothing else could have possibly described that which he was seeking to make
\nclear.37
\n37 I will argue that Jesus\u2019 point here is no different from what those who read the Bible should
\nalready be acquainted with: a move from the present to the ultimate. Here one example comes to mind,
\nbut there are others. Do you remember the biblical prohibition against swearing, together with the
\naffirmation that Israel must swear only by God himself? We read in Matt. 5:34-35: \u201cI say to you, do not
\ntake an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or
\nby Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.\u201d But we read in Deut. 10:20: \u201cYou shall fear the Lord
\nyour God. You shall serve him and hold fast to him, and by his name you shall swear.\u201d In Hebrews 6:13<\/a>
\nwe read: \u201cFor when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear,
\nhe swore by himself.\u201d There is no apology. The reason Jesus forbids his followers to swear is not because
\nhe thinks swearing is unethical in all cases, but because there is no reason to swear about things that
\nfirst, are not important, and second, call inferior things as witnesses. If one must swear, one must swear
\nby the ultimate \u2013 Israel\u2019s God himself.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n128
\nLet us ask a different
\ntype of question. Did
\nJesus expect his disciples
\nto understand his \u201cbody
\nand blood\u201d speech and
\naccept it? Or was it so
\nculturally and religiously
\n\u201cunacceptable\u201d that only
\nthose who could \u201cclose
\ntheir eyes to it\u201d could be
\nexpected to remain with
\nhim? I am persuaded that
\nJesus expected them to understand and fully accept it, and that was not as
\ndifficult as we might imagine, because the ancient Jewish Middle Eastern
\nsociety was a very physical one. The human body was fully associated with
\nthe person to whom the body belonged. This is clear when you read the
\nPsalms of David.
\nFor example, when the psalmist thought of his own death and burial, he
\nthought of his whole self (not just his body) going down into the grave. In
\nPsalm 30:9<\/a> we read: \u201cWhat profit is there in my death, if I go down to the
\npit? Will the dust praise you? Will it tell of your faithfulness?\u201d This was said
\nbecause there was no separation between the body and the soul, as there is in
\nWestern societies today. We are very much at home with the body and soul
\ndistinction, but this was not the case in biblical times. Moreover, the Hebrew
\nBible declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood, which is why it strictly
\nforbade Israelites to drink animal blood when they consumed animal flesh as
\nfood:
\n10 \u201cIf any one of the House of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn
\namong them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who
\neats blood and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of
\nthe flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make
\natonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by
\nthe life. 12 Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person
\namong you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns
\namong you eat blood.\u201d (Lev. 17:10-12)38
\nAnimal blood was symbolically poured on the altar of the Jerusalem
\nTemple to make atonement for the Israelites. It was meant for God. It was
\nmeant to be consumed by Him and by Him alone. This may sound strange to
\nmodern ears, but this is exactly how the ancients thought of sacrifice. The
\n38 Cf. Acts 15:19-21<\/a>.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n129
\nancient Israelites were not exceptional in this understanding of sacrifice. They
\noffered God food for holy consumption.39 Did Israel\u2019s God need sacrifices in
\norder to survive? Did he need the flesh and the blood of animals? Of course
\nnot! But in the ancient mind, the slaughtered sacrifice was meant to symbolize
\na fully dedicated life offered to the deity worshipped. No questions asked.
\nSo, what is happening here? I think it is something like this \u2013 Jesus says:
\n\u201cNow the tables will be turned. It is God\u2019s turn to offer you all that He is. Just
\nas you offer him the sacrifices symbolizing the whole life, so is he offering
\nyou Himself in the person of his Son.\u201d Paul also will say something similar:
\n\u201cHe who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he
\nnot also with him graciously give us all things?\u201d (Rom. 8:32)
\nTherefore, when Jesus referred to his body and blood, he meant the bread
\nand wine should become, in the minds and hearts of his followers, fully
\nassociated with him in the entire spectrum of his life \u2013 his person, his
\nteachings and his works. In other words, Jesus expected to be fully understood
\nand received through active participation by faith. By faith in Him, the
\nbeliever would partake of salvation, which is found in Jesus alone and is
\noffered freely to all.
\nSo let me summarize. Jesus\u2019 statement about his body and blood is true
\nand no other picture could have made it clearer. His flesh and his blood,
\nmeaning Jesus Himself \u2013 the whole Jesus \u2013 is the only thing that can sustain
\na human being to life everlasting. (Jn. 1:1, 14)
\nBut there is one more intriguing question here. In the context of the Gospel
\nof John (as I have pointed out previously) Jesus is polemicizing with the
\ncurrent rulers of Israel based in Jerusalem. They say: \u201cWe are in control. We
\nmust approve everything. If Jesus is the Messiah, he must tell us (emphasis is
\nmine) clearly.\u201d They are saying: \u201cWe are the gate-keepers. We are the way to
\nthe Father.\u201d Jesus\u2019 view is different. He challenges their authority through his
\nprophetic speeches and signs. Jesus says: \u201cI and the Father are one. I am the
\nway to the Father and I am Bread of Heaven that can sustain Israel to life
\neternal. I am the way, the truth and the life. If someone eats and drinks me,
\nhe will live forever.\u201d The choice is yours!
\nWhat then was the hard saying? (Jn. 6:60) Was it that Jesus told the people
\nto eat his flesh and drink his blood? (A difficult concept in general.) Or was
\nthe hard saying the implications of what Jesus said about the body and
\nblood? (He was the only real thing that mattered in communing with
\nIsrael\u2019s God – there was no one else.) I think it was the latter. My view is
\nthat the disciples understood him. It was not the Jerusalem Temple, the
\nHigh Priest and Sanhedrin-led leadership, but Jesus who was the way to
\nthe Father. By Him, life is given and is sustained. The disciples were smarter
\nthan they seemed. Jesus could not possibly be accepted by those who were
\n39 Cf. Lev. 3:11; 21:6; Num. 28:2.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n130
\nalready in positions of power and influence. They realized the storm was
\ncoming.
\n61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were
\ngrumbling about this, said to them, \u201cDo you take offense at
\nthis? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending
\nto where he was before?
\nFor his disciples, who understood the implications of Jesus\u2019 speech about
\nhis body and blood, and realized the difficulty with his extremely problematic
\nclaim, he provided an important line of reasoning. In John 6:62<\/a> Jesus counters
\nthe difficulty with the following rhetorical question: \u201cThen what if you were
\nto see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?\u201d His point is simple.
\n\u201cWhat I say about myself only makes sense if I am the Son of Man of Daniel\u2019s
\nvision. (Dan 7:13-14) If you believe that vision, then what I am saying should
\nalso be believable.\u201d
\n63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.
\nThe words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But
\nthere are some of you who do not believe.\u201d (For Jesus knew
\nfrom the beginning who those were who did not believe, and
\nwho it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, \u201cThis is
\nwhy I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted
\nhim by the Father.\u201d 66 After this many of his disciples turned
\nback and no longer walked with him.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n131
\nJesus\u2019 teachings are beginning to crystalize and his message is becoming
\nincreasingly clear within the context of his prophetic critique of the
\ncontemporary Jerusalem Temple leadership, their power structure and its
\nfollowing. It was also becoming abundantly clear that Jesus would not win a
\nJudean popularity contest.
\nNotice that, while Jesus is saying, \u201cno one can come to me unless it is
\ngranted him by the Father,\u201d (Jn. 6:65) the text also states that some will stay
\nwith Jesus to the very end. (Jn. 6:66) I think he is clearly saying: coming to
\nhim and staying with him are connected. One cannot truly come and then
\nleave. The opposite is also true. If people were with him and then left, that
\nindicates that they had not truly come to him at all. In other words, they had
\nnot yet come to him as the life-giver and life-sustainer; they had not tasted
\nhim and had not fed on him.
\nHow can we understand this? How can those who saw God\u2019s goodness
\nand glory turn away from Him? The prophets of the Bible divided the world
\ninto three clear categories: 1) those outside of Covenant 2) those inside it and
\nkeeping it, and 3) those inside it and not keeping it. Those who remained with
\nJesus were the very ones whom the prophets called the faithful remnant of
\nIsrael. However, even those who stayed with Him would soon fail. It was
\nPeter who said, \u201cLord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal
\nlife\u2026!\u201d (vs. 68) And it is the same Peter who would three times answer the
\nquestion of his identity as Jesus\u2019 follower with the clear \u2013 \u201cI am not.\u201d (Jn.
\n18:13-27)
\nWhat, therefore, would happen on the Cross is this: The faithful remnant
\nof Israel would be reduced to only one person. Jesus would remain faithful to
\nGod\u2019s Covenant until the end. He would remain alone, becoming a new
\nfoundation, under the New Covenant, for the New Jerusalem \u2013 the eternal
\ndwelling place of the redeemed. It is upon Him and Him alone that Israel\u2019s
\nGod would begin the rebuilding and restoration of his people Israel \u2013 drawing
\nthem and all the nations of the world to Himself.
\n67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, \u201cDo you want to go away as
\nwell?\u201d 68 Simon Peter answered him, \u201cLord, to whom shall we
\ngo? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed,
\nand have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.\u201d
\n70 Jesus answered them, \u201cDid I not choose you, the Twelve? And
\nyet one of you is a devil.\u201d 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon
\nIscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n132
\nThroughout Christian
\nhistory, the Jewish people as
\na whole were often accused
\nby the so-called Christian
\nmajority with the charge of
\ndeicide (the killing of God).
\nOne of the side issues in this
\ntype of accusation against
\nJews is the Christian
\nconnection of the Jews with
\nthe person of Judas Iscariot.
\nAlthough Jesus had two
\ndisciples named Judas, the
\nfact that the name of the one
\nwho betrayed him was
\nconnected with Jews and
\nJudaism added oil to the fire
\nof anti-Jewish sentiment.
\nYou can probably see why \u2013
\nJudah\/Judas, Judea and Jews
\nare etymologically connected. Even such giants of Christian thought as St.
\nAugustine, understood Judas Iscariot to be the symbol of all Jews.
\nConsequently, John\u2019s Gospel was also reinterpreted as an anti-Jewish
\ndocument for external non-Israelite consumption, rather than being written
\nfor an inner Israelite audience.
\nUnlike the Gospel of Judas (a later work written in the name of Judas),
\nwhich portrayed Judas as the truest disciple of Jesus and a hero, I see him in
\nan opposite role. I suggest that Judah\/Judas was not guilty of the sin he was
\ncharged with (betrayal for money), but he was indeed guilty of something far
\nworse. Please allow me to suggest an alternative to the traditional theory.
\nI think there is a good argument to be made for Judas Iscariot being a
\nformer Sicarii. This was a movement that was known for using daggers to kill
\nJews who endorsed Roman occupation, when they were in populated city
\nsquares. In other words, it is possible that Judas, in his pre-Jesus days, was a
\nmember (as were several other members of Jesus\u2019 intimate circle of disciples
\nat some point40) of an ultra-zealot movement that was not unlike the modern
\nAl-Qaida and ISIS. The name Iscariot is of unclear origins and may mean
\nseveral things, including being connected to the Sicarii.
\n40 Simon the Zealot and several others with Zealot-like tendencies.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n133
\nWhen Judas consistently saw Jesus making, what he felt to be, all the
\nwrong steps to bring about a Jewish revolution against the Romans and their
\nTemple puppets, he grew restless. He continued to believe that Jesus was
\nindeed the Messiah who would free Israel from oppression. He had witnessed
\nthe majority of his miracles and saw them as signs pointing to him being the
\nlong-awaited Messiah, but disagreed with Jesus as to his methods and vision.
\nJudas betrayed Jesus at the time of the Passover celebrations. Make no
\nmistake, Passover was the traditional time for starting Jewish revolts.41
\nEveryone, including Judas, knew that. He also began to implement his plan
\nonly after he saw Jesus being anointed by Mary. What pushed him over the
\nedge was Jesus\u2019 insistence that this story would be told for many ages to
\ncome, and to all nations. This hardly fitted the vision that Judas had for Jesus
\nand the Kingdom of Israel. We read in Matthew 26:12-16<\/a>:
\n\u201cIn pouring this ointment on my body, she has done it to prepare me for
\nburial. Truly, I say to you, wherever this Gospel is proclaimed in the
\nwhole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.\u201d
\nThen one of the twelve, whose name was Judas Iscariot, went to the
\nchief priests and said, \u201cWhat will you give me if I deliver him over to
\nyou?\u201d And they paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment
\nhe sought an opportunity to betray him.
\nThe word \u201cbetray\u201d does not indicate the usual charge of \u201cselling\u201d for 30
\npieces of silver. The Greek word used simply means, to \u201chand over.\u201d The risk
\nof being considered the betrayer of Jesus in Galilee was disproportionately
\nhigh (given Jesus\u2019 popularity there), compared to the payment Judas would
\nhave received from the Temple in Judea. My point being, that he did not do
\nwhat he did for money. I believe that what Judas tried to do, being fully
\nconvinced of Jesus\u2019 divine powers, is this: He thought that, when the arrest
\nwas attempted, the long-awaited revolt would finally begin, Jesus would have
\nto show his power, God would finally intervene, and the land of Israel would
\n41 Cf. Josephus, Ant. 14.2.1-2; 20.5.3.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n134
\nbe liberated. It was a deeply nationalistic desire that drove Judas to his
\nactions.
\nIf I am right in my reconstruction, the sin of Judas
\nwas not the betrayal of Jesus to the Temple
\nauthorities for mere money, but the much greater sin
\nof seeking to force Jesus to do his will. Judas\u2019 plan
\nfailed miserably. Jesus did not resist arrest (though
\nhis former zealot disciples attempted to do so).
\nInstead, he allowed himself to be crucified. I believe
\nthat Judas was overcome with despair when he saw
\nhis Messiah King crucified. For him, committing
\nsuicide was the only logical response to the events he
\nhad set in motion.
\nWhen people stand against the will of God,
\nresisting it and trying to force God\u2019s hand, they
\ncommit the terrible sin of Judas. This is the absolute opposite of how Jesus
\ntaught Judas to pray: \u201cYour will be done\u2026 on earth as it is in heaven.\u201d May
\nnone of us become guilty in the same way as Judas \u2013 May God\u2019s will be done.
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n135
\n136
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n137
\nChapter 7
\nThe Feast of Tabernacles; Jesus
\nTeaches in the Temple; Diverse
\nReactions
\n\uf041 1 After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go
\nabout in Judea, because the Ioudaioi were seeking to kill him.
\nOnce Jesus\u2019 most dramatic statement about the nature of his person and
\nmission was delivered in Capernaum, he began to spend more time in Galilee.
\nThe reason is given in the text – He was avoiding Ioudaia (Judea) because the
\nIoudaioi were trying to take his life. This is one of the texts that powerfully
\nconnects with the opening statements of the Gospel in John 1:11<\/a>b (his own
\nreceived him not). The land of Judea, Jesus\u2019 natural home, became a place
\nthat was hostile, even to the point of death.
\n2 Now the Ioudaioi\u2019 Feast of Booths was at hand.
\nThe Feast of Tabernacles42 (or Booths, also known as Sukkot) is essentially
\na reenactment of the actions of the Israelites who lived in temporary dwellings
\n(tents) for forty years from the point of their exodus from Egypt until their
\nentrance into Canaan. This Feast was meant to remind subsequent generations
\nof God\u2019s sustaining and protecting power throughout the difficult and
\nuncertain journey. As with the Passover, so also with the Feast of
\nTabernacles, the Israelites were instructed to re-enact what happened to their
\nforefathers, so that they and their posterity would remember and identify
\nmore fully with their roots.
\nOnce again, as with the Passover of the Ioudaioi, here we are told that this
\nFeast of Tabernacles was also the Feast of the Ioudaioi. The reason for this
\nstatement, and similar statements throughout Gospel of John, was not that the
\nnon-Jewish readers needed to know that Passover and the Feast of
\nTabernacles were Jewish holy days, but rather that there were several
\ndifferent calendars in use at that time. It was important to the author of the
\nGospel to show which calendar Jesus followed. For John, Jesus was a Judean
\n(Ioudaios), pure and simple.
\n42 Cf. Lev. 23:42-43; Neh. 8:14-17.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n138
\n3 So his brothers said to him, \u201cLeave here and go to Judea,
\nthat your disciples also may see the works you are doing. 4 For
\nno one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you
\ndo these things, show yourself to the world.\u201d
\nJesus\u2019 brothers, who did not yet believe that their oldest sibling was
\nanything special, said to Jesus: \u201cSukkot of the Judeans is coming. You are
\none of them! (Note that they referred to the Ioudaioi as Jesus\u2019 disciples!). By
\nnow his Galilean disciples have already witnessed a number of his miracles,
\nbut none were performed in Judea. In effect, they are saying: \u201cYou must show
\nyour signs not only in Galilee, but also in Judea. If you want to be accepted
\nby your own, you must also do your signs in Jerusalem!\u201d Once again John
\n1:11b (\u201chis own received him not\u201d) is the real conceptual context (Ioudaioi
\nas his own) of this conversation between Jesus\u2019 brothers and the Lord himself.
\n5 For not even his brothers believed in him. 6 Jesus said to
\nthem, \u201cMy time has not yet come, but your time is always here.
\nThe phrase \u201cmy time has not yet come\u201d was first mentioned at the wedding
\nin Cana (Jn. 2) and will be repeated many times over as the story continues
\nto unfold, until Jesus\u2019 encounter with the outcasts of the Jewish community.
\nI will explain this very important phrase later, but for now, suffice to say, the
\nphrase is mainly used when others call upon Jesus to perform miracles (up to
\nthis point by his mother and his disciples).
\nSukkot was one of the three feasts during which every Jewish male was
\nobligated to come to Jerusalem for worship. (Ex. 23:14-17; 34:23-24) This
\nwould be especially true for those, like Jesus, who lived relatively close to
\nJerusalem. His brothers were not surprised by Jesus\u2019 decision to skip the trip
\nto Jerusalem this time around. The rumors about his life being endangered
\nwere no doubt discussed, not only on the streets, but also in the family circle.
\nRemember, none of his brothers had yet believed. Sometime later, however,
\none of Jesus\u2019 brothers would become known as Jacob\/James the Just (Yakov
\nhaTzaddik). In the decades following Jesus\u2019 death and resurrection, James
\nwould lead the Jesus movement that was headquartered in Jerusalem and he
\nwould be considered by many to be the first rightful patriarch of Jerusalem.
\n(Acts 15:13<\/a>; James 1:1<\/a>)
\n7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify
\nabout it that its works are evil. 8 You go up to the feast. I am not
\ngoing up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.\u201d
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n139
\nAll the evil kings of Israel hated the prophets for not withholding their
\ncriticism. One of the reasons King David is portrayed in a positive light is
\nbecause, when he was confronted about his sin by the prophet Nathan, he
\nresponded with repentance and faith. (2 Sam. 12) King David, who was far
\nfrom perfect, did not seek to kill the prophet of God.
\nThe world to which Jesus belonged (\u201chis own\u201d in John 1:11<\/a>) has come to
\nhate him. It is important to remember that John repeatedly shows the
\nrelationship between Jesus and the Ioudaioi as that of one community, one
\nfamily, and one people group within wider Israel. The world, in this context,
\nwas not all the people on the planet, nor was it all Israelites, or even all the
\nJudeans \u2013 it was the system of the Ioudaioi, to whom Jesus belonged by birth
\nand identity (Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea) that sought to take his
\nlife, and thus put an end to his ministry.
\n9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee. 10 But after his
\nbrothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not
\npublicly but in private.
\nAs soon as his brothers departed for Jerusalem, Jesus also left and traveled
\nto Jerusalem incognito, something his brothers had not expected.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n140
\n11 The Ioudaioi were looking for him at the feast, and
\nsaying, \u201cWhere is he?\u201d 12 And there was much muttering
\nabout him among the people. While some said, \u201cHe is a good
\nman,\u201d others said, \u201cNo, he is leading the people astray.\u201d
\n13 Yet for fear of the Ioudaioi no one spoke openly of him.
\nThe Ioudaioi here are clearly portrayed, not simply as Judeans, but as
\nmembers of the Judean authority. They were looking for Jesus. (vs. 11) Notice
\nhow the Ioudaioi here have a separate identity from the people who were also
\nclearly Israelite. The phrase, \u201camong the people,\u201d is how the Gospel of John
\nrefers to both the people who came to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles,
\nand to the ordinary citizens of Judea. These people were engaged in an
\nongoing, but secret, conversation about Jesus.
\nWhat clearly identifies the Ioudaioi as the Judean authorities here is that,
\nnot only positive, but also negative conversation about Jesus was carried out
\nin secret by the Jewish people present. Jesus was a taboo subject. Everyone
\nknew it, both those who supported him and those who opposed him. The
\nJudean authorities were watching. (vs. 11) The walls had ears!
\n14 About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple
\nand began teaching. 15 The Ioudaioi therefore marveled,
\nsaying, \u201cHow is it that this man has learning, when he has
\nnever studied?\u201d
\nThe Feast of Tabernacles is a week-long celebration (The Jewish historian
\nJosephus Flavius called this particular feast \u201ca most holy and important feast\u201d
\nin Ant. viii. 4.1) and we are told that Jesus appeared in the Temple and began
\nto speak publicly sometime after the beginning of the Feast. There does not
\nseem to be any particular significance to the fact that Jesus went up to the
\nTemple midweek. He probably simply wanted those who were looking for
\nhim to let their guard down, since by then they would have already assumed
\nhe feared enough for his life not to come at all.
\nWhen he came to the feast, the Ioudaioi did not recognize him. This is
\ninteresting. Either Jesus\u2019 looks were so \u201caverage\u201d that people would not
\nimmediately recognize him, or no one who could make an arrest knew him or
\never saw him personally. Judas\u2019 kiss served to identify Jesus when the Temple
\nguards came to arrest him. No one actually knew what Jesus looked like, so
\nJudas\u2019 action was necessary. This is the most likely reason that the Ioudaioi
\nwho heard Jesus speak, wondered: \u201cHow is it that this man has learning, when
\nhe has never studied?\u201d
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n141
\n16 So Jesus answered them, \u201cMy teaching is not mine, but
\nhis who sent me. 17 If anyone\u2019s will is to do God\u2019s will, he will
\nknow whether the teaching is from God or whether I am
\nspeaking on my own authority. 18 The one who speaks on his
\nown authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the
\nglory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no
\nfalsehood.
\nJesus answered the questions the Ioudaioi had not voiced, but were
\nprobably asking in their hearts \u2013 \u201cYou are right I did not receive \u2018approved\u2019
\nschooling, but I have a message to bring you as an authorized representative
\nof Israel\u2019s God.\u201d In other words, Jesus challenged his hearers to stop thinking
\nof him as a young sage from out of town but rather to begin to think of him
\nas a young prophet from God. After all, a prophet, by definition, does not
\nneed to be schooled by men; He has a higher calling, He must be taught by
\nGod.
\n19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps
\nthe law. Why do you seek to kill me?\u201d
\nThe Ioudaioi who were listening to Jesus\u2019 speeches and Torah
\ninterpretations did not yet make the connection with the now infamous Jesus.
\nThen suddenly Jesus began to make things clear. But one must admit that the
\nauthor of this Gospel makes a brilliant move here. Remember, he is not
\ntalking to Gentiles, nor to the Ioudaioi; he has in mind the Samaritan Israelites
\nwho have long said that the Ioudaioi do not truly keep the Torah of Moses.
\nBy offering this critique of Judean misinterpretation of the Torah, he is able,
\nat the same time, to help the Samaritan Israelites be emotionally connected to
\nthe drama.
\n20 The crowd answered, \u201cYou have a demon! Who is
\nseeking to kill you?\u201d
\nThe first reaction was shock and disbelief by some of them, who said in a
\nloud voice. \u201cAre you crazy!?\u201d (Literally, in the words of ancient Israelites:
\n\u201cYou have a demon!\u201d) \u201cNo one is after you. Don\u2019t be paranoid!\u201d But as Jesus
\ncontinued to speak, some of them began to connect the dots. The people in
\ncharge indeed were seeking Jesus\u2019 arrest and death. So this was not an
\nexaggeration.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n142
\n21 Jesus answered them, \u201cI did one work, and you all marvel
\nat it.
\nIt is clear that Jesus was referring to his healing of a Jewish man at the
\nPool of Bethesda, which had occurred during his previous trip to Jerusalem.
\nRemember, the pool in Hellenized Jerusalem very likely functioned as the
\nhealing sanctuary of Asclepius, the Greek god of medicine and health. This
\nhealing occurred on the Sabbath and it is likely that Jesus disturbed the public
\norder by walking into a pagan facility and healing someone in the name of
\nIsrael\u2019s God.
\nAs we read, we must also understand that Jewish authorities worked under
\nthe watchful eye of Roman authority. The Roman Empire had its own values.
\nJewish beliefs were tolerated as long as they did not infringe on the pagan
\ncults, and this was a case of infringement. Jesus, a Jewish religious leader,
\nwielded his authority and power in the Asclepion. Both the Temple
\nauthorities and the Romans were very concerned. Therefore, in order to
\ndistance themselves from Jesus, the Temple authorities accused him of
\nSabbath desecration. The Ioudaioi\u2019s blind commitment to stop Jesus and strip
\nhim of his growing popularity closed their eyes to being able to see the
\nobvious.
\n\u201c22 \u2026Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from
\nMoses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the
\nSabbath. 23 If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so
\nthat the Law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with
\nme because on the Sabbath I made a man\u2019s whole body well?
\n24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right
\njudgment.\u201d
\nIt was believed that, through the sign and seal of circumcision, a person is
\nbrought into covenant relationship with Israel\u2019s God and as a result is made
\nspiritually whole. Notice Jesus agrees with the Ioudaioi that, even though it
\nwas the Sabbath day, the circumcision ritual still needed to take place because
\nthe sign of circumcision takes precedence over ordinary Sabbath regulations.
\nAs was customary for Jesus, he didn\u2019t argue with the Ioudaioi about the
\nlegitimacy of the Torah of Moses. After all, the Torah of Moses was Jesus\u2019
\nTorah. He only argued with them about its interpretation. Here he is seen
\naccusing the Ioudaioi of the sin of inconsistency. (Jn. 5:22-23)
\nThere was at least one other noteworthy occasion when Jesus accused his
\nopponents of the sin of inconsistency. Qumran Israelites were not allowed to
\nassist their animals in the birthing process on the Sabbath. This was not out
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n143
\nof lack of concern for the animal\u2019s well-being, but out of concern for working
\nto increase\/or preserve one\u2019s own wealth on the Sabbath day. One example
\nof what made this Jewish movement different from the far more liberal
\nPharisaic movement was the following prohibition: \u201cIf it falls into a pit or
\nditch, he shall not raise it on the Sabbath.\u201d (Matt. 12:9-13, Lk. 14:5 and Cairo
\nDocument XI:11b-14a) Contrary to popular opinion, Jesus\u2019 point in arguing
\nwith the Pharisees over healing on the Sabbath was not to call them to
\nrepentance from legalism and bad hermeneutical methods, but rather to apply
\ntheir already developed hermeneutical methods consistently. In a sense, Jesus
\nis saying: \u201cYou, Pharisees \u2013 the enemies of Qumranites, can see the
\nacceptability of caring for an animal in trouble on the Sabbath Day, but you
\nrefuse me the right to help people who are in trouble on the Sabbath.\u201d You
\nare right, but completely inconsistent!43
\n25 Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, \u201cIs not
\nthis the man whom they seek to kill? 26 And here he is, speaking
\nopenly, and they say nothing to him! Can it be that the
\nauthorities really know that this is the Christ?
\nNotice how carefully the author of the Gospel distinguishes between the
\nvoices of the hearers (the people of Jerusalem) and the authorities (Ioudaioi).
\nSuddenly the crowds put the pieces together and realized that this must be
\nJesus, whom the Temple authorities have determined to arrest. They had
\nheard about his teaching and miracles in Galilee, but not seeking the approval
\nof Jerusalem was nothing less than a challenge to their leadership. There was
\nno place for them and Jesus together. Either they would remain in power, or
\nhe would replace them.
\n27 But we know where this man comes from, and when the
\nChrist appears, no one will know where he comes from.\u201d
\nWe read in vs. 27 that it was believed the Messiah would come from
\nunknown origins. However, to the chief priests and the scribes who were
\nsummoned by Herod at the coming of the Magi in the Gospel of Matthew, the
\nanswer seemed clear: all agreed that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem,
\n(Matt. 2:4-6) as spoken by the prophet Micah. However, in this passage in
\nJohn, some members of the crowd (when they thought the authorities had
\nfinally recognized that Jesus was the Christ, John 7:26<\/a>) objected that Jesus\u2019
\n43 Perhaps this sentiment was behind Jesus\u2019 statement about the Pharisees: \u201cSo you must be careful
\nto do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not prac tice what they preach.\u201d
\n(Matt. 23:3)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n144
\norigins were known. Because of this, they thought it was a mistake to
\nrecognize him as the Christ. So what was expected of the coming Messiah?
\nWould his origins be known, or not?
\nYou may recall from our previous studies that when Jesus was in Galilee,
\nthe Ioudaioi said he could not have come down from heaven as he claimed,
\nbecause they personally knew his parents. (Jn. 6:42) In John 7:27<\/a>, however,
\nit is likely that the author is referring to something else. Instead of a personal
\nacquaintance with Jesus\u2019 parents, the likely issue was that Jesus\u2019 ministry was
\nalready known to them and had been for some time. He had already been
\nengaged in public ministry for almost three years. There was no suddenness
\nin his Messianic appearance. In John 7<\/a>, what people were saying was not that
\nthey knew Jesus\u2019 Galilean parents (that is rather unlikely), but that they had
\nheard about Jesus for so long that he no longer fitted their Messianic candidate
\nchecklist.
\nMuch later rabbinic Jewish sources communicate similar sentiments
\ncoming from Jewish sages. For example, in the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi
\nZera is remembered as having said: \u201cThree come unawares: Messiah, a found
\narticle, and a scorpion.\u201d (b. Sanhedrin 97a) Another example comes from the
\nsecond-century dialogue between Justin Martyr, a Christian, and Trypho, a
\nJew. What is interesting is that Trypho\u2019s objections are similar to the above:
\n\u201cBut Christ\u2014if he has indeed been born, and exists anywhere – is unknown,
\nand does not even know himself, and has no power until Elijah comes to
\nanoint him and make him manifest to all.\u201d (Trypho, Dialogue 8) Incidentally,
\nit is entirely possible that the conversation between Justin and Trypho never
\ntook place and the content of the dialogue was simply reconstructed from
\nNew Testament texts alone (a common feature of polemical religious
\nliterature). But it is also possible that this dialogue was put together as a
\nsummary of real Jewish-Christian encounters in the second century. If this is
\nso, then it is possible this is an example of a widespread Jewish belief that
\nChrist\u2019s coming would be sudden and his origins unknown.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n145
\nThe idea that Christ would be of unknown origins also appears in I Enoch
\n46:1-3.44 This is another witness to the variety of Jewish contemporary
\nopinions about the secret things of the Messiah. There we read:
\n\u201cThere I beheld the Ancient of Days, whose head was like white wool,
\nand with him another, whose countenance resembled that of man. His
\ncountenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels. Then
\nI inquired of one of the angels, who went with me, and who showed me
\nevery secret thing, concerning this Son of man; who he was; whence he
\nwas and why he accompanied the Ancient of Days.\u201d
\nWhat we can clearly see from these biblical and para-biblical sources is
\nthat the Jewish people at the time of Jesus held a variety of views concerning
\nthe Messiah; just as modern Christ-followers today differ greatly in their
\nexpectations regarding the second coming.
\n28 So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the temple, \u201cYou
\nknow me, and you know where I come from. But I have not
\ncome of my own accord. He who sent me is true, and him you
\ndo not know. 29 I know him, for I come from him, and he sent
\nme.\u201d
\nWhat is even more striking here is, in contrast to the story found in the
\nGospel of Matthew (regarding Bethlehem), John\u2019s Jesus seems to agree with
\nthe objection that the Messiah will come from unknown origins. However he
\nexplains that, while the people thought they knew him, in reality, they did
\nnot. Since Israel\u2019s God sent Jesus, there was a lot more to know about him
\nthan what the Ioudaioi naively claimed.
\nThe question could be asked: \u201cWhy would the Gospel, that so forcefully
\nconnects Jesus with the Ioudaioi, withhold from the readership the obvious
\nconnection between Jesus and Judea, seeing that his birthplace was in
\nBethlehem?\u201d The answer may be complicated, but I will try to explain it.
\nThe Gospel was originally written to reach Samaritan Israelites. Samaritan
\nIsraelites accepted the Torah and did not accept other sections of the Tanach
\nthat Jewish Israelites accepted (the writings and the prophets). As we
\nremember from the Samaritan woman story, Samaritans had no trouble
\nacknowledging the supremacy of the tribe of Judah. (Jn. 4:22) There, Jesus
\nsaid to the woman \u201csalvation was from the Ioudaioi,\u201d referring to the verse
\nin Torah that speaks of the scepter not departing from Judah. (Gen. 49:10)
\nShe made no objection to this. What the Samaritan Israelites objected to, was
\n44 Cf. Melchizedek, a type of Christ, who also had \u201cneither father nor mother.\u201d (Heb. 7:1 -4)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n146
\nthat the fulfillment of Genesis 49:10<\/a> was connected with the Davidic dynasty,
\nbecause they did not accept the leadership of the Davidic dynasty. This is one
\nof the reasons Jesus told the Samaritan woman, \u201cyou worship that which you
\ndo not know.\u201d As we have seen already and will see again, this Gospel
\nconsistently avoids almost any significant connection between Jesus and
\nKing David.
\n30 So they were seeking to arrest him, but no one laid a hand
\non him, because his hour had not yet come
\nThis phrase, \u201cmy time has not come,\u201d was already in use when Jesus said
\nto his mother in John 2:4<\/a> \u201cWoman, what does that have to do with us? My
\nhour has not yet come.\u201d Mary, fully aware of Jesus\u2019 divine origins, and
\nprobably other things that only a mother would know, sought for Jesus to use
\nhis miraculous powers to help the embarrassed couple at the height of their
\nwedding joy. Jesus did help, but said that his \u201chour has not yet come.\u201d After
\nthis incident, Jesus taught the people in the treasury rooms of the Temple and
\nthe Temple police did not arrest him. The Temple police had their own
\nreasons as to why they did not arrest Jesus, but the author of the Gospel of
\nJohn knew the reason he was not yet arrested, tried, and killed was because
\nhis time \u201chad not yet come.\u201d (Jn. 7:45-51)
\nHowever, when the news about Greek God-fearers seeking to meet Jesus
\ncame to him, he responded that \u201cthe hour has come for the Son of Man to be
\nglorified.\u201d (Jn. 12:20-24) This shows that Jesus was about to be revealed as
\nthe King of all Israel \u2013 to the Judeans, to the rest of humanity, even to those
\nwho were attracted to the faith of Israel but were of non-Israelite origin.
\nShortly before his arrest, Jesus prayed: \u201c\u2026 lifting up His eyes to heaven, He
\nsaid, \u2018Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify
\nYou.\u2019\u201d (Jn. 17:1-2) So it is that here in Chapter 7, when Jesus\u2019 arrest was
\nbeing sought, that it could not take place for the simple reason that the \u201cthe
\nhour had not yet come.\u201d (Jn. 7:30)
\n31 Yet many of the people believed in him. They said, \u201cWhen
\nthe Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has
\ndone?\u201d
\nThe story begins with people objecting to rumors that the authorities
\nrecognized Jesus as the potential Messiah with \u201cwhen the Christ appears, no
\none will know where he comes from,\u201d (Jn. 7:27) but it ends very differently.
\nMany people did believe in Him, posing the opposite rhetorical question:
\n\u201cWhen the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?\u201d
\nYou can see, just as there were many traditions about the coming Christ\u2019s
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n147
\nunknown origins, there were even more traditions that had to do with the
\ncoming Christ\u2019s miraculous powers. The Jewish people standing in the crowd
\nwere smarter than they seemed, reasoning – \u201cIf anyone will ever be the Christ,
\nhe wouldn\u2019t be able to do more miracles than this man Jesus!\u201d
\n32 The Pharisees heard the crowd muttering these things
\nabout him, and the chief priests and Pharisees sent officers to
\narrest him.
\nThe author of John makes a
\nvery interesting point in this
\nverse. Before the Feast of
\nTabernacles, people were afraid
\nto talk about Jesus because they
\nwere afraid of the Ioudaioi. (Jn.
\n7:13) However, when Jesus began
\nto openly teach in the Temple, the
\npublic debate about him could no
\nlonger be contained. (Jn. 7:27-
\n31)45 The Pharisees, who
\nwitnessed this debate in the
\nTemple, sent the Temple guard
\nto make an arrest. (vs. 32) The Pharisees had the full cooperation of the
\nchief priests. Notice that the \u201cchief priests together with Pharisees\u201d were
\nthe very authorities whose powers were enough to dispatch the Temple
\npolice to arrest Jesus on criminal charges.
\nNow let us recall an early reference (Jn. 1:19-24) to an exercise of power
\nagainst John the Baptist: \u201cAnd this is the testimony of John, when the
\nIoudaioi sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, \u2018Who are you?\u2019
\n\u2026 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.\u201d We see something similar at
\nplay in both of these events. In both cases, sending the priestly committee and
\nsending the Temple guard, the Pharisees were involved. (Jn. 7:32 and Jn.
\n1:24) In both cases, however, they were not alone.
\n33 Jesus then said, \u201cI will be with you a little longer, and
\n45 According to the Jewish historian Josephus, who was hired by Rome to write the new history of
\nthe Jews, \u201cAlexander (a Judean king taken captive by Pompey in 63 B.C.E during the Roman takeover of
\nJerusalem) left behind him two sons, Hyrcanus [II] and Aristobulus [II], but committed the kingdom to
\nAlexandra\u2026 She permitted the Pharisees to do as they liked and ordered the multitude to be obedient
\nto them. She also restored again those practices which the Pharisees had introduced, according to the
\ntraditions of their forefathers, and which her father-in-law, Hyrcanus I, had abolished. So she had the
\ntitle of sovereign, but the Pharisees had the power.\u201d (Antiquities 13.16.2 408-409)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n148
\nthen I am going to him who sent me. 34 You will seek me and
\nyou will not find me. Where I am you cannot come.\u201d 35 The
\nIoudaioi said to one another, \u201cWhere does this man intend to
\ngo that we will not find him? Does he intend to go to the
\nDispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks? 36 What
\ndoes he mean by saying, \u2018You will seek me and you will not
\nfind me,\u2019 and, \u2018Where I am you cannot come?\u2019\u201d
\nWhen the Pharisees and the chief priests dispatched the Temple guard to
\narrest him, Jesus was addressing a crowd which was in the middle of a public
\ndebate concerning him. (Jn. 7:27-31) He told them that his time with them
\nwas coming to an end. He would then return to Him who sent him. Notice the
\npower play here. The Ioudaioi were exercising their authority to send the
\nTemple police to arrest Jesus, but Jesus was saying that he was sent by
\nsomeone who was the ultimate authority \u2013 Israel\u2019s God Himself. (vs. 33)
\nMoreover, the place to which Jesus was departing was unapproachable and
\nhe could not be followed. (vs. 34) The Ioudaioi who remained in the crowd (but
\nseparate from it) wondered about the words of Jesus, (vs. 35) hypothesizing that
\nJesus was planning to leave the areas under their control.
\nIt is important to realize when the Ioudaioi said they thought Jesus was
\nplanning to go to Hellenisimoi (verse 35, translated as \u201cGreeks\u201d), it is
\nprobable that they did not mean Greek Gentiles, but anyone (including
\nIsraelites) who behaved like Greeks. In this case, probably the Hellenized
\nJews. The usual assumption that most Christians make in reading this text is
\nthat the Ioudaioi thought Jesus was considering going to Gentiles in the lands
\nof the Jewish diaspora. Most importantly, this means that they, the Hellenists
\n(Hellenisimoi), were fully outside of the control of the Ioudaioi. This
\nrealization must have been disconcerting. Examples of such lack of control
\nby the Ioudaioi are plentiful.
\nAccording to archeological discoveries in Israelite Galilee, there were
\nsome older synagogues that were not directionally oriented to Jerusalem and
\none of them was found in Kfar Nahum (Capernaum). An even more
\ninteresting case of alternative Israelite worship was found in Elephantine (an
\nisland in the Nile River in Southern Egypt), where a mixed Judeo-Samaritan
\nIsraelite mercenary military colony was stationed from around 650 BCE. The
\nisland boasted its own alternative to the Judean (and in some way also to the
\nSamaritan) Temple.
\nA very important though not well known, Isaian prophecy, was believed
\nby many to have been fulfilled in Egypt (Is. 19:19-25) at that time. The
\nprophecy of Isaiah reads as follows:
\n\u201cIn that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n149
\nEgypt\u2026 They will even worship with sacrifice and offering, and will
\nmake a vow to the Lord and perform it\u2026 In that day Israel will be the
\nthird party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth,
\nwhom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, \u2018Blessed is Egypt My
\npeople, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.\u2019\u201d
\nThe later Masoretic Text (MT) has one more verse before the prophecy
\ncited above, where it purposely changes the name of the City of Sun (the
\nlikely original) to the City of Destruction (a translation that makes no sense
\nat all given the positive context of the prophecy). We read: \u201cIn that day there
\nwill be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan
\n(Land of Israel) and swear allegiance to the LORD OF HOSTS (Israel\u2019s God).
\nOne of these will be called the City of Sun,\u201d (changed in the Masoretic
\nversion to \u201cDestruction\u201d).
\nWhat is striking is that both scrolls of Isaiah found in Qumran (Dead Sea
\nScrolls) and the texts of Isaiah in the Septuagint (LXX), confirm that in the
\nHebrew original version, this was the City of the Sun and not the City of
\nDestruction. The reason for this is that both Qumran proto-Masoretic texts
\nand the Septuagint predate the Masoretic texts by many centuries.
\nAccording to Josephus, there was at least one additional temple in Egypt.
\n(Antiq. Book XIII. ch. 3. sect. 1-3, and Of the War, Book VII. ch. 10. sect.
\n8.)46 This temple was built to resemble the one in Jerusalem and was
\nadministrated by legitimate priests who actually conducted sacrificial
\nofferings. In other words, this was not a synagogue, but a real temple where
\nsacrificial services regularly took place. It was not located in Jerusalem,
\nwhich means that Jesus and the Qumranites were not the only people in late
\nantiquity to oppose Jerusalem\u2019s leaders, although for different reasons than
\nthose in the Egyptian Island of Elephantine.
\n37 On the last day of the feast, the great day
\nSadducees and Pharisees were two Israelite Judean parties that were often
\nat odds with each other. Sadducees were the staunch conservatives who saw
\nPharisees as dangerous innovators and revisionists, as did many others,
\nincluding Jesus. (Mk. 7) Sadducees and Pharisees fought over many issues.
\nOne of the issues concerned a water ceremony that was held during the Feast
\nof Tabernacles (Sukkot). The Sadducees opposed the ceremony because it
\nwas not prescribed in the Torah and the Pharisees supported it. We do not
\nknow exactly how or where the water pouring ceremonies were conducted,
\nsince all of our sources for this information come to us from a later period.
\n46 Cf. also Philo\u2019s mention of Alexandrian Jews who eschewed the Jerusalem Temple. (Migr. Abr.
\n89\u201393)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n150
\nIn these later sources, we are told that priests drew water from the Pool of
\nSiloam. With the high priest leading the way, they carried a golden pitcher
\nfull of water to the Temple and then processed around the altar. As the priests
\nneared the water gate, the shofar was blown, followed by the singing of
\npsalms of praise and thanksgiving to God for the harvest. As the ceremony
\ndeveloped, the Pharisees insisted that significant emphasis should be placed
\non the petition for rain. Such symbolism carried the meaning of the festival
\nbeyond the traditional emphasis of the desert experience (being protected
\nwhile living in temporary dwellings – tents). The harvest was symbolized in
\nthe citrus fruits that were raised in thanksgiving to God for the recently
\ngathered fruits. (m. Sukk. 5:1) The Sadducees, in general, resisted such a
\nchanged emphasis on Sukkot as revisionist. The conflict developed further
\nwhen Alexander Janneus, the Sadducean high priest and king, angered by the
\nPharisees, poured the water out at his feet rather than making an offering of
\nit, and raised his arm in solemn affirmation of having delivered the petition
\non behalf of the people.
\nWhen Janneus died, his wife, Alexandra Salome, made peace with the
\nPharisees in exchange for their support for her to remain queen of the land
\nand her son to be made high priest. The Pharisees\u2019 triumph in this event meant
\nthat, by the time of Jesus, the Pharisaic water-related ceremony was already
\nfirmly established.
\n37b Jesus stood up and cried out, \u201cIf anyone thirsts, let him
\ncome to me and drink.\u201d
\nFor six consecutive days, the water procession took place once each
\nmorning (if Talmudic sources are to be believed). On the seventh day, it was
\nrepeated seven times in order to show the emphasis and concentration on
\nprayer and worship. On the eighth day there was no water ceremony, but a
\nsolemn time of reflection and prayer was held.
\nJesus could have loudly proclaimed this (vs. 37) on either the seventh or
\nthe eighth day of the Feast. Either day could technically be called \u201cthe last
\nand greatest day.\u201d (7:37) What is most important here, however, is not when
\nJesus said it, but what he said and what he expected the people to understand.
\nWithout getting into the Sadducean-Pharisaic debate discussed previously,
\nJesus declared that all those who are thirsty may come to him and drink! The
\nconnection between what had just taken place (an incredibly festive water
\npouring ceremony) and Jesus\u2019 words are obvious, and do not require much
\nexplanation. The surrounding context offered a dramatic backdrop for these
\nbrief but powerful words.
\n38 \u201cWhoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, \u2018Out of
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n151
\nhis womb (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) will flow rivers of living water.\u2019\u201d
\nThere are times when it is not at all clear what portion of the Old
\nTestament Scriptures is being referred to in the New Testament, and this is
\nthe case with this text. Which Old Testament reference does Jesus have in
\nmind here? The choices are plentiful, all having to do with water and
\nsalvation-related passages. Before we select the most likely reference(s), we
\nshould ask one more question which will provide us with a potential key for
\nsolving this riddle: If Jesus is the one of whom the Scripture spoke (\u201cout of
\nhis inner being\/heart\/belly, or literally womb, will flow rivers of living
\nwater\u201d), we must look for connections in the context of what had already
\nhappened (Chapters 1-6) and also to what is presently occurring. (Ch. 7) Jesus
\nis portrayed as both tabernacle (Jn. 1:14) and temple (Jn. 2:13-25). Of the
\nfour canonical Gospels, the Gospel of John is without doubt the most Templeoriented.
\nThis should give us a clue that the likely reference alluded to here
\nmay have something to do with the Temple. We should be especially
\ninterested in a text that connects the Feast of Tabernacles with the Temple
\nwhere this discussion was taking place.
\nOnce we consider the Hebrew Bible\u2019s water and salvation-related themes
\nexplicitly connected with the Temple, one reference in particular becomes a
\npromising interpretive possibility – Ezekiel 47:1-12<\/a>. The text of Ezekiel
\ndescribes the future temple out of which flows a river. (Ezek. 47:1) The
\nangelic figure accompanying Ezekiel measured the water, which became
\nincreasingly deep. (Ezek. 47:3-5) Then a vision of the blessed future was
\ngiven. The desert region together with the salty Dead Sea would flourish.
\nBecause of this river of living water, the deadness of the desert would become
\na place of life and healing. (Ezek. 47:7-12) The question is, does Ezekiel 47<\/a>
\nexplicitly connect with John 7:38<\/a>? I believe it does.
\nWe read in Ezekiel 47:1<\/a>: \u201cThen he brought me back to the door of the
\nhouse; and behold, water was flowing from under the threshold of the house
\ntoward the east, for the house faced east.\u201d ( \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9, \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc-\u05e4\u05b6\u05ea\u05b7\u05d7 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d1\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea, \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d4-\u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05dd \u05d9\u05b9\u05e6\u05b0\u05d0\u05b4\u05bc \u05d9\u05dd
\n\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea \u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05e4\u05b0\u05ea\u05b7\u05df \u05d4\u05b7\u05d1\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea \u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05de\u05b8\u05d4, \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9-\u05e4\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d1\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea \u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd ) That is to say, it is from within the
\nTemple that this end time river would issue. Jesus said that whoever believes
\nin him will be joined to him; then together they will be that end time Temple
\nof God from which the river of life and healing will flow, making everything
\nnew.
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n152
\nWhat is even more exciting is that a parallel passage to this Ezekiel text is
\nfound in Zechariah 14:14-20<\/a>. There we read about an eschatological battle,
\nduring or after which rivers of living water begin to flow in two directions
\n(west and east) from the Jerusalem Temple. When the battle is finished and
\nIsrael\u2019s God emerges a clear winner, the defeated and surviving nations (who
\nfought against Jerusalem) will come each year to Jerusalem to celebrate the
\nFeast of Tabernacles before the face of the Lord (Zech. 14:16) \u2013 the very
\nFeast in this chapter in which Jesus is described as participating.
\nIn these two references, you have all the themes which firmly connect the
\ntwo passages with the events described in John 7:37-38<\/a>. Incidentally, there is
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n153
\nsome indication that these texts were actually read aloud as part of the water
\nceremony. It is possible that following the reading of these very words Jesus
\ngot up and proclaimed that it is in Him that the words of the prophets will be
\nfulfilled, evoking imagery of the eschatological Temple providing
\nrunning\/living water to Israel from within his own depths! As with most
\nthings Jesus says in the Gospels, and especially in the Gospel of John, these
\nwords are earth shattering in their meaning and implication. Jesus is the Temple
\nand from his heart, the water of life will soon begin to flow.
\n39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who
\nbelieved in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not
\nbeen given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
\nThis verse then becomes clear. What Jesus said about the rivers of living
\nwater (according to John\u2019s editorial and retrospective comment) had to do
\nwith the outpouring of the Spirit during the Festival of Shavuot (Pentecost).
\nAccording to John, the believers had no knowledge of this because the
\nPentecost events described in Acts 2<\/a> were still in the future.
\n40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, \u201cSurely
\nthis man is the Prophet.\u201d 41 Others said, \u201cHe is the Messiah.\u201d
\nStill others asked, \u201cHow can the Messiah come from Galilee?
\n42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from
\nDavid\u2019s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where
\nDavid lived?\u201d 43 Thus the people were divided because of
\nJesus.
\nJesus\u2019 challenges to the authorities and his incredible claims were received
\nrather well. Some said that perhaps he was the prophet who was to announce
\nthe Messiah; others said that he was indeed the Messiah. There seemed to be
\na general lack of knowledge about Jesus\u2019 origins, because we also see other
\npeople saying they rejected Jesus\u2019 claims on the grounds that he was not born
\nin Bethlehem of Judea. One of the very interesting observations here is that
\nthe author of this Gospel did not feel any need to correct this misconception,
\nalthough doubtless he, like others, knew that Jesus was in fact born in
\nBethlehem of Judea. (Matt. 2:1, 5; Lk. 2:4) Perhaps his point was only to
\nshow that the public conversation about Jesus had picked up momentum,
\nregardless of how people viewed Jesus\u2019 claims.
\n44 Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n154
\n45 Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and
\nthe Pharisees, who asked them, \u201cWhy didn\u2019t you bring him
\nin?\u201d 46 \u201cNo one ever spoke the way this man does,\u201d the guards
\nreplied. 47 \u201cYou mean he has deceived you also?\u201d the
\nPharisees retorted.
\nWhen the Temple guard, made up of Levitical priests, returned without
\nhaving arrested Jesus, and admitted that they were impressed with him, they
\nwere met with a sharp rebuke by the leading Sadducees and Pharisaic
\nleadership, accompanied by the charge of disloyalty. It was obvious that the
\nformal rulers of Israel were desperately afraid and rapidly losing power over
\nthose whose allegiance they owned.
\n48 \u201cHave any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in
\nhim? 49 No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law\u2014there
\nis a curse on them.\u201d 50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus
\nearlier and who was one of their own number, asked, 51 \u201cDoes
\nour law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out
\nwhat he has been doing?\u201d 52 They replied, \u201cAre you from
\nGalilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet
\ndoes not come out of Galilee.\u201d
\nThis de-legitimization of the Temple guard\u2019s inaction was also challenged
\nby the statement (also a mistaken one) that none of the Pharisees who were
\npart of the Sanhedrin accepted Jesus. It is of particular interest to me to see
\nhow John treats this misconception. Instead of arguing that, indeed there were
\npharisaic members of the Sanhedrin (Jn. 3:2) who displayed a profound
\ninterest in Jesus and his ministry (\u201cRabbi, we know that you have come from
\nGod!\u201d), John simply showed how those who rejected Jesus dismissed the
\ntestimony of those who voiced even tentative support of him.
\nNicodemus is a case in point. When he asked for the Sanhedrin\u2019s hearing
\nabout Jesus, challenging its prejudgment as unlawful according to the Torah,
\nhe was also accused of disloyalty to the system. The message was clear: if
\nanyone, regardless of their position, thought something positive about Jesus,
\nthey could not voice it without being attacked. The shameful silence was the
\nprice believing Ioudaioi had to pay to remain part of the dying system.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n155
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\n156
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n157
\nChapter 8
\n[Adulterous Woman]; \u201cLight of the
\nWorld\u201d; Truth, Origin and Identity
\n\uf041 53 They went each to his own house, 1 but Jesus went to
\nthe Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to
\nthe temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and
\ntaught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman
\nwho had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst
\n4 they said to him, \u201cTeacher, this woman has been caught in
\nthe act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to
\nstone such women. So what do you say?\u201d 6 This they said to
\ntest him that they might have some charge to bring against
\nhim. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.
\n7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to
\nthem, \u201cLet him who is without sin among you be the first to
\nthrow a stone at her.\u201d 8 And once more he bent down and
\nwrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away
\none by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left
\nalone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up
\nand said to her, \u201cWoman, where are they? Has no one
\ncondemned you?\u201d 11 She said, \u201cNo one, Lord.\u201d And Jesus
\nsaid, \u201cNeither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no
\nmore.\u201d
\nIn other portions of this book, we considered how the science of textual
\ncriticism can help Christian believers to know which texts are authentic and
\nwhich are not; which belong to the Bible, and which constitute edits done by
\nscribes who handled the transmission of the Holy Writ before the invention
\nof the printing press. Since we don\u2019t have a single original manuscript or
\nscroll of any of the books of the Bible \u2013 multiple versions (most of them with
\nminor differences) of most biblical texts do exist \u2013 the science of textual
\nanalysis seeks to determine which versions of the available textual witnesses
\nare more reliable. There are times when clear answers cannot be given, but
\nsometimes this is just not the case.
\nIn the passage we are considering, as we come upon one of the most
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n158
\nfamous and beloved Gospel stories, we are very much in need of textual
\nanalysis. So what is the issue? Simply that all the earliest and most reliable
\nmanuscripts of the Gospels do not contain this beautiful story that is otherwise
\nso magnificently consistent with the rest of the Gospel of Christ. All modern
\ntranslations of the Bible, with a disclaimer that this story is not found in early
\nmanuscripts, still include it in their printed texts. What is perhaps even more
\nintriguing for our discussion is, to this day this story is often passed on orally
\nmore often than many other stories! It is clearly among the people\u2019s favorites.
\nThis implies that, while the textual criticism scholars have made a strong and
\neven convincing (to my mind) argument that this text was not part of John\u2019s
\noriginal Gospel; the living church of God has generally not accepted the
\nimplications of their argument.
\nBefore we continue, let me surprise you, by letting you know that I too,
\nlike most modern Christ-followers, think that this is an authentic story. I
\nthink it really did take place and therefore must be told and retold in the
\nGospel proclamation. However, I do agree with most scholars that it does
\nnot belong to John\u2019s Gospel. It was clearly not part of the original text,
\ncomposed towards the end of the first century.
\nFirst of all, we do know that not everything Jesus taught and did was
\nincluded in the Gospel. (Jn. 21:25) It is therefore true that Jesus said things
\nthat were not written down. Like all books of the Bible, the Gospels are
\nselective in what they present. They only give enough information to make
\nthe point the author of a particular Gospel is seeking to make. The Gospels
\nare not like cameras that simply record what happened around Jesus. They
\nare literary works setting forth the arguments of the Gospel writers about
\nJesus, on the basis of what they and their witnesses remembered had really
\nhappened. Therefore, selectivity of presentation was unavoidable.
\nSecondly, most things Jesus taught and said were not recorded
\nimmediately. They were circulated orally as they were passed on from one
\nperson to another.47 The early Jewish and non-Jewish followers of Christ did
\nnot have the New Testament (it was still being written at that time). The
\nScriptures of the Hebrew Bible were available only to those who were literate
\nand rich enough to acquire them.
\nThere are well known problems in this text that have led people to believe
\nthe story itself is not authentic \u2013 such as the absence of two or three witnesses,
\nand the second guilty party. It is also argued that the story cannot be authentic
\nbecause it was illegal under Roman rule for Jews to execute someone. These
\nare just some of the points that are brought up to discredit this story.
\nI agree that these things are problematic, but they can be explained by
\npointing out that this event was set up to trap Jesus and therefore can hardly
\nbe held to the high standards of the judicial requirements of the Torah. To my
\n47 Cf. On the oral transmission of the gospel, see 1 Cor. 15:1-3.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n159
\nmind, there is no reason to think this story is fabricated only because it entered
\nthe Gospel textual tradition later. It (or a version of it) may have only been
\ntransmitted orally until the issue was raised among the copyists about the need
\nto include it in one of the Gospels. This story is found only in manuscripts
\ndating from the fourth century and later.
\nThirdly, textual criticism, like any other scientific enterprise, is a work in
\nprogress and certainly can be mistaken. It also has limitations and there can
\nbe issues textual scholars did not consider, or about which they were
\nmistaken. For example, we must keep in mind that new discoveries of ancient
\ntexts are sometimes made. We certainly cannot be dogmatic about these
\nissues (the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has convincingly proven this
\npoint). Hypothetically, a discovery of an early Gospel manuscript containing
\nthis story may yet be ahead of us.
\nPersonally, however, while I think there is some level of historicity in this
\nstory, I do not think it was part of the original Gospel of John. I am persuaded
\nthat we will never find an early manuscript with this story. Why? To my mind
\nthere are at least two other significant reasons.
\nAncient scribes rarely cut texts. Normally they increased them in length,
\nclarifying or explaining, and as such expanding the text. One of the insights
\nof textual criticism is in fact called \u201cthe priority of the shorter manuscript.\u201d
\nThis means that shorter manuscripts are generally considered to be earlier than
\nlonger ones.
\nThis story makes use of the pair that is never mentioned together in the
\nGospel of John: \u201cScribes and Pharisees.\u201d (Jn. 11:45-46) This phrase over
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n160
\nabounds in the other canonical Gospels, but it is never used in the Gospel of
\nJohn. On several occasions John features his own pair – \u201cthe Ioudaioi and
\nPharisees\u201d – but never \u201cScribes and Pharisees.\u201d The scribes evidently missed
\nthis inconsistency when they inserted it into the narrative of the Gospel of
\nJohn.
\nFor the sake of the discussion, if we only read through to John 7:52<\/a> and
\njump immediately to John 8:12<\/a>, we will see that the text reads smoothly. In
\nfact, the story under consideration seems rather awkwardly inserted into the
\nflow of John 7<\/a>-8. The awkward flow of the text is not a strong enough reason
\nto show that the text was not authentic (there are many awkward flow texts
\nthat are in fact authentic), but given the other serious evidence, it adds more
\nweight to the argument.
\n12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, \u201cI am the light of the
\nworld. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will
\nhave the light of life.\u201d 13 So the Pharisees said to him, \u201cYou
\nare bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not
\ntrue.\u201d 14 Jesus answered, \u201cEven if I do bear witness about
\nmyself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and
\nwhere I am going, but you do not know where I come from or
\nwhere I am going. 15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge
\nno one.
\nThis is not the first time the theme of \u201clight\u201d comes up in this Gospel. In
\nthe prologue we read that \u201cIn him was life, and that life was the light of all
\nmankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome
\nit.\u201d (Jn. 1:4-5) We read in Isaiah 60:1-3<\/a>: \u201cArise, shine, for your light has
\ncome, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you. See, darkness covers the earth
\nand thick darkness is over the peoples, but the Lord rises upon you and his
\nglory appears over you. Nations will come to your light, and kings to the
\nbrightness of your dawn.\u201d
\nJesus applies the high calling of Biblical Israel to be the \u201clight of the
\nworld\u201d to himself. He calls himself the Light of the world. (vs. 12) While this
\nmay seem familiar to us, it must have sounded very strange to the original
\nhearers. The Pharisees, having disavowed every witness that came to them
\nabout Jesus, level the false charge that Jesus had no witnesses. (vs. 13) While
\nthere were those in the Sanhedrin who had sympathies for Jesus, most did
\nnot. Jesus however, responded that they, as a body, had no authority to judge
\nhim because they were not qualified enough to do so. (verses 14-15a) This
\nstatement is part of a long list of Jesus\u2019 anti-establishment statements in this
\nGospel.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n161
\n16 Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I
\nalone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me.
\nJesus\u2019 authority comes from his Father. By implication, the Ioudaioi (in
\nthis case the Pharisees) simply did not possess this authority. They were
\ntherefore rendered powerless to judge.
\nThe main Biblical text, in the context of which we must understand Jesus\u2019
\nstatements to the Ioudaioi, is Daniel 7:9-14<\/a>. There we read:
\n\u201cI kept looking until thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days took
\nHis seat\u2026 and the books were opened\u2026 I kept looking in the night
\nvisions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man
\nwas coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days\u2026 to Him was
\ngiven dominion, glory and a kingdom\u2026 His kingdom is one which will
\nnot be destroyed.\u201d
\nExtra-Biblical Jewish traditions also imagined a Son of Man figure who
\nwas endowed with authority and judgment. This was also most likely based
\non the Daniel 7<\/a> text. We read in 1 Enoch 69:26-27 that the reaction of the true
\nworshipers of Israel\u2019s deity to the revealing of the Son of Man was
\noverwhelming: \u201c\u2026there was great joy amongst them, and they blessed and
\nglorified and extolled because the name of that Son of Man had been revealed
\nunto them. And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the sum of judgment
\nwas given unto the Son of Man\u2026\u201d.
\nThe passage in Daniel 7<\/a> speaks of \u201cthrones (plural) set up,\u201d presumably one
\nset up for the Ancient of Days and one for the Son of Man. This idea of another
\nauthority\/power in heaven (throne implies authority) was also brought up in
\nRabbinic writings. For example, we read about the angel Metatron\u2019s response
\nto Rabbi Ishmael\u2019s inquiry about his incomparable greatness:
\n\u201cMetatron said to Rabbi Ishmael, Out of the love which He had for me,
\nmore than for all the residents of the heights, the Holy One, Blessed be
\nHe, fashioned for me a majestic robe\u2026 He fashioned for me a kingly
\ncrown\u2026 He set it upon my head, and He called me, \u2018The lesser YHWH\u2019
\nin the presence of his whole household in the heaven, as it is written,
\n\u2018My name is in him.\u2019\u201d (3 Enoch 12:1-5)
\nThis idea of co-sitting in heaven in the position of authority (the Son of
\nMan and the Ancient of Days) is a very important idea in the process of
\ndevelopment that reached its high point in the New Testament collection.
\nEventually, this idea of the two powers in heaven will cause a significant
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n162
\ninternal friction among rabbinic sages. (b. Haggigah 14b-15a)
\n17 In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people
\nis true. 18 I am the one who bears witness about myself, and
\nthe Father who sent me bears witness about me.\u201d
\nJesus will use this argument more than once. The Ioudaioi claimed to be
\nexperts in Torah knowledge and interpretation. They accused the Christfollowing
\ncrowds of lack of Torah knowledge. (Jn. 7:49) Jesus told them that
\nsince they denied the testimony of witnesses, this disqualified any opinions
\nthey might have about him. His own testimony and that of the Father
\n(signs\/miracles) were sufficient.
\nThe emphasis on \u201cyour Law\u201d (which almost certainly refers to Torah here)
\nseems to be differentiating between the Torah they (Ioudaioi) have, with other
\ntypes of the Torah, most notably the Samaritan Torah. Jesus therefore called
\nthem to be faithful to the very Torah they (Ioudaioi) claimed to believe and
\nfollow.
\n19 They said to him therefore, \u201cWhere is your Father?\u201d
\nAs often happens in court when a witness is presented, the opposite side
\nseeks to discredit the power of the witness by attacking their person. The
\nphrase \u201cwhere is your Father?\u201d most likely referred to the accusation of the
\nillegitimate birth of Jesus. It is also possible they were simply asking why
\nJoseph (his father) was not appearing with Jesus to give his testimony. While
\nthe second scenario is possible, I think the first one is more likely.
\nJesus answered, \u201cYou know neither me nor my Father. If
\nyou knew me, you would know my Father also.\u201d 20 These words
\nhe spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one
\narrested him, because his hour had not yet come.
\nThe reason John mentions that Jesus said this while he was in the treasury
\narea was to show that Jesus was in close proximity to all the Temple officials
\nand guards. The conversation has moved from Galilee to Judea, from Judea
\nto Jerusalem, from Jerusalem\u2019s streets to the Jerusalem Temple, from the
\nJerusalem Temple grounds to the symbol of the Temple authority \u2013 the
\ntreasury unit.
\n21 So he said to them again, \u201cI am going away, and you will
\nseek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n163
\ncannot come.\u201d 22 So the Ioudaioi said, \u201cWill he kill himself,
\nsince he says, \u2018Where I am going, you cannot come?\u2019\u201d
\nWe have already heard similar clueless responses to Jesus\u2019 statements.
\nThis Gospel continues to portray the Jerusalem Temple authorities as unfit to
\nrule, unaware of the simple things of the Spirit, and in no condition to judge
\nJesus, the Son of the Living God.
\n23 He said to them, \u201cYou are from below; I am from above. You
\nare of this world; I am not of this world.
\nThere is a wonderful play on words here. When we read that Jesus tells
\nhis opponents that he is from above and they are from below, there is more
\nhere than meets the eye. The Gospel of John, from the beginning, portrays
\nJesus to be the divine Logos\/Memra of God. As such, the pre-incarnate Jesus
\nhas always existed with his Father in Heaven. Jesus makes a reference to his
\ndivine and heavenly origin, but there is more here. You see, whenever the
\nscripture says that Jesus traveled to Jerusalem it always says that he \u201cwent
\nup\u201d to Jerusalem. Getting to Jerusalem was, and still is, a physical ascent to
\ntopographically higher ground.48
\nThe simplicity that is recovered when we translate the Greek back into the
\noriginal Hebrew is striking. Jesus arrives from Galilee – the topographically
\nlower country to Judea – he comes to Jerusalem which is the topographically
\nhigher place. There he turns things upside down by confronting Israel\u2019s
\nleaders. So if Jesus had this conversation in ancient Hebrew, and there are
\nsome very convincing arguments that he did, he probably used simple words
\nlike \u201cLemala\u201d (up) and \u201cLemata\u201d (down), which literally means \u201chigh\u201d and
\n\u201clow.\u201d
\n\u201cYou think you are high up because of your Jerusalem location?\u201d says
\nJesus. \u201cNo, you are actually from down below, because you belong to this
\nworld and I belong to the redeemed world to come. That world is from above.
\nYou need to get your sacred topography right!\u201d
\n24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you
\nbelieve that I am he you will die in your sins.\u201d
\nNormally this verse is applied to the Jewish people, in particular to those
\nwho were present with Jesus, and by extension and application to mankind.
\nBut I think it is clear that a very specific group of people \u2013 those who were
\n48 References to \u201cgoing up to Jerusalem\u201d include 2 Sam. 19:34; 1 Kgs. 12:28; 2 Kgs. 18:17; 2 Chr.
\n2:16; Matt. 20:17-18; Mark 10:32-33<\/a>; Luke 18:31<\/a>; John 5:1<\/a> among many others.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n164
\nopposing the royal Son of Israel\u2019s God, yet held on to power in Jerusalem \u2013
\nwere in mind when Jesus spoke these words later recounted in John\u2019s Gospel.
\nIt is to them and them alone that Jesus originally directed his statement:
\n\u201cunless you believe that I am He you will die in your sins.\u201d
\nUnless they (the Jerusalem rulers) realized that he was the very
\nLogos\/Memra of Israel\u2019s God, they would not stop opposing him. The
\nconsequence of their opposition was that they would die in their own sins.
\nTherefore, their acknowledgement of Jesus\u2019 identity as the divine Son of Man
\nwas crucial. The leaders in the Jerusalem Temple were the ones representing
\nIsrael\u2019s God and claiming spiritual authority, and Jesus was \u201cin their face\u201d so
\nthey had no excuse. (James 3:1<\/a> tells us that teachers will be judged more
\nstrictly than others.) They were exposed as hypocrites and frauds with no
\n\u201cears to hear and eyes to see.\u201d Therefore they would die in their sins unless,
\nlike many members of Ioudaioi, they repented. While I hold that Jesus was
\nGod incarnate, I realize there is much complexity to this view and narrative.
\nThis statement (Jn. 8:24) was not meant to apply to anyone and everyone.
\nThere are many people who trusted Israel\u2019s God through Jesus\u2019 person, work
\nand teachings and yet struggle with exactly how Jesus\u2019 divinity and humanity
\nwork together. Therefore, this is not the verse that should be used (as it often
\nis) as a litmus test of whether or not the person is a true believer. In the
\nGospels, Jesus gives us several litmus tests, and almost none of them have to
\ndo with creedal affirmations (though I think they are important), but with the
\npractical living of the follower of Christ. In Matthew 25:31-46<\/a> we read:
\n\u201c\u2026when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with
\nHim, then He will sit on His glorious throne\u2026 He will separate them
\nfrom one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
\nand He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. Then
\nthe King will say to those on His right, \u2018Come, you who are blessed of
\nMy Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
\nof the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I
\nwas thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and
\nyou invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you
\nvisited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.\u2019\u2026 The King will
\nanswer and say to them, \u2018Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did
\nit to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to
\nMe.\u2019\u201d
\nFor the followers of Jesus today, the question is less about how exactly
\nJesus\u2019 full humanity and full divinity fit together, but more about whether or
\nnot they feed the poor and take care of the oppressed and needy around them.
\nBut for the formal shepherds of Israel alone, Jesus says: \u201cunless you believe
\nthat I am he, you will die in your sins.\u201d
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n165
\n25 So they said to him, \u201cWho are you?\u201d Jesus said to them,
\n\u201cJust what I have been telling you from the beginning. 26 I have
\nmuch to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is
\ntrue, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.\u201d 27
\nThey did not understand that he had been speaking to them about
\nthe Father. 28 So Jesus said to them, \u201cWhen you have lifted up the
\nSon of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing
\non my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. 29
\nAnd he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I
\nalways do the things that are pleasing to him.\u201d 30 As he was saying
\nthese things, many believed in him.
\nAn outcome of Jesus\u2019 sharp communication here is testified to in verse 30:
\n\u201cAs he was saying these things many placed their faith in Him.\u201d In verse 25
\nwe begin to see that apparently at least some of the Pharisees had begun to
\ninquire more openly about Jesus. \u201cWho are you?\u201d (vs. 25) may have been the
\nvery first honest and open question they asked of him. Notice also that the
\nreligious rulers are portrayed, not as vicious hateful enemies, but as ignorant
\nsheep who have lost their way. When Jesus speaks to them about the judgment
\nof his Father, they do not understand his reference. (verses 26-27) Even
\nthough they did not immediately understand Jesus\u2019 words about his future
\nexaltation; his full son-like submission to the authority of his Father must
\nhave produced the greatest miracle of all \u2013 faith in the hearts of many of his
\nhearers.
\n31 So Jesus said to the Ioudaioi who had believed him, \u201cIf
\nyou abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you
\nwill know the truth, and the truth will set you free.\u201d
\nWe have already clearly made the point that the Ioudaioi are members of
\na definable group within the people of Israel at the time of Jesus. In this
\npassage, we see Jesus completely understands that not everyone who is part
\nof the Ioudaioi opposes him. The majority may reject him, but there is a
\nfaithful remnant that accepts him. Nicodemus and those who agreed with him,
\nwho believed that Jesus was a teacher sent to them by God. Therefore, when
\nspeaking to the mixed crowd consisting of the Ioudaioi who strongly opposed
\nhim, together with those who believed in him, Jesus directed his challenge to
\nthose who were ready to listen: \u201cIn order to be my disciples you must hold on
\nto my word, to be free you must know the truth.\u201d (verses 31-32) As we will
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n166
\nsee shortly, this was nothing less than political language used in the service
\nof significant theological exploration.
\n33 They answered him, \u201cWe are offspring of Abraham and
\nhave never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say,
\n\u2018You will become free\u2019?\u201d
\nOnce Jesus called the unbelieving members of the Ioudaioi in the crowd
\nto obey his words and become free, some Ioudaioi answered for their entire
\ngroup, saying, being offspring of Abraham, they were not bound to anyone.
\nThey were most likely referring to their own personal privileged\/free status
\nunder the Roman occupation.
\n34 Jesus answered them, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you,
\neveryone who practices sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does
\nnot remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So
\nif the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
\nIt is hard to say exactly what Jesus had in mind when he spoke these words.
\nA number of interpretive options are available. To understand the slave\/free
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n167
\nanalogy is vital in this context. To do that, we must take a brief historical
\ndetour to understand the practice of slavery in the Roman Empire, whose
\nfaithful subjects the Ioudaioi really were.
\nWhen we think today of slavery, we may think of the race-based slavery
\nof the old American plantations. The slavery that was practiced in the Roman
\nEmpire, however, was nothing like this kind of slavery; although it was far
\nfrom a perfect social platform. Many of the Roman slaves were well-to-do.
\nSlaves had civil rights and they could sue their masters in the court of Roman
\nlaw and expect a fair hearing. Slaves in the Roman Empire were usually
\npeople taken captive in wars. More often than not, they were professionals,
\ndoctors, and accountants by profession. Only those who were condemned to
\nslavery as punishment experienced brutal conditions. The rest enjoyed a
\nrather comfortable and safe lifestyle.
\nSlave status was temporary and usually did not last more than 20 years.
\nThere was a well-established path to freedom in the Roman world. This
\nimportant feature came to an almost complete standstill during the period we
\ncall Pax Romana (1st and 2nd centuries) when, comparatively speaking, few
\nnew slaves were generated due to the limited number of military expansion
\nconflicts during this time. In the time of Jesus, it was actually very difficult
\nto receive freedom in the Roman Empire, because freedom from slavery was
\ndiscouraged by the new unofficial Roman policy.
\nIt is therefore telling that Jesus used the metaphor of obedience to him as
\nbeing true freedom. Even during the period when freedom for Jews and others
\nin the Roman world was almost impossible to obtain, those who believed and
\nobeyed Him (master-slave language) could become truly free. Think about it.
\nIt is as if Jesus was saying: \u201cMake me the master of your life. Sell yourself
\ninto slavery to me. Then and only then will you be able to gain true freedom.\u201d
\nWhy? \u201cBecause I am both a slave and a master! I rule everything and yet I
\nobey my Father in everything I do.\u201d So, for the author of the Gospel of John
\nit was clear: either sin would exercise authority over the members of the
\nIoudaioi, or Jesus would. A master-slave relationship with Jesus,
\nparadoxically, brought real freedom \u2013 first-class citizenship in the Kingdom
\nof God. Whereas Roman slaves, who with great pains managed to gain their
\nfreedom, were only able to pass from being third-class citizens to being
\nsecond-class citizens of Rome and were still limited in significant ways.
\n37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to
\nkill me because my word finds no place in you.
\nWhen the Ioudaioi heard Jesus speaking to those who believed in Him
\nabout the true status of freedom in the Kingdom of God, they objected that
\nthey were not really slaves since they traced their heritage to Abraham. Jesus
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n168
\naffirmed the fact that they were indeed the offspring of Abraham, but he
\nargued that the Ioudaioi who opposed him were not at all Abraham\u2019s spiritual
\nchildren.
\n38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do
\nwhat you have heard from your father.\u201d
\nJesus charges his opponents with obedience to the wrong father, while also
\nsaying that he obeys His Father; not theirs. The nature of people is such that
\nthey are not able to not believe and not obey. It is only a question of exactly
\nwho will earn their full allegiance and obedience. Will it be the right master
\nwho can give true freedom? \u2013 or will it be someone else?
\n39 They answered him, \u201cAbraham is our father.\u201d Jesus said
\nto them, \u201cIf you were Abraham\u2019s children, you would be doing
\nthe works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man
\nwho has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not
\nwhat Abraham did.\u201d
\nIt is interesting that, while John sets forth Jesus as the divine Logos\/Memra
\nof Israel\u2019s God, Jesus addresses himself as \u201ca man\u201d who told them the truth.
\nThere is no mistake here. According to John, Jesus is not only the divine
\nlogos, he is also fully man. Therefore, without apparent contradiction, John
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n169
\ndescribes the interrelationship between Jesus\u2019 full humanity and the divine
\ndescription of him found throughout this Gospel.
\n41 \u201cYou are doing the works your father did.\u201d They said to
\nhim, \u201cWe were not born of sexual immorality. We have one
\nFather\u2014even God.\u201d 42 Jesus said to them, \u201cIf God were your
\nFather, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here.
\nI came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you
\nnot understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to
\nhear my word.\u201d
\nOnce again, the reference is likely referring to stories that had been
\ncirculating about Jesus being from an illicit union.49 The Ioudaioi were
\nmaking a reference to this, precisely because they simply did not believe the
\ntrue stories of God\u2019s incredible intervention in human history (the virgin
\nbirth). This was enough to prove that they only believed the lies of the devil
\nand Jesus\u2019 word had no place in their minds and hearts. His prophetic and
\nstrong language was more than justified.
\n44 \u201cYou are of your father the devil, and your will is to do
\nyour father\u2019s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning,
\nand does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in
\nhim. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he
\nis a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth,
\nyou do not believe me.\u201d
\nFor Jesus, the evil shepherds of God\u2019s people Israel (we will discuss
\nthis connection later) are joined with the devil and are his servants\/slaves.
\nThey do not love truth because all truth is antithetical to them. When they
\ntestify falsely against Jesus, they simply act in accordance with their
\nnature and the lying nature of their father.
\n46 \u201cWhich one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth,
\nwhy do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the
\nwords of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that
\nyou are not of God.\u201d
\n49 Cf. the Jesus \u201cson of Panthera\u201d traditions in (much later) rabbinic discourse. (tHullin 2:22; Qohelet
\nRabbah 1:8(3); yAbodah Zarah 2:2(7); 2:2(12); yShab. 14:4(8); 14:4(13)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n170
\nJesus is saying that those who oppose him do not in reality have any
\nexcuse. None of them were able to show any wrongdoing on Jesus\u2019 part. The
\nsimple reason for them not hearing the voice of the Great Shepherd of Israel
\nwas because they did not belong to Israel\u2019s God, as did other Israelites.
\n48 The Jews answered him, \u201cAre we not right in saying that
\nyou are a Samaritan and have a demon?\u201d 49 Jesus answered, \u201cI
\ndo not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me.
\nThe Ioudaioi who rejected Jesus continued their argument opposing Jesus\u2019
\nwords. This time they accused him of demon-possession and Samaritan
\ntheological affiliation. What is interesting here is that Jesus refutes their
\naccusation of demon possession, but says nothing against their accusation of
\nSamaritan heresy. We know that Jesus was not a Samaritan Israelite, nor was
\nhe supportive of Samaritan theological positions and yet, this omission is yet
\nanother small piece of evidence that, perhaps, the Samaritan Israelite
\ncommunity was the addressee, or at least among the various Israelite
\naddressees for whom this particular Gospel was originally authored.
\n50 Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it,
\nand he is the judge. 51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps
\nmy word, he will never see death.\u201d
\nJesus repeated the very point he had made earlier to those among the
\nIoudaioi who believed in him.
\n52 The Jews said to him, \u201cNow we know that you have a
\ndemon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, \u2018If
\nanyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.\u2019 53Are you
\ngreater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets
\ndied! Who do you make yourself out to be?\u201d
\nAs Jesus further clarified his points, his opponents then understood what
\nhe was saying. He claimed his words were life-giving and life-preserving, and
\nin fact they were far more powerful than the words of Abraham and the great
\nprophets of old! That of course was because Jesus was the Logos of Israel\u2019s
\nGod.
\n54 Jesus answered, \u201cIf I glorify myself, my glory is nothing.
\nIt is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, \u2018He is our
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n171
\nGod.\u2019 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to
\nsay that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do
\nknow him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham
\nrejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.\u201d
\nJesus made a stunning statement here in response to the challenge given
\nby the Ioudaioi. He said that Abraham met him and when he did, he rejoiced.
\nWe can already anticipate the reaction of those who opposed him. What Jesus
\nsaid was absolutely true. In fact, Abraham saw the incarnate Logos of God
\nseveral times. Take one concrete example.50 This event took place
\nimmediately prior to Abraham\u2019s negotiations with God over the salvation of
\nthe city of Sodom because of the righteousness of some of Sodom\u2019s residents.
\nYou will remember that three visitors came to Abraham. Two were angels
\nand the third was the LORD in human form. (Genesis 18:1-33<\/a>) The Torah
\nseems to be completely unapologetic about this kind of encounter between
\nGod and men when God appears in human form as in Genesis 18<\/a> or in Genesis
\n32 (Jacob wrestling with the messenger of God). Israelite theology did allow
\nfor God to appear in visible form. Jesus claiming such, however, challenged
\nthe Ioudaioi\u2019s position of authority and clearly threatened to remove them
\nfrom power. This challenge led to a conflict that would eventually result in
\nJesus\u2019 brutal crucifixion by the Roman regime. The issue was not that Jesus
\ncould not be Israel\u2019s God in human form, but that Israel\u2019s God in human
\nappearance could not be Jesus.
\n57 So the Jews said to him, \u201cYou are not yet fifty years old,
\nand have you seen Abraham?\u201d 58 Jesus said to them, \u201cTruly,
\ntruly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.\u201d 59 So they
\npicked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and
\nwent out of the temple.
\nThis was first received with sarcasm \u201cYou are not yet fifty years old, and
\nhave you seen Abraham?\u201d But the story rather quickly moved to its
\nconclusion when Jesus stated that before Abraham was born, he already
\nexisted. Given the unbelief of the Ioudaioi, their reaction to his claim of
\ndivinity was to be expected. They prepared to stone Jesus. But the
\nJerusalemite crowd that surrounded him during this confrontation with the
\nIoudaioi allowed him to hide himself and to escape from the Temple
\n50 This statement (vs. 56) of Jesus may also refer back to the ram caught in the thicket when
\nAbraham was called to sacrifice Isaac. He certainly rejoiced then. Father God quite probably showed
\nAbraham in that moment that his willingness to lay his \u201conly\u201d son on the altar pointed to another day
\nwhen a far greater Father would willingly give his only son on the \u201caltar of sacrifice.\u201d
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n172
\ncompound unharmed.
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n173
\n174
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n175
\nChapter 9
\nThe Sabbath Healing near the Pool
\nof Siloam; Ensuing Controversy
\n\uf041 1As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man who had been
\nblind from birth. 2 \u201cRabbi,\u201d his disciples asked him, \u201cwhy was
\nthis man born blind? Was it because of his own sins or his
\nparents\u2019 sins?\u201d
\nIt was common for disciples of Jewish rabbis to ask their trusted teachers
\nquestions that would attempt to make sense of things and reconcile the
\nbiblical teachings they knew with the reality they saw around them. The
\ndisciples of Jesus were faced with a question that had to do with the nature of
\nhuman suffering in general, as illustrated by the suffering of the blind man in
\nparticular. They gave Jesus two options: was it the blind man himself or was
\nit his parents who were to blame?
\n3 \u201cIt was not because of his sins or his parents\u2019 sins,\u201d Jesus
\nanswered. But so the power of God should be seen in him.
\nJesus answered their questions with a simple reply – \u201cneither.\u201d The reason
\nfor the man\u2019s blindness was not rooted in sin at all. This would have been the
\nnormal explanation. Jesus\u2019 point was that somehow, through the suffering of
\nthe blind man, a greater good, in this case, the glory of God, would in the end
\nbe manifested. Like the drama in the book of Job, only those who are removed
\nfrom the events by space and time are able to appreciate what was really going
\non. In the previous story of the healing of the man who had been a cripple for
\n38 years, we saw the evil shepherds of Israel being confronted by the Son of
\nMan who steadfastly moves up with his miracles\/signs, first from Galilee to
\nJudea\u2019s pagan Asclepion, and now to the facility actually associated with the
\nJerusalem Temple, performing one of the greatest miracles in the Bible \u2013
\ngiving sight to a man who had never seen before (born blind). This kind of
\nhealing was absolutely without precedent. (Jn. 9:32)
\n4\u201cI must quickly carry out the tasks assigned us by the one
\nwho sent us. The night is coming, and then no one can work.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n176
\n5 But while I am here in the world, I am the light of the world.\u201d
\nIt seems that the man\u2019s blindness from birth symbolized the desperately
\nand deeply flawed condition of hurting sheep \u2013 the people of Israel.
\nTherefore, giving light to the eyes of the blind man was a prophetic sign of
\ngiving light to all Israel. Both the healing and the ultimately redemptive
\nworks of Jesus needed to be carried out quickly to ease the burden of God\u2019s
\npeople who were suffering oppression from all sides.
\nThe urgency of Jesus\u2019 task is set within the immediate context of the
\nancient world, when work could only be done during the day. Christ,
\nanticipating his agony on the cross, characterizes this as the time of darkness.
\nMark 15:33<\/a> describes this yet future event as follows: \u201cWhen the sixth hour
\ncame, darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour.\u201d What is
\ninteresting here and perhaps counter-intuitive for us, is that it is not the death
\nof Jesus, but only the suffering on the cross, that is described in terms of night
\nand darkness.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n177
\n6 Then he spit on the ground, made mud with the saliva, and
\nspread the mud over the blind man\u2019s eyes.
\nMost people find this verse strange and have trouble connecting the
\nsanitized Western Jesus of our imaginations with what appears to be an act
\nworthy of a Middle Eastern shaman. We are simply stunned to hear that Jesus
\n\u201cspit on the ground, made mud with the saliva, and spread the mud over the
\nblind man\u2019s eyes.\u201d
\nActually, there should not be anything stunning about this. Prophets were
\nknown to not only speak with words, but also through symbolic actions.
\nEzekiel was especially renowned for this. His prophetic actions include eating
\na scroll (Ezek. 3:1-3), binding himself with cords (3:25-27), making brick
\nmodels and enacting siege (Ezek. 4), and shaving his head (Ezek. 5), among
\nothers. This is exactly what Jesus is doing here. He is about to heal the man
\nwho was born blind and he wanted the people present to connect it with God\u2019s
\ncreation of man. God created man from the dust of the ground and the act of
\nhealing by Jesus was a redemptive act of restoration \u2013 performed by the
\nLogos of God Himself. Jesus\u2019 healing of this blind man is of paramount
\nsignificance. It is not just a healing; it is the creation of a new man.
\nEverything that Jesus does in John shows him to be God. It displays what,
\nin theological language, we call \u201chigh Christology\u201d (which means that it
\npresents Christ as fully divine versus \u201calmost divine\u201d or \u201csomewhat divine\u201d).
\nThis is indeed a clear presentation. Jesus drew the parallel between himself
\nand God, not only through the miracle itself, but also through the propheticsymbolic
\nuse of mud\/dust of the ground. (Gen. 2:7)
\n7 He told him, \u201cGo wash yourself in the pool of Siloam.\u201d
\n(Siloam means \u201csent\u201d) So the man went and washed and came
\nback seeing!
\nIt is interesting that when Jesus healed the man at the pool of Bethesda he
\ndid not tell him to be washed there. This is most likely because the Pool of
\nBethesda was a pagan facility (Asclepion), while the pool of Siloam was a
\nJewish facility affiliated with the Jerusalem Temple (the center of worship
\nfor the Ioudaioi).
\n8 His neighbors and others who knew him as a blind beggar
\nasked each other, \u201cIsn\u2019t this the man who used to sit and
\nbeg?\u201d 9 Some said he was, and others said, \u201cNo, he just looks
\nlike him!\u201d But the beggar kept saying, \u201cYes, I am the same
\none!\u201d 10 They asked, \u201cWho healed you? What happened?\u201d
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n178
\n11 He told them, \u201cThe man they call Jesus made mud and
\nspread it over my eyes and told me, \u2018Go to the pool of Siloam
\nand wash yourself.\u2019 So I went and washed, and now I can see!\u201d
\n12 \u201cWhere is he now?\u201d they asked. \u201cI don\u2019t know,\u201d he replied.
\n13 Then they took the man who had been blind to the Pharisees,
\n14 because it was on the Sabbath that Jesus had made the mud
\nand healed him. 15 The Pharisees asked the man all about it.
\nSo he told them, \u201cHe put the mud over my eyes, and when I
\nwashed it away, I could see!\u201d 16 Some of the Pharisees said,
\n\u201cThis man Jesus is not from God, for he is working on the
\nSabbath.\u201d Others said, \u201cBut how could an ordinary sinner do
\nsuch miraculous signs?\u201d So there was a deep division of opinion
\namong them.
\nPharisees were the favorites of urban Jewish dwellers. It is probable that
\nthe reason the people went to the Pharisees was that the Pharisaic movement
\nwas a grass-roots religious movement and was less connected to the Temple
\nestablishment than were the Sadducees. By the time of Jesus, the role of the
\npriests, who were mainly Sadducees, was in many ways taken over by the
\nmuch more popular and progressive Pharisaic movement.
\nJewish people love to disagree with one another, and this time was no
\nexception. Some of the Pharisees thought Jesus\u2019 mud-making activity was
\nSabbath-breaking; while others (also Pharisees) did not agree, citing this as
\nproof of Jesus\u2019 innocence and of the fact that God had granted him
\nsupernatural abilities, therefore approving his ministry.
\n17 Then the Pharisees again questioned the man who had
\nbeen blind and demanded, \u201cWhat\u2019s your opinion about this
\nman who healed you?\u201d The man replied, \u201cI think he must be
\na prophet.\u201d
\nGiven the fact that not all Pharisees were against Jesus on this matter, we
\nshould not assume the investigation into the man\u2019s healing only yielded
\nnegative impressions. It is possible that two parties within the Pharisaic camp
\nwere debating with each other and, in this case, came to very different views
\nregarding the person of Jesus. Was he a sinner or was he a saint? It was up to
\nthe formerly blind man to report what he thought about the man who had
\nhealed him. But it was not so simple. The side that did not approve of Jesus
\nwas far more powerful than the group among the Pharisees who loved him.
\nTherefore, the predominant reaction and subsequent questioning of the man
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n179
\nwho had been blind was overwhelmingly negative. Keep in mind that the
\nPharisees were part of the Ioudaioi (they were a subgroup).
\n18 The Ioudaioi still refused to believe the man had been
\nblind and could now see, so they called in his parents.
\nThose who rejected Jesus and his divine calling had to also reject his
\nmiracles, because the argument accepted by all was that Israel\u2019s God would
\nnot endow someone of whom He did not approve with miracle-working
\npower. The important thing here was not the healing itself; it was not even
\nthe fact of opening the eyes of the blind man. The issue was something far
\nmore powerful: it was bringing sight to a man who had been blind from birth!
\nThe authorities refused to believe that the man in fact had been blind from
\nbirth. They called in witnesses who would validate their growing suspicion
\nthat this was either a hoax or a case of partial healing, which was common in
\nthe ancient world. No one would know the blind man better than his parents.
\n19 They asked them, \u201cIs this your son? Was he born blind?
\nIf so, how can he now see?\u201d 20 His parents replied, \u201cWe know
\nthis is our son and that he was born blind, 21 but we don\u2019t know
\nhow he can see or who healed him. Ask him. He is old enough
\nto speak for himself.\u201d 22 His parents said this because they
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n180
\nwere afraid of the Jewish leaders, who had announced that
\nanyone saying Jesus was the Messiah would be expelled from
\nthe synagogue. 23 That\u2019s why they said, \u201cHe is old enough. Ask
\nhim.\u201d
\nThe persecution of the followers of Jesus had already begun. And the
\nprimary way they were persecuted was to expel the followers and
\nsympathizers of Jesus from the synagogues.
\nA word about synagogues of Jesus\u2019 time is probably in order here. In short,
\nsynagogues were different from what they are today. A synagogue was
\nsomething like a mini-Jewish community center; organized, not around what
\nwe would call today \u201creligious activity,\u201d such as worship and Torah study
\n(though it included it), but rather around things like travel hospitality, caring
\nfor the poor and other activities that supported the community. The institution
\nof the synagogue is actually Greek (synagogue is a Greek word that means \u201ca
\ngathering of people together\u201d). When the Gospels speak about synagogues,
\nthey always refer to Jewish synagogues, but the idea of a synagogue was a
\nsimple gathering of people who assembled together in the Roman Empire.51
\nIt is important to realize that there were synagogues which were under the
\nreligious control of a variety of Jewish religious factions. This is likely to be
\nwhat was behind Matthew\u2019s usage of \u201ctheir\u201d (as in Matt.4:23) synagogues
\n(presumably versus \u201cour\u201d synagogues.)
\n24 So for the second time they called in the man who had
\nbeen blind and told him, \u201cGod should get the glory for this,
\nbecause we know this man Jesus is a sinner.\u201d 25 \u201cI don\u2019t know
\nwhether he is a sinner,\u201d the man replied. \u201cBut I know this: I
\nwas blind, and now I can see!\u201d 26 \u201cBut what did he do?\u201d they
\nasked. \u201cHow did he heal you?\u201d 27 \u201cLook!\u201d the man exclaimed.
\n\u201cI told you once. Didn\u2019t you listen? Why do you want to hear
\nit again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?\u201d 28 Then
\nthey cursed him and said, \u201cYou are his disciple, but we are
\ndisciples of Moses! 29 We know God spoke to Moses, but we
\ndon\u2019t even know where this man comes from.\u201d 30 \u201cWhy, that\u2019s
\nvery strange!\u201d the man replied. \u201cHe healed my eyes, and yet
\nyou don\u2019t know where he comes from? 31 We know that God
\n51 The language of \u201cassociation\u201d vs. \u201cassembly\u201d may be a little too loose, because of the existence
\nof \u201cassociations\u201d of various interest groups in the ancient world. (e.g., Acts 19:24<\/a> -27) The larger ad hoc
\ngathering of citizens and metalworkers in Ephesus was designated an \u201cekklesia\u201d. (Acts 19:41<\/a>) A better
\ngloss of \u201csynagogue\u201d would be \u201cassembly.\u201d (cf. BDAG, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae 2)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n181
\ndoesn\u2019t listen to sinners, but he is ready to hear those who
\nworship him and do his will. 32 Ever since the world began, no
\none has been able to open the eyes of someone born blind. 33 If
\nthis man were not from God, he couldn\u2019t have done it.\u201d
\n34 \u201cYou were born a total sinner!\u201d they answered. \u201cAre you
\ntrying to teach us?\u201d And they threw him out of the synagogue.
\nThey came to the healed man, telling him ahead of time what the accepted
\nanswer was to be. However, he rejects their answer by saying that he was not
\na trained theologian and should not be asked about the intricacies of theology
\nand halachah (what is lawful and what is not). He only knows that he was
\nblind from birth and now he sees everything perfectly! They continued to
\nquestion exactly how Jesus healed him. At this point, the man sarcastically
\nasked them if, perchance, they also wanted to become disciples of Jesus, since
\nthey were so interested in him. They then pronounced a curse on the man
\nwhom God had just blessed with the miracle of sight, insisting that they did
\nnot know where Jesus came from and by what authority he did what he did.
\nThe healed man\u2019s sarcasm betrayed his new-found confidence. He said to
\nthem: \u201cHm\u2026 That\u2019s strange that you don\u2019t know.\u201d Then he used their own
\nargument against them: \u201cWe know that God doesn\u2019t listen to sinners, but he
\nis ready to hear those who worship him and do his will. Ever since the world
\nbegan, no one has been able to open the eyes of someone born blind. If this
\nman were not from God, he couldn\u2019t have done it.\u201d (verses 31-33) They
\nbecame angry and accused the man of insubordination.
\n35 When Jesus heard what had happened, he found the man
\nand asked, \u201cDo you believe in the Son of Man?\u201d 36 The man
\nanswered, \u201cWho is he, sir? I want to believe in him.\u201d 37 \u201cYou
\nhave seen him,\u201d Jesus said, \u201cand he is speaking to you!\u201d
\n38 \u201cYes, Lord, I believe!\u201d the man said. And he worshiped
\nJesus.
\nWe must keep in mind that the blind man did not see Jesus at the time he
\nwas being healed. When the light broke through his blindness, it would have
\nbeen very exciting but also very confusing. It is doubtful that the man would
\nhave even recognized Jesus if he were to see him again. Moreover, he was
\nprobably told about Jesus\u2019 spitting and mud-making by those who witnessed
\nthe miracle, since he would not have seen this for himself.
\nJesus asked the healed man if he believed in the Son of Man. Jewish Son
\nof Man theology was already very much developed in Judaism in some both
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n182
\ncanonical (by later standards) texts, such as Daniel 7:14<\/a>, and non-canonical
\ntexts, such as the books of Enoch, as we have seen in prior portions of this
\nbook. Given the accusation of the sinfulness of Jesus, it is intriguing that the
\nSon of Man in Jewish theological writings was, instead, characterized by utter
\nrighteousness. We read in Enoch 71:14-17:
\n\u201cThis is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness; and
\nrighteousness abides over him, and the righteousness of the Head of
\nDays forsakes him not. And he said unto me: \u2018He proclaims unto thee
\npeace in the name of the world to come; for from hence has proceeded
\npeace since the creation of the world, and so shall it be unto thee forever
\nand for ever and ever.\u2019\u201d
\nThere were people who accepted this (and similar traditions), and those
\nwho did not. Jesus, therefore, asked the man if he believed in that tradition.
\nThe man answered in the affirmative. When the man acknowledged that he
\nwas ready to accept the Son of Man and to believe in Him, Jesus revealed his
\nidentity – that he himself was that Son of Man of Israelite apocalyptic
\nexpectation. The man Jesus healed responded by an affirmation of faith and
\nworship before the Logos of God, who had given him light. This harkens back
\nto John 1:9<\/a>: \u201cThe true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into
\nthe world.\u201d The worship of Jesus by this man was a natural outcome of
\nalready formulated Jewish Logos and Son of Man theology.
\n39 Then Jesus told him, \u201cI entered this world to render
\njudgment\u2014to give sight to the blind and to show those who
\nthink they see that they are blind.\u201d
\nJesus revealed much more to the healed blind man. He told him the very
\nreason he had come into the world was to judge. This meant that, in some
\ncases he would give sight to the physically blind, and in some cases it would
\nmean showing people that they were blind. Taking into consideration the
\noverall thrust of John\u2019s Gospel, which is that the Jerusalemite religious
\nleadership are evil shepherds who are disqualified (blind) to lead, too
\nconcerned for their own status, and do not care for the good of all the sheep
\nof the house of Israel, these words of Jesus spell out his clear purpose. He
\nwill judge the kosmos by giving sight to the blind and showing those who
\nthink they can see, that they themselves are blind. In our mind, judging
\nsomeone is a purely negative action, but this is not necessarily so.
\nRighteous judgment is, in essence, restoring\/enforcing the rightful place
\nof all that is good, righteous, and praiseworthy in God\u2019s creation. It is
\naffirming, strengthening, and declaring praiseworthy that which is right
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n183
\nbefore God. So here Jesus is saying, not only has he come to perform signs
\nsuch as giving the man born blind his sight, but he has also come to give light
\nto those who think they see, but truly walk in darkness. We will see this theme
\ndeveloped more and more as this Gospel unfolds.
\n40 Some Pharisees who were standing nearby heard him and
\nasked, \u201cAre you saying we\u2019re blind?\u201d 41 \u201cIf you were blind,
\nyou wouldn\u2019t be guilty,\u201d Jesus replied. \u201cBut you remain guilty
\nbecause you claim you can see.
\nThe confrontation continues. Those Pharisees who overheard this
\nconversation challenged Jesus about his claim that they were blind. To which
\nJesus responded that it would have been of benefit to them to have been blind,
\nbecause then they could not be accused of anything. But in their case, they
\nmust be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, because by their own
\nconfession, they could see. (See also 8:24) The court motif prevalent
\nthroughout the Gospels comes to its sharpest focus in
\nthis section.
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\n184
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n185
\nChapter 10
\nThe Good Shepherd; Feast of
\nDedication; Jesus Retreats to
\nBethany
\n\uf041 1 \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the
\nsheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man
\nis a thief and a robber. 2 But he who enters by the door is the
\nshepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens. The
\nsheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and
\nleads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes
\nbefore them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.
\n5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him,
\nfor they do not know the voice of strangers.\u201d 6 This figure of
\nspeech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what
\nhe was saying to them.
\nIn ancient times, like today, all kinds of thievery was practiced. Because
\nthe Gospel of John was written when people largely grew their own produce
\nand oftentimes raised their own livestock, this illustration was familiar. It was
\nwidely known that if someone wanted to hurt a sheep owner economically,
\nthe worst thing that could be done was to let his sheep out under the cover of
\nnight, steal them, and disperse them. For their shepherd to gather them into
\nthe fold again would be very time consuming. They could of course steal
\nsheep, but it was not possible to steal most of the sheep by persuading them
\nto follow the thief. Thieves could usually steal only what they could carry
\nafter killing or binding the sheep. The reason the flock would not follow the
\nthief was simple: They were accustomed to the voice of their own shepherd
\nand would not follow a stranger.
\nAs Jesus continued and intensified his polemic discourses with the
\nIoudaioi, the identity of his person and his mission became abundantly clear.
\nIn this very important section, Jesus will recall the image of Israel as God\u2019s
\nsheep, ascribing to the ruling Jerusalemite establishment the role of the evil
\nshepherds of Israel, and casting himself as the Good Shepherd of Israel, so
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n186
\npowerfully described in Ezekiel 34:1-24<\/a>:52
\n\u201cThe word of the Lord came to me: \u2018Son of man, prophesy against the
\nshepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds,
\nthus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding
\nyourselves! My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the
\nmountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the
\nface of the earth, with none to search or seek for them \u2026I will rescue
\nmy sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.\u2019 For
\nthus says the Lord God: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep
\nand will seek them out\u2026 I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the
\nstrayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak,
\nand the fat and the strong I will destroy\u2026\u201d
\n7 So Jesus again said to them, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, I
\nam the door of the sheep. 8 All who came before me are thieves
\nand robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the
\ndoor. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in
\nand out and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and
\nkill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it
\nabundantly.
\nIt is commonly believed that, in this passage, Jesus is speaking about
\nvarious people who had claimed to be the Messiah prior to his appearance. It
\nis true that both before and after Jesus there were many who claimed to be
\nthe Messiah. (Acts 5:36-37<\/a>; Josephus Ant. 20.5.1) However, in this context,
\nI think that those who came to the people of Israel before Jesus (given the
\noverall context of John\u2019s Gospel) were the current Jerusalem rulers \u2013 the evil
\nshepherds of Israel. They claimed that they alone were the proper entrance to
\nthe sheep fold. They were the door. If someone was to enter, he must come
\nthrough them. Jesus says that this is most definitely false. He himself is the
\ndoor, not them; He is the way. Whoever enters through him will find refuge
\n(be saved) and sustenance (true life resources). Only Jesus has the good of
\nhis sheep in mind, unlike the evil impostors \u2013 the Jerusalemite leadership of
\nthe Ioudaioi.
\n11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his
\nlife for the sheep. 12 He who is a hired hand and not a
\nshepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming
\n52 God as Shepherd is pictured and referenced in Gen. 48:15; 49:24; Ps. 23:1; 80:1; Ezek. 34:15.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n187
\nand leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and
\nscatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares
\nnothing for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my
\nown and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and
\nI know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
\nJesus continued his previous conversation with a mixed group of people,
\noften addressing his comments to the Ioudaioi who were present, both those
\nwho believed and those who did not believe in him. As is obvious from the
\ngeneral context of this discourse, the basic difference between Jesus and those
\nwho currently ruled Israel was this: \u201cHe owns the sheep and the other
\nshepherds were hired to care for the sheep and therefore do not have the best
\ninterest of the sheep in mind.\u201d In other words, they are only shepherds because
\nthey draw an income and gain benefits. He is the complete opposite. He who
\nowns everything made himself poor (Jn. 1:11a; Col. 1:15-17) and became a
\nservant for the good of the sheep. He is the Good Shepherd of Ezekiel 34<\/a>.
\nThe God of Israel himself has come to pastor his own sheep.
\n16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must
\nbring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will
\nbe one flock, one shepherd.
\nThis section of the Gospel of John is one of the most memorable and most
\noften quoted passages in the book. Most Christians are persuaded that the
\nunity of Jews and the nations is in view in this text. It is traditionally
\nunderstood that Jesus is speaking to a Jewish crowd when he says: \u201cI have
\nother sheep that are not of this fold\u201d who also need to be reached and brought
\nin under the protective hand of the Good Shepherd. Whilst I think this
\nunderstanding is wonderful (and is actually true in a sense that other biblical
\ntexts teach precisely that), I believe it has nothing to do with the Gospel of
\nJohn\u2019s context and message.
\nIt is far more likely that something entirely different is in view here. As
\nwe have already seen, the author of the Gospel of John has Jesus interacting
\nstrongly with the passage in Ezekiel 34<\/a> (evil shepherds vs. the Good
\nShepherd). Ezekiel also describes the incredible regeneration\/resurrection of
\nIsrael – the vision of the valley of the Dry Bones. It is there that we find the
\nkey to Jesus\u2019 words in John 10:16<\/a> which we are now considering. In Ezekiel
\n37:15-24 we read:
\n\u201cThe word of the Lord came to me: \u2018Son of man, take a stick and write
\non it, \u2018For Judah, and the people of Israel associated with him\u2019; then
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n188
\ntake another stick and write on it, \u2018For Joseph (the stick of Ephraim)
\nand all the house of Israel associated with him.\u2019 And join them one to
\nanother into one stick that they may become one in your hand\u2026
\nBehold, I am about to take the stick of Joseph (that is in the hand of
\nEphraim) and the tribes of Israel associated with him. And I will join
\nwith it the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, that they may be
\none in my hand\u2026 Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the
\nnations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all
\naround, and bring them to their own land. And I will make them one
\nnation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be
\nking over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no
\nlonger divided into two kingdoms\u2026 My servant David shall be king
\nover them, and they shall all have one shepherd.\u2019\u201d (Ezek. 27:15-24)
\nThe case is clear – Jesus, in fulfillment of the above text, comes to unite
\nIsrael, and this includes all Israel: Samaritan Israelites as the local
\nrepresentatives of the Northern Kingdom, as well as those Israelites currently
\nresiding in the dispersion\/diaspora. The time had come to place the two sticks
\nof Judah and Israel together, and Jesus would do just that. Before the
\nfulfilment of the reconciling and unifying vision of Israel\u2019s God with all
\nhumanity, comes a mission of primary importance \u2013 the mission of Jesus to
\nreconcile and unify all the house of Israel.
\nGod\u2019s reputation and, therefore, his faithfulness to his promises to the
\npeople of Israel are at stake. The Gospel of John is a Judean invitation to the
\nrest of Israel to join in following the Messiah Jesus who has come to shepherd
\nGod\u2019s sheep.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n189
\n17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down
\nmy life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me,
\nbut I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it
\ndown, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have
\nreceived from my Father.\u201d
\nAs the time of great confrontation, that will result in the crucifixion of
\nJesus, draws near it becomes apparent that one of the central themes in John\u2019s
\nGospel is the issue of authority. Who is the true authority? For three entire
\ndays, while Jesus was in the tomb, it looked as though he had unwisely
\noverstepped his authority by boldly criticizing the establishment. But the
\nGospel prepares its hearers: He had the authority to lay his life down and to
\ntake it up again. He received this power\/authority from his Father (think of
\nthe Daniel 7<\/a> vision), the author of life.
\n19 There was again a division among the Ioudaioi because
\nof these words. 20 Many of them said, \u201cHe has a demon, and is
\ninsane; why listen to him?\u201d 21 Others said, \u201cThese are not the
\nwords of one who is oppressed by a demon. Can a demon open
\nthe eyes of the blind?\u201d
\nAgain, Jesus managed to create a sense of division among the Ioudaioi.
\nThere were those who accepted him and those who rejected him. The theories
\nabout Jesus ranged from demon possession to divine servanthood. The hearer
\nwas more and more pressed to choose for himself what to believe about Jesus.
\n22 At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at
\nJerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was walking in the
\ntemple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24 So the Ioudaioi
\ngathered around him and said to him, \u201cHow long will you keep
\nus in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.\u201d 25 Jesus
\nanswered them, \u201cI told you, and you do not believe. The works
\nthat I do in my Father\u2019s name bear witness about me, 26 but
\nyou do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My
\nsheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I
\ngive them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one
\nwill snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given
\nthem to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n190
\nthem out of the Father\u2019s hand.
\nIt is clear that the feast of Hanukkah is in view here. Hanukkah means
\n\u201cdedication,\u201d harkening back to the story of the cleansing of the Temple and
\nits consequent rededication after the Maccabean uprising in 164 BCE. (1
\nMacc. 4:36-51; 1 Macc. 4:52-59; 2 Macc. 1.9, 18) Hanukkah was also known
\nas the Festival of Lights. In the winter, when the night begins early, the
\nTemple shone with unimaginable brightness and beauty. Herod the Great
\ndesigned the Temple to elevate his own status by making Jerusalem\u2019s Temple
\nthe most impressive religious edifice in the Roman Empire.
\nThis text is one of the most often quoted and misinterpreted texts in John\u2019s
\nGospel. Here we see the Jerusalemite authorities approach Jesus and phrase
\ntheir question directly. The way we have been accustomed to reading and
\ninterpreting this encounter is as follows. Pay special attention to the point of
\nemphasis: \u201cHow long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah
\n(Christ), tell us plainly.\u201d However, I think this reading is incorrect and the
\nemphasis needs to be placed on another part of the sentence. It should rather
\nread: \u201cHow long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah
\n(Christ), tell us plainly.\u201d
\nYou see there was nothing unclear about Jesus\u2019 ministry and teachings as
\nhe traveled in Israelite Galilee and Samaria, performing signs and making
\nincredible claims. However, he did not come through the officially approved
\nchannels and therefore, the Ioudaioi in effect said to him. \u201cDo the right thing.
\nDon\u2019t be a loner. Submit your candidacy for Messiahship to us. We are the
\nway. We are the gate. We will decide what to do about it.\u201d
\nAs we have seen earlier, Jesus refused to submit to the authority of the
\nIoudaioi. He maintained their authority was inferior to that of His Father. His
\nFather had already approved his mission to Israel and therefore, their approval
\nwas wholly unnecessary. The reason they did not believe his words was
\nsimply that his voice was foreign to them. He was not their shepherd, they
\nbelonged to another.
\n30 I and the Father are one.\u201d 31 The Ioudaioi picked up
\nstones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, \u201cI have
\nshown you many good works from the Father; for which of
\nthem are you going to stone me?\u201d 33 The Ioudaioi answered
\nhim, \u201cIt is not for a good work that we are going to stone you
\nbut for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself
\nGod.\u201d
\nIn previous sections of this book, we have seen in various Jewish traditions
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n191
\nfrom the time of Jesus, there was an understanding that God could appear in
\nthe form of a man53 and that the Logos of God could indeed be manifested.
\nThere were many Israelite traditions that expected this kind of manifestation.
\nSome Israelites and some Ioudaioi believed in them; others did not. The
\nresponse of the Ioudaioi could have been – either rejection of the concept as
\na whole or rejection of the person who claims to have fulfilled such
\nexpectations. It is therefore logical that if someone thinks Jesus is merely
\nhuman, his claims of divinity, in this case oneness with his Father, could be
\nconsidered extreme and dangerous. In that context, they would have been
\nworthy of disciplinary action, even death.
\n34 Jesus answered them, \u201cIs it not written in your Law, \u2018I
\nsaid, you are gods\u2019? 35 If he called them gods to whom the
\nword of God came\u2014and Scripture cannot be broken \u2013 36 do
\nyou say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the
\nworld, \u2018You are blaspheming,\u2019 because I said, \u2018I am the Son
\nof God\u2019? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do
\nnot believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not
\nbelieve me, believe the works, that you may know and
\nunderstand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.\u201d
\nClearly, \u201cyour Law\u201d here refers to the Biblical text from Psalm 82:6<\/a> (\u201cI
\nsaid, \u2018You are gods\u2019\u201d) and not to some kind of reference in the oral body of
\nJewish tradition. First of all, it is clear that \u201cyour Law\u201d refers to the \u201cyour
\nTorah\/Scripture.\u201d Literally speaking, the book of Psalms is not a part of the
\nTorah proper (Pentateuch), but in the broader sense it very much is, by its
\nbeing part of the Scriptures of the Ioudaioi.
\nThis text fits perfectly with the Judean-Samaritan conflict as a context for
\nthe entire Gospel. When we speak of a body of Scripture, we must realize
\nthat, at the very least, there were two different Scripture collections available
\nwithin the Israelite tradition \u2013 the Scriptures of the Ioudaioi and the Scriptures
\nof the Samaritoi (the Samaritans). So, if the Gospel had Samaritan Israelites
\nin mind, as I think it did, it would make a lot of sense to show the Judean
\nJesus talking with the Ioudaioi and presenting them as unreceptive, even of
\ntheir own Scriptures.
\nBut how do we understand the term: \u201cYou are gods?\u201d54 This text has
\nbeen a difficult one to explain. Here is my attempt to bring some clarity
\nto this unfortunate situation:
\n53 This is an important theme in Justin Martyr\u2019s Dialogue with Trypho, chs. 56-60.
\n54 The Hebrew word for \u201cGod\u201d and the word translated \u201cgods\u201d in Ps. 82:6 are the same \u2013 elohim
\n\u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd) ), which can also refer to someone powerful, like rulers or judges.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n192
\nThe reference that Jesus gives refers to Psalm 82<\/a>. It is important to know
\nthe full context of the Psalm. We read:
\n\u201cGod takes His stand in His own congregation;
\nHe judges in the midst of the rulers.
\nHow long will you judge unjustly
\nAnd show partiality to the wicked? Selah.
\nVindicate the weak and fatherless;
\nDo justice to the afflicted and destitute.
\nRescue the weak and needy;
\nDeliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
\nThey do not know nor do they understand;
\nThey walk about in darkness;
\nAll the foundations of the earth are shaken.
\nI said, \u201cYou are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.
\n\u2018Nevertheless you will die like men
\nAnd fall like any one of the princes.\u2019
\nArise, O God, judge the earth!
\nFor it is you who possesses all the nations.\u201d (NASB)
\nThe context of the entire Gospel, but especially of this chapter, is that
\nJesus, as the Good Shepherd of Ezekiel 34<\/a>, has come to judge the false
\nshepherds\/evil rulers of Israel, who do not care for Israel, but only for care
\nthemselves.
\nIn ancient times, people (including Israelites) did not hold to the system
\nof belief that we call today \u2013 monotheism (only one God exists). The Israelite
\nworship of YHWH was the worship of Israel\u2019s God as their national patron
\ndeity,55 who was also far more powerful and glorious than all the gods of
\nother nations. The Israelites did believe these other gods existed, but YHWH
\nwas greater than they. In other words, what the ancients meant by god\/gods
\nwas not the same thing we mean by the word\/concept God today. For them
\ngod\/s were powerful rulers, usually, but not always, associated with the
\nheavenly realm.
\nTo understand Jesus\u2019 argument in verses 34-38, we must recall his defense
\nin verse 32: \u201cJesus answered them, \u2018I have shown you many good works from
\nthe Father.\u2019\u201d Realizing this, we can now see a clear connection with Psalm
\n82. Israel\u2019s rulers depicted in this passage were evil. They judged
\nunrighteously in favor of the rich, who bribed them. In spite of their evil
\ndeeds, the psalmist calls these evil rulers \u201cgods.\u201d Jesus, the Good Shepherd,
\ncalled himself the Son of God.
\n55 This is a prominent theme in Deuteronomy, Cf. Deut. 32:8, where the Most High apportions the
\nnations according to the number of \u201cdivine beings\u201d or \u201cgods,\u201d and Deut. 32:43, where the \u201cgods\u201d are
\ninvoked to praise the God of Israel.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n193
\nThe argument is a typical exercise in Jewish (later to become Rabbinic)
\nlogic \u2013 from the light to the heavy (kal vahomer).56 The formula is simple: If
\n\u201cX\u201d is true, then how much more is \u201cY\u201d also true. In this case, however, it
\nalso works in reverse: If the scripture of the Ioudaioi (Ps. 82) calls evil rulers
\ngods (X), how much more fitting is it for the good ruler, (Jesus) to be called
\nthe Son of God (Y)?!
\nThe Jerusalemite evil rulers hid behind their religious power and status.
\nThey simply could not judge impartially because they were afraid of losing
\ntheir positions and therefore they accused Jesus of blasphemy. (v. 36) The
\nverdict was clear: If Jesus was the Son of God, they should stop leading Israel
\nand hand leadership over to him \u2013 and that, was unthinkable!
\n39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their
\nhands. 40 He went away again across the Jordan to the place
\nwhere John had been baptizing at first, and there he remained.
\nIf you have ever been to Israel as a Christian tourist, undoubtedly you
\nwould have been taken by the organizers of your tour group to the place in
\nGalilee next to the Lake of Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee), that is designated
\nand popularized as the site of the baptism of Jesus by John. This place is
\ncertainly not the place where Jesus was baptized nor of John\u2019s preaching and
\nministry. From Jerusalem, it would take approximately 5-6 days to get to
\nGalilee. John the Baptist baptized on the other side of the Jordan River in the
\nplace where one of the diaconal centers of the Essene community was located.
\nThis was in Bethany, beyond the Jordan. (Jn. 1:28) The real place of John the
\nBaptist\u2019s ministry was located in the territory of the Israelite tribe of Reuben,
\nwhich today is located in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. It is probably
\nfor commercial reasons that the place was identified in Galilee, within the
\nterritory of modern Israel. In Matthew 3:1-2<\/a>, the place of John\u2019s ministry is
\nidentified with a wilderness, which further confirms that green Galilee is not
\nthe location of John\u2019s baptism. We read: \u201cIn those days John the Baptist came
\npreaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, \u2018Repent, for the kingdom
\nof heaven is at hand!\u2019\u201d
\nIn verse 41 we are told that \u201cmany came to him\u201d. In fact, we are told in
\nMark 1:5<\/a> that \u201cThe whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem
\nwent out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the
\nJordan River.\u201d From this point on, John\u2019s Gospel will show its readers that
\nnot all the people of Judea were opposed to Jesus, but only its religious
\nleadership.
\n56 Also seen in John 13:14<\/a>.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n194
\nAnd they said, \u201cJohn did no sign, but everything that John
\nsaid about this man was true.\u201d 42 And many believed in him
\nthere.
\nSo the question must be asked. What is it that John the Baptist said about
\nJesus? It all started from a commission sent from Jerusalem, questioning John
\nabout his spiritual authority. He responded, by quoting the words of the
\nProphet Isaiah: \u201cI am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, \u2018Make straight
\nthe way of the LORD\u2019 \u2026 \u201c I baptize in water, but among you stands One
\nwhom you do not know. It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose
\nsandal I am not worthy to untie.\u201d (Jn. 1:23-27) The greatness of Jesus,
\nforetold by John the Baptist, was now recognized by many Judeans who
\nfollowed him. The leaders of the Judeans were afraid. Jesus came dangerously
\nclose to the borders of their personal kingdom. But the greatest challenge
\nJesus would put forth to them was to still to come.
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n195
\n196
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n197
\nChapter 11
\nThe Raising of Lazarus; Final Plot
\nagainst Jesus; Jesus Retreats to
\nEphraim
\n\uf041 1Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the
\nvillage of Mary and her sister Martha.
\nThe story begins by introducing Lazarus. Lazarus in Hebrew is Eliezer,
\nwhich means God will help. He resided in Bethany or Beit Aniah in Hebrew,
\nwhich means something like the House (or place) of the poor. There were at
\nleast two Bethany\u2019s mentioned in the New Testament. Bethany beyond the
\nJordan, where Jesus and his disciples were stationed at this time; and Bethany
\nnear Jerusalem, where Jesus would resurrect his dear friend Lazarus. Both
\nplaces were special. It is likely that these villages served as Jewish Essene
\ndiaconal centers for the nationwide Essene network of diaconal poor-houses.
\nEssenes were known for their commitment to serve the poor and sick.
\nThey established diaconal networks of poorhouses. We read one description
\nof such a network as described by Josephus Flavius (a Jewish Historian
\nwriting under Roman patronage):
\n\u201cThe Essenes… are despisers of riches, and so very communal as to earn
\nour admiration. There is no one to be found among them who has more
\nthan another; for they have a law that those who come to join them must
\nlet whatever they have be common to the whole order, so that among
\nthem all there is no appearance of either poverty or excessive wealth.
\nEveryone\u2019s possessions are intermingled \u2026 They have no one city, but
\nin every city dwell many of them; and if any of the sect arrive from
\nelsewhere, all is made available to them as if it were their own; and they
\ngo to those they have never seen before as if they were long
\nacquaintances. Thus they carry nothing at all with them in their
\njourneys, except weapons for defense against thieves. Accordingly, in
\nevery city there is one appointed specifically to take care of strangers
\nand to provide them with garments and other necessities.\u201d (War 2.7.4
\n\u00a7119-127)57
\n57 Cf. Josephus Ant. 18.1.5.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n198
\nIt is striking how fitting are the words of Jesus to his disciples when he
\ncommissions them to go two by two to preach the good news of the Kingdom:
\n\u201cThese twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: \u2018\u2026You received
\nwithout payment; give without payment. Take no gold, or silver, or copper in
\nyour belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for
\nlaborers deserve their food.\u2019\u201d (Matt. 10:5-14) In addition, we read in the Book
\nof Acts: \u201cAll who believed were together and had all things in common; they
\nwould sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as
\nany had need.\u201d (Acts 2:44-45<\/a>)
\nThis is not the first time we hear of Jesus freely using the network of
\nEssene travel. As a matter of fact, the best example is found in Luke 22:7-13<\/a>.
\nThis is the passage where Jesus told some of his disciples to go ahead of the
\nother disciples to set up everything for the Passover celebration. The disciples
\nasked: \u201cWhere do you want us to prepare it?\u201d Jesus responded: \u201cAs you enter
\nthe city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house
\nthat he enters, and say to the owner of the house, \u2018The Teacher asks: Where
\nis the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?\u2019 He will
\nshow you a large room upstairs, all furnished. Make preparations there.\u201d This
\nparticular passage should not be read as a display of Jesus omniscience
\n(knowing everything), but rather of his familiarity with Essene diaconal
\nnetwork for travelers and his ability to use it. Since many Essenes did not
\nmarry, the men would do tasks otherwise designated exclusively for women,
\nsuch as carrying water jars. Therefore, Jesus\u2019 instructions had to do with
\ntelling his disciples to look for the Essene poorhouse in the town by looking
\nfor a man carrying a jar of water, and then following him.
\n2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and
\nwiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill.
\nIt is interesting and somewhat surprising that John makes this comment so
\nearly because the incident of Mary anointing Jesus is not recorded until the
\nnext chapter. (John 12:1-8<\/a>) This means that either John wrote his Gospel after
\nthe other Gospels, expecting people to be familiar with the story, or more
\nlikely that the story had already circulated orally and John assumed the
\nhearers were familiar with it.
\n3 So the sisters sent to him, saying, \u201cLord, he whom you love
\nis ill.\u201d 4 But when Jesus heard it he said, \u201cThis illness does
\nnot lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of
\nGod may be glorified through it.\u201d
\nThis is a striking statement, (vs. 4) because by the time Jesus got the
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n199
\nmessage, Lazarus had already died. Jesus arrived in Bethany near Jerusalem
\nfrom the Bethany beyond the Jordan some time on the fourth day after
\nLazarus\u2019 passing. (vs. 17) When he got the message he remained where he
\nwas for two more days. It takes about a day to get from one place to the other,
\nso this meant while the messenger was on the way to Jesus, Lazarus died. We
\nwill soon find out why Jesus stayed where he was for two more days.
\nAdditionally, there are remarkable parallels here between the raising of
\nLazarus and the healing of the man who was blind from birth. (Ch. 9) In the
\ncase of the healing of the blind man, light was given; and in the case of
\nLazarus, life was given. Both themes are stated explicitly in the Prologue (Jn.
\n1:4) that sets the trajectory for the entire Gospel: \u201cIn him was life, and the life
\nwas the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has
\nnot overcome it.\u201d Not only that \u2013 but the reason for both the death of Lazarus
\n(Jn. 11:4) and the man\u2019s blindness was for the glory of God. (Jn. 9:2-3)
\n5 (Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.)
\n6 So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days
\nlonger in the place where he was. 7 Then after this he said to
\nthe disciples, \u201cLet us go to Judea again.\u201d
\nWhen we read verses 5-6, they make little sense. If Jesus loved them, why
\ndidn\u2019t he come immediately? However, if we read the text carefully, we will
\nquickly realize that verse 5 is a parenthetical comment inserted between
\nverses 4 and 6. This means that verse 6 (\u201cSo when he heard\u2026\u201d) is a
\ncontinuation of verse 4 (\u201cit is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n200
\nmay be glorified through it\u201d). So that no one would think Jesus did not truly
\nlove the family, the parenthetical comment was added: \u201cNow (you must know)
\nJesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.\u201d
\n8 The disciples said to him, \u201cRabbi, the Ioudaioi were just
\nnow seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?\u201d
\n9 Jesus answered, \u201cAre there not twelve hours in the day? If
\nanyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees
\nthe light of this world. 10 But if anyone walks in the night, he
\nstumbles, because the light is not in him.\u201d
\nIf we attempt to understand the Ioudaioi in this passage as being the Jewish
\npeople, the sentence would sound completely ridiculous. Clearly, the
\nJerusalemite authorities who were seeking this rabbi\u2019s life are in view here.
\n11 After saying these things, he said to them, \u201cOur friend
\nLazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.\u201d 12 The
\ndisciples said to him, \u201cLord, if he has fallen asleep, he will
\nrecover.\u201d 13 Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they
\nthought that he meant taking rest in sleep. 14 Then Jesus told
\nthem plainly, \u201cLazarus has died, 15 and for your sake I am glad
\nthat I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n201
\nhim.\u201d 16 So Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow
\ndisciples, \u201cLet us also go, that we may die with him.\u201d
\nJesus first tells his disciples that Lazarus had fallen into a coma
\n(\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9), stating that he would go to release him from it. The disciples,
\nknowing about the dangers Jesus and they themselves would face by being
\nnear Jerusalem, objected to going. (vs. 12) Jesus then clarified that he
\nperceived more than what the messenger had delivered in the message from
\nMary and Martha. He knew that while the messenger was in transit, Lazarus
\nhad already died. Thomas\u2019 response confirmed the fear of the disciples \u2013 \u201clet
\nus also go, that we may die with him.\u201d (vs. 16)
\n17 Now when Jesus came, he found that Lazarus had already
\nbeen in the tomb four days.
\nThere is a tradition in Judaism (that still exists today), that the soul after
\ndeath does not immediately depart the deceased, but hovers over the body for
\na period of three days, during which time resurrection is possible. Jesus
\narrived in Bethany near Jerusalem on the fourth day. This explains why, after
\nhearing the news that Lazarus was very ill, \u201che stayed two days longer in the
\nplace where he was.\u201d (Jn. 11:6) Jesus knew how long it would take to travel
\nto Bethany and he was determined to arrive, not only after Lazarus\u2019 death,
\nbut when, according to popular Jewish belief, resurrection was no longer
\npossible \u2013 on the fourth day! When Jesus was a child and later as a teenager,
\nhe no doubt spent a good amount of time in the city of Tzipori (Sepphoris),
\nwhich was only a brisk 30 minute walk from the small village of Nazareth
\nwhere he lived. Sepphoris had a Greek theater and Jesus may have spent time
\nwatching plays and rehearsals there. The Gospels use theater vocabulary
\nwhen talking about Jesus exposing the evils of hypocrisy. Hypocrites
\n(literally in Greek) are actors on the theatrical stage. But there is one more
\nthing he would have learned from often observing actors on the stage, and
\nthis was the art of timing. Theater without timing is not theater. Of course this
\nis not the only place where Jesus may have acquired the art of timing things
\nright, but may very well be that what he learned in Tzipori, he later used in
\nthis chapter of his ministry to show God\u2019s glory in the most powerful way
\npossible \u2013 resurrecting someone on the day when resurrection was no longer
\npossible.
\n18 Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off, 19 and
\nmany of the Ioudaioi had come to Martha and Mary to console
\nthem concerning their brother.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n202
\nLazarus was highly respected by the Ioudaioi. Remember that Ioudaioi do
\nnot equal Pharisees. In fact, after Jesus raised Lazarus, since Pharisees were
\nknown for believing in physical resurrection from the dead, some of the
\nIoudaioi would go to the Pharisees (vs.46) to report what had happened.
\nJesus\u2019 closeness with this family, and this family\u2019s closeness to the Ioudaioi
\ncommunity, supports my suggestion that Jesus\u2019 own sub-group of Israel was
\nin fact the Ioudaioi. (Jn. 1:11b) Many, hoping to bring much-needed comfort,
\ncame to mourn together with Martha and Mary. It is in this story that Jesus
\nmakes his final strike against the stronghold of unbelief within the Jerusalem
\npriestly elite. He is about to resurrect a respected member of the Jerusalemite
\nreligious society in plain view of members of the Ioudaioi system.
\n20 So when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went
\nand met him, but Mary remained seated in the house.
\n21 Martha said to Jesus, \u201cLord, if you had been here, my
\nbrother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that
\nwhatever you ask from God, God will give you.\u201d
\nMartha knew by the time Jesus received the message her brother Lazarus
\nwas already dead, and yet since she knew exactly where to send the message,
\nshe would have also known how long it would take to get from one Bethany
\nto the other. The math did not work. Jesus was two days late. Perhaps she
\nthought, as the procession towards the place of burial was going on, Jesus
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n203
\nwould arrive and resurrect her brother. But Jesus did not come. For three more
\ndays Martha held out hope that Jesus would come and bring her brother back
\nto life. But still he did not come. He came on the fourth day, and he did this
\nintentionally. Yet Martha\u2019s faith was already great. She therefore, in spite of
\nthe tradition, said to Jesus that she believed that he was powerful enough to
\nresurrect Lazarus even now. Her faith was mixed with fear and realism.
\nMartha could not have been accused of any wrong doing had she not had faith
\nin Jesus at this point – she would simply have been realistic. But as the story
\nhas it, she was not destined for mediocrity.
\n23 Jesus said to her, \u201cYour brother will rise again.\u201d
\n24 Martha said to him, \u201cI know that he will rise again in the
\nresurrection on the last day.\u201d
\nMartha was careful, seeking not to raise her own hopes too high. She
\nprobably thought to herself, \u201cJesus seems to be saying that my brother will
\nbe resurrected, but he could be referring to sometime in the distant future. I
\nso hope that I am wrong about this one.\u201d She certainly was!
\n25 Jesus said to her, \u201cI am the resurrection and the life.
\nWhoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and
\neveryone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you
\nbelieve this?\u201d 27 She said to him, \u201cYes, Lord; I believe that
\nyou are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the
\nworld.\u201d
\nIt is as if Jesus had said to Martha: Martha, do not be afraid to trust your
\nown heart and mind. Believe in me! What you, Martha, must understand
\nabout me is that resurrection is not something I do – \u201cI AM the resurrection
\nand the life.\u201d Lazarus was among the Ioudaioi who believed in me all along,
\nand so are you. \u201cEveryone who lives and believes in me will never die.\u201d It is
\nimportant to see that this grand statement Jesus made was fully acceptable to
\nMartha. Her confession of Jesus\u2019 identity in the face of personal trial and
\ntragedy is a staggering expression of faith, echoing the words of faith of the
\nSamaritan woman.
\nA North American Christian musician (he may be the only one), who
\nplaced a significant mark on my own development, is Michael Card. One of
\nhis songs (and most of them are really worthwhile!) is called God\u2019s Own
\nFool. I think the words should be quoted here because in many ways they
\nsum up the story of this Gospel, its rejection and its reception:
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n204
\nSeems I\u2019ve imagined Him all of my life
\nAs the wisest of all of mankind
\nBut if God\u2019s Holy wisdom is foolish to man
\nHe must have seemed out of His mind
\nEven His family said He was mad
\nAnd the priest said a demon\u2019s to blame
\nBut, God in the form of this angry young man
\nCould not have seemed perfectly sane
\nWe in our foolishness thought we were wise
\nHe played the fool and He opened our eyes
\nWe in our weakness believed we were strong
\nHe became helpless to show we were wrong
\nSo we follow God\u2019s own Fool
\nFor only the foolish can tell
\nBelieve the unbelievable, come be a fool as well
\nSo come lose your life for a carpenter\u2019s son
\nFor a madman who died for a dream
\nAnd You\u2019ll have the faith His first followers had
\nAnd you\u2019ll feel the weight of the beam
\nSo surrender the hunger to say you must know
\nFind the courage to say I believe
\nFor the power of paradox opens your eyes
\nAnd blinds those who say they can see.58
\n28 When she had said this, she went and called her sister
\nMary, saying in private, \u201cThe Teacher is here and is calling
\nfor you.\u201d 29 And when she heard it, she rose quickly and went
\nto him. 30 Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was
\nstill in the place where Martha had met him.
\nFor Jesus not to come on time must have been deeply troubling. If one
\ncould use a phrase from a famous Christian hymn and turn it into a deeply
\nangry and sarcastic statement, it would be: \u201cWhat a friend we have in Jesus?!\u201d
\nWhere was he? Why was he so late?!
\nWe must not move too quickly here. We need to experience the pain of
\nLazarus\u2019 death and the deep disappointment of Jesus\u2019 seeming betrayal when
\nMartha whispered in Mary\u2019s ear that Jesus had finally arrived. No doubt
\nMary, who once sat at Jesus\u2019 feet when he taught Torah in Bethany, had
\nmixed feelings. She overcame the tension and went out of the village to meet
\nhim. It is obvious that he could not enter Bethany because of the Ioudaioi.
\n58 You can visit Michael Card\u2019s website here – www.michaelcard.com.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n205
\n(Verse 30 is another parenthetical comment by which the author is clarifying
\nthe meaning of his story as it unfolds.)
\n31 When the Ioudaioi who were with her in the house,
\nconsoling her, saw Mary rise quickly and go out, they followed
\nher, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there.
\nWhat is important here is the author highlights the fact that when Jesus
\nspoke with Mary outside the village, some of the Iouidaioi who had come to
\ncomfort the family followed her. No doubt, it was women and not men who
\nwent out after Mary and followed her to the place where, to their surprise, she
\nwas conversing with a man. They did not mean to eavesdrop on this
\nconversation, but they did. They simply thought Mary was overcome with
\ngrief and they wanted to make sure she would be alright. Notice here a very
\nimportant sense of the Ioudaioi as those who were able to sympathize and
\ncare deeply for the closest friends of Jesus \u2013 the family of Lazarus.
\n32 Now when Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him,
\nshe fell at his feet, saying to him, \u201cLord, if you had been here,
\nmy brother would not have died.\u201d 33 When Jesus saw her
\nweeping, and the Ioudaioi who had come with her also
\nweeping, he was deeply moved in his spirit and greatly
\ntroubled.
\nHere we see Jesus\u2019 connection with the Ioudaioi as never before in this
\nGospel (once again a point of connection with John 1:11<\/a>). Please, allow me
\nto explain: When Jesus saw Mary and members of the Ioudaioi grieving
\npassionately over the passing of Lazarus, he was deeply troubled. Notice that
\nit is not simply that when he saw Mary weeping that he was overcome with
\ngrief; it was when he also saw the Ioudaioi weeping and grieving with her. (vs.
\n33)
\nHow burials occur within a particular culture tell us much about the
\npeople\u2019s worldview. In Jewish culture, while the resurrection of the righteous
\nis also affirmed, there is a strong belief that when a righteous man dies, the
\nworld suffers loss. The balance of righteousness versus evil tips in the wrong
\ndirection. Grief and the sense of loss are very real. There is no pretense here.
\nThings are bad. Death is bad.
\n34 And he said, \u201cWhere have you laid him?\u201d They said to
\nhim, \u201cLord, come and see.\u201d
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n206
\nA brief excursion into Jewish burial practices of the first century will be
\nhelpful here. Most Jews of the first century in the land of Israel buried people
\ntwice. When someone died, the body was first wrapped in a cloth and placed
\nin a cave for a prolonged period of time. After the body decayed and only
\nbones remained, they were collected and placed in a special box called an
\nossuary. (If you search online, you can see hundreds of ossuaries from the
\nIsrael Museum.) The new ossuary was then placed into a family tomb,
\ntogether with the ossuaries of other family members.
\nJesus, knowing that the first burial had already taken place, asked where
\nthey had laid the body. They responded, \u201cLord, come and see.\u201d (The word
\nLord, used here in Greek, is not a confession of faith that Jesus is the incarnate
\nGod, but simply a respectful term of address.) Jesus\u2019 passion and love for the
\nIoudaioi – his own people group, and its particular expression \u2013 the family of
\nLazarus – moved him to overcome his fear and the fear of the disciples who
\nwere with him. It was time to enter the place that belonged to the Ioudaioi
\nwho opposed him.
\n35 Jesus wept. 36 So the Ioudaioi said, \u201cSee how he loved him!\u201d
\nNo other section of the Scriptures shows Jesus so deeply full of emotion.
\nHis full divinity and full humanity meet here in the expression of his grief.
\nHe did not just cry. He wept. His reaction (even though he knew he was about
\nto resurrect Lazarus) was fully compatible with the Jewish practice of
\ngrieving and wailing. The Ioudaioi who witnessed this exchange concluded
\nthat Jesus indeed loved the same person they themselves appreciated so much
\nfor his service to the community of the poor and the suffering. (Notice again
\nthe positive description of the Ioudaioi here).
\n37 But some of them said, \u201cCould not he who opened the eyes
\nof the blind man also have kept this man from dying?\u201d
\nOne can see that the crisis of the Ioudaioi\u2019s opposition to Jesus was
\ndeepening. Now it was not only those from ideologically Jewish Galilee
\n(Ioudaioi affiliates) and a few members of the Jerusalem ruling system who
\nbegan to take interest in Jesus. Many who had come to comfort the family of
\nLazarus were moving toward a positive view of Jesus. Their regret was –
\n\u201cCould not he who opened the eyes of the blind man also have kept this man
\nfrom dying?\u201d
\nThey were not talking about resurrection. Their reasoning is therefore
\nvery logical. If Jesus could give sight to the man born blind who had never
\nseen light, surely he could have given healing to a man who was sick. One
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n207
\naction was much greater than the other.
\nThen Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a
\ncave, and a stone lay against it. 39 Jesus said, \u201cTake away the
\nstone.\u201d Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, \u201cLord,
\nby this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four
\ndays.\u201d
\nMartha was afraid, if the stone was removed, the smell of a decaying body
\nwould be overwhelming. You will recall that the arrival of Jesus was perfectly
\ntimed for the resurrection to take place on the fourth day, when it was believed
\nthat resurrection was no longer possible. No one was really prepared for what
\nwas about to take place.
\n40 Jesus said to her, \u201cDid I not tell you that if you believed
\nyou would see the glory of God?\u201d 41 So they took away the
\nstone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, \u201cFather, I thank
\nyou that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear
\nme, but I said this on account of the people standing around,
\nthat they may believe that you sent me.\u201d
\nEarlier, Jesus had told Martha that arriving on the fourth day would not
\nlimit him. Resurrection was not something he would do with his Father\u2019s
\nhelp. Resurrection and Life are both the essence of who Jesus is. He is indeed
\nthe life-giving Memra of Israel\u2019s God Himself, and he was determined to
\nshow the Ioudaioi his Father\u2019s glory.
\n43 When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud
\nvoice, \u201cLazarus, come out.\u201d
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n208
\nThough most tombs were not very deep, some were and included a tunnel
\nwith stairs that went down into a cave where bodies were deposited. So it is
\npossible that we are dealing here with just this kind of tomb. It is not
\nsurprising that when the stone that functioned as a door was taken away, Jesus
\ncalled Lazarus in a very loud voice. Jesus was not a modern television
\npreacher. This was not done to make this event more dramatic and theatrical.
\nIt was so that Lazarus,
\nalready raised by God,
\ncould physically hear the
\nvoice of Jesus from afar,
\nin the dark, and enter
\nagain into the land of the
\nliving. If one thinks
\nfurther about this, one
\ncould ask: \u201cWhy could
\nJesus not go inside the
\ncave and resurrect
\nLazarus, helping him to
\nget up?\u201d My answer may
\nsurprise you, but hang in
\nthere. I think it will make
\nsome sense in the end. By
\nthe way, it may be an
\nalternative reason why
\nJesus raised his voice (if the tomb in fact had no tunnel to go down).
\nJesus was not a Christian, but a real, walking and breathing Torahobservant
\nIsraelite and a Jew (Ioudaios). (Jn. 4:9) This means that the purity
\nrequirements of the Torah about not touching the dead were very important
\nto him, even though they sound utterly unimportant to most of us today. There
\nwere warnings not to touch a dead body. You might ask, \u201cWhat warnings?\u201d
\nThere are a number of warnings, but this is the key one \u2013 \u201cWhoever touches
\na human corpse will be unclean for seven days.\u201d (Num. 19:11)59 The body of
\nLazarus was almost certainly not the only dead body in the cave going
\nthrough its first burial. Remember that Bethany was a center for care of sick
\nand poor people. No doubt many of them came there to die. It would have
\nbeen very easy to touch a corpse in the dark. It may be difficult for us to
\nreimagine Jesus as someone who was thoroughly, and not only peripherally,
\nJewish. The Torah – all the Torah – was utterly important to him. It is possible
\nthat this is why he called in a very loud voice \u2013 Lazarus, come forth!
\n59 On corpse contamination, see also Lev. 22:4; Num. 5:2; 6:6-11; 9:6-18; Sir. 34:30 as well as the
\nstory of the Good Samaritan (where the priest refuses to help the \u201chalf dead man\u201d).
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n209
\n44 The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound
\nwith linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said
\nto them, \u201cUnbind him, and let him go.\u201d
\nThe author of this Gospel was an eyewitness who oftentimes points out
\nsmall details. He mentions something that no other Gospel does. Lazarus,
\nwhen he came out of the tomb, was not covered with one piece of cloth but
\nwith two. His face had a cloth that was separate from the body shroud. Today,
\nmany ancient Jewish tombs have been discovered and this description has
\nbeen confirmed. Many Jews were indeed buried the way John described with
\na separate cloth for the face. The author was a local person. He was an
\neyewitness. He told us what he knew to be true.
\n45 Therefore many of the Ioudaioi who had come to visit
\nMary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But
\nsome of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus
\nhad done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a
\nmeeting of the Sanhedrin. \u201cWhat are we accomplishing?\u201d they
\nasked. \u201cHere is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let
\nhim go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the
\nRomans will come and take away both our temple and our
\nnation.\u201d 49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high
\npriest that year, spoke up, \u201cYou know nothing at all! 50 You do
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n210
\nnot realize that it is better for you that one man die for the
\npeople than that the whole nation perish.\u201d
\nThe text at hand is very interesting because it shows a distinction existed
\nbetween Pharisees and the Ioudaioi. Some Ioudaioi who placed their faith in
\nJesus went to the Pharisees upon witnessing the resurrection. That made a lot
\nof sense because, among various theological movements among the Judeans
\n(Ioudaioi), it was the Pharisees who championed the idea of the resurrection
\nfrom the dead. Yet most of them, at least at the top level, were not accepting
\nof Jesus\u2019 claims. How can this be? Now that Lazarus is alive again, the
\nIoudaioi who believed had a point to raise.
\n51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year
\nhe prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not
\nonly for that nation but also for the scattered children of God,
\nto bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day
\non they plotted to take his life.
\nWhat is intriguing here is that it is the Gospel of John in particular that has
\nthe most intense polemic against the priestly leaders at the Jerusalem Temple,
\nyet it is this same Gospel that gives the office of the High Priest in Jerusalem
\nthe highest respect. Even the evil shepherd of Israel, when he speaks as a High
\nPriest, is able to bring forth a true prophecy from God.
\nSo that High Priest uttered words that echoed the statement Jesus made in
\nJohn 10<\/a>, that he has sheep of another fold that he must bring in. Unlike the
\ntraditional interpretation, I think the sheep of another fold in the context of
\nJohn\u2019s Gospel are in fact all Israelite non-Judeans, especially Samaritan
\nIsraelites. Here too, I think the High Priest prophetically summarizes the
\nmission of God in Jesus, as described in this Gospel: \u201c(he) would die for the
\nnation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God,
\nto bring them together and make them one.\u201d The language here parallels
\nEzekelian prophetic tradition where the God of Israel promises to re-gather
\nNorthern Israel and make it one with the Kingdom of Judah under the new
\nleadership of His anointed King. As was quoted previously in Ezekiel 37:15<\/a>-
\n28, Israel\u2019s God through the symbolic action of the prophet (putting two
\nsticks together and holding them in the prophet\u2019s hand), says:
\n\u201cI am going to take the stick of Joseph\u2014which is in Ephraim\u2019s hand\u2014
\nand of the Israelite tribes associated with him, and join it to Judah\u2019s
\nstick. I will make them into a single stick of wood, and they will become
\none in my hand. Hold before their eyes the sticks you have written on
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n211
\nand say to them, \u2018This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will take the
\nIsraelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them
\nfrom all around and bring them back into their own land. I will make
\nthem one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be
\none king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or
\nbe divided into two kingdoms. They will no longer defile themselves
\nwith their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will
\nsave them from all their sinful backsliding,\u2019 and I will cleanse them.
\nThey will be my people, and I will be their God.\u201d
\n54 Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among
\nthe people of Judea. Instead he withdrew to a region near the
\nwilderness, to a village called Ephraim, where he stayed with
\nhis disciples.
\nIt is even more interesting that the following verse states that Jesus,
\nrealizing the danger to his life and his disciples\u2019 lives by remaining near
\nJerusalem, relocated them to the village called Ephraim. Ephraim in Ezekiel
\nis one of the symbols of the northern Kingdom that I think is in view when it
\ncomes to the restoration of Israel as part of God\u2019s mission in Jesus. Today\u2019s
\nChristian village in the Palestinian West Bank, called in Arabic Taybeh, was
\nthe very place the Gospel is referring to here. It is situated in the territory of
\nthe tribe of Benjamin and was once called Ephraim. What is intriguing is that
\nit is located almost on the border of Samaria and Judea. This is the place
\nwhere Jesus chose to hide and regroup before his final trial in Jerusalem,
\nwhich was soon to unfold.
\n55 When it was almost time for the Passover of the Ioudaioi,
\nmany went up from the country to Jerusalem for their
\nceremonial cleansing before the Passover. 56 They kept
\nlooking for Jesus, and as they stood in the temple courts they
\nasked one another, \u201cWhat do you think? Isn\u2019t he coming to the
\nfestival at all?\u201d 57 But the chief priests and the Pharisees had
\ngiven orders that anyone who found out where Jesus was
\nshould report it so that they might arrest him.
\nThe people who went up to Jerusalem from a variety of Jewish settlements
\nin the region were very interested in Jesus and hoped to meet him while they
\nwere in Jerusalem. Would he now claim his Messianic title? Would he come at
\nall? They did not know the authorities had already decreed that Jesus was to be
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n212
\narrested and killed.
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n213
\n214
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n215
\nChapter 12
\nThe Third Passover; The Entry into
\nJerusalem; The Time Has Come
\n\uf041 1Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to
\nBethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the
\ndead. 2 So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served,
\nand Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table.
\n3 Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made
\nfrom pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his
\nfeet with her hair.
\nMary, who is routinely confused with the repentant prostitute of Luke
\n7:36-50, began to do something that was apparently a sign of honor in ancient
\nsociety, no matter how bizarre it sounds to us today. A Roman pound was
\nequal to slightly more than 320 grams or about 12 ounces. Nard is an oilproducing
\nplant, the rhizomes of which were crushed to produce an
\nextravagant, aromatic oil. The content of the jar was, therefore, very
\nexpensive. Mary\u2019s symbolic act was thought-provoking to say the least,
\nespecially given the fact that Bethany was literally home to many poor and
\ndisadvantaged people. They were taken care of by the hard work of villagers
\nand the sacrificial donations of others. As with any organization that did a lot
\nof good, funds were always lacking; but there was something else at play
\nhere. In Judaism (and in many other cultures in the ancient world), hair was
\nassociated with a woman\u2019s glory; her self-worth and self-respect. (1 Cor.
\n11:15) Not only did Mary pour an extremely expensive ointment on the feet
\nof Jesus, she also used her hair to wipe the oil that did not get absorbed into
\nJesus\u2019 skin. In other words, she placed her self-worth at his feet; she gave him
\nher riches and her glory. It was an act of worshipful devotion.
\nThe house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But
\nJudas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to
\nbetray him), said, 5 \u201cWhy was this ointment not sold for three
\nhundred denarii and given to the poor?\u201d 6 He said this, not
\nbecause he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief,
\nand having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n216
\nwhat was put into it. 7 Jesus said, \u201cLeave her alone, so that
\nshe may keep it for the day of my burial. 8 For the poor you
\nalways have with you, but you do not always have me.\u201d
\nThis Gospel is an eyewitness account. It is filled with minute details about
\nwhat happened. For example, the author remembers that, when the anointing
\ntook place, because of the extraordinary amount and potency of the oil, the
\nentire house was filled with the aroma of the perfume.
\nJudas Iscariot was about to hand Jesus over to his enemies. Yet, just as
\nJohn is careful to distinguish the Passover of the Ioudaioi from other cyclical
\nPassovers (like that of the Samaritans for example), John also carefully
\ndistinguishes between two people named Judah, who were both part of Jesus\u2019
\ncircle of twelve disciples – one being Judah Iscariot and the other Judah
\nThaddeus. Judah Iscariot\u2019s questioning of the legitimacy of wasting so much
\nmoney on this act is understandable. In verse 6 we start to see Judah Iscariot
\nbeginning to display the kind of qualities that the Gospel ascribed to the
\nleaders of Israel who were contemporary with Jesus \u2013 thievery and self-care.
\nAfter the resurrection of Lazarus, it was clear that Jesus had brought a final
\nchallenge to the Temple authorities. His arrest and death were now a foregone
\nconclusion and it is in this context that Jesus states when he dies, Mary will
\nbe able to use the remainder of this oil for his burial.
\nJesus\u2019 answer to Judah (the poor you always have with you) makes sense
\nonly within the particular context of this story. This is not an excuse for all
\nChrist-followers anywhere to be unconcerned for the poor; but rather it is a
\nplace-specific statement. Bethany (the house of the poor) was the place where
\nthe poor would always be.
\n9 When the large crowd of the Ioudaioi learned that Jesus
\nwas there, they came, not only on account of him but also to
\nsee Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief
\npriests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, 11 because
\non account of him many of the Ioudaioi were going away and
\nbelieving in Jesus.
\nBy now Jesus had succeeded not only in gathering followers from among
\nthe Israelite movements of Jewish Galilee, but also from those who were part
\nof the Temple establishment \u2013 the Ioudaioi themselves. (The Ioudaioi in
\nJohn\u2019s Gospel are a complex group, consisting of the Judean leadership
\nplus all those who acknowledged their religious leadership in Judea,
\nGalilee and the Diaspora.) The end was indeed near. The establishment
\nwas rapidly losing power and they had to do something quickly. Killing both
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n217
\nJesus and Lazarus suddenly became a viable option.
\n12 The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast
\nheard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. 13 So they took
\nbranches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out,
\n\u201cHosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,
\neven the King of Israel!\u201d
\nWhen the Jewish crowds heard Jesus was near Jerusalem, they used palm
\nbranches to greet him as had been done during the Maccabean liberation. (1
\nMac. 13:51) They called out to Jesus: \u201cHosanna!\u201d In Hebrew \u201chosha na\u201d
\nliterally means \u201cSave, please!\u201d Not only were those gathered in Jerusalem
\ncalling on Jesus to save them; they were invoking the greatest blessing
\npossible upon him: \u201cBlessed is he who
\ncomes in the name of the Lord \u2013 even the
\nKing of Israel.\u201d
\nIt is very important to note that in this
\nGospel, Jesus is described as the King of
\nIsrael and not as the Son of David as in
\nMatthew and Mark. Remember that
\nMatthew and Mark were not at all
\nconcerned to reach Samaritans with the
\nGood News. Therefore, there was no
\nsensitivity to the Samaritan belief that the
\nMessiah would not be a descendent of King
\nDavid, as the Judeans were persuaded. For
\nexample, in Matthew 21:9<\/a> we read: \u201cThe
\ncrowds that went ahead of him and those
\nthat followed shouted, \u2018Hosanna to the Son
\nof David!\u2019 \u2018Blessed is he who comes in the
\nname of the Lord!\u2019\u201d In Mark 11:9-10<\/a>,
\n\u201cThose who went ahead and those who
\nfollowed shouted, \u2018Hosanna!\u2019 \u2018Blessed is
\nhe who comes in the name of the Lord!\u2019
\n\u2018Blessed is the coming kingdom of our
\nfather David!\u2019\u201d The emphasis is clearly on
\nthe Davidic descent of Jesus, but here in
\nJohn 12:13<\/a>, the accent is being placed on
\nthe idea that Jesus is the King of Israel. Another Gospel that can be said to be
\nsensitive to Samaritan Israelites is Luke. In Luke 19:37-38<\/a> we read: \u201cWhen
\nhe came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the
\nwhole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n218
\nthe miracles they had seen, saying: \u2018Blessed is the King who comes in the
\nname of the Lord!\u2019\u201d John chooses to state it in the best possible way for
\nSamaritans: \u201cHosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,
\neven the King of Israel!\u201d (vs. 13b)
\n14 And Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, just as it
\nis written, 15 \u201cFear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is
\ncoming, sitting on a donkey\u2019s colt!\u201d 16 His disciples did not
\nunderstand these things at first, but when Jesus was glorified,
\nthen they remembered that these things had been written about
\nhim and had been done to him.
\nThe Gospel of John evidences an obvious interest in two particular
\nprophets of the Hebrew Bible: Ezekiel and Zechariah. Ezekiel was referenced
\nto show the connection between Jesus and the Temple, which is one of the
\nmain themes, if not the main one, in this Gospel. Zechariah also has a strong
\ntemple interest in view and this is referred to in this passage from John.
\nQuoting Zechariah 9:9<\/a>, John shows that Jesus will be welcomed by the
\nJerusalem crowds. As a city, Jerusalem will submit to him as to the
\nconquering King. It was customary for victors to enter cities that they
\nconquered on horses, parading their power as the reason for acceptance.
\nWhen a city welcomed a victor with open arms without an exercise of power,
\nit was expected that the victor would enter on a donkey and not on a horse \u2013
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n219
\nand this is just what happened. In the Book of Revelation, the world is being
\njudged and this time Jesus Christ arrives as the conqueror to whom the people
\ndid not submit willingly. He, therefore, arrives symbolically on a horse. We
\nread in Revelation 19:11-16<\/a>:
\n\u201cI saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse,
\nwhose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and
\nmakes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many
\ncrowns [diadems]. He has a name written on him that no one but he
\nhimself knows. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name
\nis the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding
\non white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his
\nmouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He
\nwill rule them with an iron scepter. He treads the winepress of the fury
\nof the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this
\nname written: King of Kings and Lord of Lords.\u201d
\nA much later rabbinic Jewish text records a rabbinic tradition that
\nstruggled to reconcile the power and meekness dichotomy of the future
\nvisitation of the Lord\u2019s Messiah. We read in the Babylonian Talmud,
\nSanhedrin 98a:
\n\u201c\u2026it is written, and behold, one like the son of man came with the
\nclouds of heaven whilst (elsewhere) it is written, (behold, thy king
\ncometh unto thee\u2026) lowly, and riding upon a donkey! If they are
\nmeritorious, (he will come) with the clouds of heaven if not, lowly and
\nriding upon an ass.\u201d
\nZechariah has another very interesting passage (Zech. 14:1-5) that places
\nthe coming of the Lord, together with the Holy Ones, as a symbol of salvation
\narriving to Jerusalem: \u201cThen the Lord will go out and fight against those
\nnations as when he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet shall stand
\non the Mount of Olives…\u201d What is intriguing here is that Jesus had obtained
\nthe donkey and was about to arrive in Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives.
\nThis is exactly where Bethany (Beit Aniah) was located. The Mount of Olives
\nwas not only the place of Jesus\u2019 triumphant entry; it was also the place of his
\nascension to one of the two thrones in heaven. (Acts 1:9-12<\/a>) Moreover,
\nBethany was the very place of the resurrection of Lazarus and as such it would
\nmake perfect sense that Jesus would know where the donkey was (or that it
\nwas arranged in advance with Lazarus, Mary and Martha) and that he would,
\nwithout any hindrance from its owners, simply ride it from there to Jerusalem.
\n17 The crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n220
\nout of the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to bear
\nwitness. 18 The reason why the crowd went to meet him was
\nthat they heard he had done this sign. 19 So the Pharisees said
\nto one another, \u201cYou see that you are gaining nothing. Look,
\nthe world has gone after him.\u201d
\nThe crowd, consisting of the Ioudaioi who had witnessed the resurrection
\nof Lazarus, became a powerful witnessing force for Jesus against others,
\nnotably the Pharisaic leadership. The Pharisaic leadership, who had a
\nprevious special arrangement with the Roman leadership (Josephus, Ant.
\n13.15.5; 398-404; War 1.4.8; 105-106) as far as their influence in the religious
\naffairs of the nation went, now acknowledged that the whole world had begun
\nfollowing Jesus. Their control was almost gone.
\n20 Now among those who went up to worship at the feast
\nwere some Greeks (\u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2). 21 So these came to Philip, who
\nwas from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, \u201cSir, we wish
\nto see Jesus.\u201d 22 Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and
\nPhilip went and told Jesus. 23 And Jesus answered them, \u201cThe
\nhour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
\nThere are two words in the Greek language that could be translated as \u201ca
\nGreek\u201d and are sometimes incorrectly translated simply as \u201cGentile:\u201d60
\n\u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c261 and \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd.62 Both refer to Greek affiliation. John uses the
\nlatter word here. The difference between the words is as follows: Hellenistoi
\nis used for Greek-behaving people, for example Greek-speaking Ioudaioi
\n(Hellenized Ioudaioi\/Jews); while Hellenoi refers to ethnic Greeks, in this
\ncase probably the Greek God-fearers we meet in the book of Acts. In recent
\narcheological evidence, a list of God-fearers was found on a stele in the
\nancient city of Aphrodisias. Upon this monument is a listing of those who
\ngave funding to a local Jewish synagogue. One side of the stele lists over fifty
\nclearly Jewish names, and separately from that, another list of Greco-Roman
\nnames is presented, who, like in the book of Acts, are referred to as Godfearers
\n(\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03c2).
\nHowever, in John\u2019s Gospel, we are faced with an interesting dilemma.
\nJohn does not seem to use the term \u201cIoudaioi\u201d as others used it. He had his
\nown usage which was particular to his Gospel, given his unique audience and
\n60 Rom. 1:16 (and also to Gentile in NIV for example).
\n61 Hellenistas in singular or Hellenistoi in plural.
\n62 Hellen in singular or Hellenoi in plural.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n221
\nsituation. Thinking along the same lines, it is entirely possible that John had
\nhis own use of \u201cHellenoi\u201d as well. Whereas others use the term Hellen for
\nethnic Greeks, John may have been using it in a different way. But this, of
\ncourse, is speculation. The burden of proof is upon those who would like to
\nargue that these were Hellenized Jews and not God-fearing Greeks. We must
\nhowever allow for both possibilities, with the second one being the most
\nprobable.
\nWhether Hellenized Jews were in view, or Greek God-fearers who were
\nseeking out Jewish religious leaders for a meeting, Jesus\u2019 following had
\nreached the farthest corner of the Jewish community\/or of its influence. If one
\nlooks at the Israelite umbrella of various Jewish movements, things become
\nclearer. The Greeks who came to see Jesus were people on the very margins
\nof the influence of the Ioudaioi. Now that Jesus had followers, not only in
\nJudea, Galilee and Samaria, but also in the Greek Diaspora (both among Jews
\nand Greeks), he declared that the time for the Son of Man to be glorified had
\nfinally come.
\n24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into
\nthe earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears
\nmuch fruit. 25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever
\nhates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If
\nanyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there
\nwill my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will
\nhonor him.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n222
\nThis Gospel does not tell us if Jesus actually met with the Greeks. We are
\nleft to discover this for ourselves. Instead, the author switches his emphasis
\nto the words of Jesus when he spoke of his coming death and sacrifice. It is
\nlikely that Greeks were invited in, and what comes in the following verses
\nmay constitute a summary of that conversation. Jesus\u2019 point is simple: Unless
\nhe dies, his ministry will not bear much fruit. Those who sanctify God\u2019s name
\nmight also be required to die with him, but his Father would honor them.
\n27 \u201cNow is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? \u2018Father,
\nsave me from this hour\u2019? But for this purpose I have come to
\nthis hour. 28 Father, glorify your name.\u201d
\nThe words of Jesus speak deeply of his full humanity. It is not natural for
\na human being to want to suffer and die, but Jesus, understanding the core of
\nhis mission, was willing to accomplish it to the very end.
\nThen a voice came from heaven: \u201cI have glorified it, and I
\nwill glorify it again.\u201d 29 The crowd that stood there and heard
\nit said that it had thundered. Others said, \u201cAn angel has
\nspoken to him.\u201d 30 Jesus answered, \u201cThis voice has come for
\nyour sake, not mine.\u201d
\nThe connection between God\u2019s voice and thunder is important here.63 We
\nread in Exodus 19:16-19<\/a>:
\n\u201cOn the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning and a
\nthick cloud on the mountain and a very loud trumpet blast, so that all
\nthe people in the camp trembled. Then Moses brought the people out of
\nthe camp to meet God, and they took their stand at the foot of the
\nmountain. Now Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke because the Lord
\nhad descended on it in fire. The smoke of it went up like the smoke of
\na kiln, and the whole mountain trembled greatly. And as the sound of
\nthe trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered
\nhim in thunder.\u201d
\nThe voice of God, in speaking of the glorification of Jesus, is therefore set
\nin the same glorious context of thunder.
\n31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of
\n63 Cf. Mek. de Rabbi Ishmael, Bahodesh 3-4.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n223
\nthis world be cast out.
\nAs I discussed in a previous section, while it is traditional to assume that
\nthe ruler of this world is Satan, the enemy of God\u2019s purposes on this earth, it
\nis also possible (though only a possibility) that instead, a particular evil leader
\nof the Ioudaioi was in fact in view. (The Qumran community spoke of a
\nwicked priest as a towering evil figure in the Qumranic imagination. While one
\ncannot simply draw quick conclusions, we are justified in entertaining the
\npossibility that such a figure was in view here). It is noteworthy that every known
\ncase of persecution against Jesus and the Jerusalem believers in Jesus,
\nespecially their leaders, was perpetrated when the reigning high priest was
\none of those who belonged to the powerful Sadducean family of Annas:
\nCaiaphas, Annas\u2019 son-in-law, condemned both Jesus and Stephen; James the
\nSon of Zebedee was executed and Peter was arrested by Agrippa I, while
\nMatthias, son of Annas, was probably a priest; Ananus II put James to death,
\ntaking advantage of the death of the Roman Emperor before the appointment
\nof the next one. This was a case of a family vendetta against the followers of
\nJesus, the man whose movement Caiphas (as a member of Annas\u2019 priestly
\nfamily) had failed to stop. (We have already talked about how John uses the
\nword kosmos [world] and we will come back to it again in future chapters.) It
\nis therefore possible that Jesus was not speaking here about Satan, but about
\na key evil shepherd of Israel.
\n32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all
\npeople to myself.\u201d 33 He said this to show by what kind of
\ndeath he was going to die.
\nWhen Jesus referred to his lifting up in a conversation with Nicodemus,
\nthe lifting up could be understood by Nicodemus exclusively in terms of
\nJesus\u2019 future ascension as per the Daniel 7<\/a> vision. Here, however, the idea of
\nascension, while still very present, is already merged in John\u2019s theological
\nreflection with crucifixion and being lifted up on the Roman cross. Jesus said
\nthat once this happens, all people whom he had come to unite and save would
\nbe drawn to him. If we consider the lifting up here and in John 3<\/a> (Nicodemus)
\nas a two-stage event (Cross and Heavenly Throne), the statement about
\ndrawing people to himself becomes more logical, both theologically and
\nhistorically. The Cross alone scatters his people; the Cross and the Throne
\ntogether, gather them to himself.
\n224
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n225
\nChapter 13
\nThe Last Passover Meal; Washing
\nof the Feet, Peter\u2019s Denial
\n\uf041 1 Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus
\nknew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the
\nFather, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved
\nthem to the end.
\nAfter the events discussed in the previous chapter, it was clear to Jesus
\nthat this would be the last Passover he would spend with his beloved disciples.
\nYou may recall that he had come to this decision when the God-fearing
\nGreeks sought him out. Additionally, the content of this chapter comes on the
\nheels of the previous confrontation with the Ioudaioi and Jesus\u2019 presentation
\nof himself as the Good Shepherd who came to judge the evil shepherds of
\nIsrael. This verse begins by stating that, as the Good Shepherd of Israel, Jesus
\nloved his own sheep with the highest commitment and dedication possible. It
\nis difficult to say with precision to whom \u201chis own\u201d refers. These words
\nappeared in John 1:11<\/a>b (\u201c\u2026his own did not receive him\u201d). The most coherent
\nway to understand this would be to think of the disciples of Jesus belonging
\nto the Ioudaioi just as Jesus did himself.
\n2 During supper, when the devil had already put it into the
\nheart of Judas Iscariot, Simon\u2019s son, to betray him, 3 Jesus,
\nknowing that the Father had given all things into his hands,
\nand that he had come from God and was going back to God,
\n4 rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and
\ntaking a towel, tied it around his waist. 5 Then he poured water
\ninto a basin and began to wash the disciples\u2019 feet and to wipe
\nthem with the towel that was wrapped around him.
\nIt is clear that in one of his last interactions with his disciples, Jesus wanted
\nto personally model something very important for them to understand. The
\nnormal way to see this text is as disconnected from the overall context of
\nJohn\u2019s Gospel; as a polemic between Jesus and Jerusalemite leaders. In other
\nwords, today\u2019s Christians normally see this feet-washing ceremony as only
\napplicable to all Christ-followers in the world as an example of true humility.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n226
\nHowever, I suggest that, while this example applies by extension to all Christfollowers,
\nin this present context it meant something else. Please, let me
\nexplain:
\nJerusalemite leaders were known for not caring for the needs of others.
\nThey did not care for the needs of Israel and they fought tooth-and-nail with
\neach other for their own privilege and status. Jerusalemite leadership was not
\nvery different from what we know of the modern dynamic of infighting in the
\ncorporate world. Everyone was looking out for himself. It was very much an:
\n\u201cAm I my brother\u2019s keeper?\u201d type of approach. Jesus\u2019 washing the feet of his
\ndisciples and wiping them with a towel was a way of expressing to them that
\ntheir leadership over Israel must be very different from that of the current
\nleaders. (We have already seen something like this happen when Mary of
\nBethany demonstrated such commitment to Jesus by pouring oil on his feet
\nand drying them with her hair.) The number of selected disciples being twelve
\nwas not coincidental. Jesus chose twelve disciples because his plan included
\nthe full renewal of Israel. The twelve heads of the tribes of Israel were to be
\nnow represented by the twelve Jewish apostles who would lead Israel into a
\nrenewed future, defined by redemption. We can see this idea in the
\ndescription of the New Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation. (Rev. 21:12-14):
\n\u201cIt had a large, high wall with twelve gates. Twelve angels were at the
\ngates, and the names of the twelve tribes of Israel were written on the
\ngates. There were three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n227
\ngates on the south, and three gates on the west. The wall of the city had
\ntwelve foundations, and the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the
\nlamb were written on them.\u201d
\nWe read in verse 3, \u201cknowing that the Father had given all things into his
\nhands,\u201d Jesus rose to wash the feet of his disciples. As we noted earlier, this
\nwas one of the last and most important leadership training sessions Jesus
\nwould have with those who were to become the good shepherds of Israel.
\nThey were to rule the new Israel with an attitude of utter self-sacrifice and
\ncare.
\n6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, \u201cLord, do you
\nwash my feet?\u201d 7 Jesus answered him, \u201cWhat I am doing you
\ndo not understand now, but afterward you will understand.\u201d
\n8 Peter said to him, \u201cYou shall never wash my feet.\u201d Jesus
\nanswered him, \u201cIf I do not wash you, you have no share with
\nme.\u201d 9 Simon Peter said to him, \u201cLord, not my feet only but
\nalso my hands and my head!\u201d 10 Jesus said to him, \u201cThe one
\nwho has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but
\nis completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of
\nyou.\u201d 11 For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he
\nsaid, \u201cNot all of you are clean.\u201d 12 When he had washed their
\nfeet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he
\nsaid to them, \u201cDo you understand what I have done to you?
\n13 You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I
\nam. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet,
\nyou also ought to wash one another\u2019s feet. 15 For I have given
\nyou an example, that you also should do just as I have done to
\nyou. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than
\nhis master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent
\nhim.
\nPeter made his opposition known by simply voicing the bewilderment of
\nthe other disciples: how could it be that the greater would serve the lesser?
\nJesus responded by saying, unless he lets Jesus wash his feet, Peter would not
\nbe able to share in the crucial service of the good shepherds. Peter, naturally
\nthinking that Jesus was speaking about ceremonial water cleansing when he
\nsaid \u201cyou are clean,\u201d offered to go through the entire ceremony (mikvah), as
\nno doubt they all did on a more or less regular basis. Jesus specified that the
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n228
\nmikvah ceremony had already made everyone ceremonially clean. (vs. 10)
\nAlthough the mikvah generated clean status to the Israelite, it must also be
\nmatched by being cleansed from within. Jesus made it clear that not all who
\nwent through the ceremony before Passover were actually clean within
\n(certainly not Judas Iscariot). In John 15:3<\/a>, although in a completely different
\ncontext, we read: \u201cYou (speaking to disciples) are already clean because of
\nthe word I have spoken to you.\u201d
\nWashing the feet of guests was the task of the youngest family member or
\na servant. He would wash the dirty feet of newly arrived guests coming into
\na house from the outside. Although the disciples were Jesus\u2019 servants, here
\nwe see Jesus being a servant to them. In verses 14-15 Jesus\u2019 logic once again
\nis a reversed form of later rabbinic kal vhomer (from light to heavy), as we
\ndiscussed in a previous chapter. If someone great does this, then how much
\nmore should those who are lesser do the same thing. The conclusion was
\ninescapable. If he did it for them, how much more should they be willing to
\ndo the same for others. To be true shepherds of God\u2019s people Israel, they too
\nmust be trustworthy, humble, and not self-seeking. Jesus would later
\nchallenge Peter from the context of Ezekiel\u2019s prophecy of the evil shepherds
\nof Israel, with the words: \u201cFeed my sheep!\u201d (Ezek. 34)
\n17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.
\n18 I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen.
\nBut the Scripture will be fulfilled, \u2018He who ate my bread has
\nlifted his heel against me.\u2019 19 I am telling you this now, before
\nit takes place, that when it does take place you may believe
\nthat I am he.
\nAlthough this was not his focus, Jesus predicted future events. Everything
\nwas done so that the Apostles would be strengthened in their faith before a
\ntime of very difficult service (for most it would end with martyrdom) that lay
\nahead of them.
\nOn the battle field, ancient soldiers engaged in a symbolic act of
\ndomination over the defeated enemy. If the enemy, laying on the ground and
\nheavily wounded, was still alive, they would take their foot and place it on
\nthe neck of the defeated enemy as a symbol of their victory. If I am right that
\nJudas did not seek the death of Jesus, but hoped that the attempted arrest
\nwould cause Jesus to finally exercise his Messianic powers to start a
\nsuccessful insurrection, then this statement (vs. 18) would fit perfectly. Judas\u2019
\nsin was not that he \u201csold\u201d Jesus for 30 silver coins, but that he actually lifted
\nup his heel over Jesus\u2019 neck, by trying to force him to do his will.
\n20 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n229
\nreceives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who
\nsent me.\u201d
\nIn this concluding remark, Jesus once again showed the importance of the
\ntwelve apostles he was leaving in his place. He gave them all the authority
\nnecessary to lead God\u2019s people. Receiving them would mean receiving Jesus
\n(the Son of Man), just as receiving Jesus meant receiving his Father (the Ancient
\nof Days). The twelve had the authority to lead because Jesus himself promised
\nto be with them always. It was the twelve who would lead on behalf of Jesus and
\nbecause of his special presence with them.
\n21 After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit,
\nand testified, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray
\nme.\u201d 22 The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of
\nwhom he spoke.
\nThe last person in the minds
\nof the disciples who would be
\nconsidered for the role of the
\nbetrayer of Jesus would have
\nbeen Judas Iscariot. Remember,
\nwhile Matthew was best at
\naccounting (he was once a taxcollector),
\nit was Judas Iscariot
\nwho was entrusted with the
\nkeeping of the group\u2019s treasury.
\nAt the time, he had the trust of
\nthe disciples and Jesus, but even
\nmore importantly, as a man who
\nwas highly skilled in defending the treasure bag from the hands of bandits
\nthat frequented the roads of the Roman Empire, Judas Iscariot\u2019s candidacy
\nwas out of the question.
\n23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at
\ntable at Jesus\u2019 side,
\nIn a world where tables were on the same level as the floor, the disciples
\npartook of their food reclining (almost prostrate) around the area where food
\nwas served. One of the disciples was this mysterious person known as the
\n\u201cthe beloved disciple.\u201d (Jn. 19:26; 20:2-5; 21:4-7, 20-24) There have been
\nvarious theories put forth as to the identity of this disciple and none of them
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n230
\nare fully convincing to my mind. We read in John 21:24<\/a>: \u201cThis is the disciple
\nwho testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his
\ntestimony is true.\u201d
\n24 so Simon Peter motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he
\nwas speaking. 25 So that disciple, leaning back against Jesus,
\nsaid to him, \u201cLord, who is it?\u201d 26 Jesus answered, \u201cIt is he to
\nwhom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.\u201d
\nSo when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son
\nof Simon Iscariot. 27 Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan
\nentered into him. Jesus said to him, \u201cWhat you are going to
\ndo, do quickly.\u201d 28 Now no one at the table knew why he said
\nthis to him. 29 Some thought that, because Judas had the
\nmoneybag, Jesus was telling him, \u201cBuy what we need for the
\nfeast,\u201d or that he should give something to the poor. 30 So,
\nafter receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out.
\nAnd it was night.
\nNotice the level of detail the Gospel
\ngives. It can best be explained by the
\nauthor (in opposition to Luke\u2019s
\naccount) being an eyewitness to the
\nnarrated events. He remembers the
\nsmall details, like the beloved disciple
\nmotioning to Jesus to get his attention
\nduring a noisy meal, during which the
\ndisciples were loudly talking. We can
\nalmost feel the tension as Jesus spoke
\nof his imminent betrayal by one of the
\ndisciples. The beloved disciple asked
\nhim quietly to show him who exactly
\nwould betray him. Jesus answered, just
\nas quietly: \u201cI will show you now.\u201d It
\nwas customary to take a piece of bread,
\ndip it in something tasty, and give it
\ndirectly to another person nearby. This
\nwas the perfect way to tell the beloved
\ndisciple something in such a way that no one would guess what Jesus was
\nreally doing. Jesus showed the beloved disciple what others would only know
\nlater. As Jesus extended his hand to give the piece of bread to Judas Iscariot,
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n231
\nhe told him out loud that he should hurry up. Jesus had routinely given Judas
\nassignments, so it looked like nothing unusual had taken place.
\n31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, \u201cNow is the Son of Man
\nglorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in
\nhim, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at
\nonce. 33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You
\nwill seek me, and just as I said to the Ioudaioi, so now I also
\nsay to you, \u2018Where I am going you cannot come.\u2019 34 A new
\ncommandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as
\nI have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this
\nall people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love
\nfor one another.\u201d
\nIt is intriguing that, while we normally ascribe the term glorification to
\nJesus only after his resurrection, Jesus does so in advance of the events. It
\nseems that Jesus viewed betrayal, death, resurrection, and ascension as one
\npackage; so much so that at the time when the events that ultimately led to
\nhis death and resurrection began, he was already able to say: \u201cNow is the Son
\nof Man glorified.\u201d
\nOne of the foundational stories of the twelve sons of Jacob was the story
\nof Joseph\u2019s near killing and eventually being sold into slavery in Egypt. (Gen.
\n37) One can hardly speak of anything more unloving than the heads of Israel\u2019s
\nkey family attempting to murder their own brother. But it turns out that Jewish
\ntradition ascribes an especially negative role to Judah. Judah was to have been
\nthe leader of his brothers. (Gen. 49:10) Therefore, rabbinic sources hold him
\nresponsible for the deception, even though it was not Judah himself who
\nbrought the coat to Jacob. Even though Judah tried to save Joseph, the
\nrabbinical sources still consider him responsible for it. As the leader of the
\nbrothers, Judah should have made a greater effort to carry Joseph home to
\nJacob on his own shoulders. (Genesis Rabbah 85:4) These sources argue that
\nJudah\u2019s brothers would have listened to Judah and would have returned their
\nyoung brother home. (Exodus Rabbah 42:2)
\nIt is possible, if not probable, that the above-mentioned rabbinic sources
\nreflect much earlier Jewish interpretive traditions. If so, then the name of the
\nchief betrayer of Christ Jesus (a Joseph-like figure in the Gospels), is most
\nappropriately called by the name of the betrayer of Joseph – the son of Jacob
\n– Judah. If understood in this way, then Judah should not be connected with
\nthe Judea\/Jews theologically or psychologically, but with the head of one of
\nthe Israelite tribes that otherwise received an honorable status in the Christian
\nChurch at large. Therefore, highlighting this dynamic, Jesus commends the
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n232
\ntwelve to love one another, unlike their forefathers, and in so doing reverse
\nthe curse that seems to have been following Judean leadership up to the time
\nof Jesus.
\nOriginally the commandment to \u201clove one another: just as I have loved
\nyou,\u201d was spoken particularly to \u201cthe twelve.\u201d (v. 34) However, it applies by
\nextension to all Christ-followers everywhere, and at all times.
\n36 Simon Peter said to him, \u201cLord, where are you going?\u201d
\nJesus answered him, \u201cWhere I am going you cannot follow me
\nnow, but you will follow afterward.\u201d 37 Peter said to him,
\n\u201cLord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life
\nfor you.\u201d 38 Jesus answered, \u201cWill you lay down your life for
\nme? Truly, truly, I say to you, the rooster will not crow till you
\nhave denied me three times.
\nPeter\u2019s commitment would soon be tested. Jesus told Peter that a time
\nwould come when Peter would deny him three times. That time was rapidly
\napproaching. One of the reasons Jesus said this was because he already knew
\nJudas Iscariot was on his way to the Temple to betray his location to the
\nauthorities for his immediate arrest, illegal trial and ultimate death at the
\nhands of Roman soldiers \u2013 and this would be accomplished at the instigation of
\nthe Jerusalemite leadership of the Ioudaioi.
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n233
\n234
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n235
\nChapter 14
\nThe Last Speech of Jesus (Part I)
\n\uf041 1 \u201cLet not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God;
\nbelieve also in me. 2 In my Father\u2019s house are many rooms. If
\nit were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a
\nplace for you? 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will
\ncome again and will take you to myself, that where I am you
\nmay be also.
\nJesus assured his disciples that despite the fact that his death was
\napproaching, they must maintain faith in God and in him. He promised that
\nhe was going to prepare a place for them in God\u2019s house, assuring them that
\nGod\u2019s house is large enough to include all God\u2019s redeemed children. The
\nquestion now arises: What is God\u2019s house? The only house of God we are
\nfamiliar with in the context of the Bible is his Temple, whether in the form of
\nthe tabernacle or in its later elaborate structures of stone.64 Since we know
\nJesus went to be with his Father after his death, we must conclude that the
\nheavenly tabernacle is probably in view in this passage.
\nIn the book of Revelation, we read about the final restoration and
\nrecreation of the earth \u2013 the
\nnew heavens and the new
\nearth. The heavens will come
\ndown to the earth to form one
\nentity. At this point, there
\nwill not be a temple in the
\ncity of Jerusalem because the
\nentire Earth will become one
\nhuge temple. This is how
\nJohn wrote about it in
\nRevelation 21:22<\/a>: \u201cAnd I saw
\nno temple in the city, for its
\ntemple is the Lord God the
\nAlmighty and the Lamb.\u201d
\nReturning to Jesus\u2019 words
\nto his disciples, in light of the book of Revelation, we can understand as Jesus
\ntold them he must die, he was indicating that this would result in a process of
\n64 References to tabernacle or temple as God\u2019s house: 1 Chr. 6:48; 9; 22; 2 Chr. 3:3; 4 -5; Ezra 1:4<\/a>;
\n2:68; 3:8, Ps. 42:4; 52:8; Jud. 9:1; Matt. 12:4, among others.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n236
\nrecreation. After his death and resurrection, he would begin to prepare an
\neternal, joyful, peaceful, and righteous dwelling place for his disciples. Once
\nthe earth is created anew, that new creation will become the eternal home for
\nthe followers of Jesus.
\n4 And you know the way to where I am going.\u201d 5 Thomas
\nsaid to him, \u201cLord, we do not know where you are going. How
\ncan we know the way?\u201d 6 Jesus said to him, \u201cI am the way,
\nand the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except
\nthrough me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my
\nFather also. From now on you do know him and have seen
\nhim.\u201d 8 Philip said to him, \u201cLord, show us the Father, and it
\nis enough for us.\u201d 9 Jesus said to him, \u201cHave I been with you
\nso long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has
\nseen me has seen the Father. How can you say, \u2018Show us the
\nFather\u2019? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the
\nFather is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on
\nmy own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his
\nworks. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is
\nin me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
\n12 \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also
\ndo the works that I do; and greater works than these will he
\ndo, because I am going to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in
\nmy name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the
\nSon. 14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
\nUnlike the Ioudaioi (Jn. 8:21), Jesus\u2019 disciples knew where he was going.
\n(vs. 4) It is likely that Thomas first thought Jesus was referring to a secret
\nhiding place, where he would now withdraw in order to escape his impending
\narrest (something that was done on a number of occasions65). However, Jesus
\nwas speaking of something completely different. In verse 6, he declared to
\nThomas that he was preparing to go to his Father. As the Son of God,
\nhowever, he did not need to follow a path to get there – He was the way to the
\nFather!
\nIt must be understood that these words (I am the way, the truth and the
\nlife) were not pronounced within the context of Muslim-Christian-Jewish-
\nHindu-Buddhist and other types of modern religious polemical settings.
\n65 Cf. John 6:15<\/a>.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n237
\nInstead, all the main polemical settings of the time\/space were intra-Israelite.
\nAll of them claimed that their way was the way to God. Judean authorities,
\nsince they were playing the central role in opposing Jesus, were naturally the
\nmain focus. Jesus declared to Thomas that they were wrong: He was \u201cthe
\nway, the truth and the life.\u201d If Israelites would believe in Him, they would
\nsurely get to the Father who had sent him. To such a degree was this so, that
\nJesus could say to them: \u201cIf you had known me, you would have known my
\nFather also.\u201d The Gospel repeatedly drives the same point home, to see Jesus,
\nis to see God; to accept him, is to accept God; to serve him, is to serve God.
\nThe name of Jesus means much more than we usually ascribe to it. The
\nname, Jesus (Yeshua means \u201cHe saves\u201d), is a powerful symbol of the
\ncombined essence of all that Israel\u2019s anointed King is; what he says and
\nwhat he does. To ask something in the name of Jesus is to ask because of
\nwho he is, of what he says, and of what he does. There is indeed power
\nin his Name, and we must seek no other. However, we must realize that
\nit is not a simple addendum, or a \u201csend\u201d button, to our prayers. In spite
\nof popular belief, we can pray in Jesus\u2019 name without actually ending our
\nprayer with the well-known phrase: \u201cin Jesus\u2019 Name. Amen.\u201d The main thing
\nhere is that Jesus becomes the focal point of Israelite worship, the center of
\nIsraelite life. It was not Mt. Gerizim (like for Samaritan Israelites) and not
\nMt. Zion (like for Judean Israelites) which was the center of God\u2019s presence
\n\u2013 but Jesus, and him alone.
\n15 \u201cIf you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And
\nI will ask the Father, and he will give you another
\nComforter\/Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of
\ntruth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees
\nhim nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and
\nwill be in you. 18 \u201cI will not leave you as orphans; I will come
\nto you. 19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more,
\nbut you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.
\nIsrael Knohl, a professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in his book
\nMessiah before Jesus, proposed an intriguing theory: in the generation before
\nJesus, there was an Essene Jew in Jerusalem who claimed to be the Messiah.
\nIn a hymn he wrote, he described himself as \u201cbeloved of the king, a
\ncompanion of the holy ones,\u201d with a status more exalted than that of the
\nangels; yet he also presented himself as the \u201csuffering servant\u201d of Isaiah 53<\/a>,
\none despised and rejected. Because of his wild claims, he was rejected by
\nother Jews and eventually killed. His followers claimed that he rose after
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n238
\nthree days and went up to heaven, and that his suffering and death had all
\nbeen part of God\u2019s plan. Israel Knohl hypothesizes, in the next generation,
\nJesus inherited this idea of what he called \u201ccatastrophic messianism.\u201d Most
\nsignificantly, Israel Knohl proposes a specific historical identification for this
\nmessiah: he was Menahem the Essene, described in a passage in Josephus
\n(Ant. 15.372-79) in which Menahem foretells that Herod will become king
\nand thus wins Herod\u2019s favor for the Essenes.
\nThis is indeed a very interesting thesis, among other things, because of the
\nintriguing phraseology used by Jesus to communicate to his apostles that the
\nHoly Spirit (\u201canother Comforter\u201d) will come after his own death and
\ndeparture to his Father\u2019s house. If the Holy Spirit is the other Comforter to
\ncome, who was the original one? Knohl proposes that the Greek paraclete
\n(comforter) is a translation from the Hebrew Menahem which also means
\n\u201ccomforter.\u201d If we were to see Jesus movement somehow connected to the
\nEssene communities and at the same time sharply critical of them, then we
\ncould see Jesus\u2019 identity as someone who provides real alternative to the
\nEssene Menachem. Jesus will also be executed just like Menachem, but
\nunlike him he will overcome death with life. Jesus is the first real Menachem
\n(comforter); Another one was to follow.
\nJesus was not the first one to oppose the evil shepherds of Israel; there
\nwere others before him who fought the system of the Ioudaioi. The Essene
\nMenahem, did not succeed, the second Menahem – Jesus \u2013 did. But when he
\ngoes to heaven to secure a place for his followers, \u201canother comforter\u201d would
\nbe sent to earth to empower and teach God\u2019s people. It just could be the case
\nthat Jesus saw himself within the tradition of the Essene Menahem who also
\nopposed the Jerusalemite elite, declared himself divine, and was eventually
\nkilled.
\nI think this an interesting idea, but we are lacking much more evidence to
\nconclude that this theory really works. At the very least we can conclude that
\nboth the man on whom Knohl posits his theory of Menahem\u2019s identity, and
\nJesus Himself, come from the world of Jewish apocalyptic thinking. The time
\nfor the end of all things was near. God\u2019s rule was breaking through the
\ndarkness of this world. (You can find full information on Knohl\u2019 s book in
\nthe bibliography and suggested readings section in the end of the book).
\n20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you
\nin me, and I in you. 21 Whoever has my commandments and
\nkeeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will
\nbe loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself
\nto him.\u201d 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, \u201cLord, how is it
\nthat you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?\u201d
\n23 Jesus answered him, \u201cIf anyone loves me, he will keep my
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n239
\nword, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him
\nand make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me
\ndoes not keep my words.
\nIn verses 20-21 Jesus states, when the other Comforter arrives, he would
\nmanifest himself to his followers. Judah\u2019s challenge to the apparent lack of
\nlogic in Jesus\u2019 statement is understandable. After all, Jesus\u2019 struggle had not
\nbeen to persuade his disciples, since they were already following him, but to
\npersuade the Ioudaioi, who in John 7:4<\/a> are referred to as \u201cthe world,\u201d and
\nwho largely did not follow him. In verses 23-24 Jesus explains, while he
\nviews the Ioudaioi as \u201chis own\u201d in some very significant ways (1:11; 7:4;
\n11:33; 13:1; 19:40), ultimately \u201chis own\u201d are not simply the group to which
\nhe belongs (the Ioudaioi), but
\nthose who belong to his Father
\n(Jesus\u2019 committed followers).
\nThese are his followers from all
\nIsrael. All those who love the
\nTorah and are truly obedient to it
\nare the ones who belong to Jesus
\nand will be loved and accepted
\nby his Father. No one other than
\nthese can claim to love Jesus in
\nany way. They must obey His
\nteachings.
\nAnd the word that you hear is not mine but the Father\u2019s who
\nsent me. 25 \u201cThese things I have spoken to you while I am still
\nwith you. 26 But the Comforter\/Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom
\nthe Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things
\nand bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
\n27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the
\nworld gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled,
\nneither let them be afraid. 28 You heard me say to you, \u2018I am
\ngoing away, and I will come to you.\u2019 If you loved me, you
\nwould have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the
\nFather is greater than I. 29 And now I have told you before it
\ntakes place, so that when it does take place you may believe.
\nIn this section, there are many things that deserve our attention. I would
\nlike, however, to concentrate on verse 28b, where we read that Jesus said \u201cmy
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n240
\nFather is greater than I.\u201d On the one hand this is a proof text that is often used
\nto show that Jesus is not divine \u2013 \u201cGod is God\u201d – \u201cThe Son of God is the Son
\nof God,\u201d say those who claim this, usually by quoting this particular verse:
\n\u201cMy Father is greater than I.\u201d On the other hand, there are those (the majority)
\nwho believe in the traditional definition of the doctrine of the Trinity: God is
\nOne in three (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). In this belief, they affirm fully
\nthat Jesus is God. But when it comes to verses like this (vs. 28b), they feel
\nvery nervous and quickly become uncomfortable, not knowing how to deal
\nwith such a text.
\nThere is one thing we should keep in mind before going on. John\u2019s Gospel
\nis a Gospel with high Christology, meaning that when the enigmatic
\ntheological language is deciphered, it shows Jesus to be divine. Not only does
\nit show him as divine somewhere in the middle, or towards the end of the
\nnarrative (as do Matthew, Mark and Luke), but the Gospel of John begins
\nfrom this very idea, and consistently carries it through. So, to say that the
\nauthor of John\u2019s Gospel does not think Jesus is divine amounts to suddenly
\ndeclaring oneself to be out of one\u2019s mind! In John\u2019s Gospel, Jesus is God
\nfrom the beginning to the end.
\nBut is this all, or is it more nuanced? The answer to this question, as you
\nmight have already guessed, is yes, it is more nuanced. Daniel\u2019s night visions
\nare the key to understanding what is going on with John\u2019s high Christology
\nand Jesus\u2019 statement about his subordination to the Father. Daniel saw the
\nAncient of Days (God the Father) residing on one of the two heavenly
\nthrones. The Son of Man was brought up to him; The Ancient of Days
\ncrowned the Son of Man, seating him on the throne located on his right hand
\nas a permanent heavenly priest, (Heb. 10:11-14) and giving him all judgment,
\nrule, dominion, power, glory and worship over all the created order. (Dan.
\n7:13-14) In John\u2019s Gospel, it is beyond question that Jesus filled the role of
\nthe Son of Man. He is, on one hand, equal to the Ancient of Days, but on the
\nother hand, the Ancient of Days is indeed the Son of Man\u2019s superior.
\nEverything the Son of Man is and has comes from His Father and not from
\nhimself.
\nNo matter what we happen to think of the doctrine of the Trinity as it is
\ntraditionally explained, we must do it justice. The doctrine of the Trinity is a
\nChristian theological construct created several centuries after the New
\nTestament was authored; nevertheless, its roots go deep into the Holy
\nScripture. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith, in its
\ntreatment of God and the Holy Trinity states:
\n\u201cThere is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being
\nand perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts\u2026 God
\nhas all life\u2026 He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through
\nwhom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n241
\nover them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself
\npleases. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one
\nsubstance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God
\nthe Holy Spirit. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding;
\nthe Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit eternally
\nproceeding from the Father and
\nthe Son.\u201d
\nThis is to say that the standard and traditional way to define Trinity is not
\nto simply say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal. That, by itself
\nis, theologically speaking, an heretical statement, because it affirms one
\naspect of the Trinity, but denies another. In the proper definition of the
\nTrinity, all three are of the same essence, but they are not the same in
\nfunctionality. While the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in power and
\nglory; they are not equal in their roles. The Father alone eternally begets the
\nSon, while both are commissioning the Holy Spirit (according to this
\nhistorical document at least) to carry out his\/her work in the world. There is
\nno confusion here. Jesus is God incarnate, but his Father is greater than He.
\n30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this
\nworld is coming. He has no claim on me, 31 but I do as the
\nFather has commanded me, so that the world may know that I
\nlove the Father. Rise, let us go from here.
\nJesus had told Judah to go and do what he had planned, knowing that
\nwithin an hour he would be arrested. The primary person behind his arrest
\n(though no doubt many including Caiaphas were involved) was Annas, the
\nfather-in-law of the current high priest. While it is possible that Jesus saw in
\nhim the representation of Satan\u2019s power (\u201cthe ruler of this world\u201d), it is more
\nlikely that, together with other uses of the term \u201cthe world\u201d in John, Jesus\u2019
\nintention was that the ruler of the Ioudaioi was on the way to arrest him. Jesus
\nthen, in verse 30b, declared his innocence of any charges the \u201cruler of this
\nworld\u201d might press against him. (\u201cHe has no claim on me.\u201d)
\nThe Ioudaioi in particular, being symbolically representative of the entire
\nworld, must be persuaded that Jesus loved His Father. Jesus then took steps
\nto show he was resolute in completing his mission. He knew from the
\nbeginning that the Cross lay in his path, but he was not going to go to his
\nCross passively. He was in control. He had said previously \u201cno one takes my
\nlife from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.\u201d (Jn. 10:18) Because of
\nthis, Jesus, in no uncertain terms, told his disciples: \u201cRise, let us go from
\nhere.\u201d
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n242
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n243
\n244
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n245
\nChapter 15
\nThe Last Speech of Jesus (Part II)
\n\uf041 1 \u201cI am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser.
\n2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away,
\nand every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may
\nbear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word
\nthat I have spoken to you.
\nThe next three chapters of the Gospel are mostly composed of the direct
\nwords of Jesus to his disciples. The Gospel begins this teaching marathon
\nwith Jesus comparing himself to the vine in God\u2019s vineyard, evoking one of
\nthe greatest Israelite prophetic symbols. We have already seen that the Gospel
\nof John continuously echoes several prophetic voices of the Hebrew Bible,
\nnotably Isaiah, Zechariah and Ezekiel. The book of Isaiah contains significant
\ncontent regarding the concept of the vineyard. In short, according to this
\nIsaiah reference, Israel is God\u2019s vineyard and its wellbeing depends upon this
\nvineyard bearing fruit. We read in Isaiah 5:1-16<\/a>:66
\n\u201cNow I will sing for my friend a song about his vineyard. My friend
\nhad a vineyard on a hill with very rich soil. He dug and cleared the field
\nof stones and planted the best grapevines there\u2026 He hoped good grapes
\nwould grow there, but only bad ones grew\u2026 Now I will tell you what
\nI will do to my vineyard: I will remove the hedge, and it will be burned.
\nI will break down the stone wall, and it will be walked on. I will ruin
\nmy field\u2026 The vineyard belonging to the Lord Almighty is the nation
\nof Israel; the garden that he loves is the people of Judah. He looked for
\njustice, but there was only killing. He hoped for right living, but there
\nwere only cries of pain\u2026 The Lord Almighty will receive glory by
\njudging fairly; the holy God will show himself holy by doing what is
\nright.\u201d
\nA similar idea coupled with judgment can be seen in Ezekiel 15:6-8<\/a>:
\n\u201cTherefore thus says the Lord GOD: \u2018Like the wood of the vine among
\nthe trees of the forest, which I have given to the fire for fuel, so have I
\ngiven up the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And I will set my face against
\nthem. Though they escape from the fire, the fire shall yet consume
\n66 Other Israel-vineyard passages are: Jer. 2:21; 5:10; 6:9; 12:10; Hos. 10:1; Matt 21:33-44.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n246
\nthem, and you will know that I am the LORD, when I set my face against
\nthem. And I will make the land desolate, because they have acted
\nfaithlessly, declares the Lord God.\u2019\u201d
\nJesus taught his disciples to love one another by washing each other\u2019s feet,
\nthus setting the example of service and self-sacrifice for the new leaders of
\nrenewed Israel. Between the account of this powerful act and the actual arrest
\nof Jesus, we are privileged to hear Jesus himself speak to his disciples. Up to
\nthis point in the Gospel there have been six occasions when Jesus defined
\nhimself by using the phrase: \u201cI am\u201d – I am the bread of life (John 6:35<\/a>, 48); I
\nam the light of the world (Jn. 8:12, 9:5); I am the door (Jn. 10:9); I am the
\ngood shepherd (Jn. 10:11); I am the resurrection and the life (Jn. 11:25); I
\nam the way, the truth and the life (Jn. 14:6); and now, in this section that
\nimmediately precedes his arrest and violent death, he makes the following
\nclaim \u2013 I am the true Vine. In verse 2, Jesus spoke of the pruning activity of
\nGod. Not every branch in the vineyard will remain; only those branches that
\nbear fruit will remain. This is the language of judgment. God is the judge;
\nJesus is the one (vs. 3) who is able to present those who follow him as
\nacceptable\/clean before his Father. The only purification people really
\nneed is his word.
\n4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit
\nby itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless
\nyou abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n247
\nWhoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much
\nfruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does
\nnot abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers;
\nand the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and
\nburned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask
\nwhatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 By this my
\nFather is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to
\nbe my disciples.
\nJesus calls himself the true vine and, as is common in John, he does not
\ndirectly quote from the Hebrew Scriptures, as do the Synoptics. He usually
\nmerely alludes to these powerful Old Testament texts. It is possible (though
\nnot at all certain) that John\u2019s Jesus not only refers to Isaiah 5<\/a>, but also to
\nGenesis 49:22<\/a>, where we read \u201cJoseph is a fruitful vine, even a fruitful vine
\nby a well; whose branches run over the wall.\u201d This, and the remainder of the
\npassage, speaks of the mighty blessings placed upon Joseph by his father
\nJacob.
\nIt is clear Joseph is in many ways a type of Christ. We see this in his
\ndeparture from his father, his betrayal, his suffering, and his return from the
\ndead (though clearly in Joseph\u2019s case, only symbolically). You may recall
\nthat Christ and the Samaritan woman conversed in Samaria at the site of the
\nburial of Joseph\u2019s bones. Joseph was pictured in Genesis 49:22<\/a> as the
\nunstoppable vine that overcomes obstacles and is full of life which is
\nirreversibly blessed by God. Its branches will even climb over a wall. It is
\npossible that John\u2019s Jesus is shown here as the ultimate Joseph, who is the
\nblessed vine. This is the vine to which all members of Israel, especially its
\nleaders, must be connected so that they may survive, be blessed, and bear
\nfruit. The connection that I brought out previously between Judah betraying
\nhis brother Joseph, and Judah betraying Jesus, may provide an intriguing
\nbackdrop to this section.
\nIf this is the case, then my hypothesis that John may have been written to
\nparticularly reach Samaritan Israelites (though obviously not exclusively)
\nwith the Gospel of Christ, is strengthened by this connection to Joseph. You
\nmay recall, for the Samaritan Israelites, Joseph was one of the great figures
\nof their history and identity. Therefore this connection would be logical,
\nespecially to those Israelites who identified with Joseph far more than did
\nother Israelites at this time (namely the Judeans).
\n9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in
\nmy love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in
\nmy love, just as I have kept my Father\u2019s commandments and
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n248
\nabide in his love. 11 These things I have spoken to you, that my
\njoy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. 12 \u201cThis is my
\ncommandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
\nIf my hypothesis of a connection with Joseph is correct, (incidentally
\nthanks go to my friend and mentor David Loden for pointing this out to me),
\nit is clear that Joseph\u2019s blessing itself originated with God. From there,
\nthrough Joseph \u2013 the blessed vine \u2013 blessing can flow to all branches of the
\nvine and they will bear much fruit; first because of their connection to the
\nvine, but ultimately because of God\u2019s blessings upon the vine itself
\n(Joseph\/Jesus).67
\nIn the previous section, we established the fact that, from the standpoint
\nof Jesus, the number twelve for his apostles was not coincidental. He was the
\nGood Shepherd of Israel who established and delegated his authority to the
\ntwelve to rule Israel in his place after his absence. They were the new heads
\nof the Israelite tribes and are reminiscent of the twelve patriarchs. Jesus, as
\nhe establishes new leadership over Israel, recalls this story of deep family
\ndysfunction, saying that these new heads must behave differently than the
\noriginal tribal heads. These new leaders must love one another.
\n13 Greater love has no one than this that someone lay down
\nhis life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I
\ncommand you. 15 No longer do I call you servants, for the
\nservant does not know what his master is doing; but I have
\ncalled you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I
\nhave made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose
\nyou and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and
\nthat your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the
\nFather in my name, he may give it to you. 17 These things I
\ncommand you, so that you will love one another.
\nFor several years, the disciples of Rabbi Jesus (as they referred to him)
\nwere his servants. This may sound strange to modern ears, but in ancient
\ntimes, especially in this Jewish setting, if someone was a student of a religious
\nleader, the student was also his servant. The time for Jesus\u2019 departure had
\ncome. He began the final preparation of his disciples for the very challenging
\ntask of being his representatives during a foundational period that would
\nprove to be incredibly unstable. The time had come for them to be included
\n67 King David was also given the same promise. (Ps. 18:29)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n249
\nin his council, not only as his disciples\/students, but also as his friends. He
\nwas approaching his death, and through it would show them that they must
\nfollow his example and commit to what one day would become one of the
\ncore Jewish values: Ahavat Yisrael – Love of (the people of) Israel. The love
\nof one another is first of all contextually described in terms of the love of all
\nIsraelites within Israel \u2013 something that seemed extremely hard, if not
\nimpossible to do, but it had to begin with the new leaders of Israel \u2013 the
\ntwelve.
\n18 \u201cIf the world hates you, know that it has hated me
\nbefore it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world
\nwould love you as its own; but because you are not of the
\nworld, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world
\nhates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you: \u2018A servant
\nis not greater than his master.\u2019 If they persecuted me, they will
\nalso persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep
\nyours.
\nIt is very challenging to understand John\u2019s use of the word translated as
\n\u201cworld.\u201d It seems that John uses this word kosmos (\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2), not as created
\norder (i.e. it is not planet earth including humanity that is in view here);
\ninstead, the word kosmos here is something adversarial to God\u2019s order (Jn.
\n7:7; 9:39; 12:31; 15:18-19). One particular defining factor is present in
\nevery text where the word kosmos is used \u2013 it is not an allegiance to a
\nneutral order, but precisely to the order of things\/beings that oppose God.
\nIt is possible the reason there is interchangeability of meaning between
\nthe world as Ioudaioi, and the world as generally oppositional to God, is
\nbecause the oppositional forces had changed by the time the Gospel was
\nfinally written.
\nPlease, let me explain this point. I am proposing that at the time of Jesus,
\nwhen the events described in the Gospel were taking place, the opposing force
\nwas the Ioudaioi. When John was writing the Gospel, and certainly his letters,
\nthe main opposing force of the Jesus movement was already the Roman
\nEmpire.68 This opposing order is, nevertheless, an object of his redemptive
\nlove, attention and restoration (Jn. 1:29; 3:16; 6:33; 14:31; 17:23), because
\nit was once created by God through his everlasting Word. (Jn. 1:1, 10)
\n68 If the same person who wrote the Gospel and the letters, actually wrote the book of Revelation
\n(and I am aware of significant language style differences between them and other issues), the shift of
\nmeaning could make perfect sense. The Book of Revelation is a Jewish document that is heavily anti –
\nRoman. The ambiguity of meaning in John and his letters goes further than the Ioudaioi and the Roman
\nEmpire. It reaches to the general world\/order of evil that opposes God anywhere and anytime. So I am
\nsuggesting that the shift in John is from the particular to the universal.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n250
\nThe primary identity of the world in this intra-Israelite Gospel is not,
\nsurprisingly, the Ioudaioi. (Jn. 7:4-7; 8:23; 9:39; 14:17-31; 18:20) This
\nparticular component certainly calls for further study of John\u2019s Gospel
\nand its use of the word kosmos.
\n21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my
\nname, because they do not know him who sent me. 22 If I had
\nnot come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty
\nof sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever
\nhates me hates my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them
\nthe works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin,
\nbut now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.
\n25 But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled:
\n\u2018They hated me without a cause.\u2019
\nIt is still clear that these particular words of Jesus belong in a particular
\nhistorical setting. The opposition by the Ioudaioi and in particular, by those
\nin leadership, the evil shepherds of Israel, is clearly in view. The summarizing
\nphrase in verse 25: \u201cthey hated me without a cause,\u201d referring to the
\npersecution and suffering of Jesus, is a direct reference to several of the
\nPsalms of Lament. In Psalm 35:1-8<\/a> we read:
\n\u201cContend, O LORD, with those who contend with me; fight against
\nthose who fight against me! \u2026Say to my soul, \u201cI am your salvation!\u201d
\nLet them be put to shame and dishonor who seek after my life! \u2026Let
\ntheir way be dark and slippery, with the angel of the LORD pursuing
\nthem! For without cause they hid their net for me; without cause they
\ndug a pit for my life.\u201d
\nWhile in Psalm 69:1-4<\/a> we read:
\n\u201cSave me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck. I sink in
\ndeep mire, where there is no foothold; I have come into deep waters,
\nand the flood sweeps over me. I am weary with my crying out; my
\nthroat is parched. My eyes grow dim with waiting for my God. More in
\nnumber than the hairs of my head are those who hate me without
\ncause\u2026\u201d
\nThis is the case throughout the Gospel of John. The Ioudaioi launched a
\nfull attack against Jesus, hating him without a justified cause. And this is the
\ncase with the world – it has no justified reason to oppose God, but it hates
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n251
\nHim and everyone who belongs to Him.
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\n252
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n253
\nChapter 16
\nThe Last Speech of Jesus (Part III)
\n\uf041 1 \u201cI have said all these things to you to keep you from
\nfalling away. 2 They will put you out of the synagogues.
\nIndeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think
\nhe is offering service to God. 3 And they will do these things
\nbecause they have not known the Father, nor me. 4 But I have
\nsaid these things to you, that when their hour comes you may
\nremember that I told them to you.
\nJesus is preparing his disciples for persecution, disappointment, and
\nextreme hardship. What he said in Chapter 15, and what he will continue to
\nsay now, is meant to strengthen the disciples\u2019 commitment. This was because
\nthey would be banished from the synagogue system of the Ioudaioi.
\nWe must understand that the word synagogue was not exclusively Jewish.
\nWhen it was, as is certainly the case in the Gospels, it was not simply a Jewish
\nalternative to the Christian Church as is more or less the case today.
\nSynagogues in ancient times were something like today\u2019s Jewish community
\ncenters and not like modern synagogues. The main purpose of being a part of
\nthe synagogue was not to hold worship services as it is today. The synagogue
\nwas part of the community in every way and in all its aspects. Synagogues
\nfunctioned as lecture halls, hotels, theaters, discussion clubs, as well as places
\nwhere Torah was read and studied. It is not as if worship was not going on in
\nthe synagogue, but that it was not as central to it as was communal mingling.
\nBasically, Jesus was warning his disciples that they must be prepared to
\npay any price for following him. Whether it was to be excluded from all the
\nbenefits that were controlled by the Ioudaioi system community (synagogue)
\nor to be put to death (vs. 2) because of their affiliation with him, the disciples
\nhad to be prepared to act decisively and with total commitment.
\n\u201cI did not say these things to you from the beginning,
\nbecause I was with you. 5 But now I am going to him who sent
\nme, and none of you asks me, \u2018Where are you going?\u2019 6 But
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n254
\nbecause I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your
\nheart. 7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your
\nadvantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the
\nComforter\/Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send
\nhim to you.
\nJesus knew the more he spoke of his departure, and the more the situation
\naround him intensified, the sadder his disciples would become. They already
\nunderstood his arrest and execution were imminent. As was discussed in the
\nprevious section, Jesus was referring to the prophecy of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37)
\nthat deals with the resurrection of Israel – the valley of dry bones vision.
\nThere, the Son of Man (assumed to be Ezekiel) is told to prophesy to the
\nwind\/spirit. When he does so, the wind comes and brings about resurrection.
\nThere is no doubt that the Comforter\/Helper in verse 7 refers to the Spirit
\nin Ezekiel 37<\/a>. What is interesting is that Jesus said: I must go, so that the
\nComforter\/Helper can come. The implication is that this prophecy could only
\nbe fulfilled after Jesus had ascended to his heavenly throne and was able to
\nprophesy\/speak with the authority of the ultimate Son of Man, directing the
\nHoly Spirit of God to finish the work he had begun.
\n8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning
\nsin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because
\nthey do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness,
\nbecause I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;
\n11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is
\njudged.
\nIn verses 8-11 John tells us that the Holy Spirit will do three things: He
\nwill convict those opposed to Jesus\u2019 order (the Ioudaioi): 1) of sin, because
\nthey did not accept Jesus by faith; 2) of Jesus\u2019 innocence, because God
\nreceived Jesus to Himself; and 3) of judgment, because the ruler of the
\nIoudaioi will be deposed from his place of authority and power.
\n12 \u201cI still have many things to say to you, but you cannot
\nbear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide
\nyou into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own
\nauthority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will
\ndeclare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify
\nme, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n255
\nthat the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take
\nwhat is mine and declare it to you.
\nIn verses 13-14 we see the Son of Man (in Ezek. 37:1-14, Ezekiel himself)
\nprophesied to God\u2019s Holy Wind to resurrect the whole house of Israel. The
\nwind of God will come spiritually and physically to resurrect Israel, but she
\nwill do so by the authority of the two powers in heaven \u2013 the Father and his
\nroyal Son. We read in Ezekiel 37:9-10<\/a>:
\n\u201cThen he said to me, \u2018Prophesy to the Spirit\/breath; prophesy, son of
\nman, and say to her\/it: This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Come,
\nSpirit, from the four winds and breathe into these slain, that they may
\nlive.\u2019 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them;
\nthey came to life and stood up on their feet\u2014a vast army.\u201d
\nThis vision of resurrection is intimately connected to the vision of
\nreunification of the South (Judah) and the North (Joseph\/Ephraim). This fits
\nperfectly with my thesis that the Gospel of John was written within the
\ncontext of the Judean-Samaritan conflict, as it focusses on seeking the
\nreunification of Judeans with all other Israelite groups, including Samaritans.
\nAlthough I have already quoted this text a couple of times, we read in Ezekiel
\n37:15-22:
\n\u201cSon of man, take a stick of wood and write on it, \u2018Belonging to Judah
\nand the Israelites associated with him.\u2019 Then take another stick of
\nwood, and write on it, \u2018belonging to Joseph (that is, to Ephraim) and all
\nthe Israelites associated with him.\u2019 Join them together into one stick so
\nthat they will become one in your hand\u2026 I will make them into a single
\nstick of wood, and they will become one in my hand \u2026I will take the
\nIsraelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them
\nfrom all around and bring them back into their own land. I will make
\nthem one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be
\none king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or
\nbe divided into two kingdoms.\u201d
\nAs you will continue to see, I think many words of Jesus in the Gospel of
\nJohn must be read against the background of the prophecies of Ezekiel. When
\nwe do this, his words begin to make sense, both locally and universally.
\n16 \u201cA little while, and you will see me no longer; and again
\na little while, and you will see me.\u201d 17 So some of his disciples
\nsaid to one another, \u201cWhat is this that he says to us, \u2018A little
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n256
\nwhile, and you will not see me, and again a little while, and
\nyou will see me\u2019; and, \u2018because I am going to the Father\u2019?\u201d
\n18 So they were saying, \u201cWhat does he mean by \u2018a little while\u2019?
\nWe do not know what he is talking about.\u201d 19 Jesus knew that
\nthey wanted to ask him, so he said to them, \u201cIs this what you
\nare asking yourselves, what I meant by saying, \u2018A little while
\nand you will not see me, and again a little while and you will
\nsee me\u2019?
\nThe disciples of Jesus had no way of knowing what was about to happen,
\nand his very confusing words did not help. They did know that Jesus\u2019 life was
\nin danger, but they did not know to what degree this was imminent. They
\ncertainly did not know during his private interaction with him, Jesus had told
\nJudah to go ahead with his plan. In other words, they did not know what Jesus
\nknew \u2013 that he was about to be arrested, taken away, illegally tried, publically
\nhumiliated and killed, and then rise from the dead, only to appear to them
\nagain.
\n20 Truly, truly, I say to you, you will weep and lament, but
\nthe world will rejoice. You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow
\nwill turn into joy. 21 When a woman is giving birth, she has
\nsorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered
\nthe baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a
\nhuman being has been born into the world. 22 So also you have
\nsorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will
\nrejoice, and no one will take your joy from you.
\nAs Jesus continued with the idea of the world as those in opposition to
\nGod\u2019s power (the Ioudaioi\u2019s leadership), he prepares his disciples for the fact
\nthat their Passover joy will soon be turned to sadness, before it turns again to
\njoy with his resurrection and ascension. Soon it will be the world\u2019s turn to be
\njoyful, celebrating what they would see as the final defeat of the Jesus
\nmovement.
\n23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say
\nto you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will
\ngive it to you. 24 Until now you have asked nothing in my name.
\nAsk, and you will receive, that your joy may be full. 25 \u201cI have
\nsaid these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n257
\ncoming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech
\nbut will tell you plainly about the Father. 26 In that day you
\nwill ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the
\nFather on your behalf; 27 for the Father himself loves you,
\nbecause you have loved me and have believed that I came from
\nGod. 28 I came from the Father and have come into the world,
\nand now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.\u201d
\nAs Jesus transforms his disciples into a company of friends and coworkers
\nin God\u2019s vineyard, Israel, he now tells them that soon they will have
\na new and wonderful privilege. They will be able to communicate with the
\nFather in the name of Jesus and expect a positive fatherly response directly
\nfrom Him. The task of Jesus was to pave the way to the Father. He was about
\nto leave the place that opposes God (in this case Judea as world) and return
\nto heaven where all obey God. One day, God\u2019s desire will be accomplished
\non the earth as it is in heaven. But, at least in Hebrew, which most probably
\nwas the underlying thought and conceptual language of the Greek Gospels,
\nthe Earth ( \u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5 ) refers also to the Land of Israel and not to planet Earth. So it
\ncould very well be, that Jesus actually taught his disciples to pray \u201cYour
\nKingdom come\u2026 to Israel ( \u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5 ) as it is in Heaven\u201d and not the generic \u201con
\nEarth as it is in Heaven.\u201d69 The Lord\u2019s Prayer, by extension, naturally does
\napply to all the earth and all the people of the world, but I sometimes wonder
\nhow many things we miss by reading everything in the Gospels through our
\nuniversal lenses of generalization and premature application.
\n29 His disciples said, \u201cAh, now you are speaking plainly and
\nnot using figurative speech! 30 Now we know that you know all
\nthings and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we
\nbelieve that you came from God.\u201d 31 Jesus answered them,
\n\u201cDo you now believe? 32 Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it
\nhas come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home,
\nand will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is
\nwith me. 33 I have said these things to you, that in me you may
\nhave peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take
\nheart; I have overcome the world.\u201d
\nIn this passage, Jesus predicts very harsh persecution against his disciples
\nand against those who would follow them. Several times he repeats the idea
\n69 Cf. Matt. 6:10; Didache 8:2.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n258
\nthat he is warning them ahead of time not to be surprised when persecution
\ncomes, but to take courage because this was to be expected. In the midst of
\nthis tribulation, they could be confident that Jesus had overcome the opposing
\nforces of the time \u2013 the Jerusalemite leadership of the Ioudaioi. Therefore, by
\nfaith, his disciples who are in Him (vine and branches imagery) will know a
\npeace, even in the midst of tribulation. In spite of the extreme challenge
\nahead, the disciples needed to know that Jesus has in fact overcome the world.
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n259
\n260
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n261
\nChapter 17
\nThe Great High Priestly Prayer of
\nJesus
\n\uf041 1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his
\neyes to heaven, and said, \u201cFather, the hour has come; glorify
\nyour Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given
\nhim authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom
\nyou have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know
\nyou the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.\u201d
\nJesus clearly stated that all the authority, as described in Daniel 7:13-14<\/a>,
\nhad already been granted to him. What is interesting here is that we normally
\nthink of this event as taking place in history only after the death, resurrection,
\nand ascension of Jesus. However, it seems that Jesus viewed it all as one
\npackage. This is why he emphatically stated in his prayer that all authority
\nhad already been transferred to the Son of Man. Now he is only asking God
\nto glorify the Son, but not to grant him all authority.
\n4\u201d I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work
\nthat you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your
\nown presence with the glory that I had with you before the
\nworld existed.\u201d 6\u201cI have manifested your name to the people
\nwhom you gave me out of the world.\u201d \u201cYours they were, and
\nyou gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they
\nknow that everything that you have given me is from you. 8 For
\nI have given them the words that you gave me, and they have
\nreceived them and have come to know in truth that I came from
\nyou; and they have believed that you sent me.
\nPre-Christian, Jewish theology of Logos\/Memra is at work here. Jesus\u2019
\npre-existence and eternal-divine nature as the Son of God has come out many
\ntimes in this Gospel. His own self-awareness of this is clear from the text.
\nGod\u2019s name is a shortcut (using modern language) to everything that God
\nis, says and does. Jesus stated that he manifested (disclosed) God\u2019s Name to
\nall those who followed him. This means at the end of his ministry, Jesus had
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n262
\na deep sense of satisfaction in the work he performed on His Father\u2019s behalf.
\nHe was content with what he had accomplished. He manifested God\u2019s Name
\nto all whom the Father had given him.
\n9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but
\nfor those whom you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All
\nmine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in
\nthem. 11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the
\nworld, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your
\nname, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as
\nwe are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name,
\nwhich you have given me.\u201d
\nIn this particular prayer, Jesus states explicitly that he is petitioning his
\nFather only on behalf of his followers. He underscores his intimate
\nrelationship with the Father by saying that all that are his are also his Father\u2019s,
\nand all that are his Father\u2019s are also his. (vs. 10) Jesus, in anticipating his
\ndeparture to the Father, had already stated that he had left the world. This is
\na typical realized action statement by Jesus. Although he had not yet left this
\nworld (this opposing order) in a physical sense; in another sense, he had
\nalready left. Jesus\u2019 prayer is centered on asking his Father to preserve the
\nwork he had done. (vs. 11)
\nBut notice something more
\nhere: it is not just that Jesus
\nhad a mission from the Father
\nto carry out, but there is also
\na sense of ownership that is
\nclearly present. This is not
\nsimply a servant who did his
\njob. This is someone who
\nHimself is now deeply
\ninvested in these people.
\nJesus, therefore, personally
\nasks the Father who
\ncommissioned him to do it, to
\nkeep them in His Name.
\n12\u201cI have guarded
\nthem, and not one of them has been lost except the son of
\ndestruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I
\nam coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n263
\nthey may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given
\nthem your word, and the world has hated them because they
\nare not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not
\nask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them
\nfrom the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not
\nof the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
\n18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the
\nworld. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also
\nmay be sanctified in truth.
\nJesus and his disciples\u2019 relations to the Ioudaioi and others who oppose
\nhim are such that they live physically inside of this order that opposes God.
\nThis order will one day be redeemed, but that is still in the future. For now,
\nthe world opposes God and his Messiah. Jesus\u2019 clarification is important. He
\ndoes not ask the Father to remove them from the world. The order itself is not
\nbad but it must be reformed and redeemed to become the order that embraces
\nand supports the values of the Kingdom of God. It must cease to be the
\nopposing regime that it is now.
\nTo be in the world is dangerous, not only for Jesus but also for anyone
\nwho follows him. The ultimate price of martyrdom may have to be paid. Jesus
\nis clear in his prayer: \u201cFather, keep them from the evil one.\u201d The evil one here
\nis primarily the ruler of this opposing order, but in another sense, the ultimate
\nevil one is of course the ultimate enemy of God \u2013 Satan. Sanctification
\n(making and keeping them holy) is of primary concern to Jesus. It is
\nextremely important to everything he is doing. If his disciples are not
\nsanctified, they will not be able to lead God\u2019s people into a new redeemed
\ndirection. Jesus\u2019 mission must not fail. To ensure this, he asks his Father to
\nsee that it is done.
\n20 \u201cI do not ask for these only, but also for those who will
\nbelieve in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one,
\njust as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may
\nbe in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n264
\nThese verses are very important for us as we seek to understand the
\nrelationship of the world as Ioudaioi, to the world as a general order opposing
\nthe God of Israel at any time and in any place. As I suggested before, I think
\nthat what accounts for the interchangeability of this term is that by the time
\nthe Gospel of John was written, the main enemy of the Jesus-followers (the
\nmain opposing force) was no longer the Ioudaioi, whose authority was
\nbrought to ground zero with the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.; It was
\nnow the Roman Empire. The ownership of the world throughout history will
\nchange hands many times, the message of the Gospel of John is clear \u2013 Jesus
\nwins! He has overcome the world. As long as we are with him and in him, we
\nshare in that victory. All those who read and hear this Gospel must make the
\nchoice to submit himself\/ herself to the loving, but firm rule of the Son of
\nGod.
\n22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them,
\nthat they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you
\nin me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world
\nmay know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved
\nme. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me,
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n265
\nmay be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have
\ngiven me because you loved me before the foundation of the
\nworld.\u201d 25\u201d O righteous Father, even though the world does
\nnot know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent
\nme. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to
\nmake it known, that the love with which you have loved me
\nmay be in them, and I in them.\u201d
\nIf one follows the logic of the text closely, one cannot help but notice that
\nthe world is not simply an evil force. Opposing force? Yes. Satanic? No.
\nWhy? Because it was very important to Jesus that this world would be
\npersuaded that Israel\u2019s God sent Jesus and that this God loves the disciples of
\nJesus as much as He loves Jesus himself. There are two hurdles here that need
\nto be overcome. The world must first see that Jesus is from God, and then
\nunderstand God\u2019s love for Jesus\u2019 followers is as strong as his love and
\napproval for Jesus himself. If the world fully belongs to Satan, why should
\nGod and Jesus even care? \u201cSave the disciples and send the rest to hell!\u201d could
\nhave been Jesus\u2019 attitude. But his attitude shows he has a deep love and
\nabiding care for this oppositional order (the world). It was very important to
\nhim that this order would stop being oppositional and start being submissive.
\nOnce again, whether the Ioudaioi or the Roman Empire was in view, we
\ncan see how Jesus\u2019 words can be significant in both historical circumstances.
\nJesus and His disciples must be justified in the eyes of the world \u2013 a strange
\ndesire indeed, unless God has truly loved the world, as John had already stated
\nin John 3:16<\/a>: \u201cFor God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
\nthat whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.\u201d
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\n266
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n267
\nChapter 18
\nArrest; Meeting in Annas\u2019 House;
\nPeter\u2019s Denial; Jesus\u2019 Trial before
\nPilate
\n\uf041 1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with
\nhis disciples across the brook Kidron, where there was a garden,
\nwhich he and his disciples entered. 2 Now Judas, who betrayed
\nhim, also knew the place, for Jesus often met there with his
\ndisciples.
\nWhen speaking these words, Jesus\u2019 feet literally stood on the Mount of
\nOlives. The Mount of Olives or Mount Olivet ( \u05d4\u05b7\u05d6\u05b5\u05d9\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05b7\u05e8 , Har HaZeitim) is a
\nmountain ridge, east of and adjacent to, Jerusalem\u2019s Old City. It is named for
\nthe olive groves that once covered its slopes. The southern part of the Mount
\nwas the necropolis of the ancient Judean\/Southern kingdom. The Mount of
\nOlives is a two-mile long ridge, or foot hill, with three summits. Just east of
\nthe Mount of Olives is the wilderness that leads down to Jericho and the
\nJordan Valley. David ascended the Mount of Olives when he fled from his
\nson Absalom. (2 Sam. 15:30) When Jesus was in Jerusalem, he often stayed
\nin Bethany, a village on the east side of the Mount of Olives, about a twomile
\nwalk southeast of Jerusalem. The walk from Jerusalem to Bethany took
\nJesus through Gethsemane.
\nThe Garden of Gethsemane appears to be a place where Jesus and his
\ndisciples often regrouped without threat of arrest. It was near the brook of
\nKidron. The Kidron Valley itself was situated between the Mount of Olives
\nand Jerusalem. In Luke 21:37<\/a> we read, \u201cevery day he was teaching in the
\ntemple, but at night he went out and lodged on the mount called Olivet.\u201d
\nWhile Jesus and his disciples did fear for their lives, the ultimate fear that
\nfilled the hearts of the current leadership in Jerusalem was the impact Jesus
\nhimself had on the movement he was leading. This Jesus movement included
\nthose who followed him with utmost commitment, as well as those who did
\nnot, but who found his leadership inspiring. This comes up later when Annas
\nholds a pre-trial against Jesus in his residence. The very first thing he will
\nask, even before he would ask about Jesus\u2019 teaching, would be a question
\nabout his disciples. (Jn. 18:19)
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n268
\n3 So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some
\nofficers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there
\nwith lanterns and torches and weapons.
\nIt is interesting that the Gospel writer places blame on Judas and says that
\nJudas did not simply betray Jesus by telling his enemies where Jesus was
\nlocated, but he actually led the team that came to arrest Jesus. The word
\ntranslated as \u201ca band of soldiers\u201d is a bit misleading. The word \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd
\n(speiran) is a technical term for a Roman cohort, normally a force of 600
\nmen. The cohort was commanded by a( \u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 ciliarco, see verse 12). It is
\nimprobable that an entire cohort was being sent to arrest a single man. It is
\nlikely that \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd here refers only to a maniple, a force of 200. Even so, we
\nmust not picture a few soldiers coming to arrest Jesus. We are talking about
\na massive operation with the use of both Temple priestly guards and Roman
\nsoldiers stationed in Jerusalem in the Antonia Fortress that overlooks both the
\nTemple and the Pool of Bethesda.
\nThe Temple leaders wanted to arrest Jesus and stop his rapidly growing
\ninfluence. The last time the Temple guards were sent to arrest Jesus, they
\nfailed completely. They seemed to be so impressed with his words, just as the
\nTemple police had been, that they too began to doubt the orders from their
\nsuperiors. This time, extra precautions were taken to prevent another failure,
\nso the leaders requested a Roman cohort to join the Temple guard to reinforce
\ntheir compliance. Enemies of Jesus were fearful of him and his followers in
\nthe context of the approaching Passover. This was the traditional
\nrevolutionary time that reminded the Israelites of God\u2019s mighty deliverance
\nfrom slavery in Egypt.
\n4 Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came
\nforward and said to them, \u201cWhom do you seek?\u201d 5 They
\nanswered him, \u201cJesus of Nazareth.\u201d Jesus said to them, \u201cI am
\nhe.\u201d Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. 6 When
\nJesus said to them, \u201cI am he,\u201d they drew back and fell to the
\nground.
\nThe arrest and trial of Jesus in the Gospel of John is very different from
\nwhat is recorded in the synoptic Gospels. Not only does this Gospel not tell
\nus about the trial with Caiaphas (Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65<\/a>), it also
\nportrays Jesus in full control of what is happening. One gets a feeling that
\nJesus knows it, orchestrates it, and displays his power throughout. Here too
\nhis initiative and control are beyond doubt.
\nThe practice of bowing face-down before God is widely attested in the
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n269
\nBible. (Gen. 17:3; Ex.34:8; Gen. 18:2; Is. 49:23) This idea is seen even more
\nin the prophetic books of Ezekiel (3:23, 9:8, 11:13, 43:3, 44:4) and Daniel.
\n(8:17,18, 10:9,15) Given our earlier observations that the Gospel of John has
\na special interest in Ezekiel and Daniel, this is at least intriguing. No doubt
\nthe people who came to arrest Jesus did not fall down before him in voluntary
\nworship, but his power had swept them off their feet, certainly humbling their
\npride.
\n7 So he asked them again, \u201cWhom do you seek?\u201d And they
\nsaid, \u201cJesus of Nazareth.\u201d 8 Jesus answered, \u201cI told you that
\nI am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go.\u201d 9 This was to
\nfulfill the word that he had spoken: \u201cOf those whom you gave
\nme I have lost not one.\u201d
\nIn his arrest, Jesus, the Good Shepherd of the sheep, is bargaining for the
\nsafety of his sheep. Their well-being is very important to him. Their safety is
\nalso very important to him at this time.
\n10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the
\nhigh priest\u2019s servant and cut off his right ear (The servant\u2019s
\nname was Malchus). 11 So Jesus said to Peter, \u201cPut your sword
\ninto its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has
\ngiven me?\u201d
\nWhile other more symbolic interpretations are of course possible, it is
\nmost likely that Peter was going to kill Malchus with his sword, and had been
\naiming at his head. Why did he cut off his ear instead? Did he simply miss
\nhis target? Verse 11 features Jesus\u2019 exchange with Peter after his reaction to
\nthe impending arrest of his beloved teacher. The cup of God\u2019s wrath was
\nmeant for all those who oppose the rule of Israel\u2019s God, (Jer. 25:15-26) but
\nbecause Jesus\u2019 attitude towards the world that hates him is one of love and
\nredemption, He will be drinking this cup on their behalf. (vs. 11) He
\nunderstood that, while he deserved only the cup of salvation (Ps. 116:13), He
\nmust instead drink the cup of God\u2019s judgment and wrath on their behalf.
\n12 So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers
\nof the Ioudaioi arrested Jesus and bound him.
\nThe Gospel of John is well-known for giving more details about every
\nevent than do the other Gospels. It is likely that John, by mentioning that
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n270
\nJesus was bound (something the other Gospels do not do), was showing the
\nobvious connection with Abraham\u2019s offering of Isaac. (Gen. 22:1-19) Isaac,
\nlike Jesus, was willing to accept his own death. Like Jesus, he was bound,
\nand like Jesus he would (figuratively) be raised from the dead. We read in
\nHebrews 11:19<\/a>: \u201cAbraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and
\nso in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.\u201d
\n13 First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law
\nof Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. 14 It was Caiaphas
\nwho had advised the Ioudaioi that it would be expedient that
\none man should die for the people.
\nThe Romans only allowed the high priests to serve terms, but many Jews
\nbelieved that to become a high priest was a life-long position. This may
\nexplain why Caiaphas was the formal high priest, but his father-in-law Annas
\nwas still wielding an incredible amount of power and influence. So much so
\nthat following the arrest of Jesus, he was first brought to Annas. It is
\ninteresting that, as in the previous time Jesus had come before him, Caiaphas
\nis not portrayed in a particularly negative light. In fact, his high priestly office
\nwas honored in John 11:50<\/a>. It could be an interesting possibility that the ruler
\nof the world in the Gospel of John was none other than Annas \u2013 the father-inlaw
\nof Caiaphas.
\n15 Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple.
\nSince that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered
\nwith Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, 16 but Peter
\nstood outside at the door.
\nThis, among many other hints in the Gospel of John, may point to the
\nfact that the author of this Gospel was a Levitical priest according to his
\nfamily lineage. In fact, there are some early traditions that link John, the son
\nof Zebedee, himself one of the strong candidates for the role of the author of
\nthis Gospel, with the Levitical priesthood. The early Church historian
\nEusebius quotes Polycrates of Ephesus (c. 130-196) saying that this was the
\ncase with John, the son of Zebedee. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.31.3)
\nSo the other disciple, who was known to the high priest,
\nwent out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the
\ndoor, and brought Peter in. 17 The servant girl at the door said
\nto Peter, \u201cYou also are not one of this man\u2019s disciples, are
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n271
\nyou?\u201d He said, \u201cI am not.\u201d 18 Now the servants and officers
\nhad made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were
\nstanding and warming themselves. Peter also was with them,
\nstanding and warming himself. 19 The high priest then
\nquestioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
\nNotice the High Priest questioned Jesus about his teachings second and
\nabout his disciples\/followers first. The real concern was not Jesus and his
\nteaching, but Jesus and his following. It was Annas (vs. 19) who first
\nquestioned Jesus and only then sent him to Caiaphas. (vs. 24) Annas officially
\nserved as High Priest for ten years (6\u201315 C.E.), when at the age of 36 he was
\ndeposed by the procurator Gratus. Yet, while having been officially removed
\nfrom office, he remained as one of the nation\u2019s most influential political and
\nsocial individuals, aided greatly by the use of his five sons and his son-in-law
\nas puppet High Priests.
\n20 Jesus answered him, \u201cI have spoken openly to the world.
\nI have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where
\nall Ioudaioi come together. I have said nothing in secret.
\n21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I
\nsaid to them; they know what I said.\u201d 22 When he had said
\nthese things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with
\nhis hand, saying, \u201cIs that how you answer the high pri est?\u201d
\n23 Jesus answered him, \u201cIf what I said is wrong, bear witness
\nabout the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike
\nme?\u201d 24 Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high
\npriest.
\nJesus answered the second question and did not answer the first. His
\nministry, he argued, was always public and not secret. Annas made the
\ndecisions, but it was Caiaphas who had the formal say and the rubberstamping
\nauthority that Rome approved.
\n25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So
\nthey said to him, \u201cYou also are not one of his disciples, are
\nyou?\u201d He denied it and said, \u201cI am not.\u201d 26 One of the servants
\nof the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had
\ncut off, asked, \u201cDid I not see you in the garden with him?\u201d
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n272
\n27 Peter again denied it, and at once a rooster crowed.
\nPeter denied Jesus three times. Later Jesus would tell Peter three times:
\nfeed my sheep (Jn. 21:15-19), invoking once again the Ezekiel theme of evil
\nshepherds versus the Good Shepherd Jesus, and those who will pasture God\u2019s
\nflock on his behalf. Malchus\u2019 relative, who was also present at the arrest of
\nJesus and saw what happened to Malchus\u2019 ear, remembered Peter.
\nThe leaders of the new Israel, whom Jesus was leaving to further the
\nKingdom of God on earth after his death, were not perfect. Peter, one of the
\nmost faithful disciples of Jesus, managed to denounce Jesus three times
\nduring the space of one night. Even so, this imperfect but repentant leadership
\nwas much better than the leadership that was then responsible for Judea.
\n28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the
\ngovernor\u2019s headquarters.
\nIt was likely that Annas and Caiaphas resided in separate wings of the
\nsame high priestly complex. For the trial with Pilate, Jesus was brought to the
\nGovernor\u2019s headquarters (this was likely the Antonia Fortress, north of the
\nTemple area). The regular residence of the Roman Governor was in Caesarea,
\n(Acts 23:35<\/a>) far from Jerusalem, but during the holidays, the likely time of
\nJewish insurrection, he was always personally present in Jerusalem, secure in
\nthe Antonia Fortress.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n273
\nIt was early morning. They themselves did not enter the
\ngovernor\u2019s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled,
\nbut could eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate went outside to them
\nand said, \u201cWhat accusation do you bring against this man?\u201d
\n30 They answered him, \u201cIf this man were not doing evil, we
\nwould not have delivered him over to you.\u201d 31 Pilate said to
\nthem, \u201cTake him yourselves and judge him by yo ur own law.\u201d
\nThe Ioudaioi said to him, \u201cIt is not lawful for us to put anyone
\nto death.\u201d 32 This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken
\nto show by what kind of death he was going to die.
\nThe priestly group who came to Pilate had limited ability to move in and
\nout of places considered ceremonially impure. (vss. 28-29) This was
\nparticularly relevant to them because of their priestly duties and their close
\nproximity to the Temple. Pilate\u2019s relationship with the Jewish Jerusalemite
\nleadership was far from easy. In verse 29 we see the type of dynamic present.
\nThe Roman Governor had to leave his place and come outside to meet the
\nJewish leaders. They would not enter. The interaction recorded in the above
\nverses shows how uneasy this relationship was. The Jewish leaders expected
\nPilate to condemn Jesus to death as an insurrectionist. Legal executions were
\nonly allowed to be performed by the Roman government. While occasional
\ndeath by stoning could be carried out, it was generally done by mob violence
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n274
\nand not sanctioned by a court ruling of the Jews. No doubt Pilate was already
\naware of the uproar about Jesus in Jerusalem and Judea. He knew why they
\nhad brought Jesus to him. He knew what they wanted.
\n33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus
\nand said to him, \u201cAre you the King of the Ioudaioi?\u201d
\nIn contrast to Luke-Acts (Acts 4:26-28<\/a>), where Pilate is portrayed as one
\nof those who conspired against Jesus and was guilty of his execution, the
\nGospel of John places the blame squarely on the Judean Temple leadership.
\nThis fact supports the idea that the conflict described in the Gospel of John
\nwas instead a battle between the Shepherds of Israel.
\n34 Jesus answered, \u201cDo you say this of your own accord, or
\ndid others say it to you about me?\u201d 35 Pilate answered, \u201cAm I
\nIoudaios? Your own nation and the chief priests have
\ndelivered you over to me. What have you done?\u201d 36 Jesus
\nanswered, \u201cMy kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom
\nwere of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that
\nI might not be delivered over to the Ioudaioi. But my kingdom
\nis not from the world.\u201d 37 Then Pilate said to him, \u201cSo you are
\na king?\u201d Jesus answered, \u201cYou say that I am a king. For this
\npurpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the
\nworld\u2014to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the
\ntruth listens to my voice.\u201d 38 Pilate said to him, \u201cWhat is
\ntruth?\u201d After he had said this, he went back outside to the
\nIoudaioi and told them, \u201cI find no guilt in him. 39 But you have
\na custom that I should release one man for you at the
\nPassover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the
\nIoudaioi?\u201d 40 They cried out again, \u201cNot this man, but
\nBarabbas!\u201d Now Barabbas was a robber.
\nThe conversation with Pilate (whether he was sarcastic or reflective)
\nshows that, once again, John had no interest in his literary composition to
\nportray Pilate as the one who was guilty of what was about to happen.
\nAccording to John, it was indeed the current Temple-based leadership of
\nIsrael, that so hated the Son of Israel\u2019s God that they would stop at nothing,
\nwho were guilty. John, however, will tell us later, that while they would win
\nthe battle, they would lose the war. They would succeed in putting Jesus to
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n275
\ndeath, but their victory would be short-lived.
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\n276
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n277
\nChapter 19
\nThe Trial Continues; Crucifixion,
\nDeath, Burial
\n\uf041 1 Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him. 2 And the
\nsoldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his
\nhead and arrayed him in a purple robe. 3 They came up to him,
\nsaying, \u201cHail, King of the Ioudaioi!\u201d and struck him with their
\nhands. 4 Pilate went out again and said to them, \u201cSee, I am
\nbringing him out to you that you may know that I find no guilt
\nin him.\u201d
\nThe horrible tragedy that the reader\/hearer is being prepared to witness is
\nthat the Word of God himself was being humiliated by Gentile soldiers
\nbecause of the actions of the leaders of the Ioudaioi. According to John, after
\nridiculing Jesus, Pilate tried to make the Judean leaders change their minds.
\nOnce again he repeated his verdict of not guilty. Just a few moments earlier,
\nwhen Pilate had offered to release one prisoner, they demanded Barabbas.
\nBarabbas in Hebrew\/Aramaic means Son of the Father (likely an
\ninsurrectionist). The leaders of the Ioudaioi decisively rejected Jesus, who
\nclaimed to be the Son of the Heavenly Father, eventually asking for and
\naccepting the release of someone whose name is, ironically, also connected
\nto sonship. Yet Jesus is the King of the Ioudaioi in spite of their rejection of
\nhim. This is the tension of the entire Gospel.
\n5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the
\npurple robe. Pilate said to them, \u201cBehold the man!\u201d 6 When
\nthe chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out,
\n\u201cCrucify him, crucify him!\u201d Pilate said to them, \u201cTake him
\nyourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him.
\nJesus, badly beaten and ridiculed, was brought out with Pilate\u2019s own
\nannouncement: \u201cBehold the man!\u201d He wanted to release Jesus, perhaps not
\nout of sympathy for him, but rather out of dislike for the Judean leadership
\nitself. But their hearts were not softened by seeing Jesus\u2019 suffering. They
\ncried out: \u201cCrucify him! Crucify him! (The emphasis is on him as we will see
\nwith Barabbas.) One thing that may indicate Pilate was not as innocent as it
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n278
\nmight seem, was that he dressed Jesus in a purple robe \u2013 the color of royalty.
\nIt is possible, if not likely, that Pilate was using Jesus to antagonize the
\nIoudaioi even more. Pilate was saying in effect, \u201cYou go ahead and do it!\u201d
\nOf course this was not possible, because under the Roman Empire, the
\nIoudaioi did not have the right to administer capital punishment.
\n7 The Ioudaioi answered him, \u201cWe have a law, and
\naccording to that law he ought to die because he has made
\nhimself the Son of God.\u201d 8 When Pilate heard this statement,
\nhe was even more afraid.
\nIt was an absolute lie that Jesus deserved execution according to Jewish
\nlaw. This lie was made even worse by additional manipulation: calling Jesus
\nthe Son of God. You may recall that Son of God was a Jewish concept. People
\ncould agree or disagree that Jesus was the Son of God, but it was not
\nconsidered blasphemy, and neither was it blasphemy or against the Torah, for
\nJesus to claim to be the Son of God. However, something else was at play
\nhere. In Roman theology, the Caesar himself was the Son of God. In the
\nRoman Empire, everyone knew that you don\u2019t call yourself the Son of God if
\nyou want to stay alive. This title was reserved for Caesar, the Emperor of
\nRome, alone. So of course, when Jerusalemite leaders said to Pilate that Jesus
\nclaimed to be the Son of God, this made Pilate stop and rethink his initial
\nwillingness to release Jesus. What is interesting is in the Gospel of John,
\nJesus\u2019 claim that he was the Son of God was a marginal one. In John, Jesus
\nis usually claiming to be far more than that. He claims to be God Himself!
\nThe leaders clearly used phraseology to evoke in Pilate an emotion that would
\ncause him to see Jesus as someone who opposed Rome, and therefore
\nsomeone who deserved capital punishment.
\n9 He entered his headquarters again and said to Jesus,
\n\u201cWhere are you from?\u201d But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 So
\nPilate said to him, \u201cYou will not speak to me? Do you not know
\nthat I have authority to release you and authority to crucify
\nyou?\u201d 11 Jesus answered him, \u201cYou would have no authority
\nover me at all unless it had been given you from above.
\nTherefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater
\nsin.\u201d
\nPilate, realizing that he could indeed be dealing with a powerful Jewish
\ninsurrectionist, asked where Jesus was from. It is likely that he wanted to
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n279
\ncheck if Jesus was from one of the places about which Pilate routinely
\nreceived reports about insurrectionist activity. Jesus spoke with Pilate as if he
\nwere not on trial before him. Boldly holding his own rightful honor, Jesus
\ndeclared that the man who held all imperial authority in the province of Judea
\n(Pilate) had no authority at all because his authority was granted to him on a
\ntemporary basis by others (from above Pilate). He did call Pilate\u2019s behavior
\na sin, but a lesser sin than the sin of the person who delivered him to Pilate
\n(the leaders of Ioudaioi). The court motif, so clearly displayed throughout the
\nGospel, now culminated in the passion narrative and particularly in Jesus\u2019
\ntrial. The irony here, reading this Gospel in retrospect, is that Pilate, the
\nguards, the soldiers and certainly the leaders of the Ioudaioi were those who
\nwere on trial, before history and before God, and not Jesus as it might at first
\nappear. How will God and history judge them? That was the real issue and
\nthe point of this powerful Gospel story.
\n12 From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the
\nIoudaioi cried out, \u201cIf you release this man, you are not
\nCaesar\u2019s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes
\nCaesar.\u201d 13 So when Pilate heard these words, he brought
\nJesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called
\nThe Stone Pavement, and in Hebrew Gabbatha.
\nIt is only from this point that Pilate sought to release Jesus. This indicates
\nthat, contrary to when he first paraded and ridiculed Jesus, his intentions had
\nchanged. The Ioudaioi continued to play the Son of God card (all kings were
\nsons of god\/s). They calculated that Pilate would have to agree in the end. He
\ncould not have released Jesus and remained faithful to the Roman Imperial
\nSon of God. Gabbatha, was probably Gab Baitha, \u201cthe ridge of the house,\u201d
\non a part of which the Antonia Fortress was built. This temple-mount was
\ncovered with a tessellated pavement. A judgment-seat was placed on the
\npavement outside the hall of the Praetoria.
\n14 Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was
\nabout the sixth hour. He said to the Ioudaioi, \u201cBehold your
\nKing!\u201d 15 They cried out, \u201cAway with him, away with him,
\ncrucify him!\u201d Pilate said to them, \u201cShall I crucify your King?\u201d
\nThe chief priests answered, \u201cWe have no king but Caesar.\u201d
\n16 So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.
\nWhat is the reference to the sixth hour? What time would it have been in
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n280
\nour time system? A Jewish biblical (and post-biblical) hour was defined as
\n1\/12 of the time between sunset and sunrise. The only scriptural reference to
\nthere being 12 hours in a day is found in John 11:9<\/a> where Jesus asks a
\nrhetorical question, \u201cAre there not 12 hours in a day?\u201d So, we are probably
\ndealing with a time in the afternoon.
\nIf Pilate had indeed wanted to release Jesus, why would he continue to
\nprovoke the angry crowd who was demanding Jesus\u2019 death? He continued to
\ncall him their King. It was likely that by the time Pilate had made a decision,
\nhe had no choice but to put the innocent Jesus to death. However, he wanted
\nthe satisfaction of knowing that it was the Ioudaioi who forced his hand. (vs.
\n15-16) Under this incredible pressure, he made a decision to put an innocent
\nman to death. He did this to ensure that his own career would not fall prey to
\nJudean internal affairs. He was a governor who did not care for those he
\ngoverned, much like the leaders of the Ioudaioi who did not care for the sheep
\nof their pasture.
\nSo they took Jesus, 17 and he went out, bearing his own
\ncross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in
\nHebrew is called Golgotha. 18 There they crucified him, and
\nwith him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between
\nthem. 19 Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the
\ncross. It read, \u201cJesus of Nazareth, the King of the Ioudaioi.\u201d
\n20 Many of the Ioudaioi read this inscription, for the place
\nwhere Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written
\nin Hebrew\/Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek. 21 So the chief
\npriests of the Ioudaioi said to Pilate, \u201cDo not write, \u2018The King
\nof the Ioudaioi,\u2019 but rather, \u2018This man said, I am King of the
\nIoudaioi.\u2019\u201d 22 Pilate answered, \u201cWhat I have written I have
\nwritten.\u201d
\nWhile Pilate rightfully felt that the Jewish leaders had manipulated his
\ndecision to execute Jesus, he thought he should at least have the last say.
\nPilate understood well that the Temple leaders had falsely used the Son of
\nGod argument, so he turned their manipulation back on them when he
\nrecorded the accusation against Jesus. The text of the inscription about Jesus\u2019
\ncrime was recorded on a sign that was to be nailed above his head. The crime
\nwas that Jesus claimed to be the King of the Ioudaioi. But that is not all. An
\nintriguing suggestion appears on a painting by Fra Angelico (1434), who, in
\none of his crucifixion paintings, wrote down his interpretive, but possible
\nversion of what was written on the tablet over the cross. The Hebrew version
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n281
\ngiven by Fra Angelico is quite possible: \u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05e2 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d5\u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd = Jesus the
\nNazarite and the King of the Jews. Fra Angelico added \u201cand\u201d because
\ngrammatically it is possible in Hebrew. If this was Pilate\u2019s version, it would make
\nperfect sense. Why? Let me explain.
\nJohn\u2019s Gospel declares Jesus to be Israel\u2019s God incarnate. The leadership of
\nthe Ioudaioi rejected him and sought his death based on the accusation that his
\nown declaration was that he was the Son of God. Pilate returned the favor to the
\nIoudaioi, who forced him to crucify Jesus, by writing the statement of guilt in
\nsuch a way that it actually portrayed Jesus as Israel\u2019s God (YHWH). How?
\nThe acrostic of the sentence \u201cJesus of Nazareth AND (\u201c \u05d5\u201d) the King of the
\nJews\u201d ( \u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05e2 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d5\u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd ) is – ” \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 ” YHWH \u2013 the covenant name of
\nIsrael\u2019s God. Let\u2019s not get carried away with this idea, since we don\u2019t know
\nhow Pilate spelled these two phrases in Hebrew, and it may just be the way
\nFra Angelico posited. Nevertheless, it is an intriguing thought.
\n23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his
\ngarments and divided them into four parts, one part for
\neach soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was seamless,
\nwoven in one piece from top to bottom, 24 so they said to one
\nanother, \u201cLet us not tear it, but cas t lots for it to see whose
\nit shall be.\u201d This was to fulfill the Scripture which says,
\n\u201cThey divided my garments among them, and for my
\nclothing they cast lots.\u201d So the soldiers did these things,
\n25 but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n282
\nhis mother\u2019s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary
\nMagdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple
\nwhom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother,
\n\u201cWoman, behold, your son!\u201d 27 Then he said to the disciple,
\n\u201cBehold, your mother!\u201d And from that hour the disciple
\ntook her to his own home.
\nJesus\u2019 crucifixion was an intensely painful experience, not only for him,
\nbut also for his friends and family. During the experience of suffering the pain
\nof being nailed to a Roman cross, Jesus fulfilled one of the greatest
\ncommandments in the Torah: the commandment to honor one\u2019s parents. He
\ntold the beloved disciple to care for his mother. Verse 27 tells us that the
\ndisciple took her into his own home, as he would his own mother.
\n28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said
\n(to fulfill the Scripture), \u201cI thirst.\u201d 29 A jar full of sour wine
\nstood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a
\nhyssop branch and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had
\nreceived the sour wine, he said, \u201cIt is finished,\u201d and he bowed
\nhis head and gave up his spirit.
\nIt was believed that vinegar (a sour wine) could lessen the pain of a
\ncrucified criminal. John clarifies, however, that the reason Jesus drank it was
\nnot to quench his thirst, but to fulfill what was written in the Scriptures about
\nhim. (Ps. 42:2; 63:1) Do you recall that, in the garden during his arrest, Jesus
\ntold Peter he must drink of the cup of God\u2019s wrath? Now, when he was
\nalready crucified and near death, he physically drank the soured wine and
\nbreathed his last breath. It is possible that the cup Jesus drank is connected
\nwith the Cup of Redemption in the modern Passover Seder of Rabbinic
\nJudaism. This would be so if the four cups (cup of sanctification, cup of
\ndeliverance, cup of redemption and cup of restoration) in the Seder actually
\ngo back to the time of Jesus. While this is certainly possible, we have no
\nevidence for such an argument. The four cups could have been introduced
\nmuch later, like other elements of the Passover meal. I, therefore, allow for it
\nas an interpretive possibility, but prefer to think the cup that Jesus was to
\ndrink on the Cross was the cup of God\u2019s wrath that the Hebrew Bible spoke
\nabout in many places such as mentioned above. (Jer. 25:15-26)
\n31 Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies
\nwould not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n283
\nSabbath was a high day), the Ioudaioi asked Pilate that their
\nlegs might be broken and that they might be taken away. 32 So
\nthe soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the
\nother who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came
\nto Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break
\nhis legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a
\nspear, and at once there came out blood and water. 35 He who
\nsaw it has borne witness\u2014his testimony is true, and he knows
\nthat he is telling the truth\u2014that you also may believe. 36 For
\nthese things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled:
\n\u201cNot one of his bones will be broken.\u201d 37 And again another
\nScripture says, \u201cThey will look on him whom they have
\npierced.\u201d
\nBecause this was the day of
\npreparation for the Sabbath and the
\nPassover (Jn. 19:14), the Jewish
\nauthorities requested Pilate to order
\nthe legs of the three who had been
\ncrucified to be broken. This would
\nhasten their deaths, so that the bodies
\ncould be removed before the Sabbath.
\n(Deut. 21:22-23) When the soldiers
\ncame to do this, it appeared that Jesus
\nwas already dead. To be certain of
\nthis, a soldier pierced his side with a
\nspear. The scripture quoted in verse
\n36 comes from Exodus 12:46<\/a>,
\nspeaking of the original Passover
\nlamb and the text in verse 37 is a
\ndirect quote from Zechariah 12:10<\/a>,
\nwhere God refers to himself as the one who was pierced.
\n38 After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a
\ndisciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Ioudaioi, asked
\nPilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate
\ngave him permission. So he came and took away his body.
\n39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night,
\ncame bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventyThe
\nJewish Gospel of John
\n284
\nfive pounds in weight. 40 So they took the body of Jesus and
\nbound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom
\nof the Ioudaioi. 41 Now in the place where he was crucified
\nthere was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no
\none had yet been laid. 42 So because of the Jewish day of
\nPreparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus
\nthere.
\nIn this passage we again meet Nicodemus whom we met earlier in the
\nGospel account. Even though he was part of the ruling counsel (ruler of the
\nIoudaioi), he and Joseph of Arimathea came to take the body of Jesus. They
\nwanted to give him a proper Jewish burial. The place of Jesus\u2019 burial,
\naccording to this account, was dictated by Judean observance and carried out
\nby these two godly members of the Ioudaioi. Nothing about Jesus\u2019 death was
\ncoincidental. Jesus was destined to be buried according to the customs of the
\nIoudaioi. Everything was part of the Godhead\u2019s plan to declare full victory
\nover sin and death.
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n285
\n286
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n287
\nChapter 20
\nThe Empty Tomb; The Three
\nResurrection Appearances
\n\uf041 1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene
\ncame to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that
\nthe stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2 So she ran and
\nwent to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom
\nJesus loved, and said to them, \u201cThey have taken the Lord out
\nof the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.\u201d
\nIt is striking that very early on Sunday morning Mary Magdalene
\nwitnessed the already empty tomb. This leads us to the inescapable
\nconclusion that Jesus rose from the dead some time earlier. It is also notable
\nthat, in a time when women were not allowed to testify in a public assembly
\nby law, the Gospel states that the first witness of the resurrection of Jesus was
\na woman. (The first Samaritan Israelite to testify to Jesus was also a woman).
\nSuch a contra-cultural detail testifies to the truthfulness of the account. It
\nwould be highly inadvisable of someone merely imagining this story to use a
\nwoman witness as a literary device.
\n3 So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were
\ngoing toward the tomb. 4 Both of them were running together,
\nbut the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.
\n5 And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there,
\nbut he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him,
\nand went into the tomb.
\nThe other disciple is the same as the beloved disciple, who is also the
\nauthor of this Gospel. When he looked in, it was still dark and he could not
\nsee clearly, but he did see the grave clothes. It is possible that he was too
\nterrified to actually walk into the tomb. It is equally possible that, being mostprobably
\na priest by lineage,70 (perhaps this is how he was known to the high
\n70 See Johnston, A.E. Was John the Son of Zebedee a Priest? (The Irish Church Quarterly, Vol. 2,
\nNo. 8 (Oct., 1909), pp. 292-307) as well as Kinzer, M.S. Temple Christology in the Gospel of John.
\nAvailable at: http:\/\/jewishstudies.eteacherbiblical.com\/wpcontent\/
\nuploads\/2013\/06\/Temple_Christology_in_the_Gospel_of_John.pdf
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n288
\npriest), John would have been rendered defiled by entering a cave. He ran
\nfaster than Peter, but he did not enter the tomb – he stooped to look into it.
\nPeter, however, had no such limitation connected to his lineage. While the
\nauthor of the Gospel was standing by the entrance, Peter finally arrived and
\nquickly walked into the cave. This was also in line with Peter\u2019s far more
\nforceful personality and his denial of Jesus.
\nHe saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the face cloth,
\nwhich had been on Jesus\u2019 head, not lying with the linen cloths
\nbut folded up in a place by itself.
\nAs was pointed out in the story of the raising of Lazarus, the Jewish
\npractice of burying with a separate cloth for the face is attested today through
\nthe archeological excavations done in Israel.71 The author of the Gospel did
\n71 Cf. John 11:44<\/a> there Lazarus also has a separate cloth for the face.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n289
\nnot imagine the details, (a separate cloth for the face), he remembered them.
\nArcheological finds confirm his story. Judeans indeed buried their dead the
\nway John described.
\n8 Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first,
\nalso went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not
\nunderstand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.
\n10 Then the disciples went back to their homes.
\nIt was only after Peter told John that Jesus\u2019 body was not there, that the
\ntomb was empty, that John entered it. This tomb was now no longer about
\ndeath, but about life and therefore it could not render John ceremonially
\nunclean.
\n11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she
\nwept she stooped to look into the tomb. 12 And she saw two
\nangels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one
\nat the head and one at the feet. 13 They said to her, \u201cWoman,
\nwhy are you weeping?\u201d She said to them, \u201cThey have taken
\naway my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.\u201d
\nMary had no idea what Peter and John had seen. They apparently went by
\ndifferent routes and did not see Mary as they passed. While they ran home,
\nMary returned to the tomb and was nearby crying, being overcome with grief.
\nIn reading the text (vss. 12-13), one could think that the angelic visitation
\nwas not unusual. In fact, Mary continued talking as if two of her neighbors
\nhad asked her a question. It could of course be said that she was so overcome
\nwith grief that she simply had trouble seeing well, but this is unlikely. It is
\njust as likely that she did not realize these were angels until later, after
\neveryone had a chance to compare their stories. Some have made an
\nintriguing connection between two angels dressed in white and the members
\nof the Essene movement, who called themselves angels and also walked
\naround in white garments. But even though this option is attractive, it is to
\nmy mind no more than intriguing.
\n14 Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus
\nstanding, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said
\nto her, \u201cWoman, why are you weeping? Whom are you
\nseeking?\u201d Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him,
\n\u201cSir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n290
\nlaid him, and I will take him away.\u201d 16 Jesus said to her,
\n\u201cMary.\u201d She turned and said to him in Hebrew\/Arama ic,
\n\u201cRabboni!\u201d (which means Teacher).
\nMuch can be written about this, but suffice it to say, when Jesus called her
\nname, she suddenly realized who it was that was calling her. He called her by
\nname – Mary. She greeted him as she always did: Rabboni. The speculations
\nof those who say that Mary was Jesus\u2019 wife or lover, could match the first
\npart (vs. 15), but not the second part of the story (vs.16).
\n17 Jesus said to her, \u201cDo not cling to me, for I have not yet
\nascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them,
\n\u2018I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and
\nyour God.\u2019\u201d 18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the
\ndisciples, \u201cI have seen the Lord\u201d\u2014and that he had said these
\nthings to her.
\nIt is not entirely clear what Jesus meant by telling Mary not to touch or
\ncling to him, because he had not yet \u201cascended to the Father.\u201d We know that
\njust a few days later Thomas was actually invited to touch the wounds of
\nJesus (20:27), so something must have happened between these two
\nencounters. Why could Mary not touch him, but Thomas could? The reason
\nJesus gives is he has not yet ascended to the Father. This is clearly very
\nrelevant because it comes out again in the message Jesus gave Mary to tell
\nhis brothers: \u201cI am ascending to my Father . . .\u201d (Notice the present tense is
\nused) We all know that Jesus did ascend to the Father \u2013 some 40 days later \u2013
\nbut clearly that is not the ascension he is referring to here. As I have said
\nbefore, this Gospel contains high Christology and I believe that is what we
\nare encountering here. As we well know, the death and resurrection of Jesus
\nare the absolute pivotal events in the Jesus story. That is why he came. What
\nwe are not privy to here is what needed to happen in the spiritual realm in
\norder for Jesus to appear to his disciples that very evening and breathe on
\nthem to receive the Holy Spirit. Was this ascension necessary before Jesus
\ncould return and impart this precious gift to strengthen them in the days
\nahead? Were there two ascensions, so to speak? I\u2019ll leave that question with
\nyou.
\nAnother interesting thing to note in this paragraph is the very personal,
\nfamilial language Jesus is using: \u201cgo to my brothers,\u201d \u201c…my Father and your
\nFather,\u201d \u201cmy God and your God.\u201d These words must have been tremendously
\nreassuring to his loved ones who had been so recently traumatized by the
\ndeath of their beloved Rabbi, Master and friend.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n291
\n19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the
\ndoors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the
\nIoudaioi, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them,
\n\u201cPeace be with you.\u201d 20 When he had said this, he showed
\nthem his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when
\nthey saw the Lord.
\nIt was Sunday evening (beginning of the second day of the Israelite week)
\nand it was dark. The disciples gathered together in a secret place behind
\nlocked doors fearing further arrests from the Ioudaioi. When all the disciples
\nwere gathered, perhaps at a location where there were people whom Mary
\ntrusted, Jesus came out and greeted them with the standard Shalom Aleichem
\nas he always had done.
\nJesus knew that to put the disciples\u2019 fears to rest, the very first thing he
\nneeded to do when he saw them was to verify that he was, indeed, raised from
\nthe dead. When he did this, everything became clear. It was the crucified and
\nresurrected Jesus who stood before them.
\n21 Jesus said to them again, \u201cPeace be with you. As the
\nFather has sent me, even so I am sending you.\u201d 22 And when
\nhe had said this, he breathed on them and said to them,
\n\u201cReceive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they
\nare forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is
\nwithheld.\u201d
\nJesus\u2019 words and actions only make sense if we remember that Jesus, the
\nGood Shepherd, had come to restore, unite, and heal Israel by setting up new
\nleadership to replace the old.
\nAs we discussed earlier, the task was not possible without the power of
\nthe Holy Spirit. We know the coming of the Spirit of God would not happen
\nuntil approximately two months later, during Shavuot\/Pentecost. (Acts 2<\/a>)
\nHowever, John tells us that, even before that great event, Jesus – at the time
\nof his resurrection – had already breathed his Holy Spirit into his apostles.
\nThey were his new creation. Just as God breathed into Adam and Eve the
\nbreath of life (Gen. 2:7; Ps. 33:6; Wis. 15:11; 2 Macc. 7:22-23), and just as
\nEzekiel prophesied to the breath (Spirit) to breathe into the slain army that
\nthey might live (Ezekiel 37<\/a>), Jesus symbolically breathed the life of the Spirit
\ninto his apostles. Together with giving them his Holy Spirit, he gave them
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n292
\nauthority to forgive and to withhold forgiveness. They were his Apostles \u2013
\nHis \u201csent ones.\u201d
\n24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not
\nwith them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him,
\n\u201cWe have seen the Lord.\u201d But he said to them, \u201cUnless I see
\nin his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the
\nmark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never
\nbelieve.\u201d 26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again,
\nand Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked,
\nJesus came and stood among them and said, \u201cPeace be with
\nyou.\u201d
\nThomas (his name in Greek and Aramaic means twin) could not be
\ncharged with unbelief. After all, the other apostles had seen exactly what
\nThomas also wanted to see – the wounds in Jesus\u2019 hands and side. This
\nexpectation was a reasonable desire. Jesus came eight days later. The number
\neight seems to indicate some kind of connection with brit milah
\n(circumcision). If we do not think the eighth day was simply coincidental,
\nthen we would be justified in thinking that when Jesus breathed the Spirit into
\nthe apostles, this was considered their new birth. Jesus\u2019 second visit to the
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n293
\napostles was, therefore, being on the eighth day, comparable to circumcision.
\n27 Then he said to Thomas, \u201cPut your finger here, and see
\nmy hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do
\nnot disbelieve, but believe.\u201d 28 Thomas answered him, \u201cMy
\nLord and my God!\u201d 29 Jesus said to him, \u201cHave you believed
\nbecause you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not
\nseen and yet have believed.\u201d
\nThomas, being presented with undeniable evidence about the resurrection
\nof Jesus, called him his Lord and his God. Since Jesus was just that, he did
\nnot rebuke Thomas but instead affirmed him.72 Jesus extended even greater
\nblessedness to those who would believe without seeing what the apostles had
\nseen. This text too offers a glimpse into the history of the composition of this
\nGospel that we touched upon when we discussed the use of the word world,
\nfirst as Ioudaioi and then interchangeable as referring to any order opposing
\nIsrael\u2019s God and his King. Verse 29 anticipates post-resurrection faithful
\nfollowers of Jesus, you and I, who would not have the privilege that the
\noriginal apostles had.
\n30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the
\ndisciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are
\nwritten so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
\nof God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
\nSoon the author will bring this incredible Gospel to its rightful conclusion
\n(although as we will see, John\u2019s Gospel has several endings). As his narrative
\nbegins to slow down, having climaxed with the resurrection and postresurrection
\nappearances of Christ to his disciples, the author pauses and tells
\nhis readers that what he had written was selective, and by no means
\ncomprehensive. Jesus performed many more signs than those John recorded.
\nThe ones John chose to tell, however, were the ones he knew were sufficient
\nto convince the readers that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God and that by
\ntrusting him, they would have life.
\n72 There are a number of ancient texts in which angels play a prominent role in a vision or narrative
\nand in which they reject a human\u2019s misguided behavior of prostration. Cf. Ascen. 7.18 -23; 8.1-10, 15;
\nRev. 19.10; 22.8-9; Tob. 12.16-22; Apoc. Zeph. 6.11-15.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n294
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n295
\n296
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n297
\nChapter 21
\nEpilogue: Appearance by the Lake;
\nPeter\u2019s Love; The Beloved
\nDisciple
\n\uf041 1 After this Jesus revealed himself again to the
\ndisciples by the Sea of Tiberias, and he revealed himself in
\nthis way. 2 Simon Peter, Thomas (called the Twin), Nathanael
\nof Cana in Galilee73, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of
\nhis disciples were together. 3 Simon Peter said to them, \u201cI
\nam going fishing.\u201d They said to him, \u201cWe will go with you.\u201d
\nThey went out and got into the boat, but that night they
\ncaught nothing.
\nOne has the sense that the Gospel did already finish in John 20:31<\/a>. This
\nchapter (21) reads like a Post Scriptum, something that was added later or
\nwas attached to the original Gospel (a common practice). However, unlike
\nJohn 7:53-8<\/a>:11 (the woman caught in adultery) there is no evidence that the
\nGospel was ever in circulation without chapter 21. We are not told how much
\ntime had passed. This is in sharp contrast to the reference to the eighth day in
\nthe previous post-resurrection appearance. These same disciples were by the
\nKinneret (Sea of Galilee or Sea of Tiberias) when Jesus again wonderfully
\nsurprised them.
\nJust as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the shore; yet the
\ndisciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus said to them,
\n\u201cChildren, do you have any fish?\u201d They answered him, \u201cNo.\u201d
\nIt was already becoming light. Jesus, standing on the shore, called out to
\nthem and called them children. They may have considered it strange that
\nsomeone as young as Jesus would refer to them, not as brothers, but as
\n73 Bartholomew and Nathanael are recorded in the listings of the twelve apostles, but never
\ntogether. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Bartholomew is listed as one of the twelve, but Nathanael is not.
\nConversely, in John, Nathanael is listed, but Bartholomew is not. From that, many logically assume that
\nBartholomew and Nathanael were actually the same man who was known by two names, like Simon
\nPeter or Saul Paul.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n298
\nchildren.
\n6 He said to them, \u201cCast the net on the right side of the boat,
\nand you will find some.\u201d So they cast it, and now they were
\nnot able to haul it in, because of the quantity of fish.
\nWhen they reluctantly cast their nets to the other side of the boat, no doubt
\nthey wondered why they were listening to what a complete stranger was
\ntelling them to do. Taking all your nets and moving them from one side to
\nanother was not an easy task and required an effort on the part of these
\napostolic fishermen. When they did, the boat almost capsized because of the
\namount of fish they caught.
\n7 That disciple whom Jesus loved therefore said to Peter, \u201cIt
\nis the Lord!\u201d When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he
\nput on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work, and
\nthrew himself into the sea.
\nThis story is very real, not only because it gives us incredible detail, but
\nalso because the details it does give are so true to life. When people are
\nexcessively excited about something, they do things that make no sense.
\nPeter, in his excitement, jumped into the water. But, strangely enough, he got
\ndressed first. There are all kinds of possible explanations that can be
\npresented here – from the common practice of the fisherman who did not reach
\nthe shore, to Peter thinking that he would again walk on water (\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 means
\nto throw, to cast, to rush).
\n8 The other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full
\nof fish, for they were not far from the land, but about a
\nhundred yards off. 9 When they got out on land, they saw a
\ncharcoal fire in place, with fish laid out on it, and bread.
\n10 Jesus said to them, \u201cBring some of the fish that you have
\njust caught.\u201d 11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the
\nnet ashore, full of large fish, 153 of them.
\nThe most interesting item of discussion is the odd number of fish – 153.
\nThe fact that John pays attention to this detail should not surprise us. He often
\ndoes such things. The fact that John remembered how many fish there were
\nis also not surprising. His memories were still vivid. However, there may be
\nsomething more going on here. In one of the sections in this book, we
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n299
\ndiscussed how the Gospel of John is intricately designed, including the idea
\nof a complex literary structure called chiasm. It is possible that we have here
\nan early example of what will later become known as Gematria. The basic
\nidea of Gematria is to take a word and determine its numerical value,
\naccording to, in this case, the Hebraic numerical value system. Once the value
\nof any given word is assessed, it is then matched with another word or phrase
\nwith the same numerical value that otherwise seems unconnected.
\nA prominent New Testament scholar, Richard Bauckham, stated in a
\nsummary of his article on this topic:
\nAn important clue indicating the overall unity of the Gospel of John,
\nincluding Chapter 21, is often overlooked. This is the numerical
\nvalue of 153 fish caught by the disciples according to 21:11, which
\nrepresents the mathematical triangle of 17 (17x3x3=153). The key
\ntext for interpreting the passage is Ezekiel 47:10<\/a>, prophesying
\nstreams of living water flowing from the temple in the last days to
\nmake the Dead Sea fresh and full of fish. These symbolize
\nnumerically the children of God who receive life through believing
\nin the signs given by Jesus, which are enumerated in the Gospel. A
\ncomplex but consistent numerical pattern or Gematria can be
\ndemonstrated to underpin the structure and thematic of the whole
\nGospel, particularly linking the Prologue with the Epilogue, which
\nis expressed in the number 153.74
\nHad we not seen abundant evidence that the Gospel of John was composed
\nagainst the backdrop of the book of Ezekiel, we might have been justified in
\nignoring this suggestion. But since this is not the case, we must at least
\nconsider it in future studies by now simply making a reference to it. Among
\nseveral other interesting possibilities, I find the following one the most
\nintriguing. It fits nearly perfectly with my reading of the Gospel of John in its
\nhistoric Israelite (North and South reunification) context, especially in light
\nof the emphases the idea of the sonship of God receives in both the Gospel of
\nJohn and his letters.
\nThe Hebrew phrase \u201cSons of God,\u201d which would be shared by both
\nSamaritan and Judean Israelites is \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd . If we calculate the numerical
\nvalue of each letter we would get exactly 153!
\nHere it is:
\n74 Richard Bauckham, \u201cThe 153 Fish and the Unity of the Fourth Gospel,\u201d Neotestamentica 36
\n(2002): 77-88.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n300
\n153=) \u05d1) 2( \u05e0) 50 ( \u05d9) 10 ( \u05d4) 5( \u05d0) 1( \u05dc) 30 ( \u05d4) 5( \u05d9) 10 ( \u05de) 40
\nA word of caution would be in place here. I think we should be careful in
\nusing Gematria in our interpretation. Notice I did not say we should avoid
\nusing it, but we should use it sparingly and very carefully, never placing
\nundue emphasis upon it. Even though Gematria comes across as an exact
\nscience, the beauty of mathematics is that numbers can indeed be broken up
\nand added up a great number of different ways. As one of my mentors once
\nput it: \u201cWhen you have a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail.\u201d
\nAnd although there were so many, the net was not torn.
\n12 Jesus said to them, \u201cCome and have breakfast.\u201d Now none
\nof the disciples dared ask him, \u201cWho are you?\u201d They knew it
\nwas the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to
\nthem, and so with the fish. 14 This was now the third time that
\nJesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from
\nthe dead.
\nWhat can be safely assumed here is that Jesus did not look exactly as he
\nhad previously. As a matter of fact, this kind of question (Who are you?), may
\ncause us to doubt our assumption that physically, Jesus could be recognized
\nat all. This may explain why Mary thought he was a gardener and why Jesus
\nhad to show them the wounds from the nails and the spear. One would think
\njust seeing Jesus alive again would have been sufficient.
\nThe reference to the third post-resurrection appearance (vs. 14) is once
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n301
\nagain set in the context of a court scene and is presented as the third and last
\nset of evidence that Jesus indeed rose from the dead.
\n15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon
\nPeter, \u201cSimon, son of John, do you love me more than these?\u201d
\nHe said to him, \u201cYes, Lord; you know that I love you.\u201d He said
\nto him, \u201cFeed my lambs.\u201d 16 He said to him a second time,
\n\u201cSimon, son of John, do you love me?\u201d He said to him, \u201cYes,
\nLord; you know that I love you.\u201d He said to him, \u201cTend my
\nsheep.\u201d 17 He said to him the third time, \u201cSimon, son of John,
\ndo you love me?\u201d Peter was grieved because he said to him
\nthe third time, \u201cDo you love me?\u201d and he said to him, \u201cLord,
\nyou know everything; you know that I love you.\u201d Jesus said to
\nhim, \u201cFeed my sheep.
\nContrary to popular opinion
\nthat two different words for love
\nare used here, it has been
\nconclusively shown that the two
\nwords are used interchangeably
\nthroughout the New Testament.
\nJesus\u2019 question about \u201cmore than
\nthese\u201d refers to Peter\u2019s early
\nstatements about his full loyalty
\nto Jesus in comparison with the
\nzeal of other disciples. After
\nthree denials, Jesus receives
\nthree affirmations of Peter\u2019s love
\nand willingness to be a Good
\nShepherd. Jesus entrusts Peter
\nwith shepherding the flock of
\nIsrael; just as he does with the
\nother disciples he leaves behind.
\n18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used
\nto dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you
\nare old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress
\nyou and carry you where you do not want to go.\u201d 19 (This he
\nsaid to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And
\nafter saying this he said to him, \u201cFollow me.\u201d
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n302
\nThis seems to be a prediction by Jesus of Peter\u2019s death. In 2 Peter 1:12<\/a>-
\n14, he wrote the following:
\n\u201cSo I will always remind you of these things, even though you know
\nthem and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is
\nright to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this
\nbody, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus
\nChrist has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that,
\nafter my departure, you will always be able to remember these things.\u201d
\nAnother important and interesting thing here is the progression of Peter\u2019s
\nfaith. From the three denials to the three affirmations of faith, and now this
\ndiscouraging prophecy, after which Jesus says \u201cFollow me.\u201d Perhaps, this is
\nhis final test of faith. Will he still agree to follow, knowing, in part, what is
\nahead for him?
\n20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved
\nfollowing them, the one who also had leaned back against him
\nduring the supper and had said, \u201cLord, who is it that is going
\nto betray you?\u201d 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus,
\n\u201cLord, what about this man?\u201d 22 Jesus said to him, \u201cIf it is my
\nwill that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You
\nfollow me!\u201d 23 So the saying spread abroad among the
\nbrothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say
\nto him that he was not to die, but, \u201cIf it is my will that he
\nremain until I come, what is that to you?\u201d
\nApparently, in the aftermath of the writing of the Gospel of John (Ch. 1-
\n20), believers began to elevate the status of the beloved disciple. So, in this
\nepilogue, additional material that had been omitted from the earlier story was
\nincluded. Peter posed a question to Jesus regarding the \u201cdisciple whom Jesus
\nloved.\u201d Jesus then challenged Peter that it was not his business to be
\nconcerned about any special relationship that Jesus had with the beloved
\ndisciple. Peter needed to simply follow the Lord. The clarification given in
\nverse 23 is clearly in response to a misunderstanding among the first century
\nfollowers of Jesus that was probably about the timing of Jesus\u2019 return. Jesus
\ndid not promise the beloved disciple would see the return of Jesus, instead he
\nvirtually told Peter to mind his own business.
\n24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n303
\nthings, and who has written these things, and we know that
\nhis testimony is true.
\nVerse 24 is likely the sealing testimony of the fact discussed above, that
\nsomeone close to the beloved disciple wrote the last section of the Gospel.
\nThis community witness (\u201cwe\u201d) is both acknowledging the author of the
\nGospel as an authentic witness, and the truthfulness of the addendum that
\nfollowed chapters 1-20.
\n25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were
\nevery one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself
\ncould not contain the books that would be written.
\nThis second ending has an intentional similarity to the first ending of the
\nGospel where the beloved disciple stated:
\n\u201cJesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples which
\nare not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that
\nJesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life
\nin his name.\u201d (John 20:30-31<\/a>)
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\n304
\nThe Call
\nAs you surely understood from reading this book, it is my opinion that the
\nGospel of John has been misinterpreted for centuries by both Christian and
\nJewish theologians alike, with painfully tangible consequences. Yet, if the
\nGod of all providence is to be believed and trusted, this too, however
\nunfortunate, is somehow meant to be used for the greater good of humanity
\nand to the honor of His Name. But that\u2019s just me. It is possible that you may
\nask: \u201cWhat painful consequences?! What is so important about this particular
\nGospel? Does it really matter if it has been misinterpreted in some key
\npoints?!\u201d
\nIt is my conviction, that the misreading of the Gospel of John, eventually
\nresulting (obviously with an avalanche of other important factors) in one of
\nthe most horrible evils of the 20th century \u2013 the European Jewish Holocaust
\n– could have been avoided. I will state it even more bluntly. I am confident
\nthat, had the Gospel of John been interpreted in its own original Israelite
\ncontext, and only then been appropriately applied to non-Israelite members
\nof God\u2019s household, the intense anti-Judaism present in some Greco-Roman
\npagan authors would not have had much chance to migrate into the newly
\norganized Christian Church. The early misreading of the fourth Gospel (along
\nwith a misreading of Paul) justified the anti-Judaism of many Church Fathers,
\nwhich later manifested itself in Christian denominations of various kinds
\nthroughout the history of the Church.
\nThe Gospel of John has in many ways functioned as one of the defining
\ninterpretive lenses (along with Pauline writings) through which mostly
\nGentile Christ-followers have viewed everything else in the New Testament.
\nBut, you may say, the European Jewish Holocaust took place so many years
\nago. It is now in the past and, while we should not forget what happened to
\nthe Jews (along with many others) on Christian soil, we should move on and
\nnot be fixated on this topic. I tend to agree with you. However, I think the
\nessential problem in Jewish-Christian relations still remains. If not resolved,
\nit may one day, under different circumstances, reappear and cause even more
\ndamage than before. This is one of the reasons I believe this book deserves a
\nwide audience who would be challenged to rethink theological interpretations
\nand their powerful implications for history and the life of real people – Jewish
\nor otherwise.
\nA major reform based on an informed rereading of John\u2019s Gospel could,
\nif taken seriously, turn into widespread reform in the Body of Christ; for the
\nultimate glory of Christ. I fully realize this statement is open to a charge of
\nself-aggrandizement (after all who am I to think that this can possibly begin
\nthrough this very book?!), but I am nevertheless persuaded that the challenge
\nI present in this modest work is of great (disproportionally great) importance
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n305
\nfor the Christian Church as it continues, in all of its three major branches
\n(Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant), to rethink what has now, in the post-
\nJewish holocaust world, been called Christian-Jewish relations.
\nMy argument that the Gospel of John is an intra-Israelite polemical
\ndocument that deals very little (if at all!), in comparison to the other three
\nGospels, with the God of Israel\u2019s purposes for the nations of the world, does
\nnot imply that these nations are not important, any more than the fact that the
\nTorah of Moses was originally addressed to the generations of Israelites
\nleaving Egypt and arriving to the Promised Land implies something similar.
\nI believe that knowing to whom the fourth Gospel was originally addressed
\nwill enable modern Christ-followers, Jewish or otherwise, to apply the true
\nmessage of this Gospel to their respective faith communities faithfully and
\npassionately.
\nFar from implying that the Gospel of John should not be read by Gentiles
\nsince they were not directly addressed by this Gospel in its original
\ncomposition, I call upon the Christian Church today to rethink this Judean
\nGospel. I believe great good for modern Jewish, Christian and the
\ncommunities that are between will inevitably result. This is my fervent hope
\nand to that end I submit this book for your judgment and kind, but careful
\nconsideration.
\n<
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW
\n306
\nFurther Readings
\nAlexander, Philip. \u201cThe Parting of the Ways\u2019 From the Perspective of
\nRabbinic Judaism,\u201d in: Dunn, J.D.G. (ed.) Jews and Christians: The Parting
\nof the Ways A.D. 70 to 135 (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1999): 1-25.
\nAttridge, Harold W. \u201cThe Gospel of John and the Dead Sea
\nScrolls.\u201d Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early
\nChristianity.109-26 :)2004(
\nBacchiocchi, Samuele. \u201cJohn 5<\/a>.17: Negation or Clarification of the
\nSabbath?\u2019\u201d Andrews University Seminary Studies.3-19 :)1981( 19.1
\nBoyarin, Daniel. \u201cSemantic Differences; or, \u2018Judaism\u2019\/\u2019Christianity,\u2019\u201d
\nin: Becker, Adam, and Annette Reed (eds.), The Ways that Never Parted:
\nJews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages
\n(T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003): 65-85.
\nBoyarin, Daniel. \u201cWhat kind of a Jew was Evangelist?\u201d in: Aichele,
\nGeorge, and Richard G. Walsh. Those Outside: Noncanonical Readings of
\nCanonical Gospels. (New York: T & T Clark International, 2005): 109-153.
\nBoyarin, Daniel. \u201cThe Sovereignty of the Son of Man: Reading Mark 2<\/a>\u201d
\nin: The Interface Of Orality And Writing: Speaking, Seeing, Writing In The
\nShaping Of New Genres. Vol. 260. Mohr Siebrek Ek, 2010. pp. 353-362.
\nBoyarin, Daniel. \u201cThe Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and
\nthe Prologue to John\u201d The Harvard Theological Review 94: 3 (Jul., 2001):
\n243-284.
\nBoyarin, Daniel. \u201cTwo Powers in Heaven; or, The Making of a
\nHeresy,\u201d.\u201d The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L.
\nKugel.331-370 :)2004(
\nBoyarin, Daniel. \u201cBeyond Judaisms: Metatron and the Divine
\nPolymorphy of Ancient Judaism.\u201d Journal for the Study of Judaism 41.3
\n.323-365 :)2010(
\nBoyarin, Daniel. \u201cMartyrdom and the Making of Christianity and
\nJudaism.\u201d Journal of Early Christian Studies.577-627 :)1998( 6.4
\nBoyarin, Daniel. \u201cThe Christian invention of Judaism: The Theodosian
\nEmpire And The Rabbinic Refusal Of Religion.\u201d (2004): 21-57.
\nBregman, Marc. \u201cPseudepigraphy in Rabbinic Literature.\u201d
\nPseudepigraphy in Rabbinic Literature. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2015.
\n<http:\/\/orion.mscc.huji.ac.il\/symposiums\/2nd\/papers\/Bregman97.html>.
\nCrawford, John. \u201cJews, Christians, and Polytheists in Late-Antique
\nSardis,\u201d in: Fine, Steven (ed.), Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the
\nAncient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction During the Graeco-Roman Period
\n(London: Routledge, 1999): 190-200.
\nCrown, Alan D. \u201cRedating the Schism between the Judaeans and the
\nSamaritans.\u201d The Jewish Quarterly Review.17-50 :)1991(
\nDavies, Philip R. \u201cThe Judaism (s) of the Damascus Document.\u201d The
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n307
\nDamascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery.27-43 :)2000(
\nDavila, James R. \u201cEnoch as Divine Mediator\u201d in: Newman, Carey C.,
\nJames R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis, eds. The Jewish Roots of
\nChristological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the
\nHistorical Origins of the Worship of Jesus. Vol. 63. Brill, 1999.
\nEvans, Craig A. \u201cThe Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewishness of the
\nGospels,\u201d Mishkan 44 (2005): 9-17.
\nEvans, Craig A. \u201cDiarchis Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the
\nMessianism of Jesus of Nazareth\u201d in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years
\nAfter Their Discovery (Eds: Lawrence Schiffman, Emmanuel Tov, James
\nVanderKam). Israel Exploration Society. 2000.
\nFalk, Daniel K. \u201cMotivation for Communal Prayer in the Dead Sea
\nScrolls and Early Judaism.\u201d.\u201d Fifth Orion International Symposium\u2014
\nLiturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
\nHebrew University of Jerusalem. 2000.
\nFine, Steven. \u201cNon-Jews in the Synagogues of Late-Antique Palestine,\u201d
\nin: Fine, Steven (ed.), Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient
\nSynagogue: Cultural Interaction During the Graeco-Roman Period
\n(London: Routledge, 1999): 224-242.
\nFinn, Thomas M. \u201cMission and Expansion,\u201d in: Esler, Philip, (ed.), The
\nEarly Christian World, vol. I (London: Routledge, 2000): 295-315.
\nFletcher-Louis, Crispin HT. \u201cThe Revelation of the Sacral Son of Man:
\nThe Genre, History of Religious Context and the Meaning of the
\nTransfiguration\u2019.\u201dAuferstehung-Resurrection, ed. Friedrich Avemarie and
\nHermann Lichtenberger, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
\nTestament.247-98 :135
\nFredriksen, Paula. \u201cWhat \u2018Parting of the Ways\u2019? Jews, Gentiles, and the
\nAncient Mediterranean City,\u201d in: Becker, Adam, and Annette Reed (eds.),
\nThe Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the
\nEarly Middle Ages (T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003): 35-63.
\nFreed, D. Edwin. \u201cSamaritan Influence in the Gospel of John.\u201d Catholic
\nBiblical Quarterly 30 (1968): 580-87.
\nFreed, D. Edwin. \u201cDid John Write His Gospel Partly to Win Samaritan
\nConverts?\u201d Novum Testamentum 12 (1970).
\nGager, John. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in
\nPagan and Christian Antiquity, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985).
\nGoodman, Martin. \u201cModeling the \u2018Parting of the Ways,\u2019\u201d in: Becker,
\nAdam, and Annette Reed (eds.), The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and
\nChristians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (T\u00fcbingen: Mohr
\nSiebeck, 2003): 119-129.
\nHarland, Philip. Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations:
\nClaiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society (Minneapolis: Fortress,
\n2003).
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n308
\nHegedus, Tim. \u201cNaming Christians in Antiquity,\u201d Studies in Religion
\n33:2 (2004): 173-190.
\nHidal, Sten. \u201cThe Jews as the Roman Authors Saw Them\u201d pp. 141-144
\nin: Birger Olsson et al., (eds.), The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia and the Jews
\nof Rome: Interdisciplinary Studies, (Stockholm: ActaRom-4o, 57, 2001):
\n141-144.
\nHorbury, William. \u201cJewish-Christian Relations in Barnabas and Justin
\nMartyr,\u201d in: Dunn, J.D.G. (ed.) Jews and Christians: The Parting of the
\nWays A.D. 70 to 135 (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1999): 316-345.
\nHorst, Pieter van der. \u201cJews and Christians in Antioch at the End of the
\nFourth Century,\u201d in: Porter, Stanley and Brooke W.R. Pearson (eds.)
\nChristian-Jewish Relations Through the Centuries (London: T&T Clark,
\n2004): 228-238.
\nInstone-Brewer, David. \u201cJesus\u2019s Last Passover: The Synoptics and
\nJohn.\u201d The Expository Times.122-123 :)2001( 112.4
\nIrshai, Oded. \u201cConfronting a Christian Empire: Jewish Culture in the
\nWorld of Byzantium,\u201d in: Biale, David (ed.), Cultures of the Jews: A New
\nHistory (New York: Schocken Books, 2002): 181-221.
\nJuel, Donald. Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the
\nOld Testament in Early Christianity (Augusburg Fortress Publishers, 1998).
\nJust, Felix. \u201cJohn and the Synoptics.\u201d John and the Synoptics. Felix Just.
\nn.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2015.
\nKinzer, Mark. \u201cTemple Christology in the Gospel of John.\u201d Society of
\nBiblical Literature Seminar Papers 37. 1998.
\nKlauck, Hans-Josef. The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A
\nGuide to Graeco-Roman Religions (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).
\nKnohl, Israel. \u2018By Three Days, Live\u2019: Messiahs, Resurrection, and
\nAscent to Heaven in Hazon Gabriel*. The Journal of Religion :)2008( 88.2
\n.147-158
\nKnohl, Israel. The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the
\nDead Sea Scrolls. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.
\nKnoppers, Gary. Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their
\nEarly Relations. (Oxford: OUP, 2013)
\nLeadbetter, Bill. \u201cFrom Constantine to Theodosius (and Beyond),\u201d in:
\nEsler, Philip, (ed.), The Early Christian World, vol. I (London: Routledge,
\n2000): 258-292.
\nLieu, Judith. Neither Jew Nor Greek? Constructing Early Christianity
\n(London: T&T Clark, 2002).
\nLinder, Amnon. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit:
\nWayne State University Press, 1987).
\nMacMullen, Ramsey and Eugene N. Lane, eds., Paganism and
\nChristianity: 100-425 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).
\nMace, James T. \u201cBuilding the Temple and Reuniting All Israel.\u201d Essay,
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n309
\nUniversity of St. Andrews, 29 Apr. 2012. Web. 6 Jul. 2015. Available at
\nhttp:\/\/jewishstudies.eteacherbiblical.com\/building-the-temple-and-reunitingall-
\nisrael\/ (last accessed 20\/07\/15).
\nMace, James T. \u201cEnsign for the Nations: The Heilsgeschichtlicher Phase
\nof Messianic Reunification in Luke-Acts.\u201d M.Litt. dissertation, University
\nof St Andrews, 2012. Web. 6 Jul. 2015. Available at
\nhttp:\/\/jewishstudies.eteacherbiblical.com\/ensign-for-the-nations-theheilsgeschichtligher-
\nphase-of-messianic-reunification-in-luke-acts\/ (Last
\naccessed 20\/07\/15).
\nMace, James T. \u201cJesus\u2019s Messianological Selbstverst\u00e4ndnis: Fulfilling
\nProphesied Reunification of Israel into Loving Solidarity.\u201d Essay,
\nUniversity of St. Andrews, 5 Jan. 2012. Web. 6 Jul. 2015. Available at
\nhttp:\/\/jewishstudies.eteacherbiblical.com\/jesus-messianologicalselbstverstandnis-
\nfulfilling-prophesied-reunification-of-israel-into-lovingsolidarity\/
\n(last accessed 20\/07\/15).
\nMason, Steve. \u201cJews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of
\ncategorization in ancient history.\u201d Journal for the Study of Judaism 38.4-5
\n.457-512 :)2007(
\nMason, Steve. \u201cWhat Josephus says about the Essenes in his Judean
\nWar\u201d. (Part 1 and Part 2) Text and Artifact in the Religions of
\nMediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson :)2000( 9
\n.434-467
\nMurray, Michele. Playing a Jewish Game: Gentile Christian Judaizing
\nin the First and Second Centuries CE (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University
\nPress, 2004).
\nNanos, Mark. \u201cThe Inter- and Intra-Jewish Political Context of Paul\u2019s
\nLetter to the Galatians,\u201d in: Nanos, Mark (ed.), The Galatians Debate:
\nContemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (Peabody:
\nHendrickson, 2002): 396-407
\nOefner, Peter J.; H\u00f5lzl, Georg; Shen, Peidong; Shpirer, Isaac; Gefel,
\nDov; Lavi, Tal; Wolf, Eilon; Cohen, Jonathan; Cinnioglu, Cengiz;
\nUnderhill, Peter A.; Rosenberg, Noah A.; Hochrein, Jochen; Granka, Julie
\nM.; Hillel, Jossi; and Feldman, Marcus W., \u201cGenetics and the history of the
\nSamaritans: Y-chromosomal microsatellites and genetic affinity between
\nSamaritans and Cohanim\u201d (2013). Human Biology Open Access Pre-Prints.
\nPaper 40. http:\/\/digitalcommons.wayne.edu\/humbiol_preprints\/40
\nOrlov, Andrei A. \u201cEnoch as the Expert of Secrets\u201d, in: The Enoch-
\nMetatron Tradition. Vol. 107. Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
\nOrlov, Andrei A. \u201cEnoch as the Mediator\u201d, in: The Enoch-Metatron
\nTradition. Vol. 107. Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
\nOrlov, Andrei A. \u201cTitles Of Enoch-Metatron In 2 Enoch\u201d in The Journal
\nfor the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, 18 (1998): 71-86
\nOrlov, Andrei A. The Enoch-Metatron Tradition. Vol. 107. Mohr
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n310
\nSiebeck, 2005.
\nOrlov, Andrei A. \u201cMetatron as the Deity: Lesser YHWH\u201d in The Enoch-
\nMetatron Tradition. Vol. 107. Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
\nOrlov, Andrei A. \u201cMetatron as the Prince of the Presence\u201d in The Enoch-
\nMetatron Tradition. Vol. 107. Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
\nPaget, J.C. \u201cJewish Proselytism at the Time of Christian Origins,\u201d JSNT
\n62 (1996): 65-103.
\nPaget, J.C. \u201cJewish Christianity,\u201d in: Horbury, William et al (eds.) The
\nCambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman Period
\n(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999): 731-775.
\nRabello, Alfredo Mordechai. \u201cCivil Justice in Palestine from 63 BCE to
\n70 CE,\u201d in: The Jews in the Roman Empire: Legal Problems, From Herod
\nto Justinian (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000): 293-306.
\nRabello, Alfredo Mordechai. \u201cThe Ban on Circumsicion as a Cause of
\nBar Kochba\u2019s Rebellion,\u201d in: The Jews in the Roman Empire: Legal
\nProblems, From Herod to Justinian (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000): 177-214.
\nRegev, Eyal. \u201cTemple and Righteousness in Qumran and Early
\nChristianity: Tracing the Social Difference between the Two Movements.\u201d
\nRegevPaper. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2015.
\n<http:\/\/orion.mscc.huji.ac.il\/symposiums\/9th\/papers\/RegevAbstract.html>.
\nRemus, Harold. \u201cThe End of \u2018Paganism\u2019?\u201d Studies in Religion 33:2
\n(2004): 191-208.
\nRobinson, J.A.T. \u201cThe Destination and Purpose of St. John\u2019s Gospel\u201d
\nNTS 6 (1960) pp. 117-31; repr. in idem. Twelve New Testament Studies.
\n(London: SCM Press Ltd., 1962): 107-125.
\nRunesson, Anders, \u201cWas there a Christian Mission Before the Fourth
\nCentury? Problematizing Common Ideas about Early Christianity and the
\nBeginnings of Modern Mission.\u201d Pages 205-247 in The Making of
\nChristianity: Conflicts, Contacts, and Constructions. Edited by Magnus
\nZetterholm and Samuel Byrskog; (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012).
\nRunesson, Anders. \u201cInventing Christian Identity: Paul, Ignatius, and
\nTheodotius I.\u201d Pages 59-92 in Exploring Early Christian Identity. Edited by
\nBengt Holmberg. T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
\nRunesson, Anders. \u201cArchitecture, Conflict, and Identity Formation: Jews
\nand Christians in Capernaum from the 1st to the 6th Century.\u201d Pages 231-
\n257 in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in
\nTransition. Edited by J\u00fcrgen Zangenberg, Harold W. Attridge, and Dale
\nMartin. T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
\nRunesson, Anders. Donald D. Binder, and Birger Olsson. The Ancient
\nSynagogue: From its Origins to 200 CE, A Source Book. Ancient Judaism
\nand Early Christianity Series 72. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
\nRutgers, Leonard V. \u201cArchaeological Evidence for the Interaction of
\nJews and Non-Jews in Late Antiquity,\u201d AJA 96 (1992): 101-118.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n311
\nRuzer, Serge. \u201cNascent Christianity Between Sectarian And Broader
\nJudaism: Lessons From The Dead Sea Scrolls\u201d in: Roitman, Adolfo D.,
\nLawrence H. Schiffman, and Shani Tzoref, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls and
\nContemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held
\nat the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6-8, 2008). Vol. 93.(Leiden: Brill,
\n2011): 477-496.
\nSauer, Eberhard. The Archaeology of Religious Hatred in the Roman and
\nEarly Medieval World (Charlestown: Tempus, 2003).
\nSch\u00e4fer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton University Press, 2007).
\nSchremer, Adiel. \u201cThe Christianization of the Roman Empire and
\nRabbinic Literature.\u201d Pages 349-366 in Jewish Identities in Antiquity:
\nStudies in Memory of Menahem Stern. Edited by Lee I. Levine and Daniel
\nR. Schwartz. T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.
\nSegal, Alan. Rebecca\u2019s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman
\nWorld (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1986).
\nSetzer, Claudia. Jewish Responses to Early Christians: History and
\nPolemics, 30-150 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994).
\nSloyan, Gerard S. \u201cThe Samaritans in the New Testament.\u201d Horizons
\n10.1 (1983): 7-21.
\nStegemann, Ekkehard W. and Wolfgang Stegemann, The Jesus
\nMovement: A Social History of Its First Century (Minnepolis: Fortress,
\n1999).
\nTcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Peabody,
\nMassachusetts: Hendrickson, 1999).
\nTomson, Peter. \u201cThe Wars Against Rome, The Rise of Rabbinic Judaism
\nand of Apostolic Gentile Christianity, and the Judaeo-Christians: Elements
\nfor a Synthesis,\u201d in: The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish
\nand Christian Literature (T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003): 1-31.
\nVanderKam, James C. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic
\nTradition. Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984.
\nWeiss, Zeev. \u201cBetween Rome and Byzantium: Pagan Motifs in
\nSynagogue Art and their Place in the Judaeo-Christian Controversy.\u201d Pages
\n367-390 in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem
\nStern. Edited by Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz. T\u00fcbingen: Mohr
\nSiebeck, 2009.
\nWilken, Robert. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven:
\nYale University Press, 1984).
\nWilson, Stephen. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70-170 CE
\n(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996).
\nWilson, Stephen. Leaving the Fold: Apostates and Defectors in Antiquity
\n(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004)
\nWilson, Stephen. \u201c\u2019Jew\u2019 and Related Terms in the Ancient World,\u201d
\nStudies in Religion 33:2 (2004): 157-171.
\nThe Jewish Gospel of John
\n312
\nGet Your Certificate in Jewish Studies
\nfrom Israel Bible Center
\nEXPLORE HERE NOW<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Jewish Gospel of John Discovering Jesus, King of All Israel < Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg ISRAEL BIBLE CENTER The Jewish Gospel of John: Discovering Jesus, King…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1245,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-161995","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifechangingtruth.org\/lctc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161995","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifechangingtruth.org\/lctc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifechangingtruth.org\/lctc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifechangingtruth.org\/lctc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1245"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifechangingtruth.org\/lctc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=161995"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/lifechangingtruth.org\/lctc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161995\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":161997,"href":"https:\/\/lifechangingtruth.org\/lctc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161995\/revisions\/161997"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lifechangingtruth.org\/lctc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifechangingtruth.org\/lctc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lifechangingtruth.org\/lctc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}